YoungAchamian
No bio...
User ID: 680
YoungAchamian
1d ago
I pointed out how that is an imposition here. The federal government explicitly defined marriage has heterosexual, it did not ban gay marriage de facto but it prohibited them from being federally recognized making it an explicitly second-class marriage. They are denying full federal legal effect to marriages that the state has validly officiated.
YoungAchamian
1d ago
I am just a legal layman, so I defer to you on some of the more technical minutiae. Many of these might be weaker because I personally agree with the red side of them. Trying to be fair forces me to argue for positions that I don't really agree with. But I do believe that this one-sided victimizing of Red-tribe belief is missing the forest for the trees.
DOMA only applied at the federal government level, and specifically didn't stop states from recognizing gay marriages locally
But it refused to recognize state marriages as marriages, creating a double tier scheme where you were married in NY but not federally. I think explicitly refusing to recognize an official state sanctioned marriage and conferring those benefits would be an imposition. I think my scaffolding around this is that if Texas doesn't want to recognize a NY gay marriage, that's fine, its their prerogative. But if the federal government want to say the NY marriage is invalid federally they are denying the state's ability to officiate legal marriages according to the state's-populations desire. That's a legal imposition of values from 1 tribe to another.
I think Masterpiece is a weak example.
303 Creative still functions as a federal constitutional carveout from Colorado’s LGBTQ anti-discrimination law. Even if it applies a formally neutral First Amendment rule. Colorado is requiring a business that sells wedding websites to sell the same product to same-sex couples that it sells to opposite-sex couples.
Espinoza was about the state is trying to keep public money from flowing to religious institutions, consistent with its own church-state separation rule. That is a neutral rule being violated by another neural rule: the Free Exercise Clause. But the outcome was that the Red-tribe favored rule over-rode the Blue-tribe favored rule.
Carson is essentially similar in that Maine wanted to provide the rough equivalent of a secular public education for students who lack a local public school via a tuition reimbursement. And the court ruled that that was discriminatory towards religious students and institutions. This essentially hits the feeling of "We are being forced to subsidize something we morally oppose." This is probably pretty neutral if there are equivalent examples of conservative states being forced to subsidize things they reject. But off the top of my head, no conservative state has been forced to fund Planned Parenthood with its own money. (Medicaid does not count as it is a joint federal-state program) I think this one is a pretty strong example.
I think SFFA gets more into the weeds on what constitutes "Blue Tribe", as its a liberal vs progressive ideological fault line. It's not as clean but progressives are not really the anti-discrimination party, they are a racial/minority-spoils party. So idk if you can argue that they champion the anti-discrimination laws unless you autistically adhere to the definitions. SFFA is more like “a conservative/colorblind theory" of equality imposed over a "progressive/anti-subordination" theory of equality. It's a good comparison to the Voting Rights Act imposition.
YoungAchamian
1d ago
Hmmm, I think I understand your point. But it is unclear to me how you arrive at this:
Your examples are also reds stopping blues
My examples are of Reds imposing on Blues. Unless you think Blue states wanting to recognize gay marriage is an imposition on Red states? DOMA is not stopping blues from imposing, it itself is imposing.
Could you clarify how those examples are of Red's stopping Blues from imposing on Reds?
YoungAchamian
1d ago
Mate, no offense, but from my observations you are the definition of a partisan tribal warrior. Discussing anything with you is an exercise in intellectual mutual masturbation. The only exercise being left to the reader here is whether engaging with you is worth the effort.
I'm not that interested.
YoungAchamian
1d ago
I'm not clear on what your argument or point is or if you are just being nitpicky.
FCFromSSC's argument was explicitly that Blues impose on Reds: gerrymandering and Roe vs Wade. This imposition is Blue-tribe forcing Red-tribe to not outlaw abortion, and forcing them to create districts for Black-Majorities
My corollary is that Red-tribe also imposes on Blue-tribe. I gave examples of Red-tribe forcing Blue-tribe to not recognize homosexual marriage, forcing them to allow denial of service based on speech grounds, forcing them to fund religious schools, forcing them to outlaw mandatory union participation, and forcing them to "outlaw" racial spoils based admissions
Both sides are preventing each other from disallowing actions via laws and affirmatively forcing the other to take actions that they don't agree with. This is the same thing as the original argument. Your argument appeared to be that one is not the same as the other. But your justification was to ignore half of the examples of Blue-tribe imposing on Red-tribe to make some weird argument that imposing by forcing a positive action is not the same as forcing a negative action (prevention of laws from disallowing). Not only is that cherry picking and nitpicky but its also incorrect.
If you argument is that Red-tribe ended Blue-tribes impositions, well, Stonewall was clearly ending Red-tribes impositions as well. Both sides end each others' impositions and both sides impose. Like I said, really not understanding your argument, I'm trying to be charitable here.
