What do you believe that most people of your political creed don't?
-
Now I said let’s murder them?
You're advocating for death penalty.
In countries that abolished it, if someone was executed it would be considered murder. So yes, you are advocating for murder.
Interestingly you still only talk about the perpetrators and not the victims.
What do victims have to do with this? I'm not proposing we kill them.
Surviving victims should of course be offered treatment, both physical and mental, as well as fair compensation. It is irrelevant to the question of the death penalty.
I'm not advocating for the death penalty, stop lying.
Are you some new type of troll or what? Or can't you fathom people having a thought experiment without actually thinking it is the right thing to do?
-
Wouldn't you agree that surface area is more important to computation and interaction than volume? Things interact at their surface. Therefore computation is infact subject to the coastline paradox?
If you actually try to measure the top surface of a country you run into the same issues as measuring the coast: infinite complexity.
Those projected volumes are practical to calculate, but must be interacted with through the surface.
True, but I don't agree with you in the first place that number of physical interactions is a good way to measure computation (for instance, I would consider the heat-death of the universe to be the end of computation.). I also am not sure that computation is a particularly good proxy for moral weight, I just think that without it there is no consciousness.
-
True, but I don't agree with you in the first place that number of physical interactions is a good way to measure computation (for instance, I would consider the heat-death of the universe to be the end of computation.). I also am not sure that computation is a particularly good proxy for moral weight, I just think that without it there is no consciousness.
First, a minor correction:
for instance, I would consider the heat-death of the universe to be the end of computation
This is an easy mistake to make, heat death is actually a very cold noninteracting state, so your point doesn't contradict physical interaction being computation. Though I trust that you really don't see interaction and computation as the same.
In the beginning you said that experience rate was an important factor for moral weight, has that changed? If it hasn't, how do you reconcile that with:
I also am not sure that computation is a particularly good proxy for moral weight,
Also, for my own curiosity: how do you distinguish interaction from computation?
-
counterpoint:
the labor market is a market, and as such regulated by the rule of Supply and demand. That implies: if the supply is increased, then the price is decreased. If the supply is decreased, then the price is increased.
In the context of the labor market, that means:
If there's fewer workers in the country (which comes naturally with a smaller population), then the price for labor (a.k.a. wages) goes higher. That increases the Quality Of Life for the people, and is therefore a socially good thing.That's interesting but I think you're making a couple of crucial mistakes.
First as others mentioned, production and consumption are obviously intrinsically linked. A bigger country doesn't automatically mean bigger quality of life despite having more workers, Switzerlands is not richer because it's smaller when it's got roughly the same population as the poorest country on earth.
But if talking proportionally, more workers per capita means more production per capita, which means more consumption per capita.Second, and to kinda go in your direction, because of the contractual nature of employment, the market pressure on workers wages is not a product of the number of workers, but the number of available workers. For working (not unemployed) people, the quality of life does increase as that number gets lower, but this means less unemployment, not less workers. This fact is the reason why unemployment is not a side-effect of capitalism (or the lazy nature of people or whatever else), but a necessary feature of capitalism, since capital relies on this perpetual supply drive (buyers market) for profit.
-
The way all of this is discussed and phrased paints a sort picture, in some peoples minds, of white men being evil. The problem is that this capitalist society is too isolatating, individualistic, and distracting for everyone to properly empathize with the struggles of others, so we end up with these people on the defensive. We're left with a portion of the population supporting a proper biggot like trump to now justify they're own existence.
If only we could have all been properly educated.. but its all just distracting from the fact that everyone suffers from an oppressive and exploitative system, some more than others. But its probably about time for a more uniting class conscience form of rhetoric.
What’s the more uniting class consciousness? When is anyone saying white men are inherently evil? The fact is that they are rewarded for upholding existing frameworks in the US and Europe. Have you read Sakai’s Settlers? He goes over this quite well.
I have no clue what you mean about a more uniting rhetoric besides just denying reality in order to appeal to a group that is materially rewarded by the current system. We have to analyze things materially, not through lenses of trying to “reframe things to appeal to this group”.
