Sorted by New

Wiki Contributions



Re-reading the grand-grand-grand-grand-parent post, yes, I now see that you're correct that that was what he was trying to get at - although he certainly wasn't being particularly clear.

But regardless, downvoting someone for conceding a point to someone they're engaged in debate with is pretty lame.


If anything, I'd be tempted to say that autism is a more pronounced degree of asperger's

That seems to me to be basically equivalent to saying that aspergers is a lesser form of autism. Again, sorry I can't find the links at the moment, but I recall reading several articles suggesting that the two might actually not be related at all, neurologically.

The whole idea of neurodiversity is kind of exciting, actually. If there can be more than one way to appropriately interact with society, everyone gets richer.

I agree. Unfortunately, modern culture and institutions (like the public education system for one notable example) don't seem to be set up based on this premise.


I have a form of autism called Asperger Syndrome

This is not at all unusual here at LessWrong... I can't seem to find a link, but I seem to recall that a fairly large portion of LessWrong-ers (at least relative to the general population) have Aspergers (or at least are somewhat Asperger-ish), myself included.

I'm not entirely sure though that I agree with the statement that Aspergers is "a form of autism"... I realize that that has been the general consensus for a while now, but I've read some articles (again, can't find a link at the moment, sorry) suggesting that Aspergers is not actually related to Autism at all... personally, my feeling on the matter is that "Aspergers" isn't an actual "disease" per se, but rather just a cluster of personality traits that happen to be considered socially unacceptable by modern mainstream culture, and have therefore been arbitrarily designated as a "disease".

In any case, welcome to LessWrong - I look forward to your contributions in the future!


By "the first one" do you mean "AND THEREFORE, REPUBLICANS ARE RIGHT!"? If so, please cite examples.

probably in one episode of The Konkvistador And Multiheaded Show

I've been abstaining from LessWrong for awhile now, so I've missed a lot. Can you link me to some examples of what you mean by "The Konkvistador And Multiheaded Show"? It sounds highly entertaining.


Yes, I suppose so. Good point.

Edit: Seriously? Downvotes? For conceding that my political opponent made a good point? Seriously?


Although I disagree with FiftyTwo's conclusions, I am nevertheless disappointed that it has received net downvotes.... it's a perfectly valid question after all, and we're not supposed to be doing downvote==disagree, right?


For fairness' and balance's sake, I'll say that the pro-choice is probably less about integrity of body and more about wanting to fuck without consequence.

Funny, from my point of view this evidence suggests that pro-lifers are actually more concerned with controlling women's sex lives, than with saving unborn babies.


Upvoted, beacause I agree in principle, but I don't actually see any examples of this in this thread.


If you put a big banner over a discussion saying "HEY THIS IS A POLITICAL DISCUSSION", and you have people adding "AND THEREFORE, REPUBLICANS ARE RIGHT!" at the end of their posts, or reply with "OH, THAT'S A SOCIALIST ARGUMENT YOU'RE MAKING THERE"

I don't see any examples of people actually doing that, though.


If they laugh, that proves I'm right; if they boo, that proves I'm right.

This seems like heresy to me from a Bayesian perspective.

Load More