I wonder if there’s possibly any way of imposing symmetry on the whole open borders thing, in a way that would matter.
If you decide to split the difference and make some areas open borders and other areas closed borders to that closed-borders people can live by themselves while open borders people benefit or suffer from the consequences of their decisions, then open borders people will come back six months later and demand the closed borders areas be opened immediately as a moral demand.
If you decide to make open borders contingent on paying off closed borderers with money, the open borders crowd will decry this as immoral and unfair to the global poor.
If you make anyone who comes in via open borders the financial responsibility of open border-supporters, they will decry this as immoral and unfair, because they are individuals and the people they are bringing in are individuals, and culture has nothing to do with their behavior and this is all the fault of those dity closed borderers.
However, it isn’t actually possible to solve global poverty with open borders. To meet the carrying capacity, the nations themselves must be made significantly more productive, and that means greater infrastructure and fewer children in order to concentrate parental investment.
This is not really what I meant.
I meant more like “can we impose open borders on the countries that are going to be net sources of immigrants”.
We can, but why would anyone want to go there? There’s a reason those places are net sources of immigrants.
Something something gentrification
There aren’t enough hipsters in the world, Wirehead. Plus that sounds suspiciously like colonialism..
I wonder if there’s possibly any way of imposing symmetry on the whole open borders thing, in a way that would matter.
If you decide to split the difference and make some areas open borders and other areas closed borders to that closed-borders people can live by themselves while open borders people benefit or suffer from the consequences of their decisions, then open borders people will come back six months later and demand the closed borders areas be opened immediately as a moral demand.
If you decide to make open borders contingent on paying off closed borderers with money, the open borders crowd will decry this as immoral and unfair to the global poor.
If you make anyone who comes in via open borders the financial responsibility of open border-supporters, they will decry this as immoral and unfair, because they are individuals and the people they are bringing in are individuals, and culture has nothing to do with their behavior and this is all the fault of those dity closed borderers.
However, it isn’t actually possible to solve global poverty with open borders. To meet the carrying capacity, the nations themselves must be made significantly more productive, and that means greater infrastructure and fewer children in order to concentrate parental investment.
This is not really what I meant.
I meant more like “can we impose open borders on the countries that are going to be net sources of immigrants”.
Countries like Brazil are already pretty lax about their immigration policies, but this wouldn’t do much of anything to decrease opposition to open borders.
I wonder if there’s possibly any way of imposing symmetry on the whole open borders thing, in a way that would matter.
If you decide to split the difference and make some areas open borders and other areas closed borders to that closed-borders people can live by themselves while open borders people benefit or suffer from the consequences of their decisions, then open borders people will come back six months later and demand the closed borders areas be opened immediately as a moral demand.
If you decide to make open borders contingent on paying off closed borderers with money, the open borders crowd will decry this as immoral and unfair to the global poor.
If you make anyone who comes in via open borders the financial responsibility of open border-supporters, they will decry this as immoral and unfair, because they are individuals and the people they are bringing in are individuals, and culture has nothing to do with their behavior and this is all the fault of those dity closed borderers.
However, it isn’t actually possible to solve global poverty with open borders. To meet the carrying capacity, the nations themselves must be made significantly more productive, and that means greater infrastructure and fewer children in order to concentrate parental investment.
I suspect it’s less against the interests of what Feminism is ostensibly supposed to be, and more against the interests of Feminism as it actually is.
MRAs are in some senses an offshoot of Feminism, made possible not by Patriarchal power, but by Feminism’s flaws. If you have a bunch of men around questioning dogma and demanding that principles such as innocent-until-proven-guilty are upheld, well that isn’t so great for changing the standards of evidence on campuses, now is it?
guys but like…not every vocal atheist is an m.r.a dudebro with a goatee and a fedora and a hard-on for richard dawkins. plenty of people have a legitimate reason for mistrusting and criticising religion and religious practices (i.e. abuse survivors, lgbt people, people from former or current colonies, many women all over the world) and atheism might actually be important to some people as a space for resistance. which is not to say i advocate black and white thinking and i think all criticism of religion should be sensitive and placed within careful consideration of context (i.e. people not using “atheism” as an excuse to be islamophobic, anti-semitic etc.) but religions are social institutions that still exert a lot of power and we should let oppressed people have safe spaces in which to criticise them
I’m still trying to understand how the Left started hating atheists, associating Atheism with being anti women’s rights, and consider religious people as a morally superior group?
Like, what the fuck? What happened to the god-hating liberals my (abusive) Christian parents despised?
You may try to resist religion, but know that God resists back.
Atheism had some pretty dreadful internal politics disasters. Honestly, the big issue was the one that has plagued revolutionaries since Satan himself: Once they had finished throwing off obedience to Christ, they argued over who the next target should be. The internal inability to banish sexual abusers was also a problem.
Ultimately, it kind of split, between the partisans of Pride and Vanity and those of Perfidy and Rebellion. The latter faction no longer emphasizes their atheism.
The lack of Leftists converting to anything in any noticable numbers, to my knowledge, rather disadvantages that explanation, as much as I find a certain emotional resonance to it.
does literally anyone at all remember the early internet fights? late 90s, early 00s? they were literally all about religion. one recurring argument was that basically atheists are cowards bc they mainly make fun of Christianity, rather than of Islam, which is clearly more dangerous to do. Guess what atheists started doing after being told to do so. Guess what happened as a result.
I definitely remember that era of Discourse. Interesting theory about the causes of the passing of that era, although I suspect this is a very reductionist view of those events.
9/11 happened. The West as a whole suddenly remembered that Islam existed. I don’t think the shift was from athiests decided to grow a pair and attack Islam on their blogs and chat boards.
I don’t think it’s 9/11 specifically (people made that argument in early 00s), but actually the Iraq war being drawn out forever, the Bush era coming to an end, and stuff like that. The alliance between beer'n'tits liberals and pink hair'n'harry potter fan fiction liberals was always an uncertain and shaky one, facilitated by the ills of the Bush era being different from the ills now.
You can also see a shift from “free speech zones” being horrifying to freeze peach being a tool of the oppressor, and from patriot act being creepy to surveillance being Good Actually, and many more.
j: trains are just good, ok?
objectively good
i don’t understand how neurotypicals don’t instintively understand this.
p: x3
supply chains are good
logistics and infrastructure are good
without logistics and infrastructure neurotypicals couldn’t have a single bit of their social media influencer instagrams because all would be too busy hunting rabbits to survive
s: yes
supply chains are my fetish
j: supply chains are good
There’s something aesthetically pleasing about function over form, about big, powerful industrial machinery that signifies the power of humanity. Nuclear power plants, diesel locomotives, whirring factory complexes sending thousands of packages out into the world, the musical rhythms of assembly robots…
Nature has its good parts as well, but it’s a very different feeling.
May is a motherfucker. She is fucking up Juncker, the drunken idiot a lot!
I’m going to commit a nationalist sin here in saying this, but I do actually quite like her.
You can criticise her not having strong principles on economic policy other than what’s provided for by notions of ‘stability’ and you’d be right, but at some point we have to refrain from habits of Austrian/Chicago School autism and look at what we’ve got, which is a prime minister who’s in politics because of strong faith and love of country, who takes a dim view toward grand utopian schemes.
Nine times out of ten I think that’s going to come off well for us.
@remedialaction Just a point for clarification - when I don’t care about someone’s opinion, I don’t even bother arguing with them. It’s like a switch. I default to caring, but if the proper event comes up then it’s just gone.
That point hasn’t been crossed in this case, but I’m ruling out the topic, like I did once with another topic with a woman who wanted to ban most of human sexuality.
In case that, I feel quite justified in standing by my statement that this isn’t really about logic to you, but about an emotional need that you’ve projected on to me (thus the entire garbage about control), despite your protestations otherwise.
If you change your mind and decide to apologize for your “control” bullshit, we can revisit the topic. Your continued responses show that, on some level, you do care.
This conversation has negative value to me now. It went back up for a while because examining morality at the subindividual level was an interesting and novel idea sparked by it, something to be integrated into a later body of theory, but I see there’s nothing more to be mined from the conversation. Anarcho-Capitalism remains an unworthy ideology every time I revisit it.
I’ll keep going for a while longer if you’re willing to apologize for your “let it go” bullshit, but otherwise we’re done. There’s more profit to be made elsewhere, and what do AnCaps love if not markets?
Which doesn’t change it being the self, still? Yes, external factors can influence internal factors.
But “being the self” doesn’t establish the moral liability you so desperately want.
Except you’re making this either or, that conciousness OR subconciousness is ‘central.’ The point is that you are a complete whole, both concious and unconciousness are part of you, and are relevant.
I can alter my hand, it doesn’t make my hand not part of my body.
Except that altering your hand doesn’t make you not you, because the central element that defines you is the mind, and within that mind the consciousness. If you don’t make it the consciousness, then you could end up with a situation where taking a drug technically makes you a different person, which would then mess up property and contract rules.
No, I’m saying they’re entirely part of the whole, they’re as much a part of the moral liability as everything else.
Except they aren’t sufficiently distinct, you’ve not established why they are, when they are indeed all parts of a single whole entity, that. The subcomponents aren’t pilots.
They’re not entirely, in the sense that matters, part of the whole, which is why they can conflict and dominate each other. They ARE sufficiently distinct, whether you like it or not, whether or not that makes you feel like you don’t have control, whether or not that offends your sensibilities about so-called “free will”, whether or not that has implications that you don’t like for properties or contracts or taxation or the state or your own personal safety.
Ordinary people, who you asserted can recognize evil and have to be lead into it, can recognize this, which is why ordinary law looks very little like the dogma that is Anarcho-Capitalism.
You have asserted, over and over again, while questioning the faith of my arguments with groundless speculation about my motives and bullshit about “loss of control”, that this boundary matters before all others.
You have failed to prove it, and you will never prove it, because it doesn’t matter before all others, it matters as part of a system, part of something more flexible and, dare I say it, innovative than what you have in mind.
You’re just asserting it at me over and over again, not establishing it. You’ve hit a loop, and I know how you’ll respond to this, and it won’t prove a thing.
We cannot go inward any further than the whole self entity because all of them are linked as part of one entity, and we cannot go outward because there is a discernible difference between one self and another self.
No dude, we actually can go further because it’s still causally relevant. We can also use physical interventions such as drugs or magnets or surgery or injury to act on the subindividual level.
The subcomponents are relevant in the self level, that’s the point, they are as much a part of the self level as your conscious, controlled thinking. I’ve said as much several times over.
So it isn’t consciousness that’s central to moral liability anymore. Either demonstrate that it’s still necessary for your system, or that starfish over there violated my NAP.
I have not asserted all internal layers should be dismissed, I’ve actually stated they are merely part of the self.
By saying your position such that they don’t have an impact on the moral liability, you have effectively stated that they should be dismissed.
You have not argued why they should be considered distinct, when we’re discussing the morality of actors.
They are causally relevant and in that sense sufficiently distinct. You are discussing the morality of aircraft, I’m saying it’s fair game to talk about the morality of the pilots.
They exist as distinct entities, but the sublayers are not distinct, they’re part of a whole, that’s why we call them sublayers, or subcomponents, or so on.
They are actually sufficiently distinct, that’s why they can be altered.
Your subconcious mind is still you.
Again, not making consciousness the central element means that non-conscious animals are now part of the moral consideration.
What makes that boundary so special that further recursion is unjustified even though further recursion is causally relevant?
You need to articulate what you mean by recursion as I’m not seeing it.
Assigning moral liability in layers heading inwards, or examining the roots for moral liability gradually inwards. You have to establish that, even though the differences in subcomponents are relevant on a causal level to determining behavior, that this is completely irrelevant at the self level and all internal consideration is totally off the board in terms of mitigating moral liability.
So far, you have asserted the self layer is superior so all internal considerations should be dismissed, but you haven’t actually properly established why. Relative causal unity wasn’t enough for you for nations, or presumably warships, so you have to establish why it’s so special here. Otherwise, it might make logical sense to split on the conscious and subconscious elements, since the concscious is along for the ride but has only limited control of subconscious elements, but the conscious is being used as the anchor here unless you want to argue non-conscious entities can be counted as persons under AnCap.
This is really about your desire to justify an unjustifiable concept - infinite moral liability for finite beings - despite your guesses about me “being upset over a loss of control”.
Except you’ve failed to establish that such a concept is unjustifiable. Even your term ‘infinite moral liability’ is essentially begging the question; you’ve not justified how it is ‘infinite’ really, and this all hinged upon your idea that somehow the fact that the thinking mind has various components not always in perfect unity somehow means that moral liability for the self cannot be established.
When you invent a genetic cure that lets me fix my executive functioning properly, since I can’t just forcibly override it (I have tried), then maybe the idea of a unified self of perfect liability will make sense. Until then, because I can’t just forcibly override it, then it isn’t justified to hold all of me fully liable for it. I don’t actually have a choice in the matter.
As for infinity, under AnCap it’s permitted to sell yourself into permanent slavery forever (if the tech exists for it), rather than capping liability and prohibiting that.
Also, it’s up to you to establish that kind of total moral liability for the self which ignores all subsurface concerns. Why does the causal chain stop there? Why does it ignore both what is outside and what is within? Why can it not be recursive?
ancap: you can claim what you can meaningfully isolate and control with your work, for example water which you have collected, but not all the clouds in the sky
me, a supervillain:* builds massive sphere around the whole Earth *
Leftists know “globalist” means “evil Jewish overlord” right? It has no coherent political meaning and “globalism” isn’t an ideology or a set of ideologies, it’s meant as an insult
People with PhDs in the interdisciplinary studies -mostly critical theory, international relations, and comparative political economies might say “ha”.
No one in any of those fields uses the term “globalist”
Globalist hasn’t been a term in use in any social science fields since the 90s it’s str8 up a Jewish dogwhistle
Globalization is a word used in those fields but that refers to an economic and social phenomenon. Globalist is just a fucking antisemitic word tbh.
(((globalism))) is anti-semitic? IDK sounds far-fetched
Oh, you’re being ironically anti Semitic my bad dumbass
how are you both so absurdly edgy and embarrassing, but yet so ridiculously thin-skinned?
Yeah what’s with all these Triggered SJWs, am I right?
What’s with the kind of moron who would be lambasted for listening to black metal at all by the shrill dumbass liberal politics of today, turning around and using the exact same measure on other people? Hypocrite and a moron? Are you really 23 because I’m kinda sad now
If I have to spell it out for your dumbfuck ass, the joke here was that people who say ‘globalist’ will often literally put it in triple parentheses, an established anti-semitic trope, so it becomes kinda blatantly obvious that its a dogwhistle and that that has to be explained to people is kinda funny. Sorry if that was somehow unclear because your ML prejudices makes it fucking impossible for you to read people in good faith. Idiot.
“your ML prejudices makes it fucking impossible for you to read people in good faith.”
Oh man, that’s my feeling exactly!
Him, a young unemployed man angry because all the manufacturing jobs have moved to China, mainly on the back of international trade deals that make it easier for companies with a a world-wide presence, a global presence you might say, to exploit differences in labor costs:
Man I hate these globalists.
OP, trying to prevent him from becoming a neonazi:
I THINK YOU MEAN JEWS. BECAUSE JEWS ARE THE ELITES. ALL ELITES AND GLOBALISTS ARE JEWS. IF YOU’RE WORRIED ABOUT THE ELITE, IT’S DEFINITELY JEWS YOU SHOULD BE WORRIED ABOUT. IF YOU FEEL SCREWED BY WALL STREET, THEN THE PEOPLE WHO SCREWED YOU WERE THE JEWS. IT’S THE JEWS WHO ARE DOING ALL THIS, MAKE SURE TO REMEMBER THAT. DEFINITELY TRANSLATE YOUR HATRED TOWARDS A VAGUE ESTABLISHMENT INTO HATRED OF JEWS, BECAUSE THEY’RE TOTALLY THE ONES YOU’RE THINKING OF.
This is really about your desire to justify an unjustifiable concept - infinite moral liability for finite beings - despite your guesses about me “being upset over a loss of control”.
Alright, I’ve had my tea, so I’m feeling a bit more charitable.
Your grounding is based on the idea that the root causality is encompassed in the self, and that therefore the self ‘owns’ the results. But the causality passes from outside, through the subcomponents, and then back out again, with the self riding on top in a sense. The subcomponents can radically alter the total outcome, while the self remains riding on top.
You haven’t established why this ownership should not be subsurface. After all, you said it was about causality. You say “but the self is also a whole”, but causally, so is an aircraft, so that doesn’t really help. There are of course many practical reasons, but for your purposes that doesn’t really help, either.
Since I’m weighting on experience, rather than control, I don’t need to establish a perfect sovereign will that re-roots causality locally from the universal level to the individual.
“The unfortunate reality is that some of the MRA’s claims are undoubtedly true and deserve serious consideration, yet the overall picture presented to the audience is erroneous at best and outright disingenuous at worst. While men’s issues require genuine advocacy, the heroes of this pathetic diatribe tend to be rather unsavory characters.”—
(via the-grey-tribe)
If only there were some organization for gender equality that could have addressed these problems before a new group like “MRAs” formed… maybe a movement that said very many times that it is about gender equality…
A towering inferno rose up behind the column as the tanks rolled through Paris. Normandy had already fallen, Orleans, the Ardenne… all now under occupation as the last holdouts had fled to the city. But they were surrounded. The armed militia members waited nervously behind a makeshift blockade, clinging to their AKs.
It is the year 2201. Prison has been abolished. Empowered by new technology, the state only punishes the part of one’s brain considered to be truly responsible for a crime - this is considered the most humane solution. You (or a character) wake up in a recovery clinic for the only crime worthy of lobotomy followed by replacement - murder.
I think the most glaringly naive and myopic part of ancaps ideal worldview is the fact they think collusion amongst organizations wouldn't take place to the point where states would emerge. Hell, there are modern corporations right now that are more powerful than many smaller nation states and if it was just a matter of sheer resources and manpower they'd absolutely get their own military companies like coca cola have even conspired with paramilitary organizations
I think any serious anti-state ideology acknowledges that it requires constant vigilance to prevent the emergence of another state, which requires viewing any sufficiently large organisation with extreme suspicion, as well as the constant propagation of memes warning against the perils of statehood (statedom?)
This fucks up freedom of association to an absurd degree, but you can get out of it by being okay with a state being established “without coercion”, eg. you’re born into a world where you have to explicitly sign the social contract or starve, unlike our current world where you implicitly sign the social contract or starve.
Yet it clearly does, and given you already recognized the premise of “I think, therefor I am,” you clearly recognize there is a unity here. You seem to want to have unity when it matters to recognize self and attempt to derive value, and then reject it now. You can’t have it both ways. Either there is an entity, a self, or there is not.
Actually, both can be true simultaneously, in the sense of both self and subself existing and being relevant at once.
Like, causal bundling again - people talk about nations being “just lines on a map”, but they’re actually a very complex wave-like phenomena involving institutions, land, resources, people, culture, and so on that form a clear causal bundle and natural category.
So one can, actually, coherently both talk about a nation doing something and the factions and individuals within a nation doing something.
The self can exist in a way that derives value without totally ignoring that it is composed of subcomponents that aren’t wholly unified. Much like the self can exist despite the influence of drugs on the mind, but without ignoring the influence of those drugs.
The primary reason to say that we cannot recognize the influence of the subcomponents on a moral level is a desire for applying infinite moral liability. Thus, effectively, pretending that there is no tension between the internal components and therefore, for example, when a person says they “want” to be of a healthy weight, but then eat too much junk food anyway and find it distressing, that this is their “true, revealed preference” that applies to their whole self, even if they hate it.
There is, of course, the practical matter of lack of access to sub-delineations - or at least, there is now at the current technology level. But that’s a practical matter, and often modern courts of law will change sentences according to psychological state.
As for the ability of nations to think, that depends on how one defines the term. I don’t think they feel. Not yet. The concept of what is to states as Transhumanism is to humans is not yet more than a grain of sand.
The point of my objecting to your granulation is not that you can’t subdivide parts, but that those subdivided parts remain part of a whole. The claim about natural boundaries within people is irrelevant here in the subject of moral responsibility because the very concept hinges upon distinguishing that which is inside and that which is outside. Those inner boundaries all share one aspect, and that is the very fact that they are, even in your argument, inner, and therefor distinct from outer boundaries.
Inner/outer is being used for convenience, not revealing something.
I like this metaphor as well, as it accurately fits the concept of every person a nation unto themselves. :P
It’s not such a bad metaphor, since it exposes the problem with your way of thinking.
People treat subnational units as relevant in international politics quite frequently, which is part of why, while destroying much of the German army during WWII, the result following the war did not involve putting all the Germans to death. The national responsibility for the war was actually split up according what the individual people and factions within the country did. In fact, they didn’t even execute the entire German army itself.
Attempting to subjugate a country and knock out its entire army is typically done not because the nation as a whole is sufficiently unified in order to justify total moral liability to all of its subcomponents, but because trying to individually negotiate with all the soldiers and so on while the state apparatus is in the control of a dictator is extremely difficult and unlikely to succeed.
While people may recognize that, say, Texas does not get to speak independently on the international stage, they recognize that it still has an influence on the government which is different from that of, say, Ohio. This is actually a big part of the large, televised anti-Trump protests, establishing non-total-liability to outside observers.
I could also discuss the nation as a whole as having an inner and outer, and claim that morality exists at the level of the nation and not at the level of the individual. What makes that boundary more special to the point that we can’t care about the subcomponents?
@argumate gotta admit I seen a lot of “down with Islamophobia” posters from local socialists and very few “down with religion” posters
Yeah, there’s this problem where if you say stuff like that, people mostly use it as a reason to take that religious group that has all that money or oil or is just inconvenient and just kill them all.
Yeah, well there’s also this problem where different cultures are actually different on more than just what kind of food they eat, and if you heavily push “anyone who heavily questions this foreign religion or culture is an evil racist bigot and should be fired”, you end up covering up massive child sexual abuse scandals.
I find it very frustrating that a religion that is actually worse than Christianity in many ways, and is oppressive in itself, and is so far difficult to secularize people out of and water down, with elevated rates of fundamentalism among second-generation immigrants, is getting this free pass from the people who were supposed to be all anti-oppressive and logical.
I have a vague like (well below the level of actual political preference) for a monarchy.
And, well, I really, really, really don’t like British Monarchy Apologism. It’s simultaneously obscene and cowardly.
If we see a restoration it will, and will have to be, different. Above all things the historical aristocratic contempt for all things useful and practical and especially for labor must pass away.
I’m not sure it’s possible to have a monarchy without some level of aristocratic contempt for useful and practical things. What would a non-aristocratic monarchy look like?
I didn’t necessarily say “a non-aristocratic monarchy”.
What I was specifically thinking of is, like, people who form entire cultures around considering Working For A Living to be basically illegitimate, and who then don’t have the saving grace to live in austere and ascetic poverty when their rent fails them.
In my ideal nation, the royal family would have the role of safeguarding the nation’s culture (and a few other things) rather than being a tourist attraction or having full political power better reserved for the civilian government.
Their membership would be drawn from national heroes, waning over several generations and requiring new heroes to marry in for the line to remain royal. So, great artists, great scientists, great warriors, those who have made amazing sacrifices - people who just knowing they’re from your country and embody its ideals, make your heart swell with pride.
This keeps the genetic lines fresh, rewards those who benefit society, helps keep the nation united, and so on. In many countries the monarchy is reduced to a national mascot and cultural institution - so if we’re going to do that, let’s do it right.
guys but like…not every vocal atheist is an m.r.a dudebro with a goatee and a fedora and a hard-on for richard dawkins. plenty of people have a legitimate reason for mistrusting and criticising religion and religious practices (i.e. abuse survivors, lgbt people, people from former or current colonies, many women all over the world) and atheism might actually be important to some people as a space for resistance. which is not to say i advocate black and white thinking and i think all criticism of religion should be sensitive and placed within careful consideration of context (i.e. people not using “atheism” as an excuse to be islamophobic, anti-semitic etc.) but religions are social institutions that still exert a lot of power and we should let oppressed people have safe spaces in which to criticise them
I’m still trying to understand how the Left started hating atheists, associating Atheism with being anti women’s rights, and consider religious people as a morally superior group?
Like, what the fuck? What happened to the god-hating liberals my (abusive) Christian parents despised?
The complement of Divide and Conquer: Unite and Conquer. Make alliances of convenience to gain power. Leftists aligned with Islam because they’re both opponents (especially in America) of neoliberal globalism, as well as Conservativism. Islam has money and power behind it, Atheism has none. Islam also fits into the antiracist agenda, especially in the west where Muslims are a minority that’s also correlated very much with ethnicity. Racism is a tough rap to beat and it means people who want to spread Islam and Islamic power are naturally aligned with the left, who want to hurt the same people and take their power too.
Before Islam was a noticeable group in Western politics, atheism was fine/good. But if you want to ally with an increasingly powerful Islam, you HAVE to shit on atheists. Because atheists are willing to actually attack Islam, whereas feminism and LGBT issues can, via doublethink, sidestep it, they get thrown under the bus.
Yeah, but you could take measures to ameliorate the long commute for employees--for example, running a high-speed train line there for their particular use. (If the commute is long even then, you could make that commute time paid--have people punch in/out as they get on/off the train, or just add a set amount per day.) Of course, that's expensive.
Airports and sewage treatment plants have other constraints on their locations (flat land, downstream) and it’s not just the employees who have to travel to reach them but every construction vehicle, delivery truck, etc.
But eh infrastructure is hard, Melbourne doesn’t even have a regular train line to the airport yet.
You can’t subdivide out entities that way, though, even if we distinguish them due to the complex interactions involved. The lack of a unified, detached ‘will’ animating our meat puppets doesn’t change the fact that at the core, it remains a single entity, a single actor. You are attempting to granulate things that don’t have any business being so granulated.
Actually, the effects of Ritalin prove that it IS so granulated. And I, myself, have taken it and am familiar with its effects. So yeah, actually I can subdivide entities out that way.
That is a thing, even if it’s one you don’t like.
You have created a false boundary that ignores causal distinctions and elevated it to full status, but reality is not so cleanly delineated, which is something I’ve tried to get at with you for a long time but which hasn’t gotten through to you.
Some kind of nihilistic type might object that a boat is just a collection of atoms that we have arbitrarily labeled as a boat, and that reality doesn’t care. (They’d likely also take your “but you just don’t like it” shtick, too.)
However, even though the natural categories are fuzzy (for instance, when is a skin cell a part of someone, and when isn’t it?), we can still define object boundaries - but we have to use causal bundling instead.
That is, the impact on the world. A “boat” is defined as a cluster of possibilities based on its effects on the world compared to alternative configurations of matter at the same time and place.
There are natural boundaries around people, but it is necessary to also consider the natural boundaries within them, rather than arbitrarily declaring them off limits for moral consideration. These are themselves real causal clusters with impacts on the state of the world.
I think you need to justify placing your causal cutoffs where you place them. Why is placing them at the total mind level valid, but both the sub-agent and incoming-causes levels are invalid?
