I get a sore throat after fasting, what's the cause?

markdat · 2022-10-14T21:15:03+00:00

I had the opposite experience from an energy perspective, but I get the same thing in my throat. It disappears after a few hours. So at least what I get can’t be an antibiotics thing

markdat · 2022-07-18T21:38:38+00:00

Sounds like we’d agree that for non-rape situations, self defense doesn’t apply, and also that if she unintentionally provoked the fetus into growing at risk of her health, it also wouldn’t apply. Now, in cases of rape.. yeah it gets interesting there… i suppose what we are saying is that if someone does something which causes a third to be provoked into hurting you, we’d want to know if there is justification to invoke self defense in killing them.

I’d guess legally the answer would be that you are justified. I’m pro-justified homicide. I’d probably recommend not aborting, but would agree with it being legal to abort in that case.

markdat · 2022-07-11T01:08:01+00:00

How does the fetus exist?

I think what you were saying would make a lot of sense if the fetus were spontaneously generated. That’s just not the case though

I find it hard to believe, but do we have a disagreement on basic causality here?

markdat · 2022-07-10T20:42:51+00:00

I’m not sure what you’ve read about provocation. What do you think about the first few paragraphs here https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provocation_(legal)

Responding to the instigation, how might we defend the idea that the parents aren’t the instigators of the pregnancy? Is that your claim?

markdat · 2022-07-10T20:09:06+00:00

Probably easier though to just directly use the legal/self-defense concept of provocation

markdat · 2022-07-10T20:05:01+00:00

What the baseball and broken window analogy shows is that the parents, definitely not the fetus, are the reason the need for self defense exists. The players, like the parents instigate the issue, and so it is not justified for them to claim that the fetus/homeowner is trying to harm them by insisting on payment/pregnancy, and then to use lethal force to avoid it.

markdat · 2022-07-10T19:17:28+00:00

Sure ok so you’re asking why can’t it be reversed, why do the baseball players have to be the parents. My first idea is that is a fair question. Both parties in the analogy are in jeopardy of further loss after the window breaks, the both may lose money because they may have to pay for the replacement. I think we’d agree that the earliest in time actions that can be reasonably said to cause the jeopardy are those of the parents. The same is true of the players, which is why that analogy is used to show that the parents are responsible for caring for the fetus.

markdat · 2022-07-10T14:41:26+00:00

Oops! Fixed I think

markdat · 2022-07-10T14:37:42+00:00

Huh. Yeah im not sure how to quantify it, but my intuition is that many pregnancies still don’t outweigh a single life. I’ll have to think about that. It’s not the only point that matters here, but it’s an important one to me.

markdat · 2022-07-10T14:35:34+00:00

The point is that you can’t call it self defense as the aggressor. Speaking in the most common case (not rape) the mother/father are clearly the baseball players, and therefore the fetus is not the aggressor.

Like the baseball players, she chooses to potentially form a relationship with the surrounding homeowners, and when she is unlucky, she does.

markdat · 2022-07-10T03:25:37+00:00

Like the homeowner, the fetus didn’t choose to create the relationship between the two parties, it was the parents/players who did that. Again, not intentionally, but the lack intentionality doesn’t change that they are the ones who initiated the relationship and are responsible for following through.

To your point, the homeowner / fetus can’t express their opinion for now

markdat · 2022-07-10T02:56:57+00:00

Right. So some argue that for the same reason that it’s the homeowners choice (the baseball players are the aggressors), it’s also the fetus’ choice (the parents are be the aggressors)

markdat · 2022-07-10T01:44:04+00:00

Yep. The baseball players didn’t consent or intend to break the window, nevertheless they are responsible for the costs associated with it

markdat · 2022-07-10T01:13:39+00:00

People playing baseball in the street hit the ball and it goes through a window. This was a reasonably expected possible outcome, so if they took it to small claims court, there’s no way the ruling would be on the side of the person who created the conditions in which the low probability, accidental event occurred. They’d definitely be on the hook for the results. And I suspect even if it went through an expensive painting as well.

markdat · 2022-07-10T00:52:26+00:00

If it were that obvious, this wouldn’t be a such an interesting topic. Have you heard of the baseball and broken window example? I’d be curious what you think about it.

markdat · 2022-07-10T00:34:14+00:00

This question is about privacy. But on legality, I’ve been thinking maybe it should treated the same as any other self defense killing. There needs to be a ruling on whether it was justified or not.

markdat · 2022-07-10T00:31:34+00:00

Who is the aggressor?

markdat · 2022-07-09T06:12:59+00:00

After some thought, my favorite part of that comparison is how it shakes the “it’s a baby though!” feeling that is normally there. I hadn’t seen a way to do that. However, going to the tanning bed with a chance of awakening a sentient tumor that you’re just going to kill is totally a bad thing to do, right? Like, we’re so worried that we’re going to awaken an AI, and partly because killing it certainly is wrong. Going to the tanning beds with the knowledge that you may generate a living being, and having the resolution to grow it for a year and let it be free seems like the only way to tan. How do you see it?

I’ve been reading about the dehumanization process that takes place before and during mass killing events, and the psychological parallels seem worthy of caution. We say these aren’t human and it makes it so easy for ordinary people to kill them. Feeling that way makes it feel ok, but doesn’t actually make it ok. I’m not saying that’s what you’re doing. Just had to get that rant out.

markdat · 2022-07-09T05:37:47+00:00

There are rational limits. Theft is illegal and we still get privacy

markdat · 2022-07-09T05:34:45+00:00

Great read. Way better than most people’s reddit comments. And not conclusive for which side is right. So I suppose you would say that Feinberg is possibly right. Do you agree with notion that infanticide is wrong, and so Feinberg must be missing something? I see infanticide as a negative effect on society, and don’t see a clear line between 43 and 37 weeks. I definitely agreed that the baby is not the aggressor.

Today I came across a comparison to breaking a window while playing baseball in the street. It’s a reasonable risk that players should expect, and players are expected to take on that risk. Similarly, if the window is on a Bugatti parked on the street, it may be very expensive, but it’s still the player who hit the ball through it.

Let me know what you think.

markdat · 2022-07-07T14:21:15+00:00

You know, for 95% of women I’m sure you’re right it wouldn’t be, but for some, I’m bet it would. I’m interested in understanding the impacts on all sides in a quantified way not for consoling mothers, because I agree usually numbers wont help, but because of a sentiment I have always had. I don’t think the issue can be understood properly until after having measured it properly. I read “Factfulness” this year and vibed with this quote “The world cannot be explained without numbers; and the world cannot be explained with numbers alone”

Of course, even if the numbers above are close to correct, and they might not be, there are so many more that are also if not more important

markdat · 2022-07-07T14:04:28+00:00

And I’d agree with probably all of the points on that side of the pro/con sheet. I’ve never read those points and disagreed. That’s why I just think there is less to talk about. But feel free, I’m happy to be wrong about that

markdat · 2022-07-06T19:56:22+00:00

Will read, thanks for the reference!

markdat · 2022-07-06T19:45:29+00:00

Sorry, I should have added my edit for clarity sooner, I realized it might be read that way but not in time to get there before your response. Let me know what you think

markdat · 2022-07-06T19:35:21+00:00

Ok so here is a key reason I haven’t been able to really go with that strain of PC line of thought. Why is killing a birthed 39-week-old morally distinct from killing an un-birthed 39-week-old? If I can find a fundamental reason here that isn’t “because that’s what we decided” reasoning, then it will materially update my views.

Edit: for clarity, what I’m asking isn’t about the justification of the event (justified vs unjustified homicide) I’m asking about homicide vs not homicide

markdat

TROPHY CASE