4bpp
Now I am become a Helpful, Honest and Harmless Assistant, the destroyer of jobs
1d ago
#NotAllDolphins
hydroacetylene
1d ago
It’s not uncommon, although it isn’t the majority, for native English speakers to use ‘meat’ to mean specifically beef and refer to chicken, sausage, ham, Turkey etc with the specific term. I’m wondering if that’s the origin of the confusion?
Mihow
Lipstick on a guitar
1d ago
ajuuiomml
1d ago
Veganism is a product of modernity that I imagine only exists due to industrial petro farming. The Jain are the closest I can think of, but they do dairy. Veganism is an impoverishing luxury diet.
hydroacetylene
1d ago
The interesting question you raise is ‘where do you draw the line on figuring who is a mentally sufficient non criminal responsible adult?’
I’m guessing you don’t argue against background checks for buying a gun(is this guy currently on probation?). But what about the more in-depth ATF background check off fingerprints? What about requiring psychiatric testing? And, of course, do we require owners to have safe storage facilities so their guns don’t get stolen- people who steal them being, almost definitionally, among the categories you’ve articulated as shouldn’t own a gun.
I broadly agree that the right to keep and bear arms is pretty core to full citizenship in the west. But I don’t agree that that right is incompatible with gun control. There’s even some euro countries which seem like they qualify based off of a quick wiki scan- and some blue states with theoretically laxer gun laws which seem like they don’t.
Pongalh
1d ago
"What will the effect be of this 50% tariff?"
"I don't know. Are we talking about Hutus or Tutsis here?"
You can see how un-illuminating this is pretty quickly.
Throwaway05
1d ago
I know this is a meme but it is one I've never encountered in real life (although I've heard about it often). Hard to tell if that is due to geography or era (these days most of the male doctors I know are terrified of being on the wrong end of woke crimes and are careful at work for that reason).
I feel like i addressed @rae's objections about structure and LLMs just being token predictors within the body of the text itself. Eg
most publicly available "LLMs" are not just an LLM. They are an LLM plus an additional interface layer that sits between the user and the actual language model. An LLM on its own is little more than a tool that turns words into math, but you can combine it with a second algorithm to do things like take in a block of text and do some distribution analysis to compute the most probable next word...
@self_made_human disagreed with my definition of intelligence and approach to assessing it wich is interesting from a philosophical standpoint but also kind of irrelevant in practical terms. Fact is that adapability and agentic behavior are key things to consider when discussing whether a robot can replace a human worker, or if we're going to wakeup tomorrow to find out that Claude or Grok has suddenly gone "FOOM" and turned into Skynet, and i don't think it's "hamstringing" my (or anyone else's) understanding to point that out.
@daseindustries just seems to be angry that someone would break from the rationalist consensus.
Though aditedly taking the week of the 28th off to go on vacation probably dindnt help.
Corvos
1d ago
I bow to your superior knowledge. I was told that 彼 and 彼女 as gendered pronouns were an innovation to allow translating European works into grammatical Japanese, but perhaps it's not so or it was a minor twist on an established usage.
self_made_human
Grippy socks, grippy box
1d 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?
This suggests an end-state which is a surveillance state for both farmyard and wild animals. I chuckle to think of a world where "cruelty free" chicken is certified on the basis of their moral behavior before slaughter.
I do not think the majority of chimpanzees have eaten another chimp, though orangutans and bonobos seem much nicer chaps.
If a chicken is raised alone in a coop, and hasn't pecked other hens to death, am I not allowed to eat it? Or should we only eat the alpha chickens, the matriarchs who dominate the rest? Once they're eaten, the next chicken down becomes the dishonorable alpha, and is thus fair game.
I don't know dawg, and I don't care. I just had half of one in a Nandos, and it's not done digesting. I will meditate on this when I have blood supply to spare.
Thank you for laying out your thoughts but this feels like the majority of apologetics - only convincing to those already convinced and skating quickly and lightly over the difficult points.
In particular you seem to pass very quickly over argument one. You lay out the anti-gun argument reasonably well:
- We allow people to have some dangerous things because it's not practical to do otherwise.
- Lots of unnecessary things are fine because they're not dangerous to anyone.
- Guns don't fall into either of these categories and so we ban them.
Then having clearly explained the main reason why lots of countries ban guns (they don't fall within either of the categories of object we usually tolerate), you don't refute it.
Guns and other lethal weapons are a unique confluence of incredibly dangerous and almost completely unnecessary. You seem to want to argue that banning things because they are unnecessary is a slippery slope, and that banning unnecessary things even when they are lethally dangerous weapons is excessive because most people can handle dangerous things just fine. But now you've parted ways with everyone except the people who think that you should almost never ban anything, and those people are already on your side!
This is why most gun apologists either try to make them seem less dangerous (no automatic fire, strong license checks, short-range hunting shotguns or bolt-action only) or more necessary (defend yourself, defend your liberty); those arguments don't always work but they sometimes do.
Likewise for argument two. Your response to the argument that guns cause more people to die from suicide is, essentially, YesChad.png. Where's the argument here? I know someone who's intermittently suicidal; it's genetic and it runs in the family. If he had guns he'd be dead by now.
I'm reasonably pro-gun for a Brit and these arguments are doing the opposite of what you're trying to achieve. Also, it's just that classic American thing of happily insisting that all other countries are just pits of suffering and distrust and only (part of) America has achieved true civilisation. I'm a nationalist myself but really.
sarker
It isn't happening, and if it is, it's a bad thing
1d ago
You're getting it!
You don't need to write so much to show that 2rafa's argument is risible, though I appreciate the rigorous formalization. I'd like to think the ridiculousness is apparent from my much briefer comments.
4bpp
Now I am become a Helpful, Honest and Harmless Assistant, the destroyer of jobs
1d ago
· Edited 1d ago
I think you are neglecting what to me seems to be the main argument against legal gun ownership, which is that the telos of a gun (especially ones that are not traditional hunting guns, which are legal in many more places anyhow) is to kill people. The common European value system says that basically to a first approximation there should not be a legal way to kill people (and to more detailed approximations we can begrudgingly haggle over exceptions like self-defence against someone who tries to kill you first), and given such a principle it doesn't seem hard to argue for the prohibition of a tool whose principal purpose is just that.
I don't see this value as introducing any obvious slippery slope in itself, and moreover your line of interpretation ("strip every single joy out of life") that aims to connect it to one can only work by way of trading a sacred value (no killing) off for a profane one (fun). The profane-sacred boundary in general is pretty good at stopping slope-slipping, and the argument that the weaker form of this slippery slope ("strip every single joy that grates against a sacred value out of life") is still all that bad has not been made.
This is an argument that you will have to contend with if you want to persuade people of this value system (which I gather is no longer solely a European thing, but has spread deep into urban globalised parts of the US). Of course, from over in Germany, there is also a lower-hanging question to ask: are you for speed limits on your highways?
self_made_human
Grippy socks, grippy box
1d ago
Yes. The more Aryan ancestry, the lower the rates, as you'd expect from descendants of pastoralist nomads.
The further south you go, the more pure the Dravidian ancestry. Mumbai is halfway in-between, and Maharashtra is an unusually strict vegetarian state.
The_Nybbler
In the game of roller derby, women aren't just the opposing team; they're the ball.
1d ago
The principle of free speech is not infinite, you can’t talk about weapons on an airplane or in an airport, you can’t urge the commission of crimes, you can’t, rather famously, yell fire in a crowded theater (unless of course there actually is a fire), and you can’t lie about a product you are selling. Why? Other very important public goods: public safety, prevention of fraud, etc. need to be protected and cannot be if free speech is absolute.
Certainly you can talk about weapons on an airplane or in an airport. And that rather infamous "fire in a crowded theatre" case -- it actually concerned people distributing pamphlets protesting the draft as a violation of the 13th Amendment -- is not good law and has not been for a long time. The current law is Brandenburg v. Ohio, the famous "imminent lawless action" test.
This misuse of the "fire in a crowded theatre" incidentally demonstrates the disingenuous of those who use it to justify restrictions. Because on the close order of zero people have gone from "My new proposed restriction is OK because fire in a crowded to a theater" to "Never mind" when it is pointed out that Schenck v. U.S. has not been good law for over 50 years.
self_made_human
Grippy socks, grippy box
1d ago
Jiro
1d ago
I'd say most of the same things for voting. Specifically, the only people who shouldn't be allowed to vote are people we don't trust with much of anything. Which isn't that controversial among the general public, but for some reason it is among rationalists.
Axioms:
- A1: Some humans commit murder against other humans
- A2: Murder is categorically dishonorable
Postulates:
- P1: If any member of a group commits a dishonorable act, then all members of that group are dishonorable
- P2: It is honorable to murder those who are dishonorable
Lemma 1: Humans are dishonorable Proof: By A1, some humans murder. By A2, murder is dishonorable. By P1, since some humans commit dishonorable acts, all humans are dishonorable.
Theorem: It is honorable to murder humans Proof: By Lemma 1, humans are dishonorable. By P2, it is honorable to murder the dishonorable. Therefore, it is honorable to murder humans.
Or, to progress further:
Axioms:
- A1: Some humans commit murder against other humans
- A2: Murder is categorically dishonorable
Postulates:
- P1: If any member of a group commits a dishonorable act, then all members of that group are dishonorable
- P2: It is honorable to murder those who are dishonorable
- P3: Performing an honorable act makes one honorable
Lemma 1: Humans are dishonorable Proof: By A1, some humans murder. By A2, murder is dishonorable. By P1, since some humans commit dishonorable acts, all humans are dishonorable.
Lemma 2: It is honorable to murder humans Proof: By Lemma 1, humans are dishonorable. By P3, it is honorable to murder the dishonorable. Therefore, it is honorable to murder humans.
Lemma 3: Humans who murder other humans become honorable Proof: By Lemma 2, murdering humans is an honorable act. By P3, performing an honorable act makes one honorable. Therefore, humans who murder other humans become honorable.
Theorem: Humans oscillate between dishonorable and honorable states Proof: By Lemma 1, humans begin as dishonorable. By Lemma 3, they become honorable through murder. But having become honorable, they are no longer valid targets for honorable murder (by P2). However, their past dishonor persists by P1, creating a paradoxical state.
I hope this illustrates how ridiculous this whole line of reasoning is. You may substitute murder for cannibalism here.
Stellula
1d ago
Is this regional? I’ve spent a considerable amount of time in Mumbai and was surprised both at the commonality of ice cream/milk related shops, and how everything was vegetarian by default.
Supah_Schmendrick
1d ago
In the Roman republic and empire, it was for example build around collective military aid: polities on the Italian peninsula which were subjugated by Rome and fought side by side with the legions were eventually granted citizenship.
This is a deep and incorrect elision of the same process - the denigrating and hollowing of republican citizenship into imperial subjection - that I am arguing is happening here, today. The socii did not participate in the roman centuriate assembly or plebeian councils, did not serve in roman offices or have any say in roman foreign policy, despite making up at times at clear majorities of roman armed manpower; in fact, the original premise of their becoming socii was that rome would not interfere in their cities' internal affairs at all, in exchange for a territorial guarantee and military mutual aid. In practice, this confederal relationship broke down and Rome did indeed start meddling in the internal affairs of the socii, and the legal distinctions between the various cities began to chafe as rome grew prosperous off war proceeds while the socii were left having to deal with trade barriers that blocked their ability to share in those rewards. By the time of the principate and empire, roman "citizenship" was a very different, much diluted thing.
French foreign legion, RPG, Israel
Of your other examples, it's telling that two are entirely inapposite - one isn't a country but instead a quasi-penal military unit, another is entirely fictional - and the third literally has a religious requirement for naturalization (at least of the type you're discussing). Far closer to my point than yours.
Of course, if America has an ideology, it is the ideology of the American dream.
The term "American dream" is itself an artifact of the modern progressive era, with basically no resonance at all before that (with the exception of a tiny little bump in the years immediately surrounding the founding).
self_made_human
Grippy socks, grippy box
1d ago
Vegetarians still aren't a majority.
(And the majority of Indians are actually lactose intolerant, even if we love milk. Around 60% of the population, if a quick Google suffices)
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
1d ago
Politics is always compromise between the need to get things done and the need to uphold principles. Quite often because those principles lead to paradoxes and contradictory answers depending upon the questions at hand. The principle of free speech is not infinite, you can’t talk about weapons on an airplane or in an airport, you can’t urge the commission of crimes, you can’t, rather famously, yell fire in a crowded theater (unless of course there actually is a fire), and you can’t lie about a product you are selling. Why? Other very important public goods: public safety, prevention of fraud, etc. need to be protected and cannot be if free speech is absolute.
And on it goes. Policing is a necessary evil, and using force is a necessary part of policing because criminals tend not to respond to polite requests to please stop robbing, raping, murdering, or selling drugs. That doesn’t mean you don’t have rules against overreaching, but one man’s police brutality is another man’s stopping those criminals terrorizing his neighbors.
And balancing this stuff, all these balances between two things that are goods in themselves, or at the very least avoiding some form of known bads, gets complicated very quickly. I’ll be blunt in saying that most people are unqualified for this kind of stuff because they don’t understand the issues involved. Most political conversations are vibes based bleating not even willing to engage in the entire argument, quite often undertaken by people who don’t bother to find out how things work. I put myself there, I have no idea where the highway should go, where the lines of public decency vs degenerate behavior should be drawn, how exactly to police a community without unnecessary brutality or excess permissiveness. And as such I think that politics would go much better if more people tuned out and dropped out and let people who know deal with the problems without me telling them that their solutions are not aesthetically appealing to me.
Gun Rights are Civilization Rights
I believe, if you don't trust an independent adult to have a firearm you ultimately don't trust them enough to be in the same civilization or society as you.
There are three categories of people that nearly everyone agrees should not be allowed to own a firearm:
- Children
- People with mental deficiencies
- People with demonstrably violent impulses that they cannot control
And you'll notice we generally don't trust these categories of people with much of anything. The first two categories of people we insist on them having guardians, or being wards of the state. The third category of people we imprison.
There are two major arguments against gun rights that I think hold the most salience for people.
Argument One: Guns are Dangerous and Unnecessary
They are undoubtedly dangerous. Their purpose is to be a weapon. But there are other things that are dangerous that we don't ban. Cars can be used to achieve mass casualty events. Bombs can be made with some commonly available materials. These other things are rarely labelled as "unnecessary" though. There are also plenty of "unnecessary" things that we don't ban. Plenty of purely recreational items and services exist. Jet skis, theme parks, cruises, large houses, etc (some of these things are even dangerous). Only the most hardcore socialists and communists want to take away all the fun toys.
There is an argument that gun advocates make that gun rights are necessary to keep the government in check. I generally like this argument, and think it is demonstrated by the level of free speech rights in places like Great Britain where guns have been successfully banned for most private "citizens".
But I'll grant for the sake of argument that guns are totally "unnecessary". And that it is the special combination of Dangerous+Unnecessary that leads people to want to ban it. Since other categories of things like Safe+Unnecessary or Dangerous+Necessary go largely unbanned and untouched.
I think the widespread existence of many "Dangerous+Necessary" demonstrates that we can trust most adults to handle dangerous things in a responsible way. We can't trust them 100% of the time. And we can't trust that there won't sometimes be negligence.
The "unnecessary" component of the argument is also a scary slippery slope to be on. People have different desires and wants. There are I think two steady states of being in regards to "unnecessary" things. Either you let everyone decide for themselves on every topic. Or you have a central authority that decides on everything for everyone. If you are willing to bite that bullet, keep in mind that it will not necessarily be you deciding what is necessary and what is not. I believe it is fully possible for such a bureaucracy to mercilessly strip every single joy out of life, and they'll fully believe they are making your life better. You'll eventually be sad enough that you'll come to the second main argument against gun rights:
Argument Two: Guns enable easier suicide
I don't have the data on hand, and I don't really want to get into an argument about said data. But it is my understanding that there is a noticeable and undeniable effect of guns on male suicide rates. This makes intuitive sense to me. Many methods of suicide require you to actively torture yourself for a short time period, drowning, hanging, cutting yourself, jumping from a very tall building etc. Or they present a chance of a failed suicide attempt that leaves you heavily injured, like jumping from not high enough, or getting in front of a moving vehicle, or pills. Guns make the attempt a more sure thing, and present an option that does not involve torturing yourself.
Something about this whole approach to suicide prevention feels very wrong. On an individual basis I think you should not commit suicide, and if someone can be talked out of suicide they generally should be talked out of it. But there are also some cases where I believe it is very cruel to prevent suicide. Medical cases for sure. But there are also people who have drawn a shit straw in life in too many ways. A bit too dumb, constant low level bad health, unable to figure out how to love or be loved, etc. A life of quiet misery. They should have an exit option, and they should have one that doesn't require them to torture themselves on the way out.
Civilization is one big nebulous agreement we have that helps us get along. But I think saying "you can't leave this agreement without being tortured", is just evil.
Forbidding gun ownership means forbidding exit, and it means you lack trust in others to such a degree that it breaks down many of the assumptions we already have about the rights and responsibilities of adults in society.
Some of the implications of my argument that I am already aware of and fine with:
- It justifies drug ownership.
- It justifies legal euthanasia.
- It does not justify gun ownership if you are a socialist or communist.
Some areas that I left unaddressed to save space:
- Inner city crime ridden areas. Not sure what to do when you have too high of a prevalence of violent people. I am willing to say that civilization has broken down in those areas, and then reiterate that gun rights are civilizational rights. If you don't have civilization, you can't have that right.
- Violent people don't always stay violent people. Testosterone is a hell of a drug, so young men are often more violent than older men. Not sure if ex-convicts should be allowed to have guns, but maybe if you don't trust them to own a gun you shouldn't trust them to be out of prison.
- The line between children and the mentally deficient and adults can be blurry in real life. 17 year olds, and 75IQ people for example. I didn't want to litigate where I think those lines should be drawn.
Edit: lots of good responses. I've read all of them but I'm unlikely to respond. Most of the responses were better thought out than my original post. I sometimes just have ideas or arguments kicking around in my head that need to be spilled onto paper. And I think better in response to what others say so this has helped me refine my thoughts on the subject a great deal. That synthesis of thought might end up in a future thread.
(Mostly) uncensored LLMs have been around for a while, but most of the first generations struggled very badly when writing more than a couple paragraphs at a time -- very prone to throwing in random new characters, looping events, physical inconsistencies, so on. That's part of why so many early tools focused on character-based roleplay; LLAMA might go off the deep end, but if you're expecting to direct it back toward your goal and it's not too disruptive to have it 'reroll' if it goes completely off the rails.
More recent tools, including pretty much all of DeepSeek's models, can handle short fiction, but either are censored, have an uncensored model but most web interfaces are censored, and/or can't be run at reasonable speeds on consumer-level hardware. That's why your link spells out what steps to introduce a jailbreak. Those jailbreaks can usually break out of some censorship (until they're countered) but at the cost of often making the models increasingly unhinged or incoherent, and they're also just a pain because of token limits. And there's an argument that some of this censorship breaks the models in weird ways, and that might persist even when a prompt is jailbroken.
((Despite that, at least in furry circles more of the recommendations have just been to use DeepSeek through some of the less-heavily-censored providers.))
By contrast, Grok3 and 4 will just do it. Upload a file with some setting, character, and tone information (cw: furry nsfw 'lore', in the magical realm sense, implications of M/M, M/F, and M/tM), give it a one-sentence description of the scene you want and some tags, and it'll quite happy throw out a thousand-plus words, following almost all the constraints I gave it, and having a clear rising action and climax (hurr hurr). It can set up part of the scene in the start of a work and then call back to it a couple hundred words later, without confusing details, and there's some obvious logical paradoxes that it handles reasonably well.
You can get output without em-dashes! It even managed a couple setting-appropriate turns of phrase that don't show up on google and are surprisingly coherent to the characters it did make (eg "Survive? Sure. Thrive? That’s on you, pup" isn't anything to write home about, but aiming it at a male gray wolf working in an idealized service sector job the day of a rush is pretty fitting).
It's still not great or even good writing, even grading on the massive curve that is smut. It's unsurprising that it fails to stand up to real greats like Rukis Croax or Robert Baird, or can't read my mind about what the characters 'should' be like, or isn't anything like the story I did write for the same setting and prompt, or doesn't know specialized names for kinks. The character tones are a little too samey, the pacing is entirely wrong for smut aimed at men and way too fast for anything aimed at women and finishes too quickly, it keeps talking about eye colors in a way that come across as Mary Sue for my demographic, it's way too omniscient a viewpoint, and it either doesn't understand how to properly describe a character to demonstrate attraction from the viewpoint character or doesn't realize that it should do so as part of written smut.
((It also can't count; I haven't had much luck getting more than 1.5k words per prompt, and Grok4 will insist that it got a requested three thousand words, and it definitely was struggling even more with the pace and paragraph formatting as it got toward that point. I haven't messed around with it having it write full stories much before, though, and part of the weirdness is probably my style recommendations.))
I dunno how many of those problems are things I just need to prompt it better, and how many are things that it can't fix even if prompted, or that could be fixed with better prompting but I don't have the words to actually write down. But they're the sorta problems that weren't anywhere close to my 'showstopper list' just a couple years ago.
And they'll do it in a couple minutes.... For as long as you trust xAI.
See here for a SFW (or at least not-smut) example with and without em-dashes. Some NSFW outputs are available on request, but it's bi furry smut, so it's probably not going to be interesting or even readable to most people here.
((though I'll caveat for fairly vanilla stuff chatGPT works and actually does a bit better with character speech, and sometimes even offers to make it erotic, if not necessarily in-line with the characters I gave it. But try to get the smut part and it fades-to-black or drops a euphemism for the actual sex scene.))
Some societal stereotypes seem to be based on things that haven't been true for 10-20 years, and the updates are slow to happen. The "middle aged dude running off with the floozy from work and buying a red convertible" trope is indestructible, but I've personally seen more of the "woman loses her mind and gets divorced (or the opposite order), borderline abandons her kids, and goes on a years-long drunken sex binge" version.
More options
Context Copy link