YoungAchamian
1d ago
Your own argument is nonsensical
They mandate that states cannot do something that restricts other people.
and
it also involves telling the states to refrain from doing something to other people
Are the same thing...
Both are telling the states not to do something. Both are by definition, an imposition: the action or process of imposing something or of being imposed. The Federal government is imposing laws that affect the states to deny them ability to govern how their populous wants to. It is one Tribe, "imposing" on the other.
YoungAchamian
1d ago
Only so much as the original argument makes any Blue-Friendly ruling applied in a Federalist manner an “imposition” on the Red-Tribe.
YoungAchamian
2d ago
never had Red constitutional impositions on Blue areas
While I broadly am inclined to agree with the overall thrust of your argument, this is not true. If you want to split hairs on "constitutional" then we'd have to agree on a definition of that to create a boundary of what counts. But off the top of my head of Court Cases, and Federal laws that Reds have imposed on Blues, there are many:
- Janus v. AFSCME regulated public sector unions and was imposed on pro union-labor oriented states
- Masterpiece Cake shop enforced conservative views on the freedom of speech/religion on Prog states
- 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, same thing
- Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard/UNC, Progs clearly want to engage in race-conscious affirmative action,
- Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), prevented the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages and conferring the benefits of marriage
- Don't Ask Don't Tell federal stature 10 U.S.C. § 654
- Espinoza v. Montana and Carson v. Makin, vaguely forces Blue-tribe states to fund religious schools, by preventing the states from exempting them from school-choice or public aid programs
The Red tribe is not some innocent victim in this arena, the give as good as they get.
YoungAchamian
5d ago
Dean realistically is the major proponent of this going down hill, he really showed his ass making an accusation and being unwilling to back it up with evidence. MKC should have just stopped responding, something you need to learn in online discussions.
YoungAchamian
7d ago
My current investment thesis, while still recuperating capital after selling most of my portfolio for a house downpayment, is a mix of ETFs and mutual funds. I really like this SHLD ETF I found which is all the major international Defense companies. My theory is that as we move to a multipolar world, weapon sales will go up. I just don't feel like tracking individual winners, especially since the Defense Industry in general has a lot of graft.
YoungAchamian
8d ago
Could you explain the connection?
You see a black box, you observe inputs and outputs empirically and you derive an explanation for what is inside the box without actually being able to check.
Something that is simpler than the actual thing being modeled, but which can be used to help make predictions about the actual thing.
I’m understanding your definition as:
- compress structure from the environment/domain
- support prediction about that domain.
Does that track?
If so we have wildly different definitions. I would say your definition is very very broad, something like logistic regression or a kalman filter would have an internal model.
My definition is is very RL/latent space/World Model-esque: an internal model is a learned or encoded internal structure that represents the state and transition dynamics of an external system sufficiently well to support counterfactuals, simulation, planning, or action prediction.
Which is why your ball throwing example confuses me, under my definition, yes kids clearly have an internal model for catching a baseball but it is very controversial/not settled that an LLM has an internal model for chess. I think saying kids can catch a baseball using essentially a compressed predictive statistics process is cognitively incorrect.
An example of what you are proposing as evidence: we have an indestructible radio, you can’t open it. It does radio things. You are proposing that empirically since a voice comes out of this radio then it must have a tiny man inside of it. There is no other “evidence”. And the proof? Well its empirically observable, what do you mean there is no tiny man inside the box??
It’s a bad argument and bad science
EDIT: What are you actually using as a definition of internal model? It is imprecise in casual conversation but very specific in technical ones.
YoungAchamian
8d ago
Yeah thats not proof, thats a theory. There are other theories about what the LLM is doing and they are just as explanatory as yours is. You have run no experiments to isolate those alternatives and test whether or not they exist. You have run no ablation studies and no studies to attempt to isolate co-occurring variables. It is by definition a theory. Hence why I asked for proof, because I am certain you have none.
We can prove the child has an internal model of physics because we have 7 billion humans, including our own selves, we can extrapolate our internal abilities across a generalized set of all humans. We are able to perform other activities with as much success as a baseball catch, that strongly hints at an internal physics model. There is overwhelming evidence.
YoungAchamian
8d ago
Refer to the 2nd part of my comment about providing evidence of the internal workings of the LLM to prove it has an internal model.
But both of those models are trained on chess games explicitly, an LLM to my knowledge is not.
YoungAchamian
8d ago
That is not actually true. It could merely be well trained or even overfit on a statistical distribution of chess moves such that it can proffer a valid move. You could do this with an SVM or a DQN. Nobody is saying either is conscience.
The larger point of my comment is that you actually cannot prove what is going on in an LLMs internal weights. You can theorize it has an internal model but to prove that it does is currently impossible.
