= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Warrigal comments on Open Thread: April 2010, Part 2 - 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 (194)
Reading what you have said in this thread, I was confident that you were committing the fallacy of rationalization. Your statement is simple, and it seems like reality can be made to fit it, so you do so. But your name looked familiar, and so I clicked on it, and found that your karma is higher than mine, which seems to be strong evidence that you would not commit such a fallacy, using phrases so revealing as "I want to build a case for . . .".
Your words say you are rationalizing; your karma says you are not. I am confused.
Argument screens off karma. ;)
I agree with you about "I want to build a case", the phrasing is unfortunate. However I note that the OP asked for arguments on both "sides".
The OP asked for a specific thing to be done with arguments on both sides. "Please place garbage in the bin in the corner" doesn't mean I want the bin to contain more garbage.
Or maybe you're not referring to "Please post arguments and . . ."