@Celestial-body-NOS's banner p

Celestial-body-NOS

Liberalism has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and left untried.

0 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 05 00:16:31 UTC

				

User ID: 290

Celestial-body-NOS

Liberalism has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and left untried.

0 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 05 00:16:31 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 290

A lot of them can't afford it. The cost of PrEP divided by the population is a smaller figure than the cost divided by the number of people who need it; removing from the denominator those who cannot afford the larger expense will place it beyond even more people. Iterate enough times, and we end up with PrEP being accessible only to the likes of Peter Thiel, which I think is a worse outcome than you having a higher tax bill.

We expect people who chose not to have children to contribute financially to the cost of primary and secondary education; the same principle applies here.

So far we've been lucky enough to avoid that occurrence, but we're still rolling the dice every day; that's why cutting PEPFAR was such a bad idea.

I don’t think it’s possible for blood borne viruses to just mutate into an airborne disease.

It might not be possible, but I'd rather not take that chance.

What would be effective policy to both maintain the current levels of HIV prevention and also reduce costs to taxpayers?

Figure out some way to produce anti-retrovirals more efficiently.

Buy out the patents and either void them or licence them for a peppercorn.

If someone develops a vaccine for HIV, or a cure for it, that would have a sizeable effect.

In general, things of the form 'everyone is still expected to contribute, either equally or in proportion to their means, to the costs of prevention; however, we will try to bring the total price tag downward.'

Your proposals, and others of the form 'total price stays the same, but we move the costs to my outgroup', are unlikely to be effective. 'I-got-mine-AMF-YOYO' attitudes have a rather nasty tendency to backfire.

Obamacare requires Prep. Which I believe is $20k per year. I believe 4% of men are gay so if they all took it that alone adds like $1k/year to what insurance needs to charge to break even.

One, I doubt that the cost of pre-exposure prophylaxis is greater than the cost of treatment for someone who has caught HIV.

Two, the more people become infected with HIV, the more opportunities it has to mutate, including mutations that would make it airborne or otherwise easily transmissible. If you ignore AIDS because "it's only killing gay people and drug users, and they don't matter", you run a not insubstantial risk of the first clause in that sentence no longer holding.

Not like they went out to conquer empires or the likes.

Those Protestants were Church of England, whom I've heard described as 'Catholics who flunked Latin'.

A growing part of the population doesn't share them to begin with, and your society is failing at curbing the influx, and failing at assimilating the newcomers into your system of ethics.

I'd focus most of our efforts there.

Exactly. How many of those who persistently refer to Alice as 'Alan', also refer to the thirty-eighth President of the United States as 'Leslie Lynch King', or the star of Hitchcock's North by Northwest as 'Archibald Leach'?

It's not possible to talk normally about Alice without mentioning Alice's name.

But it is possible to talk normally about her without mentioning her previous name.

Unless a living transgender or non-binary person was notable under a former name, the former name should not appear in any page

I don't think that that is too unreasonable of a compromise. Some trans advocates object to any mention of the birth name of a trans person even if they were famous under that name before they transitioned; they are just as welcome to make their own fork.

(It is my understanding that the reason so many trans individuals have such a desire to hide their deadnames is because some anti-trans persons, who have no compunction about respecting name changes in other circumstances, nevertheless insist on referring to Alice as 'Alan' as a subtle way of, every time they refer to her, calling her delusional or worse.

By way of analogy, imagine instead that Alice is a devout Catholic and Bob is a devout Protestant. Each sincerely believes that the other is factually wrong about fundamental aspects of reality, but if Alice doesn't want to talk about it, it is not considered polite for Bob to keep bringing it up when Alice has asked him to stop, and if Bob continuously referred to Alice as 'Alice, who worships a long-dead Babylonian queen, and is thus on a direct route to hell,' I think most people would agree that he was out of line.

The same principle applies if Alice is a trans woman and Bob is an adherent of the ideology which calls Alice a 'trans-identified male'; a lot of people outside the tribal cores would look askance at Bob if, every time he mentioned Alice, he called her 'Alice the delusional man in a dress who is probably some kind of pervert'; repeatedly calling her 'Alan' is, from the perspective of trans individuals and their sympathisers, an attempt to do the same thing with a minimal fig leaf of plausible deniability.)

I don't approve of dissenting opinions being discriminated against by the data providers, ISPs, domain registrars, DDoS mitigators, payment processors, forum software providers, or anyone else who is capable of offering their services to all sides simultaneously. I do not even look kindly on most platforms attempting to purge dissent from their pages, or make it less convenient for such to reach those who are interested in hearing or reading it, as they also have room for all sides to share space; thus they ought to be less restrictive than the chattering classes would prefer.

However, Wikipedia only has one article on Alice Famousperson; it cannot simultaneously adhere to both trans-accepting and trans-rejecting standards. It cannot both include and exclude the fact that, prior to her transition, prior to anyone having heard of her, she was called Bob Nobody.

Thus, you have a point that you shouldn't have to build your own Facebook/Youtube/Reddit/Artist-Formerly-Known-As-Twitter, nor, if you choose to do so, should you have to build your own infrastructure stack to support it, but it remains the case that one side or the other won't see their Views adopted as Wikipedia Policy.

Also, the "just start your own Wikipedia bro" predates many of the current guerres de culture and the xkcd comic, and is a core part of the open-source ethos. It was already in place when the disagreements in question were "Should we have adverts?" or "What colour should this template be?".

One, I specified that one of them yielding is only one possible outcome; the price of an exemption would stop increasing even if all the incumbent businesses continue their discriminatory policies, if new businesses were founded to cater to the discriminated-against group and anyone who doesn't care one way or the other, and can offer lower prices by dint of not having to buy said exemptions.

Two, if you don't like the modest proposal on which I have speculated, and don't like the status quo of legally forbidding discrimination, what solution would you propose to the problem of all the businesses in an area having a policy of "We don't sell to your kind."?

If you were in charge of U. S. Federal civil-rights policy in the mid-20th century, and could get any solution you saw fit passed by the Legislative Branch, put in place by the Executive Branch, and upheld by the Judicial Branch, and were informed by whatever source you would find sufficiently convincing that, in the absence of Federal intervention, the southern states would not moderate on their own, and Black people in the southern states would continue to find very few businesses willing to sell to them, and effectively none that were either integrated or separate-but-actually-equal, thus giving rhetorical ammunition to the Communist powers, ultimately leading to the West losing the Cold War?

“subject to the jurisdiction” needs to mean something

It means that an exception is made for children born to diplomatic personnel, invading troops or their camp followers, and Indians Native Americans Amerindians Indigenous people First Nations whatever the preferred nomenclature is this week who were considered not part of the United States.

The '90s had the right idea. Boys can wear dresses and have tea parties, girls can play with monster trucks and hit one another with sticks, etc and so on, and none of those things make them not boys or not girls.

Wasn't this at least part of the motivation behind the thing with the drag queens?

Re "We need him for the football team", I would like to state at this time that the same phenomenon is not unheard of with white perpetrators.

Doesn't the term "Stockholm Syndrome" exist to diagnose a particular case where the objectively bad experience of being kidnapped can be seen by the victim as a good development?

In that particular case, the police somehow managed to make literal bank robbers the lesser evil!

Is it appropriate to put a man who is going to jail for raping men into a prison full of men?

He is allowed to criticize Wikipedia.

He is also welcome to start his own version with deadnames and deadpronouns if he feels like it.

any society that passes and maintains an anti discrimination law is one already broadly against discrimination

Sometimes the broader society is against discrimination, while some areas within it are less enlightened. (This was approximately the case with the origin of anti-discrimination laws.)

A 'something sort of like left-libertarianism-ist' solution might be to have anti-discrimination laws, to establish non-discrimination as the baseline standard, but allow businesses to buy exemption from such, with the price going to an organisation rendering assistance to whichever group with which the business owner does not wish to associate; in a major city with fifty bakeries, forty-nine of whom will cater anyone's wedding as long as their money's good, the fiftieth would pay a purely nominal sum to an LGBTQWERTY+-*/ advocates' firm, and be allowed to have a 'one-man-one-woman weddings only' policy; in a small town with two bakeries, both of whose owners hope to attract customers who resent that gay people are permitted to keep their blood inside their bodies, the fee would be increased until either one of them yields, or someone opens a third bakery and undercuts them.

But I'll bite and explain once more. According to mainstream gender ideology:

  1. Any person who self-declares themselves as the opposite of their biological is the opposite of their biological sex.
  2. That person has always been the opposite sex!
  3. Absolutely no medication or change in behavior is required to become the opposite sex.

My understanding of the matter is more:

  1. Any person who self-declares themselves as the gender opposite of their biological sex is the opposite gender to their biological sex.
  2. That person has always been the opposite gender.
  3. Absolutely no change in biological sex is required to become the opposite gender.
  4. Other people's biological sex, if they don't bring it up, is none of anyone else's beeswax.
  5. If you can tell that someone's biological sex is partially or entirely mismatched to their gender, you should keep that to yourself unless they bring it up first, just as you would if they had an embarrassing skin condition or a missing limb.

The abstract talks about X2 statistics. Now I am not a statistics nerd, but I have encountered the letter χ (chi) in passing and happen to know that it does not identify as X or x.

😹 I hereby award you🥈in the One Joke championships! (The 🥇 goes to 'vegetables thing that identifies as a beef burger'.)

There is no discussion of any of the less obvious confounders.

Or the more obvious confounder that the tribe that is more likely to transition is also more likely to seek psychiatric help?

Some people use statistics as a drunk man uses lamp-posts—for support rather than for illumination.

I don't think being subject of a genocide and/or ethnic cleansing entitles a group to an ethno-state in perpetuity.

A single incident does not justify a perpetual ethno-state; however, the Jewish people have been subjected to a long, long, pattern of persecution, and were unable to escape after the implementation of modern border controls in the wake of the First World War. If we were still in the Phileas-Fogg-era system, or Nathan Robinson's ideal, Am Yisrael might be a bit less worried, knowing that they could always take their packed suitcases to somewhere more tolerant.

passing legislation that would explicitly make immigration from Israel easier

Not good enough. Jewish people fleeing anti-Semitic persecution, under Dr Analog's proposal, would still have to play Mother-May-I with a Gentile immigration officer legally empowered to say "The persecution you're fleeing isn't that bad, and we think you might be moving for economic reasons/you might cost us more money than you pay in taxes/you had minor brushes with the law in your youth/the records where you're coming from are incomplete and we can't be certain that you aren't a murderer; therefore you're going back whence you came, and if you end up in a mass grave, we'll make a bunch of really sad movies about your plight in fifty years or so."

If they would still be subject to U. S. immigration law, it's a non-starter. In the event that some other country starts persecuting its Jewish population, they can move to Israel under Chok ha-Shvut; a homeland under the jurisdiction of the goyim would be tempted to refuse them entry on the usual grounds, as occurred prior to the Second World War.

I'm not saying it's guaranteed to work; I'm saying it has a possibility of working, whereas the chances of a good outcome from a constant battle between racial groups are as near as makes no difference to zero.

If you go into a casino and bet on a single spin of a roulette wheel, you probably won't win if you bet on any of the numbers from 0-36, but you'll definitely lose if you bet on 93.