Thanks for reminding me that we're not in ask historians, and thus have a bit more leeway in our cites:

>Sieges against Antioch had a history of costly failure. It was well known that the complicated instructions and long deployment time of their weaponry made Antioch's military an ineffective field force. At home, however, these disadvantages were irrelevant; with time for a careful, deliberate deployment, their "holy" hand grenades proved decisive against invaders, human and animal alike.

MPATHG (Cleese et al, 23.19)

We don't call it time travel because it's too familiar - but it is, in a way. We're all travelling through time, all the time. Or it least it feels like we are.

I mean, say I made a ship that produces WARP SCOOBY-DOO fields that distort the flow of time, and when I get in it, press a button, and get out, I'm in the year 4500.

But when I get there, some bald guy is like "oh, you weren't time travelling, you were just in STASIS for 2500 years". I'd dramatically tell him to "STEP OFF MY TIME BISTRO" - but how would I prove any sort of difference?

What is the real difference? That the ship was sitting there, with me looking frozen the whole time? Is that what counts? Would it make a difference if it was cloaked behind the scooby-doo rays?

What if I got in the ship and then got out in the past - would it matter then that the ship was sitting there with me frozen inside "during transit"?

Sure... but I mean.. if you went to sleep and woke up in the year 4500, it would feel a lot like time travel, right?

I'd certainly agree that many people are unwilling to engage with these questions (or even internally interrogate or understand their own positions) to much depth. That in itself is a complicated problem to tease apart.

In any case, I think your comment here has helped me understand the angle you're coming from.

As an alternative, here's a much more effective version of this article, more suited to our current rhetorical climate:

1. Understand that you're not trying to change anyone's mind. People who don't already agree with you are the enemy. They're lost. The only possible goal is to "energize your base", and convert "people who already agree with you" to "people who will get out and vote, donate, or buy your merchandise"
2. The best defense is a good offense. Again, you need to focus on people who already agree with you, so your core audience is pre-disposed to believe anything about your shared enemies. Especially if it's entertaining and allows them to feel superior and justified in their current beliefs.
3. Be vague about yourself and your beliefs, and specific about the adversary. Your supporters might be de-energized if they find out they don't agree with you on every little thing. Much safer to focus on the enemy and the clear-cut ways they can be made to look disagreeable.
4. Nobody will pay attention to more than one sentence - and they'll only read one sentence if it's entertaining. Get in, cause an emotional reaction in your supporters, get out.
5. Always consider your brand before speaking, and only say things that support your brand identity. Do not speak or engage debate on any subject that is not part of your brand.

I keep reading these articles, but I never really get your point. Like, you see some kind of subjective/objective divide here:

Take abortion: is a human life within a womb significant based on an objective fact or a subjective decision? Left leaning news articles will talk about the pain of a miscarriage and the necessity of the choice for abortion without seeing a contradiction because the significance of life is purely subjective, right leaning ones will talk about human life within the womb as if the idea of its value from conception is a kind of irrefutable objective fact.

And I don't see the distinction working that way. Either side in this, or most other debates, tend to claim "our side is objective fact and your side is incorrect subjective opinion" - but that doesn't mean that's what's happening. In general these disagreements are not about the two sides have taken different approaches to understanding reality, they're just disagreeing on the matter at hand and using "objective"/"subjective" distinctions to discredit their opponents.

As to abortion in specific, I think it's a good example of how metaphor is often not a productive basis for ethical decision making. Each side in this debate has a metaphor:

"Abortion is like murder, therefore wrong"

"Abortion is like other health choices, therefore OK"

With this sort of deontological/metaphor approach, there's not really a framework for resolving conflicts. And thus when conflicts arise, people tend to fall back to consequentialism. For example, when presented with "abortion in the case of rape", many people who otherwise accept a "murder equivalence metaphor" will suddenly become more circumspect because they don't like a consequence of their otherwise clear position.

So how do we actually resolve a debate like this as a society? Well, that's pretty tough.

A reasonable chunk of the population believe that correct ethical reasoning ends with the tenets of their religion. God says abortion is wrong. It's therefore always wrong.

The next chunk believes ethical reasoning can involve some consideration of outcomes - but they have specific beliefs about reality that flavor that consideration. For example, they might believe God endows a soul to a person on conception, and that therefore that person deserves the same ethical weight and protection as anyone else.

A further chunk might believe that a distinction is less clear, such that the ethical weighting afforded a developing embryo-fetus may likewise grow over time (ie. that a 2 cell embryo might be afforded very little consideration, while a 8 month old or "survivable" fetus may require more weight or consideration).

Another chunk might believe that a fetus is not afforded ethical weight - that they are effectively an appendage of a mother. Or that, while having ethical weight, those weights are trumped by a mother's right to control their own body. Or. Or. Or.

These differing viewpoints are often backed by a different understanding of objective reality. Other differences come down to philosophy, and differing opinions on who has a voice in the ethical bargain and/or how to resolve competing ethical priorities - or even what ethics is, and whether it itself is objective or subjective. Or they come down to different ideas about the appropriate intersection of ethics and the law.

Long story short... I don't think the problem is that we don't read enough poetry, are worried too much about science, and thus can't see the truth about abortion. There isn't a magic key to everyone synchronized on this. Some people are likely not clear on their own position or how they came to it... but generally I think people just legitimately disagree on "the state of the universe and whether there actually is a God who is concerned with our fetuses" and/or "how do we decide what's right" and/or "what should be the goal of our laws" and/or "how will things play out if we make a law that says X".

I don't understand what your subjective/objective distinctions (or myth or metaphor or whatever) are bringing in terms of resolving or understanding these questions.

And two of them, with a length of seaweed between them, could absolutely bring along a coconut.

Like.. never with continuation of current technology/approach? Never in general? Or just not soon?

Why not?