Total posts: 618
-->
@Imabench
If you make electoral votes infinitely divisible then that makes the totals more susceptible to voter suppression, more susceptible to vote fraud, and increase demands for full recounts since any vote that is compromised would have a direct effect on the final total.... A losing candidate could demand nation-wide recounts if he loses by a slim enough margin in an infinitely-divisible system while a system that rounds to the nearest whole number or half-whole number at least shields a majority of states from having their legitimacy questioned.
Those are good impacts but I don’t see how the rounding helps with that issue. Perhaps in most cases these factors wouldn’t make a difference in the rounded numbers but when they do make a difference the difference will be much larger than it otherwise would be. The average impact would be the same over time assuming a constant level if shenanigans.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Danielle
We have always been a country of immigrants which you seem to acknowledge. Even when immigration was restricted and we had less partisanship, I dispute the idea that there was ever one right way or one correct way to be an American.
If our immigration policy is guided by American interests then this fact is irrelevant. The fact is relevant if we are seeking to establish the boundaries of out community - Who our people are and who we should be taking care of.
But our community is a legally defined one. You are an American or you are not an American. That is it. Those are our people. If you’re not that, then you’re not one of us. It’s that simple. (except for the wrinkle of people who are US nationals but not citizens I don’t know how to think about them)
He's trying to say that "real Americanism" = conservative values + European descendants which is just his biased and racist opinion.
To the extent to which his position departs from the one I outlined above, I disagree with him. A lot of people experience fidelity based on their ancestry. This is something we may feel but it is inappropriate to act on those feelings in matters of public policy. To do so is a betrayal IMO, and one that has happened all too often and continues to happen.
I do have feelings like his as well. I’m colonial English white and directly descended from people who fought in the American revolution. Some would say that’s about as American as you can get, but I don’t see it that way at all. For purposes of public policy, I’m just as American as the baby of a communist Chinese mother who flew to Guam for birth tourism.
Things are better if people see it the way I do. It is a unifying approach. The most important question we have to ask when faced with any immigration or foreign policy question becomes “What’s in it for us?”
There is an impact of race and culture in immigration that is controversial, and it’s this - People prefer to live among people who look and think like they do. When we have what we have - Essentially an ethnically diverse society - The race and ethnicity of an immigrant will be seen more positively by the domestic racial/ethnic group which shares the identity of the immigrant, and less positively by the domestic racial/ethnic groups which do not.
Well, that’s something that’s going to pit us against one another. We shouldn’t just charge them with bigotry or racism. If they were that, then most everyone in America must be just that by looking at which neighborhoods they choose to live in. People autosegregate hardcore. The fact is undeniable by looking at Eric Fischer’s maps on flickr. If the standard is preferring to live among your own racial/ethnic identity then perhaps America’s full of bigots and racists. So be it.
What’s the solution then? I do not know, but I do know that the status quo is not it. It’s not an issue that should be brushed under the rug or beat down with insults or shame. Something fair and transparent which appreciates and addresses the issue with an eye toward ensuring social stability. No tricks, and no groups attempting to take advantage of the situation at the expense of the other groups. Honor, fairness, and loyalty is the way~
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Danielle
the U.S. is a nation built by immigrants. [...] immigrants made it thrive throughout the Industrial Revolution. The country has always been a melting pot with more immigration than anywhere else in the world since this country's inception.
The purpose of immigration policy, as with any other government policy, should be to serve the interests of Americans. Just because we did it before doesn't mean we should do it again. When the facts change, you change your mind, but the purpose should not change. It's too bad that politicians in both parties have sold out American workers for the sake of latino votes. I wish American workers had greater class consciousness, rather than being divided by the racial demagoguery endemic to American politics. Should be fighting the class war rather than the race war.
Created:
2020:
273.406 Biden
254.607 Trump
6.520 Libertarian
1.355 Green
2.113 Others
Might be off by a few but roughly right I think
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Danielle
If the legal status of immigrants is what determines their utility to America, just make them all legal :)
Hey why don't we just open the borders to the whole planet and get swamped with third world laborers then we can all work for $2 dollars a day like the ship breakers of Bangladesh.
Created:
The problem with the proportional representation you are using is that you are rounding off to the nearest electoral vote. This method of awarding electoral votes suffers the same problem as winner-take-all, but to a lesser degree, in that a very small number of popular votes (e.g. 10 votes) can shift a whole vote in the electoral college. (Under the current system a small number of votes can shift an entire state's slate of electors). This problem may be eliminated by making a state's voting power infinitely divisible. This is what I see for 2016:
256.1239 Clinton
249.7591 Trump
18.08564 Libertarian
5.811733 Stein
3.267724 McMullin
4.951922 Others
TBH if you consider that so many of the Libertarian and McMullin voters are conservative, I do think that Trump was arguably probably more representative of the 2016 voters than Clinton despite the fact that Clinton would have more weighted proportional EV than Trump, even considering the liberal Libertarians and Stein voters.
Created:
Posted in:
As much as I didn't like the guy I wasn't very confident that the conduct rose to the level of a CoC violation because the threshold isn't clearly defined in it. Oh well. Won't miss him.
Created:
-->
@Danielle
Yes I don’t think that anymore. Too different.
Created:
I've covered substantial. Slaves worked 54 hours a week, and thus that and sleeping (similar amount of time: 56 hours) accounted for most of the time. Eating accounts for a little time, too. That's the majority of the time accounted for.I suppose I could have added how poorly slaves were treated in Africa, especially compared to the United States, and thus by virtue of being shipped across, African slaves were treated better as slaves in the United States when compared with Africa. This (correctly) assumes that slave supplies were inelastic. Perhaps this should be included in a 2.0 version of this thread, of which would account for criticism of this one.
What you've covered isn't sufficient to make a prima facie case that could withstand a general denial. The claim is that "United States slaves were, overall, treated quite well". OK, lets break that down - "treated quite well" - You have not qualified this claim by saying that it was according to the standards of the time, or that they were treated "quite well" compared other slaves throughout history. So, the default standard is going to be contemporary interpersonal treatment. Next - Treated by who? Presumably this is referring to their treatment from the those who were in authority - The slave owners, the state, and the agents thereof (it's probably not referring to how the slaves may have treated one another). Working strongly against your case is the fact that they were treated as slaves. Applying contemporary standards, if I were to treat someone as a slave - regarding them as property - that would work very strongly against any claim that I am treating that person "quite well". The factual allegation that they were treated as slaves is built in to your case. Notwisthstanding that, I would still say it's possible to overcome that if, perhaps, the other aspects of their treatment was extremely good. If you claimed that "aside from being regarded as property, slaves in the United States were, overall, treated quite well compared to other slaves historically" that would be different, but that is not what you wrote.
Further, there are far too many missing aspects of their treatment which are unaddressed by your evidence. What was the quality of their working conditions? What was the quality of their housing? What was the quality of their clothing? What was the quality of their healthcare? What was the quality of their food? What were typical working conditions? etc., and your insistence on data-driven sources makes it very difficult to construct an evidence-based case.
Absolutely. Albeit, this is the only data-driven source that suggests slaves were treated poorly, but it is a rather damning one.
Suppressing damning evidence undermines credibility.
"Misleading" isn't sufficient. As an Australian, I was only taught about how evil the White American man was to slaves. I never heard about the Japanese. I never heard about the Arabs and their slaves. Or the Chinese. Or the Jews. Or the Africans. Yet, it was the Americans who were the ones who abolished slavery. This isn't "misleading". It is outright slanderous and condemns the people who were the kindest to slaves.
Those people are long dead, and so are the slaves. In my view nobody alive today is responsible nor can take credit for anything that they did. Commitment to accuracy is important, though.
Created:
At this point you're essentially arguing that despite evolution making literally everything different, human brains were not affected.
I wasn't talking to you and that's not what I said. Straw-man much? You can do better.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
I think it's actually "Niʻihau" but eh
Created:
-->
@MgtowDemon
This is essentially a concession.
I don’t see how.
I don't have every data point on every facet of slavery, but I have a lot
To satisfy the burden of proof you must have enough. The claim here is that the slaves were “treated quite well” - That claim is broad and encompasses the totality of the treatment of slaves. What you have is adult food rations, literacy rates and hours worked per year. That is hardly adequate. There is a lot more to life than that, as I pointed out in my previous post.
