mirror of
https://gitlab.com/upRootNutrition/obsidian.git
synced 2025-06-16 18:05:13 -05:00
Initial commit
This commit is contained in:
Nick
commit
bc15d67574
1475 changed files with 1056167 additions and 0 deletions
58
🛡️ Debate/🪶 Arguments/Ethics/Abortion Rights.md
Normal file
58
🛡️ Debate/🪶 Arguments/Ethics/Abortion Rights.md
Normal file
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,58 @@
|
|||
### Abortion Rights
|
||||
|
||||
<div style="text-align: center">
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>P1)</b></font> If one consents to becoming pregnant or one consensually engages in sexual activity without contraception, then one is implicitly committed to at least accepting the average risks for the average pregnancy.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(P∨Q→R)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>P2)</b></font> One consents to becoming pregnant.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(P)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>P3)</b></font> One consensually engages in sexual activity without contraception.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(Q)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>P4)</b></font> If one is implicitly committed to at least accepting the average risks for the average pregnancy and one's pregnancy persists long enough for fetal sentience to develop and one's risk profile during pregnancy is not high, then one is morally bound to carrying the pregnancy to term.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(R∧F∧¬H→M)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>P5)</b></font> One's pregnancy persists long enough for fetal sentience to develop.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(F)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>P6)</b></font> One's risk profile during pregnancy is not high.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(¬H)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>P7)</b></font> If one is morally bound to carrying the pregnancy to term, then one's whims are not a sufficient justification for the termination of sentient human life.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(M→¬W)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>C)</b></font> Therefore, one's whims are not a sufficient justification for the termination of sentient human life.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(∴¬W)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
</font>
|
||||
</div>
|
||||
|
||||
[Proof Tree](https://www.umsu.de/trees/#(P~2Q~5R),(P),(Q),((R~1F~1~3H)~5M),(F),(~3H),(M~5~3W)|=(~3W))
|
||||
|
||||
![[📂 Media/Images/Pasted image 20230607150451.png]]
|
||||
|
||||
# Hastags
|
||||
|
||||
#debate
|
||||
#abortion
|
||||
#philosophy
|
||||
#arguments
|
||||
42
🛡️ Debate/🪶 Arguments/Ethics/Anti-Natalism.md
Normal file
42
🛡️ Debate/🪶 Arguments/Ethics/Anti-Natalism.md
Normal file
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,42 @@
|
|||
## The Eternal Intergalactic Sentience Patrol Squad
|
||||
|
||||
<div style="text-align: center">
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>P1)</b></font> If humans abstaining from procreation maximally reduces rights violations, then humans have sterilized all sentient life in the universe.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(P→Q)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>P2)</b></font> Humans have not sterilized all sentient life in the universe.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(¬Q)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>P3)</b></font> If humans abstaining from procreation does not maximally reduce rights violations and many more generations are required to sterilize all sentient life in the universe, then humans should not abstain from procreation until all sentient life in the universe is sterilized.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(¬P∧R→¬S)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>P4)</b></font> Many more generations are required to sterilize all sentient life in the universe.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(R)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>C)</b></font> Therefore, humans should not abstain from procreation until all sentient life in the universe is sterilized.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(∴¬S)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
</font>
|
||||
</div>
|
||||
|
||||
[Proof Tree](https://www.umsu.de/trees/#(P~5Q),(~3Q),(~3P~1R~5~3S),(R)|=(~3S))
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Hashtags
|
||||
|
||||
#debate
|
||||
#arguments
|
||||
#anti-natalism
|
||||
109
🛡️ Debate/🪶 Arguments/Ethics/Ethical Slurs.md
Normal file
109
🛡️ Debate/🪶 Arguments/Ethics/Ethical Slurs.md
Normal file
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,109 @@
|
|||
### Argument for Using the Term Retard
|
||||
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**Definiendum**</font> | <font color="CC6600">**Definiens**</font> |
|
||||
|:-------------------------------------------:|:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**C**</font> | (x) slur's negative connotations have been neutralised |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**B**</font> | (x) slur has been rendered non-bigoted via altered usage |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**D**</font> | oppressed people will continue to suffer from the use of (x) slur |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**S**</font> | it is permissible to neutralise the term retard's negative connotations |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**A**</font> | it is generally permissible to use the term retard with an altered non-bigoted meaning |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**r**</font> | retard |
|
||||
|
||||
<div style="text-align: center">
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>P1)</b></font> For all slurs, (x) slur's negative connotations have been neutralised if and only if, (x) slur has been rendered non-bigoted via altered usage.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(∀x(Cx↔Bx))</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>P2)</b></font> For all slurs, if it is not the case that (x) slur's negative connotations have been neutralised, then oppressed people will continue to suffer from the use of (x) slur.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(∀x(¬Cx→Dx))</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>P3)</b></font> It is not the case that the term retard's negative connotations have been neutralised.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(¬Cr)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>P4)</b></font> If the term retard has not been rendered non-bigoted via altered usage and oppressed people will continue to suffer from the use of the term retard, then it is permissible to neutralise the term retard's negative connotations.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(¬Br∧Dr→Sr)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>P5)</b></font> If it is permissible to neutralise the term retard's negative connotations, then It is generally permissible to use the term retard with an altered non-bigoted meaning.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(Sr→Ar)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>C)</b></font> Therefore, it is generally permissible to use the term retard with an altered non-bigoted meaning.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(∴Ar)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
</font>
|
||||
</div>
|
||||
|
||||
[Proof Tree](https://www.umsu.de/trees/#(~6x(Cx~4Bx)),(~6x(~3Cx~5Dx)),(~3Cr),(~3Br~1Dr~5Sr),(Sr~5Ar)|=(Ar))
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
### Argument for Using the Term Nigga
|
||||
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**Definiendum**</font> | <font color="CC6600">**Definiens**</font> |
|
||||
|:-------------------------------------------:|:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**C**</font> | (x) slur's negative connotations have been neutralised |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**B**</font> | (x) slur has been rendered non-bigoted via altered usage |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**D**</font> | oppressed people will continue to suffer from the use of (x) slur |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**S**</font> | it is permissible to neutralise the term nigga's negative connotations |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**A**</font> | it is generally permissible to use the term nigga with an altered non-bigoted meaning |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**n**</font> | nigga |
|
||||
|
||||
<div style="text-align: center">
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>P1)</b></font> For all slurs, (x) slur's negative connotations have been neutralised if and only if, (x) slur has been rendered non-bigoted via altered usage.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(∀x(Cx↔Bx))</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>P2)</b></font> For all slurs, If it is not the case that (x) slur's negative connotations have been neutralised, then oppressed people will continue to suffer from the use of (x) slur.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(∀x(¬Cx→Dx))</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>P3)</b></font> It is not the case that the term nigga's negative connotations have been neutralised.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(¬Cn)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>P4)</b></font> If the term nigga has not been rendered non-bigoted via altered usage and oppressed people will continue to suffer from the use of the term nigga, then it is permissible to neutralise the term nigga's negative connotations.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(¬Bn∧Dn→Sn)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>P5)</b></font> If it is permissible to neutralise the term nigga's negative connotations, then It is generally permissible to use the term nigga with an altered non-bigoted meaning.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(Sn→An)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>C)</b></font> Therefore, it is generally permissible to use the term nigga with an altered non-bigoted meaning.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(∴An)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
</font>
|
||||
</div>
|
||||
|
||||
[Proof Tree](https://www.umsu.de/trees/#(~6x(Cx~4Bx)),(~6x(~3Cx~5Dx)),(~3Cn),(~3Bn~1Dn~5Sn),(Sn~5An)|=(An))
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Hashtags
|
||||
|
||||
#debate
|
||||
#arguments
|
||||
#slur
|
||||
#retard
|
||||
#linguistic_prescriptivism
|
||||
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,32 @@
|
|||
I discussed the use of pen-style machines with several healthcare professionals. Their unanimous opinion was that for such a device to be used safely in a setting such as an operating theatre, one of the following four protocols must be followed:
|
||||
|
||||
**1)** The entire machine should be designed to be single-use disposable.
|
||||
|
||||
**OR**
|
||||
|
||||
**2)** Whenever a cartridge is removed, it should be immediately discarded. New cartridges must be inserted with extreme care to prevent contaminating the plunger bar. Failing to adhere to this protocol warrants disposal of the machine.
|
||||
|
||||
**OR**
|
||||
|
||||
**3)** The drive system, along with its housing, must be easily accessible and designed for either autoclaving or thorough sanitization using high-level disinfectants.
|
||||
|
||||
**OR**
|
||||
|
||||
**4)** The drive system should be isolated from the cartridge by a sterile barrier, which would be removed and discarded after each use.
|
||||
|
||||
However, it appears that most pen-style machines do not align with universal precautions and established health and safety standards. The first option is often deemed unfeasible and is pretty much never practiced. The second option also faces similar impracticality. The third option is applicable to only a limited number of machines. As for the fourth option, I am not aware of its implementation anywhere (other than maybe GGTS's Good Pen).
|
||||
|
||||
My review of the CDC's outline on Spaulding's classification system makes it clear that the CDC would likely concur with this assessment. Consequently, it seems that a worryingly large number of pen-style machines are unsuitable for use, unfortunately.
