= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
wedrifid comments on A Voting Puzzle, Some Political Science, and a Nerd Failure Mode - 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 (180)
At best I can concede that if one can redefine "rational" to mean something different to rational then the quote in question can be said to be 'true'. But that isn't how words are supposed to work and such conversation ceases to be relevant.
You have convincingly demonstrated that people can be as intelligent and rational as Lumifer while still believing that a god from a popular mainstream religion exists. Nothing more.
Different people will attach quite different meanings to the word "rational". For example, I don't think the standard LW idea of what "rational" means matches the common mainstream usage.
I am sorry, your rationality is broken :-P I do not believe a god from a popular mainstream religion exists.
You seem to have fallen into the common trap of "Why is she not condemning the enemies from tribe X? She MUST be from tribe X herself!"
No, you're just wrong. That is the extent of what your "have not seen convincing" claim implies. A problem with your "be convinced" algorithm. It certainly doesn't demonstrate that believing wholeheartedly in the specific "Daddy in the sky" fantasy of Yahweh 2.0 is epistemically sane.
No, you are saying something wrong because you are saying something wrong. Most Christians wouldn't make the particular mistake you are making. Basic reasoning failures like this are not a property of Christianity, they are a property of Lumifer's comments in this thread.
Incidentally, most of my tribe is Christian. This includes most of my family and friends and among them some of the people I most respect intellectually. So while I cannot happen to call their epistemic practice rational I still claim offence on their behalf at your equivocation between accusation of specific reasoning failure and accusation of Christianity.
We seem to disagree about that. Naked assertions are not particularly effective arguments.
Ah, well then, of course! :-D
By the way, the "accusation of a specific reasoning failure" is aimed pretty specifically at your heavy-handed implication that I am a Christian.
The claim was not naked until you stripped it of clothing by selectively quoting it out of the context of a paragraph of explanation. Your move is not 'effective' unless aimed at users who approve of disingenuous rhetoric.
I repeat the contradiction of this claim that I spent paragraphs explaining in the previous comment.
It seemed the discussion turned into a spat. I apologize for my role in this transformation and bow out.
A piece of well-intentioned advice: When you're involved in a disagreement, responding to someone's argument with "LOL" or a smiley emoticon signals dismissiveness and borderline hostility. It seemed to me in places that you were actively trying to turn the discussion into a spat. Since it appears that this was not actually your intention, you might reconsider that particular (easily-adjusted, I think) rhetorical tic.
In my usual vocabulary, it does signal dismissiveness, but not hostility. Unrolled, it says "Your point/argument/position does not pass the laugh test, I consider your assertion ridiculous, either reconsider it or provide strong support".
As to smileys in my posts, they are "adjectives" for my own words and usually serve to soften the impact (e.g. explicitly show lack of hostility).
I use “Are you fucking kidding me” for that. (I only feel the need to do that once every couple of years, though.)
That is (for me) a considerably stronger version which would generally imply that I consider the poster beyond the hope of redemption and am about to get medieval on his ass :-D
Sometimes interaction strategies are not mutually beneficial. In such cases non-engagement is a practical and all to often neglected option. Wise move.