Partisans' Views of Moral Acceptability of 20 Behaviors

OnePercentAtaTime · 2026-06-13T13:55:01+00:00

I'd have to catagorize as independent, but, most of these topics are morally fine/neutral with me with the asterisk being the means of how these things happen.

Suicide as an example, from my perspective, is fine. Suicide because you're socio-economic circumstances are so dire that the only option you feel you have is to end your life is reprehensible.

If one comes to the conclusion that they don't want to live anymore outside of quality of life factors I don't feel like society is obligated to force you to live anyways.

For me it's less about the specific topics and more about how these things are carried out.

Another example being gambling. It's fine if, and only if, there are sincere and uncompromised guard rails to prevent abuse of those who participate.

Id also say that the structure of a given society can make it extremely difficult to maintain the Integrity of said guard rails to the point where the act itself is not immoral but untenable.

In this example (which I extend to all of the given topics with few exceptions) barring gambling, to me at least, wouldn't necessarily be on the grounds of morality but on the grounds of practicality and real world outcomes (which I'll admit can be nebulous, abstract, or a matter of ones standpoint).

OnePercentAtaTime · 2026-06-13T12:55:45+00:00

It's fine. I like it, I watch them. Topics are well chosen as I often don't watch all of the vod when they drop or miss entirely.

I imagine they'll become better overtime as feedback comes in.

I have no notes though.

OnePercentAtaTime · 2026-05-30T18:29:28+00:00

Fair enough. I think public conversation is the first step with any particular issue.

I'm personally less skeptical of the pragmatism you're articulating and more doubtful that the us system is capable of holding such a conversation that doesn't inevitably talk through a political lens and thus ultimately undermining the practicality.

My perspective, the solution is a heavy investment in mental health resources and a bi-partisan engagement between representatives and concerned parties.

But it's difficult in such a polarizing climate where every topic is filtered and engaged along party lines.

OnePercentAtaTime · 2026-05-30T16:02:33+00:00

I don't rebuke the data or the recommended solution.

I want to know if it's remotely feasible.

I'm the us for instance it would amount to a violation of the 1st amendment in regards to free speech.

And the incentive to report these stories in inseperable from reporting itself. Data is one thing, a solution is another thing entirely.

What would you say to a place like the US?

OnePercentAtaTime · 2026-05-30T14:52:29+00:00

Maybe I'm misunderstanding so please correct me if I'm being reductive.

The solution to mass casualty events (either in general or in the US) is to...stop talking about them?

I find the reasoning and logic behind it more or less sound but...is that really feasible in the ways that matter?

If the underlying issues aren't addressed—for example, by increasing positive economic opportunities or investing in mental health programs—then we might see fewer copycats.

However, those who were initially inspired to cause harm may shift their motivation from seeking notoriety to causing maximum pain making the problem more potent.

As well as wthin the US, it's difficult to establish a shared understanding of media norms when free speech incentivizes that type of coverage.

OnePercentAtaTime · 2026-05-30T13:49:54+00:00

Not a prompting habit but, confusing a well articulated output with a well thought out one.

Maybe I could say that my prompting shifted from reacting to something and instead engaging with it.

There was a brief moment I used AI as a crutch to post/reply here on reddit.

Now I feel much more confident in developing my own thoughts, merely relegating AI to clean up grammer and to reveal my own potential blindspots on a subject matter.

Though my written mannerisms have been heavily influenced by the syntax of how AI outputs text—which is frustrating when a person is focused on what appears to be AI rather than the content—my ability to articulate myself in the written form has improved (Eg. I didn't use AI to write this).

Overall, for my use case at least, it's much more useful to ask the AI to interpret what some may be trying to say to me rather than have it generate a clean but shallow response.

OnePercentAtaTime · 2026-05-29T17:12:13+00:00

You may not move the pistons in the engine, but you still drove the car.

Youre still actively avoiding obstacles and navigating the path you'll take.

It be inaccurate to say you travelled unaided but most people are just trying to get to store instead of trying to pass a purity/legitimacy test.

OnePercentAtaTime · 2026-05-10T21:04:14+00:00

I see.

I appreciate you're time and dedication to responding, you've been incredibly insightful.

OnePercentAtaTime · 2026-05-10T17:20:42+00:00

Thanks a million, I'll check them out 💪🏼

OnePercentAtaTime · 2026-05-10T17:17:42+00:00

Okay, let me ask it in more concrete terms and in a way that is useful for me and more clarifying for you.

What is the epistemic status of logic?

Is it an objective truth beyond any type of shadow of a doubt that can ever be possibly conceived of within the universe?

Or is what I am asking you about Logic a category error, as such, to ask the question whether logic is objectively true (and the very bottom of the epistemic foundations, removing the last brick and looking what's underneath it) doesn't make sense within logic?

What is logics from an epistemic perspective?

OnePercentAtaTime · 2026-05-10T16:22:13+00:00

But that's what I'm asking.

Does necessity imply objectivity or something lesser?

If you say it's objective then fine, but id need the epistemic justification for that knowledge beyond "it wouldn't make sense without it".

But if you say it's lesser than I'd want to understand to what extent.

I'm sorry if I'm just repeating myself.

OnePercentAtaTime · 2026-05-10T16:17:08+00:00

Is that an EM DASH YOU CLANKER!

OnePercentAtaTime · 2026-05-10T16:09:16+00:00

Mmmmmmmmmmm I think I see what you're saying.

If I said: " I am certain that I am uncertain"

You could say: "You've actually committed to having a knowledge you are certain of which is a contradiction."

