#considering the Ethics

[wygolvillage]

im like 60% sure i know the Actual blog of the guy running emporium LOL and he is constantly posting ai art on both his tumblr and twitter and is selling it so... do what you will with this information

EDIT: okay yeah this is him

[supreme-leader-stoat]

Response to your reblog before I peace out.

The argument of the immorality of abortion is built on the assumption that life inherently has value. Lives do not have any inherent value, because they are the result of millions of years of naturally occurring processes. These natural processes do not have any inherent moral value; attempting to assign one would involve invoking some sort of "god" that exists beyond the material, observable, provable world we live in, rather than some logical, clear, and distinct notion such as the one attempted to be shown. For these reasons, abortion is morally neutral.

On that note, the morality and legality of abortion are thereby a human notion, with a logically valid -though not logically sound- argument in either direction. The argument presented says that "no human life should be purposefully ended by another human being. Because that's murder." In short, they believe that murder is necessarily and inherently immoral. That's all it is though, a belief: There is no wholly logical ground to stand on with regards to murder being universally bad in all scenarios, because of its' moral neutrality as I proved above. In other words, the morality and legality of aborting a fetus is wholly subjective.

"Do you actually have an issue with my argument that a fetus is a human being with the right to life, and ending their life is murder[?]"

Yes I do. A fetus is not survivable beyond the confines of the womb for quite some time; in fact, not until right before the fetus is due to become a baby and be born, that ever-reliable 8 month mark after insemination. As such, considering the fetus is unable to survive without constant connection to the pregnant person, it stands to reason that this is an extension of their body at this point, rather than a separate entity. If one intended to claim it still was at the stages before a fetus can survive independently, then consider this implication: Parasites rely on being attached to living beings in order to survive. This includes humans. Therefore, following the earlier claim that "a fetus is a human being with the right to life, and ending their life is murder," a parasite attached to a human is also a human being with the right to life, and ending their life is murder. Therefore, it is more reasonable to claim that for most of the pregnancy cycle, a fetus is not a separate entity from the pregnant person, and by extension, "ending its' life" is not murder.

"Babies are people, too, and have the same right to life as an adult."

This is true! Because babies are not fetuses.

Just thought you would want to read this, because anti-choice rhetoric can be very harmful in shutting down the agency of pregnant people and their ability to dictate their own lives. Knowing the direction that restrictions of this kind have gone in the past, those restrictions will not stop after the illegalization of abortion. Please consider who this harms and who this helps before spreading closed-minded rhetoric of that kind.

Either morality (God-given or otherwise, because there are many secular arguments against abortion) exists or it doesn't. There is a line in the sand or there is not. If you truly intend to argue that lives have no inherent value beyond what we assign them, then not only are the two of us operating in completely irreconcilable ethical frameworks, but yours collapses under its own weight; harm, agency, all these things mattering hinges on the idea that humans and (to a lesser extent) other forms of life have inherent worth, inherent dignity, that causing the former and undermining the latter are wrong in and of themselves.

If there is no objective standard on which to hang our arguments, then everything becomes subjective; all that matters is what we value on a social and individual level. And if that's the case, why would I ever bother to value the opinions of you, a stranger on the internet, over my own? It would be unfair and wrong of me not to consider other positions, to try to see things from another person's point of view, but why should I care about fairness or rightness?

Equating an embryo or fetus to a parasite is fallacious and incorrect. Ignoring that by the scientific definition parasites have to be a different species from the host, and that a pregnancy is a two-way street that also provides benefits for the mother, embryos and fetuses are simply living out the natural development cycle that literally every other human being on the planet has gone through. The biological principles at play in parasitism and human reproduction are fundamentally different.

I could keep going. I could match your arguments with my own about how anti-life rhetoric is a slippery slope to eugenics, about how I could just as easily twist your arguments around to make social parasites out of the elderly and disabled; but in this case it's pointless, because I can't even get you to sit down and agree upon simple principles like "human lives have value" and "murder is bad" or even "there is such a thing as objective morality."

[hashileio]

you join the cafe & meet the crew (minus one)

[cherrywhite]

Being a silt verses fan and an ethics town fan is so funny because. Like.

These are the same VAs 😂😭

[nenoname]

honestly??? i still dont know what to do with the idea that there might be a bunch of clone fords out there???? it honestly makes me so unhinged??????

[judaismandsuch]

Super Underated part about keeping Kosher:

The whole 'but would you eat a ___' debate is wayyy easier.

"Would you eat a dog?" Nope. "But you'll eat a cow? That's not ethically consistent!" Maybe, but dogs aren't kosher, the ethics don't come into it!

"Would you eat a bug?" Nope (well, except for one locust breed that isn't exactly accessible...), "But x,y,z, culture do it! Are you saying...." Nope, I am saying nothing. No Moral or Social opinion attached.

"But do you think that people should..." Don't need to think about it. HaShem gave me a get-out-of-discourse-free card 3000 odd years ago, and by golly I will use it!

Honestly, this is the only time I can think of that Religion made a pseudo-ethical discussion easier

[narwhalandchill]

while i wouldnt necessarily disagree that childe seems to be on edge more so than usual (and he himself mentions being in a poor mood in act I) in the fontaine archon quest i do have to say i find it a little funny that theres people who think hes behaving, like, completely out of character in the court scene when he decides to go apeshit after being judged guilty by the justice.exe AI bot like.

did it somehow escape peoples memories that this man when presented with the idea that we as the traveler mightve tricked and gotten ahead of him with the geo gnosis just. entered a state of complete murderous rage leading to him activating foul legacy in the golden house. which actually ends up self-sabotaging his current objective more than anything bc unlike the clear way they struggled against childe before now the traveler just won by default by outlasting him

he mightve gotten over it fairly easily afterwards (in no small part bc traveler actually fought him which automatically translates to equal=respect=friend in his fucked up head) but childes been shown to be a highly dangerous individual with a massive ego prone to outburst in the heat of the moment when outplayed or his pride wounded before even when it isnt the smartest course of action like. this isnt new lmao.

getting accused of a crime he had never even heard of in a foreign nation he only recently arrived in and then sitting through all that court drama and being assured afterwards that he only needs to partake as a mere formality for declaring his innocence only to be somehow declared guilty by a machine is very much realistic grounds for childes patience to reach its breaking point if you ask me lol

[kedreeva]

Sorry about the color mix up. I appreciate the reply and additional info! I guess bc I know nothing about peafowl (and the fact i dont breed any type of animal), I'm having a hard time understanding how being sterile would be unethical. I do somewhat get the shortened life span. I really would like to understand this, I just sometimes need stuff explained like I'm 5.

Up front, there's no "somewhat get" to a shortened lifespan being caused by a mutation in captive populations. If an animal is capable of living 20+ years (and some live 30+ or even 40+!) and some non-essential mutation is causing them to live 7-9 years, it's flat out absolutely unethical to breed that mutation, full stop, regardless of anything else going on. That's indicative of a MAJOR problem in their genetics. There's NO ethical reason to breed that because humans like how it looks. So, even without the sterility, these birds would 100% be unethical to produce.

The short answer on sterility is this: we don't know WHY they are sterile, but they shouldn't be, and that means something has gone wrong. When something goes wrong with an animal, and it's something genetic that can be passed on, the ONLY responsible and ethical thing for a breeder to do is to stop using that animal for breeding and closely monitor any already-produced offspring for signs of the problem, and likely not breed them, either.

The longer more complicated answer is this: sometimes it's possible to separate the problem from the aesthetic when it comes to morphs, like it was for cameo + blindness, but sometimes it's NOT, like it wasn't for spider + head wobble for ball pythons. In those instances, it's... difficult. Because you're LIKELY going to produce animals that suffer the same problem as their parent(s), in the attempt to separate the problem from the aesthetic, and sometimes that's ALL you're going to produce. As a breeder, it's your absolute responsibility to NOT release the offspring into the general population, where the problem may be replicated without control, and to keep or cull the affected individuals if the problem cannot be separated from the aesthetic, or AT BEST find them guaranteed pet-only homes that will NEVER breed them.

Sometimes the problem IS purely aesthetic or harmless, like it was for pied in peafowl, and sometimes it's not, like it was for vitiligo in peafowl. The problem comes when you ASSUME a mutation is the first, and treat it like the first when it's really the second. This has caused FAR reaching consequences in the peafowl community, and I'm sure in others, where now the autoimmune disease that first bronze had has been passed into genpop by folks who thought they were breeding a harmless new variation of pied. Hybrid animals are often sterile (not in peafowl though, hybrid cristatus-muticus birds are fertile) because of a mismatch in chromosome pairing numbers, and often that's harmless. So, in some cases sterility is not an issue because it's the expected result or is otherwise harmless... but in the case of peafowl, it's NOT an expected result and we don't know if it's caused by something harmless or not.

Some species, like mice and horses and cattle and dogs, genetic testing and DNA mapping done with millions of dollars has proven that while some stuff isn't purely aesthetic, it also doesn't cause harm to the animal in a way that affects quality of life or that can be adapted for in captive care. For example, in chickens, the frizzle gene causes curled feathers in single copy and an absence of feathers in double copy. This gene is considered ethical to produce IF the breeding is done responsibly by putting a single copy bird over a zero copy bird, which produces smooth coats and frizzle coats, but it is unethical to produce double frizzles (called "frazzles") because frazzles cannot thermoregulate, can easily sunburn, and easily suffer skin injury during normal chicken activity.

