Kramer Thompson

PhD from @ANU_Philosophy | Vegan

[Kramer Thompson @Kramer_Thompson]

@singingbirth @zobiwankenobii You are not using those words correctly

[Kramer Thompson @Kramer_Thompson]

@CharlesHea16445 @RichardDawkins It's terrible writing but I don't see that it's postmodernist drivel in the sense that it isn't making statements which lack truth values, are contradictory, are trivially true, are obviously false, are in some other way meaningless etc.

[Kramer Thompson @Kramer_Thompson]

@Good_News_GB @RichardDawkins Roughly: "While instructing people, I intentionally avoided subordinating them." I would suggest that this simplistic expression of his point misses some of the nuance he's trying to convey

[Kramer Thompson @Kramer_Thompson]

@DrewPavlou That's obviously not what they believe lol

[Kramer Thompson @Kramer_Thompson]

@xwanyex Great self-exposure of never seriously engaging with topic you're attempting to dunk on someone about

[Kramer Thompson @Kramer_Thompson]

@MormonNational If 100,000 grains of sand is a pile of sand, then it follows that 99,999 grains of sand is a pile of sand.

And if 99,999 grains of sand is a pile of sand then it follows that 99,998... Until 1.

Do you really think 1 grain of sand is a pile of sand

[Kramer Thompson @Kramer_Thompson]

@cremieuxrecueil The heat map is used as a dunk precisely because it is thought to be evidence of a negative trait of leftists

[Kramer Thompson @Kramer_Thompson]

@RYChappell Agreed re good approximation, but then doesn't the ethical concern diminish significantly? (E.g. if it's merely an approximation, then why is it so bad to disregard separateness of persons? They're not (when you really get down to it) separate!)

[Kramer Thompson @Kramer_Thompson]

@hradzka The value of being willing to nuke back is presumably in deterrence, so this has nothing to do with prisoner's dilemmas as in those games there is no form of communication or signaling between players

[Kramer Thompson @Kramer_Thompson]

@wanyeburkett Doesn't almost literally everyone think this? "Oh I don't think X is wrong because I dislike it - I just think it really is wrong because of harm/dignity/purity/appropriateness/freedom/divine law/rights/etc considerations."

[Kramer Thompson @Kramer_Thompson]

@cremieuxrecueil This kind of thing is typically treated as an aggravating factor wrt sentencing. It (or something like it) is generally considered a mitigating factor wrt determinations of liability for a crime. This is why "insanity defence" is famously considered a legal double-edged sword

[Kramer Thompson @Kramer_Thompson]

@fshrum @teachrobotslove And then everyone in the restaurant stood up and clapped

[Kramer Thompson @Kramer_Thompson]

@ape_detective @wanyeburkett Any argument can be countered with a shrug if you're sufficiently apathetic or intellectually cowardly

[Kramer Thompson @Kramer_Thompson]

@DrewPavlou @Satire_Maybe Is point 1 true? I thought most precedents such as that would be set by convention (according to relevant prior decisions).

[Kramer Thompson @Kramer_Thompson]

@wanyeburkett This isn't responding to the question. The question asks what *reason* there is, not the causal (evolutionary) explanation for why something occurs. Atheists can claim things are wrong in a common sense way by claiming there are facts about morality which don't rely on God

[Kramer Thompson @Kramer_Thompson]

@tracewoodgrains But the claim being made here is that their lives are *not* good because they're short and there's a significant amount of suffering in them, such that it is unlikely that suffering will be outweighed by other goods (e.g. pleasure, satisfaction, achievement, or whatever)

[Kramer Thompson @Kramer_Thompson]

@tracewoodgrains This doesn't seem to have anything essentially to do with *negative* utilitarianism, or utilitarianism at all. (FWIW, there are very few negative utilitarians.) Almost any moral theory holds that suffering (1) is bad and (2) should be avoided, all else equal

[Kramer Thompson @Kramer_Thompson]

@RYChappell But wouldn't the non-consequentialist say that this is begging the question? According to them, it's about *respecting* other people (or treating them appropriately, or whatever), not *valuing* them