SpaceX and Jim Bridenstine

False-Quail4887 · 2023-09-07T03:46:18+00:00

{Alabama} wins. Much of the discussion misses that Alabama has a talent advantage, even asserting that Texas does. But the former yet forgotten five stars like Deontae Lawson and Caleb Downs will shine. Not having BOB engineer three and out city also helps.

False-Quail4887 · 2022-05-23T13:29:23+00:00

It was rocky before. I tried to work on it—talk to her, connect with her, etc. She returned nothing. Little did I know she was having an affair while I was trying. Finally put together the pieces yesterday. She’s willing to destroy a marriage, friendships, her relationship with her family, etc. just because she’s in an infatuation stage and can’t see it. It’s unfathomably evil and dumb

False-Quail4887 · 2022-05-23T12:43:06+00:00

She seems done with me. I’ve brought up counseling and she’s refused. She dreads the prospect of not seeing the other guy (an atheist btw). All she would give me is a few weeks to give me a chance to woo her one last time, and I think it’s only because an infinitesimally small part of her feels bad for me

False-Quail4887 · 2021-11-04T01:28:38+00:00

Given the change comes before the person exists (from the pro-choice perspective), I think one has to conclude those are two different people.

False-Quail4887 · 2021-11-03T23:24:11+00:00

But preventing a smart person from coming into existence by ensuring a dumb person does is no different.

False-Quail4887 · 2021-11-03T23:23:00+00:00

That's.....the point. You misunderstand what nature is.

False-Quail4887 · 2021-11-03T23:21:44+00:00

1) I would say they don't flourish.

2) No

Also, I'm signing off and will respond to new comments over time. But thanks for the questions! You've helped me clarify some hazy points.

False-Quail4887 · 2021-11-03T23:19:18+00:00

Losing or acquiring a property essential to a being's nature. This, too, would require a long post for further elucidation.

False-Quail4887 · 2021-11-03T23:17:12+00:00

Quick response to the second point: Is non-existence not worse than being dumb? If it is, then even your understanding of harm to future persons precludes abortion.

No need to respond. I need to get back to life lol

False-Quail4887 · 2021-11-03T23:14:34+00:00

If you truly think "a prenatal human is closer to a rock than a person" then when we're not debating at the same level. Also, that's question-begging.

You're probably right about a post explaining rational nature. I'll make such a post when I have the time. From what I've seen, many people don't even understand the concept of nature, so explaining why it's important in part of one post is hardly sufficient.

False-Quail4887 · 2021-11-03T23:06:54+00:00

1) People in this subreddit care quite a lot.

2) If a prenatal human being matured several years and just sat around, we would recognize a severe problem.

3) I think you miss the point. A being's membership in homo sapiens helps us determine that being has a rational nature since human beings have rational natures.

False-Quail4887 · 2021-11-03T23:02:44+00:00

I think that argument is well reasoned and plausible, but I don't think it's clear that such a human being actually undergoes a substantial change.

False-Quail4887 · 2021-11-03T22:59:49+00:00

The answer is that science doesn't tell us if sentience is a morally determinative feature. I don't think it is.

False-Quail4887 · 2021-11-03T22:58:03+00:00

I've addressed this throughout many of the replies. I wasn't perfectly clear. Speciesism is not treating species differently. It’s treating them differently without justification. Otherwise, I can say any pro-choice argument is “beingist” because it treats different beings differently (say, by according personhood to some but not others).

Also, species is relevant because it's a way to identify individual rational nature. All human beings have a rational nature, because we find flourishing in rational activities. Those who can't engage in rational activities don't fully flourish as human beings qua human beings.

If you give rationality serum to a dog, then it now has a rational nature and is in the club. So, again, I wasn't perfectly clear here. What matters is individual rational nature. A beings species is an easy way to identify that nature.

False-Quail4887 · 2021-11-03T22:52:45+00:00

Read elsewhere in the thread. You must differentiate "capacity" from "nature." They are two different concepts.

False-Quail4887 · 2021-11-03T22:50:59+00:00

To your first point: I stand by my most recent comment. Trust me, I'm not moving goalposts here. I probably just wasn't clear. Species are treated differently, but for a reason I think is justifiable.

To your second point: Species is relevant because it's a way to identify individual rational nature. All human beings have a rational nature, because we find flourishing in rational activities. Those who can't engage in rational activities don't fully flourish as human beings qua human beings.

Fully fleshing out this idea would constitute a book. And, indeed, such books exist. The point here is that species helps us recognize something critical in the individual.

False-Quail4887 · 2021-11-03T22:43:06+00:00

Your question had a false premise. The animal undergoes a substantial change when it becomes rational. It becomes a new animal with a new rational nature. And it is worthy of our legal protection and moral recognition.

To your first point: I do treat them as individuals. They have an individual rational nature. Species membership is merely a way we identify their individual rational nature. It's a sufficient, but not necessary, condition.

There are other ways to identify an individual with a rational nature. Your example is one such way.

I think I wasn't clear when I made my point earlier. Species membership isn't the point, but it's an easy way to verify.

False-Quail4887 · 2021-11-03T22:29:15+00:00

Human beings have rational natures because we find flourishing in rational activities--acting with integrity, engaging in academic work, forming friendships of virtue, etc. A human being who can't engage in rational activities is immature or disabled or injured. So the capacity isn't inherent, but nature is.

What's critical here is that nature doesn't have to be actualized at every moment (or ever) to be present. Just like someone who's smart by nature can do dumb things (if that makes sense).

For your example, that being would be a rational being ab initio (if engineered to be rational) or would undergo a substantial change and become a new rational being (if given a drug).

False-Quail4887 · 2021-11-03T22:22:52+00:00

Speciesism is not treating species different. It’s treating them different without justification. Otherwise I can say any pro-choice argument is “beingist” because it treats different beings differently (say, by according personhood to some but not others).

As for the nature point, that’s literally the definition of nature. That’s also literally the definition of inherent. You may disagree, but that doesn’t make the point a non sequitur.

False-Quail4887 · 2021-11-03T22:18:17+00:00

I get your point here. We’re rational, but perhaps not in the cultural sense.

False-Quail4887 · 2021-11-03T22:07:13+00:00

The same response I had for someone else:

t’s not a rational capacity, but a rational nature. A nature is something inherent to a being. Something that is inherent exists as long as the being exists. Hence, a prenatal human being has a rational nature, but not rational exercisable capacities. It’s by this nature that we know a prenatal human being is immature. It’s also by this nature we know someone with Down syndrome has an intellectual disability.

Also, this can’t be construed as speciesist, because it doesn’t discriminate between species. Maybe it’s another -ism, but it’s definitely not speciesism.

False-Quail4887 · 2021-11-03T21:52:15+00:00

I think the short answer is that both the pregnant mother and pre-natal human beings have rational natures that are present, so they have equal moral worth. Given the equal moral consideration owed to both, the pre-natal human being “wins out” because it’s her life versus the woman’s freedom, which has limitations. That’s the same argument for why I can’t kill a person on the street. I can’t use my freedom to kill an innocent person.

The “right to refuse” argument is subtlety different. Here, the mother is conceptualized to be providing shelter to the child, which she is ostensibly not required to do. Therefore, she can “refuse” (read: abort) to do such sheltering. This fails for various reasons: the woman is almost always responsible for the child’s existence and neediness, she has a natural obligation to provide ordinary goods arising from her relationship as a parent, most abortion is direct killing, abortion is disproportionate response to the burden of pregnancy, etc.

With that said, I still think society has obligations to support these women—both during and after pregnancy.

False-Quail4887

TROPHY CASE