domain:theintrinsicperspective.com
popocatepetl
13m ago
Yes. I went through a period in my early twenties when I worried about this. But eventually I realized it's all preference falsification: "Women like responsible nice guys who respect women" but for men.
If you've ever thought a 16yo looked pretty as a grown man welcome to the "normal heterosexual male club". Almost everyone else is lying.
Jiro
17m ago
There are no such additional distinctions for terms in 1A.
I'm not sure what you call a "distinction" but they certainly used terms that are not all-inclusive. If you're going to say there's freedom of the press, the term "press" doesn't include everything.
Where would be the part of your hypothetical Constitution where they distinguished between two separate things?
Saying something about the military implicitly distingushes between military things and non-military things. If the Air Force only became part of the military later and you are using your "after the fact" standard, then the Air Force would not be part of the military at the time the Constitution was written.
So, uh... which category does the Air Force fall into, given the distinction above? I keep asking this question, and you keep not answering it. Is it an Army or a Navy?
I don't know. You could make arguments for either one. I'd readily agree that we can't prove for certain which one. Some interpretation is inevitable here. But not an unlimited amount of interpretation.
MollieTheMare
22m ago
I would posit that seeing window mount or other external AC units in a city is actually evidence of poor AC infrastructure. A residential structure with a bunch of window units sticking out means that there is no central AC available to the building. That means every window without a unit is a room without AC. For example, my high school was built before central air handling was common. It was absolutely covered with window AC units. Even still 0% of teacher offices had AC, maybe 20% of common areas, and only about 50% of class rooms had AC. Of those that had AC about 80% were inadiqute to cool the rooms to normal office temperatures. The office building next door, however, was built to modern North American mid-rise building standards. It had no external AC units, central air handling, and district supplied chilled water. Handling a bunch of IT and computer equipment the whole thing was kept at a chilly 72°F (22°C) all year round.
Besides that though @FtSoA is clearly right. It's trivially easy to find statistics showing less AC availability in Europe. From the International Energy Agency The Future of Cooling (emphasis mine):
Household ownership of ACs varies enormously across countries, from around 4% in India and less than 10% in Europe, to over 90% in the United States and Japan, and close to 100% in a few Middle Eastern countries.
Things are changing, as new homes in Europe are often heated with heat pumps that can be reversed for cooling in the summer. The pace of retrofits and new construction is slow though. In the mean time "Heat claims more than 175,000 lives annually in Europe."
If you insist on trading anecdotes though: "How is it that the most advanced research facility on Earth forgot to install air conditioning? " This is in a place that has reached 40°C (104°F). The "birthplace of the World Wide Web," but all the network switches overheat at 2PM every July.
SSCReader
26m ago
we can start to level the playing field a bit.”
So obviously you feel strongly about it and I don't want to rile you up. But I don't see too much objectionable here. Levelling the playing field is about taking into account the differences here. He even says it, the white populations are healthier so they live longer, so if you just take into account age, you will miss out on morbidity increasing factors which in the United States are drawn heavily along racial lines because your underclass is heavily skewed black. Likewise with teachers, middle class white people with degrees are likely to suffer from fewer health issues than non-middle class, non white, non degree holders. All of this appears to be factual information.
I think that equity phrase/cartoon is hijacking your perception a little here. The equity cartoon isn't a one to one description of how equity would work in the real world when carried out by real people, nor do people always mean the same thing when they say equity. The actual positions they were advocating are nowhere similar to taking a machete to a tall person. They are actually advocating for something closer to the original equality cartoon, with vaccines instead of boxes. The tall people are still going to be tall. The healthier groups are still going to be healthier, they would have to be making the healthier group intrinsically less healthy in the name of equity for the machete to apply. Like putting immuno-suppressants in the water, so that the death rates were equalized with the worse off populations or something by making them worse (a al Harrison Bergeron).
Rather than giving something to the worse off populations to reduce their death rates to similar to the taller population. That's the definition of the ladder analogy really. They advocate to make the short person taller (healthier) rather than make the tall person shorter (unhealthier). The latter would be equity as described by the (I agree) objectionable cartoon. If they were recommending making white people more vulnerable to the disease, so that they died in rough equity with black people, I completely agree that would be very objectionable! That would be taking a machete to the legs of the tall. But that's not the recommendation they are making. The vaccine is the boxes or ladders. If you didn't give them to anybody, the tall person would still be tall and the short person would still be short.
