@SubstantialFrivolity's banner p

SubstantialFrivolity

I'm not even supposed to be here today

5 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 04 22:41:30 UTC
Verified Email 

				
User ID: 225


				
				
				

			

		

	














	


		


			



	

		

			

			

				

					

						

							
						

						

							
							

								
SubstantialFrivolity


								

								

								
								
								

								
							
					
 
				


				
I'm not even supposed to be here today

				
				
				

				

					5 followers  

					follows 0 users  

					joined 2022 September 04 22:41:30 UTC
				


				
					

					
No bio...

				

				

				

				

				

					

					

					
					
					

					
User ID: 225


					
					
					
				

			


					

						
							
								Verified Email
							
						
					



		

	

 











			
			

			
			

			




	


		

			
‎

			

				
				

					Hour
					Day
					Week
					Month
					
					All
				

			


			
‎

			

	
	

	 Hot Bump Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
	



		

	






	

		
		

		
		
	

	

  







		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of April 14, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Agreed, and hopefully nobody would dispute that. I think what's being pushed back on here is the very strong claim in the OP of "A blow to the CICO theory of obesity". Given that due to the basic laws of physics CICO must be true, it's not really accurate to say that it has received a blow. That does not mean that focusing on CICO is the best strategy for any given person to effect weight loss, but the basic physical principle is true for them even if they struggle to make use of it in their lives.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Small-Scale Question Sunday for April 13, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


FWIW, I've heard some priests and laymen say (and I personally believe) that humanity is something akin to a "father" or "priest" to all animals and to nature. We have authority over the natural world, but we also have an obligation to treasure it, to respect it as a gift, and to leading it to perfection by applying human virtues (charity/mercy, temperance, humility) to our interactions with it.




I agree with this. My take (which I guess my dad instilled in me) is that God gave us the natural world for our use, but we are stewards and not owners. So for example, I feel no qualms about eating meat because God put the animals there for us to enjoy. But I also wouldn't butcher animals I'm not going to eat, or kill animals just for the hell of it, because ultimately they don't truly belong to me. I believe that I am responsible for those creatures, and one day I'll be held to account for what I've done if I misuse them.


As regards the broader topic of environmentalism, I have been reflecting recently that my views mean I should be an environmentalist to some extent. I think that people do take things too far sometimes, but I owe the natural world some level of care even as I make use of its resources. What that means in terms of concrete policies I should support, I'm not sure. But I do think that I should figure out where exactly I draw the line between "responsible stewardship" and "overly strict" with some of these environmentalist topics.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Small-Scale Question Sunday for April 13, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Sure. But the fact that I may have legal recourse does not make the idea not horrifying. I was explaining to you why I find it horrifying, not saying that there's nothing to be done.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Small-Scale Question Sunday for April 13, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I disagree that it's better than nothing. Such a "copy" wouldn't be the person you love, it would be a simulacrum pretending to be them. Even if it's many times more convincing than what we could do now, it would still be nothing more than a doll. The original, the being with actual value, is lost forever. If I can't have my loved one back, I wouldn't want to piss on their memory by pretending that a cheap imitation is a reasonable substitute for having them around.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of April 7, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


There are no practical rules to live by here, other than "have an honest and fair system from Day 1" and "anything that lets you sleep with food in your stomach can't be that bad."




I would say that your scenario (which is reasonable) doesn't change the moral valence of going around regulations per se. What it changes is the reason why someone is doing it. The hypothetical NYC real estate developer is in no danger of starving, and indeed is probably pretty wealthy. So when he lies to get his construction project going, he's just doing it to line his pockets. But the hypothetical Soviet citizen is probably going to literally go hungry unless he does something to work around the system. So it becomes acceptable to do a nominally bad thing because the reason why is sufficient. Kind of like how stealing to plunder riches is condemned, but stealing to feed your starving family (or self) is generally accepted as ok.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of April 7, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


How do you repair a system that punishes you for trying to repair it?




Nobody said anything about that. Trying to repair the system looks like pushing to get the laws improved so that the system works better. There's no reason to expect one would be punished for that.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of April 7, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
First, that is not a good deed. Fixing the regulations would be a good deed. Going around them is (somewhat) bad on its own merits.


Second, even if it were good, doing a good deed only carries merit if you're doing it for its own sake. Doing it to line your pockets means you don't have any moral credit for doing the good deed. And since this isn't a good deed to begin with, that means that we're now talking about doing a bad deed for selfish reasons, which compounds the badness.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of April 7, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
They are both wrong. The system is indeed set up poorly if it incentivizes people to circumvent it. But the people who circumvent the system are still wrong and deserve to be penalized for their actions in some way.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of April 7, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
That's closer. But if you think anyone circumventing the planning board process is actually doing it because they want to better society, and not because they want to profit, I have a bridge to sell you. A fine property in the middle of the Mojave desert.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of April 7, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Lying, and not following the law, are both immoral without a sufficiently good reason. "I want to make money" isn't remotely good enough of a reason to lie and break the law.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of April 7, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
We aren't talking about "does this system produce good outcomes", though. We are talking about "is it wrong for someone to do bad things because that's what the system incentivizes", which IMO it is.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of April 7, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


What would you have preferred he do? Be the only honest real estate developer and go bankrupt cause nothing gets built?