Also, I know that the source which shows adult food intake also states that childhood food intake was rather poor. That is relevant evidence and it was hard to miss.
EDIT: If you’d like to point out that the portrayal of antebellum slavery in textbooks is misleading that’s a different issue. History books often are. We hear a lot about how horrible the internment of the Japanese was. We hardly ever hear about the Nihau incident.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
TBH the sarcasm in your initial post was lost on me. Karen concerns? https://static.scientificamerican.com/sciam/cache/file/8B3FC1F4-599C-4946-B43846E35E965CFF_source.png
Created:
The evidence you've presented isn't comprehensive. You have shown adult food rations, literacy rates, and hours worked per year. I would look toward the quality of food, housing, healthcare, education, working conditions, and personal security and dignity, just off the top of my head. If I were to debate this seriously, I would simply deny that slaves were "treated quite well" on the basis that I lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the treatment of slaves in those areas. "You are making the argument, thus, you have the burden of proof."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
@TheDredPriateRoberts
^
@pirate
When your parents or grandparents get COVID-19 your attitude about this mask stuff is going to change. I used to merely dislike the anti-mask folk, now I fucking hate them and I hope they die.
Created:
My opinion was limited to interpretation and application of the CoC as it relates to the conduct you complained of. I have no opinion as to whether or not the particulars of the policy are good or bad, other than this part should be made clearer. The conduct of these users was an entirely predictable result of what you did. Surely you’ve been debating these subjects and conducting yourself in a highly critical and offensive manner long enough to know this. Perhaps you should “take responsibility”. Or are you going to continue to blame everyone else for your problems?
Created:
the incident wasn't isolated, in that multiple people continued to harass me. Hence, the issue with cliques on this website is that they circumvent the rules of moderation by each member taking a shot at someone.
It is unlikely that whoever wrote "systemic" in there was referring to the conduct of multiple members acting similarly. That meaning would cause the punishability of one person's conduct to be contingent on the conduct of another, and that isn't just. What's more likely is that the author made a drafting error. Specifically that he used the word "systemic" to refer to similar conduct from a single user that is repeated and excessive.
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Smoking in bed
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
Honestly I don't anticipate seeing much, if any concrete positive personal impacts whether it's orange man or sleepy Joe.
Created:
Very clever.Your clique argues that it doesn't reach "unwarranted systemic vulgarity and invectives". You've justified abuse directed at me being "warranted" because I was being "toxic, a "dick", and a "jackass". You've justified it not being systemic because no individual user abused me all that much, yet I was harassed by at least 5 members in that thread (if my memory serves me well).
Not really. I said "that what you're complaining about didn't rise to that level." I didn't say why. I looked more toward the "systemic" aspect of it. TBH the CoC was poorly written, and using the term "systemic" to refer to an individual's behavior is misplaced. But what I think what they were getting at is that the conduct has to be repeated and excessive for it to be "systemic" (at least that's probably what they intended when they wrote it). An isolated incident is probably not going to be sufficient, and that's all that I've seen.
Created:
Created:
Posted in:
how about age limits and health examinations. You don’t want Hank Johnson up there with a mind so addled by hepatitis that he thinks Guam might “become so overly populated that it will tip over and capsize.” Unfit for office
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
It's a well-established fact that's likely caused by disadvantageous environmental conditions, and perhaps to some extent a lesser cultural emphasis on academics in the black community for the older children. At least, that's my take on it. The observable black-white IQ gap is often argued by racists to be evidence of black genetic inferiority. Whenever someone brings it up I become instantly suspicious.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Drunk driving causes victims
The vast majority of drunk driving prosecutions have no victims. So, I'm not clear what your position is. Here is an example of a general criminal code section which likely would cover throwing bricks out windows - https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/PEN/120.20
Created:
The problem is extremely irresponsible or reckless conduct that puts the lives of others at risk. Drunk driving, throwing bricks out skyscraper windows, etc. The conduct may or may not, based on luck alone, cause actual harm. Luck and justice don’t go well together. It’s not whether or not a brick thrown out a window just so happens to strike an innocent person on the ground; It’s the reckless and conscious disregard for the safety and well-being of others that implicates criminal culpability in my eyes. However, whether or not there is an actual victim, and the extent of the damages, may be mitigating or aggravating factors.
