@sun_the_second's banner p

sun_the_second

could survive a COD lobby and a gay furry discord server

0 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2023 October 31 11:26:45 UTC

				

User ID: 2725

sun_the_second

could survive a COD lobby and a gay furry discord server

0 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2023 October 31 11:26:45 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 2725

Then, consider the following:

During the period 1933-45, when literal self-identified Nazis controlled a major world power, people did not stop having children on the grounds that it would be “cruel” to bring a child into such a world. During the second world war, which claimed the lives of at least 3% of the entire world, people did not stop having children on the grounds that it would be “cruel” to bring a child into such a world. During Ireland’s Great Famine, in which a million people starved to death (perhaps as much as 11% of the country), Irish people did not stop having children on the grounds that it would be “cruel” to bring a child into such a world. During the Black Death of 1346-53, in which half of Europe was killed, Europeans did not stop having children on the grounds that it would be “cruel” to bring a child into such a world.

An element of the climate change narrative is that it's not just bad, it's only going to get worse, forever. This removes hope and stoicism that would normally spur people during a war or during the era of high infant mortality.

There is no charitable reason to specifically say "If you have significant amount of blacks in your society..." and "aggressive and violently inclined black youth will eventually get their hands on guns" unless you want to imply that the black criminals, among all criminals, are uniquely incompatible with guns. As if white, or Han Chinese, or Latino criminals don't have a tendency of getting their hands on guns should guns become available.

I consider this to be common sense and nitpicking around the exact meaning of the poster's statement, devoid of context, meaningless.

cutting race-based leniency, welfare reforms, penitentiary reforms, less glorification of crime in pop media, etc.

would be a start.

I do not consider it a strawman to treat the statement to the effect of "if you have red hair, you must drink water" as having clearly implied "if you don't have red hair, then drinking water is not necessary", even if formal logic dictates otherwise. Pretending that this statement should in fact be strictly interpreted according to formal logic insults your interlocutor's intelligence.

Rhetoric gymnastics are not what I come here for.

First, it wasn't me or even my country trying it, and second, even if it was, it appears clear that the trying was mostly in one direction. If you go the wrong way in a straight line for 60 years, it doesn't mean the destination does not exist.

I disagree both with the degree of charitability you gave the claim and with "guns and blacks do not mix well". Guns and black criminals do not mix well (well, "guns and criminals" really). It is not obvious to me that the sets of "black people" and "black criminals" are the same circle. While the 13/52 FBI stats are quoted a lot, I have never seen any stats that clarify how large a percentage of the 13 commits the 52.

There are. I'm not under the impression that there is no message at all that would teach boys that bending over backwards for everyone is not really good for them, though.

As the other poster said, I just don't recall being taught to be kind and considerate and thinking "I'm gonna fetch shit for girls". I was thinking more like, I dunno, holding the door for the person behind me.

That I agree with.

I do not observe that the message sent to men is "be a manservant to all women you know", either.

It is clear and obvious that if a criminal underclass exists, giving people guns will result in the criminal underclass (whatever their racial composition) committing a lot of shootings. I think pro-active evidence is necessary when you claim or imply (as the discussed post, interpreted with average charitability, is implying) that if black people weren't there, there wouldn't be a criminal underclass that can't be trusted with access to guns.

The favor of opening the jar here is overshadowed by the favor of fetching her jar while she is doing nothing useful.

For the record, what I imagine as the modal case of helping open a jar is one where the woman is actively making dinner and is in the process of trying to open the jar.

Here on this forum it is often stated outright or implied that those problems are strongly intractable, i.e. that there is no sociocultural intervention (cutting race-based leniency, welfare reforms, penitentiary reforms, less glorification of crime in pop media, etc.) that would, if not completely erase the gap between racial groups, at least make them decent enough neighbors. I do not find that immediately obvious or well supported.

I think this advice muddies the water between favors that might lessen respect for you (doing something that doesn't demonstrate attractive qualities and is mildly demeaning, like holding a purse or buying a drink; or doing something that demonstrates attractive qualities but also is an overinvestment on your part, like helping move a couch without expecting at least a symbolic favor in return). I find it unlikely that refusing to do something that is non-demeaning, demonstrates effortless aptitude, or both (like opening a jar) would have any impact other than negative.

Can you model a situation for me where a man, otherwise engaged in conversation with a woman (so, not busy) refuses the latter kind of favor? I struggle to imagine it in a way that doesn't make the man look petty by any standard, male or female.

Setting expectations early and actually expecting high results early are not the same thing and I do not see anyone here suggesting the latter.

You believe that sexual attraction, ceteris paribus, grows when she requests you to open a jar and you say "no"? I have not seen a single case where that was the deciding factor, except in the opposite direction.

Would you agree that assuming you want to play basketball, it would be better to teach you how to play basketball before your growth spurt hit, rather than wait until you're the tallest you'll ever be?

I believe it is both development and social factors. Minors are more likely to be in a social group revolving around delinquency and crime, on account of not having a job that would take their time up (and be a better prospect for earning money). While they are usually fed and clothed, having a way to earn extra money gives them more freedom and status. Unfortunately, the state of the job market for young people looks like the opposite of freedom and status, even if manning the counter of McDonalds does pay a bit. Thus does drug dealing look more appealing.

I do not believe robbery is always an expression of antisociality. Robbery is very high status and a lauded activity when you do it to outsiders, as part of an army or a warband. Thus we must look at the teen's connection to the broader society. Is he a part of it, and yet robbing the same kind of people he socializes with? Or does he consider society overall a separate group from himself and his warband? The society that, in your own words, pre-imprisons him?

I find it ironic that not long ago you extolled the virtue of society supporting its youth, to the extent of darkly hinting at taking everything from the useless olds, and yet it's somehow bad when teens actually rob the useless olds.

The court system is in a bind. Imprisonment as it currently exists is barbaric and appears to do the opposite of rehabilitating first-timers. Thus the court is moved to be lenient to sympathetic criminals that appear to be fixable, because no other kind of punishment exists. I increasingly favor corporal punishment. Straightforwardly and immediately unpleasant, hardly more undignified than locking you up for years somewhere where you're almost certainly be beaten just as much or more (but extrajudicially and invisibly), you don't get to hang out for years with the cool tough criminal guys in case you considered that kind of a man cool, and you go back to fixing your life immediately.

It is observed approximately across the entire world that people (especially men) are worse at impulse control and thinking of consequences in their teens than in their late 20s and onwards. That them being more prone to violence (let alone a nonviolent crime like dealing drugs) is indicative of deep genetic unfixable problems is a claim I do not find even remotely substantiated, to put it mildly.

There are crimes that do indicate deep genetic unfixable problems, but that area is closer to "serial killing" than "drug dealing".

It is a confounding factor that most penitentiary systems I know of engender recidivism, either by leniency or by doing little other than locking first-time criminals in the same social circle as other criminals, while depriving them of opportunities to build a legal and dignifying career.

Are you talking about committing the same crime, for the first time, at 15 versus 27?

I have no experience with OSR, but from what I gathered browsing one (1) OSR-related blog, the inventory problem is often solved by hiring people to lug your stuff around behind you while dungeoneering.

That's nuclear weapons. The army has a separate though overlapping purpose.

Armies exist to provide deterrence at the geopolitical level through the threat of killing people, not to kill people. Auschwitz guards exist to kill people. There's a difference.

What would be stronger evidence, in your opinion?

It doesn't. However, R2D2 acting agentically is evidence towards it having qualia, as is it being a viewpoint character in a Star Wars videogame. If there were other similarly-acting R2 droids, it would be weaker evidence of them having qualia as well.

I think you've quoted the wrong part or missed my point. There is no stronger evidence, and while it might not convince you that R2 or Connor have qualia, that just means there is nothing that will. So why ask "why do they believe androids have qualia" when an answer that would convince you does not exist?

When I was talking about appearance I was implying also the biological similarity.

Within the fictional universe, no one but any given android can know for sure that this android has qualia. Just how a human can only know that about themselves. If you're wondering why others in-universe believe an android has qualia, I believe "anthropomorphization" is sufficient as an explanation. Some people think ChatGPT has qualia in real life. And it's not like everyone in-universe believes it, either - have you missed the entire status quo that assumes androids aren't people?

As for why the player should believe an android has qualia, that's what my argument is for. We see through its eyes and witness it breaking through its programming. That's the most evidence we could possibly get. If it's not sufficient for you, nothing is.