@pusher_robot's banner p

pusher_robot

PLEASE GO STAND BY THE STAIRS

0 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 04 23:45:12 UTC

				

User ID: 278

pusher_robot

PLEASE GO STAND BY THE STAIRS

0 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 04 23:45:12 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 278

Not that I know of. It is remarkable how much of Goldstein he has turned into among the online set.

That stuff is very low status though. I used to read a ton, but got shamed pretty hard, so I stopped.

Attraction seems like a red herring. If I have an obligation to anything, my joy at doing so is irrelevant. Nobody gets out of paying taxes due to really not enjoying it.

If we grant that people's feelings have moral weight then we're opening up quite the can of worms here.

I don't see how. We account for them in myriad other laws.

If people aren't willing to place a specific price tag on their 'feelings of attachment' then how can we know that their attachment outweighs that of the buyer's desire to have the house?

Because otherwise they would sell at that higher price voluntarily, presumably.

How ELSE can you figure out how to weigh the disparate interests here?

Voluntary transactions, the same way we clear most markets. This is only a problem because you're starting with the assumption that the owner shouldn't be able to benefit from the transaction.

I expect pedophilia and bestiality not to get normalized because kids and animals don't actually want to have sex with you, there's an actual victim there. I expect that the future will normalize a lot of things I find weird or upsetting but which don't actually harm anyone on net, which is how I see the trans movement.

Here's a mechanism: AI-generated (or hand-drawn) CP doesn't actually have any victims. No actual person is harmed on net, except by very legally tenuous chain-of-causation. By your logic, banning this is unreasonable. However there are fairly obvious paths by which the legitimization of CP which doesn't harm anyone leads to increased tolerance of CP generally, and increasing exposure and tolerance (in the lack-of-disgust sense) to the idea of child sex as a concept.

Really, for most owner-occupiers it would be a wash: the value of your home goes down, but the price of your next home goes down too. The people it really hurts are the elderly who are ready to give up home ownership and reap a windfall profit, or their heirs.

Curious, what is the source of this legal authority? That sounds facially implausible to me. Constitutionally, the President is not just nominally but actually the ultimate source of executive authority. He can't order the executive agencies to violate valid laws, but I don't see how Congress could Constitutionally constrain the executive the way you describe, and in fact I'm not aware of any such authorizing statute.

I think there is an unstated premise that all (or most) casual sex is rape, but sometimes women allow men to get away with it.

All models are wrong, but some models are useful.

It's specifically a statute against intimidating people with burning objects written for the KKK and now applied to this Tiki Torch guy. I'm not sure how broadly that will apply given most political speech doesn't involve burning objects.

Sure, but if it can be constitutionally applied in these circumstances, there's no particular reason to think a similar law without the burning requirement could not be applied to similar circumstances that don't include the burning. I.e., a law against protesting generally with an intent to intimidate. That seems a lot more likely now.

But then what consequences do you think they should face, if you think rudeness is excessive?

If true, I'd guess a combination of 1 and 2: boys are so toxic, the upside of providing something they would want to buy is more than offset by the social consequences of doing so. It is therefore safer to intentionally exclude them.

The white woman/black man "pairing" as you put it is not, as far as I am aware, a particularly new concept

That this is the most common or ideal pairing is definitely a new concept.

If the economy grows but the supply of precious metal doesn't grow at the same rate, the result is monetary deflation, which is generally undesirable for currency for a variety of reasons having mostly to do with discouraging investment.

It is a bigger and bigger stretch as time goes on. If SpaceX were losing money on each commercial flight, you would expect them to minimize the number of those flights and attempt to maximize the number of government flights. Instead, they are turning down almost no commercial partners and have increased launch cadence every year, to the point that they are putting more commercial tons into orbit than everyone else in the world combined, and growing. This would not make sense if it were not profitable for them. You believe they are burning investor capital to do this...why, exactly?

The government overcharge theory doesn't make sense either, because even if they are inflating their bids, they are still beating all competitors and managing to deliver. They could only do this if their costs are unusually low by industry standards. But if that is true, then it is also true that their commercial costs world be lower, so the lower price for those would also be profitable.

The more parsimonious explanation is just that their costs actually are lower, which makes them more profitable at market clearing prices and enables then to discount the market price without losing money.

As for Brave Horatius, I think that he and Franz Jagerstatter would find common ground in the belief that it is better to be killed by the enemy, and die with your chin up, than to compromise with sin.

Quaker-style? Do you believe it is better to be conquered than for your soldiers to kill enemy soldiers?

Eh, it's easier for me to just not read books than it is to either justify my low status choices or read higher status stuff I just don't like.

If they're telling the truth, I've seen no explanation for why they've refused to cooperate with election authorities.

One possible explanation is that they don't believe the election authorities wish to cooperate with them in good faith. For example, look at what cooperation with the FBI got John Paul Mac Isaac: they sandbagged the case, seized his property and refused to give it back, tried to deny claims that he was cooperating with them, and tried to intimidate him into silence.

It's not just the criticism, it's the ratfuckery. We're talking about constant escalation. You think it's a uniquely anti-Trump phenomenon but that doesn't seem plausible to people who've observed nothing but continual escalation this side of the millennium.

It should be apparent by now that Garland was not the middle-of-the-road moderate he was painted as in the media. Nothing stopped Obama from nominating someone more palatable to the Senate.

That's interpreting a provision that is generally applicable to the public as also applicable to the President, which I still think is questionable for the reasons I suggested.

Why? Let's suppose I hypothetically produced a jurisdiction with such a law. Would you find it invalid, and if so, on what grounds? Or is your position just that there is no chance of a slippery slope along these lines?

But, if you know that none of those things will actually happen, as everyone does, how can you condemn even the mildest of social consequences? You seem to be taking the position that only governmentally imposed consequences are morally acceptable, which seems both ridiculous and naive.

Isn't Leinenkugel available nationwide now? Summer Shandy is far and away their most popular variety.

Why are you skeptical in this case? The inference of intent is a jury finding and basically not reviewable. Are you skeptical that a jury would be unwilling to determine they intended to intimidate?