Narz
keeping it real
Word up.
I thought Trump would hammer that lesson home for people but it doesn't seem to have stuck for most.
When does human life begin?
- Thread starter Kaitzilla
- Start date
I thought Trump would hammer that lesson home for people but it doesn't seem to have stuck for most.
Presumably because my answer isn't "no we don't", for starters. We always need to do better. But it's frequently an aside from the actual party responsible, which impacts the relevance of us doing better in the first place (like I pointed out in my post that you took a total of two sentences out of).
We do this roundabout because we have enough disagreements for one or both of us to feel like it matters. Or you overestimate the overlap in "we", and "allies", and suchforth. The fact that we, as in us two, may have overlap doesn't mean the circles we move in do. But you cast a wide net (not just in case this), which leads to this cat-and-mouse game of trying to work out who or what the generalisations do apply to.
I have no idea. I'm not you. I don't know what you do. I take you at your word and I trust you do the things you say you do, but what else do you want me to suggest? We're ultimately all folk behind a keyboard or on a phone enjoying a fair bit of repetitive discussion (multiplied by the years spent doing it) in the Off Topic of a video game forum. In that regard, none of this matters. None of us can easily do better here. Convincing a person here or there is obviously a win on some level, but is it something that matters with regards to doing better? Is it the best use of our time, or is it just indulgent? I'm leaning towards indulgence. And I don't necessarily think it's a bad thing, everyone needs downtime of whatever fashion (even if it is arguing online, goodness knows I'd know
). People can't be "doing better" with all of their free time and resources. That's how folks burn out.Keyword: if. Not meant as a play on words with your earlier, and I understand the disconnect. I was attempting to predict what the follow-up would be with regards to people trying harder. Not talking about people with resource to enact any Plan B of any kind. It was a guess.
But if it's funded think tanks you want, how on earth do you think any of us can materially make that happen? In both the US and the UK the nominally better choice of political party still frequently and repeatedly rejects any progressive wing with enough momentum to threaten the status quo. I'm sure people can find reasons for that, but in that event "try harder" means what exactly, assuming you and are I talking about the same "we"? Right?
The people I'm referencing do burn out. Or are living so close to poverty that support networks are incredibly localised. The greater and greatest proponents and advocates of change in my humble existence are, by a significant factor, people who are marginalised (often significantly so).
You seem to be referencing some kind of permanent end state where everything is fixed and there are no more problems. In good faith, I'm not trying to mischaracterise you. I'm talking about victories at a variety of size and scale, often at huge cost or effort regardless of the outcome. I'm talking unionisation (in disciplines that sorely need it), I'm talking about debt relief, I'm talking about co-operative housing, I'm talking about financing necessary (i.e. vital) medicines and medical operations.
There will always be more to be done. Nothing will ever be "done" to the extent that we can give up helping. Short of a literal science fiction state of being where a lot of the current existence of people on the planet Earth is radically different from where we are now. Maybe that's the dissonance? You seem to think that me objecting to your demands to fight better / harder / whateverer are rooted in a belief that we have enough? Far from it.
You win battles in a variety of ways. Sometimes morals work. Sometimes they're irrelevant, or worse, something to be hijacked and turned against you. "fighting better" means fighting more / varied / harder / etc. By definition it should include a variety of moral arguments. It just shouldn't be limited to them. However this presents a problem in the field of law as-is, despite the fact that we have legal systems where cases are won and lost on emotional appeal (that then set precedence). The law is seen as impartial (as a positive), despite events leading to it being codified not being (and I'm not saying not being impartial is a negative either. It's contextual).
tl;dr: I feel you're often way too vague about what "fight harder" actually means, and I feel you apply it far too broadly across demographics who are already working their bodies into dust to make positive change happen. Moral superiority is a part of every person's feelings on pretty much anything, to the ironic extent that @Narz is literally revelling in it with his agreement there.
It's like bias. It's something to account for, it's not something to purge.
Remorseless1
Emperor
- Joined
- Jan 24, 2022
- Messages
- 1,214
Because they know the "true" truth, they are the ones who will join the Father in Heaven. Therefore, their actions are beyond reproach and should be questioned.
In other words, they're smug jerks who secretly believe Christ was too soft.
Btw, I grew up in an evangelical Baptist church, so I'm intimately aware of how they think and operate. I'm just talking about the evangelical wing of the Trump Party, who are many things but Christian isn't one of them.
Oh, sincere apologies to some Abrahamics. I read the evil and rejected the faith, I definitely know people who are inspired by the faith to be better than me, in aggregate and in ways that I value, even if we disagree on specifics.
