• a very silly girlie in her toxic femininity era (but like, in a I-support-women’s-wrongs kinda way)
  • Butlerian jihadist (machines should not think!!;! BAD!!) (techbros plz face the wall 🥺)
  • I do a little fedposting, as a treat
  • anarchist (I need to believe a better world is possible)
  • will go for the jugular if I think it’ll be even a little bit funny
  • 0 Posts
  • 206 Comments
Joined 8 months ago
cake
Cake day: June 7th, 2025

help-circle







  • Fine, we’ll put aside the accusation of solipsism for a moment and come back to this:

    By the same token, there’s no way that you can prove to me that you understand personal mortality. If, for the sake of argument, I were to point a loaded firearm at you and you were to attack me, attempt to flee, beg for your life, whatever, there’s no way you could prove to me that your actions are motivated by a subjective will to not die: for all I know you might just be acting very convincingly like someone who understands mortality without actually having any interiority whatsoever.
    However, there is social utility in assuming that others are capable of understanding abstract concepts when they perform actions in accordance with such an understanding. And from the fact that most animals will try to avoid things that they can reasonably understand will cause them death (natural predators, environmental hazards, anything that has caused them injury), we can likewise extrapolate that they don’t want to die.

    You’ven’t made any meaningful rebuttal of anything I’ve said here. This is why it’s easy to assume you’re arguing in bad faith: I’ll clearly state my position and explain my reasoning, and then you’ll just come along and hit me with the “nuh-uh,” and refuse to elaborate. At my insistence that you justify your own position, you’ve so far given me “but different things are different,” and “but it’s normal tho.”
    In the case of the former, I have explained why in the context of this discussion the different things are actually quite similar in the way that actually matters here. And given that you appear to hold sincerely leftist beliefs on every topic except animal liberation, I really hope I don’t have to explain to you how “but it’s normal tho,” has been used to defend countless atrocities, historical and present, and as such I shan’t accept it as a justification.


  • It’s almost as though you’re completely disregarding the context and the scope of my previous response because you’re arguing in bad faith.
    Yes, I can accept that different things are different and this will sometimes mean that it’s okay to accordingly act differently, but sometimes different things have similarities and you’re here arguing for discriminatory treatment in the context where they’re actually not that different. Whales, lions, sheep and humans alike have a drive for self-preservation. Thus, they should similarly be allowed to live without being killed in cold blood by those who are capable of knowing better than to inflict needless suffering.
    I have stated my reasoning again and again. It is on you to provide a justification for the discrepancy you’re here supporting.




  • What a solipsistic take. By the same token, there’s no way that you can prove to me that you understand personal mortality. If, for the sake of argument, I were to point a loaded firearm at you and you were to attack me, attempt to flee, beg for your life, whatever, there’s no way you could prove to me that your actions are motivated by a subjective will to not die: for all I know you might just be acting very convincingly like someone who understands mortality without actually having any interiority whatsoever.
    However, there is social utility in assuming that others are capable of understanding abstract concepts when they perform actions in accordance with such an understanding. And from the fact that most animals will try to avoid things that they can reasonably understand will cause them death (natural predators, environmental hazards, anything that has caused them injury), we can likewise extrapolate that they don’t want to die.




  • Is he completely turning his views because he wants to run in the presidential race?

    What you need to understand is that Newsom doesn’t have views. What he has in the place where his views and values should be is cynical calculus trying to optimise for donations to his presidential campaign. I really think that sincerely held positions are so foreign a concept to him that on some level, he’s incapable of comprehending that other people do actually believe in things such that it informs their decision-making.
    He’s like the platonic ideal of an establishment liberal: it’s all just a game of realpolitik to him, and that’s also why he’s never gonna be able to maintain a base of popular support—people are sick to death of this cynical bullshit and want representation that’ll actually stand for something.