@Tarnstellung's banner p

Tarnstellung


				

				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 05 12:50:41 UTC

				

User ID: 553

Tarnstellung


				
				
				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 05 12:50:41 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 553

So, were you bemused ("puzzled, confused, or bewildered") or amused?

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.

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".

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?

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?

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.

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"?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

Covid was not an emergency

What about hospitals overflowing, not enough ventilators, etc.?

Johnson was ousted from power because of Partygate, what more could you ask for?

How exactly do cars, single family homes, and meat (of all things) make people harder to control?

Also, are you saying single family homes and car culture are not a cause of poor urban planning, which makes housing inaccessible, worsens people's health (as they just drive a car everywhere instead of walking) and contributes to climate change (as people need to drive everywhere, hence using more fuel)?

people who, for instance, will give a baby soda in their bottle

Do people actually do this? Why would anyone ever do this?

If you can build what you want on your land

And isn't that what the activists are asking for? Lifting restrictions on construction?

OK then, "easing" or "partially lifting" the restrictions?

Or are they planning to implement some entirely new restrictions?

What is "topology" in this context?

I don't think advanced mathematics has been solved by computers...

Maybe stop doing that?