And, like it or not, funding something is real and can only be done with opportunity cost and intentionally. It's fungible and tangible effort in a field where tangible effort matters. Now, I might be wrong about the necessity of that Plan B, but if it doesn't exist then either people agreed that I'm wrong or that it wasn't worth creating.
But this thread comes from an arena where there are legit fears of regression. Well, regression in a place in the world that's incredibly more privileged huge swathes of humanity. But still, now is gonna be the time to figure out if we're doing enough, if we weren't before.
I'm never against discussing morals, but moral arguments not made just in order to 'be correct'. They're made to 'effect change' in those who hear them. Convincing people to improve is just as useful as forcing them to, from the perspective of those being harmed. I'm not even insisting that we be moral in order to change momentum, even if I note that you don't need to cheat to win (you just need to be better, despite their cheating, which is a large set of possibilities). But the decision to cheat is a complex calculation, with collateral damage and whatever.
"Fight harder" will mean many things, obviously. (a) improve your arguments (b) forgo causing the harms (c) pivot money (d) use your body to actually help (e) gain or exercise legal power (f) empower allies.
It means many things, but all of them require reallocation of or increasing effort. And the opposite of rationalizing away that someone is doing enough or can't do more.
I'll ask again, what's the point of pointing out that there is another "actual party responsible"? So what? You're trying to get me to change my behavior with regards to this party. You're asking an ally to improve. Blame them all you want for my needing to improve, but you're asking me to.
Yes, because you, me, and nearly every single person we can influence has privilege and power orders-of-magnitude more than the people who need your help. I cast a wide net because of my audience here. People can reflect how they themselves could help more and then rationalize away why they can't or shouldn't.
You're missing the criticism. You're asking me to place a burden elsewhere. But, by doing so, you're actually putting a burden on me. Why don't you place your burden elsewhere? The answer is (presumably) that you're trying to effect useful change. And, you're asking an ally to better attack a threat. You're asking me to 'be better', which is the paradox. You're asking an ally to improve, despite the presence of those 'others'. So am I. And because you're doing so, you've answered why I'm doing so.
That's true and that's your slippery slope to infer. But they can also be coddled and given moral license to not be marginally better. We can even trick each other into thinking that we can't (or needn't) do better. And that harm is as real as doing the harm we need to prevent. In the world of math, a negative is subtracting a positive. And when it comes to effecting change, the math matters. Convincing a person they need luxury X "to avoid burning out" redirects those funds away from helping just as much as convincing them the assistance isn't required.
I mention many things, and I recognize that people cannot do them all. Too many, but that doesn't excuse that people will do 'too few'. There's efficiency and there's opportunity cost. But, if I cared about the Pro-Choice movement in the United States, I'd give them money or time, depending on efficiency. Ideally by freeing up resources from something that was net-harmful, not feeling entitled to the lifestyle (and damages) of the average person in my cohort. And here is where the math mentioned above matters. Either people are funding it, or they're not. And if they're not, they're not. Pennies are real, in this regard. You asked "materially make that happen". "Materially make that happen" is (a) finding or creating the organization and then (b) donating or canvassing. The first of those two suggestions is immediately actionable, using your expertise to fund an expert to do something necessary.
And, like it or not, funding something is real and can only be done with opportunity cost and intentionally. It's fungible and tangible effort in a field where tangible effort matters. Now, I might be wrong about the necessity of that Plan B, but if it doesn't exist then either people agreed that I'm wrong or that it wasn't worth creating.
I feel that, and full cards-on-the-table, I am triggered because I am on the working end of people ignoring mental needs in the most desperate. But if the people who're burning out are burning out, the only option is for the allies to step up. Or, magically, the people I'm helping somehow need less help. Nevermind that I don't have an 'enemy' that's burning me out, which means that I can only work with the real resources people provide and grimace when I'm funded with "thoughts and prayers"
Sometimes I will be, granted. The existence of problems means that there's more to be done, which puts the lie to the idea that we're 'currently doing enough'. It's statistically impossible to be doing exactly enough. It's either too much, or not enough. Plus every unit of effort against a problem can be quantized, so it's not 'enough' until that problem is gone. As well, if there's a clock ticking then the calculation of a delayed effort is compounded into ... confusion.
But this thread comes from an arena where there are legit fears of regression. Well, regression in a place in the world that's incredibly more privileged huge swathes of humanity. But still, now is gonna be the time to figure out if we're doing enough, if we weren't before.
Here is an interesting communication confusion that I don't know how to address without many paragraphs. When I was referring to 'morals' above, I was more referring to 'being right' than 'convincing someone to be good'. Don't get me wrong, I like being right, but the victims of any hesitation on my part don't really care if I'm right.
