domain:lesswrong.com
thejdizzler
9m ago
I mean I have gained 10 pounds since that post, which puts me at closer to 22.
hydroacetylene
10m ago
It's the same forced attention I get around high cliffs, or heavy machinery, or a busy highway. I might know that the leashed tiger is tame. I might be aware that the running chainsaw has a safety guard, but I can't put it out of mind
Really? This seems… neurotic. Just don’t go on the highway, or too close to the cliffs, or stand next to the guy using a chainsaw.
I have a hard time believing that if there was demand bringing guns into european countries would be that difficult, considering how big the external frontiers of the EU are and how open the internal ones are, and considering how drugs make it there, illegal refugees make it there, etc...
I think that for the most part, there is little demand because local hard criminals are still civilized enough to understand deadly shootouts are not worth the hassle because they bring down a lot more heat on them. North American street gangs are not civilized; they believe shootouts cool. Urban street gangs in North America are not civilized, they As for terrorists, if you distinguish mental health cases (random nutjob just starts stabbin') from organized terrorist cells, I think the latter are usually packing (and packing military equipment).
hydroacetylene
12m ago
Cracking down on straw purchasing is like this too, IIRC- democrats refuse to do it even if it’s doable, likely to work, and a major issue with gun crime.
self_made_human
Grippy socks, grippy box
13m ago
Sometimes, when I regret making some good life decisions, I wonder if I should have taken up philosophy. Then I realize it would end in murder-suicide, and I'm glad I became a doctor instead.
Tree
14m ago
Happy to save a life. I beg you, eat something. But not too fast or you’ll pass out.
I already told you about my cousin’s vegan girlfriend who died of thinness at 29. That really opened my eyes to the danger of vegetables.
celluloid_dream
20m ago
It's not "I was so close to dying, what's wrong with your country". It's more "why would you bring that, HERE?".
Canada actually does allow for carrying firearms in wilderness areas. I've occasionally passed hunters carrying loaded weapons while hiking, a full half day's walk from cell reception. This is no problem. They could shoot me, but I trust them not to, and I'm not worried they will. They brought a rifle to shoot deer. The handgun at the coffee shop is different. Someone brought that to (if need be) shoot people, and it's going to constantly be in the back of their mind, evaluating whether this is a situation where they need to.
marinuso
22m ago
Some nineteenth- and early-twentieth-century immigrants went further in this direction than I could ever ask – for example, refusing to pass on their birth tongues once they’d learned enough English to raise their children in it
This was quite different back then than it would be now. If you live your entire life in one neighbourhood and there are a dozen other ethnicities living there, soon enough everyone will adopt a common tongue. To have separate communities you need a certain amount of space between them.
Nowadays, every Arab youth in Europe is on Arab TikTok, and people don't speak to their physical neighbours anyway, no matter if they share a language or not. With the disappearance of physical barriers, it's the language barriers that define the communities.
thejdizzler
23m ago
Breast feeding is vegan according to most vegans as the mother is consenting to having her milk taken.
thejdizzler
25m ago
Not in this study. It's just a giant meta analysis on 3.6 million Britons. I think they just collected BMI and cause of death data from the NHS. I would imagine that higher muscle mass decreases all-cause mortality risk though.
thejdizzler
27m ago
I think he has said that it's mainly for recovery and weight management reasons. It's very difficult to gain weight when you are primarily eating high volumes of vegetables. Tour riders probably have much more effective ways of maintaining and losing weight with precision that semi-pro athletes like Dylan Johnson don't have access to (mainly thinking a team of nutritionists). In terms of recovery, the same is probably true, although that does suggest that there aren't any particularly big advantages to maintaining a strict vegan diet. The healthiest cohorts in pretty much any dietary meta-analysis aren't vegetarians or vegans, but pescatarians or people who follow the mediterranean diet, which contains some amount of eat. This suggests both that some amount of meat is healthy for you, and also probably that most of the recovery/reduced inflammation gains come from cutting down on meat consumption, not eliminating it. I doubt that most riders have a very meat heavy-diet (they need lots of carbs for performance reasons, and meat has almost 0 carbs), so Dylan's alpha by being more strictly plant-based is likely quite low.
In terms of my own performance, I'm starting to think that it's time to think about locking down a source of eggs from local chickens that I know are treated-well and thinking about introducing fish low in the food chain (like Sardines or anchovies) that I don't feel ethically conflicted about and seeing if that makes any difference. For now though certainly going to keep eating oysters.
4bpp
Now I am become a Helpful, Honest and Harmless Assistant, the destroyer of jobs
28m ago
· Edited 20m ago
What makes it superior for sporting over either something like a hunting rifle, or something like a fairground gun that shoots tiny bullets of a few millimetres calibre? It's hard to believe that the knowledge that you are "sporting" with a weapon that would be a prime choice for actually killing people, and preparing/building skills for a hypothetical situation in which you would want to kill someone, is not an important factor in the choice; the circumstance that actual use of civilian firearms appears pretty strongly correlated with the belief that there should be a legal way to kill people further supports this interpretation.
is a lot like saying that the primary purpose of alcoholic drinks is to get cirrhosis of the liver.
If the development of alcoholic drinks were driven by people trying to find better ways to get cirrhosis of the liver, there still were large and massively funded organisations deliberately binge-drinking to the point of getting it and gatherings of alcoholic drink enjoyers regularly involved enthusiastic arguments which cocktail gets you more scar tissue faster, and the most popular fictional depictions of alcoholic drinks all involved flashy celebrations of how they induce cirrhosis, then maybe this comparison would work.
As it stands, the argument comes across as being more in the class of arguing that CP (AI-generated, to dispel the most obvious counterargument) should be legal and easily available, and its principal purpose is artistic edification (chosen for being a similarly nebulous term as "sporting", distinguished from its lower-status counterpart "sexual gratification"/"fantasizing about killing", resp., only by the speaker's attitude towards the act), but incidentally you also find the idea that there shouldn't be a legal way to have sex with minors wrong. (That's approximately an actual constellation of ideas some pre-1990 libertines over here in Europe had!)
urquan
Hold! What you are doing to us is wrong! Why do you do this thing?
31m ago
Does that data take into account fat to muscle ratio?
hydroacetylene
33m ago
Is that thé origin? I had assumed it was an old French word for game meat or some such- I’m used to viande being a word for a meat without a specified name, viande de boeuf sounds nearly as strange as viande de poullard and I’d assume it was referring to bison meat or something.
SubstantialFrivolity
I'm not even supposed to be here today
33m ago
Look at this nerd, writing a proof with lemmas to win an Internet argument. You love to see it. :D
celluloid_dream
35m ago
A fair point, but it doesn't follow that because nuclear weapons led to the development of the internet, the average citizen should be permitted to possess nuclear weapons.
The telos of a nuclear bomb, is still death (or at least massive destruction). The telos of the internet has evolved.
Shrike
36m ago
I specifically support the two being linked in some way. Dispossessing someone of firearms is a statement by society that someone is untrustworthy and unable to govern themselves, and there's no need to pretend otherwise by giving them the right to vote under the pretense that such a person can govern others.
self_made_human
Grippy socks, grippy box
38m ago
I will grant that you are being consistent. It is a very unusual moral framework, but then again, so is mine and I'm happy with it.
4bpp
Now I am become a Helpful, Honest and Harmless Assistant, the destroyer of jobs
40m ago
Having a purpose that in turn is mostly a means to an end that is killing is not the same as being directly, immediately, specifically only good for killing (and various activities wherein the fun is contingent on imagining them as practice for killing people under the right circumstances).
That the common European value system ignores these basic truths is not a recommendation in its favor.
I don't think it ignores any "basic truths" that there are in what you wrote, and evidently this argument is not persuasive to those that subscribe to it. As it stands, there is a negligible amount of the older American ethos making inroads in the rest of the world, but the anti-gun value system is capturing large swathes of the US population - if you care for gun rights, it would be more reasonable to try and find new arguments rather than digging in your heels about the old apologetic tradition and dismiss competing views as "divorced from reality".
thejdizzler
40m ago
Indeed I just looked up the lancet meta-analysis and a BMI of 25-27 seems optimal! That's a little messed up that they're still setting the threshold that low for "healthy", as the curve is quite steep between 20 and 25 and much less steep on the other side.
Link for those interested: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/landia/article/PIIS2213-8587(18)30288-2/fulltext
Shrike
42m ago
The principle purpose (as measured by actual use) of all civilian firearms, no matter how outlandish, is sporting.
I of course find the idea that there shouldn't be a legal way to kill people wrong, and it's against the ethos and traditions of my country's heritage (and indeed most of Europe's, arguably) but to say the primary purpose of e.g. an AR-15 is to kill people is a lot like saying that the primary purpose of alcoholic drinks is to get cirrhosis of the liver.
2rafa
45m ago
I think the biggest logical fallacy (or questionable ethical framework) in her stance is damnation-by-association. If a chimpanzee has never molested another chimp, nor eaten it, does it make it an individually honorable chimp? What proportion of individuals must not have committed grave sin for the whole to be condemned?
It would be individually honorable but not collectively so, because dishonorable behavior is common enough (by my own arbitrary standard and based on my own limited knowledge) among chimps to affect my perception of them as a species.
I consider octopuses highly intelligent and capable. But they do very regularly eat each other. I consider pigs very intelligent, deeply empathetic, rather soulful animals. But again, they eat each other all the time. When eating octopus or pork, I am, if anything assimilating to ‘their’ moral universe. If pigs in 2025 committed cannibalism at the same extremely low rate as humans in 2025 (and again, I care about the present when it comes to my own personal ethics) then I would feel worse about eating them.
A chicken is neither honorable nor dishonorable. It falls below the arbitrary threshold of intelligence beneath which I have determined the distinction is meaningless.
Jiro
51m ago
Not only would I not count Communist "elections", I'd point out that if Communist countries had had genuine free elections, most of them would be gone pretty fast. Which makes all the deaths caused by them attributable to not having universal suffrage.
Of course, this means that even counting Germany, the deaths from not having suffrage exceed the deaths from having it (especially if you count the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact as starting WWII and making some of the deaths the fault of lack of suffrage.)
self_made_human
Grippy socks, grippy box
52m ago
I share your feelings here. I just couldn't be bothered to complain.
I’ve said before, my solution to this slippery slope is that the gun regulatory body is elected by current gun owners with high mandatory minimums for breaking the rules- that were made by gun owners themselves- and strict penalties for localities trying to get around them.
More options
Context Copy link