Actually, it is; while the post is clogged with outdated ideas and plays fast and loose with the meaning of existence, I wouldn’t want to see a slew of actually sound arguments about basic set theory clogging up Discussion, either.
Do you feel we have too many posts in the Discussion? Excluding meetups, there appear to be two to three posts daily, including topics unrelated to rationality. Is it too much?
Actually sound arguments showing that basic set theory is wrong would be amazing. Not that they are likely to materialise here, but nevertheless.
I think three posts is enough for something only tangentially related to rationality.
Being “tangentially related to rationality” is not the true rejection.
Actually, it is; while the post is clogged with outdated ideas and plays fast and loose with the meaning of existence, I wouldn’t want to see a slew of actually sound arguments about basic set theory clogging up Discussion, either.
Do you feel we have too many posts in the Discussion? Excluding meetups, there appear to be two to three posts daily, including topics unrelated to rationality. Is it too much?
Actually sound arguments showing that basic set theory is wrong would be amazing. Not that they are likely to materialise here, but nevertheless.
Really? I downvote stuff for that all the time.
Why don’t you use Crocker’s rules and post the true rejection, then?
I don’t recall a single post of mine that is related to rationality more than tangentially. Should I leave?
Replace “tangentially” with “about as much as basically any other thing”.