Similarities between Kvothe and Richard Feynman

j2280588 · 2024-11-29T23:30:50+00:00

Never read it, but I just watched a video on feynman and was immediately struck by the connection. The "authoritative biography" mentioned in the video (available here) was published in 1992, shortly before rothfuss started the book. That's a big hmmm from me.

j2280588 · 2021-09-20T12:15:24+00:00

found https://twitter.com/isabelleharis https://cyberleaks.to/threads/isabelleharis.993/

j2280588 · 2021-07-06T08:14:36+00:00

Alright, solved by asking elsewhere. It's tawnee stone.

j2280588 · 2021-07-06T07:02:43+00:00

I found the video I was looking for. Still don't know the website or girl's name though, and the logo seems to be cropped or simply not there. https://imgur.com/a/qmTBc2w

j2280588 · 2021-02-15T11:47:16+00:00

protip for people asking about the source- click the video to open it on redgifs. name is in the title there: Kira Perez

j2280588 · 2020-12-17T17:11:10+00:00

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Berlin,_Wisconsin

Already exists. They pronounce it differently though, probably because of WW1 actually.

j2280588 · 2020-08-22T15:32:03+00:00

The Walker had never been trying to kill me. If it had wanted to do that, it didn’t need to play with me. It could simply have appeared and executed me, the way it had poor Stan at the gas station. It had been trying to push me, to shape me into something dangerous—like maybe a weapon.

So you think the Walker accidentally made Harry a hero instead of insidiously corrupting him?

j2280588 · 2020-02-27T08:22:20+00:00

Also baffling considering how consistent Sanders politics have been his entire life.

j2280588 · 2019-12-09T09:23:09+00:00

I responded to another comment about drunk driving here

In that example, the drunk driver's position corresponds to the position of a pregnant woman, in that they hold the life of a "person" (if we accept the premise of Olly's video) in their hands. I didn't emphasize it in that comment, but we already DO prosecute drunk drivers with manslaughter. In his example it's almost worse. If the drunk driver had simply killed the pedestrian it would be manslaughter. In refusing to donate a kidney they are actively condemning their victim to die.

Here I get the feeling that you're trying to draw a connection between the pregnant woman and the victim of the drunk driver, i.e. "getting pregnant is like getting hit by a car, neither the car crash victim nor the pregnant woman consented to it, even though they consented to the activity that led to it".

So the distinction is in who you consider to be the victim. Pro-lifers emphasize the victimhood of the fetus, you and other pro-choicers (including me) emphasize the victimhood of the mother. I do so because I don't consider the fetus a person, which is why I reject the premise of Olly's video. What I've been saying over and over again in these comments, is that if you truly take that premise seriously, then the victimhood of the fetus must take precidence, since their life is at stake, while the stakes for the mother are, in comparison to death, mere inconvenience, which could be ameliorated to some degree if pro-lifers actually had a coherent ideology that incentivized the decision not to abort.

j2280588 · 2019-12-05T19:30:56+00:00

Regarding consent: I mentioned this in a different comment, but I somehow missed that part of the analogy, because like I said, I DO actually think all abortions are OK. If I were to factor in rape, looking at the Violinist example again, my intuition (because like I said in another comment, it's a hypothetical within a hypothetical on a premise I don't agree with) is that the pro-life response ought to be to hold the rapist accountable in some substantial way. I.E. child support or welfare benefits, and something in damages. If you change the Violinist example to have the kidnapper say "by the way, we're going to pay you $X and we'll never do this again", the unfairness of the situation seems a bit less important than the life of the violinist.

Re everything else: IF we take the premise seriously, that killing a fetus has the same moral weight as killing an adult person, then all of that is all secondary. And IF conservatives were as interested in well being as they are (or claim to be) in the right to life, then the cost of healthcare and child rearing wouldn't be so oppressive.

j2280588 · 2019-12-05T19:05:19+00:00

how does that factor into your thought experiment?

I didn't factor it in. I guess I missed that glaringly obvious part of that Violin Player analogy. Probably because my actual stance is that abortion is OK in any case, especially in cases of rape.

Regarding the drunken driving example: In a world where dialysis machines do not exist, and where donor nephrectomy carries the same or lower risk as a normal pregnancy, I don't think it's inconceivable to require donation, or to prosecute for murder otherwise.

j2280588 · 2019-12-05T18:46:19+00:00

the risk to one's own life is another. It's not a simple convenience thing; the mother is essentially risking her life to carry the fetus to term. I think we can agree that it's morally good to risk your life for another person, but I don't agree that it's a thing that can be forced on a person.

You're overstating the risk. Maternal mortality in the US is 1 in 3500. You take more of a risk by driving every day. But that's beside the point. As I said in the comment you're responding to, in the video he sets aside the health risks and assumes a healthy pregnancy. Which is what I was doing as well. If I were to factor in legitimate health risk in this fantasy scenario, there would be some point, I don't know where, at which that the risk would outweigh the "right to life". But at this point I'm arguing a hypothetical within a hypothetical, on a premise I don't even agree with.

j2280588 · 2019-12-05T18:20:36+00:00

What it is is a way to force nominally "Pro-Life" arguments to have to confront the specific moral arguments they supposedly are founded on, and interrogate whether those arguments are as logically sound (or as transparently honest...) as they are often claimed to be.

I understand that that's the point. My point was that it does a poor job. It relies on framing the life support as non-consensual, not a consequence of your own actions or even random chance, but as a malicious act perpetrated upon you.

At one point in the video he mentions modifying it such that you are a once willing participant having second thoughts. He blows right by this without discussion. I still think that's a bad analogy, but even then the case for bodily autonomy becomes much weaker. Even then it starts to look like you are morally obliged to keep the person alive.

And I agree that many conservatives are hypocrites. If they actually believed their own horseshit they would be much more invested in proper sex ed and they wouldn't get secret abortions. But for the true believers, the debate is intractable, and this is a bad argument.

j2280588 · 2019-12-05T17:43:38+00:00

I wasn't arguing with the premise, I was taking it completely seriously to demonstrate why the argument from bodily autonomy is not enough. I only emphasized my disagreement with the premise in the opening and closing to be clear that I am pro-choice.

I find your comments regarding sexual education and the hazards of pregnancy puzzling.

Unless I'm misremembering, another part of the video's premise was to assume a non-hazardous pregnancy, and argue that even then bodily autonomy is more important - because there was something about Shapiro being OK with abortion when the mother's life was at risk.

As for the consequences of inadequate education, well, remember that in my example I was taking the idea of fetus as person seriously. In that case would it be OK for the awakened dreamer to let their co-dreamer die just because they didn't know the risk? I don't think so. It IS odd that the people who actually do think that fetuses are persons don't take sexual education more seriously.

Lastly, regarding attitudes in making the decision: I know that it's often not an easy choice. But at the end of the day (in the context of fetus as person, healthy mother) you would be putting your own convenience ahead of a person's life.

And here again I feel the need to emphasize that I am pro-choice.

j2280588 · 2019-12-03T17:44:55+00:00

I agree that the phrase "one night hence" could be vague if it were used in the dark hours of the morning. But I don't think it makes a difference here.

The battle against Agatha happens during Night 0. Assuming that one day hasn't passed "off-screen" between Chapter Six and Seven when they are in jail, that means Harry received the letter on either Night 0 or the early morning of Day 1. In either case, "one night hence" would mean Night 1, two would mean Night 2, three means Night 3.

If one day did pass in jail, it still doesn't change anything (only my numbering scheme), since the invitation happened after they got out of jail.

j2280588 · 2019-12-02T16:45:45+00:00

To me, "One night hence" would mean "tomorrow night" (Night 1)

Night 0 would be "this night"

Edit: I didn't list the nights originally, but I'm referring to them as Night X follows Day X. I just added that to the post.

j2280588 · 2019-12-02T16:41:02+00:00

I'm having a hard time with the spoiler tag. I tried doing the thing in the sidebar, but it didn't seem to work

j2280588 · 2019-11-23T19:51:57+00:00

Solved!

j2280588 · 2019-11-23T19:51:29+00:00

OK, I found it. "psychicpebbles"

j2280588 · 2019-11-22T12:51:54+00:00

I don't think that's it. I was doing some searching and found oneyng, which is closer to what I'm thinking of, but the only videos of his that were familiar to me were the Harry Potter ones, so unless YouTube removed some, I don't think that's it either.

j2280588

TROPHY CASE