Forward from Destiny

So woopboop said earlier that they wanted to release this e-mail chain and I'm fine with that, so I figure I'll dump it here. My impression of this conversation was that it would be a sort of "safe space" for me to continue exploring my moral system, but I realized about halfway through that she appeared more interested in the debate than the exploration, so I abandoned the thread and figured things out on my own before coming back at the end. I'm not sure why, but it feels like something flipped halfway here and they started to get incredibly irritated with my answers. I've said some things early on that appear (or are) inconsistent, but my rationale was that my moral system was sort of "in flux" and I was trying to figure out my fundamental positions further.

Everything is presented as is, with nothing (save e-mails and names) edited from the conversation.

A Socratic dialog on Veganism and the Social Contract

woopboop

Apr 9, 2018, 10:40 AM

to me

I've put off this email for ~9 months. I know you get a bunch of emails after vegan debates and didn't want to add to that. However, you're always neck deep in political drama or recovering from said drama, so I can never find a topical moment to challenge you. And when I do speak up in chat when someone else brings up veganism, you dodge. Or when you do show up, I'm restarting my phone because I was robovoicing... because I thought I had the time since someone was trying to persuade you to join his Discord server...?

Anyway, here's an outline/Socratic dialog of my points because I don't want to surprise you with an argument. It was originally ~100 lines, but I condensed it 4x so I ask for charity. Charity goes both ways however, so if you are unsatisfied with one of my imagined lines, we can update the dialog.

I'm going to use "social contract" because it is a moral (and political) philosophy. See the first sentence.

Veil of ignorance

Destiny: I could have been born with Down syndrome.

Socrates: That is factually incorrect.

D: I wasn't stating a fact, I was simplifying the veil of ignorance. I want to live in a society where I would do well even if I had Down syndrome.

S: What makes an organism worthy of membership to your society?

D: If it can enter into a contract.

Contracts

S: Can a man have a contract with a dog?

D: Yes, but it will have fewer terms than a contract with most people.

S: Can a contract have only one term? Is one reciprocated value sufficient?

Socialization

S: Some people need help controlling their anger and are ostracized from society.

D: We can help them resocialize and they can be accepted back into society.

S: Uncontacted Amazon tribes are completely un-socialized.

D: We can help them socialize and they can be accepted into society.

S: Feral children are unsocialized.

D: We can help them socialize and they can be accepted into society.

S: Wild doggos are unsocialized.

Aliens

S: Aliens land on Earth and attempts at communication fail. What are the terms?

D: They should respect my right to life because I respect theirs.

S: Do pigs respect your right to life?

D: Yes, but carnivores don't.

WoopBoop: For the sake of brevity I will concede carnivores. Herbivores are enough... for now.

D: Pigs can't conceptualize the social contract, so it doesn't apply.

S: Can humans conceptualize the aliens' social contract given the communication barrier?

D: We can conceptualize the important parts, like right to life.

S: Pigs can't conceptualize right to life, even after socialization? How do you know humans can conceptualize, but not pigs? By what metric? BadBunny's terminally ill babies challenge applies here too: they have no potential and can't conceptualize right to life.

I'm still open for verbal conversation though I think arguments are better done in text. Obviously :)

woopboop

May 15, 2018, 1:02 AM

to me

Poke. It's been two weeks since you read this on stream.

woopboop

May 26, 2018, 8:56 AM

to me

"I want to maximize my personal well-being."

My

Imagine someone who is biologically predisposed to violence or pedophilia.

The sudden and uncontrollable paedophilia exhibited by a 40-year-old man was caused by an egg-sized brain tumour... once the tumour had been removed, his sex-obsession disappeared.

What is the moral argument to sway him from his tendencies? I predict your answer to be I was once a child and I didn't want to be raped. This leads to the veil of ignorance because you assume the child is part of society and worthy of moral consideration.

