= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Zubon comments on Open thread, Sept. 29 - Oct.5, 2014 - Less Wrong Discussion
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 (339)
Is there any set of issues this argument will not work with? From Leaving LW
("veg*n" = vegetarian/vegan)
The writer self-identifies as an animal rights activist. Hence, "veg*nism is pretty much the best litmus test I know for whether someone actually follows arguments where they lead," while cryonics is a cult. If you are closer to the LW core, you can conveniently reverse it with no loss: "cryonics is pretty much the best litmus test I know for whether someone actually follows arguments where they lead," while veg*nism is a cult. Or insert your own pet issue: existential risk, feminism, monarchism, ethical altruism, Objectivism, communism, pretty much any -ism. Whichever one you believe in most is the best test for whether someone seriously follows arguments to their logical implications; whichever one those other people believe in most is just distracting them from your really important issue. This is why you are right but people who agree with you only 90% are "ridiculous."
The ending is a great example of how to extend that argument: "Obviously, the ideal solution is" for everyone else to agree with you and focus more on your issue.
Well, to a large extent it is indeed true that you shouldn't trust people who disagree with things you think obvious. So there's a sort of "conservation of smartness" going on, whereby you need to be smart already in order to collect a few "obvious" beliefs that you can then use as your litmus test. So for that person, if they really do think veg*nism is obvious, they might be "doing the best they can" in rejecting LW for that.
FWIW, I'm not a vegan anymore, but I'd agree that any attempt to "minimize total suffering" would have to include not eating meat, ceteris paribus. So anyone who claims to have that goal but still eats meat is either a liar, or suffering from some sort of "intra-self disagreement", or they believe ceteris is not paribus (e.g. "eating meat somehow lets me work harder on saving the world"), or they're uninformed. (Or something else.)
Protip: type '\*' to make a '*' symbol without LW thinking you want italics.
Or they're just satisficing rather than maximizing.
Please use a backslash like so: \* for the asterisks; as it is your comment is very irritating to read. Edit: Much appreciated :)
this reminds me a lot of people who read about utilitarianism and conclude that they are evil monsters if they ever buy a starbucks latte instead of spending that 3 dollars on mosquito nets.
Yeah, that's the amazing thing called Confirmation Bias.
It works in both directions. You're more likely to notice flaws because of confirmation bias, but you were also less likely to notice when you were in the community because of confirmation bias.
Hmmm... that is, more or less, how I've always thought about anticapitalism.