ControlsFreak
No bio...
User ID: 1422
ControlsFreak
2yr ago
What exactly is it telling of? If you wish to call it hypocrisy, feel free, but I can wholeheartedly assure you that people will leap to the defense of things they care about/prefer more than those they don't.
People will obviously engage more with topics that they care about than topics they don't care about. But you specifically raised a concern with what you perceived as the form of an argument. We can go back to antiquity to find good reason to think that one should consider the form of an argument apart from its particulars.
My objection to you is that you didn't submit anything more than post-modernist nonsense about how, since atheism makes metaphysical claims, it's just as unfounded as religion.
Huge ROFL. I've never said that. Just not even. Double ROFL in thinking that it's anything post-modernist. Instead, it's like, core classical philosophy. I've seen some kind of ridiculous misunderstandings/misaccusations about post-modernist philosophy, but this is a new one. Just comically off the mark.
ControlsFreak
2yr ago
Ok, so it's a "property" that is "possessed" by some metaphysical systems. Great. You've also said that metaphysics is not amenable to exploration via the means of science, which is a constrained endeavor. Presumably, then, you would agree that when you say "evidence", you're not meaning "scientific evidence", for that would immediately fall directly into the obvious trap of mistaking methodological constraints for metaphysical theory. So, uh, what do you mean when you speak of "an overwhelming preponderance of evidence"?
ControlsFreak
2yr ago
It is inherently an aspect of any metaphysical system
So, you're saying that it's a metaphysical system? Or that it's a component of a metaphysical system? Something like that?
ControlsFreak
2yr ago
Phenomenal, pun intended. Where in this nomenclature does atheism fall?
To people like Goodguy, the only point is to hear himself call his ideological opponents irrational. That is the ground where the battle has been declared.
There is an overwhelming preponderance of evidence that the universe operates according to a mechanistic evolution of relatively simple laws of physics, with no external intervention at all.
What experiment have you conducted which demonstrates equality between methodological constraints of science and metaphysical theory of ontology?
EDIT:
That's a relatively new one in these parts eh? Leave aside arguing why my ideology is superior, let me claim that yours is just as bad. I can see this is an immensely convincing argument.
Also, it's telling that you didn't come to say that... to Goodguy, who, after all, did nearly nothing but say that someone's ideology is just as bad as another one. Big oof by you, but telling of the fact that you're far more critical of things you're predisposed to disagree with than things you're predisposed to agree with.
Unfortunately, your atheism is at least as unbacked by evidence and reason as either. You are personally as irrational as the trans ideologues, but you give yourself a pass out of pure self-serving smugness. From whence comes equality between methodological constraints of science and metaphysical theory of ontology? It's nothing but really old and really popular and so it seems "normal". You probably like the cultural/political connotations, and you may have been raised to believe such irrational things. If you're going to act like anyone is "given a pass", it is you, and every time you pull this schick, it eats away at the detente that the mods claim to believe in/enforce. The result of you continuing to break down the detente is that, unless the mods continue to protect you, your irrationality will no longer be given a pass. It'll be made clear that you're no different than trans ideologues.
ControlsFreak
2yr ago
AI making society super productive but a loaf of bread being 10 bucks
If the current marginal cost of production for a loaf of bread is about $2 (just looked at the website of the closest grocery store to my current location), and AI makes society super productive, do you think the real marginal cost of production for a loaf of bread will be (a) Less than $2, (b) About $2, (c) Greater than $2, but less than $10, (d) About $10, or (e) Greater than $10?
If you chose one of (a-c), why do you think that the price of bread will not trend toward the marginal cost of production, as is the standard result in economics for goods like bread?
If you chose one of (b-e), why do you think that an across-the-board increase in productivity will not reduce the marginal cost of production of bread?
ControlsFreak
2yr ago
Why? What if they don't?
He can pretty easily fire them in that case.
You're very strangely continuing to prod many folks to go all the way toward declaring some form of civil war in some limit, but that's silly and it won't get there. It's the same type of hysteria that led the Blues to imagining scenarios about, "WHAT IF TRUMP JUST IGNORES THE SUPREME COURT AND JUST DEPORTS THE MUSLIMS AND EXECUTES TEH GAYS AND REFUSES TO LEAVE OFFICE AND AND AND AND".... uh, and then we had a reasonably normal presidency with some low-level variance.
Trump fired people before. They went home. Sure, they also went on TV and were lauded with social approval for hating Trump on TV, but they went home from their government job and someone else took their government job. Like, what do you think happens right now if someone just refuses to go home from government property after they get fired from their government job?
ControlsFreak
2yr ago
That’s why the Trump administration briefly floated the idea of relocating headquarter offices outside the DC beltway.
