Neither is telling me to leave.
Locaha
Karma: 364
Something may be ‘disgusting’ you, and that’s a useful datapoint, but to say that something is ‘disgusting’ as if it’s an inherent characteristic of the thing pretty much puts a stopper to the conversation. What could be the response “No, it’s not”?
OK, I see your point. Agree, phrasing my original post as “using children as means for an end disgusts me equally” would have been better.
As Yvain pointed out in his post on a similar topic, far more women than men go to church across all denominations, including ones that don’t even let women in leadership positions.
People who go to church are unlikely to visit this forum to begin with.
If you have problems with doing things as a means to an end, might I recommend a forum where consequentialism isn’t the default moral theory.
Oh dear me! Was I supposed to sign any papers before posting on this forum, proclaming my adherence to consequentialism? Will I get arrested now???
My thoughts on “horrifying” are pretty much the same, but that word hasn’t stuck out to me as much before.
So you argue against mentioning emotions in general?
And your comments struck me as more likely to be downvoted for tone
It is kinda funny how a forum which prides itself on not discussing politics is based on a political system (the anonymous democracy of karma). Every time a poster stops to consider whether his post will be upvoted or downvoted, he is engaging in politics.
Heh. This is the old discussion about freedom of will.
The correct answer to the question of freedom of will is “shut up!” :-)
Explicitly, if you ask people in this site how the burden of raising children should be divided between partners, most people of both genders will say it should be divided equally. But when musing about grand strategies, I think the males are still more likely to propose bullshit like “we the smart people totally should out-breed the stupid people” without giving it a second thought.
Yes, but I woudn’t expect that sentiment to really be all that gender-biased, though.
Historically at least, I would expect that sentiment to be gender-biased. It’s easier to think of children as objects when you aren’t the one who spends your whole day with them.
Is a word I almost never see outside of a mindkilled context, though at least it’s in a sentence, here. (People who use “Disgusting” as the entirety of a sentence are basically wearing a giant “I AM MINDKILLED” flag as a coat, in my experience.)
baiter used the word “horrified” in his original post.
What do you think about horror?
If you don’t agree with the best of your understanding, that’s itself worrying. ;-)
Only if you think of yourself as a singleton.
And pregnancy itself is a personal existential risk.
Hmm. Why does a comment like that lead to a preference to males?
A comment like that comes from a person who isn’t even trying to imagine himself in a place of someone who is actually going to conceive and carry to term all those as many as they can children. A woman who reads this will correctly conclude that this isn’t a place where she is considered a person.
It goes beyond that. The idea that children should be made as means for a cause is equally disgusting.
Not everybody see their lives as a big genetic experiment where their goal is to out-breed the opponents.
Everyone who doesn’t want to have kids (as many as they can, within reason) is both missing a major point of life and complicit in creating a dysgenic society—which, btw, should be included on the list of existential risks.
^ See this? This is one of the reasons this forum is 90% male.
After a few weeks I started to enjoy the process of exercising itself. At that point it became it’s own reward, no motivation required.
So here’s a new motivation for you—keep doing it and you’ll start to like it. :-)
“Boo!”
I’d recommend set theory in general for getting an understanding of how math works and how to talk and read precisely in mathematics.
Can you recommend a place to start learning about set theory?
desiredata
I think this is a most awesome mistype of desiderata.
Actually, I started reading that one and found it too hard.
Repeating my post from the last open thread, for better visibility:
I want to study probability and statistics in a deeper way than the Probability and Statistics course I had to take in the university. The problem is, my mathematical education isn’t very good (on the level of Calculus 101). I’m not afraid of math, but so far all the books I could find are either about pure application, with barely any explanations, or they start with a lot of assumptions about my knowledge and introduce reams of unfamiliar notation.
I want a deeper understanding of the basic concepts. Like, mean is an indicator of the central tendency of a sample. Intuitively, it makes sense. But why this particular formula of sum/n? You can apply all kinds of mathematical stuff to the sample. And it’s even worse with variance...
Any ideas how to proceed?
Maybe humans are not safe AGI. Maybe both the idea of “safety” and the idea of “general intelligence” are ill-defined.