Paul_Funyun
No bio...
User ID: 942
Paul_Funyun
1yr ago
Using AI controlled infrared lasers to blind people. The AI looks for people's eyes and when it detects them, it aims the laser and gives the eyes enough of a blast to roast them. Being infrared makes it difficult to know where it's coming from, it turns a combatant into a permanent liability, and the threat of one of these sitting around would be psychologically damaging. It's fairly cheap, non-lethal, and could be deployed in all kinds of ways (mount it on a drone, a small stationary platform collaborators could put in their windows, whatever).
Paul_Funyun
2yr ago
Premise one is a big problem, and accepting it is where you went wrong. A couple of arguments you might put out there:
A) An obligation not to racially select friends is self-defeating. Anti-black racist Howard goes to school with Jamaal, a black guy. "Jamaal isn't a potential friend - too black," thinks Howard. Normally, he never reconsiders after ruling out potential friends. But remembering his obligation, he puts Howard back into the 'potential friend' camp, and they eventually become friends. The reason Howard and Jamaal are friends is only because of Jamaal's race. Had Jamaal been of any other race, being written off as a potential friend would be the end of it. The obligation not to racially select friends forced him to racially select a friend. There are two ways to object to this, both of which undermine the argument about partners.
a) Potential friends aren't friends, and the obligation is not to select friends by race: Then the same goes for sex, and ruling out potential partners isn't problematic.
b) It's really an obligation not to have preferences of this kind: Accepting that Premise 1 and Premise 2 are analogous, Ought implies can; people can't avoid having sexual preferences, and sexual preferences aren't something people can voluntarily change. Thus, people can't be obligated not to have or to change their sexual preferences.
Another avenue to attack the argument is to deny that premise 2 is analogous to premise 1.
B) Granting Premise 1 for the sake of debate, premise two is not analogous. While obligation may come into the formation of friendships, no person is obligated to consent to sex with somebody else, for any reason. Therefore, the obligations described in premise two are false. Worse, they're harmful, legitimizing traditions of marital rape and homophobia wherein the sexual autonomy and dignity of women and LGBT persons are trampled in the name of moral obligation. That "No means no" outweighs any argument about the legitimacy of the refuser's preferences.
Paul_Funyun
2yr ago
I find the arguments against moral obligations towards non-existing persons convincing, so I embrace whatever solution is best for the people of today.
Paul_Funyun
2yr ago
Whoever wrote this copypasta is terrible at tolerating ambiguity. It reads like a kid throwing a temper tantrum because the guests at his birthday party aren't eating pizza the right way. No consumption is so mindless as letting someone else understand it for you. If adults are looking for role-models in cartoons they've got more pressing worries than people watching Rick and Morty wrong.
I believe the Shakers themselves stopped accepting converts. The incentive for bad actors to convert is too great with the numbers this low and the age of current members. For example, a cynic might license the "Shaker seal of approval" to furniture companies or the like. I believe they've got some decent real estate as well. I toyed with the idea of joining but it seems like too much hassle for the novelty of maybe being head of a 300 year old religious group someday, which was my interest in it.
Just set it to not intentionally roast the eyes worse than 20/200. Some accidents may happen, but that's war. If they've got binoculars or sunglasses, they're probably fair game for a full on blast by my reading of the 'rules.'
More options
Context Copy link