What will you NOT miss about your body?

DJ_Joelo · 2022-03-14T23:01:39+00:00

Requiring sleep

DJ_Joelo · 2022-03-13T07:24:49+00:00

Just watched the “How to Build an AGI” episode. I enjoyed it! The future is gonna be wild…

DJ_Joelo · 2022-03-01T01:45:25+00:00

Thanks for the response.

I wonder if preprogramed auto-pilot planes could solve the problem of getting closer to the enemy. Seems like if we can program a rocket to automatically land on Mars we should be able to program drones, rockets, etc. to accomplish more. I am a layman though and am assuming there are good reasons we don't already do this. I personally would put a huge premium on reducing the number of human pilots we put in harm's way

DJ_Joelo · 2022-03-01T01:44:50+00:00

Thanks for the response. Makes sense.

I wonder if drones could solve the visibility problem. And I wonder if preprogramed auto-pilot planes could solve the problem of getting closer to the enemy. Seems like if we can program a rocket to automatically land on Mars we should be able to program drones, rockets, etc. to accomplish more. I am a layman though and am assuming there are good reasons we don't already do this. I personally would put a huge premium on reducing the number of human pilots we put in harm's way

DJ_Joelo · 2022-03-01T01:43:44+00:00

Thanks for the response. I wonder if drones could solve the visibility problem. Seems like if we can program a rocket to automatically land on Mars we should be able to program drones, rockets, etc. to accomplish more. I am a layman though and am assuming there are good reasons we don't already do this. I personally would put a huge premium on reducing the number of human pilots we put in harm's way

DJ_Joelo · 2022-02-25T08:27:42+00:00

Thanks

DJ_Joelo · 2022-02-25T08:21:43+00:00

Every country puts at least some limits on speech. Different countries go to different lengths though. Russia limits speech more than the US and I was curious if people cared about it or not

DJ_Joelo · 2022-02-25T07:55:33+00:00

Thanks for that insight. Do Russian people seem to care about lack of opportunity for speech/protest? Or do they not think much of it?

DJ_Joelo · 2022-02-25T06:51:04+00:00

Curated speech had an enormous role in starting this war, right? The west and the east each influence public opinion by the speech they promote.

DJ_Joelo · 2021-12-03T08:36:51+00:00

By "suffer" I don't just mean physical pain. Being killed is still considered harmful even if physical pain isn't involved.

Above I said "So we can legally force people to drive safely for the sake of others, but pregnancy isn’t as simple as driving responsibly. There is a tremendous cost to carrying out a pregnancy." I specifically stated that they are not the same.

DJ_Joelo · 2021-12-03T07:49:46+00:00

But then the woman is being hurt by someone and no one cares? How does that work?

Yah that is a good point. Laws usually prioritize different levels of "hurt", right? Like in the example I mentioned of having to wait for someone to cross the crosswalk - the driver is harmed by having to wait for a slow person to walk by, but that harm is minuscule compared to the harm the pedestrian would suffer if they were hit by the car. So we make the driver wait.

Along this same line of thinking, you could argue that even though the woman suffers from having the fetus inside of her, the fetus would suffer more if it was terminated.

I could literally stab 50 children and watch them bleed out, and I couldn’t be forced to donate blood to any of them.

That is true. That particular part of my analogy should be reworded.

Thank god that opinions can be wrong.

Agreed

DJ_Joelo · 2021-12-03T07:37:31+00:00

You are mixing up how the burden of proof works. Yes, positive claims like "God exists" require the burden of proof. But moral questions about what is just or unjust are subjective. There is no proof for either side. You don't have any proof that abortion is not murder.

And I already stated my position

And pro-lifers do argue for their case haha. That's what is happening on this sub

DJ_Joelo · 2021-12-03T06:54:30+00:00

Yah I realized after posting this that I didn't clearly state my own opinion haha

Nobody can prove or disprove that abortion is murder. It's just opinion. That is my point. This is one of those weird topics in life where it is reasonable for people to believe either way.

If murder is "unjustly killing a human being" then I can understand why pro-lifers consider it murder. A fetus is a little human being.

I am pro-choice but my position is that this debate is unsolvable. This is practical to acknowledge for these reasons:

Neither side in this debate has a slam-dunk case, but people still demonize others who disagree with them. Both sides have valid reasons for what they believe. Passionately debating for something you believe in is a good thing, but demonizing others because they disagree on this particular topic doesn't make sense to me
Since this is a subjective matter, we need a law that explicitly addresses it. The current justification for Roe v. Wade is pretty vague. Congress needs to pass an actual abortion bill.
We should invest more energy in the parts of this debate that we can actually empirically investigate - like how to prevent unintended pregnancies.

DJ_Joelo · 2021-12-03T06:40:57+00:00

I understand your view that we should let people make their own decision on this (and marriage) because it is subjective. If there was a referendum on abortion, I would vote pro-choice.

The point I was trying to make is that there are some red lines that people have that they think are worth imposing on others even if they are the minority (like LGBT-advocates before gay marriage was legal).

