<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
On 2016-06-01 18:39, Adrian Tymes wrote:<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CALAdGNRpx4hd0J79umpKvgqBa8AoUG46qfZBGD1dWtjPt8o3Ug@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
<p dir="ltr">On Jun 1, 2016 1:49 AM, "Anders" <<a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:anders@aleph.se"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:anders@aleph.se">anders@aleph.se</a></a>>
wrote:<br>
> On 2016-05-31 20:36, Adrian Tymes wrote:<br>
>> On May 28, 2016 1:31 AM, "Anders Sandberg" <<a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:anders@aleph.se"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:anders@aleph.se">anders@aleph.se</a></a>>
wrote:<br>
>> > if it is not possible to have a debate about
whether they should be changed, then society is not open.<br>
>><br>
>> Does this include where the opponents of change simply
refuse to engage in honest debate, making up facts to support
their position? That is something that said opponents can not
usually be forced to change or concede.<br>
><br>
> Sometimes. But if the proponents of change have a
compelling narrative that can attract people, then the lack of
honest debate from one side can become counterproductive for
them in the end. </p>
<p dir="ltr">But that is still a one sided debate, and thus not
open, correct?<br>
</p>
</blockquote>
<br>
One sided debates are still open, although they are far weaker in
creating legitimate consensus in a society. <br>
<br>
Consider the intellectual property debate. The content industry was
firmly uninterested in sponsoring any deeper defenses of IP as real
and important property - there would not have been a shortage of
libertarian/conservative think tanks taking their coin and doing it,
but the industry felt that it had the law on their side and hence at
most needed to defend the law. So what happened was that the wider
debate became dominated by "IP liberals" and pirates - not enough
yet to change the laws, but the next political generation (not to
mention the public) has absolutely no belief these laws are
legitimate. That is going to be a disaster for the content world,
since they will have to lobby like crazy to maintain the status quo.
<br>
<br>
<br>
Incidentally, I am glad for this thread since I was roped in to
participate in a panel on art and censorship at the
literary/philosophy conference I am attending - I had a lot of use
of our past exchange. Today I managed to allow me to be roped into a
panel on enhancement with a sf author I like (Richard Morgan)... ah,
academic life is so tough ;-)<br>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Dr Anders Sandberg
Future of Humanity Institute
Oxford Martin School
Oxford University</pre>
</body>
</html>