LessWrong is a community full of people who will not take it on faith that you’re right about this. We want to see some arguments laid out for this position, and as long as you keep restating it without said arguments, we will keep downvoting you.
Although this is not necessarily something on which arguments should (in the rational sense) persuade me. The most such arguments can do to rationally persuade me is demonstrate how eating meat transgresses against my values in a way that I had not fully processed. If the disagreement is a matter of having different terminal preference then nothing that someone could say would be persuasive.
“Wrong” in “Less Wrong” means ‘incorrect’, not ‘morally objectionable’.
“Wrong” in “Less Wrong” means ‘incorrect’, not ‘morally objectionable’.
Yes, exactly. Eliezer characterized the form of my comment in a way that suggested I was exploiting the ambiguity of the term ‘wrong’, when in fact I was giving that term the same meaning it has in the locution ‘less wrong’. If the site’s name had been ‘Less Incorrect’, I would still have written
What ought one to think of a community that seeks to be “less incorrect” and yet succumbs to such obvious forms of anthropocentric bias?
I was under the impression the stated (by Eliezer) problem was that “X is wrong” is a simple assertion, which is almost certain to change no-one’s mind.
Q: “Why are you doing X, when X is obviously wrong?”
A: “Uh.. because it’s not? Why do you think X is wrong?”
Of course it also has connotations of “What are you, some kind of hypocrite?”, which isn’t exactly helpful either.
I was under the impression the stated (by Eliezer) problem was that “X is wrong” is a simple assertion, which is almost certain to change no-one’s mind.
Reconsider the comment to the hypothetical LW meeting I imagined. Do you really believe such a comment would be “downvoted to oblivion”? Yet that comment is also a simple assertion.
Of course it also has connotations of “What are you, some kind of hypocrite?”, which isn’t exactly helpful either.
These are the kinds of social rules that I was thinking of when I claimed such rules sometimes hinder moral progress. Users on this forum should not, I believe, refrain from calling people hypocrites if that accusation is relevant and supported by what they take to be the best evidence. Having said that, I wasn’t actually accusing anyone of hypocrisy—just inconsistency.
(If one does think that the breach of social rules should be downvoted and is also the target of the critique, one is more likely to misinterpret the critique as a breach of a social rule and downvote accordingly, as you just did. This is another reason for disregarding considerations of social etiquette altogether.)
Reconsider the comment to the hypothetical LW meeting I imagined. Do you really believe such a comment would be “downvoted to oblivion”?
If the prevailing belief was that whites/men are somehow inherently superior to everyone else, then yes. Otherwise it would be a simple assertion everyone happens to agree with, and hence probably less likely to attract their ire.
Users on this forum should not, I believe, refrain from calling people hypocrites if that accusation is relevant and supported by what they take to be the best evidence.
Well, your comment didn’t bother to provide any evidence.
Yes, exactly. Eliezer characterized the form of my comment in a way that suggested I was exploiting the ambiguity of the term ‘wrong’, when in fact I was giving that term the same meaning it has in the locution ‘less wrong’. If the site’s name had been ‘Less Incorrect’, I would still have written
Eliezer’s reply works either way. You would still be downvoted for the version given this time. Perhaps Shockwave’s answer would be helpful for you?
No, Eliezer’s reply would not work, because it falsely asserts that any comment of a form which he claimed my comment fitted would be downvoted, when in fact there are comments that have that form which would and should not be downvoted, as I think we would all agree.
Shockwave’s answer wasn’t helpful; see my latest reply to him.
If you wish to get a different response from your comments then identify something that you can change such that the response is more desirable. Any explanations you are provided with may or may not be useful for you but they are provided as a courtesy not an obligation.
Any explanations you are provided with may or may not be useful for you but they are provided as a courtesy not an obligation
I never said Eliezer’s reply wasn’t “useful” to me; I just claimed it was premised on a false generalization. I appreciate his comments, as I appreciate those of every other person who took the time to discuss things with me, but having this appreciation is no reason for me to abstain from pointing out factual or reasoning errors as I see them. The fact that such comments are not provided as a an obligation is neither here nor there; all comments in this forum are, in the relevant sense, “courtesy”.
Although this is not necessarily something on which arguments should (in the rational sense) persuade me. The most such arguments can do to rationally persuade me is demonstrate how eating meat transgresses against my values in a way that I had not fully processed. If the disagreement is a matter of having different terminal preference then nothing that someone could say would be persuasive.
“Wrong” in “Less Wrong” means ‘incorrect’, not ‘morally objectionable’.
Yes, exactly. Eliezer characterized the form of my comment in a way that suggested I was exploiting the ambiguity of the term ‘wrong’, when in fact I was giving that term the same meaning it has in the locution ‘less wrong’. If the site’s name had been ‘Less Incorrect’, I would still have written
I was under the impression the stated (by Eliezer) problem was that “X is wrong” is a simple assertion, which is almost certain to change no-one’s mind.
Q: “Why are you doing X, when X is obviously wrong?”
A: “Uh.. because it’s not? Why do you think X is wrong?”
Of course it also has connotations of “What are you, some kind of hypocrite?”, which isn’t exactly helpful either.
Reconsider the comment to the hypothetical LW meeting I imagined. Do you really believe such a comment would be “downvoted to oblivion”? Yet that comment is also a simple assertion.
These are the kinds of social rules that I was thinking of when I claimed such rules sometimes hinder moral progress. Users on this forum should not, I believe, refrain from calling people hypocrites if that accusation is relevant and supported by what they take to be the best evidence. Having said that, I wasn’t actually accusing anyone of hypocrisy—just inconsistency.
(If one does think that the breach of social rules should be downvoted and is also the target of the critique, one is more likely to misinterpret the critique as a breach of a social rule and downvote accordingly, as you just did. This is another reason for disregarding considerations of social etiquette altogether.)
If the prevailing belief was that whites/men are somehow inherently superior to everyone else, then yes. Otherwise it would be a simple assertion everyone happens to agree with, and hence probably less likely to attract their ire.
Then it wouldn’t be so downvoted, as Eliezer claimed comments of this form would.
Well, your comment didn’t bother to provide any evidence.
Why should it? As I said, “I wasn’t actually accusing anyone of hypocrisy—just inconsistency.”
I think you mean denotations, in this case.
Eliezer’s reply works either way. You would still be downvoted for the version given this time. Perhaps Shockwave’s answer would be helpful for you?
No, Eliezer’s reply would not work, because it falsely asserts that any comment of a form which he claimed my comment fitted would be downvoted, when in fact there are comments that have that form which would and should not be downvoted, as I think we would all agree.
Shockwave’s answer wasn’t helpful; see my latest reply to him.
If you wish to get a different response from your comments then identify something that you can change such that the response is more desirable. Any explanations you are provided with may or may not be useful for you but they are provided as a courtesy not an obligation.
I never said Eliezer’s reply wasn’t “useful” to me; I just claimed it was premised on a false generalization. I appreciate his comments, as I appreciate those of every other person who took the time to discuss things with me, but having this appreciation is no reason for me to abstain from pointing out factual or reasoning errors as I see them. The fact that such comments are not provided as a an obligation is neither here nor there; all comments in this forum are, in the relevant sense, “courtesy”.