I'm never against discussing morals, but moral arguments not made just in order to 'be correct'. They're made to 'effect change' in those who hear them. Convincing people to improve is just as useful as forcing them to, from the perspective of those being harmed. I'm not even insisting that we be moral in order to change momentum, even if I note that you don't need to cheat to win (you just need to be better, despite their cheating, which is a large set of possibilities). But the decision to cheat is a complex calculation, with collateral damage and whatever.
Yeah, I guess some of the people here (and people we can influence) are 'working their bodies to dust'. But, if we're losing ground, then the people who aren't need to be doing more. Not only to give our allies a break, but also because the current momentum is insufficient. And, again, the people who aren't have privilege and power orders-of-magnitude higher than those who need us to buck up. It doesn't matter that why it's true. It's true.
"Fight harder" will mean many things, obviously. (a) improve your arguments (b) forgo causing the harms (c) pivot money (d) use your body to actually help (e) gain or exercise legal power (f) empower allies.
It means many things, but all of them require reallocation of or increasing effort. And the opposite of rationalizing away that someone is doing enough or can't do more.
Last edited:
João III
King
I think it helps to read the whole Bible, such as the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7) in the New Testament, and not just quote the Old Testament. Gandhi praised the Sermon and Tolstoy wrote extensively on it
Matthew 5:
19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
So, my observation that stoning adulteresses before confirming menses mean what?
My observation that "listening to a prophet when he tells you to stab babies is wrong" is again ... what?
He doesn't tell us that the OT is a mischaracterization of God and doesn't call any of the verses in the OT 'libel'.
Matthew 5
32 But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, makes her the victim of adultery, and anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.
She can't smile through her bruises, but she's grateful that I've not tossed her out, because it would be adultery for anyone else to marry her. And Lord Knows we can't have people sin, repent of their sin, and then be allowed to continue a tolerable life. "She'll be blessed in Heaven" is okay in some circumstances. Maybe not in this one, given that the worldly alternative is ... better.
Matthew 5
38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth
Not on topic for anyone here, but one of Trump's favorite verses when he was pressed on the lie that he admires the Bible and I don't think we weaponize it enough.
Spoiler I deeply love this one :
Matthew 6
1 “Be careful not to practice your righteousness in front of others to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven. 2 “So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. 3 But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, 4 so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.
What a weirdly useless piece of moral teaching. Give to the needy because it helps them. Don't bribe them with "Karma". What kind of moral teaching relies on bribes?
Spoiler This one I like too :
Matthew 6
25 “Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink; or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothes? 26 Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not much more valuable than they? 27 Can any one of you by worrying add a single hour to your life?
This is terrible advice. Of course there's unhealthy stress. But those birds starve and die horribly on a regular basis. The OT God literally ordered the stabbing of babies instead of providing their adopters with manna. Don't fall for this bait-and-switch.
Matthew 7
15 “Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. 16 By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17 Likewise, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.
Good advice. Honestly, 'failing to know the natural history of the world' followed by 'praising prophets who command murder' is enough of a 'false prophet' trigger to me. Now, I don't believe that anything needs to be perfect. Just don't claim to be perfectly good, if you're not. But this bit here says the good tree cannot bear bad fruit, so don't tell me it's a 'perfect tree'.
I don't think it's a particularly meaningful question, it's an interesting bit of trivia about some messy biology, sure.
But it's really been badly weaponised by the anti side in the US's unique and terrible abortion discourse, it's a gotcha question disguised as a simple philosophical question. It's pretty much designed to force people to partly accept the dumb framing of that largely American debate, and therefore to legitimise the oppression its proponents are trying to impose.
At least the old school Catholics just frame it in terms of their plain old non-rational spiritual beliefs, and leave it in the realm of traditional patriarchal theocracy. This mob have to try to insult us all by turning it into a rational/logical trick as well. It's like when they tried to make creationism a science through the power of word games.
But it's really been badly weaponised by the anti side in the US's unique and terrible abortion discourse, it's a gotcha question disguised as a simple philosophical question. It's pretty much designed to force people to partly accept the dumb framing of that largely American debate, and therefore to legitimise the oppression its proponents are trying to impose.
At least the old school Catholics just frame it in terms of their plain old non-rational spiritual beliefs, and leave it in the realm of traditional patriarchal theocracy. This mob have to try to insult us all by turning it into a rational/logical trick as well. It's like when they tried to make creationism a science through the power of word games.
Last edited:
Narz
keeping it real
Can you clarify? What do you mean reveling in it?
I find this interesting and revealing.
I do think people more than ever these days, as you say, don't really want to purge their biases. Their biases become part of their identity.