I started writing this, then realised that factual description of time spent in an airport was already sufficiently horrifying, and no further comment was required.
It can hardly be a coincidence that no language on Earth has ever produced the expression “As pretty as an airport.” Airports are ugly. Some are very ugly. Some attain a degree of ugliness that can only be the result of a special effort. This ugliness arises because airports are full of people who are tired, cross, and have just discovered that their luggage has landed in Murmansk (Murmansk airport is the only exception of this otherwise infallible rule), and architects have on the whole tried to reflect this in their designs. – Douglas Adams, The Long Dark Tea-Time of the Soul
That said, the S2 concourse (D gates) of Terminal 4 at Sky Harbor is not bad at all.
Airports are prime liminal space, which is why I love them. People sitting tailor style on the ground in business wear and charging their phones, a line of children with small faces lit by tablets, silent under headphones too large for little heads, chest-high counters often abandoned, side-scrolling orange led displays that make subtle changes to the lighting, the resonant thunk as a luggage carousel starts an empty rotation before bags tumble noisily down its chute, the omnipresent sports team made up of teen girls in matching uniforms with matching bags and matching ribbons in their hair.
I love that everything is in motion and everyone is going somewhere and sometimes it all goes to shit but mostly it works and sends people all over the world to meet family or start a job or take a break.
My local airport reminds me of a cross between a cathedral and a library; it’s all high glass ceilings casting beams of dusty light over broad expanses of silent travelers seated on evenly spaced benches. If you want something more to look at than that you can stand at a wall of windows liking at an endless field of blue and watch the planes fly into forever.
If you were a committed moral realist, how do you think your other beliefs would be different? What about opinions? Basically, what is committed_moral_realist!argumate like?
Wow that’s a tough one. At first I think that version of me would be completely unrecognisable, but then I’m not so sure. I already have very strong moral inclinations, even though I am aware they are not baked into the universe; perhaps if I believed that these moral principles were fundamentally real then there would be few observable differences in my behaviour, besides what I might say in discussions about moral realism!
To think otherwise is to fall into the Jack Chick fallacy, where an absence of the god of Abraham immediately gives one a license to kill, cheat, and steal.
We’ve already had that talk? The short form is that we recognize ourselves as thinking entities, IE: I think, therefor I am as you’ve repeatedly stated. What follows is a recognition that our actions have effects upon the world, and those can be directly, due to being directed by our thinking minds, attributed consequentially to us. We ‘own’ the results of our actions, we are responsible for them. From this flows such necessary moral precepts such as the illegitimacy of initiating force against another thinking actor and the necessary fact that because are responsible for the results of our actions, we also own them, and that includes actions that mix with other material goods.
What follows is a recognition that our actions have effects upon the world, and those can be directly, due to being directed by our thinking minds, attributed consequentially to us.
We ‘own’ the results of our actions, we are responsible for them.
This requires a kind of internal unity of agents/minds that I’ve already established does not exist. You want absolute moral liability, but people do not have absolute control over their minds and never did, which is why brain injuries, drugs, and mental illness can alter behavior.
For your position to make sense, the effectiveness of drugs such as Ritalin should be impossible. It shouldn’t be feasible to change someone’s level of alignment between their will and its execution through biochemical means if their will is absolute and unified.
And if will isn’t absolute, if it’s subject to all the limitations and complex complications of life in physical bodies in a physical world, then the result of binding liability (if we even accept that) is far, far lower.
Because of this lack of perfect unity, if we took your proposition seriously, then it should be possible to charge someone’s executive functioning capability with a crime (or just moral liability) independently of the other subcomponents of their mind.
Some sort of unification of limited moral binding based on limitations of execution, limitations of information, the default will, targeting of subcomponents of mind, does not, I think, move towards AnCap, but some new class of moral theory that has yet to be born, which is the first thing new/valuable I think I’ve actually gotten out of these discussions with you.
…though not entirely without precedent, but rather not formalized into a total system. See typical handling of limitations in many common courtrooms, and many laws.