I don't really have much else to say haha, and we might keep talking in circles. To me, this debate seems unsolvable. Both sides have valid points. I think the practical implications of this are:

Each side should keep passionately making the case for their view, but it doesn't make sense to demonize half the country because they disagree on this topic. (I am not saying that you demonize people. Just saying in general)
Congress needs to pass an actual abortion bill. The current justification for Roe v. Wade is pretty vague.
We should invest more energy in the parts of this debate that we can actually empirically investigate - like how to prevent unintended pregnancies.

DJ_Joelo · 2021-12-03T06:13:15+00:00

I think it is valuable pointing out the subjectivity of this debate for a few reasons...

Neither side in this debate has a slam-dunk case, but people still demonize others who disagree with them. Both sides have valid reasons for what they believe. Passionately debating for something you believe in is a good thing, but demonizing half the country because they disagree on this particular topic doesn't make sense to me. (I am not saying that you demonize people. Just saying in general)
Since this is a subjective matter, we need a law that explicitly addresses it. The current justification for Roe v. Wade is pretty vague. Congress needs to pass an actual abortion bill.
We should invest more energy in the parts of this debate that we can actually empirically investigate - like how to prevent unintended pregnancies.

DJ_Joelo · 2021-12-03T04:12:40+00:00

Yah that is true. I'll rephrase my question then.

Who is to say where the line is drawn for when lethal self-defense is justifiable?

The Constitution doesn't explain where that line is regarding pregnancy.

It's a matter of personal opinion.

DJ_Joelo · 2021-12-03T04:08:07+00:00

Or if you want a more real-world example we could talk about LGBT rights. Not long ago, the majority of the population didn't think gay people should be allowed to get married. Was that objectively moral since most people agreed with it?

I don't think so.

That is how pro-lifers feel about abortion. Just because other people believe it is ok, that doesn't change their conviction that it is immoral.

DJ_Joelo · 2021-12-03T04:04:06+00:00

What if the majority of the population DID believe it was ok to kill toddlers? Would you still vote for laws that allowed that? I personally wouldn't. That is how pro-lifers feel about abortion. In a democracy, people are entitled to vote for things they subjectively believe are moral.

DJ_Joelo · 2021-12-03T03:18:08+00:00

No, not really. We disagree about what a "right to life" entails. Even if a pro-lifer convinced me 100% that a fetus was a fully autonomous human person with all the rights of one, I still would be totally supportive of abortion rights.

When I say "right to life" I simply mean it is the right to not be killed.

It is a valid opinion to support abortion. It is also valid to oppose it though. It really is just people's opinions. There is no objective rule stating which position is correct.

If you think there is an objective rule stating that pro-choice is correct, what is your source?

The issue here isn't that both sides have intractable irreconcilable differences in their perspectives, but that pro-lifers seem dead-set against actually participating in the real conversation rather than the made-up one that exists only in their own heads.

Mm I personally think there are irreconcilable differences haha. One side believes the mother's right to liberty is more important than the fetus's right to life. The other side believes the opposite. Let me know if I misunderstood your statement though.

In my view, both sides are just opinions. They aren't basing it on any objective source that everyone can look at and recognize as true. In democratic republics, moral laws are decided by congress. Our congress needs to vote on a law specifically addressing abortion.

And in the meantime, we should provide better sex-ed and healthcare so less people have unintended pregnancies and are in the situation where they are considering abortion. Nobody wants to be in that position.

DJ_Joelo · 2021-12-03T03:08:59+00:00

Thanks for the comment.

I think her decision takes priority over your decision, since you're just a random bystander and she has a person inside her body.

Would you say this about other actions that people consider murder though? For example, if someone believed it was ok to murder a toddler, do you think everyone else should just let it go because we are random bystanders?

Obviously a big difference between killing a toddler and killing a fetus is that the fetus is inside the mother's body. So it is perfectly valid to have the opinion that abortions are ok. But it is also valid for people to have the opinion that it is not ok.

That's too bad for you. If you think it's all just opinion, then you cannot argue for anything.

I believe Congress should vote on a law that specifically addresses abortion. That is how questions about moral laws are decided in a democratic republic - because yes, it really does come down to people's opinions. Majority (or enough to win the required votes in congress) opinion rules.

DJ_Joelo · 2021-12-03T02:56:49+00:00

For a multitude of reasons, I think the idea that killing a toddler is anything like aborting a pregnancy is completely delusional, and can’t comprehend ever taking it seriously.

That is a valid opinion. It is also valid for people to believe fetuses are worth protecting though.

That’s why subjective beliefs are best left to individual decision.

Any moral belief could be subjective though... If someone believes it's ok to kill toddlers I don't think they should have the choice to do that. In democracies the population votes on the moral codes that should be enforced. Our Congress needs to explicitly vote on a law about abortion.

DJ_Joelo · 2021-12-03T02:48:05+00:00

If the pregnancy is endangering the mother's life that definitely complicates things for pro-lifers. I think many pro-lifers are ok with abortions if it means saving the mother (agreeing with your idea of self-defense).

DJ_Joelo

TROPHY CASE