YoungAchamian
No bio...
User ID: 680
YoungAchamian
25m ago
Can someone get out child support payments purely because they didn't "consent" to fathering the child? No! We give them the old adage of "Man Up" and "You play you pay", and rightfully so.
Just because the West is gynocentric and hypocritical about something doesn't mean the argument is wrong. Realistically Men should be able to opt out of child support if they didn't consent to pregnancy, assuming a world where abortion is legal. It logically and morally follows.
YoungAchamian
28m ago
Explainability/Interpretability in modelling is often directly anti-correlated with predictability. Modern AI/ML is a very good example of this. Highly flexible models often gain predictive power by learning complex, distributed, nonlinear structure that is hard for humans to summarize cleanly.
I'm looking for a grand overarching theory of society
Societal Genetic Algorithms and Multi-Agent Game theory is probably your best starting point. Assume the fitness function is the resilience of such a system to survive + the desire of participants to propagate it/adopt it/live in it. Develop the theory from there.
YoungAchamian
50m ago
Both sides of this debate have decided on a universal stance. Both want their moral system to apply to everyone, even people that aren't buying into it. They both want dominion and to ban the other.
YoungAchamian
53m ago
No. My point is that it's meaningless to say you didn't "consent" to the entire foreseeable, biological consequences of pursuing a particular course of action. You might as well legislate against the tide.
Pregnancy is a risk of sex but it is not a 1:1 relationship.
So what if you didn't consent to getting pregnant? You are pregnant. -> "ok doc what are my options to get rid of this pregnancy"
So what if you didn't consent to lung cancer, you have lung cancer. -> "ok doc what are my options to get rid of lung cancer"
YoungAchamian
58m ago
And this is what I was getting at earlier:
But I'm not blue tribe, I'm a libertarian. It should be pretty clear that I value the sanctity of bodily autonomy very highly. So it would follow that I view the removal of that right as pretty catastrophic.
Can you make the actual argument around collective amnesia clear. Because if you are just arguing the teleology of sex then I point you to this comment I just made link. What was said about Christian assumption of a default universalism applies to your comment/argument as far as I can tell.
Just as your right to swing your fist ends where my noise begins.
Technically so does the babies... which is why I can remove their body from mine, after which I have no say in their bodily autonomy. Their rights end where my body begins. Their dependence on my body and their lack of right to my body is morally consistent. If the technology existed to incubate those babies until they were fully formed then I imagine it would be considered correct by my morals to do so. After all who doesn't want to keep existing. However the lack of a technology existing does not suddenly make morals change.
Contrary to your last point, the reason either of us are benefiting at all entirely comes from the moral wealth of my side of aisle, I’d argue.
I didn't realize your moral side was now claiming total ownership over any and all children and births across the universe? Isn't that a bit of an arrogant and grandiose claim? My parents were trying intentionally for children. I don't think you can claim me. What about my dignity to not be enslaved? Of if I dress a certain way and walk down a certain street in a bad neighborhood do I lose that dignity?
YoungAchamian
1hr ago
The exploration of the purpose of things is called teleology.
I link you to this Other Post. I understand what teleology is, but I disagree on your authority to tell me what the telos of something is. Sex is complicated and it will never be decoupled from reproduction but the belief that the telos of sex is solely reproduction is smuggling Christian moral values that are not given. Sex is also about pair-bonding, pleasure, marital alliance, kinship formation, status/politics, ritual or cosmic symbolism and sometimes exchange or obligation within a social system. Many cultures and many religions have a very different teleology about sex, what is your evidence that yours is the correct one?
This is a common problem with Christians and cultural Christians. They are close-minded in that they believe their morals are the one true moral system. Then they argue from that stance without ever identifying that the moral precepts of Christianity are not universal or with the understanding that their moral precepts are even Christian-derived in the first place.
Because children are innocent by definition.
Again, you are using the Christian moral definition of innocence. As a non-Christian, I lack the same moral foundation and definitions you do, so trying to use them to tell me what is and what is moral is not tenable. Make an argument stand on its own two feet instead of just dictating your definitions from a book. I disagree definitionally that children are innocent. Children as a class are merely human spawn. They have as much innocence as any human. Ork babies are no more innocent than Ork adults, Goblin children, elven children, borg children, romulan children, klingon children, Yuuzhan Vong children and all permutations otherwise.
“Your body” is no longer “your body,” at the point it involves the life and death of someone else. That’s the entire point.
