Less Wrong is a community blog devoted to refining the art of human rationality. Please visit our About page for more information.

Comment author: ChristianKl 12 December 2016 07:41:59AM 0 points [-]

You keep using this example in this thread, but you've never actually given the implied argument against this.

As far as argumentation goes, there's a difference between arguing with a person intellectually who thinks that traditionally morality has it's advantages and who's willing to argue the position and a person who says they believe tradition is important but who's only willing to point to examples generally considered weird.

Comment author: chron 13 December 2016 04:54:58AM 0 points [-]

they believe tradition is important but who's only willing to point to examples generally considered weird.

Yes, some people aren't willing to say things that could get them fired from their jobs for an internet debate.

Comment author: ChristianKl 10 December 2016 06:17:46PM 3 points [-]

When talking about charged issues it's useful to be precise.

EY argued two points: 1) There shouldn't be a law that forbids this outside of Nevada. 2) There are woman for whom doing this would be a good move and who might not be thinking enough about the possibilities.

He didn't argue (3) "There should be a social norm that every woman should do this". You are lazy when you don't argue against (1) or (2) but argue (3). You argue against an argument that wasn't made. Is it because you feel like you have no good arguments against the positions that were argued by EY?

We don't know how their families would react on an aggregate scale.

Why do you think that the opinions of parents about the sexual habits of their children should be important? That's like arguing homosexuality is bad because quite often parents don't like it when their children come out as homosexual.

Comment author: chron 12 December 2016 01:47:22AM 3 points [-]

Why do you think that the opinions of parents about the sexual habits of their children should be important?

Well for one thing because parents have more experience about how the world works than their children and they are the adults most likely to care about their children's best interests.

That's like arguing homosexuality is bad because quite often parents don't like it when their children come out as homosexual.

You keep using this example in this thread, but you've never actually given the implied argument against this. Do you actually have one? Since the one I usually hear in these types of situations boils down to "you're not homophobic are you, that's a firing offense".

Comment author: ChristianKl 10 December 2016 06:17:46PM 3 points [-]

When talking about charged issues it's useful to be precise.

EY argued two points: 1) There shouldn't be a law that forbids this outside of Nevada. 2) There are woman for whom doing this would be a good move and who might not be thinking enough about the possibilities.

He didn't argue (3) "There should be a social norm that every woman should do this". You are lazy when you don't argue against (1) or (2) but argue (3). You argue against an argument that wasn't made. Is it because you feel like you have no good arguments against the positions that were argued by EY?

We don't know how their families would react on an aggregate scale.

Why do you think that the opinions of parents about the sexual habits of their children should be important? That's like arguing homosexuality is bad because quite often parents don't like it when their children come out as homosexual.

Comment author: chron 12 December 2016 01:43:04AM 3 points [-]

There are woman for whom doing this would be a good move and who might not be thinking enough about the possibilities.

And there could just as easily be women for whom this is a bad move who might not realize this before doing it. As the saying goes: The problem with planning out your life when you are 17 years old is that you get stuck following a life plan thought up by a 17-year old.

Comment author: sarahconstantin 08 December 2016 12:23:01PM 0 points [-]

"Prisons are supposed to be terrible" just sounds like a cartoon villain statement when you think about the actual ways in which prisons are terrible, though, tbh. I'm inclined to trust my instinct to just go NOPE YOUR OPINION IS NOT MY PROBLEM when I see someone who responds that way.

Comment author: chron 09 December 2016 01:59:12AM *  4 points [-]

"Prisons are supposed to be terrible" just sounds like a cartoon villain statement when you think about the actual ways in which prisons are terrible,

You may want to adjust your intuitions so that is doesn't register rational discussions about the justice system as "cartoon villainy".

Also, attitudes like yours are a big part of the reason why the criminal justice system is as messed up as it is. People want to be able to go about their day to day lives without having to worry about being killed or robbed, but don't want to think about what that entails. Thus we end up with a system optimized to keep the punishment out of sight and off the conscience of ordinary people rather than anything resembling efficiency. For example, de facto outsourcing a large part of the job of making people fear punishment to prison rapists because that way nobody acting officially on our behalf has to do it. Another example, making jury trials take longer and longer and offering suspects endless opportunities for appeals, thus forcing the justice system to rely more and more on plea bargaining in order to keep from getting overwhelmed.

Comment author: sarahconstantin 08 December 2016 12:17:44PM 3 points [-]

This wasn't intentionally misleading -- I deliberately just wanted to look at costs and not benefits, and it didn't occur to me that people would interpret that as a claim that prisons only had costs and no benefits. In retrospect, I've noticed that some people are reading this as a way stronger claim of the terribleness of prisons than I meant it (including quoting the numbers that I myself don't believe because the study is super dodgy.)

Comment author: chron 09 December 2016 01:40:58AM 1 point [-]

This wasn't intentionally misleading

Your completely irrational emotional out bust here rather undermines that claim.

[Link] Trusted Third Parties Are Security Holes

4 chron 08 December 2016 06:26AM
Comment author: chron 08 December 2016 06:05:02AM 7 points [-]

As gwern pointed out here, the article completely fails to discuss the benefits of having prisons. Prisons are supposed to be undesirable places to be that are horrible for the prisoners. That's what makes them effective deterrents.

In fact this article appears consist of a one sided costs analysis of prisons using a flashy and somewhat misleading metaphor. Seriously, would any of the three people who this exercise in the Dark Arts care to defend its presence on LW.

Comment author: ChristianKl 04 December 2016 11:04:48PM 0 points [-]

Such as?

It's not like this topic appear the first time. I have written plenty on LW about it.

Comment author: chron 06 December 2016 04:08:08AM 0 points [-]

Links?

Comment author: bogus 05 December 2016 12:08:40AM 0 points [-]

This is a great improvement, just think about the many more comments which will now come with that awesome "100% positive" tag. Let's spread some positivity around!

Comment author: chron 05 December 2016 12:34:47AM 1 point [-]

Aw, yes. A for Effort. Ribbons for everyone.

Comment author: root 04 December 2016 12:55:17AM 0 points [-]

Do we really need to take the whole package in? If we have (n) beliefs, some number of them might be useful, some of them would be less effective than advertised, and some could be useless if not harmful.

Comment author: chron 04 December 2016 07:08:11PM 0 points [-]

Do we really need to take the whole package in?

Would you apply the same logic to other things, like say science?

View more: Next