But it would still be me right? You haven't answered the question clearly and I would really like a direct answer.

If a cell without a brain is me, then so is my body with some damage to the head, right?

Yes, it is still you even with damage to the head.

So if I'm shot in the head, nothing relevant changes right? It's still me. No different than a broken arm. The DNA of my cells would be the same, most of the biology would still be perfectly fine.

A relevant change would be a hole in your head and damage to very important parts of your body. It's much different than a broken arm in that it's a different location on the body and involves different anatomy. No, your biology would not be perfectly fine.

Yeah, that was you the whole time, the biology. It's all you are. It's all you will be.

If they don't respond, you need some kind of other evidence that they're thinking.

It all seems very arbitrary. It’s not unlike the soul concept.

What evidence? You never gave me any.

You could ask your mother. You could watch any human birth. Look at sonograms and infer from there. But the fact is all homo sapiens were fetuses. You are a homo sapien. Therefor you were a fetus.

I don't really understand what you're talking about here. "Such a pronoun"? Which one? Is the question whether my mind is connected to my body?

Never mind. It’s all to convoluted, like religion

An actual person is an actual person. Someone you can meet and talk to, and who responds.

Morality ought to concern persons, subjects. I don't see how their species would be relevant.

Are those who do not respond not persons? Are persons and subjects living human beings or are they not?

"Everyone knows" is not an argument. I gave you the reasoning, I trust you're capable of understanding it.

Point proven. I’ll put you down as the first person I’ve ever met who believes they were never a fetus. Unfortunately the reasoning fully contradicts the evidence.

That's one way of putting it. Though I'm an embodied soul, whose existence is measurable. "Soul" often implies something esoteric, but I don't mean to imply that anything mystic is going on. Merely that "I" am formed from a connection of a body, some kind of cognitive process and memories.

A clump of cells would not be me even if it shared my DNA. If you made an exact copy of me, that copy would cease to be me the moment it added it's own experiences.

I don't think any of this is very complicated in principle.

It is very complicated because you have no thing nor structure nor any formation to point to that can proven to be connected to your body, and that can be labelled with such a pronoun, other than the things, structures, and formations already in there.

So, if no actual person forms, then how does morality come into it at all?

I don’t know what an “actual person” is. What I do know is that a human being forms, and that morality ought to concern human beings.

So, argumentum ad populum?

Biology and anthropology. What is your basis?

I don't know whether I was ever a fetus. I have no memories of existing prior to birth (as I understand most people do not), and I don't know any other way to establish whether I existed at some point.

"I" am neither my cells nor my DNA.

Everyone knows, actually. It is an irrefutable fact that you were a fetus.

But there you have it. You are not your cells nor your DNA. Then what are you? A soul?

What else would a "human being in it's earlierst development" refer to?

It cannot refer to the actual person that eventually forms after birth, as that person doesn't exist. So it could only refer to their "soul", which somehow already represents the person.

It refers to the earliest stages of every human being that ever existed. There is no biological evidence that a soul or “actual person” forms at any point during the lifecycle. That’s your assumption.

Really? That is how your morality works? Just a coinflip where you either happen to believe something or don't?

Again your non-religious morality sounds awfully like a religion. Why do we respect people's rights to life and liberty? Because we recognise ourselves in them. We recognise that every individual is valuable in themselves and we can never replace one with another, so the only reasonable rule is to protect all as much as possible.

The problem is, this reasoning doesn't apply to "theoretical people". Individuals are valuable for what they are, not what they might be.

Not a coin flip. I pointed out that most parents feel the force of this principle, and the evidence is that an unfathomable amount of parents do indeed carry and care for human beings in the earliest stages of development, up until and including incubating them in their own bodies.

You do recognize that you were once a fetus, I assume. At no point in your life were you theoretical after conception. That’s utter nonsense, I’m afraid.

All of them involve the intentional killing of very young and helpless human beings. That’s all I mean.

That's begging the question though. The whole problem is that you have to assume that human beings are around as disembodied souls waiting to exist for that argument to make sense.

And that is definitely a religious position.

Why would anyone need to assume that?

This is a kind of intellectual sleight of hand. You're starting with a biological description (using descriptive concepts such as "lifecycle") and you want us to conclude from your phrasing ("to kill an individual human being") a moral judgement. But you haven't justified the judgement on its own terms.

I start at the principle “a human being in its earliest development deserves a chance to live”. Given the helplessness of a human being in his early development, such a principle seems to me imperative. Any subsequent moral judgements proceed from this one.

So if it's not about feelings or anything else biological, what is it about? Why do we care? What's the humanist principle for?

Exactly. Why do you care or not? You either believe human beings in their earliest development deserves a chance to live, to be protected, or you do not.

That's poisoning the well. You're falsely insinuating that your opposition is "proud of" abortion.

Abortion rights is often posited as a mark of an enlightened society, when in fact infanticide, child sacrifice, and acts of these sorts is a stone age and barbaric practice.

