You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

VoiceOfRa comments on [Link] A rational response to the Paris attacks and ISIS - Less Wrong Discussion

-1 Post author: Gleb_Tsipursky 23 November 2015 01:47AM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (275)

CC Licenced

Comments (275)

Sort By: Best

Show:

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

Comment author: VoiceOfRa 25 November 2015 01:42:01AM * 8 points [-]

Do you consider evidence to be evidence?

You haven't presented any actual evidence.

Do you consider my credibility as an academic historian to be evidence?

What credibility? Your ridiculous response to James Miller's second question, shredded whatever credibility, you still had left.

Comment author: Gleb_Tsipursky comment score below threshold [+] (10 children)

Comment author: VoiceOfRa 26 November 2015 06:38:50AM 5 points [-]

Once you start citing your own credentials and credibility as evidence, you are no longer allowed to complain about ad hominems. That you don't appear to know this further undermines both.

Comment author: Gleb_Tsipursky 26 November 2015 06:53:28AM -1 points [-]

Huh? You mean you wouldn't cite expertise at being VoiceOfRa for representing what VoiceOfRa is like? This is counter to the very nature of evidence.

Comment author: VoiceOfRa 26 November 2015 07:54:47PM * 9 points [-]

If I do that then my credibility becomes relevant and hence so does evidence that there are problems with it (what you call ad hominem).

For example, you've claimed several times that people should believe you because you are an academic historian. However, you've also demonstrated an unfamiliarity with how academic politics works and with basic aspects of logical argument. This can lead to sevral possible conclusions:

1) You're lying about being an academic historian.

2) You really are an academic historian, but are bad at observation and reasoning, and thus likely to be incompetent at your job.

3) You really are an academic historian who is perfectly willing to lie and commit logical fallacies when it helps advance your argument.

Either way, we no longer have any reason to believe that you claim on your authority.

Comment author: Gleb_Tsipursky 27 November 2015 04:28:48AM 2 points [-]

If you wish to discover whether I'm an academic historian, please Google me.

I am not interested in engaging further with you due to your ad hominem attacks on me.

BTW, it's interesting to observe that the comment I linked to had -6 karma last times I saw it a day ago, and now has +4. Kinda curious how it went up so far, especially since it was hidden below the threshold for the vast majority of users. At the same time, my karma over the last day went down from 1009 to 940. Sock puppet much, VoiceOfRa?

Comment author: VoiceOfRa 28 November 2015 05:55:09AM 2 points [-]

If you wish to discover whether I'm an academic historian, please Google me.

So you're saying you're incompetent at your job, got it.

Comment author: brazil84 28 November 2015 12:07:13PM 3 points [-]

So you're saying you're incompetent at your job, got it.

Well it depends on how one define's his "job." As a tenure-track professor, one could argue that his primary job is to make a good impression on his tenure committee. From that perspective, publishing an op-ed which implies that rationalism just happens to support left-wing foreign policy is probably a pretty good idea. So one could say that he's doing his job rather well.

Comment author: Gleb_Tsipursky 28 November 2015 09:30:06PM 0 points [-]

I believe I am competent at my job. You claim I am incompetent. I'd like to make a bet with you about whether an external outsider would judge me as competent at my job. How about $1000? Take the bet, or take back your claims.

Comment author: VoiceOfRa 28 November 2015 09:53:15PM * 1 point [-]

I notice you did not, have not thought this whole thread, presented arguments in your favor, or even addressed my arguments. I'd be willing to take the bet, I propose brasil84 as the judge. If you want to propose a different judge, I's want to verify that he is himself competent to judge and isn't biased towards you.

Comment author: Gleb_Tsipursky 30 November 2015 06:54:20PM 2 points [-]

So are you taking the bet? Are you comfortable with Viliam as a judge? I'd also be happy with John_Maxwell, gjm, or another prominent Less Wronger.

Comment author: Gleb_Tsipursky 28 November 2015 11:58:57PM 1 point [-]

I'd suggest Viliam, as a well-known Less Wronger and neutral observer.

VoiceOfRa comments on [Link] A rational response to the Paris attacks and ISIS - Less Wrong Discussion

Article Navigation

Comments (275)

Nearest Meetups

Virtual Study Room

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Recent Open Threads

Recent Rationality Diaries

Recent Wiki Edits

Top Contributors, 30 Days

Recent Karma Awards

Comments (275)

Top Contributors, 30 Days

You'll need to login or register to do that

(Don't worry, it only takes a few seconds)

Create

Login