Tarnstellung
No bio...
User ID: 553
Tarnstellung
1yr ago
Or you could have a dense city with a park no more than 10 minutes away from anywhere, where kids can play on grass rather than asphalt.
Notwithstanding the problems with density alleged in the comment above. If those problems didn't (or don't) exist, parks would clearly be better than cul-de-sacs.
Tarnstellung
1yr ago
I happen to agree with your overall point, but I think your post breaks basically every rule that this website has. This is not Rdrama. Your post is almost entirely sneering without any actual arguments.
Tarnstellung
1yr ago
The first paragraph includes gender-fluid and non-binary. These are ideas from queer theory, that we can choose our gender or that it's a changeable construct. No-one is arguing that there is an internal brain construct which corresponds to them.
As far as I can tell, the first paragraph is not claiming that people can choose their gender. I can see someone claiming that they are non-binary or gender-fluid, but that they are not choosing to be that way, that it's just the way they are. This seems internally consistent to me. (I myself am very sceptical of non-binary and gender-fluid identifications, but more open to binary trans people.)
Then the next paragraphs are the born in the wrong body narrative.
Isn't the claim from the first paragraph that "Gender identity" is "part of your sense of self" the same as "the born in the wrong body narrative"? Or was your "internal brain construct" meant to be something physical that might actually be detected on a brain scan, not just a subjective "sense" or "feeling"? I've seen the brain scan arguments, and I agree that they're inconsistent with the more subjective self-ID narrative.
Where do you stand on this issue out of interest?
See the bit in parentheses above. In general, I see little need for metaphysical discussion of what it means to be a certain gender. If someone identifies as trans and it makes them happy, I'll respect their wishes. They're not asking for much.
My overall views on trans stuff are more complicated than that. I've been thinking of writing a long post about it.
Tarnstellung
1yr ago
None of these one-liners, if posted individually, would come even close to meeting the thread's quality standards. I don't think combining them into one huge (and very unwieldy) post makes up for it. It's the same as posting them one by one sequentially, except the format makes it even harder to discuss. (After writing this, I saw that @iprayiam3 said basically the same thing.) If you didn't want any discussion here and this was just an invitation to chat with you, that belongs in the Sunday or Friday thread, not here.
Another problem with your list:
\28. “It is not possible to be a good criminal defense lawyer AND a good person.” Pro
This is just asking how you personally should feel about the lawyers. It doesn't result in any policy prescriptions. Weird to include it together with the much more concrete questions like 7 and 19.
In general, you mix strictly normative questions (28, 39, 40, 48), strictly positive, empirical questions (6, 7, 11, 19, 22) and questions that are a complicated mix of both:
-
9 requires you to define "feminist" (there are many very different definitions and settling on one, even just for the purpose of a single discussion, may not be easy) and "bad" (which requires an entire moral theory), followed by a complicated discussion of empirical questions
-
30, again, requires a moral theory to define what it means to "deserve" something and what is "fair", followed by a complicated discussion of empirical questions; for example, two people may agree that the poor deserve to be poor if equality of opportunity exists and the poor are just lazy, but they may disagree on the empirical question of whether equality of opportunity does in fact exist; or they may simply believe, as you apparently do (per 51), that equality of opportunity is morally undesirable
Tarnstellung
1yr ago
\21. “We should deregulate construction completely.” Pro
Completely? This is how you get shoddily-built buildings collapsing en masse and killing tens of thousands of people, as in the recent earthquake in Turkey or the 2008 Sichuan earthquake. (Regulations existed but were not enforced due to corruption, but we would expect similar outcomes if there were simply no regulations at all.)
You are presumably some kind of libertarian, so you might prefer a more market-based system. Instead of the government creating and enforcing regulations, for example, it could require construction companies to buy insurance in case their buildings collapse. This would allow the market to discover what regulations are necessary or cost-effective. But it still requires some degree of government regulation and enforcement.
\45. “It’s morally wrong for the average voter to vote; we should try to decrease voter turnout.” Pro
\51. “Equality of opportunity is morally undesirable.” Pro
I would like you to elaborate on these two. They are far from the only points I disagree with, but these are very unusual positions and I would like to hear why you believe in them.
Tarnstellung
1yr ago
Assuming your social skills are decent, and your relationship with the Black guy doesn't make this inappropriate, and he isn't too touchy about it, it might be a good idea to ask him what the etiquette is. Not only will you get your answer, but he will also likely appreciate that you cared to ask.
solome
Solemn?
Tarnstellung
1yr ago
This is one of the major reasons why I don't think Rationalism is actually a workable approach to cognition; it doesn't seem to encourage the sort of gambles that life requires
After the fall of Sam Bankman-Fried, people were criticizing rationalism/EA for the exact opposite reason, i.e., that it encouraged him to take a gamble and risk major losses just because the expected value was positive, and that without rationalism/EA he would have been more risk-averse.
Tarnstellung
1yr ago
That's fair, I hadn't considered that. I agree it could significantly reduce quality of life for natives even if they don't necessarily end up being directly victimized.
