Controversial General Political Discussion
- Thread starter AL sama
- Start date
- Tags #freepalestine are you having fun al? are you having van al? gaolang > your fav imagine thinking trump is the good guy is not paying tax sexist is van having fun al? life goal sister harem loli real madrid reloaded is innocent tax is the best thing ever happened to us trans rights = human rights trans women are not interested in any of you weebs discussing politics lmao worst thread ever
Again ?
Indeed. Ethic and moral are linked, but different. Here I'm using an ethical reasonning, not a moral one. As for the irrelevance. Sadly, I can't make you understand more than that witht he tools I have.
I used the term living in the usual language of the word as in "living in our world" not as "its is alive". Again, you need context to understand language, that's why sticking to dictionnary definitions is potentially problematic.
So you made a message that had nothing to do with what I was actually saying.
A concrete différence. A foetus, even if potentially human, still has a long way to go before even begin to have the potential to do good a human in the world is different. The potential is much more immediat. The difference also rely in the fact that in one case the foetus is depending on an individual that might suffer from its existence, in the other there is not.
As such, I choose to always prioritize the living being who is subjected to the existence of the foetus rather that foetus who do not even have conscience or pain sensitivity.
You could argue that, indeed, but in the case of a foetus, it's a big what if. Birth is not something that is just perfect 100% of the times. It's a fundamental gamble. And as such, the potential for good is impact by the possibility of the pregnency going wrong.
To me, this possibility is strong enough to consider that the potential for good of a foetus or even an unborn baby, is lower than the one of a random human in the world even with all that could happen to them.
This is another parameter why I choose to always prioritize the "living". Unrelated but note that if I had to choose between my wife and the baby because of a failed pregnancy, like a particular man in a particular serie, I would choose my wife without an second of hesitation.
Ohhhhh clever ! But you changed the conditions of the change here..
From "a rapist could choose to protect a woman" you went to "a rapist choosing to protect a woman rather than raping her".
And in this case, YES, it would be a radical change because said change would be based on a change in the vision of the world, something so radical that it would help the person to understand a lot of things and to choose to help a woman instead of raping her.
This is different from the example I give because in my example, the person was not in a situation that he was about to rape the woman. Instead it could be in a completely different context. For ex, if a woman is being beat up in the metro, the social pressure could make a lot of person, this person included, protect a woman.
This pressure does not necessitate a big change as this is a social pressure that we all pretty much accept.
It would be a change in the sense that it would make a highly negative individual do something highly positive, but it would not be a radical change of the character himself.
Are you sure ? Could you - you yourself, not some random - choose not to push the button in this situation ?
Take your time to reply and take all the parameters into account. And you should understand why I say that free will, actually does not really exist.
And if you can't wait: The fact is that no matter your beliefs, I'm sure you love someone, that you are good with them and you would die before letting anything happen to them. As such, because I do not sence any kind of sociopathy in you, I think you would push the button in every universes. Thus saving the person.
This means that there is a pressure on your choice or more exactly, your material conditions of existence and experience create a specific constrains in your descrision making process and creates a path, a positive but real out of your control path that will push you to save this person. This is a very small and simple representation of the parameters behind a choice. Usually there is a lot more parameters that are creating the path of a choice.
If free will existed, it would mean that you have the control over your emotions and material conditions of existence. It would mean that you have a volition that preceeds the existence of your descisions themselves and that you could freely control the amount of love your have over a person or the perceived urgency of a particular situation.
In our example, if you really had free will, not only would it be possibly for you to create a descision out of volition ex nihilo in the universe inside of your brain BEFORE any kind of electrical signal starting to reach the places where consciousness happens in your brain, but you would also have the power to lower your perceived emotions and experiences to prevent your brain from thinking that it should intervene in that situation.
In other words, you would have the power of a god and the power to lower your potential love for that person in the case you really wanted to get 50 buck. It would be an highly unethical action, but this is how it would look like.
Not it would not be possible. It would probably destroy you.
Not that being a leftist is somehow a divine knowledge. But the gap in the vision of the world between a radical leftist like me and a fascist is just too big to cross in one time.
Really, I'm not joking here. It's something that must come through trial and error and step by step. There needs to be a push toward the left, but you need to understand things in a progressive way. This is again why I make always BIG explanations and a way to apprehend said vision in a positive way in order for the process of thought to be as smooth as possible and not start to create people who will start to question everything and start to lose their mind because of the process.
Ideally, I would need to let people understand everything by themselves, but there are oppressions in the world and behaviors here that can't just be accepted. So there needs to be a push and some radical explanations happening.
Again, I'm not joking, while a radical change is possible or even a series of radical ones, an extrem change is not possible and if it was, we would create a person so instable that they would become potentially dangerous for themselve.
Imagine one second being a radical far rightist, having oppressive behaviors, having depicted oppressive behaviors, thinking that everything in life is earned through sheer will and sheer works, having defended meritocracy all your lives and the oppressions that comes with it, thinking that capitalism is the solutions, that trans people are the problem, thinking that some people are inferior because of their color of skin or religion, thinking that poor people deserve to be poor, thinking that we should not give to people in difficulty through taxes, thinking that Billionnaires are an example of success, thinking that because you are the way you are, it's because you worked hard, you made sacrifice, you made the right choice, thinking that Israelian are right to defend themselve and anyone defending Palestinians are terrorist defender, thinking that Africa is poor because people here are lazy, thinking that the west is inherently superio...
And in one single second, you understand (not "know") that a good person actually think the opposite of all of that. That your entire reality is different from what you think it was and what you defended for years.
This is not only life changing, this is destructive. This could lead any normal people toward suicide because any normal person would dissociate between the them of the now and the them of the before and would not be able to recognize themselve or their reality anymore, even in the case of a positive change. To remind you once again my case, I already WAS materialistic when I made the switch to an understanding of the absence of freewill, it send me into a week long old depression because I didn't have the tool to understand why it's not that bad.
So no, extrem change is not possible, simply because it would require too many things to change inside the brain and someone's vision of the world. A radical change can but this need to be based on the change on very specific belief systems.
Change happens instantly, but extrem change happens (and must happen) step by step.
This is not as simple as that.
Good and evil are directed by a vision of the world, in his case, a vision that had to be carved to be the man he was at the end. Jack was not a really good person at the beginning, he only had the potential to become one. He would have stabbed himself the hearth without any hesitation. But he changed which created this change in his choice.
This was a radical change (on the entire trilogy) that happened step by step, small changes after small changes.
Now, it was a radical change, not an extrem one, his entire vision of the world was not reshaped by the change in this trilogy. So yes, if given the understanding, Jack could have been able to do the right things, but this would need a very specific of change and a very strong basis.
But the point is that to change someone like a rapist, you need an extrem change, not a simple radical one, at least if you need to make him really understand his action and prevent him from doing it ever again. Imagine instantly understanding without preparation or time to process the extent of the oppressive action they made. They would ask you to kill them right away, they would never survive that.
In fact , it's a reason why you often see people kill themselve after a murder. As this is one of those case where the gap I'm talking about is created. In those instance, the dissociation is so important that the person cannot leave with what they did, they instantly see the pressure of society and they also undernstand how they will see themselve from that point on. So.. they choose suicide. It's much more easier to end it at that moment than to face the gap.
Now, if you manage to make a person slowly understand the reality of society and slowly accept themselves and the thing they did as a result of our current systems of dominations and not just as their individual actions, then... you might see someone very different emerge.
But those visions of the world, need to be constructed first, it takes time. It can happen instantly small change after small change, realizations after realization, but we need time to evolve, we can't just speedrun the process and expect to understand the world without consequences on our psyche.
And while radical understanding are possible, extrem understanding (what would need for a criminal to change) is not. And if it was, it would need to take the shape of a technology that we don't have yet because there would need to be HUGE safegards and it would need to be used as a last resort.
Very unlikely.
That's why we need a better solution.
Yeah, I wonder why people keep using the dictionary against you, maybe it has to do with you making irrelevant distinctions that do nothing but waste fucking time. The word ethics cannot be defined without referencing morals
I used the term living in the usual language of the word as in "living in our world" not as "its is alive". Again, you need context to understand language, that's why sticking to dictionnary definitions is potentially problematic.
So you made a message that had nothing to do with what I was actually saying.
A concrete différence. A foetus, even if potentially human, still has a long way to go before even begin to have the potential to do good a human in the world is different. The potential is much more immediat. The difference also rely in the fact that in one case the foetus is depending on an individual that might suffer from its existence, in the other there is not.
As such, I choose to always prioritize the living being who is subjected to the existence of the foetus rather that foetus who do not even have conscience or pain sensitivity.
You could argue that, indeed, but in the case of a foetus, it's a big what if. Birth is not something that is just perfect 100% of the times. It's a fundamental gamble. And as such, the potential for good is impact by the possibility of the pregnency going wrong.
To me, this possibility is strong enough to consider that the potential for good of a foetus or even an unborn baby, is lower than the one of a random human in the world even with all that could happen to them.
This is another parameter why I choose to always prioritize the "living". Unrelated but note that if I had to choose between my wife and the baby because of a failed pregnancy, like a particular man in a particular serie, I would choose my wife without an second of hesitation.
Ohhhhh clever ! But you changed the conditions of the change here..
From "a rapist could choose to protect a woman" you went to "a rapist choosing to protect a woman rather than raping her".
And in this case, YES, it would be a radical change because said change would be based on a change in the vision of the world, something so radical that it would help the person to understand a lot of things and to choose to help a woman instead of raping her.
This is different from the example I give because in my example, the person was not in a situation that he was about to rape the woman. Instead it could be in a completely different context. For ex, if a woman is being beat up in the metro, the social pressure could make a lot of person, this person included, protect a woman.
This pressure does not necessitate a big change as this is a social pressure that we all pretty much accept.
It would be a change in the sense that it would make a highly negative individual do something highly positive, but it would not be a radical change of the character himself.
Are you sure ? Could you - you yourself, not some random - choose not to push the button in this situation ?
Take your time to reply and take all the parameters into account. And you should understand why I say that free will, actually does not really exist.
And if you can't wait: The fact is that no matter your beliefs, I'm sure you love someone, that you are good with them and you would die before letting anything happen to them. As such, because I do not sence any kind of sociopathy in you, I think you would push the button in every universes. Thus saving the person.
This means that there is a pressure on your choice or more exactly, your material conditions of existence and experience create a specific constrains in your descrision making process and creates a path, a positive but real out of your control path that will push you to save this person. This is a very small and simple representation of the parameters behind a choice. Usually there is a lot more parameters that are creating the path of a choice.
If free will existed, it would mean that you have the control over your emotions and material conditions of existence. It would mean that you have a volition that preceeds the existence of your descisions themselves and that you could freely control the amount of love your have over a person or the perceived urgency of a particular situation.
In our example, if you really had free will, not only would it be possibly for you to create a descision out of volition ex nihilo in the universe inside of your brain BEFORE any kind of electrical signal starting to reach the places where consciousness happens in your brain, but you would also have the power to lower your perceived emotions and experiences to prevent your brain from thinking that it should intervene in that situation.
In other words, you would have the power of a god and the power to lower your potential love for that person in the case you really wanted to get 50 buck. It would be an highly unethical action, but this is how it would look like.
Not it would not be possible. It would probably destroy you.
Not that being a leftist is somehow a divine knowledge. But the gap in the vision of the world between a radical leftist like me and a fascist is just too big to cross in one time.
Really, I'm not joking here. It's something that must come through trial and error and step by step. There needs to be a push toward the left, but you need to understand things in a progressive way. This is again why I make always BIG explanations and a way to apprehend said vision in a positive way in order for the process of thought to be as smooth as possible and not start to create people who will start to question everything and start to lose their mind because of the process.
Ideally, I would need to let people understand everything by themselves, but there are oppressions in the world and behaviors here that can't just be accepted. So there needs to be a push and some radical explanations happening.
Again, I'm not joking, while a radical change is possible or even a series of radical ones, an extrem change is not possible and if it was, we would create a person so instable that they would become potentially dangerous for themselve.
Imagine one second being a radical far rightist, having oppressive behaviors, having depicted oppressive behaviors, thinking that everything in life is earned through sheer will and sheer works, having defended meritocracy all your lives and the oppressions that comes with it, thinking that capitalism is the solutions, that trans people are the problem, thinking that some people are inferior because of their color of skin or religion, thinking that poor people deserve to be poor, thinking that we should not give to people in difficulty through taxes, thinking that Billionnaires are an example of success, thinking that because you are the way you are, it's because you worked hard, you made sacrifice, you made the right choice, thinking that Israelian are right to defend themselve and anyone defending Palestinians are terrorist defender, thinking that Africa is poor because people here are lazy, thinking that the west is inherently superio...
And in one single second, you understand (not "know") that a good person actually think the opposite of all of that. That your entire reality is different from what you think it was and what you defended for years.
This is not only life changing, this is destructive. This could lead any normal people toward suicide because any normal person would dissociate between the them of the now and the them of the before and would not be able to recognize themselve or their reality anymore, even in the case of a positive change. To remind you once again my case, I already WAS materialistic when I made the switch to an understanding of the absence of freewill, it send me into a week long old depression because I didn't have the tool to understand why it's not that bad.
So no, extrem change is not possible, simply because it would require too many things to change inside the brain and someone's vision of the world. A radical change can but this need to be based on the change on very specific belief systems.
Change happens instantly, but extrem change happens (and must happen) step by step.
This is not as simple as that.
Good and evil are directed by a vision of the world, in his case, a vision that had to be carved to be the man he was at the end. Jack was not a really good person at the beginning, he only had the potential to become one. He would have stabbed himself the hearth without any hesitation. But he changed which created this change in his choice.
This was a radical change (on the entire trilogy) that happened step by step, small changes after small changes.
Now, it was a radical change, not an extrem one, his entire vision of the world was not reshaped by the change in this trilogy. So yes, if given the understanding, Jack could have been able to do the right things, but this would need a very specific of change and a very strong basis.
But the point is that to change someone like a rapist, you need an extrem change, not a simple radical one, at least if you need to make him really understand his action and prevent him from doing it ever again. Imagine instantly understanding without preparation or time to process the extent of the oppressive action they made. They would ask you to kill them right away, they would never survive that.
In fact , it's a reason why you often see people kill themselve after a murder. As this is one of those case where the gap I'm talking about is created. In those instance, the dissociation is so important that the person cannot leave with what they did, they instantly see the pressure of society and they also undernstand how they will see themselve from that point on. So.. they choose suicide. It's much more easier to end it at that moment than to face the gap.
Now, if you manage to make a person slowly understand the reality of society and slowly accept themselves and the thing they did as a result of our current systems of dominations and not just as their individual actions, then... you might see someone very different emerge.
But those visions of the world, need to be constructed first, it takes time. It can happen instantly small change after small change, realizations after realization, but we need time to evolve, we can't just speedrun the process and expect to understand the world without consequences on our psyche.
And while radical understanding are possible, extrem understanding (what would need for a criminal to change) is not. And if it was, it would need to take the shape of a technology that we don't have yet because there would need to be HUGE safegards and it would need to be used as a last resort.
Very unlikely.
That's why we need a better solution.
Again ?
Indeed. Ethic and moral are linked, but different. Here I'm using an ethical reasonning, not a moral one. As for the irrelevance. Sadly, I can't make you understand more than that witht he tools I have.
I used the term living in the usual language of the word as in "living in our world" not as "its is alive". Again, you need context to understand language, that's why sticking to dictionnary definitions is potentially problematic.
So you made a message that had nothing to do with what I was actually saying.
A concrete différence. A foetus, even if potentially human, still has a long way to go before even begin to have the potential to do good a human in the world is different. The potential is much more immediat. The difference also rely in the fact that in one case the foetus is depending on an individual that might suffer from its existence, in the other there is not.
As such, I choose to always prioritize the living being who is subjected to the existence of the foetus rather that foetus who do not even have conscience or pain sensitivity.
You could argue that, indeed, but in the case of a foetus, it's a big what if. Birth is not something that is just perfect 100% of the times. It's a fundamental gamble. And as such, the potential for good is impact by the possibility of the pregnency going wrong.
To me, this possibility is strong enough to consider that the potential for good of a foetus or even an unborn baby, is lower than the one of a random human in the world even with all that could happen to them.
This is another parameter why I choose to always prioritize the "living". Unrelated but note that if I had to choose between my wife and the baby because of a failed pregnancy, like a particular man in a particular serie, I would choose my wife without an second of hesitation.
Ohhhhh clever ! But you changed the conditions of the change here..
From "a rapist could choose to protect a woman" you went to "a rapist choosing to protect a woman rather than raping her".
And in this case, YES, it would be a radical change because said change would be based on a change in the vision of the world, something so radical that it would help the person to understand a lot of things and to choose to help a woman instead of raping her.
This is different from the example I give because in my example, the person was not in a situation that he was about to rape the woman. Instead it could be in a completely different context. For ex, if a woman is being beat up in the metro, the social pressure could make a lot of person, this person included, protect a woman.
This pressure does not necessitate a big change as this is a social pressure that we all pretty much accept.
It would be a change in the sense that it would make a highly negative individual do something highly positive, but it would not be a radical change of the character himself.
Are you sure ? Could you - you yourself, not some random - choose not to push the button in this situation ?
Take your time to reply and take all the parameters into account. And you should understand why I say that free will, actually does not really exist.
And if you can't wait: The fact is that no matter your beliefs, I'm sure you love someone, that you are good with them and you would die before letting anything happen to them. As such, because I do not sence any kind of sociopathy in you, I think you would push the button in every universes. Thus saving the person.
This means that there is a pressure on your choice or more exactly, your material conditions of existence and experience create a specific constrains in your descrision making process and creates a path, a positive but real out of your control path that will push you to save this person. This is a very small and simple representation of the parameters behind a choice. Usually there is a lot more parameters that are creating the path of a choice.
If free will existed, it would mean that you have the control over your emotions and material conditions of existence. It would mean that you have a volition that preceeds the existence of your descisions themselves and that you could freely control the amount of love your have over a person or the perceived urgency of a particular situation.
In our example, if you really had free will, not only would it be possibly for you to create a descision out of volition ex nihilo in the universe inside of your brain BEFORE any kind of electrical signal starting to reach the places where consciousness happens in your brain, but you would also have the power to lower your perceived emotions and experiences to prevent your brain from thinking that it should intervene in that situation.
In other words, you would have the power of a god and the power to lower your potential love for that person in the case you really wanted to get 50 buck. It would be an highly unethical action, but this is how it would look like.
Not it would not be possible. It would probably destroy you.
Not that being a leftist is somehow a divine knowledge. But the gap in the vision of the world between a radical leftist like me and a fascist is just too big to cross in one time.
Really, I'm not joking here. It's something that must come through trial and error and step by step. There needs to be a push toward the left, but you need to understand things in a progressive way. This is again why I make always BIG explanations and a way to apprehend said vision in a positive way in order for the process of thought to be as smooth as possible and not start to create people who will start to question everything and start to lose their mind because of the process.
Ideally, I would need to let people understand everything by themselves, but there are oppressions in the world and behaviors here that can't just be accepted. So there needs to be a push and some radical explanations happening.
Again, I'm not joking, while a radical change is possible or even a series of radical ones, an extrem change is not possible and if it was, we would create a person so instable that they would become potentially dangerous for themselve.
Imagine one second being a radical far rightist, having oppressive behaviors, having depicted oppressive behaviors, thinking that everything in life is earned through sheer will and sheer works, having defended meritocracy all your lives and the oppressions that comes with it, thinking that capitalism is the solutions, that trans people are the problem, thinking that some people are inferior because of their color of skin or religion, thinking that poor people deserve to be poor, thinking that we should not give to people in difficulty through taxes, thinking that Billionnaires are an example of success, thinking that because you are the way you are, it's because you worked hard, you made sacrifice, you made the right choice, thinking that Israelian are right to defend themselve and anyone defending Palestinians are terrorist defender, thinking that Africa is poor because people here are lazy, thinking that the west is inherently superio...
And in one single second, you understand (not "know") that a good person actually think the opposite of all of that. That your entire reality is different from what you think it was and what you defended for years.
This is not only life changing, this is destructive. This could lead any normal people toward suicide because any normal person would dissociate between the them of the now and the them of the before and would not be able to recognize themselve or their reality anymore, even in the case of a positive change. To remind you once again my case, I already WAS materialistic when I made the switch to an understanding of the absence of freewill, it send me into a week long old depression because I didn't have the tool to understand why it's not that bad.
So no, extrem change is not possible, simply because it would require too many things to change inside the brain and someone's vision of the world. A radical change can but this need to be based on the change on very specific belief systems.
Change happens instantly, but extrem change happens (and must happen) step by step.
This is not as simple as that.
Good and evil are directed by a vision of the world, in his case, a vision that had to be carved to be the man he was at the end. Jack was not a really good person at the beginning, he only had the potential to become one. He would have stabbed himself the hearth without any hesitation. But he changed which created this change in his choice.
This was a radical change (on the entire trilogy) that happened step by step, small changes after small changes.
Now, it was a radical change, not an extrem one, his entire vision of the world was not reshaped by the change in this trilogy. So yes, if given the understanding, Jack could have been able to do the right things, but this would need a very specific of change and a very strong basis.
But the point is that to change someone like a rapist, you need an extrem change, not a simple radical one, at least if you need to make him really understand his action and prevent him from doing it ever again. Imagine instantly understanding without preparation or time to process the extent of the oppressive action they made. They would ask you to kill them right away, they would never survive that.
In fact , it's a reason why you often see people kill themselve after a murder. As this is one of those case where the gap I'm talking about is created. In those instance, the dissociation is so important that the person cannot leave with what they did, they instantly see the pressure of society and they also undernstand how they will see themselve from that point on. So.. they choose suicide. It's much more easier to end it at that moment than to face the gap.
Now, if you manage to make a person slowly understand the reality of society and slowly accept themselves and the thing they did as a result of our current systems of dominations and not just as their individual actions, then... you might see someone very different emerge.
But those visions of the world, need to be constructed first, it takes time. It can happen instantly small change after small change, realizations after realization, but we need time to evolve, we can't just speedrun the process and expect to understand the world without consequences on our psyche.
And while radical understanding are possible, extrem understanding (what would need for a criminal to change) is not. And if it was, it would need to take the shape of a technology that we don't have yet because there would need to be HUGE safegards and it would need to be used as a last resort.
Very unlikely.
That's why we need a better solution.
Indeed. Ethic and moral are linked, but different. Here I'm using an ethical reasonning, not a moral one. As for the irrelevance. Sadly, I can't make you understand more than that witht he tools I have.
I used the term living in the usual language of the word as in "living in our world" not as "its is alive". Again, you need context to understand language, that's why sticking to dictionnary definitions is potentially problematic.
So you made a message that had nothing to do with what I was actually saying.
A concrete différence. A foetus, even if potentially human, still has a long way to go before even begin to have the potential to do good a human in the world is different. The potential is much more immediat. The difference also rely in the fact that in one case the foetus is depending on an individual that might suffer from its existence, in the other there is not.
As such, I choose to always prioritize the living being who is subjected to the existence of the foetus rather that foetus who do not even have conscience or pain sensitivity.
You could argue that, indeed, but in the case of a foetus, it's a big what if. Birth is not something that is just perfect 100% of the times. It's a fundamental gamble. And as such, the potential for good is impact by the possibility of the pregnency going wrong.
To me, this possibility is strong enough to consider that the potential for good of a foetus or even an unborn baby, is lower than the one of a random human in the world even with all that could happen to them.
This is another parameter why I choose to always prioritize the "living". Unrelated but note that if I had to choose between my wife and the baby because of a failed pregnancy, like a particular man in a particular serie, I would choose my wife without an second of hesitation.
Ohhhhh clever ! But you changed the conditions of the change here..
From "a rapist could choose to protect a woman" you went to "a rapist choosing to protect a woman rather than raping her".
And in this case, YES, it would be a radical change because said change would be based on a change in the vision of the world, something so radical that it would help the person to understand a lot of things and to choose to help a woman instead of raping her.
This is different from the example I give because in my example, the person was not in a situation that he was about to rape the woman. Instead it could be in a completely different context. For ex, if a woman is being beat up in the metro, the social pressure could make a lot of person, this person included, protect a woman.
This pressure does not necessitate a big change as this is a social pressure that we all pretty much accept.
It would be a change in the sense that it would make a highly negative individual do something highly positive, but it would not be a radical change of the character himself.
Are you sure ? Could you - you yourself, not some random - choose not to push the button in this situation ?
Take your time to reply and take all the parameters into account. And you should understand why I say that free will, actually does not really exist.
And if you can't wait: The fact is that no matter your beliefs, I'm sure you love someone, that you are good with them and you would die before letting anything happen to them. As such, because I do not sence any kind of sociopathy in you, I think you would push the button in every universes. Thus saving the person.
This means that there is a pressure on your choice or more exactly, your material conditions of existence and experience create a specific constrains in your descrision making process and creates a path, a positive but real out of your control path that will push you to save this person. This is a very small and simple representation of the parameters behind a choice. Usually there is a lot more parameters that are creating the path of a choice.
If free will existed, it would mean that you have the control over your emotions and material conditions of existence. It would mean that you have a volition that preceeds the existence of your descisions themselves and that you could freely control the amount of love your have over a person or the perceived urgency of a particular situation.
In our example, if you really had free will, not only would it be possibly for you to create a descision out of volition ex nihilo in the universe inside of your brain BEFORE any kind of electrical signal starting to reach the places where consciousness happens in your brain, but you would also have the power to lower your perceived emotions and experiences to prevent your brain from thinking that it should intervene in that situation.
In other words, you would have the power of a god and the power to lower your potential love for that person in the case you really wanted to get 50 buck. It would be an highly unethical action, but this is how it would look like.
Not it would not be possible. It would probably destroy you.
Not that being a leftist is somehow a divine knowledge. But the gap in the vision of the world between a radical leftist like me and a fascist is just too big to cross in one time.
Really, I'm not joking here. It's something that must come through trial and error and step by step. There needs to be a push toward the left, but you need to understand things in a progressive way. This is again why I make always BIG explanations and a way to apprehend said vision in a positive way in order for the process of thought to be as smooth as possible and not start to create people who will start to question everything and start to lose their mind because of the process.
Ideally, I would need to let people understand everything by themselves, but there are oppressions in the world and behaviors here that can't just be accepted. So there needs to be a push and some radical explanations happening.
Again, I'm not joking, while a radical change is possible or even a series of radical ones, an extrem change is not possible and if it was, we would create a person so instable that they would become potentially dangerous for themselve.
Imagine one second being a radical far rightist, having oppressive behaviors, having depicted oppressive behaviors, thinking that everything in life is earned through sheer will and sheer works, having defended meritocracy all your lives and the oppressions that comes with it, thinking that capitalism is the solutions, that trans people are the problem, thinking that some people are inferior because of their color of skin or religion, thinking that poor people deserve to be poor, thinking that we should not give to people in difficulty through taxes, thinking that Billionnaires are an example of success, thinking that because you are the way you are, it's because you worked hard, you made sacrifice, you made the right choice, thinking that Israelian are right to defend themselve and anyone defending Palestinians are terrorist defender, thinking that Africa is poor because people here are lazy, thinking that the west is inherently superio...
And in one single second, you understand (not "know") that a good person actually think the opposite of all of that. That your entire reality is different from what you think it was and what you defended for years.
This is not only life changing, this is destructive. This could lead any normal people toward suicide because any normal person would dissociate between the them of the now and the them of the before and would not be able to recognize themselve or their reality anymore, even in the case of a positive change. To remind you once again my case, I already WAS materialistic when I made the switch to an understanding of the absence of freewill, it send me into a week long old depression because I didn't have the tool to understand why it's not that bad.
So no, extrem change is not possible, simply because it would require too many things to change inside the brain and someone's vision of the world. A radical change can but this need to be based on the change on very specific belief systems.
Change happens instantly, but extrem change happens (and must happen) step by step.
This is not as simple as that.
Good and evil are directed by a vision of the world, in his case, a vision that had to be carved to be the man he was at the end. Jack was not a really good person at the beginning, he only had the potential to become one. He would have stabbed himself the hearth without any hesitation. But he changed which created this change in his choice.
This was a radical change (on the entire trilogy) that happened step by step, small changes after small changes.
Now, it was a radical change, not an extrem one, his entire vision of the world was not reshaped by the change in this trilogy. So yes, if given the understanding, Jack could have been able to do the right things, but this would need a very specific of change and a very strong basis.
But the point is that to change someone like a rapist, you need an extrem change, not a simple radical one, at least if you need to make him really understand his action and prevent him from doing it ever again. Imagine instantly understanding without preparation or time to process the extent of the oppressive action they made. They would ask you to kill them right away, they would never survive that.
In fact , it's a reason why you often see people kill themselve after a murder. As this is one of those case where the gap I'm talking about is created. In those instance, the dissociation is so important that the person cannot leave with what they did, they instantly see the pressure of society and they also undernstand how they will see themselve from that point on. So.. they choose suicide. It's much more easier to end it at that moment than to face the gap.
Now, if you manage to make a person slowly understand the reality of society and slowly accept themselves and the thing they did as a result of our current systems of dominations and not just as their individual actions, then... you might see someone very different emerge.
But those visions of the world, need to be constructed first, it takes time. It can happen instantly small change after small change, realizations after realization, but we need time to evolve, we can't just speedrun the process and expect to understand the world without consequences on our psyche.
And while radical understanding are possible, extrem understanding (what would need for a criminal to change) is not. And if it was, it would need to take the shape of a technology that we don't have yet because there would need to be HUGE safegards and it would need to be used as a last resort.
Very unlikely.
That's why we need a better solution.
.nobody reads them
Please
almost every mainstream source says this is a conspiracy theory
NYC has the highest Jewish population of any city in the world.
between 270-400 Jews died during 9/11
The global jewish population is very small and whenever any jew anywhere is attacked, it has an impact on the community.
The idea that Israel would let 9/11 happen, when goal of the creation of Israel was to help save Jewish lives from antisemites like Al-Qaeda, is absurd.
Post automatically merged:
NYC has the highest Jewish population of any city in the world.
between 270-400 Jews died during 9/11
The global jewish population is very small and whenever any jew anywhere is attacked, it has an impact on the community.
The idea that Israel would let 9/11 happen, when goal of the creation of Israel was to help save Jewish lives from antisemites like Al-Qaeda, is absurd.
No dude
you can find countless credible sources criticizing Israel on numerous things.
Documenting Israeli human rights abuses
calling Israel an apartheid state
Accusing Israel of genocide in Gaza
yet the dancing Israeli thing is nothing more than a conspiracy theory popular in jew hating circles
What does my religion or morality have to do with accepting a conspiracy theory with zero evidence
The FBI concluded that those Israelis didn’t know about 9/11, but I guess the “Zionists” control the FBI or something
you can find countless credible sources criticizing Israel on numerous things.
Documenting Israeli human rights abuses
calling Israel an apartheid state
Accusing Israel of genocide in Gaza
yet the dancing Israeli thing is nothing more than a conspiracy theory popular in jew hating circles
Post automatically merged:
What does my religion or morality have to do with accepting a conspiracy theory with zero evidence
The FBI concluded that those Israelis didn’t know about 9/11, but I guess the “Zionists” control the FBI or something
It is rather irrelevant, going to ignore this section of our discussion now
What the fuck are you talking about, you're saying something could be living in our world but simultaneously, not be alive?
Inb4 Logiko says being alive =/= living
It isn't potentially human, it is human as per it being a human fetus, as opposed to an elephant or dog fetus
It is actually a human fetus, and potentially a human baby, a human child, a human teenager, a human adult etc...
The potentiality is not in it being human, but it becoming various types of humans as per it's growth
An arbitrary prioritization because as I just demonstrated with the person in a coma argument, pain =/= humanity.
At the end of the day, your argument is reducible to arbitrarily prioritizing the life of one human at a later stage of development (adult) than another human at a lower stage of development (fetus), the reason for which you have nothing for
What is this change reducible to? The will going from desiring evil, to desiring good.
And the will choosing good rather than evil can happen instantly or gradually, just as the fireplace can burn brightly instantly or reach brightness gradually if much wood (or in the case of the will, information), is added instantly, or slowly
And so a criminal can slowly hange his will (desire to do good, not evil) if given realizations slowly overtime, or he can change his will desire to do good instantly, if given instant realization such as news of execution
That is the nature of the will to be able to change instantly, just as 1 + 1 = 2. It is a property inherit to the human heart to have the capacity for instant, radical change
These factors influence my free will, but you can't prove my will is entirely removed here.
I could choose evil, it'd just be very difficult to
It can happen in one step, just as a fireplace can instantly burn bright if given one giant log
It can also happen in many steps, just as a fireplace can burn brightly after many small logs
In this case, a criminal can instantly change (burn bright) in one step/realization (one log), being told he's being executed
Pretty sure plenty of criminals have instantly regret, and repented of their crimes after being informed of their execution, actually
It is reducible to that.
Jack, after 3 movies, had his will desire to do good, not evil
You should switch your line of arguments. I have just demonstrated radical change can happen in one step, or many steps, AKA it is possible for a criminal to radically change in an instant
However, is this likely?
When arguing against the death penalty, you should argue from statistics & data that it is unlikely to cause change within the criminal. You won't be able to prove radical change is inherently impossible, but you can prove it's unlikely in the majority of cases
What the fuck are you talking about, you're saying something could be living in our world but simultaneously, not be alive?
Inb4 Logiko says being alive =/= living
It isn't potentially human, it is human as per it being a human fetus, as opposed to an elephant or dog fetus
It is actually a human fetus, and potentially a human baby, a human child, a human teenager, a human adult etc...
The potentiality is not in it being human, but it becoming various types of humans as per it's growth
An arbitrary prioritization because as I just demonstrated with the person in a coma argument, pain =/= humanity.
At the end of the day, your argument is reducible to arbitrarily prioritizing the life of one human at a later stage of development (adult) than another human at a lower stage of development (fetus), the reason for which you have nothing for
Ohhhhh clever ! But you changed the conditions of the change here..
From "a rapist could choose to protect a woman" you went to "a rapist choosing to protect a woman rather than raping her".
And in this case, YES, it would be a radical change because said change would be based on a change in the vision of the world, something so radical that it would help the person to understand a lot of things and to choose to help a woman instead of raping her.
This is different from the example I give because in my example, the person was not in a situation that he was about to rape the woman. Instead it could be in a completely different context. For ex, if a woman is being beat up in the metro, the social pressure could make a lot of person, this person included, protect a woman.
This pressure does not necessitate a big change as this is a social pressure that we all pretty much accept.
It would be a change in the sense that it would make a highly negative individual do something highly positive, but it would not be a radical change of the character himself.
From "a rapist could choose to protect a woman" you went to "a rapist choosing to protect a woman rather than raping her".
And in this case, YES, it would be a radical change because said change would be based on a change in the vision of the world, something so radical that it would help the person to understand a lot of things and to choose to help a woman instead of raping her.
This is different from the example I give because in my example, the person was not in a situation that he was about to rape the woman. Instead it could be in a completely different context. For ex, if a woman is being beat up in the metro, the social pressure could make a lot of person, this person included, protect a woman.
This pressure does not necessitate a big change as this is a social pressure that we all pretty much accept.
It would be a change in the sense that it would make a highly negative individual do something highly positive, but it would not be a radical change of the character himself.
And the will choosing good rather than evil can happen instantly or gradually, just as the fireplace can burn brightly instantly or reach brightness gradually if much wood (or in the case of the will, information), is added instantly, or slowly
And so a criminal can slowly hange his will (desire to do good, not evil) if given realizations slowly overtime, or he can change his will desire to do good instantly, if given instant realization such as news of execution
That is the nature of the will to be able to change instantly, just as 1 + 1 = 2. It is a property inherit to the human heart to have the capacity for instant, radical change
These factors influence my free will, but you can't prove my will is entirely removed here.
I could choose evil, it'd just be very difficult to
It can happen in one step, just as a fireplace can instantly burn bright if given one giant log
It can also happen in many steps, just as a fireplace can burn brightly after many small logs
In this case, a criminal can instantly change (burn bright) in one step/realization (one log), being told he's being executed
Pretty sure plenty of criminals have instantly regret, and repented of their crimes after being informed of their execution, actually
It is reducible to that.
Jack, after 3 movies, had his will desire to do good, not evil
You should switch your line of arguments. I have just demonstrated radical change can happen in one step, or many steps, AKA it is possible for a criminal to radically change in an instant
However, is this likely?
When arguing against the death penalty, you should argue from statistics & data that it is unlikely to cause change within the criminal. You won't be able to prove radical change is inherently impossible, but you can prove it's unlikely in the majority of cases