I don’t agree with the downvoting. The first paragraph sounds to me like a not only fair, but good point. The first sentence in the second paragraph doesn’t really seem true to me though.
Yeah, it still doesn’t seem true even given the followup clarification.
Well, depending on what you actually mean. In the original excerpt, you’re saying that the question is whether you want to be in epistemic environment A or epistemic environment B. But in your followup clarification, you talk about the need to decide on something. I agree that you do need to decide on something (~carnist or vegan). I don’t think that means you necessarily have to be in one of those two epistemic environments you mention. But I also charitably suspect that you don’t actually think that you necessarily have to be in one of those two specific epistemic environments and just misspoke.
In the followup, I admit you don’t have to choose as long as you don’t give up on untangling the question. So like I’m implying that there’s multiple options such as:
Try to figure it out (NinetyThree rejects this, “not really open to persuasion”)
Adopt the carnist side (I think NinetyThree probably broadly does this though likely with exceptions)
Adopt the vegan side (NinetyThree rejects this)
Though I suppose you are right that there are also lots of other nuanced options that I haven’t acknowledged, such as “decide you are uncertain between the sides, and e.g. use utility weights to manage risk while exploiting opportunities”, which isn’t really the same as “try to figure it out”. Not sure if that’s what you mean; another option would be that e.g. I have a broader view of what “try to figure it out” means than you do, or similar (though what really matters for the literal truth of my comment is what NinetyThree’s view is). Or maybe you mean that there are additional sides that could be adopted? (I meant to hint at that possibility with phrasings like “the most common side”, but I suppose that could also be interpreted to just be acknowledging the vegan side.) Or maybe it’s just “all of the above”?
I do genuinely think that there is value in thinking of it as a 2D space of tradeoffs for cheap epistemics <-> strong epistemics and pro animal <-> pro human (realistically one could also put in the environment too, and realistically on the cheap epistemics side it’s probably anti human <-> anti animal). I agree that my original comment lacked nuance wrt the ways one could exist within that tradeoff, though I am unsure to what extent your objection is about the tradeoff framing vs the nuance in the ways one can exist in it.
I don’t agree with the downvoting. The first paragraph sounds to me like a not only fair, but good point. The first sentence in the second paragraph doesn’t really seem true to me though.
Does it also not seem true in the context of my followup clarification?
Yeah, it still doesn’t seem true even given the followup clarification.
Well, depending on what you actually mean. In the original excerpt, you’re saying that the question is whether you want to be in epistemic environment A or epistemic environment B. But in your followup clarification, you talk about the need to decide on something. I agree that you do need to decide on something (~carnist or vegan). I don’t think that means you necessarily have to be in one of those two epistemic environments you mention. But I also charitably suspect that you don’t actually think that you necessarily have to be in one of those two specific epistemic environments and just misspoke.
In the followup, I admit you don’t have to choose as long as you don’t give up on untangling the question. So like I’m implying that there’s multiple options such as:
Try to figure it out (NinetyThree rejects this, “not really open to persuasion”)
Adopt the carnist side (I think NinetyThree probably broadly does this though likely with exceptions)
Adopt the vegan side (NinetyThree rejects this)
Though I suppose you are right that there are also lots of other nuanced options that I haven’t acknowledged, such as “decide you are uncertain between the sides, and e.g. use utility weights to manage risk while exploiting opportunities”, which isn’t really the same as “try to figure it out”. Not sure if that’s what you mean; another option would be that e.g. I have a broader view of what “try to figure it out” means than you do, or similar (though what really matters for the literal truth of my comment is what NinetyThree’s view is). Or maybe you mean that there are additional sides that could be adopted? (I meant to hint at that possibility with phrasings like “the most common side”, but I suppose that could also be interpreted to just be acknowledging the vegan side.) Or maybe it’s just “all of the above”?
I do genuinely think that there is value in thinking of it as a 2D space of tradeoffs for cheap epistemics <-> strong epistemics and pro animal <-> pro human (realistically one could also put in the environment too, and realistically on the cheap epistemics side it’s probably anti human <-> anti animal). I agree that my original comment lacked nuance wrt the ways one could exist within that tradeoff, though I am unsure to what extent your objection is about the tradeoff framing vs the nuance in the ways one can exist in it.
Ah, I kinda overlooked this. My bad.
In general my position is now that:
I’m a little confused.
I think what you wrote is probably fine.
Think you probably could have been more clear about what you initially wrote.
Think it’s totally fine to not be perfect in what you originally wrote.
Feel pretty charitable. I’m sure that what you truly meant is something pretty reasonable.
Think downvoters were probably triggered and were being uncharitable.
Am not interested in spending much more time on this.