The veil describes how to design a society, but it doesn't describe the membership criteria. I gave the example of the Nazis not including Jews, and you rejected that because you consider race insufficient. So what is a sufficient criteria to distinguish between members and nonmembers of society? I predict your answer to be reciprocated values and the ability to punish the other party, which simplifies to the ability to punish the other party.

Russia invaded Crimea with few consequences. The instigators of the Darfur genocide have not been brought to justice. America appropriated Native American territory with few repercussions. People who commit "perfect crimes" literally get away with it. America continually performs foreign military interventions with no significant backlash. Josef Mengele ultimately got away with his experiments and and died of natural causes in Brazil. The leaders of Unit 731 were granted immunity and died of natural causes. Mao Zedong killed 45 million people and is still regarded as a national hero. Most rape goes unpunished in the Congo. Over 4000 people have been lynched in America, but fewer than 1% of lynch mob participants have been convicted. The 2008 Wall Street bailout. Are you neutral to all this? You may argue that these actions go against their actor's "well-being", but these parties disagree and are willing to exchange _______ for what they consider well-being: territory, ethnic homogeneity, manifest destiny, money/revenge, economic interests, scientific/medical information, modernization, the feeling of power, moral righteousness, and economic prosperity. Have you a better definition of well-being?

Well-being

How does this word relate to the physical and mental health benefits of veganism? Shouldn't maximizing well-being involve eating healthier? Our conversations have avoided emotion thus far, and I encourage you to not invoke it here. We're both interested in "the correct" argument, after all. As a side note, I've been arguing with someone who believes that a "well-formulated meat-based diet" is just as healthy as a veg*n one. You may find it illuminating.

Steven Bonnell II <steven.bonnell.ii@gmail.com>

May 28, 2018, 9:23 AM

to woopboop

The second one is easy, which I'm sure you agree with -

just because you can improve some facet of yourself to optimize your well-being doesn't mean you have a compulsion to do so. ie: exercise makes you healthier, but you don't have a moral compulsion to exercise.

The first one is a bit trickier - I would argue that most of those scenarios represent a possibility of extreme harm to the self (Russian relations failing with the world, potential outside interference with Darfur, well lol j/k who cares about Africa), but I'd also accept that if you can get away with "the perfect crime," there's probably no reason not to. I don't think I could provide a compelling reason to someone not to commit a crime they know they'd get away with, without appealing to some higher power or some other subjective sense of morality ("it's wrong just because it is!"), so I suppose the goal/responsibility of society is to disincentive/make impossible these types of crimes as much as possible.

As for the brain tumor type stuff, I believe that my moral system only optimizes for well-being if people fit into conventional, social human roles, ie: they gain pleasure (generally) from existing around other people and engaging in pro-social behavior. If people in general tended towards "violent delights," my moral system would lead to catastrophe, and probably would not optimize for personal well-being.

woopboop

May 31, 2018, 8:29 AM

to me

I'm reading this in the most literal, mechanistic, robotic possible manner. I don't think I can be more charitable unless I invoke emotion.

just because you can improve some facet of yourself to optimize your well-being doesn't mean you have a compulsion to do so.

This is inconsistent with your original statement:

My primary desire/goal: I want to maximize my personal well-being.

If you aren't compelled to accomplish your primary goal, it isn't actually primary. There's an unstated, ulterior goal.

Which statement do you stand by? If the former, what is your primary desire/goal?

most of those scenarios represent a possibility of extreme harm to the self

Is it morally permissible to rape someone in the Congo because there isn't a "possibility of extreme harm to the self"? America's conquest of the Native American territories didn't have a possibility of extreme harm to itself. Nor did lynching blacks in the late 1800s. Is poisoning unattended food at a potluck morally permissible? Or throwing bricks off an overpass onto a highway? How about committing wildfire arson? Or keying someone's car? Stealing jewelry from a friend's apartment while they're in the bathroom? Stealing $2 from a friend's purse when they entrust it to you during a dance? Finally, what about marrying a child after which sex becomes legal?

but I'd also accept that if you can get away with "the perfect crime," there's probably no reason not to. I don't think I could provide a compelling reason to someone not to commit a crime they know they'd get away with, without appealing to some higher power or some other subjective sense of morality ("it's wrong just because it is!")

You should stay on the topic of your morality unless it is now "Can I provide a compelling reason to someone without morality to do something." The topic isn't what arguments would sway other people - your morality is independent of others' morality. (Unless you want to be reactionary.)

Steven Bonnell II <steven.bonnell.ii@gmail.com>

Jun 1, 2018, 9:39 AM

to woopboop

> This is inconsistent with your original statement:

I don't believe that having a preference towards something makes it a moral obligation. ie: if I believe that maximizing for my own utility is a moral good, I don't think that necessarily means I have a moral obligation to me maximizing my own utility at all times, just that actions that yield more utility for me than others are morally preferable.

>Is it morally permissible to rape someone in the Congo because there isn't a "possibility of extreme harm to the self"? America's conquest of the Native American territories didn't have a possibility of extreme harm to itself. Nor did lynching blacks in the late 1800s. Is poisoning unattended food at a potluck morally permissible? Or throwing bricks off an overpass onto a highway? How about committing wildfire arson? Or keying someone's car? Stealing jewelry from a friend's apartment while they're in the bathroom? Stealing $2 from a friend's purse when they entrust it to you during a dance? Finally, what about marrying a child after which sex becomes legal?

Sure. If no one is there to enact any consequence on you, I don't see any reason why any actor wouldn't take as much for themselves as possible. It's what I'd expect most people to do, regardless of moral systems.

woopboop

Jun 2, 2018, 10:20 AM

to me

I don't believe that having a preference towards something makes it a moral obligation.

Given a rational actor (e.g. a robot) whose preference is to maximize its well-being, that preference is indeed an obligation. Why would a rational actor would act counter to its preference? (I'm avoiding using the word "moral". If it is important to your argument, please define it.)

It's what I'd expect most people to do, regardless of moral systems.

Let's collect data. I propose a Reddit post because it would allow us to present the following questions out of context to help eliminate bias:

Given a guarantee of no ill consequences, I would steal gold jewelry from my best friend's nightstand and sell it to WeBuyGold. (Assume that you want money.)

Given a guarantee of no ill consequences, I would groom, marry, and have sex with a 12 year old. This is legal in the US. (Assume that sex with children benefits your mental well-being.)

Given a guarantee of no ill consequences, I would add lethal poison to a coworker's food in the company fridge. (Assume that the coworker has an annoying habit like arriving late to meetings.)

Steven Bonnell II <steven.bonnell.ii@gmail.com>

Jun 4, 2018, 11:10 AM

to woopboop

1)

I think it's possible to sort preferences based on different types of utility.

ie: to maximize life and health, one should probably engage in a certain diet/exercise regimen. I don't necessarily believe one has a compulsion to value the longevity vs the utility gained from living a suboptimal life-style, though, if that makes sense?

2)

I don't know how valid the polling would be because I think people romanticize what they would do given a situation that tests their moral fortitude. I think there are plenty of examples of people bending their morality when they think they can get away with things.

woopboop

Jun 4, 2018, 11:17 AM

to me

1) Then the central question: What is your definition of well being?

2) Tipping.

Steven Bonnell II <steven.bonnell.ii@gmail.com>

Jun 4, 2018, 11:24 AM

to woopboop

1) The vague concept of "utility"! Where "utility" is some arbitrary measure of personal happiness.

ie: I should probably purchase an SUV or Van type vehicle if I wanted to maximize safety for myself, thus ensuring a longer life, but the small risk of being in a fatal accident weighed vs the enjoyment of driving something more fun makes it a worthwhile trade-off.

2) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cn3AgNC2TSk I bet this lady would say that stealing is wrong. :)

Attachments area

Preview YouTube video Caught on The Ellen Shop’s Hidden Camera!

woopboop

Jun 4, 2018, 11:56 AM

to me

So you want to maximize your own personal happiness? At the end of the day, it's emotion driving everything? Are you jumping ship to pure hedonism?

You're diverting. Your original claim:

It's what I'd expect most people to do, regardless of moral systems.

Most people tip. I challenge you to find better data saying otherwise. No anecdotes. You didn't let this fly with Count Dankula.

Steven Bonnell II <steven.bonnell.ii@gmail.com>

Jun 5, 2018, 10:53 AM

to woopboop

1. More or less, yes. I don't think I'm "jumping ship," I think I'm just clarifying what I've felt/should have been saying all along. Nothing about the social contract and nothing about Rawl's Curtain has ever been about making humanity or society better for the sake of humanity/society, it's always been about maximizing the world I live in for myself, which I do think I've been exceedingly clear on since the beginning.

2. Maybe I should say "people have the capacity for this in extreme scenarios," akin to your single link showing a pig saving a person. Maybe I'm borrowing a bit from the edgelord Joker here in his quote, "people only act as good as society allows them." Also many people tip because of social pressure, it'd be interesting to see if they did if they had time to think about it and knew no one would ever watch them/verify if they actually had.

woopboop

Jun 6, 2018, 10:45 AM

to me

it's always been about maximizing the world I live in for myself, which I do think I've been exceedingly clear on since the beginning.

Your basis was enlightened self-interest. From the notes during our late night talk:

Enlightened self interest -> reciprocated values -> Eg, right to life, property rights, etc.

Enlightened self-interest is a philosophy in ethics which states that persons who act to further the interests of others (or the interests of the group or groups to which they belong), ultimately serve their own self-interest... Unenlightened self-interest can result in the tragedy of the commons.

People collectively choosing their own utility over the environment is the tragedy of the commons.

Your moral system is no longer enlightened self-interest, it's just self-interest.

If we extend your philosophy (self-interest) to everyone, it includes brain tumor pedophiles. Your previous response was:

As for the brain tumor type stuff, I believe that my moral system only optimizes for well-being if people fit into conventional, social human roles, ie: they gain pleasure (generally) from existing around other people and engaging in pro-social behavior.

At the time I let it go because I wanted to maintain focus, but

"Conventional, social human roles" is the naturalistic fallacy, e.g. it is the conventional social human role for blacks to be subservient to whites.

Maybe I should say "people have the capacity for this in extreme scenarios,"

I agree with this position. However, I would note that it is quite different from your original formulation: "If no one is there to enact any consequence on you, I don't see any reason why any actor wouldn't take as much for themselves as possible. It's what I'd expect most people to do, regardless of moral systems."

Also many people tip because of social pressure, it'd be interesting to see if they did if they had time to think about it and knew no one would ever watch them/verify if they actually had.

we carried out a study on cheating that assessed the value of moral reminders. In the experiment, we asked participants to complete a test, told them they’d receive cash for every correct answer, and made sure they knew they had ample room to cheat. Now here’s the kicker: prior to starting, we had half the participants list ten books off their high-school reading list, and the other half to recall the Ten Commandments, a manipulation that turned out to have a marked effect on the results: While many in the first group deceitfully reported a higher number of correct answers, no one in the second group cheated. How do we explain the findings? A tempting conclusion to draw would be to equate religiosity with a higher morality; however, this argument doesn’t hold, since in a follow-up study with atheist participants, recalling the Ten Commandments had the exact same effect.

Steven Bonnell II <steven.bonnell.ii@gmail.com>

Jun 11, 2018, 3:59 PM

to woopboop

> Your basis was enlightened self-interest. From the notes during our late night talk:

Sure, but again, to stress, "enlightened self-interest." As soon as things require me to make a sacrifice greater than what I perceive to be the benefit, I am no longer interested in those things.

