I mean if you're taking into account race and gender to vote for white men, why can't other people to vote for a black woman or what have you?
You're already following essentially DEI for white men, therefore you're a prime example of why people might think pushing DEI for others might be needed. You are creating that which you dislike.
SSCReader
1yr ago
You asked me why my point of view would not lead to genocide etc. And I told you. I also explained why it appears those who would resort to genocide would generally not out-compete others who would.
If you don't find my answer that interesting then thats on you. My point of view is my point of view, I don't claim to hold it because it is interesting. If it doesn't interest you simply move along.
SSCReader
2yr ago
In that case (assuming the existence of God) he also created men who wanted to be women and vice versa, and prople who would support them. Essentially God is mocking Himself, so i am not sure thats a productive line of reasoning.
SSCReader
7mo ago
Sure, so if the local custom changes to disallowing race segregated spaces (as America has done) then that idms fine and dandy. Abd then if they decide trans women can use womens bathrooms that is also fine and dandy?
I agree that is a description of how the world operates. But it doesn't give you any information on how to decide if the local consensus is good or not. The local consensus is the local consensus is both true and not terribly helpful.
Plus the English tradition (itself obviously only important if it is the local consensus) does include positive rights.
Regardless society is quite capable of compromises, so while it may not be possible to perfectly reconcile equality and liberty, the most sucessful nations do make the attempt and perfect is the enemy of good enough.
SSCReader
1yr ago
But the airport's positive or negative impact still remains whether it was there first or not. If it is net negative then the fact its been there 50 years shouldn't on its own be enough to protect it from change. Thats literally just status quo bias.
If you move to a country with a despotic myrderous tyrant ruling it, are you really bound to not be against them, because they were there before you?
It should be a consideration perhaps but its not the whole enchilada.
SSCReader
1yr ago
I'm just talking number of steps here. If i want to help and am not, the only thing you need to convince me of is that my action are harming and convince me of a way to help that actually helps.
If i want to harm then first you have to convince me not to want to harm, then convince me to want to help, then convince me of a way to help that actually helps. You have much more to do.
Assuming the same level of ideological commitment in both then one of those will be easier than the other. Yes how easy individuals will be to convince will of course vary but one is clearly closer on an idea space than the other.
SSCReader
1yr ago
If there's no truth of the matter to bother arguing for, why argue? Just cancel, deplatform, shame, struggle session, brainwash, and intimidate people to be inculcated with your view.
What do you think arguing is? It is generally an attempt to persuade people. Brainwashing, arguing, shaming, preaching are all part of the same set of things.
People who claim to have access to an objective morality behave in contradictory ways from each other. I would say this is evidence that if there is an objective morality, we either cannot access it, or are unable to tell when we have accessed it, (or that it doesn't exist at all). People who believe they have access to objective morality brainwash people and preach at them, argue with them. People who do not believe they have access to objective morality brainwash people and preach at them, argue with them.
Either those who believe they have found objective morality are wrong, or they are correct but this fact does not change the tools they use to inculcate their morality in others. I have seen nothing in more than 50 years on this planet that suggests that there is an objective moral standard that we can know.
Telling me there is an objective morality is of no use if you cannot tell what it is and show that it is indeed objective. People have been trying to do that for thousands of years and have failed (in that at the very least they have not been able to prove that their version is the true objective morality). That leaves us to default to a socially mediated morality where we behave as we are taught to behave by our families, communities and experiences. It's either that or pick one out of a hat randomly, which doesn't seem any more likely to be true, and at least the former has the background that it did indeed create a society that still exists and was then able to impart its values onwards.
SSCReader
1yr ago
The true tragedy is not the dead children, who have been taken to heaven and will be reunited with their family eventually,
Isn't that very much disputed within Christianity? In addition the kids he speaks of are almost certainly Hindu and/or Muslim. I am guessing almost none of them are baptized. And then even if the kids get in because they were too young to actively choose, will the parents who are also most likely Hindu and Muslim be reunited with them?