However, I am sceptical that this is a frequent occurrence with immigrants in practice. Concern about immigrant crime tends to focus on the more typical theft, murder, etc., and on being a direct victim. The comment by @EasyWin seemed to be more about that and less about domestic disputes, celebratory gunfire or a general increase in disorder.
Tarnstellung
1yr ago
The difference of course is that we don’t have cancer advocacy
Uh, yes, we do.
cancer pride
Cancer awareness? They even have different coloured ribbons for different types of cancer, just like the various pride flags!
cancer parades
Examples from the first page of the Google search results for "cancer parade":
-
https://cyprus-mail.com/2021/09/22/torch-race-to-mark-2021-breast-cancer-march/
-
https://spectrumnews1.com/ky/louisville/news/2023/05/05/oaks-survivors-parade
cancer lifestyle TV shows
I'm not sure what trans "lifestyle TV shows" you have in mind, but surely you are not suggesting that there are no TV shows or movies where cancer is a major plot point.
de facto mandatory inclusion quotas for people of cancer in every form of media
Are you implying that trans or other LGBT people have to be included in every TV show or movie? Because I am pretty sure there have been very popular TV shows or movies produced even in the past couple of years without any LGBT characters. There are certainly many that do have LGBT characters, but, as I said above, there are also many featuring cancer.
constitutional protection at large
Maybe not "constitutional", but apparently laws protecting people with cancer from discrimination do exist.
and the White House hoisting a Cancer flag in lieu of the American flag as cause celebre.
Close enough. This is apparently an established yearly tradition now, even Trump did it.
Also, as far as I can tell, the pride flag was hoisted alongside two American flags, not in lieu of them.
P.S.: Your claim that a "bona fide medical condition implies a cure" is clearly false. There are many incurable conditions whose management is purely symptomatic.
Tarnstellung
1yr ago
I doubt these crime statistics about immigrants. I've lived around these communities in the past, and the immigrants and their communities simply don't report a lot of the crimes which happen in them and near them.
Illegal immigrants would naturally be hesitant to report a crime where they were the victim, since they generally want to avoid any interaction with the police. But natives have no such qualms, so we can assume that they would report crimes at the same rate regardless of the perpetrator's immigration status. And crimes against natives are the ones we care about.
Why would the police bother, if they were being rational? The thief could have easily fled the country if they needed to, because they still had roots back in their old country. The money never would have been recovered, and the thief would have never gone to jail.
This is not exclusive to immigrants. There are plenty of cases of natural-born American citizens with no ties to other countries committing a crime and then fleeing to countries without extradition treaties to avoid prosecution.
Tarnstellung
1yr ago
With emissions, the absolute quantity is what matters. With crime, it's the rate that the we care about. It's possible for the absolute number of crimes to increase while the rate decreases. As @Nantafiria said, immigrants may commit crime, but they may also be targeted by crime.
You're right that immigration of lower crime rate groups doesn't necessarily make the natives safer. The major assumption is that the victims of crime are random, or at least evenly distributed. If immigrants disproportionately target natives, for example, then even immigrants with a lower than native crime rate might make natives less safe. However, I am not aware of any evidence that this is the case.
Alternatively, if the crime rate varies geographically, immigrants might have a lower crime rate than the country as a whole, but higher than a certain city or region, and therefore may increase crime rates locally. This is what @CriticalDuty brought up:
It matters a great deal where these immigrants are and who exactly they're victimizing - it is small consolation to a murder victim in Boise, Idaho if the inhabitants of St. Louis, Missouri are more violent than the illegal immigrant population.
If the rate of violent crime in Boise, Idaho really is lower than the rate among immigrants, then yes, immigration would increase the rate. However, I would assume the effect is minimal, since immigrants, legal and illegal, tend to gravitate towards large cities, which already have high rates of violent crime.
Tarnstellung
1yr ago
Tarnstellung
1yr ago
The only reason they had to do that is that their product wasn't much much much better than what existed in the market.
So if your product is only slightly better than what's already available, you're not allowed to sell it, and if you try, you get executed?
Tarnstellung
1yr ago
I knew someone would bring this up, which is why I specified violent crime.
Tarnstellung
1yr ago
Why do software companies have high profit margins then? Why aren't Google and Facebook ads a lot cheaper than they are since it's all built on dirt-cheap software?
Rent-seeking, enabled by a lack of competition, enabled by network effects and natural monopolies.
Tarnstellung
1yr ago
Dishonest fearmongering is the order of the day, and as I alluded to previously, it is the prevailing philosophy of those with power and influence in America. Are you actually opposed to dishonest fearmongering, or do you simply object to the outgroup enjoying its benefits?
This website exists specifically to enable intellectually honest discussion. The fact that the rest of the world is full of dishonesty is irrelevant. It's not acceptable here.
If you're killed by someone that the government had the power and even the obligation to remove from the country, but decided not to, then the government has played a role in your murder. That's an element that simply doesn't exist for the Gacys.
This is irrelevant if your actual probability of getting murdered didn't increase.
Most groups in the world have lower violent crime rates than American natives, because the American native crime rate includes the absurdly large black crime rate. Disaggregation by race would tell a different story, albeit not one that people prefer to hear, since in the popular imagining an American "native" is just some cornfed Southern good-old-boy, and there's a great audience waiting to eagerly believe such people are more violent than one's cherished client groups.
