Tarnstellung
No bio...
User ID: 553
Tarnstellung
2yr ago
Don't imprison the entire population was a principle so fundamental that, at least in the Anglosphere, it dates back to the middle ages with Habeas Corpus.
Habeas corpus was suspended during the American Civil War. It was reinstated again once the war was over, and the US did not become a tyrannical dictatorship. Like Covid, it really was a once-in-a-generation emergency, after which things returned to normal.
Tarnstellung
2yr ago
But then, suicide is probably far more common than murder-suicide, and we don't want to cause 10 suicides to prevent one murder, right?
No, actually. Ten suicides, or even a hundred or more, is definitely better than one murder. All of the people committing suicide actually want to die; no one is being harmed (at least not directly). With murder, a person who presumably wants to live is being, well, murdered.
Tarnstellung
2yr ago
Apparently that Belgian woman even attempted suicide two times, with many people suggesting that this was scream for help.
Many people on The Motte, you mean? Because the original article says she was supported in her choice by her family and friends, implying they were already paying attention to her. And if it really was a "scream for help", wouldn't she have stopped short of actually committing suicide in the end?
Tarnstellung
2yr ago
There's evidence of euthanasia being over-promoted by the same doctors who are supposed to be guardians of it, I posted it on this thread and so did others.
I assume this is the comment to which you are referring. It talks about Canada. As I have noted elsewhere in the thread:
Canada is unique among countries that have legalized euthanasia in permitting doctors to bring up the possibility to patients who haven't even mentioned it. In other countries, the patient must bring it up first, unprompted.
In other words, this particular failure mode is trivially preventable.
And as far I know, this is true for Belgium.
Not really. Only if someone is a DA or similar person in power, and they have motivation to intervene for some reason. Otherwise, there won't be any investigation at all, let alone "reasonably thorough" one.
It is my understanding that in continental European legal systems, public prosecutors don't have any discretion in choosing whether or not to prosecute a certain crime, as American DAs do. Hence, the prosecutor must have investigated the case thoroughly enough to conclude that no crime took place. As I said, this seems like enough scrutiny. If you added, say, an ombudsman who reviews the prosecutor's actions, and they concluded that the prosecutor had done nothing wrong, you could just say the ombudsman is in on it. And this can go on indefinitely, which is why I said the claim was unfalsifiable.
Oh and, I forgot to mention: according to the article, in addition to the panel of doctors and the prosecutor, the woman was "supported by her friends and family" in making the decision. I agree that we have to have a high bar for cases like this; I just think the bar was met in this case.
Tarnstellung
2yr ago
The hormones they're being given at least exist naturally in humans. All humans have both estrogen and testosterone. It's just the levels of each being altered in trans people. This is apparently unnatural. But giving people synthetic chemicals that don't exist anywhere in nature is apparently "natural". This is absurd.
Tarnstellung
2yr ago
My point is that, in the absence of actual evidence of institutional failures, we should assume they're working properly. "Something looks wrong" is not evidence. If something does look wrong to someone, they can investigate. Maybe they'll find evidence of wrongdoing, but if they don't find anything after a reasonably thorough investigation, the matter should be dropped. "Something looks wrong" is unfalsifiable.
Tarnstellung
2yr ago
a young healthy female
She was not healthy. She had severe PTSD. A panel of doctors concluded that it was untreatable and severe enough that suicide is a reasonable choice.
Tarnstellung
2yr ago
Two is weirdly overlooking how the US spent large amounts of ressources trying to convince Afghans to adopt Californian morality, gay acceptance very much included.
How much did they spend? I don't think the Americans ever tried to make Afghanistan into a progressive utopia. They just wanted a more-or-less stable country with a more-or-less functional government that didn't host terrorists.
The Islamic Republic of Afghanistan – that's the US-backed government, not the Taliban – had a constitution stating that "no law can be contrary to the beliefs and provisions of the sacred religion of Islam". I don't recall the US ever asking them even to make a secular constitution, let alone legalize same-sex marriage.
Tarnstellung
2yr ago
Canada is unique among countries that have legalized euthanasia in permitting doctors to bring up the possibility to patients who haven't even mentioned it. In other countries, the patient must bring it up first, unprompted.
In other words, this particular failure mode is trivially preventable.
Tarnstellung
2yr ago
This comment is an excellent demonstration that the claims from the anti-trans side of this or that being "natural" or "unnatural", and therefore objectively right or wrong, are just an attempt to rationalize their own completely subjective aesthetic preferences. How do you not see the absurdity in claiming that giving trans people actually natural hormones – ones that actual humans actually have, in nature – is wrong and denying biology, etc., while giving people with body dysmorphia (who are, like trans people, unsatisfied with their "natural" bodies) chemicals that have never existed outside a lab, and are functionally unlike any natural substance, is just "guiding" their body "along its natural path"?
Tarnstellung
2yr ago
I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree, then.
In my view, a panel of doctors, plus a public prosecutor who reviews possible abuses, is sufficient in terms of scrutiny.
Yes, people entrusted with power are sometimes malicious or incompetent, but this argument can be directed at virtually every institution in existence. Unless you have actual evidence of abuse, my priors are firmly on the side of trusting that the people who are familiar with the details and whose job it is to review these cases (and who have years of experience in doing this) have made the right decision.
Tarnstellung
2yr ago
I really don't understand the near-unanimous outrage here. Does no one believe the suffering from a psychiatric condition can be so terrible as to make the person want to die?
Another comment interpreted her two suicide attempts as calls for help or attention. If this were true, would she not have stopped short of actually killing herself in the end?
If euthanasia had been illegal, she would have just committed suicide with a different method – I mean, she clearly wanted to die – and it would have been a brief sentence or two in an article about the terrorist attack. "Shanti De Corte, who was 17 at the time of the attack, was set to testify, but committed suicide after suffering from PTSD following the bombing. She is regarded as the 33rd victim of the attack." or something to that effect.
But I know that at least some people who have survived suicide attempts have gone on to lead happy lives.
And there are others who attempted again and were successful.
Why does everyone here think they know better than the woman herself, a panel of doctors and a public prosecutor, all of whom must have known far more about the case than was shared in this one news article?
Tarnstellung
2yr ago
One comparison I think is interesting is that the number of illegal border crossings each month in 2022 (~200k) is roughly the size of the Russian force that originally invaded Ukraine in February.
I assume most of those are deported quickly. Do you know what proportion of the migrants manage to remain in the US long-term?
Tarnstellung
2yr ago
I do believe that ethnically-homogeneous European countries are an obstacle to these people, and they actually let us know by transparently publishing it in the Guardian, NYT, HuffingtonPost, etc.
Can you provide an example where they say they have a problem with the ethnic homogeneity of Poland?
Also the population of Russia is a mix of ethnicities, 'ethnic Russian' would cover quite a varied array of phenotypes.
It is true that many ethnic groups live in Russia, but ethnic Russians make up 81% of the country's population and they are relatively homogeneous. Chechens, Kalmyks, etc. are not ethnic Russians; they are part of the remaining 19%, which is the "mix of ethnicities" with "a varied array of phenotypes".
It's hard to tell what exactly their issue with Russia is
The obvious answer is "they're invading a neighbouring country for no reason and murdering civilians". The cynical answer is "Russia is a historical political and military rival and they're taking this opportunity to weaken them". You seem to have skipped both and gone straight to the batshit-crazy answer of "they hate Russians because they're White".
Tarnstellung
2yr ago
I'd also like to add the huge amounts of money, plus various political concessions, given to Turkey in exchange for keeping the migrants at bay.
Tarnstellung
2yr ago
So, were you bemused ("puzzled, confused, or bewildered") or amused?
Tarnstellung
2yr ago
First of all, the ECHR is not related to the EU; it is part of the Council of Europe, which includes all European countries except Belarus and Russia, the latter having been expelled this year due to the invasion.
Quoting Wikipedia:
The court lacks enforcement powers. Some states have ignored ECtHR verdicts and continued practices judged to be human rights violations. (...)
The number of non-implemented judgements rose from 2,624 in 2001 to 9,944 at the end of 2016, 48% of which had gone without implementation five years or more. In 2016, all but one of the 47 member countries of the Council of Europe had not implemented at least one ECtHR verdict in a timely fashion, although most non-implemented verdicts concern a few countries: Italy (2,219), Russia (1,540), Turkey (1,342), and Ukraine (1,172).
The article has a few examples of non-implemented judgments.
Tarnstellung
2yr ago
+if/when NATO finally takes out Russia, I imagine Poland would be in the runner-up for the next 'disturbingly native-looking' country in what remains of Europe then.
Do you believe that a primary goal of the EU/NATO is to fill all European countries with non-White immigrants? Do you actually think the EU/NATO strongly object to the fact that the population of Russia is mostly ethnic Russians, and that the population of Poland is almost entirely ethnic Poles?
Tarnstellung
2yr ago
Ukrainian nationalists themselves would love to claim a slice of Poland.
Would they? My understanding is that all the areas that were disputed between Poland and Ukraine were ultimately transferred to Ukraine after World War II, and Ukrainian nationalists are now satisfied in that regard.
The original comment, in case someone hasn't seen it.
By the way, the original comment is a bit confusing to read with the update. It's not clear where the update ends and the original begins. Maybe move the update to the end, or add a note to the effect of "Original comment follows:" after the update?
Tarnstellung
2yr ago
Fair enough. This is basically my take, too.
However, blaming Black American culture for the modern-day predicament of Black Americans is probably outside the Overton window at this point.
What is the difference? Most immigrants came to the US not knowing English at all, and they managed just fine. Surely learning to read is easier than learning an entire foreign language.
Many immigrants weren't even literate in their native languages. This PDF (found here) claims that a majority of Southern Italian immigrants in the 1900–1903 period were illiterate. Yet Italians successfully integrated into American society.
Edit: Another source on illiterate immigrants. Apparently, it was a big concern at the time, but today there are no traces of it left. No Italian- or Irish-American knows the education level of their great-etc.-grandparents who first immigrated. In fact, a few centuries ago the vast majority of people were peasants (or even serfs!) with no "need for literacy".
Tarnstellung
2yr ago
Taxonomic names are regularly changed, often because species weren't related in the manner previously thought
They are regularly changed because the previous names were wrong: placing a species in the wrong genus, grouping two species into one, and so forth. They are never changed because someone doesn't like the name.
There is a firm principle that scientific names can't be changed unless it's justified by new discoveries. Changing even one name will open the floodgates. You know it won't stop at Hitler. There are many other species named after bad people, and still more named after people wokeists would consider bad. It will lead to all sorts of squabbles, with no benefit whatsoever.
The Hitler beetle's name wasn't even changed after World War II. I think everyone agreed at that point that Hitler was bad; many had experienced his badness first-hand. But they stood by their principles, because they knew changing it would just make everything much more complicated.
Tarnstellung
2yr ago
fundamentalist Christians or Catholics
Is this meant to be "fundamentalist (Christians or Catholics)" or "(fundamentalist Christians) or (Catholics)"?
What about hospitals overflowing, not enough ventilators, etc.?
More options
Context Copy link