MochiLazar t1_itifp3i wrote on October 23, 2022 at 9:44 PM

the number of children who die due to human selfishness is very large. It’s not that infinite wealth would save them, but less indifference (as expressed in part through a reduction in selfish consumerism) obviously would

MSGRiley t1_itjgw0s wrote on October 24, 2022 at 2:21 AM

This isn't established by the author, it's just another Woke Kult pamphlet talking point put out by Marxists.

iiioiia t1_iti8nvj wrote on October 23, 2022 at 8:58 PM

> Really. It corrects this gap?

Perhaps the author was writing somewhat colloquially.

Two can play at that your game:

> The author is presuming a problem, in terms of child's lives that could be saved. There's no indication that a single child's life could have been saved and wasn't due to someone not donating to charity, at least in terms of quantifiable evidence.

Really? There's literally zero evidence in existence in the world? Not just none that you know of, but at all? How did you determine this to be perfectly true?

> So we're riding right past the part where we justify the metric of "child lives not saved" and presuming that children are dying FOR ONLY THE REASON OF people not giving money to the right sources.

When you say "we" are you referring to me? Because I am not engaged in hyperbolic presumption, and I suspect I am not the only one.

> Couching things in this nature, is appeal to emotion. Literally, "think of the children!"

Would that be so bad? If you were in need of help (now, or when you were a child), would you not prefer that some of your fellow humans came to your aid?

How about this: what's your stance on vaccines, and explicitly, what is your reasoning for that stance?

> As I see it, anyway.

Why should we respect this when you didn't respect the qualifying language in the author's piece (did you even see it)?

MSGRiley t1_itjhv40 wrote on October 24, 2022 at 2:29 AM

>Two can play at that your game:

I think you presumed my game was taking the words so literally as to sacrifice their meaning for some semantic argument.

You were wrong. When the author said "it corrects this gap" what they meant was, "it attempts to correct this gap", which is what I was arguing against.

>Would that be so bad?

Yes. Because it reframes the entire conversation toward the human instinct to use an abundance of caution around their offspring. Including children in the narrative, such as "poisoning our drinking water with X amount of toxin Y which is over Z legal amount is bad for everyone, but even more so for children as they're smaller and more susceptible to lower levels of toxins than adults" is fine. It has all the elements required. Amounts, legal limits, some scientific, quantifiable data that can be argued against. Simply saying "voting for this bill will murder children" is an appeal to emotion. It offers no evidence that can be argued with and presumes you're either in favor of murdering children or you're on the side of the author.

iiioiia t1_itjo860 wrote on October 24, 2022 at 3:21 AM

> I think you presumed my game was taking the words so literally as to sacrifice their meaning for some semantic argument. > > > > You were wrong.

I presume you were identifying anything that could be legitimately considered erroneous - and it isn't that you were flawed in that regard (I technically agree with you), it's that you accompanied it by similarly flawed text of your own.

> When the author said "it corrects this gap" what they meant was, "it attempts to correct this gap", which is what I was arguing against.

I think that's not just fair, but righteous! But in this case I have two issues:

Your accompanying flaws (as noted)
I happen to have a fairly strong personal opinion about this particular topic, and as a consequence I think you and I are optimizing for different variables. In this case, I would say you are behaving how I would normally behave, and I am behaving anomalously to my normal approach - I think I may well qualify for some kind of criticism based on that, but would need to think about it a bit.

> Yes. Because it reframes the entire conversation toward the human instinct to use an abundance of caution around their offspring. Including children in the narrative, such as "poisoning our drinking water with X amount of toxin Y which is over Z legal amount is bad for everyone, but even more so for children as they're smaller and more susceptible to lower levels of toxins than adults" is fine. It has all the elements required. Amounts, legal limits, some scientific, quantifiable data that can be argued against. Simply saying "voting for this bill will murder children" is an appeal to emotion. It offers no evidence that can be argued with and presumes you're either in favor of murdering children or you're on the side of the author.

I do not disagree at all, but in this case, I consider that a feature rather than a bug.

If you think about it: is the particular manner(s) in which wealth is allocated in exchange for labour/assets (including national assets like minerals) not more than a little (at least) arbitrary, inconsistent, and of *at least questionable fairness? It's true that these things are subjective, but that goes both ways.

And then on top of it, there's the element of ~power (which comes in many forms, the media being a particularly noteworthy one), distorting things even further.

