02-28-2018, 11:51 AM
(02-27-2018, 01:38 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: > That seems inconsistent with your constant value judgments about
> people and nations being evil.
A weather forecaster could say, "That cyclone will have winds of
150 mph. That's terrible because a lot of people will be killed."
Saying that a lot of people will be killed is part of the forecast.
Saying that it's terrible is a personal value judgment, but it's still
not advocacy. Indeed, it can't be advocacy, because there's no way
for a weather forecaster to advocate for or against a cyclone.
When I say that using Sarin gas will kill a lot of people, and is a
war crime, and is evil, then saying that it's evil is my personal
value judgment, but in the end I'm still the weather forecaster just
telling what's going to happen and how it will be viewed. It's not
advocacy, and indeed it can't be advocacy, because there's no way for
me to advocate whether Bashar al-Assad for or against using Sarin gas.
Me calling him "evil" has no effect.
So there are three parts to this. One is the weather forecast. One
is my occasional personal value judgment - "good," "evil," "terrible,"
etc. And one is advocacy, which is extremely rare.
I'm a nobody who cannot control anything but myself, and whose
opinions are widely hated and rejected by almost everyone who
even pays attention. When I express a personal opinion
("good," "evil," etc.) then I'm hated even more. And if I
advocated something, I would be subjected to a great deal
more contempt, scorn and ridicule.
If I were a somebody who could control things, then the hatred,
contempt and ridicule might be put into action, and I would be put
into personal danger, like Steve Scalise and Rand Paul.
So, in summary, me advocating something would be useless or dangerous,
so I don't do it.
