We're quoting the Unabomber now? Certainly you can choose good quotes from non-serial killers.
That's not my point though, my point is that quoting his manifesto validates his violence. If his ideas are valid, there should be other sources to quote/promote.
Why is that so sure? Do you have an equivalent quote to substitute?
This is why saying "but he's a murderer" isn't an ad hominem. His murders are the working-out of his ideas; his ideas are worth rejecting just on that basis.
>His murders are the working-out of his ideas; his ideas are worth rejecting just on that basis.
This is simply saying "if he is right, I would rather be wrong". It also completely ignores that arguments can be valid in part, but not in combination.
Your question makes me wonder what your definition of "right" is.
Replace "murder" with 'killing" and most people will have the opposite reaction.
- colinmhayes (the original post I responded to).
And, for your point to be relevant to this discussion, you would have to claim that what the Unabomber did was "killing" rather than "murder". If you claim that, I'd like to see your definitions and where you think the line between killing and murder is.
And if that isn't your claim, it looks like you're just arguing in order to argue.
I did feel that you were using the tautology of murder to ignore my actual point.
>You: His murders are the working-out of his ideas; his ideas are worth rejecting just on that basis.
>Me: That doesn't mean they are wrong in part or in whole.
If the unabomber said as part of the manifesto that the sky is blue, would you now reject that the sky is blue?
There is nothing about murder that invalidates the logic, truth, or accuracy of an argument, and especially not the individual components of an argument.
It is fine and fair if you don't personally want to learn or engage with an argument that has lead to violence. But that does not mean that it is internally inconsistent, or devoid of accurate observations about the world (e.g. new technologies can impose externalities on the unwilling).
These judgments ("wrong" and "better") presuppose some definition of "good". But the guy was deliberately killing people. Am I supposed to believe his definition of what "good" is? No, I'm supposed to suspect that it's seriously skewed. (In fact, he's giving me evidence that it's seriously skewed.)
There's something about murder that invalidates the moral truth of an argument.
Could his argument still be internally consistent? Sure. Could it have accurate observations? Also sure. But should his manifesto be regarded as having any overall validity? No. (Recall that the original point I was replying to was whether his murders invalidated his manifesto.)
I feel that you view his acts of murder as inseparably linked to the manifesto, and that people can not accept manifesto to be true, while condemning the murders.
This ignores the possibility of a completely pacifist implementation of the manifesto's ideals.
My understanding is that a significant portion of it is not necessarily a call to violence, as much as a call to action. It states the technology and collectivism should be rejected, and this could be either a violent or non-violent process.
Nearly every great thinker and writer you can name from before a certain year owned slaves or wanted to.
There may be similar ideas expressed by those who don't share his pathology, but his version of it is extreme and fringe.
There's simple road design concepts that mitigate danger, as well.
If it is not actually that, and if there are safety measures that can be taken, he doesn't care.
I'm not a pro car person actually. And that's the vibe I'm getting from Kaczynski in this instance. Words of an out of touch person.