> People collectively choosing their own utility over the environment is the tragedy of the commons.

These types of externalities can be accounted for, both morally and in our political/government system. ie: I could pollute the river, but if everyone starts doing it then everything will be fucked, I can acknowledge this and support regulations/legislation that prevent any individual from benefiting from this action.

>Your moral system is no longer enlightened self-interest, it's just self-interest.

I think my response to this would be what was said above.

>"Conventional, social human roles" is the naturalistic fallacy, e.g. it is the conventional social human role for blacks to be subservient to whites.

The naturalistic fallacy implies that we ought act some way due to some natural inclination. I've never made this claim. My claim was that people share certain, basic traits that make my moral system "functional" for me in the real world. These traits would include things like "does not want to be repeatedly raped, does not enjoy torturing/murdering people, generally wants to be appreciated/approved of by peers, wants to live in a house and not starve in the street, etc..."

>we carried out a study...

This is pretty interesting! Though I feel like it could kind of tip in either direction for who it supports, ie: many people do lie/cheat if given the opportunity to, but socially pressuring people can cause these behaviors to change.

woopboop

Jun 17, 2018, 10:16 AM

to me

I spent a long time wondering if you're being intellectually honest in this conversation. You either avoid answering outright, or fail to understand my data, or fail to provide data of your own. Worse, you provided an anecdote. Worst of all, you cited a comic book villain. Give me the fucking intellectual time of day. Even Sargon wasn't this bad.

The naturalistic fallacy implies that we ought act some way due to some natural inclination. I've never made this claim. My claim was that people share certain, basic traits that make my moral system "functional" for me in the real world. These traits would include things like "does not want to be repeatedly raped, does not enjoy torturing/murdering people, generally wants to be appreciated/approved of by peers, wants to live in a house and not starve in the street, etc..."

How do these descriptive traits fit into your normative claims? For example, "I want to maximize my personal well-being except when it infringes on the rights of others that have the following traits..."

These traits also apply to pigs. Your response may be pigs can't enforce consequences, to which I ask: Is it morally permissible under your system to marry and have sex with a 12-year-old because they can't enforce consequences? I'm not asking you what is legal; I'm asking you if it is permissible under your moral system. Don't dodge this. I will hold you to your answer in a public setting, so don't public/private Hillary me.

Though I feel like it could kind of tip in either direction for who it supports, ie: many people do lie/cheat if given the opportunity to, but socially pressuring people can cause these behaviors to change.

The study was about the efficacy of moral reminders ("we carried out a study on cheating that assessed the value of moral reminders"). There was no social pressure since the subjects shredded the exam before self-reporting their scores. It was internal pressure that caused the behavior, not external pressure. You could argue that this is still social pressure because society gives us these values, but that's literally not the definition so don't JF me.

The situation in which people needed moral reminding was when self-reporting test scores for which they were given money by researchers. People don't need moral reminders in the following situation: stealing gold jewelry from their best friend's nightstand; grooming, marrying, and having sex with a 12-year-old; and adding lethal poison to a co-worker's food in the company fridge. You could still argue against this with your Joker quote, but then I'll kick this topic to our second voice chat so everyone can see what someone who is "only interested in the correct argument" sounds like.

Steven Bonnell II <steven.bonnell.ii@gmail.com>

Jun 17, 2018, 11:24 PM

to woopboop

I'm getting kind of lost here, maybe we should reframe.

> How do these descriptive traits fit into your normative claims? For example, "I want to maximize my personal well-being except when it infringes on the rights of others that have the following traits..."

I don't think I've ever evaluated things on traits, or if I have in this conversation then I'm either being completely misunderstood or I completely misspoke.

> Is it morally permissible under your system to marry and have sex with a 12-year-old because they can't enforce consequences?

Yes.

> It was internal pressure that caused the behavior, not external pressure. You could argue that this is still social pressure because society gives us these values, but that's literally not the definition so don't JF me.

