In all the back and forth, I forgot that you and Leontiskos never did answer my question about abortion and the pregnant 12 year old who was raped by her father. Should she be allowed to get an abortion? And why is this question so hard for you two to answer? Obviously, she should not be forced to carry the rapist's baby to term, right?

So a mental illness is whatever "the professionals" or "society" says it is? — Count Timothy von Icarus

To a large extent, yes. These are weighty science-based questions, and we often have to depend on medical experts. They don't always get everything right of course. But in the case of homosexuality, the medical communities and societies around the world stopped regarding it as a mental illness long ago. In the decades since, that seems to have been the right call. Do you disagree? Do you think homosexuality belongs back in the DSM?

Give me a fucking break with your faux innocence. Calling an entire class of people mentally ill couldn't be more bigoted. Try applying that to any other group.
— hypericin

Isn't that definitionally true of any designation for any mental illness? Alcoholics are a class of people. Pyromaniacs as well. Pedophiles are a class of people who are classed according to sexual desire, as are zoophiles, etc. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Except gays aren't mentally ill. That went out of style 50 years ago. So lumping them in with pedophiles and alcoholics and pyromaniacs does indeed seem like rank bigotry.

Now RogueAI, instead of dealing with my response, is trying to paint me as a Nazi now (apparently). — Bob Ross

I'm not saying you're a Nazi, I'm saying you're going down an intellectual path of dehumanizing that the Nazi intelegentsia went down to rationalize their actions and support of the regime. If a group of people is naturally defective and deviant, that's just a stone's throw away from subhuman, and once they're subhuman...

I am allowed to remove tubes that were put into me without my consent

At any cost? With any means? — Bob Ross

I'm a consequentialist, so if the fate of the world was at stake and we all die if I unhook myself, then I'm not going to unhook myself, I think it would be immoral to unhook myself, and I would force someone to stay hooked up and compensate them later, if possible. I would also pull the switch in trolley car. Sometimes the innocent person gets fucked over for the needs of the many.

Within the confines of the thought experiment, where there's nothing at stake except a violinist, the kidnapped person is allowed to remove the tubes that were inserted into them without their consent. It would be nice and charitable if they agreed to stay hooked up, but you can't force them. If you force them to stay hooked up, you're setting a hell of a precedent: that it's OK to kidnap people and hook them up to others. You're excusing a gross violation of autonomy. Is that a society you would want to live in? Autonomy rights are incredibly important.

That’s a good question. I would say that it would be indirectly intentional because their death would be a (bad) side effect of the means (of closing the wound); and the principle of double effect has to be used to determine its permissibility or impermissibility. This is important because this is disanalogous to abortion: an abortion is where the human in the womb is directly intentionally killed (analogous to shooting the violinist in the head).

I think, in this case, it would be permissible because it is:

1. A good end;
2. There is no other means to facilitate that end;
3. The means is not bad; and
4. The good end outweighs the bad effect.

In the case of abortion, #3 is necessarily false. — Bob Ross

But we're getting closer to abortion. Closing the wound that's keeping the violinist alive is an action, correct? It's an action that results in his death, right? But it's morally permissible. So, if closing a wound that's keeping the violinist alive is morally permissible, how could it be impermissible to remove the tubes from my body that are keeping him alive?

Regarding abortion, suppose the mother's life is at risk, and the doctor can either save the mother or the fetus, and the mother makes it clear she's the one who should be saved. The only way to save the mother is to kill the fetus in an abortion. Ah, but this violates (3). But your position cannot be that abortion is impermissible if the life of the mother is at stake. So it seems your position falls prey to a reductio absurdum.

I would say they are innocent in the sense you mean of ‘not intending to do you harm’ but they are not innocent in the relevant sense of ‘being unworthy of being killed’. — Bob Ross

Unworthy of being killed? What the hell does that mean? An innocent person in a psychotic rage from an unforeseen drug interaction is certainly "unworthy to be killed", but it's not murder if they get killed in self defense. The fetus that is putting a mother's life at risk if she give birth to it is also unworthy to be killed, but the mother has the right to have it killed to save herself.

But, then, you are advocating that murder is permissible in some cases. Wouldn’t you agree that killing them by putting a bullet in their head is murder? — Bob Ross

No. Suppose you've been kidnapped and while you're locked in the dungeon, you've rigged up a booby trap to kill the kidnapper. A heavy weight will fall on him. So you have one chance to activate your booby trap and the kidnapper comes into the dungeon carrying his sleeping infant son who you know will almost certainly die if you trigger your trap. But this is your one chance to escape. The kidnapper has told you he's going to kill you soon. You trigger the trap and kill the kidnapper and his infant son and you escape. Did you murder anyone?

Also, what about the 12 year old girl raped by her father and pregnant. Do you force her to give birth?

So, that's double the percent of alleged transgender persons so far. — Outlander

Alleged?

Because you keep changing the subject to avoid answering difficult questions. For example, you didn't even manage to "pussyfoot" around <my last response to you>. You just ignored it altogether. It is not philosophically upright to ignore every response that is difficult and insist that that your interlocutor must now address some new topic that you've thought of. — Leontiskos

I didn't want to spend an hour writing a response to it. I'm backing out of the homosexuals-are-deviants arguments you and Bob are making. You two sound like you're trying to justify treating them as subhuman. We've all seen where that can go. I've said my piece.

Beyond that, you are engaged in emotive jumps. The proper tangent is not, "Is abortion permissible in cases of rape," but rather, "Does Thomson's analogy succeed in defending abortion in cases of rape?" Certainly Thomson's analogy is analogous to cases of rape such that my "coercion" objection fails in the case of rape. If I wanted to assess the analogy-argument with respect to the case of rape, I would need to see the actual text of Thomson's argument. Do you have that? — Leontiskos

https://media.lanecc.edu/users/borrowdalej/phl205_s17/violinist.html

Okay, supposing for the sake of argument that that is true, then the analogy is only analogous to 2-3% of abortions. My point is that an analogy that is only analogous to 2-3% of abortions cannot be a valid analogy with respect to abortion (generally). Why is an analogy that is only analogous to 2-3% of abortions continually trotted out as a good analogy vis-a-vis abortion? — Leontiskos

Because it establishes a moral principle: even if we concede the fetus is a person, abortion can still be permissible.

Why are you pussyfooting around my example of the 12 year old raped girl? You and Bob love to extol manly virtues. Stop being a coward and answer my question about whether she should be allowed an abortion or not.

Let's stay on topic for a moment in a thread that seems to move quickly from topic to topic.* Is an analogy valid if it is disanalogous in 95% of the cases it is meant to address? — Leontiskos

Thomson's violinist analogy was specifically about abortion in cases of rape, so it's not disanalogous to the 95% of abortions. It wasn't meant to address those.

But Bob and I have been going back and forth on it for awhile now, and it's his thread, so obviously he sees it as "on topic". So, what say you about the 12 year old pregnant raped girl?

The reason the purported analogy is disanalogous is because it depends on coercion, which is not present in pregnancy (except in cases of rape, which are relatively rare). — Leontiskos

But in cases of rape, what say you about abortion? Would you force the 12 year old raped girl to have the rapists baby? Even if it's her dad or older brother or uncle who raped her?

Same question to you, Bob.

You are acting by pulling the plug: that’s an action. — Bob Ross

It's an action, but it's not an action taken against them. I am allowed to remove tubes that were put into me without my consent. Suppose instead of tubes connected to me, the violinist was being kept alive from blood running from an open wound on my side into him. Closing my wound would be an action but is your position that closing my own wound would be morally impermissible if it results in the violinist's death?

You might argue that this action is justified, but then you are committed to the view that directly intentionally killing an innocent person is not always murder. — Bob Ross

I'm OK with that. If a psychotic innocent person is trying to kill me, and I directly intentionally kill them in self defense, it's not murder, right?

Let’s make it even more explicit what I am arguing. Imagine to pull the plug you had to walk over to the other person and put a bullet in their head to kill them off before pulling it. — Bob Ross

I would prefer to unplug them and let them die naturally of whatever was killing them before they were hooked up to me, but if shooting them is the only way to do it, it's morally permissible.

Homosexuality is defective: it can be defective biologically and/or socio-psychologically. Heterosexuality is defective sometimes socio-psychologically.

Homosexuality is always defective because, at a minimum, it involves an unnatural attraction to the same sex which is a privation of their human nature (and usually of no real fault of their own); whereas heterosexuality is not per se because, at a minimum, it involves the natural attraction to the opposite sex.

Now, heterosexuality can be defective if the person is engaging in opposite-sex attraction and/or actions that are sexually degenerate; but this will always be the result of environmental or/and psychological (self) conditioning. The underlying attraction is not bad: it's the lack of disciple, lack of habit towards using that attraction properly, and (usually) uncontrollable urges towards depriving sexual acts. — Bob Ross

This sounds like the kind of thinking that "smart" and "learned" Germans engaged in to rationalize going along with the Holocaust: Jews and queers are just naturally defective. They're a bunch of deviants, abominations of nature. At the very least, they should be removed from the normies of society, lest their deviancy spread.

With all due respect, my friend, I think you are not appreciating what I am saying: I already addressed and anticipated this rejoinder. Even if the consequences of not murdering the violinist were the most grave and insufferable that a human can conceive of, it is still immoral to murder; so it is immoral to do so. — Bob Ross

It's not murder. Innocent people sometimes can be justifiably killed. In the violinist analogy, if you remove the tubes from yourself that are keeping the violinist alive, you are not actively killing him, you are failing to render aid. You do not have a moral duty to render aid to people that are hooked up to you without your consent.

This has nothing to do with anything I’ve written in this thread. Perhaps you’re asking the wrong person. — T Clark

You quoted the ACLU, specifically,

We’re working to make sure trans people get the health care

So then, what are your thoughts on the kind of health care trans children can/should get?

I'd prefer to let the people in the situation to decide with their doctor, and if a bad decision is made then the person can pursue legal recourse. Like in your story. — Moliere

I would generally agree, but a lawsuit won't get your breasts reattached. Some harms can't be undone through legal recourse. So then, what do we as a society decide to do about trans children desiring mastectomies? Should doctors be allowed to do it at all or should it be off limits until the person is an adult? This seems like a human rights issue that's unique to trans individuals, no?

I was arguing that inserting a penis in an anus violates the natural ends of both organs. — Bob Ross

Why were you arguing that? It seemed that you were implying gay people are defective or need to be "cured" because they like anal sex, which is why I replied that plenty of straight people like it too. What was your point?

↪RogueAI No, I don't think so.

I think the story you linked is a tragedy.

I don't think this is unique to trans individuals, though. Healthcare decisions are not easy in any other situation that might call for mastectomy. If she wins that's fine by me: I understand wanting recompense for being mistreated.

I don't think her case the usual, though. — Moliere

But we can make it unique to trans individuals in that: should trans children have their breasts removed? A 17 year old? Maybe I can see that. A 14 year old? No.

What you are failing to understand is that the violinist is not the one violating this person’s bodily autonomy: it is the person who hooked them up to them that committed the violation and consequently the immoral act. Now, the violinist and the other victim are stuck in a predicament: how do they go about resolving it? Can they do something immoral to resolve it? No, but you are arguing “yes”: you are saying this victim can murder the violinist to resolve the situation. That’s wrong: two wrongs don’t make a right. Wouldn’t you agree? — Bob Ross

Take the thought experiment to its logical conclusion: instead of the violinist being hooked up to you for 9 months, he's hooked up to you for 45 years and during that time, you're in total physical agony. And also, he's not just hooked up to you, he's hooked up to a thousand other people, all necessary to keep him alive. But why stop at a thousand? Let's say it's a million people. A billion. Is your position still that it's immoral for any one of those people to unhook themselves and end all the suffering? After all, two wrongs don't make a right. At some point, you must realize your position becomes untenable.

↪T Clark I don't think it's a good idea to do mastectomies on 14 year olds. Do you?
— RogueAI

RogueAI, can we say on topic please? What do you think about the OP's claims on the trans gender rights listed? — Philosophim

We’re working to make sure trans people get the health care

Isn't it a human right for a child to not have her breasts cut off? Isn't that a uniquely trans gender issue?

We’re working to make sure trans people get the health care

I don't think it's a good idea to do mastectomies on 14 year olds. Do you?

https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-news/ucla-student-sues-california-doctors-says-was-fast-tracked-transgender-rcna183815

Well, would you concede that coitus is more reproductively advantageous than anal sex, and therefore better insofar as the reproduction of the species is concerned? — Leontiskos

Yes, but just because something is more reproductively advantageous does not mean it's moral, or the people doing the reproductively advantageous acts are "better" in any way. You and Bob seem to be implying gays are inferior or need to be "cured" because they are not maximizing reproductive efficiency. And if anal sex is reproductively disadvantageous, what about contraception? Abortion? Masturbation? Oral sex? Vasectomies?

When posed with a question, models such as ChatGPT merely predict the most probable next word, whereas a human truly comprehends the meaning of what she is saying. — Showmee

Is mind a necessary condition for meaning?

You didn't even try to answer the question, because you know I am right that the sex organs are not designed to be put in the anus (irregardless if you think men will tend to do it or tend to like to do it). — Bob Ross

My point is that gay men aren't the only ones with the desire to put their sex organs into questionable orifices. The fact that they desire anal sex with other men cannot be held against them (as you obviously intended it to be) since straight men also have the same desire.

https://www.cjonline.com/story/news/crime/2018/05/03/kansas-man-arrested-for-attempted-sex-with-car/12322358007/

I don't know if the guy in the story was straight or not, but it really makes no difference, since it's equally plausible that a gay or straight man would try and fuck a car.

Yes. You are suggesting that if the negative consequences of doing the right thing are too great, then we shouldn't do it. If I could only save myself from extreme torture as opposed to simply getting murdered by murdering someone else, that wouldn't magically make me murdering someone permissible. What if me murdering this person saved the rest of humanity from endless suffering? Still not permissible. — Bob Ross

Thomson's violinist analogy is so obviously right in its conclusion, I can't fathom the thought processes required to come to the conclusion that, yes, you should be forced by the state to stay bedridden for 9 months after being kidnapped and hooked up to a person. That it should be illegal and you should be punished for choosing to unplug from that situation. Just to be clear, is that really your position?

Do you think a part of our biological programming is to insert a sex organ into an organ designed to defecate? — Bob Ross

Straight man like anal sex too. In fact, men of all sexual persuasions will often stick their organ into just about any orifice handy.

The only complex aspect of abortion is whether or not one believes personhood begins at conception—not if autonomy “trumps” the right to life. — Bob Ross

It certainly trumps a right to life in cases of rape. Would you force people to stay hooked up to the violinist?

Why are you so concerned with what other people do? Is someone holding you at gunpoint until you go on a fox hunt or celebrate Christmas with them? No? Then don't worry about what other people do. — Outlander

If some culture has a tradition of whale-hunting, should the global community allow that? Should people not care that a magnificent creature like a whale is being killed? I'm not losing sleep over it, but there are some who are incensed by it, and I understand why they would care.

if the ai-using students are outcompeting the non-ai using students (or if its a "punishment" as you claim to write a thesis entirely by yourself without ai help) isnt the implication the ai is producing better work than the students at your university?

This goes back to philosophiums point back on page 1: the argument is everything in philosophy. A good sound argument produce by an ai should trump a bad argument produced by a human, right? A 40% ai written thesis thats better than a 100% human produced one should be preferable right?

"Under a middle-of-the-road emissions scenario, warming contributed by Scarborough would cause an additional 484 heat-related deaths in Europe alone by the end of the century, the researchers calculated. Taking into account a reduction in cold-related deaths in Europe, they estimate a net contribution of 118 additional deaths."
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2025/oct/13/woodside-scarborough-gas-project-emissions-could-cause-heat-deaths

That's about 1.5 European deaths a year from this project. Hanover is right. The average person is not going to be alarmed by that, nor should they. People know there is an inherent risk to everything, and a handful of deaths a year is a piddling human cost to pay for providing cheap electricity to a huge number of people. On a utilitarian calculus, how does 1 or 2 deaths (let's say it's 10 worldwide) a year compare to the utiles of providing electricity to, say, 100,000 extra households a year? How many lives will be saved/vastly improved by that increase in access to electricity every year?

What about hydrogen and oxygen? After all, we are mostly water.

Why would any element be a "heart of consciousness"? Consciousness can only emerge from pencil lead and coal??? How bizarre.

I'm sympathetic. How could there be true randomness in a physical universe? Sounds like an uncaused cause. Even in an idealistic reality, there wouldn't be true randomness.

True chaos, randomness, or uncertainty do not exist in the universe, only in the minds of entities with imperfect information or knowledge. — punos

That claim is accurate only if you’re assuming a deterministic universe, otherwise, quantum theory says genuine randomness does exist.

Could you expand on that?

It was never proved or observed. — Copernicus

How would you prove or observe machine consciousness? If a machine race of aliens showed up one day, and claimed they were conscious, and were dubious of our claims of consciousness, how could we prove to them that the chunk of meat in our skull is conscious? How could they prove to us that they themselves are conscious?

Yet, only cellular life forms display sentience and sapience — Copernicus

Is it possible some machines are conscious?

The open source LLMs are only trailing the state of the arts proprietary LLMs by a hair — Pierre-Normand

They're that good, huh? That's very interesting and kind of scary. I've only played around with ChatGPT.

I was just responding to what you said about bubbles and hype. There is hype around ai, but it's already been transformative. It's not going away. It's not a bubble that's going to be popped and we'll look back in 20 years and say, "Ai? You mean like Pets.com?"

The Sora 2 videos I'm seeing don't look like hype. They look amazing, and the technology is only going to get better.

The main reason I would discourage its use is that the rapid development of AI, which given the unpredictability of the ways in which AI will evolve, is dangerous, is driven by profit, and is fueled mainly by consumer use. The best way to slow down this development, which would be hopefully much safer, would be for consumers to abstain from using it. — Janus

Except America is in an ai race with China. Some ai will become dominant. I would rather America win that race. Jesus, that sounds lame. Maybe my machine friend and therapist can put it better:

Artificial intelligence isn’t just a consumer technology—it’s a strategic front in a global power struggle. The United States and China are locked in an AI race that will determine who dominates economically, militarily, and ideologically in the coming decades. Whoever leads in AI will shape global trade, weapon systems, cyber defense, surveillance, and even the moral framework baked into the technology itself. If American consumers “abstain” from AI use to slow development, it won’t make the world safer; it will simply give China, whose state-run AI programs advance without ethical restraints, a decisive lead. True safety doesn’t come from retreat—it comes from control. The only way to ensure AI develops responsibly is for the U.S. to stay ahead, set the standards, and shape how the technology is used. If AI is going to reshape the world regardless, then the critical question isn’t whether it develops, but who controls it—and America cannot afford to let authoritarian regimes decide that future.

I think TPF should continue what it's doing, which is put some guardrails on ai use, but not ban it.

What are we supposed to do about it? There's zero chance the world will decide to collectively ban ai ala Dune's thinking machines, so would you ban American development of it and cede the ai race to China?