JoshuaZ comments on On Walmart, And Who Bears Responsibility For the Poor - LessWrong

13 Post author: ChrisHallquist 27 November 2013 05:08AM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (510)

Comments (510)

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

Comment author: JoshuaZ 10 December 2013 02:37:08AM 1 point [-]

How.

You take something you'd really dislike and assume that everyone else would also dislike it to close to the same extent, and that they wouldn't be subject to different memes growing up in a culture where such activity was the norm.

Says who? Eg, apartheid was found obnoxious by the international community and shut down.

That's evidence that one country when it does something can get a reaction. That's very different than a situation like this where it would a) be done by many if not all countries and b) be a much more reasonable course of action.

Comment author: TheAncientGeek 10 December 2013 01:49:22PM *  0 points [-]

You take something you'd really dislike

My attitudes are typical. where's the fallacy?

That's evidence that one country

As opposed to evidence from no countries.

That's very different than a situation like this where it would a) be done by many if not all countries

Why would it be done by all countries? Because DaFranker has waved away the existence of objections?

and b) be a much more reasonable course of action.

That could well be indicative of atypicallity on your part.

Comment author: DaFranker 10 December 2013 02:41:25PM 0 points [-]

My attitudes are typical. where's the fallacy?

This requires evidence. In the vast majority of non-universal attitudes, any given person's attitude is atypical simply by virtue of there being no net majority of any attitude. Blues think A, Greens think B, Violets think C, Infrareds think Z42, and Castamogorioshites think 0101110. Feel free to replace colors and letters above with random real-world religions and traditions.

Because DaFranker has waved away the existence of objections?

I did not wave them away, I created a hypothetical scenario in which some specific set / cluster of objections were "unapplicable" or "already solved" (within the hypothetical).

I then put forward this hypothetical as a goal to strive towards, and compare it to current goals that I often see being held, noting the differences and claiming that my hypothetical would serve better as an objective and as a problem to which we could find solutions.

That could well be indicative of atypicallity on your part.

Your mom.

There, at least I was overt about mine.

Comment author: TheAncientGeek 12 December 2013 01:53:50PM *  -1 points [-]

I am not saying any option in particular should be done (the irony!), or that elders should be killed, or that given the choice and power I would do it. You're making more strawmen with straw babies living in straw villages than even my overly fertile imagination can comprehend, if you'll let me push that metaphor

You need to say something, to defend your claim that there are things that coudl be done that are ratitonally desirable, but not intutively good. If there are no examples, your claim fails.

What I'm saying is that a great many possible options are being overlooked, or dismissed offhand or subconsciously, or never even imagined, simply because people look for ways to have a better distribution of resources or a bit more total money in the pool, rather than look for ways to dissociate some resources from the pool and making their supply match their demand (preferably at a lower total cost). Others yet are being discarded because of savanna heuristics, or because of societal memes that waylay even the best lines of thinking.

You say there are a great many: name a few.

Killing elders is perhaps the most well-known example of this. Mercy kills and sanity suicides are the most often debated policy(ies?) that has an impact on medical resources, to my knowledge.

They are not just debated, they are accepted in some quarters. However, you were saying that there were other, more radical policies. You offered killing everyone who reaches the age of 80 as an example, and then backpedaled, leaving you with no examples.

atypical simply by virtue of there being no net majority of any attitude. Blues think A, Greens think B, Violets think C, Infrareds think Z42, and Castamogorioshites think 0101110. Feel free to replace colors and letters above with random real-world religions and traditions.

We are not discucssing an unknown attitude, or an attitude known to be non-majoritarian The majority of peope do not agree with killing old people for being old. I agree too. Iam in the majoity, so my attude is, tautologously, typical.

I then put forward this hypothetical as a goal to strive towards, and compare it to current goals that I often see being held, noting the differences and claiming that my hypothetical would serve better as an objective and as a problem to which we could find solutions.

Better by whose standards?

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit