"NEVER MIND THE BOLLOCKS", HERE'S THE SIMPLE TRUTH ABOUT ABORTION

[RCSaunders]

You made a claim: welfare does not affect murder rate.

Well, if I did, I was mistaken. It was surely unintended. My intended claim is that the murder rate does not determine one's welfare and I was only using my own case as an example of that. It is not meant to prove anything, except that one's personal experience is not necessarily determined by the murder rate where they live. It never determined mine. I believe it doesn't have to determine anybody's if they choose for it not to and are willing to make the effort required.

[Univalence]

My intended claim is that the murder rate does not determine one's welfare and I was only using my own case as an example of that.

You prospered in your 40s. In 1885 that was your life expectancy.

The murder rate is but one of the variables which contributes to mortality.

Very strange how pneumonia, flu, TB, enteritis and dysentery haven't killed you yet...

[RCSaunders]

The list of examples are those you do not act to prevent.

You are using my inability to prevent ALL of those events to equate it to your unwillingness to prevent ANY of those events.

My limit is resources. Your limit is indifference.

I have acted and continue to act against some of the things you list above. Where I am unable to act directly, I am willing to contribute indirectly with whatever resources I may have at my disposal.

It has nothing to do with willingness. I loath the suffering of others and hate to see anyone be the victim of others, but I do not pretend I can prevent such things in the world, both because I know the limit of my resources and where I am morally obligated (not by some externally imposed moral obligation, but by my nature as a human being) to use my resources. No matter how willing I would be to save the entire world from evil, it is not mine to save and such resources as I have must be used to be the best human being I can be, physically, practically, and intellectually.

By achieving all I can achieve and being an individual who is no threat to any other individual and only interacting with others when it is to our mutual benefit, I am doing all I can to eliminate evil, especially regarding the sphere in which reality makes that possible. Just as you know you cannot realistically and personally save every other individual from harm and must choose where to expend your resources, I have already made that analysis and chosen where to expend my resources to the best effect. What others think of my choices does not matter to me, only the actual consequences of my choices.

I am not advocating such a law, but it seems one would be necessary if government chooses to regulate abortion. If people learn to keep their mouths shut (which most unfortunately do not) how would the government know if someone had an abortion or not?

You seem to be troubled by implementation detail. Your problem-solving process seems all backwards.

If I am mistaken, I apologize, but I thought you believed abortion was a political issue that ought to be regulated by government laws, which means an abortion would be a crime under such laws. How such laws would be enforced then becomes an issue. Would there be an AEA (Anti-abortion Enforcement Agency) to regulate abortion like the DEA enforces drug laws? Would it then be a crime to not report an abortion to the government?

I have no implementation problem, because abortion is not a political issue at all, but an individual moral issue. There should be no government laws regarding abortion.

You have an implementation problem if you advocate laws regulating abortion, and it is a moral problem, involving the question of the government forcing individuals to report to the government.

[Univalence]

It has nothing to do with willingness. I loath the suffering of others and hate to see anyone be the victim of others, but I do not pretend I can prevent such things in the world, both because I know the limit of my resources and where I am morally obligated (not by some externally imposed moral obligation, but by my nature as a human being) to use my resources.

Great. So address the economies of scale issue and division of labour concerns then.

How much of your resources are you currently investing towards medical research and public sanitation?
Since you would't be talking to me right now if it wasn't for those tho factors.

[RCSaunders]

How much of your resources are you currently investing towards medical research and public sanitation?
Since you would't be talking to me right now if it wasn't for those tho factors.

What I'm investing is actually an intrusive question you have no business asking. I thought we were discussing issues and principles. I think your collectivist ideology makes it impossible for you to value the only thing that matters, individual human beings and what they choose, do, and make of themselves.

I have discovered that those who attempt to evaluate everything in collective terms, using floating abstractions like "medical research," without specifying what research one is referring to, or frame everything in terms of the public, society, mankind, or particular collections such as race, ethnicity, religion, or politics, and are very self-righteous about doing something important (which usually means promoting their particular ideology or being involved in some kind of 'activism') and "contributing" to whatever cause they espouse, but actually never have an original idea, invent a useful product, or produce anything of real value that feeds, clothes, educates, or contributes to the health of others. The most common example are all those who feel morally superior because they raise money for some social cause by conning money from those who actually do produce something of value that others are willing pay them for. The best of these so-called social warriors become politicians.

Ultimately the true value or importance in this world is the product of individualists. Please see Only Individuals to see why.

[Univalence]

What I'm investing is actually an intrusive question you have no business asking.

Why is it an intrusive question? I am simply asking you where your resources/attention is aimed at. I am currently investing in computation, precision medicine, bioinformatics, and volunteer policing. I am most definitely NOT investing in road safety, cardiovascular diseases, mental health issues, AIDS, diabetes, heart disease or any of the other top 10 causes of death as of 2018. But somebody is working on those problems. Somebody who's not you or me.

A whole lot of people reduced your mortality by 54%. Did you invest in the solution of that problem? No. But you reap the benefits.

I thought we were discussing issues and principles. I think your collectivist ideology makes it impossible for you to value the only thing that matters, individual human beings and what they choose, do, and make of themselves.

I think your strawman doesn't come even close to understanding system engineering principles.

I am an individual and an individualist. Who understands what a hasty generalization is. I understand why statistical methods only work with large sample sizes e.g collectives.

I also understand that individuals don't exist in vacuums. They exist in societies.

I have discovered that those who attempt to evaluate everything in collective terms,

I have discovered those who fail to understand why the "collectivist" way works are incredibly good at reinventing wheels, and over-stating the significance of anecdotes.

Ultimately the true value or importance in this world is the product of individualists. Please see Only Individuals to see why.

Anything that is even remotely valuable or important is never important only to an individual. It's important to all individuals.
Without the collective - your have nobody to trade with. Nobody to need your ideas.

The individualist/collectivist distinction you've drawn in your head is bullshit

[-1-]

You made a claim: welfare does not affect murder rate.

Well, if I did, I was mistaken. It was surely unintended. My intended claim is that the murder rate does not determine one's welfare and I was only using my own case as an example of that. It is not meant to prove anything, except that one's personal experience is not necessarily determined by the murder rate where they live. It never determined mine. I believe it doesn't have to determine anybody's if they choose for it not to and are willing to make the effort required.

Well, I also went back to earlier posts, and I was mistaken too. Because you did not make the claim I stated you did; you only opposed the claim of (whatever), and that alone did not constitute your making a claim, although what you opposed was a positive claim.

So I was more wrong than you were.

Sorry for the stern voice.

[RCSaunders]

Sorry for the stern voice.

Honesty goes a lot further with me than the tone of one's voice (which you may have noticed I generally ignore), and you are certainly honest. It's what makes sincere discussion possible and interesting.

[RCSaunders]

The individualist/collectivist distinction you've drawn in your head is bullshit

That's what my friends in Venezuela told me about two years ago. You might like it there. It's a collectivist paradise. (I really don't think you'd like it there and hope you don't consider going. I do not wish anything bad for you.) If your collectivist views work out for you, good. They could never work for me, but everybody is different which most collectivists never truly understand.

You also misunderstood the following:

Ultimately the true value or importance in this world is the product of individualists. Please see Only Individuals to see why.

Anything that is even remotely valuable or important is never important only to an individual. It's important to all individuals.

The point has nothing to do with to whom the progress of human discovery and invention is valuable or important, it has to do with who makes those discoveries and inventions possible. Only individuals make them possible. The product of all collective efforts diminishes the value of all things and produces nothing of value. Collectivism is mutual parasitism where ultimately everyone is a loser.

I believe you did not read the article. You might like trying to refute it, but I doubt you can. Just calling something a name is not a refutation.

[Univalence]

That's what my friends in Venezuela told me about two years ago. You might like it there. It's a collectivist paradise. (I really don't think you'd like it there and hope you don't consider going. I do not wish anything bad for you.) If your collectivist views work out for you, good. They could never work for me, but everybody is different which most collectivists never truly understand.

Just another strawman.

I was born in the Eastern Bloc, just in time to see the Berlin wall fall. I assure you, I have Switzerland in mind when I speak of systemic/engineering best practices.

That which you call "collectivism" is the paragon nation for libertarianism in 2019, and there is a whole lot of "collectivism" going on at CERN

Only individuals make them possible. The product of all collective efforts diminishes the value of all things and produces nothing of value. Collectivism is mutual parasitism where ultimately everyone is a loser.

Individuals don't live in a vacuum.

I believe you did not read the article. You might like trying to refute it, but I doubt you can. Just calling something a name is not a refutation.

I did read the article. Of all the names you mentioned. Not a single person worked in a vacuum and started from zero. All of them picked up from where others left off.

Much like (to this day) we talk of Aristotle, Plato and Socrates.

[Belinda]

RCSaunders wrote:

Ultimately the true value or importance in this world is the product of individualists. Please see Only Individuals to see why.

But Madame Curie could not have achieved in any way imaginable had she not been a product of her history as well as her biology.

[-1-]

RCSaunders wrote:

Ultimately the true value or importance in this world is the product of individualists. Please see Only Individuals to see why.

But Madame Curie could not have achieved in any way imaginable had she not been a product of her history as well as her biology.

RCS is undefeatible in this argument, Belinda. But not for what he think he is.

Value is an individual's property. If I find value in something, the next person may not. Therefore value is established by the individual. And who can be more of an individual than an individualist.

Therefore the value (true or other) is the product of individuals, including individualist individuals.

This argument stands undefeatable as long as one accepts that value is a reflection that dwells in each individual independently of other individuals.

[RCSaunders]

RCSaunders wrote:

Ultimately the true value or importance in this world is the product of individualists. Please see Only Individuals to see why.

But Madame Curie could not have achieved in any way imaginable had she not been a product of her history as well as her biology.

Of all the millions of people with the same history and biology as Madame Curie, only Madame Curie accomplished what she did. You may choose to credit her accomplishments to history and biology, I credit it to her own choice to pursue the work and research for which she is famous.

[Univalence]

Of all the millions of people with the same history and biology as Madame Curie, only Madame Curie accomplished what she did.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postdiction

Counting the hits and not the misses

The prediction may be part of a series, but is singled out because it can be favourably interpreted, even if the series itself follows the laws of probability.

From Carl Sagan's baloney detection kit
Observational selection (counting the hits and forgetting the misses).

Cherry Picking
Cherry picking, suppressing evidence, or the fallacy of incomplete evidence is the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position. It is a kind of fallacy of selective attention, the most common example of which is the confirmation bias.

I credit it to her own choice to pursue the work and research for which she is famous.

Her work was her own choice. Her fame wasn't.

[Belinda]

RCSaunders wrote:

Of all the millions of people with the same history and biology as Madame Curie,

The history and biology of any individual is unique to that individual.