domain:amphobian.info
Rhiow
2hr ago
Demanding a dog stay on a bed too small for it to even turn around for 4+ hours is deranged according to my values.
daguerrean
2hr ago
You, in fact, are not obligated. You can quit and live off welfare. You can live on the streets. You can find another job. You can, as the kids say, keep yourself safe, if no other options are open to you
All this applies equally to the dog. It can attack Piker and go out in a blaze of glory, mouth red with his blood. We can observe from its behavior it is not unduly burdened by this obligation. If he had to shock it every minute to maintain compliance then that would be evidence this was extremely burdensome for the dog. Your dog mind reading act does not impress me
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
2hr ago
Could you elaborate your point?
I think most people are not actually aware of the sort of person John Brown was, and the sort of things he actually did. I think those who are aware of him generally regard him as a hero, and if informed of his actual actions, would consider them justified, because he was Fighting Evil. I think this prediction would hold increasingly true the more latent social pressure it's tested under.
MadMonzer
Epstein Files must have done something really awful for so many libs to want him released.
2hr ago
Okay, whose house is it then?
My house is my house. Your house is your house. The nation isn't a family, and the national territory isn't a house. Avoid Mummy Party and Daddy Party frames where possible. If the Mummy Party was a real mother, it would be a divorced wine mum with four different mental health diagnoses. If the Daddy Party was a real father it would be a deadbeat dad with a DV restraining order.
Who does have the right to exclude?
Sovereign states have the legal right to exclude people - that isn't in doubt here. The question I was arguing with @Lizardspawn is whether this is a matter of ethics, such that illegal immigration is a malum in se crime and possibly even, per Lizardspawn, an "abhorrent" one, or whether it is a matter of politics such that illegal immigration is a malum prohibitum crime.
The basic argument for why illegal immigration (assuming otherwise well-behaved, gainfully employed immigrants) is malum prohibitum rather than malum in se is:
- In the absence of immigration laws, immigration for the purpose of working in a foreign country is not immoral.
- Illegal immigration and illegal work are, in and of themselves, victimless crimes and victimless crimes are generally malum prohibitum.
- The actual criminal acts involved in illegal immigration and illegal work are generally morally unproblematic acts (crossing a morally arbitrary line on the map, mutually beneficial commercial transactions) carried out without the correct paperwork - that is the paradigmatic example of malum prohibitum.
quiet_NaN
2hr ago
So you support the death penalty for attempted felony murder for 14yo perpetrators (given that you are annoyed that the CP5 are still breathing).
Our different ideas about standards of evidence aside, do you have a lower limit on the age a perpetrator in a similar situation? If an 8yo brother of one of the CP5 had tagged along and taken a minor part in the act as you believe it took place, would you also hang him? What about a 5yo who just finds an unsecured pistol, says "bang, you are dead" and shoots someone?
Or take the severity of the crime. Most of the other 25 were not accused of crimes as severe as the CP5, WP talks of muggings. So the 14yo mugger gets the noose, should the 14yo pickpocket hang next to him? Or the copyright infringer? At what point should society decide that a kid is beyond redemption?
sarker
It isn't happening, and if it is, it's a bad thing
2hr ago
I’m obligated to sit at my computer and code for 8 hours per day when working.
You, in fact, are not obligated. You can quit and live off welfare. You can live on the streets. You can find another job. You can, as the kids say, keep yourself safe, if no other options are open to you. You, not somebody else, have the ultimate control over your life. Don't make the foolish argument that, since you aren't free to do literally whatever you want, you are forced to do what you currently do.
Is my life net negative?
Since you have the benefit of making yourself understood, i don't need to speculate and you can just tell me. For animals whose lives are placed in our care, we must speculate.
I see no evidence this dog experiences its life as a net negative.
I do. Sitting in Piker's basement for hours in a corner with no autonomy, stimulus, or even, as far as I can tell, daylight is a profoundly unnatural lifestyle for the dog. The dog is not able to engage in any ordinary dog behaviors (such as, uh, walking two feet) without being shocked. I view that as an obvious case of a net negative existence.
John_Doe_Fletcher
anarcho-heretic, Quokkit guy
2hr ago
It is every red-blooded American's moral duty to resist and repel invaders.
RoyGBivensAction
Zensunni Scientologist
2hr ago
This unchosen role into which you are born comes with equally-unchosen duties and obligations to which one is bound.
Where the Traditionalist view fails now is answering what equally-unchosen duties and obligations apply to women, what mechanism is attempting to enforce their application to women, and what society's duties and obligations towards men are. The answers to those three questions seem to be a hat trick of "nothing," which makes the Traditionalist view less than compelling.
daguerrean
2hr ago
I’m obligated to sit at my computer and code for 8 hours per day when working. Is my life net negative? I see no evidence this dog experiences its life as a net negative.
OliveTapenade
2hr ago
This perhaps a bit of a tangent, but for a while I have struggled with the idea of 'conversion therapy'.
At the one end, it's easy to understand a minimalist definition of it, and why treatments that meet that minimum definition should be banned - we're talking about things like using electric shocks to artificially create aversions to certain sexual stimuli.
