= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
wedrifid comments on Is every life really worth preserving? - 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 (77)
I did write a reply when Vladimir first wrote the comment. But I deleted it since I decided I couldn't be bothered getting into a potential flamewar about a subject that I know from experience is easy to spin for cheap moral-high-group points ("you're a murderer!", etc). I long ago realized that it is not (always) my responsibility to fix people who are wrong on the internet.
Since smijer is (as of the time of this comment) a user with 9 votes while Vladimir is in the top 20 of the top contributors and the specific comment being corrected is at +19 it does not seem at all inappropriate to lend support to his observation.
Not wanting to get into a flamewar is, of course, reasonable. But daring to be the first to dissent is a valuable service, too.
I appreciate the support.
Okay, I think I find this a good reason. Thank you for explaining.
You find this a good reason for what?
(1) For supporting smijer's comment
(2) For not chiming in when he first had the idea
If you mean the first...why? That wasn't the issue. The issue was why wedrifid hadn't chimed in. As for the second, wouldn't this imply that wedrifid was holding out because he expected someone with low karma to speak up first?
For the seeming inconsistency I had noticed between (1) and (2).