@4bpp's banner p

4bpp

Now I am become a Helpful, Honest and Harmless Assistant, the destroyer of jobs

3 followers   follows 2 users  
joined 2022 September 05 01:50:31 UTC

<3


				

User ID: 355

4bpp

Now I am become a Helpful, Honest and Harmless Assistant, the destroyer of jobs

3 followers   follows 2 users   joined 2022 September 05 01:50:31 UTC

					

<3


					

User ID: 355

Not quite, though I'm also happy with that. I wouldn't call a severed human arm an instance of the human species, for reasons that have nothing to do with "it is not enough of a Mensch", and I feel a fetus to be similar to that - entirely made of human stuff, but lacking critical parts needed to have the value associated with the whole thing.

(1) if I'm constitutionally (e.g. by way of brain damage, retardation, locked-in coma or otherwise) incapable of voicing my protest, then I would hope someone makes that decision

(2) if you write your ethics based on asking people "what if it happened to you", you will get rules like death penalty for especially ego-shattering insults.

Do the likes of Amodei actually believe those things, or is this outgroup homogeneity bias?

I don't think this is primarily a pro-choice/pro-life story at all. One of the kids she killed was five years old; even an extreme pro-choicer like me (on the record here before saying that I would not really personally detest parents who postnatally aborted a one-month-old) thinks this is unambiguously murder of a human being and should be treated as such. (Also, the usual kind of failure of theory of mind between tribes. No, we really do not believe fetuses are human. Being pro-abortion is really not particularly about women; I had my share of irresponsible unprotected sex back in the days, and felt very reassured by the existence of legal and easily accessed abortion.)

Instead, this is obviously just the usual case of the forces of tribalism having randomly coalesced around some nearly random figure, with the significance of the case for each tribe mostly having become how much significance it has for the other. Whether Clancy is convicted or not would primarily have the effect that it would be a visible public defeat for all the people who staked significant attention and political capital on the opposite outcome. If she is acquitted, it would bias expectations in future conflicts towards "women can get away with anything"; if she is convicted, it would bias expectations towards "all the efforts of women activists can't get one woman acquitted".

  • the Soviet Armenian one with its unusual scale

  • Turkey as the pinnacle of the martial ones

  • Israel though Smetana's Moldau is the better version of the melody and the Czechs should just replace theirs with it

  • Taiwan does not stand out on any single quality, but is near the top in every category that I would score national anthems in: it's dignified, pleasant to listen to, the lyrics offer a positive vision for the country, the text is poetic and reflects the national character (with how it is entirely in four-character verse).

Well, on the other hand, they only need to hold out until 2029 for presumable Democrat domination, at which point the street cred from having received such a personal token of Trump's ire will probably greatly work in their favour. In their eyes a bet that the Singularity does not happen until then is probably risky, but not downright untenable; if they determined that they will not get their regulatory regime under him, hunkering down and refusing to further stain your reputation on the other side with compromise may be the least bad strategy.

What exactly was the UK bill about? "Assisted dying" in the culture-warred about, Canadian sense generally involves conscious people wanting to have themselves euthanised. That seems much more rare than the "braindead adult taken off life support" cases like Terri Schiavo (sp?), which seem more similar to this one. Those are also completely legal in the UK, and I have not seen OP or anyone else complain about instances of it in ages. You can dismiss the "controlling sexuality" theory as projection or otherwise all you want, but as I said that is not very compelling when you are not offering an alternative theory for why this is.

One thing I do wonder about, what is your perspective on why this story is uniquely outrageous? Given the medical history, it seems to me more similar than usual to the numerous cases of the life support plug being pulled on the comatose and braindead of more advanced age. I'm aware that Christians tend to not particularly like those either, if prompted, but there does not seem to be that much of an organised opposition and ultimately they are just not what the outrage machine winds up putting on the frontpages of the internet. At the same time, neither the article you linked nor you seem to be pushing an angle suggesting that children are somehow more precious or morally valuable than adults; the focus is instead squarely on the adults making the decision.

Given this, you should understand why it is so easy for your outgroup to convince itself and the NPCface peanut gallery that pro-life activism is really about controlling women's sexuality. The account in which the pro-life activist is theory-of-minded as thinking something like "finally a woman got saddled with the deserved consequences [that is, being a joyless full-time caretaker who stays in the home] of all her fornicating, and now she is trying to weasel herself out of them!", however uncharitable, at least explains all the observations. If pro-lifers have a better account of what is actually the value function according to which they decide what to be outraged about, they have not succeeded in letting it be widely known.