@FeepingCreature's banner p

FeepingCreature


				

				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 05 00:42:25 UTC
Verified Email

				

User ID: 311

FeepingCreature


				
				
				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 05 00:42:25 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 311

Verified Email

And that's why you don't accept anaesthesia for surgery, I presume?

edit: Ah sorry, didn't see the "you don't want" there. Important factor to be sure.

I mean, but conversely, who should have the right to determine what feelings are or aren't part of an identity? I mean conversely, if I start saying "divine-attracted" or "people who experience a religious impulse" and note that they don't have to raise their children to believe in Hell, they can't help that they perceive the divine but pushing it on others is a choice- I suspect some of the same people would become very angry at me.

Hell, being grossed out by gayness also doesn't need to be part of people's identity. As they say, "you are not immune from propaganda identifying with your impulses."

The investment and divestment of impulses from your identity is to some extent voluntary. However, it also serves as a signal as to which impulses you value the highest. To say that "SSA do not have to make that a part of their identity" is close to saying "SSA should not make that part of their identity" which is itself approximately equivalent to "society should not try to fulfill or support SSA". At which point I start disagreeing: so what if men have impulses to have sex with men? Society is a system to arbitrate the fulfillment of impulses with minimal friction. The religious impulse or the purity impulse should not get primacy over the gay impulse.

I'm biased in the opposite direction: My parents are 65 years old. In that age group, there was a 10% chance of death given infection in 2020. If one of my parents (~19% chance) had died, it would unquestionably have been the worst thing that had ever happened to me. In comparison, the lockdowns are a tiny footnote of badness. Covid was on an exponential trajectory and there were no vaccines, so I am incredibly glad that the lockdowns happened.

I believe they had hope of stopping Biden. They had no chance of stopping Biden. Intent matters.

Similarly, people say this sort of thing all the time, and then one side or the other makes drama from it all the time; the critical factor is undertaking steps of a concrete plan to bring it about. It doesn't particularly matter if the plan is very, very hopeless, because you want to nuke any incentive gradient that could lead to a better second attempt. Conversely, "we don't like Bush, so let's set a car on fire" is not even based on any whatsoever plausible model of how an election could be overturned.

It's very challenging to take care of yourself without regularly being within six feet of many other humans.

Seems like a motte/bailey.

Motte: As a group, homos must replenish from non-homosexuals' offspring, necessarily; if they didn't do this, they'd already not exist.

Bailey: Homosexuality is a choice; what's more, it is actually a movement agentically interested in swelling its numbers. To do so, they must make our kids gay.

The problem with the bailey is the assumption that ... either, kids should rather be gay but stay their lives firmly in the closet; or the way that this looks from the outside, kids should just "choose" to "be" straight. Which, as far as I can tell, is and remains largely impossible.

You think these are the core defining traits of the Holocaust? Not, say, the mass murder?

If Hitler had put Jews, invalids, gypsies and various dissidents in camps and then kept and fed them until the end of the war, we would be ... very confused, morally, for one, considering what other claims he made, but we'd probably have a different view on Nazis. Depending whether he'd used them for labor, we may even consider the camps "relatively humane" as far as camps go. Certainly they wouldn't be considered synonymous with absolute evil.

It sounds like you're trying to do an end run around "gay bad, trans bad" by assuming it as given, then arguing "it's abuse because it leads to gay/trans". But this entirely trades on the negative connotations of "abusive", not of "gay/trans".

Seems special pleading: why are we requiring no special incantation when declassifying, but are requiring a special incantation ("these are classified" is not enough!) when classifying?

That said, has Trump spoken any incantation for declassifying?

I mean, the pandemic is still ongoing. If COVID were suddenly gone, sure. And even then we might still expect excess deaths from long-term damage of the pandemic.

Eh, agree-disagree. It could be that many things have objective answers that are just very hard to figure out. I think a lot of people arguing here act under the premise that they can convince people, which only works if they're right and others are wrong.

The gassing is kinda an important aspect. As a pro-lockdowner, if I thought the government would outright murder twelve million people (or, honestly, a lot less than that) in the name of a bad model of a disease, I would have had a very different reaction.

Covid infections "strongly" (arguable) above longterm YOY. "Abnormal" amounts of Covid.

"Haggling over the price" implies that the principle is invalid.

It implies that the principle is not in play. I think both lines and principles are valid, but cannot be argued with the same rhetoric tools.

Okay but metropolitan sized battery arrays sounds kind of awesome though.

I suspect the answer is going to turn out to be a combination of centralized storage, personal storage and dynamically scaling industrial demand. There won't be one big battery but the same volume distributed over lots of households.

That's what the Germans did. That's why after spending enough to fully decarbonize their grid via nuclear, they have the world's highest energy price and carbon intensity way worse than France.

Eh, our problems are hardly an inherent aspect of green energy, but more that we did it ass-backwards.

Iunno, I just feel like a society that talks like that is going to get critical investments very wrong. But also - the thing about strength is that once you have an army, you have to use it - or else you'll be outcompeted by the countries that didn't invest so much into strength as a terminal. Strength doesn't just allow you to defend, it requires you to attack. "If we didn't have this strength, we'd be invaded" is usually an excuse used by those countries that tend to do the invading. Meanwhile, hypothetically, your enemies have a five-country alliance of which one doesn't have an army at all, but just focuses on production. Why can they get away with that? Cause the other countries don't have to worry about that country feeling compelled to backstab them due to having invested so much into strength.

Nevermind the old chestnut of "what is a woman?". That one has multiple satisfactory answers from the simple to the scientifically robust. Try out "what is a transwoman?". The sole universal quality of every possible rational answer begins with "a man who...". A man.

This is literally assuming the conclusion. You can't build an argument to support your opinion that starts with your opinion.

Sure, but then the argument is on who is right, and I am not aware of a strong reason for why who you love should be wrong to be.

Though, as XKCD notes.

Imagine reading this on CNN: "Many fled their vehicles and jumped from the bridge. Those who stayed behind..." Is something good about to happen to those people?

Hang on. You're saying he declassified them by accident?

Basically, by putting them in his possession when he became a person who did not have authority to see them, he implicitly declassified them because he was still president when he made the decision?

If yes, that's hilarious.

You think we're epistemically in a 1937 position with regard to Covid camps?

We just got owned by Covid, and Covid was found by random walk.

To be fair, if you can pick the reference class, you can do anything.

This stat is misleading because it means a few top band high earners (and so high tax contributors) can "pay for" a load of useless layabouts in this statistic.

How is that misleading? Admittedly this suggests a third option of "only accept immigrants likely to contribute lots of taxes", but it's surely relevant to the question that between "current immigration" and "no immigration", the "current immigration" option still leads to higher sum tax revenue.

Do immigrants actually support immigration? My intuition would be that immigrants are for it to the degree that they're in the social sphere that profits from immigration and start being against it as they accumulate wealth.