On detachment...

[BLueRibbon]

A short piece, based on a discussion on this forum.

https://www.brianribbon.com/short-takes/on-detachment

[ReArm!]

I hope it doesn't bother you if I make a criticism of your article, but I think your morality utterly fails at the moment that you use past actions to determine the moral worth of a decision. As Cesare di Beccaria says on his Treaty of Crimes and Punishments: "Every punishment which does not arise from absolute necessity, is tyrannical", quote with which I absolutely agree. I think the only reason to harm someone or let someone be harmed, is if not doing so would lead to a worse outcome.

That doesn't mean that I don't feel you when you say that, and I quote:

When you realize that your MAP friends are made miserable, sent to prison, or driven to suicide purely due to the sheer selfishness and nastiness of the general adult population, how can you feel anything positive toward the world?

To be completely honest I feel the same way sometimes, it's hard to know society would take your freedoms and those of your peers away for something so easy to do (easy since you don't have to step on anyone's will to do it) jut because it is deemed horrible and irredeamable. However, we have learned throughout history that puritanism and reactionaryism is something if not inherent to the human condition, at least really hard to erradicate. We should not villanize others for it, since we all are and/or have been puritanical with something or have done actions and have had ideas that now we identify as a mistake and even a lack of morality. I am not christian, however I love the way protestants (and some catholics too, tho it's not that intertwined with their theology) talk about humans, saying (and being completely right, I think) that we are all sinners. If I wanted you (or anyone who reads it) to understand just a point about this rambling it'd be this: NO ONE, and I mean it when I say NO ONE, is a good person. Sure, one may fight for what they think is right or be a better person than other people, but in the great scheeme of things, all that we haven't done that would improve other people's lives and all that we have done that was for our own benefit is a clear reminder that we can always improve as a person, yet we don't. Everyone talks for example about how Elon Musk could erradicate hunger by donating his money, yet what we fail to understand is that we all could improve the world sacrificing ourselves. I could give my money to someone in need and help them, even if just a bit, you could probably also do that, everyone who has a home of their own, which in some countries there are a lot of people that do, could shelter a homeless person or someone who is struggling. Yet none of us do that. It's then absurd to villanize someone for their bad morals or consequences of their actions, we are the same, believe it or not (which btw does not mean we shouldn't fight them if necessary, but only then, if necessary. You can still be friends if doing so isn't actively damaging people). And this is not a pessimist idea to become amoral or something, but an encouragement to better ourselves and others, to achieve our goals but also to make sure others achieve theirs.

And I'm really sorry for whoever is reading this rambling (bc I don't believe in my writing skills that much to name it something else than that) since I still have two points to make:

The first one is that the mentality you're showing here doesn't help the cause at all. We don't need to be isolated even more, that is just ensuring destruction and ultimate failure for our goals, and having no empathy towards society out of our circle is a way to isolate us. Also, people who you deem to hate pedophiles and want them dead, don't hate them just because of the evil of their hearts, but because it's the status quo, the topic is still out of the overton window. If we achieved to change that, I assure you the vast majority of people would at least have a neutral stance on MAPs in less than a decade. We just need to look back and see what happened with homosexuality, interracial marriage, etc. A quote that is atributed to Lenin (Tho he probably never said it) sumarizes this point perfectly: "Give me your four year olds, and in a generation I will build a socialist state."

The last thing I wanna say is that you seem to forget that you're not only a MAP, even though it may be the label that society most reminds you of, you're also a human, a middle class working man (a proletarian, if you want) and a citizen of your country. Being a MAP is not the only identity you have, and your peers are not only those in the map community but also those who, as well as you, want to make a better world. Even if you strongly disagree with them on something, there must be lots of other things which you both care about and that can work towards improving them. We must fight for liberation and freedom, yes, but freedom for everyone to do anything they want as long as it doesn't compromise other's freedoms. And every person should be part and objective of this movement, which means everyone should strive to achieve everyone else's desires as well as their own.


I apologize again, btw, for if this is too long and poorly written, which I think it probably is. But I just had to let it out, I hope you have a great day and I would be greatly pleased if this inspires you to feel a bit better with the world.

[Learning to undeny]

Expecting people to be rational is irrational. We're animals at the end of the day.

In other news, a wholesome video:

https://www.republicworld.com/viral/who ... -cub-watch

(It is natural to be angry at people who have hurt you or your friends for no good reason; that I concede. But blaming the average person serves no purpose.)

[John_Doe]

Learning to undeny,

Expecting people to be rational is irrational. We're animals at the end of the day.

I agree. People are generally not logical actors, if any of us are ultimately (I think that some people tend to have a better understanding of what best serves their strongest intuitions or agendas and are more consistent in terms of those ideals). Understanding that goes a long way in trying to process human behavior (i.e. we often look for a logical justification where there is none, people are driven by their emotions).

I remember a video years ago about Christian the lion reuniting with the humans who cared for him when he was young. I think that's who I have in mind, there might be others as well. Incidentally, I dreamt that a group of people and I were being hunted by lions the night before last (or at least they were walking around and we were all terrified that they would eat us so we were trying to get away from them, it might have been just one lion at the beginning).

(It is natural to be angry at people who have hurt you or your friends for no good reason; that I concede. But blaming the average person serves no purpose.)

I agree, and people shouldn't definitively jump to conclusions when it comes to random strangers but you have to expect that they will make assumptions about them based on the perceived statistical average or what's been normal in their experience, I don't think that's irrational although that kind of profiling can be unfair (when you're mistreating people on that assumption without erring on the side of caution or considering how their story might deviate from what you expect. It's worth noting that, contrary to my intuitions, I don't believe in reciprocation. We should care about the suffering and happiness of people who don't care about our suffering and if we don't we commit the same error that would make me resent someone to begin with). It seems to me that it's the average person who thinks that pedophilia is inherently inappropriate, although it might be a loud minority who are really sadistic and violent in wanting to punish pedophiles for their inappropriate attraction, I'm not sure. To be honest, based on my online experiences (prior to joining this board), for years I have suspected that anti-natalists and pedophiles/'pro-MAP' people tend to be more sadistic and anti-social than the general population but that has never prejudiced me against pedophilia itself or the movement to de-stigmatize AMSC (on principle at least) or the anti-natalist message (although my argument for AN would be rooted in risk aversion, I view procreation as ideal, and not the idea the idea that happiness and suffering are asymmetrical in value or the preoccupation with potential persons not consenting to their creation) and I have wondered why that might be, if I'm correct to begin with. With anti-natalists, it might be that negative-minded people are more likely to be emotionally insecure and neurotic and aggressive for that reason (and to see the worst in people; I also tend to be distrusting and to see the worst in people but with most people in most scenarios I lack aggressive impulses. I work things out internally so I have less of a need for vengeance), with the former it might be that repeated hate and abuse from the broader society has led to hardened, aggressive personalities.

Rearm,

I also think that we are all, without exception, sinners (there are some people I can think of who have done no wrong or shown no ugliness as far as I'm aware so it's somewhat hard to write that but it's not as though I see them often and I'm not reducing anyone to their moral failings in acknowledging that)-not counting small children and non-human animals who aren't developed enough to be considered moral agents. I think some people are more aware of their inconsistencies and make a serious effort to be less so but I wonder if I'm biased in intuiting this as an important distinction because it allows me to differentiate myself from some of the hypocrites I have difficulty seeing myself in (at the very least when it comes to seriously realizing my own inconsistency).

which means everyone should strive to achieve everyone else's desires as well as their own.

I have to disagree here. I think that everyone should value everyone else's happiness. The world would be, in some ways, near a utopia if we all took this very seriously, but I don't think we should care about what other people want per se merely because they want it (the experienced frustration of desire is inherently painful but considering what people want in consideration of that is something else). I was just thinking this morning that although there's no fundamentally preferable alternative, all decent people who have thought through the issue realize that there's nothing inherently ideal about democracy. In many countries homosexuality is illegal and that is an example of real oppression that is facilitated by mob rule. I would also apply this to personal freedom as well (i.e. I don't necessarily respect desires that one has about what it done with their body or property although, again, experienced desire frustration and the possibility that other people might have a better understanding of what choices are best for their long-term welfare or in general than I do is something to consider). You can have compassion for a man who mistreats you because you are the same when it comes to suffering but there is a conflict between your desires that creates a natural 'competition' between you (the sadist wants to inflict harm; or for harm to be inflicted, his victim/the victim wants to be free of it, they have different mutually exclusive goals).

