by real life you mean "that corner of the internet I go to to get my rage dose for the day"?
-
-
nah, there are plenty dangerous idiots leveraging "precautionary principle" Hell, a solid chunk of anti gay marriage people (smarter ones) in USistan were all "muh chesterton fence/muh precationary principle"
1 reply 2 retweets 4 likes -
I suppose you're right that they sometimes co-opt that language. That doesn't mean they're actually practicing the principle in any meaningful sense. Assholes will use all kinds of misdirection to conceal their true motive: to enforce their will on others.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
but, narrowly, the argument "fits" (gay marriage SOMEHOW causing implosion of society is far fetched but not impossible and falls squarely into muddy precautionary waters) Also, I doubt anyone does PP consistently (okay, unless we use a more constrained version like you proposed)
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
inconsistency is a consistent theme in human affairs I don't want to have a back-and-forth on what people mean when they say "precautionary principle". how charitably we attempt to read the minds of others is a function of mood and caffeine level mostly.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
I dunno, of all PP advocates, the number of people who go for constraining the googlable definition (like you do) is, uh... I'd say 10 percentish among people I run into online and offline, defo much less if offline only.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @0K_ultra @danlistensto and
I am ready to grant more charity when I see it warranted (as with you) but after a certain amount of idiotic "GMO risks ROOOEEEEN, heed the PP" takes a certain baseline expectation is established.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Taleb's position on that is based on the long tail risk of like, uncontrolled transmissible GMO retrovirus that fucks the world (see The Windup Girl for literary example). He also just likes to attract arguments for his own self promotion. I'd apply PP to the IP law of GMOs tho
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @danlistensto @0knaomi and
I still don't know how this ties back in to sex robots though? isn't that what we were originally talking about?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
the cosmo article has precautionist argument structure, just written by someone who likely does not know the term "precautionary principle"
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Cosmo has the business model of making women feel bad about every possible thing in their life. They will in the same issue unironically denounce sex robots and also sex with men and also not having sex with men and also sex with women and also not having sex with women.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.