MSC

On 8/1/2023 at 3:18 PM, Orion1 said:

Any discussions and/or peer reviews about this specific topic thread

Sorry it's been a minute since I've been here. Wagwan?

On 6/12/2022 at 3:53 PM, iNow said:

I’ve been hearing a lot lately about strategic use of ketamine with seriously good results, but that’s clearly pharmaceutical. 

Similar positive results are being had with psilocybin (of the magic mushrooms variety) under guided conditions. 

All the energy for depression that’s otherwise resistant to standard treatment, however, appears to be with ketamine according to my various neuroscience feeds. 

I've heard the strategic use of not being a hostile cunt to people can also work wonders. So perhaps if you would learn to shut up and stop hounding people with mental health issues, stop being so brutal, stop edgelording and stop gaslighting people when people rightly question your motives some progress could be made. 

On 6/9/2022 at 7:07 PM, Michael McMahon said:

Capitalism works by voluntary reward for work rather than active punishment for underworking. It's true that poor people are to some extent passively penalised by a lack of resources but technically they're not deprived in a coercive fashion. In other words they're not being put in detention for a lack of homework but rather they miss out on opportunities due to a lack of wealth. At least that's the economic theory even if it's not the reality for those who are exploited in sweat shops in the third world. Anyway my point of comparison when it comes to suicide is that people are free to reward to their heart's content those who live with physical disabilities, terminally ill patients or mentally ill individuals who manage to avoid suicide. It's a free country and if you don't want to commemorate suicide victims then no one can stop you. However actively condemning suicide victims crosses the line in my opinion.

Agreed. Active compassion more consistently applied works wonders. 

I think so many suicides could could avoided if we could be more compassionate in our interactions with each other in general. I mean hell, reading the first page of this thread makes me more empathetic with others whom struggle with suicidal ideation. 

I feel a contributing factor, is an emotional death by a thousand cuts type situation. Few people with a callous lack of compassion intend to cause someone to commit suicide, but who knows if you're going to be the person dealing out the 1000th cut or the straw that breaks the camels back. 

On social media and other written forms of communication, the problem is made worse because a screen depersonalises and dehumanises people in a very literal way. Even if we are consciously aware that we are in fact speaking to another human being, subconsciously we are aware that we seem to just be typing inputs into a screen. Which lowers a lot of inhibitions. The sort of interactions people have on social media, are often times very different than the interactions you will have in person and have a tendency to be much more harmful for your mental health, in their consistency to be brutal. 

I've actually spoken to a few mental health professionals about this, and even prior to the internet, one of the barriers to effective mental health treatment is how hostile our society can be to the mentally ill. Sometimes you feel like you might as well just have a physical open wound and that people might as well just poke their fingers into the wound whenever you speak. At least that way you'll actually have an infection instead of feeling like you have one and are being treated like you are one. 

Some might say it isn't our job to figure out how to communicate with the mentally ill. Yet most people here probably at least know someone whom is mentally ill and a few of us here most definitely are mentally ill. So it might not be most people's job, but I feel like there is a need for it to become a core life skill. 

I've had people tell me that I should not be on social media since it is bad for my mental health. It seems to me like it's bad for almost everyone's mental health, in how it makes us feel, what it makes us willing to say to each other and how it makes us choose to communicate with each other. 

I mean you don't even need to have a mental illness to feel like being on social media is emotionally demanding and trying. I'm sure for some it can straight up make people who weren't mentally ill before, mentally ill after enough of the typical shitty interactions we often get from it. Save the brutal honesty for the mentally ill whom are actually incarcerated for brutal crimes like rape, child abuse, murder etc. But even then, leave it to the professionals. If brutal honesty is like a scalpel and to be used to help someone, let's make sure it's just the professionals using it and not any Tom, Dick or Harry who happens to walk by. For those who take it seriously enough, to be worried about making it worse if they say the wrong thing, start and finish the interaction with consistent compassion and empathy. Don't give advice, don't tell them to seek mental health treatment. Ask them if they have thought about mental health treatment. Find out if there are some kind of barriers to them gaining treatment. If there are, share information about charities that can help. If they are willing to be vulnerable with you, be willing to be vulnerable with them back. 

This advice does help. This is what I did when my friend B, (Just the first initial, respecting their privacy) a schizophrenic, was having an episode and was getting quite aggressive and had completely disassociated with who she was at that time. At that point, this is where being willing to be vulnerable calmed her down... don't do that with a sadist though. Never be vulnerable to a sadist. Dont show fear, act like you enjoy it, this riles them up and confuses them, it makes them sloppy, you attack quickly and decisively when they make a mistake, gtfo and call the police. 

If there is ever a time when you feel suicidal or just want a compassionate conversation about whatever the hell you want; message me. This applies to everyone. The least I can be for people, is someone who doesn't want you to be gone from this world. So don't hesitate to get in touch.