Catholics:
"Likewise, whosoever says that those children who depart out of this life without partaking of that sacrament shall be made alive in Christ, certainly contradicts the apostolic declaration, and condemns the universal Church, in which it is the practice to lose no time and run in haste to administer baptism to infant children, because it is believed, as an indubitable truth, that otherwise they cannot be made alive in Christ. Now he that is not made alive in Christ must necessarily remain under the condemnation, of which the apostle says, that "by the offense of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation." That infants are born under the guilt of this offense is believed by the whole Church."
"The Roman Catholic view is that baptism is necessary for salvation and that it frees the recipient from original sin. Roman Catholic tradition teaches that unbaptized infants, not being freed from original sin, go to Limbo (Latin: limbus infantium), which is an afterlife condition distinct from Hell. This is not, however, official church dogma."
The Orthodox:
"And forasmuch as infants are men, and as such need salvation; needing salvation, they need also Baptism. And those that are not regenerated, since they have not received the remission of hereditary sin, are, of necessity, subject to eternal punishment, and consequently cannot without Baptism be saved; so that even infants ought, of necessity, to be baptised."
or the Protestants:
"Since we must make judgments about God’s will from his Word, which testifies that the children of believers are holy, not by nature but by virtue of the gracious covenant in which they together with their parents are included, godly parents ought not to doubt the election and salvation of their children whom God calls out of this life in infancy. "
The Baptists would back you up however:
"We do believe, that all little Children dying in their Infancy, before they are capable to choose either Good or Evil, whether born of Believing Parents, or Unbelieving Parents, shall be saved by the Grace of God, and Merit of Christ their Redeemer, and Work of the Holy Ghost, and so being made Members of the Invisible Church, shall enjoy Life everlasting; for our Lord Jesus saith, of such belongs the Kingdom of Heaven. Ergo, We conclude, that that opinion is false, which saith, That those little Infants dying before Baptism, are damned."
In other words aren't you assuming the best possible case for your argument here? What if you are right about God existing, but that those kids will never be reunited with their families, either because they will go to Limbo/Heaven as they were too young to choose Christ and their parents are Damned, through not being Christian? Would you still maintain that pain is worth it? Or that you are correct but that they will be reunited with their parents in Gehenna being as neither was saved, and suffer even more torment?
Your argument could be true for Christian baptized kids born to Christian parents and false for everyone else.
SSCReader
2yr ago
Indeed. But can anyone? Let's say being suicidally depressed gives you 70% agency. You can make most choices but in a depressive episode, society may try and override your choice to kill yourself (if it can) by treating you whether you choose to or not. It will then discharge you, offer you therapy or drugs and so on.
If dysphoria does lead to increased levels of suicide then the same response would be to..forcibly transition people whether they want it or not? Remember when we believe people do not have agency due to mental illness, we generally act to treat their illness whether they want that treatment or not at that moment.
SSCReader
2yr ago
I hope the problems with this are obvious to everyone here. I absolutely don't want a world where people with the wrong political beliefs can be barred from producing game materials.
Again as with Twitter, I think WOTC have the absolute right to decide who uses their IP via license and contract agreements, if they want to stop everyone left wing, right wing or whatever then that is up to them (and their bottom line). Note you can put whatever opinions you want in games or have them, you just can't do so with their license and IP and that should be their choice to control (or not).
I think that people with whatever opinions should be able to make games, but I also think WOTC has the right to decide who can do that for their licenses specifically.
And then people have an absolute right to not buy/use their products or go to a competitor if they don't like their stance.
But then I haven't liked a DnD product since 3.5 so it's no skin off my nose to avoid buying their stuff, as I haven't for years. Pathfinder 1E is a good substitute for 3.5 and Pathfinder 2E is excellent in my opinion and splits off further from DnD mechanics at least somewhat. Though not sure that helps you from a non-woke direction as I think Paizo are perceived as more woke than WOTC.
SSCReader
2yr ago
Does the military get optimal results? Given how many non-officers complain about the incompetence of their superiors this seems highly unlikely. Does the US military perform well due to unfettered power from officers? or does it perform well in spite of it?
SSCReader
1mo ago
When I told her I wasn't necessarily interested in ordering anything, but was very much interested in her thoughts on the 'strike' et al she gave me a stare that made a cow look intelligent. When she told me she didn't have anything to say about that, and would I like to order anything, I asked for a glass of water and if she'd mind if asked one of her colleagues instead.
Why would you expect a random employee to answer you honestly on a question that is obviously contentious with her employer and may get her fired if you are recording her or from management? Your "just for fun" is her job, and for a working class person can be very precarious. Retail workers are not dancing monkeys, especially when you weren't even going to buy anything or tip her!
I'd say the fact she treated you professionally is more than you had any right to expect, given your approach. She may well have looked at you and was judging YOUR intelligence for asking such a question right there in the open.
Welcome to Starbucks - we hate people who ask questions that might get us fired (and aren't even going to tip), seems like an entirely reasonable position.
Honestly you come off as being very entitled here. Did you even consider that if she did answer you and was reported she might get in trouble or lose her job, or that she might worry about that? Would that be worth sating your desire for an anthropological survey, with absolutely nothing to gain for her? Heck anthropologists at least brought shiny beads to gift their subjects!
As for Starbucks itself, it's overpriced but the benefit is as with all chains that you know roughly what you are going to get. The little Ethiopian coffee shop down the road is probably better, but may not have such a broad selection, is much more variable and harder to find.
SSCReader
5mo ago
- Far from the fever dream of immigrants doing useful labor such as building new housing, the new arrivals are competing aggressively for the same sort of high wage sinecures and government benefits that native-born Canadians previously thought they were entitled to.
There's a disconnect here no? If you are using a points based admission system to get the best qualified immigrants, they aren't going to be building houses. For that you want low skilled immigration (or work visas). You can't expect to only get the highest quality immigrants AND that they will do construction.
SSCReader
1yr ago
Does it? Below someone said that because Foster had his gun angled down, but could have pointed it directly at Perry and fired in an instant that Perry was correct to have felt threatened. But we have video of Rittenhouse wandering around gun pointed low where he also could have brought it up and fired at any of the people around him.
If one of those is a threat then surely the other is, even if we removed them from protest situations and just had them standing on the street minding their own business.
Now i'd say neither should really be taken as a threat in and of themselves granted carrying the rifle around is legal. Because it would mean that we have a tension where a legal activity also grants enough of a threat to createthe right to legal lethal self-defence, which just seems problematicly circular.
SSCReader
1yr ago
But I think it means that you should simply say so when you're asked about the morality of something. You should just say that there's nothing moral/immoral to it, because you think that's not a thing; you just personally like/don't like it.
But this is not my position! I think the moral intuitions we develop still have value. Just because the morality is socially constructed does not mean it isn't real or useful, it is still morality. It isn't simply because I like or don't like. Because there are things I like which I judge as immoral and things I don't like which I judge as moral. My whole point is that I don't particularly get a rational say in what my morality is, because it is an unconscious synthesis of my upbringing, my influences, my experiences, the arguments that people have made to me and so on. Morality may be constructed, and subjective, but that is not the same thing as not being real, or not being morality. When I say something is wrong, I mean just that. By my moral code (which I acknowledge is not rational), I judge it as wrong. So saying I don't believe in moral judgements would be incorrect.
As for philosophers you'll note the question they were asked is not whether they know that moral realism is true. The lean towards it or accept it. And they may be right! Just to point out I am not saying the whole of philosophy has failed, I am saying that we currently (self-obviously) have failed to both prove there is objective morality and what exactly that objective morality is. I don't have a problem with people trying to explore that, and maybe they will even prove me wrong tomorrow!
SSCReader
1yr ago
Warm fuzzy virtue feelings are a personal benefit.
That I think proves too much.
