Posts
Comments
Doesn't that prove too much? You can apply the same logic to, for example, using transport (each time you try to ride a train and it doesn't hurt you, your trust in "use transport is safe" increases, so you try to ride a motorcicle). Or to sport (each time you play ping-pong and it doesn't hurt you, your trust in "sport is safe" increases, so you try BASE jumping).
Just... when you decide what to try you should not use a mental category that includes both LSD and heroin. I don't think it's that hard.
Anouther one; not that sure, but >50% and I think it's in the spirit of the thread:
Non-negligible (on average >25%, <75%) fraction of badness of rape is a consequence of the fact that the society considers rape especially bad.
Okay, I probably should elaborate.
About polyamory:
I use the definition of polyamory like Aella's:
The definition of ‘polyamorous’ that I find cleanest, for me, is not forbidding your partner from having extra-relationship intimacy.
(I didn't borrow the very concept from her, only neat definition)
If you fit this definition, but you just don't want intimacy with anyone besides your partner - I consider you poly. I think this polyamory should be the default option.
(Now that I've thought about it, a more succinct not-exactly-definition might be "fuck jealousy!". All the rest is conclusions.)
About psychedelics:
My bad, I wasn't detailed enough. New weaker statement: "Responsible (where "responsible" is easy enough that >80% of population would have no problems implementing it if already existing safety practises became non-taboo common knowledge) usage of psychedelics and some other drugs (primarily, MDMA) has pretty big positive expected long-term utility"
- Polyamory is not just ethically-neutral, like homosexuality, but strictly ethically superior than monogamy.
- Usage of psychedelics and some other drugs (primarily, MDMA) has pretty big positive expected long-term utility.