For peafowl, we have NO genetic testing. We do not have the genome mapped. As far as I know there's a research group working on it (mostly for green peafowl though, in conservation efforts), but that's not remotely finished or available to the public to test anything. We don't know where any of the morph mutations sit, or what is causing them or if they do anything beyond just change the color. Sometimes color mutations are the result of malfunctions in enzymes. For charcoal specifically, we don't know what the mutation does, besides what we can observe on the outside- the birds have half or less the lifespan of normal birds, poor feather quality, and the hens are sterile. Is the sterility harmless like it is in some hybrid animals, or is it actually a major organ failing? Is it the only major organ that fails due to this mutation, or is it just the first sign of their shortened lives? Is it some deficiency in something the birds need to be healthy? Does it hurt the bird? We don't know, but we do know the mutation and the problems (multiple, please do NOT forget that this is one OF MORE THAN ONE problems) can't be separated, and so until we do know why and whether it's harmless or not, the ONLY ethical response to seeing a problem in a major organ's function linked inextricably to a mutation in color is to not propagate that mutation. If someone wanted to fork over the millions it takes to sequence and map genomes and then determine exactly what is going on with peafowl, that would be nice and good, but I don't see that happening. When I win the lottery big, I'll be doing it, but til then we can only follow normal breeding guidelines

Also, to put this into perspective... peafowl mature sexually around 3 years old. They are chicks until the turn of the new year following their hatch. They are yearlings that year, and immature 2yo next year. They aren't actually considered fully grown until 6 years old, and should live another 14+ years. Charcoal birds die a 1-3 years after full maturity. Is it a coincidence that they fail to thrive shortly after full sexual maturity, or is it linked? Again, we don't know. We don't know if the sterility is fine or if it's just a symptom of something worse.

Even without the sterility, though, charcoal has enough issues it would be unethical. If it was JUST sterility, with no other deleterious effects, then maybe it would be different. But it's not.

[abirddogmoment]

We're learning about grouse hunting together!

I was really undecided on whether I wanted to hunt with Rory for realsies because I don't have a shotgun and I don't really care to get a shotgun (I have a gun license from my time up north). I have a small air rifle and a tactical slingshot (both legal for hunting small game in my area) so I've been taking those for walks in hunting areas, along with all my permits and stuff, just to see what we see.

This grouse woods is in the same corner as my swamp, just a different part of the rec area. You can legally hunt small game during the open season with dogs with some restrictions (certain distance from the parking, some trails close for hunting on a rotational basis for maintenance, etc.) but it's not terribly popular so it's a really good area to learn. We are looking for ruffed grouse and rabbit, both of which are super common out here.

With pointing dogs like britts, you generally don't want to shoot any game unless they're pointing steady (*except when doing gun conditioning, but that's a specific training set up) - it makes sense because a shot bird is the ultimate reward and you want to make sure you're reinforcing the behaviour you want, which is usually a safe steady point. Rory isn't pointing steady yet so there's really not much for me to do on these walks besides reinforce good manners (recall, how far she ranges, etc.).

There's a really well known saying in pointing dogs, which is wild birds make bird dogs. Wild birds flush (fly away) much more reliably than farmed birds so the chances of a dog catching a wild bird is really minimal compared to farmed birds. It's super important to get young bird dogs on wild birds as much as possible so they learn all the important skills: how to navigate terrain, what habitat holds birds, what each bird species smells like, how far they can range, and most importantly, that they need a person to actually get a bird.

(Most of these skills can be taught with planted birds in training, but planted birds may be more habituated to people and dogs so they might not flush reliably. Once pointing dogs learn that they can catch birds themselves, it's much harder to foster a strong stop and point. You might see people using these tip ups, which protect the training bird from the dog. You'll often see training dogs on long lines (called check cords) or with a flank collar to reinforce not getting too close to the bird, but you have to phase those out quickly so the dog doesn't become dependent on them. You also have to be really careful with scent trails when setting up planted birds or you might end up with a dog that follows your scent instead of looking for birds organically. And of course, you have to train without birds sometimes so the dog doesn't get discouraged about not finding birds quickly because sometimes there just aren't birds out there. Lots to consider when setting up training!)

Anyway I've been trying to get Rory out on wild birds as much as possible (with the caveat that we don't run wild birds during nesting season) so we're wandering the grouse woods lately. My early recall training is really paying off because she's been super reliable in terms of good manners, it's wonderful to see!

We've been out four times (1-2 hours each) so far since the season opened. The first two times we're mostly just a pleasant walk in the woods, Rory didn't really know what we were doing so she was just vibing (THIS IS TOTALLY FINE, SHE'S NEW TO THIS). We had a couple chance grouse encounters and I could see the wheels turning, I encouraged her to sniff around where the grouse were sitting before they flew off and I watched her start to connect the dots.

(It's important to remember that dogs don't know what they're looking for until you show them. Most bird dogs are naturally birdy, but they don't know which birds are good and which birds are boring! You have to show them which birds you care about - this is easiest if you can run with an experienced hunting dog, but you can do it alone like I am by making a big deal about any interest in the "correct" birds.)

The last time we went out to the grouse woods, she did a couple of really nice whip-arounds when she caught scent she liked and followed scent off the trail I was walking! This is the behaviour I want to see so it was awesome to watch it start to click! She trailed a moose (don't want that, she found some moose pee to roll in so whatever), a pileated woodpecker (again, don't want that but it was cool to see), and two separate grouse. The first was on the wrong side of the fence so I couldn't do anything about it but she held a really nice point (the photo) and I gave her a ton of chicken and praise for it. The second was a quick point but it flushed really far away so there was no finding it again. Both birds weren't visible when she found them, they were true scent points and she was strategically looking for them so that was super cool!

She's still in heat and super sensitive right now so I wouldn't shoot over her anyway, but I'm getting pretty accurate with my slingshot so I'm hoping we can connect on something this fall - both for her pointing steady and me aiming properly. She gets more steady and more sure of herself every time we go out so it's only a matter of time!

[essektheylyss]

Once again raging about shitty research standards and the methodology and ethical decision-making of like, a significant majority of my peers. This is why I can never change my blog title, it's too accurate to my soul.

[polysucks]

Wanna make my own discord server full of the asoiaf girlies (gender neutral) who love asoiaf but hate the fandom and like. Don’t police opinions or ships and just embrace open-minded discussion about all the adaptations and the books equally and just. Engage with the content without fuck ass weirdos being fuck ass weirdos. A place where people’s opinions can be nuanced and we and just. Hang out. But I won’t. Because I ain’t got time and effort for all that. Also that’s a pipe dream and it will never happen bc fandom culture is so toxic.

[nabaath-areng]

" If I so much as catch a glimpse of you attempting something dangerous, mark my words I will make you live to regret it. I will not permit anything but your survival… In fact, I’ll cut every single one of your limbs off if that’s what it takes to ensure you to live to see the morrow.

You’re welcome to hate me all you want should that come to pass. In fact, it’s a gift to receive disdain from the living over the indifference of a corpse. "

[cent-scratchnsniff]

i was rereading the story dialog for the sephirah while ago (upper layer so far considering i have a doc to contain all of my ramblings and thoughts once looking it over and getting actual lines to be able to know exactly what was said to base my feelings off of rather than the pure unfiltered pain or i suppose somewhat shock at first and those garbled memories of what happened) and after reading tiphereth's and then going to netzach's again it's just.

imagine you have to see what is deemed your other half, the person keeping you sane, your only companion you actually love and like, your literal ‘twin’ have to get crushed but some bum that never does his job and can easily be seen as 'not meeting standards' does get the same treatment at all when your own brother had been destroyed for less like spiraling into some dangerous stains of thoughts (thought be fair he did end up not as respondent and at that point already had what i'll inadequately describe as 'memory leakage' . But from the general idea of the side of tiphereth). he'll be more better than that drug addict ever will be in her eyes, someone who can't even do a report on time and even then is half assed to where at that point they'd just do it themself in the first place. he'll be way better, someone who is quite literally her family. yet why is her brother the only one that needs to suffer through that constant degradation of the soul? the constant wiping of the self? the memories made and lost? why the hell is someone that should deserve it in her eyes, someone so unmotivated and lazy, someone who she deems as a person not able to do a single thing right, not having that happen to them? why is it the person she loves so dearly, so close to her that she wishes would've stayed instead of some now hollow husk and imitation of imprinted memories when that hasn't happened to Any One Else? why does she have to go through all of that, having to see someone that she used to know and adore turn into a hollow husk and imitation of what once was - having to feel as if shes already looking at a walking corpse with memories shoved inside - just for someone like Netzach to not end up crushed to pieces.

[neurotypical-sonic]

and when I say "bad art" I mean it in a very subjective way. mostly talking about penders bc Ive seen the shit of him tracing and also drawing the underage characters in sexual ways. but I still find a lot of the "bad as in not as much technical skill" or whatever, idk art terms, to be very charming a lot

I dont have more examples on me bc I really should be alseep but these are so good and fun to me

[themostdearofspaghettis]

Artemis no, Artemis no!!!!! You say he was right then stay the fuck away from Ethics(town mayoral position)!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[dayurno]

so kevin was the one who bought jean the magnets and postcards. as souvenirs.

i fear we, the kevjean nation, may not survive this.

kevin used to write him messages and memories and they ruined it