We are going to disagree irrevocably about this. "My Body" is always my body, morally it is wrong to remove bodily autonomy from a being regardless of the reason. I don't think you can convince me that any form of slavery regardless of the cause will ever be ok. I'm not a consequentialist, and am not a utilitarian. The freedom to bodily autonomy is a quintessential natural right and it requires Tyranny to override that.
I'd go as far to say you benefit from this as we currently aren't harvesting your organs against your will because it will save the lives of multiple other people. Afterall "your body" is no longer "your body".
I also did not bring up organ donation, please highlight where I did.
Precisely. You chose the risk. And now you live with the consequences of said risk.
Show me the law or the penal colony where we condemn smokers to die of lung cancer without any chance of treatment.
YoungAchamian
2hr ago
I'd be curious to know if there are serial abortion users. If the average user of an abortion is 1-2 times in the life it makes it really hard to track historical usage for insurance to be an applicable analogy.
The problem with bringing in insurance is that insurance is a pool of other people's money. If you were a smoker and you could self-finance your chemo we would absolutely treat it. We just draw the line at paying for care of people engaging in risky behaviors with known risks continuously, from the group/collective funds. By that logic, medicare/universal medicine will not pay for your abortion if you engage in known risky practices, like sex without contraception, but you may finance it on your own. I think that is a fairly acceptable stance, and consistent. But it's not really engaging with the general moral fault line here.
If there were laws on the books that forced smokers to suffer lung cancer and we refused to treat them, that would be more akin to the anti-abortion argument. I'm sure I could come up with dozen more foreseeable situations with risks that people would really dislike care being denied for.
YoungAchamian
2hr ago
Ok, but before there were women, there were apes, and before there were apes there were mammals, and before...
Nonsense the bible says the earth is 6,000 years old and humans were formed directly by God in the garden of Eden. The only ancestor of human women is Adam's rib. Stop cherry picking the bible...
Sex came first, and sex is for reproduction
Then why don't humans have a 24/7 365 fertility window. Other animals have it. Obviously sex is ONLY for reproduction. Except apparently not. Listing different forms of reproduction isn't really an argument. You've made a claim that sex is only for reproduction, give some evidence of this, listing a risk/probabilistic outcome of sex doesn't suddenly prove that.
but I'm OK killing people who deserve to be killed, I just don't think they should be innocent children.
And besides a sky-hook, what moral evidence do you have that this view is the moral correct one. It's not like Christians have never killed children either. Why are children considered so innocent that they demand special consideration? Would Alien Children warrant the same consideration?
YoungAchamian
2hr ago
The baby didn’t stake an original claim on your body.
The baby is dependent on me for survival. If I wish to use my body for something other than its survival and would like to remove it, I am within my rights to remove it. If someone else would like to put it in their body or test tube for its survival they may. It's not my concern. If the baby would like to form a contract with me to exchange value for its continued use of my body, then it should make an offer.
You’re the one who chose to commit the act.
I chose to take a risk. Much like when I decided to smoke a cigarette. Just because the lung cancer became a sentient clump of cells doesn't entitled it to my body or preventing me from attempting to get rid of it.
What it’s “fighting” for is on behalf of its own existence.
I forgot the "fighting for existence" is such a moral rectitude that it permits the overriding of any other beings rights. Let me quickly go tell my boss he needs to pay me a bajillion dollars because I am "fighting for my existence"
YoungAchamian
2hr ago
As the new Tyrant of America is is now my degree that premartial sex is limited to Anal or Pegging only. Anyone caught doing something as disgusting as "a penis in a vagina" before marriage shall now be forced into 18 years of indentured labour.
YoungAchamian
2hr ago
Pregnancy is a foreseeable consequence of sex in much the same way that lung cancer is a foreseeable consequence of smoking. If you're an adult who smokes a cigarette, you are consenting to the increased risk of lung cancer that might result.
There are a lot of foreseeable consequences to a lot of actions. We as a society don't stop people from trying to mitigate them or prevent them. In your own example, we don't deny care or deny the attempt to fix lung cancer from smokers.
Do you want to make a stand that any and all foreseeable consequences of actions now require you suffer them with no renumeration or mitigation allowed regardless of the situation?
YoungAchamian
3hr ago
I think the passenger analogy doesn't really apply well here because the passenger in a car still displayed agency in determining the risk/reward of getting into the car. A baby doesn't display any agency on being conceived.
But if you want me to stake a position, then even if the passenger in my car accident I caused was in needed an organ donation from me. I still have the bodily autonomy to say no. It's my body and you can't morally compel me to use it.
YoungAchamian
3hr ago
Probably because a 1/6 chance of killing yourself is a risk that most people think is too much. Especially when there is only a marginal reward.
I don't think that risk/reward ratio really applies in Sex or Driving.
Sex is literally FOR babies,
I must have missed the part of health class where they discussed how human females are fertile 24/7 365 days a year. Instead of the short window around the ovulation cycle. Or that how when females are not fertile it is not possible to have sex with them. You should submit your new revolutionary information to the latest medical journal, this could be a major breakthrough on human bodily functions!!
Sarcasm aside, you are smuggling in a moral argument to a functional argument that does not follow it. Just because you believe that sex = babies doesn't mean its actually true from a purely biological functionality fact(which you are also wrong about). I think I could construct several purely biological functional arguments for various other things that you would strongly disagree with.
You are essentially using arguments as soldiers for principles you don't actually care about. Make your real argument that God/bible says abortion is wrong and be done with it.
YoungAchamian
3hr ago
I think that would be an actually interesting philosophical question, especially if we examine our response to other situations where people engage in actions intentionally that effect other people but then change their mind. In some situations like contract law, we enforce the prior agreement, but in others like a promise to aid or a charitable donation we don't enforce compliance.
It's a question of how much bodily autonomy you have depending on the cost of your bodily autonomy on other people.
I mean I don't think they can be neatly decoupled, one is a risk that is of the other. But we as a society accept other risk pairings as both legally correct and morally ok. This idea that babies are the direct and singular causal response to sex is just not based in reality. Pretending it is, is an attempt at motivated reasoning. Which I was calling out.
EDIT:
I’m guessing some number of abortions are because the mother changes her mind
I suppose this is probably true, I do wonder what the breakdown in cases between the three would be. Regardless I am pretty pro-choice from a fairly radical bodily autonomy perspective.
YoungAchamian
3hr ago
Yes... Would you say that "Blowing a hole in your skull" is the singular causal outcome of playing Russian roulette? Or just a risk?
YoungAchamian
4hr ago
I'm saying that driving carries the risk of getting into accidents. But yes that driving != getting into accidents. Sex is to Pregnancy as Driving is to Accidents.
YoungAchamian
4hr ago
In the framework you gave, abortion for an accidental pregnancy would be permissible, but one for an intentional pregnancy would not.
I fail to see how this is different than the current accepted practice? People intentionally getting pregnant don't then go get abortions. Abortions happen when pregnancy occurs accidentally (due to risks) or when the pregnancy threatens the life of the mother.
YoungAchamian
5hr ago
Congratulations, by driving in a car you have now signed up for a lifetime as a quadriplegic due to an accident. It was a risk you knew was possible. Please don't do anything but accept the consequences of your choice.
Sex != baby-making. Sex carries the risk of baby making.
YoungAchamian
2d ago
long with this, Silver Bulletin has a piece out about synthetic polls - very basically, companies use data to get AI to simulate responses to questions. Then sell that to companies who seem to use it unquestioningly - or at least without making it clear that the 'respondents' to the 'poll' were not people:
I legit have a coworker who has been suckered by this. Some polling company for IC work that I highly suspect of using this silicon polling method. I try to be diplomatic about it but I have serious doubts, The sim2real gap in normal synthetic data is already a huge issue with synthetic data creating its own distribution that is not the same as the real distribution. I can't imagine honestly marketing synthetic data as real data for Intel related tasks.
YoungAchamian
2d ago
Did Cetus 4.3 remove military access requests? They used to exist, as did the ability to threaten AIs when you were a lot stronger than them. I don't do as much map painting these days because it gets tedious fast.
YoungAchamian
3d ago
As an avid stellaris player, i’m not even sure what you are talking about…
I mean this gets into how a social group enforces rules, there are a lot of gray areas. For example, if I kidnap you and hold you hostage is that ok because society believes that imprisoning people is ok? What if I commit you to an insane asylum against your will while you are perfectly sane?
I'd argue that holding someone against their will for no reason other than you can is wrong, and there are a bunch of different lens you could use to explain why.
However, if I violate some social compact around what constitutes lawful behavior in my tribe what are my options? Non-Exhaustively:
Scale these up from tribes to modern society and I'd argue the intuitions follow. Realistically a criminal could fight their incarceration, its up to them if they think losing/being treated as an enemy of a society is worth that cost. They could escape to the wilds and form their own tribe, or wait until such unjust rules are overthrown. They can accept the punishment in hopes of re-integration afterwards. They have lots of options, but fundamentally they have the right to bodily autonomy, just as members of a society/tribe have the right to associate with individuals they want to. There's tension there, but I don't see the conflict.
More options
Context Copy link