ControlsFreak
No bio...
User ID: 1422
ControlsFreak
2mo ago
I indeed read very carefully. I want to know a single example of a "real solution". Give me one. Provide evidence that this "real solution" meets the same standard that you're holding "CICO" to. Show me an example.
A car mechanic that started lecturing me about physics and the need for fuel would be an asshole and I'd never go to him again.
Consider two possible situations. In Situation A, a customer just had their brand new car towed to the shop, because it stopped working. The mechanic investigates and discovers that it's out of fuel. "Good news!" he thinks. Perhaps the customer just had some minor issue with a new car, not quite seeing how it displays the fuel situation, and there's no need for any expensive repair, just some fuel. But when they tell this to the customer, the customer gets angry. "That's bullshit!" the customer says. Fuel has nothing to do with it. After all, look at the statistics! Cars almost never stop working in the real world because they run out of fuel! Hundreds of millions of hours of operations, and it almost never comes up! There must be something else going on, they swear. Maybe they need a vortex generator or something. That seems more likely to them to help get them going again.
In Situation B, the car shows up, and the mechanic determines that the alternator has gone bad. Nevertheless, they lecture the customer on the need to put fuel in the car.
Yes, in Situation B, the mechanic would be a bloody stupid asshole. But in Situation A, the customer has displayed that they are fundamentally ignorant of scientific reality. You would be shocked as to how many people are legitimately fundamentally ignorant of the scientific reality of body weight dynamics. There is no point in moving to some more refined conversation of different octane levels, different additive packages, fuel filter replacement timelines, etc., or even just a conversation of how they might want to approach planning for when to refuel to accomplish whatever goal they have (saving money, reducing transactions, whatever) until the absolutely extreme lack of basic understanding has been remedied. Your choices are to try to get the customer to understand the basic scientific reality... or just slap some fuel in their tank, charge them some money, let them continue being fundamentally ignorant of the world, send them on their way, and maybe hope they don't come back to your shop. You simply have zero chance of providing them with any sort of good advice that can reliably lead them to achieve desirable outcomes if they have so utterly rejected the fundamental reality of the world.
ControlsFreak
2mo ago
The evidence is in our obesity rate and the studies showing that dieting usually fails longterm.
That is not evidence of the thing you claimed.
You have to read more carefully: “direct precious mental energy to real solutions.”
I indeed read very carefully. I want to know a single example of a "real solution". Give me one. Provide evidence that this "real solution" meets the same standard that you're holding "CICO" to. Show me an example.
ControlsFreak
2mo ago
it’s not practical in a population-level discussion
Facts not in evidence.
There’s a lot that should be studied.
Look, I have no concerns with studying any of those things. You promised me "real solutions". That means that you should be able to demonstrate, with evidence, that some set of your "real solutions" meet the same standard that you're holding "CICO" to. Show me an example.
ControlsFreak
3mo ago
I am not hearing a single reference to any established 1A doctrines.
ControlsFreak
3mo ago
Cite?
ControlsFreak
3mo ago
Cite?
ControlsFreak
3mo ago
it's impossible to answer your original question of whether the board's actions against the CEO are "Fascist Authoritarian" or not
Ok, great. Glad to know that you would not be able to conclude that either side in the example scenario is a "Fascist Authoritarian". Now hopefully we'll find out what @WandererintheWilderness thinks we can conclude.
ControlsFreak
4mo ago
My image of you is as a guy with a lot of red tribe values who lives in a deep blue tribe situation.
Nah. I have lived in more blue tribe situations (not coincidentally and most prominently at university), but I've got a nice red tribe situation going on these days.
but when they tried to compromise they kept getting shafted. Imperfect action is preferable to indefinite wheel spinning, and we have been spinning our wheels for decades.
I'm not asking for compromise. I'm not asking for nothing but perfect action. I'm asking for methods that are actually going to accomplish the goals rather than indiscriminate chemo that will only destroy stuff and be ineffective in actually changing behavior. And if you're someone who's in it for the brutality of hurting your ideological opponents, my suggestions will bring far more pain to their bad goals.
ControlsFreak
4mo ago
we don't trust you
I don't know who you think I am, so I don't know why you would or would not trust me.
I'm not sure what else to make of your comment. You think people are just being hyperbolic and angry, and that they're just saying dumb stuff that doesn't make sense? Uh, okay? Then why is all the research getting stopped/slashed?
is there anyone saying "we need to straight up ban tertiary education!"
Nah. Honestly, even that would be better tailoring. Plenty of chunks of those research dollars go to corporate research. There are sooooo many better things you could do if you're just pissed at the stupidity in academia.
ControlsFreak
4mo ago
I believe so. I don't see what the relevance of that really is, though? Is your point that now we should be more suspicious of what they're saying, because they have skin in the military funding game?
ControlsFreak
5mo ago
The data included domestic communications from American citizens
Yep. It's like if the gov't got a wiretap on Tony Soprano, and he called one of his kids' schoolteachers. One could say, "They're collecting the communications of schoolteachers!" But really, everyone knows that's bullshit. It's true, but it's bullshit. They're collecting Tony Soprano's communications.
You're the one trying to claim that this data doesn't include domestic communications, and the reason you have so much trouble answering this question in an earnest way is that the answer destroys your position.
Super ROFL to this. As shown above, I have literally no trouble answering this question. If Mike Flynn calls the Russian ambassador, yes, they collect Mike Flynn's call to the Russian ambassador.... because they collect all of the Russian ambassador's calls. Because he's a legit foreign intelligence target.
I'm going to trust Ron Wyden
So you trust him when he says that he asked Clapper to correct the public record and that he did not, in fact, put classified information in the public record, right?
It's incredibly easy to design a system that doesn't fail in this way - you need to go to a court and apply for a search or wiretap warrant, then you can start collecting information on a target.
They do this for any targets that are in the US or are otherwise US Persons. The question is about foreign targets who are in foreign countries, but happen to have comms that transit the wires of US companies. People who have never had Fourth Amendment protections. Putin Lackey #6528, lives in Russia, but emails some people in Syria who have GMails. Maybe he even emails some US citizen schoolteachers. The question has always been, "What is the right process to collect on this guy?" Notice that we're worlds apart from some ridiculous claim that they're just monitoring all domestic comms. You've already admitted that the thing I said was false is actually false. We're literally just talking process now.
lets someone use opposition research they know is false to spy on presidential candidates
They got a warrant for that. From a judge. So, it seems like your solution would not prevent this problem. I have heard discussions of solutions that would prevent this problem, but your solution is not one of them. You are just not a serious person on this topic.
Why do you have those forks marked 'for long pig only
Which forks are those? You have a citation for those markings, right?
part of the correct answer would be "Email, Video/voice chat, Photos, stored data, VOIP, file transfers, video conferencing, activity notifications, social networking details and special requests"
...for who? That answer will be precisely what I said. You get an even louder incorrect buzzer. Please educate yourself.
He didn't provide a correct, classified answer to them in a secure channel afterward
This is a lie. Note that when you quote the phrase
correct the record
he means, "Correct the public record". Which means putting classified information in the public record. Which is illegal.
The reason I bring up LOVEINT is that by virtue of the problem existing at all it shows that the warrant requirements aren't being applied and domestic communications are being collected - if the surveillance panopticon was functioning with the restrictions and rules that you are implying, it could never actually be a problem. But it is a problem, and the fact that it is means that the system is capable of abuse and is actively being abused.
There are strategies put in place to discover these things. When discovered, those people get fired and prosecuted. Can you design a system that "functions with the restrictions and rules"... with absolutely zero possible failures? If you can, you can make a bundle of money, because everyone wants this. Just give it to us. We'll pay you an insane amount of money.
Mind you, I'm not saying that SIGINT doesn't deserve to exist
Then just tell us how to do it better! Make tons of money by telling us how to magically design these systems!
the corrupt surveillance of the Trump campaign, including when he was President Elect, was far more serious
Perhaps. I've seen some serious suggestions for how to improve the systems that are in place. Do you have any? Or are you just bitching and lying about the facts that are in evidence?
