🎓 Dr. Freemo 🇳🇱 @freemo@social.cleverlibre.org

@Clementulus While we can choose our morals, the morals we choose are not nessecarly ethical (what I mean when I say moral, not our **choice** of morals, but whether a particular more is ethical or not).

My guess is you are of the opinion (which i find incorrect, but it is common) that morals are objective. Your choice of them may be subjective, but what is or is not moral/ethical/right is objective.

The measure is quite simple, and similarly objective. That which is ethical is that which reduces net suffering (or to put it another way increases net happiness). While it may not be easy to determine before hand if a particular adoption of a moral rule will fit that, in the end it is objectively measurable as either ethical or not based on its results.

With the correct technology all it would require would be an mri to objectively measure how happy people are and one could, in theory, objectively measure the net result.

@Mondobizarrro Yea I picked the keycaps myself. I really liked the retro look.

I also picked navy box kahle switches (it along with the jade are the loudest switches on the market, the navy being significantly heavier.)

Words can not express how fricking cool my new keyboard is. And now just cause i soldered it from scratch, but it just has so many extras. My favorite is the three oled (one arrives tomorrow) which shows thi gs like my WPM.

#Nullbits #Keyboard

@admitsWrongIfProven haha you sure did.

@TammyGentzel

> Absolutely incorrect interpretation of my meaning.

> I am saying a fetus is not yet a human and will not be until it is birthed.

I know and I explained why your argument for that case is invalid. Who is or isnt a human has very little to do with who is or is not justified in killing. plus its a metaphysical question that is completely fabricated, unlike my position which is based on the known facts and science (development of neurons).

> As to the 10 week designation that now the fetus is a human

I never said it was a "human" after 10 weeks.. but if you want to go there, it is a human before gametes even meet by definition. Sperm are human cells and thus human, as are eggs. So if "human" is the criteria you've already lost that argument. What you did try to do however was specify "independent human" in which case its independence seems of importance not if it is human, and I have debunked that perspective as well.

> you set that time because that’s when neurons develop, the fetus is **possibly** capable of thought, and is therefore human.

Correct, prior to 10 weeks we know for a fact it is capable of thought. After 10 weeks we dont (and cant) know the exact point where it will be capable of thought but we know for certain it happens after 10 week period.

> But the presence of neurons is not, in and of themselves, an indicator of being human…being birthed is.

Wrong on both accounts. An embryo by definition is human prior to being birthed.. a hell a fingernail is human by definition, thus this is a horrible definition. Being "birthed" has never been required for the definition of what is or is not human. you are just trying to seperate yourself fromt he independence argument now that you realize it is a failed argument.

@admitsWrongIfProven

Dont worry, being blocked by sandwich puts yo uin excellent company to be sure! I've gotten into the habit of following him just so I can follow the people he blocks cause they have interesting points of view, and often nuanced and worth considering (even if i ultimately disagree).

@TruthSandwich

@Clementulus

> all motives are based on subjective criteria. Justification for any action is ultimately a statement about what sort of reality you believe we should live in.

I am asking what is morally just, not what motivates you. I am also not asking what reality you want to live in, I am asking what is morally right. A person may want to live in an immoral society, that doesnt make it moral.

> Killers always justify their actions in terms of "doing what is right or necessary" and real world conflicts are usually spoken about as good vs evil, light vs dark, true-human vs. Sub-human. Ultimately it is all statements about Beauty;

I cant agree with that. I can think of plenty of ugly things which are objectively morally right and beatuiful things that are objectively morally wrong. Even though the beauty itself is subjective.

@augustus No.. people took the vaccine because they beleived in the vaccine and science. The overwhelming majority of people who took it didnt do so because the government told them too.. This should be obvious as most of them took every other vaccine on the market, most of which the government never had a stance on.

@kj6dbe Oh and dont forget next time your pulling this sexist nonsense you bother to demand anyone with an opinion on abortion describe their genitals AND tell you if they are post-menopause or otherwise sterile... Remind them they are required to tell you so you can verify if they are permitted their opinon, since once they cant bear children, according to you, they are no longer allowed an opinion on abortion.

::rolls eyes::

@trinsec I am describing a scenario where abortion is limited to 10 weeks which is only viable with free pregnancy tests.. without free pregnancy tests then I couldnt support a 10 week pwerioud.

@kj6dbe

> Unless someone is flashing their genitals in public, their genitals are of nobody else's concern.

Great then we agree, I am not flashing my genitals in public therefore its none of your business, leave me alone you perv.

> The problem is that you 𝐚𝐥𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐝𝐲 𝐚𝐫𝐞 claiming the right to tell others what they can do with their own bodies, based on their genitals, which opens yours as a topic of discussion.

Right, just like someone who is claiming what transpeople can or cant do with their body by entering a bathroom. Therefore they have to announce their genitals like yo demand of me right? Yea you can get out of here with that sexist bs.

Giving birth to a child is the most selfish thing a person could do. Raising a child is the most selfless thing a person can do.

Parents are nice and all, but those who adopt are (often) saints :)

@admitsWrongIfProven

The entire end of your last message left on this note:

> So, we are somehow looking at one side (protect life), but completely ignore the consent side - did this life want to exist?

@admitsWrongIfProven

Are you suggesting we should be free to murder people wyho havent explicitly expressed a will to live? If someone is nonverbal for example we should be free to shoot them in the head at will?

I would think that we agree that if someone doesnt express they have a will to live that it should be the default assumption unless stated otherwise. Afterall it is the case for virtually everyone with only a few exceptions. Even those exceptions we try to treat first.

@admitsWrongIfProven

> What is your definition of a minimal system to experience suffering?

this is already back to where I started. We cant define exactly when suffering, consciousness, or thought begins. We dont have the ability to test for it.

The only thing we know is it requires a brain, and we therefore know it is garunteed not to be possible before 10weeks, and that sometime between 10 weeks and infinity those properties develop.

Therefore 10 weeks is the natural line... Now if you want to move it beyond 10 weeks it is on **you** to prove that suffering and consciousness is not possible before the new time period you propose.

And while you cant ask a child if it wants to be born,t hat doesnt matter. Our laws are such that murdering something is wrong whether it wants to be murdered or not. But obviously doubly so if you **assume** and the thing you kill gave no indication it wanted to die.

@kj6dbe

> When you decided to make woman's "genitals" your business, you've made 𝙮𝙤𝙪𝙧𝙨 a valid topic of discussion. Or, are you claiming some special right to privacy that you would deny others?

So if someone fights for the right for transgendered people to use the woman's bathrooms by your logic I have the right to demand what such a persons genitals is? It is therefore appropriate for me to demand transgendered in woman's bathrooms to tell me what their genitals look like"

Get out of here with that sexist bullshit.

> Since your chances of becoming pregnant would appear to be zero, absent the availability of a time machine, abortion laws have no direct impact on you. Only woman are, which is why I think 𝘺𝘰𝘶 shouldn't have a say in them.

Irrelevant, my chance of committing murder is 0 yet i still have a right to talk about what the laws should be around a murderer.

You are going to sprain something with those mental gymnastics...

@admitsWrongIfProven

> Well, i would argue that the host system takes priority until a system under construction is viable on its own.

Generally thats true, afterall its why its ok to remove a tumor (even if that tumor may have a brain which can happen).

the difference here is we have a host system who **forced** the subsystem into existance **and** waited long enough for the subsystem to develop that it potentially could suffer or expiernce its death. So the analogy breaks down quickly.

If I abduct a human, force them to be biologically dependant upon me against their will, then murder them I dont kind it an acceptable excuse that just because they were dependent on me (as a consequence of my actions) that I had a right to kill them.

@admitsWrongIfProven and I disagree.. anyone who is or has been a fetus should have a say on who is or was allowed to kill them.

@admitsWrongIfProven No worries.