fuckduck9000
11mo ago
Ah, interesting, and a valid answer. In that case, I resent the deontologist tyranny.
fuckduck9000
11mo ago
So why are you still deleting your stuff? You’re making the last glorious bits of human internet unreadable. Destroying priceless artefacts, cave paintings of the new age.
fuckduck9000
11mo ago
I find it extremely grating because, especially if you're another women, you have to accept it as a timeout since continuing with a (fair) argument or complaint if the other woman is streaming crocodile tears is considered rude and unacceptable.
Why 'especially if you're another woman'? At least you can cry back as a woman. Women’s childish behaviour is socially sanctioned, they are empowered to switch at will between being considered a child or an adult. And if you point this out or talk like you did, as a man, then it’s sexism. For carrying the burden of being the only sane adult in the room, men are called 'emotional cripples' .
fuckduck9000
11mo ago
You have a more naive view of social relationships than I do (or rafa : see ‘crocodile tears’) . It’s all about incentives. Boys are not rewarded for crying, so they learn not to cry. We’d be bawling our eyes out right now if there was status in it. It’s funny, even on the internet, in communities unlike this one, people will signal that they are upset to "win an argument".
fuckduck9000
11mo ago
Nonsense. Your writing is first rate, and deletion allows Hlynka to make stuff up. Then I have to remember and look for my replies to your comments, and play reverse battleship on your positions to correct him.
fuckduck9000
11mo ago
It's not 100% biological or environmental, and I'm not that conservative, more MRA than redpill.
A man can simply say "I'm sorry you feel that way" and walk away
That’s not going to go over well, plus you cede the field and adopt her frame (just like “I’m so sorry you feel that way, there, there”). She should be the one apologizing "I’m sorry I’m upset. I’ll be in my room.”
fuckduck9000
11mo ago
They can but shouldn’t. We need to stop rewarding (or punish) this behaviour in women, like it is punished in men.
Two parts. First, correct the inequity in allowing this behaviour in women versus men. Then determine which rules we want to universally apply. My rules applied fairly> your rules applied fairly > your rules applied unfairly. I am partial to the male way of doing things here : cry = you lose the argument.
fuckduck9000
11mo ago
People can do any number of morally reprehensible things, like stealing, murdering, raping and pillaging. Being concerned that current incentives might push them in that direction is not 'moral poison'. Your willful blindness is not morally superior.
fuckduck9000
11mo ago
That's never been independently confirmed or outright stated by them, to my knowledge. Better to leave it ambiguous to avoid the inevitable ad wominem and white knighting claims that would inevitably follow.
fuckduck9000
11mo ago
They also said they occasionally switch from commenting as man or woman.
fuckduck9000
11mo ago
For children it isn't. But if a grown man threw a tantrum and broke his toys because he was upset, we'd hold him responsible.
fuckduck9000
11mo ago
What’s wrong with cost-effective punishment? I think it’s clear we spend too much resources monitoring and judging crime, and not enough actually punishing (eg, people with a ludicrous amount of convictions still plying their trade in public). That sounds like something tough-on-crime politicians say constantly. The standard response would be that the certainty of punishment is more important than the amount of punishment. I think reality has disproven that notion.
fuckduck9000
11mo ago
Could just be the upper class thing.
On the internet, claiming to be a woman both invites special treatment and accusations of wanting special treatment. Therefore strategic ambiguity is a way to avoid the “tits or gtfo” dilemma.
Given how male this place is, there is also at least a distinct probability that they are a man. Rafa’s views are so idiosyncratic that I doubt much can be gleaned from discussing their sex anyway (in the absence of an explicit claim).
If someone implicitly signals ‘whatever I am, treat me as everyone else’, I am happy to comply.
fuckduck9000
11mo ago
Even if those studies weren't suspect, it's not just about deterrence, is it? Incapacitation and retribution are impaired by these almost nominal punishments.
fuckduck9000
11mo ago
It's an iterative game. Law of large numbers, they'll get their due.
fuckduck9000
11mo ago
It stands to reason that a society with ~1 homicide / 100,000 needs to spend proportionnally less on prisons than the one with 6/100,000.
Note that, because the United States is more violent than the EU, you might expect that the US would have a higher level of spending — but it wouldn’t obviously suggest there should be a different mix between police and prison.
I beg to differ. You need police for traffic violations and murder, but you can’t send people to prison for parking tickets.
fuckduck9000
11mo ago
This assumes that they have just enough time preference and rationality to understand the difference between likely and less likely punishment, but not enough to grasp the difference in severity. Somehow they’ve mastered probabilities, but the concrete difference between 1 year suspended and 5 years in prison eludes them.
At some point “bad at” equals “incapable”. If they are incapable of controlling themselves at all (and some undoubtedly aren’t) , it’s a waste of resources.
fuckduck9000
11mo ago
On a high enough time preference, the value of the future drops to zero. Today’s crime spree fun will always be more valuable than tomorrow’s freedom.
fuckduck9000
11mo ago
The original comment here though was saying that it would be a better use of resources to catch fewer criminals but give them harsher sentences, which hardly seems like it would be a good thing for incapacitation.
Yes it would be. I'm saying the length of the sentences matters more than getting caught. If I have 100 hardened criminals, and I give half of them a 10 years sentence, that's 500 years' worth of incapacitation. Catch and release them all after 1 year provides only 100 years of incapacitation (for greater monitoring and judging costs).
fuckduck9000
11mo ago
Realize that “Homicide” and “parking tickets “ are representative of heavier and lighter forms of criminal behaviour respectively.
The data is all over the place on this police/prison ratio. If you go by homicide rate, the US is not spending nearly enough on prison.
One thing missing in this discussion is the cost of judging them, which are major costs the ‘catch a few and pound’ strategy is supposed to alleviate. Seems pointless to go through the trouble of making sure they’re guilty if they’re not going to be punished/incapacitated anyway. ‘if it weren’t for the lawyers, old boy, we wouldn’t need lawyers’.
Re that block quote, is it from the linked article?
Don't you have ways of figuring that out? The answer is Yes.
fuckduck9000
11mo ago
They possess a high score on what we might call ‘Pikeman’s z’ that makes them behave irrationnally and criminally, and a component of that factor is their high time preference T. But the z factor has other components, like an inability to accurately estimate the likelihood of something happening L (like getting caught). The plan is to give them a purely L test in the hope that they’d do well on that at least, but sadly T and L are largely correlated and they are way below average in L too.
fuckduck9000
11mo ago
More murders (higher homicide rate) should equal more time spent in prison (therefore higher prison costs, in a rich society squeamish about the death penalty). Accordingly, all else equal the US should spend 6 times more of its gdp on incarceration than western europe (instead of 0.5% : 0.2%, 2.5 : 1). Policing is a separate issue. I am arguing for longer sentences, which does not require more police. As Gary Becker says: “maximize the fine and minimize surveillance. “
fuckduck9000
11mo ago
I think the comparison is fairer if you just take europe's big four : germany 0.8 france 1.3 UK 1.1 italy 0.5 compared to US 6.4 , hence the approximation six to one.
Due to it being precisely recorded, as well as its inherent larger impact than other forms (loss of life), homicide rate is a good proxy for the damage crime as a whole inflicts on a society.
Yes that's what the law says... so back to the question, why?
We’re not making much progress here. To conclude this discussion, it’s been alright, but it remains a mystery to me why you (forget the law) think the moral status of the victim should be irrelevant, when it clearly matters to an ordinary jury and to me, and I have given a few rationales for that instinct.
More options
Context Copy link