Trump’s back in Butler, Pennsylvania today, the same spot where a smooth-brained anti-Trumpist found his balls and did what all anti-Trumpists wanted to do if they only had the stones, which is to assassinate their folk devil.

Apparently even Elon Musk is going to be there. So if they wanted to destroy two folk devils in one they might just try to do so.

https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2024/oct/05/us-politics-donald-trump-kamala-harris-joe-biden

One needn’t be religious to oppose abortion or infanticide. The sanctity of human life isn’t just a religious principle, but a humanist one. Our bodies have largely evolved for the task of protecting human life in its earliest development, and many of us hold to right-to-life principles, for instance that a human being in its earliest development deserves a chance to live. Anyone who has carried or cared for a child understands the force of this. Many of us act to see this proposition through.

It is my opinion that we ought not to be so glib and flippant about the killing of human beings. All of this is a grave matter. We know that an individual human lifecycle begins at conception, since it cannot begin anywhere else, and any scalpel through the spine or intentional deprivation of essential nutrients after this point is to kill an individual human being. That’s why the evasions about whether the fetus has feelings or if it is biologically inhuman serve only to cast doubt on the humanity of this being in its earliest stages, to dehumanize it, making the abnegation of any right-to-life principle an easier pill to swallow for those who wish to see it eviscerated with sheers. If you extend this depravity to a different point along the human life continuum, you can see the same arguments used to justify genocide and murder.

I don’t think any of this means we should prohibit abortion. Infanticide is a historical fact. Females often kill or abandon their offspring throughout the animal kingdom. Perhaps we should make humane options available. But it is surely nothing to be proud of.

I don’t remember saying that and I think you’re imagining things. If I’m wrong I’d like to know what I said and in what context. Forgive me.

Any quote or context?

FEMA is an illusion? Jesus christ.

Nothing can be done by the state? What do you mean?

There are plenty of cysts in the female reproductive system. A fetus is just another one of those. And if a cyst doesn’t resolve on its own, we remove them. That’s just rationality at work.

And it should be easy for you to look it up yourself but you apparently prefer to stay misinformed. Can't help people who are unwilling to help themselves.

I did. Very easy. It’s not looking good. It’s starting to look like Katrina. Remember that?

Then it should be easy to show me a photo or video of FEMA doing something.

Looks like they were right. From what I can see the only people saving anyone is private, state, and local people. Remember Katrina?

From my view the federal response to the recent hurricane and flooding has been obscene, another indication of its wasteful inefficiency. Out of money and out of time. While Biden and Kamala are busy with more important things, like funding foreign wars and campaigning for power, the people who live there are largely left to fend for themselves.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/02/us/fema-floods-north-carolina.html

I’m not sure he grabbed women by the pussy. The phrase “You can do anything” only means “I did everything” in clown world. What was hilarious, however, was the speech, how it was used, and the reaction. Like I said: clown world.

But there is nothing funny about slapping a woman in a drunken rampage.

I was never stuck on it on the first place. In fact I thought it was hilarious. The only thing I do not condone was the gossip and ink shortage that resulted from it.

I don’t know if I condone getting drunk and slapping women. Not a good look.

I thought we were supposed to care about such things. At least that’s what I was taught. I was supposed to feel outraged when Trump said “grab them by the pussy” decades ago. Are we finally past that?

Trouble for the upcoming first gentleman, or baseless rumors?

Vice President Kamala Harris’ husband is being accused of slapping his ex-girlfriend for flirting with a valet worker at a ritzy gala in 2012, a new report claims.

Second Gentleman Doug Emhoff, 59, supposedly struck his then-girlfriend — described as a successful New York attorney — in the face so hard she spun around while in a valet line after an event at the Cannes Film Festival in May 2012, the three unnamed friends of the woman reportedly told the Daily Mail.

All three sources requested not to be named due to fear of retaliation from Emhoff, the Daily Mail said.

https://nypost.com/2024/10/02/us-news/doug-emhoff-accused-of-forcefully-slapping-nyc-girlfriend-for-flirting-with-other-man-at-ritzy-gala-in-2012-report/

This is the same guy who got his nanny pregnant, so it's hard to put it past him.

The Seven Wise Men could not have been wrong nor would they teach such a distasteful doctrine. I think this reasoning (or lack thereof) adds more to the character development of Socrates, specifically giving the reader another reason not to trust him. Probably a reference to his arguments in Protagoras

The principium individuationis is the principle of individuation Schopenhauer used to describe space and time. So describing the location of the object at any given point in time and space should suffice to differentiate or individuate the object from the conceptual nets we tend to apply to a multitude. Objects can easily share names and descriptions but it is difficult to share a location.

From there I wager we can sweep away the notion of the universal essence, or other imagined connections, which presuppose a sort of ectoplasm between human beings. We can stop tying human beings together with false concepts and words to achieve an artificial basis of value, and discover value in the unique and original properties of each human being.

