This is just the "appeal to emotion" fallacy. Not even dressed up. Just... here it is.

Okay, you've identified the author's appeal to pathos to be used as a corrective to the failures of logic to achieve ethical outcomes. Good for you.

"Questionnaire"
by Wendell Berry
How much poison are you willing
to eat for the success of the free
market and global trade? Please
name your preferred poisons.
For the sake of goodness, how much
evil are you willing to do?
Fill in the following blanks
with the names of your favorite
evils and acts of hatred.
What sacrifices are you prepared
to make for culture and civilization?
Please list the monuments, shrines,
and works of art you would
most willingly destroy.
In the name of patriotism and
the flag, how much of our beloved
land are you willing to desecrate?
List in the following spaces
the mountains, rivers, towns, farms
you could most readily do without.
State briefly the ideas, ideals, or hopes,
the energy sources, the kinds of security;
for which you would kill a child.
Name, please, the children whom
you would be willing to kill.

An appeal to emotion fallacy would be something like, "I don't have an argument or evidence for this, but don't you just feel that I'm right?" This is not quite what the author is doing.

Instead, the author is presupposing that some bad thing (market externalities) exists, and then suggesting that consumers' emotions could be leveraged as a corrective force to that bad thing.

In other words, the author isn't appealing to emotion to make his argument, he's arguing that appealing to emotion can be an effective tactic for influencing human behavior, which I think is inarguably true.

Tell me about all the rational and ethically sound good done "for the children".

As we well know, productive and well-reasoned solutions often come out of base cries for our nebulous progeny.

>the author is presupposing that some bad thing.... he's arguing that appealing to emotion can be an effective tactic for influencing human behavior,

To correct things that he's saying are wrong. "Publishing prices in percentage Child Lives Not Saved corrects a different gap in the information that prices communicate."

Really. It corrects this gap? The author is presuming a problem, in terms of child's lives that could be saved. There's no indication that a single child's life could have been saved and wasn't due to someone not donating to charity, at least in terms of quantifiable evidence. We can all postulate that with infinite wealth, no children would die who could be saved by wealth, but even then, given how charities actually operate, there's no guarantee of that.

So we're riding right past the part where we justify the metric of "child lives not saved" and presuming that children are dying FOR ONLY THE REASON OF people not giving money to the right sources. Couching things in this nature, is appeal to emotion. Literally, "think of the children!"

A more abstract measure, avoiding the fallacy, would be to propose all goods be priced in terms of popular social metrics like "bridges that could be built" or "parks that could be created" etc. Specifically claiming that children are dying due to the action or inaction of the consumer is pure tugging at the heartstrings.

As I see it, anyway.

One example I can think of would be the efforts to eradicate childhood disease through widespread vaccination campaigns. However I wasn't defending the position of the linked piece's original author, simply pointing out that identifying he is appealing to emotion doesn't make his position a fallacy.

I happen to not agree with Wells' suggestion for making it clear that economic costs are entangled with human costs through this particular Swiftian tongue-in-cheek measurement change, but agree with him thematically that the positivism of modern economic practice uses semantics and misdirection to obscure human suffering and moral breaches.

In philosophy, we call this a false dichotomy. It's often used to try to make someone's position look more tenable by essentially saying that the choices are, do as I say, or face unspeakable horrors.

For instance, patriots do not destroy monuments or shrines or works of art. Look at the forces that destroy these things now, and you will see tyrants, authoritarians, anarchists and subversives. The Taliban blowing up statues of Buddha, the activists hurling paint at paintings, those who tear down statues because their regime doesn't want to be reminded of the past, these are not patriots.

Development is required for humanity to grow and thrive, yet it's described as desecration. The unspoken alternative being that humanity die off, for lack of land to cultivate into agricultural gain.

These aren't the choices and presenting the options here, seems to suggest that either the Earth will be "desecrated", and children killed, or people will have culture and civilization.

I think our time would be better spent reminding humanity to be careful how we judge progress, if it's clearly reckless and damaging. As humanity expands, space on Earth becomes less available and we should plan better for an Earth with 10, 20 or 30 billion people on it.

Further, the more we learn about renewable energy, reduced waste and recycling, the better we'll do exploring the universe outside of Earth.

Having been raised Catholic, I have enough guilt, thank you very much.

Earth with 30 billion people sounds horrifying no matter how you slice it. I really hope we stabilize below 10 billion.

What in the utilitarian....

> In philosophy, we call this a false dichotomy.

Technically, you are calling it that. You do not know what other people think.

It is that, but saying it is "just" that is misinformative.

> Really. It corrects this gap?

Perhaps the author was writing somewhat colloquially.

Two can play at that your game:

> The author is presuming a problem, in terms of child's lives that could be saved. There's no indication that a single child's life could have been saved and wasn't due to someone not donating to charity, at least in terms of quantifiable evidence.

Really? There's literally zero evidence in existence in the world? Not just none that you know of, but at all? How did you determine this to be perfectly true?

> So we're riding right past the part where we justify the metric of "child lives not saved" and presuming that children are dying FOR ONLY THE REASON OF people not giving money to the right sources.

When you say "we" are you referring to me? Because I am not engaged in hyperbolic presumption, and I suspect I am not the only one.

> Couching things in this nature, is appeal to emotion. Literally, "think of the children!"

Would that be so bad? If you were in need of help (now, or when you were a child), would you not prefer that some of your fellow humans came to your aid?

How about this: what's your stance on vaccines, and explicitly, what is your reasoning for that stance?

> As I see it, anyway.

Why should we respect this when you didn't respect the qualifying language in the author's piece (did you even see it)?

Classic blame the consumer rather than blame the producer nonsense.

Okay so take the second example they provide. "Saving polar bears would cost X children's lives".

It is absolutely amazing to me that anyone could write this article, include this example, and then continue on to publish it.

They literally rebut themselves, with their own example.

Measuring every good act as a cost in children's lives does not "properly capture the externalities" or whatever hoohah term you want to use. It's literally a weaponized guilt trip to force shortsightedness.

You can follow the logic. Saving a polar bear is obviously worse than saving a child. So is saving an acre of rainforest. So is saving any individual hive of bees. So is preventing any one small impact of global warming.

But writ large, those impacts add up to a world where saving children is more and more and more expensive. Children's lives being worth 4k is not a fixed fact of the universe. It's literally market price. When the world is burning and the only place you can grow corn is northern Siberia, it won't cost us $4k to save a child any more.

Though conveniently for us of course, there will be many fewer children left to save.

Your cruise ship is not powered by the souls of screaming children. Your coffee was not heated with 100% organic child suffering.

Pushing back on individual consumers as though their morning latte is murdering children in Africa is every bit as sick and stupid as blaming individual commuters for global warming. The systems that are ruining the world are not vulnerable to individual action - by design!

No amount of you ordering less coffee will make manipulating impovershed countries less appealing to governments and corporations.

This article is just another in a long list of attempts to pass the buck - to argue that you may not have ruined the world but by golly if you are drinking a coffee right now, you can't complain about a major corporation making children sew t-shirts for pennies!

I haven't read the proposal yet but it sounds like it would just become A Modest Proposal once we fix the value of a child's life to the amount of people its flesh would feed.

