Can I take back what I said about being cool with you tazing me?
I think I’m just going to go read this thing in order and ignore any responses to my comments for a bit...
JackEmpty
Karma: 260
In the interest of full disclosure, I read the majority of this exchange in unordered chunks from the Recent Comments and mostly-backwards by going up context levels and trying to figure it out. And like I said to paper-machine I don’t mean to say I’m exceptionally good at judging sanity violations, just being pithy.
I’ll probably later on read them in some more-ordered fashion and see if I would taze luke too (even taking into account your claim you would).
Glad to know you’d be there to taze me if I started to go insane. It is appreciated. Not that I’m evaluating you as a fully superpowerful Confessor at the moment or anything. Here’s a question though… who would you have tazed first?
If I were a Confessor I would have tazed you by now.
Thanks for pointing that out. Typing quickly on the go does not afford much spell/grammar checking.
And yes, by all means, I only meant that from reading (most of) the comments and discussion on this topic that I in my current state would have tazed him, had I the job description of a Confessor. I didn’t mean to imply that I was exceptionally good at judging sanity violations in any way, just a reference and a pithy statement of my view.
What about the part where you ignored the things you were asking for, and kept pressing on slightly-modified issues?
I’d call that trolling, along with the tone of some of your comments.. Silas, frankly, this could have been executed much more diplomatically.
I agree. This makes a perfect end point to the discussion, and unless anything actually relevant comes up, not reiteration of the same points, ignoring their previous refutations, you should stop it here.
I’ve identified as that before, but I find it doesn’t really apply well anymore.
Instead of slapping labels onto finer and finer grained levels of the fluid scale, I just have a clearly defined set of things that I will do with men, and a clearly defined set of things I will do with women, and that’s sufficient for me.
I don’t know many normal people and suspect they’re dull.
Upvoted for this.
I think there’s a reasonable middle ground between fire-and-forget posting that you’re pushing, and the obsessive checking of posts that luke (very clearly) hyperbolized.
If I was a Confessor I would have tazed you by now.
I am alright with your original questions on this, but now you’re stretching. You seem to be going to unnecessary extremes to find fault with anything and everything that Luke has said on this. I judge this a violation of sanity.
Hey there! Welcome to Less Wrong!
I’d say you should read the Sequences, but that’s clearly what you’re doing :D. I’d suggest going ahead and introducing yourself over here.
I agree with you that some people might come up with the rule, but with unnecessary additions. The point of looking into the dark is that people may tend to add on to those extensions, when they should really be shaving them down to their core. And they can only do so (Or at least do so more effectively.) by looking into the dark.
Also, that’s not exactly the commonly accepted definition of “Belief” around here. For what most would think of when you refer to “belief” check out here, here, and the related The Simple Truth article, and really the entire Map and Territory sequence
Again, welcome!
Yeah, it does seem to be phrased such as to imply that.
I can easily imagine a little kid, or a grown adult, declaring a given food or smell or sight “disgusting” without having any objection to its existence. (I can, of course, also imagine a news article in which people interviewed describe someone’s immoral behavior as disgusting.)
So the denotative meaning only very mildly indicates a potential for moral revulsion. But used in certain contexts, it does have heavy (heavier) connotations of moral revulsion. I think it’s useful to have words for both the physical reaction side and for the moral reaction side, but I disagree with the UD definition in that “disgust” can be more of a generic umbrella term.
So… in other words, use “disgusted” when it’s clear, or you mean both. Use “squicked” when it’s unclear, and you want to only imply a physical reaction. And use “appalled” when you want to heavily imply moral reaction.
This is all just speculation and suggestion, but I do still hold that the word is useful.
Likewise, but I think I have a bit of an obsession with learning obscure jargon… to the point of reading through the provided dictionaries in SF&F books a half dozen times, then referring to it when the words come up. And reading through online lists of terminology for fictional universes and technical activities.
But yes, searching for “squick” on here, I have seen it used as “eww”, but I’m not quite sure from the brief glance if it had that particular tag, at least not explicitly.
A small nitpick, and without having read the other comments, so please excuse me if this has been mentioned before.
The 5 actions listed under the heading “Emotion and Deontological Judgments” squick me. But they don’t disgust me.
The concept of the “squick” differs from the concept of “disgust” in that “squick” refers purely to the physical sensation of repulsion, and does not imply a moral component.
Stating that something is “disgusting” implies a judgement that it is bad or wrong. Stating that something “squicks you” is merely an observation of your reaction to it, but does not imply a judgement that such a thing is universally wrong.
It may be useful to add this to our collective vocabulary. Some might argue it’s adding unnecessary labels to too-similar a concept, but I think the distinction is useful.
Please, let me know if something like this has been explored already?
At around age 16, I thought, “My parents own a cabin cruiser sailboat. They go up the river alone on the weekends… Oh. Well then.” And went on with my life.
I’m 19 now. Some point between then and now I learned my father had a vasectomy. So at least they’re enjoying themselves.
I may be an outlier in this situation, however. It just didn’t exactly faze me at all.
So it’s not only strategic ignorance, but selective ignorance too. By which I mean to say it only applies highly selectively.
If you have enough knowledge about the situation to know it’s going to be 6⁄1 and 5⁄5, or 5⁄1 and 6⁄5, then that’s a pretty clear distinction. You have quite a bit of knowledge, enough to narrow it to only two situations.
But as you raised, it could be 6⁄1 & 5⁄5, or 6⁄1 & 5/1000 or 6/(.0001% increase of global existential risk) & 5/(.0001% increase of the singularity within your lifetime).
The implications of your point being, if you don’t know what’s at stake, it’s better to learn what’s at stake.
I’m a graduate of an IB school, and even took a few IB-level courses, just not the full course.
I also took a ToK class, but our school offered AP and IB varieties, and I went with AP, not having the full-IB prerequisites.
I find that what really matters is the teacher teaching the coursework, not the class itself. OTOH, having a class about ToK in the first place is at least a step in the right direction.
Regardless, as an alumni (and still friends with a few of the teachers there), I may have a bit of an in to do some sort of presentation. Likely based off of Liron’s YAAB.
Oh. Cool! Less disbelief, more illusion of transparency.
If a randomly selected person says, “I know X (academically) famous people.” I myself usually assume through impersonal means.
Update’d. Carry on :D
“Know” in the sense EY used it != have read, watched interviews, etc.
I took it to mean more personal interaction (even if through comments online).
To paraphrase, there’s a difference between resenting someone for having freedoms that you do not, and disliking the concept of “freedom”. And these get mixed up on occasion.
Yes, but I’ve got the complicated issue of taking your interjection entirely truthfully. I don’t strongly believe you have any motivation to lie to me, but I may want to go through a few just to verify.
In any case, I’m not going to do it now, just when I have some spare time and am not browsing other comments.
I only really started posting comments in March of this year. Reading the comments at all about a month or so before then, and have been reading LW itself for a little over a year. I may still be a little green for any of the more interesting flame wars.
And yet crap, I’m already doing what I said I wouldn’t. Shucks.