Which isn't to say they don't have objectionable views in general, or that they are definitely correct. I'd want to take a much deeper dive into specific proposals and trade offs, and confirm numbers and the like, but I don't think they show much sign of being outright evil monsters. At worst they believe the boxes version of equity, while you believe the machete version of equity.
Note: The Equality vs Equity cartoon a woke person is likely to point to doesn't involve any machetes at all. It just shows shifting one box from the tall man (equality) to the short man (equity) so the short man has two and the tall man has zero. But I've gone with the (more critical of equity) version you describe to keep the analogy rolling along.
https://pressbooks.openedmb.ca/app/uploads/sites/52/2023/01/image1.jpeg
grendel-khan
i'm sorry, but it's more complicated than that
37m ago
Have you seen "Foundations", from Ben Southwood, Samuel Hughes, and Sam Bowman? Also available in podcast form with Sam Bowman at Quillette.
RoyGBivensAction
Zensunni Scientologist
42m ago
messed up big time confusing Africans with Indonesians
Yep, that's what got me as well. I remain amused how well I did with Asians and actual Africans. Real "wait, why do I know this?" feelings.
hanikrummihundursvin
43m ago
So much for meme history.
self_made_human
Grippy socks, grippy box
49m ago
Strictly speaking, I'd be happy with either. If I have to choose, the one who's actually my age. More longterm potential there.
faceh
51m ago
Yes, I've zeroed in on college as a particular problem since it has compounding (negative) impact on a woman's marriageability and fertility. Four fertile years burned, racking up both debt and body count, for a degree that they may not use, and then they often opt to go for MORE schooling rather than enter a marriage or the 'real world.'
And of course it also creates the target-rich environment for the virgin poppers. Women from small towns, leaving their high school boyfriends behind, no parental supervision, tons of drugs and alcohol available, and both blatant and subtle nudges towards promiscuity all around.
Without some strong social pressure its almost impossible to expect women to resist for the full four years. And by the sheer numbers, most women don't resist. body counts at time of first marriage have steadily climbed.
So yeah, more supervision on the women is part of the the solution.
AND YET, removing some of these guys and deterring the rest would likely have an overall positive effect as well.
I mean, lets just use a fox and henhouse analogy. Yes, you guard the hens/eggs because they are dear, but if you catch a fox in the act, you still kill it. You don't want a whole population of foxes that are optimized for henhouse raiding to arise.
RoyGBivensAction
Zensunni Scientologist
56m ago
Or even worse, low class!
The_Nybbler
In the game of roller derby, women aren't just the opposing team; they're the ball.
58m ago
Trump is proposing the drug companies sell in the US for no more than they sell in other developed nations. As far as I can tell, the drug companies could refuse to sell to other price-controlled nations and retain their US pricing that way.
Obviously it wasn't intended as a 1:1 comparison, but Haiti has an average IQ of 82. A significant percentage of that difference is likely genetic, based on our current understanding of the heredity of intelligence. The mother's health and nutrition also plays a significant role, and that's outside the control of the adopting family. A young child adopted from Haiti is statistically going to be at a significant intellectual disadvantage compared to the biological children of that "wealthy white couple".
International adoptions in general come with a much higher risk of a child with physical or mental disabilities. Growing up I knew two families that did international adoptions, one from Russia and one from Asia. The Russian child had fairly significant behavioral issues and developmental delays, and the Asian child had a physical disability likely caused by prenatal or infant malnutrition.
The charitable interpretation is that these families do international adoptions out of a genuine desire to do good and provide a better home for a child, but from a utilitarian perspective it seems to provide pretty low impact compared to other forms of charity in terms of cost effectiveness. What is does provide is a very visible signal of social status and virtue, and the frequency seems to ebb and flow depending on whether it's trendy in a given community. For example, it was a trend in Hollywood in the early 2000s, with celebrities like Angelina Jolie and Madonna. The same dynamics seem to play out on a smaller scale in some Christian communities.
More options
Context Copy link