13 hours ago, MSC said:

Since you've made it clear that you have the deontological perspective of right and wrong, what if I say it ought to be a rule that it is always right to try to avoid the worst consequences that cause the most harm? Why can't demonology, utilitarian and consequentialist ethics be used in conjunction with each other as tools to enhance our understanding of right and wrong, instead of the ideological tribalism most engage with? Why can't I value and make use of all three of those types of moral thinking as well as virtue theory?

@iNow

I'm going to rephrase the first line that was directed at Zap. "Since the argument examples you have cited are from the deontological perspective..." the rest carries on the same. 

I suppose these are questions I'd like to hear feedback on the most. Are they relevant enough for you in this thread or should there be a more specific thread by itself?

7 hours ago, MSC said:

So can you show me a section that gives you this impression or not?

@iNowthis was the question I had in mind which I felt you were being evasive on. I'm sincerely asking for examples of my writing that are giving people an impression which I'm not trying to convey. So I can understand what is causing the impression so I can fix it. Please, humor me.

18 minutes ago, iNow said:

You accused me of refusing to answer questions you never actually asked me

No, you've misunderstood what I just said. I was asking some questions of everyone who read as they were open questions that weren't just meant for Zap. But I fucked up and was not clear enough when I wrote them, that they were open questions not just meant for Zap but for anyone who is interested in this topic enough to have the discussion. If you aren't interested enough, that's your choice to make. No judgement either way. I don't want to fight and argue with anyone anymore. 

In the end, I just want to be friendly with people. One of the things that frustrates me the most is that when people get upset with me, it often feels like it is coming out of nowhere. It's overwhelming to say the least. It gets even more so when there is a gang up and all of a sudden I have 2 or 3 people upset with me instead of just one. It's enough to give anyone a headache. 

I've got Inow basically telling me he finds me repellant, doesn't give a shit what I have to say and has called me a brat. And for what reason? Because I'm here debating and don't always see or understand other people's points? It's really just taking it too far in the whole edgelord meanstreak trope everyone is doing these days. It doesn't help anyone. It doesn't make me feel particularly great and only seeks to satisfy some need he has of being brutal for brutalities sake. Probably calls it brutal honesty, but I just see brutality. 

When he says I lack self awareness, he might as well just come out and say "you just don't realize what a piece of shit you are." That's what I hear, that's the kind of negative self talk I have to fight off everyday. It also directly contradicts one of the most consistent criticisms I've had from people who actually know me as a person. Ever since I was a kid, it's always been that I'm too self aware for my own good, but usually it also ties in to how I also over share that self awareness. 

@zapatosyou implied earlier, that I don't give enough credit to the people that are trying. That may be true.. maybe I should try to work on that. But ethics really is my passion, career and vocation. It's what I try hardest at. 

1 minute ago, iNow said:

hope you feel better now that’s all off your chest and that your visits with mental health professionals are productive.

I do a bit. Thank you. I am trying to be better at communicating with people. It's not easy. It's easier with some and harder with others. 

3 minutes ago, iNow said:

You said you’ve posed questions to me that I refuse to answer. Remind me what thread relevant question(s) you have asked of me that have not yet been answered to your satisfaction. 

Well in this thread, I've not actually asked you that many, but I probably complicated the issue in my mind by expecting you to perceive some of the questions I asked when speaking to Zap, as open questions meant for anyone else who decides to read and engage. One thing about social media that I can't ever seem to shake thinking about, is that there is an audience and you don't know who or how many people are in it or even when they are in it. Does that make sense? So I feel like most of the time, I end up just trying to speak to everyone, since I can't know the audience.

That happens because of my need to keep social advice in mind that I have sought out and learned to better cope. Knowing your audience being one of them. So on social media, since the only thing I can know about the invisible audience, is that they are human. That's really the only core thing I can hold onto for trying to communicate. 

3 minutes ago, zapatos said:

something I said is not clear, all you have to do is ask. I'll be happen to explain further.

Likewise.

And yes, sorry I misquoted you on the second paragraph just now. But what did you mean by the first?

And can we all just stop calling each other childish. It's beneath all of us to say things so petty and only makes it more difficult for us all to communicate. This isn't reddit and I'm tired of giving my all to a discussion only to have to bite my tongue and keep trying to be reasonable while people keep up with personal attacks even after I've attempted to assure them that I've meant them no personal Insult. Me actively insulting someone and me just ad libbing generalized rhetoric look nothing alike. I dunno, maybe it's a cultural thing and we just have very different ideas of what it means to personally attack an individual and attacking their argument. Where I'm from, if you're not making an attempt to make a light hearted joke out of something, and are just calling someone childish, whiny or petulant, that's fighting talk. That's intent to upset and hinder, not communicate. It's perceived as an attempt to be paternal, to pull rank, to put someone beneath you. Equality and manners are very important to Scots, even if from the outside it does not seem like it. If you were actually my dad or my boss, you could get away with it. In a venue like this where we are all equal in our ability to share our thoughts freely and non staff have all the same capabilities within the framework of the forum, it just makes communication unnecessarily difficult. 

This was genuinely one of my biggest culture shocks when I moved to the USA. Its why a lot of Europeans just don't feel comfortable here. We have to deal with ridiculous stereotypes, inappropriate jokes, sexual harassment and people constantly trying to take advantage of your ignorance in how this place works. There have even been incidents where someone here, who seems like a fairly inclusive American, will say something which would be completely out of order back home. In the same way that here, I can say cigarettes but if I had the inclination to ask someone for a fag, that would be offensive.

It does present differently online. Much less of an accent barrier to deal with here, but I can tell that the cultural one is still there and is actually more prominent. I think we may also be having problems understanding the tone we are trying to convey. 

For the sake of helping you understand me a little better, I do have social difficulties, problems focusing or getting too focused on things. I just got a new psychiatrist who disagrees with the Aspergers diagnosis I got home and instead suspects ADHD. But at this point, I've grown so annoyed with all the confusing psychiatric labels that I'd rather just focus on the symptomology of me as an individual and do away with the labels altogether. But I certainly don't communicate in the normal way, and the version of me speaking with you now, has actually put a lot of effort to try to meet other people where they are, sometimes I can only get halfway. 

There is a weird thing I just noticed, I read back some of what I've said in an American accent and for whatever reason, I sound more condescending than you would hear if I was saying it on the phone with my own voice. 

2 minutes ago, iNow said:

You have a repellant habit of putting words and motivations into others when those words and motivations don’t exist.

And you have a repellant habit of continuing to speak to people in a way that warrants questioning your motivations.

3 minutes ago, iNow said:

It’s because you seem to struggle focusing on their points and choose so often instead to focus on them personally and whine like a petulant bratty toddler. Like here:

Thats literally what you are doing here. Show me where I've ever called you a petulant bratty toddler? The only one making this personal is you and Zap. 

6 minutes ago, iNow said:

There’s clearly bile spewing in this thread, but back to my earlier comment regarding a clear lack of self-awareness, you seem blind to the fact that most of it is coming from you. 

Projection buddy. That's all I can say.

4 hours ago, iNow said:

I’d have to first give a shit what you think in order for you to be able to bruise my ego.

We get it. You think I'm beneath you. So why would I continue to engage with you? At least I attempt to give a shit what others have to say. Until they do what you do and reveal that they think they are superior to others. Now I no longer give a shit what you have to say since there will be no reciprocation. If you can't read for nuance and are incapable of interpreting what I'm saying, that's your problem. I'm not reading averse and I can tell the difference between a question mark and a full stop. I'm no longer wasting my time with you so save your bile for someone else.

Tell yourself whatever false narrative you want about me in order to protect your self appointed status of smartest person in the room. 

On 6/17/2022 at 9:41 PM, zapatos said:

IMO, it would be hypocritical to back off an anti-abortion stance just because women will seek alternative, riskier options.

This is one example of where it reads like you are advocating for abortion.

13 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Are fetuses lives included in that equation? Because unless you include just the mothers there is no evidence that making abortions illegal would cost more lives.

Also, would you think it hypocritical to oppose clinical infanticide, if you were concerned many mothers might do themselves in while illegally killing their kids?

Here is another. So no, you haven't made your own views clear at all and now seem to be back pedaling because you stopped feeling confident in this bs.

If you agree that abortions should be legal, then why tf are you even arguing with me? What is the goal exactly if we are both preaching to the choir?

14 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Even you admit that you are not going "all in" on the environment because you continue to exist. Yet you feel you can tell others that since they are not "all in" (based on what YOU define as "all in") then they are just virtue signaling.

I'm telling you, that's how it comes across to me. That's just my honest perspective. If the boot didn't fit, then why did you get so defensive and try to rage quit the conversation earlier? I can tell others what I think. I can't tell them what is and what isn't. I can only tell them what I think. 

You've been here arguing for abortion being made illegal. Whether that was to test me or if it is your true found beliefs, that's what you have been doing. Apparently you won't won't share what you truly think so this argument could be in complete bad faith for all I know. 

7 minutes ago, iNow said:

Zapatos was kind enough to highlight one example already. Are more needed?

Not a very good example in my opinion. Oops, shared my opinion again. I forgot you said mine isn't allowed. I'm just going to come right out and say what is on my mind, You and Zaps egos are bruised because you can't actually supply me with a valid criticism and are crying foul because I won't pretend there is any weight to these ineffectual ones. 

I'll respond now only to people who actually engage with my writing and don't ignore my questions to try to construct their own false narrative about who they reckon I am and what motivates me.

5 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Of course you are allowed to take issue. The problem from my perspective is that you don't seem all that open to criticism of your position. You started this dialogue as if it were a lecture, not a conversation. You seem to be more interested in telling me why I am wrong than to understanding what I am saying. 

I'm very open to criticism. Just not in the way you seem to expect me to be. You haven't changed my mind about anything. Maybe you were just wrong and there is little to understand?

14 minutes ago, iNow said:

You seem clear enough to me. Communication style seems less relevant here than a seeming lack of self-awareness. 

