Knowing you are not a native English speaker makes me even more inclined to forgive your errors (notice that I did not criticize your grammar until you asked), since you are correct in observing that they did not seriously interfere with comprehension. But poorly put-together sentences do detract from a message, irrational as that may be.
“The most rational behaviour a rationalist can have is to be rational.” What does this even mean? And how does it relate to my objection that knowing three programming languages is not a requirement of rationality, or of contributing valuably to this community? Given that human rationality is a subject still being explored, making a definitive claim that something is a key requirement of rationality is incredibly arrogant in the face of ignorance.
Finally, I didn’t say that languages are nothing. I said they aren’t exercises. And I’m pretty sure they aren’t going to feel insulted.
“But poorly put-together sentences do detract from a message, irrational as that may be.”
Why is it irrational?
“The most rational behaviour a rationalist can have is to be rational.”
Meditate on it some more.
″...my objection that knowing three programming languages is not a requirement of rationality...”
I said at least three, because there are at least three ways to do the same thing. Some are more efficient at one thing and others are more efficient at other things.
“Given that human rationality is a subject still being explored, making a definitive claim that something is a key requirement of rationality is incredibly arrogant in the face of ignorance.”
It is incredibly arrogant, but it is also a very useful tool in deductive reasoning.
I feel like I’m being trolled by a spell-checking bot. You haven’t contributed anything to this topic other than your sceptism, which is the most basic tool anyone in their right might is able to use.
You said that “They [languages] aren’t exercises in anything”. Which I think is not true.
Knowing you are not a native English speaker makes me even more inclined to forgive your errors (notice that I did not criticize your grammar until you asked), since you are correct in observing that they did not seriously interfere with comprehension. But poorly put-together sentences do detract from a message, irrational as that may be.
“The most rational behaviour a rationalist can have is to be rational.” What does this even mean? And how does it relate to my objection that knowing three programming languages is not a requirement of rationality, or of contributing valuably to this community? Given that human rationality is a subject still being explored, making a definitive claim that something is a key requirement of rationality is incredibly arrogant in the face of ignorance.
Finally, I didn’t say that languages are nothing. I said they aren’t exercises. And I’m pretty sure they aren’t going to feel insulted.
“But poorly put-together sentences do detract from a message, irrational as that may be.” Why is it irrational?
“The most rational behaviour a rationalist can have is to be rational.” Meditate on it some more.
″...my objection that knowing three programming languages is not a requirement of rationality...” I said at least three, because there are at least three ways to do the same thing. Some are more efficient at one thing and others are more efficient at other things.
“Given that human rationality is a subject still being explored, making a definitive claim that something is a key requirement of rationality is incredibly arrogant in the face of ignorance.” It is incredibly arrogant, but it is also a very useful tool in deductive reasoning.
I feel like I’m being trolled by a spell-checking bot. You haven’t contributed anything to this topic other than your sceptism, which is the most basic tool anyone in their right might is able to use.
You said that “They [languages] aren’t exercises in anything”. Which I think is not true.
Thanks for the English lessons, bye.