Both parties share some responsibility; how much depends on the details of the situation. As an analogy, imagine your drunk friend asked you where his keys were because he wanted to drive. If you help him find his keys and then he drives drunk and gets into an accident then he certainly is responsible, but so are you. If you have sex with someone intoxicated and know that they will likely regret it then in my opinion you are partly responsible.
Edit: "How would you know/foresee this?" The same way you try to predict how other people will feel about something in any other social situation. Of course sometimes it is possible to make an honest mistake. For example, suppose that someone wants to have sex with you and tells you over and over that they just want to hook up but later you find out that they really wanted a relationship. In most such situations, I think your position would be quite defensible and the person who wanted to have sex with you should bear most or all of the responsibility for their decision. But I think anyone who's been an adult long enough has seen some situations where a man was knowingly using a woman's emotional neediness for sex and I don't think that's a good thing (and even less so if intoxication is involved). By the way, I think you could read Moran's advice to young men from the OP's post as, in part, advice for "how to know/foresee this."
pro_sprond
6mo ago
I was assuming we were in the context where the girl is already drunk and perhaps so intoxicated that she may not be making decisions she would agree with when sober. In this context, I think it may be hard to determine if part of her reason for getting drunk was to make it easier to get laid (and I wouldn't necessarily trust the accuracy of an extremely drunk person's response to such a question).
pro_sprond
6mo ago
But people IRL exist who think the USA should engage in coercive eugenics that ends in a whiter society.
Totally agreed that such people exist (though I suspect that they're not very common). In my view such an opinion is appalling, but I do think it's pretty funny to be afraid of America becoming a majority black country.
pro_sprond
6mo ago
Let's suppose for the sake of argument that you can perfectly tell the difference. Even so, many other young men probably cannot and for these young men, Moran's advice is probably useful.
Also, it's sort of funny that you are confident you can always tell the difference and fuckduck9000 thinks it is impossible (though in a slightly different context).
pro_sprond
9mo ago
My guess is that they still wouldn't, though it would depend on exactly how mediocre the husband was. But if he really would be lucky to get a tenure-track position at a small, unheard-of state school (as you said) then I would be pretty surprised if Stanford would really be willing to hire him to a tenure-track research position.
pro_sprond
9mo ago
What are the odds that their partner is sufficiently below average to drag the level of the university down?
Yes, for the university it is probably a net improvement (at least in terms of prestige). But for the field as a whole or for the broader society, it may not be.
pro_sprond
9mo ago
Within the fields I'm familiar with, there is a clear and reasonably large difference in quality between the median researcher at a top university and the median researcher at a mid-tier university. So I'm not sure I agree with you.
pro_sprond
11mo ago
I'm not sure why you keep insisting on specifying "cloth or surgical masks" when the OP just said "masks." Also, there is a major societal dispute about whether masks (including N95 and the like) are effective. It seems reasonable to expect someone who claims they are "entirely ineffective" to have decent supporting evidence.
Let me just ask you directly: do you think it's true that N95 masks are entirely ineffective at reducing the spread of covid? If so, do you think the evidence for this is so obvious that no reasonable person should question it? If not, then I'm not sure what we're arguing about.
pro_sprond
11mo ago
My point was basically that Alex Jones's peaks of "bat shit crazy" are much more extreme than RFK Jr's. I agree that Alex Jones is entertaining, but that's very distinct from the question of his level of craziness.
pro_sprond
11mo ago
It seems to me there are two different claims here. First, did the evidence for the effectiveness of masks in reducing spread of covid warrant government mandated masking? Second, is the evidence against the effectiveness of masks strong enough to warrant the claim that they are "entirely ineffective"? I am not interested in arguing about the first claim. For the second claim, which is specifically the claim OP reported RFK Jr making and therefore the claim that is relevant to this discussion, I do not think you have provided strong evidence. For example, you only mention cloth and surgical masks and do not discuss other masks such as N95. I realize that the efficacy of cloth and surgical masks is relevant to the policy question, but leaving out N95 and the like is unconvincing if you want to argue that masks are "entirely ineffective" (and note that in my original comment I specifically mentioned that cloth masks are not very effective). Also, citing a single study that claims surgical masks reduce covid spread by 10% in the old and then vaguely hand-waving about people being skeptical of that study does not convince me that masks are entirely ineffective. It might convince me that surgical masks are not very effective or that the costs of requiring masks are not worth the benefits, but that was not the question at hand.
pro_sprond
1yr ago
Due to increasing education polarization and affinity of liberals for AA, I actually wonder if, somewhat perversely, states that don't implement AA would have to worry about talented students and workers leaving to go to other states.
pro_sprond
6mo ago
I honestly find this a very strange attitude. First, sex can and often does have nontrivial physical consequences, ranging from mild soreness the next day to pregnancy or STDs. Second, many people obviously have a very strong emotional reaction to sex. I certainly think emotional consequences are different from physical consequences but I don't think they don't matter at all. For example, suppose you had a child and told them they are stupid and unlovable. No necks have been broken and yet it's clear that your actions are morally relevant (I'm not trying to equate this example to drunk sex, just trying to point out that physical harm is not a prerequisite for moral relevance). I think having sex with someone that you know they will later regret carries some moral weight. Obviously a lot depends on the situation, often both parties are partly responsible and just because something is morally wrong doesn't mean it should necessarily be illegal. But I think it's wrong to discount it completely.