ControlsFreak
7mo ago
If you're going to lie about which numbers I'm asking for, we're going to sit here all day, and your final argument will be, "If I lie about what numbers you're asking for..., then..." We will just leave it there for posterity.
it is your obligation to correct me
I did that. You can go back and read it. Now, you need to show that you are capable of identifying which numbers I'm asking for.
ControlsFreak
7mo ago
If you're going to lie about which numbers I'm asking for, we're going to sit here all day, and your final argument will be, "If I lie about what numbers you're asking for..., then..." We will just leave it there for posterity.
ControlsFreak
7mo ago
If you're going to lie about which numbers I'm asking for, we're going to sit here all day, and your final argument will be, "If I lie about what numbers you're asking for..., then..." We will just leave it there for posterity.
In all sincerity, I want to check, for myself, to make sure that I am not completely off base in my interpretation of your phrase.
What are some scholarly ways that a person can investigate the reasoning behind an existing state of affairs, where the existing state of affairs in question is a law or policy?
Investigating the reasoning behind an existing law or policy can be approached from several scholarly perspectives, each employing a range of methods and analytical tools. Below are some approaches that can help uncover the rationale behind a law or policy:
1. Legal Analysis (Doctrine-based Inquiry)
- Statutory Interpretation: Scholars may start by analyzing the text of the law or policy, identifying its purpose, and exploring its language. This involves looking at the legal provisions and examining legislative intent, which can often be found in debates, committee reports, or legislative history.
- Case Law: Reviewing judicial opinions on the law or policy provides insight into how courts interpret and apply the law. A close reading of key decisions may reveal the underlying legal principles, norms, or objectives that shaped the law.
- Legal Doctrines and Principles: Analyzing whether the law or policy aligns with established legal doctrines (e.g., human rights, justice, equity, fairness) can shed light on its underlying reasoning.
2. Historical Analysis
- Historical Context: Investigating the historical development of the law or policy can provide valuable insights. This involves looking at the political, economic, social, and cultural context in which the law or policy was enacted. The scholar could examine the timing of its introduction, significant historical events that might have influenced it, and the role of key individuals or groups.
- Comparative Historical Approaches: Comparing similar laws or policies from different times or places can highlight the factors influencing their formulation and the lessons learned from prior implementations.
3. Political Science Approaches
- Public Policy Analysis: This involves analyzing the policy-making process, identifying the actors involved (e.g., legislators, interest groups, bureaucrats), their objectives, and the political dynamics at play. This approach may involve:
- Agenda-setting theory: Investigating how issues gain attention and become policy topics.
- Policy process models: Examining how the policy is formulated, implemented, and evaluated.
- Political Economy: Scholars may look at the economic interests that shape policy decisions, such as the role of lobbyists, political donations, and the influence of businesses or advocacy groups.
- Institutional Analysis: Understanding how the structure of political institutions (e.g., executive, legislative, judiciary) and their interrelations contribute to the law or policy’s formulation.
4. Sociological Approaches
- Social Theories of Law and Policy: Scholars from a sociological perspective often analyze how laws or policies reflect or enforce social norms, values, and power dynamics. This includes:
- Critical Legal Studies: Investigating how the law is shaped by social power relations and how it might perpetuate inequality or social control.
- Law and Society: Analyzing the broader societal context of law-making, considering how societal forces (e.g., public opinion, cultural attitudes) influence policy decisions.
- Social Movements and Advocacy: Investigating the role of activism or advocacy groups in shaping the law or policy. This includes understanding the strategies used by interest groups to influence legislation.
5. Economic Analysis
- Cost-Benefit Analysis: Economic scholars often investigate the efficiency of laws or policies by assessing their economic costs and benefits. This includes evaluating the outcomes of a policy in terms of economic indicators (e.g., growth, unemployment, income distribution) and assessing whether the law achieves its stated goals.
- Behavioral Economics: Examining how laws and policies affect individual and collective behavior, such as through nudges or incentives, can reveal the underlying rationale for a policy.
- Public Choice Theory: Analyzing how political actors (e.g., lawmakers, bureaucrats) make decisions based on their own interests and incentives, rather than public welfare.
