𝓔𝓻𝓲𝓷 ∘₊✧˚ 🌹🌱🦋

Apparently there was a tornado 10 blocks south and we were just on a patio ignoring our phones alarming with disdain lmao

I have been told that people know which powershell scripts I wrote because they’re all teal and magenta

I LIKE THE COLOR SCHEME OKAY

I didn’t mean the act of speaking a sentence, I mean that the rules that make a sentence what it is don’t seem to be physical. We can move away from the example to be more clear though since sentences are mind-dependent, consider something like “two,” or something like logical identity

Slick 😎

don’t advocate thoughtcrime or anything like that; but I do think a person that says out loud “I think about killing people all the time, in exquisite detail. It brings me so much pleasure that I actively seek out” rightly opens themselves up to moral judgment

“But I just take pleasure about this in my mind, I will never actually do it.”

That they are an adult and have freedom of thought is not in dispute.

What’s in dispute is whether it’s healthy or morally right to embrace the thoughts and SEEK pleasure in them rather than seek to repudiate them. I 🧵

I agree that consenting adults can do play of that sort, yes: I just think that people should ask themselves why (though you already agreed to that aspect).

I don’t know, it just feels to me like someone could have thoughts about violently stabbing people around them. And this person could argue, 🧵

I think this depends on what’s meant by interact. When you form a sentence you arguably interact with its structure, for instance: yet a sentence doesn’t have mass, energy, or spatiotemporal extension

Seat taken. OCCUPIED. 🚫🪑

to it we should probably be asking ourselves why. Wouldn’t we go to see someone if we have invasive thoughts about, say, killing the neighbor or something? Wouldn’t it be alarming if instead of seeing someone about that, we took secret pleasure in it?

say “I’d always have consent, it’s just fantasy!”), then it’s like having an invasive thought but instead of denouncing and repudiating it, taking pleasure in and accepting it. If we are fantasizing about something we know is wrong and saying “it’s JUST fantasy,” I think instead of getting off 🧵

thoughts once in a while, where we might go “woah, why did I think something so awful?” Engaging in problematic fantasy is like engaging with an invasive thought: it’s something we should know is wrong (we might say, “I’d never really hook up with a 14 year old!” or for nonconsent p*** we might 🧵

mortified by it even though there isn’t a victim. Cosplaying as a child or child-coding is just a few steps away from that. I am not calling for anything to be illegal here, just noting prima facie that I think fantasy and engaging in fantasy CAN be moralized. For instance, everyone has invasive 🧵

I think fantasy can be problematic, though. I stopped to think about whether I agree, and I think I don’t. Even in cases where a person would never actualize a fantasy (so “no victim, no crime”), how would we feel about someone hand drawing very realistic child p***? I think we would be 🧵

Lol

Nooooo

Yeah, I agree

The amount of step-sibling coded porn concerns me but not as much as “barely legal” porn, braces, youth-coded clothing, “first time,” and acted-out surprise/ignorance. The whole *world* is full of fucking pedophiles and it’s not talked about enough. Call it a fantasy all you want but WHY is it? 🤔

Oh fuck that’s better than cheese ALMOST

knows shit, though we can know more tomorrow than we did today. Just enjoy the pursuit

Sorry for being drunk and overly uh, idk. Let’s go with goofy lol

Gn my friend

My friend, I am the child, you are the child:

“A child said What is the grass? fetching it to me with full hands;
How could I answer the child? I do not know what it is any more than he.

I guess it must be the flag of my disposition, out of hopeful green stuff woven.”

(Whitman)

None of us 🧵

Daily! Isn’t this the life? Arguably, TO LIVE? Ok that was cheesy 🧀

“the set of all sets that do not contain themselves” is as much nonsense as “the slithey toves did gyre and gimble in the wabe.” So no, a FEELING of conceivability is not the same as conceivability, and we must justify THAT some concept is conceivable, coherent, and cognitive.

Paradox). It’s a nonsense string of words that definitely doesn’t form a coherent concept, even though it forms in our minds the illusion that it does. We know what a “set” is and we know about sets of sets (like the set of even numbered Star Trek movies), but it turns out that the utterance 🧵

some string of words that SEEM like they make sense (we get this feeling of conception), like “There is a set of all sets which do not contain themselves.” Every word makes sense to us and we get this feeling that the utterance is conveying some coherent concept. But it’s not (see Russell’s 🧵

the described state of affairs (a mind w/o body) is conceivable. Is it? We have this feeling of conceivability, but when asked for specifics, we have to waggle our fingers and talk about spirits and blah. What does it mean to have a disembodied mind? To make my point, I brought up that we can read 🧵

I think his argument really just presupposes that the feeling of conceivability is enough. Regarding nonphysicality, he said that we can conceive of minds without bodies, so therefore it’s modally possible. While I don’t necessarily object, I do object to his argument: it’s not just granted that 🧵

of things all the time that we actually don’t. We *feel* like we conceive of what a billion of something represents, yet I don’t think anybody actually does conceive of that. So I think with modal arguments we have an onus of proof to demonstrate that something is actually conceivable, whereas 🧵

that all modalism (possibility, for laypersons) requires is conceivability: that if you can conceive of something, then it possibly exists. While I’m not saying that’s false, I don’t think it should automatically be granted as true in a strong sense. I think that we *feel* like we conceive 🧵

mathematical and logical realist in that I think mathematical and logical objects exist and are discovered rather than invented: “two” doesn’t have mass/energy or spatiotemporal extension, so it’s not physical, yet I’d say it exists. Anyway, defending THAT aside, I took umbrage with his position 🧵