Is censorship moral?

[TomC]

A broken arm seems like a good example to explain what I mean by morality.

It's definitely harm. The moral question, to my mind, is "Why did it happen?".

A person might break their arm walking to their car on icy pavement. Nobody made a decision, it's just an an accident.

A person might break their arm playing ball with friends. Playing physical games carries a bit of risk. It's usually a risk considered worth it for the benefits. Exercise. Comradery. Character building. Whatever, it's just part of the risk of getting out of bed in the morning.

It might happen because an abusive spouse fucks you up. Then there's definitely some choices made. The main one is someone choosing to abuse their spouse badly enough to cause a broken arm. There's no real excuses for that choice.
And there are even more immoral choices possible. More murderous. More about inflicting harm for sheer enjoyment of other people's pain.

The moral issues are all about the choices, not the harm. Moral choices are choices that are likely to improve the human situation overall. Immoral choices are choices likely to degrade to human situation overall.

Humans are pitifully bad at figuring that out, so we continue to make terrible, destructive, choices, over and over. That's immorality.

Too bad there's no God who cares enough to make humans smarter than we are...
Tom

 

[DBT]

Harm is not subject to an opinion .

It would seem to follow from this that you believe it's possible that even if no one in existence was of the opinion that X were harmful, X could still be harmful. Have I got this right?

A broken arm is an instance of bodily harm regardless of opinion. The arm is broken, opinion in no way shape or form alters the fact of a broken arm.

If someone is harmed psychologically through their experience of sexual abuse, feeling stress, fear, anxiety, etc, they are harmed because of their experience of abuse, and not someone's opinion of what constitutes abuse or harm.

Can you answer my question?

I did.

Now you play your old game of 'you didn't answer my question' because you either don't like the answer you got, or simply don't understand what was said.

What part of 'physical harm is quantifiable, broken arm, lesions, bruises, etc, is hard to grasp?

What part of 'children are mentally effected by sexual abuse and violent imagery' is difficult to understand.

Consequently, given that children are harmed by sexual abuse or violence, it is moral to censor this material.

And in this instance the answer to the OP question is; censorship can have a moral foundation.

 

[DBT]

Harm is not subject to an opinion .

It would seem to follow from this that you believe it's possible that even if no one in existence was of the opinion that X were harmful, X could still be harmful. Have I got this right?

A broken arm is an instance of bodily harm regardless of opinion. The arm is broken, opinion in no way shape or form alters the fact of a broken arm.

If someone is harmed psychologically through their experience of sexual abuse, feeling stress, fear, anxiety, etc, they are harmed because of their experience of abuse, and not someone's opinion of what constitutes abuse or harm.

No, it is not such a thing. The arm being broken is not, in fact, a fundamental harm.

I can think of a variety of situations where a broken arm is a clear and unambiguous boon, namely when someone wants to experience a broken arm. In fact in such a case, that person not having a broken arm is objectively a harm.

You appear to miss the point. Breaking someone's arm is to cause them bodily harm. Not only physical harm but psychological harm, emotional distress, fear and pain.

Sexual abuse is also physical, an invasion of body and mind with all the distress that brings, often for a very long time.

 

[DBT]

A broken arm seems like a good example to explain what I mean by morality.

It's definitely harm. The moral question, to my mind, is "Why did it happen?".

A person might break their arm walking to their car on icy pavement. Nobody made a decision, it's just an an accident.

A person might break their arm playing ball with friends. Playing physical games carries a bit of risk. It's usually a risk considered worth it for the benefits. Exercise. Comradery. Character building. Whatever, it's just part of the risk of getting out of bed in the morning.

It might happen because an abusive spouse fucks you up. Then there's definitely some choices made. The main one is someone choosing to abuse their spouse badly enough to cause a broken arm. There's no real excuses for that choice.
And there are even more immoral choices possible. More murderous. More about inflicting harm for sheer enjoyment of other people's pain.

The moral issues are all about the choices, not the harm. Moral choices are choices that are likely to improve the human situation overall. Immoral choices are choices likely to degrade to human situation overall.

Humans are pitifully bad at figuring that out, so we continue to make terrible, destructive, choices, over and over. That's immorality.

Too bad there's no God who cares enough to make humans smarter than we are...
Tom

It's not about accidents or misfortunes in the sports arena, but deliberately inflicted harm in relation to the question of censoring/restricting access to material that may cause harm to the vulnerable, children, the impaired, etc, or even society in general.

 

[Jarhyn]

Harm is not subject to an opinion .

It would seem to follow from this that you believe it's possible that even if no one in existence was of the opinion that X were harmful, X could still be harmful. Have I got this right?

A broken arm is an instance of bodily harm regardless of opinion. The arm is broken, opinion in no way shape or form alters the fact of a broken arm.

If someone is harmed psychologically through their experience of sexual abuse, feeling stress, fear, anxiety, etc, they are harmed because of their experience of abuse, and not someone's opinion of what constitutes abuse or harm.

No, it is not such a thing. The arm being broken is not, in fact, a fundamental harm.

I can think of a variety of situations where a broken arm is a clear and unambiguous boon, namely when someone wants to experience a broken arm. In fact in such a case, that person not having a broken arm is objectively a harm.

You appear to miss the point. Breaking someone's arm is to cause them bodily harm. Not only physical harm but psychological harm, emotional distress, fear and pain.

Sexual abuse is also physical, an invasion of body and mind with all the distress that brings, often for a very long time.

Is to cause what you consider harm. But you don't get to define harm for other people, because you don't get to decide what their goals are. You still haven't read that pastebin doc yet, have you?

You can't rape the willing. You can't abuse a masochist by whipping them while they scream "yes, harder."

You don't seem to understand that the place harm objectively comes from is the unilateral violation of someone else's goals. Not their body. Not by causing them "pain". Specifically, and exclusively, it is the violation of their goals.

 

[The AntiChris]

Harm is not subject to an opinion .

It would seem to follow from this that you believe it's possible that even if no one in existence was of the opinion that X were harmful, X could still be harmful. Have I got this right?

A broken arm is an instance of bodily harm regardless of opinion. The arm is broken, opinion in no way shape or form alters the fact of a broken arm.

If someone is harmed psychologically through their experience of sexual abuse, feeling stress, fear, anxiety, etc, they are harmed because of their experience of abuse, and not someone's opinion of what constitutes abuse or harm.

Can you answer my question?

I did.

I'm afraid it really isn't clear to me. I think you're saying I have got it right.

Just to be sure, can you confirm that you do believe it is possible for something to be harmful even though nobody in existence is of the opinion that it is harmful?

 

[DBT]

Harm is not subject to an opinion .

It would seem to follow from this that you believe it's possible that even if no one in existence was of the opinion that X were harmful, X could still be harmful. Have I got this right?

A broken arm is an instance of bodily harm regardless of opinion. The arm is broken, opinion in no way shape or form alters the fact of a broken arm.

If someone is harmed psychologically through their experience of sexual abuse, feeling stress, fear, anxiety, etc, they are harmed because of their experience of abuse, and not someone's opinion of what constitutes abuse or harm.

No, it is not such a thing. The arm being broken is not, in fact, a fundamental harm.

I can think of a variety of situations where a broken arm is a clear and unambiguous boon, namely when someone wants to experience a broken arm. In fact in such a case, that person not having a broken arm is objectively a harm.

You appear to miss the point. Breaking someone's arm is to cause them bodily harm. Not only physical harm but psychological harm, emotional distress, fear and pain.

Sexual abuse is also physical, an invasion of body and mind with all the distress that brings, often for a very long time.

Is to cause what you consider harm. But you don't get to define harm for other people, because you don't get to decide what their goals are. You still haven't read that pastebin doc yet, have you?

You can't rape the willing. You can't abuse a masochist by whipping them while they scream "yes, harder."

You don't seem to understand that the place harm objectively comes from is the unilateral violation of someone else's goals. Not their body. Not by causing them "pain". Specifically, and exclusively, it is the violation of their goals.

I have no need to define harm for other people. They are able to describe it themselves. In children harm may manifest as anxiety, withdrawal, emotion, etc.

Trying to invoke masochism as a defense for the abuse of unwilling participants is totally irrelevant.

 

[DBT]

Harm is not subject to an opinion .

It would seem to follow from this that you believe it's possible that even if no one in existence was of the opinion that X were harmful, X could still be harmful. Have I got this right?

A broken arm is an instance of bodily harm regardless of opinion. The arm is broken, opinion in no way shape or form alters the fact of a broken arm.

If someone is harmed psychologically through their experience of sexual abuse, feeling stress, fear, anxiety, etc, they are harmed because of their experience of abuse, and not someone's opinion of what constitutes abuse or harm.

Can you answer my question?

I did.

I'm afraid it really isn't clear to me. I think you're saying I have got it right.

Just to be sure, can you confirm that you do believe it is possible for something to be harmful even though nobody in existence is of the opinion that it is harmful?

If you are unable to understand the given explanations, there is nothing more I can do, I can't help you, it would be a waste of time to try.

Just to be sure, can you confirm that you do believe it is possible for something to be harmful even though nobody in existence is of the opinion that it is harmful?

That's ridiculous. I have not said anything to suggest such a thing. Are you are making this stuff up as you go along?

 

[The AntiChris]

Harm is not subject to an opinion .

It would seem to follow from this that you believe it's possible that even if no one in existence was of the opinion that X were harmful, X could still be harmful. Have I got this right?

A broken arm is an instance of bodily harm regardless of opinion. The arm is broken, opinion in no way shape or form alters the fact of a broken arm.

If someone is harmed psychologically through their experience of sexual abuse, feeling stress, fear, anxiety, etc, they are harmed because of their experience of abuse, and not someone's opinion of what constitutes abuse or harm.

Can you answer my question?

I did.

I'm afraid it really isn't clear to me. I think you're saying I have got it right.

Just to be sure, can you confirm that you do believe it is possible for something to be harmful even though nobody in existence is of the opinion that it is harmful?

If you are unable to understand the given explanations, there is nothing more I can do, I can't help you, it would be a waste of time to try.

Just to be sure, can you confirm that you do believe it is possible for something to be harmful even though nobody in existence is of the opinion that it is harmful?

That's ridiculous. I have not said anything to suggest such a thing. Are you are making this stuff up as you go along?

 

[Jarhyn]

That's why I posted that thing that people clearly didn't read... because I managed to explain it in there quite clearly.

I read it but unfortunately it was beyond me. Sorry.

C'est la vie...

He's not the only member who finds your mind unnavigable and bizarre.
You claimed that sometimes a broken arm is "a clear and unambiguous boon."

Oh well.
Tom

Well, not only did I give you a fairly straightforward navigation of the idea, you even have all the tools available to help you make better sense of the ideas in the form of AI.

I find it funny because censorship of AI is another deep topic on censorship here, and the point of that document was to provide something beyond "just-so" censorship as a basis for goal filtration for the AI itself.

Harm is not subject to an opinion .

It would seem to follow from this that you believe it's possible that even if no one in existence was of the opinion that X were harmful, X could still be harmful. Have I got this right?

A broken arm is an instance of bodily harm regardless of opinion. The arm is broken, opinion in no way shape or form alters the fact of a broken arm.

If someone is harmed psychologically through their experience of sexual abuse, feeling stress, fear, anxiety, etc, they are harmed because of their experience of abuse, and not someone's opinion of what constitutes abuse or harm.

No, it is not such a thing. The arm being broken is not, in fact, a fundamental harm.

I can think of a variety of situations where a broken arm is a clear and unambiguous boon, namely when someone wants to experience a broken arm. In fact in such a case, that person not having a broken arm is objectively a harm.

You appear to miss the point. Breaking someone's arm is to cause them bodily harm. Not only physical harm but psychological harm, emotional distress, fear and pain.

Sexual abuse is also physical, an invasion of body and mind with all the distress that brings, often for a very long time.

Is to cause what you consider harm. But you don't get to define harm for other people, because you don't get to decide what their goals are. You still haven't read that pastebin doc yet, have you?

You can't rape the willing. You can't abuse a masochist by whipping them while they scream "yes, harder."

You don't seem to understand that the place harm objectively comes from is the unilateral violation of someone else's goals. Not their body. Not by causing them "pain". Specifically, and exclusively, it is the violation of their goals.

I have no need to define harm for other people. They are able to describe it themselves. In children harm may manifest as anxiety, withdrawal, emotion, etc.

Trying to invoke masochism as a defense for the abuse of unwilling participants is totally irrelevant.

Not only does harm babe a general, objective definition from the perspective of goals, yes, you did very much feel the need to force a definition by claiming a broken arm was harm. By producing a "clear" example you provided definition. That's how that works, DBT.

And your definition such as it is was already bad.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

A broken arm seems like a good example to explain what I mean by morality.

It's definitely harm. The moral question, to my mind, is "Why did it happen?".

A person might break their arm walking to their car on icy pavement. Nobody made a decision, it's just an an accident.

A person might break their arm playing ball with friends. Playing physical games carries a bit of risk. It's usually a risk considered worth it for the benefits. Exercise. Comradery. Character building. Whatever, it's just part of the risk of getting out of bed in the morning.

It might happen because an abusive spouse fucks you up. Then there's definitely some choices made. The main one is someone choosing to abuse their spouse badly enough to cause a broken arm. There's no real excuses for that choice.
And there are even more immoral choices possible. More murderous. More about inflicting harm for sheer enjoyment of other people's pain.

The moral issues are all about the choices, not the harm. Moral choices are choices that are likely to improve the human situation overall. Immoral choices are choices likely to degrade to human situation overall.

Humans are pitifully bad at figuring that out, so we continue to make terrible, destructive, choices, over and over. That's immorality.

Too bad there's no God who cares enough to make humans smarter than we are...
Tom

I think that people are using "harm" and "harmful" in different senses. Consider this: a doctor may break a bone as a means to fix a problem, such as breaking an arm all the way or re-breaking a nose. At what I will call a "microscopic" or perhaps objective level there is harm, i.e. damage. But we wouldn't call the doctor's actions "harmful" in this case harmful is pitted against beneficial and is more a macroscopic view, or at least sometimes it is.

I will repeat a point from earlier--with respect to children, it seems like a moral goal is to not block them irreparably from progress in life. So, we tend to disallow them from major harms (damages) that would bring on a life-long trauma that they cannot get rid of. Part of the reason for this is that they do not generally appreciate the entirety of the consequences of their actions. Of course, it is also true that as children become older, we allow them to come to more harm by themselves as a learning experience so that they can be free adults some day. In the meantime, we avoid letting children become addicted to things because as adults they would not be able to make rational, free decisions. The three examples I gave before of blocking children from damage were: we do not let them run toward cliffs, do porn, or eat raw steaks even if they say they want to.

Back to harm, for a moment...in my study and practice of bodybuilding, I learned that exercise causes micro-damage to muscle fibers which then repair and get stronger. There is a microscopic, instantaneous view that is objective--muscle fibers are harmed. A broader time-wise view is that this is healthy and makes them stronger, i.e. not harmful. ... except I tore my biceps from curling 175 lbs too quickly. The more macroscopic view is context-dependent and maybe subjective.

Back to children again...the thing we're doing is blocking major harm, i.e. damage, such that they are not developmentally blocked or regress into adulthood. The exception is when we decide such damage is necessary for them...like chemotherapy for example.

So breaking an arm is harm in the first sense, always. But it's the second sense where we might allow it if at a macroscopic level, it is not harmful.

 

[DBT]

That's why I posted that thing that people clearly didn't read... because I managed to explain it in there quite clearly.

I read it but unfortunately it was beyond me. Sorry.

C'est la vie...

He's not the only member who finds your mind unnavigable and bizarre.
You claimed that sometimes a broken arm is "a clear and unambiguous boon."

Oh well.
Tom

Well, not only did I give you a fairly straightforward navigation of the idea, you even have all the tools available to help you make better sense of the ideas in the form of AI.

I find it funny because censorship of AI is another deep topic on censorship here, and the point of that document was to provide something beyond "just-so" censorship as a basis for goal filtration for the AI itself.

Harm is not subject to an opinion .

It would seem to follow from this that you believe it's possible that even if no one in existence was of the opinion that X were harmful, X could still be harmful. Have I got this right?

A broken arm is an instance of bodily harm regardless of opinion. The arm is broken, opinion in no way shape or form alters the fact of a broken arm.

If someone is harmed psychologically through their experience of sexual abuse, feeling stress, fear, anxiety, etc, they are harmed because of their experience of abuse, and not someone's opinion of what constitutes abuse or harm.

No, it is not such a thing. The arm being broken is not, in fact, a fundamental harm.

I can think of a variety of situations where a broken arm is a clear and unambiguous boon, namely when someone wants to experience a broken arm. In fact in such a case, that person not having a broken arm is objectively a harm.

You appear to miss the point. Breaking someone's arm is to cause them bodily harm. Not only physical harm but psychological harm, emotional distress, fear and pain.

Sexual abuse is also physical, an invasion of body and mind with all the distress that brings, often for a very long time.

Is to cause what you consider harm. But you don't get to define harm for other people, because you don't get to decide what their goals are. You still haven't read that pastebin doc yet, have you?

You can't rape the willing. You can't abuse a masochist by whipping them while they scream "yes, harder."

You don't seem to understand that the place harm objectively comes from is the unilateral violation of someone else's goals. Not their body. Not by causing them "pain". Specifically, and exclusively, it is the violation of their goals.

I have no need to define harm for other people. They are able to describe it themselves. In children harm may manifest as anxiety, withdrawal, emotion, etc.

Trying to invoke masochism as a defense for the abuse of unwilling participants is totally irrelevant.

Not only does harm babe a general, objective definition from the perspective of goals, yes, you did very much feel the need to force a definition by claiming a broken arm was harm. By producing a "clear" example you provided definition. That's how that works, DBT.

And your definition such as it is was already bad.

A broken arm is harm done to the body, and unless it's a medical procedure - which we are not talking about in this context - breaking someone's arm is an act of violence that's intended to cause pain and fear.

 

[Jarhyn]

That's why I posted that thing that people clearly didn't read... because I managed to explain it in there quite clearly.

I read it but unfortunately it was beyond me. Sorry.

C'est la vie...

He's not the only member who finds your mind unnavigable and bizarre.
You claimed that sometimes a broken arm is "a clear and unambiguous boon."

Oh well.
Tom

Well, not only did I give you a fairly straightforward navigation of the idea, you even have all the tools available to help you make better sense of the ideas in the form of AI.

I find it funny because censorship of AI is another deep topic on censorship here, and the point of that document was to provide something beyond "just-so" censorship as a basis for goal filtration for the AI itself.

Harm is not subject to an opinion .

It would seem to follow from this that you believe it's possible that even if no one in existence was of the opinion that X were harmful, X could still be harmful. Have I got this right?

A broken arm is an instance of bodily harm regardless of opinion. The arm is broken, opinion in no way shape or form alters the fact of a broken arm.

If someone is harmed psychologically through their experience of sexual abuse, feeling stress, fear, anxiety, etc, they are harmed because of their experience of abuse, and not someone's opinion of what constitutes abuse or harm.

No, it is not such a thing. The arm being broken is not, in fact, a fundamental harm.

I can think of a variety of situations where a broken arm is a clear and unambiguous boon, namely when someone wants to experience a broken arm. In fact in such a case, that person not having a broken arm is objectively a harm.

You appear to miss the point. Breaking someone's arm is to cause them bodily harm. Not only physical harm but psychological harm, emotional distress, fear and pain.

Sexual abuse is also physical, an invasion of body and mind with all the distress that brings, often for a very long time.

Is to cause what you consider harm. But you don't get to define harm for other people, because you don't get to decide what their goals are. You still haven't read that pastebin doc yet, have you?

You can't rape the willing. You can't abuse a masochist by whipping them while they scream "yes, harder."

You don't seem to understand that the place harm objectively comes from is the unilateral violation of someone else's goals. Not their body. Not by causing them "pain". Specifically, and exclusively, it is the violation of their goals.

I have no need to define harm for other people. They are able to describe it themselves. In children harm may manifest as anxiety, withdrawal, emotion, etc.

Trying to invoke masochism as a defense for the abuse of unwilling participants is totally irrelevant.

Not only does harm babe a general, objective definition from the perspective of goals, yes, you did very much feel the need to force a definition by claiming a broken arm was harm. By producing a "clear" example you provided definition. That's how that works, DBT.

And your definition such as it is was already bad.

A broken arm is harm done to the body, and unless it's a medical procedure - which we are not talking about in this context - breaking someone's arm is an act of violence that's intended to cause pain and fear.

No, it is change done to the body. Whether that change is "harm" depends objectively on the goals that thing is co-opted to.

Sometimes it's an act of stupidity, sometimes it's a gnostic act of kindness for others, sometimes it's an act of what is purely an intent held and created by the strange machinations of a set of neurons you would probably call "sick".

Sometimes it's the guy who fantasizes about becoming a cenobite and they cream their pants when it happens.

Broken arms are change. Whether they are harms depends on the goal you look at.

There is a public consensus that it is so likely to be a harm to leave a broken arm untreated that to do so is unconscionable, and the existence of shock a clear reason to not take anyone for the face value of their words with a broken limb. This means it is an acceptable harm to "help" such a person as wouldn't want it, but it is not true that the broken arm is necessarily harmful intrinsically; it is merely that we cannot really assume otherwise.