I uh, don't know how to respond to this. If we disagree on this then we should drop it. I completely believe that social pressures shape our internal pressures. ie: If an American were walking down the street and saw some trash, knowing they'd face no consequences/rewards for picking it up, they'd be less likely to pick it up than a Japanese person, because cultural pressures shape their internal drives.

> You could still argue against this with your Joker quote, but then I'll kick this topic to our second voice chat so everyone can see what someone who is "only interested in the correct argument" sounds like.

I guess the caveat of "maybe I'm borrowing a bit from the edgelord" but I didn't realize the mention of that would trigger you so hard. I'll just extract meaning from quotes in the future instead.

woopboop

Jun 20, 2018, 11:15 AM

to me

I don't think I've ever evaluated things on traits, or if I have in this conversation then I'm either being completely misunderstood or I completely misspoke.

Dude, I literally quoted you. My measure of your honesty keeps dropping.

The naturalistic fallacy implies that we ought act some way due to some natural inclination. I've never made this claim. My claim was that people share certain, basic traits that make my moral system "functional" for me in the real world. These traits would include things like "does not want to be repeatedly raped, does not enjoy torturing/murdering people, generally wants to be appreciated/approved of by peers, wants to live in a house and not starve in the street, etc..."

The ability to enforce consequences is itself a trait, so you do evaluate "things" based on traits. It's fine if you want to recant but don't suggest that you're being misunderstood.

Yes [it is morally permissible under my system to marry and have sex with a 12-year-old because they can't enforce consequences.]

If child marriage were put to a referendum would you vote for or against? Imagine voting was mandatory and you were 60-70 years old and would die before seeing any economic benefits from these children entering the workforce. In fact, due to the reduction of pedophiles being jailed, it would increase our GDP during your lifetime.

Given the above circumstances, would you vote to legalize pedophilia?

Given the above circumstances, would you vote to defund public schools?

I uh, don't know how to respond to this. If we disagree on this then we should drop it. I completely believe that social pressures shape our internal pressures. ie: If an American were walking down the street and saw some trash, knowing they'd face no consequences/rewards for picking it up, they'd be less likely to pick it up than a Japanese person, because cultural pressures shape their internal drives.

Of course society shapes our values, but you would not call someone socially pressured if they're alone. I provided my source, which states "Peer pressure (or social pressure) is the direct influence on people by peers, or the effect on an individual who gets encouraged to follow their peers by changing their attitudes, values or behaviors to conform to those of the influencing group or individual." Do you have a source that backs your definition? You're playing JF's game where it isn't social pressures but genetic pressures. And a chemist would say they aren't genetic pressures but chemical ones. And a physicist would say they're not chemical processes but quantum ones. And even if we do play this definition game, only 523 homicidal poisoning deaths were identified from 1999-2005 so clearly co-workers don't take every opportunity to kill each other. Returning to the 10 Commandment study, of those who cheated, they only cheated a little bit. Those who cheated as much as possible were in the vast minority, counter to your claim of "I don't see any reason why any actor wouldn't take as much for themselves as possible. It's what I'd expect most people to do, regardless of moral systems."

I guess the caveat of "maybe I'm borrowing a bit from the edgelord" but I didn't realize the mention of that would trigger you so hard. I'll just extract meaning from quotes in the future instead.

If I'm triggered by anything it is by your attempts to counter data with quotes. Not once have you provided a link or source for any claim. This email chain now has more evidence of marriage causing prosperity than "I don't see any reason why any actor wouldn't take as much for themselves as possible. It's what I'd expect most people to do, regardless of moral systems." I find it amusing that you can retract that statement and yet still argue in favor of the validity of quotes. Only interested in the correct argument, by the way. Hurr durr, I called her triggered, got'er.

...

[Message clipped] View entire message

Steven Bonnell II <steven.bonnell.ii@gmail.com>

Jun 22, 2018, 12:32 AM

to woopboop

>Dude, I literally quoted you. My measure of your honesty keeps dropping.

ok

>The ability to enforce consequences is itself a trait, so you do evaluate "things" based on traits. It's fine if you want to recant but don't suggest that you're being misunderstood.

ok

> If child marriage were put to a referendum would you vote for or against? Imagine voting was mandatory and you were 60-70 years old and would die before seeing any economic benefits from these children entering the workforce. In fact, due to the reduction of pedophiles being jailed, it would increase our GDP during your lifetime.

I have a really, really hard time believing that people marrying children would somehow be a net gain to the country, for a variety of reasons, but if this impossible hypothetical were granted enough absurdities, then sure.

> Given the above circumstances, would you vote to legalize pedophilia?

Same answer as above, if you want to continue to pile on impossible caveats to "make it work," then sure.

>Given the above circumstances, would you vote to defund public schools?

Same answer as above.

> but you would not call someone socially pressured if they're alone.

Maybe you wouldn't, I would. I think that semantic difference might be my intellectual honesty showing, though. So I'll grant you that. I don't think any of these things change anything I've stated, though.

> Do you have a source that backs your definition?

That backs my idea that social influences change the way we think..? I mean, I can find a source on that in a high school text book, I'm sure, but I don't think we disagree on this. I don't even know what the disagreement is here, to be honest.

> Those who cheated as much as possible were in the vast minority, counter to your claim of "I don't see any reason why any actor wouldn't take as much for themselves as possible. It's what I'd expect most people to do, regardless of moral systems."

I should qualify this statement more, then, but I don't think I can at this point without you deciding that I'm trying to conceal whatever it is I originally intended with the statement, so there's no point.

> If I'm triggered by anything it is by your attempts to counter data with quotes.

I'll start digging for better sources to prove my morality correct, give me 30 days to find some.

> Not once have you provided a link or source for any claim.

I don't think I've brought up anything so far that required a source or claim, except maybe my original claim that I wouldn't be surprised if people acted differently absent certain social pressures. But in that scenario, we viewed "social pressures" much differently, so my intellectual dishonesty completely destroyed any attempt for us to communicate there.

...

[Message clipped] View entire message

woopboop

Jun 24, 2018, 12:17 AM

to me

I have a really, really hard time believing that people marrying children would somehow be a net gain to the country, for a variety of reasons, but if this impossible hypothetical were granted enough absurdities, then sure.

Your axioms specify only you, not "the country". Old age is not absurd. If you were 50-60 years old, you would have no reason to vote for protecting children, investing in education, or environmental conservation. Quite the opposite: you would want to exploit children, move money from education to healthcare, and fuck the environment. You criticize short-sighted policies all the time. Will this change as you get older?

I should qualify this statement more, then, but I don't think I can at this point without you deciding that I'm trying to conceal whatever it is I originally intended with the statement, so there's no point.

You already retracted it. Do you want to un-retract it? I don't care about your original position, I care about your current one. I'm specifically mad at your process, which has so far included an anecdote, a quote, and a JF-style argument over semantics, all the while failing to provide a source for any claim or definition. And even if we accept your definition, your statement would still be wrong because no one exists outside social pressure. Your morals are questionable but your process is laughable.

I'll start digging for better sources to prove my morality correct, give me 30 days to find some.

Haha.

Returning to your axioms:

Are you for abortion/circumcision because it improves economics/health and the zygote/baby can't enforce consequences?

Are you going to get a credit card, G2A, or gambling sponsorship because you're not going to have any viewer backlash? You know they're just going to call it a meme.

Is it morally permissible to be a suicide bomber or school shooter because they've accepted any consequences that will be enforced?

Is it morally permissible to DDOS, blackmail, SWAT, scam kids, harass streamers at conventions, have no concern for what we do around the world, or view illegal immigrants as not human? Imagine you're old and these people's survival will mean nothing to you economically.

