smoofra13 May 2010 08:35:56PM0 points [-]

What do you think you're adding to the discussion by trotting out this sort of pedantic literalism?

Unless someone explicitly says they know something with absolute 100% mathematical certainty, why don't you just use your common sense and figure that when they say they "know" something, they mean they assign it a very high probability, and believe they have epistemologically sound reasons for doing so.

smoofra18 January 2010 10:40:45PM5 points [-]

"Trust your intuitions, but don't waste too much time arguing for them"

This is an excellent point. Intuition plays an absolutely crucial point in human thought, but there's no point in debating an opinion that (by definition, even) you're incapable of verbalizing your reasons for. Let me suggest another maxim:

Intuitions tell you where to look, not what you'll find.

smoofra25 December 2009 02:19:08AM0 points [-]

wait so, are you agreeing with me or disagreeing?

smoofra24 December 2009 07:46:06PM* 4 points [-]

What makes you think Hitler didn't deliberately think about how to yell at crowds?

smoofra22 December 2009 07:03:10PM4 points [-]

You're confusing "reason" with inappropriate confidence in models and formalism.

smoofra17 December 2009 03:51:06PM1 point [-]

I vote for the meta-thread convention, or for any other mechanism that keeps meta off the front page.

smoofra17 December 2009 03:31:18AM2 points [-]

I think the main problem with mormon2's submission was not where it was posted, but that it was pointless and uninformed.

In response to comment by Cyan on Rebasing Ethics
smoofra16 December 2009 04:33:14PM2 points [-]

I suggest you run an experiment. Go try to eat at a restaurant and explicitly state your intention not to tip. I predict the waiter will tell you to fuck off, and if the manager gets called out, he'll tell you to fuck off too.

In response to comment by mattnewport on Rebasing Ethics
smoofra16 December 2009 04:28:51PM0 points [-]

I basically agree with you, though I'm not sure the legal distinction between "theft" and "breach of contract" is meaningful in this context. As far as I know there's no law that says you have to tip at all. So from a technical legal perspective, failing to tip is neither theft nor breach of contract nor any other offense.

In response to comment by Alicorn on Rebasing Ethics
smoofra15 December 2009 06:54:22PM0 points [-]

It may not be legal theft, but it's still moral theft. You sat down and ate with the mutual understanding that you would tip. The only reason the waiter is bringing you food is because of the expectation that you will tip. If you announced your intention not to tip, he would not serve you, he would tell you to fuck off. The tip is a payment for a service, it is not a gift. The fact that the agreement to pay is implicit, the fact that the precise amount of the payment is left partially unspecified are merely technicalities that do not change the basic fact that the tip is a payment, not a gift.

View more: Next