What makes that boundary so special that further recursion is unjustified even though further recursion is causally relevant?
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 *
Two people, each one demanding to be the one to get the last word in, making no progress but arguing in a never-ending cycle until judgement day.
squid honey kun is this because I’m filling your dash with arguments with that one AnCap
i promise this will be resolved prior to the robot apocalypse that occurs on June 2, 2204, okay
well, probably
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
@proletarianprogramme is back at it folks
your inability to read irony worries me comrade
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.
Things that are true but you probably shouldn’t say: “he’s a little ugly”.
What about things that are false that you should say?
“What? No of course I don’t like [kink].”
The others are more depressing.
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.
http://thelinfieldreview.com/20367/archive/opinion/choking-on-the-red-pill/
here’s how marine can still win
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.
- A History of the New France, 2034
