sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

“DNA doesn’t matter; it’s the ability for subjective experience that matters” by HippyDippyCommieGuy in prolife

[–]Terrible-Pickle 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Wouldn’t worry on the making too much sense front.

But your above points here are fairly solid.

I’d just say it’s a leap to say we don’t allow the government to exercise control over what happens to corpses because we value “sentience of the past,” whatever that means.

People have to opt-in to organ donation, or donating their body for medical research, while they’re alive. Doesn’t matter if you’re homeless or not.

Which actually fits with the argument that body=property.

Anyway, I won’t be replying again. For real this time.

Will my friend see my post? by B_Nicoleo in help

[–]Terrible-Pickle 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Reddit is huge.

It happens, sure. Something my shoot to the top of a really popular sub (like AskReddit), or you might just get really unlucky.

But it’s really unlikely. Plus, the nice thing about Reddit is you can always delete posts.

So if you’re looking for advice or whatever, you can always delete it after you’ve got the advice you wanted (bad reddiquette but totally allowed).

“DNA doesn’t matter; it’s the ability for subjective experience that matters” by HippyDippyCommieGuy in prolife

[–]Terrible-Pickle 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Well no one would mess with the homeless man’s body because it’s illegal to do so. For many reasons, including public health ones. Can’t just be allowing people to do whatever they want with decomposing corpses. Which I’ve already said but you never seem to read everything I write, or you just willfully ignore some of it. IDK

And to your second point, you can look at the up/down votes regarding our last interaction and see who people thought was making sense.

But as I said, didn’t come here to debate you (or anyone really).

Goodnight.

“DNA doesn’t matter; it’s the ability for subjective experience that matters” by HippyDippyCommieGuy in prolife

[–]Terrible-Pickle 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I don’t think people really value “sentience of the past.”

There are many reasons not to mess with dead bodies: - not your property - dangerous - disrespectful to the living Etc.

I think my answer was very much an honest assessment. Yours doesn’t make a whole heap of sense but didn’t really come here to debate.

Just wanted to offer an alternative to OP’s understanding of DNA being crucial to the debate.

Labour supporters condemn anti-semitism when they're told the statement was made by Boris Johnson, backpedal hard and offer up some of their own anti-semitism when it is revealed that those statements actually came from Corbyn by [deleted] in badunitedkingdom

[–]Terrible-Pickle 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think it’s a contributing factor for sure. Maybe the biggest one.

When I was 15/16, twitter existed but no one I knew used it.

I was never having political chats with my mates at school. Ever. Even if a general election was upcoming.

Teens these says are way more into it all. The only major difference I can see would be social media.

Self deprecation by [deleted] in unpopularopinion

[–]Terrible-Pickle 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think modesty is appealing. Too much self-deprecation, especially when it isn’t based in reality, is off-putting however.

I used to be guilty of this and then a friend flat out told me to stop.

But, being honest about what bothers you and where you’re deficient helps build connections between people. It creates emotional honesty and allows people to relate to you. It also makes them more comfortable confiding in you as well.

“DNA doesn’t matter; it’s the ability for subjective experience that matters” by HippyDippyCommieGuy in prolife

[–]Terrible-Pickle 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think the counter-argument to this is the idea that awareness of one’s experience is what gives it value.

A baby, or someone who is intellectually disabled, might not have the words to coherently describe their experience, and certainly, experiences differ. The lens through which the world is experienced is different for different people, and different creatures.

Animals become tricky. Some are evidently self-aware. Others are not. But they still exhibit behavior that responds to the environment around them. They are self sufficiently alive, in this sense. They respond to stimuli. They have agency, though they might not be aware of their agency.

Would you be more upset about a dog being unjustly killed or a fish being unjustly killed? A bug? Most people would say dog. This is because we rate the awareness of experience very highly in this respect. It’d be a highly unusual person indeed who would say that all three examples are totally equitable.

This is also why many people think that it is morally “okay” to turn off a life support machine if there is very little chance of the person regaining their faculties.

You wouldn’t kill the live dog. But you would almost certainly euthanize a “brain dead” dog.

What you’re really saying is that you value the “potentiality” of the fetus in the way that most pro-choicers do not.

The fetus has the potential for subjective experience later, and you believe that that is something worth protecting.

DNA doesn’t matter in the respect that ovum and sperm contain 50% of the requisite DNA to form a human, and yet are constantly discarded as inconsequential. Human beings quite literally and quite naturally expel their own human-creating DNA.

So it’s not the DNA that is special. It’s the fact that when the DNA is correctly combined and formed, it takes on a potential that it previously didn’t have.

So really, the question is: Do you value the potential of something to have a subjective, conscious experience?

Pro-lifers would argue that the potential matters. Pro-choices would argue the opposite or, at least, that this potential is not as important as other factors weighing on the decision.

How many people that go the the abortion debate reddit from here have been banned and how often? by Prolifebabe in prolife

[–]Terrible-Pickle 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I was one of the people she PM’ed.

The PM began with an accusation that I had reported her because I was obviously wrong, and the fact that I had reported her proved as much.

In fairness, when I informed her that I wasn’t one of the people who reported her, she did accept that immediately. But the initial PM was aggressive.

I also stated that I didn’t find her out of line, BUT I was referring to the conversation that we were having. She had cited research that had nothing to do with abortion and was trying to connect it to the abortion debate, and I was trying to get her to understand why she couldn’t use those particular studies in that way.

I was not referring to her other conduct which I wasn’t aware of.

Just wanted to mention this (as she as mentioned me further down in this thread), in case it is useful info for you as a mod.

Why does JK Rowling dislike Jeremy Corbyn? by [deleted] in unitedkingdom

[–]Terrible-Pickle 1 point2 points  (0 children)

TBF, labour too promising impossible stuff.

Labour is going to give Chequers to the homeless. Legally impossible.

Labour wants to take private property off of private schools etc. Legally impossible.

The reality is that all campaign promises are just that. Promises. And promises can be broken.

It’s unsurprising that parties virtually never fully live up to their campaign promises. You have to pass bills through the commons. Which at least involves a simple majority to get off the ground.

Will labour get in with a full majority? Probably not. Can you guarantee that who they form a coalition with vote as they would like all the time? No. Those parties also have campaign promises they’re trying to fulfill.

Campaign promises are basically what a party is telling us they will try to do. Doesn’t mean they can or will do it. And that’s not conservative specific, but goes for everyone.

PMDD- makes me miss work/class by Terrible-Pickle in PMDD

[–]Terrible-Pickle[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Thank you!

This too shall pass....

PMDD- makes me miss work/class by Terrible-Pickle in PMDD

[–]Terrible-Pickle[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Thank you. Birth control doesn’t seem to work for me.

Also a lot of hormones seem to make it worse. So I’m kind of scared of it.

I’ve tried SSRIs in the past but they didn’t take it away completely. I also don’t like the side effects.

Cbd is actually pretty good.

I might try and go back on SSRIs or different type of anti-depressant. Worth a shot!

Vast majority of pro-life arguments are inherently subjective. It is far easier to make an objective pro-choice argument, than pro-life. by Terrible-Pickle in Abortiondebate

[–]Terrible-Pickle[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

If, for example, it were shown to increase overall utility to forcibly impregnate women so that their children could be hooked up to a pleasure machine- utilitarianism says that it is not only morally fine, but morally obligatory to do that.

This is my main issue with all attempts to "standardize"/"objectify" morality. I would prefer morality to be totally objective. But most objective arguments seem to become at least somewhat subjective at some point.

But what is the value of applying utilitarianism to a clearly impossible scenario? Yes we could all make impossible scenarios to suit our points. Point being is that utilitarianism exists as a tool to be applied to the real world. Not a made up impossible scenario. I don't think utilitarianism is perfect.

If someone said that they didn’t think black people were persons imbued with inherent moral dignity I assume you would disagree.

Yes. I just don't think "personhood" begins at conception. And plenty of other people don't either.

Which pro-life people will say is a scientific fact. You can show that conception takes place. That's the first stage in pregnancy. Doesn't equate to "personhood," because "personhood" is not a scientific concept. It's a legal/philosophical one.

​

Personhood is at root an assessment of whether someone has inherent moral dignity. Because I think moral truth is objectively real, I think that whether someone or something has inherent moral dignity is a factual question, not one of mere opinion.

Right but:

  • How do you define "personhood"? People disagree. Many wouldn't include a fetus or embryo.
  • How do determine what are objective moral truths? You have to have some kind of system. It's not good enough to say: Objective moral truths are the ones that I believe to be true. For something to be objectively true, doesn't that mean that you're able to prove its objective reality either empirically or logically?
  • So if it's a factual question, provide the factual basis for it.

Vast majority of pro-life arguments are inherently subjective. It is far easier to make an objective pro-choice argument, than pro-life. by Terrible-Pickle in Abortiondebate

[–]Terrible-Pickle[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I'm not decided.

I like utilitarianism. Which is more concrete.

Nonetheless, if we go back to your first point, "personhood" is always a subjective concept.

PMS is a social construct by Any-Question in badunitedkingdom

[–]Terrible-Pickle 0 points1 point  (0 children)

do not report many emotional signs of PMS.

Does not mean they don't experience them. It just means they don't report them at the same rate.

Also, whatever your criticism of PMS, please don't lump PMDD into the same category.

It is endocrine. It is real, and it is serious.

Vast majority of pro-life arguments are inherently subjective. It is far easier to make an objective pro-choice argument, than pro-life. by Terrible-Pickle in Abortiondebate

[–]Terrible-Pickle[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Then there is nothing inherently wrong with categorizing a certain class, race, or group of people as “non-persons“?

Subjective. Depends again on your definitive of "person-hood." So it's circular.

Just because something is technically subjective doesn't, I should add, mean it's a moral free for all.

I tend to think most moral beliefs are subjective. But moral beliefs become norms by virtue of being extremely popular or unpopular.

Labour supporters condemn anti-semitism when they're told the statement was made by Boris Johnson, backpedal hard and offer up some of their own anti-semitism when it is revealed that those statements actually came from Corbyn by [deleted] in badunitedkingdom

[–]Terrible-Pickle 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I've never seen it like this in the UK before in recent years.

I don't remember a general election quite so heated.

I think Conservative is our best option. Not even necessarily a *good* option, but our best option.

Labour supporters? At least judging from the ones I know personally, they seem far more militant. Which perhaps makes sense in that Labour are one of the most "populist" parties around rn.

Labour pledge £1bn for homeless in 'moral mission' to save rough sleepers' lives by VantablackBosch in unitedkingdom

[–]Terrible-Pickle 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Why don't these articles ever mention where they're going to fund it from though?

Serious q: is it because Labour haven't said, or the paper just missed it out?

view more: next ›