There's a Less Wrong meetup at my house in Berkeley this Saturday, the 25th of December, at 6PM. Celebrate the winter season, the Solstice, and the birth of Sir Isaac Newton among friendly aspiring rationalists, including Eliezer and other SIAI staff and volunteers.
I will cook for everyone in the style I call "paleolithic gourmet" which is cooked meat and raw produce.
I'd like to satisfy everyone's preferences as reasonably as I possibly can without getting vastly more food than will be eaten.
Default menu:
Steak
Lamb Burgers
Bacon
Salad of Berkeley Bowl produce and parmesan
Grilled Portabello and chanterelle mushrooms
Cheese selection
Pita + hummus
Cookies
Feel free to bring a potluck dessert or if you like, an alcoholic or non-alcoholic beverage.
The food is free, but if you can afford to, in the spirit of Newtonmas, I suggest a $10 or $15 or $500 donation to SIAI (which will be matched). Please don't not come because you prefer not to pay; no one will be excluded from food or shunned for not paying. I really mean that. Consider the donation not an admission fee and more of a gentle nudge and reminder that optimal philanthropy starts around $10 and that you should positively associate giving money with the fuzzies of eating delicious food.
Please post here if you plan on attending and RSVP on Facebook. You can also post here or PM me with your thoughts on the menu and tell me what you want to eat the most of. I wasn't planning on cooking fish or chicken but can do so if people let me know they want fish or chicken or something else (like a carbohydrate).
My address is 1622 Martin Luther King Jr Way Apt A, Berkeley CA. It's the ground floor apartment around the side, not the upstairs one.
I'm sorry, but I believe you keep misinterpreting my replies, perhaps due to a failure to understand the dialectical structure of this little exchange. So let me try to make that structure clear. Eliezer first claimed that comments of a certain form would be automatically downvoted here at LW, and that my original comment was downvoted because it had that form. I offered in reply a hypothetical situation that involved overt discrimination against certain groups of people, and argued that a comment analogous to mine in reaction to that situation would not and should not be automatically downvoted. You then accused me of morally equating discrimination against such groups of people with the use of non-human animals for human consumption. I then in turn replied that the function of that counterfactual situation had nothing to do with arguing for why meat-eating is wrong, but was instead meant to provide a counterexample to Eliezer's generalization. Finally, in your most recent comment, you defend what you said in your previous post, stressing the fact that what you said was given as the explanation that Eliezer did not feel inclined to offer. But this is completely besides the point. The explanation that you gave took, as evidence that I was equating meat consumption with racism or sexism, the fact that I had used a situation involving racism and sexism as a reply to Eliezer, when as I have said already my having used that situation constitutes no such evidence.
The Wrong in Less Wrong (LW) is referring to the objective ("mind-independent" or intersubjectively verifiable) failure, error, inconsistency, illogical argumentation, irrational behavior. You are wrong if you take the wrong, or simply less effective, path to reach your goal. LW is trying to improve your map so that you'll be able to find a better and more effective path. If you were perfectly aware of what you want, then with regard to your epistemic state, there would be the right thing to do. But LW does not claim to be right but merely less w... (read more)