Summarizing the Iran debate
Hamelin's site first attracted my attention for its postings on atheism and transhumanism, which I think he does a very good job of defending. I find what I consider his rather hard-left politics considerably less appealing. I think his approach to questions such as the Iranian nuclear threat is far too fixated on abstract "moral" algorithms rooted in some unreal Platonic universe, and blind to the pragmatic considerations necessary to deal with the real world. Yet I have to say that he is one of the most ethical debaters I've seen on the internet, always going out of his way to treat opposing views fairly.
Update: Here's one last exchange. But that's the end of it as far as I'm concerned.
3 Comments:
If two people always agree, one of them is unnecessary.
I think his approach to questions such as the Iranian nuclear threat is far too fixated on abstract "moral" algorithms rooted in some unreal Platonic universe, and blind to the pragmatic considerations necessary to deal with the real world.
In short, he forgot to read Hobbes. ;)
C U on teh wheel :)
Just because I don't agree with Hobbes doesn't mean I haven't read him.
Post a Comment
Please be on-topic and read the comments policy. Spam, trolls, and fight-pickers will be deleted. If you don't have a Blogspot account and aren't sure how to comment, please see here. Fair warning: anything supporting transgender ideology, or negative toward Brexit, or in favor of a military draft or compulsory national service, will be deleted. I am not obligated to provide a platform for views I find morally abhorrent.
On work days there is likely to be a substantial delay in approving comments, since I can't do blog stuff in an office. For this I apologize.
<< Home