multifoliaterose comments on Against Cryonics & For Cost-Effective Charity - Less Wrong

10 Post author: multifoliaterose 10 August 2010 03:59AM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (180)
Tags: cryonics

Comments (180)

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

Comment author: multifoliaterose 10 August 2010 10:29:59AM 1 point [-]

'Should' claims demanding that people sacrifice their very life to donate the resources that allow their very survival to charity. In particular in those instances where they are backed up with insinuations that 'analytical skills' and rational ability in general require such sacrifice.

Nope, you've misunderstood me. Nowhere in my post did I say that people should sacrifice their lives to donate resources to charity. See my response to ciphergoth for my position. If there's some part of my post that you think that I should change to clarify my position, I'm open to suggestions.

The post fits my definition of 'evil'.

Downvoted for being unnecessarily polemical.

Comment author: thomblake 10 August 2010 01:58:21PM 7 points [-]

Nope, you've misunderstood me. Nowhere in my post did I say that people should sacrifice their lives to donate resources to charity.

That's exactly what you're saying, as far as I can tell. Are you not advocating that people should give money to charity instead of being cryopreserved? While I think charity is a good thing, I draw the line somewhere shy of committing suicide for the benefit of others.

Comment author: multifoliaterose 10 August 2010 02:30:41PM *  1 point [-]

My post is about how cryonics should be conceptualized rather than an attempt to advocate a uniform policy of how people should interact with cryonics. Again, see my response to ciphergoth. For ciphergoth, cryonics may be the right thing. I personally do not derive fuzzies from the idea of signing up for cryonics (I get my fuzzies in other ways) and I don't think that people should expend resources trying to change this.

Comment author: wedrifid 10 August 2010 10:41:42AM 3 points [-]

Nope, you've misunderstood me.

Perhaps, but I have not misunderstood the literal meaning of the words in the post.

Downvoted for being unnecessarily polemical.

Yet surprisingly necessary. The nearly ubiquitous pattern when people object to demands regarding charity is along the lines of "it's just not interesting to you but for other people it is important" or "it's noise vs signal". People are slow to understand that it is possible to be entirely engaged with the topic and think it is bad. After all, the applause lights are all there, plain as day - how could someone miss them?

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit