ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
No bio...
User ID: 626
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1d ago
Damn, what do you think might happen? Will quality of research get so bad that half of all studies won't replicate? Will doctors start pumping kids full of hormones, and chopping off body parts for no reason? Will AI engineers allocate significant resources to making it more stupid?
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1d ago
You also get a discount the longer you subscribe. My all products license costs me ~20€ per month right now.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1d ago
I don't mean this as a gotcha question.
No worries, I didn't take it as such, but the question is a lot deeper than it looks like at first glance.
Even though I don't think the 2 particular issues would come up here, as it's hard to make money off anthropology, so I don't see how market pressures or short term fads could enter here, generally I don't think there's a systemic solution. We've spent the last 80 years trying to replace human virtue with systems that will force good behavior on bad people, and all we ever got for it was Goodhart's Law up the wazzoo. Whatever rule you come up with will be gamed the same way peer review and the h-index were.
The other solution of a strongman entering and cleaning up house also has issues, in that some people think the ivory tower is also supposed to be isolated from political pressures. There are many reasons why this is at best unsustainable, at at worst impossible, ranging from "you may be not interested in politics, but politics is interested in you" to the frequent theme of FCFromSSC posts: "the only reason something felt apolitical in the past is that our values were largely converged in the past, and we'll never get it back now that we have values divergence".
Now, just because there doesn't seem to be a fix that doesn't risk other issues, doesn't detract from the fact that something must be done. If our attempt to insulate academia from outside influence ended up in the setting up little cults, we have to get rid of the cults, even if that results in other issues.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1d ago
There's a handful of users that would be entitled to make this criticism. Do you, with your comment history, really honestly think you are one of them?
As opposed to LvMI-style libertarians, who I don't count as libertarian because the only liberty they actually care about is the right of racists to be racist, and who have mostly gone full MAGA-authoritarian now anyway.
I'm one of those that has mostly gone MAGA-authoritarian, and I don't find resting everything on the principle of liberty particularly sane anymore, but somewhere in there there's an interesting conversation about why does freedom of association mean only caring about the right of racists to be racist, but backing explicitly racial civil rights policies somehow doesn't, or why is being against immigration "authoritarian" but it doesn't apply to everything from the Covid response to the Federal Reserve.
Shame that this is just a low-effort jab at your outgroup, and the interesting conversation will most likely not happen.
It's easy to mock this, but let's consider whether that might not be the system that we built, deliberately. The whole point of an ivory tower is to be sealed off from the world.
The steelman argument for the ivory tower is to isolate them from market pressures and short-term fads, so they can focus on higher pursuits, not to create a cult that thinks itself impervious to criticism from anyone that hasn't been initiated into it, but feels entitled to your money at the same time.
Are we talking about legality or morality?
Both. You don't find a lot of people believing volutarily entering into slavery is justifiable.
Morally I see no issue with people selling themselves into slavery if they wish.
Then our values are so far apart, that I don't know if we can come to any sort of an understanding. Aside from the distance I find your moral system incoherent. If consent is the main criterion for morality, to the point that it's fine to sell yourself into slavery, than you shouldn't be shrugging away the lack of child's choice in adoption, circumcision, and "a thousand other things".
No that doesn't follow. Rights and morality are not the same thing either!
I don't see a difference between saying something is morally objectionable and saying "X has a right for Y to not happen to them" or "Z has no right to do Y".
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
3d ago
Because slaves don't agree to rent out their bodies?
That can't be it, because it's still illegal to willingly sell yourself into slavery.
If you're going to rape someone raping them when they don't know about it is probably more moral than otherwise sure.
I never heard anyone say anything remotely close to "well, at least he drugged her!", so I think this is just flat out wrong.
a drugged woman will wake up and realize what happened
What if she doesn't?
the woman in the coma will face significant health complications and so on and so forth.
What? No one said the rapist has to mistreat her.
Yes! You don't have a right to live, nobody does!
Oh. In this case there is no morality. All your questions make no sense to begin with.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
4d ago
The Odyssey is not a bad film.
I strongly disliked it,
The real question is why did you watch it?
But we rent out our entire bodies all the time don't we?
No I don't think so. I think there's a massive qualitative difference between paying someone to do some work, and paying someone to rent out their body. I'm also pretty sure you agree, ans don't believe what you just said, and there's an easy way to prove me wrong:go and tell your wife that you think she should work as a prostitute.
Also, if all work is renting out your body, then why are is slavery illegal?
But it still creates a child who is (in most belief systems I think) considered to be innocent of the immoral act that created them.
Yeah, but I'm not advocating for the murder of children born of surrogacy, so this seems neither here nor there.
The question isn't whether how they were created is immoral it's whether them being created is better than not when weighed against the costs inflicted.
