Jiro
1yr ago
It's not a thing you can change by just modifying a few conditions. The only meaningful way to get rid of the advantage of being a trained lawyer is to find an opponent who's also a trained lawyer or equivalent.
This incessant insistence on "if you REALLY were serious, you'd do it at a time and place and under circumstances of my choosing" is as annoying as rationalists insisting "if you REALLY were serious, you'd bet money".
Jiro
1yr ago
That's not a motte-and-bailey tactic, that's something that happens whenever a lot of people have ideas about something. There are plenty of naive people who complain about Trump being bad because he eats his steak well done. If other people on the left don't care about steak, and criticize Trump on a different basis, that doesn't make it a motte-and-bailey where the bombastic claim is that Trump is bad for a totally ridiculous reason.
Jiro
1yr ago
"Actions his enemies can call crimes" carries the connotation "action which his enemies would call crimes but other people would not". Nixon's actions wouldn't count under that, even if it is literally true that his enemies call them crimes.
Jiro
1yr ago
Technically we have that now. But birthright citizenshp and amnesties mess up how well it works (of course with open borders there's no need for amnesties).
And that doesn't really answer the open welfare question. Would you support open borders before we get rid of open welfare, or would you willing to wait first because of the consequences of getting open borders without getting rid of it first? (And the same question for birthright citizenship).
Jiro
1yr ago
I don't really think of open borders as open citizenship for anyone or open welfare.
So would you only support open borders if we got rid of open welfare (and birthright citizenship) first?
Jiro
1yr ago
It's disingenuous to claim that lack of evidence proves something when one of the complaints is that ervidence collecting was made very difficult.
Jiro
1yr ago
"I want them to be immigrate and I want them to be moral" carries the connotation that enough of them aren't moral that you need to take that into consideration rather than just assuming the opposite. It doesn't just mean its literal words.
Jiro
1yr ago
...with the exceptions, as you note, of CRT, BLM, Gays and Abortion
And trans.
Jiro
1yr ago
That's equivalent to saying "the cops planted evidence on him, but how do you know he wasn't guilty anyway?" If the procedure is so messed up that someone can't prove his innocence, you should default to assuming that he's innocent, not to assuming that he's guilty.
Jiro
1yr ago
Who wrote "Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore" on the statue of Liberty?
She wrote that when there were essentially no social services that immigrants could run up the bill for, and most of the immigrants were coming from faraway countries that they couldn't walk back to, giving them more reason to assimilate.
Jiro
1yr ago
Law of conservation of detail. If the kids are there, they're important to the story. Three kids probably won't be important to the story without having something wrong with one.
Jiro
1yr ago
Be careful about using bad Yelp reviews.
Google up "yelp review blackmail". (Unfortunately the first link I get looks barely above ChatGPT.
Jiro
1yr ago
The whole point of using the word "women" for trans people is that using the word is supposed to go with treating them like regular women in all possible ways. That's the exact opposite of your examples. Trans supporters want to blur the distinction, using the term "woman" broadly. Using "woman" to mean only someone who's fertile, or borne a child, or married, etc. is the opposite of that; it narrows the category of "woman".
Jiro
1yr ago
I don't believe that some of your items would be accepted as a definition of a woman by anyone not in the lizardman constant. Someone who's otherwise a woman but can't become pregnant would be described as "a woman who can't become pregnant", not as not literally being a woman. It doesn't work that way for transwomen either. Someone who doesn't want them in women's bathrooms but doesn't care too much about pronouns would never say "transwomen are women, but they are women who should be kept out of women's bathrooms". People don't make distinctions that way.
If you only like onions in soup, you aren't going to claim "I like all onions, but I define onions as a plant of genus Allium cepa that is located in a soup".
Jiro
1yr ago
Allowing parents to serve alcohol to minors, to other parents' children, restricts the freedom of other parents to allow their teenagers to move about the world as freely as possible and with as little supervision as possible.
That's like saying that allowing people to publish blasphemy restricts the freedom of everyone else to be in a world free of blasphemy.
Jiro
1yr ago
That assumes that the worker has options for jobs other than to go to work for the company. Company towns didn't have a lot of competition for jobs
Going to Russia is not inherently a requirement for having a job in government. It's only one because you or your representatives have chosen to make it one. You could say "well, having to renounce citizenship by going to Russia is so dangerous that we won't require it", you just don't.
Going to India is inherently a requirement for getting a job in India.
While both actions increase the number of jobs available, and both actions are dangerous (presumably going to India also causes him harm), in only one case is the requirement for the danger put into place by a bureaucrat standing in his way rather than by the facts of the situation. You can't object to "the real world lowers my chance of getting a job", you can object to "a bureaucrat lowers my chance of getting a job".
(If there was a bureaucrat standing in the way of getting a job in India, such as with an immigration law, we'd then have to ask if that specific bureaucratic restriction was reasonable.)
Jiro
1yr ago
but honestly in this scenario I am going to start wondering why they want the power that badly.
Probably for the same reason they'd want a job that starts with the letters Q through Z: because you need to have a job to live, and you're better off when a big chunk of the possible jobs aren't automatically barred from you in advance. Expecting someone to go to Russia to be jailed or drafted, before you'd hire them, is unreasonable.
Jiro
1yr ago
The problem to be solved with law enforcement backdoors is not destruction of security by itself, it's law enforcement abusing the backdoor and not telling us. And you're not solving that problem.
This stuff did not at all alter life in the US except for giving the government slightly more power to investigate crime.
How are you going to know if the government investigated you secretly and then made some excuse about it? Look up parallel construction.
Jiro
1yr ago
But if the employee leaves early, then the loan reverts to a standard (or even much higher than standard) interest rate.
The problem with this is that the employee doesn't just get screwed if he leaves for better pay, he also gets screwed if he leaves for reasons such as being mistreated by his employer. Remember owing your life to the company store?
Jiro
1yr ago
By that reasoning it's fine to bar him from taking part in any job whose name starts with the letters Q through Z. After all, even with that restriction there are many jobs he could take.
But it's totally arbitrary. Why do we have an interest in preventing someone from taking some jobs just because they refuse to put themselves in physical danger by going to Russia?
Jiro
1yr ago
But the incentive structure means that if companies can't curtail these behaviors via non-competes they will curtail them in other ways. Companies will guard their secrets more carefully, will shuffle customers around so they can't get too attached to any one employee, and do other inefficient things that create economic friction.
That argument is fully general. It's also true that if companies can't commit fraud they will do inefficient things that create economic friction. However, it's still worthwhile to make fraud illegal.
I'll bite. Describe some of them.
More options
Context Copy link