I happen to disagree with you on principle on this particular issue, but your argument is excellent and enjoyable to read, so I absolutely must upvote you if I'd like to get a good sleep tonight! I may even RES tag you in hopes that I may be somewhat less of a dick next time we have an encounter. :)

MSGRiley t1_itjqoe2 wrote on October 24, 2022 at 3:42 AM

>Your accompanying flaws (as noted)

The "flaws" you pointed out were all basically saying that the most literal translation could be said to be untrue. Again, this was not what I was trying to do with the author. I use tons of literary license. Eh? You like that? Tons. That sentence just keeps on giving.

>If you think about it: is the particular manner(s) in which wealth is allocated in exchange for labour/assets (including national assets like minerals) not more than a little (at least) arbitrary, inconsistent, and of *at least questionable fairness?

I've often found myself criticizing how we determine who's wealthy or popular in our society, but it's a far cry from that to "vote Republican or you're killing children" or "don't buy this or you're killing children."

In fact, not buying goods may cause layoffs would cause lack of health insurance in some households which may lead to the death of children. In short, anything you do MIGHT lead to the death of children. Suggesting that there's some choice you can make, which is conveniently "do what I want you to do", that will result in no children dying, is an appeal to emotion. As I see it anyway.

iiioiia t1_itjurc3 wrote on October 24, 2022 at 4:21 AM

> The "flaws" you pointed out were all basically saying that the most literal translation could be said to be untrue. Again, this was not what I was trying to do with the author. I use tons of literary license. Eh? You like that? Tons. That sentence just keeps on giving.

It is excellent!

> I've often found myself criticizing how we determine who's wealthy or popular in our society, but it's a far cry from that to "vote Republican or you're killing children" or "don't buy this or you're killing children."

I am an extremist (or, very open to the principle of it at least), so I am a-ok with spreading death around much more evenly. At the very least, I think it can be persuasive. Children (of all colors) >>> Western Boomers in my books.

> In fact, not buying goods may cause layoffs would cause lack of health insurance in some households which may lead to the death of children. In short, anything you do MIGHT lead to the death of children.

True. But then, we can acknowledge that the future is predictable/probabilistic, or we can pretend it is a total mystery.

> Suggesting that there's some choice you can make, which is conveniently "do what I want you to do", that will result in no children dying, is an appeal to emotion. As I see it anyway.

We're told we have control over our destiny (via Democracy, our most sacred institution), but I happen to not buy it. So as long as our leaders are ok with playing make believe, I'm ok in principle with engaging in extreme experimentation (including deceit) in pursuit of improving things for children and the underprivileged, globally. And if some Very Bad Luck befalls Westerners - too bad, so sad...after all: that's "just the way it is, nothing can be done, don't worry things will get better in time, just be patient". I'm sure some charts can be found that are moving from the lower left to the upper right, indicating that All is Well - would be fun to see if they buy that so easily when the shoe is on the other foot.

/rant

MSGRiley t1_itjwfov wrote on October 24, 2022 at 4:38 AM

> Children (of all colors) >>> Western Boomers in my books.

This flies in the face of the laws of nature. Survival of the fittest. By taking ideas and processes that fail and elevating them over processes that produce "unequal" results, you're choosing failure as your condition for excellence.

I don't think I'm on board with that. Also not on board with racism or ageism.

>we can acknowledge that the future is predictable/probabilistic, or we can pretend it is a total mystery.

I see the merit in raging against the dying of the light, but recognize that one often meets his destiny on the road he takes to avoid it.

>We're told we have control over our destiny

We're told we have an influence on our destiny through our actions. Not control.

>I'm ok in principle with engaging in extreme experimentation (including deceit) in pursuit of improving things for children and the underprivileged,

This is why I dislike the far left and far right. The supervillain proposition. Everyone is stupid but me, I see things clearly, therefore it's OK for me to fool or coerce everyone on the planet to my will. Think of a bad name in history, he/she probably felt the same way.

iiioiia t1_itjx6a5 wrote on October 24, 2022 at 4:45 AM

> This flies in the face of the laws of nature. Survival of the fittest.

People can be rendered unfit pretty easily - people in the Middle East have a fair amount of experience with that principle. Would be a shame if such a fate befell us over here some day.

> I don't think I'm on board with that. Also not on board with racism or ageism.

Your support is appreciated, but not required.

> I see the merit in raging against the dying of the light, but recognize that one often meets his destiny on the road he takes to avoid it.

Sometimes. And sometimes one's destiny is set by other people (like the people "the West" drops bombs on, or the people that were not so lucky to make it out of the twin towers, or the people who died as a consequence of some lunatic refusing to get a vaccine - so terribly sorry about that, better luck next time!).

> We're told we have an influence on our destiny through our actions. Not control.

Close enough for this domain, imho.

Besides, the whole "democracy" illusion gives me near infinite fuel to sustain rage for the rest of my life.

