@SubstantialFrivolity's banner p

SubstantialFrivolity

I'm not even supposed to be here today

4 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

4 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 04 22:41:30 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 225

Verified Email

Observing the proprieties while your enemies are biting and gouging is only a winning move if there is some powerful third party who values non-escalation.

You seem to be making the mistake that what's important is to win or lose. But as the cliche goes, what matters is how you play the game. I would much rather lose while upholding good moral behavior, than win by sacrificing morals.

No, it's still the fault of scalpers for choosing to scalp. Giving someone opportunity, even incentive, to do something does not make it your fault if they do it.

I don't think so, no. It means white people should expect to be a rhetorical punching bag, and it means they won't ever get prioritized by her, but I don't think it means that their needs won't ever be represented at all. I realize I'm kind of splitting hairs here, but that's how it strikes me at least.

We seem to be in agreement that there's no malicious intent. But if there isn't, then it isn't an invasion no matter how many people come over. Even if people immigrating for honorable reasons were to fundamentally change the nature of the country (which again, it won't in my opinion), if that isn't the reason they are coming over it doesn't matter. It is absurd to say that people immigrating into a country, one which is known for welcoming them, becomes an invasion when enough of them do so.

You have yet to demonstrate that there's an intent to take over the country. The more likely explanation is that immigrants are coming here because they feel they can have a better life here, and the various NGOs are helping because they are compassionate towards the less fortunate. It doesn't take a conspiracy theory to explain this.

And, as I've already said, I don't agree with your idea of what the result here is going to be.

Only because it's callous and rude to say that to someone who is upset because their child was harmed. But Mr. Normative Man would be completely correct. That child would not be dead, and would in fact be a bad hyperbole to describe them as such.

Yeah the people saying she's not attractive are insane. I'm certainly willing to agree that she's not the hottest woman to ever grace the planet. But to say she isn't attractive at all says way more about the person making that claim (and none of it good) than it does her. She's reasonably pretty.

Bro, if you're miserable and struggling in life I don't know why you think cheating in school would have changed that. You realize that most people who don't cheat in school prosper just fine, right? Maybe you got dealt a bad hand in other ways, maybe you just haven't correctly capitalized on the opportunities you have had, IDK. But it's almost certainly not the case that if you had cheated in school things would magically have worked out better for you.

Also, you're asking the wrong question. Even if you had somehow prospered by cheating (unlikely), and even if you had gotten all the things you think it would've gotten you, that would be a horrible outcome. Because then you would have compromised your integrity, which is far more valuable than any material gains ever could be. So the real question is, and what would those material things have brought you? Nothing worth having, if it comes at the cost of your integrity.

I agree with everything here but if you're looking for an answer to the outrage it's very simple. They want something they can't have and are upset about it. There isn't some coherent and well thought out world view behind the outrage. They are simply covetous and they channel it into moral outrage because it's cathartic.

This is not at all true. People don't like scalpers because they are jerks, plain and simple. They are reducing the available supply at the original price and selling it at a higher price just to gouge people. I hate scalpers who scalp things I don't want just as much as I hate scalpers who scalp things I do want.

Because it's their right. I believe everyone has a fundamental right to get input into how society is run, regardless of how poor their judgement is. Frankly, I don't trust a felon's judgement much less than that of the American electorate in general, which is incredibly poor. But I think the general public (poor as their judgement is) still deserves their right to vote, and so too do convicted criminals.

And from a standpoint of outcomes, I think you also need to consider the consequentialist argument for liberalism in general. When you abridge the rights of anyone, it makes it easier (and more likely) to abridge the rights of everyone. Therefore you have to very narrowly tailor how and when you abridge rights. I'm not convinced that keeping criminals from voting actually gives us a better outcome.

Are you proud of breathing? No, because everyone can do it.

No, it's because it isn't challenging for me. Whether other people can do it doesn't factor in.

Are you proud of knowing how to swim? No, because it's extremely common to be able to swim.

I am in fact mildly proud of knowing how to swim, because it was challenging for me to learn. Less proud because I haven't swam in years and so I've lost the skill somewhat, but I still have reason to be proud of the effort I made.

This is as true for achievements as it is for physical goods.

It's not at all true for achievements.

Cooking. It's not hard to do, almost everyone can cook to some extent. But when I cook a dish that is challenging (for me), I'm proud of it no matter how easy it would be for most people.

We aren't talking about economic value here. We're talking about the virtue of overcoming challenges, which is not limited, and in no way requires an external reference.

