The legal presumption of the “reasonable person”, often criticised by legal scholars, has most successfully been debunked, of all things, by social media.
THE QUESTION in so many ways IMO. But also, for me at least, it misses the point.
For me, so much is about the social. Like, I would have a hard time sacrificing a lot to save humanity from the climate crisis if I knew humanity wouldn’t know that they were saved (they don’t have to know it was me) but just figured the climate problem simply disappeared without learning to manage their problems.
Otherwise, personally, the basic sacrifice that is a no-brainer is to lead a simple, unassuming and arguably (from a materialistic standpoint) boring life. Regarding the climate crisis I’d say I’ve done that most of my life, which I don’t say with pride honestly as it’s about the only thing I’ve done.
Beyond that, if there’s some social buy-in from many to the relevant values etc, I think I’d certainly be willing to risk or end my life for the greater good.
Yea I started watching the MKBHD video on it and turned it off at the part where he was kinda justifying how sophisticated the metal pressing process had to be because it has some elasticity or something and was hard to get consistent … the upshot of which was, as MKBHD admitted, that the panels were inconsistent and you were going to get random gaps in the plating. He kinda showed some examples, and to me, even over YouTube, it just felt cheap and I no longer understood how someone could feel ok spending the money.
assuming the name of the community can be changed that is
It’s just like with user accounts. The alias can be whatever you want but the address is static. Fortunately I’d say “house of the dragon” counts as a decent catch all for a ASOIAF community.
As someone who is against use aggregate scores and pleased to see it removed I can understand the desire to make it available to admins/moderators to assist in their actions.
I think making the numbers available only for admins/mods would make sense, though I also feel it starts to get to be an arbitrary divide.
I also have to wonder if an admin/mod couldn’t simply use the view of the user’s posts/comments we all have access to along with the various sorts available. Want to know if a user posts generally well received stuff … look at their posts and sort by “Top all time”. Want to know if they’re regularly posting stuff that is poorly received, sort by “Controversial” (which is new) or just “New”. I’d suspect that in the end integrating this sort of lookup into the moderation tooling so that it’s easier/quicker to do would be more worthwhile than persisting with user aggregates.
Without knowing any information about this, the hachyderm instance is one which would host such a thing. They’re tech focused, and well organised with a co-op umbrella organisation running the instance that has pretty clear rules and ideas around how incorporated entities can engage and join it. So it’ll be interesting to see where this goes.
I know it’s contentious, but the downvotes don’t help anything.
To your first para: viability outside the womb doesn’t, I think, affect my initial argument. If it’s viable outside of the womb, then so be it. Actively harming it would be illegal, but being legally compelled to care for it would be problematic.
Viability would alter abortion laws though, I think. In that it would make sense at some point to prohibit the mother from electing to terminate rather than submit the foetus to whatever the extra-womb viability state is. What happens then would mostly put the foetus in the same position it is now in that the onus of providing the viability of its life wouldn’t be something others are compelled to do, unless of course it’s trivial and withholding is tantamount to actively killing.
On the issue of convenience, I think that’s a misrepresentation. The thrust of the argument is consistency with the rest of social norms where the “convenience” is the freedom for a whole gender to not undertake 9 months of drastic bodily transformation and work and the remaining parental duties. If the rest of society were so committed to life and prosperity as ensuring every foetus gets taken care of, then that’s a different conversation, in large part because the mothers would be taken care of too. But consigning a whole gender’s major life experiences and burdens to a matter of “convenience”, I think, marks the dissonance that a libertarian outlook encounters when it tries to compel or outlaw actions. It’s not just convenience (in principle at least), and that this onus needs to be considered trivial indicates IMO the biases against women involved treating the issue as legally black and white.
Nonetheless, I agree with your general reasoning about not facilitating the depreciation of life. I personally extend the same reasoning to animals in my arguments in favour of veganism.
Honestly, this seems like the depiction of a bunch of people that are safe and prosperous and can’t imagine how their views could possibly be problematic, and don’t need to, and so avoid political discussions because it’s just a bit too yuck and they’d prefer to lead their happy lives.
Basically the conservative - privilege coupling that is so shit.
Appreciate the honest and (somewhat) applicable answer!
I also DO NOT appreciate the downvotes … we really need to get rid of those. Don’t agree, fine, move on or respond civilly. A downvote is a manifestly uncivil action sanctioned by the interface.
Otherwise … to respond to the abortion argument … where this falls down for me is the complete lack of any mention of the mother or woman in your reasoning.
Scientifically, this challenges the “humanness” of a foetus in the way it is tightly coupled and dependent on another human to live. Morally, it raises much of your reasoning in relation to not fucking with people once you consider what is effectively done to women by forcing them to carry any foetus to birth which is a massive, very active and obviously risky undertaking.
Whether these are convincing for you or others, the lack of any weight given for these considerations indicates that the act of birthing is presumed as a duty of all women. A presumption that IMO undermines the completeness of your scientific and moral arguments.
To take that a little further … should people be legally compelled to secure and save the lives of babies? As it is now, that’s not the case anywhere I know of. Causing harm would be criminal, obviously, but failing to save a baby or anyone else from harm is not.
In debating the legality of abortion you enter into similar territory. Only by presuming birth as a duty can you think otherwise.
While aborting a foetus is a positive act, there’s the complication that it’s purpose is to avoid the onus of pregnancy and birth, which can be easily seen as tantamount to “simply not doing the thing that would save the foetus’s like”, ie all the work of pregnancy and birth which is probably all too easily presumed by men (which I’m guessing you are) as a more passive and natural event than an act of effort, toil and cost.
I mean antagonistic shaming can be awful, obviously. But getting people to care is important, and meeting people where they are sometimes requires making sure they know they should care.
Caring doesn’t mean feeling bad and guilty though. This is part of the toxicity that personal responsibility has created. Not everyone can be equally responsible for their individual contributions. But we can all be much more equal in how much we care about issues.
Something like the bus you describe won’t just appear out of no where. People have to want it, commit to it, consult in its design and then use it.
I’d personally completely forgotten about the river of time stuff and the intention to never emerge. Though wasn’t there stuff also about Michael setting a beacon in the future? Also, in season 3 they seemed unsurprised at emerging in the future IIRC.