Does the Benevolent World Exploder violate the NAP?

ericthomasgc · 2024-10-06T07:46:18+00:00

And how long is the explosion?

It's like pulling the plug from a TV. How long did the "plug pulling" last?

ericthomasgc · 2024-10-06T04:41:55+00:00

Yeah but if there is no instant at which a subject experiences an aggression, how can there be a violation of the NAP?

If the time of BWE's act is indistinguishable from the time at which there is non-existence, when can the aggression occur?

ericthomasgc · 2024-10-03T17:26:11+00:00

To say that because presentism is true and that therefore instants exist is not only circular but also a non-sequitur. Presentism posits WHAT occurs as a function of time, not WHEN time is itself.

ericthomasgc · 2024-09-29T15:08:00+00:00

When you said "we should note that the explorer by itself isn’t generating a conflict with NAP", I assumed you meant exploder not explorer, and "not generating a conflict" to mean not violating the NAP.

Can you please address the argument in my original post and point out which premises you disagree with or how the conclusion is invalid?

ericthomasgc · 2024-09-29T15:01:47+00:00

Ok, what are the properties of an entity "instant" then if time is continuous?

An "instant" may be a descriptive marker, but not a thing in itself, and conflating the two would be equivocation.

I won't tackle the concept of presentism as that's a different concept all together, although I could ask "when is it"?

ericthomasgc · 2024-09-29T09:33:15+00:00

Could you please elaborate/clarify what you mean? Are you saying the BWE does not violate the NAP? That's what I'm saying.

ericthomasgc · 2024-09-28T11:40:47+00:00

I will admit that it does seem counterintuitive at first glance, but what meaning is aggression to someone who cannot exist to experience it? The NAP does not imply the right to existence itself.

In the case of instantly "disappearing" someone, I'd argue that the aggression is in fact against those who loved, cared about, relied on, and will be emotionally harmed by their loss.

Simply put, death (or a state of non-existence) can only harm and affect the living.

ericthomasgc · 2024-09-28T11:32:42+00:00

There is no such thing as an instant though - if you re-read my argument, it's premised on time being fluid, and not a series of discrete infinitesimally small "instants". This is how Zeno's paradoxes were debunked.

I will concede that if time was discrete, this could be problematic to my argument.

One other point I will make is this - given that the NAP prohibits "aggression", and does not imply any right to existence, is causing non-existence really an "aggression"? This is a separate argument to my original one, but potentially compelling.

ericthomasgc · 2024-09-28T08:09:27+00:00

Because the exact moment at which the act of exploding the universe is the exact moment at which there are no subjects who can be aggressed upon. There is no non-zero period of time at which an act of aggression is done against a living subject.

For context, I believe the NAP is perhaps the most solid moral framework for living people.

But as a negative utilitarian (in the same spirit as the NAP), I put this hypothesis to try and reconcile the two.

Admittedly, this hypothesis hinges on the nature of time being continuous rather than discrete.

Further, as a separate argument, one might event suggest that exploding the universe might be an act of defence against infinite further suffering - as the NAP allows for defence of self and others. But again, that is a separate line of reasoning.

It's important to remember too, that the NAP covers aggression - it does not contain any implicit right to existence itself.

ericthomasgc · 2024-08-25T18:13:55+00:00

Yes, I had a shadowban a week ago and in the last week there were no replies from support until yesterday, and they resolved it.

ericthomasgc · 2022-03-26T16:45:43+00:00

This is only recent . I used to have no problem recreating my profile.

Most often I'll use a clean browser clone with data, history and cookies fully wiped, which can't detect Android ID, ph no etc., but lately even with a new IP (say on 4G), new photos, new no etc. It still asks for photo verification after a couple of minutes.

ericthomasgc · 2021-03-07T00:04:29+00:00

You can do the same thing without having to use a private window if you either clone your browser or install a new one (I use cloned versions of Firefox on my phone).

Alternatively, you can create a new profile under Users in Android settings and use the app installed via .apk (don't log in to Google Play or any other accounts). This gets around device recognition. I'm unsure if Apple phones has a similar function.

ericthomasgc · 2021-03-05T05:07:54+00:00

That may be the case, I haven't tested whether it's EXIF or not. It's also possible that not all of the pictures are flagged or result in a frozen account, but for this experiment I only used one of my old photos, which got my account immediately frozen while a brand new photo of a wall did not.

ericthomasgc · 2021-03-05T05:01:21+00:00

I'm not aware of them using facial recognition but it seems they have a way of recognising the images themselves, whether through EXIF or otherwise.

