No posts to display.
To clarify, I was entirely replying to Dagon. I have no quarrel with your post itself in the slightest.
I think this topic is really only as political as you make it. Enough of the top voices in the LessWrong/Rationality community are in (apparent) concurrence on transgender identity as a whole that this seems to be reasonably uncontroversial premise to take.
In my opinion, it's nice to see rational...(read more)
It is a false dilemma, but the Super Happies won't give you one half without the other, I fear.
I think rather a lot of people view it as a means of reproduction first and foremost, and may even attempt to ignore the pleasure.
Eliezer may think so, but I have feeling that this is at least partially foreshadowing a disconnect between these future humans' values and our own.
This comment, archaeologically excavated in the future, amuses me.
And at the same time, they were both victims, as are we all, of human nature. Never let it be said that if you are a victim, you are only a victim.
They've done a really good job of making it a pejorative. Anything's a slur if you hate them enough.
I mean, charitably speaking, I imagine that the second-to-last paragraph could easily have been an argument from consequences, rather than rape apology.
The parable doesn't really characterize the boy as *right*, rather as *desperate*. I don't think that it's unreasonable to make an argument that ...(read more)
Pretty sure that the average IQ on LessWrong is above the mean, though. Therefore, a group with higher variance is more likely to have member in LessWrong.
The causality of that statement is atrocious, but I think the overall picture should still come through.