All of Catnip's Comments + Replies

I may be late to the party, but I really have to ask. Why is this a featured article? Bayesian defense of the resurrection of Jesus gives me a 404, so I cannot even read it.

Presumably because today is Easter and therefore the article is relevant to the date. The referenced article can be easily located using Google. Here's a current link: Bayesian defense of the resurrection of Jesus The referenced article is quite long (75 pages). Luke's podcast interview with Lydia McGrew is quite interesting, IMO, if the article is longer than you wish to read. The podcast is a great example of a civil dialog between an apologist and a skeptic. Ms. McGrew's outlook is somewhat different from many well-known apologists and I think the podcast (which I am listening to now) will be interesting to many LW'ers. Interestingly, about 2/3 through the interview, she puts forward a refutation of the fine tuning argument - it is a refutation that had occurred to me before, but that I had never thought all the way through, so I was surprised to hear it precisely articulated (particularly by a Christian apologist).

I have a style question. Are there less grating ways to write gender neutral texts?

I, to my great surprise, was irritated to no end by "ey" and "eir". I always stumbled when reading it. I dislike it and think "he/she" or "they" may be more natural and cause less stumbling when reading the article.

So far, I am against all the invented gender-neutral pronouns. Most of them sound strange ("ey" and "eir" look like a typo or phonetic imitation of deep southern accent, "xe" and "xir" use "x" sound and are simply painful to pronounce)

As of now, I am willing to sacrifice gender neutrality in texts in favor of readability.

Technically, "he" is perfectly acceptable for gender neutral texts. Merriam-Webster states that "he" can be "used in a generic sense or when the sex of the person is unspecified". However, to avoid the appearance of non-neutral text, I usually use "he/she", "his/her", etc. "They" or "their" can be used, but these are not really appropriate referring to a singular antecedent, so I quite often use "his/her" rather than "their". Another technique that you see frequently and that I sometimes use is to use "he" sometimes and "she" other times. As long as these more-less balance out in your text, you should be OK from a neutrality standpoint. Any of these alternatives is preferable IMO to "ey" and "eir".
If you dislike zes, xes and eys and find them horrible little abominations that have no place among good and decent words, and suspect they were meant to trick us into unknowingly saying things that count as worship of Cthulhu... ...oh, wait, that's me. Let's try again. If you dislike zes, xes and eys, then using "they" seems to me the best solution if you care about being gender-neutral.

So, Mr. Potter made an ominous resolution, and again without a thunder rumbling in the background... Instead, he caused women all around the globe to see nightmares and cry... I don't remember if seers tend to be female in canon or not. I find the fact that seers, while living in different places and being of different age, are invariantly female, suspicious.

They were not all female.

I would recommend "Down and out in the Magic Kingdom" by Cory Doctorow. A wonderful insight in transhumanism. Furries, social structure based on Facebook, etc. Also, there is Cure for Death. Book is avaliable for free on author's site.

Well, it's not like it's hard to see reason in Superhappies' values.

1) I, personally, don't have a terminal value of non-cannibalism. Actual reason I don't eat babies now is a result of multiple other values:

  • I value human life, so I consider killing a human to get some food a huge utility loss.
  • Any diseases initial owner of meat had contracted are almost 100% transferable to me. Any poisons that accumulated in initial meat owner's body will also accumulate in mine. Also, humans eat a lot of junk food. Eating humans is bad for one's health.

So, I don't h... (read more)

Some observations:

  • Confessors seem to be a future form of beisutsukai.
  • Spam still exists or is still widely remembered in the distant future.
  • Even aliens recognize Hitler as central figure of human ethics. (I think I already encountered this statement on LessWrong, but can't quite remember where...)

I find it important that ethical inhibitions are not absolute. Sure, they feel absolute, but history shows they aren't nearly as absolute as they feel. Even if we (tentatively) accept that our moral inhibitions are an adaptation, it seems probable that our ability to violate them is also an adaptation. Finally, what worked in an ancestral environment is not guaranteed to work now. In short: even if ethical inhibitions evolved as described, it doesn't follow that obeying them is a good idea.

Hello, Less Wrong.

I am Russian, atheistic, 27, trying to be rational.

Initially I came here to read a through explanation of Bayes theorem, but noticed that LessWrong contains a lot more than that and decided to stay for a while.

I am really pleased by quality of material and pleasantly surprised by quality of comments. It is rare to see useful comments on the Internet.

I am going to read at least some sequences first and comment if I have something to say. Though, I know I WILL be sidetracked by HP:MoR and "Three worlds collide". Well, my love for SF always got me.