[PorcelainLark]

I also think that we are all, without exception, sinners...

I was going to say something similar. I wonder if we weren't born MAPs, whether we would really turn out to be better than the rest of society and recognize that MAPs were being mistreated? It seems similar to the fantasy that if you were in Nazi Germany you wouldn't be a Nazi, when it's statistically unlikely.

It goes back to moral luck. We are morally lucky because our self-interests coincide with what's morally right. So, if we can't claim credit for that reason, then we can't really blame antis either. A dog snaps at humans when in pain, that doesn't mean you should hate all dogs.

Hate should be reserved for people who know better but perpetuate evil anyway. Various NGOs, LE, and researchers know the overwhelming majority MAPs aren't a threat, know AMSC isn't inherently traumatic, and know that the legal restrictions are unjustifiable, yet continue to avoid challenging public opinion or the law. The average person has the excuse that they don't know any better, or that they're afraid of being singled out by the mob. People in positions of authority are meant to be competent in the things they have authority over, and are meant to be able to make unpopular decisions when it's the right thing to do.

[ReArm!]

Hey, first of all, thanks for criticising me bc I love to engage in debates in the internet, and even more ab those topics. Then let me answer you since I think I'll be mantaining my position on those topics.

there are some people I can think of who have done no wrong or shown no ugliness as far as I'm aware so it's somewhat hard to write that but it's not as though I see them often and I'm not reducing anyone to their moral failings in acknowledging that)

First of all wanna clarify this parenthesis you made. I am certain beyond a reasonable doubt that those people you mention, while they might not have done any wrong actions, they will have surely done wrong inactions, which as far as I'm concerned, have the same moral value, since they're also decisions one makes, like the money or house example I put in the original post. And if you don't think so, just try to imagine someone who is completely capable of saving someone else from death and does not, I think most people would agree it is a wrong inaction.

I think some people are more aware of their inconsistencies and make a serious effort to be less so but I wonder if I'm biased in intuiting this as an important distinction because it allows me to differentiate myself from some of the hypocrites I have difficulty seeing myself in (at the very least when it comes to seriously realizing my own inconsistency).

I mean I agree with you it is an important practical distinction, but not a moral one, in my opinion, since the consequences are the same wether you're aware of them or not. Also I think we should all realize our inconsistencies, and that just makes us all, tho in different degrees, hypocrites.

I have to disagree here. I think that everyone should value everyone else's happiness. The world would be, in some ways, near a utopia if we all took this very seriously, but I don't think we should care about what other people want per se merely because they want it (the experienced frustration of desire is inherently painful but considering what people want in consideration of that is something else). I was just thinking this morning that although there's no fundamentally preferable alternative, all decent people who have thought through the issue realize that there's nothing inherently ideal about democracy. In many countries homosexuality is illegal and that is an example of real oppression that is facilitated by mob rule. I would also apply this to personal freedom as well (i.e. I don't necessarily respect desires that one has about what it done with their body or property although, again, experienced desire frustration and the possibility that other people might have a better understanding of what choices are best for their long-term welfare or in general than I do is something to consider). You can have compassion for a man who mistreats you because you are the same when it comes to suffering but there is a conflict between your desires that creates a natural 'competition' between you (the sadist wants to inflict harm; or for harm to be inflicted, his victim/the victim wants to be free of it, they have different mutually exclusive goals).

Finally, I don't think this last topic makes much sense to talk about, since it's clear we both have different presupositions to start with. I guess if we were asked "What would you do if someone desires to not be happy?" You would say that you would prioritize his happiness, while I'd say I'd prioritze his will. In any case all my morality is supported on the pressuposition that that which is right is what fulfills the people's will (meaning any individual person, not like people in a collectivist sense). And yeah, as you say I know it is impossible since it leads to contradictions, but we can embrace that as a flaw of the world (same as it is imposible, for example, to break the laws of physics), and not as a proof that the moral system is wrong, since logically it is not a conclusion from this argument (Yeah, you could call me a soulist if you know what it is, that's kinda what I'm proposing, just that I'm not an anarchist since I view it as impractical for achieving what I say, so it's weird yeah). So my point is that we should approximate this imposible state as much as we can, through technology, social progress, and freedom.