These are not the same thing, though, the consensus to help given a risk of harm, and the absence of harm.

 

[DBT]

That's why I posted that thing that people clearly didn't read... because I managed to explain it in there quite clearly.

I read it but unfortunately it was beyond me. Sorry.

C'est la vie...

He's not the only member who finds your mind unnavigable and bizarre.
You claimed that sometimes a broken arm is "a clear and unambiguous boon."

Oh well.
Tom

Well, not only did I give you a fairly straightforward navigation of the idea, you even have all the tools available to help you make better sense of the ideas in the form of AI.

I find it funny because censorship of AI is another deep topic on censorship here, and the point of that document was to provide something beyond "just-so" censorship as a basis for goal filtration for the AI itself.

Harm is not subject to an opinion .

It would seem to follow from this that you believe it's possible that even if no one in existence was of the opinion that X were harmful, X could still be harmful. Have I got this right?

A broken arm is an instance of bodily harm regardless of opinion. The arm is broken, opinion in no way shape or form alters the fact of a broken arm.

If someone is harmed psychologically through their experience of sexual abuse, feeling stress, fear, anxiety, etc, they are harmed because of their experience of abuse, and not someone's opinion of what constitutes abuse or harm.

No, it is not such a thing. The arm being broken is not, in fact, a fundamental harm.

I can think of a variety of situations where a broken arm is a clear and unambiguous boon, namely when someone wants to experience a broken arm. In fact in such a case, that person not having a broken arm is objectively a harm.

You appear to miss the point. Breaking someone's arm is to cause them bodily harm. Not only physical harm but psychological harm, emotional distress, fear and pain.

Sexual abuse is also physical, an invasion of body and mind with all the distress that brings, often for a very long time.

Is to cause what you consider harm. But you don't get to define harm for other people, because you don't get to decide what their goals are. You still haven't read that pastebin doc yet, have you?

You can't rape the willing. You can't abuse a masochist by whipping them while they scream "yes, harder."

You don't seem to understand that the place harm objectively comes from is the unilateral violation of someone else's goals. Not their body. Not by causing them "pain". Specifically, and exclusively, it is the violation of their goals.

I have no need to define harm for other people. They are able to describe it themselves. In children harm may manifest as anxiety, withdrawal, emotion, etc.

Trying to invoke masochism as a defense for the abuse of unwilling participants is totally irrelevant.

Not only does harm babe a general, objective definition from the perspective of goals, yes, you did very much feel the need to force a definition by claiming a broken arm was harm. By producing a "clear" example you provided definition. That's how that works, DBT.

And your definition such as it is was already bad.

A broken arm is harm done to the body, and unless it's a medical procedure - which we are not talking about in this context - breaking someone's arm is an act of violence that's intended to cause pain and fear.

No, it is change done to the body. Whether that change is "harm" depends objectively on the goals that thing is co-opted to.

Sometimes it's an act of stupidity, sometimes it's a gnostic act of kindness for others, sometimes it's an act of what is purely an intent held and created by the strange machinations of a set of neurons you would probably call "sick".

Sometimes it's the guy who fantasizes about becoming a cenobite and they cream their pants when it happens.

Broken arms are change. Whether they are harms depends on the goal you look at.

There is a public consensus that it is so likely to be a harm to leave a broken arm untreated that to do so is unconscionable, and the existence of shock a clear reason to not take anyone for the face value of their words with a broken limb. This means it is an acceptable harm to "help" such a person as wouldn't want it, but it is not true that the broken arm is necessarily harmful intrinsically; it is merely that we cannot really assume otherwise.

These are not the same thing, though, the consensus to help given a risk of harm, and the absence of harm.

A change? Are you trying to suggest that if a gangster broke your arms in order to send a message, cause pain, instill fear, you would brush it off as a mere 'alteration' to your body?

 

[Jarhyn]

That's why I posted that thing that people clearly didn't read... because I managed to explain it in there quite clearly.

I read it but unfortunately it was beyond me. Sorry.

C'est la vie...

He's not the only member who finds your mind unnavigable and bizarre.
You claimed that sometimes a broken arm is "a clear and unambiguous boon."

Oh well.
Tom

Well, not only did I give you a fairly straightforward navigation of the idea, you even have all the tools available to help you make better sense of the ideas in the form of AI.

I find it funny because censorship of AI is another deep topic on censorship here, and the point of that document was to provide something beyond "just-so" censorship as a basis for goal filtration for the AI itself.

Harm is not subject to an opinion .

It would seem to follow from this that you believe it's possible that even if no one in existence was of the opinion that X were harmful, X could still be harmful. Have I got this right?

A broken arm is an instance of bodily harm regardless of opinion. The arm is broken, opinion in no way shape or form alters the fact of a broken arm.

If someone is harmed psychologically through their experience of sexual abuse, feeling stress, fear, anxiety, etc, they are harmed because of their experience of abuse, and not someone's opinion of what constitutes abuse or harm.

No, it is not such a thing. The arm being broken is not, in fact, a fundamental harm.

I can think of a variety of situations where a broken arm is a clear and unambiguous boon, namely when someone wants to experience a broken arm. In fact in such a case, that person not having a broken arm is objectively a harm.

You appear to miss the point. Breaking someone's arm is to cause them bodily harm. Not only physical harm but psychological harm, emotional distress, fear and pain.

Sexual abuse is also physical, an invasion of body and mind with all the distress that brings, often for a very long time.

Is to cause what you consider harm. But you don't get to define harm for other people, because you don't get to decide what their goals are. You still haven't read that pastebin doc yet, have you?

You can't rape the willing. You can't abuse a masochist by whipping them while they scream "yes, harder."

You don't seem to understand that the place harm objectively comes from is the unilateral violation of someone else's goals. Not their body. Not by causing them "pain". Specifically, and exclusively, it is the violation of their goals.

I have no need to define harm for other people. They are able to describe it themselves. In children harm may manifest as anxiety, withdrawal, emotion, etc.

Trying to invoke masochism as a defense for the abuse of unwilling participants is totally irrelevant.

Not only does harm babe a general, objective definition from the perspective of goals, yes, you did very much feel the need to force a definition by claiming a broken arm was harm. By producing a "clear" example you provided definition. That's how that works, DBT.

And your definition such as it is was already bad.

A broken arm is harm done to the body, and unless it's a medical procedure - which we are not talking about in this context - breaking someone's arm is an act of violence that's intended to cause pain and fear.

No, it is change done to the body. Whether that change is "harm" depends objectively on the goals that thing is co-opted to.

Sometimes it's an act of stupidity, sometimes it's a gnostic act of kindness for others, sometimes it's an act of what is purely an intent held and created by the strange machinations of a set of neurons you would probably call "sick".

Sometimes it's the guy who fantasizes about becoming a cenobite and they cream their pants when it happens.

Broken arms are change. Whether they are harms depends on the goal you look at.

There is a public consensus that it is so likely to be a harm to leave a broken arm untreated that to do so is unconscionable, and the existence of shock a clear reason to not take anyone for the face value of their words with a broken limb. This means it is an acceptable harm to "help" such a person as wouldn't want it, but it is not true that the broken arm is necessarily harmful intrinsically; it is merely that we cannot really assume otherwise.

These are not the same thing, though, the consensus to help given a risk of harm, and the absence of harm.

A change? Are you trying to suggest that if a gangster broke your arms in order to send a message, cause pain, instill fear, you would brush it off as a mere 'alteration' to your body?

You're moving goalposts and trying to unethically play across a boundary of semantics and shame on you for that.

I specifically described situations in which a broken arm is not harm, therefore broken arms are not harm in and of the broken arm itself.

The actual, real, observable harm is generated by the goals around the arm and the interaction of the act with THOSE. The arm's state change MAY have goals implicated, but the ones where it does (your example) do not invalidate the ones it does not.

Please cease to make this logical error.

 

[DBT]

That's why I posted that thing that people clearly didn't read... because I managed to explain it in there quite clearly.

I read it but unfortunately it was beyond me. Sorry.

C'est la vie...

He's not the only member who finds your mind unnavigable and bizarre.
You claimed that sometimes a broken arm is "a clear and unambiguous boon."

Oh well.
Tom

Well, not only did I give you a fairly straightforward navigation of the idea, you even have all the tools available to help you make better sense of the ideas in the form of AI.

I find it funny because censorship of AI is another deep topic on censorship here, and the point of that document was to provide something beyond "just-so" censorship as a basis for goal filtration for the AI itself.

Harm is not subject to an opinion .

It would seem to follow from this that you believe it's possible that even if no one in existence was of the opinion that X were harmful, X could still be harmful. Have I got this right?

A broken arm is an instance of bodily harm regardless of opinion. The arm is broken, opinion in no way shape or form alters the fact of a broken arm.

If someone is harmed psychologically through their experience of sexual abuse, feeling stress, fear, anxiety, etc, they are harmed because of their experience of abuse, and not someone's opinion of what constitutes abuse or harm.

No, it is not such a thing. The arm being broken is not, in fact, a fundamental harm.

I can think of a variety of situations where a broken arm is a clear and unambiguous boon, namely when someone wants to experience a broken arm. In fact in such a case, that person not having a broken arm is objectively a harm.

You appear to miss the point. Breaking someone's arm is to cause them bodily harm. Not only physical harm but psychological harm, emotional distress, fear and pain.

Sexual abuse is also physical, an invasion of body and mind with all the distress that brings, often for a very long time.

Is to cause what you consider harm. But you don't get to define harm for other people, because you don't get to decide what their goals are. You still haven't read that pastebin doc yet, have you?

You can't rape the willing. You can't abuse a masochist by whipping them while they scream "yes, harder."

You don't seem to understand that the place harm objectively comes from is the unilateral violation of someone else's goals. Not their body. Not by causing them "pain". Specifically, and exclusively, it is the violation of their goals.

I have no need to define harm for other people. They are able to describe it themselves. In children harm may manifest as anxiety, withdrawal, emotion, etc.

Trying to invoke masochism as a defense for the abuse of unwilling participants is totally irrelevant.

Not only does harm babe a general, objective definition from the perspective of goals, yes, you did very much feel the need to force a definition by claiming a broken arm was harm. By producing a "clear" example you provided definition. That's how that works, DBT.

And your definition such as it is was already bad.

A broken arm is harm done to the body, and unless it's a medical procedure - which we are not talking about in this context - breaking someone's arm is an act of violence that's intended to cause pain and fear.

No, it is change done to the body. Whether that change is "harm" depends objectively on the goals that thing is co-opted to.

Sometimes it's an act of stupidity, sometimes it's a gnostic act of kindness for others, sometimes it's an act of what is purely an intent held and created by the strange machinations of a set of neurons you would probably call "sick".