|
||||
|
||||
EDIT:
|
||||
|
||||
I'm extremely saddened by the post-hoc rationalizations of some of these users. When presented with a sound argument for why certain tattoo equipment is an infectious disease transmission hazard, the most common response has been "tattooing isn't sterile anyway". As if this is supposed to be convincing or profound, or put any client's mind at ease about the safety of the process.
|
||||
|
||||
Think about what you're saying. You're essentially saying that because tattooing "isn't sterile", tattoo artists should be free to not work aseptically if they choose. We all have a choice to not use dangerous equipment. What I'm suggesting isn't career-ending for any of us. It's just a minor inconvenience. It's extremely disheartening how many people elect to put others at risk unnecessarily because they personally don't want to be inconvenienced. It's shameful, and we have to do better.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Hashtags
|
||||
|
||||
#debate
|
||||
#arguments
|
||||
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,29 @@
|
|||
The precautionary principle is a group of rules that function similarly. Any weak version just states permissibility and any strong version states requirement. But these rules can be formulated in different ways:
|
||||
|
||||
> 1) if I don't know the harm of action x, then I ought not to do action x.
|
||||
> 2) if I don't know the consequences of action x, then I ought not to do action x.
|
||||
> 3) if I have a doxastic leaning that action x has more undesirable than desirable consequences then I ought not to do action x.
|
||||
|
||||
But most people who use it seem to only ever cite something similar to the first example. In that case, you can just ask why they don't adhere to the opposing rule:
|
||||
|
||||
> if I don't know the harms of not doing action x, then I ought to do action x.
|
||||
|
||||
Applying this to the last example:
|
||||
|
||||
> if I have a doxastic leaning that not doing action x has more undesirable than desirable consequences, then I ought to do action x.
|
||||
|
||||
This doesn't run into the same issue: the knowledge component is turned from agnostic to affirmative, and the symmetry breaker is on the table.
|
||||
|
||||
Technically, it still needs the clarification that:
|
||||
|
||||
> if the ratio of desirable vs undesirable consequences is more favorable towards doing action x than it is disfavorable towards not doing action x, then I ought to do action x.
|
||||
|
||||
All this makes me think the precautionary principle is some kind vestige of unacknowledged consequentialist intuitions, by the way. Imagine setting undesirable consequences to violations of rights and desirable consequences to affirmations of rights. In the bivalve case, this would straight lead to arguing their rights, so why not do that in the first place instead of invoking precaution?
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Hashtags
|
||||
|
||||
#debate
|
||||
#arguments
|
||||
#philosophy
|
||||
10
🛡️ Debate/🪶 Arguments/Ethics/Rape Defintion.md
Normal file
10
🛡️ Debate/🪶 Arguments/Ethics/Rape Defintion.md
Normal file
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,10 @@
|
|||
# Working Definition
|
||||
|
||||
>some sexual activity is morally impermissible if, and only if, only one participant is sexual mature and/or only one participant is able to give informed consent.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Hashtags
|
||||
|
||||
#arguments
|
||||
#debate
|
||||
50
🛡️ Debate/🪶 Arguments/Ethics/Scratcher Pioneers.md
Normal file
50
🛡️ Debate/🪶 Arguments/Ethics/Scratcher Pioneers.md
Normal file
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,50 @@
|
|||
### Tattoo Pioneers were Scratchers
|
||||
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**Definiendum**</font> | <font color="CC6600">**Definiens**</font> |
|
||||
|:-------------------------------------------:|:-------------------------------------------------------- |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**S**</font> | one (x) is a scratcher |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**L**</font> | one (x) tattoos without a license |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**H**</font> | one (x) tattoos without observing basic health standards |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**U**</font> | one (x) tattoos without having undertaken apprenticeship |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**t**</font> | original trailblazers of modern tattooing |
|
||||
|
||||
<div style="text-align: center">
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>P1)</b></font> One is a scratcher if, and only if, one tattoos without a license and/or one tattoos without observing basic health standards and/or one tattoos without having undertaken apprenticeship.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(∀x(Sx↔Lx∨Hx∨Ux))</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>P2)</b></font> The original trailblazers of modern tattooing tattooed without licenses.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(Lt)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>P3)</b></font> The original trailblazers of modern tattooing tattooed without observing basic health standards.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(Ht)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>P4)</b></font> The original trailblazers of modern tattooing tattooed without having undertaken apprenticeship.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(Ut)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>C)</b></font> Therefore, the original trailblazers of modern tattooing were scratchers.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(∴St)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
</font>
|
||||
</div>
|
||||
|
||||
[Proof Tree](https://www.umsu.de/trees/#(~6x(Sx~4Lx~2Hx~2Ux)),(Lt),(Ht),(Ut)|=(St))
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Hashtags
|
||||
|
||||
#debate
|
||||
#arguments
|
||||
#tattooing
|
||||
Loading…
Add table
Add a link
Reference in a new issue