Abortion - a conflict of rights?

Obviously not.

A fetus is not a being, it is not an organism, it is not an individual. It becomes all of the above when it individuates, that is when it is born. At that moment it becomes independent from its mother, by being able to perform the basic functions needed for the survival of a human being: it gets its oxygen through breathing, it digests food, it starts producing the antibodies required to protect its body in the world in which it will live forever. Until it is born the fetus remains a clump of cells, protected and nourished by the real, existing, fully individuated being: its mother. The fetus does indeed hold the potential to become an individual being. But until it materializes that potential, it is not.

Infancy is not just a new stage of development. An infant is not simply a more developed fetus. As opposed to the difference between an embryo and a fetus, the difference between the fetus and the infant is fundamental not just in an epistemological level, but a metaphysical one. The act of being born is the TRANSFORMATION of the fetus into the infant. The essence of that thing has changed, the thing has become something else, entirely different.

The fetus is indeed human. But "human" used this way is a TYPE of a thing, not the THING itself. A heart, for instance, can be human, reptilian or avian, but that doesn't mean the heart itself IS a man, a crocodile or a chicken. The type of the fetus (or of the heart) does not determine what it IS. It remains a fetus (or a heart). That a heart is reptilian doesn't make it a crocodile. That a fetus is human doesn't make it a human being.

A fetus cannot be killed since it is not a being. A lion, a spider, a sunflower, a bacteria, all of them are living beings and can therefore be killed. A fetus can't, any more than one can kill a pancreas.

A fetus has no rights, since it is not an individual. Only individual human beings have rights. "Human rights" is misleading, giving the illusion that anything human might have rights. Not so. Again, "human" here makes the distinction between the types of BEINGS that have rights, not the types of RIGHTS. It means humans have rights, dogs have not. "Individual rights" would be more appropriate in this context, meaning human beings, such as a pregnant woman, have rights, human hearts (or fetuses) don't.

Can AI create art?

Definitions:

Art: A selective re-creation of reality according to an artist's metaphysical value judgments. Art serves a crucial psychological need for human consciousness, by concretizing abstract principles and providing inspiration for the observer to see reality through the artist's values. (By Ayn Rand, of course)

Objectivity: The ability of an observer to identify and acknowledge facts as they are in reality, unbiased by his emotions.

CHEV: Creation intended to Hold strictly Emotional Values.

The characteristics of a CHEV:

A CHEV is beautiful if the emotions it stirs are aesthetically pleasing. This quality is the basis on which an observer does, or does not, like the CHEV. This is a purely subjective evaluation based on the observer's aesthetic standards. Those standards may be implicit or explicit, innate or cultivated. 

A CHEV is good to the extent that it does convey to the observer the intended emotional values it holds. The evaluation must be objective. For that, the observer must be aware of the creator's intentions. This information can be obtained either through direct observation of the CHEV, or through the study of the creator's style, mood, values, period of his life, historical period and any other criteria that provides the context in which the CHEV was brought into existence.

A CHEV is art if the creator succeeds in isolating what he considers to be the essential aspects of reality, and then in integrating them into the physical characteristics of the CHEV, thus presenting a unified, coherent vision of what life is and what humans value. It is an objective evaluation.

Notes:

Objectivity does not guarantee a correct evaluation of whether the CHEV is art or good. The evaluation process must be based on all the necessary information required, and objectively acquired, for a correct result.

A CHEV can satisfy any of the three criteria, in any combination. Therefore it can be good and beautiful but not art. Or an ugly artistic creation. Or bad but beautiful. And so on.

The attributes of a CHEV should not be confused with the attributes of its subject. A creator can beautifully paint an ugly Medusa. Or badly sculpt a good Saint.

At every step of the process of creation, the creator is also an observer. He must constantly evaluate the prospect that his CHEV will, in the end, be good. This is easier for him than for any observer, since he already knows himself as the creator. It is the creator's choice to decide whether he intends his CHEV to be art or beautiful. And since beauty is in the eye of the beholder, i.e subjective, beautiful to whom?

The requirement for objectivity in evaluating the characteristics of good and art means that these qualities do not depend on any observer's aesthetic tastes. These two qualities are intrinsic in the CHEV itself and they can be present to a higher or lesser degree. A CHEV considered by the vast majority of observers as beautiful is not necessarily a piece of art. Or good. Or vice-versa.

A CHEV, if traded, has commercial value, which is determined based on offer and demand, just like any other commercial product or service. The CHEV's commercial value does not necessarily reflect its artistic value.

AI CHEV-s:

All the considerations above constitute the background for determining the status of CHEV-s created by Artificial Intelligence. The conclusions, at this point, should be obvious.

Just like any CHEV created by humans, an AI CHEV can be seen as beautiful and can even be good.

However, Nothing created by AI can be Art, since no AI is (yet) capable of metaphysical value judgments. An AI has no values since it does not have a life to sustain. Furthermore, the AI does not bother itself with metaphysical questions about its own place in the Universe, the nature of reality and the purpose of life.

A creator exclusively using AI to create something is not an artist.

A creator using AI as a tool in the process of creation is an artist only to the extent that the AI does not take decisions regarding the rendering of the values the CHEV is intended to hold. For instance, if the creator wants the CHEV to hold the value "Strength" and so he instructs AI "Paint a muscular man", that is not art. For it to be art it is the human creator who must decide which muscles should be depicted, how prominent they should be, how they reflect the light and how they cast shadows. But if the creator wants to render the value "Serenity" and so he tells AI "Fill the sky visible between the leaves of the tree with bright red", that is a legitimate use of AI and does not diminish the CHEV's quality of being art.

"Make Canada the freest country on earth"

That was Pierre Poilievre's promise if he became Prime Minister. And then he lost. And, as a consequence, we all did. This past election was the only time in my entire life that I voted 'for' a candidate, as opposed to 'against' the other one. Would Poilievre have been the greatest liberator ever? No, Javier Milei has raised the bar way too high. But Poilievre would have made a big difference. Enough to make our lives substantially better. Of course, it wouldn't have been him the one to raise our standard of living, but each and every Canadian in their own way, small or big, freed from government impositions, restrictions and regulations driven by political machinations at which the Liberals are absolute masters. But it's ok. We'll just have more of the same for the next four years. Maybe slightly better because Carney, as opposed to Trudeau, seems to know what he's doing. The Trump effect is still going to make it worse for us, but that can't be blamed on our Prime Minister regardless of who that is.

Poilievre's mistake was that he thought Freedom actually meant something to the Canadian citizen. It doesn't. What Canadians want is a better leader. A benevolent leader who knows how to steer the various segments of society so that they interact harmoniously, in a fair way, so that we all gain. They want a wise central planner who knows what 'fair' is, what the correct prices should be, how much we should borrow at the expense of our future generations, whether we should build roads, or housing or pipelines. The same He, We, Our - the terms in which any collectivist thinks. The idea of there being no leader sounds bizarre to most Canadians. Freedom is indeed a relatively new idea, and is poorly defined. As Yaron Brook says, did Braveheart really want freedom? No, he wanted a Scottish King instead of the English one. He would have laughed at a peasant's timid suggestion of no King. "You want anarchy??" Braveheart would have lashed out with a sneer.

It is even more incomprehensible when it comes to immigrants. Some have come here to escape oppressive regimes, others simply for a better life. Most for both. But none seems to grasp the obvious fact that the first causes the second. They believe life here is better than there only because the leaders here are most just, more fair, smarter, less corrupt, while Freedom remains an abstraction, with no practical meaning. Choosing Carney over Poilievre is their desire to get away with the contradiction, and live better with less freedom.

The reality is that the standard of living is directly proportional with the degree of individual freedom. To see that we just have to look around the world and throughout history. The evidence is there, before our eyes. But to look requires effort. No time for that now. Now we have tariffs to worry about. And then inflation. And then recession. And then health care, and then student loans, and environment, and immigration. And so on. We'll look when all these issues are behind us. Until then, we just need to find the wise leaders who will solve them.

PS. Maybe the Liberals will oppress (younger) Canadians slightly more, just enough so that retired Canadians get government-provided dental care. If not Freedom, at least free fillings.

Trump will fail, like all socialist movements have.

All socialist^ attempts have failed*, or are in the process of failing, whether it's Soviet Russia, Maoist China or Maduro's Venezuela. Argentina was heading in the same direction, but Milei is saving it.

From that, it could be implied that the  policies of the Trump administration, being anything but socialist, will soon prove to be a total and complete success.

No, it won't. Quite the opposite. And that's not because the tariff retaliation of other nations, China's influence on third world markets, Jewish Cabal, out of control AI, or greedy corporate magnates. But for the same cause which inherently dooms socialism to failure: Lack of Individual Freedom. And Trump's policies are even farther from Liberty than they are from socialism. The tariffs are only an infringement of economic liberties, the tip of the iceberg, being easy to see, follow, analize and ultimately gaze and marvel at the devastation in their wake. The real destruction, however, comes from the political realm, the administration's disrespect, disregard and downright violation of individual rights. That's what will lead to political uncertainty, then economic uncertainty, then lack of investments, massive unemployment, distrust in the currency, the development of the black market, the unstoppable corruption in the Central government, and all the horrific effects seen in socialist countries. It doesn't matter whether the violation comes from a malevolent dictator, a sadistic King, a well-meaning authoritarian or from an anti-woke, not fully developed fetus. The consequences are the same.

^"Socialist" means a massive concentration of the society's means of production in the hands of the State.

*"Failure", from an economic standpoint, means a much lower standard of living for its citizens as compared to other societies around the world.

The Great Reset is finally here

Democrats, liberals, ecologists, socialists, communists, wokes, all the leftists embodied by the Davos elite, were working together on plans to achieve their Great Reset. It would have taken them decades, but with a lot of hard work, a few annoying acts from Green Peace and tomato soup museum vandals, they would have gotten it.

Hitler was slightly more efficient. He got his Great Reset in a few years, but he had to murder hundreds of his communist opponents.

Donald Trump is achieving his own Great Reset in just a few months, with virtually no violence. A record of efficiency, that should have been expected. Technology and the internet have made spreading stupidity a virtually effortless endeavor.

The lessons of "Adolescence"

I've just finished watching "Adolescence". An excellent mini-series, one of the best I've ever seen. Writing, directing and acting are all above Oscar grade. This is exactly the type of movies "they don't make as they used to". I'm grateful they still do.

Warning! Spoilers below!

But this is not about the movie. It's about the British Prime Minister's decision to back an initiative by Netflix "to stream the drama series for free to secondary schools across the country, so that as many teens as possible can watch it." Why? Because this will “help students better understand the impact of misogyny, dangers of online radicalization and the importance of healthy relationships."

I couldn't help noticing that the movie itself criticizes the fact that schools show movies in class as means of teaching. Showing this movie in schools will have exactly the same impact: None! It will only make students more anxious and scared, and leave them even more confused. What today's adolescents need is guidance. And "Adolescence" does not provide it. Adolescents will not "understand" the impact of misogyny, they will only see it and feel it at a very basic emotional level. Many will probably refrain from practicing it, but only because of the perceived impact, not because they understand it's wrong. For that, they need to be provided with a proper, life affirming moral standard of good and bad, which only a proper, life affirming morality can do. Absent that, adolescents are left with a dogmatic "Thou shalt not misogynize", but clueless about "burglarize", "racisize" or "nationalize". Adolescents need to be taught a clear moral standard based on which to choose their values and then evaluate their own actions on their way towards achieving them. A long list of DON'T-s provides no guidance whatever. They need to be guided on what to DO.

The producers of the movie made it "to provoke a conversation." God, please no! Millions of more conversations are just going to add to the noise of the trillions of conversations currently taking place. In today's moral vacuum, conversations lead nowhere. "We hope it’ll lead to teachers talking to the students, but what we really hope is it’ll lead to students talking amongst themselves" Brrrr!!! Noo! We need teachers to first learn the objective moral standard. And then teach it, not discuss it.

Deportation and philosophy

"... the lack of specific information about each individual actually highlights the risk they pose" and "demonstrates that they are terrorists with regard to whom we lack a complete profile."

Robert Cerna, ICE Acting Field Office Director of Enforcement and Removal Operations

=====

In short, according to Cerna, the lack of information highlights and demonstrates.

Fundamentally false! The lack of something never does anything, let alone to demonstrate. A lack denotes inexistence. A non existent causes nothing. These are basic metaphysical facts, which should be evident to all. The American legal system recognizes this when it says that every individual is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. A "proof" is an existent required to be presented for a guilty verdict. This is why an objective philosophy is needed in all realms. It is the only obstacle against politicians' ability to get away with this kind of nonsense.

As nonsense as this is, it is not just meaningless words. It is the basis on which people are being arrested, deported and incarcerated with no due process. 

Any American citizen who rationalizes this as stuff that only happens to those illegals is a fool. These words easily can, and eventually wiill, be uttered in any context if it just so happens that the Trump administration doesn't like it. Everyone's implicit strategy, then, to avoid being randomly imprisoned without legal judgment is to not do what Trump dislikes. And this is the very definition of a totalitarian dictatorship. The rule of law has all but disintegrated.

We have arrived ☺️