@haroldbkny's banner p

haroldbkny


				

				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 04 20:48:17 UTC
Verified Email

				

User ID: 146

haroldbkny


				
				
				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 04 20:48:17 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 146

Verified Email

I don't think I could really say much better than what @Goodguy has said in response to you. Go talk to him.

But I'll say one more thing, less directed to you than to all of the Mottezians who just loooove to spend all their time all day thinking about how much the left is full of pedophiles who can't wait to start molesting kids:
Do you know how irritating it is to have to defend a group of people whom you despise, against people who also despise those people but despise them for stupid reasons? People who want to think the left is full of pedophiles and therefore should be hated for that reason are watering down actual arguments against leftists. There's plenty of reasons to be against the left. Your efforts are better spent on those causes, and will do more to hinder leftism than this pedophilia bent.

What was the enforcement for the stay at home order? Where I was, I still drove around, took walks outside on roads and in public parks, went to the supermarket, etc. No one was threatening to stop me from doing these things, and I could have easily just gone and gotten together with people if I wanted to, gone to people's houses, met them outside in public places. Idk, maybe I was just lucky and the police never stopped me to give me a ticket for breaking lockdown, but I don't think that was the case. No one seemed worried about such things at all.

I'm not a Bush fan, but if I were to try to say:

  • He managed the country without it dissolving or getting destroyed. I know this may be a low bar to some, but I don't think it is. It must be the hardest thing in the world to be the president
  • He rallied America after 9/11. Getting the nation through that, and stoking feelings of patriotism and solace, and trying to get people to believe that they're actually safe in the face of the most unprecedented event in American history is no small feat.

It's pretty well known that the sexual revolution of the 1960s led to a lot of pedo stuff

That seems kinda like consensus-building, to me. That's clearly what ZHPL is trying to say, but it's a very controversial statement. Very many people around here are trying to connect both present-day and past leftism to pedophilia, and even though I can't stand the left, I can't stand when people try to make that connection even more. I find it insulting that ZHPL justs waves his hand in that general direction and is like "people got into leftism in 1968, and than all of a sudden 9 years later: BAM! age of consent was revoked (in France)". It's almost comical.

Alan Ginsburg was a member of NAMBLA. Lolita was considered a classic. Roman Polanski was Humbert Humbert in real life and the French celebrated and protected him.

There are pedophiles everywhere. You know the arguments: The plural of "anecdote" isn't data. Chinese Robber Fallacy, etc.
I hate when people try to say the Right is full of pedophiles because some priests molest kids and some backwoods rednecks are inbred, so I also hate it when people gesture at the left for similar things.

Today, of course, we see a strange bifurcation where 23 year old women are incapable of consenting to sex with a 40 year old man, but its okay to subject young children to intense discussions and demonstrations of sexuality. Perhaps he's trying to invoke all of that. I don't know. His writing is vile.

I have no argument with you on most of this paragraph, especially with regards to the strange bifurcation existing in leftist thought.
Though I may slightly disagree with you about whether most leftists are okay with "demonstrations" of sexuality for minors. They definitely are okay with "discussions" with minors, and I think they go too far there, but I don't know if they're really mostly down with "demonstrations". Other than the aforementioned pedophiles, who as I mentioned before are everywhere and on all sides.

You ignored the modern part, and tried to defend the 1970s left

I'm not really interested in arguing about the 1970s left without connection to the modern left, tbh, I simply have little interest in the subject. But look at the timestamps and you'll see that your caveat of

Furthermore, I am not talking about the modern-left

Came after the post you just replied to.

Is any of this supposed to contradict what I said in my last post?

There are pedophiles everywhere. You know the arguments: The plural of "anecdote" isn't data. Chinese Robber Fallacy, etc.

Where I was, anyway, (northeastern US) I don't think the government was threatening to imprison for such things. I could be wrong, but I remember it all being advisories, but people were still free to do whatever they wanted. I know Australia and China had intense lockdowns imposed, but how many other places did? Were there any places in the US that took that approach?