It's certainly possible for someone to do X so they feel good about it but I think that is stretching the personal benefit clause to breaking point. Otherwise any teacher at a Christian school who genuinely feels good about bringing kids into the flock of believers is also a groomer by your definition. It can't be anything to do with the fact they also actually believe the child will be better off as a Christian, or that they want the child's soul to be saved through Christ AND also feel good about it? In fact any teacher teaching anything who feels good about imparting knowledge is now a groomer? A patriotic teacher who feels good about teaching kids the national anthem and the history of standing up to colonial overlords?
At which point once more we have stretched the definition of grooming to nigh uselessness because feeling good about doing things you think are good is a pro-social human adaption. Most people feel good about doing (what they perceive to be) good even if they have other reasons for doing so (moral intuition, commandments from God, legal instructions to follow etc.)
It also suggests as long as we employ teachers who don't feel good about it, but do so because they are instructed to do so, would be A-OK? That seems a counter-intuitive take on the whole situation. "It's ok, we picked a bunch of teachers to teach the Gay/Trans/Sex Ed curriculum who really don't care about it at all, and in fact would rather teach something else, and thus will get no personal benefit whatsoever and therefore definitionally cannot be groomers" doesn't seem like it would be accepted as a counter-argument.
SSCReader
2yr ago
But does an ad targeted to a diffetent demographic do that, if said demo is already different?.
The people who would buy Bud light after seeing promoted by Mulvaney are presumably onboard with transness already no?
Society is not based on reason in the first place so I don't care what beliefs Bud light are exploiting or if they are true or not. Like i don't care if America truly is the greatest nation on earth in every third beer commercial or whatever. The truth doesn't matter. Its aimed at people who already believe it.
SSCReader
7mo ago
I am neither confemning or condoning. There are incentives put in place by our actions, those incentives lead to where we are today. A principled political consultant gets out competed and replaced. Politicians who are truthful and humble are outcompeted buy those who are not.
Those are the outcomes of our actions as voters and our actions as voters are downstream of the psychological make up of humanity.
Whether that is good or bad is irrelevant really. It simply is.
There isn't anything any individual can do about it, its a massive coordination issue, and there is no-one outside of humanity that can coordinate a better outcome.
The good news is this equilibrium is still better than the alternatives. Political engagement ebbs and flows and people are always very good at tricking themselves into thinking this time it will be different. This time the politicans will be better.
We had terrible disengagement in the 70s and it came back. No reason to think it won't happen again. Our ability to fool ourselves is one of our greatest strengths.
SSCReader
7mo ago
The only thing that matters is consent.
Segregation was ended by the force of bayonets. That was unjust. Even if segregation itself was an ill.
But segregation was also IMPOSED by the force of bayonets. No-one was asking black people if they consented to it. Doesn't their consent matter?
And while I am not English (rather British) I lived in and worked for the government in England for a number of decades.
The right for anyone too old or too infirm to be housed and fed by the state stretches back to the 1300's, was codified in various laws from the 1600's onwards in one form or another, and birthed the modern welfare state. Also the right to petition the government, the government can't just let you speak against them (covered by free speech and assembly), but put in place measures to listen. Even if they don't have to act. Which birthed the modern day MP's surgeries where constituents can go and talk to their representative face to face. Which is why in the US taking about the right to petition:
"But the majority of state constitutional petition provisions — in 32 states — frame the right as a positive one (an entitlement), rather than a negative one (a restriction on the government)."
It's true that negative rights were certainly more common, but it was by no means exclusive, and even some of the negative rights stretched into positive ones, the right to a fair trial, in English tradition requires other citizens to serve on a jury. So you are entitled to people doing something for you, even if they would rather not. To stand between you and the state before you can be jailed.
SSCReader
10mo ago
Just to point out the UK does not have a wholesale ban on guns. A shotgun license is pretty straightforward to get. Rifles slightly less so. Handguns are generally banned except perhaps ironically back home in Northern Ireland.
SSCReader
1yr ago
They don't do calculus, but they clearly do judge differently intuitively in my experience. People are much more likely to forgive someone with motivations they judge to be good. Accidental harm and deliberate harm are treated differently through most of our legal systems as a reflection of that.
