Search

Ideas that are…

Search Ideas


3203 ideas match your query.:

When people use their true names, I expect higher quality contributions, less rudeness, fewer trolls, that kind of thing. More accountability generally means higher quality.

#4074​·​Dennis Hackethal revised about 1 month ago​·​Original #2454​·​CriticismCriticized1

But that doesn’t address the part about public advocacy of one’s ideas and public updates on changed positions in the sense that you put your own name behind your ideas.

#4073​·​Dennis Hackethal, about 1 month ago​·​CriticismCriticized3

See #4071: if a trusted member vouches for them, I can infer they’re not here to screw around.

#4072​·​Dennis Hackethal, about 1 month ago​·​Criticism

When a trusted member vouches for someone new, they’ll probably meet those expectations.

#4071​·​Dennis Hackethal, about 1 month ago​·​Criticism

@dennis-hackethal Please share your reasoning for your request that Veritula users use their true names.

#4069​·​Dennis Hackethal revised about 1 month ago​·​Original #2316​·​Criticism

Those who advocate making most/all drugs illegal tend to think alcohol should remain legal, despite alcohol having many of the same problems as drugs.

#4068​·​Benjamin DaviesOP, about 1 month ago​·​Criticized1

Not prohibited by law.

#4067​·​Benjamin DaviesOP, about 1 month ago

The purpose of the law isn’t to minimise negatives and maximise positives. The purpose of the law is to uphold the rights of people.

#4065​·​Benjamin DaviesOP revised about 1 month ago​·​Original #4064​·​CriticismArchived

The purpose of the law isn’t to minimise negatives and maximise positives. The purpose of the law is to uphold the rights of people.

#4064​·​Benjamin DaviesOP, about 1 month ago​·​Criticized1Archived

Drugs are a net negative for society.

#4063​·​Benjamin DaviesOP, about 1 month ago​·​Criticized3Archived

Legalising drugs will bring lawful competition to cartels and gangs, breaking geographical monopolies that perpetuate other (actual) criminal activity.

#4062​·​Benjamin DaviesOP, about 1 month ago

Define legal, please.

#4061​·​Ben GK, about 1 month ago

If they violate rights they should be punished by the law, that applies regardless of if they take drugs or not.

#4060​·​Benjamin DaviesOP, about 1 month ago​·​CriticismCriticized1

People on drugs violate the rights of others way more often.

#4059​·​Benjamin DaviesOP, about 1 month ago​·​Criticism

All drugs should be legal because people have a right to do what they want, as long as it isn’t violating the rights of others.

#4058​·​Benjamin DaviesOP, about 1 month ago​·​Criticized2

Now that there are user profiles (#408), the search page can have an option to filter ideas by user. That way, we can see that user’s uncontroversial ideas, meaning ideas of his that he can rationally hold, and controversial ones, meaning ideas of his that he cannot rationally hold.

#4056​·​Dennis HackethalOP revised about 1 month ago​·​Original #419​·​CriticismCriticized1Archived

No need for new tabs. This feature could be integrated with the search page by filtering ideas by user. That page already has filters for problematic vs unproblematic ideas.

#4055​·​Dennis HackethalOP, about 1 month ago​·​CriticismArchived

As I wrote in #4051, it doesn’t matter to me whether replication is necessary for evolution to take place. I’m open to the idea that it isn’t. But what I’d like instead is some argument why it couldn’t figure in the evolution that happens in the mind.

#4054​·​Dennis Hackethal, about 1 month ago​·​Criticism

3) From what I’ve seen, the attempt to remove replication from evolution doesn’t actually remove it.

If you take some string of information and vary it, then by definition, only parts of it become different. Other parts are preserved. Even if you vary the string several times, the parts that didn’t change were still instantiated at each stage. So they still replicated. (As I recall, this is how Richard Dawkins defines what a gene is, in his book The Selfish Gene.)

Also, just by thinking about the string of information and how to vary it, you’ve already replicated the information. It now exists in its original medium and in your mind.

#4053​·​Dennis Hackethal, about 1 month ago​·​Criticism

2) We can explain more if we use replicators. For example, memory and the origin of creativity just ‘fall out’ of the neo-Darwinian approach. Ideas in a single mind may have static vs dynamic replication strategies. All of that is lost without the notion of replication.

#4052​·​Dennis Hackethal, about 1 month ago​·​Criticism

My response has always been that I don’t care whether replication is a necessary component of evolution, but that, 1), in the Popperian spirit, we shouldn’t break with other evolutionary theories unnecessarily. Genes and memes both replicate.

#4051​·​Dennis Hackethal, about 1 month ago​·​Criticism

Some people (most notably Ella Hoeppner) have argued that replication isn’t necessary for evolution to take place. All you need is variation and selection.

#4050​·​Dennis Hackethal, about 1 month ago​·​CriticismCriticized4

My neo-Darwinian approach to the mind suggests that minds evolve knowledge through the imperfect replication of ideas.

#4049​·​Dennis Hackethal, about 1 month ago

Ah, but I can reproduce when I manually make the selection by clicking and dragging to cover the entire quote (and only the quote, nothing above or below).

#4047​·​Dennis HackethalOP revised about 1 month ago​·​Original #2645​·​CriticismArchived

There’s a way to get what you want: if you select some text in an idea before hitting its criticize or comment button, the selected text should always be inserted as a box quote.

Archiving this criticism for now, but if you’re still seeing any issues, let me know and I’ll take another look.

#4046​·​Dennis HackethalOP, about 1 month ago​·​CriticismArchived