philosoraptor
No bio...
User ID: 285
The second sentence of this post does make sense, but I don't see how it's related to the first sentence. It looks more like an argument for a more robust and technologically sophisticated system for tracking voter registrations. In principle, that need not involve any change in the laws at all.
In practice, it probably would, in the specific case of Florida in 2022, but only because the system has been made intentionally confusing, if not incoherent. Implementing such a system would require creating clear rules a computer can administer, which might not exist to be programmed in without reforms to the law. I would probably be in favour of this, but that's partly because I think clear rules would make voting easier, not harder.
People should absolutely be punished for trusting bogus information because that's how you nip that shit in the bud. If you want people to trust government officials your first, last, and only priority should be ensuring that government officials are trustworthy.
Even granting your basic premise, how does your proposed remedy accomplish this? I mean... the suggestion is literally to punish more or less random third parties, who didn't do anything wrong other than believe bad information they were given. If anyone should be punished here surely it's the people who actually dispensed the misinformation. I fail to see how your proposed remedy does anything to disincentivize the behaviour it's supposedly aimed at, because it isn't even aimed at the right people. What I do see very clearly is that it's patently unjust, for the same reason. I mean... people shouldn't be punished for stuff other people did. It doesn't get more basic than that.
philosoraptor
1yr ago
Surely it makes a difference that "some dude" is a person in an official position whose job is, at least in part, to dispense accurate information about this. If anyone did anything wrong here it's them.
I guess the disagreement is largely about what kind of mens rea requirement should hold here. I don't see why voting illegally should be a strict liability thing like you apparently do, especially if the underlying goal is to prevent *intentional *voter fraud (though such votes should not be counted, if there's a way to enforce that without de-anonymizing them). Doing it with conscious intent, sure.
Yes. You made a good-faith effort to make sure you were on the right side of the law. That's more than most people do most of the time.
EDIT: If you check the link in the other post I'm about to put up as I type this, there's four types of mens rea listed there and the person in this example doesn't even meet the lowest one, negligence, described as "fails to meet a reasonable standard of behavior for her circumstances". Going out of your way to make sure what you're about to do is not a crime certainly meets any such standard.
philosoraptor
1yr ago
Not all of that (indeed, hardly any of it) is strictly true. For example:
If an undercover cop tells you to commit a crime, it's still a crime.
Sometimes. At some point it becomes entrapment; the relevant question is generally whether you showed the intention to commit some similar crime. If the cops merely provided means or informed you of a potential target, enjoy your time with bubba. But if they actively goad you into it, that's a different thing entirely. The case here is somewhere in between, it seems to me.
More generally, there are different levels of mens rea requirements already. This is not some weird form of special pleading, it's already well-established legal doctrine. For example, here's a quick summary I found on a quick Google search:
https://www.tombruno.com/articles/the-four-types-of-mens-rea/
I would argue that none of the four standards listed there are met here. Ignorance of the law isn't an excuse, true, but a total lack of morally culpable intent is.
Legitimacy doesn't derives from the government authority, nor does government authority alone absolve one from following the legitimate rules of society.
We're talking here about a "crime" that only exists because of a(n intentionally confusing) bureaucratic rule, not some well-established "legitimate rule of society".
philosoraptor
1yr ago
Yankee Stadium has 12,000 seats
As perhaps an example of your larger point, this seemed implausibly low to me (it's about 20% smaller than the smallest full-time[1] arena in the NHL, a league with a much smaller following than MLB), so I did a quick Google and turned up a figure of 54,251, about 4.5 times your number. Where are you getting 12,000 from?
[1] I'm excluding the university arena the Arizona Coyotes are temporarily housed in, as that's not meant to be a permanent arrangement.
philosoraptor
1yr ago
I fold in the spots where I'm 60% fave for all my money to save it for the 75% spots.
???
What does this mean, or have to do with the discussion? It's formatted as a quote but I can't find it in OP or anywhere else.
philosoraptor
1yr ago
Wait until you see how they carve up Canada, especially Ontario. The center of the country is in Western Canada, not Central Canada. Northern Ontario is well west of Western Ontario, and (at least going by the physical map rather than, say, one that showed population density) is not particularly far north. It's confusing even for us, sometimes.
philosoraptor
1yr ago
Sounds very /r/restofthefuckingowl .
philosoraptor
1yr ago
This model only makes sense if every participant only makes exactly one claim, which has a binary truth value, ever.