6. Ethical and Philosophical Analysis
- Normative Theories of Justice: Examining the law or policy through the lens of ethical theories, such as utilitarianism, deontology, or Rawlsian justice. This can help clarify the moral rationale behind the law, including whether it seeks to promote fairness, equality, or liberty.
- Human Rights Perspectives: Analyzing whether the law or policy aligns with international human rights standards or principles such as dignity, autonomy, and equality. This is particularly useful when the law or policy in question affects vulnerable populations.
- Public Morality: Investigating whether the law reflects certain moral values or societal goals, such as social cohesion, moral order, or public health.
7. Empirical Research and Data Analysis
- Quantitative Analysis: Using statistical tools to analyze the effects of a policy. For example, if a law was intended to reduce crime rates, scholars may analyze crime data before and after its implementation to assess its effectiveness and the reasoning behind the policy's goals.
- Qualitative Research: Conducting interviews, surveys, or focus groups with stakeholders (e.g., policymakers, affected groups, experts) to gather insights into the reasoning behind the law. This can also involve ethnographic methods to understand the law's impact on everyday life.
8. Critical and Interdisciplinary Approaches
- Feminist Legal Theory: Examining laws or policies from the perspective of gender and power dynamics, considering how policies might reinforce or challenge gender inequality.
- Critical Race Theory: Analyzing how race and racial dynamics influence the creation, interpretation, and implementation of laws or policies.
- Intersectionality: Exploring how multiple social identities (race, gender, class, etc.) interact to shape both the policy’s creation and its effects on different groups in society.
9. International and Comparative Analysis
- Comparative Law: Analyzing how similar laws or policies in different jurisdictions (e.g., countries or states) reflect differing priorities or reasoning. This may reveal the influences of international legal trends, global standards, or local conditions.
- International Relations: Understanding how global agreements, treaties, or transnational issues (e.g., climate change, trade, human rights) shape domestic laws and policies.
By combining these various methods, scholars can develop a multi-dimensional understanding of the reasoning behind laws and policies, exploring their origins, implications, and effectiveness. This interdisciplinary approach helps reveal not only the practical considerations that led to the policy’s creation but also the broader social, economic, and political forces that shaped its development.
So, I don't think you're saying that the only thing we can do is start with Item 1 on that list (in fact, so far, I don't think this has been a significant point of discussion yet). I'm sure we can work through many of these methods, but I put in a bit of effort to make sure that we got Item 2 down, yet I can't tell what you think. Do you think we've gotten that one mostly figured out, or do you think that I'm still missing some information on that one?
EDIT: Just to triple-check that I'm not completely off base and got some aberrant first result, I asked:
If someone begins their scholarly approach by doing the second item on that list, historical analysis, would that be sophistic or shamanic?
Beginning a scholarly approach to investigating the reasoning behind a law or policy by engaging in historical analysis would neither be "sophistic" nor "shamanic" in a scholarly context. Rather, historical analysis is a legitimate and well-respected method in academic research, particularly in the fields of law, political science, sociology, and history itself.
Why it is not sophistic:
"Sophistry" refers to the use of fallacious reasoning or deceptive arguments, often with the intention of misleading others. Sophists in ancient Greece were known for manipulating language and logic to appear knowledgeable or persuasive without necessarily adhering to sound reasoning.
Historical analysis is grounded in evidence, documentation, and critical inquiry. When scholars use historical analysis to investigate the origins and development of a law or policy, they are engaging with primary sources, such as legislative records, political speeches, or societal events, to reconstruct the context and motivations behind the policy. This approach adheres to scholarly rigor and is not aimed at deceiving or distorting facts. It’s about understanding how a law came into being and the historical forces that shaped it, rather than manipulating or obscuring truth for rhetorical effect.
Why it is not shamanic:
"Shamanic" refers to practices associated with indigenous spiritual or religious rituals, often involving trance states, supernatural beliefs, or communication with spirits. In contrast, historical analysis in the scholarly sense involves using empirical evidence, documents, and critical thinking to understand past events and trends.
While some might see historical analysis as uncovering "hidden" meanings or interpreting events through a particular lens, it remains firmly grounded in empirical evidence and logical reasoning. It doesn't involve mystical or supernatural interpretation but rather seeks to understand the causes and effects of historical events through a scholarly, evidence-based process.
In summary:
Using historical analysis as a starting point for understanding the reasoning behind a law or policy is a valid scholarly approach. It is neither sophistic (which involves deceptive argumentation) nor shamanic (which involves mystical or spiritual practices), but rather a rigorous, evidence-based method that helps scholars understand the social, political, and economic factors that shaped a given law or policy.
ControlsFreak
7mo ago
You're not even trying.
Sorry that I'm sooooo stupid that after I have considered the answers to the question you've asked, I still find your position on my explanation of Chesterton's Fence unclear. You're gonna have to stoop down real low and actually explain what you're thinking in a way that is comprehensible to us normal 'little' people.
ControlsFreak
8mo ago
All you have to do is click the link and then click max for the duration.
You're trying to change goalposts again to individual compensation packages, not something about budgets. Please just pick one set of goalposts and stick with them.
ControlsFreak
8mo ago
Well, the question is whether the President is in a position to know that wasn't an existential threat. If you're the President and ignorant people think it's an existential threat, but you know that it's not an existential threat, you help them understand that it's not an existential threat. And then we move to the next question of whether you would have "threatened the livelihood of 100,000,000 citizens unless they submitted to an unconstitutional mandate that abrogated their right to bodily autonomy? Even after massive concerns from multiple constitutional scholars?"
ControlsFreak
9mo ago
I'd dispute that most modern people could achieve self-sufficiency if they stopped specializing in their comparative advantage. After all, we're pretty much all "specialists," even the farmers.
What capability do most modern people lack in comparison to ye ancients? I'm not asking about current habits/practices or individual skills. Those things can be learned and adopted. And we're certainly not lacking in access to knowledge that can be leveraged to get there. So, what capability are modern people lacking that would prevent them from becoming self-sufficient?
try being self-sufficient without any land, for example
Good news! We have gobs of land. It's going to be pretty much abandoned by all those farmers who are currently specialized in growing crops for trade. I mean, it's not going to be worth anything to them if they can't sell in trade. We'll basically have new frontiers for a new homesteading era.
No, for most of those millennia, many were specializing and trading (even if just within family/household/tribe).
Sounds perfectly fine, then. Since you're predicting that their family/household/tribe is also going to shunned by TPTB, then those folks might want to trade with you in your little group. Everything is just like it was! Proven capability!
Humans have agency, can understand (or at least act as if they understand) opportunity cost and comparative advantage.
Irrelevant.
ROFL. If you just deny it without even bothering to engage with it, I'm mostly going to just laugh at you. Because it's hilariously bad.
I mean, at least try. Try to tell me why it's irrelevant. To do so, you have to say something about what it is and how it works. You can't just declare it irrelevant and then talk about something else entirely.
now a cheap, plentiful substitute is coming
That sounds pretty nice, then. How much will this cheap, plentiful substitute cost? Is it like, $10 to replace a gigahuman worth of labor/knowledge/etc.?
The problem is in the middle, when large fractions of the population have become parasites upon the fraction that's still productive.
This is a complete distraction. You had specifically predicted that humans will be unable to maintain subsistence. I argue that we do not lack any capability to maintain subsistence, that we have gobs of empirical evidence that it is, in fact, possible, that even if you think small group trade was important to this process, your own predictions imply that we will have plenty of similarly-situated humans who would like to engage in precisely the same small group trade that you think is critical, that humans are in fact different from horses in part because we can understand opportunity cost (at least well enough to realize that if the opportunity cost of just sitting there doing nothing and hoping for a handout is sufficiently large to jump the gap between 'starve to death' and 'not starve to death', we can make the choice to use our capabilities at the very least to sustain ourselves), and that if we're getting magical super cheap everything anyway, you have significant explaining to do in terms of a model for what this price point is, what it gets you, etc.
We can't even get to discussions about transitory whatever until you even have a basic model that has even the most elementary components in it. Like, no, we're not going to jump to questions about dynamics if we don't have any sense of even partial equilibrium, much less general equilibrium.
