cjet79
Anarcho Capitalist on moral grounds
Libertarian Minarchist on economic grounds
User ID: 124
cjet79
10mo ago
This doesn't give me a lot of hope for you. You are basically doing the same thing again, and I'm not even here to argue about the object level disagreement.
cjet79
10mo ago
to a Isreali woman's right to choose not to be raped
What about European women's right not to be raped by the migrants IsraAID is bringing into Europe? What about the christians in the middle east that are being destroyed by the hostile nation of Israel?
....
I have no issue with them delivering death to people who are trying to infect the Middle East with gender studies and push millions of migrants into Europe.
...
wars for wokeness in the Middle East
Most of your participation in this thread has been unimpressive. You are generally just stating that you don't like certain groups. And then describing things in ways that sound more like waging the culture war than sharing any useful information.
This needs to not be how you engage. Its obnoxious. If you can be replaced by a button that just responds every time with "I hate [my outgroup]" then you are failing to participate and engage in a valuable way.
This is a warning. Next time will be temp bans.
cjet79
11mo ago
Suppose communism is bad. How do you teach normies this?
This has been a goal of the libertarian and classical liberal movements for the last century.
I'll try and create a basic walk-through of the general argument. Every single part of it has been greatly elaborated on.
Step 1: The golden rule. Treat others how you'd like to be treated. Establish this first to create some basic level of empathy, and to expand into the idea of rights.
Step 2: Self-Ownership. All humans own three things: their life, their actions, and their body. Taking control of these things from them without their consent is murder, slavery, or rape. Hopefully whoever you are talking with is on board with this.
Step 3: Property-ownership. Humans like to possess things. This is mostly a practical matter. Start small with something the person you know likes to possess, their phone, their car, their clothes, etc. Dyed in the wool communists will generally try to make a distinction between "possession" and "ownership". Don't let them, the distinction is mostly meaningless. Possession is just about how immediately visible your ownership is. Just slowly expand the physical distance between them and their possessions to help them get the point. "You dropped your phone, do you no longer possess it? You left your phone somewhere, should whoever finds it get to keep it?"
Step 4: Examples. You have enough at this point to tear down any communist system. (even just step 1 and 2 might be enough, but step 3 makes it easy). Ask them to provide examples of a communist system or setup, and then show how it violates one of the things they already agreed on. Be aware that communist systems lean heavily into slavery and forced work, so if they don't want to provide examples ask them how a communist system will deal with lazy people / bad jobs / difficult jobs.
cjet79
11mo ago
Lol ya I was way off. Sorry got you mixed up in a different tab. I'll fix it above
gattsuru has 18 AAQCs.
naraburns has 14.
Urquan has 13
Walterodim has 8.
self_made_human has 7.
IGI-111 has 4.
functor, raakaa, and DTulpa each have 1.
Stevekirk and ABigGuy4U have none yet.
Overall seems like a lot of user overlap with the AAQCs, but matches what some people notice that it can feel a bit like a crapshoot which of their comments make it into the AAQC roundup.
cjet79
11mo ago
"I believe you are stupid" has never been an ok thing to say on this forum. Even if it is entirely true and you definitely believe it. The first bullet point on the rules sidebar is "Courtesy" that ordering is intentional.
If you are asking how to be discourteous to people you don't like and follow the rules around here it is quite simple:
- Close themotte tab in your browser.
- Open X, facebook, or some other social media account
- Be as discourteous as you want over there.
cjet79
11mo ago
I think the solution for most (nearly all?) of these scenarios is for the cyclists to go slower.
If you are a car in a crowded city you should not expect to be able to travel very fast, and certainly no where near the maximum capabilities of your vehicle and personal reaction times. Some cyclists seems to have this expectation.
I rode a bicycle on a university campus for 3 semesters until it got stolen. Its basically nothing but super crowded sidewalks constantly, with occasional glimpses of open space where you can go a little faster. I never hit anyone during this time. I also wasn't trying to go ~18mph.
If cyclists want safety they should go slower and stay on sidewalks. Safety is what I want when I'm on a bicycle so that is what I do.
If cyclists want speed they can go on the road, but they need to accept that what they are doing is incredibly dangerous and they are risking life and limb every time.
It probably won't be their fault if they get hurt. But the world sucks, and you sometimes need to treat it like its out to get you.
cjet79
11mo ago
cyclists are suicidal, law-breaking, moving hazards and that most of them are far too stupid and/or arrogant to be allowed on the road. Ever.
This is overly antagonistic. Don't do this.
cjet79
11mo ago
I think having something in between would be good. There are still some determinations that need to be made.