pro_sprond
6mo ago
I mean if that's really your view then I guess I probably can't argue you out of it. But it honestly seems kind of strange to me. Suppose that your friend gets really drunk and wants to drive his car. Assume for the sake of the thought experiment that he's going to drive it on a totally deserted road so there's no risk of him hurting other people. You think it would be funny to watch him drive his car drunk so you give him his keys when he asks. He then crashes his car and gets badly hurt. Do you really mean to say that his injury is strictly his responsibility and you have no blame at all?
pro_sprond
6mo ago
Why does the man have the responsibility to look into the future and use his good judgment, when the woman couldn’t be bothered/failed to do so?
As I think I stated pretty clearly, my view is that both parties share some responsibility and how much each one is responsible depends on the details of the situation. When people are extremely drunk they often make bad decisions. Of course they are responsible for making those bad decisions, but if you abet them then you are also responsible. And even more so if you knowingly abet their bad decisions for your own benefit.
I don't think I'm saying anything too crazy or that most people would even argue with if sex and gender weren't involved.
pro_sprond
4mo ago
I agree it seems likely that Peter Singer acted poorly in his relationship with his accuser (though it also seems likely she acted poorly as well), but I feel you are a little too trusting of her narrative. You really can't imagine any other facts that would change your judgement of Singer? What if the accuser misled him about her own relationship (e.g. telling him she was polyamorous, etc)? I'm not claiming that it's likely that happened, but it does not seem impossible.
pro_sprond
6mo ago
Okay, thanks for the clarification. I agree that it's certainly possible to make an accurate guess in many situations but I also don't think everyone possesses this skill.
I don't think @fuckduck9000 thinks it's impossible either just that the difference doesn't matter. Unless I'm misunderstanding.
He said "How would you know/foresee this?" in response to my comment "I think having sex with someone that you know they will later regret carries some moral weight" which was in the context of potential problems with having sex with drunk people. It's not quite the same as saying it's impossible to know when a drunk person really planned to get drunk in order to have sex and when they didn't, but it's not so different.
pro_sprond
9mo ago
Yeah, I wasn't trying to disagree with you. I agree it may be revealing about what Lance himself believes (perhaps I didn't indicate that clearly enough). I just wanted to comment that there are pretty good responses to this question, even for the most die-hard of abortion advocates.
pro_sprond
9mo ago
- I should have said something more like "techniques for producing of graphene" (early 2000s) than discovery of graphene (1961 as you said).
- I don't think you can seriously argue that quantum computing "largely came out of industry." The idea was, in the first place, entirely dreamt up by academics like Richard Feynman, David Deutsch, Umesh Vazirani and others. The first truly convincing application of quantum computers was the factoring algorithm discovered by Peter Shor, another academic. Quantum error correction, which is necessary for quantum computers to work in practice, was also developed by academics. And even experimentalists actually building quantum computers for corporations, like John Martinis, were trained by and worked in academia until fairly recently (Martinis was hired by Google in 2014, but had already worked on quantum computing in academia for years).
- You're mostly right about high temperature superconductors, but even there, the discoverers were trained in academia.
pro_sprond
9mo ago
I'm curious what you mean. Did you also find my post bizarre? If so, why?
pro_sprond
9mo ago
How about the discovery of graphene or the development of quantum computing? Going back a little further, how about high temperature superconductors (not to be confused with room temperature superconductors)?
pro_sprond
9mo ago
I am aware that schools like Cornell are in relatively remote locations. However, doesn't this suggest for couples where one partner is an academic and the other partner is a non-academic with a high-powered career (e.g. lawyer or surgeon or something) the academic partner would have a lot of trouble accepting a job at Cornell? Perhaps the lesson is that in an era in which two-career households are common, top research universities in remote locations just don't make much sense.
pro_sprond
11mo ago
It may be that the classic "insane Jones belief" was "chemicals in the water are turning the frogs gay" however I don't think that's close to his actual craziest (publicly stated) belief. In general, it is possible that someone is known for being crazy and is crazy, but is not crazy for the reasons for which they are generally believed to be crazy.
pro_sprond
1yr ago
I didn't claim that the UC system made no attempts to circumvent Prop 209, only that these attempts, at least for the first decade after Prop 209, did not manage to bring admissions numbers close to where they were before Prop 209. That seemed to contradict the phrase "comprehensively violating Prop 209" but perhaps we interpret the word "comprehensively" differently.
pro_sprond
1yr ago
I objected to the phrase "comprehensively violating" which to me seems to imply that Prop 209 had little to no effect on admissions numbers. I was simply pointing out that it did have a large effect on admissions even if this effect may not have been as large as in a scenario with no attempts to circumvent Prop 209.
How do you distinguish between someone who got drunk partly in order to get laid and someone who did not? Surely you agree that not every drunk girl at a party is trying to get laid and that there is some level of drunkenness where someone's failure to dissent (or even positive consent) should not be taken very seriously (e.g. if your friend got falling-down-drunk and asked you to help him jump off a bridge into shallow water you would be an awful person if you helped him do so).
More options
Context Copy link