Many material resources will remain scarce even as the value of human labor declines, which limits how cheap the machines can become.
So they're going to be expensive? How expensive? What are the limiting factors? Don't we have magic automated mining equipment? That stuff is going to have to be cheaper than it is now, resulting in lower costs of materials, otherwise folks might consider employing humans again. Unless you're positing a paperclip-maximizing-scale increase in use of resources, but that doesn't make sense, because in reality, technological advances that are increasing efficiency have actually resulted in us using less resources than we did in the past.
ControlsFreak
9mo ago
I learned my sneering for the purpose of papering over the point that "more of the same, which had absolutely terrible results" is transparently a very bad idea from only the very best.
ControlsFreak
9mo ago
Sure. He has not yet actually assented to the empirical evidence that people can mostly be self-sufficient. I did not claim that he assented to this, and if he would like to disagree with this, he is still able to (so are you). I pointed out that he did claim that self-sufficiency was a lower bound for purposes of comparative advantage. I then also addressed his stated concern that a small class of people cannot attain self-sufficiency (e.g., severely disabled folks). But for all of the other folks, who I pointed out empirically can attain self-sufficiency, his lower bound holds that comparative advantage will still make them better off. Which would contradict his conclusion that a vast majority of folks will end up at sub-subsistence levels.
Now that we've cleared up that I have not claimed any assent to the empirical evidence and clarified further how the argument goes, do you have any objection to the logical portion of the argument? Or are you just happy that we've agreed that we're still waiting to see if he assents/objects to the empirical evidence?
ControlsFreak
10mo ago
“less favourable”
I think you're resting a lot on this, but the court document only mentions this once, with reference to CEDAW (not SDA), saying that it
refers only to discrimination that places women in a less favourable position than men. It therefore does not cover the kind of discrimination that Ms Tickle alleges in this case, which is discrimination that placed her in the same position as men.
They don't really say anything about SDA having some form of "less favorable" test; they talk about "disadvantaging", and they don't really grapple how that would really work WRT a claim of gender identity. What is the set of possible "gender identities" in question? What is the reference class? It's a conceptual mush. I know it's approaching a reductio, but what if someone gender identified as an attack helicopter (substitute less ridiculous, but still nonbinary or whatever), but appeared male, then tried to access Giggle. Indirect gender identity discrimination?
Perhaps @Gillitrut was completely barking up the wrong tree when claiming that the 'authoritative document' had anything to do with it, but we're still left with a different kind of mess... and one that I point out, still leaves yardsticks on the table. You can fit almost anything into "other status".
It also reopens your hypo:
a breastless transwoman desperate for a mammogram, or something. I could see that happening. But I’m reasonably confident our medical jurisprudence allows doctors to decline providing frivolous care. It certainly lets insurance opt out.
I don't see why, with this ruling, it would be considered frivolous or allow an opt out. Could even have one with implants or just barely large enough 'moobs'. The only way would be to say, "Mammograms are for the female sex," but then we're exactly back in the same position Giggle is. There's no reason to disadvantage MtFs in terms of getting to see imagery of their chest, if that's what they want. We don't actually have a reference class to compare them to, anyway. In order to show that Tickle was disadvantaged in comparison to some other reference class, I'd want to know what that reference class is, and once we know that, then maybe we can check to see if denying MtFs mammograms does/doesn't disadvantage them WRT the same reference class.
If there's anything I've learned from learning about BIID, it's that people can be very very serious about demanding a treatment that others may see as kind of silly or potentially even harmful. Are you going to import some "someone might think it's actually silly/harmful" exemption? Like, if a doctor simply asserts, "I think this would actually be silly/harmful, for whatever reason," then they're okay? Well, sure, Giggle can simply say that they think that someone who looks that much like a man is being silly or actually going to harm themselves, because they're gonna like get made fun of or something. I don't think it's easy at all to surgically (heh) slice out the cases that you personally think are silly/unlikely, because that's a ridiculous ad hoc test where the rule is that every time something comes up, we have to ask you whether it's silly or not.
Ah, the good old strawman. Actually, very very bad old strawman.
More options
Context Copy link