Edit: Or worse, the highest bid a cannibalistic gourmet would pay. The higher the price, the less appealing the number of children saved/sacrificed would be, since the high value would lower the number.

[deleted]

So damn corny but it’s a good point

the number of children who die due to human selfishness is very large. It’s not that infinite wealth would save them, but less indifference (as expressed in part through a reduction in selfish consumerism) obviously would

It’s not. Singer’s argument is fundamentally sound, this is just an application of it

You're addressing arguments that I haven't made. Clearly, the author is making assumptions here, you can take issue with them if you wish. I'm simply pointing out that no appeal to emotion fallacy has been committed.

As I see it, the main assumptions the author makes are: A) that saving more childrens' lives is preferable to saving fewer, B) that redirecting more wealth to children's charities will save the lives of more children, and C) that using appeals to emotion can be an effective way to convince people to redirect more wealth to children's charities.

If all of these assumptions are true, then one can logically conclude that appeals to emotion can be used effectively to achieve preferable outcomes. That's the argument the author is making; you can agree or disagree with the premises, but there's no logical fallacy present there.

You seem to be trying to argue that if an appeal to emotion is effective, it isn't a fallacy.

This is incorrect.

Fallacies are actually quite effective as far as rhetorical techniques go. The entire premise of "we should price coffees in fractions of a childs life" is blatantly an appeal to emotion, so much so that even in your attempt to defend it, you gave up on finding a way to word what it is other than calling it an appeal to emotion.

I suppose you could attempt to argue that the author is merely claiming that OTHER PEOPLE should employ the fallacy FOR THEM, but that's pretty absurd. If the author convinces some other person to actually do the appeal to emotion, they still were advocating for the use of the fallacy.

And let’s be honest, corporate and government inaction leads to the vast majority of, to borrow their metaphor, dead children.

I mean, at a local level, you can try to be as conscientious as possible, but at the end of the day, the changes you as a consumer make, when an individual or even small collective, is a drop in the bucket compared to the real source of global change needed to resolve any of this.

Basically the article wants people who are already aware of the problems that plague the world right now to feel even more hopeless.

I look at it like being stuck on a speeding train as a passenger. Sure you could probably get the train to stop if you get every passenger to help stop the train, but the conductor is locked in the engine, with the throttle on full, complaining that the passengers aren’t doing enough, and telling them that they need to do more to slow the train down. And to make matters worse, they’ve got other people on the train convincing majorities of the passengers that either nothing is wrong, nothing can be done, or that they themselves are the sole blame holder.

My heart surgery cost about 1000 African children.

Oh well, I guess is should've just died. My bad.

I say we put this nonsense to bed, there are 2.2bn children on earth and for the very reasonable price of $4k per head (or $8.8 trillion) we can save them all and return our focus to less important matters.

Great idea. Great way to desensitize people. “I’ll get that one, it’s just 10 dead kids more and I want to splurge.”

It actually isn’t. It isn’t using an appeal to emotion in place of the argument. It’s appealing to emotion to communicate the costs of our choices in a way that people can understand intuitively.

When you make a choice, you may not understand its full weight because the costs are too abstract. “If you buy this X pounds of carbon dioxide is released” or whatever. Even though that information may be 100% correct, it may not be in a form such that the consequences of your actions will be communicated to you in a way that you natively understand. For instance, even if it’s true that such amount of CO2 will kill Y many children, you may not realize this if the information isn’t given to you in a form that will make this apparent to you.

Of course this example I’ve used is contrived and the causal mechanism for unloading carbon isn’t simply buying a product, but I think the point I’ve made should be clear enough.

I’d love for it to be that simple.

But no complex system is, and the onus is on all of us to contribute to resolving the problem, and since the true ability to control public policy, on a global scale, is effectively out of the hands of the overwhelmingly vast majority of us because of competing groups that want the power to manipulate everything in their favor, we are basically screwed.

Yes. Sorry, I was just ridiculing the concept by raising the fact that the sum total cost to “save all children” is actually within reach (it’s about 25% more than the US federal governments current year-to-date expenditure).

My bad. Misunderstood your point.

No worries! It was probably too “low effort” for this sub to be completely honest.

> In philosophy, we call this a false dichotomy

Who is "we"? Do you presume to speak for all philosophers?

It’s easy to assume someone may be taking an opposing view of what you say on Reddit these days, given the sheer level of trolling you run across, I made a hasty conclusion.

I’m probably too dumb for this sub myself, but I like to think I’m at least a little bit intellectual on occasion.

[removed]

That is not what this person is saying. They are saying that even though the argument relies on premises that you may disagree with, your issue should be with the premises and not the validity of the argument since there is no fallacy being committed.

“Appeals to emotion can lead us to preferable outcomes” appears to be the author’s conclusion and it’s arrived at without employing an appeal to emotion fallacy despite the fact that the conclusion is about appeals to emotion.

Ironically, you actually make a better argument than the entire article linked - no offense intended.

We do spend absolutely bonkers amounts of money keeping individual people alive, and it is probably true that this is very inefficient on a global scale. But of course, it's much easier to poke at "luxuries" like coffee or vacations than it is to point out that the quality of medical care that some of us are lucky to have access to is so much better than the rest of the world that we might as well live on different planets.

TIL the global economy kills more poor children than there are total children in the world

Wow. That was one of the most laughable articles I've ever read. I'm fluctuating between disgust and awe. Feels strange. Intentions of the author aside, this article is pure art — an absolute satirical masterpiece.

​

>According to the meta-charity GiveWell, the most effective charities can save a child’s life for between 3 and 5,000 US dollars. One way of understanding this figure is that whenever you consider spending that amount of money, one of the things you would be choosing not to spend it on is saving a child’s life. Take the median of the GiveWell figures: $4,000. I propose that prices for all goods and services should be listed in the universal alternative currency of percentage of a Child’s Life Not Saved (%CLNS), as well as their regular prices in Euros, dollars, or whatever

​

Funny, because same Givewell, opposes an “explicit expected-value” (EEV) approach to giving/donation, and believe it to be intuitively problematic. Their conclusion states that "Any approach to decision-making that relies only on rough estimates of expected value – and does not incorporate preferences for better-grounded estimates over shakier estimates – is flawed."

Some of their points:

>- There seems to be nothing in EEV that penalizes relative ignorance or relatively poorly grounded estimates, or rewards investigation and the forming of particularly well grounded estimates. If I can literally save a child I see drowning by ruining a $1000 suit, but in the same moment I make a wild guess that this $1000 could save 2 lives if put toward medical research, EEV seems to indicate that I should opt for the latter. >- Because of this, a world in which people acted based on EEV would seem to be problematic in various ways. > - In such a world, it seems that nearly all altruists would put nearly all of their resources toward helping people they knew little about, rather than helping themselves, their families and their communities. I believe that the world would be worse off if people behaved in this way, or at least if they took it to an extreme. (There are always more people you know little about than people you know well, and EEV estimates of how much good you can do for people you don’t know seem likely to have higher variance than EEV estimates of how much good you can do for people you do know. Therefore, it seems likely that the highest-EEV action directed at people you don’t know will have higher EEV than the highest-EEV action directed at people you do know.) > - In such a world, when people decided that a particular endeavor/action had outstandingly high EEV, there would (too often) be no justification for costly skeptical inquiry of this endeavor/action. For example, say that people were trying to manipulate the weather; that someone hypothesized that they had no power for such manipulation; and that the EEV of trying to manipulate the weather was much higher than the EEV of other things that could be done with the same resources. It would be difficult to justify a costly investigation of the “trying to manipulate the weather is a waste of time” hypothesis in this framework. Yet it seems that when people are valuing one action far above others, based on thin information, this is the time when skeptical inquiry is needed most. And more generally, it seems that challenging and investigating our most firmly held, “high-estimated-probability” beliefs – even when doing so has been costly – has been quite beneficial to society. >- Related: giving based on EEV seems to create bad incentives. EEV doesn’t seem to allow rewarding charities for transparency or penalizing them for opacity: it simply recommends giving to the charity with the highest estimated expected value, regardless of how well-grounded the estimate is. Therefore, in a world in which most donors used EEV to give, charities would have every incentive to announce that they were focusing on the highest expected-value programs, without disclosing any details of their operations that might show they were achieving less value than theoretical estimates said they ought to be.

For their full reasoning and objections, here's the article: Why we can’t take expected value estimates literally (even when they’re unbiased).

​

Back to the posted article...

​

>The justification for this would be to fix a gap in the way the price system functions. Normally we make our consumption decisions entirely in terms of a consideration of how much we want something and how much we can afford, a matter of prudence only. As economists have analysed, such exercises in constrained maximisation are all we need do to enjoy a flourishing economy since by responding to prices we automatically take into account the social cost to others of resources being used for what we want rather than for something else (so long as some wise and non-self-interested government steps in to correct for externalities).

​

Ah, the rational choice theory of economics. The theory that assumes people always act rationally, are emotionally exempt, culturally homogenous, identical in values, and remain in a state of conscious logical processing unaffected by unconscious impulses or natural biases. Presented as a fact that underlies consumption, and not just a gross simplification used to create economic models of questionable real-world value.

​

>Lots of people have nice-sounding ideas about what we should do or care about to make the world better. Unfortunately many of their proposals display a lack of quantitative thinking, which makes their proposals very hard to evaluate.

​

Yeah, this idea doesn't sound nice at all, and it also displays a lack of quantitative thinking. However, I will say, it is very very easy to evaluate.

To be fair, hospital pricing is kind of a game where the hospital says, for a completely fictional example, that fixing the valve in my heart costs 327k dollars. And then the insurance says, nah, we'll give you 20k. And the hospital says okay.

So really it cost 20k but the hospital inflated the cost so that, should I turn out to be a deadbeat, then can deduct 327k as a loss or charity or whatever.

Determining the actual cost of saving a life is difficult work.

It seems like emotional blackmail - using fear, intimidation, obligation, duty, guilt, and shame for coercive control.

Of course, absolutely - that's the point of arguments like this. They all, ultimately, boil down to well paid stooges trying to convince you that you have an equal share of culpability and blame for the horrors of the world.

The goal of this article isn't to convince you to buy one less coffee. It's not to convince you to go on less cruises. The goal of this article is to make it so the next time you read an article about how Apple is forging iPhones directly out of the bones of orphans and kittens or whatever, you just go "meh but I can't complain or I'd be a hypocrite", as if your morning cup of coffee has made you morally equal to a board of directors who have done the math and figured out that if they throw literal babies into a literal wood chipper, they'll sell 2% more iPhones next year.

The funniest part is that this article is trying to make an economic argument without even pausing to consider that since aid programs are underfunded, they are obviously serving the most easily saved children first.

Each child doesn't cost exactly the same amount of money to save, and the current estimates presumably are based on trying to save the most easily saved children.

I bet you that number doubles or triples or quadruples real fast, once you actually start seriously spending money on it.

>For instance, even if it’s true that such amount of CO2 will kill Y many children, you may not realize this if the information isn’t given to you in a form that will make this apparent to you.

The argument being made is that CO2 will kill children, when there's no indication that this is the case at all. While one might weigh purchasing a product vs releasing CO2 (which is a very strange way of looking at it, as the product is already created), we bypass the scientific argument around how CO2 kills children and instead appeal to your emotions.

You may as well say "For every time you vote Democrat, you kill a child. How many children are you willing to kill to satisfy your own need to feel like a social justice warrior hero?"

it's an appeal to emotion.

>A) that saving more childrens' lives is preferable to saving fewer, B) that redirecting more wealth to children's charities will save the lives of more children

This is the appeal to emotion. There's no argument that connects those two things. As I said in another discussion in this thread, you may as well couch this decision in terms of

A. Saving children's lives is preferable to not.

B. Voting Republican saves more children's lives.

And then just arguing that saying "vote Republican to save children's lives" is an effective way to convince people to vote Republican. The inference being that voting Republican is the way to save children's lives.

This isn't established by the author, it's just another Woke Kult pamphlet talking point put out by Marxists.

>Two can play at that your game:

I think you presumed my game was taking the words so literally as to sacrifice their meaning for some semantic argument.

You were wrong. When the author said "it corrects this gap" what they meant was, "it attempts to correct this gap", which is what I was arguing against.

>Would that be so bad?

Yes. Because it reframes the entire conversation toward the human instinct to use an abundance of caution around their offspring. Including children in the narrative, such as "poisoning our drinking water with X amount of toxin Y which is over Z legal amount is bad for everyone, but even more so for children as they're smaller and more susceptible to lower levels of toxins than adults" is fine. It has all the elements required. Amounts, legal limits, some scientific, quantifiable data that can be argued against. Simply saying "voting for this bill will murder children" is an appeal to emotion. It offers no evidence that can be argued with and presumes you're either in favor of murdering children or you're on the side of the author.

Well, lucky for me they wrote it down.

You misread my comment. I was worried you’d take this route; that’s why I put my last paragraph in. It’s to show the reasoning even though I’m aware the example has flaws. I’m too tired to come up with one that will be easier to understand.

It’s an appeal to emotion, but it’s not used in place of an argument. That is, it’s not fallacious. You seem to be suggesting that the writer is using the emotional bit in place of an argument demonstrating that such actions do actually kill children. If you think that that’s what’s happening, you’re misunderstanding the point. That is not at all what he’s saying. The “scientific” argument is a premise on which his argument relies. You can dispute that premise, but he’s not arguing that this premise is true using an appeal to emotion.

[removed]

Some unluckiness: there is no single implementation of an algorithm to test that against novel internet propositions - all we have are human "algorithms" that tend to be implemented using heuristics, and the possessor of the heuristic has little insight into its operation, and typically has low if not negative interest in whether their algorithm is sound.

> I think you presumed my game was taking the words so literally as to sacrifice their meaning for some semantic argument. > > > > You were wrong.

I presume you were identifying anything that could be legitimately considered erroneous - and it isn't that you were flawed in that regard (I technically agree with you), it's that you accompanied it by similarly flawed text of your own.

> When the author said "it corrects this gap" what they meant was, "it attempts to correct this gap", which is what I was arguing against.

I think that's not just fair, but righteous! But in this case I have two issues:

1. Your accompanying flaws (as noted)

2. I happen to have a fairly strong personal opinion about this particular topic, and as a consequence I think you and I are optimizing for different variables. In this case, I would say you are behaving how I would normally behave, and I am behaving anomalously to my normal approach - I think I may well qualify for some kind of criticism based on that, but would need to think about it a bit.

> Yes. Because it reframes the entire conversation toward the human instinct to use an abundance of caution around their offspring. Including children in the narrative, such as "poisoning our drinking water with X amount of toxin Y which is over Z legal amount is bad for everyone, but even more so for children as they're smaller and more susceptible to lower levels of toxins than adults" is fine. It has all the elements required. Amounts, legal limits, some scientific, quantifiable data that can be argued against. Simply saying "voting for this bill will murder children" is an appeal to emotion. It offers no evidence that can be argued with and presumes you're either in favor of murdering children or you're on the side of the author.

I do not disagree at all, but in this case, I consider that a feature rather than a bug.

If you think about it: is the particular manner(s) in which wealth is allocated in exchange for labour/assets (including national assets like minerals) not more than a little (at least) arbitrary, inconsistent, and of *at least questionable fairness? It's true that these things are subjective, but that goes both ways.

And then on top of it, there's the element of ~power (which comes in many forms, the media being a particularly noteworthy one), distorting things even further.

I happen to disagree with you on principle on this particular issue, but your argument is excellent and enjoyable to read, so I absolutely must upvote you if I'd like to get a good sleep tonight! I may even RES tag you in hopes that I may be somewhat less of a dick next time we have an encounter. :)

why is saving a polar bear obviously worse than saving a child?

>Your accompanying flaws (as noted)

The "flaws" you pointed out were all basically saying that the most literal translation could be said to be untrue. Again, this was not what I was trying to do with the author. I use tons of literary license. Eh? You like that? Tons. That sentence just keeps on giving.

>If you think about it: is the particular manner(s) in which wealth is allocated in exchange for labour/assets (including national assets like minerals) not more than a little (at least) arbitrary, inconsistent, and of *at least questionable fairness?

I've often found myself criticizing how we determine who's wealthy or popular in our society, but it's a far cry from that to "vote Republican or you're killing children" or "don't buy this or you're killing children."

In fact, not buying goods may cause layoffs would cause lack of health insurance in some households which may lead to the death of children. In short, anything you do MIGHT lead to the death of children. Suggesting that there's some choice you can make, which is conveniently "do what I want you to do", that will result in no children dying, is an appeal to emotion. As I see it anyway.

So, your argument seems to be that since it "could" be false, it's false?

> he’s not arguing that this premise is true using an appeal to emotion.

He is. He's using it as a premise for his argument. SINCE purchasing products have a cost in children's lives, we SHOULD label products in those terms to correct the gap in knowledge of the consumer, is essentially what he's saying.

Instead of arguing THAT purchasing products has a cost in children's lives, we're directly appealing to the emotional element of "save the children". Another poster put up some kind of poem or quote much more effectively putting forth the sentiment of the article. How many rivers and towns for progress, the false dichotomy of capitalism vs the Earth, etc.

We've skipped over the argument and gone directly to how many children are you going to kill with your consumerism.

I did the "which would I shoot in the head" test.

If you handed me a pistol and made me shoot either a polar bear or a five year old, I'd shoot the polar bear 100% of the time.

hm same I guess

No, that would be your heuristic interpretation.

My argument is contained within the text of my comment - interpret it literally and you should be able to come up with a closer version.

(I guess my plan to be nice to you didn't work lol)

“He’s using it as a premise for his argument.” Yes. Exactly. He’s not arguing that such premise is true, though. That’s the whole point. He’s starting with that premise. Which is not the same as arguing for it.

You are actually making my point for me. We’ve skipped over that argument because that’s not what the article is aimed at. If you have an issue with the premise, that’s different from saying that the argument relying on the premise is using a fallacy. Even then, he doesn’t even give an argument for that premise; he just assumes it.

Because he gives no argument supporting the premise, the fact that you think he made an appeal to emotion to defend it says that you are finding things that you either have bad reading comprehension skills or you’re a mind-reader of some sorts. You’re just assuming he made an appeal to emotion in an argument that is no where to be found. Either way, if you don’t understand why you’re wrong yet, you’re not going to.

> The "flaws" you pointed out were all basically saying that the most literal translation could be said to be untrue. Again, this was not what I was trying to do with the author. I use tons of literary license. Eh? You like that? Tons. That sentence just keeps on giving.

It is excellent!

> I've often found myself criticizing how we determine who's wealthy or popular in our society, but it's a far cry from that to "vote Republican or you're killing children" or "don't buy this or you're killing children."

I am an extremist (or, very open to the principle of it at least), so I am a-ok with spreading death around much more evenly. At the very least, I think it can be persuasive. Children (of all colors) >>> Western Boomers in my books.

> In fact, not buying goods may cause layoffs would cause lack of health insurance in some households which may lead to the death of children. In short, anything you do MIGHT lead to the death of children.

True. But then, we can acknowledge that the future is predictable/probabilistic, or we can pretend it is a total mystery.

> Suggesting that there's some choice you can make, which is conveniently "do what I want you to do", that will result in no children dying, is an appeal to emotion. As I see it anyway.

We're told we have control over our destiny (via Democracy, our most sacred institution), but I happen to not buy it. So as long as our leaders are ok with playing make believe, I'm ok in principle with engaging in extreme experimentation (including deceit) in pursuit of improving things for children and the underprivileged, globally. And if some Very Bad Luck befalls Westerners - too bad, so sad...after all: that's "just the way it is, nothing can be done, don't worry things will get better in time, just be patient". I'm sure some charts can be found that are moving from the lower left to the upper right, indicating that All is Well - would be fun to see if they buy that so easily when the shoe is on the other foot.

/rant

> If you have an issue with the premise, that’s different from saying that the argument relying on the premise is using a fallacy.

This is going to be my last post on this because one of us is having an issue understanding this. He's not saying that appeals to emotion, in the abstract, are a good way to motivate people.

He's saying specifically that we should couch purchasing (and capitalism itself) in terms of dead children. It is his choice of using dead children that is appeal to emotion. He is saying, not only is it justified, it's righteous.

There are a lot of things wrong with the argument. False premise, false dichotomy, etc, but the choice to couch everything in terms of "dead children" is, on its face, an appeal to emotion.

You said your peace, I said mine. As far as I'm concerned, we're done.

>No, that would be your heuristic interpretation.

Is that your heuristic interpretation of my interpretation?

I’m getting the last word because I’m correct about this. I know it’s an appeal to emotion, but it’s not used instead of an argument. That’s what an appeal to emotion fallacy is. I’m not even saying this argument is good; I’m pointing out that you’re misidentifying a fallacy. Goodbye.

In part, but I am working from a much more advantageous position than you: I have ~direct access to my mind, yours is virtual (or at least: much more virtual).

> Children (of all colors) >>> Western Boomers in my books.

This flies in the face of the laws of nature. Survival of the fittest. By taking ideas and processes that fail and elevating them over processes that produce "unequal" results, you're choosing failure as your condition for excellence.

I don't think I'm on board with that. Also not on board with racism or ageism.

>we can acknowledge that the future is predictable/probabilistic, or we can pretend it is a total mystery.

I see the merit in raging against the dying of the light, but recognize that one often meets his destiny on the road he takes to avoid it.

>We're told we have control over our destiny

We're told we have an influence on our destiny through our actions. Not control.

>I'm ok in principle with engaging in extreme experimentation (including deceit) in pursuit of improving things for children and the underprivileged,

This is why I dislike the far left and far right. The supervillain proposition. Everyone is stupid but me, I see things clearly, therefore it's OK for me to fool or coerce everyone on the planet to my will. Think of a bad name in history, he/she probably felt the same way.

>In part, but I am working from a much more advantageous position than you: I have ~direct access to my mind, yours is virtual (or at least:
>
>much more virtual).

Or you could just restate it more clearly instead of going off on this infinite loop of abstract obfuscation.

I'm getting the last word because I'm petty.

You're wrong, it absolutely is attempting to push people to action out of an appeal to emotion. This is how appeal to emotion works all the time. Did you see an argument for "purchasing equals dead children"? You did not. What you saw was because purchasing equals dead children, we should....

That is appeal to emotion. And I posted last therefore I am correct. /s

> This flies in the face of the laws of nature. Survival of the fittest.

People can be rendered unfit pretty easily - people in the Middle East have a fair amount of experience with that principle. Would be a shame if such a fate befell us over here some day.

> I don't think I'm on board with that. Also not on board with racism or ageism.

Your support is appreciated, but not required.

> I see the merit in raging against the dying of the light, but recognize that one often meets his destiny on the road he takes to avoid it.

Sometimes. And sometimes one's destiny is set by other people (like the people "the West" drops bombs on, or the people that were not so lucky to make it out of the twin towers, or the people who died as a consequence of some lunatic refusing to get a vaccine - so terribly sorry about that, better luck next time!).

> We're told we have an influence on our destiny through our actions. Not control.

Close enough for this domain, imho.

Besides, the whole "democracy" illusion gives me near infinite fuel to sustain rage for the rest of my life.

> This is why I dislike the far left and far right. The supervillain proposition. Everyone is stupid but me, I see things clearly, therefore it's OK for me to fool or coerce everyone on the planet to my will. Think of a bad name in history, he/she probably felt the same way.

Oh, I know I'm not thinking "clearly" here - I think a good target to aim for is the clarity of thinking that the personnel in the US War Machine have when doing their dirty work - clear, but with very carefully drawn limits such that one can achieve one's goals: determine the destiny of certain people, whether they like it or not. As the saying goes: "One good turn deserves another!"

It's a fair point!

But then, this is Reddit - expecting seriousness on this platform is perhaps not a great idea, and behaving seriously is...."not popular", to put it nicely.

I mean this as criticism, but not insult, if you would be kind enough to indulge my splitting hairs. The kind of thing that I'm hearing in your post is exactly the kind of thing that would cause one to fail a psych eval.

1. Preoccupation with "righting perceived injustice" regardless of cost.
2. Authoritarian declarations.
3. Reductionist and uncharitable accounts of history and people's choices, especially describing freedom of personal choice as lunacy.
4. Expression of rage.
5. Expressing desire to turn thought into violent action to achieve a stated "manifesto" or political goal.

All of this causes me some concern.

Look at my comment history and post history. Clearly being "popular" isn't even in my top 20.

Yes, it is trying to get people to act out of an appeal to emotion. But that’s not a fallacy. His argument, if you understand it, is about using emotion to drive action. But that isn’t fallacious. “We should do this because people respond to emotion” isn’t using an emotional appeal to make the arguments, it is making an argument about emotional appeals.

I’ve repeated this over and over and you still don’t get it. You are just completely ignoring the whole point of everything I’ve said.

“Did you see an argument for purchasing equals deal children?” No, because, like I’ve said over and over, the argument assumes that to be true already, whether it is or not. Read my comments again if that helps.

>I’m getting the last word because I’m correct about this.

Seriously, I was just testing to see if you were going to respond to my "last word" response.

>No, because, like I’ve said over and over, the argument assumes that to be true already, whether it is or not.

Which is how appeal to emotion works. It takes the focus off of "is this true" and puts it on "out of an abundance of caution surrounding our children, we should do this thing, because THINK OF THE CHILDREN".

Every, single appeal to emotion argument works this way.

OK. Have the last word.

Edit: for clarity, what I'm saying is that there's no effective difference between replacing the argument for something with an appeal to emotion and using it as an unproven premise.

Haha, fair enough!

Yes, they typically work that way, but again, this article doesn’t have to deal with the premise explicitly in order to not commit a fallacy. “Look they didn’t explicitly defend a premise, therefore they must be trying to pull a fast one! Didn’t fool me because I can identify fallacies correctly!”

Hey, well like Mr. HST would say: when the going gets weird, the weird turn pro.

I don't think it is too big of a burden to bear to think about such things now and then, we're all philosophers here after all. And a little artistry more often wouldn't kill us, I don't think.

And it's not exactly off the topic of the thread either I would say. Or is it?

>And a little artistry more often wouldn't kill us, I don't think.

It isn't artistry that I'm worried about killing anyone.

I find it interesting that what amounts to a "some assembly required" kit of call to violence manifesto is justified by the concept that an EA microtransaction is somehow, in some butterfly wings effect, responsible for deaths of children in the third world and proof of some oppression hierarchy built on genocidal white supremacy or some such.

I feel like the philosophically minded might find this ironic.

This is a great way to create resentment for children in poorer countries who need "saving".

> It isn't artistry that I'm worried about killing anyone.

Why not? If one was to peruse the history books, I think you'd find art's fingerprints all over the place. Consider something as recent as COVID: I presume you subscribe to the theory that vaccines save lives, and that conspiracy theorists' stories contributed to a non-trivial amounts of death (due to the believers of these stories not getting vaccinated as a consequence of ingesting them into their minds). If you read some of these stories, are they not often incredibly artistic, with their passionate descriptions of "reality" and calls to action, creative stretching of the truth, and various other common artistic flairs?

And never mind the conspiracy theorists - how about the mainstream, "responsible and trustworthy" journalism/messaging - did this not also utilize many(!) of the very same techniques, if perhaps with a bit more (on a relative scale anyways, which is how humans perceive reality as luck would have it) epistemic quality to them?

To me, the situation is clear:

• our whole world runs on stories

• all good stories contain artistry

Is it not so?

And if so, should we then not perhaps be at least a little curious about why some just-so stories consistently get the official seal of approval and other just-so stories consistently get the seal of "fake news", when a skilful deconstruction and epistemic analysis of the respective stories would quickly reveal that none of the stories really "add up" comprehensively, and whoever is doing the "official" (despite no vote being held on the matter) categorization is "a little biased"? I mean, come on: there are literally lives at stake here, is some seriousness not warranted?

> > > > I find it interesting that what amounts to a "some assembly required" kit of call to violence manifesto....

Nice.

> ...is justified by the concept that an EA microtransaction is somehow, in some butterfly wings effect, responsible for deaths of children in the third world and proof of some oppression hierarchy built on genocidal white supremacy or some such.

Hold up now....what are you getting at here? Firstly, I don't think I accused anyone of being responsible for any of this. My words were descriptive in nature, I was only describing plausible cause and effect relationships (correlations), I wasn't saying that anyone was necessarily at fault. I mean, think about it: who says that the way things are isn't right, if not righteous? My claim is more so that it is....non-beautiful, and perhaps(!) some other negative things, and I also concede there are many upsides (for us anyways) to this particular way of doing things.

Furthermore, I have no idea what you're referring to with an "EA microtransaction" bearing responsibility for death (what's the cause and effect relationship there?), or anything about proof(!) of "genocidal white supremacy" (I can agree substantially with the "oppression hierarchy" part though).

These are slippery rocks we're walking on, we should choose our words carefully lest confusion beset us, just as our wise leaders do when they are broadcasting into people's minds "how things are" in the world (which at least plausibly influences the way they act in the world, both on an individual and collective basis, and so forth and so on).

> > > > I feel like the philosophically minded might find this ironic.

It seems almost certain, especially if one considers the widespread (ubiquitous?) phenomenon where two minds can observe literally the same thing and come away with extremely confident but completely different knowledge (just ask them, they'll tell you with complete sincerity) about what it was they saw.

That's my take on it anyways - thoughts?

Thoughts?

I just have a lot of them. First, I wonder who you were on Reddit before OCT 2020.

Second, all of Covid is a land war in Asia. It's nearly impossible to comment on the conflict without embroiling yourself in a 5 front war. The problem is that it has been politicized, with Trump pushing for vaccines and Democrats saying that they wouldn't trust them, then switching roles once Biden came to power. Thusly anything you have to say about the vaccines or mandates, pro or con, there's a healthy stockpile of argument and fact that can be used to support your position and it would take forever to unravel that.

Third, the very essence of the discussion was regarding how purchases have a cost in children's lives, so I'm dubious regarding your confusion as to why this is being brought up.

Fourth, humans have an amazing ability at storytelling which has served them for both news and entertainment for quite a while. Humanity also has the arrogance, imagination, bigotry and creativity to manufacture such irresponsible and damaging lies as to divide the greatest nations on the planet.

And lastly, I'm concerned. That's all. Just concerned.

> First, I wonder who you were on Reddit before OCT 2020.

Why? Do you think (just speculating here) that I might be one of those Russian Trolls that I've been hearing so much about? It's certainly possible, that's for sure. And, The Experts have advised us to be on high alert for such goings on. Now I'm not making any accusations here, I'm just saying: it adds up (where "it" is the prospect that I am likely to be a Russian Troll, in that "I" check the necessary boxes, thus it is reasonable to form that conclusion).

> Second, all of Covid is a land war in Asia. It's nearly impossible to comment on the conflict without embroiling yourself in a 5 front war. The problem is that it has been politicized, with Trump pushing for vaccines and Democrats saying that they wouldn't trust them, then switching roles once Biden came to power. Thusly anything you have to say about the vaccines or mandates, pro or con, there's a healthy stockpile of argument and fact that can be used to support your position and it would take forever to unravel that.

Mostly agree, and can't help noticing: isn't it a bit weird? Like, if you were running this show, is the way that it is being run equal to the way that you would run it?

To be clear: I certainly understand that "mistakes happen", especially when things are moving fast - but things weren't moving all that fast before covid ("normal", mostly), and when one realizes there are mistakes/flaws in a system (say, your population is ~dumb, to the point of being highly prone to suggestion), is it not standard convention to address those mistakes? But when you look around, is it not substantially true that there is an absolute truckload of obvious, bi-partisan, non-controversial flaws in our system, and most of them get lip service, at best (if aid to starving children doesn't float your boat (it is rather socialist, to be fair), how about something as simple as single payer medical care, an issue that is both important and is one of those very rare items that has bi-partisan political support, at least among the population of this democracy we live in)? At worst, they get obviously distorted coverage, or not mentioned at all (not to open an ontological can of epistemic worms or anything, just musing). I dunno about you, but I can't shake the feeling that there's maybe something....not-entirely-organic about the whole package.

> Third, the very essence of the discussion was regarding how purchases have a cost in children's lives, so I'm dubious regarding your confusion as to why this is being brought up.

Oh that. Well, I'm of the belief that humanity, particularly "The West", optimizes for numerous(!) variables over and above the happiness of overall humanity. On one hand, this is an extremely unpopular theory, but then on the other hand, I am far from the only person who subscribes to it. In fact, it isn't even all that difficult to find politicians from either party singing the praises of such ideas! And yet, there tends to be not a lot of follow through on these ideas, or even serious, in-depth discussion. It's probably nothing, of course, but it's one of those ideas that sits in the back of the mind and makes you wonder - do know what I am saying, sir?

> Fourth, humans have an amazing ability at storytelling which has served them for both news and entertainment for quite a while.

Indeed - we even get stories in this very subreddit "now and then", often accompanied by an insistence that thinking in stories is the only acceptable approach - and this is a philosophy subreddit!

> Humanity also has the arrogance, imagination, bigotry and creativity to manufacture such irresponsible and damaging lies as to divide the greatest nations on the planet.

Too true, too true.

> And lastly, I'm concerned. That's all. Just concerned.

Well you should be!

I'm curious though: exactly what is it that you are concerned about? And I might as well ask in advance (you know me!): how confident are you that what you are worrying about is what you should be worrying about? I mean, do we humans even have a sophisticated (and legitimate, accurate(!), etc) methodology for determining what we should be worried about?

And if not:

• why not?

• what are we using, in fact, as an alternative?

>I might be one of those Russian Trolls that I've been hearing so much about?

Not Russian. I see a lot of people who behave badly on Reddit get banned and come back with new accounts. It makes me wary (and weary if I'm honest) of anyone who's account is less than 3 years old but also participates in political or philosophical discussion.

>maybe something....not-entirely-organic about the whole package.

I think this is patently obvious to the most casual observer. Unfortunately most people are stupid and easily manipulated. One of the easiest things to convince people of is that they're smart and hard to manipulate.

>I'm of the belief that humanity, particularly "The West", optimizes for numerous(!) variables over and above the happiness of overall humanity.

There are still a bunch of governments and cultures competing on Earth. The suggestion that they should just "give up" and start working for global good, while all Star Trek universe greater good and all that, is unrealistic. Governments, economic systems and cultures compete. In fact, if they didn't, humanity wouldn't prosper; at least this version of humanity.

Governments are not moral entities. Not to say that they cannot act morally or immorally, but a government has a responsibility that surpasses individual morality. You, can individually make a decision to give up your lunch to a stranger who has nothing to eat. You cannot morally decide to give up the lunch of your children to a stranger who has nothing to eat. When you MUST SURVIVE (and governments must, foremost, survive) and further you must aim for the benefit of the largest group, it isn't a morality that guides you, but principles of success. There is room for morality only when there is surplus.

> I mean, do we humans even have a sophisticated (and legitimate, accurate(!), etc) methodology for determining what we should be worried about?

Look, a purely philosophical question. I like those.

Nearly every animal on the planet has developed some mechanism to recognize and cope with danger. Are they all legitimate? Accurate? Etc? To varying degrees.

To answer philosophically, it doesn't matter. The inevitability of death means that, success or failure will be washed away in 200 years anyway. From the perspective of the individual, well, they will have no perspective.

But a slightly less solipsist or existentialist perspective, you have the lab, the workshop and the field. I try to be an introspective person, dissecting my failures and trying to turn them into lessons to be learned for success. I try to test out my philosophy and methodology for approaching complex situations using forums such as Reddit and spirited conversation with strangers IRL. I also practically apply the underpinning principals I've learned through practical exercises in the real world.

I suppose, each person's ability to do these things varies in accordance with how much importance they're likely to place on the reliability of those tools.

> Not Russian.

Is that knowledge, or merely belief? (I couldn't resist.)

> I see a lot of people who behave badly on Reddit get banned and come back with new accounts. It makes me wary (and weary if I'm honest) of anyone who's account is less than 3 years old but also participates in political or philosophical discussion.

I heard a rumour once that people sometimes get their Reddit accounts deleted for discussing "non-sanctioned" topics. No idea how true it is, but the manner in which freedom of speech is implemented on Reddit and social media in general is....interesting.

> I think this is patently obvious to the most casual observer. Unfortunately most people are stupid and easily manipulated. One of the easiest things to convince people of is that they're smart and hard to manipulate.

Fair enough....but all the people? Like, why does there seem to be nobody that is interested in doing something? Is this not weird on its own, let alone in an environment where most people are involved in doing things at least 8 hours per day, 5 days per week? At the very least, is the dearth of novel ideas in this particular area not rather inconsistent with the whole?

> There are still a bunch of governments and cultures competing on Earth.

A weird detail in itself, from a more absolute perspective anyways.

> The suggestion that they should just "give up" and start working for global good, while all Star Trek universe greater good and all that, is unrealistic.

Give up? Star Trek? Sir: are you referring to something I've said? Because I certainly don't believe in anything like that.

Not only do I not peddle false dichotomies, I am a bitter enemy of them - if I had my way (could you imagine, lol), I would ban them from being used at all!

> Governments, economic systems and cultures compete.

An extraordinarily (I kid, I kid) nice way of looking at it!

> In fact, if they didn't, humanity wouldn't prosper; at least this version of humanity.

Perhaps. But then simultaneously, have we not also been instructed that cooperation is, in fact, The Way to Go? (Well, at least abstractly instructed.)

> Governments are not moral entities.

No argument here! 😂

> Not to say that they cannot act morally or immorally, but a government has a responsibility that surpasses individual morality.

I suppose - but then: by what methodology are the lines drawn? And, do you and I get any say in this, really?

> You, can individually make a decision to give up your lunch to a stranger who has nothing to eat. You cannot morally decide to give up the lunch of your children to a stranger who has nothing to eat.

Are morals objective? Or worse: what is the nature of their existence, in fact? What if morals are mostly just more stories we tell ourselves so we can "make it through the night"?

Also: how well does this methodology scale? To what degree is it optimal? Has it been decided upon democratically (I'm using an extremely literal sense of the word here, not the more popular colloquial meaning)?

> When you MUST SURVIVE (and governments must, foremost, survive)....

Seems reasonably accurate.

> ...and further you must aim for the benefit of the largest group...

This seems....less so, to the degree of wandering into not just wrong territory, but backwards.

> ...it isn't a morality that guides you, but principles of success.

Is "success" objective? Do you and I get any say on the algorithm that calculates "success"? What about dying babies, do they get any say (or, their parents, since babies are typically too dumb to have a substantial opinion, even leaving aside that the babies in question may not being operating at peak cognition, what with their caloric deficit, combined with the fact that the brain consumes ~20% of the body's energy)?

> There is room for morality only when there is surplus.

I suppose. But then: what if humanity never reaches surplus, or is unable to realize (lack of training?) when they have? I mean: do we even have a way of detecting that state? Do we even have a definition?

If you're subtly hinting that I'm a Russian bot, either for pure amusement or some kind of probing, I can tell you that I am definitely not. And that's правда I mean, TRUTH! Truth is what I meant.

I have had several individuals develop an obsession with me and follow me around Reddit with alts harassing me personally, so I can tell you it wasn't because of leftist censorship, which has become rampant on Reddit.

I think people don't "do" anything because they're efficiently divided and apathetic. The problem is that the ruling class has kept trying to squeeze every last drop of wealth for themselves and the Marxist have stepped up their game which includes disruption of the basic services of the masses which is far more quickly going to push people to conflict than abortion rights or arguments over people's naughty bits.

You were speaking about how the west optimizes for itself over the world. I was just commenting that yes, of course it does. It's competing with the rest of the world. We're not one global entity. We're individual countries. Cooperation is useful but problematic in the long run as a countries needs and leadership change.

The morality of man is, of course, as subjective as the experience of men. This is why we often attempt to lash it to the observable truth we can agree on. More and more we're seeing a greater amount of fog and shadow being artificially pumped into the world's optics by those who benefit from the obfuscation of morality, making it just as morally deplorable to prevent someone from killing a child as to kill the child yourself.

Which is why appeals to emotion, false dichotomies, and false premises are more common than grounded argument, because they're cheap and effective on the masses who feel themselves more intelligent due to their programming in university. The same people who can't answer basic questions about geography or history or even why they're calling someone racist or voting for someone are the ones gorilla glued to the notion that they're intellectually superior.

So when we measure success in terms of government, we once again attempt to bolt it to the observable reality that we share. Unfortunately we have 10K resolution on this reality now, where before we were 8 bits on a good day. So there were far fewer metrics to compare and winners were more easily decided. I'm not certain the high res view is helping, unless people are going to uncharacteristically shift to being more clear about what exactly they mean, which I severely doubt.

> If you're subtly hinting that I'm a Russian bot, either for pure amusement or some kind of probing, I can tell you that I am definitely not. And that's правда I mean, TRUTH! Truth is what I meant.

Ah, Truth. Glad that's all settled then - we shan't speak another word if it.

> I have had several individuals develop an obsession with me and follow me around Reddit with alts harassing me personally, so I can tell you it wasn't because of leftist censorship, which has become rampant on Reddit.

Oh, don't get me started on Redditors - I know the type.

> I think people don't "do" anything because they're efficiently divided and apathetic. The problem is that the ruling class has kept trying to squeeze every last drop of wealth for themselves and the Marxist have stepped up their game which includes disruption of the basic services of the masses which is far more quickly going to push people to conflict than abortion rights or arguments over people's naughty bits.

Efficiently divided? Ruling class? Squeeze every last drop of wealth for themselves? Disruption of the basic services of the masses? Push people to conflict?

Sir: are you a conspiracy theorist? I ask because advisories have also indicated that we should be On The Lookout for these types of people as well. We've settled the Russian Troll possibility, if it isn't too much trouble, I'd also like to ensure I'm dealing with someone who is speaking In Good Faith (which all Conspiracy Theorists are not, as I assume you well know).

Again: not pointing any fingers, just being On Guard, according to standard protocol.

> You were speaking about how the west optimizes for itself over the world. I was just commenting that yes, of course it does.

What do you mean here by "of course it does"?

> It's competing with the rest of the world.

I thought we were All One People - different races and creeds, of course, but ultimately the same. Is this not True?

> We're not one global entity. We're individual countries.

Are the two mutually exclusive?

> Cooperation is useful but problematic in the long run as a countries needs and leadership change.

Is this a comprehensive list of the underlying reasons, or something more like the top two items from a list sorted by objective causal importance?

> The morality of man is, of course, as subjective as the experience of men. This is why we often attempt to lash it to the observable truth we can agree on.

Observable truth? Is this something like when people say "X is True, because it is clear that it is True"?

> More and more we're seeing a greater amount of fog and shadow being artificially pumped into the world's optics by those who benefit from the obfuscation of morality, making it just as morally deplorable to prevent someone from killing a child as to kill the child yourself.

Now that you point it out, people do seem to behave in a logically inconsistent manner, at least "now and then" anyways. I wonder: could there be more to this theory?

> Which is why appeals to emotion, false dichotomies, and false premises are more common than grounded argument, because they're cheap and effective on the masses who feel themselves more intelligent due to their programming in university. The same people who can't answer basic questions about geography or history or even why they're calling someone racist or voting for someone are the ones gorilla glued to the notion that they're intellectually superior.

Despite sounding a bit conspiratorial, this simultaneously does seem rather true. I feel conflicted on what to believe.

> > > > So when we measure success in terms of government, we once again attempt to bolt it to the observable reality that we share.

When you say "measure", are you speaking literally, or colloquially? (See also: "success", and "government")

> Unfortunately we have 10K resolution on this reality now, where before we were 8 bits on a good day.

Resolution: "the number of pixels contained in each frame".

Hmmmmm....I wonder how well this two-dimensional analogy maps to the ontological nature of reality.

> So there were far fewer metrics to compare and winners were more easily decided.

Speaking of comparing metrics: who decides which metrics make the cut, and which....do not?

And, who is it who is doing the "deciding"?

> I'm not certain the high res view is helping, unless people are going to uncharacteristically shift to being more clear about what exactly they mean, which I severely doubt.

I can't really disagree (much) with your anecdotes, reasoning, or conclusion. It makes me wonder: could it be that we are "doing it wrong", or at least: far from optimally? But then, I haven't really heard any of The Experts mention the notion, so clearly my suspicions are likely to be unsound. But still, something seems.....off.

No, it's your hard earned African children so you can choose how to spend them obviously.

So if I manage to save 100 children's lives, rather than just getting gratitude, can I now cap and trade that to a company who pollutes a river and get one of those new Ford Bronco's or something?

But remember, kids of different races and national origins won't all be worth the same economic value because of our shitty species being what it is.

Some are more like a quarter, some will be a dime or nickel and then you got your pennies.

Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:

>Be Respectful

>Comments which consist of personal attacks will be removed. Users with a history of such comments may be banned. Slurs, racism, and bigotry are absolutely not permitted.

Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

No I have exploited the global south in order to earn my wealth.

I'm going to give back the heart valve.

Each brand of crazy has their own pejoratives they like to employ to identify themselves. "Conspiracy theory" and "election denier" are left wing terms. Given that we are currently living through a time where the left has total control of their side of the corporate media to the point where it's unsettling how in lock step they are and there are so few right wing news sources, the terms are nearly meaningless. The difference between news and conspiracy theory seems to be about 6 months.

A key element to the leftist news center is to push for this "one Earth" globalism. Certainly, at some point in the future, we need to have a winner in this culture war, but I doubt that will ever completely unite humanity. It is in our nature to be diverse, and in diversity there is conflict and competition. This is why I said "THIS" version of humanity.

We currently have only our subjective experiences and a great deal of skepticism as to the capacity of others to accurately report their subjective experiences of reality. Political ideology often replaces individual morals, creating a situation where key indicators of the success or failure of society are tailor made to the strengths of that political ideology, instead of more universally accepted standards. This is why that one post of yours caused such great concern, because this disconnect with reality grows over time, more often than not, leading to a point where individuals feel that they must do something to "take back the power" from what the perceive are bad faith actors operating as a force of evil in the world.

Humanity takes a long time to evolve, and it is our very nature that rallies against success, causing each great empire to rot from within in this ever divisive madness we create for ourselves. The only way forward that I can see is to take the clear, concise arguments put forth by those who represent each side and have open, honest conversations about our motivations and goals.

Unfortunately, I see no clear, concise representatives from the far right or far left. I only see clowns and shills and actors exploiting the conflict for personal gain.

> Each brand of crazy has their own pejoratives they like to employ to identify themselves. "Conspiracy theory" and "election denier" are left wing terms. Given that we are currently living through a time where the left has total control of their side of the corporate media to the point where it's unsettling how in lock step they are and there are so few right wing news sources, the terms are nearly meaningless.

The shit quality of right wing sources is amazing - as dumb as leftist takes on it are, it's also kinda hard to blame them for their conclusions, all things considered.

> The difference between news and conspiracy theory seems to be about 6 months.

~True, and interesting.

> > > > A key element to the leftist news center is to push for this "one Earth" globalism. Certainly, at some point in the future, we need to have a winner in this culture war, but I doubt that will ever completely unite humanity. It is in our nature to be diverse, and in diversity there is conflict and competition. This is why I said "THIS" version of humanity.

The insistence on and denial of diversity (while simultaneously celebrating, that "which doesn't exist") is.....weird. But then, it perhaps shouldn't be too surprising either.

Some form of unity is possible, but figuring out the optimal parameters could be tricky. But if no one ever tries, it seems unlikely to succeed.

> We currently have only our subjective experiences and a great deal of skepticism as to the capacity of others to accurately report their subjective experiences of reality.

Not trying to improve on a situation doesn't help things.

> Political ideology often replaces individual morals, creating a situation where key indicators of the success or failure of society are tailor made to the strengths of that political ideology, instead of more universally accepted standards. This is why that one post of yours caused such great concern....

Mission accomplished then!

> ...because this disconnect with reality grows over time, more often than not, leading to a point where individuals feel that they must do something to "take back the power" from what the perceive are bad faith actors operating as a force of evil in the world.

Do you think these individuals have formed an incorrect belief?

> > > > Humanity takes a long time to evolve....

In some ways yes, in other ways no.

Consider how quickly beliefs can be normalized (to the degree that they are, in respective camps (usually two)) - COVID and the Ukraine war are fine examples.

> ...and it is our very nature that rallies against success, causing each great empire to rot from within in this ever divisive madness we create for ourselves.

Might the excess of bad prevent one from seeing the good though?

> The only way forward that I can see is to take the clear, concise arguments put forth by those who represent each side and have open, honest conversations about our motivations and goals.

It seems like a no brainer. Funny no one tries it eh?

(Note the PM I sent you.)

> Unfortunately, I see no clear, concise representatives from the far right or far left. I only see clowns and shills and actors exploiting the conflict for personal gain.

I see "good" candidates on a daily basis - I propose that we are surrounded by them, but cannot see.

r/politics in r/philosophy