> This is why I dislike the far left and far right. The supervillain proposition. Everyone is stupid but me, I see things clearly, therefore it's OK for me to fool or coerce everyone on the planet to my will. Think of a bad name in history, he/she probably felt the same way.

Oh, I know I'm not thinking "clearly" here - I think a good target to aim for is the clarity of thinking that the personnel in the US War Machine have when doing their dirty work - clear, but with very carefully drawn limits such that one can achieve one's goals: determine the destiny of certain people, whether they like it or not. As the saying goes: "One good turn deserves another!"

MSGRiley t1_itjxsip wrote on October 24, 2022 at 4:52 AM

I mean this as criticism, but not insult, if you would be kind enough to indulge my splitting hairs. The kind of thing that I'm hearing in your post is exactly the kind of thing that would cause one to fail a psych eval.

Preoccupation with "righting perceived injustice" regardless of cost.
Authoritarian declarations.
Reductionist and uncharitable accounts of history and people's choices, especially describing freedom of personal choice as lunacy.
Expression of rage.
Expressing desire to turn thought into violent action to achieve a stated "manifesto" or political goal.

All of this causes me some concern.

iiioiia t1_itk0hyo wrote on October 24, 2022 at 5:23 AM

Hey, well like Mr. HST would say: when the going gets weird, the weird turn pro.

I don't think it is too big of a burden to bear to think about such things now and then, we're all philosophers here after all. And a little artistry more often wouldn't kill us, I don't think.

And it's not exactly off the topic of the thread either I would say. Or is it?

MSGRiley t1_itk0yf1 wrote on October 24, 2022 at 5:28 AM

>And a little artistry more often wouldn't kill us, I don't think.

It isn't artistry that I'm worried about killing anyone.

I find it interesting that what amounts to a "some assembly required" kit of call to violence manifesto is justified by the concept that an EA microtransaction is somehow, in some butterfly wings effect, responsible for deaths of children in the third world and proof of some oppression hierarchy built on genocidal white supremacy or some such.

I feel like the philosophically minded might find this ironic.

iiioiia t1_itl6dud wrote on October 24, 2022 at 1:44 PM

> It isn't artistry that I'm worried about killing anyone.

Why not? If one was to peruse the history books, I think you'd find art's fingerprints all over the place. Consider something as recent as COVID: I presume you subscribe to the theory that vaccines save lives, and that conspiracy theorists' stories contributed to a non-trivial amounts of death (due to the believers of these stories not getting vaccinated as a consequence of ingesting them into their minds). If you read some of these stories, are they not often incredibly artistic, with their passionate descriptions of "reality" and calls to action, creative stretching of the truth, and various other common artistic flairs?

And never mind the conspiracy theorists - how about the mainstream, "responsible and trustworthy" journalism/messaging - did this not also utilize many(!) of the very same techniques, if perhaps with a bit more (on a relative scale anyways, which is how humans perceive reality as luck would have it) epistemic quality to them?

To me, the situation is clear:

our whole world runs on stories
all good stories contain artistry

Is it not so?

And if so, should we then not perhaps be at least a little curious about why some just-so stories consistently get the official seal of approval and other just-so stories consistently get the seal of "fake news", when a skilful deconstruction and epistemic analysis of the respective stories would quickly reveal that none of the stories really "add up" comprehensively, and whoever is doing the "official" (despite no vote being held on the matter) categorization is "a little biased"? I mean, come on: there are literally lives at stake here, is some seriousness not warranted?

> > > > I find it interesting that what amounts to a "some assembly required" kit of call to violence manifesto....

Nice.

> ...is justified by the concept that an EA microtransaction is somehow, in some butterfly wings effect, responsible for deaths of children in the third world and proof of some oppression hierarchy built on genocidal white supremacy or some such.

Hold up now....what are you getting at here? Firstly, I don't think I accused anyone of being responsible for any of this. My words were descriptive in nature, I was only describing plausible cause and effect relationships (correlations), I wasn't saying that anyone was necessarily at fault. I mean, think about it: who says that the way things are isn't right, if not righteous? My claim is more so that it is....non-beautiful, and perhaps(!) some other negative things, and I also concede there are many upsides (for us anyways) to this particular way of doing things.

Furthermore, I have no idea what you're referring to with an "EA microtransaction" bearing responsibility for death (what's the cause and effect relationship there?), or anything about proof(!) of "genocidal white supremacy" (I can agree substantially with the "oppression hierarchy" part though).

These are slippery rocks we're walking on, we should choose our words carefully lest confusion beset us, just as our wise leaders do when they are broadcasting into people's minds "how things are" in the world (which at least plausibly influences the way they act in the world, both on an individual and collective basis, and so forth and so on).