The breakdown of the native crime rate is irrelevant. Letting in immigrants with a lower crime rate still makes the country safer overall.
Tarnstellung
1yr ago
I actually considered using Chauvin as an example instead of Gacy. I opted for Gacy because his actions are much more unambiguously evil and indefensible. Given this site's bent, there was a possibility that some might believe Chauvin's actions were justified, in which case the example wouldn't work.
Anyway, White Americans are not responsible for Chauvin's actions either.
And that's setting aside that no one had the ability to stop Gacy from being in the country, since he was born an American. Mexican migrants, particularly illegal ones, are here as the result of deliberate policy decisions to do nothing about them. If a father who has just lost his daughter cannot even question the wisdom of those policy decisions, he deserves contempt. But my sympathy is limited, as I'm sure his daughter would have never questioned those policies either, even as the knife went in.
No one decided to deliberately let in murderers. Yes, if you let in millions of people, some of them are probably going to commit murder. But unless they commit murder at a higher rate, you are not actually increasing the natives' probability of being murdered. In that case, highlighting individual murders committed by immigrants is dishonest fearmongering.
The question then is whether immigrants do commit violent crimes at a higher rate. Apparently this is not the case and illegal immigrants actually commit less violent crime than natives.
Tarnstellung
1yr ago
This is an extremely uncharitable strawman. No utilitarian believes murder is justified if the murderer enjoys it very much. Among people who do endorse euthanasia in certain cases, none consider any pleasure derived from administering euthanasia to be a relevant factor in the moral calculus.
Tarnstellung
1yr ago
You seem to be implying that he said that having his daughter murdered is an acceptable trade-off for good food. He didn't. He just said that the vast majority of Mexicans are not violent murderers and they shouldn't be collectively punished for the actions of a single madman.
Assuming you are a White American, I don't think you are in any way responsible for the actions of John Wayne Gacy. If you are from a different ethnic group, I'm sure it has produced similarly evil people, and you are not responsible for their actions unless you directly assisted them.
One day about 'born in the wrong body', another day queer theory transgression. But the reality model doesn't allow both, either gender identity is an essential attribute or it's something that you can choose, that changes, you can't have both. So many contradictions, sex and gender norms need to be thrown off, yet it's sex appearance and gender stereotypes that define the desire for, and results of, transition.
Are different people saying these different things? Or have you actually seen a single individual with two clearly contradictory viewpoints?
**Eugenicists
Well less people can't hurt the environment really. If some people want to opt-out of reproduction all the power to them.
That's anti-natalism, not eugenics. And I seriously doubt that anyone is pro-trans because of anti-natalism.
Tarnstellung
1yr ago
The kids in this article are not orphans: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-65641304
Tarnstellung
1yr ago
During World War II, more than 16% of Ukraine's population died. This was a few years after the Holodomor, in which Ukraine also lost a significant portion of its population. Belarus was hit even worse, more than 25% of their population died during the war. Both countries recovered.
And note that most of the decline in the Ukrainian population since the start of the war is due to emigration. Post-WWII Ukraine and Belarus didn't have the benefit of a large diaspora working in developed countries sending remittances home.
WWII wasn't even the worst war for a country in history. Estimates for Paraguay's population losses during the Paraguayan War vary, but there are credible estimates that most of the country's population died. Yet Paraguay recovered.
Nations are surprisingly resilient.
Tarnstellung
1yr ago
Nope. You can't suddenly declare yourself Japanese and be taken seriously.
I believe this is what the "group" in "group self-identification" was referring to: you have to be accepted by other members of the group. The Japanese are stingy about Japaneseness, but other nations are more generous. You can move to the US and declare yourself an American and you will generally be accepted. (This is my understanding, at least. I am not American.) In general, considering yourself part of a nation (meaning an ethnic group, not a nation in the sense of a legally constituted country) and being accepted by others as part of that nation is what being part of a nation is. Nations (ethnic groups) are entirely socially constructed, formed by social consensus.
This is sophistry. What this actually means is that you don't have to be a rape victim to get access to counseling services.
It's pragmatism. They are acknowledging that their goal is to provide rape counseling and not to explore complicated ethical or legal questions about sex and consent.
So can you tell me how can I find out whether or not I am a woman? (...) So let's say I'm supposed to be a player in this game, how am I supposed to pick a team if you won't tell me a non-selfID definition of "girl" or "boy"?
No one is actually confused in the way you are pretending to be here.
Tarnstellung
1yr ago
It isn't just the tens of billions spent on weapons so far, it is going to be tens of billions per year for decades.
This is nothing for the US.
The inflation, caused by this war combined with the raised interest rates to combat it, far surpasses the direct cost of the weapons.
The inflation was caused by money printing during COVID. The war has contributed very little to inflation, at least in the US.
Fascinating. Would it not be possible to just tell them explicitly that you were doing it for fun and not because you wanted to help anyone or were expecting something in return? Can the on debt be forgiven?
More options
Context Copy link