I don't think so. This would imply drugging and raping someone, or raping people in a comma, is perfectly fine,or only mildly immoral.
Rights only make sense if they can be enforced
Not really. If a murderer is never apprehended, no one says "well, I guess the victim didn't have a right to live". If you want to use it descriptively, "rights" just means people will act to provide / prevent something, not that they will always be successful. But usually it's used normatively.
I'm pretty sure you also know that, and thay you yourself believe in rights that we should protect. For example, you don't think slavery is morally justifiable, but you have skipped the comparisons to it, in order to minimize the exposure of your own principles, like I described earlier.
Should we abort babies who are about to be born where the father has died?
Do yoi think that people who believe in property rights, believe victims of robbery should be killed?
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
5d ago
I don't hide mine at all. Indeed i have got into multiple very long debates about my belief set here!
That has not been my experience of my conversations with you. The multiple very long debates do very little to clarify what you actually believe. Yes, I can make guesses based on what kind questions you ask, of who, and when, but this tactic ensures that an absolute minimum of your actual beliefs are exposed, so you never have to defend them. That's why I found it too much to suddenly demand I present my entire moral framework, syllogisms and all, though I suppose I may have misunderstood what you meant because:
In this specific case I think surrogacy can be pragmatically complex but is morally acceptable, given the logic I laid out before.
If this is what you consider laying out your moral framework, then I'm more than happy to continue.
A surrogate of a donated egg and sperm is not the mother in a biological sense.
I disagree. Birth is a biological process. Normally a mother is a woman that both gave the egg that later became the baby, and also gave birth. In this case we have only one of the two, so at most you can say a surrogate is only half a mother, but she's definitely still a biological mother. I'd actually attribute more of motherhood to her, because the process of carrying a pregnancy and giving birth is far more intimate and bonding to the baby, than the process of extracting an ovary.
Coming back to the "renting out" of a uterus being morally insane, I don't think what's happening in the process can even be accurately described this way. We are embodied beings, and we cannot be separated from our bodies. Renting out a uterus is effectively renting out the entire person, and renting people is objectifying them. From a moral standpoint I don't see how it can be seen as any different than slavery. Like I said before, slavery is not considered immoral because any abuse that happens to the slave, because even in cases where there is no abuse, slavery is considered illegal, and morally abhorrent.
One way I could imagine there being such a thing as "renting out a uterus", is if you could temporarily extract it, grow the baby there, and then put it back in the donor, with no harm to their health. It still sounds pretty horrifying to me, but at least it's not buying babies from the mother.
And even if she were parents do unilaterally have the right to give up their children and have others raise them as in adoption.
Adoption operates under a completely different framework. It's not a free transfer of title to the child's custody, it's the process of finding the best caretaker for the child, after it either lost it's parents, or they have been found so incompetent that the child would be better off with someone else (including the cases where the child is voluntarily given up, because any parent who wants to give up the child is assumed to not provide good care, if they were forced to). There is no open market for children, where they can be bought willy-nilly to the highest bidder... or at least there isn't supposed to be. Adoption is practice is far darker than in it is on paper, and in these cases I'm not sure if it's actually any better than surrogacy.
The child would not exist but for the surrogacy arrangement.
So? There are immoral ways of creating a child. Lots of children would not exist but for rape, for example.
It is true the child does not get a say, but they don't get a say in adoption or their parents giving them to grandparents to be raised, or being moved to a new country, or being circumcised or hundreds of other common things. Including whether to exist in the first place. Condemning surrogacy on that basis is condemning parenting children at all.
My argument does not rely completely on the child having a say, it starts from the assumption that a child has a right to a mother and father. Sometimes life throws curveballs at people, and either child loses the parents, or it turns out being in contact with them would be worse than being separated, so we then make the best out of a bad situation, but deliberately creating that seperation, in advance, when there is no good reason to, is doing purposeful harm to the child.
The "no say" argument was an attempt to "pre-bunk" the liberal, "consent is the only moral criterion that matters" argument. Yes, it's true that the liberal framework is incoherent, but that's no skin off my nose.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
6d ago
I'm not asking for everything to runnable on a potato, just for things to not be retarded.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
6d ago
The same fear existed before - from programmers forgetting how to get most of the hardware, to bloatware memory hogs that loaded useless libraries
To be fair, these fears were 100% valid. The resources required by the average modern app are insane.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
6d ago
Yeah, but the situation is completely opposite to the Nazi/Stormtrooper thing, the "evil robot" archetype predates anyone working pn AI by decades.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
6d ago
That's the one!
I don't think they understand how widely loathed their technology is, though, and therefore how much what they're saying comes off as a bad parody or even villainous and sneering.