Even then, in the general case there's no reason to assume the probability it's right is exactly 50% if not known definitively. That's at best a default position for cases where you have literally no background knowledge, but that's almost never the case.
philosoraptor
1yr ago
I take it that's what he was getting at with the last paragraph, the one starting "Frankly, the argument isn't that hard to refute".
philosoraptor
1yr ago
Yeah, way too many acronyms in that post. What's "SRS"? I think, with the help of your post, I get all the others.
philosoraptor
1yr ago
"Rape culture" is probably the term he was groping for. Though come to think of it, I haven't heard much of that one in quite some time.
philosoraptor
1yr ago
Yes, I see this all the time in commentary around certain boardgames, for example. A lot of the time it's acknowledged that it's worse with the second part, but a lot of people seem to object to the first as well, at least if the word "colony" is explicitly used. This is far from universal even among the hard-core progs I encounter, but it's definitely noticeable.
philosoraptor
1yr ago
But I don't recall ever seeing dating advice, even from feminists, suggesting that any woman wants a proposition like "How about being my no-strings-attached fuck buddy?"
Not directly, and certainly not specifically about that topic. But there is quite a bit of "always be honest about what you want" messaging out there that, on the surface, seemingly points in that direction. Which does indeed seem disingenuous, because following that advice will rarely if ever work out well for the kind of guys who need dating advice in the first place. I don't really believe that "shit tests" are something anyone does in a conscious, deliberate way, but advice like that makes it easy to see why some people find it tempting to believe in them.
philosoraptor
1yr ago
Generally, I've seen a lot of women indicating both that is easy for men to get casual sex, and also women who indicate that it's not super easy for women to do that.
If they genuinely think that it's because they're comparing themselves only to the top few percent of men - the ones they'd actually consider for casual sex, that bar being far higher for most women than most men. At least in that context, virtually all men outside those few percent are invisible to them. It may literally not cross their minds (again, in that context) that other men besides those few percent exist.
philosoraptor
1yr ago
Where is the quote from? It's not in the post you're replying to, nor either of the links it contains, nor the OP.
philosoraptor
1yr ago
They don't always have good advice though. I have a friend who is pretty average looking but very charming and social and always had a girlfriend. His advice to me - which I immediately recognized as bad - was to just wait because "relationships just happen".
IME that's most women's advice, too, or at least most attractive women. And from their point of view it's perfectly true, but that doesn't make it helpful for people for whom it's demonstrably not true.
philosoraptor
1yr ago
Ah, pity. I asked because I liked it and wanted to see it in the original context.
philosoraptor
1yr ago
A significant portion of women seem to prefer sharing a top man over having a sub-par specimen for themselves.
Which women? Where? Based on what empirical evidence?
This seems to be one of those things - it has plenty of counterparts on the SocJus side of things - that's said because it follows from a theory someone is attached to, not because of any particular evidence that it's true. Outside of a very small number of poly arrangements, in which men at the top of the attractiveness scale aren't that overrepresented based on the ones I'm familiar with, I can't think of any cases where this is true. Yeah, it would logically follow if a lot of the ideas that float around the "manosphere" were true, but so much the worse for those ideas. But it's not something I actually see happening at any significant scale.
philosoraptor
1yr ago
Bit late, but:
I mostly see people monogamously pairing off. There's a small number of eternal singles, mostly men, but the norm is long(ish)-term serial monogamy. Getting a new partner generally involves the guy sticking his neck out to much greater extent than the girl but the gender balance isn't off by that much. Almost no-one in my social circles has multiple partners on the regular (even the theoretically poly people have mostly broken down into straightforward two-person relationships).
There's certainly nothing I'd be tempted to describe as "women... sharing a top man". Which for that matter, seems largely absent from your description of the state of play, as well; and this is especially true when you fill the ellipsis back in, because I certainly can't think of anything that could plausibly be described as an active preference for this on the part of women, even of the revealed variety. As has been pointed out before, ideas often assumed here, like that and the whole "alpha fucks, beta bucks" notion, IME exist primarily in the minds of incels and MRAs, and hardly at all in real life.
It's possible my crowd and I are older than the people you have in mind, but the pattern doesn't change that much when you go back to our teens and twenties. Far more frequent changes of partner, certainly, and more (but still not all that many) actively poly arrangements, but only one that I would be tempted to describe using anything close to the text I quoted.
philosoraptor
1yr ago
When you lead with "but studies show..." type arguments, it's at least implied. Later flipping to "but it's an ethical question, it's not about data" as soon as her empirical case starts to look dodgy does feel like a dishonest bait-and-switch, even if that's her real position and thus, from a narrow point of view, more honest.
philosoraptor
1yr ago
It's not a direct result of that law - it's not like the law required this firing, or anything like that. But do you really doubt that's a significant part of what set the context for this incident?
philosoraptor
1yr ago
Only 1/50 parents actually objected to nudity being shown (the other two objected to not being informed)
You (and others) talk like these are entirely disjoint concerns, but how separate are they really? Why is informing the parents required in this case in a way it isn't with, say, multiplication tables? Maybe it's a failure of imagination, but I'm having a hard time thinking of a plausible answer that isn't rooted in what some posters are calling "American prudishness".
I love this typo. Don't you dare correct it.
More options
Context Copy link