The "small steps" comment was me.

The shift described in the overton window is the shift in the perception of normal.

If 5 steps down are taken, then the window shifts, followed by another 5 downward steps, you're still down 10 steps from where you started.

Well, it seems people are upset that I wasnt receptive to a non sequitur and it seems like I won't be getting an actual answer to my question.

Doesn't mean I have to be rude and perpetuate that behaviour so here is my answer.

Do you think the Nazis killing around 800,000 Roma was natural selection?

Yes

Do you think the Tuskegee experiments were natural selection?

Also yes

If you didn't answer my question because you didn't understand why I was asking I'll explain.

Please note, your question was not about correctness or morality it was natural vs artificial, if you want to ask about morals and ethics at least mention the words in the question.

We are part of nature so the things we do are also natural, despite our cognitive differences from other species I think that to consider ourselves somehow outside the bounds of nature is the height of arrogance.

The relevance in this context, is that AI is a technology being aggressively forced on people by the most powerful in society.

Agreed, another in a long line of attempts to control the general populace by taking something we already use and monopolising control to sell it back to us (as long as we do as we're told)

Knowledge in this case.

Eugenicists love to appeal to nature to justify their actions.

I think this might be a general point and not aimed at me specifically, but I'll answer it just in case.

I'm not trying to use nature to excuse atrocities, as part of our natural evolution we've constructed these concepts as tools for our societies, so to use "being natural" as a way to somehow divorce ourselves from them is a nonsensical argument.

The biggest difference i noticed was that they changed it from an FPS to a rhythm game with an FPS coating.

Demon Patapon.

Don't get me wrong, it's not bad, just different.

ooh, i think genotypal might be what i was thinking of.

Where phenotypal is a mixture of environmental and genetic expression , genotypal would be exclusively the part derived from genetics.

Would genotypal typically include epigenetics as well or only the fixed DNA based parts?

ok, so no word of a lie, i saw your comment, look at the name, read it as "fascistBasis" and I’m like dayum, they be self identifying and everything nowadays.

then realised my mistake.

Sure, that seems about right and the link is interesting.

I was just saying it's not a common excuse for cops in the UK (right now).

I'm going to add

• "My morality is the only correct morality"
• "I said lol, because I’m so right it's laughable"

to the shortcuts, to save more time.

Depends on the circumstances but yes, intent is what matters the most, it’s just harder to see than actions. It’s important to double check the info before you go around murdering innocents, lol.

• "I said lol, because I’m so right it's laughable"

Ok, i was wrong here, you didn't dodge entirely, you acknowledged intent as a thing here and then completely ignored it in your following replies.

But I assume many of these just wanted the money that came with it and said “fuck morals, fuck relevant information”.

• "i genuinely in (good or more likely bad) faith don’t understand that viewpoints other than my own can be exist and/or be correct”
• "My morality is the only correct morality"

Again, ignoring that there are people that believe what they are doing is just and moral.

The Americans who signed up to kill brown people in the Middle East in the early 00s fall into this category, for example. Would they be exempted? Of course not, they like everyone else had the duty to act right, and they like everyone else knew murder was wrong (in the information era who can claim ignorance when it comes to the guidance of the prophets? Everything is freely available online, you either care or you don’t) and they still went ahead for whatever reason.

• "My morality is the only correct morality"
• "i genuinely in (good or more likely bad) faith don’t understand that viewpoints other than my own can be exist and/or be correct”
• “the baseline moral standard you should all be adhering to should be the same as mine”

Should’ve double checked! But they weren’t too stupid to get it, just intellectually lazy and overall uncaring, and disregarding that responsibility and then committing atrocities is enough to land you in Hell, especially if you never repent. Will the leaders have a harsher sentence? Definitely.

• "My morality is the only correct morality"
• "i genuinely in (good or more likely bad) faith don’t understand that viewpoints other than my own can be exist and/or be correct”
• “the baseline moral standard you should all be adhering to should be the same as mine”

Again, you keep on mentioning viewpoints but you still haven’t provided a single one you stand by that I don’t and that directly contradicts the TC (whilst also being morally right, ofc, I doubt you want to pronounce yourself a villain).

• "My morality is the only correct morality"
• "i genuinely in (good or more likely bad) faith don’t understand that viewpoints other than my own can be exist and/or be correct”
• “the baseline moral standard you should all be adhering to should be the same as mine”

I already told you why, i don't think there is a interesting conversation about comparative viewpoints to be had with someone who uses "because some things just are" or "because god said so" as actual arguments.

There's generally no room for any other viewpoint with such a person, it'd just be wasted breath.

Or, more succinctly, There's no good way to discuss reason with someone who isn't using it.

You yourself agree with them besides the ones that involve the Creator…

Unfounded assumptions.

Especially seeing as you claimed, immediately before this, that i haven’t given any of my own viewpoints.

And how could I interpret 1 as 0 unless I’m just blind and my opinion should be disregarded?

• “Feigned Ignorance”
• “My interpretation is correct”
• "i genuinely in (good or more likely bad) faith don’t understand that viewpoints other than my own can be exist and/or be correct”

How could I interpret “don’t kill” as “kill if they’re brown/if they have things you like/if you feel like it”? How can anyone?

• “My interpretation is correct”
• "i genuinely in (good or more likely bad) faith don’t understand that viewpoints other than my own can be exist and/or be correct”

Nobody was aksing you to, all i said was that snot all interpretations match your own.

Which interpretation of the TC can give you something that goes squarely against the literal meanings of these phrases ?

There is a whole thread of examples here, find one yourself.

I really don’t know what you’re saying and I’m not feigning ignorance, I think you just have a fundamental misunderstanding of people and reality.

• “Feigned Ignorance”
• “My interpretation is correct”
• "i genuinely in (good or more likely bad) faith don’t understand that viewpoints other than my own can be exist and/or be correct”

You believe in gravity (and something in your tummy feels funny when you look from a balcony on the 12th floor), I believe in God, His judgement, the moral duty He has imposed on us and Heaven and Hell as our final destinations (and I also feel something when I transgress,

• “My interpretation is correct”
• "i genuinely in (good or more likely bad) faith don’t understand that viewpoints other than my own can be exist and/or be correct”

I believe in the scientific theory of the effects of what we call gravity, until something else comes up to change that belief.

Your belief is faith because there is no proof.

I have no problem with faith, as long as it's not imposed upon others.

everyone does at the beginning, then they either learn to pay attention to it or ignore it).

• "My morality is the only correct morality"
• "i genuinely in (good or more likely bad) faith don’t understand that viewpoints other than my own can be exist and/or be correct”
• “the baseline moral standard you should all be adhering to should be the same as mine”

And just like you wouldn’t jump out of a building unless you lost your mind because you would end up flattened, so would I and everyone on my side not commit great transgressions because we know what will happen.

• “My interpretation is correct”
• "My morality is the only correct morality"
• "i genuinely in (good or more likely bad) faith don’t understand that viewpoints other than my own can be exist and/or be correct”
• “the baseline moral standard you should all be adhering to should be the same as mine”

Perhaps you have a moment of insanity, idk, for whatever biological reason something in your brain just malfunctions… well, as soon as you come down from it you’d greatly repent your actions, make amends, seek solutions for this insanity, maybe even get yourself locked up so you don’t do it again!

• "My morality is the only correct morality"
• "i genuinely in (good or more likely bad) faith don’t understand that viewpoints other than my own can be exist and/or be correct”
• “the baseline moral standard you should all be adhering to should be the same as mine”

But, again, most people don’t just randomly murder or rape when their whole lives they didn’t even punch anyone.

Agreed.

But as you've repeatedly demonstrated, you refuse to (or simply can't) acknowledge that there are people who do those things because they think it is right to do so.

And those who do and claim to believe in something that disagrees with it, like the TC, are simply lying about their beliefs.

• “Feigned Ignorance”
• “My interpretation is correct”
• "i genuinely in (good or more likely bad) faith don’t understand that viewpoints other than my own can be exist and/or be correct”
• “the baseline moral standard you should all be adhering to should be the same as mine”

They have and they will continue doing it because some people are just too dumb to realize it and they have no morals so it’s completely win-win for them.

• “Feigned Ignorance”
• “My interpretation is correct”
• "i genuinely in (good or more likely bad) faith don’t understand that viewpoints other than my own can be exist and/or be correct”
• “the baseline moral standard you should all be adhering to should be the same as mine”

wow , that really is a timesaver.

You didn’t refute how I explained your interpretation of their sentence, even said it would have made more sense if structured like that. I pointed out that this interpretation requires them to contradict themself. You said it’s right there in their reply. If “it” isn’t the contradiction, then what is “it? What is your interpretation of what they said? Did they contradict themself?

I didn't realise i was supposed to be refuting it, but here it is:

“I can [seriously say with a straight face that the solution to homelessness is something other than providing free housing]. Providing free housing solves the problem, but a more comprehensive solution is to provide free housing and assistance.”

Should be

“I can [seriously say with a straight face that the solution to homelessness is something other than providing free housing]. Providing free housing solves some of the problem, but a more comprehensive solution is to provide free housing and assistance.”

The second half of the reply is modifier to the first (i previously said addition/clarification, modifier is better)

Basically my point is: you are arguing that their message has a contradiction in it. You are arguing that they both stated that they believe or otherwise “can say with a straight face” that a housing only solution does not solve the homelessness problem, and that they believe it can solve the housing solution but not as well as adding assistance. That is a contradiction.

I'm not, and i quote:

If they were two completely separate statements made at different times i might also consider them to be at odds (it would probably depend on the context) but as they are contiguous I’m reading it as a statement followed by a clarification.

You are ignoring their use of the words ‘combination’ and ‘and’, interpreting their statement as an ‘or’ logically where ‘housing only’ OR ‘housing only with assistance works’. They literally said assistance and housing, with emphasis on and. You turned that and into an or by conflating their reasoning for their position as a clarification of what they meant.

Not really.

Though i see what you mean about it not matching exactly what was said.

I'm counting the refutation of the original Housing Only premise as a partial argument for the implication of a Housing + [1..*] solution.

Partly taking in to account the variety of additional things suggested as implying an etc. rather than things being a finite list because the first part and second part have different numbers of additional things listed.

I can see how that might just be my specific interpretation though.

And their hypothesis, argument, or logical statement is: Housing AND assistance is what will solve homelessness.

I think what i've done here is read "assistance" as an undefined length list of additional things including the ones specified, rather than just the defined list provided.

My bad.

Assumptions aren’t a bad thing, just don’t assume bad things.

I would take all assumptions to be neutral until proven, if i start applying morality to assumptions it might interfere with my ability to verify those assumptions. That goes for both "good" and "bad".

Where how and when ?

I said the context was about that, rather than what other tools could be used to do the same thing.

I never claimed a position on whether that has or has not occurred.

Im pretty sure the issue was incompetence rather than malice. But if you have something that proove malice i would love to see it

I have not stated a position on that, so I have nothing to defend or prove.

Though I will say that tacit endorsement in this case doesn't. require malice, just inaction.

Claims of action don't count until proven.

Ah, so it's a mutual block but initiated from one side.

Thanks.

I think knowing that these voters base their position on abortion on the belief that it is murder hurts your position so it’s better not to answer. Or you just don’t know them that well and really have no idea.

I mean, i've no idea because it's never happened, you also have no idea.

You can assure me it's true all you want, your assurances mean nothing to me if they don't make any sense.

The argument that these voters’ position on abortion (and therefore their votes) are based on race necessarily requires that they are aware of the statistics.

It does not, at all.

A decision can easily be based on a belief, an understanding of relevant statistical values isn't required.

If the claim is they vote this way because it disproportionately harms minorities, how do they know it disproportionately harms minorities?

That's not the claim, the claim is "Some people vote this way , wholly or partially because they think it disproportionately harms minorities"

They probably don't know , they may think it does, or hope it does, or not care at all either way.

There are of course people who are voting solely on their opinion of "baby murder is bad", nobody is or has been arguing otherwise.

You are arguing race isn't a factor, i am arguing that that's an impossible position to defend and no "All the people i know aren't racist" doesn't count as a valid defense.

But I’m glad we agree that they do not know that.

Common ground is a good basis for understanding.

I genuinely have no idea if it's an option for you or if it'd even help but for 10/11 days of relative isolation you could try vipassana

Not sure what the northern US wait times are like, but you generally need to book ahead.

It's free, it works on a volunteer basis, no idea how if it works for people with no fixed abode but proof of residence was not required where i am.

Do check if it's suitable for you though, there are rules (albeit not many), they seem reasonable to me but might not be for you.

Isolation wise, there is no communication between attendees, but there are group meditation sessions (though they are also non-talking).

The three aspects that weren't silent :

• the meditation instruction, it was a one hour-ish video playback per day explaining the process.
• the final day, discussion is allowed.
• optional question time with an instructor.