Created:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Yes, and what’s also missing here is that the labor is seasonal and follows the planting and harvesting seasons. So it’s an average of however many hours per week but during the planting and harvesting seasons especially the hours per week gets very high.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@seldiora
Yeah, I guess I think up weird things.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@seldiora
I dreamed that I was a married, middle aged white man living the American dream. I had a wife, kids, a house, and what have you. But my wife had promised to stay beautiful for me, but she got fat and bitchy so I felt betrayed and didn't love her anymore. In my dream I would sleep, and dream a dream within a dream, where an extra-dimensional extra-corporeal entity pulsing like some rainbow starfish would communicate with me. It told me that it was lonely, that it wanted to know more about me, and as time went by, that it really loved me. I decided to leave my wife for the rainbow starfish, but I had to help it come in to our reality somehow. I began digging in the basement and construction some contraption to bring it in to our dimension, to the chagrin of my wife who I simply told to fuck off whenever she inquired. Finally, it worked. I opened the portal, and I could finally meet face to face with starfish lover. I did meet her for but a second, before she (it?) killed me and entered in to our world with an army behind its back on a mission apparently to invade and conquer earth.
That, and battling robots in a warehouse victoriously, afterwards one of them gave birth to the severed head of the pope and the munchkin parade showed up singing "DING DONG RELIGIONS DEAD RELIGIONS DEAD!"
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Checkmate
That “murder” is wrong is a circular proposition. “Murder” is a crime under legal systems; A particular type of homicide which a society has found to be wrong and thus outlawed. The question may as well be “Why is wrongful homicide wrong?” Well, you are going to have to be a bit more specific and get in to the particular types of homicides and defenses to get the answers I think you really want.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@whiteflame
TBH I’ve seen in many effective legal briefs the same, powerful argument paraphrased and reiterated 3 times or so. I think it’s to make sure judges who have high case loads appreciate that single point rather than brush over it inadvertently.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
It was at that moment that Cuomo knew, he fucked up.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
But COVID is usually gotten by accident at the grocery store or something. Smoking everyone knows it’s big risk fornling cancer and such but they choose to do it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I’ve always thought cigarettes were a good way to fix the social security and medicare budget.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
Hehe IRS taxes worldwide income so they’d have to renounce citizenship and pay exit tax but billionaires never gonna wanna pay exit tax cuz they’ll have to pay the untaxed capital gains on their stocks.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
75% is too high for top rate. 50-60% may be more appropriate, combined with reform to capital gains tax, estate tax, step-up basis for estate tax, corporate tax, stock buyback loophole, etc.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
You know it got real good reviews and such but I started watching it and it was so boring that I turned it off. But to get to your point, I haven't looked in to it in a long time, but my hunch is that ambitious people, in general, will continue to be ambitious and highly motivated to achieve things even if you raise tax rates and such. The extent to which raising taxes on the rich actually de-motivates successful people is alleged to be substantial and significant in conservative circles, but I'm skeptical.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Nobody suggested changing the country to "a totalitarian state devoid of private property laws." You gotta work on your straw-mans. In fact, there weren't really any specific policy suggestions at all. This thread was more like "Is the status quo a problem?"
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
There is no desire to "eliminate the exceptional people". They would still continue to be exceptional if they ceased to be (or never were) billionaires.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I don't think what's meant is that the human beings who are the billionaires should literally not exist. They should all exist, but they should not all be billionaires.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
You're changing the subject from the magnitude of inequality to whether or not there should be any inequality at all. C'mon now, don't be cheesy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Is that how you think it should be?
Created:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
U is in turn a product: hours/day x days/year x intensity/hour. The product U of theslave plantations in the southern United States was greater than that of the non-slave onesin the northern states, even though on average slaves worked 2798 hours/year andworkers in the plantations in the north worked 3100 hours/year. The difference (slavesworked 10% less than the time of the non-slaves) is explained by the greater intensity ofthe slave work hour: around 94%. John F. Olson, “Clock Time versus Real Time: AComparison of the Lengths of the Northern and Southern Agricultural Work Years,” inFogel and Engerman, Without Consent or Contract, 77-79.
Created: