VelveteenAmbush
Prime Intellect did nothing wrong
No bio...
User ID: 411
No, I don't agree with a definition of natural in which everything that occurs in our universe qualifies equally. But no, I also don't want to go down a rabbithole arguing semantics with you.
I think you're right, but I'm very curious as to what theory they would use to overturn it if they couldn't grasp at some idiosyncratic procedural glitch to spare themselves from having to confront the core question.
Because the stakes are much higher
Also, #3, Israel no longer appears willing to let the current situation fester for another generation.
I'm no expert either, but isn't Crimea pretty easily embargoed? IIRC, Ukraine recaptured Kharkiv by threatening Russia's supply lines, and I don't know why they couldn't do the same to Crimea.
But national sovereigns don't internalize the costs of their mistakes or reap the rewards of their enterprise like private proprietors do.
Life is generally better for the head of state and leading members of government when the government is popular than when it isn't, and good stewardship of national resources and policy is generally an effective path to popularity.
It does not explain the value of assigning such entities sovereignty over such areas in the first place.
Maybe it would be helpful (both here and generally in your commentary) if you made more of an effort to state your thesis directly instead of only implying it by criticizing other comments for what you view as the negative space of your unstated thesis.
I think utilitarianism should play a very small but positive part of one's moral framework, a tiny minority vote in one's moral parliament, but committing to donate 10% of one's income to the other side of the planet is messed up, and asks to be reciprocated by your neighbors and fellow countrymen treating you as no more deserving of moral consideration than a stranger on the other side of the planet. If one see an EA type drowning in a pond, I don't exactly endorse this approach, but I think there would be a certain cold reciprocity to walk whistling past, clean in conscience that one has already dedicated at least 10% of one's attention to one's neighbors, friends and community.
That's totally fine, I'm not interested in coercing anyone's respect. But the parent poster suggested that public recognition shouldn't be given. Isn't same-sex marriage the public recognition of a gay relationship? The notion that sexuality should be kept to oneself seems to require that one have only secret relationships, and not get married.
The state is "not entitled to deny people their exit rights". This isn't just a libertarian fantasy principle. The ability to opt out of existence should be table stakes for most moralities. Nobody would begrudge someone being trapped in an inescapable room and being raped day in and day out for committing suicide. Your personal line will be different from almost anyone else's.
This is a libertarian fantasy principle. I agree with permitting euthanasia for people who are terminally ill, living with untreatable chronic pain, or severely disabled (e.g. paraplegia and quadraplegia), but extending these edge cases to "anyone who wants to die" is a really fringe libertarian belief. Suicide is possible as a solo act, and the transgressive barrier implicit in the solo act is a useful check on people who would otherwise make the decision too lightly. If we reach a point where suicide is no longer possible as a solo act (quadraplegics, or some sort of post-singularity future where an uploaded mind would require admin access to delete itself) then all of this changes, but as long as people can slit their own wrists in the bathtub, the state and the medical system have no business trying to make it a more desirable option than it already is.
Yeah, that's pretty much why I'm not a libertarian, and why even those who are need to do more than point and say "externality" to justify banning something. The idea that, statistically, people who do something are more likely to commit a crime is a justification to ban it under a putatively libertarian framework refutes the framework by basically the same logic.
All of these decisions lead to large externalities. If you are willing to infer a state interest in preventing fentanyl use but not suicide, then I think you are just wrestling your putative libertarian framework to fit your object level support for suicide.
I find the idea of euthanizing a healthy young person rather morally revolting. If they want to kill themselves, they should just do it
Jeez, call me old fashioned but I think we should stop them, involuntarily commit them and treat their mental illness.
I agree that insurrection is not the right word, but neither is riot. The crowd was trying to stop the election certification, not just registering dissent.
In this year's primary, he endorsed Masters, Walker and Oz -- three neophyte politicians with manifest weaknesses -- over their more experienced competitors. All three prevailed in the primary, and all three seem to be headed for defeat tonight. All three races should have been eminently winnable.
In 2020, he made delusional claims that the election was stolen from him, and he publicly pressured Pence to basically abuse his power as VP to steal the election for Trump. This occurred before the two senate runoff races in Georgia, both of which should have gone GOP (based on fundamentals and based on the expectation that thermostatic turnout would favor the GOP as being energized to oppose Biden's recent win), but both of which ended up going to the Dems, giving Biden control of the Senate.
I don't care about the rest of his argument, I care about the part that was the subject of this dispute, since this dispute is what we are discussing. Was that not the part that you think is at least disputable in its moral or intellectual wrongness? Or do you believe the courts should overlook this clear case of defamation because he separately made some other arguments that were reasonable?
I don’t see indisputable evidence he’s morally or intellectually wrong here.
You think the Sandy Hook parents are crisis actors engaged in a literal conspiracy theory to falsely persuade the nation that their children were murdered en masse while attending elementary school? Or you think that this claim is reasonably disputable, either morally or intellectually?
Please let's not confuse Alex Jones's behavior with the comparatively bland claim that school shootings are a political opportunity to take away gun rights. The court proceedings did not concern that claim.
I am mostly referring to his procedural attempt to overturn the election by having Pence refuse to certify the results. But yeah. Refusing to issue any kind of statement asking his supporters to stand down while they invaded the capitol was also indefensible.
Suppose an online fad were persuading children to have their left arms amputated, and the power of the state dedicated itself to facilitating the amputations and to retaliating against parents who tried to interfere. What argument against that public policy would you consider to be fair, if any?
There are plenty of examples of Jewish intellectuals explicitly agitating for the interests of the Jewish community in ways that would render an analogous white person unfit for polite company. There are NGOs that exist explicitly to further Jewish interests, and there is even an explicit Jewish ethnostate. Jewish people network with other Jewish people through their synagogues and holidays, Jewish parents often encourage their children to marry within the faith, and I doubt you could find many Jewish people who would deny that their social circles are disproportionately Jewish.
What manner of further evidence are you looking for? A survey in which Jewish hiring managers obliviously admit to giving Jewish applicants an unfair advantage? If something along those lines is your requirement, then you have constructed an epistemological fortress.
To make my own position clear, I acknowledge and respect the innate intellectual advantage of the Jewish population (although I vaguely suspect one could slice the "white" community in America more finely to derive a genetic cluster among white people who are equally performant and equally sizeable, if one had the inclination and data to do so), and do not view them as parasitic in any way. Their achievements in science, technology, art and business are genuine and mostly work to everyone's immense benefit. We would all be impoverished if Einstein had never existed, and ten thousand more lesser known exceptional individuals like him in every walk of life, none of whom can be explained by nepotism.
I do take exception to the Jewish community's unnecessary persistence in maintaining a parallel culture within America, conceptualizing and advocating for its interests as distinct from the white population. Intentionally resisting assimilation and pursuing exclusive ethnic interests is a defection in a multiethnic society, and it is toxic for the country in similar fashion to white identity politics. Antisemitism is in part a response to this defection, and not entirely unjustified.
The analogy I draw is to Survivor. In Survivor, one of the most powerful tactics in the chaotic early game is to form a rock-solid two-person alliance, because two strategically aligned votes make a powerful coalition in an unorganized field of monads. Thus the rational play in the early game is to seek out and punish players who have formed such a two-person alliance, as a means of defense against their manipulations.
Likewise if an ethnicity organizes and advocates for its interests, one should expect other ethnic groups to recognize the inherent division in loyalty and to object, reactively (in this case with antisemitism) or proactively (via an exclusive ethnogenesis of their own, e.g. white identity politics). The salience of whether "Jews are white" is likely a product of these reactive and proactive responses to a recognition of an ethnic group's defection.
I can't imagine this argument being persuasive to any but the most extreme libertarian -- the type who thinks that recreational fentanyl, consensual incest and consensual cannibalism should be legal. If that's you, then yeah, you're internally consistent, and I'm not sure what better argument to make against your position other than that your theory permits such self-evidently depraved outcomes as legalizing fentanyl, incest, cannibalism, and the killing of depressed but otherwise healthy 23-year-olds.
There were genuine issues at stake there. When the courts spoke, both sides accepted the result. Not even remotely comparable.
Lets play with a hypothetical: is it actually good for republicans in 2024 if trump gets hung out to dry by the court battles he's entangled in?
If somehow the court battles disable Trump so that he loses the primary or doesn't even run? Absolutely! Trump is a terrible politician who repeatedly demonstrates negative coattails. He won a general election once, by a hair, in 2016, against a historically unpopular candidate, following two terms of Democratic control of the White House. He is ineffective even when he is in office, and he is so polarizing that he generates historic energy among the Democrats to oppose him.
DeSantis is the alternative. He's a brilliant politician who knows how to win, who knows how to govern competently, and who knows how to use the levers of government to secure his partisan goals. He walks on water. The only thing he may be unable to do is defeat Trump in the GOP primary.
But I don't think the court battles will disable Trump. Every time the Dems go too far and get too petty in persecuting him, he looks like a martyr and the GOP electorate rallies around him. The Dems are not stupid. They can see this effect play out, and will use it to their advantage. All they have to do is persecute him as loudly and unfairly as possible. I genuinely think this is the reason that Garland started this ridiculous investigation over classified information at Mar-a-lago. They can drag that out for the next two years, constantly keeping him in the headlines as the victim of Democratic overreach to manipulate the 2024 GOP primary and secure him as their opponent.
Even if Trump loses the primary, I don't put it past him to sabotage the GOP in the general election, possibly as a third party candidate.
The GOP is cursed by Trump's existence at this point. The best outcome for conservatives is if Trump dies of a heart attack as soon as possible.
"But what about all this other stuff that I really disagree with...!"
I accept your opinion that it is bad, but it is a different kind of thing than shadiness.
Hillary faced calls for criminal consequences for her emails as secretary of state. Biden also inappropriately retained classified information and faced a criminal investigation.
But yeah, I'll bite the bullet, Trump is unusually shady.
No. The hospital provides the cocktail, and the hospital bed, and the softly cooing coterie of palliative care nurses. Even if the final act is done voluntarily, it is done having been stripped of its transgressive nature. If you want to kill yourself, you should want it badly enough to break through the transgressive barrier yourself, without the soft susurrations of medical experts gently lowering it to the floor.
More options
Context Copy link