manamancer

[manamancer @manamancer]

@robert_joffe @zaelefty They'd probably get less pushback if they treated it as a religion of sorts, but they kind of need it to be 'real' so that insurance will cover costs.

[manamancer @manamancer]

@DkSemyon @allie__voss @zippkode Man, what convenient terms "people" and "person" are for the pro-choice crowd. They just mean human, minus the one kind you want to be okay with killing. What happenstance, just stumbling across that philosophy. Certainly no motivated reasoning here.

[manamancer @manamancer]

Yes, I'm familiar with groundless moral hot air. Also, this is begging the question:

A: What determines rights?
B: Personhood.
A: And what is that?
B: The status of having rights.

It's just an empty semantic container for consciousness, sentience, or whatever other arbitrary thing that you notice fetuses don't yet have.

[manamancer @manamancer]

@DkSemyon @allie__voss @zippkode Man, what convenient terms "people" and "person" are for the pro-choice crowd. They just mean human, minus the one kind you want to be okay with killing. What happenstance, just stumbling across that philosophy. Certainly no motivated reasoning here.

[manamancer @manamancer]

@jwsherrod You have to step outside a physicalist paradigm for stuff like the Force. I suspect its very nature would be to subvert any formula you could calculate for its physical limits, which is basically what Yoda was saying.

[manamancer @manamancer]

@JacksonShamburg @DwaynesWorld9 @Yournam73557045 @tulipvirtues @AbortionChat Evading the more salient species point, slick move

[manamancer @manamancer]

@JacksonShamburg @DwaynesWorld9 @Yournam73557045 @tulipvirtues @AbortionChat Ah, yes the famously 'non-human' human fetuses that women just spontaneously start growing. It's not a dolphin in there, ya dingus

[manamancer @manamancer]

@DwaynesWorld9 @JacksonShamburg @Yournam73557045 @tulipvirtues @AbortionChat Motivated reasoning to the extreme. Very convenient term that specifically excludes the exact kind of humans that they want to be okay with killing for bad reasons.

[manamancer @manamancer]

This is the problem with the terms. "Pro-choice" was an attempt to reframe away from the "right to life" talking points, with "pro-life" emerging as a rhetorical response. In reality, the position need extend no further than "anti-abortion." We don't make the claim that a robust welfare state is an entailment of prohibiting other kinds of murder, so I'd reject it in the case of abortion as well.

[manamancer @manamancer]

The whole point is that we don't have to rely on people organically deciding to take on difficult trades for fun. We have plumbers and electricians because it's worth it to do those things instead of more fun and relaxing stuff. That's not even exactly a defense of capitalism, it's more about the utility of money and the specialization it allows/incentivizes. From there, you just get capitalism from property rights and simply allowing people to decide what to do with their own money.

[manamancer @manamancer]

@LeftbookHeretic @Aella_Girl Yeah the but the tradeoff is that you can specialize in house-building, or a specific part of it, and keep getting compensated for it indefinitely. And then we get to live in a world of expertly-built houses instead of one-and-done mud huts.

[manamancer @manamancer]

Not really. If you vote red for guaranteed survival, that remains true no matter what the threshold for blue is. If the threshold is low, then there's little need for any reds to switch. If it's high, then red becomes even more reasonable. Blue has all the swing voters you gotta watch out for.

[manamancer @manamancer]

@yaghsizian @Geero_Gero We pay professionals to enter burning buildings. That doesn't map onto the button hypothetical.

[manamancer @manamancer]

@yurddlc2 It's not reasonable for everyone to pick red. We're not betting on that. We're just guaranteeing our survival in all possible outcomes.

[manamancer @manamancer]

I'm pressing red 100%. I don't need anyone to join me. In fact, I hope most people don't so that the blues survive, foolhardy as they may be. But if most people do go red, which is a distinct possibility... then I'm still sticking with red, obviously.

[manamancer @manamancer]

My thought process:
1. Red guarantees individual safety.
2. If the majority realizes this and acts accordingly, red wins, making blue an instant suicide.
3. If I'm wrong and most people pick blue, all reds still survive.
4. Therefore red remains optimal in all situations.

Blue majority is best outcome, red press is best choice. None of this ignores blue pressers I care about, changes the hypothetical, or represents a desire to see anyone die.

[manamancer @manamancer]

@plasmarob If you need us, that just makes our position more sensible. If you don't, then no worries, blues have got it covered.

[manamancer @manamancer]

@Blader838 @Zachariahskylab @OUnderfolder @austrosillyism https://t.co/s3eqUDeLbp

[manamancer @manamancer]

@Darthshadow25 @CypressDahlia "So blue's gonna win?"
"Definitely."
"Okay sounds like y'all got it covered, I'll pick red to be safe"
"Noooo! Blue needs your vote!"
"So you think blue could lose?"
"Maybe."
"Ok then I'm picking red to be safe."
"NOOO"

[manamancer @manamancer]

@Zachariahskylab @OUnderfolder @austrosillyism Wouldn't that mean any current red voters have no reason to switch?

[manamancer @manamancer]

@Darthshadow25 @CypressDahlia "So blue's gonna win?"
"Definitely."
"Okay sounds like y'all got it covered, I'll pick red to be safe"
"Noooo! Blue needs your vote!"
"So you think blue could lose?"
"Maybe."
"Ok then I'm picking red to be safe."
"NOOO"