Egregoros

@sun @Merc also simultaneously the same person has a
USSR flag and self proclaimed communist (it exclusively means that he thinks that home delivery of restaurant food costs too much on GrubHub) + autist + "eating disorder, i cant eat, i have ARFID anorexia" (clinically morbidly obese) + some mystery diseases, half of which are made up to justify being a shit person, the other half are real but also used to justify being a shit person (all written in the user's header).

its almost tiresome, ALMOST. but i am entertained by it more.

@moth_ball @Merc @lebronjames75 @sun
if i had to specify somewhere, own observation from raising kids is maybe somewhere more around 1~2 years※. but it's a stepwise change, not going from "on" to "off". give similar reasoning to other animals, don't think my dogs are quite there, but going to protect them as well, and would never kill one, and extend that over-caution to amniotes generally

the real world doesn't have hard lines; wuzzy reasoning is a necessity. if law's getting involved though, would say drop the line at before-birth, as in that range you're balancing the baby's life versus the parent's, and the parent is (except in extreme circumstances? -_-) a person who should take precedent, with restrictions being a danger to that person's health

※ kids go through several fairly clear "stages" that continue after that point, and by studies the point of persistent self with long-term episodic memories is around 5

@sun @Merc @lebronjames75 @moth_ball
it's the same kind of iffy as "brain-dead life support". realistically you don't have a person any more, but it's still probably better to avoid a culture of thoughtlessly turning things off at that stage, as it's sort of a moral buffer zone that prevents you from wheeling that back into a less clear zone. deliberation and necessary procedure is good. if mandating brain-dead patients to be kept alive would inevitably kill or maim some other people though, there should definitely never be such a law