Seems like something Voldemort would’ve noticed.
BlindIdiotPoster
Karma: 125
I really want to see the context for this.
This is assuming you’re trying to do politics yourself instead of just deciding who to support.
Personally I’m just going with the policy of upvoting every negative Karma question.
When does he say this?
Hmm.. looks like the evidence I cited wasn’t as strong as I thought.
What I mostly mean to suggest is that having a soul does not necessarily make a thing morally significant.
For this to work a wizard would need to be able to choose what Animagus form to take.
They would have had a different reaction in chapter 48 when Harry became a vegetarian after learning about parselmouth.
I believe that animals have brains, different from human brains mostly only in intelligence. and am not a vegetarian. Wizards probably think of muggles as having souls, and have been known in cannon to hunt them for sport. Slave masters definitely though of their slaves as having souls.
It would have been hinted in a way or another in the Prentending to be Wise arc, or otherwise in all the debate between Harry and other wizards about if soul exists.
Why do you think this?
In chapter 47 Draco wouldn’t have be saying so seriously that muggles don’t have souls.
Touche. Draco is still an 11 year old put on the spot, so this is weak evidence.
What gave you the impression that AK didn’t affect animals?
Doesn’t QM go on for a while about how it allows a wizard to kill any threat other than a dementor?
Evidence would be the existence of Dementors, which are personifications of death and may or may not be semi-sentient.
I was actually under the impression that the Perverells lived before Merlin.
If by “nice” you mean “a good book” then I agree.
I’m going to agree with this post. Maybe an option to make everything appear in a preferred font would be useful, if the programmers aren’t busy with anything else.
To the extent that anthropic reasoning works at all, it doesn’t seem like sentience should be needed.
To use an analogy, it seems to me that this non-sentient site is sort of using anthropic reasoning.
I don’t understand the question.
Does anyone here think a Phoenix Wright style game could be useful as a medium for Rationalist fiction?
You could make an argument that it would still be right to take the offer, since me and frank will both die after a while anyway.
I expect I still probably wouldn’t kill frank though, since: A: I’m not sure how to evaluate the utility of an infinite amount of time spent alone B: I would feel like shit afterwards C: Frank would prefer to live than die, and I would rather Frank live than die, therefore preference utilitarianism seems to be against the offer.
I would accept the offer even if I knew for sure that I would be the one to die, mostly because the alternative seems to be living in a nightmare world.
Maybe create a GLUP that always does exactly what Frank would’ve done, but isn’t sentient?
One thing that bothers me about this community is that we all clearly have political views and regularly express them, but for some reason explicit discussion and debate is discouraged. The end result here is that lots of people casually assert extremely controversial opinions as fact and people are expected to approve via silence.