Terrapin Station

Re this, by the way, most people don't actually believe that harm, unqualified, is bad as a "trump card principle." That's the reason that antinatalis...

Again, it's an ontological fact that you can't do anything to the entity in question prior to conception, because the entity doesn't exist prior to co...

I could have easily told you that from the start. I didn't just start thinking about this stuff yesterday. I've been doing philosophy for over 45 year...

Yes, mental properties are from the frame of reference of being (identical to) a particular brain.

"Unusual" is only bad re the full scenario I explained above. Because that's my disposition with respect to that (re modifications to an entity--we ne...

Any moral stance is going to ultimately come down to "because that's the way I feel about it." This is true for everyone, for every moral stance.

Didn't I point out to you that I do not do moral stances via principles? I do moral stances by dispositions for particular situations. No principle is...

You understand that I was simply reporting my personal ethical dispositions to you re the "unusual" bit, right? No fact can ground any ethical stance....

How many times do I need to point out that I'm not arguing against antinatalism as an ethical stance? Ethical stances can't be objectively right or wr...

Keep posts short if you don't want anything overlooked. You can type as much as you want, of course, but I'm not going to respond to multiple points p...

Outside of human behavioral norms (where those are culturally relative).

There's no reason to believe that it's something other than the "doing" you're referring to. But the incoherence of doing sans something doing isn't l...

Yes, but not at the particular velocities etc. in question.

Aren't you at all familiar with physics? Frames of reference in physics, for example, aren't referring to percipients. This isn't to suggest that I'm ...

First off, it's not an argument against antinatalism. It's simply a disagreement with considering a precondition for x a cause of x. I use "cause" in ...

If that were all I was saying I would have only written that.

See, you were criticizing this kindergarten-level stuff and you're having a problem with it, too. So first, again, If c is the cause of F, then c can'...

And the cause is the forces that break your leg, which are not identical to your leg breaking. The cause is not everything that's a precondition for b...

If you impact your leg with particular forces, under conditions where your leg isn't in armor, etc., you'd actually not be able to do that without bre...

Not sure what you're asking there.

So if suffering is not your trump card, what is?

Then you don't understand what "unusual" is referring to. Also, you have to be careful to not interpret my ethical views as principle-following. As I ...

I'd count it as progress that you apparently no longer think that suffering is a trump card. You're prepared to effectively dismiss some suffering.

I need to run for now too. I'll be back in a bit.

It has to be looked at on a case-by-case basis, really.

Right, so it depends on the health of the child, whether we'd allow infanticide (which I think we should in some cases), etc.

You mean giving birth? Because that definitely wouldn't be the case merely with conception. We can and should allow abortions. Re giving birth, it dep...

You don't have to abort it, but if it's not going to survive to a point where it's normally capable of granting or wiithholding consent, then it's not...

As long as it's going to continue to live to a point where it's normally capable of granting or withholding consent, and the limb modification isn't r...

So, for example, in my view, you could do anything you want to a fetus just in case you're going to abort the fetus.

It's not just because of that. I didn't type stuff superfluously. It's also because: (a) we have an entity that will likely survive as a consent-capab...

?? If it's not okay to you, then it's an ethical issue in your view. At any rate, obviously the stance of mine that you quoted doesn't apply to nonexi...

Correct. So you agree that it's can not be an issue prior to having a sentient baby.

This=the stance you just uttered.

The problem doesn't arise prior to sentience, though.

You're not limiting this to conscious biological matter, are you?

So in your view, it's a problem to do things to any arbitrary biological matter? For example, if you have a mole that's bothering you, it's an ethical...

Babies are not inanimate matter.

What metaphysical views of mine would you be referring to?

So in your ethics, it's a problem to do things to inanimate matter?

Yeah, I've got to run, too, but I don't know why you either can't come clean with metaphysical views you have that I don't at all agree with, or other...

You're giving an existent entity a physical body?

Right, those comments were about the concept of consent, because that's something I'm interested in that we don't talk about in 100 different threads ...

From conversations with you previously, you count frustrated/unmet desires, especially where that causes emotional distress, as suffering, right? Othe...

For example, the fact that nothing can be and not be in one and the same way at one and the same time, contra if it were the case that something could...

Things aren't literally meaningful. Rather, people think about them in a meaningful way. A person can think about anything in a meaningful way. And th...

No, it doesn't refer to that. I made this explicit above. I'm using perspective in the sense of relations and properties from a particular point or fr...

But those comments had nothing at all to do with "procreational decisions" and there was never any claim that they did have anything to do with that. ...

How are past or future humans normally capable of granting or withholding consent?

How are they perceiving the time that they're experiencing the phenomena, though? Basically, it's saying, "Okay, this phenomena is occurring. Now, how...