-
You can be Jewish and even support the idea of a Jewish homeland while also being fervently appalled by the actions of the state of Israel (Netanyahu, West Bank settlements, unarmed Palestinians shot/killed, houses being bulldozed).
Liberal zionists are still zionists
-
Freedom of speech for absolutely everyone, especially people I disagree with and that disagree with me
Yep. Lemme isn't really a fan if free speech and they usually say it leads to nazi things. But I'm all for free speech even if bad guys use it too.
-
Strongly agree, though is this really an unpopular take?
It definitely was unpopular before the election. I was banned in sone places for saying it
-
First, a minor correction:
for instance, I would consider the heat-death of the universe to be the end of computation
This is an easy mistake to make, heat death is actually a very cold noninteracting state, so your point doesn't contradict physical interaction being computation. Though I trust that you really don't see interaction and computation as the same.
In the beginning you said that experience rate was an important factor for moral weight, has that changed? If it hasn't, how do you reconcile that with:
I also am not sure that computation is a particularly good proxy for moral weight,
Also, for my own curiosity: how do you distinguish interaction from computation?
I don't see why computation is tied to experience rate. You already pointed out examples of what appear to be higher amounts of computation in the brain not apparently tied to experience rate.
I think computation is meaningful, whereas interaction can be high-entropy and meaningless. I would probably need to consult E.T. Jaynes to have more precise definitions of the difference between these notions.
-
Why do you assert this? Based on what moral framework? Is it morally okay to abandon a baby to the elements after birth, in favour of the autonomy of those who would raise it?
Bodily autonomy is different than "freedom to go about your life as you see fit". Carrying a baby and giving birth come with risks and responsibilities and it changes your body. All of this risk is for the baby at the expense of the mother.
Analogy: let's say someone needs a kidney transplant or they will die. Turns out, you're the only match. Donating a kidney is not risk free and your body will be changed for the rest of your life. Should you donate? Yeah, probably. Should you be legally forced to? Absolutely not.
To me, this analogy completely solves the issue. I can say that life begins at conception and still say that bodily autonomy is a right. It doesn't matter if the fetus/baby is a person yet, as long as the mother's body is being used to sustain them, then it's the mother's choice.
-
I'm confused, are you saying that most straight white men are not left... Because they all want to go to mars?
Yeah that is so out of the blue, I'm not sure what to make of it. I think most people don't even realize SpaceX/Elon want to colonize mars.
-
Bodily autonomy is different than "freedom to go about your life as you see fit". Carrying a baby and giving birth come with risks and responsibilities and it changes your body. All of this risk is for the baby at the expense of the mother.
Analogy: let's say someone needs a kidney transplant or they will die. Turns out, you're the only match. Donating a kidney is not risk free and your body will be changed for the rest of your life. Should you donate? Yeah, probably. Should you be legally forced to? Absolutely not.
To me, this analogy completely solves the issue. I can say that life begins at conception and still say that bodily autonomy is a right. It doesn't matter if the fetus/baby is a person yet, as long as the mother's body is being used to sustain them, then it's the mother's choice.
Let's put aside legality, as that's separate from morality. I am not claiming that abortion should be illegal.
My claim is that intrinsically the morality of killing the fetus just before birth ought to be similar to the morality of killing the fetus just after birth. It's true that there is another term in the moral equation based on bodily autonomy of the parent, which has a dramatic change at the moment of birth. I also believe that this bodily autonomy term ought to be less than the value of a grown adult life (maybe not of a fetus though). In other words, it's worse for someone to die than it is for someone else to temporarily lose some bodily autonomy.
Please note that I'm not sure that the intrinsic value of an 8-month-old fetus is equal to that of a full-grown adult. But most other people think a newborn baby's life is equal to that of an adult, and I think you can more or less substitute "newborn baby" for "8-month old fetus."
In your analogy, I do think that the moral action is to donate one of your two kidneys. It's an even better analogy if it's only a temporary donation of the kidney somehow, and a yet better analogy if you had caused them to be in this predicament. In the case of a several-months pregnant person living somewhere with easy abortion access, the analogy is improved further like so: you had previously agreed to lend them your kidney, but you change your mind during the critical part of the surgery when it's too late for anyone else to sub in their kidney (we can relax the stipulation that you're the only match in this case; this is because I believe life is fungible at inception).
-
Let's put aside legality, as that's separate from morality. I am not claiming that abortion should be illegal.
My claim is that intrinsically the morality of killing the fetus just before birth ought to be similar to the morality of killing the fetus just after birth. It's true that there is another term in the moral equation based on bodily autonomy of the parent, which has a dramatic change at the moment of birth. I also believe that this bodily autonomy term ought to be less than the value of a grown adult life (maybe not of a fetus though). In other words, it's worse for someone to die than it is for someone else to temporarily lose some bodily autonomy.
Please note that I'm not sure that the intrinsic value of an 8-month-old fetus is equal to that of a full-grown adult. But most other people think a newborn baby's life is equal to that of an adult, and I think you can more or less substitute "newborn baby" for "8-month old fetus."
In your analogy, I do think that the moral action is to donate one of your two kidneys. It's an even better analogy if it's only a temporary donation of the kidney somehow, and a yet better analogy if you had caused them to be in this predicament. In the case of a several-months pregnant person living somewhere with easy abortion access, the analogy is improved further like so: you had previously agreed to lend them your kidney, but you change your mind during the critical part of the surgery when it's too late for anyone else to sub in their kidney (we can relax the stipulation that you're the only match in this case; this is because I believe life is fungible at inception).
I mostly agree with you on the morality of abortion. The only problem I have with your analysis is with the temporary nature of pregnancy. There are risks in pregnancy that can have permanent consequences. Even if the birth goes off without a hitch, the mother is often left with weight gain, stretch-marks, and a risk of post-partum depression. Incisions are often needed to widen the birth canal and sometimes a C-section is required which is major emergency abdominal surgery. These risks are entirely taken on by the mother.
If we look at morality as having things people should do, and things people must do, only the musts should be law because the shoulds can be more open to interpretation. I wouldn't assign my morality onto others. I would classify going through with a pregnancy as a should.
-
I mostly agree with you on the morality of abortion. The only problem I have with your analysis is with the temporary nature of pregnancy. There are risks in pregnancy that can have permanent consequences. Even if the birth goes off without a hitch, the mother is often left with weight gain, stretch-marks, and a risk of post-partum depression. Incisions are often needed to widen the birth canal and sometimes a C-section is required which is major emergency abdominal surgery. These risks are entirely taken on by the mother.
If we look at morality as having things people should do, and things people must do, only the musts should be law because the shoulds can be more open to interpretation. I wouldn't assign my morality onto others. I would classify going through with a pregnancy as a should.
The analogy still works because the temporary loan of the kidney might have permanent consequences afterward. And it's only an analogy. I still think those possible side-effects (save for the truly serious ones) don't outweigh the death of a grown adult. Again, I'm not claiming that a grown adult is the same as a fetus. I make this rather strange argument because I actually am a tentative proponent of post-birth abortions -- but most people think such a concept sounds so outrageous that they assume I must be trolling. It's generally only something people are open to considering after they can be convinced that there isn't much of a difference between killing a fetus and killing a newborn.
-
Let's put aside 7-week old fetuses, as we both agree it's fine to abort those.
I am pretty sure a 3-month-old fetus does not have thoughts or feelings to any significant extent. I am less sure about an 8 month old fetus; a lot of people who are 8 months pregnant do think their fetus has started to develop a personality. Regardless, I don't see any particular leap in thoughts and feelings from just prior to birth compared with just after birth; at least, I don't see why such a leap should occur at the moment of birth.
I don't think being forced to donate organs is a good metaphor -- at least, I don't intrinsically value post-mortem bodily autonomy. A better metaphor I think would be being forced to do something in order for another person to live. Consider a Saharan desert guide on a 1-month tour for some clients. Once the tour begins, it would be morally reprehensible for the guide to abandon the clients to the elements; they must bring the clients out of the desert safely, whether they want to or not. It should be a bright-line case, because the lives of the clients rely on the guide, and the guide got them into this situation.
I can't believe this word doesn't seem to have made it into any part of this thread, but I think you're looking for viability: the point where a fetus can live outside of the womb. This isn't a hard line, of course, and technology can and has changed where that line can be drawn. Before that point, the fetus is entirely dependent on one specific person's body, and after that point, there are other options for caring for it. That is typically where pro-choice folks will draw the line for abortion as well; before that point, an abortion ban is forced pregnancy and unacceptable, after that point there can be some negotiation and debate (though that late into a pregnancy, if an abortion is being discussed it's almost certainly a health crisis, not a change of heart, so imposing restrictions just means more complications for an already difficult and dangerous situation).
-
I can't believe this word doesn't seem to have made it into any part of this thread, but I think you're looking for viability: the point where a fetus can live outside of the womb. This isn't a hard line, of course, and technology can and has changed where that line can be drawn. Before that point, the fetus is entirely dependent on one specific person's body, and after that point, there are other options for caring for it. That is typically where pro-choice folks will draw the line for abortion as well; before that point, an abortion ban is forced pregnancy and unacceptable, after that point there can be some negotiation and debate (though that late into a pregnancy, if an abortion is being discussed it's almost certainly a health crisis, not a change of heart, so imposing restrictions just means more complications for an already difficult and dangerous situation).
There has been discussion somewhere in this tree about viability, but the word itself wasn't used. Viability also has another meaning: the potential to someday be able to live outside the womb. I actually think the latter is more important morally speaking than the former. In a reasonable world, I would think that sensible pro-lifers should agree that if the foetus is doomed one way or another, why prevent an abortion?
But viability as you define it doesn't mean much to me. Consider the earliest point at which the foetus is viable (could potentially survive outside the womb), versus the day before that. On the day before, the parent has the option to wait one day, at which point the foetus will become viable. Now compare this with a different situation: for the price of $20, a certain drug can be used to save a foetus' life. Would you agree that in the latter situation, the foetus is already "viable"; it just needs a little help? If you agree with this, and since waiting 1 day is a similar cost on the behalf of the parent as paying $20, this means, the day before the foetus becomes viable, it's already "viable" -- the word has no meaning.
(If you disagree, and you think that the necessity of $20 drugs before the baby becomes viable means that it's okay to abort it, I find that to be a strange morality, and I'd like to learn more. Or perhaps you think there's something fundamentally different between waiting 1 day and paying $20.)
-
Just wanted to prove that political diversity ain't dead. Remember, don't downvote for disagreements.
Since engaging in society means indirectly endorsing all of its evils, and even interacting with questionable people is functionally equivalent to platforming them, the only ethical thing to do is to become a self-sufficient hermit. Problem is, there aren't enough terrains on this planet to allot one fully decked farm for each inhabitant... -
I don't see why computation is tied to experience rate. You already pointed out examples of what appear to be higher amounts of computation in the brain not apparently tied to experience rate.
I think computation is meaningful, whereas interaction can be high-entropy and meaningless. I would probably need to consult E.T. Jaynes to have more precise definitions of the difference between these notions.
You already pointed out examples of what appear to be higher amounts of computation in the brain not apparently tied to experience rate.
I actually would say that high interaction is high computation is high experience rate.
I think computation is meaningful, whereas interaction can be high-entropy and meaningless. I would probably need to consult E.T. Jaynes to have more precise definitions of the difference between these notions.
I'd be extremely curious to see how you define "meaningful" in this context. This seems to drive your moral hierarchy. Correct me if I'm wrong of course.
-
Just wanted to prove that political diversity ain't dead. Remember, don't downvote for disagreements.
Im left leaning on many social issues but pronouns was never a necessary social construct hill we needed to die on.
I think that useless fight got us the full hard swing to the right.
Especially because you shouldn't give a fuck about how people perceive you. You should be whoever you are and not care about labels.
-
Im left leaning on many social issues but pronouns was never a necessary social construct hill we needed to die on.
I think that useless fight got us the full hard swing to the right.
Especially because you shouldn't give a fuck about how people perceive you. You should be whoever you are and not care about labels.
I think that we just didn't fight the fight very smartly, and in the end it's been weaponized against us.
