The claim is that your statements are offensive or upsetting to some people, and Dolores1984 wants you to leave so that you do not make offensive or upsetting statements in the future. The argument surrounding this claim is that you have incorrectly cloaked your upsetting statements in the terminology of “rationality”.
So it seems that calling a dying person “poster child” and “vulnerable woman in our tribe of reproductive age” and trying to exploit her plight to further a questionable agenda is perfectly fine, while calling them on it is offensive and upsetting. Nice.
And why would my use of the terminology of rationality be incorrect?
Do you disagree that cryonics is a questionable practice?
Or that trying to spin the “poster child” is an appeal to emotion?
There may or may not be good arguments to be made here. You might even be making them.
However, to the extent you are, you are also obscuring them through poor writing, offensive language, and generally “being a dick”. Your writing is not at the level I wish to encourage on Less Wrong, hence I will not reward it by responding to the arguments, and will punish it through downvotes.
Take a constructive approach, assume good faith on the part of the people you are conversing with, and show them the respect of laying out your arguments in a coherent fashion, and I think you might find constructive replies.
My claim is that funding Suozzi’s cryopreservation in order to support cryonics movement-building is unethical because:
It uses her instrumentally.
It uses appeal to emotion (a fallacious debating tactic) to further a practice without any scientific support (hence to be considered a faith-based practice until proven otherwise).
Also, speaking of offensive language, I found the expressions “poster child” and “vulnerable woman in our tribe of reproductive age” much more offensive than anything I wrote, but I realize that this is subjective.
So it seems that calling a dying person “poster child” and “vulnerable woman in our tribe of reproductive age” and trying to exploit her plight to further a questionable agenda is perfectly fine
I believe both terms (especially “vulnerable woman in our tribe of reproductive age”) are recognising and explicitly indicating that this is an appeal to the emotions. Donors have presumably evaluated the consequences of donating and not simply thrown money at the cause because it pulls on their heartstrings.
Rationality is orthogonal to emotions and is not opposed to appeals of emotion for acts with net positive consequences. I personally think cryonics is net positive despite the uncertainty and I don’t agree with your framing of it as a “questionable practice”.
I believe the offence derives from you implying or stating that the act of donating was net negative when their evaluation was net positive. Naturally, simply opposing a position is not offensive, but it’s rude not to back your point up, and people might be especially predisposed to care about rudeness when they’ve just donated and heightened the activity of morality-sensing brain segments.
Rationality is orthogonal to emotions and is not opposed to appeals of emotion for acts with net positive consequences.
Rationality and emotions are not necessarily opposed, but strong emotions can cloud rational judgment.
Cryonics is expecially prone to appeal to emotion, since mortality and group identity (“our tribe”) are very powerful sources of emotion. Thus, if you want to keep the discussion about cryonics rational, you should recognize this and try keep the emotional charge as small as possible.
People who propose to spin in the public discourse “poster children” optimized to generate the maximum emotional reaction, are trying to do exactly the opposite, which is a tactic I find intellectually dishonest.
Even if you think that cryonics is good for those who sign up, making people sign up for irrational reasons is unethical, in my opinion.
I personally think cryonics is net positive despite the uncertainty and I don’t agree with your framing of it as a “questionable practice”.
The dictionary definition of questionable is: “open to question or dispute; doubtful or uncertain”. If you agree that cryonics has large uncertainty, then you should agree that it is a questionable practice.
I believe the offence derives from you implying or stating that the act of donating was net negative when their evaluation was net positive. Naturally, simply opposing a position is not offensive, but it’s rude not to back your point up
I’m not arguing that donating to Suozzi is intrinsically unethical, I’m arguing that donating to Suozzi for PR purposes is unethical. I admit that in my original comment I’ve used a confrontational tone which might not have been optimal to convey my point, but I stand my point and hope that my position is now clear.
The claim is that your statements are offensive or upsetting to some people, and Dolores1984 wants you to leave so that you do not make offensive or upsetting statements in the future. The argument surrounding this claim is that you have incorrectly cloaked your upsetting statements in the terminology of “rationality”.
So it seems that calling a dying person “poster child” and “vulnerable woman in our tribe of reproductive age” and trying to exploit her plight to further a questionable agenda is perfectly fine, while calling them on it is offensive and upsetting. Nice.
And why would my use of the terminology of rationality be incorrect?
Do you disagree that cryonics is a questionable practice?
Or that trying to spin the “poster child” is an appeal to emotion?
There may or may not be good arguments to be made here. You might even be making them.
However, to the extent you are, you are also obscuring them through poor writing, offensive language, and generally “being a dick”. Your writing is not at the level I wish to encourage on Less Wrong, hence I will not reward it by responding to the arguments, and will punish it through downvotes.
Take a constructive approach, assume good faith on the part of the people you are conversing with, and show them the respect of laying out your arguments in a coherent fashion, and I think you might find constructive replies.
Fine, let’s start over assuming good faith:
My claim is that funding Suozzi’s cryopreservation in order to support cryonics movement-building is unethical because:
It uses her instrumentally.
It uses appeal to emotion (a fallacious debating tactic) to further a practice without any scientific support (hence to be considered a faith-based practice until proven otherwise).
Also, speaking of offensive language, I found the expressions “poster child” and “vulnerable woman in our tribe of reproductive age” much more offensive than anything I wrote, but I realize that this is subjective.
I believe both terms (especially “vulnerable woman in our tribe of reproductive age”) are recognising and explicitly indicating that this is an appeal to the emotions. Donors have presumably evaluated the consequences of donating and not simply thrown money at the cause because it pulls on their heartstrings.
Rationality is orthogonal to emotions and is not opposed to appeals of emotion for acts with net positive consequences. I personally think cryonics is net positive despite the uncertainty and I don’t agree with your framing of it as a “questionable practice”.
I believe the offence derives from you implying or stating that the act of donating was net negative when their evaluation was net positive. Naturally, simply opposing a position is not offensive, but it’s rude not to back your point up, and people might be especially predisposed to care about rudeness when they’ve just donated and heightened the activity of morality-sensing brain segments.
This actually seems fairly abnormal for charitable donations in general.
Rationality and emotions are not necessarily opposed, but strong emotions can cloud rational judgment.
Cryonics is expecially prone to appeal to emotion, since mortality and group identity (“our tribe”) are very powerful sources of emotion. Thus, if you want to keep the discussion about cryonics rational, you should recognize this and try keep the emotional charge as small as possible.
People who propose to spin in the public discourse “poster children” optimized to generate the maximum emotional reaction, are trying to do exactly the opposite, which is a tactic I find intellectually dishonest. Even if you think that cryonics is good for those who sign up, making people sign up for irrational reasons is unethical, in my opinion.
The dictionary definition of questionable is: “open to question or dispute; doubtful or uncertain”. If you agree that cryonics has large uncertainty, then you should agree that it is a questionable practice.
I’m not arguing that donating to Suozzi is intrinsically unethical, I’m arguing that donating to Suozzi for PR purposes is unethical. I admit that in my original comment I’ve used a confrontational tone which might not have been optimal to convey my point, but I stand my point and hope that my position is now clear.