Jiro comments on Stranger Than History - Less Wrong

52 Post author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 01 September 2007 06:57PM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (329)
Tags: future

Comments (329)

Sort By: Old

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

Comment author: brazil84 06 April 2014 09:44:41AM *  1 point [-]

It means "yes according to what you literally said, no according to what you'd have to mean for what you're asking to make any sense".

The reduction in discrimination against Jews has a progressive component and an anti-progressive component. So literally speaking, a "significant part of the reason there is less discrimination" is progressive. But the whole thing is not.

I didn't ask about the whole thing -- I asked about a "significant part." But anyway, let's do this: Please tell me the three most prominent American industries over the last 50-years in the United States where (1) there has been a reduction in employment discrimination against Jewish people; and (2) the reduction was primarily anti-progressive in terms of its' "component."

Since you have specified that the club is WASPy, you are no longer asking whether someone would approve of discrimination against Jews, you're asking if they would approve of discrimination against Jews and in favor of white Christians--a subcategory of that. It is entirely plausible that that subcategory of discrimination is more supported by the right, while discrimination against Jews in general is not

So are you saying that reduction of discrimination against Jews in favor of White Christians probably is, for the most part, consistent with modern progressive political views?

Also, the question asks if P(not progressive|discrimination) is large. Even if this is true, it would not imply that P(discrimination|not progressive) is large.

And even if that were true, it wouldn't matter. Because the real question is which is more consistent with modern progressive political views -- continuing to keep Jews out of the country club or letting them in. I take it you concede that it's the latter?

Comment author: Jiro 06 April 2014 05:15:24PM *  -1 points [-]

I didn't ask about the whole thing -- I asked about a "significant part."

But I brought up the example. To refute the example, you have to show that discrimination against Jews in general has gone down due to progressive thought, not just that a component of it has.

Because the real question is which is more consistent with modern progressive political views -- continuing to keep Jews out of the country club or letting them in. I take it you concede that it's the latter?

Now you're asking about whether P(no discrimination|progressive) > P(discrimination|progressive), which is a different question. The answer to this one is also "yes to what you just literally asked".

It's also true that P(no discrimination|not progressive) > P(discrimination|not progressive).

Comment author: brazil84 06 April 2014 06:38:36PM 0 points [-]

To refute the example, you have to show that discrimination against Jews in general has gone down due to progressive thought, not just that a component of it has.

That may be so, but I was asking a question in order to understand and scrutinize your position. When I ask a question, and instead of just answering it you guess or imagine what argument is behind the question, and then respond to the argument and don't answer the question, it increases the confusion and makes me suspect you are trying to dance around the issues.

Now you're asking about whether P(no discrimination|progressive) > P(discrimination|progressive), which is a different question.

Actually not, I was asking exactly what I asked. Anyway, I take it you concede that reduction of discrimination against Jews in favor of White Christians probably is, for the most part, consistent with modern progressive political views?

Comment author: Jiro 06 April 2014 08:34:59PM -1 points [-]

When I ask a question, and instead of just answering it you guess or imagine what argument is behind the question, and then respond to the argument and don't answer the question, it increases the confusion and makes me suspect you are trying to dance around the issues.

When you ask a question that is very peculiar as a request for information, but completely understandable as an attempt to make a fallacious argument while maintaining plausible deniability about exactly what your argument is, that increases the confusion too.

Comment author: brazil84 06 April 2014 08:41:52PM 0 points [-]

When you ask a question that is very peculiar as a request for information, but completely understandable as an attempt to make a fallacious argument while maintaining plausible deniability about exactly what your argument is, that increases the confusion too.

Perhaps, but I have not done so. Anyway, the simple way to respond to such a question and deal with the issue is to say "Yes, I agree with X but I don't think it undermines my position for reason Y. Are you trying to make argument Z?"

Comment author: Jiro 07 April 2014 02:37:09AM -1 points [-]

I did answer it/ The answer is yes.

Comment author: brazil84 07 April 2014 07:54:41AM *  1 point [-]

I did answer it/ The answer is yes.

:confused: The post you are responding to does not contain a question I have asked you. Besides which, it has taken a lot of patience to get answers out of you.

I assume that just now you were responding to this question:

I take it you concede that reduction of discrimination against Jews in favor of White Christians probably is, for the most part, consistent with modern progressive political views?

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit