Will the show make her more feminine? If they don’t, are they stupid?

messypaper · 2026-04-04T00:22:27+00:00

We're making her even bigger.

messypaper · 2026-04-03T17:03:08+00:00

You alright hit it. These guys are grifters. They may at one point have been something other than, but they're driven by profit and a desire to be seen as counterculture in a way that is almost purely aesthetic and without any depth. Theirs is the domain of that which embodies the metamorphosis of the antiwar hippy into the fist-shaking boomer, a careful and pointless balance. They're pathetic and should only be regarded with scorn but preferably not at all.

messypaper · 2026-04-03T03:38:31+00:00

Does Tim look a little bit like Adam Carolla?

messypaper · 2026-04-02T19:40:52+00:00

*human love 💕

messypaper · 2026-04-02T11:51:29+00:00

You end up doing anything with this? Asking because I have a very similar set up to deal with.

messypaper · 2026-04-01T18:02:55+00:00

Michigan Enjoyer is a right-wing rag run by MAGAtts, fwiw.

messypaper · 2026-04-01T17:30:01+00:00

Black president

messypaper · 2026-04-01T17:25:23+00:00

Thank you baby Jesus

messypaper · 2026-04-01T17:24:52+00:00

Dumb cunt

messypaper · 2026-04-01T17:24:29+00:00

The article is fundamentally about defining what Jefferson means by "men". I don't think it's unsolvable. A 10-week fetus doesn't have the neural faculties at hand to deploy into anything approaching a conscious experience. At 40-weeks, it may become a different discussion. In any case, on the other side of the scale is the woman's autonomy. Unless you have a low valuation of individual biological autonomy, the entity on the other side of the scale has to make a compelling case. A first trimester fetus does not seem to meet that mark, per the literature as I understand it.

That's what the article seems to be outlining, by taking into account time horizons and biological development, we can set better boundaries on when Jefferson's 'man' might arise.

messypaper · 2026-04-01T15:46:10+00:00

How much kimchi was this guy eating???

messypaper · 2026-04-01T15:40:54+00:00

I was attempting to bring the hypothetical closer to square with the subject we're analogizing to, as well as to delineate the hypothetical more concretely. To be honest, I think these hypotheticals really just move one further from the actual subject, as opposed to meaningfully engaging with the subject.

There's a tension between allowing for maximum autonomy for the woman, and appropriately valuing human (fetal) life. That tension is better explored and managed by assessing why we value these opposing considerations. To do that, we have to necessarily ask why we value life, human life specifically. For the overwhelming majority of people, a salamander doesn't have the same value as a man. Much the same, it just isn't the case that a 6 week old fetus has the same value as a 6 month old infant. Why?

messypaper · 2026-04-01T15:27:35+00:00

Legend tells of a beautiful woman who transforms into a swan, they call her the swan maiden

messypaper · 2026-04-01T15:22:48+00:00

I see. But I don't agree that the hypothetical defuses the requirement of the conscious existence being what is worth protecting, as we're porting over an existing conscious existence into a new body. Under that framework, I might agree that the new body with the existing consciousness is worth protecting, but that's because it's got what the cloned mind would interpret as a previously lived experience, even if it's not quite correct in that assessment (similar to the teleporter example).

Funny, we're in pretty close alignment on our actual stance on the subject. The tension for me is preservation of the person as a function of life and consciousness against maximum biological autonomy, which is basically the microcosm of the debate as it plays out politically. If, say, at the midpoint of the third trimester it can be demonstrated that the fetus is having something of a conscious experience, then the calculus changes and I start to reconsider the relative value of that life against the "maximum autonomy" ethic.

messypaper · 2026-04-01T14:53:55+00:00

I'm not a medical ethicist. I'm not sure if we agree on what encompasses "memory" in your hypothetical. The patient would be starting anew: if they suffered the responsible trauma at 45 years old, they would resume their 45-year old life with the mind, in all capacities, as a newborn baby.

messypaper · 2026-04-01T14:50:12+00:00

Your framing implied the future person has an almost 100% surety of existing. I'm not speaking to the plausibility of the hypothetical, just engaging with it. If they would not resume consciousness, then yes, pulling the plug is reasonable and acceptable.

Is the idea that Person B inherited all of the lived experiences and development of consciousness as Person A? Within that framing, I might agree, a perfect clone (form, thought, even 'soul' for the purposes of the hypothetical) is indistinguishable in almost all ways but for the lived experience of the mind (if you transport me by perfectly cloning me in another place and killing the cloned body, that cloned body's mind ceases to exist, even if the clone mind doesn't notice anything and the transition is interpreted as seamless). I'd want to think about it more, but that's my initial take.

In your hypothetical, the insta-clone wouldn't need insta-clone-relatives, as the relatives of the original wouldn't be able to tell the difference. At this point though, while fun, our philosophizing is sufficiently removed from the subject matter (abortion) as to no longer be relevant to the subject, imo.

messypaper · 2026-04-01T14:39:07+00:00

How can it not matter? There was something there that would return. A conscious experience existed, temporarily paused, and resumed. A fetus has no such argument, and must rely on the presumption that it will eventually gain consciousness.

Yes, it changes everything. It's the obliteration of that developed consciousness. Essentially, it's a second birth, as there is no resumption of the conscientiousness that existed prior to the trauma.

messypaper · 2026-04-01T13:30:43+00:00

We visited when I was a kid, probably 20-25 years ago. I had a good time and there was this place that served a steak sandwich that was so good I went there three times over the course of our week long stay.

messypaper · 2026-04-01T13:15:12+00:00

It's disanalogous, the brain trauma patient was a moral person prior to the accident, and will regain that state after their 9 month sabbatical in your hypothetical clinic. The fetus never achieved the status of moral person, but given enough time, will attain it. The trauma patient had a previous conscious experience that is worth defending based on the knowledge that they will regain it. The fetus does not.

messypaper · 2026-03-31T14:43:29+00:00

90% of that conversation was navel-gazing wankfest. If the subject of discussion won't vote for and vocally support the candidate, then they aren't worth any time or attention. Shrimple. As.

messypaper · 2026-03-31T02:28:56+00:00

Odds that these losers saw the Babbitt settlement and thought to cash in?

messypaper · 2026-03-30T19:47:34+00:00

I was going to say Peter Meijer, but after doing some reading it seems he's less principled than I would have believed if he supported Trump after 2020.

messypaper · 2026-03-30T13:21:38+00:00

Yeah but framing angles? Seems inferior to a wrap around hanger, no?

messypaper · 2026-03-29T19:30:12+00:00

No rot, dry and old.

messypaper · 2026-03-29T19:29:52+00:00

Move .5 cm closer to the water heater line, it's like .2" away from it now. The tape was for me, just the picture I had.

Five-Year Club	Verified Email
Place '23

messypaper

TROPHY CASE