@PutAHelmetOn's banner p

PutAHelmetOn

Recovering Quokka

0 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 06 21:20:34 UTC

				

User ID: 890

PutAHelmetOn

Recovering Quokka

0 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 06 21:20:34 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 890

People who are against genocide aren't against it because they think murder or sterilization is wrong, they're against it because it targets a specific group or genetic line.

Someone who pushes the pill could say it's to increase gay representation. With a pill like this gays could become not a minority. That everyone would take the pill would be denied, so the future you outline here wouldn't concern anyone. Indeed, as concerned as you are, you must have an ulterior motive!

It seems a bit sad to believe his own wife loves him only in the way he believes in God (which is to say, not at all)

This reminds me of a comparison I made recently between faith and love, apparently not well-received by the audience.

The comparison is: "I don't believe in God like the way I believe in gravity. Likewise, I don't love my wife the same way I loved her when we were dating." That sounds terrible, and it's more romantic to label the tribal-fork "love" and the properties-fork something like "infatuation."

I notice a parallel between the Christian's love for God and his faith in God. Your post is about the tension between loving an object for its properties, versus loving an object inherently (the latter I still maintain is quite meaningless). In faith, there is tension between believing a proposition because of evidence, versus believing a proposition inherently.

It's an old idea around these parts that Christians do not believe their religion. The Christian's behavior here is not really confusing. Professions of faith are tribal signals of group loyalty, not beliefs. But it would be wrong to ruminate on "the contradiction of belief" and ask about "is belief based on evidence" or "do people believe inherently?"

Likewise, "loving things for their properties" is just a different kind of thing than "tribal signals of loyalty." You're damned right I am loyal to my wife, what of it?

Obviously in 2024 a woman who wants to be in the professional workforce is normal and doesn't have a defective brain module. Can the same be said of the woman in 1950? Would people (you, or others) lump the 1950s woman in with queers and call her "confused" because she is non-conformist? Would people not lump her in with queers, because queers gross them out, but she's just a little weird?

The only wrench in my argument is there may not be such a woman in 1950 - or rather, any woman in 1950 that wanted to be in the professional workforce was probably also a butch queer.

If it's any consolation to you, I had already seen your post on religious "gish gallops" but didn't think much of it. As soon as I had noticed Nelson's long post (and I admit I did recognize his name) and the long reply, and skimming the posts showed certain words, I immediately thought, "hey this is like one of those religious posts that guy was talking about."

(Personally I think I got bored of the CW thread because all that's been said has been said, to a first approximation)

"sorry officer I didn't know I was speeding"

At the end of the day, "making a woman uncomfortable" is verboten and human society has long shaped itself around sexual differences like this. The topic under conversation is just way #109.

Could it be you just don't think women's comfort is all that important? That could be discussed for a millennia and still be unresolved.

It's not even clear to me how that fantasy is supposed to work. If I'm a pro football player, who is the female equivalent? If I'm a programmer, who is the female equivalent? If I'm scrawny, who is the female equivalent?

Are Boomers in particular an obstacle? Can you give some examples of Boomer reins of power halting solutions from being implemented?

It's true that Boomers might deny the problem. They are the quintessential caricature to say "pull yourself up from your bootstraps" but everyone -- not just Boomers -- shares that sentiment.

Why is it a wild read? You seem to be saying Scott is part conflict theorist, but I don't think you've argued it well.

A mistake theorist does not lie down on a train track to kill himself. He will move out of the way of an oncoming train. A mistake theorist will not try to have a discussion with a train. Likewise, a mistake theorist knows that conflict theorists exist. He will probably not try to have a discussion with them.

Know the difference

  • The Mistake theorist says: "My opponents are conflict theorists and do not respond to argument. They are making a mistake. We want the same things. Forgive them, for they know not what they do."
  • The Conflict theorist says: "My opponents are conflict theorists and do not respond to argument. They are enemies in the conflict."

For Scott to "be a Conflict theorist on some things" you would need to demonstrate that he believes his opponents to be the enemy, in the #2 sense. I think you've only demonstrated that he does not lie down on train tracks.

2rafa is arguing consequentialism here, that anti-AA advocates are firmly aware of the consequences of their actions. This is indeed the bar because the context is that Diversity is anti-white in consequences.

If pro-AA advocates can play the intent and goal card, then the policy goal of Diversity is to stop artificial racist distortion of the market, which is what results in underperforming minorities.

Are both of these inferences unfair, or only one?

I suspect that overlap has a particular direction. I would expect, especially if Nybbler's account is true, that incels would be interested in reading MGTOW more than vice versa. Maybe I give them too much credit, but MGTOW feels to me like Men, but incels are pretty much just boys. If MGTOWs spend too much time on incel forums I'd probably laugh at them.

It's true that we can't attribute any of those crimes to a single cause. There's not really any reason to reduce crimes to causes is there? People steal because they want things, and people rape because they're horny.

I've never heard a coherent defense of, "rape is about power not sex" that appealed to truth. They all appeal to something orthogonal, like, "it's good therapy" or "it brings positive social change." The slogan is not even wrong, it's just a tool.

I don't go as far as to say it's a tribal signal though.

Well, an activist's argument might merely be "you call fatness a disease to enforce your preferred aesthetic on society".

My argument is that in addition, an activist calls fatness not-disease to enforce their preferred aesthetic on society: A society with fat people in it. Which is why they would argue for medical or social interventions to remove the bad things about being fat, while still keeping the diversity of body size that they inherently value.

