FtSoA
7d ago
From what was revealed, the gun belonged to the guy who was killed after he set it down on the table, aimed at himself.
If we find out it was not the gun of the guy that killed him then who knows what happened. Foul play? Horse play? Total accident?
One should never fling a loaded gun or flag oneself or another to the utmost degree possible.
FtSoA
7d ago
Yes, and subsequently the FBI conducted further testing with zero failures. Supposedly, anyway.
Did they or did they not modify the gun for testing?
Don't whine about "dismissed." Either debate the point or accept it.
I will continue to support Sig as much as I view appropriate. I certainly will push back on illogical fearmongering from haters with motivated reasoning jumping on the bandwagon of the moment.
FtSoA
13d ago
I disagree, the last exchange of his example suggests that when you've retreated to that lowest level, someone like Scott should come along to keep nudging you up the layers
So? What's wrong with a nudge? Coercion is bad. Persuasion is fine.
But, again, isn't Scott doing the thing where he's actually arguing down from the "purists"?
The person is not left to be comfortable at their fulfillment level.
Isn't that contradicting the point of him saying the whole 10% line is a totally great place to be comfortable?
also continue to think it's interesting that he opposed this kind of shenanigan
He's trying to find a reasonable middle ground. For people like him. For the more typical person. For anyone.
Scott perceives that unbounded moral philosophy is a mug's game. So bind it a little.
What is obligatory? What is supererogatory? Reasonable people can disagree and avoid muggings.
I think the issue here is that you perceive Scott is expressing two different stances, but I see him saying the same basic thing. Figure out what the obligatory minimum, satisfice, and then anything beyond that is extra credit, but there's no reason to beat oneself up over maximization or allow a philosophical mugging.
FtSoA
15d ago
With that paragraph you cite, I wonder how Freddie would feel if one swapped out "AI" with "Marxism."
FtSoA
15d ago
There are many degrees of purity. Ultimately, one can always sacrifice more for the cause.
Scott seems to genuinely enjoy his life in terms of material comfort, in addition to his significant charitable giving. And the kidney.
So whatever the threshold is for diminishing returns on his charitable endeavors, he seems to be on the sustainable side.
wrote that one should keep climbing the tower.
I think you actually managed to interpret that exactly backwards. In addition to misapplying it contextually.
He wrote that one should retreat down to the lowest level of the tower one finds necessary to fulfill one's moral obligations. If you don't share those foundational assumptions, then that's fine. But plenty of people in the West ostensibly do.
FtSoA
16d ago
We all come to miss at least some of the fallen for livening things up around here.
Kind of hilarious how much drama is generated here over banning people for being dramatic.
Mods do not judge the quality of arguments here.
I feel obligated to point out that obviously you do. The rules are full of guidance about specific qualities of arguments. Perhaps you mean to say that the mods aim to evaluate meta argument qualities, not object level.
So, actually, at the risk of being egregiously obnoxious, in the context of that comment chain, which rule(s) exactly did I break? Actually, why don't all mod warnings come with a citation? That's standard in many a Reddit forum. Don't make us guess.
Is it, by definition, always low effort to provide a link for which the context has been established and/or is self-evident? Since this platform does not allow me to provide a screenshot, a link is actually a pretty relevant counterargument for the claim that was being contested.
Would I have been fine if I had merely had a preamble of something like: "If you click on this hyperlink to a google search, as I previously recommended you conduct to evaluate the evidence for yourself, you will be able to see a fair number of posts on the topic you claim does not really get covered in EA circles."
I'm telling you what your available options are here. Not everywhere else on the Internet, but here.
Not very charitable of you regarding my reading comprehension, I must say. I've only been participating since the olden Reddit days. Never even been banned. Perhaps it was only the soft bigoty of low expectations.
People can make bad arguments. You may point out why they're bad.
God bless the Motte. Mods for, of, and by the people.
EDIT: How could I forget. Is it not implicit in the rules and the epistemic heritage of this forum, the rationality sphere and SSC, that basic norms of logic and reason and evidence are expected? A basic epistemic methodological sanity baseline. Clearly the rules indicate awareness of such concepts, but perhaps they are taken as omissible.
FtSoA
16d ago
You've clearly never debated a flat earther and it shows.
More seriously, the right tool for the job of "is this a pretty common thing or not" was in fact a google search showing a bunch of available examples.
It shouldn't be against the rules to succinctly provide evidence someone is full of BS. When they're denying the very existence of the evidence. When they refuse to confirm their claimed absence of that evidence. Of a pretty simple issue. Trivially demonstrated facts of matter.
Also, my link was on the tail end of a series of arguments. It wasn't just a no-context injection.
"Don't do this" ought to also apply to people who won't do the very basics of epistemic due diligence.
There are many EA thought posts on avoiding purity burnout and mental health crises. There are not very many AC units in Europe. Anyone arguing otherwise is just failing very basic standards of reason.
FtSoA
16d ago
a) It's not about economics.
Any system that runs out of other people's money is going to struggle. Any system that cannot wage war effectively via the means of production is going to struggle. You may not be interested in economics; but economics is interested in you.
Politics is the art of the possible. Saying impossible things are desirable is mostly useless.
Classical liberalism is a lot less far-fetched than Marxism, and yet. It's very much not literally impossible. Certainly it's possible to make marginal improvements even if we never achieve my particular vision of utopia.
Electoral appeal can change. Sometimes rapidly. My hope is that the next crisis event is used to steer us in a good direction, not an even worse one.
FtSoA
16d ago
One weird trick diabetics hate.
But that would actually raise prices in the U.S., right, losing foreign sales, since it's typically not marginal cost of production that's the issue; it's the sunk cost of R&D.
So I'd prefer Trump take this issue on directly, and not make it harder for big pharma.
FtSoA
16d ago
I got in trouble the last time I curtly linked to a google search about the prevalence of AC units in Europe so I won't provoke the mods again.
But seriously why can't you simply google the relative prevalence of AC units in the U.S. vs. Europe and stop this pointless journey of "let's count the AC units one by one"?
This is not a hard problem. This is not a controversial issue with contested epistemic status. Data is available.
And it shows you are clearly wrong. By a lot.
Or, if it doesn't, be my guest and provide data counter to that I have already provided.
FtSoA
16d ago
When they do price fixing, it's bad. When Trump does price fixing, it's bad.
Trump's actions will make things worse, not better. He's not proposing something like I don't know we ban pharmaceutical exports to countries that refuse to pay market rates in order to make others pay their fair share. Imagine if he did that little bit of conflict theory! People would freak the fuck out and call him a mass murderer or something, but he'd be justified in threatening a trade war on that front such that America isn't paying for the bulk of innovation.
So this is a case where I think there is a Trumpian approach to perhaps make things actually better, but he's not doing that.
FtSoA
16d ago
I can't help but notice that it sounds like your problem is "the homeless", more than "homelessness". Progressives, on the other hand, are trying to solve or alleviate "homelessness" - ie the problem experienced by the homeless where they, er, don't have homes.
You are correct that the two problems are distinct.
Where you're wrong is that progressives tend to deny the distinction, and they suck very badly at resolving either due to ideological precommitments that do not align with reality.
Keep in mind that if the vagrants are outside city limits they are no longer of any practical or legal concern of cities.
Improving the actual homeless people's lives is the outspoken priority of progressive authorities, and even if you disagree with that priority, you don't get to call them ineffective because they aren't very good at solving a completely different, if related problem that you think should be higher-priority.
The are pretty fucking bad at it, is my point. Ends, means. Inputs, outputs. Intent, outcome.
Law and fucking order is also supposed to THE primary concern of cities, and all of government actually. So when you foster an open-air drug market next to a playground you're using my tax dollars to fuck over my other tax dollars.
FtSoA
16d ago
Tariffs are very anti-market.
Trump is also fucking with the Fed, labor statistics, and is demanding drug prices be lowered.
These are all very bad things that will likely do great damage, more in the long run than in the short run.
FtSoA
16d ago
I mean, the market puts little to no value on their lives. I am simply pointing out that there is nothing different about keeping people alive for the sake of keeping them alive in PEPFAR than any other boring charity like food stamps or Medicaid. I suppose these people kept alive can also threaten to immigrate, which is a bad thing. So yeah. Why is this "effective?"
If you don't accept the philosophical foundations of universalisms wrt human life then, yeah, sure. No argument from me. Using markets to determine the value of a human life comes with a lot of caveats in the best of times.
Foreign aid is arguably unconstitutional, but the inception of PEPFAR was not approved by Congress. They may arguably have adopted it later on, but the inception was just GWB going rogue.
Sure, I don't know enough to debate its whole origin story. And had I been president I would not used taxpayer dollars in such a fashion. I'm actually not aware of detailed constitutional arguments/cases for/against foreign aid as a whole category. It seems if a national defense argument can be made, then it's going to be allowable by default.
PEPFAR does nothing of the sort. It just lets anyone who contracted a deadly STD keep on living with no scrutiny as to whether they can or will make the world better by their continued existence, and past performance indicates not so.
I don't think I disagree with you here, overall. I'd just say that we could have compromised/hedged and ended U.S. involvement as a handoff, not as a near-immediate shutdown.
FtSoA
16d ago
Of course, this still biases charities towards sounding good rather than doing good, but that's really really hard to avoid.
Amen.
See also: Welfare Democracy
Ultimately, donors have to do their due diligence on efficacy and voters on sustainability.
FtSoA
16d ago
Classical liberalism is a strictly transitory phenomenon that will degenerate into something else.
In the long run we are all very much dead. But perhaps giving up on classical liberalism altogether is premature.
