ControlsFreak
No bio...
User ID: 1422
ControlsFreak
59m ago
It would turn off the purists. It's an indictment of our society that we haven't developed technology that allows the TV viewer to select whether they want a neon green simulpuck or not on their own TV. This is truly the most important technological challenge of our time.
ControlsFreak
13hr ago
It's the Star Wars meme.
Now that the Supreme Court got rid of the tariffs, the prices are going to go down!
...the prices are going to go down, right?
Conservatives know this deep down, but they don't want to admit it because it conflicts with the First Principle.
No, it really doesn't. At best, you've just found that some people aren't good at applying the First Principle. That doesn't mean the First Principle is wrong.
EDIT: In fact, I'd say that it's likely that you're committing the New Atheist error in thinking that if morality is a thing, it must obviously be an obvious thing that any decent (seemingly-similarly-inclined) person can easily just intuit. And thus, when one sees some number of one's co-(anti-)religionists go off the deep end, one concludes that morality didn't real in the first place.
Instead, it's actually somewhat difficult to cultivate and propagate. It doesn't help that the wickedness of man is great on the earth.
ControlsFreak
6d ago
the chance of having your kids taken away by CPS
...for something like letting your pre-teen walk to the neighborhood park alone. This is the key qualifier. How often is that? How do you know?
ControlsFreak
6d ago
If you're the kind of black man who wants to do whatever, the cost of getting shot dead by police while unarmed is extremely high.
...stiiiilllll kinda think that I can care a little bit about the rate at which unarmed black men actually get shot dead by police. I don't particularly care whether someone labels the discussion after an old French philosopher. It doesn't really map onto that topic all that well.
ControlsFreak
6d ago
I imagine some number of cops will make what seem like unreasonable requests of some number of individuals. Even if the underlying concern is something like shoplifting. A regular reading of Short Circuit and some of the many cases in which cops get qualified immunity for whatever would certainly give a person that impression. And sure, I'm sympathetic that there can be problems in particular cases there. But how often are people actually getting required to follow some inane suggestion? By your own phrasing, the example is a "weird brand new rule that you just made up", not some clear, broadly-applicable rule that the system is applying all over the place in a high percentage of cases. And how often do these inane suggestions actually lead to things like termination of parental rights? Plausibly not very often. Perhaps the inane suggestions happen more often (I don't know), and if we had data, we could discuss that, but the original claim was:
Insufficiently supervising your child will get you a visit from CPS and your child potentially removed. The data bears that out.
I still don't think the data bears that out. Redirecting the claim to saying that maybe sometimes some social workers make inane suggestions (without data here either) doesn't provide data to bear out that claim.
I don't think there is a sufficient quantity of drugs in the entire supply chain to explain.
More options
Context Copy link