You sound like someone on the Left saying that even if the average conservative isn't racist, it's creating a haven for racists to normalize their racism, which is bad because we need to stop any and all racists at all costs. Therefore, we need to throw all support behind the left to stop the proliferation of racism. Just replace racist with pedophile and right with left.

Bragg's theory

What's that? Isn't that about x-ray diffraction?

I have no reason to doubt them, they aren't really woke at all and weren't big on MeToo

Are they anti woke? If not then maybe it's worth reconsidering if you should doubt them. Me Too captured the hearts and minds of women everywhere, except the anti woke. Everyone loves being told that they're a victim, that they're uniquely put upon. People will internalize this if it's a dominant message in society.

In all honesty, no. I can't say I do without severely watering down the meaning of the word empathy. If I felt a non zero unit of empathy for every dying child in this world I'd be emotionally crippled by the weight of the world's suffering.

That's definitely true, and a real issue for having empathy for all of humanity. It's a problem I have as well, I don't think having empathy exactly like that is effective or helpful for anyone.

However, I get around it by not thinking about the quantity of children/people dying around the world. Just think of them as if they're one, or a few people who are dying and need malaria nets or whatever. Think about, try to feel, how much pain they're experiencing, how scared they are, how scared and sad their family is, etc. That way, you can feel the empathy, which can get you to take positive action, but not have to be destroyed by the scale of how many people out there need help.

Well, for whatever it's worth, I've always been someone who hates people who hate other people for hating people. That's just the way I am. I'm a 3rd order hater. I guess I feel like the proper response to dealing with bigots is to admonish them, but try to do better yourself, not to debase yourself like they do, and not to play the victim.

I disagree. Elon can try to have an iron grip on his company, but once again, companies are huge. So much information can get lost in the shuffle, from him to individual teams, or from teams actions to him. They very well might not know every individual thing he's said or promised, and he absolutely cannot not know, and probably doesn't care to follow every single ban they do. It'd be impossible for him to have that visibility and still have time to run the company. In-person print-out code reviews are probably nothing like this, because it probably was process that's cascaded down to teams. I don't believe for a second that Musk was actually successfully reviewing every code review himself, that would completely fail to scale.

I do find this phenomenon very interesting. I've encountered people many years ago who told me that if I really despise modern feminism so much, I should call myself a feminist and work to reform it from the inside. When is it appropriate to do it, and when it it not? I know that I call myself a liberal, partly to try to "reclaim" the label, partly because it makes people (in my circles, anyway) not just want to write you off as crazy or hateful, and partly because I do believe in classically liberal values, even though liberalism really does more often than not mean leftism these days.

But in general, I am often against such appropriation. Like you say, it's highly confusing, and it seems really intellectually dishonest in certain cases.

I am also a consistent blood donor. Why don't you give through the Red Cross? Is there some reason Vitalent is better that I should know about? I'd never heard of them before your post.

I have absolutely no context on it, and I'm interested to hear what others say, but I thought it might have to do with women being the arbiters of social acceptability, women determine what ideas get passed on what ideas don't. Men tend to look to women for moral guidance on what is okay to think, okay to talk about, okay to do.

I think the idea that women are the arbiters of social acceptability is itself a controversial idea, but it's one that I believe is true, nonetheless.

I definitely believe both you and OP that there are probably people for which these drugs have no effect. But I also think it's worth doublechecking, since I definitely had my aforementioned experience.

I fail to see how their system deals with pedophilia any worse than a traditional system. You say elsewhere that "there is no Schelling point", but there is a clear Schelling point to Leftists, which is where basically everyone on the Left found it, which is that you shouldn't have sex with young children, because young children can't consent, because there are power dynamics in play and children will be taken advantage of, which is wrong. Just like @token_progressive says, people on the Left will say the converse thing, that people on the Right are more likely to engage in pedophilia, and they'll point to all kinds of things like Catholic sex scandals and the like.

Consider as well, something that Jonathan Haidt writes about in The Righteous Mind, that people's moral judgements are not reasoned out, but are instead driven by intuitions and post-hoc rationalizations. From Haidt:

Julie and Mark, who are sister and brother, are traveling together in France. They are both on summer vacation from college. One night they are staying alone in a cabin near the beach. They decide that it would be interesting and fun if they tried making love. At the very least it would be a new experience for each of them. Julie is already taking birth control pills, but Mark uses a condom too, just to be safe. They both enjoy it, but they decide not to do it again. They keep that night as a special secret between them, which makes them feel even closer to each other. So what do you think about this? Was it wrong for them to have sex?

Most people who hear the above story immediately say that it was wrong for the siblings to make love, and they then begin searching for reasons. They point out the dangers of inbreeding, only to remember that Julie and Mark used two forms of birth control. They argue that Julie and Mark will be hurt, perhaps emotionally, even though the story makes it clear that no harm befell them. Eventually, many people say something like, 'I don't know, I can't explain it, I just know it's wrong'

You'll likely find that most people are against pedophilia (along with necrophilia, incest, and anything else that people have strong moral disgust reactions to) and will be against it for many different reasons. Their intuitions and disgust of pedophilia are there first, and then they come up with the reasons afterward as for why pedophilia is actually bad.

Haha, sorry! I try to make it a rule not to read articles about Trump toxoplasma. Especially whatever is the latest charges he's brought up on. Also, I thought he was saying something more general, like Godwin's law or something.

Yeah, they're good points. I don't think there are clear answers to this.

I can't speak to EA funding politics stuff, but a few years ago when I was giving more to Against Malaria, it was certainly nice to be able to think about how this small amount of money would help to save real people's lives. Every bit helps to create a better world.

As far as people near us vs people far from us, yes, I agree that it should be more morally incumbent on us to better the lives of the people around us, vs far away and unrelated. But why not both? Some reasons you may want to donate to an EA style charity:

  • your money does go further in Africa than it does here. There's not anything you can do to save your friend's life for $5. If there is anything, then you definitely should do it

  • there are complex social politics that will go on in situations of you and the people you personally know. they may be offended that you think they're a charity case, they may not want to accept money cause it'd get weird, etc

  • tax writeoff

Can you elaborate? Why would the anti-execution lobby want more painful deaths?

Thanks! I kept thinking of The Pyramid and the Garden and kept combing through it to try to find it, but it is funny that it's actually from Scott's post about this exact topic!

I have two fitness goals at the moment, in priority order:

  1. Lose pounds of fat
  2. Gain pounds of muscle

For the recent past, I've been focusing on this by adopting a more "bulking" strategy, wherein, I'd use larger weight for my exercises, and try to push my muscles to hit higher and higher weight limits. I'd usually do this by doing 2 to 3 of sets of 12 to 15 reps for each muscle, trying to push myself to muscle failure. So basically, more weight, less reps.

However, for achieving my stated goals, how does the above bulking strategy compare to a "toning" strategy, where I'd essentially be doing less weight, for more reps, and more time. With this sort of strategy, I may be doing up to 5 minutes of reps at a time, but with 1/2 to 1/3 of the weight as I'd be doing for bulking.

Which strategy is better to help me achieve my goal? Or should I do a mix, in which case, what percentage of time should be spent on each?

Well, I can't say that I know for a fact other platforms would be able to survive. But I bet that there will be a bunch that would be willing to try, to fill in the gap of YouTube. I also think it's likely that some Big tech companies are in very different situations than small ones, enough that they may want to try to cash in their chips where others may not

If you go home with someone and discover that their genitalia are different from what you had presumed, you are perfectly entitled to leave.

What if you can't tell visually? I've heard that surgeries of this sort these days produce a very realistic looking vagina, even if it doesn't feel realistic, such that you may only know by actually sticking your penis in. And even then, many people may not even know what a fake vagina feels like, they may assume something else is up.