My main issue with pro-life is that your taking away a choice for people that don't share the same beliefs when having it the other way, everyone can do what they want.

Then why take away the choice whether to live or die from the child?

I’m sure you wouldn’t consider your fantasies to be misinformation or have any worry about damaging humanity with it. But in fact the only damage it has done is to you. It’s ok; you’ll survive.

You agreed the disinformation was a necessary condition to the bad act. That logically implies that in the absence of the disinformation, the act would not have occurred. In your defense of your position, you're coflating "necessary and sufficient" with "necessary". I haven't suggested that the disinformation alone caused the bad act, but you keep treating it that way- so you aren't confronting the issue I brought up.

Do you believe that since something is a necessary condition it therefor contributed to the act?

I can only find you falsely asserting it's a violation of free speech. This doesn't stop anyone from saying whatever they want, nor does it prevent them creating fake videos- so no rights are being infringed. (There's no right to commit fraud).

You’re just going to have to look harder before falsely asserting I didn’t answer it. And yes, vandalizing someone’s work violates their free speech.

That's utter nonsense. They depict a person saying/doing things they did not do - and they appear real. It's fraud. It's fine to parody, and watermaking wouldn't prevent that.

Hokum. Sassy Justice is satire, not a fraud.

Deepfakes are becoming increasingly sophisticated. It will eventually become impossible to determine if they're real. Video/ audio evidence has traditionally the best possible evidence of acts (whether by politicians or petty criminals). Sophisticated deepfakes make it harder than ever for rational people to discern what is true.

So why not get better at discerning what is true than giving some people the power to be the final word on truth?

Because I think there is something more useful to consider than the thread's title question, "Why should we worry about misinformation?"

Regardless of any matter of "should" there is the simple matter that some people do care about the damage to humanity that results from the propagation of disinformation and misinformation, and some people don't. To justify that all people should care, it would seem important that all people could care. So the topic of whether some people can't care is relevant, and that brings up psychopathy and whether you are capable of caring about the damage to humanity resulting from misinformation.

My own worry is the damage to humanity resulting from censorship. Are you capable of caring about that?

Also "immediate cause" or "proximate cause".
My voice directly stimulates cochlea, or a electronic sensor.

By your "metaphysics", a twitch of an index finger never killed anyone, nor usually a gun, but only bullets. So nothing to fear from someone with a gun.

That’s true. That’s what bullets are made for, why they are shaped the way they are, etc.

It doesn’t follow that you shouldn’t fear someone shooting bullets at you, however.

So how can you say the disinformation didn't contribute to this bad thing occurring?"

Misinformation cannot control a motor cortext. It did not plan the attack or load the weapon. Information cannot act. It did not contribute to the act because it is incapable of contributing.

who's harmed by such a requirement?

I did answer this question.

In what ways would we be better off by having these unequivocal lies compete with actual truth?

For one, deep fakes are not "unequivocal lies", as is demonstrated by the show Sassy Justice. We'd be better off without you telling us what is true or false, what is allowed and what isn't, and for us to figure out on our own accord what is true or false without a third party such as yourself.

But you quibble here?

Why is your metaphysics "quibbling" in one context, but in the more important context of misinformation it is somehow relevant?

If the metaphysics were sound maybe that would be one thing. But it is not. You are confusing "cause" with "direct cause". My voice cannot directly turn off the lights. But it can still turn off the lights with Alexa.

Ahh, "directly". Just great. So what can your voice directly do then?

It was a question which demonstrated your lack of empathy towards abused women. So it seems appropriate to consider the extent to which your perspective is a result of Psychopathy:

No, it was the question about why you're doing this. You haven't stopped writing about me yet, telling someone you have never met that they lack empathy and are psychopathic. I'm just curious as to why.

Good man.

You addressed nothing I said. You seem to be unable to think beyond "censorship bad".

No, you’ve addressed nothing I’ve said, while I’ve answered countless of your questions and tried to follow your logic in good faith.

But no. Care to try again?

It was just a question. Touchy subject, I’m sure.

So the speech, which caused the electrical signal that the software passed and interpreted, did not cause the lights to turn off? The software did? Or the electrical energy did?

If you are at someone's home, and say "Alexa, lights off" or whatever, and the host asks you why you turned off the lights, you answer "I didn't turn them off. The electrical energy did!"

Can you see why this is either a joke or sophomoric nonsense?

No, I don’t quibble much in everyday conversation. I would say, “yes, I turned the lights off”.

But then again everyday conversation doesn’t center much around metaphysics. Only if someone in this domain of discourse tells me my speech turned the lights off will I tell them they believe in sorcery. Your voice hasn’t moved a single switch in your whole life, but here you are acting like it does.

This is attempted gaslighting.

We can add to that the fact that you see yourself as being in a community of one and show no signs of having empathy for others.

Are you ready to take your best guess yet?

Attempted gaslighting...it is coming more and more evident that you're feeling like an abused girlfriend. Am I getting close?