[Not Forever]

I also think that we are all, without exception, sinners...

I was going to say something similar. I wonder if we weren't born MAPs, whether we would really turn out to be better than the rest of society and recognize that MAPs were being mistreated? It seems similar to the fantasy that if you were in Nazi Germany you wouldn't be a Nazi, when it's statistically unlikely.

It goes back to moral luck. We are morally lucky because our self-interests coincide with what's morally right. So, if we can't claim credit for that reason, then we can't really blame antis either. A dog snaps at humans when in pain, that doesn't mean you should hate all dogs.

Hate should be reserved for people who know better but perpetuate evil anyway. Various NGOs, LE, and researchers know the overwhelming majority MAPs aren't a threat, know AMSC isn't inherently traumatic, and know that the legal restrictions are unjustifiable, yet continue to avoid challenging public opinion or the law. The average person has the excuse that they don't know any better, or that they're afraid of being singled out by the mob. People in positions of authority are meant to be competent in the things they have authority over, and are meant to be able to make unpopular decisions when it's the right thing to do.

The majority of people stay silent, and most of those who speak do so with the voice of whoever influenced them the most. Take, for example, scientific racism: most of the people who supported it were just echoing what they had heard about it, primarily that it was scientifically founded.

I don’t think those who stay silent deserve hatred, and I don’t believe anyone should martyr themselves for their own battles, let alone for others’. I also think there’s a big difference between “knowing” and knowing something, in the sense that… there are biologist scientists who believe in God. (I speak as an atheist; this isn’t a discussion about religion, but to illustrate the point.) It’s not enough to lack evidence to deny one’s own belief. A person may not have data that confirm their belief, or may even have data that contradict it, but still not believe the evidence. They might see it as exceptions, or tell themselves stories… or, even more likely, they might want to keep their job without being seen by the public as a pedophile. It takes courage—and perhaps a bit of perversion—to take a stand on certain issues, and I don’t hate those who don’t have that courage.

Think about it: for a time, it was also difficult to spread the word that smoking was harmful, and publicly stating it didn’t carry the risk of being interrogated by the police or ending up with a bullet in your head because of a lunatic.

[BLueRibbon]

Wow, this triggered quite a discussion.

I will reply in due course.

[John_Doe]

I also think that we are all, without exception, sinners...

I was going to say something similar. I wonder if we weren't born MAPs, whether we would really turn out to be better than the rest of society and recognize that MAPs were being mistreated? It seems similar to the fantasy that if you were in Nazi Germany you wouldn't be a Nazi, when it's statistically unlikely.

It goes back to moral luck. We are morally lucky because our self-interests coincide with what's morally right. So, if we can't claim credit for that reason, then we can't really blame antis either. A dog snaps at humans when in pain, that doesn't mean you should hate all dogs.

Hate should be reserved for people who know better but perpetuate evil anyway. Various NGOs, LE, and researchers know the overwhelming majority MAPs aren't a threat, know AMSC isn't inherently traumatic, and know that the legal restrictions are unjustifiable, yet continue to avoid challenging public opinion or the law. The average person has the excuse that they don't know any better, or that they're afraid of being singled out by the mob. People in positions of authority are meant to be competent in the things they have authority over, and are meant to be able to make unpopular decisions when it's the right thing to do.

I can't agree with your last paragraph.

First of all wanna clarify this parenthesis you made. I am certain beyond a reasonable doubt that those people you mention, while they might not have done any wrong actions, they will have surely done wrong inactions, which as far as I'm concerned, have the same moral value, since they're also decisions one makes, like the money or house example I put in the original post. And if you don't think so, just try to imagine someone who is completely capable of saving someone else from death and does not, I think most people would agree it is a wrong inaction.

I agree that allowing harm when it's within your power to help someone, once you account for cost to yourself or others (including that person's future self if I want to be hyper-precise/analytical), is fundamentally as wrong as causing it without justification.

[ReArm!]

I agree that allowing harm when it's within your power to help someone, once you account for cost to yourself or others (including that person's future self if I want to be hyper-precise/analytical), is fundamentally as wrong as causing it without justification.

Cool, we are on the same page then!