^ actually is self-harm against rules? Hrm

well has devolved

@Summer~ 🍃 I'ts a hiv emind

echo chamber^

@Summer~ 🍃 what evidence do you have that trans people are not spawned by an infectious virus

<:Feelsweirdman:644895953064820776>

@actual_communist_boi that i have not contacted a single trans girl in person and am myself trams

What evidence do you have that ordinary people are not spawned by an infectious virus?

@Summer~ 🍃 it only affects 0.5% of those it infects

@actual_communist_boi avoiding the collapse objection exposes you to the incoherence objection the standford page cites hookers responce but it isnt succesfull at defeating a certain form of the incoherence objection https://sci-hub.tw/https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10677-016-9687-8 that objection too can be avoided but with serious costs the rule consequentialism has to accept brute facts

@actual_communist_boi Do you have any statistics to back up this claim?

@Castore could you briefly summarize the incoherence objection

@Summer~ 🍃 yes, 0.5% of people are trans

exaclty the same porportion as thevirus

<:PEPELAUGH:643817011117424708>

oh nvm

@actual_communist_boi would that not mean that 100% of the population is infected

first paragraph is good

so everyone is trans

```The incoherence objection is a major objection to rule-consequentialism. The objection says that the theory allows actions that do not maximize wellbeing, even though the theory is also tacitly committed to maximization```

but only .5% exert symptoms

so its impossible to be wrong when you egg someone

and thereofre it is not problematic

<:PogU:524717853019209749>

@Castore so I'm not sure exactly what Hooker's response is or this guy's response to Hooker's response

@actual_communist_boi ''The viability of this defense of rule-consequentialism against the incoherence objection may depend in part on what the argument for rule-consequentialism is supposed to be. The defense seems less viable if the argument for rule-consequentialism starts from a commitment to consequentialist assessment. For starting with such a commitment seems very close to starting from an overriding commitment to maximize the expected good. The defence against the incoherence objection seems far more secure, however, if the argument for rule-consequentialism is that this theory does better than any other moral theory at specifying an impartial justification for intuitively plausible moral rules. (For more on this, see Hooker 2005, 2007.)''

anti-philosophy gang needs to rise up

this si from the standford page

@actual_communist_boi the responce they cite against the incoherence is from hooker

WHO THE F IS BRAD HOOKER oh

Another worthless moral philosopher

@actual_communist_boi the author that article is responding to,i got this from just reading the section and collapse in the standford page you cited

lol

I didn't cite it, Dodger did, but what do you want me to take from this?

At least he studied under Derek Parfit but meh

I think I'd defend the first justification (consequentialism -> ruletil) and also against the incoherence justification

alright

I found the next good meme

@Dodger101