Owlify
1d ago
Yeah, I can understand that. It's very subjective as people mostly go off of their moral instincts.
Owlify
1d ago
I am using person to mean the general fuzzy concept of personhood and the rights associated with it. Most of us would agree that a single cell fertilized egg is not a person yet. The concept is fuzzy so you can't really draw a line on at what point the fertilized egg becomes a person.
Owlify
1d ago
Yes, but a bad father is much worse than no father. In the vast majority of cases, the worst fathers abandon their children so stats aren't enough to determine if in this situation having the parents be married would be good or not because they would be skewed by functional families. If the woman has little confidence in the other parent than that's a signal that they might not be good. Isn't it better to make it optional for people to be married in such cases? And if the father actually wants to be present then court can decide custody.
Owlify
1d ago
Yes, if she really believed that the fetus wasn't really a person yet and no harm would occur by aborting it.
Owlify
1d ago
What if someone would rather be a single mother than marry the other person?
Owlify
7d ago
It's so strange to me that people's view of a normal relationship are so skewed here. It's like they turn off all their rational thinking capabilities when posting opinions about relationships on the motte.
Owlify
8d ago
With AI, I think we will be able to upend the current system and replace it with a newer better one.
Owlify
9d ago
I can understand why you are advocating for what you are advocating for. But it is a very let's try to add something to a badly run system argument, when the whole system needs to be destroyed and rebuilt from scratch.
Owlify
9d ago
Restrictions and constraints can exist in a system that allows freedom; they don't have to come from being forced. You simply remove the incentives and conditions that enable participation in outcomes you don't want, and introduce barriers to them, while simultaneously creating pathways and support for the outcomes you do want.
It is pretty simple, and all about system design. Kids are naturally curious and become bored if they don't do anything. You create a system where they have the option to participate in all the activities you want them to participate in (and of course you can and should encourage them to continue doing those when they become hard to promote resilience, hardwork and grit, and there are several ways of achieving this without having to use force), and at the same time just don't have the activities you don't want them to participate in (for example just don't give them internet access/electronics devices if you don't want them to be hijacked by their phone all the time). Lionel Messi became himself because he had access to soccer, and there were no competing distractions that diverted his energy away from soccer. The system was conducive to creating intrinsic passion in Lionel, which is necessary for success. It wouldn't have occurred if he was in the type of system anti_dan advocated for. I know because forced P.E. in school never motivated anyone around me into becoming better; and also because when people were allowed to do whatever they want, rather than being forced to participate in the specific activity that was chosen that day, it didn't result into them becoming lazy or growing up into someone who never does physical activity for health.
Owlify
9d ago
I agree that not all school systems have to be ineffective, but most schools are that way globally so currently such a policy will do more harm than good.
Yes not everything has to be joyous, but physical activity doesn't have to be bad either. Kids enjoy playing, and so do adults with the right kind of physical activity and environment. It's only unpleasant when you have gone without physical activity for a long period, so initially it can be tiring and will feel bad, but that's only a result of having systems that discouraged play for kids in the first place. When you force someone to engage in something fun and also suck the joy out of it, the result can often be counterproductive for life as that person forms a bias against doing that activity (like how a lot of kids get maths anxiety, a belief that they are bad at doing it, or it's just not fun for them) in their adult life. It is important not to design systems that have this effect when you can have better systems in place. I don't think that you will disagree that almost all kids enjoy playing, sports and physical activity and engage in it naturally (infact I have never met a kid who didn't like it). You only have to design a system that allows them to continue doing that as they grow older. The problem is that modern life and school systems effectively stop kids from natural play, and then force them into ineffective P.E. classes. The fact you can observe "autistic nerds" who aren't participating in physical activity at all is a symptom that there is something wrong with the current system. There is nothing inherent in these kids that makes them dislike play/physical activity. If you look outside of western society, you will see that these type of children/teens don't have to exist, and it is not because adults have to be force them into physical activity.
Owlify
10d ago
I don't think it is forcing kids to do things that makes them agentic per se, as opposed to exposing them to different things and having an environment that ensures they engage in various healthy activities. Forcing people typically tends to do the opposite, it raises them to be conformative (unless they turn rebellious as a result of being forced).
Note that I am not against promoting sports or physical activity for kids, I took issue with forcing people to do things in the specific way anti_dan advocated for.
Owlify
10d ago
You can have a culture that promotes physical fitness as an important aspect, but doing so in a boot camp like space and forcing them to participate in it in what a school environment typically is like currently is what I am against, because I believe it hurts more than it helps and sucks all the joy out of physical activity and sports just like school typically sucks all the joy out of maths/science and everything else you are forced to study there. Plus, schools tend to be ineffective.
Owlify
10d ago
This is also how LLMs and NLP lexical models like Wordnet understand words. I would say instead of good words, all words are like this, but some words are more clear in what cluster of concepts they are referring to exactly than others.
Owlify
10d ago
Iconochasm didn't ask you to reformulate the concept because he doubts your understanding of a woman. He did so that you don't have to be uncharacteristically catty. If you reformulate, then the curious wouldn't have to each individually go through the effort of getting a response, and hoping that the response was similar enough to yours.
Owlify
10d ago
People should get to be agentic rather than being forced into activities. (Not that I am against promoting physical activity in society).
Owlify
10d ago
To add on to this, OP's premise that people don't know what a woman is, is incorrect for the reason that separating biological sex from sociological gender originated from progressive ideology. To do so, one must have a clear understanding of both biological sex and the sociological traits associated with it referred to as gender.
Owlify
15d ago
What kind of state kills people due to accusations like this? And no, I don't think it counts as violence. I wouldn't say it is emotional abuse either, because that's a specific kind of harm to me, but it is definitely as severe. She was trying to get herself removed and either genuinely didn't understand the full consequences of her actions on her family or she just didn't care (probably this).
Owlify
17d ago
To add on, if lacking the ability to see light or hear sound was just flavor and didn't impede your life, then I wouldn't consider it a disability at all. For example, many people with synesthesia will describe their additional perceptions as deeply enriching and for some it would be fundamental to their human experience. However, I don't consider lacking synesthesia to be a disability. I wouldn't consider it a disability even if synesthesia was a majority trait and thus engrained in human culture, resulting in those without it being unable to understand and participate in core aspects of human culture.
Owlify
17d ago
The inability to experience light and sound both severely affect one's ability to go about their life without obstacles and participate in society. That's why they are disabilities. If you are blind, you can't drive a car for example. It has especially been true historically, with modern technology and social accomodations many disabilities like lacking an arm are much less of a disability that before. Lacking sexual desire doesn't severely impede you life, if it does so at all. It's also a matter of severity rather than just inability. My vision is terrible without my spectacles for example, but even if I lack the ability to see properly and it would impede my life if I didn't have spectacles, I wouldn't consider it a disability because it isn't severe enough.
Owlify
17d ago
I mean that we can agree that we have different meanings of what is considered a cripple. It's partly subjective how people decide what word means what, so I don't see what else we can gain from continuing this discussion. Also, what different people consider "basic to human functioning" would also be different and subjective to an extent. If it was less subjective, then I would have continued the discussion, but as of now I think I have a good understanding of your viewpoint and am unlikely to gain much more insight with additional discussion that would change my viewpoint.
I feel like I'm trying to explain why seeing color is better than being colorblind.
Yeah, this is why I said we can agree to disagree. What different people value and how much they value something is fundamentally subjective. I also think seeing color is better than being colorblind, but I think having sexual desire is mostly a net neutral. I still don't think that seeing color, hearing sound, or having an arm is important enough that I would include them in a set of things that are the most important in life, or fundamental to the human experience. They are good to haves, and not having them would make you disabled because that's what disabled means. I can see why you would consider asexuality a disability if experiencing sexuality is so important to you, but it's not that important to me so plus I don't think it restricts people from participating in society or provides severe hinderances to living their life in a way that I would say is necessary for something to be considered a disability.
I mainly wanted to know your viewpoint on if you also view people who forego sexuality as disabled, because I like poking at potential sources of cognitive dissonance like that. We can continue the discussion if you still want to know more from me though, I would be happy to do that.
Yes, everyone would like a good partner to raise their child. But sometimes the partner may be a net negative. Especially in a scenario where the father wouldn't have married without the law. In this case shouldn't it be allowed for someone to be a single mother? Because it would be better for the child. There are many cases where the traditional benefits men may normally bring to a relationship don't exist. For eg., some people stay unemployed and steal off of their partners. Or they spend all the money, including the one earned by their partner, on their vices like alcohol, gambling, drugs, etc. They also bring a lot of instability to the relationship in many different ways.
More options
Context Copy link