> > > > I feel like the philosophically minded might find this ironic.

It seems almost certain, especially if one considers the widespread (ubiquitous?) phenomenon where two minds can observe literally the same thing and come away with extremely confident but completely different knowledge (just ask them, they'll tell you with complete sincerity) about what it was they saw.

That's my take on it anyways - thoughts?

MSGRiley t1_itla24s wrote on October 24, 2022 at 2:11 PM

Thoughts?

I just have a lot of them. First, I wonder who you were on Reddit before OCT 2020.

Second, all of Covid is a land war in Asia. It's nearly impossible to comment on the conflict without embroiling yourself in a 5 front war. The problem is that it has been politicized, with Trump pushing for vaccines and Democrats saying that they wouldn't trust them, then switching roles once Biden came to power. Thusly anything you have to say about the vaccines or mandates, pro or con, there's a healthy stockpile of argument and fact that can be used to support your position and it would take forever to unravel that.

Third, the very essence of the discussion was regarding how purchases have a cost in children's lives, so I'm dubious regarding your confusion as to why this is being brought up.

Fourth, humans have an amazing ability at storytelling which has served them for both news and entertainment for quite a while. Humanity also has the arrogance, imagination, bigotry and creativity to manufacture such irresponsible and damaging lies as to divide the greatest nations on the planet.

And lastly, I'm concerned. That's all. Just concerned.

iiioiia t1_itle9pd wrote on October 24, 2022 at 2:41 PM

> First, I wonder who you were on Reddit before OCT 2020.

Why? Do you think (just speculating here) that I might be one of those Russian Trolls that I've been hearing so much about? It's certainly possible, that's for sure. And, The Experts have advised us to be on high alert for such goings on. Now I'm not making any accusations here, I'm just saying: it adds up (where "it" is the prospect that I am likely to be a Russian Troll, in that "I" check the necessary boxes, thus it is reasonable to form that conclusion).

> Second, all of Covid is a land war in Asia. It's nearly impossible to comment on the conflict without embroiling yourself in a 5 front war. The problem is that it has been politicized, with Trump pushing for vaccines and Democrats saying that they wouldn't trust them, then switching roles once Biden came to power. Thusly anything you have to say about the vaccines or mandates, pro or con, there's a healthy stockpile of argument and fact that can be used to support your position and it would take forever to unravel that.

Mostly agree, and can't help noticing: isn't it a bit weird? Like, if you were running this show, is the way that it is being run equal to the way that you would run it?

To be clear: I certainly understand that "mistakes happen", especially when things are moving fast - but things weren't moving all that fast before covid ("normal", mostly), and when one realizes there are mistakes/flaws in a system (say, your population is ~dumb, to the point of being highly prone to suggestion), is it not standard convention to address those mistakes? But when you look around, is it not substantially true that there is an absolute truckload of obvious, bi-partisan, non-controversial flaws in our system, and most of them get lip service, at best (if aid to starving children doesn't float your boat (it is rather socialist, to be fair), how about something as simple as single payer medical care, an issue that is both important and is one of those very rare items that has bi-partisan political support, at least among the population of this democracy we live in)? At worst, they get obviously distorted coverage, or not mentioned at all (not to open an ontological can of epistemic worms or anything, just musing). I dunno about you, but I can't shake the feeling that there's maybe something....not-entirely-organic about the whole package.

> Third, the very essence of the discussion was regarding how purchases have a cost in children's lives, so I'm dubious regarding your confusion as to why this is being brought up.

Oh that. Well, I'm of the belief that humanity, particularly "The West", optimizes for numerous(!) variables over and above the happiness of overall humanity. On one hand, this is an extremely unpopular theory, but then on the other hand, I am far from the only person who subscribes to it. In fact, it isn't even all that difficult to find politicians from either party singing the praises of such ideas! And yet, there tends to be not a lot of follow through on these ideas, or even serious, in-depth discussion. It's probably nothing, of course, but it's one of those ideas that sits in the back of the mind and makes you wonder - do know what I am saying, sir?

> Fourth, humans have an amazing ability at storytelling which has served them for both news and entertainment for quite a while.

Indeed - we even get stories in this very subreddit "now and then", often accompanied by an insistence that thinking in stories is the only acceptable approach - and this is a philosophy subreddit!

> Humanity also has the arrogance, imagination, bigotry and creativity to manufacture such irresponsible and damaging lies as to divide the greatest nations on the planet.

Too true, too true.

> And lastly, I'm concerned. That's all. Just concerned.

Well you should be!

I'm curious though: exactly what is it that you are concerned about? And I might as well ask in advance (you know me!): how confident are you that what you are worrying about is what you should be worrying about? I mean, do we humans even have a sophisticated (and legitimate, accurate(!), etc) methodology for determining what we should be worried about?

And if not:

why not?
what are we using, in fact, as an alternative?

MSGRiley t1_itll6ar wrote on October 24, 2022 at 3:29 PM

>I might be one of those Russian Trolls that I've been hearing so much about?

Not Russian. I see a lot of people who behave badly on Reddit get banned and come back with new accounts. It makes me wary (and weary if I'm honest) of anyone who's account is less than 3 years old but also participates in political or philosophical discussion.

>maybe something....not-entirely-organic about the whole package.

I think this is patently obvious to the most casual observer. Unfortunately most people are stupid and easily manipulated. One of the easiest things to convince people of is that they're smart and hard to manipulate.

>I'm of the belief that humanity, particularly "The West", optimizes for numerous(!) variables over and above the happiness of overall humanity.

There are still a bunch of governments and cultures competing on Earth. The suggestion that they should just "give up" and start working for global good, while all Star Trek universe greater good and all that, is unrealistic. Governments, economic systems and cultures compete. In fact, if they didn't, humanity wouldn't prosper; at least this version of humanity.

Governments are not moral entities. Not to say that they cannot act morally or immorally, but a government has a responsibility that surpasses individual morality. You, can individually make a decision to give up your lunch to a stranger who has nothing to eat. You cannot morally decide to give up the lunch of your children to a stranger who has nothing to eat. When you MUST SURVIVE (and governments must, foremost, survive) and further you must aim for the benefit of the largest group, it isn't a morality that guides you, but principles of success. There is room for morality only when there is surplus.

> I mean, do we humans even have a sophisticated (and legitimate, accurate(!), etc) methodology for determining what we should be worried about?

Look, a purely philosophical question. I like those.

Nearly every animal on the planet has developed some mechanism to recognize and cope with danger. Are they all legitimate? Accurate? Etc? To varying degrees.

To answer philosophically, it doesn't matter. The inevitability of death means that, success or failure will be washed away in 200 years anyway. From the perspective of the individual, well, they will have no perspective.

But a slightly less solipsist or existentialist perspective, you have the lab, the workshop and the field. I try to be an introspective person, dissecting my failures and trying to turn them into lessons to be learned for success. I try to test out my philosophy and methodology for approaching complex situations using forums such as Reddit and spirited conversation with strangers IRL. I also practically apply the underpinning principals I've learned through practical exercises in the real world.

I suppose, each person's ability to do these things varies in accordance with how much importance they're likely to place on the reliability of those tools.

iiioiia t1_itlo5z8 wrote on October 24, 2022 at 3:49 PM

> Not Russian.

Is that knowledge, or merely belief? (I couldn't resist.)

> I see a lot of people who behave badly on Reddit get banned and come back with new accounts. It makes me wary (and weary if I'm honest) of anyone who's account is less than 3 years old but also participates in political or philosophical discussion.

I heard a rumour once that people sometimes get their Reddit accounts deleted for discussing "non-sanctioned" topics. No idea how true it is, but the manner in which freedom of speech is implemented on Reddit and social media in general is....interesting.

> I think this is patently obvious to the most casual observer. Unfortunately most people are stupid and easily manipulated. One of the easiest things to convince people of is that they're smart and hard to manipulate.

Fair enough....but all the people? Like, why does there seem to be nobody that is interested in doing something? Is this not weird on its own, let alone in an environment where most people are involved in doing things at least 8 hours per day, 5 days per week? At the very least, is the dearth of novel ideas in this particular area not rather inconsistent with the whole?

> There are still a bunch of governments and cultures competing on Earth.

A weird detail in itself, from a more absolute perspective anyways.

> The suggestion that they should just "give up" and start working for global good, while all Star Trek universe greater good and all that, is unrealistic.

Give up? Star Trek? Sir: are you referring to something I've said? Because I certainly don't believe in anything like that.

Not only do I not peddle false dichotomies, I am a bitter enemy of them - if I had my way (could you imagine, lol), I would ban them from being used at all!

> Governments, economic systems and cultures compete.

An extraordinarily (I kid, I kid) nice way of looking at it!

> In fact, if they didn't, humanity wouldn't prosper; at least this version of humanity.

Perhaps. But then simultaneously, have we not also been instructed that cooperation is, in fact, The Way to Go? (Well, at least abstractly instructed.)

> Governments are not moral entities.

No argument here! 😂

> Not to say that they cannot act morally or immorally, but a government has a responsibility that surpasses individual morality.

I suppose - but then: by what methodology are the lines drawn? And, do you and I get any say in this, really?

> You, can individually make a decision to give up your lunch to a stranger who has nothing to eat. You cannot morally decide to give up the lunch of your children to a stranger who has nothing to eat.

Are morals objective? Or worse: what is the nature of their existence, in fact? What if morals are mostly just more stories we tell ourselves so we can "make it through the night"?

Also: how well does this methodology scale? To what degree is it optimal? Has it been decided upon democratically (I'm using an extremely literal sense of the word here, not the more popular colloquial meaning)?

> When you MUST SURVIVE (and governments must, foremost, survive)....

Seems reasonably accurate.

> ...and further you must aim for the benefit of the largest group...

This seems....less so, to the degree of wandering into not just wrong territory, but backwards.

> ...it isn't a morality that guides you, but principles of success.

Is "success" objective? Do you and I get any say on the algorithm that calculates "success"? What about dying babies, do they get any say (or, their parents, since babies are typically too dumb to have a substantial opinion, even leaving aside that the babies in question may not being operating at peak cognition, what with their caloric deficit, combined with the fact that the brain consumes ~20% of the body's energy)?

> There is room for morality only when there is surplus.

I suppose. But then: what if humanity never reaches surplus, or is unable to realize (lack of training?) when they have? I mean: do we even have a way of detecting that state? Do we even have a definition?

MSGRiley t1_itlunop wrote on October 24, 2022 at 4:32 PM

If you're subtly hinting that I'm a Russian bot, either for pure amusement or some kind of probing, I can tell you that I am definitely not. And that's ~~правда~~ I mean, TRUTH! Truth is what I meant.

I have had several individuals develop an obsession with me and follow me around Reddit with alts harassing me personally, so I can tell you it wasn't because of leftist censorship, which has become rampant on Reddit.

I think people don't "do" anything because they're efficiently divided and apathetic. The problem is that the ruling class has kept trying to squeeze every last drop of wealth for themselves and the Marxist have stepped up their game which includes disruption of the basic services of the masses which is far more quickly going to push people to conflict than abortion rights or arguments over people's naughty bits.

You were speaking about how the west optimizes for itself over the world. I was just commenting that yes, of course it does. It's competing with the rest of the world. We're not one global entity. We're individual countries. Cooperation is useful but problematic in the long run as a countries needs and leadership change.

The morality of man is, of course, as subjective as the experience of men. This is why we often attempt to lash it to the observable truth we can agree on. More and more we're seeing a greater amount of fog and shadow being artificially pumped into the world's optics by those who benefit from the obfuscation of morality, making it just as morally deplorable to prevent someone from killing a child as to kill the child yourself.

Which is why appeals to emotion, false dichotomies, and false premises are more common than grounded argument, because they're cheap and effective on the masses who feel themselves more intelligent due to their programming in university. The same people who can't answer basic questions about geography or history or even why they're calling someone racist or voting for someone are the ones gorilla glued to the notion that they're intellectually superior.

So when we measure success in terms of government, we once again attempt to bolt it to the observable reality that we share. Unfortunately we have 10K resolution on this reality now, where before we were 8 bits on a good day. So there were far fewer metrics to compare and winners were more easily decided. I'm not certain the high res view is helping, unless people are going to uncharacteristically shift to being more clear about what exactly they mean, which I severely doubt.

iiioiia t1_itm36nm wrote on October 24, 2022 at 5:27 PM

> If you're subtly hinting that I'm a Russian bot, either for pure amusement or some kind of probing, I can tell you that I am definitely not. And that's правда I mean, TRUTH! Truth is what I meant.

Ah, Truth. Glad that's all settled then - we shan't speak another word if it.

> I have had several individuals develop an obsession with me and follow me around Reddit with alts harassing me personally, so I can tell you it wasn't because of leftist censorship, which has become rampant on Reddit.

Oh, don't get me started on Redditors - I know the type.

> I think people don't "do" anything because they're efficiently divided and apathetic. The problem is that the ruling class has kept trying to squeeze every last drop of wealth for themselves and the Marxist have stepped up their game which includes disruption of the basic services of the masses which is far more quickly going to push people to conflict than abortion rights or arguments over people's naughty bits.

Efficiently divided? Ruling class? Squeeze every last drop of wealth for themselves? Disruption of the basic services of the masses? Push people to conflict?

Sir: are you a conspiracy theorist? I ask because advisories have also indicated that we should be On The Lookout for these types of people as well. We've settled the Russian Troll possibility, if it isn't too much trouble, I'd also like to ensure I'm dealing with someone who is speaking In Good Faith (which all Conspiracy Theorists are not, as I assume you well know).

Again: not pointing any fingers, just being On Guard, according to standard protocol.

> You were speaking about how the west optimizes for itself over the world. I was just commenting that yes, of course it does.

What do you mean here by "of course it does"?

> It's competing with the rest of the world.

I thought we were All One People - different races and creeds, of course, but ultimately the same. Is this not True?

> We're not one global entity. We're individual countries.

Are the two mutually exclusive?

> Cooperation is useful but problematic in the long run as a countries needs and leadership change.

Is this a comprehensive list of the underlying reasons, or something more like the top two items from a list sorted by objective causal importance?

> The morality of man is, of course, as subjective as the experience of men. This is why we often attempt to lash it to the observable truth we can agree on.

Observable truth? Is this something like when people say "X is True, because it is clear that it is True"?

> More and more we're seeing a greater amount of fog and shadow being artificially pumped into the world's optics by those who benefit from the obfuscation of morality, making it just as morally deplorable to prevent someone from killing a child as to kill the child yourself.

Now that you point it out, people do seem to behave in a logically inconsistent manner, at least "now and then" anyways. I wonder: could there be more to this theory?

> Which is why appeals to emotion, false dichotomies, and false premises are more common than grounded argument, because they're cheap and effective on the masses who feel themselves more intelligent due to their programming in university. The same people who can't answer basic questions about geography or history or even why they're calling someone racist or voting for someone are the ones gorilla glued to the notion that they're intellectually superior.

Despite sounding a bit conspiratorial, this simultaneously does seem rather true. I feel conflicted on what to believe.

> > > > So when we measure success in terms of government, we once again attempt to bolt it to the observable reality that we share.

When you say "measure", are you speaking literally, or colloquially? (See also: "success", and "government")

> Unfortunately we have 10K resolution on this reality now, where before we were 8 bits on a good day.

Resolution: "the number of pixels contained in each frame".

Hmmmmm....I wonder how well this two-dimensional analogy maps to the ontological nature of reality.

> So there were far fewer metrics to compare and winners were more easily decided.

Speaking of comparing metrics: who decides which metrics make the cut, and which....do not?

And, who is it who is doing the "deciding"?

> I'm not certain the high res view is helping, unless people are going to uncharacteristically shift to being more clear about what exactly they mean, which I severely doubt.

I can't really disagree (much) with your anecdotes, reasoning, or conclusion. It makes me wonder: could it be that we are "doing it wrong", or at least: far from optimally? But then, I haven't really heard any of The Experts mention the notion, so clearly my suspicions are likely to be unsound. But still, something seems.....off.

MSGRiley t1_ito2jsr wrote on October 25, 2022 at 1:35 AM

Each brand of crazy has their own pejoratives they like to employ to identify themselves. "Conspiracy theory" and "election denier" are left wing terms. Given that we are currently living through a time where the left has total control of their side of the corporate media to the point where it's unsettling how in lock step they are and there are so few right wing news sources, the terms are nearly meaningless. The difference between news and conspiracy theory seems to be about 6 months.

A key element to the leftist news center is to push for this "one Earth" globalism. Certainly, at some point in the future, we need to have a winner in this culture war, but I doubt that will ever completely unite humanity. It is in our nature to be diverse, and in diversity there is conflict and competition. This is why I said "THIS" version of humanity.

We currently have only our subjective experiences and a great deal of skepticism as to the capacity of others to accurately report their subjective experiences of reality. Political ideology often replaces individual morals, creating a situation where key indicators of the success or failure of society are tailor made to the strengths of that political ideology, instead of more universally accepted standards. This is why that one post of yours caused such great concern, because this disconnect with reality grows over time, more often than not, leading to a point where individuals feel that they must do something to "take back the power" from what the perceive are bad faith actors operating as a force of evil in the world.

Humanity takes a long time to evolve, and it is our very nature that rallies against success, causing each great empire to rot from within in this ever divisive madness we create for ourselves. The only way forward that I can see is to take the clear, concise arguments put forth by those who represent each side and have open, honest conversations about our motivations and goals.

Unfortunately, I see no clear, concise representatives from the far right or far left. I only see clowns and shills and actors exploiting the conflict for personal gain.

iiioiia t1_itq7h9d wrote on October 25, 2022 at 2:38 PM

> Each brand of crazy has their own pejoratives they like to employ to identify themselves. "Conspiracy theory" and "election denier" are left wing terms. Given that we are currently living through a time where the left has total control of their side of the corporate media to the point where it's unsettling how in lock step they are and there are so few right wing news sources, the terms are nearly meaningless.

The shit quality of right wing sources is amazing - as dumb as leftist takes on it are, it's also kinda hard to blame them for their conclusions, all things considered.

> The difference between news and conspiracy theory seems to be about 6 months.

~True, and interesting.