SSCReader
2yr ago
God didn’t create half men half women.
I am an atheist but that doesn't stop me being able to comment on the logic here. If men and women were created in God's image and God is omniscient and omnipotent then trans men and women are creations of God. They would not exist unless He wanted them to. He could have chosen there to be no trans people or gay people or non-believers etc. The seeds of being trans were contained within the image of God. Now we don't know why that is the case (God works in mysterious ways and so on, maybe created as a test, or to prove a point or some other ineffable reason) but it is the logical outcome of the Christian creation story.
SSCReader
2yr ago
would you go grab a hacksaw and fire up the gaslights? Or would you think that maybe this person shouldn't be allowed to make that kind of decision for themselves, and they need to be forced to get some regular therapy and evaluation by sane doctors?
That depends, have they started to try and hack off their own limbs with a rusty hacksaw? Then assuming we can't actually treat the mental part of the disorder, then yes surgically removing their limbs so at least they survive the procedure might be the best option. Our options aren't necessarily magical cure, let them chop limbs off, chops limbs off for them, lock them up forever. It might only be, let them chop limbs off, chops limbs off for them, lock them up forever, at which point limb lopping might be best.
For trans people who are suicidal there does not appear to be a pill that will fix it. The treatment is making the outside "match" the mental internal state because we cannot reliably change the mental internal state (and even if we could, are they the same person? or are we just killing that version of them?). I know a person with bipolar disorder who refuses to take medication for this reason, because the person they are on medication is to their natural state not them, it is some stranger who thinks sluggishly and brokenly. I don't know what the correct option is there.
So imperfect, even shoddy transitioning may be the best option actually available.
SSCReader
2yr ago
Well, I̵ ̴s̷u̸p̴p̸o̴s̶e̷ t̴̮͒ĥ̷͙a̴̦̒t̶̥́ ̴̞̓I̵̟̍ ̷̢͝c̷͜͠a̶̱͗n̷̫̽'̷͖̇ẗ̸̪.̷̢̫̂̍.̷͔̱̏̈.̴̦̳͐ ̸̡̥̪̄o̸̝̅̋́h̸̛̖̗̰̓͗ ̷̤͔̲͑͗G̵̼͒̎͝o̶̯͇͓̓ḋ̵͈̻͈͛̈́, ṋ̴̞̹͉̊̐̀ͅở̴̱̀̎̂͛!̴̖͓̟̬̊̇̓̾ P̴͕̗͚͙̘̏̿̀l̸̥͚͕̺̤̺̙͇̉̉͆̈́͗̃͘̚ë̸̟̘̟́̑̾a̸͈̗̦̟̘̱͓͊̇͋ș̷̱͚͔̤̀̇́͑͜e̶̘̿́͂̋ ̶̬̈́̒m̷͇̓͗͐̔̿̿̚͝ắ̶̲̫͖̪̺́̈͒̂́͜͠k̸͍͔̙̣̰̖̻̩͆e̴̱̤̤͎̟̐̀ ̴̹̪͇͈͚̉̾̈̚i̷̡̖̹͇̤̝͛̽̎̍t̴̻̓̾͠ ̵̭̿ş̶̧͔͖̹̣̃̂̈́͐̚̕ṱ̴̡̜̀͋̉̃̉̃͜o̶̬̹̒͌p̷͍͖̼͔̓̌͜͝!̷̛͉̎́͐̕͘̚
Can we not? Discuss the culture war not wage it is our raison d'etre. Your whole spiel would be much more fitting without the feigned Hey guys rhetorical device. State your point clearly. This might be interesting to discuss but with the partisan trappings splashed all over it why bother?
To be accurate we don't KNOW he didn't do it. We just know he won a court case about it, so that his accusers (or their attorneys) had to draft said statement, which contradicts their earlier statements.
That may well mean he didn't but could mean there wasn't enough proof etc.
Just like people being found not guilty does not actually mean they are not guilty.
It does mean he should be treated as innocent though you probably still wouldn't want to find out your daughter was dating him.
More options
Context Copy link