On the other, I have seen the phrase 'conversion therapy' to refer to any kind of treatment or even just conversation around the idea of a person abstaining from same-sex sexual contact. Some time ago I read a document with some personal stories from two progressive Christians describing their experiences with 'conversion therapy', and in both cases the so-called conversion therapy was just another Christian telling them that they shouldn't have sex with someone of their own gender. That kind of maximalist definition of conversion therapy is clearly absurd, and would ban certain kinds of speech.
I feel as though I have seen this gambit many times and that it ought to have a name. Definitional expansion? You start with something that is obviously bad, and you have a word for the thing that's obviously bad - conversion therapy, violence, racism, genocide, child abuse, and so on. Then you want to draw attention to some issues that might be related to the bad thing, but don't quite fit under the same heading, so you just use the same word, but expand its meaning, hoping that the negative affect the word is already loaded with will come along with you. So meat is murder, or words are violence, or immigration is genocide, or your pastor telling you that homosexuality is bad is conversion therapy, or telling your kids that Santa Claus is real is child abuse. Trivial use of the word eventually weakens its meaning and even attempts to use it in the original context, for the obviously bad thing, fall flat. This is why telling Republicans that they're racist is pointless now.
I can understand the initial impulse, from the activist direction. If you want to expand a cause or mobilise people, trying to hook into their pre-existing moral logic is a good idea. "Meat is murder" is a cliché now and I think it's ineffective, but I can see how it is a shorthand for a serious moral argument: meat-eating depends upon killing living creatures in a way that a vegetarian could argue is morally analogous to murder. But the more you use that tactic, the weaker the words become, and you undermine yourself.
Is there a word for this process? Or at least something to say when you notice somebody doing it?
View the dog as a working animal, its job is essentially to perform as an actor contributing to his streams. In exchange it receives food, shelter and so forth. It seems like a fair deal for the dog, I see nothing wrong with this.
I'd probably rather be dead than alive as a prop dog like that. Given that the dog was almost certainly artificially bred rather than a stray, I find it repugnant to create and perpetuate a net negative life like that.
I don't see why the fact that he keeps the animal alive means that it's a fair deal.
ThisIsSin
PC is for progressive-conservative
2hr ago
It is your born duty as a male to work, suffer, and sacrifice for women, children, and society with absolutely no expectation of reward for it, simply because it's part of being a man, and if you don't do it, you're not a man.
Which is why feminism is, despite the pretense of its practitioners, the ultimate successor to traditionalism.
In an environment of equality- where both sexes can hold the male role thanks to progressively increasing mechanization (it's been going on since the steam engine, but ramped up hard in the early 20th century thanks to a revolution in lightweight portable mechanical power generation)- men are as a consequence owed the inherent dignity of women human beings.
We have a name for people like this: up until about the mid-1960s, they were called "liberals". That whole "rights and dignity of man" thing is pointing at precisely this moral hazard.
Onystri
2hr ago
How about interpreting the question as calibrating of my personal moral compass and if I should reflect on that?
I think providing a pathway for young men into adulthood can reduce violence, as long as it's a pathway into a healthy adulthood. However, history shows that often such pathways even if they work well to reduce intra-tribe violence, can either not affect or possibly even increase inter-tribe violence.
I'm actually ok with more cops patrolling the streets in violent neighborhoods. However, it has to be well-behaved police. In other words, you can't just open up the police force to hiring any random goon who wants to join. You have to actually expand the police force in a way that ensures that they retain decent standards of interacting with non-police and that there is strong oversight.
I agree with your desire to develop grassroots ways of helping troubled young men who might otherwise turn to violence.
The biggest problems with American-on-American violence come from young men in communities where criminality has become a way of life. Think, the stereotypical black inner city gangbanger or the stereotypical white or Hispanic roughneck, possibly a meth addict. I don't know how to reach these kinds of people when they're young, so that they choose different paths of life, but I'm open to suggestion. When men are very young and poor and find it almost impossible to conceive of ever getting anywhere decent in life, osmosis effects and peer pressure from their local criminal community can be very strong.
sarker
It isn't happening, and if it is, it's a bad thing
2hr ago
I wonder to what extent just decriminalizing minor physical violence would help. Like you look back to the 30s/40s and it seems like a low level of pervasive physical violence was normal. Guys get mad at eachother, fight it out, all is well (unless someone suffers a horrible permanent injury, which did happen).
Mutual combat is legal in Washington. Despite this, it's not exactly a shining city on a hill.
sarker
It isn't happening, and if it is, it's a bad thing
2hr ago
Lifting is good but lacks the social component.
Lifting absolutely has a social component. You hit the gym on a schedule, get to know the other guys, how their lifts are doing, etc. Even an antisocial guy like me found it easy to develop a "group" of guys I expect to see at the gym.
Hoffmeister25
American Bukelismo Enthusiast
2hr ago
I would say this question belongs more in the Small Question Sunday Thread, or the Friday Fun Thread. This thread is more for posts about self-improvement and other personal matters.
Tollund_Man4
3hr ago
Considering all the things Hasan has previously done and said (things that break the Twitch TOS like doxing other people and arguably inciting violence with inflammatory rhetoric), if this alleged mistreatment of the dog is what gets him cancelled, it's pretty revealing what certain people's priorities actually are.
It's revealing of the fact that in your face things are easier to rally around, you don't have to pay attention to a word he says to see what's happening to the dog.
knob
3hr ago
I am American and understand how it works, I’m okay with all of that and mostly think the execution has been very bad. Citizens shouldn’t have to worry about being detained for even a few hours by federal agents just because those agents randomly decide your license is fake, especially in a country like this where limiting government overreach was a core value of our constitution. I haven’t liked when Democratic administrations have done stuff like this and now I also don’t like that the Trump administration is doing it.
Onystri
3hr ago
I want to check with you people what do you think about situation in NFL between Arizona Cardinals players dropping the ball before the finish line and following altercation with head coach Jonathan Gannon.
I was browsing Reddit and noticing huge influx of comments condemning Gannon to the tune on "he should've never put a hand on him" (even though it was a punch to shoulder pads). And I don't really seem to able to arrive to the same conclusion. It feels to me the product of office environment where even if you massively fuck up in your workplace to the tune of inflicting damages to the project the only thing that would happen to you is being fired. I worked in landscaping for a few months and the temperament of the foreman was entirely different and I would say some physical reminder is needed if you fuck up the entire day of work.
What is the current year answer to this type of situation?
quiet_NaN
3hr ago
Trisha Meili wasn't murdered, she ended up living.
I stand corrected.
The fact that the police managed to convince the juries that four of the five had committed rape beyond reasonable doubt certainly places an upper limit on the trustworthiness of their investigation. Given that the police did have DNA evidence and knew that none of the CP5 had anything to do with the semen, going for rape convictions seems downright malicious.
I will also note that DA Morgenthau (who recommended vacating the judgements) does not seem like a pink-haired 'defund the police' type (WW2 veterans generally are not, in my experience). Typically DAs are very reluctant to recommend overturning convictions, especially ones secured by their own assistants.
I assume that it is possible that he recommended that because he thought that given all of the convicted we had already served their time, fighting to keep the none-rape parts of their convictions was a fools errand (especially since it was obviously CW fodder and he would have to argue that only the rape part of the confessions were wrong and the rest was fine, which would be a tough position to defend), rather than because he personally believed that they had never touched Meili.
That Reyes came along later and raped the woman who was lying there unconscious and nearly dead
From WP, Reyes killed one of the four other women he raped. As far as I know, none of the other alleged victims of the CP5 had life-threatening injuries, which is likely why their case focused on Meili. It is not like we have a medical examination of her from just before she was raped. Given that the when the cops tried to blame the CP5 for the state Meili was found in, they might have exaggerated the injuries inflicted by the CP5 as well.
Potentially, they groped her and left her with a mild concussion, and the rest was Reyes doing. Or they did everything except the rape. Or they never met her.
Meta: I think that the CP5 case is great culture war material, even a scissor statement. Also, I find this discussion enlightening. I come from my niche, get blowback for what I considered an uncontroversial fact, think to myself "why do these idiots not believe in DNA evidence?", but try to argue halfway politely, get polite responses and eventually a more subtle picture emerges from the arguments. (I mean, @KMC is still completely beyond my understanding, in the appreciation of DNA evidence, the quality of evidence for the attempted murder charge in hindsight and the general morality of imposing the death penalty on 14yo's for attempted murder.)
atelier
Jimmys: unrustled
3hr ago
I sometimes wonder whether a low skill floor version of Eve would be a good outlet for NEETs who end up on some sort of UBI.
daguerrean
3hr ago
Ok, since many people are raising more or less identical objections I will summarize the basis of my views in response to my own comment so I don’t have to reply with the same to everyone.
I think the following two things are fundamentally reasonable and acceptable.
-
I believe it is reasonable to demand a dog perform a job for you in exchange for food and shelter. I do not believe dogs are entitled to human servitude by virtue of being cute.
-
I believe it is reasonable to use physical punishment on a dog even if it is not the most optimal or effective training method.
Obviously these things can be carried to extremes and become abusive. I judge by levels of pain generally accepted for things like spanking a child, which is roughly on par with a common shock collar. When judging a situation like this I look at it and ask, is there any evidence the dog is pervasively unwell? I don’t see it. Is he applying the punishment constantly, excessively or gratuitously? I don’t see it. Is the job asked of the dog fundamentally deranged or evil according to my values (such as sexual services)? No. Okay then, carry on
FWIW, I'm not particularly judging about the change. You're becoming more like me, if with a different valence. But one of the things I've learned over the years is that, even for topics that fill me with molten-veined partisanship, there are going to be incidents where my side just has to take the L (even if I think it doesn't change the overall conclusion). And when I see people talking about some new Happening, it's worth at least finding out what they're on about before coming in hot with a take. In the worst case, where it's something that goes strongly against my priors and makes my side look awful, I can always just not talk about it.
More options
Context Copy link