honestly that is all I ask, that people tolerate my existence, and find a reason to hate me other than me being transgender. — sarah young

Well, "sarah" what kind of name is that, I hate that name. Lol, jk!!

But seriously, if anyone is a transphobe, they don't actually hate you, they hate what you represent, though I get that it comes out to many of the same actions in practice. But since they don't know you, they can't hate you. Just like racists don't actually hate individuals, they just hate the category of blacks or Mexicans or whatever. It sucks because that hatred of a category will stop people from getting to know the actually person behind the category, but it's not personal.

:rofl:

Then grow up, period. :kiss:

Grow up, then get back to me.

Grow up, then get back to me.

You didn't answer it. Owned. — Bartricks

What are you? 12?

I'm just going to give you some literature of your own to peruse right here:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/double-effect/#misinterpretations

"First, it is a misinterpretation to claim that the principle of double effect shows that agents may permissibly bring about harmful effects provided that they are merely foreseen side effects of promoting a good end. Applications of double effect always presuppose that some kind of proportionality condition has been satisfied. Traditional formulations of the proportionality condition require that the value of promoting the good end outweigh the disvalue of the harmful side effect."

And then definitely moving on, because it is senseless to talk with someone acting out as juvenilely as you are, especially when can't even do your homework about your own position right.

Why do you think I have not read the literature? I think you haven't. — Bartricks

Because you're making false claims about the literature.

For instance, above I drew attention to a way of drawing the distinction - a consequence of an action is foreseen rather than intended when the agent could, in principle, hope that it not obtain. — Bartricks

.... right, that would be then taking into account probability, which is entirely different from knowing A->B. If the subject truly believes that B might plausibly not happen, whether or not their hope is justified, then foresight wouldn't apply, because clearly they lack the relevant foresight.

But if you know the result of buying meat is that more cows will be killed, then that is foresight, and you did intend it. Whether that was your motive or not.

doctrine of double effect and discussed ad nauseam in philosophy journals - is confused and has no moral relevance? — Bartricks

Having read much of the literature myself, I know that philosophers make a distinction between the concepts of intention and foresight... but if you actually read the literature yourself you really ought to be aware that the disentanglement of the theoretical categories of these things does not mean philosophers think that they are actually disentangled in actions.

But basic logic should have suggested to you that it hasn't been settled with the conclusion of "confused and of no moral relevance," because if so there would be no continued discussion "ad nauseam."

Furthermore, you'd know that philosophers distinguish even more than just "intention and foresight." They also include motive, which is much of what you're talking about, actually.

Just to be clear - your position is that doing X knowing that Y will be a consequence is the same as intended Y? — Bartricks

And, just to be clear, that kind of obvious scenario is not really up for debate with many philosophers. They're more worried about side-effects and probabilities.

But we'll see if you're up to the task of discussing the subject at that level of complexity... since you're being rude already about the basics *shrug*

I often feel the same way. I guess some stubbornness is warranted since you're otherwise just like a flag waving wherever the wind blows you. But complaining about the same steadfastness in other people is what makes little sense.

. If you think it is, then you simply have a crude position. — Bartricks

Ah, yes, well, I'm sure the beauty and clarity of some simple truths are lost on those who confuse refinement with the logical equivalent of a poorly twisted pretzel. :smirk:

Yup, gross.
Pass me the peas, please :cool:

I'm going to try to explain it one more time before I move on with my life:

Even if you wish that consequence B was not a consequence of action A, if you foresaw that A leads to B, you made some calculation that you would prefer A AND B over some other choice. You simply decided that your adversity to B was not worth sacrificing your desire for A, so you decided B was worth A.

Your charity/tax example does nothing to change that. It merely shows that we can do the right thing for the wrong reasons, i.e., that we can cause the right thing for the wrong reasons.

And the trolley problem really doesn't prove your point either. Pulling the lever versus shoving the fat man are both directly causing the death of another person. One is just more immediate and physical, which is where our revulsion comes from.

As to your dig that I'm "dug in".... Well, let's just say it's interesting psychologically when two parties won't budge on their positions, but one party thinks the not-budging only makes the other person seem stubborn.

But believe what you will. I'm happy to rest my case until you have something new or interesting to add.

How do you figure?

Does that mean that they have stopped using worms as the protein additive, or that worms do not count as meat? :chin: — Sir2u

Who? BK? I don't know what is all in "real" meat... Not that it matters, cause decaying flesh seems all equally gross to me.

But the Impossible Burger they started using doesn't have worms in it.

I did hear that some places are experimenting with grasshopper burgers as a healthier and more environmentally-friendly alternative to beef.... But, eh, I'll stick to plant proteins for now.

I am focusing on one thing. You're the one trying to weasel it to fit your paradigm. It couldn't actually be more simple. Again, if you foresee that A->B and you do A on purpose, then you're causing B on purpose. Even if you wish A-/->B (as in your flight from fire example), you still decided on an action you knew would lead to B. Your wishful thinking doesn't absolve you from guilt. No more than Ted Bundy declaring that he wished strangling his victims hadn't led to their death would absolve him from wrongdoing or having chosen to murder them by strangling them.

Some scenarios in which you are forced externally to choose A might.... But in those cases you're not really "choosing" A, you are being forced by some external mechanism out of your control.

But your example isn't a very good one, because really it suggests A-> 99%B, but ~A->100%B, so really by jumping out the window you're choosing A-> 1%~B. But then, it's also a bad example because it involves a split second decision based largely on acute fear and pain and confusion because of fire and heat and smoke and noise.... Not really comparable to strolling through the supermarket.

If you pull the trigger on a gun and the person it's pointed at dies and you foresaw that it would happen.... it's not your fault?

No, you seem to be totally ignorant about how intention is an essential ingredient in an act of commissioning and how it differs from foresight. — Bartricks

*Sigh* if you have the foresight that A->B, then by willfully enacting A, you are willfully causing B.

You can only fall back on this argument if you are totally and 100% ignorant of how capitalism and business work.

Eh, they're just mad that BK is selling a meat-less burger that really tastes good now and are looking for something to complain about.

No, I am no more responsible for the cow's predicament than I am for the violinist's. — Bartricks

You're literally paying for cows to be murdered.

If I buy it that is not at all - not remotely - equivalent to me commissioning them to kill animals. — Bartricks

That is such twisted logic. Just imagine telling that to the court when you buy child pornography or human kidneys next time. "I wasn't enabling the murderers and child traffickers! I was just paying them for their goods and services! Big dif!"

It seems to me you are only taking one part of the sentence to heart, the "too experimental" part. Seems to me that the "non-commercial" part is the most important one the publishers care about.

There are lots and lots of reasons publishers reject books that have nothing to do with the quality of the book and everything to do with marketing. Just as a lame example, if vampire novels are "in" right now, they'll snatch up more vampire novels, BUT if they already have the max number of vampire novels they think they can sell for the most profit, they'll reject your novel.

Experimental writing has happened for literally millennia. That's why we have the now-considered-traditional novel in the first place! And then the Modernists in the early 1900's were all about breaking all the rules, and then the Beats broke some more.

But note that most breaks with tradition happened gradually. They broke some rules, but kept others. Just like Jazz musicians. Because too much strangeness too quickly turns off too many readers. You might think that's a negative feature of humans. Maybe it is. But it's also just kinda a fact. We can deal with only so much unrelatable dissonance at once in writing or in music. In time we get used to it and it no longer seems so awful. Lots of chords we consider pleasant now, were considered totally dissonant in Mozart's time. You can't expect too much change from humanity too quickly.

But also bear in mind, that (just like with too much musical dissonance!) if you have too much experimentation that the reader is not used to, the whole novel no longer seems coherent from their point of view. You might see how it all works together, but they can't. Again, you can critique that... but if you consider that art, and especially novels, are meant to be a form of communication, you may want to take your audience more into consideration.

Also, here's a list of some famous books rejected many times before publication: https://www.dailywritingtips.com/famous-books-rejected-multiple-times/

Rejection is hard, and it's harder with something you've poured much blood, sweat, and tears into. But it's also just part of the life of a writer or artist of any kind.

First of all, kudos to your charitably thinking people could stick to the guidelines of the OP to engage the thought experiment. As you've already noticed, it's like second nature to many people around here to skip engaging with the actual question and question the assumptions behind the question instead. (But, just as an aside, being vegetarian is actually very easy and healthy, so not really comparable to sharing your kidneys for life.)

Anywho: yes, I believe you are now more obligated to stay hooked up to the machine than you had been obligated before to hook yourself up to the machine. The difference is passive versus active moral actions. Before you were kidnapped, you were passively letting someone die, but now, unhooking yourself means you have to actually actively kill him. It may not feel fair, and yeah it sucks, but so does getting kidney disease. Sometimes you get sucky cards and you have to play them no matter what. Upside is that hospitals are pretty cushy nowadays. Downside is that their vegetarian dinner selection is pretty dismal (ironic, eh? The very place that's supposed to make you healthy can't usually make healthy food worth eating).

The Trolley Problem and its variations explore in depth how different levels of active participation change our perception of the moral permissibility of active and passive actions, i.e., most people would flip the switch to kill one person in order to save five, but most people would not push someone onto the tracks physically to save five others.

But I also think morality comes in degrees. Even if it does mean you fall on either the wrong or right side, some actions may not be as good as other actions or as bad. If you did choose to unhook yourself, it would be killing the guy, and it would be wrong, but it's obviously not as wrong as kidnapping and murdering a child in cold blood, for example.

I doubt any conservative and bigotry-inclined Christians or Muslims would like Jesus very much if he were alive. So there's that.

Darn brown-skinned, tree-hugging, bleeding-heart, long-haired, sandal-wearing hippie!

They all worship a version of Jesus that is a projection of their own worldview and desires, and not necessarily the Jesus portrayed in the Bible or even through historical analysis.

I'm against all nuclear armaments, but I can't say I blame any country with tensions with the US that thinks they should have one of those in their back pocket. We don't have a great track record about that stuff.

Not my fault your logic leads to absurd conclusions *shrug*

You make the argument on a case-by-case basis looking at other factors besides the propensity for lies. And you have to do that with every politician. You may as well just presume they are all willing to lie when it suits them. — Baden

Your solution is we be blind to people's history and personality and everything they've ever said and everything they've shown us about themselves?

That logic would lead to the conclusion that we should let all criminals out of all prisons.

If he's 99.9% scum, how would it make sense to ever give him the benefit of the doubt? Seems like a pretty steep gamble, especially when you have the fate of all the potential (and at this point probable) victims of war to consider.

The scorpion and frog fable still holds true after all these years.

If you're going to reduce yourself to the absurd claim that Trump is not capable of believing in any policy of his because he's a liar, you'll find yourself on the same level of political confusion as those who believe he's an absolutely honest dealer. Again, you need more. — Baden

That makes no sense. He's lied about everything, and he's taken opposite positions on all important issues. His actions directly contradict many of his talking points.

Cmon. At this point it would be absurd to think he's anything but a sham.

having a policy he actually believes in — Baden

The only policy I believe he believes in is "Trump first." And currently that means doing whatever he can to stay out of jail.

Assassinating politicians and civilians is not how you conduct peace talks. So clearly he lied about not wanting to continue the wars.

And, no, I don't think Trump really cares about the wall. He just uses it as a talking point that works with his base.

Yeah, cause he neeeeeever lies :rofl:

Fellow supporters of the forever wars in favor of a trillion dollar war industry.

I doubt it's that simple. — Baden

Hasn't it all been so far with Trump?

Consider that Soleimani was totally replaceable to begin with. They are currently deciding on a new general to take his place, and there's no reason to believe that the next one will be any more sympathetic to US interests, and every reason to believe he will be less so.

There is no obvious tactical advantage to starting a war with Iran, it just makes a huge mess with Iraq.

Sure, the MIC loves continuing wars and starting new ones cause that's literally their business, but Trump had personal reasons to do this exact thing at this exact moment in time.

I think it has nothing to do with politics of the Middle East and everything to do with Trump wanting impeachment off the front pages.

Also, Soleimani posted anti-Trump memes on the internet and Trump has the thin skin of any stupid bully.

Two birds with one stone.

Pluuuuus, reelection always works better when you have a new war to wage. Worked for Bush.

Then why form your reply as an argument rather than an agreement. If what you are saying is that we are saying the same thing differently, then just say so.

Yes, I agree that x=x is saying something new. It is saying it is redundant. — Harry Hindu

Now you're just totally confused.

I asked you a question. I'm asking what you mean by just x. From there, I might be able to understand what you mean by x=x. If we're not talking about symbols, or meaning, then we're just talking about scribbles. — Harry Hindu

Of course x is a symbol, but in this discussion it is not meant to stand for anything specific. It's a placeholder for anything and/or everything in the universe. Saying "X" (i.e., just x) is different than "x=x" (which is more than just x).

But if it helps you, we can use a specific example, like apple. "Apple" is different than "Apple = Apple."

You don't know what redundant means. — Harry Hindu

*Sigh*
I'm just trying to phrase this in a way that will get through to you by using your own words. I.e., explaining that the very aspect you think is superfluous and repetitive is the key to understanding why it's actually saying something new.

What are you saying when you say x? Are you just making a sound, or does the sound symbolize something that isn't you just making noises with your mouth? — Harry Hindu

And if you're still stuck on how x is a symbol for anything and/or everything in both math and logic and can't move beyond that to see how its being applied here, I'm not sure the conversation can go anywhere.

Yes, saying something redundant about x.

X is a symbol and symbols are already about something. A symbol can't be about itself. Then its not a symbol, but the thing itself. — Harry Hindu

It's the redundancy of x=x that tells us something about x explicitly that just x does not. X is self-identical. X doesn't tell us that. Although common sense might suggest it, it's not actually expressed through just X. It's only expressed by x=x.

Also, x=x is three symbols, even one of them is repeated.

:snicker:

*shrug* I'm not the one who doesn't know English. — StreetlightX

Um....:

for which philosophers ought be be expelled from the academy for. — StreetlightX

Okay then.

The arrogation of logical terms into metaphysical posulates is a cardinal sin for which philosophers ought be be expelled from the academy for. — StreetlightX

Cool story bro.