This has long been one of my favorite reform proposal, but it's hard to make it stick. Every agency out there feels like their highest imperative is to ensure that their overlords "understand" what they're trying to do, finds value in their organization, and keeps the resource train flowing. So it is not uncommon that even when the bulk of an agency is actually located elsewhere, their leadership either all have offices in DC or spend significant amounts of time "traveling" there. So, one likely immediate consequence is that this "travel" to DC will ramp up even more, such that agency leadership essentially all have "temporary offices" there that become less and less temporary. They'll delegate more internal power down the chain as their jobs become more "externally-focused". The result may be a bit of a rift between agency upper/lower-upper management. In the balance, how does this actually affect the day-to-day operation of the agency? It probably depends a lot on agency specifics and how much their upper/upper-middle layers cohere through the process.
In sum, I sort of thing that just firing and turning management into political appointees accomplishes a certain amount, while relocation sort of severs upper management from agency operations, which may actually reduce the effectiveness of turning those folks into political appointees. The permanent bureaucracy already does a lot to isolate political appointees to make sure they can't "stir up too much trouble", and that may actually be a bit easier to do if they can just ship them all off to DC all the time, while they take the real reins of power over day-to-day agency operations.
ControlsFreak
2yr ago
My point is that it's not a "huge percentage". Like, that's my point. A very very simple point. It's not a matter of complicated argumentation. That point is just a dead simple comparison of two numbers. I'm definitely definitely not saying that it's hopeless. I said:
Going to 50k would be a significant step toward making civil service leadership more politically-accountable when someone actually wins an election, rather than it just being de facto Democrat-controlled
Meaning it does have hope/potential in being effective. A full analysis of the factors for how effective it will be for various agencies is significantly more complicated. But no matter where people come down on that question, it's an extremely simple matter of pointing at two numbers to see that it's not a "huge percentage".
ControlsFreak
2yr ago
Agreed that they're totally targeting upper management, and this won't affect the vast majority of individual mail carriers/nurses/etc. Could potentially be a significant change in how much an incoming executive can control the Executive branch against #Resistance. The language they're using in their targeting is “confidential, policy-determining, policy-making or policy-advocating” positions. My point is that it won't be the vast majority of individual mail carriers/nurses/etc; it won't be a large percentage of overall employees. That's not to say it has no chance of being effective. I have longer and more complicated thoughts on whether/how/where it will be effective or not.
ControlsFreak
2yr ago
Christianity is life-denying to the core: man is fallen, the world profane and corrupt, and the only refuge is the kingdom of heaven which only God can bring about.
Like, maybe your Christianity, but I feel like there are tons of others out there. The ones where man is made in God's image, told to be fruitful and multiply to fill the earth with little beings that are meant to "graduate" by resurrection into basically being God. Where the God man came to let himself be killed, apparently "so that you can have life more abundantly". As KnotGodel points out, many of your intermediate claims are pretty debatable (and debated by different groups of Christians), which likely means that your personal view is not necessarily that authoritative concerning Christianity's "core", at least not to the point that one should fail to understand how other interpretations could exist.
ControlsFreak
2yr ago
And when the civil service collectively declare this EO illegitimate and ignore it completely?
I think this is too far in the other direction. They'd have to come up with some statutory basis that can be argued to, uh, trump it. I think this can be forced down their throats, especially if it's dropped again on Day One of Term Two, rather than in October 2020. The administration will have four years to force out the resisters and a serious mechanism by which to simply fire them and deal with the lawsuit rather than have them playing intransigence for years.
ControlsFreak
2yr ago
trump has an EO ready to go to reclass a huge percentage of federal enployees as contractors, making them much easier to fire
ROFL at "huge percentage". The article says like 50k positions. There's close to 2M federal employees. And they wouldn't become "contractors"; they'd just be more politically-controlled. There's something like 4k political appointees currently. Going to 50k would be a significant step toward making civil service leadership more politically-accountable when someone actually wins an election, rather than it just being de facto Democrat-controlled, but who knows how deep the rot is. In any event, it's definitely not putting a huge percentage of federal employees on the political chopping block.
Hence, if
This is the thing that you have utterly failed to establish and that I have consistently challenged. Even try.
EDIT: You say:
The same is true of your hypotheticals.
So, you're actually going to comment? Will you unambiguously state, for the record, that your belief is that in this situation, UK law clearly and unambiguously says that Mr. So-and-So has a reasonable expectation of privacy in his arrest? Will you unambiguously state, for the record, that your belief is that all media outlets will refrain from posting his name in the article about the hullabaloo on their website, their twitter accounts, etc.? Will you unambiguously state, for the record, that your belief is that all their lawyers will tell them that they have to refrain from doing so because of legal risk?
ControlsFreak
2yr ago
I have given ample evidence that there are cases where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy. You have utterly refused to even engage with them. If you literally ignore anything that is said, then of course your interlocutor won't overcome your burden of proof. But, of course, everyone else can notice that you're not even trying. This is the worst form of bad faith arguing, and it violates this sub's rules.
ControlsFreak
2yr ago
almost EVERY other incident I'm aware of where major injuries were inflicted by a player's skates, it was because the 'victim' was laying on the ice.
There was the Matt Cooke/Erik Karlsson incident. I spoke about it here. One note is that this was controversial in its own right, also owing to the great skill of Karlsson and the poor reputation of Cooke, which may have played a similar intensifying role as the role of race in this incident. These are super tough situations to judge.
ControlsFreak
2yr ago
Sure. What is the evidence that they actually did so here? That vague article doesn't nearly do the job, and you know it. You're staking your ground on the mere possibility that they could have set down a bright-line rule. We agree that there is such a possibility, so continuing to chant that adds nothing to conversation and merely makes you look obstinate rather than engaging as per the rules of this forum.
You could add to your case by commenting on this hypothetical, ya know, if you want to try contributing to the discussion and everyone's further edification.
ControlsFreak
3yr ago
The Fourth Amendment forbids only "unreasonable" searches and seizures, yet Fourth Amendment jurisprudence is filled with bright-line rules and has been for decades.
That there may be bright-line rules contained within a reasonableness rule does not mean that the reasonableness rule is, itself, a bright-line rule. Clearly, one needs to figure out by looking at the actual opinions to determine whether there actually is a bright-line rule for some set of things underneath the reasonableness rule. We can't figure it out from a terrible summary article. You now seem to admit that "there might not be".... which was my position from the beginning. Perhaps you could help us consider the possibilities by commenting on this hypothetical, so we can see how much expectation of privacy you think is reasonable.
Let's test your "bright-line rule" with a hypo. Cameras are rolling, everyone is watching. Every station is broadcasting the most anticipated event of the century, live. Some guy[EDIT: Scratch that. Not "some guy". A guy who is known publicly. Like, say, a guy who was introduced at the event. Like, "We welcome Mr. So-and-So, our honored guest! Please identify yourself for the cameras and say a few words, Mr. So-and-So."] shows up, right in front of all the cameras, and commits a crime. While he's being arrested on live TV, he looks directly at the cameras and yells, "MY NAME IS SO-AND-SO, AND I'M BEING ARRESTED FOR [CRIME]."
Does this person have a reasonable expectation of privacy in his arrest until formal charges are filed? Let's further suppose that this person is either otherwise disliked or associated with folks who are otherwise disliked by the media. Do you think they all refrain from posting his name in the article about the hullabaloo on their website, their twitter accounts, etc.? You think all their lawyers will tell them that they have to refrain from doing so because of legal risk?
ControlsFreak
3yr ago
Because the first sentence of the article states a bright-line rule: " the Supreme Court ruled that a person under criminal investigation has a reasonable expectation of privacy prior to charge"
That is, at least one. Like, the particular one who was in the particular case, perhaps. That guy might have had a reasonable expectation of privacy with completely different circumstances. It does not say that "any" person has a reasonable expectation of privacy in their arrest regardless of the circumstances. I mean, the word "reasonable" is right in the phrase, which should be a pretty good tip off to a crack lawyer such as yourself that it's not a bright-line rule. It's a reasonableness rule.
FEAR OF LIABLITY
As I said: "total bullshit from hyper-risk-averse lawyers". Here's the thing about how people use lawyers, though. When they want to do something, they say, "Your job is to figure out how we can do this with minimum risk." When they don't want to do something, they say, "Your job is to come up with any possible risk of doing this, no matter how small or unlikely, so that we can say that we didn't do it due to legal risk."
There are literally no details in that article about the case in question or how wide-ranging the opinion in question is. Key language that could give an indication: "a person under criminal investigation has a reasonable expectation of privacy". This was on TV. His name was written on the back of his jersey so as to identify him publicly. He had received a standing ovation publicly, a public acknowledgement that everyone knows him. Many other articles named him at the time of the incident. You're going to need a hell of a lot more specifics than a broadly-worded summary article to say that this guy somehow has a reasonable expectation of privacy in the matter.
EDIT: You know enough about law, generally, to know better than to reason this poorly from such non-specific articles with glaringly obvious, gigantic gaps in their language.
ControlsFreak
3yr ago
It was on TV. The guy had his name on the back of his jersey for the express purpose of identifying himself. His name is so publicly known that the OP mentioned him getting a standing ovation, presumably as an indicator of the fact that everyone knows. Like, I get that with just Joe Schmoe nobody arrestee, there are fine reasons to be cautious, but let's be honest. It's not like any news outlet on either side of the pond was waiting for formal charges to run with stories about Trump and Trump-adjacents being arrested.
Any stick'll do.
More options
Context Copy link