= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Claim to agree with them on issue X, then once they've committed to supporting you, change your position on issue X.
Come to think of it, politicians already do this.
The quality (in American politics, at least) that either 1: a politician's stance on any given topic is highly mutable, or 2: a politician's stance could perfectly reasonably disagree with that of some of his supporters, given that the politician one supports is at best a best-effort compromise rather than (in most cases) a perfect representation of one's beliefs, is it not so widely-known as to eliminate or alleviate that effect?
I was under the impression that the converse of p then q was q then p.
Yes and that's what nshepperd wrote.
Oh wow, never mind. My brain was temporarily broken. Is it considered bad etiquette here to retract incorrect comments?
"If you lack a thousand-year-old brain that can make trillion-year plans, it's because dying after a billion years doesn't sound sad to you."
I think meaning it's unfortunate that thinking that dying after a billion years is sad doesn't by itself give you the power to live that long. Maybe.
I was never one for formal logic, but isn't that the contrapositive? I was under the impression that the converse of p then q was q then p.
If dying after a billion years doesn't sound sad to you, it's because you lack a thousand-year-old brain that can make trillion-year plans.
If only the converse were true...
"...if you lack a thousand-year-old brain that can make trillion-year plans, dying after a billion years doesn't sound sad to you"?
I'm confused as to what you're trying to say. Are you saying that dying after a billion years sounds sad to you?
Among other things, you would suffocate due to that four-minute no-breathing-allowed Martian word in paragraph nine.
In the likely event that it's impossible for you to read the scroll perfectly, it's true for all X that "X would happen if you read this scroll perfectly". Which means that anything the genie feels like doing satisfies that wish. Or possibly the genie has to make everything happen that could possibly happen. Neither of those seems like a good outcome.
Hm... how about "I wish to have all the skills and abilities required to formulate an unambiguous wish in standard English that would allow me to fulfill any of my non-contradictory desires that I choose, and to be able to choose which of any desires that are contradictory said wish would fulfill, and to be able to express that unambiguous wish in an unambiguous way in less than thirty seconds and with no consequences to incorrectly expressing that wish apart from the necessity of trying again to express it."
That response may be technically true (you don't acknowledge the relevance of the argument,) but I don't think it's usually appropriate, since the idea that something falling into a negative category could be irrelevant probably falls across a gap of inferential distance for your interlocutor. If they already got it, they probably wouldn't have made the argument in the first place.
That's fair, but I'd certainly still prefer it to "x is the GOOD kind of y," which I feel has an infantile feel to it. Not that I think Yvain was actually saying he would use that construction.
All of the nouns named on the scroll appear. Some of them are things that the wording of the scroll expressly insists that the wish must avoid, due to their being lethal or otherwise undesirable.
"I wish for everything that would happen if I read this scroll perfectly."
In response to
The noncentral fallacy - the worst argument in the world?
And "lesswrong.com" just went from my bookmarks to my speed dial. Anyway, I would like to say that rather than your hypothetical and "ideal" retort of "MLK was the good kind of criminal," I would prefer the more sophisticated response you put forth for other situations, but more generalized: "I fail to see how that is relevant."
"But... but... abortion is MURDER!" (Please note that I am against abortion for reasons I categorically refuse to discuss due to several harrowing experiences on spacebattles.com forums, although this site seems much more civil) "I fail to see how that is relevant."
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
As a freshman in college, I feel I am 'supposed to like' beer and parties. I don't. I like Cuba Libres, and relaxing in the dorm with floor-mates, but that's beside the point. As an avid reader, I feel I am 'supposed to like' the accepted classics of literature (Mrs. Dalloway, Ulysses, etc.), but I don't. I generally consume pulp fantasy and thrillers, despite being perfectly capable of reading said classics. I liked the Great Gatsby, Les Miserables, and Dracula, but that's beside the point.
In my opinion, when you feel you're supposed to like something, it's because a group of people with whom you strongly identify (lovers of Beethoven's music) like that thing, and you've adopted that group as a sort of label for yourself. It's easier to say "I am an aficionado of classical music" than "I like classical music of many types, in particular Canons, I love Chopin's nocturnes, I appreciate..." and thus one gets the feeling of "My feelings should more closely tie in with those my label would indicate."
We sometimes see the same thing with political parties.