site banner
PaperclipPerfector  11mo ago (text post)   3499 thread views

Friday Fun Thread for November 24, 2023

Be advised: this thread is not for serious in-depth discussion of weighty topics (we have a link for that), this thread is not for anything Culture War related. This thread is for Fun. You got jokes? Share 'em. You got silly questions? Ask 'em.

3
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

aligning conflicting interests isn't "needless," it's an imposed cost and whether or not it's worth it is up to the parties involved, in this instance the person who owns the ship picking a captain to helm the ship

whether or not the death itself is necessary for the mores to accomplish some of its purpose is another question, the existence itself could preselect those who are better suited for the owner similar to Mutually Assured Destruction imposing an apprehension even if it's not actually followed through

if jets came about during a time when it took 6 months to a year to return the jet to the owner, I have little doubt there would be a similar tradition

additionally, given the likelihood hotel staff is ever put into the position to choose to die with the guests is extremely small, the benefit of instilling "the guest is God" in them likely have strong benefits with little costs the overwhelming vast majority of the time

traditions don't exist for the hell of it; this is chesterton's fence

aligning conflicting interests isn't "needless," it's an imposed cost and whether or not it's worth it is up to the parties involved, in this instance the person who owns the ship picking a captain to helm the ship

You can see that my claim is that the cost is grossly excessive to the benefit.

if jets came about during a time when it took 6 months to a year to return the jet to the owner, I have little doubt there would be a similar tradition

The current turnaround time for a new bleeding edge jet is measured in years, the pilots are expensive, the jets are ridiculously so. They still come with ejection seats.

additionally, given the likelihood hotel staff is ever put into the position to choose to die with the guests is extremely small, the benefit of instilling "the guest is God" in them likely have strong benefits with little costs the overwhelming vast majority of the time

And it's not possible to instill the belief that "the guest is God" without demanding that they die for them? What else might also be inculcated if the satisfaction of guests is elevated above all else, the staff expected to sleep with them or let them stay for free? There are obvious bounds on their hospitality.

traditions don't exist for the hell of it; this is chesterton's fence

I can only groan. As is the case for all fully-generalized counterarguments against doing anything ever, it counts as weak evidence for that claim. There are plenty of utterly retarded, harmful and destruction-worthy traditions, both that existed in the past, like sati, and those that exist today, like female genital mutilation.

If you put such a high premium on arguments from tradition, then I'll quote the reasoning of the British officials who put in place the ban on burning widows alive when their husbands passed:

Be it so. This burning of widows is your custom; prepare the funeral pile. But my nation has also a custom. When men burn women alive we hang them, and confiscate all their property. My carpenters shall therefore erect gibbets on which to hang all concerned when the widow is consumed. Let us all act according to national customs.[To Hindu priests complaining to him about the prohibition of Sati religious funeral practice of burning widows alive on her husband’s funeral pyre.]

So my custom, as is the custom of the Rationalist movement in the many forms it has had over the centuries, is pointing out civilizational inadequacies and behaviors that have become maladaptive, assuming they were even good for anything in the first place.

Malpractice insurance works, offing doctors who failed to cure the Pharaoh didn't. So too for imposing legal or financial liabilities on ship's captains being reckless, not asking them to die for it.

the benefit is to align the confecting interests of ownership and control

my comment isn't an argument from tradition, it's a description of why the tradition exists which is not "it's been around a long time"

the purpose of chesterton's fence isn't to argue for the fence because it's been around a long time, it's that it exists for a reason and you need to understand why before you rip it down

you're arguing against a comment I didn't write

So my custom, as is the custom of the Rationalist movement in the many forms it has had over the centuries, is pointing out civilizational inadequacies and behaviors that have become maladaptive

"the rationalist movement in the many forms it has had over the centuries," is little more than destroyers who rip things down they don't fully understand, vastly overestimating their ability to predict the benefits and costs, ignoring the resulting costs or blaming it on others, and then claiming credit for any perceived benefit, redefining and recategorizing as necessary to achieve that narrative

Would it really be that easy to track down and enforce "legal liabilities" on a captain who lost/"lost" their ship back at that era?

The Royal Navy at its height automatically court-martialed every Captain who returned to the UK without his ship. The vast majority were, of course, acquitted. But given the social status of a captain, they were fairly easy to track down in practice.

I am not talking about "that era", I am talking about today.

And there was law enforcement back at the time, regardless of how difficult it was, desertion or dereliction of duty was very much punishable, and most often such people had families back home so they didn't have the luxury of being guaranteed to go off scott free.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats