ysabetwordsmith | Philosophical Questions: Gradients

People have expressed interest in deep topics, so this list focuses on philosophical questions.

What is the best way to train people to see the gradients in the world around them instead of just a simplistic “this is good, that is wrong” view of the world?

:D Oh, this is a favorite exercise!

1) Get a list of philosophies with their core premises.

2) Get a list of current issues, historical decisions, moral quandaries, or other challenging situations.

3) Pick ten philosophies.

4) Pick one challenging situation to analyze.

5) Go through the philosophies, using each to select and justify a course of action in that situation using the principles of that philosophy.

6) When you finish all ten, compare the results. How much do they agree or disagree? Which do you think is the best solution, and why?

7) Do this again with different philosophies and challenges. Do you find similar agreement, or do different philosophies perform better in different situations? Are some problems hard to solve from any perspective, while others are harder in some philosophies but readily soluble in other philosophies?

After you've gone through a bunch of philosophies and challenges, you come to see the strengths and weaknesses of different principles and perspectives, and because of their different approaches to challenges, you also see more different parts of problems and how to solve them. The more different parts and angles you can see, the easier it becomes to take a large insoluble problem and pick it apart into smaller pieces that can be solved.

It can also be helpful to ask classic ethical questions.

"What if everyone did this?" is a great way to identify small wrongs that are not necessarily dire when rare, but quickly become serious problems when common. Frex, one person cutting down one tree has a negligible effect, but many people cutting down many trees is denuding the planet.

"And then what happens?" is a way of exploring the results of choices. Practicing this as far as you can trace different possibilities is a good way to learn about intended outcomes and unintended consequences. Over time, this leads to better predictions and decisions.

Here is a list of ethical tests. Different cultures have different tests, and the results can be as divergent as "What would Jesus do?" vs. "How will this affect the seventh generation?" The more different cultures you can explore, the better your chance of finding a perspective that will help you find a solution in difficult situations. Or you could just collect a diverse group of people to consult in "WTF do I do now?" situations.

Imagination offers good opportunities too.

Reading stories lets you see how different characters view issues and solve problems. My favorite supervillains are people like Magneto and Poison Ivy, who are RIGHT but choose disturbing methods to defend their causes. If you have a huge amount of power, and nutjobs are trying to commit genocide or destroy the biosphere, should you use all of your available resources to stop them or should you have some line(s) you won't cross even if that means permitting genocide or biocide? Literature is full of great opportunities for ethical discussion. Plays, movies, television, songs, and other entertainment can work similarly. You can see some of this in my writing, including the meta like this "Spectrum of Consent" discussion.

Roleplaying, if you get beyond murderhobo campaigns, is a fantastic tool for many reasons. Most games let you pick a character alignment, and the good ones hardwire that into the game mechanics so that following your alignment rewards your characters while violating it incurs penalties. You can see how different types of behavior, choices, and ethical perspectives play out in an adventure -- and how your fellow gamers respond to the choices for each other's characters. It's a safe environment to make discoveries and mistakes that would be much riskier in person.

Consider the proposed stages of moral development. For examples of the theorized seventh, by the way, that's stuff like "Don't use sunkiller bombs," "Don't tear holes in reality," and "If you are a god, don't abuse your followers." Another set of really wide-angle concerns are S-risks and X-risks. If you like thinking about stuff this big, congratulations, you're probably off the charts too.

Yes, I am a giant nerd about this stuff. <3

Current Mood: busy

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

From: (Anonymous)

Exposure to issues (either yourself or loved ones) sometimes works. Probably not as well as a planned course though...

Re: My belief on lines in the sand...

1) If you have to do something horrible (be it killing someone, committing a crime or war crime, etc) maybe it is neccesary. But you still need to acknowledge that it is wrong. (rahib - https://www.google.com/amp/s/laadanlanguage.com/laadan-to-english-r/%3famp)

2) I think people should generally adhere to their own ethical systems, and if failing to do so should be willing to accept the matched penalties. (Basically, you don't get a free pass to do bad things.)

And now for the armor-piercing question: to what degree is morality relative, to a person, situation, or culture?

Courtship Rite sets up a system where cannibalism and Human Resources are neccesary to survival...despite being taboo in most modern earth societies.

There is a conlang with a word (depuskalta) which an English speaker might call either "free person" or "murderer," (or both!) but the actual term in context is more empowering:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/fialleril.tumblr.com/post/144667018741/how-many-words-are-there-for-free-on-tatooine/am

There have been cultures (and still are!) where it is ethical to let people die if the care needed to keep them alive exceeds what the community can provide. Our culture with its fear of death would call this immoral.

Most of modern America has a system where it is unethical to give someone life necessities... but it is also unethical for someone to not have necessities and it is even more unethical to quit trying to procure those necessities.

It's a complicated issue. I think stuff like valuing life and respecting bodily autonomy are or should be nearly universal...but there are people who would choose universals that I don't approve of, ("a God-king must be present to enforce morality!")

From:

ysabetwordsmith

>>1) If you have to do something horrible (be it killing someone, committing a crime or war crime, etc) maybe it is neccesary. But you still need to acknowledge that it is wrong.<<

One thing I find abhorrent about this culture is people's insistence that wanting to do something, or finding a justification for it, makes it right. It's a very consent-hostile culture, and then people whine over the inevitable consequences of "might makes right."

Something I like about Terramagne is that more people -- often including supervillains -- will stand up for the consequences.

>> 2) I think people should generally adhere to their own ethical systems, and if failing to do so should be willing to accept the matched penalties. (Basically, you don't get a free pass to do bad things.) <<

I think people should adhere to their own ethics, because not doing that incurs moral injury, which is difficult to fix. Before considering penalties, however, I look at power and choices. People are only responsible as much as they have agency and options.

>> And now for the armor-piercing question: to what degree is morality relative, to a person, situation, or culture? <<

I would say that it depends on a person's moral development, a situation's parallax, and a culture's functionality. A person needs to follow their own ethics, because violating that is injurious. Different situations with the same outcomes should have the same ethics; but if salient details vary, then so may ethics. For instance, humans need strong attachment to children because few are born and require much investment to raise. But a race that spawned like coral would be harmed by overinvesting in offspring. A functional society should be left to function; a dysfunctional one may fairly be criticized.

>> There have been cultures (and still are!) where it is ethical to let people die if the care needed to keep them alive exceeds what the community can provide. <<

The reason it's ethical is because it is the path of least harm in those circumstances. Saving one life at the cost of many is not a good outcome.

Conversely, I don't believe it's okay to torture people because their death would make you sad or lose you money. And America does quite a lot of torturing people by forcing them to live in bodies or other circumstances that are miserable.

>>Our culture with its fear of death would call this immoral.<<

Yeah, America's thanatophobia causes a huge amount of human suffering.

>> Most of modern America has a system where it is unethical to give someone life necessities... <<

One sign of severe cultural dysfunction is banning people from helping each other, like making it illegal to feed the homeless.

>> but it is also unethical for someone to not have necessities<<

For example, lying that parents are neglecting their children when in fact the family is simply poor. And then the state puts the children in foster care, where they are also neglected and now don't even have affection or stability, which unsurprisingly results in a success rate that hovers around what is even statistically detectable -- about 3 to 4%.

>> and it is even more unethical to quit trying to procure those necessities.<<

Hence the laws condemning suicide. That's really hypocritical, because so many of the people who choose to die are despised by society. They don't want you do live, but you can't get caught wanting to die or they'll heap more disapproval and punishments on you.

It's so fucked up.

>>It's a complicated issue. I think stuff like valuing life and respecting bodily autonomy are or should be nearly universal...but there are people who would choose universals that I don't approve of, ("a God-king must be present to enforce morality!")<<

True. Hence the moral tests regarding outcomes. How does that work out? Respecting body autonomy has good outcomes; violating it has bad ones.

From:

apachefirecat

Where is it illegal to feed the homeless? I knew the time was coming but did not realize it had already arrived...

Also, I'm glad to read someone actually point out is what is wrong with stopping people from killing themselves or otherwise denying them death when their bodies are riddled with pain and they no longer want to be in this world -- and they KNOW they no longer want to be here, they KNOW they no longer want to be stuck with that body or in that situation, and they've KNOWN for some time, not something that's just emotionally driven and might yet stand a chance of changing.

From:

ysabetwordsmith

>>Where is it illegal to feed the homeless? I knew the time was coming but did not realize it had already arrived...<<

More and more cities are criminalizing homelessness, sleeping, standing, sitting, basically existing unless one can pay for the privilege, and thus also criminalizing many efforts to help the homeless.

https://www.nationalhomeless.org/publications/foodsharing/Food_Sharing.pdf

Now consider that this isn't a fluke and isn't only harming homeless people.
* Food is a human bonding experience. Things that undermine human bonding make society less connected, more indifferent, and more violent.
* There's an increase in laws that attack food-sharing and control what other people are permitted to eat. My local county, not satisfied with running off the powwow some years ago, banned potlucks a few years back too.
* Forcing people to harm others, or preventing them from helping, causes moral injury. Society lacks the tools to heal such injuries.

>>Also, I'm glad to read someone actually point out is what is wrong with stopping people from killing themselves or otherwise denying them death when their bodies are riddled with pain and they no longer want to be in this world -- and they KNOW they no longer want to be here, they KNOW they no longer want to be stuck with that body or in that situation, and they've KNOWN for some time, not something that's just emotionally driven and might yet stand a chance of changing.<<

Well, you have to look at the categories of people who consider suicide, then analyze whether their problems are soluble at all, then whether anyone is willing and able to provide the resources for solving those problems.

* People who mistakenly believe that nobody loves them or their life is worthless. Frex, overwhelmed college students with emotionally inept parents. This is fixable if people are willing to work on the problem and can find and afford mental care if they want therapy. It's a known issue with known solutions, so intervention is justified IF AND ONLY IF the people involved are willing and able to invest resources in fixing it. If they are not, then trying to force someone to stay in a miserable situation is torture. This is an important concern because mental care in America is ruinously expensive, often not covered by insurance, and routinely overloaded such that suicidal people are placed on waiting lists for months or years with no help.

* People whose thinking is suddenly and temporarily impaired. Many things can cause this, from infections to unforeseen reactions to a new medication. When suicidal ideation pops up out of nowhere, then intervention is justified in hopes that a cause can be identied and overcome. While the medical system is not great at identifying and helping these cases, it remains one of the more promising groups. Largely this is limited by the medical industry demanding money before it will do anything, and having little skill or resources to help mental issues.

* People whose problems are soluble in theory but not in practice. For example, school debt cannot be dismissed except in extremely rare cases. If a person discovers that the career they trained for is soul-crushing, but it's the only way to make the money they owe, then they have no legal way out which is tolerable to them. This is a leading cause of suicide in professions like law and medicine. Society could forgive school debt, but prefers to let people kill themselves. Closely related is moral injury, where a career presses people to do things they find evil. They may be unable to leave this career for financial or other reasons. Society chooses not to fix the problems in a wide number of fields that have high rates of suicide -- here add firefighters and police to the aforementioned layers and medics.

* People who are being abused. Children tortured by cruel schoolmates or teachers. Sex abuse victims. Employees of vicious bosses. Abused spouses. Often these people are told to "get help" but no real help is available, or they are excluded from it, or in the case of children they simply have no rights to solve problems on their own and the people in power choose for them to keep being abused. For many of these people, death is preferable to continued victimization.

* People society despises. This includes women, the poor, the elderly, the disabled, Native Americans, most other people of color, and the whole QUILTBAG. Pretty much all disadvantaged groups have higher rates of suicide risk than advantaged groups, sometimes astronomically higher. Most transfolk have contemplated or attempted suicide. These problems could be solved if society behaved decently and didn't abuse people, but it prefers to be evil. So it has no grounds to complain about getting dumped. In this case, what society is really whining about is its punching bag escaping. Fuck that. People have a right to leave abusive situations, and if the only route available to them is death, they cannot be blamed for taking it. They don't owe their abusers anything.

* People who feel they don't deserve to live because of bad things they have done. If the bad things are false, see above for mistaken suicidal desires, which can fairly be interrupted if real help is available. If the bad things are true, see above for despised categories -- frex, pedophiles, murderers, or war criminals. Society should not pretend that everyone is loved or wanted when this is demonstrably false. If someone is not wanted, and does not want to be around, then there is no conflict and they should be free to die. Tempting as it may seem to torture criminals, this is still a bad idea because it harms the torturer and the society as well as the victim.

* People who have tried and tried to solve their problems, but the problems can't be solved with extant resources. Frex, people with treatment-resistant depression. A lot of mental issues are in this category. So is chronic pain. So are degenerative diseases that aren't lethal in the short term, such as Alzheimer's or multiple sclerosis. There's a lot of stuff that makes someone's life unbearably miserable, such that death is preferable. Caregivers might wish they could help, but are unable to fix it; or medication is available in theory but not in practice, or is insuffient. And then caregivers are unwilling to help end the suffering (at least in America, some other societies are more sensible). Demanding that someone keep trying to solve an unsolvable problem and live in misery is torture.

* People with terminal illnesses. Lots of things provide a ton of predictable misery, and some folks just don't want to wait through that -- nor should they have to. Again, some other countries are more civilized about this, and provide dignified relief from misery.

I feel that it is each soul's right to decide when they are done with this life. Because otherwise, it's not their life, they are just the property of whoever is the decider, be that some "higher power" or government or whatever. I'm also against slavery.

Intervention is justifiable and desirable if there is solid reason to believe that the suicide attempt is mistaken, temporary, and/or fixable and the person(s) intervening are both willing and able to invest substantial resources in solving the problem(s) driving the situation. Otherwise, it is more likely to increase suffering than decrease it, and knowingly increasing suffering is evil.

I don't feel that society has any grounds to bitch when there are many, many things that could be done to relieve suffering but society chooses not to do those things, and people die as a result. You don't get a captive audience to abuse.

If society really wanted to prevent suicide, it would do things like:
* Make sure everyone has food, clothing, shelter, health care, and other survival needs. America is not poor; it could do these things; it chooses not to.
* Provide work for everyone who wants a job, because it's not like there's a shortage of things that need doing.
* Provide emotional first aid training and emergency mental care so that small problems don't become big ones.
* Ensure that mental care is readily available to everyone who wants or needs it.
* Quit valuing money over people.
* When someone has a calamity, provide support to prevent it getting worse; e.g. after a house fire, offer a temporary residence and financial aid until the family can recover and find a new home.
* If someone is suicidal, try to identify why their life hurts so much they are trying to chew their body off, and whether that can be fixed. Start with things like "Here is a maid for a month so you don't have to worry about housework or meals. Here is a check to cover your immediate bills." If you can take enough of the weight off, it's often possible to break down a problem into pieces small enough to solve.

I don't think society is likely to make those choices. It doesn't really care about people in pain. It just wants them not to annoy others by showing that pain in ways that upset people who matter. I see a whole lot of griping and very little real offers of help.

Fuck that noise. If society can't treat people decently, then it deserves to be dumped. This is one of many reasons I often compare society to a shitty boyfriend who abuses people and blows the rent money on booze. >_< And then when the girlfriend tries to leave, he throws himself on her and begs her not to go.

From: (Anonymous)

>>More and more cities are criminalizing homelessness, sleeping, standing, sitting, basically existing unless one can pay for the privilege, and thus also criminalizing many efforts to help the homeless.<<

Tennessee recently passed a law making public camping a felony offense. (Not a lawyer and I don't remember the exact wording, but...)

>>People who mistakenly believe that nobody loves them or their life is worthless. Frex, overwhelmed college students with emotionally inept parents. <<

Speaking of emotionally inept help, for the love of god, don't tell someone who hates people that they should ignore their feelings and go bond with people. That is not helpful!

Trying to figure out where it hurts may be helpful, depending on your skills, relationship with the person, etc. ...I think a lot of people who dislike people may be having problems with socialization, either personal (no social skills) or environmental (everyone in my town is a jerk).

>>People whose thinking is suddenly and temporarily impaired. Many things can cause this, from infections to unforeseen reactions to a new medication.<<

Some people will have bad reactions to a sudden trauma; response will vary depending on specifics. Generally, for a mild thing, call a friend/relative whatever who can help with practical stuff and getting them somewhere safe. More severe instances might require more skilled intervention if available. (I am not an expert, this is just what I'd try to do.)

Some people have issues that make depression, anxiety, etc, a recurring-but-occasional problem. People who are used to a recurring problem may have solutions and failsafes, and can refine them when their mind is not playing funhouse mirrors with them. (Or at least when the twistiness gets toned down.)

>>People whose problems are soluble in theory but not in practice. For example, school debt cannot be dismissed except in extremely rare cases. If a person discovers that the career they trained for is soul-crushing, but it's the only way to make the money they owe, then they have no legal way out which is tolerable to them. This is a leading cause of suicide in professions like law and medicine. Society could forgive school debt, but prefers to let people kill themselves.<<

Well, this is actually a variant of debt slavery, and if it is framed as "I'll be free or I'll be dead, dammit" than it makes a lot more sense.

>>Closely related is moral injury, where a career presses people to do things they find evil. They may be unable to leave this career for financial or other reasons. Society chooses not to fix the problems in a wide number of fields that have high rates of suicide -- here add firefighters and police to the aforementioned layers and medics.<>People who feel they don't deserve to live because of bad things they have done. If the bad things are false, see above for mistaken suicidal desires, which can fairly be interrupted if real help is available. If the bad things are true, see above for despised categories -- frex, pedophiles, murderers, or war criminals.<<

In response to a My God, What Have I Done:

a) our justice system is terrible at addressing the feelings tied into this for both survivor and perpetrator, and

b) we could use more models for how to fix serious mistakes. For example, resources for rapists and abusers who want to improve/make amends are very thin on the ground. I have seen one example of a useful resource to help pedophiles not hurt anyone, and even then they will turn away the former rapists. And as for war criminals, there aren't really individual programs. I've heard of a few who try to turn themselves in, but the closest thing to individual support I've ever seen/heard of is the very specific instance where they pulled a Predator Turned Protector and their former protectees defend them (Think Schindler's List, where they're all trying to comfort him through his moral injury at the end.)
...but come to think of it, there are organized resources for ex-child soldiers, many of whom have both committed and survived war crimes. And I think there are a few programs in places like Rwanda, where you've all got to live with each other.

>>here's a lot of stuff that makes someone's life unbearably miserable, such that death is preferable. Caregivers might wish they could help, but are unable to fix it; or medication is available in theory but not in practice, or is insuffient. And then caregivers are unwilling to help end the suffering (at least in America, some other societies are more sensible). Demanding that someone keep trying to solve an unsolvable problem and live in misery is torture.<<

...A lot of conditions that require care are expensive, and if they are expensive enough to require government assistance you are often obligated to live in poverty (at least in America). If you have life savings, this means you must lose them before anyone will help you. If the condition is congenital or prevented you from ever working, you are bound to live in poverty your whole life so you don't die. (And then there are the people who are always complaining about "Those poor people living off my tax dollars...")

Even conditions that are less expensive (like diabetes) can trap you. From what I understand lifesaving medicine can be insanely expensive, insurance doesn't always pay everything, and since health insurance is tied to a job, people will often have to stay in a bad situation, so they don't die. (And that's before we get into stuff like insulin rationing...)

Oh, yeah, and stuff is more expensive for the disabled - cars, allergen-free foods, requiring thinks like AC, frequent meals, and the like.

The most fair solution I can think of is having society meet everyone's basic needs, and then you work for your luxuries.

>>If someone is suicidal, try to identify why their life hurts so much they are trying to chew their body off, and whether that can be fixed.<<

At least to identify it enough that you aren't making it worse.

>>This is one of many reasons I often compare society to a shitty boyfriend who abuses people and blows the rent money on booze.<<

I've been using this analogy for jobs/the job industry. It confuses people, like, a lot!

From:

ysabetwordsmith

>>Tennessee recently passed a law making public camping a felony offense.<<

Hardly a surprise. A place to be is a paid privilege, not a right.

Things like this are why I call America a shithole.

>>Speaking of emotionally inept help, for the love of god, don't tell someone who hates people that they should ignore their feelings and go bond with people. That is not helpful!<<

Agreed.

>> Trying to figure out where it hurts may be helpful, depending on your skills, relationship with the person, etc.<<

True. At the very least, though, don't make it worse.

>> ...I think a lot of people who dislike people may be having problems with socialization, either personal (no social skills) or environmental (everyone in my town is a jerk).<<

Almost always one or both of those, whatever else may be going on. Sometimes, though, they just don't have the same need-to-connect that most humans do. Not everyone who looks human actually is, and for a solitary species, having apes trying to crawl all over you can be pretty awful. Besides, hermits exist too. There's nothing wrong with that.

Now someone who hates people and tries to kill them, that's a problem.

>> Some people will have bad reactions to a sudden trauma; response will vary depending on specifics.<<

Few people have good reactions to trauma. It's just a matter of who bounces well, or not.

>> Generally, for a mild thing, call a friend/relative whatever who can help with practical stuff and getting them somewhere safe.<<

Good idea.

>> More severe instances might require more skilled intervention if available. (I am not an expert, this is just what I'd try to do.) <<

If available, safe, effective, and affordable. Again, don't make matters worse. Good professional help exists, but is far below what is needed.

>> Some people have issues that make depression, anxiety, etc, a recurring-but-occasional problem. People who are used to a recurring problem may have solutions and failsafes, and can refine them when their mind is not playing funhouse mirrors with them. (Or at least when the twistiness gets toned down.) <<

This handbook can be adapted for pretty much any variable problem whether physical or mental. You can customize it by adding or omitting whatever you need:
https://www.getselfhelp.co.uk/docs/WRAP.pdf

>>I am so sick of people telling me I have choices when my choices are a Morton's Fork.<<

Yep. It comes in two variations:
* All the available paths lead to the same destination.
* The paths lead to different destinations, but none of them are tolerable.

Very often the problem is that one person can simply see farther ahead than those who are claiming there are choices.

Other times, the illusion of choice itself is a problem -- someone is told they have choices when they are really being coerced.

>> a) our justice system is terrible at addressing the feelings tied into this for both survivor and perpetrator, and <> b) we could use more models for how to fix serious mistakes. <<

Absolutely.

One I eventually spotted in Terramagne: if you have accidentally or purposely taken a life and now feel bad about it, pay the EMT tuition for a student who can't afford it. Their job will then be saving lives. It's not a small amount of money, but it is an amount that many people can obtain if motivated.

You can't undo your ghastly mistake, but you can choose to do better going forward and work to put more good into the world than you put bad earlier.

>> For example, resources for rapists and abusers who want to improve/make amends are very thin on the ground. <<

Yes, that's a problem. Especially since a large majority of criminals are themselves abuse survivors. This has to be part of breaking the cycle.

>> I have seen one example of a useful resource to help pedophiles not hurt anyone, and even then they will turn away the former rapists. <<

*headdesk*

I've touched on this. One reader blew past "warn all the things," then threw a fit and flounced out. 0_o Yeah, I get that the topic is icky, but if it's not discussed then it's never getting solved. Which is a problem since we don't actually have the power to change anyone's sexual orientation. Terramagne's solutions include:
* celibate companions, kind of like sober companions
* hermitages where nobody is under 21, which greatly helps people whose sex drive is largely or wholly dormant in the absence of partners they find attractive
* sex dolls (inert) or other toys suited to a person's desires
* at least one practical sexual therapist who looks like a child due to an unfortunate de-aging incident

>> And as for war criminals, there aren't really individual programs. I've heard of a few who try to turn themselves in, but the closest thing to individual support I've ever seen/heard of is the very specific instance where they pulled a Predator Turned Protector and their former protectees defend them (Think Schindler's List, where they're all trying to comfort him through his moral injury at the end.) <<

Yyyeah. That's not good.

>> ...but come to think of it, there are organized resources for ex-child soldiers, many of whom have both committed and survived war crimes. And I think there are a few programs in places like Rwanda, where you've all got to live with each other.<<

I've heard of those too, but that's about it.

>>...A lot of conditions that require care are expensive, and if they are expensive enough to require government assistance you are often obligated to live in poverty (at least in America). If you have life savings, this means you must lose them before anyone will help you. If the condition is congenital or prevented you from ever working, you are bound to live in poverty your whole life so you don't die. (And then there are the people who are always complaining about "Those poor people living off my tax dollars...")<<

Yes. I think this is evil. If the government needs to support someone, they should be obligated to provide the means of a decent life, or else they are neglecting that person. No wonder suicide is so common in that group. Living with disability is difficult, but it can usually be made bearable. The problem is society could but chooses abuse instead. I can't blame people for telling society to fuck off.

>> people will often have to stay in a bad situation, so they don't die.<<

Like the employers who look for a rape victim that won't complain or leave.

>>The most fair solution I can think of is having society meet everyone's basic needs, and then you work for your luxuries.<> I've been using this analogy for jobs/the job industry. It confuses people, like, a lot! <<

You have to spell out the analogy line-by-line.

* The government can't keep the lights/water on, like a bad boyfriend who blows the utility money on booze.

* Police brutality is like a bad boyfriend beating you up.

* The government says it provides a safety net but does not, like a bad boyfriend saying he'll pick you up from work but he forgets.

Most people have had a shitty ex. If you can find the parallels, they'll get it. This is easier if you know how their ex(es) fucked them over. If not, you just have to go with common examples.

From: (Anonymous)

>>True. At the very least, though, don't make it worse.<<

Being able to accept "Stop, you're making it worse!" gracefully is a useful life skill.

>>Now someone who hates people and tries to kill them, that's a problem.<<

Oh, I just go through phases where I am exasperated with humanity (usually either the people around me or society in general are being irritating), leading to "I hate people, and want to be left alone."

That said, there are quite a few nice people I do enjoy spending time with, and I am perfectly capable of logical-reasoning-deduction that says people are not all good or all bad. Its just in that moment, I am having an emotional reaction that affects my perception of reality.

>>Few people have good reactions to trauma. It's just a matter of who bounces well, or not.<<

Yeah, most people won't be like "Whee, this is fun!" (that's indicates something other than trauma), but there' a range of reactions between the functional to nonfunctional and minimal support to serious intervention needed ends of the scale.

>>Especially since a large majority of criminals are themselves abuse survivors.<<

Hmmm... there are a few organizations run by men to help prevent rape. Maybe one of them could step up for this?

And yeah, rape/abuse is not heteronormative, but weve got to start somewhere, and that seems to be the most likely cluster of allies with relevant skills and goals. If anyone else has a better idea, I'm listening.

>>*headdesk*<<

Well, it was a support group where they'd help each other not rape folks, and even that would be widely considered, hmm, dodgy in this culture. So I can see why they'd be strict as a matter of self-preservation. Respectability politics is vitally important when society has no qualms about killing you.

...I think I figure we should not condemn folks for their sexuality. But we can condemn hurting people because of your sexuality, or with sexuality as an excuse. And that applies to everyone, of any sexuality. (So the heterosexual dude oughtn't pull an "I'm a man, I can't help it," gay folks get a double standard on what counts as rape and abuse, and yeah, no-one should be fooling around with anyone who cannot consent.)

I am not comfortable unpersoning someone because they exist. But I think that may be as progressive as I can be on this issue right now.

>>The problem is society could but chooses abuse instead. I can't blame people for telling society to fuck off.<<

Our society has an annoying tendency to assume illness is a moral failing, and work ids a moral thing. So people who cannot work because of illness are "immoral" and must be punished.

(Also has the side benefit of scaring the rest of us into toeing the line.)

>>Like the employers who look for a rape victim that won't complain or leave.<<

Forget the rape bit; look at all the examples of people being told to work in lethally dangerous conditions, come to work while violently ill, forego caring for loved ones because'you need to put the job first...' :/

From:

ysabetwordsmith

>>Being able to accept "Stop, you're making it worse!" gracefully is a useful life skill.<<

True.

>>Oh, I just go through phases where I am exasperated with humanity (usually either the people around me or society in general are being irritating), leading to "I hate people, and want to be left alone."<<

Humanity has worn out my patience. Most of them aren't worth the bother of being around.

>> That said, there are quite a few nice people I do enjoy spending time with, and I am perfectly capable of logical-reasoning-deduction that says people are not all good or all bad. Its just in that moment, I am having an emotional reaction that affects my perception of reality.<<

I have a few people I'm still attached to. I figure, amidst nearly 8 billion others, there are likely more I could enjoy; but the chance of finding those is not high, and they're hidden amidst a lot of generally repugnant people. While few are wholly good or wholly evil, I find myself generally repelled by a species whose total contribution to the planet approximates that of a comet. :/

>> Yeah, most people won't be like "Whee, this is fun!" (that's indicates something other than trauma), but there' a range of reactions between the functional to nonfunctional and minimal support to serious intervention needed ends of the scale. <<

In my observation, the more knowledge and agency, the less likely people are to suffer trauma from a terrible experience. If they can do something productive, the brain usually doesn't hangfire its sorting function. But if they feel helpless, then the change of damage is much higher.

>> ...I think I figure we should not condemn folks for their sexuality.<<

True.

>> But we can condemn hurting people because of your sexuality, or with sexuality as an excuse. <<

A challenge with that is that it requires perfection, and humans are not perfect. It means wholly suppressing a drive that has to be strong enough to overpower logic and willpower in order for the species to continue, since babies are a lot of work and self-interest would incline many people to avoid that. Hence why T-America came up with hermitages: for a significant number of people, sex drive is largely activated by the presence of attractive individuals, and it is less tangible when no such individuals are around.

>> And that applies to everyone, of any sexuality. (So the heterosexual dude oughtn't pull an "I'm a man, I can't help it," gay folks get a double standard on what counts as rape and abuse, and yeah, no-one should be fooling around with anyone who cannot consent.) <<

Bear in mind that America runs on power, not on consent. They talk about consent but don't really mean it. What matters is not the wish of the body-wearer, but rather, the wish of whomever has power over that body.

If a minor wishes not to be touched on their sex parts, but a parent has paid a doctor to do so, the sex parts will be touched even if it means pinning the child by force. It is common for intersex and transgender children to grow up being sexually abused in this manner.

If a minor wishes to have sex with their emfriend, but the parent objects, it is the parent's choice that holds right of way.

If a policeman wishes to "search for drugs" up someone's anus, the law entitles him to do so, and the victim is not permitted to resist -- can in fact be beaten or violated by force or jailed for daring to behave as if they had rights to body autonomy they don't.

The only place consent really comes into play is between equals. They need agreement to do things to each other. But someone who has sufficiently higher status does not need consent from someone of lower status.

It's no surprise that a lot of people interpret "consent" as "by any means necessary," because that's all that most of them have seen.

>> Our society has an annoying tendency to assume illness is a moral failing, and work ids a moral thing. So people who cannot work because of illness are "immoral" and must be punished. <<

That's true. Evil, but true.

>> (Also has the side benefit of scaring the rest of us into toeing the line.) <<

Much of society is designed that way. If people could get food, shelter, health care, and other needs without enduring soul-crushing jobs, then they would not work those jobs, which would upset the corporations.

>>Forget the rape bit; look at all the examples of people being told to work in lethally dangerous conditions, come to work while violently ill, forego caring for loved ones because'you need to put the job first...' :/

And then they wonder why health is generally poor.

From: (Anonymous)

>>A challenge with that is that it requires perfection, and humans are not perfect. It means wholly suppressing a drive that has to be strong enough to overpower logic and willpower in order for the species to continue, since babies are a lot of work and self-interest would incline many people to avoid that.<<

Challenging perhaps, but I think it is better than the current status quo, both in terms of violent mayhem and because it is more-or-less the same standard for everyone.

Perhaps someone will think of a better idea that will work in this society the way it is now. Or perhaps society or technology or something will shift enough that new and better solutions will be possible in the future.

In the meantime - if folks can keep their sexualities (of any type) from jumping all over unwilling participants, great. If not, well, then I consider it ethical to object to that sort of behavior, either pleasantly or less pleasantly.

We should try to be considerate and compassionate and so forth...but not so much so that it turns into one of those irritating 'Dumbledore forgives everyone and then a lot of people die' Harry Potter fanfics.

>>Bear in mind that America runs on power, not on consent. They talk about consent but don't really mean it.<<

Society not meaning what they say does not forbid me from keeping a higher ideal alive for myself. Nor does it prevent me expressing and reaffirming that higher ideal within my circle of social influence.

Does it change the culture? Not noticeably.

Does it create a bit of shear between my ethics and reality? Yes.

But I still figure it is better than going all "Why bother doing the right thing? Everyone else is having a better time doing bad things!"

And... I think it makes a difference to some of the people I know, that when I am in a position of power I make an effort to respect their agency and not force them to do stuff. The kids will (I hope) remember that as a good example of how to treat others / be treated by others. The people going through difficult times (I hope) will be ...holistically better off?... if I can manage to help them in a way that respects their emotions, agency and actual needs. And if I have more social-privilege than someone else... well hopefully I at least manage to be "Not too annoying for a [privilege-having] person."

>>And then they wonder why health is generally poor.<<

Also, we are starting to see a pattern of heatwave-related work deaths here in the US.

From: (Anonymous)

>>I think people should adhere to their own ethics, because not doing that incurs moral injury, which is difficult to fix. Before considering penalties, however, I look at power and choices. People are only responsible as much as they have agency and options.<<

I was more thinking that I'd consider these violations of Thou Shalt Not Kill to be ethically different:

1) A Mercy Kill, done as a result of being unable to prevent extreme suffering. Think being trapped under rubble in a burning building, or being unable to evacuate or provide care for medically fragile folks in the aftermath of a hurricane. The person doing it believes that killing is wrong, knows the consequences if they don't (exponential suffering) and the consequences if they do (moral injury, condemnation and possibly arrest/unpersoning by people who were not there, probable loss of livelihood.)

2) A cop shoots someone, finds out they were a fellow cop undercover...and has a meltdown, of the "I thought he was a bad guy!" variety.

In both cases, someone is breaking an ethical rule, and in both cases the break-er suffers moral injury.

But person #1 knew it was a bad thing done because there were no better options /and is not trying to justify it by saying killing is ok/.

Person #2 might say "no killing," but frankly, they only considered the killing immoral when they found out the victim was 'one of them.' It's like... if it is okay to kill someone in self-defense*, then that should apply if they are like you or not. Sure, 'one of your own' makes it more complicated, but it shouldn't change the underlying ethics. Ethical rules should apply evenly to everyone (and yes, I realize that this is an ideal to strive for, rather than a perfect reality to expect.)

*I am using the self-defense argument in this example as it is the one I most often hear used to defend the shooting of folks by cops. I know it is a problematic argument, and it definitely should not be a Get Out of Jail Free card.
And as for my personal ethics, while I do think that lethal force as self-defense is justified (preferably as a last resort) I also think that on-duty cops should be held to a higher standard than civilians.

>>I would say that it depends on a person's moral development, a situation's parallax, and a culture's functionality. A person needs to follow their own ethics, because violating that is injurious. Different situations with the same outcomes should have the same ethics; but if salient details vary, then so may ethics.<<

Even within 'human culture' we have a wide divergence of acceptable behavior. There are cultures that expect widows to commit ritual sacrifice, codify slavery into family and legal structures, practice infanticide, do not grant personhood to whole classes of people, etc, etc.

I see very few sensible discussions of how to respectfully discuss or resolve concerns about this.

I think people should have the option to leave someplace or something they don't want (and resources as well,) but that is often more difficult in practice than theory, for a bunch of reasons. And even then, there light be people who 'agree' to stuff they don't want because the loss of your whole life seems worse - despite that 'agreement' not meeting my standards for consent.

>>For instance, humans need strong attachment to children because few are born and require much investment to raise. But a race that spawned like coral would be harmed by overinvesting in offspring. A functional society should be left to function; a dysfunctional one may fairly be criticized.<<

I'll bet that in any multispecies society you'd need different categories for "biologically a person-species, but not currently a person," "person with full agency," and "person with partial or assisted agency," with different benchmarks, otherwise you'd get toddler elves being served with jury duty, but elderly Hork-Bajir not able to vote until 5/6ths of the way through their lifespan. And the benchmarks would have to vary by individual species development, which may be very different than human development.

In humans, the most obvious and familiar divide would be adults/kids, but some adults (say, someone with dementia) might still require assisted agency.

Biologically-a-person-species-but-not-a-person would be things like organs, not-yet-pouched joeys, unincubated eggs, coral spawn, and (with much contention by different cultures and ethics) human fetuses.

>>For example, lying that parents are neglecting their children when in fact the family is simply poor. And then the state puts the children in foster care, where they are also neglected and now don't even have affection or stability, which unsurprisingly results in a success rate that hovers around what is even statistically detectable -- about 3 to 4%.<<

Usually people reply to the idea that "This isn't working" with either "try harder or quit whining" or "If you don't like it you can leave." Usually I'm complaining because trying harder isn't working. And no-one has ever suggested a good place or way to leave to.

And just because someone 'chooses' to stay, doesn't make it okay to treat them badly, or even unfairly.

Also [evil idea] if schools stand in /loco parentis/, doesn't that mean that any school who isn't feeding their students lunch because of an outstanding lunch balance id technically an abusive parent that should be reported to CPS?

>>True. Hence the moral tests regarding outcomes. How does that work out? Respecting body autonomy has good outcomes; violating it has bad ones.<<

[Imagine this next bit said in an innocently sarcastic tone] I find it interesting that for all the hoopla about "the sanctity of life," none of these very vocal folks are pushing for, say, mandatory blood/organ donation (especially at death), banning the use of blood thinners, or banning activities that will make blood and organ less useable for transfusions. I mean, individual freedom is worth sacrificing if we are saving lives right? [end sarcasm]

(For the record I think every one of the ideas suggested in the previous paragraph is unethical.)

Yes, I know it's a power/dogma thing, not a logic thing. But I would so like to use this argument in a debate someday.

From:

ysabetwordsmith

>> I was more thinking that I'd consider these violations of Thou Shalt Not Kill to be ethically different: <> In both cases, someone is breaking an ethical rule, and in both cases the break-er suffers moral injury.<> Ethical rules should apply evenly to everyone (and yes, I realize that this is an ideal to strive for, rather than a perfect reality to expect.) <<

In theory, yes. In practice, the law does not apply to police. They have a different set of written rules, aren't even required to follow those very closely, and that is a problem.

>> *I am using the self-defense argument in this example as it is the one I most often hear used to defend the shooting of folks by cops. I know it is a problematic argument, and it definitely should not be a Get Out of Jail Free card.<<

Frankly they are trained to be thugs and cowards nowadays. And people know this.

>> And as for my personal ethics, while I do think that lethal force as self-defense is justified (preferably as a last resort) <<

I have no problem with lethal force when it is necessary. Preferably, the spectrum of force should be followed, using the least force needed to achieve a goal, such as survival. But America largely relegates this to people in power; the rest are considered to have no rights, not even to get angry over boundary violations. So fine. Police are government-backed thugs and should be treated as such, not as peacekeepers.

>> I also think that on-duty cops should be held to a higher standard than civilians.<>Even within 'human culture' we have a wide divergence of acceptable behavior. There are cultures that expect widows to commit ritual sacrifice, codify slavery into family and legal structures, practice infanticide, do not grant personhood to whole classes of people, etc, etc.<<

True.

>>I see very few sensible discussions of how to respectfully discuss or resolve concerns about this.<<

Problems that don't get discussed are difficult or impossible to solve. You have to figure out why something is going on, and people aren't always willing to do that. Frex, murder or self-sacrifice of widows typically stems from a shortage of resources, often tied into a socioeconomic structure that requires men to support women. This could be solved by adding or reorganizing resources, or by changing the socioeconomic structure such that women could support themselves. Getting a culture to admit this, or do anything about it, is very difficult. But you won't even get that far if you don't know those underpinnings.

>> I think people should have the option to leave someplace or something they don't want (and resources as well,) <> but that is often more difficult in practice than theory, for a bunch of reasons.<<

Chiefly, they need somewhere else to go, and many places don't want more people.

>> And even then, there light be people who 'agree' to stuff they don't want because the loss of your whole life seems worse - despite that 'agreement' not meeting my standards for consent.<<

Honestly, most cultures almost never use real consent. They function on getting what they want by any means necessary, tell people that is "consent," and then pitch a shitfit when the citizens behave as if any means necessary is consent when dealing with others. It is ruinous to a functioning society.

From:

ysabetwordsmith

>> I'll bet that in any multispecies society you'd need different categories for "biologically a person-species, but not currently a person," "person with full agency," and "person with partial or assisted agency," with different benchmarks, <<

True, but we need that here too, and people are doing a piss-poor job with it.

>> otherwise you'd get toddler elves being served with jury duty, but elderly Hork-Bajir not able to vote until 5/6ths of the way through their lifespan. And the benchmarks would have to vary by individual species development, which may be very different than human development.<<

Yeah, that's a challenge.

>>Biologically-a-person-species-but-not-a-person would be things like organs, not-yet-pouched joeys, unincubated eggs, coral spawn, and (with much contention by different cultures and ethics) human fetuses.<<

Anything that can't survive independently is not a person, or at least, not yet a person. Treating such things as persons, and especially privileging them over current persons, causes problems.

>> Usually people reply to the idea that "This isn't working" with either "try harder or quit whining" <<

That very rarely works.

>> or "If you don't like it you can leave." <<

This works fine if people mean what they say. But they rarely do; they throw a fit if people leave. I don't care. I think leaving, or not going, is a perfectly legitimate and civilized way to avoid conflicts. Not everyone has to get along and nobody has to do all the things. It is just easier on everyone if the extroverts have party space and the introverts have private space.

>> Usually I'm complaining because trying harder isn't working. And no-one has ever suggested a good place or way to leave to.<<

That sucks.

>> And just because someone 'chooses' to stay, doesn't make it okay to treat them badly, or even unfairly.<> Also [evil idea] if schools stand in /loco parentis/, doesn't that mean that any school who isn't feeding their students lunch because of an outstanding lunch balance id technically an abusive parent that should be reported to CPS? <<

I feel that adult humans collectively have a responsibility to care for human children. That means the school is responsible for feeding all the children, and if they want money for that, must demand it from the parents. The children are not responsible for paying their own way.

Much of what schools do would get children taken away from parents. Schools are allowed to starve them, lock them in closets, etc. Toilet control is hardcore BDSM, and in fact, refusing toilet access is a recognized form of torture. But nobody cares because children have no rights or power of their own. The only time it becomes an issue is if adults with power complain. So "abuse" isn't about harm. It's only about whether the abuser has the right to hurt the victim.

>> I find it interesting that for all the hoopla about "the sanctity of life," <<

Almost none of them care about life. The pregnant person's life is valueless to them. So is the infant's life once born. Look at the anti-abortion states, and their maternal and infant death rate is so bad it drags down the rest of America so far that there are African nations doing better. If they cared about life, they would be against things like poverty, guns, the death penalty, police violence, etc. and for things like universal health care, affordable housing, etc.

>> none of these very vocal folks are pushing for, say, mandatory blood/organ donation (especially at death), banning the use of blood thinners, or banning activities that will make blood and organ less useable for transfusions. I mean, individual freedom is worth sacrificing if we are saving lives right? [end sarcasm] <<

There are countries that go that way. China has been organlegging for years now. In America, it is not permissible to force someone to undergo a procedure to save someone else's life, even if the risk is negligible -- and in fact, even if the source of lifesaving material is a corpse. So forcing a person to carry an unwanted fetus simultaneously gives the fetus more rights than a born person (which they lose as soon as they're born) and a pregnant person less rights than a corpse.

Some else that really pisses me off? It's mostly poor southern states banning abortion. You know, the ones who bitched about not wanting to pay for anyone else's abortion. But they're mostly subsidized by northern states, where the money has always been. So now the north will be stuck paying for the south's unwanted bastards, when the kids wind up in foster care from neglect or abuse.

From: (Anonymous)

>>In theory, yes. In practice, the law does not apply to police. They have a different set of written rules, aren't even required to follow those very closely, and that is a problem.<<

Well, it happens in all sorts of ways. See also, how rich people get discounts for being rich, while poor people get extra fees for being rich.

>>Problems that don't get discussed are difficult or impossible to solve. You have to figure out why something is going on, and people aren't always willing to do that.<<

You also usually need mutual respect (which often includes a preexixting relationship) and a decent amount of equanimity. Unexpectedly hearing someone casually mention that your pets could count as good entrees ("don't worry, we only eat strays!"), or bring up child marriage in an accepting tone /will/ make you glitch for a moment, at least the first time(s).

>>Frex, murder or self-sacrifice of widows typically stems from a shortage of resources, often tied into a socioeconomic structure that requires men to support women. This could be solved by adding or reorganizing resources, or by changing the socioeconomic structure such that women could support themselves. Getting a culture to admit this, or do anything about it, is very difficult. But you won't even get that far if you don't know those underpinnings.<<

And this is why the early Christian Church ended up supporting a lot of widows...and then needing to have ethical standards for who they would support so folks wouldn't accuse the fledgling religion of encouraging immoral behavior.

...Also, you need to have the option of supporting yourself, because you are the only person who will be with you your whole life long.

And this reminds me of this movie (I thought the trailer looked like something you might find interesting):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_adEdT9DBQs

>>Honestly, most cultures almost never use real consent. They function on getting what they want by any means necessary, tell people that is "consent," and then pitch a shitfit when the citizens behave as if any means necessary is consent when dealing with others. It is ruinous to a functioning society.<<

It would be interesting seeing more examples of societies that prioritize consent. I suspect you'd get a lot of outsiders from less-friendly cultures becoming affiliated...

>>Anything that can't survive independently is not a person, or at least, not yet a person. Treating such things as persons, and especially privileging them over current persons, causes problems.<<

Be careful - technically speaking, human infants cannot survive independently, and there are quite a few adults that would die without assistance as well.

A rule specifying 'cannot survive without the use of another's body' might work, but it would need to be carefully written so as not to exclude organ recipients and folks that need blood transfusions (...or infants in situations where formula is inaccessable).

(Yes, the specificity is necessary - I recall a court case where the defense was arguing "I shouldn't be tried for murder, because when I threw him of the cliff I thought I'd already killed him." Ah, humans.)

>>This works fine if people mean what they say. But they rarely do; they throw a fit if people leave.<<

Well, you also need a good second option for proper consent. "Obey or die" does not typically hold up in a court of law.

>>That means the school is responsible for feeding all the children, and if they want money for that, must demand it from the parents.<>Much of what schools do would get children taken away from parents. Schools are allowed to starve them, lock them in closets, etc. Toilet control is hardcore BDSM, and in fact, refusing toilet access is a recognized form of torture. But nobody cares because children have no rights or power of their own. The only time it becomes an issue is if adults with power complain. So "abuse" isn't about harm. It's only about whether the abuser has the right to hurt the victim.<<

Our model of schooling as used in America was originally designed to train factory workers. Nowadays it is training workers to be used to schedules, to lay aside their own (physical, emotional, whatever) needs in favor of 'work,' to unquestioningly follow orders, and to preform boring busy tasks that make no sense, and to unquestioningly follow orders. Which is the same skillset many employers want.

And yes, a lot of these things show up in the work force as well. So its a more interconnected problem than 'school = evil.' (Also? Often the teachers can't use the bathroom whenever they want either.)

>>So forcing a person to carry an unwanted fetus simultaneously gives the fetus more rights than a born person (which they lose as soon as they're born) and a pregnant person less rights than a corpse.<<

Put down drinks before reading this:
https://me.me/i/as-a-woman-i-just-want-the-same-rights-as-20829698

...and that would be an awesome protest sign. Why indeed do I have to be dead before I get bodily autonomy?

>>It's mostly poor southern states banning abortion. You know, the ones who bitched about not wanting to pay for anyone else's abortion. But they're mostly subsidized by northern states, where the money has always been. So now the north will be stuck paying for the south's unwanted bastards, when the kids wind up in foster care from neglect or abuse.<<

The argument is probably going to be that state support will only be for a handful of cases "oh, the families will step up and raise 'em," "oh, they'll get adopted."

Not saying I agree, but I've had enough conversations with conservative prolifers that I can pinpoint some of the arguments.

From:

ysabetwordsmith

>>Well, it happens in all sorts of ways. See also, how rich people get discounts for being rich, while poor people get extra fees for being rich.<<

True, but there's a big difference between laws being written the same but applied unequally vs. having a different set of laws for different groups. For example, civilians are expected to know and obey laws, even though there are so many laws that not even professionals can know them all. Police are not required to know laws. A policemen's wrong command about a law takes precedence over a civilian's right awareness of a law.

>> You also usually need mutual respect (which often includes a preexixting relationship) and a decent amount of equanimity. <<

Or at least a common goal.

>> Unexpectedly hearing someone casually mention that your pets could count as good entrees ("don't worry, we only eat strays!"), or bring up child marriage in an accepting tone /will/ make you glitch for a moment, at least the first time(s).<<

My first reaction was "Do you have any idea how much parasite burden strays carry?" (My Depression-era grandfather used to talk about eating "roof rabbit" -- cat. I don't know whether he did personally, but I would bet he knew people who did since he had the slang for it.)

On the other hoof, it's harder and harder for me to connect with people due to the overall trends away from what I consider ethical behavior.

Conversation requires being willing to be around each other, and when that feels like a moral injury, it's a big barrier.

>>Also, you need to have the option of supporting yourself, because you are the only person who will be with you your whole life long.<>And this reminds me of this movie (I thought the trailer looked like something you might find interesting): <<

Yep, interesting trailer.

>> Be careful - technically speaking, human infants cannot survive independently, and there are quite a few adults that would die without assistance as well. <<

Well, there's a spectrum, and it depends on different factors.

Bear in mind that few people -- especially modern ones -- are capable of surviving long alone. So the base standard usually factors in usual human interactions like supporting each other, caring for infants and the sick, etc. People do argue over where exactly to draw the lines. But it's an important distinction because there's often a threshold where caring for a high-need individual does more harm than good (e.g. violating someone else's rights, or using up scarce resources that would have better effect elsewhere).

You also have to consider how much mind an individual actually has, which is where person-species vs. person becomes very useful. Can they pass basic tests of cognition like a mirror test? Some damaged humans cannot. They should still be cared for if resources are available, but they aren't the same as a thinking person.

In the case of fetuses and infants, it's more like they are potential persons, because body and mind take so long to develop. And that's why so many historic societies have had a short "window" after birth before naming, not only to see if the infant can survive, but to provide a chance for parents to decide if they can afford to raise this infant or it would put older established people at risk. A key point where the alleged pro-life, actual anti-abortion argument breaks down is that abortion is less risky than childbirth, and denial of reproductive care outright kills some women; the life of a born person holds no value in that paradigm. But it takes a huge amount of resources to produce a functioning adult, so in terms of contributing to society, a functioning adult is far more valuable than a fetus or infant which only has the potential for that contribution nearly 2 decades down the line. Conversely, the value of offspring in general is that they are required for the continuation of the species. Somebody has to make and raise the next generation of functioning adults.

>>Well, you also need a good second option for proper consent. "Obey or die" does not typically hold up in a court of law.<<

Sure it does. That's the underpinning of every society with the death penalty, and especially, every interaction with police. If they don't like what you're doing, they can just kill you, and there's less than 1% chance they will even be asked to explain their actions in court. People prefer to put a lot of lipstick on that pig, but it's still a pig. Black people see it for what it is. White people often don't, unless they come into conflict that removes enough of that concealing privilege. Remember that how people treat the least powerful is how they'd treat everyone if they thought they could get away with it.

>>I will point out the dubious ethics of requiring someone to do something...and then punishing them for not being able to afford it.<>Our model of schooling as used in America was originally designed to train factory workers.<<

Now it's more to train prison inmates, whether they live in an honest prison (people of color, the mentally ill, other unwanted) or just the wider prisonlike society. The armed police in schools are a pretty dead giveaway of the school-to-prison pipeline.

That's a problem, because employers no longer want the kind of employees that the education system is producing. Employers want workers who are not just educated but highly adaptable. The educational system is designed to produce the exact opposite. The results are unfortunate for everyone.

>> So its a more interconnected problem than 'school = evil.' <<

Schools don't have to be evil. There are well-designed schools, mostly private ones. Montessori and Waldorf take different approaches but both have excellent results. What's evil is warehousing children for the convenience of adults.

>> (Also? Often the teachers can't use the bathroom whenever they want either.) <<

Perhaps not freely, but if they really need to go, they have the power to make those arrangements. Also, if an employer causes an employee to wet themselves, the adult has the right to sue over that and will likely win. And adult eliminatory systems are bigger in the first place, giving them a longer timeframe. A child has neither the body autonomy right to use the bathroom as needed, nor the right to sue if forced to wet themselves. People just blame the child for poor control. But no amount of law will stop the psychological damage of torture or physiological risks like getting a bladder infection.

>> Put down drinks before reading this:
https://me.me/i/as-a-woman-i-just-want-the-same-rights-as-20829698 <<

That's because rattlesnakes are dangerous enough to command some respect. They are willing and able to injure or kill a careless man.

Part of the self-defense movement is aimed at forcing men to respect women the same way: because attacking a warrior woman means risking injury or death. Most violent criminals are cowards looking for soft targets. So are many politicians.

>> ...and that would be an awesome protest sign. Why indeed do I have to be dead before I get bodily autonomy? <<

Because men have long viewed women's bodies, especially their wombs, as valuable property. A corpse has less value than a breeding slave. Though China has managed a very lucrative market in organlegging. That is a concern.

>> The argument is probably going to be that state support will only be for a handful of cases "oh, the families will step up and raise 'em," "oh, they'll get adopted." <<

Healthy white babies, perhaps -- assuming the state conceals, and the adoptive parents are willing to overlook, the ones that come from rape, incest, etc.

The babies of color? Those with birth defects, drug problems, or other flaws? Nobody's likely to want those. Now factor in the astronomical rates of neglect and abuse of unwanted children, who tend to wind up in foster care. Add in all the children of poor parents who can't afford all the things the government says children should have, who also wind up in foster care. Now factor in the jacked-up health care costs of women who suffer severe problems that could easily have been prevented or fixed early (e.g. the difference between birth control vs. treating an ectopic pregnancy immediately with pills vs. after it explodes with major surgery). Now add the costs of women who die of preventable causes.

That adds up to a very large amount, and the South can't pay for it. They don't have to, they're in a union. The North will pay for it. And if the North can't, then the whole system will get cut down to a more affordable size, which will harm a lot more people.

Plus of course, the obvious parallels with historic slavery: If it's illegal to get an abortion, women will go where they can get one. Criminalize that, and women will move out of state. The next steps are exactly the same things that became key triggers of the Civil War: criminalize leaving at all, and require people in free states to return fugitives to slave states. It's very easy to see where some people will want to take this, and how fast it becomes a very serious problem for the whole country.

>>Not saying I agree, but I've had enough conversations with conservative prolifers that I can pinpoint some of the arguments.<<

So can I, but most of those arguments do not meet the standards of logic. The claims don't match the actions. The actions match some other goal. And it all breaks down when you look at the actual outcomes, which don't do any good for anyone.

From: (Anonymous)

>>My first reaction was "Do you have any idea how much parasite burden strays carry?"<<

My educated guess is that it is often a choice of likely parasite-laden roof rabbit or a heaping plate of nothing. (Literally one of the poorest countries in the world.)

That said, that particular person and I had many interesting conversations, and I'm glad to have known them. I learn a lot form having friendly relationships with people who are different than me!

And Re: moral injury, not in this case. I understood enough of where they were coming from to not become dramatically upset (but I did make a shocked What? face). They understood that I had strong enough feelings for my pets that acknowledging my emotions and trying to reassure me was helpful. And we got along well enough to talk out the cultural misunderstanding calmly.

>>Well, there's a spectrum, and it depends on different factors.<<

...I think any such law should be carefully considered and criticized by a wide variety of people, specifically to prevent the unpleasant exploitation of loopholes (auch as the argument in Little Fuzzy that 'infanticide is not murder, because an infant cannot talk-and-build-a-fire.')

>>Sure it does. That's the underpinning of every society with the death penalty,...<<

Point conceded.

I think I was generalizing from marriage and contract law, where officially agreement under duress does not count. (There are societies where that is acceptable but I was raised to believe that those were the exception not the rule.)

Of course now I also remember that underage marriage in the US is decided on by the guardians not the participant. So... :/

And yes, I am white. But I do try to pay attention to other folk's risk assessments. I don't know how good I am at hearing what isn't outright said, or understanding what is, but I try.

>>That's a problem, because employers no longer want the kind of employees that the education system is producing. Employers want workers who are not just educated but highly adaptable. The educational system is designed to produce the exact opposite. <<

...I have the impression that employers want hardworking obedient minions. You have to be willing to put up with all sorts of poor treatment, work very hard while expecting little return and acting sooo grateful, and preform superhuman miracles on command.

Maybe they want innovation in some jobs - but until you get fairly high up in the pecking order, you will usually have to basically shut up and smile.

Schools are very good at teaching that.

>>Perhaps not freely, but if they really need to go, they have the power to make those arrangements. Also, if an employer causes an employee to wet themselves, the adult has the right to sue over that and will likely win. And adult eliminatory systems are bigger in the first place, giving them a longer timeframe.<<

Different points on the same spectrum of abuse, then. And there's other industries than teaching where you aren't supposed to go to the bathroom - I keep hearing some things about factory jobs and retail work can be variable, depending on how good your workplace and boss are.

>>A corpse has less value than a breeding slave.<<

One could get several interesting protest signs / slogans out of this.

>>The babies of color? Those with birth defects, drug problems, or other flaws? Nobody's likely to want those.<<

Now is not a good time for me to have a child...and the person I heard this argument from wouldn't help me with any of the problems I have that make it a bad time. Not even the ones that would impact the child While I am still pregnant. (And I know this without asking, because the problems are not ones that exist in their moral view of the world.)

Besides, even now... if there are really so many loving wonderful parents looking to adopt...why are there so many unattached children still in foster care? (Rhetorical question not literal. I know the theoretical parents, if they exist, want the blank-slate, healthy babies from the mother-and-baby homes of the fifties. And there probably aren't enough of those people willing and able to step up anyway.)

>>Plus of course, the obvious parallels with historic slavery: If it's illegal to get an abortion, women will go where they can get one. Criminalize that, and women will move out of state. The next steps are exactly the same things that became key triggers of the Civil War: criminalize leaving at all, and require people in free states to return fugitives to slave states. It's very easy to see where some people will want to take this, and how fast it becomes a very serious problem for the whole country.<<

My first thought is "That won't happen" ...but really they'd just have to go after people who don't 'deserve' to have a choice. Teen mothers. The homeless. Criminals. Prostitutes (many of whom I suspect are sex slaves...)

Or maybe they'll be sneakier. "We won't process your moving red-tape paperwork until you pay all debts incurred in this state." "We're not transferring any medical records. Good luck starting over with convincing your new doctors you need all those meds without documentation." Etc etc. \

>>So can I, but most of those arguments do not meet the standards of logic. The claims don't match the actions. The actions match some other goal. And it all breaks down when you look at the actual outcomes, which don't do any good for anyone.<<

Someone who really believes that? They'd be donating blood and organs. They'd be offering financial and practical support to new parents. They'd be advocating for free school lunches (and breakfasts and big afternoon snacks) for anyone who doesn't have food. Free healthcare for all kids and free prenatal care/parenting classes for everyone. Livable wages. State funded childcare. Extra assistance, including respite care for parents of special needs kids (and good lord do we need that!)

From:

ysabetwordsmith

>> My educated guess is that it is often a choice of likely parasite-laden roof rabbit or a heaping plate of nothing. <<

That typically is what drives people to eat things that are questionable to unsafe.

I've seen a lot of agitation to ban bushmeat. I've seen zero mention of what else those people are supposed to eat. I predict that if bans get passed, they will have little or no impact for that reason.

>> That said, that particular person and I had many interesting conversations, and I'm glad to have known them. I learn a lot form having friendly relationships with people who are different than me! <<

This is good.

>> I think any such law should be carefully considered and criticized by a wide variety of people, specifically to prevent the unpleasant exploitation of loopholes <<

If we have that level of judicial responsibility, the illegitimate highest court would not have approved violating women's body autonomy. That one requirement would wipe out a vast swath of American laws, much to the betterment of the country.

>> (auch as the argument in Little Fuzzy that 'infanticide is not murder, because an infant cannot talk-and-build-a-fire.') <> I think I was generalizing from marriage and contract law, where officially agreement under duress does not count. (There are societies where that is acceptable but I was raised to believe that those were the exception not the rule.) <<

In theory, yes. In practice, often not. Health care uses contracts but it's almost always "do as you're told or you don't get any health care" and occasionally "do as you're told or we'll destroy your life."

>> Of course now I also remember that underage marriage in the US is decided on by the guardians not the participant. So... :/

Exactly. There are a few places where this is still a serious problem. And conversely, the government refuses to acknowledge some types of marriage, despite its argument for being involved in sex lives at all is that it needs to know who is moving through society as a unit (e.g. for home ownership, tax purposes, etc.).

>>And yes, I am white. But I do try to pay attention to other folk's risk assessments. I don't know how good I am at hearing what isn't outright said, or understanding what is, but I try.<<

The best description I've gotten of my ethnicity came from a black friend: "Yeah, you can pass for white ... until you open your mouth." *chuckle* I look white, if you don't look close enough to spot things like the loosely nappy hair. But I don't relate closely to white culture; I'm more likely to align with something else.

>> I have the impression that employers want hardworking obedient minions. You have to be willing to put up with all sorts of poor treatment, work very hard while expecting little return and acting sooo grateful, and preform superhuman miracles on command.<<

In some jobs this is true, but mostly for menial or near-menial jobs.

>> Maybe they want innovation in some jobs - but until you get fairly high up in the pecking order, you will usually have to basically shut up and smile.<<

Most jobs now require computer fluency and the ability to handle many different tasks, rather than just one (like typing) or a handful of related things (like cleaning). The office stuff that used to be basic and consistent is now more expensive to get into and much more precarious. The biggest change over the last few decades is expecting workers to be able to switch not just jobs but whole fields based on current market needs.

This is a problem given that college degrees are not only much pricier but also much narrower. It's not working well for anyone. Young people struggle to find jobs while employers whine that they can't find employees. There's a mismatch, and part of that is because modern employers expect workers to pay for their own education, instead of taking people and training them. High turnover means that there's no payoff for the employer to invest in the workers or the workers to invest in the company -- with the result that performance drops and customers are less satisfied.

>>And there's other industries than teaching where you aren't supposed to go to the bathroom - I keep hearing some things about factory jobs and retail work can be variable, depending on how good your workplace and boss are.<<

This is certainly true. A rising concern is agriculture, where denying bathroom breaks and drinking water is increasingly inclined to kill people via acute kidney injury or other heat-related conditions.

>> Now is not a good time for me to have a child...and the person I heard this argument from wouldn't help me with any of the problems I have that make it a bad time. <<

People trying to control someone else's body are just parasites. They never want to help. They just want to gratify themselves at someone else's expense.

>> My first thought is "That won't happen" ...but really they'd just have to go after people who don't 'deserve' to have a choice. Teen mothers. The homeless. Criminals. Prostitutes (many of whom I suspect are sex slaves...) <<

They cannot get what they want, which is forcing women to keep unwanted pregnancies, as long as women have any escape routes. Women who can afford to travel will go out of state for abortions. And it's a legal tar baby to punish someone for doing things that were legal where done, because then you're pitting state vs. state. Women who can't afford to travel will often resort to other methods like self-induced abortion or suicide or infanticide.

>> Or maybe they'll be sneakier. "We won't process your moving red-tape paperwork until you pay all debts incurred in this state." "We're not transferring any medical records. Good luck starting over with convincing your new doctors you need all those meds without documentation." Etc etc. <<

Quite likely. But that won't stop people from fleeing. It will just throw more burden on the receiving states, who will resent it. State-to-state resentment is very dangerous, and all the more so when it's region-to-region clusters. Also, moving across state lines and trying to change medical providers is already a nightmare. Attempting to make it worse may just ... not get noticed.

>> Someone who really believes that? <<

The only examples I've seen have been 1) sincere pacifists, and 2) people who sit outside clinics offering to pay all expenses and adopt an infant as a hopeful route to parenthood. But those folks aren't trying to make other people into reproductive slaves.

From:

redsixwing

Oh this is a fun one.

One of my favorite exercises is binary breaking. Look at any given binary and try to find a plausible third (fourth, nth) path. That can be as simple as "the rock is in the jar/the rock is out of the jar" and as complex as human-created social constructs.

This badly irritates people who want those strict binaries, but has been of major benefit to me personally. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

From: (Anonymous)

Reminds me of a conundrum I once had:

Rule 1: I cannot leave the children alone in the room.

Rule 2: I cannot be alone in the room with the children (b/c security rules, also, there was no other adult availible for about 5-10 mins.)

Solution: Stand half in and half out of the doorway. Therefore, I am not alone with the kids, and they are not alone by themselves.

From:

apachefirecat

Yay for Mags and Ivy! I LOVE a good, multi-layered villain. In fact villains, as long as they're layered, always tend to be amongst my favorite characters.

And then, too, there's the whole thing with what happens if you have lines you won't cross but, in your own way, you're actually hurting your cause? For example (and this is one my husband and I will NEVER agree on), Batman's no killing policy. How many times have those he's arrested escaped again only to hurt, kill, or worse? Since he's not actually stopping them, just delaying them, does there not come a time when he shares at least some of the responsibility for what they've done?

From:

ysabetwordsmith

>> Yay for Mags and Ivy! I LOVE a good, multi-layered villain. In fact villains, as long as they're layered, always tend to be amongst my favorite characters.<<

In case you haven't already found this:
http://penultimateproductions.weebly.com/dr-infanta.html

>> And then, too, there's the whole thing with what happens if you have lines you won't cross but, in your own way, you're actually hurting your cause? <<

That's a challenge.

>> For example (and this is one my husband and I will NEVER agree on), Batman's no killing policy. How many times have those he's arrested escaped again only to hurt, kill, or worse? Since he's not actually stopping them, just delaying them, does there not come a time when he shares at least some of the responsibility for what they've done? <<

I don't think that Batman is responsible for other people's poor life choices. He is only responsible for his own, and he's not willing to kill, which is a morally defensible position. (Weird given that he doesn't hesitate to torture people by dangling them over the edge of a building and pretending he's willing to drop them, but whatever.) It does make him largely ineffective but then the same can be said of the entire Gotham legal system. Killing the bad guys would certainly stop them from committing more crimes. But then you have to ask what damage that kind of execution does to the killer(s) and to society in general. Since that society is already severely broken, I wouldn't be eager to do more damage.

In other words, I can't blame Ivy for preferring plants to people.

From: (Anonymous)

>> And then, too, there's the whole thing with what happens if you have lines you won't cross but, in your own way, you're actually hurting your cause? <<

I think very few people are actually totally, 100% committed to a given outcome, course of action, etc, and that isn't just okay, it's necessary.

Why? Because society requires human to have a balance of priorities - you have relationships, and your culture, and your religion, and your politics, and your job, etc, etc. Anyone who prioritizes one exclusively is rather...inhumanly terrifying, and will likely have trouble functioning with more standard humans, if they can do so at all.

Technologically, there is that old story about the paperclip-making AI that destroys the universe to make more paperclips...and some AI gamemasters that can be beaten because they refuse any move that does not increase their advantage. Economically, any capitalist entity that prioritizes moneymaking exclusively will destroy itself - the customers will leave in disgust, the workers will all die and they won't get more, or no-one else will have any money to but the product. From film, there's that scary Terminator lady - she would have a hard time protecting her charge once all the other humans figure out she will abandon them to die the minute they aren't useful (and that actually makes John Connor's situation worse, if she routinely scares other humans away). Physics - well water can't get out of glasses or into boats, despite gravity pulling everything down...because the water cannot go up even briefly.

So any truly Unfettered person, well... at minimum, they will have trouble meeting their goals. Furthermore, unless they are very psychologically 'different' than the standard human operating system, it will be very difficult for them to meet any needs that require other people.

For example, I recall reading something once where someone with Antisocial Personality Disorder - I think - said it was difficult to find sexual partners, because most potential partners wanted the sort of prosocial investment(s) that APD-folks aren't wired for or interested in.

>>I don't think that Batman is responsible for other people's poor life choices. He is only responsible for his own, and he's not willing to kill, which is a morally defensible position. (Weird given that he doesn't hesitate to torture people by dangling them over the edge of a building and pretending he's willing to drop them, but whatever.) <<

I think its a case of not thinking critically about your lines in the sand. Also see Aang in ATLA, who is fine with killing on-duty soldiers by sinking ships, burying people in snow, tossing them into Arctic seas, etc... but does object to killing his best friend's sadistically abusive and genocidal dad. Aang is justified to a point, being a sheltered 12-yr old Lone Survivor of a pacifist culture. But if he's not picking up on the fact that humans cannot be blasted into walls, someone should probably have a talk with him, because if /absolutely nothing else/ him accidentally killing someone will cause many, many problems.

Plus, many people who try to write pacifistic characters* have a poor grasp of the spectrum of pacifism, and many people trying to write characters with ethical guidelines may not have a good grasp of different ethics. Even in RL this happens.
*Personally, I consider Batman with "Does Not Like Guns" and "Thou Shalt Not Kill" to be at the extreme far end of the pacifist scale.

From:

ysabetwordsmith

>> I think very few people are actually totally, 100% committed to a given outcome, course of action, etc, and that isn't just okay, it's necessary. <<

Prevailingly true. Some people have one thing they value above all else -- often a person -- but more often they have a handful of different loyalties.

>> Why? Because society requires human to have a balance of priorities - you have relationships, and your culture, and your religion, and your politics, and your job, etc, etc. <<

Some societies do that. Others expect one thing to take precedence, like religion.

>> Anyone who prioritizes one exclusively is rather...inhumanly terrifying, and will likely have trouble functioning with more standard humans, if they can do so at all.<<

Often true.

>> Technologically, there is that old story about the paperclip-making AI that destroys the universe to make more paperclips...and some AI gamemasters that can be beaten because they refuse any move that does not increase their advantage. <> Economically, any capitalist entity that prioritizes moneymaking exclusively will destroy itself - the customers will leave in disgust, the workers will all die and they won't get more, or no-one else will have any money to but the product. <<

Infinite growth in a finite system is the philosophy of the cancer cell.

>> From film, there's that scary Terminator lady - she would have a hard time protecting her charge once all the other humans figure out she will abandon them to die the minute they aren't useful (and that actually makes John Connor's situation worse, if she routinely scares other humans away).<<

Well reasoned.

>> Physics - well water can't get out of glasses or into boats, despite gravity pulling everything down...because the water cannot go up even briefly.<<

Water can go up, just not in a glass. Capillary action is among the more useful examples, but it also goes up in waves and in evaporation. The exceptions make it more productive.

>> For example, I recall reading something once where someone with Antisocial Personality Disorder - I think - said it was difficult to find sexual partners, because most potential partners wanted the sort of prosocial investment(s) that APD-folks aren't wired for or interested in.<<

That's what prostitutes and fuck bars are for. Not everyone is looking for a relationship. Some just want their crotch to stop bothering them. Some just want a night of erotic fun. Those things are totally fine. Heck, for much of human history, marriage wasn't about love or romance, it was about security and reproduction.

>> I think its a case of not thinking critically about your lines in the sand.<<

This is a common problem.

>> Also see Aang in ATLA, who is fine with killing on-duty soldiers by sinking ships, burying people in snow, tossing them into Arctic seas, etc... but does object to killing his best friend's sadistically abusive and genocidal dad. <<

Most people see a difference between killing soldiers in war, killing innocents in war, and murdering an individual.

>> Aang is justified to a point, being a sheltered 12-yr old Lone Survivor of a pacifist culture. But if he's not picking up on the fact that humans cannot be blasted into walls, someone should probably have a talk with him, because if /absolutely nothing else/ him accidentally killing someone will cause many, many problems.<<

Yeah, he does need to know how fragile humans are -- especially in terms of how other people can't make an air shield the way he can.

>> Plus, many people who try to write pacifistic characters* have a poor grasp of the spectrum of pacifism, and many people trying to write characters with ethical guidelines may not have a good grasp of different ethics. Even in RL this happens.<<

Absolutely true.

>> *Personally, I consider Batman with "Does Not Like Guns" and "Thou Shalt Not Kill" to be at the extreme far end of the pacifist scale.<<

No, the extreme end of pacifism is people like Jains who won't eat root crops because pulling roots kills too many microbes, and Buddhists who won't swat mosquitoes.

Refusal to kill is a pacifist stance, but this does not make Batman a pacifist. He doesn't hesitate to beat or torture people; those are incompatible with pacificism as a general life path. He's violent. He just has a limit to that violence. I think without that limitation, Batman would be a lot like the Flying Man. I do like Batman; I think his background and choices make him an interesting character. He's more of a gray cape than black or white though.

From:

apachefirecat

Definitely agree that Ivy and Selina both have a point with preferring plants and cats, respectively, to humans.

But I do have to disagree on the Batman thing. As smart as he is, he has to see how ineffective what he is doing is in the long run, and when you know someone is going to do something and you pretty much don't stop them, just delay it, knowing they'll still do it, does that not give you at least a margin of responsibility in that? Honestly, with as much tech and everything that Wayne Tech has, one would think he would come up with a better solution, even if it wasn't killing before they could kill again.

From:

apachefirecat

I just want to add that I LOVE when fandom can lead to such major debates without any arguing!! :) I tend to see a lot more of this here on DW and truly enjoy it.

From:

ysabetwordsmith

>> I just want to add that I LOVE when fandom can lead to such major debates without any arguing!! :)

I agree.

>> I tend to see a lot more of this here on DW and truly enjoy it. <<

I try to make my little corner of the net a welcoming place. It's very rare for serious fights to break out here.

From: (Anonymous)

I like it here. Even when I disagree with folks, we can usually do it respectfully, and I usually learn something new.

From:

ysabetwordsmith

Thanks for the vote of confidence.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

S	M	T	W	T	F	S
				1	2	3
4	5	6	7	8	9	10
11	12	13	14	15	16	17
18	19	20	21	22	23	24
25	26	27	28	29	30	31

The Wordsmith's Forge

The Writing & Other Projects of Elizabeth Barrette

Philosophical Questions: Gradients

(no subject)

Thoughts

Re: Thoughts

Re: Thoughts

Re: Thoughts

Re: Thoughts

Re: Thoughts

Re: Thoughts

Re: Thoughts

Re: Thoughts

Re: Thoughts

Re: Thoughts

Re: Thoughts

Re: Thoughts

Re: Thoughts

Re: Thoughts

(no subject)

(no subject)

(no subject)

Thoughts

Re: Thoughts

Re: Thoughts

Re: Thoughts

(no subject)

Yes ...

Re: Yes ...

Re: Yes ...

Profile

January 2026

Links

Most Popular Tags

Page Summary

Active Entries

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags