@ChestertonsMeme's banner p

ChestertonsMeme


				

				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 10 06:20:52 UTC

				

User ID: 1098

ChestertonsMeme


				
				
				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 10 06:20:52 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 1098

What would it look like if the richer side needed the money more? Could that ever happen?

Sounds a lot like the situation with many unions. If you are the owner of a business, depending on the local laws the people who happen to work for you get a free monopoly on your labor supply if they form a union. If it's a capital-intensive business then the owner has more to lose.

As someone who voted for the referendum back in 2020, I'm a little sad that some of the overdose deaths are on my hands. Kind of. Like 1 millionth of the overdose deaths perhaps. It's good to run experiments though, right? This was a pretty good experiment. We at least have an upper bound on how liberal a drug policy we should pursue.

Doing the math, you're responsible for 26 minutes of each casualty's life. Pretty okay trade for advancing humanity's knowledge about what policies are effective.

This is a bit hard to parse, but I think the answer is e. caramel-coffee.

a, b, and c all have vanilla which could be a single flavor paired with chocolate chips and whipped cream. Between d and e, none of the single flavors there can be paired with both toppings, so they're basically equivalently acceptable. If we must rank them: they share caramel, which can be ignored since both contain it. Of the remaining flavors, mint vs. coffee, mint is common with one topping while coffee is "sometimes paired" with whipped cream, so coffee seems hardest to replicate as a single-flavor dish.

It would be helpful if the rules for pairings were delineated more clearly.

If your sense of pride in your own accomplishments depends on others not being able to do it, that reflects pretty poorly on you.

This is a ridiculous stance. Being better than other people in some way is the whole basis of our social hierarchy and much of the motivation for striving at anything.

Edit: On reflection, this brings to mind Michael Malice's razor "Are some people better than others?" Someone right wing says yes; someone left wing gives a speech. I'd characterize the left wing stance here as counter-signaling. "I'm so far above everyone else that I don't need to participate in this competition to prove my worth." It's cool to personally bow out of a competition, but destroying the competition so others can't get value from it is very rude. You could say the same thing about leftists' policy preferences regarding taxation, housing, and immigration. In all of those areas the leftist policies make it harder to prove one is better than others by having wealth/living in an expensive area/being a citizen of a powerful nation.

If environmental racism causes decreased intelligence, then people affected actually have decreased intelligence. But progressives deny this conclusion.

I doubt most respondents are taking the question at face value. Social desirability bias is very strong, especially when the question is just hypothetical. Put the respondents in a real situation and they will choose very differently.

This hypothesis is advanced in e.g. Gregory Clark's books (Farewell to Alms, The Son Also Rises) with violent European criminals being executed before they could reproduce, causing the population to become less violent and more conscientious over time. It's also mentioned in other older works (I forget the exact reference but maybe Lynn or Rushton) observing that the average IQ correlates with gracility/robustness and other traits like age at puberty.

One of the key claims in The Son Also Rises is that social status is heritable and genetic. This I think is the encompassing fact (if true). Races can have different average social status that's genetically determined, and the details of which specific traits mediate that status aren't as important.