Yes. "Everyone else does this too, it's how the game is" is not and has never been an excuse for immoral behavior. You are responsible for your conduct, no matter the circumstances you find yourself in.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of April 7, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


If not, how is telling the contractor "The planning board is going to approve this project" a lie? Where is the falsehood? Where is the deciet?




First, because the planning board was not going to approve it at the time that was said. Second, and more importantly, you left out the very clear deceit I already cited: the developer is not in fact "just waiting on paperwork", he is engaged in manipulation to apply leverage to the planning board so that they will approve it.




Nobody said anything about a preexisting agreement.




It is very clearly implied, as otherwise the contractor would not go ahead.




They said an agreement would be made and that statement was correct. An agreement was made.




Yes, only because of the lies the developer told. That doesn't count as an accurate reporting of facts.


Your hypothetical scenario is not some clever bargaining flourish. It is a dirty lie that only a scumbag would engage in. I have pointed out the express and implied untruths that the developer says. If that isn't enough for you to call it a lie, then I lack the means to persuade you I guess.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Friday Fun Thread for April 11, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Dune Spice Wars is an awesome game. I haven't played in a while, but I really enjoyed the time I put in. It captures the flavor of the Dune universe very well, and it unfolds at a pleasantly slow pace so that you don't have to constantly be clicking things to keep up with the AI.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of April 7, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


Scott would characterize the Developer as having lied to the contractor about having the approval, but did they?




Yes, and I don't understand how you can even question it. Remember again the original claim: "they're going to approve it, we're just waiting on the paperwork". Not only does this falsely imply that the approval has been agreed upon (which is why the contractor should go ahead and start), it contains the explicit falsehood "we're just waiting on the paperwork". The developer is not "just waiting on the paperwork", they are trying to gain leverage to force the planning board to capitulate. This is a very clear lie.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of April 7, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


Getting fired has nothing to do with free speech.




As Crowstep pointed out, it has everything to do with free speech. Freedom of speech is not the same thing as the legal protection afforded by the first amendment.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of April 7, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


This is a particularly American understanding of free speech, in that the US constitution prohibits the government from restricting speech.




I wouldn't call it "American" as such. Lots of Americans properly understand the difference between freedom of speech and the first amendment to our constitution. It's an ignorant understanding, not an American one imo.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Scott: Come On, Obviously The Purpose Of A System Is Not What It Does
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I've always hated this aphorism and I was glad to see Scott arguing against it. By definition, the purpose of a system is what it was intended to do, not what it does. Trying to redefine "purpose" to be about outcomes instead of intent is a silly linguistic game that I have no patience for. And, as Scott points out, it leads to "purposes" that are obviously incorrect.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of April 7, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
In short: the elites in our society no longer have skin in the game because they are protected from facing consequences for their failures. And he expects that this will go poorly, so we need to go back to making the elite face consequences for failure.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of April 7, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I think your point still stands even with the misunderstanding. It's hard to envision a good argument that any amount of civil unrest in the last century was worse than open warfare in the 19th.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of April 7, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
You might be content to choose nihilistic "might makes right" philosophy, but I'm not. There is a moral order, and actions can be wrong even if they succeed. If Trump finds cojones, as you put it in another comment, and defies the supreme court, it will not be a righteous act of a brave man standing up to villains. It will be a naked power grab by a man who doesn't like that he can't just get his way. It will, in short, completely vindicate all the people who have claimed that Trump is an existential threat to democracy. I am not going to embrace such a path. But you do you.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of April 7, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


At this stage in this country's political evolution, which rhymes with the end of the Roman Republic, the executive is absolutely justified in crossing the Rubicon, just as Caesar was.




He was not, and the executive will not be if they do.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of April 7, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Seems like it's time for @faceh to tap his sign again. It must be getting worn down by now, maybe we can buy him a new one.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of April 7, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


there’s a baseline level of general quantitative knowledge that one needs to know in order to meaningfully partake in discussions of civic importance.




I'm not sure if I agree with that, but I certainly don't agree this is one such case.




The all-inclusive annual cost of having an employee in a first-world country is about $50,000 - $100,000. The US military has a lot more than 15,000 active duty personnel. You don’t have to know anything about how much ships, tanks, or planes cost to know that $892 million will not come close to covering US military expenses.




But you do need to know that the military has that many people. I certainly don't, and said as much.


Also bear in mind the context of this whole sub-thread. I never claimed to be good at estimating what the military budget is. Hell, I never claimed to be good at anything. Hydroacetalyne is the one who accused me of being passive-aggressive, on the basis that "everyone knows" the military budget is way bigger than $892m. All I'm saying here is that everyone does not know that, nor is it realistic to expect them to.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of April 7, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Thanks, that does put things into perspective. Like you said, I don't work with these kinds of numbers at all so I really had no idea how much this stuff costs.