Felagund
22d ago
There's the in-universe order, and the order in which they were written. The former we can work out from clues from the text—most have some indication as to when they're set. The latter is mostly just divided into early, middle, and late, and I've generally heard people find it doubtful—a lot of that is just categorizing things in increasing order of complexity, rather than anything more demonstrable.
Felagund
29d ago
I've read most of them, but not well. That's quite a bit of reading in the next two months.
Some of them are connected to each other (e.g. Theaetetus, Sophist, Statesman).
Felagund
1mo ago
Am I correct in recalling that it varies along a bell curve? (Not bimodally?)
Felagund
1mo ago
Eh, I've not infrequently had, like, seven at once—having books in several different genres or styles to switch between as your mood changes can be good. Twenty is a ton, though.
Felagund
1mo ago
I haven't seen anyone consider how the set of candidates on ballot in Nevada favors the democrats. Of course, Nevada is among the bluest of the swing states anyway, and the least relevant state, but that's a relevant factor in its outcome, I think.
Felagund
1mo ago
Seconded. Just keep it as is, and let mods, if they think it suitable, approve users on a per-user instead of a per-post basis.
Felagund
1mo ago
Today, you would end up with a system where you can't fill your gas tank by yourself
See: Oregon, New Jersey
Felagund
1mo ago
I think the argument would be that the vesting clauses imply separation of powers, which must inherently have built in some immunity (though likely not as much as here is attributed).
But they didn't really employ much founding-era evidence to support their position—Sotomayor was much better on that front.
I think Barrett, Gorsuch, and Thomas are the three I respect most.
Felagund
1mo ago
Thank you, that's more reasonable.
Barrett concurred with most of the opinion, but yeah, her opinion wasn't controlling. I fully expect though, if it makes it back to the court, that it be construed in a narrow fashion, rather than a broad one. I think they expected it to be considered with all future such cases in view (hence Gorsuch's quote of "a rule for the ages"), and it would equally well protect Biden from prosecution for carrying out the office of the President, but it clearly wasn't taken that way by the public.
I think the idea was that Presidents in general shouldn't be prosecuted just on Trumped up charges (ha, ha) when their political opponents come into power, that would be really bad. Similarly, Congress shouldn't constitutionally be able to take away from the President the things the Constitution commands him to do, like execute the laws, even if it can regulate the manner of doing so to some extent. Because of those two things, it's necessary that the president have some level of immunity from prosecution for some sorts of things related to the carrying out of his Presidential responsibilities. Did this ruling go too far? I'm currently leaning yes, especially with the evidence rule, which was, as far as I can tell, baseless. But no immunity, which seems to be what Jackson, at least, wanted, would also be bad.
My general sense of the conservative justices, which could be totally wrong, is that Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch have visions of what the law should ideally be, which are in many cases different from how it's been interpreted for half a century plus, and they want to restore it, and are not afraid to say so. They're also the most partisan. Roberts and Kavanaugh generally lean conservative, but are more pragmatists, and I think they seem to care more about the administrative state than about social issues. They like hedging. And Barrett is just over there trying to faithfully interpret the law—more socially conservative and slightly more of an idealist than Roberts and Kavanaugh, but wants to come to opinions on her own, and so joins the liberals sometimes, and is not a fan of Trump. I think the conservatives view their role as closer to restoring justice and the law of the land than helping a political team (but, of course, they think that a certain political team fits that better). I couldn't tell you the differences between Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson—Jackson's pretty clearly more willing to break with the other liberals than Sotomayor or Kagan are with each other, but I don't see differences in their philosophies all that much.
The court has ruled against Trump in the past, he just hasn't been before the court recently. He lost, for example, Trump v. Vance. Admittedly, the court has gotten more conservative since then.
Felagund
1mo ago
I just mean that Trump seems to mean what he's saying policy-wise a little more. I agree that a bunch of the things are bad. (e.g. no tax on tips)
Republicans are currently substantially more likely to support nuclear power, though the bigger gap is male-female.
Frankly, it's a bit crazy to me that you'd support the No Kings Act. Jurisdiction-stripping the courts, and instructing them to rule according to congressional directions is about as fast a path as you can get away from our constitutional order, and I happen to like the US having rule of law. I agree that Trump v. United States was not ideal, most notably in the evidence portions (I'm inclined to think Barrett was not far from the correct path), but blowing up the entire federal judiciary is not the right response to that. How would you feel if the next time a sufficiently Republican majority in Congress instructed the judiciary to shift all jurisdiction on abortion-related cases to the 5th circuit, and tells the judges to not consider arguments that the fetuses are not legal persons. Pass the No Kings Act, and you start seeing things like that.
Ah, those are reasonable cases to care about firing.
Felagund
1mo ago
I think Trump's at least somewhat sincere on a bunch of the things. That's not the impression I get from Harris.
I think it's more important that we prioritize growth than that we care about the climate—the usual policies aren't that effective, when China, etc. will just ignore them (and they make up a much larger share of global emissions), and technology can do an awful lot to nullify the bad effects, at least in wealthier countries. I generally don't expect climate regulations to be done in a manner that's at all efficient, which makes many of them a net negative—the best plan forward to slash emissions is to reduce regulations on nuclear somewhat and expand our power capacity that way, until it's cheaper than fossil fuels, and Trump seems more likely to push for that I think?
He's talked about clean air and water, but I think it's fair on your part to be skeptical of what that looks like in practice.
But you mentioned the Supreme Court. Did you see the various proposals from the democrats? The No Kings Act, for example, would lead us down a path of destroying the independence of the federal judiciary, which, needless to say, would be extremely bad—they seem to be the only branch that cares to any real extent what the constitution says.
I think workers being fired for unfair reasons isn't all that bad, when there are many other employers doing the same things. Preventing firing people is inefficient, which leads to more expensive goods, which makes us all poorer, including workers. Capitalism makes firing useful people for silly reasons a bad idea economically, so this isn't the hugest concern—the best run, and hence growing, companies will probably avoid doing that too much.
I'm not sure which programs you're worried about, but Trump has, unfortunately, pledged not to touch things like social security.
If you're in a state that matters, could you at least vote for a Republican senator? Should Trump win, Republicans are almost certainly going to take the senate, so additional senators isn't the most important thing. But if Harris wins, the Senate's the best way to stop a trifecta, and a majority-red Senate would force cooperation in decision making, making things more moderate.
Felagund
2mo ago
Well, don't go too overboard with that. Just because a word is used some way in one passage doesn't mean that it has that valence in every passage.
If you have Hebrew or Greek questions at some point, I've done a little of each, so feel free to message me, I won't mind. Can't guarantee that I'll know the answers to whatever question, but I'll probably have a bit better of a sense than someone who's done none.
Felagund
2mo ago
What sort of church do you go to? That might affect what's popular, as preferred translations shift, and some theological opinions. I believe knowableword.com rated a bunch of study bibles, but I haven't looked at that in a long time, and have no idea to what extent I'd agree with their rating system.
Felagund
2mo ago
I'm speaking regarding this site, where there is no algorithm to have to think about:
Generally, I upvote things that I think are good. I downvote things that I think are bad. Many things I don't vote either way on. Having good insights is one of the most common factors behind me thinking it's good.
Occasionally, if I get to something that's been around for long enough to see the results, I'll upvote someone who's been net-downvoted if it doesn't feel like their comment warranted the votes to be as negative as they are.
If I'm in a one-on-one conversation a few levels deep, I think I upvote people sometimes, because it's nice of them to keep engaging with me. I honestly can't recall how often I downvote people when I'm in the midst of an argument with them—I think I'm more likely to do so if it's unnecessarily bad, instead of merely disagreement. I only remove the auto-upvote if I retroactively think what I said wasn't actually very good.
Felagund
2mo ago
Somewhat—I think Florida's the closest R-leaning seat to being a democrat, besides Montana.
A Democrat trifecta would be bad.
Felagund
2mo ago
On your side:
Your vote, in all likelihood, will not matter. (If it does, it's far more likely to downballot, where people care less anyway.) If it does, it might be a big benefit, but the expected value of voting is probably quite low.
Voting well takes effort, as you point out. It has an opportunity cost.
Accordingly, voting is a net negative, and you should not do it.
On the other side, which I would prefer you followed:
Your vote may not matter much individually, but the vote of your people as a block does. You not voting is a defection against those most aligned with you—you really don't want to establish the norm that 50% of your side votes and 75% of your opponents do. People who agree with you are disproportionately going to follow the same reasoning and do the same.
I think these represent different decision theories, to some extent. The first is more like causal decision theory, the second is more like eternal decision theory.
Are you in a state where your vote will matter (especially presidential or senatorially)?
If you have a specific race or concerns, I could attempt to give thoughts.
Felagund
2mo ago
It's a mix! I partly agree with you (there are a lot of places where elites will understand the subject matter better than the majority), but not entirely (DC votes over 90% blue, maybe we shouldn't leave them with all the decisions).
Felagund
2mo ago
Write-in votes are not counted in many states unless the candidate written in registers beforehand, so a third-party candidate is often a better protest.
If you personally are unsure in elections with national relevance, I'd be happy to argue for the Republican.
While agree that not voting can be reasonable downballot, to modify the last portion of it, if you don't have time, vote no on the ballot measures, rather than skipping.
Felagund
2mo ago
I would even go beyond this and claim that transracialism is much more reasonable than transgenderism
It would also presumably be way easier to act on. Dyeing one's skin is way less invasive than the various transgender things.
Felagund
2mo ago
Well, I think it's bad, and I don't think it's very loving to encourage people to do bad things. That's the short answer.
Does that say something about government policy? Not necessarily.
But I think it's worth bringing up that I do think the bible is pretty clear that homosexual sex is wrong. First, I think it's pretty clear that sexual sin is a big deal. This appears often! One of the clearest passages, for example, is 1 Corinthians 6:12-20, where it argues specifically that it's wrong for Christians to hire prostitutes. Of course, this is different from our case in two ways: the people we're talking about aren't necessarily Christian, and prostitution looks different from monogamous gay relationships (we'll ignore the high rates of gay promiscuity). But it's still wrong if we change either or both of these. See, for example Romans 1 (where it's non-Christians), or the several cases where homosexual sex is specifically condemned, like 1 Timothy 1:10. There are more passages, of course.
Homosexual sex is not the only seemingly victimless sin that was condemned, and the early Christians seem happy to condemn sins while also advocating for love. I think both of those are important! We should be keenly aware of sin (or else, how will we truly appreciate how undeserving we are of what Christ gave for us), and also should walk in love. They go together.
I suppose, then, I'll ask you:
-
Do you think the bible condemns homosexual sex?
-
If it did, would that sway you?
Yes, somehow Grants Pass was the most striking for me as well from this last term, in that it seemed the most tenuous and absurd. I was thinking the whole time, how did that position manage to attract three votes, when it was so transparently not what the 8th amendment is saying?
More options
Context Copy link