Jiro
2mo ago
What ownership transfer? The bank has the house at the start. X dies before the house gets transfered to him, so the bank keeps the house. There's no transfer.
Jiro
2mo ago
The news channel should have some self respect; if they're not willing to show the truth on what Bondi actually looks like how can we trust they are telling the truth on anything else?
That video is 360p and Youtube will not let me increase the resolution. Which makes your complaint a nothingburger.
Jiro
2mo ago
Abrego, had the government not shipped him to El Salvador would be living in Maryland and raising his kids quietly.
He was illegally present in the US. Had the government not shipped him to El Salvador, the government would have legally shipped him somewhere else (or cancelled the ban and then shipped him to El Salvador). He certainly wouldn't be in Maryland, unless the government ignored its own immigration laws.
Jiro
2mo ago
- If someone regrew a limb after prayer, which a minute of Googling shows has in fact allegedly happened! people would be like "wow, there must be a good scientific explanation for this!" or "oh, clearly an elaborate fraud!
Saying that X counts as a miracle doesn't mean that if you claim X, it automatically counts. It means that you managed to get over one hurdle--you managed to claim something that, if it happened, would be a miracle. Getting past the "if it happened" part is a separate hurdle.
One obvious problem is that scientists (and doctors) are so incompetent that any attempt to prove a miracle medically or scientifically can easily be dismissed as incompetence or fraud.
The reason such things are dismissed as incompetence or fraud is that they are incompetence or fraud.
There are plenty of cases where science has noticed a lot of incompetence and fraud in something, and yet determined that some of it is real. (High temnperature superconductors come to mind.) Miracles aren't dismissed because scientists dismiss everything, miracles are dismissed because they have particularly bad claims and evidence, just like psychic powers, space aliens, and non-Christian miracles.
Well, actually, things impossible according to the known laws of physics do happen. And when they are proven to be true beyond a reasonable doubt, scientists literally invent magic an invisible practically unfalsifiable mystery substance to explain them.
No they don't. Actually, I have no idea what you're talking about, except maybe ether, which you'll notice modern scientists don't believe in.
Jiro
3mo ago
I mean this girl is in her mid-twenties and has already had seven messy breakups.
Not by non-comedy standards.
Jiro
3mo ago
I would argue that if you want to align rational entities through punishment, it is crucial to establish likely causal pathways.
And if you're an ideologue who believes that companies are evil, you want to punish them, period, so punishing them for things that they didn't cause doesn't seem so bad.
Moral considerations aside, I would argue that this would be much worse for setting incentives against murder.
Your scenario makes it easier to punish suspects in some ways (no trials) but harder in others (the suspects can get away if they can last five minutes). So a cop who just wants to punish people on a whim wouldn't like it. The EPA scenario only makes it easier; if the EPA wants to be able to punish companies on a whim, it's great for them.
Jiro
3mo ago
Everyone here knows examples of when the Blue Tribe does this anyway, so I'll just point out a Red version, which is squeezing of public figures over past sexual indiscretions (ex: Kavanaugh)
That's a blue version.
Jiro
5mo ago
hell, I can look up one of the listed beliefs on wikipedia right now and it is directly labelled a "right wing conspiracy theory"
Wikipedia is biased to the left. I wouldn't go to Wikipedia for information about whether it's correct to call something a conspiracy theory.
Your definition, while it might be more accurate, very clearly isn't the one being used by the rest of society,
There are a lot of things that have a real definition, but are also abused to attack political opponents. "Conspiracy theory" is one just like "Nazi". Would you suggest that because Trump and the president of Ukraine are called Nazis, but I would not call them that, "Nazi" is a useless term?
What is the term actually communicating beyond "I think this theory is dumb and wrong, and the person who believes it does so due to faulty reasoning"?
It communicates that it is a particular type of faulty reasoning.
Jiro
5mo ago
they will proudly tell you that they are taking this land because God promised it to them.
How many Israelis have told you this?
Jiro
5mo ago
Compared to what? Compared to no occupation, yes. Compared to a crackdown of similar intensity without the element of "occupation by US"? No.
Jiro
5mo ago
By usual principles of implicature,
In any case, it's not unusual to be scandalised about the possibility of a nation's sovereignty being so flagrantly violated (which is obviously what such an operation would do) - doubly so if the person you're speaking to feels some connection to the country itself.
implies that sovereignty is relevant; if you agree with this, you are particularly upset because it's an invasion, not just because the cartels are being fought. But this particular invasion wouldn't be the kind of invasion that is aimed at civilians. To the extent that civlians are hurt, they'd be hurt by crackdowns on the cartels whether done by invasion or not.
Jiro
5mo ago
Why would it be? This assumes that all invasions are equally bad. Presumably your relatives are not in cartels. How would it even affect them?
Jiro
5mo ago
I wouldn't count that because the left was around, but modern wokeness wasn't.
Jiro
5mo ago
She enjoys being part of the hookup culture, and preferring white dudes is simply optimizing for the unlikely case that a hookup nets her a long term boyfriend (whom she would prefer to have a Western passport).
Weird Internet guys drastically change their actions based on tiny optimizations. Nobody else does. That suggests she thinks the chance is unrealistically large.
I would agree that if your scenario is correct, it's not exploitation.
See what I did there?
It's not what I did.
"There is no such thing as ethical or unethical, as long as nobody is at gunpoint" is an extreme minority position. "There is such a thing as ethics" is not. The more extreme your position is, the clearer you need to be that you actually hold that position, and the more you need to explain it. This also applies if you are making arguments that can be easily and reasonably mistaken for that extreme minority position.
I haven't expressed such an extreme minority position myself, so that doesn't apply to me.
So your position is that if two people have sex, but their idea of what a 99th percentile good outcome might be (say, "he falls in love with me and marries me, so that I can move to the West" vs "she brings another hot girl along and we have a threesome"), exploitation is taking place?
This sentence isn't parseable. If you mean what I think you're trying to say, the "exploiter" is entitled to make reasonable assumptions about the other person. If the "exploited" has unreasonable expectations, but hides them, the"exploiter" isn't exploiting. If the exploited has sufficiently unreasonable expectations, and the exploiter does or should know about them, yes, it's exploitation.
Jiro
5mo ago
Would these people also be vile exploiters?
Fiirst of all, yes.
Second, the whole argument should start with "is such a thing as exploitation at all?" A lot of the extreme rationalist arguments on this subject aren't really about sex, they're about the idea that exploitation isn't real unless you're forcing someone at gunpoint.
If you believe this, it's an extreme minority position among pretty much everyone that isn't a weird Internet guy, and really needs to be defended on its own terms, not taken for granted.
If you don't believe this, you should lay out exactly what you do think counts as exploitation before trying to argue that something can't be exploitation, especially based on a principle that you don't believe anyway.
Jiro
5mo ago
I would argue that it should be in the interest of anyone who dislikes sex slavery to have legalized (and somewhat regulated) prostitution instead.
By this reasoning pretty much everyone should be in favor of legalized-but-regulated rape too. (Or legalized, regulated, bank robbery.)
But the perceived or actual unpleasantness of any given task isn't for you or I to opine on. It is for people making the deal to decide whether they want to accept the deal or reject it.
On the contrary, the unpleasantness of the task is exactly what's for us to opine on. If we're going to have the concept of right and wrong at all, how much people are harmed is going to be important, and how unpleasant the task is is directly related to that.
My question is and remains: why is sex the one part of the deal for which women/employees apparently lose all ability to utilize their agency and make logical cost-benefit analyses?
Because sex is a really really unpleasant task to take on in this context and many employers are also highly motivated in the real world to demand it. This combination is pretty much unique to sex.
Jiro
5mo ago
There's all sorts of harmful stuff they can try to do; that's the source of a variety of standard contract clauses that are used to try to mitigate their effects in advance.
That's why I specified realistic contracts. Yes, of course, if the contract is sufficiently screwed up, they can do things to you to make the contract a lot less appealing and you can't get out of it because you have to pay the penalty. But realistically, contracts of this type will have lawyers on both sides to mitigate this problem, standard clauses to mitigate this problem, or both.
Honestly, it seems like you just don't like that they can change your working conditions at all.
If they change your working conditions and you don't have a penalty for leaving, you can just leave.
Let's put it another way; let's hypothesize that they've heard your complaint; you don't like clawbacks, but you're fine with bonuses.
The same problem applies to bonuses, of course, unless the pay without the bonus, minus personal costs (such as paying tuition yourself) is market rate.
The big thing the employer can do is make the working conditions for your job worse--"voluntary" mandatory overtime, forcing you to move to keep the job, suddenly changing the job description on you to something worse than the original job (maybe requiring you to do more dangerous or uncomfortable things), or for that matter just bad management that the employer is not incentivized to deal with because he knows you're stuck there. There isn't anything similar that someone could do if you're making a business transaction with a penalty clause, given a realistic business transaction and a realistic job offer.
(Unrealistic transactions don't count. If you bought a house and forgot to specify which house, the seller could say "well, I changed my mind, you're getting this worse house, which is worse by an amount less than the penalty.")
Jiro
6mo ago
In real estate or other transactions, people often put money down in the same sort of way, basically just pre-paid. Are all these things absolutely terrible, because then the counterparty will just arbitrarily harm them?
The problem with the employment contract is that the employee can't leave the job without losing money, and therefore the employer can harm the employee in ways that the employee could otherwise avoid by leaving the job.
There isn't anything similar to this for most penalty contracts. You could sell someone a house and arbitrarily harm them, let's say by shooting their dog, but refusing to follow through on the house contract won't save their dog, while leaving a job does save you from on-the-job harm.
Jiro
9mo ago
You are in a rich person's bubble if you think $100 is unimportant enough that someone would give it up in order to vote.
Jiro
10mo ago
If most people cannot even comprehend the ECP, how is democracy anywhere near a reasonable regime?
Because they can comprehend things like "I shouldn't be lynched", and voting for "I shouldn't be lynched" is inextricably tied to voting for how the government acts on the market.
By that reasoning we should have worked on rockets to the moon in 2000 BC.
Very few of either "realistic" hard scifi scenarios, or "realistic" speculative scenarios have us escaping the Earth only in 10^9 AD. The decades of scifi we've had about exploring the solar system have been about much more recent time periods. Sure, maybe we'd do it in 10^9 AD, but 10^9 AD is a long way off. and it isn't what everyone talking about this stuff wants.
And "excuses" is just a spin you put on "reasons".
More options
Context Copy link