First, I would like to make one thing clear: I have absolutely nothing against homosexuals and in fact qualify as queer because my attractions transcend gender entirely. I call my orientation “sapiosexual” because it is minds that I am sexually attracted to, and good character, never mind the housing.
Stops at “pigheaded jerks”
downvotes
You know where this is going, oh yes, I am going right to fundamental attribution error and political mindkill.
The parents are deemed “pigheaded jerks”—a perception of their personality.
Larry the homosexual, convinced by the exact same reasoning, is given something subtly different—an attack on his behavior—“he gullibly believed them” and you continue with “They (the Larrys) just think they are because their parents fed them a load of crap.” attributing his belief to the situation that Larry is in.
Do you think Larry’s grandparents didn’t teach Larry’s parents the same thing? And that Larry’s great grandparents didn’t teach it to Larry’s grandparents?
I upvoted despite this. If you overlook that one problem, everything else is gold. That single flawed sentence does not effect the awesome of the other 14 paragraphs, as it does not contribute to the conclusion.
I am charmed by your polite acknowledgement of the flaw and am happy to see that this has been updated. Thanks for letting me know that pointing it out was useful. :)
First, I would like to make one thing clear: I have absolutely nothing against homosexuals and in fact qualify as queer because my attractions transcend gender entirely. I call my orientation “sapiosexual” because it is minds that I am sexually attracted to, and good character, never mind the housing.
Stops at “pigheaded jerks”
downvotes
You know where this is going, oh yes, I am going right to fundamental attribution error and political mindkill.
The parents are deemed “pigheaded jerks”—a perception of their personality.
Larry the homosexual, convinced by the exact same reasoning, is given something subtly different—an attack on his behavior—“he gullibly believed them” and you continue with “They (the Larrys) just think they are because their parents fed them a load of crap.” attributing his belief to the situation that Larry is in.
Do you think Larry’s grandparents didn’t teach Larry’s parents the same thing? And that Larry’s great grandparents didn’t teach it to Larry’s grandparents?
This was a “good solid dig” at the other side.
I upvoted despite this. If you overlook that one problem, everything else is gold. That single flawed sentence does not effect the awesome of the other 14 paragraphs, as it does not contribute to the conclusion.
My experience of it was more like:
“Oh, this is nice and organized… Still orderly… Still orderly… OHMYSPAGHETTIMONSTER I DID NOT JUST READ THAT!”
To me, it was a disappointment. Like if I were eating ice cream and then it fell to the ground.
If Eliezer is going to praise it like it’s the epitome of what LessWrong should be, then it should be spotless. Do you agree?
You make an excellent point. I will edit my post to make it sound less political and judgemental.
I am charmed by your polite acknowledgement of the flaw and am happy to see that this has been updated. Thanks for letting me know that pointing it out was useful. :)