SilasBarta comments on Why the beliefs/values dichotomy? - Less Wrong

20 Post author: Wei_Dai 20 October 2009 04:35PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (153)

Comments (153)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Douglas_Knight 27 October 2009 12:59:31AM 2 points [-]

someone, I forget who, described a religious guy who when drunk confessed that he didn't really believe in god and was only acting religious for the social benefits.

generalizing from fictional evidence

Comment author: SilasBarta 27 October 2009 02:36:53AM 0 points [-]

What's fictional about that?

Ready to pony up money for a bet that I can't produce a warm body meeting that description?

Comment author: RobinZ 27 October 2009 02:42:47AM *  0 points [-]

I prefer not to gamble, but just to satisfy my own curiosity: what would the controls be on such a bet? Presumably you would have to prove to Knight's satisfaction that your unbelieving belief-signaler was legitimately thus.

Comment author: SilasBarta 27 October 2009 03:09:23AM 0 points [-]

I think my evidence is strong enough I can trust Douglas_Knight's own intellectual integrity.

Comment author: Douglas_Knight 27 October 2009 05:25:31AM 3 points [-]

I think my evidence is strong enough I can trust Douglas_Knight's own intellectual integrity.

Huh. My last couple of interactions with you, you called me a liar.

Comment author: SilasBarta 27 October 2009 03:26:08PM 0 points [-]

Okay, I found what I think you're referring to. Probably not my greatest moment here, but Is that really something you want sympathy for? Here's the short version of what happened.

You: If you think your comment was so important, don't leave it buried deep in the discussion, where nobody can see it.

Me: But I also linked to it from a more visible place. Did you not know about that?

You: [Ignoring previous mischaracterization] Well, that doesn't solve the problem of context. I clicked on it and couldn't understand it, and it seemed boring.

Me: Wait, you claim to be interested in a solution, I post a link saying I have one, and it's too much of a bother to read previous comments for context? That doesn't make sense. Your previous comment implies you didn't know about the higher link. Don't dig yourseelf deeper by covering it up.

Comment author: Douglas_Knight 27 October 2009 04:30:28PM -1 points [-]

Oh, yeah, I'd forgotten that one. Actually, I was thinking of the following week.

Is that really something you want sympathy for?

I just want you to go away. I was hoping that reminding you that you don't believe me would discourage you from talking to me.

Comment author: SilasBarta 27 October 2009 04:48:01PM *  -1 points [-]

Oh, yeah, I'd forgotten that one. Actually, I was thinking of the following week.

That's not calling you a liar. That's criticizing the merit of your argument. There's a difference.

Comment author: wedrifid 27 October 2009 05:18:41PM *  0 points [-]

That's not calling you a liar. That's criticizing the merit of your argument. There's a difference.

The link provided by Douglas seems to suggest that Douglas's accusation is false (as well as ineffective).

ET:S/petty/ineffective/

Comment deleted 27 October 2009 06:20:50PM [-]
Comment author: SilasBarta 27 October 2009 01:57:37PM -1 points [-]

Well, what possessed you to lie to me? ;-)

j/k, j/k, you're good, you're good.

A link would be nice though.

And I believe that, even taking into account any previous mistrust I might have had of you, I think my evidence is still strong enough that I can trust you consider it conclusive.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit