nosewings's recent activity
-
Comment on People without an inner voice have poorer verbal memory in ~humanities.languages
-
Comment on I gave up meat and gained so much more | A tale of one person's life, culture, and growing up in ~life
nosewings Link ParentI wish that just once, I could hear a reason why I'm wrong, rather than simply being told my arguments are not sufficiently convincing. Frankly, I feel like simply disagreeing with an argument...I wish that just once, I could hear a reason why I'm wrong, rather than simply being told my arguments are not sufficiently convincing.
Frankly, I feel like simply disagreeing with an argument without trying to find at least an internal reason to disagree amounts to simply not taking the argument seriously.
I think that arguments for veganism which compare slaughtering non-human animals to slaughtering humans in extremely poor taste
Meh. If I'm wrong, I've merely said something in poor taste. If I'm right, well, much worse is true. That seems like a worthwhile wager to me.
especially given that there is often a tendency in these arguments to ignore the human and environmental cost of alternatives to animal products
When it comes to meat, at least, there are essentially always environmentally-preferable alternatives, simply due to the calculus of trophic levels.
-
Comment on For proponents of "vote for the lesser of two evils", what is your endgame? in ~talk
nosewings (edited )LinkOne answer to this question is that, to a certain extent, every election is a "least of n evils" situation. You will never get a perfect candidate that you agree 100% on everything with,...One answer to this question is that, to a certain extent, every election is a "least of n evils" situation. You will never get a perfect candidate that you agree 100% on everything with, especially in a two party system. So you suck it up and vote for the best option. If you're still unhappy, you should do more than just vote.
So the other party is bound to win at least once a decade imo
The parties change over time. If Democrats keep winning, Republicans will have to shift to the left in order to capture more votes. This is a good thing.
My question would be: if you're not voting for the "lesser of two evils", then what is your endgame? Just let the Republicans install as many Supreme Court justices as they want? Keep in mind that the Trumpist faction of the party essentially wants to dismantle the administrative state and institute a one-party system.
-
Comment on What is a value or belief you have that is extremely outside the norm? in ~talk
nosewings Link ParentThis is fair, although it's not like most monogamous relationships work out either, so I can't say I'm completely convinced.This is fair, although it's not like most monogamous relationships work out either, so I can't say I'm completely convinced.
-
Comment on I gave up meat and gained so much more | A tale of one person's life, culture, and growing up in ~life
nosewings Link ParentI disagree with this very strongly. Any kind of premeditated killing can be useful to the person doing the killing. War can certainly be useful to the aggressor. Murder is not very useful to the...As for killing humans, there's obviously the difference in that pretty much no one is killing humans for any useful purpose.
I disagree with this very strongly. Any kind of premeditated killing can be useful to the person doing the killing. War can certainly be useful to the aggressor.
Murder is not very useful to the people being killed, of course, but that's begging the question (i.e., animal slaughter is not very useful to the animals being slaughtered).
But the ultimate difference is more that I just don't believe animals' lives are of equal value to those of humans.
If you simply take this as an axiom, then, well, there's nothing more to say. But if you think there's some sort of rational basis for it---well, I think your basis is probably not very good.
Lots of people base the worth of a life on intelligence. I think this is a pretty terrible basis (and it has all sorts of nasty implications for, e.g., people with mental disabilities), but even if we take it for granted: the animals we slaughter are plenty smart. Pigs in particular are known to be highly intelligent---possibly smarter than young children---and we slaughter 1.5 billion of them per year. They aren't smart as an adult human, but they're extremely smart on the grand evolutionary scale. That's a lot of intelligences extinguished to feed our appetites. How would we feel about raising human infants specifically so that we could slaughter 1.5 billion of them per year?
I think a better metric than intelligence is the capacity to feel joy and suffering. And the situation is much worse here, I think. We can reasonably infer that mammals, at least, experience something like the emotions that we feel---joy, playfulness, sadness, pain, companionship. You can find videos all over the place demonstrating that cows make friends. You can find videos showing chimpanzees visibly astonished at magic tricks. You can find videos of crows playing in snow. Animals are not automatons, and we have no real reason to believe that they "feel" less than us. Just because we are evolutionarily programmed to read the emotions of other humans doesn't make other animals' emotions any less real.
But even if we take it as granted that animal lives are worth less than human lives, the value you need to assign an animal life in order to make the meat industry anything less than a heinous crime is, I think, implausibly low. Again, 1.5 billion pigs per year. How many humans would be okay to slaughter for food before it became a moral evil?
I think the only way you can get a satisfactory result here is to diminish the value of an animal life so that it is infinitesimal next to the value of a human life; i.e., no number of animal lives is worth a single human life. But besides this horn being implausible---humans are animals, after all; there's no sharp dividing line between us and them---I also think that it disagrees with most peoples' intuitions. And I have evidence: go to any video or news story of a kitten or puppy being tortured and tell me what the comments say should happen to the person who did it. People intuitively understand that animal lives have ethical value in some contexts; they just compartmentalize that understanding when it comes to what they eat.
-
Comment on I gave up meat and gained so much more | A tale of one person's life, culture, and growing up in ~life
nosewings Link ParentI guess I'd flip that around and ask: why is murder wrong? Or, perhaps even better: why is animal cruelty wrong?I guess I'd flip that around and ask: why is murder wrong? Or, perhaps even better: why is animal cruelty wrong?
-
Comment on What is a value or belief you have that is extremely outside the norm? in ~talk
nosewings (edited )Link ParentI understand some of it. If my partner went around sleeping with someone else and hiding it from me, I would be very concerned about that, in the same way that I would be concerned if my partner...With that in mind, do you really not understand why people freak out about cheating?
I understand some of it.
If my partner went around sleeping with someone else and hiding it from me, I would be very concerned about that, in the same way that I would be concerned if my partner kept any major secrets from me. I think openness and honesty are extremely important in any significant human relationship (and not just intimate ones). And, of course, cheating in monogamous relationships is usually accompanied by deception.
But the reason for that deception is the lack of openness in the first place. If people just . . . didn't go into things with the preconceived norm of monogamy, so many of those problems just wouldn't be problems in the first place. So when I watch, like, a TV show or a movie where cheating is a big source of conflict, I feel like the people involved just did it to themselves for no good reason.
-
Comment on What is a value or belief you have that is extremely outside the norm? in ~talk
nosewings Link ParentIf I'm understanding you correctly, I basically agree with this, and it's why I say that monogamy makes much less sense in a world with easily-accessible and reliable birth control. I mean, the...Much of it is in regards to the complications children bring.
If I'm understanding you correctly, I basically agree with this, and it's why I say that monogamy makes much less sense in a world with easily-accessible and reliable birth control. I mean, the evolutionary basis for monogamy almost certainly has something to do with paternity (to avoid inventing a just-so story, I will not speculate on details).
There's also a lot of it which is just based on people's feelings, which don't have to be logical to be valid.
Well, I'm not saying they're "invalid". I'm not even sure what that would mean. I just think they're kind of silly.
-
Comment on Donald Trump hush money trial: What criminal charges does he face? in ~news
nosewings Link ParentThe alternative is a system in which a president could frivolously prosecute their opponent in an attempt to prevent them from being able to run. Both options have their downsides.The alternative is a system in which a president could frivolously prosecute their opponent in an attempt to prevent them from being able to run. Both options have their downsides.
-
Comment on What is a value or belief you have that is extremely outside the norm? in ~talk
nosewings Link ParentI'm not arguing that humans are uniquely messed up, except insofar as we have the knowledge of what we are doing, and the means to choose differently, and yet we do not. But the fact that the...I'm not arguing that humans are uniquely messed up, except insofar as we have the knowledge of what we are doing, and the means to choose differently, and yet we do not. But the fact that the world has lots of bad stuff in it has no bearing on the severity of our crimes.
-
Comment on What is a value or belief you have that is extremely outside the norm? in ~talk
nosewings Link ParentBut I am married, and I don't feel that way. But why, though? That's my point. To my (non-neurotypical) mind, it's like agreeing with your SO to never paint your nails blue. I guess you could do...When you get married you are basically putting someone in a position of trust for your most intimate vulnerabilities, and most marriages are built on the promise of monogamy. Cheating is basically saying that you can't be trusted anymore.
But I am married, and I don't feel that way.
most marriages are built on the promise of monogamy
But why, though? That's my point. To my (non-neurotypical) mind, it's like agreeing with your SO to never paint your nails blue. I guess you could do it, but people would look at you funny if you got upset over it.
This experience is also not universal. It's a stereotype, but also true, that many French people, for example, view cheating as more of a venal sin than a mortal one.
-
Comment on What is a value or belief you have that is extremely outside the norm? in ~talk
nosewings Link ParentYes. I should have been more precise. Art has "always" (on the timescale of civilization, not all human existence) been a commodity, but not just a commodity. It always came with a context...Art has always been a commodity. Putting a value on it is one way to appreciate it. People have always been paid for art, so I don't think capitalism is specifically ruining it. Historically art was commissioned by a king or church, is that really better than being paid for by amazon or something?
Yes.
I should have been more precise. Art has "always" (on the timescale of civilization, not all human existence) been a commodity, but not just a commodity. It always came with a context attached. For example, Bach's larger sacred works may have been commissioned by some noble, but they were also religious works. On a smaller scale, his chorales were meant to be sung by church attendees. Everything existed in a greater context. Capitalism's function is to remove this context, reducing art to "just" a thing to be bought and sold. ("All that is solid melts into air, all that is holy is profaned, and man is at last compelled to face with sober senses, his real conditions of life, and his relations with his kind.")
-
Comment on I gave up meat and gained so much more | A tale of one person's life, culture, and growing up in ~life
nosewings Link ParentDon't we already do this for everything? We don't typically say that animals are even capable of moral wrongs. I mean, by this logic, any amount of effort put into reducing animal suffering is...not unless you hold humans to a standard that's utterly disconnected from the rest of the animal kingdom.
Don't we already do this for everything? We don't typically say that animals are even capable of moral wrongs.
I mean, by this logic, any amount of effort put into reducing animal suffering is completely unnecessary from an ethical perspective. After all, predators in the wild have absolutely no qualms eating other animals alive, so why should we bother being any different?
-
Comment on What is a value or belief you have that is extremely outside the norm? in ~talk
nosewings Link ParentI'm in a similar situation. Hearing people freak out over cheating is so weird. It's like freaking out over wearing blue nail polish. But is this even that weird anymore? I think, with the advent...I'm in a similar situation.
Hearing people freak out over cheating is so weird. It's like freaking out over wearing blue nail polish.
But is this even that weird anymore? I think, with the advent of very reliable birth control and the dissolving of patriarchal structures, the "enforcement mechanisms" that made monogamy important historically are basically just falling away. In that light, monogamy looks . . . pointless? Silly? And I think that's part of why there's a pretty significant nonmonogamist subculture these days.
But I also think that I'm kind of just nonmonogamist by nature, so maybe it's just a me thing that I don't get monogamy.
-
Comment on What is a value or belief you have that is extremely outside the norm? in ~talk
nosewings Link ParentI'll go even further: I think the true ethical value of animal life is vastly higher than what the general population assigns it. In fact, I'm not convinced that the ethical value of any mammal's...I'll go even further: I think the true ethical value of animal life is vastly higher than what the general population assigns it. In fact, I'm not convinced that the ethical value of any mammal's life is not basically the same as the ethical value of a human life, to say nothing of other kinds of animals.
I've been called some pretty nasty things for saying that the factory farming system is a moral crime on par with the Holocaust or American chattel slavery.
-
Comment on What is a value or belief you have that is extremely outside the norm? in ~talk
nosewings (edited )Link ParentI'm exactly the same way as you. Actually, I think this may be the main distinguishing feature between those who are disturbed by AI art and those who see nothing wrong with it. I suspect that...I'm exactly the same way as you. Actually, I think this may be the main distinguishing feature between those who are disturbed by AI art and those who see nothing wrong with it.
I suspect that this is another case of Capitalism All Along. In the modern age, "art" is a commodity, something to be bought and sold. In that framework, it ceases to matter whether the art was made by a person, just as it ceases to matter whether your toothbrush was made by a person.
I've seen it most elegantly put in "The AI Revolution is Rotten to the Core" (previously):
[M]y biggest worry about generating art in any capacity is that it takes away opportunities for people to make interesting choices. It's really hard to pin down what makes a piece of art good, but when you create something, you're constantly making tiny choices, and I think an author's voice is a sort of consistency and harmony between those choices. Whether or not you think Mark Rothko is a great artist, you can look at one of his paintings and know who made it.
[T]he few games that are unmistakably high art, the Earthbounds, Dark Souls and Rain Worlds are the result of a consistent authorial vision that patterns their largest and smallest features.
Using AI not only takes opportunities away from the Itois of the world, it forecloses on the possibility of a singular vision by using some complicated statistics to automatically design games by committee.
Machine learning is not democratizing art so much as outcompeting it.
-
Comment on Some observations about some of the conversations here in ~tildes
nosewings (edited )LinkI'm someone whose comment history mostly consists of disagreements and arguments. I don't think this is because I'm a contrarian---rather, it's because I only comment when I think I have something...A number of people on Tildes tend to be contrarians. If you say black, they have to say white. They pick knits, they split hairs, they are persnickety.
I'm someone whose comment history mostly consists of disagreements and arguments. I don't think this is because I'm a contrarian---rather, it's because I only comment when I think I have something valuable to say, and the easiest way to have something valuable to say is to have a disagreement to voice. I suspect that this is at least part of what's responsible for what you perceive as contrarianism.
A number of people on Tildes jump at any chance to defend the status quo.
This, I think, is sort of true, though I might not put it so strongly. I would characterize the mean perspective here as upper-middle class moderate liberal millenial. It's certainly far more establishment-friendly than most spaces I inhabit.
-
Comment on Ubisoft shut down The Crew. Here is what we can do about it. in ~games
nosewings Link ParentFrom my perspective, the "consumers' rights" angle is necessary if there's to be any hope for fighting this practice from a legal perspective, but a red herring. It's not actually what I care...From my perspective, the "consumers' rights" angle is necessary if there's to be any hope for fighting this practice from a legal perspective, but a red herring. It's not actually what I care about. What I care about is artistic and historical preservation.
Apparently not many other people do? I'm surprised I don't see more uproar over this kind of practice. Yes, companies (maybe) have the legal right to do it, but that doesn't make it something that we should tolerate.
And, frankly, I would make it illegal if I could. An author doesn't get to simply burn all copies of their book, even if it's still under copyright. If it were up to me, distributors of copyrighted digital works would be legally required to submit the works to a public registry, which would make the works available after the copyright expired. No one should get to disappear art.
-
Comment on Those who read a lot of fiction shown to have improved cognitive abilities in ~science
nosewings LinkThis tracks with my experience. I was a voracious fiction reader as a kid, but not so much anymore, and I feel like I can tell the difference in my own abilities.This tracks with my experience. I was a voracious fiction reader as a kid, but not so much anymore, and I feel like I can tell the difference in my own abilities.
-
Comment on A big new facility built to take carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere opened up in Iceland. It's a stepping stone to bigger plans in the US. in ~enviro
nosewings (edited )Link ParentThis is a weird direction to go in. Your original argument was, essentially, that we shouldn't worry too much about climate change, since we can science our way out of anything. I countered with...And there's the difference. You can SEE an asteroid. You can accurately plot its path. You can observe its approach and imminent collision. It doesnt take faith to believe that a massive object hurtling in a direct path toward the earth is going to cause massive destruction and only the wilfully blind would question that.
This is a weird direction to go in. Your original argument was, essentially, that we shouldn't worry too much about climate change, since we can science our way out of anything. I countered with an example showing that we cannot, in fact, science our way out of anything. Now you're saying that we shouldn't worry about climate change because, hey, who even knows if climate science is real?
To be blunt, you come across as someone who 1. is not well-versed in the science, and 2. simply doesn't want to believe in the likelihood of dangerous climate change.
Faith—and it is just faith—in humanity's ability to science its way out of climate change is in contradiction to skepticism of climate science. Climate science is based on the same underlying principles as other sciences, and shares methods with them. Unless you have done serious research, I doubt that you have any legitimate reason to be skeptical of climate science in particular. It smacks of motivated reasoning.
I am a layperson, so I can't claim to understand the climate models very well. Here's something I do understand pretty well, though: throughout the fossil record, significant and rapid changes in the climate, and in atmospheric CO2 concentrations in particular, are always accompanied by waves of extinctions. Changes in atmospheric CO2 are thought to have played a role in all of the "big 5" mass extinction events except for the one that was caused by a several-kilometer-wide asteroid; in particular, global warming due to increased CO2 was a primary driver of extinction in the most severe mass extinction event ever, at the end of the Permian, in which at least 70% of all species on the planet went extinct. We are releasing CO2 at a faster rate than during the most severe extinction in the history of the planet. I don't know how it's possible to not be alarmed at that thought.
Also, the fact that the scientists who do the most work with this data—climate scientists, yes, but also biologists, ecologists, oceanographers, etc.—are all themselves talking about how scared and depressed they are should tell you that this isn't some kind of deliberate propaganda being foisted on young people (to what end? funded by whom?). The people who know the most are among the most alarmed. We should be paying attention.
My overall life experience is extremely similar to yours.
I have an intellectually-demanding job, and not being able to follow discussions is incredibly frustrating. I have trouble even paying attention because I feel like it's pointless to try to absorb it, and like I won't learn anything until I go home and think through things on my own.
I've long suspected that I have something like cognitive disengagement syndrome (previously called "sluggish cognitive tempo").