3 ms·

> Okay, maybe it should be their choice, I can't tell others what they need to be able to cope with. And my example is very bad, Your example is very bad. It

> Okay, maybe it should be their choice, I can't tell others what they need to be able to cope with. And my example is very bad, Your example is very bad. It should be a basic tenant of humanity that we control ourselves, and we as individuals should be the ones making the choice on if and how we're mentally modifying ourselves. The only time that choice should be put aside is if we are modifying ourselves to be a clear and present danger to others.

PavlovsCat 13y ago
Uhm, yeah? I'm not sure why you repeat a subset of the things I said as though you're disagreeing. Also, show me your better example, or anyone's for that matter? Because I see zilch, so even my shitty example is the best yet. The only time that choice should be put aside is if we are modifying ourselves to be a clear and present danger to others. I'd argue the same for drone killings, and it's already violated there. So this basic human tened should exist, but doesn't, not really, not when push comes to shove. So again, I wonder, what possible good use could come of this? I mean, before I can see about dis/agreeing with it, I first would at least like to hear some stuff. So far we have nothing but "it's exciting" from the article, or "it's a tool" in the post I replied to. Not even "it's exciting because", or "it's a tool for". Geez.. I know it's not rocket science, but still, there has to be more than the fact that fake negative memories is what neuroscientists crave. I don't even doubt there are things to be said there, which is why asked for that. Sigh.