Clearly, this is not persuasive to you, because the fatness itself is disgusting. You correctly hint at the reason for our disgust towards fat people: evolution.

Here are other examples of this double-bind:

  • Babies are aborted. One fix is more birth control (maybe not the best fix), but if birth control is disgusting, then you're open to a gotcha like "If conservatives are against abortion so much, why are they also against birth control?"

  • Blacks are oppressed. One fix is ethno-nationalism (maybe not the best fix) but if segregation is disgusting, then you're open to a gotcha like "If liberals are against racism so much, why are they do they like diversity so much?"

  • LGBTQ is oppressed. One fix is to memocide their community so they don't exist anymore (maybe not the best fix) but if memocide is disgusting, then you're open to a gotcha like "If the woke is against LGBTQ oppression so much, why are they grooming children to be a part of this downtrodden culture?"

In all of these cases, there has got to be a second value difference:

  • The right is against birth control, independent of abortion, for some reason.

  • Liberals like diversity, independent of being against racism, for some reason.

  • The woke likes LGBTQ, independent of being against oppression, for some reason.

Relevant: dissolving disease.

In the face of fatness, a consequentialist might posit 2 solutions to reduce suffering:

  1. Cure fatness.

  2. Restructure society so fat people aren't disadvantaged.

Arguments over whether transgender, fat, autism, etc. are diseases seem like rhetorical techniques in order to enforce a preferred aesthetic on society.

Anti-memocide activists take option (2) in order to preserve cultures they like, such as the LGBTQ or autism community (what's the difference? snicker). Others, disgusted by these groups, suggest (1) we thin out those populations (without violence of course) to reduce suffering.

I imagine the disgust reaction to transgender and fatness happens first, and the designation of disease happens second. Of course, it's the same for actual diseases, like leprosy.

All wives are trophy wives

I don't see how "consequences" is the right model here. The current administration (and future ones with the same goal) would enforce immigration law regardless of what Democrats do in power.

Unless harsh consequences is actually a thought experiment/answering the question? Do you have any ideas for harsh consequences?

There could be two different alternatives:

  1. A man fails at online dating for the same reason he fails at a club, which is he doesn't meet women's standards. He is equally (un)successful in both arenas.
  2. A man fails at online dating but fares a little better at a club. One reason for this might be men do not take as many flattering photos of themselves as women do.

(2) seems to be the case in my experience. This is not to say the fundamental dynamics are different, or that 2's become 8's in person. But all men should get off dating apps, or hire multiple professionals to revamp their profile.

What if the word "fair" is actually normative? It seems everyone in the groupchat attempted to defend it under (b) but if someone said it belonged to the separate magisterium of (a), wouldn't you need another example?

I think that is kind of what they are saying - that Trump emboldened Wokeism and caused it to break free into normie spaces.

Presumably conspiracy is a crime because planning crimes is also a crime.

I could see the argument that a threat to commit a crime is not a plan. A threat is usually contingent on some condition.

If the threat is to be believed (presumably threats are punished because we think they are credible) then there's no stated plan as long as the condition isn't fulfilled.

I suppose as soon as the victim ignores the threat, then perhaps the threat can be assumed to be a plan.

Thanks for the reminder that Pascal's Wager is about instrumental beliefs and not epistemology. I realized that sometime in between posting this and reading your reply...

I'm not even sure I "should" think according to any mechanistic rules -- everyone notes we don't actually compute Bayes in our heads -- at least not at the high level of thoughts. Just like ethics is more about systematizing what we feel in our guts, I navelgaze because I think systematizing is fun, for example, systematizing what we actually do. I get the impression your argument is prescriptive (not that you personally are evangelizing anyone), so I would like to be up-front and honest that absolutely nothing you say would ever change how I act, except maybe cause me to think of a reply.

It's difficult for me to decouple 1) and 5). The mugging implications seem too real to me. Isn't accepting this just a vulnerability to be mugged by anyone? Upon further reflection, I don't think we even need to bring up infinities to realize that expected value has mugging problems. The mugger will just tell me that there is some amount of reward -- not infinite -- that I should accept since I don't assign anything a probability of zero. As the mugger names higher and higher values, it's true the probability doesn't (seem to) drop comparatively. Without bringing infinity into the mix, expected value seems to have some issues! So I'm not sure if a hyperreal (or whatever) analog to expected value would help me feel any better. You seem smarter than me though, so I'm assuming you already know about this though.

I think you're right, and I guess that means, technically, one of Libby or Sally is making fallacy of the converse.

It is an easy mistake for me to make since Hanson's formulation appears to be symmetrical (biconditional statement)

You're right that there's no single "Theory of Evolution" - rather there is a "Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection" and also "Theory of Evolution by ..." and also... I call "Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection" just "Theory of Evolution" because I rarely hear anyone talk about the other theories.

And again, I'm afraid I don't understand the second half of your post about tautologies. How can you start from (only) a tautology and reach a non-tautological explanation? Your example with the math notation confused me too. Did you mean to give an example of an unsound implication? It seems to me that you're writing a lot of sentences, but I don't see any main idea in your post.

I feel like you didn't address my point about apples and velocity. Take a math equation that describes motion: speed = distance / time Isn't that tautological? Take the following claim: If I put 1 apple on a table and my friend puts 1 apple on the table, now there are 2 apples on the table because 1 + 1 = 2. Is there no value to these?

That there are real relationships within the universe itself, without which it would be something substantively different, indicates that this is not the answer.

I don't understand this. What's an example of a real relationship that makes the universe substantially different? How does this indicate that "time and causality are not relationships within the universe"?