= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Douglas_Knight comments on Why the beliefs/values dichotomy? - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (153)
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.
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.
Oh, yeah, I'd forgotten that one. Actually, I was thinking of the following week.
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.
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/
Let's go back a few steps. You said that in your "last few interactions" with me, I called you a liar. You later clarified that you were thinking of this discussion. But I didn't deny calling Zack a liar in that discussion; I denied calling you a liar. So why are you suddenly acting like your original claim was about whether I called Zack a liar?
(In any case, it wasn't just "Zack, you liar". My remark was more like, "this is what you claimed, this is why it's implausible, this is why your comments are hindering the discussion, please stop making this so difficult by coming up with ever-more-convoluted stories.")
Are you and Zack the same person?
Considering that the earlier discussion was about whether you can arbitrarily redefine yourself as a different person, maybe Zack/Douglas are just taking the whole idea a little too seriously! :-P
(And in a show of further irony, that would be just the kind of subtle point that Zack and [?] Douglas, severely overestimating its obviousness, were defending in the thread!)
No.
I apologize to third parties for the poor timing of my deletion of the above comment. It was really addressed to wedrifid and broadcasting it was petty, though not as petty as the excerpt looks.
Alright, well, good luck "getting the goods" on ol' Silas! Just make sure not to get your claims mixed up again...
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.