Are you gonna take street space or sidewalk space to make the in-between area?
What kind of general rules are they going to follow when they cross or interact with the streets or sidewalks?
I think they should generally be place in the sidewalk side of things, because the capabilities of these light vehicles is closer to pedestrians than it is to cars and trucks.
It is certainly going to be slower for the cyclists, scooters, e-bikes etc. But in a crowded city I don't see why anyone gets the right to complain they can't go as fast as they'd like. If they are currently getting in a lot of collisions at speeds that cause injuries to them, then that suggests slowing them down would have safety benefits.
cjet79
11mo ago
Yes, speed is exactly the problem.
If the posted speed limit is higher than a vehicle's maximum speed than it is dangerous for that vehicle to be there. Most vehicles in most circumstances travel much slower than their maximum speed.
I think bicycles should be expected to slow down on dangerous areas of a sidewalk, just like cars are expected to slow down in dangerous areas or when the speed limit is reduced.
Speed limit signs on sidewalks would be much cheaper to implement than bike lanes.
cjet79
11mo ago
Where I live it is an objectively better experience than being on the roads if you care at all about personal safety.
What are your specific objections to sidewalks? And could either of those objections be solved by:
- Money spent on bike lanes instead being spent on sidewalk maintenance.
- Driving slower on the bicycle.
Until someone else pointed it out I had no idea just how fast cyclists expected to be able to go on their preferred pathway. I'll admit I have little tolerance for this complaint since they would happily have all drivers significantly slow down to accommodate them.
cjet79
11mo ago
I don't live in a dense urban area. There are dedicated bike and pedestrian paths in my area. When traveling between the pedestrian paths I'm generally taking it slow on sidewalks that are mostly unused by pedestrians, because the area is otherwise dominated by cars. The few pedestrians around are often the homeless.
My other main experience with cycling is on a university campus. Which is full of people and obstacles.
I'm not a super cyclist, and I've never done it as a commute, but my experience is not zero.
Complaining that you can't go over 15mph is like people complaining they can't drive 40mph in a neighborhood. The solution is to drive slower and more cautiously.
In general there are going to be tradeoffs with various solutions. I have a personal strong preference for safety in all parts of my life. If I was forced to ride a bicycle everywhere I'd generally choose to ride slowly on the sidewalk.
Since I'm not forced to do that I instead drive in a car, and I will never ride a motorcycle.
Two wheeled vehicles are just inherently dangerous, and I sometimes think it's insane that any of them are allowed on roadways with how much the government and culture profess to value safety over peoples personal preferences.
cjet79
11mo ago
I'm fine with motorcycles being on the road. They would share most of the efficiency gains of size with bicycles, without as much of the discrepancy in capabilities.
I've also been to cities in India. As insane as they are about safety I still didn't really see human powered bicycles on the road all that much.
They were generally far denser than western cities. And the cities were not originally created with cars in mind. They still had plenty of cars.
The reason is pretty straightforward: cars are a clearly superior product in terms of travel comfort and safety.
cjet79
11mo ago
I just don't believe that cyclists are such huge divas that they will take a slightly worse experience for a significant improvement in personal safety. If they feel that way why do any of them wear helmets? That is also a comfort vs safety tradeoff, and everyone has seemingly been fine with that mandated tradeoff. Why not this one?
cjet79
11mo ago
They are far more visible than pedestrians that can effectively disappear behind street light poles.
The world is not gonna be perfectly safe in any circumstances, I don't believe I claimed that anywhere. I'll repeat what I asked Nybler: do you think the total cost to life and limb would be lower or higher? I strongly believe it would be lower.
It's just very difficult to believe that you have any meaningful cycling experience to draw from here.
Again, bad discussion. What exactly do you think happens if we go down this dick measuring contest path?
I say I have X experience. You say "I don't believe it". I say what experience do you have. You say XYZ experience. I say "I don't believe it". One of us doxes ourselves to provide evidence and win an internet argument?
And is this a general principle you support or are you just pulling it out to win this specific argument? Do you think white people shouldn't say much on this forum when some black person complains about racism?
Experience is a form of appeal to authority. Authority requires identity. There is little real life identity on this forum. Calling for someone to have some specific experience and then questioning it when they say they have the experience is either you having terrible debate hygiene and low awareness of how this forum works. Or its trolling, since it seems perfectly designed to antagonize.
cjet79
11mo ago
Do you think the total damage to life and limb would go up or down? I strongly believe it would go down.
In areas where the slowest transport method has enough political power they can just ban all other transport methods in their space. And they are likely to want to ban faster transport methods first. Imagine if cyclists outnumbered cars ten to one. They'd probably just lobby to ban cars.
If some space must be carved out of somewhere for the sake of cyclists, I think sidewalk space should be carved out before street space. And that cyclists should be held to sidewalk rules rather than street rules, since they can more easily follow sidewalk rules.
cjet79
11mo ago
Entities travelling at variable speeds is going to cause someone some risk somewhere.
I don't pretend that the risk goes away.
Still, I think the best way to split up travelling entities is based on the existence of a motor.
Motors generally behave the same. They are good for constant speed. They can quickly and repeatedly reach their maximum speed. They perform at the same level until they are out fuel.
Human powered transport generally behaves the same. Momentum is important, so stopping is bad. They cannot quickly and repeatedly reach a maximum speed from a stopped position (unless they are world class athletes). They are not good at maintaining a constant speed, except very very low speed.
I don't think it is hard for bikes and pedestrians to share space. There is a paved nature trail near my house it's commonly just bikes and people walking/running. They get along fine. I've been both a walker and bike rider on the trail. Neither have been a problem. Even when it gets pretty crowded.
cjet79
11mo ago
I don't find sidewalks to be that terrible to ride on. It is certainly far less scary than riding on the road worrying about cars that might come kill me. And intersections are currently very dangerous because cyclist are on the road, not on the sidewalks.
If you just want cyclists to stop their stupid hobby, you should say that rather than proposing a solution that's obviously unworkable and that you've apparently been told is unworkable by cyclists.
This is bad discussion.
cjet79
11mo ago
I have always felt that roads should exclusively be for motorized vehicles. And sidewalks should exclusively be for human powered means of locomotion (including cycles).
The benefits are:
- Sidewalk infrastructure is already pretty ubiquitous and does not require new investments or changes to traffic patterns.
- Crashes between cyclists and pedestrians are at slower speeds and less likely to result in deaths.
- Roadways are made safer. Drivers can expect other motorized vehicles and nothing else.
The common complaints I hear and my rejoinders:
- Sidewalks are not as comfortable to ride on. - tough luck, or suggest changes to sidewalks to make them better for you.
- Cyclists and pedestrians would get into accidents. - the accidents would not be as bad as cyclists and vehicles
- Pedestrians are slow and annoying to deal with for cyclists. - this mirrors the complaint that drivers have against cyclists. It is universally annoying to deal with much slower entities in a travel situation. Cars : Road Cyclists :: Sidewalk Cyclists : Pedestrians.
I think if the political will of cyclists had been spent on just making sidewalks legal for them then everyone would be much better off.
cjet79
11mo ago
Thanks for posting the thread arjin.
My own update is some mixed success with underwater hockey.
We have made progress on getting access to a new pool for the local area players.
Meanwhile I found that the university club will temporarily be unable to use their normal pool. Terrible timing for recruiting. I think the same thing happened last year. If the university wasn't generally incompetent I'd say they were trying to actively sabotage us.
The university offered to get pool times at nearby local pools in the meantime, but the times offered were garbage. Middle of the day or early early morning. Both of which are a no-go for a casual fun sport.
I'm hoping to turn this into a positive. The university club and the local area players have been disconnected for a while. I'm hoping to get more attendance by university players at the local area players practices. This disconnection is also partly the fault of the university. There was a rule implemented only a few years ago that forbid the non-students from playing in the student club practices.
I'll be attending a recruiting event tomorrow at the university.
cjet79
11mo ago
I wish you the best of luck, but damn I can't imagine trying to convince anyone at this point. My circle of diverse political friends does not include anyone who is both paying attention and not heavily disillusioned.
Glenn Greenwald is maybe your best bet. Especially for convincing progressives.
cjet79
11mo ago
It does vary a lot but I think the heuristic generally works.
There are two reasons why I think it works:
- In cases where the worker has more technical skills than the boss, like engineering, it makes sense to outsource the training and skill assessment to professionals. Physical engineering, and medicine are often in this category.
- In cases where worker output is just vague or unmeasurable, bosses need to justify why they are hiring someone to their bosses. A degree is a decent and widely accepted justification. Certain parts of marketing / HR / corporate communications / legal. Can all be like this.
No one cares about degrees in sales jobs, because sales is often one of the easiest things for bosses to track.
Despite the state of government I'm not that pessimistic about the results. I think without either movement we would be in a much worse spot.
Are they winning? No, of course not. But they do impact the discourse and the Overton window.
I consider the classical liberals a sort of permanent opposition elite. They are fully capable of using academia and the courts to fight their battles, and they are probably more represented in those institutions than run of the mill religious conservatives.
More options
Context Copy link