Main Page Contact Register Log In


Please more explicitly state the steps that would get me downvoted on LW so I can verify that they are failures of method and not disagreements. We are also not committed to follow some third partys standards or submit to some third party as a judge.

The reasoning behind LW votes can be nebolous. Sometimes people vote just because it is not an appropriate forum for those kinds of thing, not particulalry that there would be wrong with the content per se. I would like to remind you that I believe this kind of politcal talk should be cooperative and you should not feel any special need to answer my posts just because I post. The idea is that by going throught the trouble of writing and reading posts understandings that might be useful for all parties could be produced. If you think you have low chances of benefitting to replying to me I fully understand if you don't want to one sidedly serve me. But if I would be downvoted to silence or you start ignoring me that doesn't make me be wrong.

I state reasons why I hold the beliefs that I do in fact belief. Since I in general try to apply epistemologically defensible standards this allows others to point out things that are suspect. I would find it valuable if the non-sequitors would be pointed out. Saying that someone is stupid and not explaining to them how they are stupid isn't particularly helpful.

I am sorry but I am not omniscient enough to know in advance to communication which of my beliefs you share. The method of saying what my beliefs are and learning what you agree and disagree with has been the method of choice for me to dealing with this shortcoming.

If you place strict restrictions on with what kind of mind you can successfully argue your position it makes your logic less universal and more partisan. Given a sufficiently interestingly working mind almost anyone would not bother to go throught a full length argument (dominantly because of the lenght of the argument and not neccesarily on whether it could in principle be done or not). But the question is will you bother to argue with a mind like me and is it coherent with your beliefs?

If you ask Duolingo to pay minimum wage you not only argue for more than just paying the people.

Corporations should not found their business model on work they cannot pay for. On one hand it means if you are founded on charity work you should be a non-profit instead of a for-profit. On the other hand it means if you make a profit people need to be able to work for you for money. That is work must be paid atleast in part enough for basic survival in the form of money and not services like language education.






And it's okay if that means that millions of Africans won't learn decent English and thus can't participate well in the global economy?

I mean who cares about helping poor African's after all by giving them something for free? Western company should focus on building value for people in the West!

The logic that employers shouldn't get things for free results in customers also getting nothing for free and poor people who can't afford good language learning courses getting nothing for free.

If you haven't read it the list of values of liberal communism is good:
1#: 1. You shall give everything away free (free access, no copyright); just charge for the additional services, which will make you rich."


If you place strict restrictions on with what kind of mind you can successfully argue your position it makes your logic less universal and more partisan.
Seeking rational debating partners limits the amount of people to talk with but it doesn't bias towards right or left thinking and isn't partisan it that sense.

I'm used to have my political discussion with LW people and not by what's considered reasonable discussion on 4Chan or Reddit.

Eliezer made the example of an absence of consumer regulation in policy debates shouldn't be onsided:
Saying "People who buy dangerous products deserve to get hurt!" is not tough-minded. It is a way of refusing to live in an unfair universe. Real tough-mindedness is saying, "Yes, sulfuric acid is a horrible painful death, and no, that mother of 5 children didn't deserve it, but we're going to keep the shops open anyway because we did this cost-benefit calculation."


You are not willing to defend your principles in such a way. You are not willing to say that you are okay with millions of African's being worse off because they don't learn English because you think the principles of workers getting payed trumph the advantage of giving good free English training to Africans.

Because you are not willing to say that, you make factually wrong arguments about Duolingo.
You also didn't seem to know what Duolingo is prior to this discussion, while it's something I could take for granted with the LW crowd.
63%
ChristianKl
stars0
Replies (0)