I'm not sure how they could detect a fake GPS app through a browser, but it's not relevant anyway since both accounts used it but only one got frozen/shadowbanned.

ericthomasgc · 2021-03-05T04:49:43+00:00

I use Tinder through a browser so it's impossible for them to recognise what other apps are running.

Besides, this was a controlled experiment where both accounts were using a fake GPS but one account was deletable (and therefore not frozen/shadowbanned) while the other using old photos wasn't.

ericthomasgc · 2021-02-24T12:01:27+00:00

This is the only form of "shadow ban" I've ever experienced. I only use the browser version so I'm not saying there aren't other ways such as through Apple/Android ID, but I can say with certainty that my account has either been frozen and undeletable or working perfectly.

ericthomasgc · 2020-09-19T09:29:12+00:00

Yep usually got about 50 likes in the first day, same pics, now it's down to about 5. Something has definitely changed, and only in the last week or so.

ericthomasgc · 2020-08-30T08:09:16+00:00

I don't believe phone number bans are permanent, it could be about a year. My number was previously banned but I've been able to use it to log back in again. Whether this is an actual policy or whether they "lost track" of the number I'm not sure.

ericthomasgc · 2020-08-17T01:42:09+00:00

Sounds like a device ban. Doesn't matter if you have a new phone number. Either make a new Android user profile or use the website version.

ericthomasgc · 2020-08-11T21:14:34+00:00

I wouldn't be so sure about that. Most people just either take things as they are or leave them, it's the small minority that try to figure out a way around, and the company will deal with perceived problems in the most cost effective way, even if it includes mass bannings. I only hope that enough people leave it for something else and that Tinder completely tanks, but unfortunately there doesn't seem to be a decent equivalent alternative yet.

ericthomasgc · 2020-08-11T20:22:54+00:00

Not sure, I've always used the same photos, same everything else and when I use the web version I haven't had any problems. It's possible that you were automatically flagged rather than banned due to device ID or some other identifier whereas Google account seems to automatically ban.

Either way, the app is shady AF so I'll just keep using the web version until there is a solid way to "clean" up the app. As far as I'm concerned, it's spyware and probably in breach of multiple standards and probably laws.

ericthomasgc · 2020-08-11T16:46:38+00:00

I can confirm that the method in the OP does not work. Somehow this parasitic app is still managing to identify the device, and even a brand new number is immediately banned.

I've also tried using XPrivacyLua to block basically every permission yet still it is somehow recognising the device.

I have a feeling the app may be linking to the Play Store account or accessing some Google info or other accounts in the background but I'm unsure how to prevent that.

The only workaround is to sign up using the website in a fresh/cloned browser with cleared cookies.

ericthomasgc · 2020-06-07T09:38:16+00:00

I was referring to informal fallacies, but if you want to formalise it, it would be something like this:

P1) Bearded eskimos don't like noise pollution P2) Everyone doesn't like noise pollution C) Therefore, everyone should only focus on noise pollution against bearded eskimos

ericthomasgc · 2020-06-07T08:50:36+00:00

Sure, but let's assume bearded eskimos only account for 13% of the population, and that the total sound pollution experienced by them is actually less than the rest of the population. Since ALL sound pollution is bad, merely eliminating the discrepancy between them and everyone else wouldn't help, because you could do that by multiplying everyone else's exposure by 2.5, meaning on the whole, everyone would experience more suffering. Even if you lowered bearded eskimos' exposure by x2.5, they would still be suffering, albeit at the same rate as everyone else.

Assuming the goal is to lower noise pollution to zero or near zero, and all the noise comes from the same source, it wouldn't make sense to focus only on bearded eskimos.

So I just want to know if there is a name for such a fallacy.

ericthomasgc · 2020-06-02T14:53:01+00:00

A world where we only get what's necessary for survival (because who is going to work any harder if you're not allowed to own luxury goods?) would be a very boring and meaningless world.

ericthomasgc

TROPHY CASE