@ajuuiomml's banner p

ajuuiomml


				

				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2023 January 26 19:53:30 UTC

				

User ID: 2129

ajuuiomml


				
				
				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2023 January 26 19:53:30 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 2129

Disregarding pimp my ride, it’s hard to say the platonic ideal is male or female, right? Why would going from the one to the other violate that ideal, so long as you arrive at the right spot (theoretically)? We could claim the ideal is that of a man for a man, etc, but then we are back to disagreeing about the initial state.

To my non-catholic understanding, I’d be down with someone transitioning if it is to serve God. That’s a pretty damn high bar, but who knows.

Thank you for translating.

What would you say the pope would say if we had actual etiology with a highly predictive biological test for trans? I also wonder what progressives would say for those who tested negative and want to claim the identity.

I don’t understand the distinction between curing congenital defects and sex changes? Surely the person undergoing the procedure would consider them one and the same? If the one doesn’t affect the unique dignity of the person, why should the other? Why does the natural order of the human person exclude some chromosomal ”abnormalities” but not others?

I’m not Catholic, but I’d readily accept some argument to this end. This one feels really light on God.

Your reasoning reminds me of the classic "Just make your own Reddit if you don't like its moderation!" line, in that it retreats into the technicalities of what is formally not impossible to pretend that it is not so blatantly improbable, unwieldy, and unreasonably/unduly burdensome for their interlocutors to be worth seriously advancing as any sort of solution to them

We are quite literally having this discussion on a “your own Reddit”! As Scott pointed out a while ago, any argument is made better with made up numbers, so let’s make some up!

I’ll claim that at least 10% of teachers would actually meet the criteria, which I believe to be an underestimate as some students will take those classes looking for trouble. Teachers would be aware of that; a few would probably aim for martyrdom… which brings us to avoiding a discussion in the concrete as shrewd politics. Allowing for an argument over the merits of “favorite teacher”, students rallied around, after the fact would be a strong and effective nucleation site for dissent. Canceling the class is comparatively easy - the courts could reinstate it, but they can’t turn back time to before the semester.

Do you really trust those numbers? 70s is can’t tell left from right putting on shoes is a struggle range. That implies literally half the population is literally retarded.

You propose a new dichotomy between right and left in the US at least. A very common online critique of the right is that it is happy to eternalize the cost to companies who defect (food stamps for Walmart employees and bailouts for banks). Your addition would be that the left believes we should do so at the level of the individual (instead of demanding personal responsibility).

It’s a sort of measure of the things we shrug at.

I agree it’s not an existential threat - quite possibly every actually does. The people on the other side of you on the issue are not making a claim on the grounds of Utilitarianism.

Carrots are quite sweet: https://amp.abc.net.au/article/9716612

This is currently illegal and would remain so. It doesn’t matter if an inscrutable AI model produces the same model.

I don’t think fentanyl should be legal. I think people using fentanyl are very clearly in the wrong. I’m also not sure that sending addicts to jail is the best way to get them to stop. Are my beliefs consistent? I have no idea, but I also don’t particularly care. I just want people to not use, and especially so in public.

Is abortion murder? It’s at least vaguely murdery. On the flip side, no one is arguing for no fault third trimester abortions under the theory of “my body my choice” which is the logical conclusion of elevating bodily autonomy to sacrosanctity. Does my “body my choice” apply to vaccine mandates, mask mandates, assisted suicide, recreational drug use, medical drug use, the age of consent or the drinking age? Are prochoicers consistent?

Different cancers have treatments of varying efficacy. The difference of course is that we don’t have cancer advocacy, cancer pride, cancer parades, cancer lifestyle TV shows, de facto mandatory inclusion quotas for people of cancer in every form of media, constitutional protection at large, and the White House hoisting a Cancer flag in lieu of the American flag as cause celebre.

Would you estimate the distribution of user success?

The current limits on government backed loans are frozen for the rest of time. It wouldn’t fuck over current students nor would it allow for continued expansion.

Neat! Thanks for the info.

I believe changing the rules of the game while the game is in progress, very much to the benefit of one party, constitutes cheating. I don’t much care if the cheating was sanctioned by Democratic dominated state courts and federal courts refused to weigh in because of standing.

Your experience with your first crush is yet another reminder that in some ways, people are surprisingly different - like not realizing that the color blue is real and distinct, or that smells exist in the same way, or the people who are clinically blind but don’t know it. It has never occurred to me that I, or anyone else, would want to be the person of their interest - the existence of the desire itself is totally foreign.

As for the direction of causality, any stable belief probably has to be self reinforcing.

Nations do win wars though. The Confederacy was conquered after its armies were defeated and its cities razed. The kingdom of Hawaii is long gone though the spirit of aloha remains. The Comanche likewise are gone. The allies actually did conquer Nazi Germany and Japan. Their leadership was executed and their countries remade in the image of the US. Neither has waged war or even raised an army since.

At some point, a people lose the will to fight. Total war tends to be convincing to that end.

I’d be surprised if at least 75% of the difference in outcomes isn’t explained by obesity and related differences in population.

On the topic of child care, SF has the same problem. The buildings and providers alike are highly regulated, with subsidies galore and predictable results.

Regardless of social status, plumbing is not a low IQ gig (for the well paying positions at least).

That’s why you hedge against inflation and hedge against forex as routine business practice. Even medium sized businesses do this because it enables financial planning. It’s insurance, but for money.

The US military is an unexpectedly progressive institution. The hunt for more bodies to throw into the mill means recruiting the underclass. Making a competent fighting force sometimes handles the rest (although not since Vietnam).

If I had to steelman buyers agents it’s probably something like they need to exists

Why do they need to exist in the age of the internet? It’s way less overhead to hit up Zillow for leads than it is to coordinate with an agent. You’d still have an appraiser, inspector, title insurance and a bank guarding the interest of the buyer. Earnest money protects the seller. If you need coordination, a one time fee is most appropriate. Residential real estate agents pattern match to cars salesmen who are strictly negative value. They artificially inflate the cost of automobiles via unwanted human interaction and likewise exist due to cartels.

As for pricing, Zillow or the equivalent will tell you the price and estimated price since the last sale of every property in your city from a birds eye view, often with photos from the previous sale. In my metro, there is no way the average buyers agent adds 30k of value - maybe a couple of grand is reasonable. On the sellers side, a one time fee also makes more sense to do staging, photos, and listings.

Hear hear! This is the correct, Wittgensteinian interpretation.

No, not by law. Worse still, it requires eschewing recriminations for personal responsibility and community.

In my estimate, veganism is a form of deliberate cultural imperialism, centered in practice on moralizing, whose central claim is the fungibility of food and the elevation of basic necessity over any other concern…

For most of humanity, the meaning of food is culture, tradition, religion, and history. How do we practice those things or engage with external ones as a vegan? How would you break bread without the bread?

Veganism places no value on the personal or the past. It doesn’t particularly care that cuisines have meaning and value in and of themselves. How do I eat the food of my people as a vegan? How do I celebrate with them? What do we do when we gather? Veganism demands I eat foreign crops that can’t possibly be grown here which can only be prepared in ways authentic to no one.

If the ethical treatment of animals is a concern we can now engage, let’s do so. The unhealthy American diet is an eminent problem, so let’s make it better. Homogenizing the strongest component of culture world wide into beans is not a good solution.