Why are you so angry at people who exemplify your morals?

...

[Message clipped] View entire message

Steven Bonnell II <steven.bonnell.ii@gmail.com>

Jun 25, 2018, 9:28 AM

to woopboop

> Your axioms specify only you, not "the country".

I can't tell if you've completely switched to playing "gotcha" now, or if you're missing this incredibly obvious step from A to B. I just want to create the best world possible for myself, but I've said multiple times that I feel like I do better when everyone else around me is doing better. I'd rather be in the top 20% of a country that is doing amazingly well than the top 1% of a totally fucked country. So while I am the most concerned about "my experience," improving the lives/experiences of others around me either directly or indirectly benefits me or the things I care about.

> you would have no reason to vote for protecting children

I don't think people could honestly function in a society where we begin raping/murdering children because "lol we're old," it just doesn't seem very pragmatic/likely to me.

>investing in education, or environmental conservation.

Education improves the people around me. Environmental stuff is important because 1) it impacts my life directly, probably, and 2) it will almost certainly have an impact on the life of my child.

> You already retracted it. Do you want to un-retract it? I don't care about your original position, I care about your current one. I'm specifically mad at your process, which has so far included an anecdote, a quote, and a JF-style argument over semantics, all the while failing to provide a source for any claim or definition. And even if we accept your definition, your statement would still be wrong because no one exists outside social pressure. Your morals are questionable but your process is laughable.

I don't even know what this particular thread is about anymore. If you want to restate it, go for it.

> Returning to your axioms:...

Give me some time to think about an form a better thought out response to these. It's become pretty clear that I can't really "explore" any ideas here now as it just upsets you to do so, so I'll wait until I've got things more figured out here to respond.

...

[Message clipped] View entire message

Steven Bonnell II <steven.bonnell.ii@gmail.com>

Aug 6, 2018, 8:19 PM

to woopboop

Okay, I've done more exploring.

Are you for abortion/circumcision because it improves economics/health and the zygote/baby can't enforce consequences?

I'm kind of on the fence about abortion atm. My worry about saying "abortion is okay" is that I'm creating a rule that says "terminating life is okay if it's at a great inconvenience to another person," and I'm not sure if that rule can apply to me negatively at a future point in society (ie: I'm hooked up to bypass or something like that). There are "possible outs" here (well a baby needs a person's body etc...to survive, which is somehow different than needing financial support etc...), but I have to explore them more.

Baby's can absolutely grow to enforce consequences, the only way to guarantee they won't would be to kill all babies. As far as I know, every living adult today (that can enforce consequences) was once a baby. Animals will likely never progress to this point.

Are you going to get a credit card, G2A, or gambling sponsorship because you're not going to have any viewer backlash? You know they're just going to call it a meme.

No. I don't think society is bettered by increasing the presence of gambling and I don't generally support people who encourage these types of activities. If the money was right, I'd reconsider, but that limit is going to be absurdly high (bare minimum $10k/month for this type of sponsor).

Is it morally permissible to be a suicide bomber or school shooter because they've accepted any consequences that will be enforced?

I don't ascribe moral rights or wrongs to actions. If a suicide bomber wants to bomb a school, they will do it. Calling it "right" or "wrong" has no bearing in the physical world, so I'm not concerned with the judgment.

Is it morally permissible to DDOS, blackmail, SWAT, scam kids, harass streamers at conventions, have no concern for what we do around the world, or view illegal immigrants as not human? Imagine you're old and these people's survival will mean nothing to you economically.

I don't ascribe moral rights or wrongs to actions. If a DDoSer/blackmailer/SWATter wants to do his thing, they will do it. Calling it "right" or "wrong" has no bearing in the physical world, so I'm not concerned with the judgment.

Why are you so angry at people who exemplify your morals?

I'm typically angry at people who are stupid, or who don't share other core values with me beyond just my "moral" system.

...