philosoraptor
No bio...
User ID: 285
philosoraptor
1yr ago
"Rape culture" is probably the term he was groping for. Though come to think of it, I haven't heard much of that one in quite some time.
philosoraptor
1yr ago
Yeah, way too many acronyms in that post. What's "SRS"? I think, with the help of your post, I get all the others.
philosoraptor
1yr ago
I take it that's what he was getting at with the last paragraph, the one starting "Frankly, the argument isn't that hard to refute".
philosoraptor
1yr ago
This model only makes sense if every participant only makes exactly one claim, which has a binary truth value, ever.
Even then, in the general case there's no reason to assume the probability it's right is exactly 50% if not known definitively. That's at best a default position for cases where you have literally no background knowledge, but that's almost never the case.
philosoraptor
1yr ago
Sounds very /r/restofthefuckingowl .
philosoraptor
1yr ago
Wait until you see how they carve up Canada, especially Ontario. The center of the country is in Western Canada, not Central Canada. Northern Ontario is well west of Western Ontario, and (at least going by the physical map rather than, say, one that showed population density) is not particularly far north. It's confusing even for us, sometimes.
philosoraptor
2yr ago
I fold in the spots where I'm 60% fave for all my money to save it for the 75% spots.
???
What does this mean, or have to do with the discussion? It's formatted as a quote but I can't find it in OP or anywhere else.
philosoraptor
2yr ago
Yankee Stadium has 12,000 seats
As perhaps an example of your larger point, this seemed implausibly low to me (it's about 20% smaller than the smallest full-time[1] arena in the NHL, a league with a much smaller following than MLB), so I did a quick Google and turned up a figure of 54,251, about 4.5 times your number. Where are you getting 12,000 from?
[1] I'm excluding the university arena the Arizona Coyotes are temporarily housed in, as that's not meant to be a permanent arrangement.
philosoraptor
2yr ago
Not all of that (indeed, hardly any of it) is strictly true. For example:
If an undercover cop tells you to commit a crime, it's still a crime.
Sometimes. At some point it becomes entrapment; the relevant question is generally whether you showed the intention to commit some similar crime. If the cops merely provided means or informed you of a potential target, enjoy your time with bubba. But if they actively goad you into it, that's a different thing entirely. The case here is somewhere in between, it seems to me.
More generally, there are different levels of mens rea requirements already. This is not some weird form of special pleading, it's already well-established legal doctrine. For example, here's a quick summary I found on a quick Google search:
https://www.tombruno.com/articles/the-four-types-of-mens-rea/
I would argue that none of the four standards listed there are met here. Ignorance of the law isn't an excuse, true, but a total lack of morally culpable intent is.
Legitimacy doesn't derives from the government authority, nor does government authority alone absolve one from following the legitimate rules of society.
We're talking here about a "crime" that only exists because of a(n intentionally confusing) bureaucratic rule, not some well-established "legitimate rule of society".
Yes. You made a good-faith effort to make sure you were on the right side of the law. That's more than most people do most of the time.
EDIT: If you check the link in the other post I'm about to put up as I type this, there's four types of mens rea listed there and the person in this example doesn't even meet the lowest one, negligence, described as "fails to meet a reasonable standard of behavior for her circumstances". Going out of your way to make sure what you're about to do is not a crime certainly meets any such standard.
philosoraptor
2yr ago
Surely it makes a difference that "some dude" is a person in an official position whose job is, at least in part, to dispense accurate information about this. If anyone did anything wrong here it's them.
I guess the disagreement is largely about what kind of mens rea requirement should hold here. I don't see why voting illegally should be a strict liability thing like you apparently do, especially if the underlying goal is to prevent *intentional *voter fraud (though such votes should not be counted, if there's a way to enforce that without de-anonymizing them). Doing it with conscious intent, sure.
People should absolutely be punished for trusting bogus information because that's how you nip that shit in the bud. If you want people to trust government officials your first, last, and only priority should be ensuring that government officials are trustworthy.
Even granting your basic premise, how does your proposed remedy accomplish this? I mean... the suggestion is literally to punish more or less random third parties, who didn't do anything wrong other than believe bad information they were given. If anyone should be punished here surely it's the people who actually dispensed the misinformation. I fail to see how your proposed remedy does anything to disincentivize the behaviour it's supposedly aimed at, because it isn't even aimed at the right people. What I do see very clearly is that it's patently unjust, for the same reason. I mean... people shouldn't be punished for stuff other people did. It doesn't get more basic than that.
The second sentence of this post does make sense, but I don't see how it's related to the first sentence. It looks more like an argument for a more robust and technologically sophisticated system for tracking voter registrations. In principle, that need not involve any change in the laws at all.
In practice, it probably would, in the specific case of Florida in 2022, but only because the system has been made intentionally confusing, if not incoherent. Implementing such a system would require creating clear rules a computer can administer, which might not exist to be programmed in without reforms to the law. I would probably be in favour of this, but that's partly because I think clear rules would make voting easier, not harder.
philosoraptor
2yr ago
can’t bring themselves to sudoku themselves
I love this typo. Don't you dare correct it.
Yes, I see this all the time in commentary around certain boardgames, for example. A lot of the time it's acknowledged that it's worse with the second part, but a lot of people seem to object to the first as well, at least if the word "colony" is explicitly used. This is far from universal even among the hard-core progs I encounter, but it's definitely noticeable.
More options
Context Copy link