Lol. I strongly suspect he wants nothing from you and doesn’t care enough about you to be offended. 

As for holding hands, maybe this is an example of that issue with communication style you reference?

16 minutes ago, MSC said:

Can you show me which sections of my writing gives you the impression that I feel as if I'm the sole arbiter of what is right and wrong

So can you show me a section that gives you this impression or not?

1 minute ago, iNow said:

From the outside, his view appears to be that your argument has holes which need to be highlighted. It seems you feel you’re the sole arbiter of what is moral and what is not, and he’s illuminating the validity of other perspectives. 

Okay, fair enough. Can you show me which sections of my writing gives you the impression that I feel as if I'm the sole arbiter of what is right and wrong? 

What do you mean by "validity of other perspectives"? Do you mean acknowledging that other perspectives are allowed (ofc they are) or valid in that they are correct and right? I'm genuinely confused as to how people want or expect me to respond to their perspectives. Am I not allowed to take issue with them? Am I not allowed to say "I think that's wrong" or "That criticism isn't valid" or "I don't think that is a good way to think about it." 

I'm really just getting the impression that others here don't really get my communication style and that maybe I should just go since I seem to be causing so much cognitive dissonance for others. I don't understand what Zap wants from me or why he is getting so offended but I'm not going to hold anyone's hand into making high level critiques the way it is done in moral philosophy in an academic setting. If they can, they can, if they can't, they can't.

17 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Since I'm not advocating for making abortions illegal, 'no'

Then what are you doing? Playing Devils advocate? Help me understand what your view is. Because so far it certainly seems like that is what you are advocating.

17 minutes ago, zapatos said:

So much for you not minding if I am critical of you

Me pointing out you may have misunderstood and whether or not I mind when you are critical are not the same. The former does not imply the latter at all. If I minded you being critical of my arguments I just wouldn't continue the dialogue with you... yet here I am. So clearly I don't mind. I can perceive your criticisms to just be incorrect or poorly communicated. You're entitled to make them. I even agreed with you earlier and pointed out that I'm quite well aware that even my bike and its parts create a bigger carbon footprint than if I just walked. It's still preferable to a car since the bike did all of its pollution when it was made, not every time I ride it. At that point, my farts are a bigger issue than my bike is 😆 

4 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Can you please tell me what you mean by this in plain and direct words? You are clearly implying something and I don't want to misunderstand you.

So you really don't see the irony in advocating for making abortions illegal and then saying this:

1 hour ago, zapatos said:

What I've been doing is suggesting that it is not up to others to judge the acceptability of how people choose to make the world a better place. There is no accepted baseline of how much is enough, or what the acceptable issues to support are. We have to leave it up to the individual. 

Just now, zapatos said:

Yes

So it's okay for a man to make decisions over his own body but not for a woman?

1 minute ago, zapatos said:

Only about a million things. Can you be more specific?

Name 1. If there is a million, naming one should not be that difficult.

7 minutes ago, MigL said:

People have the right to be 'virtuous' or 'hypocritical' in their beliefs and values, which means that MSC and TheVat are consistent in their reasoning, and so is Zapatos in his.
Trying to force your beliefs of what 'pro-life' means on others, is not 'pro-choice'.

I agree. Which is why I'm not forcing anyone to do anything. I'm just contributing toward the discussion with my perspective. My perspective is just another choice. People can choose to accept it, find value or truth in it, or not. I've explained it. That is enough for me. I both can't and won't force anyone to agree with me and I don't have a gun to anyone's head about it. Nor do I feel like Zapatos is trying to force me into doing anything either. If i wanted, I could just not read anything he writes. Where is the force here?

Quote

Feel the force around you!

- Yoda

This just popped into my head. Figured I'd already quoted Yoda once so why not again for the sheer banter.

42 minutes ago, zapatos said:

What I've been doing is suggesting that it is not up to others to judge the acceptability of how people choose to make the world a better place. There is no accepted baseline of how much is enough, or what the acceptable issues to support are. We have to leave it up to the individual. 

Except when we are telling women what to do with their bodies ofcourse. No need to leave it up to the individual there. Men know better right?

I never suggested you were any of those things either. Just that the arguments can be used to enable those things. I think you've misunderstood a lot of what I've been saying and are taking it a bit too personally. 

1 hour ago, zapatos said:

if by some arbitrary standard it is not deemed good enough

There is nothing arbitrary about whether or not something is successful in solving a problem or not. Do or do not, there is no try. 

Either the stone is lifted, or it is not. If you fail, make another attempt. You don't see me here bragging about a job half done or failed attempts to do something. 

52 minutes ago, zapatos said:

What I've been doing is suggesting that it is not up to others to judge the acceptability of how people choose to make the world a better place. There is no accepted baseline of how much is enough, or what the acceptable issues to support are. We have to leave it up to the individual

Whether or not something works, is the baseline by scientific consensus. Take Alchemy for example, it failed to make gold, it failed to produce an elixir of life. Alchemy was trashed. Chemistry has made modern miracles in medicine, textiles, materials, hygiene etc and so hasn't been trashed. 

A ban on abortion will not only cause more women to die, it will increase poverty, ruin the economy and cause a massive female exodus in the job market as women are forced to be mothers whether they want to be or not. That means less Dr's, less nurses, less key infrastructure workers and every industry that isn't male dominated will shrink. Every business will lose key workers. It will also put a massive strain on an already spread thin care system. Orphanages will fill up, not enough people will adopt and you will see more homeless people at younger ages the longer these bans are left in place. The job market will become even more competitive, unemployment will increase, suicides and violent crimes will increase. You might think access to abortion couldn't possibly lead to all of this, but pregnancy is the root cause of our being. When you try to remove women's choices by banning abortion, something which has been happening in pretty much our entire recorded history, it has far reaching dramatic consequences for everyone. 

To sum up my position; I think, abortion should be legal up to somewhere between 16-20 weeks. I've only heard of 1 baby who survived as a preemie at 21 weeks gestation. As far as I'm concerned, I believe that life truly starts when a being is capable of surviving living by itself, without the need for life support systems from its mother. 

Can you focus on this question when you get the chance?

4 hours ago, MSC said:

Should men be allowed to get a vasectomy or get any procedure or treatment that elimates their sperm? 

What makes a sperm different from an embryo or a zygote?

21 minutes ago, zapatos said:

I think you are misplacing your criticism. You seem to be saying it is valid to criticize someone for doing good, if by some arbitrary standard it is not deemed good enough. To the best of my knowledge no one on this site, or anyone mentioned here, has ever been criticized for not supporting juvenile dental care. But as soon as I mention someone who actually helps some portion of the population with dental care, they are now open to potential criticism for not doing enough. I don't believe that is the best path forward wrt solving problems through participation. We need to press the people who are doing nothing, rather than the people who are doing something.

My wife and I used to get along with everyone at my kid's grade school. Then we started volunteering for fund raisers, Homecoming, etc. Suddenly there were a lot of parents who no longer cared for us and criticized us to no end because we did not do enough, or the right thing, or what it was that they thought we should be doing.

Do nothing and you can be everyone's friend. But a sure way to make enemies is to attempt to help people.

For what it is worth to you, I do actually believe you are a good person. You're here, talking about ethics, making good points and not being apathetic to the issue. I can be pretty critical. This I know, and it does rub people the wrong way. I do try to minimize it and work toward being less critical in my personal life. This subject is my career and vocation however. So I'll always be critical in this type of venue and I don't pull punches. 

I understand that you are doing your best as we all have to, but for me, part of doing my best is knowing I can always improve on my best over time. 

You also sound like a good parent. 👍 

21 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Do nothing and you can be everyone's friend. But a sure way to make enemies is to attempt to help people.

We can only have a dialogue with the people in front of us. Show me a person doing nothing and see how much more critical we can both be 😆 

Also, I'm not your enemy. Being critical of you or anyone else does not make me your enemy. It just is what it is. It's not like you aren't allowed to also be critical of me and you have been. I don't mind though. It helps.

9 minutes ago, zapatos said:

know someone who runs a dental charity for adults. Pragmatically this person is going to have better outcomes if they get behind providing dental care for kids. But you can only take on so many responsibilities in life. Are you going to criticize them for their charitable work because it did not go far enough?

Nope. However I would take issue if they didn't encourage more people to do the same when they have the chance to do so. I do understand where you are coming from. We do all have limited time and resources. What concerns me, is that others reading some of your comments may be inclined to only do the bare minimum. A really simple example to show what I mean. Four men want to lift a heavy rock. They set up a system of ropes. The system works best when there is one person on the end of each of the four ropes that need to be pulled. But instead of doing this, all four men try to pull on the same rope. The rock does not budge. 

What I mean by this, is that some of your comments could be interpreted as telling everyone to pull on the exact same rope.

33 minutes ago, zapatos said:

By choosing to bike rather than drive you are just choosing an arbitrary line in the sand and saying "anything on my side is virtuous and anything on your side is not." Surely not manufacturing a bike and walking instead is better for the environment

I'm not saying that at all. I'm sorry I have upset you. I didn't mean to offend. My usage of the word "you" before, wasn't intended to be directed solely at you as an individual. 

You are correct though. The metal on my bike needed to be mined, refined and cast. Fossil fuels contributed to the structure and creation of the tires. The same is also true of the shoes I wear to walk and ride. It's a shitty state of affairs for sure. What we all lack, not just in the abortion debate, is a better quality and quantity of choices. How our society is structured, currently leads is into only being able to adopt half measures, ineffective compromises and unavoidable hypocrisy in some instances. I can reduce my carbon footprint. I can't elimate it completely without eliminating myself, as you say. But to not reduce it where we can, leads to us collectively eliminating ourselves and many other creatures we share this planet with. 

In order to really have effective dialogues we have to be willing to state the truth of it all. My criticisms of your means are as valid as your criticisms of mine are. I am not more or less virtuous than you. Even if I believed it was possible for one of us to be more virtuous than the other, I don't know enough about you to be able to say. I could be more in some ways and you in other ways. I'm not blaming you, I'm not saying you are the one holding us back. I am not judging individuals at all. I am judging the society we individuals belong to and contribute to. As a group, we aren't doing enough. We aren't in the right. We aren't virtuous and we aren't good. Even if good individuals exist in our society; collectively we just aren't good enough. This needs to change.

39 minutes ago, zapatos said:

And how is that working out for you? Have you solved the environment crisis yet?

I'm doing the things I can do. I am setting myself up to be able to do more as I live my life. Part of that is trying to convince others to do the same. I'm not going to solve the climate crisis. If it does get solved, it's going to be buy us and we, collectively. If it doesn't get solved, it's us and we again that are responsible. If and when it is time for us all to perish because of our own stupidity, I'll be blaming everyone. That includes myself. I'll say I haven't done enough, you haven't done enough, we haven't done enough. 

53 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Okay, I'm done here. I don't need this crap.

I'm not saying you are the cause or you are the problem. It's that mindset that is the problem and you aren't the only one with it, but you can change your mindset. You are capable of looking at things in a different way, you are capable of questioning yourself and your beliefs to see if they truly are serving you and us well. 

In order to bring us closer to the topic at hand, I have a new question.

Should men be allowed to get a vasectomy or get any procedure or treatment that elimates their sperm? 

What makes a sperm different from an embryo or a zygote?

38 minutes ago, zapatos said:

So the end justifies the means? Too many downsides for me.

I could say the same thing about making abortion illegal. My entire argument revolves around the ends being to reduce the amount of abortions that happen. And pointing out that making abortion illegal is an example of unjustified means. 

40 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Totally disagree. No one is required to go all in. I can be 'pro-environment' without giving away my car. 

And how is that working out for us? I use a bike and public transport. I'd only even buy an electric car when the energy infrastructure enabling it to be manufactured doesn't rely on fossil fuels. I'd also argue that you are definitely not pro-life or pro environment when you put your convenience first. If you aren't willing to go all in, then saying you are pro-life or pro-environment is just talk for the sake of virtue signaling, about virtues you don't even have because you're not willing to behave in a way that reflects them. 

47 minutes ago, zapatos said:

That's is fine. It works for me. Both are stances say 'do the right thing even if the consequences are bad'.

Would you kill in self defense?

Impeaching Donald Trump was indeed the right thing to do, both times. Especially from the consequentialist perspective. Incuring the wrath of his supporters may be a bad consequence, but it's a far better outcome than Trump successfully becoming a fascist dictator. Stopping Donald Trump and his cronies, was a good outcome. 

As far as I'm concerned, trying to claim you did the right thing while not caring about the larger harms done, is just ineffective rationalization to not be held accountable for the things you cause or to justify laziness to not make changes because they are difficult. 

Good intent is a good start, but if the actions betray the intent, then was the intent ever truly there? Anyone can say they have good intentions. But then, everyone is also capable of lying to themselves to protect their self image.

58 minutes ago, zapatos said:

The key is "wanting to", as opposed to "have to". There are only so many tasks we can take on in this world. While I might have time to attend protests against the death penalty, that doesn't mean I also have time to fight for prison reform. 

Yet you have the time to post and comment here? If you have time to have discussions about it in places like this, then you can be part of the ideological fight for these things. Nobody is saying you have to physically show up to protests. I don't tend to because I don't like crowds. We can all do what we are best suited to doing. I'm best suited to having these conversations with people and encouraging them to think about it on a deeper level. 

Since you've made it clear that you have the deontological perspective of right and wrong, what if I say it ought to be a rule that it is always right to try to avoid the worst consequences that cause the most harm? Why can't demonology, utilitarian and consequentialist ethics be used in conjunction with each other as tools to enhance our understanding of right and wrong, instead of the ideological tribalism most engage with? Why can't I value and make use of all three of those types of moral thinking as well as virtue theory?

38 minutes ago, iNow said:

He did, and yet seems full of bile and vitriol and an inability to engage rationally now more than ever. 

Well that's a shame. He'd probably have been kicked out of an ethics classroom by now.

1 hour ago, zapatos said:

Doing the right thing is often important regardless of the consequences.

Some might be inclined to respond to this by saying: Sometimes whether or not a thing is right or wrong, is defined by the consequences. 

1 hour ago, zapatos said:

IMO, it would be hypocritical to back off an anti-abortion stance just because women will seek alternative, riskier options. Similarly, I would not have opposed impeaching Trump as some did, simply because it could have riled up his supporters and put the Democrat's chance at the Presidency at risk.

I don't know that those two things are similar enough to compare like that. I don't see that as a valid equivalence. To the former, I say if you're truly pro-life in an effective and practical way, it's hypocritical to oppose legal abortion when you know the unregulated illegal kind ends more lives. Would be far better for conservatives to just be more open to adopting unwanted children. In every protest outside an abortion clinic, where is the person holding up a sign saying "Let me adopt the child!" Instead of things like "you're going to hell, baby killer!"? The former is helpful, the latter is not. 

That's exactly what me and my wife plan to do when my daughter is a little older. Adopting a child imo is far more pro-life than hurling abuse at women and medical professionals outside of an abortion clinic, sending them death threats or pushing them into the care of unscrupulous opportunistic individuals in a basement armed with a rusty coat hanger and a distinct lack of medical training. 

Being pro-life carries certain responsibilities. You have to actually have a duty of care to life, else the claim is empty. Acting like you care and showing that you care demands the moral consideration of the lives of all beings in balance with each other. 

As for the Trump stuff, again I don't see it as a valid equivalence, but good for you. 

10 minutes ago, MigL said:

Here you are; dishing out advice, yet you can't even fry up some eggs

Very punny 😆 I'll have you know 98% of my omlettes have been perfect. I fucked up and forgot the butter because I complicated the issue by deciding to make the filling, diced beef burgers and garlic mushrooms. All served on a burger bun. Was literally an omlett burger!! Early experiments and first attempts always go bad. Murphys law! Still tasted awesome though! Next time I'll get it right... it also still doesn't come close to what happened when I first made my own scrambled eggs age 8 in a microwave... no word of a lie, they exploded in my face when I put the fork in. 

17 minutes ago, MigL said:

consider Koti a good friend, but I don't believe anybody's standards should be based on Hollywood celebrity types.
Cut him some slack, his bitterness is related to past life experiences.

I didn't really say anything against Koti. Most of my interactions with them here have been pleasant most of the time as far as I can recall. That said, he should try having a kid. My daughter melts away more of my bitterness everyday.

2 hours ago, zapatos said:

Are abusers sick and in need of therapy? Maybe they are but the ones I've seen are bullies or abuse when drinking. Perhaps they are sick, but that is not how they looked to my untrained eye

Some are for sure. I don't know whether or not I believe in true evil. What I didn't say, is to only give them therapy and don't punish them for what they have done. Sometimes punishment is the therapy. Be they bullies or addicts. So long as punishment is in proportion and includes efforts to reduce recidivism. For some, it will take therapy. For the worst, life sentences, especially for the sadists. 

Ultimately you have got to do what works and a one size fits all approach isn't. If you have an untrained eye, then try to train it. You'll make mistakes, I'll make mistakes, but at least we'll give a shit and stand for something at the same time.

Case and point, I fucked up my omlettes. Forgot to butter the damn pan. Mistakes mistakes mistakes.

6 hours ago, TheVat said:

I think many here acknowledge that pro-life and -choice might be compatible, and there was some discussion of the moral obligation of pro-lifers to also support life after birth, an area where many on the Right reveal hypocrisy.

Excellent! This means we'll save some time. Yup. The hypocrisy of the right in this area has definitely marred this subject with heavy bs. Especially during the pandemic when "My body, my choice" was used to justify not getting vaccinated or wearing a mask... even though pregnancy isn't an infectious disease...

Thank you for the summary exactly what I asked for. Glad to be back also!

3 hours ago, zapatos said:

I guess it depends on how you define "pro-choice" and "pro-life". 

If they simply refer to whether or not abortion should outlawed 100% of the time, then 'no', I don't think they can be compatible.

I'm glad you phrased it this way. When I say pro-life, I mean a value for life and encouraging life and an overall desire for less abortions to happen. By this standard, I am pro-life.

When I say pro-choice, I mean a value for a womans freedom to choose whether or not they have to devote a large part of their bodies resources to creating a new life, with a new set of biological needs and an inability to fend for itself. Through defending the right to seek an abortion or an adoption depending on what the individual wants to do. Legal and affordable. By this standard, I am pro-choice also.

So to most, those two values seem.at odds with one another. I want less abortions to happen, but I don't want abortions to be made illegal. 

There is a term I like to use that describes why the same value, expresses itself differently between individuals. So in this case, we are discussing a values modality. 

Now, a woman's motivations for seeking an abortion, are pretty diverse. Some want but can't afford, some can afford but don't want, some are too young, some are too old, for some the pregnancy was forced in some way, for some pregnancy carries a higher risk of death for mother, baby or both at the same time. I probably haven't exhausted the list, so by all means add to it if you wish. It can only help better lay out the different contexts that exist. 

So an ideal of mine, is that less abortions happen overall. Instead of demanding it be made illegal, I would seek to address the quality and number of choices woman with real wombs and couples have when facing this decision. 

One example; addressing abuse in care situations. Orphanages, foster homes, adoptions, all of these need more oversight, scrutiny and the last could also do with a bit of deregulation. It needs to be far easier to adopt, but also far easier for effective oversight of this and keeping children out of unsuitable homes where they are likely to be abused and neglected. 

That's just one area. I'm sure a lot of people can think of more and I have a lot more in mind, but this is getting lengthy. The main point is, you can do things to reduce the amount of abortions that happen, that are truly focused on increasing the quantity and quality of people's choices when expecting a child, without having to ban it. 

Being anti abortion, to me, is the equivalent of only giving a shit about the quantity of new life that is enabled, not the quality of it. It's also about control and sheer laziness and it does not stop abortions. It just sends them underground. The rich will still get abortions when they want, they'll pay a medical professional to do it under the table. Those who can't afford it, will be left to basement dwelling charlatans, witch doctors, or their own imaginations and people will die and maim themselves, who would not have come to harm if they were in a clean, sterilized, legal and well regulated system of pregnancy termination. 

This isn't even a secular vs religious institutions issue either. There is a first ammendment argument for Jewish people to always have the right to an abortion. Rabbinic Judaism has established clear guidelines that when an expecting mothers pregnancy is discovered to be a fatal delivery or pregnancy if carried too long or to term, they must seek to terminate the pregnancy to preserve their own life. 

In Islam, there are actually four different views on abortion. Only one of the positions within Islam calls for outright banning of abortion. It's not even mentioned in the Quran. The views on abortion were born of post-prophet Islamic thought. Most believe that the process of ensoulment, the event where the earthly vessel is deemed ready to contain a soul, is at 16 weeks. 

For most of the history of the USA, abortion was legal. It's only in the last century that new evangelical ideology has condemned the practice completely in all contexts. For all intents and purposes, the length of time that passed in the USA before it was ever made illegal, could be construed as an example of an unenumerated right to be able to seek out an abortion if you wish to do so, unenumerated rights being the topic of interest in the 9th amendment.

Do I think that seeking an abortion could be argued to be immoral in some contexts? Yes. But I think making it illegal would also be immoral. Especially if you are someone who claims to value the sanctity of life. 

1 minute ago, zapatos said:

Yeah, I don't think that is going to happen.

Based on what little I have read of their other comments on this thread, I'm inclined to agree with you. Which is a shame really. Why can't we have these discussions without the motivation for it being a sensationalist celebrity fued? 

The main question in the OP: How best to start including men whom are victims of abuse by women into the public discourse? Ought to be obvious by now.

1. Stop ridiculing men whom are abused by women. While you're at it, stop hurling abuse at women for speaking out about it when they are abused. You can't allow one without the other. 

2. Be more willing to talk about your own abuse, by or against someone else and stand up for abuse victims when people don't have anything constructive or helpful to say about them. 

3. Try to focus less on separating the discussions based on characteristics of identity. Less of this men vs women crap, acknowledging abuse in homosexual relationships is important too.

4. Recognize that abuse is abuse. Whomever the perpetrator is. 

5. Even if you have never suffered from abuse, the best way to include these things in the public discourse... is to be a member of the public, talking about them! Pressuring politicians, local and beyond to take the issue seriously. Prosecution, legislation, affordable mental healthcare, incarceration and rehabilitation. 

6. Consistently give a shit. Stop only giving a shit when it impacts on who may or may not get cast in a movie or TV show. 

7. Leave the door open for forgiveness of those willing to take responsibility for what they have done. Treat abusers as sick and in need of therapy instead of as evil irredeemable bastards who will be torched when found. 

8. Give people claiming to be victims of abuse the benefit of the doubt and don't make your mind up about it based on some stupid celebrity trial that technically isn't even over yet. 

9. Be a nicer and kinder person in general. As an individual we can all make ourselves more approachable. This way we are more open to lending an ear and aid to victims and perpetrators both. (By aid of perpetrators, I don't mean shield from responsibility. I mean enable them to feel safe enough to take responsibility and get the help they need to manage their shit. 

Some of those 9 are easier than others. But then nothing worthwhile is ever easy. Except for making omlettes, super easy but also worthwhile. Okay I'm hungry now.

Can someone help provide me with a brief summary of ground covered in this discussion so far? I will go back and read up as I find the time but a summary would be appreciated. 

Abortion is actually one of my preferred topics for explaining my research in moral philosophy and moral psychology. I could even upload a brief essay and a PowerPoint on this subject. It has a very interesting history and some rather unexpected conflicts within religious circles as well. 

In order to get people thinking about this in a different way, I tend to start of this lesson with the question; Are pro-life and pro-choice stances/beliefs/values mutually exclusive and incompatible with one another, or can a person be both pro-life and pro-choice?

22 minutes ago, CharonY said:

But since then other patterns of abuse have been found and I would suspect that power differentials can be quite difficult to quantify. In this particular context both are public figures and certain common patterns of abuse (including isolation from social networks) did not seem to happen. Just because one is more famous than the other does not mean that they have direct power over the other. In fact, one could interpret the situation between them as an attempt to assert power. 

Agreed. +1.

I suppose this leads me to the question; How does abuse between public figures and abuse between ordinary people differ in presentation and what are the commonalities? Definitely a complicated issue as you say.

I definitely don't think this case is a good starting point to talk about domestic abuse or the abuse men face. Maybe the OP would like to cite some different cases for the discussion to proceed effectively?