@ccc's banner p

ccc


				

				

				
0 followers   follows 1 user  
joined 2022 September 06 23:38:47 UTC

				

User ID: 895

ccc


				
				
				

				
0 followers   follows 1 user   joined 2022 September 06 23:38:47 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 895

There's a lot of ways to get off with (or without) a partner that aren't PIV.

I can't imagine wanting any trans cousin to babysit my kids, let alone them being put together and selfless enough to do so.

Neither of them live somewhere where vapes are banned.

In deontology, there is no justifying or downplaying the noble lie. In utilitarianism there is. That is the difference.

More broadly, you can permit evil so long as you think it'll work out in the end. Dangerous way to think when predicting the future is as hard as it is.

This is politician tier reasoning. There was a mistake! There should never be mistakes! If they were just a little more careful, this wouldn't happen!

An engineer vetting Redis for concurrency bugs is not an effective use of their time.

The resentment may be visible, but you reverse cause and effect. All babies are born starry eyed and optimistic, full of love and joy. Only after being burned does the imp come out. Perhaps by then all hope is lost. But you have to answer why that happened.

You know the answer. The trans condition is mired in insecurity. They don't need permission. They need validation.

Whether or not the woman is willing to stick it out is clearly going to be influenced by how good the alternative seems.

Almost everyone at some point in a relationship has niggling doubts and frustrations, and handing out a golden parachute is a clear incentive to turn small issues that could've been resolved into divorces. Sure you can dream up a fantasy world where cultural forces overpower economic ones, but why not grab at every weapon you can?

Got 11/20 on this one. Guess I was just lucky last time.

You don't need a secondary market for that. Even if the cards only have collectible or play value, it's still gambling. You pay money for the chance to get what you want.

It's always weird when people excuse gambling schemes targeted at kids by pointing at Pokemon or Yu-Gi-Oh! booster packs: Those were never okay either.

We already have the horny gene. But we could have higher time preference or a stronger paternal love for children or greater disgust for gamers and wine aunts. Or maybe just a stronger proclivity to religious thinking.

The selection process can be cultural too, e.g. subpopulations with memes resisting modern anti-fertility technology, such as the Amish or fundamentalist Christians/Jews/Muslims out breeding all the atheists and feminists.

This does sound like a neat rejection of Scott's deontology in the streets, utilitarianism in the sheets approach.

But I can't think of a coherent way for one to hot swap morality. For anyone's system to be coherent there must ultimately be some moral facts or axioms underlying it that reigns supreme in the meta-morality calculus.

People who think they're doing this are probably just utilitarians who think deontology is nothing more than rule utilitarianism by heuristic.

Committed theists don't have a backup morality for when God tells them to do evil. They either go whole hog or come up with biblical copes.

People who want the hodge podge pick virtue ethics.

EA is the subset of rationalism that takes utilitarianism Very Seriously.

There's much less overlap with TheMotte specifically, which seems pretty critical of utilitarianism. One of the main criticisms is this exact failure mode: because the numbers are all made up, a smart enough person can justify doing whatever it is they wanted to do anyway. "Why yes, of course I'm defrauding thousands of people, because I can better direct their money towards things which satisfy my utility function such as..."