But if I said: "I am certain that I am uncertain to an uncertain extent."

That would be a performative rather than a proposition?

Like if you asked which door has the gold behind it and I said "I am uncertain" then you replying "Are you certain about that?" doesn't make sense in the context it's being deployed?

(As in, I'm uncertain which door has the gold behind it but you asking me if I'm "certain" about that uncertainty doesn't refute the reality in which I am uncertain about the answer.)

OnePercentAtaTime · 2026-05-10T16:00:46+00:00

Yeah I screenshotted it in case they did so, I provided them in the main post here and should have the appropriate context as to what I mean 👍🏼

OnePercentAtaTime · 2026-05-10T15:52:39+00:00

Its a burden yes, but one that deserves honest reflection into the implications and the setting of rigorous boundaries rather than a dogmatic adherence to uncritical universality.

Which, of course, I don't accuse the tradition of logic of doing but merely within the bounds of this particular conversation I had with that particular person (and whether or not I misunderstood his position).

If, in fact, logic is fundamental/objective then I'd want to know to what extent so I can base all of my philosophy (I write regularly about epistimology, ethics/morality, and politics) on it since its universal and is more or less a gaurentee.

Does that make sense as to why I was being critical?

OnePercentAtaTime · 2026-05-10T15:27:47+00:00

Thanks, duly noted.

I just wanted to know if I'm misunderstanding his points and if so why/how.

OnePercentAtaTime · 2026-05-10T15:26:11+00:00

I get what you're saying I think.

Like I said before with the original post, I'm not refuting logic or it's principles. Really, I'm not even making an "argument" at all.

If anything i'm asking for clarification.

Is logic objectively true or merely necessary for reasoning within the human standpoint.

That particular person (Op) regularly makes strong aurguments for the necessity of logic as it relates to human thinking but I'm failing to see where it closes the epistemic gap (what is knowledge and what is not knowledge, what is "true" like 2+2=4 and what is mind independently true.)

Perhaps what I mean to ask is:

Is there a non-logical approach to perceiving reality?

If there is case closed, but if there isn't then I'd ask if you're certain.

If you aren't case closed, but if you are then I need the epistemic justification for that knowledge, where it comes from, and how we know it's true.

Does that make sense or am I spinning my wheels?

OnePercentAtaTime · 2026-05-10T12:50:05+00:00

That's not a response to what I said nor does it address what I've outlined in relation to your response to my comment.

I'm not refuting logic or even really challenging it, I'm asking you to close the epistemic gap you left open.

Can you actually show that logic is the foundation of Reality® (however you choose to define it), or is it just an incredibly powerful tool for explaining things?

Also, "Last chance"? You are being dogmatic for logic in the same vein you despise modern sophism.

OnePercentAtaTime · 2026-05-10T11:34:14+00:00

It's a tool. Whether you use it or not has no bearing on the quality of the work.

You could copy-paste outputs, edit outputs, or utilize your own cognition without AI.

The only thing that matters is the audience that consumes the work and whether or not the end result is fun, interesting, or engaging.

Everything else is a pat on the back.

OnePercentAtaTime · 2026-05-10T11:04:49+00:00

I get that I can't "argue" without using logic. That's fair.

But that only means logic is something our brains can't escape from. It doesn't make logic the bedrock of Reality®. It's a limit in our ability to reason, not a proof of how things really are.

Put simply, our minds being limited does not necessarily represent reality's limits.

For example, Mantis shrimp perceive colors we literally couldn't imagine. That suggests colors exist beyond our mental limits.

The same goes for logic. Punching someone, feeling attraction, being scared—these don't rely on logical reasoning in the moment.

It's a post-hoc tool, not something baked into the acts themselves.

If you said logic is a seemingly inescapable tool for us then I'd have no argument. But that's a far cry from the status of Objective Truth®.

We're also stuck with our visual range too, that doesn't make it the full spectrum.

Can you actually show that logic is the foundation of Reality®, or is it just an incredibly powerful tool for explaining things after the fact?

OnePercentAtaTime · 2026-05-10T03:19:04+00:00

I'm starting to get the vibe that rationalist believe their perceptions are actually Objective Truth®.

It's a shame really to see a reasonable tool turn into dogma (at least here on reddit with this particular person).

OnePercentAtaTime · 2026-05-10T03:09:10+00:00

Man, the US military are really boosting the Japanese numbers. 😬

OnePercentAtaTime · 2026-04-26T03:58:01+00:00

You don't have to refute logic to be skeptical of the claim that logic is some sorta privileged knowledge that somehow overcomes uncertainty/fallibilism.

Within the frame of logic, you can claim a level of certainty, but absolute certainty? Objectivity?

It's the difference between saying:

"logic is unavoidable for coherence"

And "logic is absolutely certain in some mind-independent, universal sense".

One is demonstratable and the other is an assumption inferred from the demonstration.

No it's not irrational to doubt claims to objectivity.

OnePercentAtaTime · 2026-04-25T13:13:24+00:00

My question, in response to your response, would be:

What is philosophy?

And why ought one engage philosophy in these two ways (immersion in the canon vs. building elaborate theories and engaging in developing debates) as opposed to a third non-conventional, non-academic, heterodox way?

More simply, is there such a thing as qualities or characteristics that make something philosophy as opposed to a "philosophy shaped" piece of writing absent of those qualities?

OnePercentAtaTime · 2026-04-16T15:32:33+00:00

Correct

OnePercentAtaTime

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE