MTGandP comments on In Defense of Moral Investigation - Less Wrong

-5 Post author: MTGandP 04 November 2012 04:26AM

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

Comments (78)

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

Comment author: MTGandP 04 November 2012 08:18:50PM 5 points [-]

Sorry, could you rephrase that? I don't understand what you're saying.

Comment author: mwengler 05 November 2012 03:27:04PM 1 point [-]

In simpler terms, there are a broad range of hypotheses which will receive a lot of downvotes. You might think, as I did, that 1) if you hold some of these ideas, a section of the website called "discussion" would be a good place to "discuss" these things. 2) You might also think that a significant negative votes are meant to flag posts that "shouldn't" be here. In my opinion, someone who wishes to discuss things as I do, and it seemed from this post as you do, cannot continue to believe both 1) and 2).

In summary, you can expect significant downvotes if you post positively about any ideas from a rather long but unpublished list of ideas. If you wish to discuss these ideas, you can do it here but you will be downvoted. If you wish to discuss these ideas without being downvoted, you MIGHT be able to do it here, but it will be like discussing whether Jesus exists with a Jesuit priest: you must pay lip service respect to the ideas you are questioning constantly, and can still expect to be told that until you have read the bible and St. Thomas you are only polluting the discussion and (presumably) endangering the souls of other readers with your basilisky ideas.

Google basilisk if you don't already know what it is.