Why would you not want to purge your biases?
Last edited:
Ajidica
High Quality Person
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2006
- Messages
- 22,482
I genuinely don't get the blasé attitude expressed here, and in sentiments like this. At some point between the egg fertilization and birth, the fetus becomes a human person, and entitled to the rights we all (or just about everyone) hold as inherent to being a human person, such as the right to live and not be killed.
Some people focus on birth as the point at which rights are acquired, but I have a hard time with that position as it implies that personhood isn't incumbent on brain activity or what passes as a sense of self at that age, but moving a few feet down and out of the uterus.
It also raises weird issues where, if two eggs were fertilized on the same day, one fetus could be born two weeks prematurely and acquire rights/personhood, but the other fetus, equally developed and capable of sensation, does not acquire rights/personhood at that time due to a quirk of the universe.
See what I mean, the question is never just an isolated philosophical one, it is always actually about people who want to ban others from having some abortions, who are trying to establish a certain framing to prime other people on it.
It's always about abortions, but most of the time points where the neurobiology gets super confusing with regards to personhood are not the time points where anybody frames abortion. Well, the great majority of abortions.
Lexicus
Deity
Only fools actually think they can do this. Someone who tells you they've purged their biases is much less trustworthy than someone who is simply aware of their biases.
You can certainly try to correct for biases and be successful most of the time, but purge them? Good luck.
Not sure what you mean here.
Around here at least, abortions are just available when needed, that's it. No criminal law involved, no rigid criteria. It is simply that if doctor and patient agree it needs to happen, it happens.
Lexicus
Deity
I would just say that as a practical matter, prosecuting women & doctors who terminate pregnancies in the third trimester out of medical necessity and forcing them to defend their actions as justifiable homicide, as I believe will happen as a result of some of the state laws evidently now being contemplated by some Republican-controlled legislatures, is contemptible cruelty. There are no words strong enough to condemn this, it is pure disgusting barbarism.
Yeah sorry, I didn't edit in time.
The time frames during development in which personhood becomes biologically interesting are not the time frames where the extended battles against the regressive element takes place.
I'm sure that even there, the pro-life crowd only cares about the personhood question insofar as they can use it as a slippery slope to get to where they want to be, and they'll never stop pushing regardless of whatever logical compromise you agree to.
Snowygerry
Deity
Obviously - but ultimately that is a moral judgement you and your pregnant wife will have to make - hopefully guided in your decision by reasonable law and a capable doctor.
No one else's business.
Lexicus
Deity
Incidentally, the character of the woman who elects to abort her fetus a week before the due date is an insane misogynistic fantasy, and nothing remotely resembling reality.
Yeah I mean like, people love to talk about "late" abortions because it sounds scary - another dishonest framing beloved of the liars who run the US anti abortion movement. But those few are virtually all products of medical necessity for people who otherwise intended to carry to term but who have had a bad turn late in their gestation, and no doubt experience this as a personal tragedy and loss.
That's especially so in civilised places where abortion is regularly and easily available in a timely manner without obstacles. In such places, people can get them done before having to go through the significant and often extremely difficult body changes of prolonged pregnancy. Indeed, if parts of the US (parts where abortion is an obstacle-filled nightmare or barely attainable at all) do have "late" abortions for other reasons... then that's because the anti campaigners made it hard for people to get it done sooner.
Basically it's an insane strawman. It's unfortunate that supposed abortion "moderates" or "centrists", especially in the US, are just so keen to buy into it, and don't listen when the reality is pointed out. It's an invented and concocted dilemma.
Last edited:
I think it's a real dilemma, but just one that can't be really considered. It's like debating the ethics of conscription while the invader is using chlorine gas on your trenches.
And the obvious solution of "have abortions earlier" is completely unacceptable to the sealion.
The late term abortion monster is mythical. My suspicion is that the collateral from needing such hard-nosed defense of 'choice' is best measured in things like FASD. Like "please don't, because the only tools we can use to stop you is to help arrange such that you don't wanna, and that's not effective enough"
And the obvious solution of "have abortions earlier" is completely unacceptable to the sealion.
The late term abortion monster is mythical. My suspicion is that the collateral from needing such hard-nosed defense of 'choice' is best measured in things like FASD. Like "please don't, because the only tools we can use to stop you is to help arrange such that you don't wanna, and that's not effective enough"
Josu
Emperor
Quite interesting point.
For example, as per Spanish law, a person dies when brain activity ceases.
In consequence, live starts when brain activity begins. I can not remeber right now in which week of pregancy starts brain activity, but as per Spanish law, abortion is alowed until this week
Similar threads
