Wow. I wonder what you are so afraid of…
I’ve had my heart broken multiple times and it’s not pleasant to be sure but it’s hardly the end of the world. I actually am glad to have had the experiences though I wasn’t at the time.
I have also been tortured a la marathon man and that also was seriously unpleasant but although even re-imagining it sends shudders down my spine I am also glad to have it.
But here’s a question for you to consider: What if I had control over the AI and I decided that everyone were to be forced to go through physical painful torture AND have their hearts broken multiple times?
Pretty sure you would disagree strongly with that idea but I disagree strongly with the idea of my ability to have my heart broken AND/OR tortured removed.
Basically what I’m saying is that what a single individual thinks is right for everyone might not necessarily be so...
I’d go for a one-simulation-per-person scenario as being best fit where everyone gets some control over their choice of simulation...
Wow. I wonder what you are so afraid of… I’ve had my heart broken multiple times and it’s not pleasant to be sure but it’s hardly the end of the world.
Nothing in Wedrifid_2010′s comment seems to indicate fear. You seem to be replying to a straw man.
If it’s not fear what is your objection to having your heart broken?
And how can you possibly take upon yourself the right to decide for everybody else?
How is it inconsistent to object to taking away everybody else’s choice whether they live or die more strongly than one objects to taking away everybody else’s choice whether they can experience heartbreak?
If it’s not fear what is your objection to having your heart broken?
The same objection I have to someone cutting off my little toe. It is painful and means that I’ll forever be missing a part of myself. Not a big deal—just a minor to moderate negative outcome.
And how can you possibly take upon yourself the right to decide for everybody else?
You are responding to a straw man again—and I am rather surprised that you have been rewarded for doing so since it is rather insulting to attribute silly beliefs to people without cause. This is a complete reversal of what Wedrifid_2010 said. He vehemetly rejected thepokeduck’s proposal that everyone should have their heart broken—because he found the idea of someone deciding that everyone else should have their heart broken abhorrent and presumptive.
Then, in the very comment you replied to, Wedrifid_2010 said:
Sure, if they are into that sort of thing I don’t particularly care.
That is explicitly declaring no inclination toward controlling other people’s self-heart-breaking impulses.
You’re deliberately ignoring this comment of yours:
“If the superhappys were going to remove our ability to have our hearts broken I wouldn’t blow up earth to prevent it.”
You are therefore at least slightly in favor of controlling other people and many would interpret your tongue-in-cheek comment to say you support it.
You are therefore at least slightly in favor of controlling other people
What the? No. “Would not blow up the earth to prevent it” doesn’t mean “slightly in favor”. That’s as absurd as saying “greater than negative twenty million” necessarily means “slightly positive”.
EDIT: Ok, me getting downvoted I can understand—someone has been mass dowvnvoting me across the board. But xxd has been upvoted here. This makes no sense! I’d better stop responding on this subject.
I’ve been very confused by the exchange as well. I can’t imagine how xxd could be honestly misunderstanding what you said so badly, and I assumed they are trolling and would be downvoted accordingly. Maybe sockpuppetry is at work?
Who has (read) access to the “who up-/downvoted what?” portion of the database? This might well be something easy to verify, and if so it may be something for a mod to squash.
That sounds like a pretty good policy. If your comment gets downvoted I think we’ll have a pretty good indicator of how many closet irrationalists are lurking in our midst.
I don’t understand how you would think that it’s impossible for you to be downvoted at the same time as your opponent is upvoted.
I don’t think that’s what wedrifid said. Rather,
me getting downvoted I can understand
explicitly acknowledged that being downvoted isn’t terribly surprising when being frustrated and fussing over what was said.
But xxd has been upvoted here. This makes no sense!
was expressing exasperation at the fact that you would be upvoted when you seem so clearly to be responding to something never said, regardless of whether his comments went up or down.
My downvote on parent was because it missed the point so thoroughly—I don’t know about the one that preceded it.
whoever did downvote proves that they either have a vindictive sense of humor or else that they believe groupthink is legitimate.
A downvote technically means “I want to see fewer comments like this”. Someone could easily dislike the parent without either of those propositions being true. For example, one might downvote for the use of “LOL”.
Wow. I wonder what you are so afraid of… I’ve had my heart broken multiple times and it’s not pleasant to be sure but it’s hardly the end of the world. I actually am glad to have had the experiences though I wasn’t at the time.
I have also been tortured a la marathon man and that also was seriously unpleasant but although even re-imagining it sends shudders down my spine I am also glad to have it.
But here’s a question for you to consider: What if I had control over the AI and I decided that everyone were to be forced to go through physical painful torture AND have their hearts broken multiple times?
Pretty sure you would disagree strongly with that idea but I disagree strongly with the idea of my ability to have my heart broken AND/OR tortured removed.
Basically what I’m saying is that what a single individual thinks is right for everyone might not necessarily be so...
I’d go for a one-simulation-per-person scenario as being best fit where everyone gets some control over their choice of simulation...
Nothing in Wedrifid_2010′s comment seems to indicate fear. You seem to be replying to a straw man.
If it’s not fear what is your objection to having your heart broken? And how can you possibly take upon yourself the right to decide for everybody else?
How is it inconsistent to object to taking away everybody else’s choice whether they live or die more strongly than one objects to taking away everybody else’s choice whether they can experience heartbreak?
Not sure
The same objection I have to someone cutting off my little toe. It is painful and means that I’ll forever be missing a part of myself. Not a big deal—just a minor to moderate negative outcome.
You are responding to a straw man again—and I am rather surprised that you have been rewarded for doing so since it is rather insulting to attribute silly beliefs to people without cause. This is a complete reversal of what Wedrifid_2010 said. He vehemetly rejected thepokeduck’s proposal that everyone should have their heart broken—because he found the idea of someone deciding that everyone else should have their heart broken abhorrent and presumptive.
Then, in the very comment you replied to, Wedrifid_2010 said:
That is explicitly declaring no inclination toward controlling other people’s self-heart-breaking impulses.
You’re deliberately ignoring this comment of yours: “If the superhappys were going to remove our ability to have our hearts broken I wouldn’t blow up earth to prevent it.”
You are therefore at least slightly in favor of controlling other people and many would interpret your tongue-in-cheek comment to say you support it.
What the? No. “Would not blow up the earth to prevent it” doesn’t mean “slightly in favor”. That’s as absurd as saying “greater than negative twenty million” necessarily means “slightly positive”.
EDIT: Ok, me getting downvoted I can understand—someone has been mass dowvnvoting me across the board. But xxd has been upvoted here. This makes no sense! I’d better stop responding on this subject.
I’ve been very confused by the exchange as well. I can’t imagine how xxd could be honestly misunderstanding what you said so badly, and I assumed they are trolling and would be downvoted accordingly. Maybe sockpuppetry is at work?
Who has (read) access to the “who up-/downvoted what?” portion of the database? This might well be something easy to verify, and if so it may be something for a mod to squash.
I don’t understand how you would think that it’s impossible for you to be downvoted at the same time as your opponent is upvoted.
If someone downvotes this comment then it doesn’t make sense.
EDIT: LOL whoever did downvote proves that they either have a vindictive sense of humor or else that they believe groupthink is legitimate.
Personally, I downvote all comments which contain statements impugning the motives of downvoters, regardless of other content.
It has the pleasant side-effect of rendering most such statements false.
“All” certainly overstates the case for me, but it does nudge me that direction.
That sounds like a pretty good policy. If your comment gets downvoted I think we’ll have a pretty good indicator of how many closet irrationalists are lurking in our midst.
Are you asking for a CHALLEEEEEENGEEE ?!!!
Ha
I don’t think that’s what wedrifid said. Rather,
explicitly acknowledged that being downvoted isn’t terribly surprising when being frustrated and fussing over what was said.
was expressing exasperation at the fact that you would be upvoted when you seem so clearly to be responding to something never said, regardless of whether his comments went up or down.
My downvote on parent was because it missed the point so thoroughly—I don’t know about the one that preceded it.
A downvote technically means “I want to see fewer comments like this”. Someone could easily dislike the parent without either of those propositions being true. For example, one might downvote for the use of “LOL”.