I'm sure you can find lots of examples of people who claimed to be honorable and did that. But those people were not, in fact, honorable. They showed it by not acting honorable.

Honor is like principles: if you only uphold it when it's convenient for you, then you don't actually have it. It's the times when it bites one in the ass where you see who is actually honorable/principled versus who merely claims to be.

In my mind there has to be a compelling reason not to vote for Trump.

That makes no sense. You don't have to vote for anyone, so the default option should be "don't vote for anyone".

I just live here. My country died a long time ago.

I hate to break it to you, but that is the sole requirement for it to be "your country". I'm not patriotic (never have been) and I'm plenty upset with the state of the country, but to say it's not my country would be silly. It is my country, by definition.

It's a suicidal position.

Not everything in life comes down to effectiveness. At some point, someone has to be the adult and say "I'm going to treat you well" even if that's tactically unwise. If nobody ever does that, then we just hate each other and try to kill each other forever.

I just don't see what line sexually fantasizing about another person is supposed to be crossing that these other things don't.

The problem with your argument is that you assume those other things don't cross lines. But fantasizing about hitting someone does cross a line, for example. It's bad to do that too. If I had to try to generalize a principle out of this (which I'm not sure I have the chops to do), it would be something like "don't fantasize about doing something with/to someone that they wouldn't want you to actually do with/to them". Fantasizing isn't bad in and of itself, it's the fact that you're fantasizing about something they would not be ok with that upsets people. Thus, fantasizing about having a conversation is fine because having a conversation is fine. Fantasizing about punching someone in the face is bad because punching them in the face is bad.

I also think you're really missing the mark if your takeaway is "just don't get caught and it's ok". I mentioned the diary because it's the only real way for someone to find out, but it isn't the record that would bother someone. It's the fact that you are doing it at all. "It's ok as long as I don't get caught" is literally the moral code of a child, but as an adult one should realize "no it's wrong even if nobody will ever know".

Good decisions made for bad reasons are still good.

I don't think that's true. A decision made for bad reasons with a good outcome is still a bad decision. The important part is the process you follow to get there, not the outcome.

  1. Two thefts is not enough to show a definite pattern. Randomly grabbing bags and getting women's bags is going to happen 1/4 of the time (or thereabouts, because it's unlikely the bags are evenly split between men and women).

  2. Nobody says there was necessarily a rational reason for this theft. If he's a kleptomaniac, that's certainly not rational.

  3. I'm not in the least "bending over backwards to give him the benefit of the doubt". I'm simply not willing to jump to conclusions like others are as to his motives for theft.

First, it's not a useful service. It's just skimming off the top because they can.

Second, even if it were useful, that wouldn't actually matter. It's still their fault for the actions they take.

For example, where’s the indisputable evidence faith healing works?

I don't think there's indisputable evidence for much of anything, so that might be too high of a bar you're setting up. But the Catholic Church does require evidence that miracles were performed due to the intercession of a saint before that person is canonized. And sometimes, those miracles are the healing of a person which gets investigated and determined to be due to prayer.

I have no doubt that one can find cause to doubt that evidence. It's not indisputable (though like I said, I don't know that any evidence ever really is). But it does exist, so I would look there if I were you.

Biden said that Tara Read said untrue thing, Trump said E. Jean Carroll lied. That's a distinction without a difference.

No it isn't. Lying is saying something true with deliberate intent to deceive or mislead. It is, by definition, only a subset of saying untrue things. One can say untrue things without lying by:

  • someone says something untrue to you, and you believe it
  • misremembering
  • just plain old human error causing you to be mistaken

The difference is that those situations aren't generally considered to be a moral failing, while lying is. Therefore, it's derogatory to say a person is lying while it's neutral to say that what they said isn't true.

If you wish to act in bad faith because others have, I certainly can't stop you. And I doubt I could convince you that it's folly. But you have no right to complain that others act poorly when you are willing to act poorly yourself when it benefits you.

I think one thing one needs to clarify here is that not all violations of copyright are the same. For example, copyright should not allow someone to claim a monopoly on the characters and fictional world they created, just the specific stories they wrote (or at minimum that kind of monopoly should be very sharply limited).

So with that said, no I don't think all of the examples you listed are stealing. I also think that it's unreasonable for some of them to be covered by copyright law at all. I would never say that the state of copyright law (or IP law more generally) is perfect. I wouldn't even say it rises to the level of "acceptable". IP law is in many cases quite immoral, and is in dire need of reform.