@distic's banner p




0 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 08 20:21:04 UTC


User ID: 1034



0 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 08 20:21:04 UTC


No bio...


User ID: 1034

I think it goes against the common morality because:

(1) Old people aren't supposed to need as much money as their children, they typically don't need to pay their mortgage anymore and don't have children to take care of. A couple of pensioners with 80k$/year is a lot richer than a couple of middle age parents with the same revenue.

(2) When the parents die their money will typically be split evenly and it means that the richest sibling is paying for the others

(3) It's not easy to know what share of the success of the child is a result of the parents' labor and what is the result of the child's own merit. If the children owe something to their parents, it is probably proportional to their average income (because the parents' labor should have been shared evenly among the children and thus any variation between them is supposed to depend only on the individual labor of each child)

I don't really know. I don't think there is any disparate impact law, you'd have to prove the disparate impact is intentionnal and thus that it falls in the scope of the anti discrimination law.

France has laws against racial discrimination


Discrimination as defined in articles 225-1 to 225-1-2, committed against a natural or legal person, is punishable by three years' imprisonment and a fine of 45,000 euros when it consists in:

1° Refusing to supply a good or service;

2° Obstructing the normal exercise of any economic activity;

3° Refusing to hire, punishing or dismissing a person;

4° to subordinate the supply of a good or service to a condition based on one of the elements referred to in article 225-1 or provided for in articles 225-1-1 or 225-1-2;

5° To make an offer of employment, a request for an internship or a period of training in a company subject to a condition based on one of the elements referred to in article 225-1 or provided for in articles 225-1-1 or 225-1-2;

6° To refuse to accept a person for one of the internships referred to in 2° of article L. 412-8 of the Social Security Code.

Where the discriminatory refusal referred to in 1° is committed in a place open to the public or with the aim of preventing access to it, the penalties are increased to five years' imprisonment and a fine of 75,000 euros.

Translated with DeepL.com (free version)

Because it's visible, so it's easy to organize around it. People will know what side you are just by looking at you.

He lived for 41 years and was probably a drug addict for 10 years at least, so the probability that he dies the same week as Navalny is not higher than 1/500. Obviously you would need to count all drug addicts that could have died at the same time and perhaps there are more than 500, but I doubt it.

I admit the elections thing are just a hypothesis. However when three people opposing Putin die the same week, at least one of them is mudered and you can't get the body of the most famous, my basic assumption is that the three of them were actually murdered.

Among those people who are projected to die, how many of them are not even in their fifties? Do you really believe the helicopter pilot wasn't murdered?

I can get that you believe it's independant from navalny's death, even if it seems unlikely to me, but to assume that he is just one of those people who would have died anyway is just ridiculous. If I want to be as sacarastic as you I can ask if you think that Prigozhin was also just some unfortunate accident? I mean there are quite a few plane accidents, so it's that impossible, I suppose


I think we won't be able to agree but it's still quite weird that 3 people opposed to Putin in a way or another die within a week... what's the probability that it happens at random?

Why not them?

I guess he cannot just choose to kill anyone, there are practical limits. They must have searched for the pilot since he defected.

Yes he was a drug addict but he had been for years and he dies the same day as Navalny.

And now a pilot who defected to Ukraine and lived in Spain...

Now Dmitri Markov is also dead. The probability thatthey weren't both directly murdered is now very low...

Most western leaders did not explicitly reference the history of suspicious deaths of opposition leaders (and the fact that Navalny was poisoned once). It's just obvious to everyone

There are "elections" in Russia one month from now. Elections are a dangerous time for the power in place, even in Russia, because people can choose this time to protest. Putin just wanted to make it clear that no opposition will be allowed.

Your core point is not clear because it is an anti-analogy. Analogies are not helpful to begin with, but anti-analogies are even worse. It needs to be clarified, but let me help.

I agree that any citizen committed to democracy should make sure that the electoral process is fair. This means, above all, that the legal procedures in place have been respected, and also that nothing has occurred which cannot be codified but which seriously calls into question the sincerity of the ballot. I think you agree, but contradict me if you don't.

However, here's where it gets complicated: questioning the results (in bad faith) is also a way of trying to cheat. So a citizen committed to democracy should also view any accusations of fraud with circumspection.

He or she should therefore demand that anyone making such accusations provides, perhaps not evidence, but factual elements that lead him or her to believe that irregularities have been committed and that they are of such a nature as to call the results into question. Tell me where I'm wrong.

As I've touched upon before I think liberals tend treat the relative peace and prosperity of societies such as the US and EU as though it were a physical law (like gravity), rather than something that has to be actively cultivated and maintained

But that is precisely why losers should be required to provide proofs when they contest an election! Otherwise no peace is possible because the losers will always contest the results because it will always be in their best interest.

I like your pragmatism. There is a related argument: once there is democracy, the opposition candidate policy doesn't matter much, because you can choose another one if you want to.

You are comparing the US to countries were homosexuality is forbidden, sometimes leading to death penalty, while the original comparison was with Europe

Your example is pretty poor, you cannot tell someone "you don't trust everyone on the internet so no one can be trusted". Moreover, you ca. trust a random person and yet not trust a person arguing that "people just follow incentives"

My theory is that if you want to sell to (white) men, you'd better show female on screen. And it's better because if you are subtle enough you can even score feminism point while using women as sex objects

A ceasefire would accomplish a lot. For example, you can move a patient from hospital A to hospital B without fearing for his life, and perhaps he needs to be there now. You can leave your house if you feel it is dangerous to stay there, without being shot.

Israel don't want a ceasefire because Israel has an army of reservists. Those reservists can't be used forever, it cannot last more than a few months.

Moreover, I wonder what you think can be achieved without a ceasefire. Assume Israel kills all Hamas members, there are still a huge number of people who have lost someone (a child, a parent, an aunt...) and who will hate Israel forever.

The original question was "why do neutral people not care?" not "is it good or bad". I think it is right to say that people do not care as it happens only to a small number of children, and also that it doesn't happen to children without their parent's consent. Which means that it may happen to children, but not to those of neutral people. That is why they don't care.

Ok I didn't remember it correctly. I think economical consequences (losing money or things) are a special kind of social consequences, at least in a poll where you can't have infinitely many options

The first example falls in the case of fearing sexually transmitted diseases. I'm not sure Ebola is officially one of them but in practice it is.

Badger games fall in the case of unwanted social consequences.

So it seems to me you don't need another case. But perhaps I'm missing something

It's not that clear to me what they mean with "mother/daughter". Looking at a daughter and a mother having sex (incest porn)? Or for a daughter to want to have sex with her own mother? Or for a mother to have desires for her daughter? Because incest porn is quite widespread, but it's not the same as being excited by your own daughter.

But why did you cared about those motives at all?

will drive them towards other less restrictive platforms.

Why would such platforms survive? Surely, if Google has to exploit "sources of revenues" because "budgets are tighter, bubbles are popping", smaller institution will have to. Or is google in a particularly bad situation?

Israel might start with Hezbollah. It's a more realistic target than Iran, and it would be more explanable to the population (we can't get rid of the Hamas because hostages but we will get rid of hezbollah). I don't really believe it will happen, it's just something possible