YoungAchamian
9d ago
I'm arguing from a hatred for naive, short-sighted, hedonistic, asocial stupidity, no matter how deeply entrenched that stupidity is in the zeitgeist, or to what a degree I myself share in that stupidity.
I mean from a purely eugenic argument, the vast majority of people who get abortions are poor, short sighted, high-time preference individuals who are a net negative on the society that hosts them. A civilization that is full of them is already endangered. It is civilization-destroying to let the stupid outbreed the intelligent. Abortions combined with your lack of public welfare would greatly reduce that amount of people in the bottom rung of society.
YoungAchamian
9d ago
basic biological fact
So are these:
- The Prostate is accessible through the male anus, and produces a better orgasm than penile stimulation. Thus receiving anal sex as a man is the biologically correct behavior for non-procreative sex.
- Hunger evolved to keep organisms alive, so eating for pleasure is defective
- The mouth, tongue, lips, lungs, and vocal tract have biological survival functions for the consumption of food. Yet humans use them for language, affection, comedy, poetry, singing, worship, debate, and lying. Obviously the latter are thus all immoral.
- Men are generally stronger, more physically aggressive, and historically performed more combat roles; therefore men are naturally suited to rule, and women are naturally suited to domestic subordination.
- Women are biologically evolved to give birth and rear children, thus it is sole purpose of women to give birth and rear children. Them doing anything else than just have sex and giving birth is morally abhorrent.
- Reproduction has an evolutionary function therefore society should enforce reproductive norms according to biological “fitness”
- “Natural” behavior includes cheating, coercion, status competition, and abandonment, these are obviously all morally ok then.
- Rape is a natural reproductive strategy and is thus moral.
Arguments deriving morality and telos from biological determinism lead to the justification of behaviors the vast majority of humans consider abhorrent. To deploy it in this one case is cherry picking an arbitrary boundary line.
YoungAchamian
9d ago
Nature does a perfectly fine job of that
The natural argument is bad, biological determinism is not deployed in almost any other argument because it has very horrible ramifications. So using it for "this one case" is an arbitrary boundary drawing that fails to lead to a general solution.
I never said unitary telos
This is better.
pregnancy is the natural consequence of sex
There is a causality logical assumption in this that is incorrect. If A -> B it does not mean that B -> A. ie If pregnancy occurred, then sex/reproduction-related conditions occurred. Does not follow: If sex occurred, then pregnancy follows.
Pregnancy is a natural risk of sex, but not every sex absent interference results in an intended pregnancy. People have plenty of sex with the purpose of getting pregnant, and not getting pregnant even when its the intended outcome. The reverse is also true.
Ergo, pregnancy is a natural consequence of having sex
Agreed
To have sex is to accept that risk.
I do not agree. Assumption of risk is never assumed to be accepted, hence why every risky activity involving other parties generally requires you to sign papers assuming that risk onto yourself and acknowledging it. This is what I mean by "an unlimited duty to suffer every risky outcome of your actions" Most people do not believe that, but then to draw an arbitrary line around sex is in essence trying to have your cake and eat it too.
YoungAchamian
9d ago
More than some, less than others, I don’t know
This is why I think biological determinism applied to Sex -> Pregnancy/Abortion is a poor argument. It's an arbitrary boundary drawing exercise. People start from the end and work backwards. We could justify a lot of morally abhorrent behaviors on the grounds of biological determinism, and several controversial ones. If you (royal) aren't applying and accepting it everything thing that stems from the bio-determ position, then you are trying to get special carve outs for things you care about. You are overfitting to a specific situation and unable create a general solution.
primary telos of sex
Primary might be better than sole, but I'd still add bonding and pleasure into the top 3 of the telos of sex. And I think there is ample historical and anthropological evidence to support that being the case throughout history and cultures.
I don't think you are acting in bad faith, I think you sincerely believe these things. I don't think you are waging the culture war here. This gets at something more high level, that I am probably doing a bad job at communicating it.
Right wingers and Progressives make about 90% of the same arguments on why their morality is the better one, the structure is the same, the goal is the same, the specific details are just different. Like the serial numbers are filed off. You both want to save "the innocent" particularly other people's "innocent". And it makes no difference whether those people want to be saved by y'all or not. But there is a massive blind spot, you both can't see how the same your argument is, and you both think your the right ones, both using the same exact reasoning for it too. This is a lack of cognitive empathy, the ability to take yourself out of your own mind and put yourself in someone else's, to see the world from their viewpoint. And its made more extreme by how similar your arguments are, this isn't some alien x human difference. This is tribalism, the inability to put yourself in the outgroup's shoes.
But the most galling part isn't that you are tribal, it's that you can't account for it. It doesn't compute. It's an epistemological arrogance.
I can recognize that you and I have different beliefs, I can empathize with why you have those beliefs(at a high level, I don't personally know you), and I can still view you as a human-agent. Do I think my beliefs would be better for you, of course, who doesn't think that. Do I feel the need to save you from your poor beliefs? Your children from the poor beliefs of their parents? Absolutely not, you are your own person, your own community, and I respect the freedom and human dignity for y'all to chart your own course. I can also recognize that my beliefs might not be the truly correct ones, and thus the existence of other communities with other beliefs is a net good.
So then why do you feel you should force your beliefs on others? To save them, when they don't want you to, when they don't see it as saving them. Leave them alone. You might believe that homosexuality is bad for the individual, and negative for the commons. Then leave, form your own commons, create your own community, and if it truly is so, then your community will flourish and the Progs will wither until eventually there is one left. Tend to your own flock and let prog's tend to theirs.
The failure to do so, is that tribal instinct. The primal, childish drive to have your own way, because your way is the only way. It is the vice of lesser men. And I pity the fool who would boast of winning their small battle while damning our species to hell.
Are you a Consequentialist or a Deontologist? Christians are almost always required to be the latter so stop trying to use the arguments of the former. If I showed you the reduction in mental illness and increase in happiness flowed from prog values you would not change your beliefs, so stop trying to use that as your argument. It's disingenuous.
I stand by this, and you avoided answering it.
YoungAchamian
10d ago
it's the regular natural outcome and the prime evolutionary purpose of its existence
I mean would you extend a biological and evolutionary determinism to everything else humans do?
Maybe some people really are just better?
No argument, but it might shock you, that I consider Christian Activists and Progs Activists to be Untermensch of the same caliber. Y'all are barely more evolved than apes. That sweet seductive vice of tribal conflict is just too much for you to resist. Like children in candy shop, you lot can't control yourselves.
Also your saying it’s ok to torture kids
Progs think you are torturing your kids. Who's to say they aren't right and that you are? What evidence do you have?
The rise of mental illness and reported happiness surveys
Are you a Consequentialist or a Deontologist? Christians are almost always required to be the latter so stop trying to use the arguments of the former. If I showed you the reduction in mental illness and increase in happiness flowed from prog values you would not change your beliefs, so stop trying to use that as your argument. It's disingenuous.
I don’t believe gay people were ever banned from jobs or banks. I don’t believe their speech was restricted back then.
This comment expresses differently. link
Additional evidence:
- Teacher fired for out of wedlock pregnancy
- Hiring discrimination of the grounds of out of wedlock pregnancy
- Fired for being Gay
- Fired for swinging
- Fired and clearance revoked for Homosexuality
- Fired from NASA for being Gay
- Satanic panic around D&D and Board Games
- Book Banning from Conservative Parents
also have not once said anything about being bitter.
This forum is full of conservatives complaining about having to keep quiet and call a man in a dress a woman. It's been a common complaint for years at this point. You might not be bitter, congratulations, but it is so incredibly common that to dismiss it, would be laughable.
But the difference between the 1980’s and today is I don’t believe the 1980’s tried to take offer communication systems so that debate ends. I don’t think they banned the POTUS from mass media. Or put him in jail. Etc.
Of a shock to no one, escalation begets not equal response but an increasing one. I think WhiningCoil said roughly: When the younger child pokes and prods the elder, and the elder hits the younger, sometimes its best to turn a blind eye because the younger clearly was equally involved and its an important lesson that escalating has a response.
crowd hates Christians
Well, I don't. Nor do I hate dealing with the consequences of my own actions. What I do hate is hypocrites and unfairness. So if all you pro-lifers want to commit to an unlimited duty to suffer every risky outcome of your actions, I'm willing to accept every risky outcome of my own. Until that happens, this has nothing to do with the straw effigy you've created in your head. From my vantage, you want your cake and to eat it too.
And Christians want everyone to use their frame of the universe while not even considering any others, again, hypocrisy.
entirely possible to come to the conclusion that pregnancy is a result of sex from a secular perspective.
I'm all ears, please share a non-culturally-Christian argument on the unitary telos of sex:pregnancy.
YoungAchamian
10d ago
What you've shown me is Authoritarians wearing the skinsuit of the latest crisis to pass increasingly draconian laws. The article makes it clear that the local community, the victims father, and the governor of Wyoming were all committed to not trampling on the rights of others for the failure of personal choices.
The Authoritarians saw an opportunity to gain more power, and neither side decided to stop them. Liberalism dies in the dark. It is not a fundamental fact, an universal law, and the sweet seductive whisper of hurting your outgroup is such strong primal vice of humanity. Liberalism requires active support.
Liberalism is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it on to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.
Liberalism will return, it is the currently known best possible solution to a multi-polar society. The foreseeable future will require us to re-learn that bloody lesson.
¯\_(ツ) _/¯
More options
Context Copy link