I think @JeSuisCharlie had a good quip about this. "If you need a style guide for not sounding like an evil robot, something something". The style guide being a reference to one of Scotts actual posts, though I don't remember if it was actually making the evil robot comparison, or I'm recalling it that way due to being primed by the current subject.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
6d ago
I gave the actual moral beliefs stemming from my moral system, that I will go on to defend, you're the one that hides yours, and pokes holes from a position of safety.
This has been your conduct for as long as I remember you posting here, so please don't act like this would suddenly change,if I jump through enough hoops.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
6d ago
I already gave you a hint for what rejecting that thesis would entail, which should be a clear enough "why".
Anyway,like I said, I didn't do conversations on moral philosophy with people who only do pure criticism. You can't get an ought from an is, so any moral position can infinitely poked at, when your own is carefully hidden away so that it can't be criticized. Conversations about morality only make sense when they're comparative.
It is not.
Ok man, have fun advocating for reducing penalties for rape to those for unpaid rent.
What is asserted without argument may be dismissed without argument.
Under which moral framework? Why? You're just throwing boo words out without actually justifying your position.
Sorry mate, I'm not playing with people who only do skepticism. Show me your moral framework, and I'll show you mine.
Only if the mother is the only "owner" no?
So it's definitely not 1:1 as an argument.
You too have it backwards. Slavery wasn't declared wrong because we decided that somewhere, along the way, ownership was misattributed, otherwise you'd still be allowed to sell yourself into slavery. It was decided that ownership of people is invalid in it's entirety, you can't do it at all.
If you could own another person, and if a mother owned her child, then she could sell, and there would be no issue with surrogacy to begin with.
If the father donated sperm then it's not selling the baby from one owner to a new one, the father is already the (part) "owner".
The father has every right to the custody of the child as well, he does not have a right to buy out the mother from her part. He especially does not have a right to commission the creation and birth of a child for the specific purpose of buying out the mother's custody right.
Where it's a donated egg and sperm even more so as the surrogate is not the owner at all. It's essentially just renting space in the womb.
The process of birth creates a bond between the mother and child, and the idea you can ignore that and act like it's possible to "rent space in the womb" is morally insane.
On the other hand, like 5 comments upthread, @ArjinFerman is telling us that the AIDS crisis was oversold.
No, I'm saying it was self-inflicted, and doesn't deserve more thought than a "men purposefully hitting their own balls with a hammer" epidemic. That the expectation that society would drop everything and save people who refused to take the barest of precautions, when their own lives were on the line, and they only did so for the purpose of sexual gratification (which they didn't even have to abstain from, just limit to a reasonable level), was deranged, as was the implicit (and sometimes explicit) moral judgement when society failed to act fast enough.
Decades later we put half of the world under lockdown over a glorified flu, and anyone who didn't wear a mask when they were entering a restaurant, where they could sit without it for hours, was seen as a moral freak, but somehow we have to look at the AIDS episode as a giant tragedy, because it got in the way of a bunch of guys having unlimited orgasms. Then, to add insult to injury, we immediately dropped all Covid-era moral norms, when the same community brought in monkeypox.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
6d ago
I added switching between weapons, which ended up being a bit more work than expected. I had to rearrange some data buffers, because it turned out some stuff I'm passing to the material shader isn't useful, and other things that I don't need aren't being passed. I'm also considering switching the projectile collision model from circle-circle to circle-AABB, as this will allow me some flexibility of projectile shapes, and hacks for high-velocity projectiles passing through an enemy in a single frame (just make a long rectangle, lol).
I also played around with some benchmarks. Fired off my old desktop to see how the game performs there, and it was interesting. It seems to be free of the issues plaguing my new laptop like overheating, and the sudden choppiness when I do GPU-CPU copies of the background texture, but since it's pretty old hardware, the total amount of monsters it can handle at 60 FPS is actually lower. Still, I think I'll start recording the dev journal videos from there, as I seem to be able to get better recording framerate and quality out of it.
How have you been doing @Southkraut?
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
7d ago
Property is something you can own.
Parents (including adoptive parents, or legal guardians) do not own their children.
What's your definition of "own"? If it's something like "I can do whatever I want with it", than a lot of things we typically think of as property don't actually clear that criterion. I'm mostly focusing the title being freely transferable. The reason adoptive parents, in theory, don't own the children, is because adoption-in-theory happens when the child loses it's parents, or they become unable to fulfill their duties, in tragic circumstances, and they were picked to assume the duties of the parents. There's (in theory) no open market for legal guardianship. This is often not the case with adoption-in-practice, which isn't necessarily any better than surrogacy.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
7d ago
He's the one that tried telling me these criteria don't apply, I didn't rest my case on them. My case is that the child has a sacred bond with it's mother, that can only be broken in extreme circumstances, which "here's some heckin' dolarinoos" doesn't clear.
That's cool, but how are you any less of a partisan hack?
More options
Context Copy link