charsky

Arthur pigou groyper

@biff_kev @analytichegel Give the group blog a few years…

@analytichegel Where’s your 200 page popularizer that gets ripped to shreds by experts but covers the walls of a Barnes and noble huh that’s what I thought

@elliotismz @unitas_spiritus Goyim…

@unitas_spiritus I wonder what OP means by "actual people" in his follow up comment. Are there unactual people?

☹️

If you’re an effective altruist you need to be sending all your money to the ccp

@limitandmind @doxa_ty @analytichegel Pruss is a genius and I think it’s at least a plausible way to avoid the objection but I think it weakens the psr Also I think oppy style responses are hard to respond to, I think answering “why this choice not others” without committing to unintuitive stuff is difficult

@FormDeterminer @doxa_ty @analytichegel Are you aware of Pruss’s response to the modal collapse objection?

If the universe just exists brutely, then anything can exist for no reason If anything can exist for no reason, then existent things can also change for no reason If anything can change for no reason, then the physical laws of the universe can change for no reason If the physical laws of the universe can change for no reason, then your ability to understand the universe is undermined, because you have no reason to trust the evidence of your senses. A posteriori evidence of regularity is no reason to affirm intelligibility, because it is consistent with both an intelligible world and one that is not. An unintelligible world could look regular for no reason. You need something a priori like the PSR to have confidence that you can understand what you see in your everyday experience and in science.

@doxa_ty @limitandmind @analytichegel @limitandmind if you want to chat about this argument I’d be interested

@doxa_ty @limitandmind @analytichegel And I don’t think the psr is either needed to nor actually does the anti skeptical work its supposed to in this argument

@FreezePeach4me @sigmahamster2 So to clarify the answer is yes, you can factory farm and eat a toddler if you know it’ll never develop the ability to respect rights?

@FormDeterminer @sigmahamster2 The birthing parent might not have abandoned the guardianship i.e. they can legally stop harm befalling the child as long as the child can't consent. (you can do that to animals too btw e.g. pets). Otherwise, if I knew with 100% certainty, legally yes. But..

Libertarianism: the view that you ought only care about yourself, and nothing but yourself. Deviate from this even an inch and you’re not a Libertarian anymore. “YOU CARE ABOUT YOUR DOG? THAT’S NOT VERY LIBERTARIAN OF YOU! PHYSICALLY REMOVE HER!”

@cavityhead @anti_realism_ Do you mean de facto? moron What do you think genocide means?

@anti_realism_ The whole point is that the right of return is a defecto genocide. Do you support the right of return?

Lmfao I love how all he can do to defend his pro-genocide stance is to feebly bleat that the other side just wants the reverse. No Steven, I don’t want to genocide/ethnically cleanse Jews from Israel, or even Palestine. Not everyone is as morally ugly as you are.

@FreezePeach4me @sigmahamster2 Suppose you knew a toddler would die before they could form concepts and respect rights, would it then be chill to farm them? Also are you then cool with factory farming puppies? Or can you factory farm carnivorous toddlers?

@FormDeterminer @sigmahamster2 No, toddlers have the potentiality to form concepts & therefore respect rights. While it's still ethical, it may be immoral to eat herbivores - I'd argue we should be eating carnivores exclusively as they can't object to being eaten themselves as they eat others.

@analytichegel @elliotismz @HolisticAbdi @CrownedAnarchie Or at least as an unsung hero

@analytichegel @elliotismz @HolisticAbdi @CrownedAnarchie Yeah I feel like a close reread would be fruitful, do you agree with his casting neurath as sorta the hero of the debate?

Apparently, we just have neo Schlickians, neo Carnappians AND neo Neurathians in regards to modern interpretations of the protocol sentence debate. Powerful

@analytichegel @elliotismz @HolisticAbdi @CrownedAnarchie And I think Carnap is right to try to defuse the dispute I like the uebel paper a lot

@analytichegel @elliotismz @HolisticAbdi @CrownedAnarchie I don’t have anything super unique to say but I buy what Friedman says about it being important for Carnap’s arriving at principle of tolerance stuff and that this is central to understanding his mature work

@analytichegel @elliotismz @HolisticAbdi @CrownedAnarchie Just in terms of the protocol sentence debate broadly or on the historical debates?

@elliotismz I haven’t read enough of the secondary lit but I think I sit on the late-Carnap/Neurarh side of things. I’m curious about @HolisticAbdi, @FormDeterminer, and @CrownedAnarchie’s position

@FreezePeach4me @sigmahamster2 Do you think the same is true of toddlers?

@sigmahamster2 @FormDeterminer Animals don't have the potentiality to homestead or respect property rights, so in terms of law, they cannot be expected the posses those rights themselves i.e. they can be property.

@austrosillyism Just got a notification from this post, I was meaner to you than was deserved

@FormDeterminer „es besteht kein *wesenhafter* Anspruch auf Güter die man sich nicht aneignet nutzt usw”

Morons really do love to use the word “ontological” where it adds nothing and only sort of makes sense “They have no ontological entitlement” lmao

@sigmahamster2 “Yeah you CAN run a dog torture factory if you want to and it’s COLLECTIVISM to think otherwise”

@FormDeterminer The libertarian argument against veganism is just biting every possible bullet to look as radical as possible