= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
GabrielDuquette comments on Rhetoric for the Good - 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 (289)
Within our lifetimes, conversational speech will not resemble a legal document. Nor is the average person persuaded by legalese. In fact, they're turned off by it. Nuance is sometimes indispensable, but taking such a macroscopic view of nuance that "average" people from the year 2345 are included is stretching credulity, to say the least (not that I haven't been guilty of the same crime).
Not all conversations, no -- but if an average person is unprepared for legalese then he'd better always have a lawyer with him when he signs anything, ever. This has an unhappy context for our conversatoin: is there a rationality-equivalent of a lawyer?
Relevant
The Order of Silent Confessors, maybe?
Good question. Perhaps there's a market for that.
It is by my will alone that I set my mind in motion.
It is a really good idea, though. Has it been brought up before on LW? Like the boot camp, but longer, and more in depth, and accredited somehow?