Do you have Bayesian inference to justify any of your claims?
Legga isn't being serious and now the joke is on you.
Do you have Bayesian inference to justify any of your claims?
Legga isn't being serious and now the joke is on you.
You know I'm ...being facetious right?
Thrall to the Wire of Self-Excited Circuit.
Do you have Bayesian inference to justify any of your claims?
Legga isn't being serious and now the joke is on you.
You know I'm ...being facetious right?
Whatever makes you feel better.
Do you have Bayesian inference to justify any of your claims?
Which claim, specifically?
Not all of the claims are statistical in nature, some I think are self-evident and thus justified by the shared prior. I'll justify them if you disagree on the prior.
last edit on
1/8/2023 5:34:57 AM
Do you have Bayesian inference to justify any of your claims?
Legga isn't being serious and now the joke is on you.
Well, I'm being serious in the sense that, despite the ridiculousness of the proposition, I see nothing obvious in my world view that contradicts the logic. Therefore, I should allow chimpanzees to compete in MMA. I made the provocative claim to see if anyone can point out the fallacy, which I am sure is there.
last edit on
1/8/2023 5:36:44 AM
Do you have Bayesian inference to justify any of your claims?
Which claim, specifically?
Not all of the claims are statistical in nature, some I think are self-evident and thus justified by the shared prior. I'll justify them if you disagree on the prior.
Fair...I will get back to you on this...
Thrall to the Wire of Self-Excited Circuit.
Do you have Bayesian inference to justify any of your claims?
Which claim, specifically?
Not all of the claims are statistical in nature, some I think are self-evident and evidenced in part by the prior.
What kind of propositions can be verified a priori and what's your epistemology of said verification?
Do you have Bayesian inference to justify any of your claims?
Legga isn't being serious and now the joke is on you.
Well, I'm being serious in the sense that, despite the ridiculousness of the proposition, I see nothing obvious in my world view that contradicts the logic. Therefore, I should allow chimpanzees to compete in MMA. I made the provocative claim to see if anyone can point out the fallacy, which I am sure is there.
The Fallacy would be animal abuse and fighting a chimp could get deadly. A chimp has the strength of 2 men. That's 2 men okay ? If 2 men really try they can flip a car.
Here:
I actually don't think it would be such a bad idea to ask chimpanzees to consent and fight in MMA. I don't see the problem. Firstly, if you elevate them on the level of humans, then it's speciesism to deny them rights to MMA.
Here I assume, among other things, that you have sufficient knowledge of speciesism and agree, on an ethical level, that speciesism is bad, a priori. I make no effort to also justify why someone elevating chimpanzees to the level of humans would care about speciesism, but instead assume it as a collectively accepted fact, which it may not be, in the strictest sense. But I assume you would agree, based on what I think the collective shared cultural and knowledge pool is.
If you don't elevate them on the level of humans, then it's also not a problem because, frankly, they're animals. We anyway eat animals and treat them like shit. It's not then a question of whether or not they can consent, which they can.
Here I presume, among other things, that you agree we eat animals and treat them like shit, without having to justify it. If you disagreed, I'd be happy to provide resources to justify that.
The reason we have things in place for children is because they're not mature enough. They will be able to make better decisions later in life. However, if there is, somewhere, an incredibly smart person with an IQ of 180, they might look at your decisions and go, "yeah he's not smart enough to make informed decisions". So really only incredibly smart people can consent.
etcetc
If you don't elevate them on the level of humans, then it's also not a problem because, frankly, they're animals. We anyway eat animals and treat them like shit. It's not then a question of whether or not they can consent, which they can.Here I presume, among other things, that you agree we eat animals and treat them like shit, without having to justify it. If you disagreed, I'd be happy to provide resources to justify that.
I was saying the other day how I want to become a vegetarian. Because I saw this....
Those eyes.
I also know, if I become a vegetarian, that won't stop the horror show and their death will be in vain, but not really.
With or without me in this world this horror show will carry on, while me quitting meat won't save any of them.