> > > > A key element to the leftist news center is to push for this "one Earth" globalism. Certainly, at some point in the future, we need to have a winner in this culture war, but I doubt that will ever completely unite humanity. It is in our nature to be diverse, and in diversity there is conflict and competition. This is why I said "THIS" version of humanity.

The insistence on and denial of diversity (while simultaneously celebrating, that "which doesn't exist") is.....weird. But then, it perhaps shouldn't be too surprising either.

Some form of unity is possible, but figuring out the optimal parameters could be tricky. But if no one ever tries, it seems unlikely to succeed.

> We currently have only our subjective experiences and a great deal of skepticism as to the capacity of others to accurately report their subjective experiences of reality.

Not trying to improve on a situation doesn't help things.

> Political ideology often replaces individual morals, creating a situation where key indicators of the success or failure of society are tailor made to the strengths of that political ideology, instead of more universally accepted standards. This is why that one post of yours caused such great concern....

Mission accomplished then!

> ...because this disconnect with reality grows over time, more often than not, leading to a point where individuals feel that they must do something to "take back the power" from what the perceive are bad faith actors operating as a force of evil in the world.

Do you think these individuals have formed an incorrect belief?

> > > > Humanity takes a long time to evolve....

In some ways yes, in other ways no.

Consider how quickly beliefs can be normalized (to the degree that they are, in respective camps (usually two)) - COVID and the Ukraine war are fine examples.

> ...and it is our very nature that rallies against success, causing each great empire to rot from within in this ever divisive madness we create for ourselves.

Might the excess of bad prevent one from seeing the good though?

> The only way forward that I can see is to take the clear, concise arguments put forth by those who represent each side and have open, honest conversations about our motivations and goals.

It seems like a no brainer. Funny no one tries it eh?

(Note the PM I sent you.)

> Unfortunately, I see no clear, concise representatives from the far right or far left. I only see clowns and shills and actors exploiting the conflict for personal gain.

I see "good" candidates on a daily basis - I propose that we are surrounded by them, but cannot see.

NebXan t1_itiieyi wrote on October 23, 2022 at 10:02 PM

You're addressing arguments that I haven't made. Clearly, the author is making assumptions here, you can take issue with them if you wish. I'm simply pointing out that no appeal to emotion fallacy has been committed.

As I see it, the main assumptions the author makes are: A) that saving more childrens' lives is preferable to saving fewer, B) that redirecting more wealth to children's charities will save the lives of more children, and C) that using appeals to emotion can be an effective way to convince people to redirect more wealth to children's charities.

If all of these assumptions are true, then one can logically conclude that appeals to emotion can be used effectively to achieve preferable outcomes. That's the argument the author is making; you can agree or disagree with the premises, but there's no logical fallacy present there.

MSGRiley t1_itjgrp7 wrote on October 24, 2022 at 2:20 AM

>A) that saving more childrens' lives is preferable to saving fewer, B) that redirecting more wealth to children's charities will save the lives of more children

This is the appeal to emotion. There's no argument that connects those two things. As I said in another discussion in this thread, you may as well couch this decision in terms of

A. Saving children's lives is preferable to not.

B. Voting Republican saves more children's lives.

And then just arguing that saying "vote Republican to save children's lives" is an effective way to convince people to vote Republican. The inference being that voting Republican is the way to save children's lives.

Simple_Rules t1_itinmwt wrote on October 23, 2022 at 10:37 PM

You seem to be trying to argue that if an appeal to emotion is effective, it isn't a fallacy.

This is incorrect.

Fallacies are actually quite effective as far as rhetorical techniques go. The entire premise of "we should price coffees in fractions of a childs life" is blatantly an appeal to emotion, so much so that even in your attempt to defend it, you gave up on finding a way to word what it is other than calling it an appeal to emotion.

I suppose you could attempt to argue that the author is merely claiming that OTHER PEOPLE should employ the fallacy FOR THEM, but that's pretty absurd. If the author convinces some other person to actually do the appeal to emotion, they still were advocating for the use of the fallacy.

Dark_Clark t1_itivv7q wrote on October 23, 2022 at 11:37 PM

That is not what this person is saying. They are saying that even though the argument relies on premises that you may disagree with, your issue should be with the premises and not the validity of the argument since there is no fallacy being committed.

“Appeals to emotion can lead us to preferable outcomes” appears to be the author’s conclusion and it’s arrived at without employing an appeal to emotion fallacy despite the fact that the conclusion is about appeals to emotion.

[deleted] t1_itivau9 wrote on October 23, 2022 at 11:33 PM

[removed]

[deleted] t1_itjlime wrote on October 24, 2022 at 2:58 AM