@Celestial-body-NOS's banner p

Celestial-body-NOS

🟦 All human beings are equal, **even when they aren't.**

0 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 05 00:16:31 UTC

				

User ID: 290

Celestial-body-NOS

🟦 All human beings are equal, **even when they aren't.**

0 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 05 00:16:31 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 290

β€Ž
β€Ž

I'm comfortable biting the bullet and saying that people like DINKs, single people, and the very poor deserve to have their interests less represented in society.

And where will you stand when someone says that you, your wife, and your children deserve to have their interests less represented in society than those of another man, his wife, and his children?

But for your other objection- historically male heads of households have valued the well-being of other members of their households above those of other male heads of household, to the extent that different members of the same household can have their wellbeing clearly separated.

Counter-example: domestic-abuse laws.

the last platform of theirs I looked at said to refer to the King James Bible rather than articulate specific policies.

So they're open-borders (Leviticus 19:34) gender-neutralist (Galatians 3:28) welfare liberals (Ezekiel 16:49)?

So you suggest we invoke Hanlon's Razor?

There are many, many ways to do that. You could restrict it to people who pay the poll tax, or to those who own property, or those who are married with children, or only people who have been in the country for twenty-one years, or only people who have been resident of the state for twenty-one years, or...or...or... You can read history and come up with your own way, but limiting who is allowed to vote is a normal suggestion and has been implemented in some form everywhere voting occurs.

And whichever criterion you choose, wherever the interests of that group differ from its complement, the elected officials will then be incentivised to discount the latter in favour of the former.

This is not, to put it delicately, a recipe for a peaceful society.

Frankly I'd settle for paying people not to vote, as anyone who would rather have $100 than cast a vote shouldn't be voting anyway.

This runs up against the diminishing marginal utility of money. $100 means a lot more to someone of lesser means than it does to a billionaire.

Would you like to suggest a way, or were you thinking I wouldn't bite the bullet? Do you care about the differences, or are you just expressing disdain?

It was more of a Socratic method question; however, one could select a number of residents at random and pay them enough that they could devote themselves full-time to political issues....

male heads of property owning households with children

That would result in a government which undervalues the well-being of

  • wives
  • households of very limited means
  • people without children

where their interests conflict with those of well-off fathers.

Considering this acceptable under-mines one's standing to object to FOO attempting to reserve the vote to FOO, and steering the government to ignore the interests of BAR where they conflict with those of FOO.

The political process then becomes a game of musical-chairs where every group tries to grab the government before their enemies do.

Whichever groups end up losing this conflict then have less incentive, and reason, to regard the government as legitimate; and being unable to influence it peaceably, are more likely to attempt change through violence.

I would prefer that political violence be avoided.

I can therefore conclude that it would be wise to extend the vote to single people, wives, non-child-bearing husbands, and fathers without property.

assuming no evidence of treachery, criminality, or immorality

And how long would it take before 'supporting policies I don't like' became 'evidence of immorality'?

And how do you decide who those fewer voters should be?

That was not the case in the 1990s.

gay club

More of a "gay-people-shoudn't-be-under-constant-threat-of-violence-intended-to-force-them-back-into-the-closet" club, or a "shift-the-societal-response-to-gay-people-existing-from-violent-repression-to-minding-your-own-d*mn-business" club.

14 foot high bolsheviks

What about 14-foot-high Left-SRs?

some not-IVF but medical procedure

It was my understanding that the majority of these procedures are performed when a husband and wife have been trying and failing to conceive in the traditional manner....

hard coded male sensibilities

Can you elaborate on the meaning of this term, as you understand it?

idk how to strikethrough

Put a tilde before and after.

(tilde = ~)

A War-of-Southern-Treason-era Unitedstatesian being both a leftist and a Democrat would be as incongruous an as a current-year Unitedstatesian being both a leftist and a Republican. (Also, Booth was a Know-Nothing, not a Democrat. The Know-Nothings were right-wing on their loudest issue (immigration) but also had some left-wing positions.)

[I] called him a leftist and a [D]emocrat

In 1865, the Democrats were the right-wing party.

Modest proposal: Automate the ports, but keep paying the longshore-men until they reach retirement age, and then just don't hire any more to replace them.

We'll get the efficiency benefits right away, the financial benefits over the next 47 years, but no-one will find themselves suddenly struggling to put food on their families.

Linda, 52, six years of experience; Louise, 52, hobby triathlon runner, six years of experience, applies for an admin position. Which do you pick, no other information?

If I can't get more information?

Heads, I hire Linda; tails, I hire Louise.

I am suspicious of a theory that happens to be embraced mostly by fat acceptance activists.

I am suspicious of any hypothesis which allows people to think their cruellest instincts justifiable.

A British citizen living in the US is substantially affected by political goings-on in the United States. Should [if RAND < 0.5 print "he" else print "she"] be entitled to vote in US elections?

(This isn't entirely intended as a 'gotcha' question, by the way. I can see the argument that people should vote where they live currently; I reject the notion that there are certain kinds of people who don't deserve any voice anywhere.)

Why do you think some people are able to lose weight, then?

Independent upper and lower set points?

Why do UK residents need to vote in Montana?

Because they're not British citizens and can not vote in British elections.

Do you think we're going to get to a world where elected officials say "HBD is true actually and that's why blacks underperform"[?]

I suppose that depends on how much progress we make in genetic engineering.

Maybe he was using a SEP field?

What if the Gros Michel banana specifically contained some protein that could have cured malaria

Like the Cinchona tree?

So you consider it fair for Bob, if he cannot swallow his pride, to be publicly humiliated, without any way of avoiding the situation beforehand, but not right for Alice, if she is incapable of swallowing her pride, to be expected to pursue a different career?

he can grumble about how β€œthis is bullshit”

And, in your view, is it a violation of his rights for him to suffer any consequences for grumbling and complaining while complying?