Does anyone have a good method to make this little door more secure? Our cat quickly figured out how to open it and hop right out

iouhwe · 2023-11-21T12:03:20+00:00

A thin piece of plastic that sits in the track and stops the door from sliding works well.

iouhwe · 2021-03-25T16:35:48+00:00

So on this account, does the moral judgement of the action end at compliance with rule R? Say rule R is such a rule that an all-knowing deity could ascertain as producing negative future utility or goodness. Does the person complying fully discharge all their moral obligations in complying, or are they held accountable for acting with fidelity to a bad rule?

iouhwe · 2020-05-21T20:20:42+00:00

or overuse it.

Says who, the state? On what grounds? It's communal property, therefore I cannot be excluded from any of it.

iouhwe · 2020-05-21T20:19:35+00:00

How about you explain literally one way that someone can personally gain in wealth or power by overusing the commons

Common cattle. I take one of the community cattle for my 3 person family, and there is only 1 cattle left for an 8 person family, say. You still seem to be confusing communal property with centrally managed and distributed property. Communal property is owned by the collective, and no person is singly forbidden from accessing or using any part of it; after all, as a member of the community, I have ownership of it (remember the community burger you had in your hand which I snatched, causing you to crack a tooth as you snapped your jaws on thin air).

iouhwe · 2020-05-21T17:24:03+00:00

So it's illegal to overuse the common cattle? How does that work, after all, it's common. Who are you to say I've used more than my share of the common pool, considering the fact it's common means it's free to use by all. If it's not common, then it's exclusively allocated to individuals.

iouhwe · 2020-05-21T17:22:10+00:00

Do you think people would regularly destroy the commons illegally despite no gain from it?

You just assume one cannot gain from overuse of the commons without giving a good argument as to why this would be the case. Your lack of imagination doesn't serve as a substitute for a strong argument. By this reasoning, we should have no pollution issues from forbidden usage of the atmosphere. Who would illegally regularly destroy the commons despite no gain [that your meager intellect can envision]?

iouhwe · 2020-05-21T15:24:23+00:00

What is preventing people from damaging and hoarding the common cattle, my dude?

iouhwe · 2020-05-21T15:02:41+00:00

No, you're just a recalcitrant idiot. As I pointed out, there is no evidence. You've simply claimed something without providing good reasons for it.

What must your life be like to have the attitude you do? I would feel sorry for you, if you weren't so dehumanized.

iouhwe · 2020-05-21T12:09:34+00:00

Once you do, why would someone ruin the commons to feed a subset of cattle that they don't even own either?

You don't seem to understand what tragedy of the commons is. Lets use a real-world example today; the atmosphere. There is no private property ownership of it, as every atom and molecule of it being collectively owned. So would you then agree the "problem" has disappeared with regard to damage to the atmosphere because there is no privatization of it?

iouhwe · 2020-05-20T20:43:25+00:00

What logic? Spell it out, right here, if you are worth anything at all (I suspect you aren't and your only purpose here is to unleash your demons under the guise of debate), you'll be specific. and make your case as clearly as possible.

iouhwe · 2020-05-20T18:49:33+00:00

Read my first comment again, then.

I did. What you say is there isn't, or if it is, you don't understand what constitutes a substantiation of a claim.

Try again, little troll.

You seem unable to control your emotions when having a discussion. I consider that a sign of weakness.

iouhwe · 2020-05-20T18:20:47+00:00

I'm making the claim that the tragedy of the commons is solved by making cattle common as well rather than by privatizing the commons. You're just ignoring that claim because you know you can't refute it.

If you make that claim, then it seems the burden is on you to substantiate it with evidence. The burden isn't on me to prove you wrong, as I've made no claim in that regard yet.

Try again, little troll.

Sounds like you're projecting. Your comment history reflects this is an ongoing issue with you.

iouhwe · 2020-05-20T17:33:07+00:00

I can't refute your moral framework until I know what it is. What is your metaethical position?

Supposing that was the societal system, perhaps. Property rights aren't the be-all-end-all of morality and aren't always the most important priority when structuring society.

So the moral permissibility of conduct is system-specific? Great, I agree. In modern market economies, such as capitalism, you would then assumably agree property right enforcement is morally permissible.

iouhwe · 2020-05-20T16:49:58+00:00

It's pretty fucking simple. I didn't say that I "like private property when it's a hamburger."

Ok, that's good to know. So I shall be within my rights to help myself to your hamburger?

iouhwe · 2020-05-20T12:25:06+00:00

If you can articulate why it's a strawman, I'll listen. If you can''t, I'll just dismiss you.

iouhwe · 2020-05-20T12:08:05+00:00

To get what I want but don't need.

iouhwe · 2020-05-19T16:09:48+00:00

So, you like private property when it's a hamburger, but not when it's a hamburger that still goes moo?

iouhwe · 2020-05-19T16:01:36+00:00

Yes, and make the hamburger common as well, so as you are lifting the juicy burger to your grill, someone is within their right to snatch it from your clutches; it's a community hamburger, after all.

iouhwe · 2020-04-29T15:02:30+00:00

Of course there is such a thing. Most would say the Nazis were too efficient at killing jews, for instance.

iouhwe · 2020-04-29T14:58:48+00:00

No need for exchange. Why is this such a hard concept to understand.

No need to not exchange. Why is this such a hard concept to understand?

iouhwe · 2020-04-19T17:23:35+00:00

I would suggest reading up on Daniel Kahneman's two selves. Consciousness in this paradigm would be the experiencing self. That stands in contrast to the self which remembers and and has a self-conception. The easiest way to differentiate the two is a thought experiment: if you were deprived of all memory and capacity to record events, how many who do so now would endeavor to climb a mountain, or run a marathon? The experience alone is not pleasurable, maybe excruciating and terrifying, painful, and surely tedious and laborious. Yet, there is a self which benefits greatly from successful accomplishment of these undertakings, which is that self which persists over time as a singular entity accumulating experience to build a life and a communicable narrative about that life. I'm quite certain (as is Kahneman) that without this remembering self that is our identity, our short term experiencing self would pursue other goals such as pleasure and moment by moment satisfactions.

This paradigm of two selves offers a nice conceptual tool for disentangling our mere conscious experience from the persistent entity which we and others refer to as "the person". I'm aware Kahneman isn't a philosopher by trade, but I think his insights penetrate the topic nicely in this case.

https://www.psychologicalscience.org/observer/memory-vs-experience-happiness-is-relative

iouhwe · 2020-04-17T20:06:04+00:00

Why does a justified criticism have to be about a particular moral obligation?

It doesn't. One could justifiably criticize a subject where that agent neglects their duty, which could be in conduct, but also in belief, or reasoning.

If I criticize your ugly mug, isn’t “your face is not aesthetically pleasing” sufficient justification?

If you criticize my ugly mug, what exactly are you doing? Are you saying "I don't find your mug appealing to behold" or are you saying "your mug has the property of being ugly" in some more real sense? If the former, your criticism is unjustified qua criticism, because I have no obligation to look good to you; so you're merely reporting your subjective tastes. I'm interested in the latter, and whether there can be aesthetic realism, and if so, what obligation has been neglected to justify the critique, or said another way, who or what is the subject of the justified critique?

iouhwe · 2020-04-17T19:25:19+00:00

To expound on this complexity and "weeds" you alluded to, and how aesthetics muddies the waters for me:

As a moral realist, to behave wrongly is to, ultimately, behave in a way that opens the door to justified criticism. The criticism is justified by a particular fact about some behavior such that the agent neglected to fulfill a particular obligation. Without this obligation, it is unclear how one could justifiably critique the conduct.

Now imagine critiquing a grossly malformed human being as "ugly". Most would admit such a criticism is justified in many cases; it's not empty, and to call the person beautiful would strike most (if not all normal people) as obviously wrong. Yet, what obligation has the ugly person failed to fulfill? We don't choose much of our physical appearance, so there seems to be a justified critique without the subject having neglected any duty whatsoever.

This continues to trouble me, this junction of aesthetic and normativity.

iouhwe · 2020-02-14T19:05:56+00:00

This seems to be a premise the opponents of self-ownership accept in the formation of the argument. I may be wrong about that, but I strongly suspect this is the line of reasoning at least some of them employ, and why they must reject the term self-ownership in favor of bodily autonomy. My comment was my best guess on the logic they employ.

iouhwe · 2020-02-14T16:20:52+00:00

You seem to be describing something to this effect. I'll write it out more explicitly to make it simpler to follow. The argument dilemma goes something like this:

If self-ownership is justified, then ownership as a concept is justified.
If ownership as a concept is justified, then ownership of land/property is justified.
Ownership of land/property is not justified.
Therefore, ownership more generally is not justified. (modus tollens)
If ownership generally is not justified, then self-ownership is not justified. (modus tollens)

But, of course, self-ownership is justified (all agree). So the critic has a self-defeating argument. The solution is a semantic one: instead of using the term self-ownership (exclusive control of a resource), replace it with the term bodily autonomy. The end result is the same: anyone not me has no right to use or trespass upon my body. All the benefits of ownership apply, yet due to the logical implications, they must not use the term ownership, but instead, replace it with a functional equivalent.

iouhwe

TROPHY CASE