You also can't point to some mild opportunism and say it delegitimizes all other complaints. That leads to pure who-whom, which sucks.
Your protest is like asking why the USG went after Al Capone for tax evasion instead of his actual crimes. The answer is obvious and it doesn't make him innocent.
ccc
1yr ago
People with no care for morality are not in question. Of course it doesn't matter to them. They simply do as they will.
The people in question aren't ignoring any moral axioms of utilitarianism. Ends justify the means is fundamental to it. You can thus be a committed utilitarian and do evil simply via bad calculations.
Other moral systems fail in other ways. But a strict deontologist is not going to rob Peter to pay Paul.
ccc
1yr ago
You're putting on a pretty high pedestal a girl who's stuck sitting around for hours on her phone.
Humanize her a bit and it's probably less likely she's made a rational calculation with ho logic to ignore the LVM than it is that she's neurotic and antisocial.
ccc
5mo ago
To achieve body recomposition, you need a lot of protein and a calorie deficit. It's all in the diet.
The lifting strategy, so long as you're doing something reasonable, is far less important. You don't need a specialized program.
There's a lot of ways to get off with (or without) a partner that aren't PIV.
ccc
1yr ago
Specialization is of course good, but all the things you've listed (except changing oil) are much more complicated and take longer to learn than building a PC.
If you're so rich that you can call it a convenience tax rather than an idiot tax, then sure call it that instead. But if your time really is that valuable one wonders why you asked here in the first place.
ccc
1yr ago
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.
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.
ccc
8mo ago
Removing people on purely substantive grounds is difficult even when you're right. Ousting power requires some level of opportunism.
Unilateral disarmament would be a noble if naive goal, but if you can excuse Rubiales' blatant lies you can just as well excuse an opportunistic ousting. Otherwise it's pure who-whom, and no point discussing further.
ccc
10mo ago
She sounds like she has issues socializing, but she's also trying to play rec sports. Doesn't make much sense on the surface. I infer from this that she's at least somewhat aware of the former and using the latter as a way to fix that.
Which is to say: she might be more amicable to a frank one-on-one than you're presuming. Given that she seems to have no real power, I don't see any risk in giving it a try.
That's what I'd do. But I also kind of get off on roleplaying therapist.
ccc
1yr ago
ccc
1yr ago
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.
A lot the drugs athletes take under PED bans right now are just testosterone but re-synthesized to avoid detection. There's a lot of ways to get T levels up, and the safest ways to do it are also the most studied and easiest to detect. In this way, PED bans actually incentivize athletes to take riskier drugs.
People like the narrative idea of a Faustian bargain so much they assume it's always true that there's one on offer. But it's possible if under a scheme where PED's are allowed that the rational choice for athletes is sticking to basic steroid cycles and blood doping that gets them 95% of the way there and avoid the riskier experimental stuff that might not even help.
ccc
8mo ago
ccc
9mo ago
Your questions sound a little over abstracted. Some plainer questions you might have:
- when would you pity fuck someone?
- would you have sex out of a sense of duty?
- can and when does an emotional connection lead to sexual desire?
- can one manifest sexual desire where it doesn't exist?
ccc
1yr ago
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.
ccc
1yr ago
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..."
ccc
1yr ago
ccc
1yr ago
This doesn't really feel all that reassuring. MacAskill's "in the vast majority of cases" and Eliezer's "(For Humans)" are explicit caveats. Scott doesn't even bother making more concessions than "well shucks you can't do much good if you've made all the deontologists mad enough that they get in your way".
For all of them there's still an implicit out, that lying/cheat/stealing for the greater good is okay if you can get away with it. Eliezer goes the furthest to emphasize that, no, really, you won't get away with it, but he still leaves that out there. He has to.
So all it takes is a little narcissism for a 140 IQ altruist to rationalize that he can in fact part the 90 IQ rubes from their money and have them be none the wiser. Sure, amongst humans such a thing is unthinkable, but are those two even really the same species?
ccc
1yr ago
Anecdotally, 2 out of about 7-8 people I know in their twenties who vape have gone on to smoke cigarettes. I also thought the gateway drug idea was ridiculous until I saw it happen.
This is disarmament. So you are advocating unilateral disarmament then? Unless your demand is only for your enemies, in which case yes they will of course ignore it.
They should just get off without any charges? If your commitment to due process and the impartial hand of justice is that great, you can't turn around later and defend Rubiales' because he's on your team.
I'm not advocating for lawless vigilantism or witch burning. I'm pointing out that one party engaging in power politics doesn't necessarily disqualify their legitimate complaints.
More options
Context Copy link