The Daniel Collaborative

@BMcGrewvy Same question someone asked below: why is this bad? I get that Craig has his blind spots, n critique his args for sure, but I don't get the sneering at him. He's one of the big reasons why I'm a Christian. I came across his material at a crucial juncture in my journey.

Just make this stop, make it all stop...

@Principal_Jon For high school, get rid of online credit recovery. You fail, you gotta re-take the actual class, with an actual teacher, and actually do the work. Sometimes in summer. Status quo, the second time around is much easier, which creates perverse incentives.

What is the #1 thing you would change in public schools?

@autogynefiles Flannery O'Connor

Sure. Which ones you do recommend?

@Econ_Marshall What exactly do you mean by "concede an inch?" And who are "these people," exactly?

You can’t concede an inch to these people. In fact the reason we’re in the mess we’re in is because we conceded far more than that already.

@KarlSorrells @NeilShenvi @GigaMeteoryan @HistoryBoomer

@TheDanielCollab @NeilShenvi @GigaMeteoryan @HistoryBoomer My ethics is based on the idea that things that can feel pain naturally avoid it and things that can feel happiness naturally seek it. So a moral system should maximize pain and avoid suffering. That’s a good enough justification for me. The golden rule basically.

This is not a dunk on @HistoryBoomer, but if you change "people" to "children," you'll instantly see that the answer inescapably depends on all kinds of philosophical and religious beliefs.

@KarlSorrells @NeilShenvi @GigaMeteoryan @HistoryBoomer My response, FWIW:

@TheDanielCollab @NeilShenvi @GigaMeteoryan @HistoryBoomer I didn’t say every moral system has a free rider problem in equal degrees. I have no idea what your point is with this conversation.

@KarlSorrells @NeilShenvi @GigaMeteoryan @HistoryBoomer Free riders will always exist in society, but that doesn’t mean every moral system has a ‘free rider problem’ in equal degrees. Secular moral systems have that in spades. You don’t see a problem with valuing a monkey more than a newborn human? Allright…

@TheDanielCollab @NeilShenvi @GigaMeteoryan @HistoryBoomer Yes the free rider problem exists in almost any ethical or legal system. Sure, I don’t value all humans equally and value some animals more than humans. I don’t see an issue.

@KarlSorrells @NeilShenvi @GigaMeteoryan @HistoryBoomer 2/ don't have in equal amounts, so you end up valuing humans differently, and end up valuing animals that have that capacity more than humans who don't have that capacity as much (newborns, mentally disabled...dolphins and some primates are more developed than them).

@KarlSorrells @NeilShenvi @GigaMeteoryan @HistoryBoomer 1/ But if you can get away w/ fooling ppl that you are contributing, all the while focusing on your own happiness, why not? That's the free rider problem. U still also have the equality prob. Capacity 2 exp suff is a degreed property, 1 that humans themselves...

@KarlSorrells @NeilShenvi @GigaMeteoryan @HistoryBoomer I think you've got a free rider problem, here. Why focus on reducing suff/happ 4 others n not just urself? Also, its interesting that you reject equality. What's more, some animals have more capacity to exp suff/happ than some humans. R the former more valuable than the latter?

@TheDanielCollab @NeilShenvi @GigaMeteoryan @HistoryBoomer At the core, the purpose of existence seems to be happy/reduce suffering. Morality then, is to increase happiness in others. Yes, in general, the more you can experience happiness/suffering the more important you are. Which is why humans are more important than most animals.

@KarlSorrells @NeilShenvi @GigaMeteoryan @HistoryBoomer 1) Why? 2) Kind of hard to ground equality on that basis, since even humans have different capacities to experience suff/happ. Some humans can experience that more than others, so are they more valuable than those who can't experience it as much?

@TheDanielCollab @NeilShenvi @GigaMeteoryan @HistoryBoomer All things that can experience suffering and happiness.

@KarlSorrells @NeilShenvi @GigaMeteoryan @HistoryBoomer "I think the point of a moral system is to reduce suffering/increase happiness." --reduce suffering just for you, or for humanity as a whole? For all things, human and non? What's the scope, here?

@TheDanielCollab @NeilShenvi @GigaMeteoryan @HistoryBoomer For any ethical or moral system. The two people arguing have to agree on the point of the moral system. I think the point of a moral system is to reduce suffering/increase happiness. If your goal is to make God happy then you follow what God says.

@KarlSorrells @NeilShenvi @GigaMeteoryan @HistoryBoomer 2/ Earlier u said things don't have inherent value, only subjective value.

@KarlSorrells @NeilShenvi @GigaMeteoryan @HistoryBoomer 1/ "You just have to think about it more and you can’t mindlessly justify something “because God said so”" That's a whopper of a straw man. "No it’s not hard at all to justify something as being wrong without a God." Ok, go for it.

@KarlSorrells @NeilShenvi @GigaMeteoryan @HistoryBoomer 2/ ...being saying so" is a bit of a simplification.) Yes, I know you disagree.

@KarlSorrells @NeilShenvi @GigaMeteoryan @HistoryBoomer 1/ Well of course I don't see it that way. But perhaps it would have been more productive for me to simply ask what he meant by 'religion,' and go from there. It's awfully hard to justify *anything* as wrong apart from God (though characterizing that as simply "a supernatural...

@KarlSorrells @NeilShenvi @GigaMeteoryan @HistoryBoomer Ooof. Big accusation. No that's not how I read it.

@TheDanielCollab @NeilShenvi @GigaMeteoryan @HistoryBoomer The point is that you are purposely defining differently than the original poster so his point doesn’t make sense. He clearly means “give me a reason that gay sex is wrong besides a supernatural being saying so”. You’re purposely misunderstanding him to obfuscate.

@KarlSorrells @NeilShenvi @GigaMeteoryan @HistoryBoomer Your def is one def but def not the only def. Mine is broader, true, but its rational. Dictionary.com lists several definitions that are more in line w/ mine. The root word connotes binding and reverence.

@TheDanielCollab @NeilShenvi @GigaMeteoryan @HistoryBoomer I mean only in you define “religion” as philosophy. You’re welcome to define religion that way but that isn’t the normal usage. It just means everything and everyone is religious because you define it that way.

@danitreweek Nah. Seems like you are trying to maintain an appearance of being above it all, all the while having your say. Saying your two cents without looking like you are saying your two cents.

@TheDanielCollab I think we’re working from different definitions of keyboard warrior-ing.

Call me old-fashioned, but I tend to think a "debate" is something that happens on neutral ground, mediated by a neutral third party. That said, while there were aspects of it that frustrated me (and which would have been dramatically improved by a proper debate format). this not-really-a-debate is an example of why robust discussion about important matters of theological disagreement and concern between Christians is undeniably best handled in personal, embodied dialogue rather than derisive keyboard warrior-ing and trolling. And I suggest that point is being proven by some of the keyboard warrior-ing already going on in response to the not-really-a-debate.

@omgsidewalks Read the book *So Good They Can't Ignore You* by Cal Newport.

I'm 22. Please recommend to me oddly specific life tips. No general “surround yourself with positive people” tips. I want the most random, specific advice possible please.