Activity feed
> Der Mensch ist das einzige Geschöpf, das erzogen werdenmuß.↵ Kantmuß.↵ ↵ Kant sagt also, dass der Mensch im Unterschied zum Tier erzogen werden muss.
Kant sagt, dass der Mensch im Unterschied zum Tier erzogen werden muss:↵ ↵ >> Der Mensch ist das einzige Geschöpf, das erzogen werdenmuß.muß.↵ Kant sagt also, dass der Mensch im Unterschied zum Tier erzogen werden muss.
Zitatangabe
Kant sagt, dass der Mensch im Unterschied zum Tier erzogen werdenmuss.muss:↵ ↵ > Der Mensch ist das einzige Geschöpf, das erzogen werden muß.
Wir wollen Kants Text ‘Über Pädagogik’ verstehen und diskutieren: https://www.deutschestextarchiv.de/book/view/kant_paedagogik_1803?p=7
Kant sagt, dass der Mensch im Unterschied zum Tier erzogen werden muss.
As I write in the first link, the videos “mostly show bugs and nonsensical behavior, things that wouldn’t happen ifanimals *were* sentient.”animals *were* sentient.”↵ ↵ P.S. Dirk was here
#411 · Dennis Hackethal, 2 months agoI also don't mind the bulk criticism.
Even if the person submitting a post doesn’t mind bulk criticism, others still have a harder time discerning which ideas in the post are true/salvageable and which should be discarded. Meaning error correction is harder.
It helps when critics quote the part they’re criticizing, like I’m doing above, but the responsibility still lies with the original poster.
Criticism accepted
Link to revision activity with collapsed lines
Done as of `cc8e3e9`. It now says ‘x unchanged lines collapsed’. See eg [this activity](/activities/415).#422 · Dennis Hackethal, 2 months agoDiffs should omit unchanged lines. Maybe just leave up to three lines around changed content for context – that’s how git does it.
Done as of cc8e3e9. It now says ‘x unchanged lines collapsed’.
Diffs should omit unchanged lines. Maybe just leave up to three lines around changed content for context – that’s how git does it.
Now that there are user profiles (#408), each profile can have a tab for unproblematic ideas. Among all the ideas a user has submitted, *those are the ones he can rationally hold.* And another tab for problematic ideas, ie *ideas he has submitted that he cannot rationally hold*.
Now that there are user profiles (#408), each profile can have a tab for unproblematic ideas. Among all the ideas a user has submitted, those are the ones he can rationally hold. And another tab for problematic ideas, ie ideas he cannot rationally hold.
Clarify remark about decision-making – decision-trees are different
48 unchanged lines collapsedBecause decision-making is a special case of, or follows the same logic as, truth-seeking, such trees canalsobe usedas decision trees.↵ ↵ Allfor decision-making, too. When you’re planning your next move, Veritula helps you criticize your ideas and make a decision. Again, it’s rational to go with the idea that has no outstanding criticisms.↵ ↵ All ideas, including criticisms, should be formulated as concisely as possible.20 unchanged lines collapsed
There’s a bug where hovering over a link in the markdown preview removes the form and all typed text. Hovering over a link should have no effect on the form.
#414 · Dennis Hackethal, 2 months agoSince the diff processes the text as a single line, the hunk header is always going to say either
@@ -0,0 +1 @@(for the first version) or@@ -1 +1 @@(for every subsequent version). Meaning the header provides no real information. So I might as well remove it.
Done as of 8d3eed0, see eg the version history of #414.
Since the diff processes the text as a single line, thediff informationhunk header is always going to say either `@@ -0,0 +1 @@` (for the first version) or `@@ -1 +1 @@` (for every subsequent version). Meaningitthe header provides no real information. So I might as well removethat part.it.
Since the diff processes the text as a single line, the diff information is always going to say either @@ -0,0 +1 @@ (for the first version) or @@ -1 +1 @@ (for every subsequent version). Meaning it provides no real information. So I might as well remove that part.
4 unchanged lines collapsedIt helps when critics quotewhichthe part they’re criticizing, like I’m doing above, but the responsibility still lies with the original poster.
> I also don't mind the bulk criticism. Even if the person submittingan ideaa post doesn’t mind bulk criticism, *others* still have a harder time discerning whichparts ofideas in theideapost are true/salvageable and which should be discarded. Meaning error correction is harder. It helps when critics quote which part they’re criticizing, like I’m doing above, but the responsibility still lies with the original poster.
#398 · Dirk Meulenbelt, 2 months agoI have to admit I was unsure how many claims I actually made, and excused myself from the burden of having to figure it out with the following excuse: I expect that many potential users of your platform would make this error and therefore we should try to run with it. I also don't mind the bulk criticism.
I also don't mind the bulk criticism.
Even if the person submitting an idea doesn’t mind bulk criticism, others still have a harder time discerning which parts of the idea are true/salvageable and which should be discarded. Meaning error correction is harder.
It helps when critics quote which part they’re criticizing, like I’m doing above, but the responsibility still lies with the original poster.
#398 · Dirk Meulenbelt, 2 months agoI have to admit I was unsure how many claims I actually made, and excused myself from the burden of having to figure it out with the following excuse: I expect that many potential users of your platform would make this error and therefore we should try to run with it. I also don't mind the bulk criticism.
I agree many people would make the same error and that it’s a good idea to see how things play out when it does happen. There’s going to be a learning curve for new users. I will probably just point it out every time. I may even implement a feature where ‘AI’ analyzes text and helpfully points out to users that they’re about to submit multiple claims at once.
#397 · Dirk Meulenbelt, 2 months agoI think it's different from Pascal's wager, as with Pascal's wager you have infinite, or many (all known religions) wagers. (Which god?) Whereas with animal consciousness we have only one wager, that we're currently not sure of, on which we're wagering a lot of potential animal suffering. Furthermore, we are not on our deathbed, and hence have the luxury of time to consider our trade.
[W]e are not on our deathbed, and hence have the luxury of time to consider our trade.
But meat eaters contribute to the death of animals every day, so if animals were sentient there would be more urgency to apply the wager, not less. (I’ll preemptively add that, although meat eaters die every day, too, each one of them is complicit in what would be the murder of several innocent animals, so there’d still be more urgency.)