Sorry for misunderstanding. Yes, exactly my point.

You think so? In my mind dying is a process (of becoming dead), death is the last point of the process of dying and dead is one's state of being upon death.

If you mean: are my comments gender specific? Then, no.

I also think the "badness" of something is necessarily dependent on a conscious mind, to begin with. That is, though we might argue differently, it seems to already be "the experience" of conscious minds (collectively) that death is bad. So, is it only bad for conscious minds? And if so, once dead, does it cease to be bad for the deceased?

I'll admit, I may not have framed it well. Hopefully you can still find my point. Is being alive a necessary condition of death being bad?

Well, since "bad" is a subjective descriptor, there needs to be an observer to give an entity that label. But the observer need not be the person dying. It is true, though that whatever factor an observer evaluates to bestow the "bad" label, it likely preexisted the observation (and potentially the observer himself) and might postdate him as well (say, after his death).

Plato is right. By definition #2, there are no physical limitations. A dog that eats the most, and a dog that eats the least implies two physical limits, which violates #2

Incorrect. There are an infinite number of quantities between 1 bowl of food and 2 bowls, just as there are between 1/infinity and infinity.

I totally understand where you're coming from. It's naturally frustrating when real life statistics don't match up with theory.

Though I have to admit that this is the first time I've observed a reference to a journal article on an online Forum being labelled as an invalid argument.

Have a nice day.

Age is degradation, or the slow march towards death. If you didn't die, you wouldn't degrade.

Well, since immortality is a fictional fantasy, it can actually be anything one can imagine. Most simplistically (over simplistically, IMO), presume they'd be in perfect health and ignore completely how they'd finance living forever, which essentially rules out retirement, ie working at your (potentially deadend) job forever.

Would I choose to live forever? Yes. I say this because I have the right make up for it. I do not get bored. I do not seek to cause strife or excess resource drain in life. I constantly seek to improve as a person. I mention this because I have another deeper question

Really? Have you seen how infirm a 100 year old person is? I can barely imagine how incredibly decrepit a 200 year old you would be, let alone 300. And you have to exist at that level (and worse), for eternity? Just shoot me in the head.

Let alone, trying to make your retirement savings last for eternity. So you'd end up the most feeble person you've ever seen, living by the side of the road. Not for me.

Death, to a human, is nonexistance. Nonexistance for a human is normal. You were nonexistent for 13.7 billion years, you existed for less than one hundred years, then you'll be nonexistent until the end of time. Why sweat the details about an infinitesimally small fraction of your total time?

The problem is that this idea of yours fails to connect to the larger issue of inferences from group data to individuals. In that sense it is a red herring and also invalid.

Well, given the extreme frequency of ecological fallacies when Real World inferences to individuals from group data is attempted, one practical solution involves using individual data (LP1).

But you don't have to take my word for it, how about the National Academy of Sciences?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6142277/

Your counterargument is, "Ah, but if we had data for each individual in the group, then that data would supersede the group data for understanding individuals." Sure.

That's the point I'm making. Glad we agree.

My comments stem from the very common dismissal of members of groups based on their group membership alone when individual data is available, typically in the form of an application form, CV or test score.

As an aside, I've acknowledged several times that group data excels at describing groups (what it's designed to do). Though I haven't focused specifically on the idea that in the absence of individual data that group data is better than nothing. Just as you haven't that when using group data on individuals, one should continue to collect new individual performance data as the chance of an initial miscalculation is moderate.

Uummm... if acknowledging the reality that groups stats are designed to describe groups and don't describe individuals as accurately as individual statistics do, is "undermining", then I guess you're right, I'm an underminer. Though just to be clear the relative strengths and weaknesses of the two would still be the case if I never posted in this thread. It's not about me.

I believe the antecedent state will necessarily result in the consequent state.

Fair enough, which is the standard Determinist view, I guess I'm not seeing the Compatibilism in your outlook, since by your own description there are no viable alternatives to the final outcome. I don't believe it is accurate when you use the term "choices" to describe impossible alternatives.

I'm a compatibilist, and deny the PAP (Principle of Alternative Possibilities) - IOW, whatever choice we make, we could not have made a different one. Each choice is the product of a person's memories, beliefs, dispositions, and impulses at the point in time the choice is made. When we examine a choice in hindsight, we think of alternatives we might have made - and this gives us the "illusion of freedom".

Do you believe there is an element of randomness (or unpredictability) to the decision making process? Or does antecedent state A always lead to resultant state X, never Y.

The false premise in your thinking is the idea that we always have access to superior individual data, and therefore never have need of recourse to group statistical data. If everyone were omniscient your argument would be valid. There would be no need for statistical generalization. Given that we are not omniscient, your argument fails.

Now you're just trying too hard. (As you know) I never stated that individual data is always accessible. Merely that (when available) it's superior to group data. Thus when making important decisions, the prudent judge seeks out the best input. Not controversial.

Hm, I must disagree here. Among the good looking people, some skate by on their looks while others get bullied for having good looks. For example, in our society there is still jocular contempt for blondes or pretty women in general. Being pretty at a work place means that it is easy for the envious or competitive to cast suspicion on your merits and position, because of the widely spread but false assumption that having good looks is almost always a privilege.

While what you describe exists, it exists as a (minor, statistically) backlash against the pervasive huge advantage that the very attractive appearing, have over the ordinary and the unattractive.

The sociological literature has demonstrated this advantage repetitively over a long time.

However, no thinking person would use group "probabilities" preferencially over individual data.
— LuckyR

No one said they would.

You seem to agree that individuals being judged on their own merits (individual data) is superior to judging individuals based on their being a member of a group (group data). That's my main point (which I predicted above that "you knew already").

Arguing whether inferior data is of no benefit, marginal benefit or minimal benefit is a perfect example of a distinction without a (practical) difference.

The group statistic informs us of probabilities, and we are constantly using probabilities to make decisions.

Your commentary would make logical sense in cases where individual data doesn't exist (all you have to go on is group data). However, no thinking person would use group "probabilities" preferencially over individual data. If another team is going to trade for a specific Brave, no one is going to conclude, "well, since the Braves average batting average is low, we'll get to offer a low salary" for a specific player. They'll base their offer on the specific stats of the player, the Braves team averages don't enter into the calculation.

Of course, you know all of this already, hence my surprise why I'm forced to to review the obvious.

If I may. I think he's suggesting the fact that Marcell Ozuna happens to have an exceptionally higher batting average than the rest of his teammates is a rarity. Out of all the Atlanta Braves team members, any given one would likely be much lesser and closer to .244 than to be in the 5th highest average. In other words, if you picked the Atlanta Braves (batting average of .244) and were to make a bet that a player, selected at random, assuming you don't know the identity or batting averages of any of the players, would be in the top 5 highest averages, over say, the team with the highest batting average, that would be considered foolish as it is much more likely for a randomly-selected player from a team with a much higher batting average to have a higher batting average than one from a team with a much lower batting average.

I realize this is a sub-discussion that happens to be about racial tendencies, which I find iffy, but context-aside, for the sake of the larger, more general discussion not about race from which this one is derived from, that is the bare bones logic as I see it.

Oh I know that's what he's trying to say, problem is that because the difference between groups is smaller than the differences within groups, examples like this are, in fact NOT rare, they're common. Hence the inability to reliably predict individual variable stats from group averages.

Though the erroneous belief that they are is the "rationale" behind stereotyping.

But it is reasonable. If group X has Y percentage chance of committing action Z, then—all things being equal—someone belonging to group X has Y percentage chance of committing action Z on average. Progressives have a difficult time recognizing the simple fact that there are rationally sound inferences which move from group data to individual data.

Huh? Philosophy degrees need a statistics requirement. If I tell you that the Atlanta Braves team batting average in 2024 is .244 (the median in MLB), what does that tell someone about Marcell Ozuna's batting average in 2024? Nothing. He's got the 5th highest average in baseball.

You can behave favorably to evil people. Our behavior towards a person is not an indicator of their inherent good or evil. Do you believe beautiful people are inherently good people compared to less beautiful/deformed people?

Definitely not. In my experience, somewhat attractive (beautiful) people are equally likely to be of high or low "goodness", compared to average and somewhat unattractive people. However, exceptionally attractive people are much less likely than average to have high goodness, specifically because in their life experience they've been able to skate by on their looks and develop a privileged and self centered personality that most define as very low on the goodness scale.

You can rearrange this sentence to adequately respond to most charges of racism/sexism/transphobia etc..
Generally speaking, that aspect of the person/group/behaviour/whatever else... is actually not relevant to the policy, and some other aspect is. It is not the fault of policy that it has more frequent interaction with a particular group due to their behaviour or self-affected identity.

You use "group" in your commentary, which is reasonable. My point was it isn't reasonable when group statistics are used on individuals. In just about all variables involving humans, the statistical differences between cultural or gender or geographical or racial or sectarian groups are smaller than those within those groups. Thus when dealing with individuals, it is not reliably predictable whether they will fall above or below average in whichever variable you might name, merely based on their being a member of a particular group.

Of course some zealots pretend that there aren't differences between groups, which is erroneous BUT their conclusion that we should each be evaluated on our individual merits is not.

Regarding which, do you know how many college students drop out by distracting themselves with drugs? Too many...

Who cares why students who going to drop out of college, choose to spend their time while in the process of dropping out? Getting high, getting drunk, playing video games, romancing everyone in sight, getting overly involved in intramural sports, staring at YouTube videos... It doesn't matter.

Oh, discrimination is not only not a negative, it's essential to human existance. Since in it's absence we'd treat each other identically ie we'd never learn from experience.

Of course, there is a key difference between discrimination between groups and individuals. For example it is more than reasonable for an insurance company to charge more for all businesses in a neighborhood (that happens to be majority Black) that experiences more vandalism. It's completely unreasonable to charge a business that happens to be own by a Black man but located in a neighborhood with average vandalism, a high premium.

Obvious to you (and me), how about a sociopath? I think not.

I don't foresee US subgroups sharing between themselves at the scale required to abandon ownership.

Oh, some scriptural passages are unrealistic and some traditions are nonsensical. I just don't define "religion" by those passages and traditions. Much is made in philosophy forums about, say origin stories, but religious folk generally don't currently use religion to determine the origin of the universe.

Sure, and people get math problems wrong all the time, too. That doesn't mean anything with respect to the question at hand. Suppose you are on a math forum and they are discussing a math problem and you say, "Ah, well it seems that you have arrived at the right answer, but people get the wrong answer all the time. Thus wrongness is not a complete barrier to arriving at an answer." This is an ignoratio elenchus at best, unless it is being proposed as an argument for mathematical (or moral) relativism.

I'm using "wrong" to mean: violates one's moral code, not a final conclusion after considering all possible points of view (including but not limited to morality).

Thus in that context your math problem analogy and your similar commentary, is, alas oversimplified to the point of uselessness. Math problem answers are, of course judged on a single axis: rightness. Human decision making is a complex process involving many, many variables, of which moral code adherence is but one. For example, one could conclude that if someone goes through the trouble and expense to build a sidewalk along their lawn for others to tread upon and a Don't Walk on the Grass sign, that it is a violation of someone's moral code, ie it's morally wrong to walk on their grass. I don't disagree with that analysis. Yet considering the quantity of moral wrongness (miniscule) and other (nonmoral) factors, I have routinely cut across lawns, as I suspect you have.

I think the only way a consequentialist can consistently go is to deny that it is immoral to kill an innocent human being: they would have to say that sometimes that is true, and sometimes false.

I agree with you, but you seem to be unaware that many do just that.

The global/galactic situation would fall apart as societies of that size would subdivide into minisocieties

Happy to. First, while you are correct that religious faith does not present answers, you missed the point that those particular "questions" are not merely unanswered, but are in fact unanswerable. Thus the status of "unanswered" is moot.

Second it is an error to equate the lack of "answers" to "fallacious".

No, it is neither logical nor illogical.

No. Atheism is neither logical nor illogical, just at theism is equally neither. Metaphysical entities, like gods do no leave behind physical proof on which to base logical arguments. Thus gods can only be "believed in" (or not believed in) not "known/proven" (or disproven). Hence why religions deal in Faith.

Even if a society doesn't have ownership between members of the society, it would still declare ownership against other societies.

Well first of all, the "average person", isn't on dating apps. And depending on what the app specializes in, it may actually select against what you're looking for. Better to meet up with the types of people who have the qualities you seek in a nonromantic situation, then among that group, start a romance yourself (without an app).

Good luck.

If it is good to have no children because life is suffering, than life isn’t all bad since we get to make this good decision to have no children.

From a more practical standpoint, if a prospective parent is either 1) so depressed that they (incorrectly) view their life (since they have no true knowledge of the subjective assessment of life by others) as pure suffering or 2) their is actually so materially terrible that it is in reality pure suffering, then neither of those situations is optimal for childrearing, thus that individual or couple definitely should not have children. However, that individual's situation is absolutely not a reason for anyone else to not have children.

I would never pull the lever, no matter how many people I would save by doing so. Killing an innocent person is always wrong; and one cannot commit an immoral act to avoid a morally bad outcome.

Your not pulling the lever is perfectly reasonable, is internally logical and no one can (correctly) fault you for your choice. However, pulling the lever is also reasonable for someone else (with a different logic system) to choose. As to your reasonable declaration that killing innocent people is wrong, sure it is, but folks do things that are wrong all the time (though perhaps not with such severe consequences). Thus wrongness is not a complete barrier to performing an action.

Pregnancy is a condition, not a disease.

Both. Some prefer an inch deep and a mile wide, others a foot wide and 100 yards deep. Different strokes for different folks.

Jesus Christ. No.
There are simply things I find unbecoming, and not immoral. Aesthetic disagreement is not moral. I don't want to wear bright Orange pants, or be the kind of person who would do so. Doesn't mean anyone who does is even on my bad side.

Exactly. In the heirarchies of decision making, moral vs immoral (like legal vs illegal) are rarely used in Real Life. Most decisions are preferences ie like vs dislike, among moral (and legal) choices. Thus most of the things we choose not to do aren't because of their morality nor legality (since they're both moral and legal), they're just not to our taste.