Please remember that we’re supposed to be able to submit links, not just original essays. Anyone downvoting on that basis (rather than dislike of the link itself) is making an error about Less Wrong posting policies. A link like this wouldn’t be promoted to the front page but it’s okay to vote up if you like the content.
Really good linked articles could be promoted, or crossposted ones. But because the amount of possible content of this sort is so high, the general policy, I think, should be to not promote anything that isn’t really good, while being highly tolerant of links that are genuinely interesting.
I downvoted it because not only is the content stupid, everyone here should already know it’s stupid. If the comments tell me anyone would take this argument seriously, I’ll change my vote.
I take this argument seriously—in fact, I’ve been discussing it in my own journal and that of some friends recently. I’ve yet to hear a good counterargument, so I look forward to hearing yours.
I take this argument seriously. I first saw it a year ago, and it caused me to change my behavior.
ETA: I don’t take the economics of it seriously. I take seriously the argument that it if is wrong to let someone die whom I could save (and my morality says this), then I ought to give a lot of money to efficient charity.
Please remember that we’re supposed to be able to submit links, not just original essays. Anyone downvoting on that basis (rather than dislike of the link itself) is making an error about Less Wrong posting policies. A link like this wouldn’t be promoted to the front page but it’s okay to vote up if you like the content.
Why cant linked articles be promoted? Do they have to be original content written specifically for LessWrong? Can they be cross posted elsewhere?
Really good linked articles could be promoted, or crossposted ones. But because the amount of possible content of this sort is so high, the general policy, I think, should be to not promote anything that isn’t really good, while being highly tolerant of links that are genuinely interesting.
There may be a bug in that this article shows up as a “top” scoring one although when I viewed the article it had zero points assigned.
I downvoted it because not only is the content stupid, everyone here should already know it’s stupid. If the comments tell me anyone would take this argument seriously, I’ll change my vote.
I take the argument seriously. Please explain why you think the content is stupid.
I take this argument seriously—in fact, I’ve been discussing it in my own journal and that of some friends recently. I’ve yet to hear a good counterargument, so I look forward to hearing yours.
I take this argument seriously. I first saw it a year ago, and it caused me to change my behavior.
ETA: I don’t take the economics of it seriously. I take seriously the argument that it if is wrong to let someone die whom I could save (and my morality says this), then I ought to give a lot of money to efficient charity.