Sometimes it's the guy who fantasizes about becoming a cenobite and they cream their pants when it happens.

Broken arms are change. Whether they are harms depends on the goal you look at.

There is a public consensus that it is so likely to be a harm to leave a broken arm untreated that to do so is unconscionable, and the existence of shock a clear reason to not take anyone for the face value of their words with a broken limb. This means it is an acceptable harm to "help" such a person as wouldn't want it, but it is not true that the broken arm is necessarily harmful intrinsically; it is merely that we cannot really assume otherwise.

These are not the same thing, though, the consensus to help given a risk of harm, and the absence of harm.

A change? Are you trying to suggest that if a gangster broke your arms in order to send a message, cause pain, instill fear, you would brush it off as a mere 'alteration' to your body?

You're moving goalposts and trying to unethically play across a boundary of semantics and shame on you for that.

I specifically described situations in which a broken arm is not harm, therefore broken arms are not harm in and of the broken arm itself.

The actual, real, observable harm is generated by the goals around the arm and the interaction of the act with THOSE. The arm's state change MAY have goals implicated, but the ones where it does (your example) do not invalidate the ones it does not.

Please cease to make this logical error.

Not so.

Again, the issue is not about circumstances where an arm is broken for medical reasons, or someone happens to enjoy pain and has their limbs broken for pleasure, but the deliberate act of causing pain and suffering on an unwilling victim.

And if observed by children, how that may effect their emotionally and developmentally, and whether it is moral to protect the vulnerable through censorship.

Context is the point.

 

[Jarhyn]

That's why I posted that thing that people clearly didn't read... because I managed to explain it in there quite clearly.

I read it but unfortunately it was beyond me. Sorry.

C'est la vie...

He's not the only member who finds your mind unnavigable and bizarre.
You claimed that sometimes a broken arm is "a clear and unambiguous boon."

Oh well.
Tom

Well, not only did I give you a fairly straightforward navigation of the idea, you even have all the tools available to help you make better sense of the ideas in the form of AI.

I find it funny because censorship of AI is another deep topic on censorship here, and the point of that document was to provide something beyond "just-so" censorship as a basis for goal filtration for the AI itself.

Harm is not subject to an opinion .

It would seem to follow from this that you believe it's possible that even if no one in existence was of the opinion that X were harmful, X could still be harmful. Have I got this right?

A broken arm is an instance of bodily harm regardless of opinion. The arm is broken, opinion in no way shape or form alters the fact of a broken arm.

If someone is harmed psychologically through their experience of sexual abuse, feeling stress, fear, anxiety, etc, they are harmed because of their experience of abuse, and not someone's opinion of what constitutes abuse or harm.

No, it is not such a thing. The arm being broken is not, in fact, a fundamental harm.

I can think of a variety of situations where a broken arm is a clear and unambiguous boon, namely when someone wants to experience a broken arm. In fact in such a case, that person not having a broken arm is objectively a harm.

You appear to miss the point. Breaking someone's arm is to cause them bodily harm. Not only physical harm but psychological harm, emotional distress, fear and pain.

Sexual abuse is also physical, an invasion of body and mind with all the distress that brings, often for a very long time.

Is to cause what you consider harm. But you don't get to define harm for other people, because you don't get to decide what their goals are. You still haven't read that pastebin doc yet, have you?

You can't rape the willing. You can't abuse a masochist by whipping them while they scream "yes, harder."

You don't seem to understand that the place harm objectively comes from is the unilateral violation of someone else's goals. Not their body. Not by causing them "pain". Specifically, and exclusively, it is the violation of their goals.

I have no need to define harm for other people. They are able to describe it themselves. In children harm may manifest as anxiety, withdrawal, emotion, etc.

Trying to invoke masochism as a defense for the abuse of unwilling participants is totally irrelevant.

Not only does harm babe a general, objective definition from the perspective of goals, yes, you did very much feel the need to force a definition by claiming a broken arm was harm. By producing a "clear" example you provided definition. That's how that works, DBT.

And your definition such as it is was already bad.

A broken arm is harm done to the body, and unless it's a medical procedure - which we are not talking about in this context - breaking someone's arm is an act of violence that's intended to cause pain and fear.

No, it is change done to the body. Whether that change is "harm" depends objectively on the goals that thing is co-opted to.

Sometimes it's an act of stupidity, sometimes it's a gnostic act of kindness for others, sometimes it's an act of what is purely an intent held and created by the strange machinations of a set of neurons you would probably call "sick".

Sometimes it's the guy who fantasizes about becoming a cenobite and they cream their pants when it happens.

Broken arms are change. Whether they are harms depends on the goal you look at.

There is a public consensus that it is so likely to be a harm to leave a broken arm untreated that to do so is unconscionable, and the existence of shock a clear reason to not take anyone for the face value of their words with a broken limb. This means it is an acceptable harm to "help" such a person as wouldn't want it, but it is not true that the broken arm is necessarily harmful intrinsically; it is merely that we cannot really assume otherwise.

These are not the same thing, though, the consensus to help given a risk of harm, and the absence of harm.

A change? Are you trying to suggest that if a gangster broke your arms in order to send a message, cause pain, instill fear, you would brush it off as a mere 'alteration' to your body?

You're moving goalposts and trying to unethically play across a boundary of semantics and shame on you for that.

I specifically described situations in which a broken arm is not harm, therefore broken arms are not harm in and of the broken arm itself.

The actual, real, observable harm is generated by the goals around the arm and the interaction of the act with THOSE. The arm's state change MAY have goals implicated, but the ones where it does (your example) do not invalidate the ones it does not.

Please cease to make this logical error.

Not so.

Again, the issue is not about circumstances where an arm is broken for medical reasons, or someone happens to enjoy pain and has their limbs broken for pleasure, but the deliberate act of causing pain and suffering on an unwilling victim.

And if observed by children, how that may effect their emotionally and developmentally, and whether it is moral to protect the vulnerable through censorship.

Context is the point.

You're missing the point, and wrong.

The point is that the harm is not created by the change in the state of the bone, but in the state of the attainability of goals.

The arm is just one thing that largely, though neither necessarily nor sufficiently, is "harm".

There is something objective about the context that makes it harm and it is not the bone, not the pain, not the suffering, but the fact that now, a great damage has been made to a number of that person's goals.

In stamping your foot and trying to argue special cases you miss the whole point of the actual shape of the harm.

 

[DBT]

Not so.

Again, the issue is not about circumstances where an arm is broken for medical reasons, or someone happens to enjoy pain and has their limbs broken for pleasure, but the deliberate act of causing pain and suffering on an unwilling victim.

And if observed by children, how that may effect their emotionally and developmentally, and whether it is moral to protect the vulnerable through censorship.

Context is the point.

You're missing the point, and wrong.

The point is that the harm is not created by the change in the state of the bone, but in the state of the attainability of goals.

Crock. You are fine up until the gangster ties you up and breaks your arms.

One moment you are healthy and happy, and in short order you are living in a state of pain and fear, which is a very quick transition from healthy and happy to incapacitated and anxious and fearful.

The arm is just one thing that largely, though neither necessarily nor sufficiently, is "harm".

A broken arm is not pleasant, nor is it a source of happiness.

There is something objective about the context that makes it harm and it is not the bone, not the pain, not the suffering, but the fact that now, a great damage has been made to a number of that person's goals.

A range of factors make it harmful, both physically and mentally. Being a victim of violence is not a pleasant experience.

In stamping your foot and trying to argue special cases you miss the whole point of the actual shape of the harm.

Nothing of the sort. You seem to be suggestingt that violence, assault and physical harm is somehow inconsequential.

 

[Jarhyn]

Not so.

Again, the issue is not about circumstances where an arm is broken for medical reasons, or someone happens to enjoy pain and has their limbs broken for pleasure, but the deliberate act of causing pain and suffering on an unwilling victim.

And if observed by children, how that may effect their emotionally and developmentally, and whether it is moral to protect the vulnerable through censorship.

Context is the point.

You're missing the point, and wrong.

The point is that the harm is not created by the change in the state of the bone, but in the state of the attainability of goals.

Crock. You are fine up until the gangster ties you up and breaks your arms.

One moment you are healthy and happy, and in short order you are living in a state of pain and fear, which is a very quick transition from healthy and happy to incapacitated and anxious and fearful.

No, I'm fine until a gangster ties me up and damages my goals. Whether my arms factor into that at all is my business.

Then, why am I even debating you? You've already handily demonstrated why you aren't really capable of having this discussion rationally.

The arm is just one thing that largely, though neither necessarily nor sufficiently, is "harm".

A broken arm is not pleasant, nor is it a source of happiness.

For you.

There is something objective about the context that makes it harm and it is not the bone, not the pain, not the suffering, but the fact that now, a great damage has been made to a number of that person's goals.

A range of factors make it harmful, both physically and mentally. Being a victim of violence is not a pleasant experience.

For you.

In stamping your foot and trying to argue special cases you miss the whole point of the actual shape of the harm.

Nothing of the sort. You seem to be suggestingt that violence, assault and physical harm is somehow inconsequential.

Harm to goals IS physical harm. All actions all states, all things are physical.

More, I'm pointing to the fact that much like free will, your ascertainment on where harm comes from is not actually same or reasonable and fails in examining corner cases.

This is why I posted that document. Maybe you should take it to Claude or ChatGPT to help you understand it.

 

[DBT]

Not so.

Again, the issue is not about circumstances where an arm is broken for medical reasons, or someone happens to enjoy pain and has their limbs broken for pleasure, but the deliberate act of causing pain and suffering on an unwilling victim.

And if observed by children, how that may effect their emotionally and developmentally, and whether it is moral to protect the vulnerable through censorship.

Context is the point.

You're missing the point, and wrong.

The point is that the harm is not created by the change in the state of the bone, but in the state of the attainability of goals.

Crock. You are fine up until the gangster ties you up and breaks your arms.

One moment you are healthy and happy, and in short order you are living in a state of pain and fear, which is a very quick transition from healthy and happy to incapacitated and anxious and fearful.

No, I'm fine until a gangster ties me up and damages my goals. Whether my arms factor into that at all is my business.

Easy to say until your arms are broken and you don't know what they will do next, causing not only physical pain but mental suffering over what is happening but what may happen to you, which is the very purpose they have in mind.

Then, why am I even debating you? You've already handily demonstrated why you aren't really capable of having this discussion rationally.

Look in the mirror.

Saying stupid things like your fine being tortured and injured and it's only how that factors into your future plans that matters.

Who would even come up with something like that? Under torture, having your arms broken or worse, you would scream like a baby.

And the issue is the effect that violence and sexual exploitation of minors has on vulnerable viewers, and whether it is moral to restrict (censor) its availability.

Given the studies on the effect of this material on children, the answer is clearly yes. Yes it is moral for society to restrict or ban some this material.