And the "something else" is hard here. If we have reached the End of History, but liberal democracy is insufficiently "liberal" to be economically feasible then where we go next seems bad. I'd argue going back to the old ways.
So I'd say, reality has an anti-classical liberal bias
I'd argue many people do, not economic reality. Public choice theory teaches us this. Then you can get into "liberal" vs. "democracy" but that's a whole thing.
FtSoA
19d ago
PEPFAR is bad. It keeps people alive for the sole purpose of spending money to keep them alive.
I suppose if you place zero or negative value on the lives saved by PEPFAR, then yeah, obviously. End it yesterday.
Not sure I'd agree with that proposition, however. I'm not much of a Christian, but I do think George W. Bush had his heart in a charitable place when he got the program going.
The program is obviously unconstitutional.
Congress allocating funds? Is all foreign aid unconstitutional by definition? Generally, the constitution is far more free-wheeling on doing things for foreign policy than it is for domestic policy.
This is a worthwhile comparison in that obviously subsidizing sexual deviancy is bad.
And being able to build houses would also be bad? Like what on earth do you think you're arguing by comparison here?
Those are very different things, to me, personally. Like, sure, most sexual deviancy probably happens in houses, which someone had to build, but that's true of a broad range of human activities. Am I to understand that building more houses would lead to more sexual deviancy?
Like houses are not inherently bad, right? And training locals to build their own housing gets around the classic problem of just providing a good such that the local market demand is satisfied and domestic production gets hurt. Now such training may or may not be a worthwhile charitable intervention, but it's not obviously terrible by default.
You can argue that PEPFAR is not just ineffective, but bad for reasons of sexual deviancy or whatever else without talking about African housebuilding, I think.
FtSoA
19d ago
I could have made it worse and use the ol' LMGTFY.
There are some people in this conversation on various topics, like air conditioning units in Europe, that seemingly want to endlessly debate a relatively minor point that could be resolved with a quick google search and it baffles me.
FtSoA
19d ago
The crazy thing about markets is that they work so well, even under adverse conditions. The Chinese made some necessary compromises and it worked out pretty well for them.
You do point out a very real challenge I am painfully aware of and what is the underlying motivation of why I would write such an essay. The erosion of (classic) liberalism by progressivism has happened; can we stop it? Or are we in the U.S. doomed to the same eventual fate as the UK?
I have made exactly the same argument you do against Christians saying we need to return to Christianity--if that led us here what good would it do to redo things, even if that were possible? (I'd argue the key difference between classic liberalism, at least the free market economics of it, and Christianity is that the latter is not based on a factual understanding of reality.)
In the U.S., classic liberalism got hammered pretty hard starting during the Great Depression for about 50 years on economics, then we had a few decades of half-decent neoliberalism in both parties, and now both parties are largely past neoliberalism for the indefinite future. MAGAfication on the right may actually negatively polarize the left into becoming more neoliberal again, if we're lucky. #silverlinings
And, though my essay is aimed at progressive failures, I figure my best shot of convincing MAGA types that perhaps they should care about market economics, as the GOP once did, is by trashing progressive failures, not Trump and present antimarket policies.
So, in your view:
The IDF is just doing these photos with various JDAMs and whatnot linked in this article for pure propaganda? Why?
We know why Iran would lie about having shot down an F-35 or two. But why would Israel need to lie about dropping JDAMs vs. blasting things with ALBMs? They certainly were blowing things up.
You can argue that it doesn't prove the IAF did; you can't argue it proves they didn't. Elementary logic.
Here's a funny (bit)[https://defencesecurityasia.com/en/tensions-erupt-did-israel-use-azerbaijani-airspace-to-strike-deep-into-iran/]:
What was their goal this time? Was it the same as 2006? (No.)
For "exercises"? AYFKMRN? We know who the dead generals are.
Well at least you're willing to acknowledge one part of the Israeli government did a good job.
Because the Iranians got a lot more cautious about things. Obviously. Targeting people is hard when they know they're being actively targeted.
This is not what "spontaneously" means. Quite the opposite.
No reason? He has a whole wing of advisors who wanted the U.S. to take no part. As far as Trump is concerned, the nuclear program was bombed, so mission accomplished.
Those are not the same situations. (After all, you seem to believe Iran remains a significant threat to Israel right now.) Bibi will only test Trump so much.
The Iranians have formed a war council because they expect the war to recommence. Israel is, one presumes, presently plotting for such an eventuality. As they did that last time.
Trump is not a particularly rational actor. He is wildly inconsistent and easily influenced by his advisors; who often have conflicting views. Many people predict great catastrophe if the regime falls. So if it's defanged why not let it live. I think this is wrong, but I know why they think it.
Again, no truce was "cut." Nothing was negotiated. It's a de facto ceasefire.
Do you deny that Iran's economy was massively impacted during the conflict because of the reliance on the oil industry, or is that also propaganda?
Had the conflict continued roughly as it had, who was going to run out of money first?
More options
Context Copy link