What's your highest career aspiration? What's your highest personal aspiration?
AMA: Bsh
Posts
Total:
155
-->
@Ramshutu
Shhhhhhhhhhhh! Don't say that outloud!
-->
@Swagnarok
Federal elected or Senate-confirmed office. Marry a great guy and have 5 kids without going crazy or getting divorced.
What's your ideal man?
-->
@David
What's your ideal man?
Physically: 6'1" or taller, washboard abs, broad shoulders, good biceps, deep but smooth voice, dark hair (maybe black hair with green eyes), tan, athletic thighs, and 6-8" where it counts. I'm not into super muscled guys; I don't want a bodybuilder physique. Something natural but fit.
In terms of other traits, I would prefer someone who is college-educated, emotionally available (lets me vent and supports me when I'm upset [is talkative]--that's a big one for me), kind, protective (but not weirdly so), willing to cope with my general laziness, dog-loving, better at math than me, willing to debate philosophy and politics without getting personal, puts up with flashes of anger/frustration, gets my sense of humor, wants kids, would be supportive if I ran for office, is in to cuddling and PDA, more organized than me, and is generally quite thoughtful and romantic. I am a sucker for romance, thoughtfulness, cuddling, and emotional availability/supportiveness. I also want someone who is dominant and assertive without being overbearing, controlling, dismissive of my views, or degrading.
Also, obviously, we'd need to be compatible in the bedroom too.
-->
@bsh1
All good stuff :D
-->
@David
Hbu?
-->
@bsh1
My ideal man is one who is outgoing, one who is intelligent, one who appreciates a good intellectual conversation, and who would love me and support me despite my disabilities.
I'm definitely childfree. I don't want kids. Not now and not ever. That would be a big deal breaker for me.
-->
@David
Ah, cool.
-->
@David
I am the ideal man and would like to work with a clone of myself but I'd be very sexually incompatible with myself so there's the dilemma.
Anyway, bsh1:
What makes you order your favourites how you do in things? What drives you to like them? Is it pure emotion or part reasoning or what?
-->
@bsh1
(1) Why do you think rivers and forests have personhood?I am starting to come around to the notion that eating meat is probably immoral, but that doesn't mean I plan to stop (tu quoque, I guess). I am even starting to embrace positions like personhood for rivers and forests. Dairy and eggs are separate issues--I don't think that milk and egg consumption (much like the use of wool in coats or eating honey) is immoral to the extent that their harvesting does not harm the animals involved and to the extent that the eggs are sterile or non-viable.
(2) I mean -- you'd be really hard-pressed to find dairy or eggs that didn't involve significant amounts of abuse. Their harvesting almost certainly harms the animals. Male chicks are routinely killed in egg farms; hens are locked up in cages, have their sensitive beaks chopped off, etc. Similar levels of abuse in the dairy industry.
I would probably prioritize the economy and social justice. While I believe the argument from marginal cases is viable, I don't think it definitively establishes that the interests of humans possessing meaningful agency do not outweigh the interests of animals. So, I would prioritize those humans' welfare, but I would still factor animal rights issues into my vote.
I agree that the argument from marginal cases would still agree that human interests outweigh animal interests. However, if infants or severely mentally enfeebled people -- who the argument for marginal cases specifically argues have moral interests that are equivalent to animals -- were killed and eaten, I'd imagine most people would make it their #1 priority political issue.
-->
@bsh1
Do you think gun rights deter violent crime? If not, why not? If yes, why do you think that is outweighed by gun-related deaths?I'd be down for just banning private ownership of guns, period (though I would allow state-owned gun clubs to lease guns for short durations and only for certain purposes). But, if that weren't an option, it would be easier to tell you what I would permit: owning a rifle or shot gun capable of firing no more than 6 shots before needing to be reloaded. The firearms would have to be stored separately from the ammunition, and both the ammunition and the firearms would need to be stored in locked compartments. Gunowners would need to submit to three random inspections a year to verify that they are storing the firearms correctly. Gunowners would need to pass, once every five years, a gun safety and use assessment. Every gunowner would need to pass a background check and a mental health check administered by a panel of psychiatrists. Every ten years the background check and mental health check would need to be repeated.
-->
@Tejretics
Eating meat only becomes immoral when we can cheaply and completely replicate the high quality versions of it in a lab, and it only becomes unethical if the person has easy access to the cheap artificially created version of meat. We are animals and we live in a brutal world on the edge of chaos, despite denying this by becoming seperated from the brutality. Most of us are seperated from having to see a battlefield and be their while troops defend our national interests, most of us are shielded from seeing the parts of our own society, we put the police and courts in charge of blinding us from, most of us pay to have others kill, de feather and chop up our food so it is no longer recognizable as an animal. Don't let the fact we have willfully blinded ourelves from the brutality of the world serve as proof the world is not brutal. Do not let the fact the brutality makes you uneasy, fool you into thinking brutality is unethical. We currently need that brutality to survive. Maybe one day we won't but I doubt it, we'll just continually become further removed from the brutality until we can convince ourselves it does not and should not exist.
-->
@Tejretics
(1) Why do you think rivers and forests have personhood?
If you look at my debate with RM over the environment, you'll see the eco-monism argument I make there. I found that incredibly persuasive. Plus, I should clarify that I mean legal personhood, like corporations.
I will say that once meat can be produced abuse-free in labs (like grown in a petri dish), it would probably be morally permissible to consume.
(2) I mean -- you'd be really hard-pressed to find dairy or eggs that didn't involve significant amounts of abuse. Their harvesting almost certainly harms the animals. Male chicks are routinely killed in egg farms; hens are locked up in cages, have their sensitive beaks chopped off, etc. Similar levels of abuse in the dairy industry.
I could concede all of that and still not find their consumption wrong on principle. I certainly think that ethical farming practices need to be enforced through laws.
-->
@RationalMadman
Depends on the things...What makes you order your favourites how you do in things? What drives you to like them? Is it pure emotion or part reasoning or what?
-->
@bsh1
Whiteflame simply didn't understand my counter-case to monoist morality. You can tell everyone you were the better persuader but not enough votes are there to truly sample-size who actually was the better debater or made the better case. Whiteflame is left-wing and severely biased, he is only good at voting due to detail not removing bias.
-->
@Tejretics
Do you think gun rights deter violent crime? If not, why not? If yes, why do you think that is outweighed by gun-related deaths?
I don't think they deter crime. There are a bunch of reasons why this is the case, including that guns are often high-value merchandise that thieves and robbers want to steal (so a gun can attract criminals to your house or person), guns ownership and possession encourages crimes of passion and rash decision-making (people often shoot first, think later), and homicide rates (comparing Europe to N. America) show that lower rates of gun ownership correlate with fewer murders.
-->
@RationalMadman
I was not saying anything about YOUR arguments, RM. I was only saying that I found the argument highly persuasive, and I found it highly persuasive before our debate.
-->
@RationalMadman
Whiteflame might be left-wing (slightly left-of-center, to be more precise), but I've seen no evidence of his bias.Whiteflame is left-wing and severely biased, he is only good at voting due to detail not removing bias.
-->
@Tejretics
THAT IS BECAUSE YOU ARE EVEN MORE BIASED AND LEFT THAN HIM
-->
@Tejretics
Did any of my responses help?
-->
@bsh1
The one on gun control gave me a lot of interesting reading, for sure.
-->
@Tejretics
If I may, why are you going through this phase of revisiting views.
I'd be happy to debate some of these topics with you if that might help.
-->
@bsh1
Just thought it would be useful for me to do that. I think it's very healthy.
-->
@Tejretics
Cool beans.
-->
@bsh1
Did you read 20,000 Leagues Under The Sea and feel the unspoken homoerotic tension between Captain Nemo and Professor Aronnax. Bow-chick a-bow-wow.
-->
@Castin
I've never read that book :(
Who is the Greatseal to you?
-->
@bsh1
Why is this not in personal?
-->
@Vaarka
I was tempted to make a gay joke, but instead I'll say this: "Why aren't you in the personal section?!"