Total posts: 93
-->
@PGA2.0
Again, I owe you absolutely no explanation for anything, given that my stance as an atheist is tied exclusively to the proposition YOU (and like minded religious folks) make with regards to the existence of god/god, and therefore, the origins of morality, etc....
Your hypothesis is one of an infinite number of possible hypotheses out there, and I have given you my personal preference (which was supposed to be taken as a figure of speech, and not literally, aka: the most likely hypothesis) merely to direct the conversation back to a discussion on the origins of morality instead of being bogged down in a debate about absolutely everything.
So in summary, my atheism exists only because of you. If it wasn’t for your hypothesis on god, I just wouldn’t be an atheist.
Again, you consistently make the presumption that a disbelief is somehow equivalent to a belief. My disbelief in your ideas do not require me to replace your hypothesis with a competing one. In contrast, your belief requires you to prove it.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
Yes I agree, and I sympathise and understand your/our frustrations with them.
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
1)Actually, I'm asking atheists to explain morality and give justification for it......I claim the Christian system has what is necessary for morality and that you do not.
______________________________________________________________________________
Actually, i don’t think you are. You clearly stated earlier that you believed atheists believed that they derive their morals via random processes.
Are you seriously claiming that Christians are the only moral beings out there, and that morality never existed before Christianity recently came around?
Are you seriously claiming that Christians are the only moral beings out there, and that morality never existed before Christianity recently came around?
Secondly, while I have a personal preference for sociocultural evolution and evolutionary forces acting at the individual and group level to help explain the existence of morality in humans (and many animals), my position as an atheist has little to do with my position on morality (pls note that these are anything but random processes). There are plenty of atheists that never ask themselves where they derive their moral values from, but also many religious individuals that admit that moral values are evolutionary and sociocultural constructs.
A disbelief in your god stems purely from the fact that your arguments are unconvincing. And so my position is: I cannot believe in the existence of God/gods until you provide sufficient evidence for them (and I’m not hedging any bet that you ever will).
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Oh my. I just realised you were probably being sarcastic.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
1)Whereas I believe I derive my moral aptitude from a necessary moral being, you believe you derive yours from chance happenstance.
2)You cannot define your opponent's (true) beliefs.
3)Defining your opponent's position is the very definition of a STRAWMAN.
_______________________________
In the context of this discussion, why would i be incapable of defining my ‘opponent’s true beliefs’, especially if they defined it for me themselves?
Of course, any definition of a proposition has to be done accurately and fairly. Which brings me you your second sentence (2), in which you, imo, inaccurately and unfairly define the position of atheists with regards to the subject of moral values. No atheist would ever make the claim that their moral values are somehow derived from chance and random processes, and yet you make the claim that they do.
Your third sentence is inaccurate. Defining your opponent’s position has nothing to do with the act of strawmanning. Instead, to straw man someone is to give people the impression that you are refuting an argument when instead, the real argument under question was never refuted or even addressed.
For example, you attacked atheists for believing that they derive their moral values via random processes, when in fact, no atheist here or there has ever claimed that theirs morals are derived using those processes. You covertly replaced one proposition with another, and attacked them based on a proposition you personally introduced. This is the accurate definition of stawmanning.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Intelligence_06
I had a sniff of money-buys-everything years ago, and stopped watching it immediately. I’m happy to see I’m not the only one.
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
This sounds like the perpetual rehash of religious argumentation strategy....where they internally consult with each other and agree amongst themselves that non-believers—because they don’t happen to agree with their particular take on God and the nature of morality, etc—somehow believe that things must have happened by chance, and that any alternative to their unusual take must immediately be offered up to them with substantial evidence.....all this while never having spoken to a true atheist.
Of course, religious debaters conveniently never absorb the reality that, never in my entire of talking to atheists, have I heard them pointing to happenstance and random occurence as a explanation for anything (precisely the opposite). So why does it, as consistently as clockwork, crop up in their discussions?
Similarly, they appear to ignore or obfuscate the notion of burden of proof (probably more for convenience than blatant ignorance)?
I just don’t find your proposition convincing and evidence based, dude.....and this disbelief in your proposition didn’t require me propose any new proposition that is susceptible to any convincing attack on your part. All you can do is to go back to the drawing board and search for new evidence to support your proposition.
Of course, religious debaters conveniently never absorb the reality that, never in my entire of talking to atheists, have I heard them pointing to happenstance and random occurence as a explanation for anything (precisely the opposite). So why does it, as consistently as clockwork, crop up in their discussions?
Similarly, they appear to ignore or obfuscate the notion of burden of proof (probably more for convenience than blatant ignorance)?
I just don’t find your proposition convincing and evidence based, dude.....and this disbelief in your proposition didn’t require me propose any new proposition that is susceptible to any convincing attack on your part. All you can do is to go back to the drawing board and search for new evidence to support your proposition.
Created:
-->
@Imabench
Dumb claim number 1. Show a medical diagnosis from someone that actually is trained in a medical field that doesnt rely on some halfassed compilation of Biden just mouth-fumbling words like hes been doing since the 1980's. Hell most medical professionals even indicate that Trump's medical health is far more concerning than Biden's and theyre supposed to stay out of the subject:
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
No. Firstly, we don’t need a medical diagnosis to assess whether a person, who so happens to be a presidential candidate, has completely lost it. The visuals are unambiguous. Humans have a highly complex brain that allows them to assess the intellectual capacity of other humans. Secondly, the claim was ‘Biden has dementia’, and not ‘Trump does not have dementia’. Stick to the topic man.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
That can be challenged though...... The promise to pick a female VP was also done over the concern of representation/diversity among the party, so picking a black VP would arguably be an acceptable substitute since that would represent the concern of diversity that led to calls for a female VP in the first place. Picking Bernie Sanders instead of a female VP would be a disaster because as different as his views are from Biden, Sanders is as old and white and male as Biden. Powell doesnt fit that mold and fills the arbitrary quota for diversity that led to calls for a female VP selection in the first place.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Again no. Explain how a 13 percent representation is an acceptable substitute for a 50 percent representation (black Americans vs females)? In fact the discrepancy is even greater seeing that 50% of 13% are black females.
Who said anything about Bernie Sanders here? How old is Powell again? Yes, older than the rest of them, namely 83. With Powell equally in the mix, this is a race taking place in a geriatric ward.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Prior to this point the main driver for the VP selection was that it should be a woman. Recent events indicate that nowadays the party and the people in it cares less about gender/sex being represented in the final ticket and instead that race has become a highlight. At this point even if Biden selected a white female VP, people would question the decision over why he didnt pick someone of color due to the massive attention being devoted to race relations and the treatment of African Americans in the country right now. Picking a VP based on recent events may not be the best idea, but its better then the first decision to pick one based on gender which is what is being argued.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Really? Where have you heard that—-as a result of recent events, the party cares less about gender than it does about race? Again, let me just point out that, if you were really concerned about representation, the president and the VP ought to be white.
Unlike you, I am not obsessed with race, but in a population where 77% are white, 18% are Hispanic, and 13% black, even Hispanics have a stronger case for better representation than blacks do. Where is your outcry for them?
What exactly do you mean by....’the treatment of African Americans in the country right now’? How are African Americans being treated differently?
And to preempt your response, please provide me with the primary reasons why you think their outcomes might be different.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
At this point its still a better idea than choosing a VP based on their sex, which is what the policy was up to this point, which Im arguing Biden should go back on in the first place.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Why? You still haven’t provided us with any good reason why this would be the case. Remember it’s 13 vs 50 (possibly 6.5 vs 50). We never had a female VP or president, and we just finished having two terms of a terrible mixed-race president. Note: he wasn’t bad because he was mixed-race president but because he was part of the democrat establishment.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
You seem to be confused on what my arguments even are about
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
You seem to be confused on what your arguments even are about
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Imabench
No. You made a claim regarding protests in general. That is the way you phrased your sentence. I’m asking for the use of tear gas during riots and protests in general.
Finally, if you could refrain from using completely biased sources as references it might add weight to your argument.
Finally, if you could refrain from using completely biased sources as references it might add weight to your argument.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
I’m starting to figure that out at my own expense.
Yes, for many of my statements I probably forgot to wear my old, disheveled leftist hat, and responded based on how things ought to be instead of how things appear to be in the viewpoint of many leftists.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Imabench
Ok. Now you re merely jumping from the medical to the judicial, and vice versa. Stick to the topic. It’s purely judicial.
Ad hominem will get you no where. Do you have any statistics on the claims you just made regarding the use of tear gas?
Finally, Yes I agree with them. Protests eventually need to end, esp if they are from the get go, illegitimate.
Created:
-->
@Imabench
Ok. What exactly was stupid?
Here is a list of the things I said:
1) Biden has dementia.
2) Many Democrats are unlikely to forgive the breaking of a promise to choose a female VP.
3) It is a terrible idea to pick a VP based on recent events
4) Choosing the VP based on the colour of their skin is a terrible idea.
5) Competence is a virtue.
6) Endorsing a candidate is not a good reason for the candidate to pick them.
7) Personally praised you for coming up with the counter arguments that clinched the deal in my eyes.
7) Personally praised you for coming up with the counter arguments that clinched the deal in my eyes.
Which one of these points is ‘stupid’? I’ll quote the infamous Imabench in saying ....’If you actually want to discuss the matter, then fire up whatever functioning brain cells you have and actually make respectable counter-points to it’.
Yes of course. I do get to have an opinion, don’t I?
Like you said, for many democrats he is associated with the Iraq war and the Bush era, while for many republicans he a complete sell out. Not a great combination in an election.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Imabench
I wrote.....’there is a stronger argument to make against the coronavirus restrictions than curfew.
The so-called ‘curfew’ in the case of the coronavirus has no stated hour, week, month, or year for that matter, and is therefore 1) not really a curfew, and 2) a decision that holds up less strongly constitutionally speaking....potentially breaking a number of constitutional amendments.
That said, and putting aside the judicial matter for one second, it is completely justified at a purely medical and societal level—but that is a separate issue in this particular discussion.
The narrative and order of events of the ‘protests’ you depicted are not at all as I remember. Tear gas, etc....was used after the ‘mostly completely peaceful protests’ went violent. Following the violence and looting of cities nation wide, local authorities decided to implement curfews, with a stated hour.
I’m fully aware that many protests are completely peaceful and that certain violent factions (for example: antifa) intentionally insert themselves within protests and resort to violence, at the expense of peaceful protestors.
Created:
-->
@Imabench
You wrote a long-winded opinion piece. A disagreed with it. Grow some balls and stop taking it personally.
As with most opinion pieces, they make an weak attempt at showing both sides of the argument. Unfortunately for you, the reasons you gave on why Powell would be a bad pick were greater than the reasons why he would make a good pick. So I picked my side (using your arguments).
Essentially you entered in a monologue with yourself and asked us to pick between two sides, and now that I picked the side you didn’t want me to pick, you’re angry.
Oh well....
Created:
-->
@Imabench
No need to get personal about this. Chill out man.
Respond to the rest of it or not. I gave you the courtesy of adequately responding to yours.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Imabench
No need to resort to petty ad hominem in our discussion here.
Secondly, you don’t just get a free pass by merely repeating what you said previously.
Curfew (Merriam Dictionary): a regulation enjoining the withdrawal of usually specified persons (such as juveniles or military personnel) from the streets or the closing of business establishments or places of assembly at a stated hour.
As said before, the stated temporality of a curfew makes the majority of the difference, which is largely why we didn’t call the lockdown a curfew or the recent curfew a lockdown. But you came up with the difference yourself, which beggars the question, why are you arguing the point?
Finally, looters and violent criminals will be dealt with using batons and tear gas..... and possibly more.
Created:
Nah. Even if you could excuse Biden for forgetting his promise that he would choose a female VP (given his advanced dementia), I don’t think other democrats would.
In light of recent events (one rogue cop kills one black guy), it would be insanely stupid of us to claim that race should take precedent over anything else, especially over something as important but lowkey these days as competence. Chiefly, in the Increasingly likely scenario that Biden slowly succumbs to his advanced dementia.
That Powell decided to endorse Biden doesn’t automatically make him a suitable candidate for VP. Finally, you summed up the reasons why it wouldn’t work yourself, which saved me plenty of time.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DrSpy
Dryspy: A quantum superposition means the tree is standing and falling at the same time, which means it could be making sound and not making sound at the same time, and even still the tree exists and does not exist at the same time.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
No. A tree is not a quantum entity, and so the laws of quantum physics and mechanics doesn’t apply at the scale of a tree.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Agreed.....added to the fact that Imabench is using the terms ‘curfew’ and ‘coronavirus restrictions’ interchangeable, amongst other things I disagree with.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Imabench
States and local ordinances may legitimately impose curfews at limited times. It is part of their prerogatives. Curfews generally last several hours (during late evenings, or dusk-to-dawn) and then are removed. That said, if it is deemed to violate the 1st, 4th, 5th and 14th amendment rights, it can be struck down.
Few of these characteristics apply when speaking of the coronavirus restrictions. They weren’t limited and were/are continuous (several months restrictions). The scale, scope and temporality makes the two difficult to compare, and therefore, there is a stronger argument to make against the coronavirus restrictions than curfew. And so, no, you can’t easily or correctly argue that curfews are the same thing unless you decide to also change the definition of what a curfew is.
Finally, the curfew is not to stop people protesting but to stop vandals from destroying your property and that of others. Did conservatives burn buildings and loot local businesses?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Imabench
You realise curfews are different to the coronavirus restrictions? If so, they aren’t hypocrites, and if not, how are they the same thing?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PressF4Respect
Well, no. The chain of events you portrayed are largely fictional. Do you have any reputable link you could share with us that corroborates your narrative?
Trump personally ordered their removal? Really? The links please.
In reality, Bill Barr was in a meeting on Friday (the week before) with US Park Police and they came to the consensus that the security perimeter had to be pushed back, and then on Monday he attended a meeting with other law officials to decide the dividing line, which put Lafayette Park out of the protester perimeter. The plan was supposed to be put in action immediately after the meeting, however, because many officers had been injured days before, they had to wait for additional National Guard troops to arrive. Once they were then ready, the Park Police tactical commander gave the go ahead.
Bill Barr himself doesn’t seem to have been involved in the go ahead or in the tactical command (much less Trump).
I unfortunately had to slog through your opinion piece above without any trace of evidence.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
A great vid. Finally some content that doesn’t just skim the surface, and brings us back to asking the reason of things.
Created:
-->
@Danielle
Danielle: Candace Owens is trash, and so are most people commenting in this thread.....
Anyone that desperate to straw man the narrative in this way is trash, plain and simple.
________________________________________________________________________________________________
Writing a series of opinionated adjectives does little to support your argument.
Your personal straw man is your suggestion that most people commenting in this thread are ‘trash’, and therefore, insufficiently worthy to even question the existing narrative. If you think you can stop people thinking for themselves by setting your arbitrary boundaries on what constitutes ‘trash’ thinking, you are seriously mistaken.
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
Historybuff: It doesn't matter if George was a saint or a complete asshole. He was murdered. The police who murdered him are the problem.
_____________________________________________________________
The action of the cop/s should also not be used to tarnish the reputation of the entire police force, or God forbid now, all whites or others that don’t agree with violent and savage behaviour of many protestors. It is shameful of you to take the action of one police officer and generalise that behaviour to the entire force.
As for the rest, the whole discussion was about the false narrative being portrayed on the man. The narrative is blatantly false, and so the narrative should be addressed. For someone with the name ‘history’ in your name, you seem pretty loose and easy with the truth.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Trent0405
Do you mean intellectually competent? If so, yes of course—the man clearly suffers from some advanced form of dementia, and as a result, it isn’t very difficult to be more competent than he is right now.
That trump doesn’t abide to the rigorous PC culture and political status quo is a separate issue.
That trump doesn’t abide to the rigorous PC culture and political status quo is a separate issue.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Trent0405
Lovely idea. A completely brain dead president is always a better option than moderately ‘well’ functioning one.
If he ever makes it to Election Day, you’ll simply be voting for the Vice President (aka president).
Created:
Maybe (black) voters are more multidimensional and ‘see the greater picture’ than you give them credit for. Maybe, many of them believe that what is good for society as a whole is also good for them. Maybe they are also aware of the terrible long-term consequences positive discrimination has on minority groups, and they no longer want to be tarnished with the forever a ‘victim’ brush.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Trent0405
Trent0405: But it is actually harming the workforce from the research I’ve found. In SanDiego rent controls resulted in an increase of unemployed people by 40.9% in just 4 months(Page 666). So rent controls are contributing to the problem, not solving it.
Also, despite a very very small increase in the number of employed people, this is most likely because of an increase in population.
Also, it was 30,000 per year, so it was actually 330,000 lost apartments lost as a result of rent control.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Its important you research references more, including the factual reasons why specific ups and downs take place, instead of making false correlations.
Read the Postwar prelude 1945-1949 (page 11)....From the book ‘The 1950s’.
As stated before, a myriad of other factors take place simultaneously—in this particular case, the end of a war, and the industrial and economic ramifications of post-war in a particular region (San Diego).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Trent0405
Trent0405: Okay, it appears that rent controls have a negative impact on investment in housing. This is because investing becomes less viable and lucrative, leading to reduction in housing quality, supply, and price. This lack of investment resulted in 30,000 lost apartments in New York every year over 11 years in New york as a result of rent controls according to William Tucker.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Ok. I finally have a little time on my hands, and I’ll maybe slowly slide into the discussion again.
I couldn’t quite understand the reason for the link regarding the 30,000 apartments lost in New York every year, or the credentials of a man called ‘William Tucker’. However, what I did observe was that.....’Although hard statistics on abandonments are not available, William Tucker estimates that about 30,000 New York apartments were abandoned annually from 1972 to 1982’.
So where does this 30,000 figure come from? Additionally, and let’s suspend disbelief and assume his estimations are accurate, this still doesn’t prove that ‘abandonments’ are the result of rent controls. A myriad of other factors might be at play here.
So where does this 30,000 figure come from? Additionally, and let’s suspend disbelief and assume his estimations are accurate, this still doesn’t prove that ‘abandonments’ are the result of rent controls. A myriad of other factors might be at play here.
Secondly, William Tucker’s credentials can speak for themselves. ‘Mr. Tucker’s clients have included estate and trust beneficiaries, personal representatives, trustees, financial institutions, shareholders, partnerships, corporations, real estate developers and investors, real estate brokers, and other business entities’.
I couldn’t make up a more vested interest than this one. But anyway.....
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Trent0405: This is just me spitballing, but if rent controls lower quality and affordability in the long term, then wouldn’t the problem still be present and worsened ultimately? If the problem can be remedied for a brief moment, but the aftermath worsens the situation then I see little utility in rent controls.......
I am unsure, it seems like government regulation that restricts housing supply is a big factor in increasing housing prices, but federal housing programs have also found success. A pure laissez faire solution will most likely be unsuccessful. Maybe kickback regulation but still maintain some government intervention.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Rent controls have to be moulded and designed for a given environment, to meet the needs and demands of a specific environment. It certainly can’t be a case of one size fits all, and continuous tweaking and evolving should take place.
At least, contrary to many economists, you’re not entirely sure whether applying the free market system to the rental sector would work. But in actual reality, economists are also in favour of tax benefits, incentives and subsidies for the real estate sector, which really doesn’t sound like the magical ‘laissez faire, free market’ solution. For them it’s a case of increased deregulation of prices while also lobbying for increased subsidies and tax incentives for owners.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@CaptainSceptic
Captainsceptic: Not so with SARS, MERS, Smallpox, Herpes, Chickenpox, (I am leaving polio out specifically)
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
Ill simply react to the argument above (because Oromagi dealt with your other points sufficiently.)
The idea that the ‘clinical presentations’ are constantly changing is wrong.
Are you suggesting that the first identified symptom/s during an outbreak of a novel disease has to be the only symptom the disease ever has, or maybe it’s more a case of, as cases continue to increase, in a genetically diverse population, the number of symptoms will also be diverse and appear to be ‘constantly changing ’ over time?
Of course it’s the latter, and it’s merely an illusion of change as a result of insufficient viral-spread time, genetic and heath risk diversity and insufficient knowledge—not to mention the possible evolution of the virus over time.
Of course it’s the latter, and it’s merely an illusion of change as a result of insufficient viral-spread time, genetic and heath risk diversity and insufficient knowledge—not to mention the possible evolution of the virus over time.
None of the examples of infectious agents you provided above are exceptions...quite the contrary.
Just look at chickenpox for example. The list of possible ‘clinical presentations’ could fill out an entire page and range from itchy blisters to pneumonia, inflammation of the brain, arterial ischemic stroke, and singles.
Many of the associated symptoms were only discovered hundreds of years after its first description, and so likewise, the clinical presentations also widely changed over time.
You are looking at the history of infectious diseases with hindsight and without the perception of time.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Captainsceptic: Now you are hitting the nail on the head. Whilst it may not be viewed as evidence to some of the simulation (which I don't believe, I was using it for demonstration purposes). You have shown the exact issue. In our world, and how we expect information, how we expect answers, we are now shooting first and aiming later. And perhaps out minds have morphed based on the code of the big simulation.Our insatiable appetite for instantaneous answers and information is going to be as much of a problem.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
How exactly has this episode been a case of shooting first and aiming later? What exactly has been shot? And how is the concept that we can’t possibly know everything about a novel viral infection immediately and instantly be a good argument for the idea of big simulation? That our brains have an ‘insatiable appetite for instantaneous answers’ is a generalisation and also makes perfect sense (at an evolutionary level).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Melcharaz
Friends with benefits. You can get the intellectual stimulation along with the sexual one, all this multiplied by however many of those friends you have.
It goes without saying that life enters different cycles, and that what applies today will probably not tomorrow.
The desire of pleasing each other is not exclusive to one type of interaction, nor is the ability to talk about anything or feeling comfortable whilst in their company.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Concerning the dad, like you said, he probably knew it wasn’t legal, which only reinforces the idea that what happened was never remotely calculated. They just never expected him to behave the way he did.
On a side note, if I personally had a son, and that son was in a struggle with another man for control of a gun, I probably would react more violently than the father did here (but of course I wouldn’t have started the vigilante process in the first place).
I also noticed that Wikipedia completely changed the content of their page regarding the events of the shooting (since yesterday), making it look more like a shot might have been made before and not only during the struggle.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
How in God’s bloomin name is this allowed to take place on a university campus (apparently Howard university campus)?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Yes. A terrible incident, but those incidents are, statistically speaking, bound to occasionally happen.
A man jogs alone, proceeds to stop at a private house undergoing repair or construction and enters it (something I’ve never seen a jogger do before, but anyway). A father-son combo (aka starsky and Dutch), after reports of recurrent burglary in the region, come out guns blazing. A shot was fired during what appears to be a fight between Arbery and Travis for control of Travis’s shot gun. As the fighting proceeds, two more shots are heard.
Obviously, from what we know, the shots more likely took place during the fight and not before it. So it can hardly be considered a case of blindly shooting a man for the sole reason of them being racist and him being black—as some emotional narratives have portrayed and suggested.
As for your first question....the media doesn’t do justice, so obviously according to them, they are guilty before proven innocent.
Created:
-->
@Jeff_Goldblum
Yes. It’s not fun having one’s contribution taken out of context and embellished for comedic effect. There was no insult nor violence, and no harm was done. Case closed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@User_2006
It’s a general rule of thumb, at best....but it is still less an absurd than the alternative depiction, namely, a linear political continuum, with left and right factions inhabiting both ends.
If you played around with the horseshoe representation, and looked at it through the lens of history, you would probably see some cyclical inversion of position from time to time. So I’m instead seeing an extremely warped strip of metal, continuously hammered by the blacksmith, and, taking numerous snapshots in time, some of the snapshots will more or less represent a strip of metal having the horseshoe shape.
If you played around with the horseshoe representation, and looked at it through the lens of history, you would probably see some cyclical inversion of position from time to time. So I’m instead seeing an extremely warped strip of metal, continuously hammered by the blacksmith, and, taking numerous snapshots in time, some of the snapshots will more or less represent a strip of metal having the horseshoe shape.
Created:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit: I haven't really made my 'tomorrow' post yet but probably will have done so by the end of the week. I have been working 55 to 57 hours a week for the last two months so meeting deadlines I set for myself on some debate website aren't exactly my top priority.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
So then I’ll be eagerly awaiting the content of ‘tomorrow’’s post by the end of the week, where you summarily destroy the well established concept of tradeoff.
Secondly, apply the same logic to others that you apply to yourself. That you didn’t have sufficient time to fully outline your opinion, largely due to a limited time resource, and as a result, you ‘weren’t specific....or well defined’, doesn’t mean others aren’t in the same boat.
Finally, it really sounds like your personal life is full of tradeoffs—which makes it increasingly difficult for me to understand why you don’t except it in the discussion. Anyway, I’m eagerly awaiting your next post.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Discipulus_Didicit: On a related note you can feel free to take your time in explaining why you think that technology wiping out humanity is likely enough to be a serious concern, there is no requirement that you do so within a set time period. Until you do so though you can't expect people to just nod in agreement.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
By the looks of it, you have more than you can chew, atm. But yes, I’d love to go into it in more detail. It was more of an argument, not necessarily against space exploration, but an argument against its potential feasibility, due to dynamics taking place within the field of technology itself. As such, it probably deserves a discussion in its own right.
The final point will be that: we also shouldn’t expect people to simply nod in disagreement. Let’s hope they nod for a valid reason, and use valid arguments other than....‘weren’t specific.....or well defined’.
Created:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit: Sure. Still if I had to choose between cheap space flight for the masses or an immediate and permanent end to poverty and hunger I reckon I would choose the latter to come first. Problem for me is that I don't in reality see the two objectives as being inherently opposed but we can give Jeff a chance to explain why he does.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
’Jeff’ clearly expressed why he thought the concept of tradeoffs existed. You haven’t outlined anything, apart from stating your personal opinion.
Maybe I could help you understand the concept of tradeoff using an hypothetical example:
In a world where nuclear power plants and space exploration coincide, and where both use the same energy source (e.g. uranium) for their function, both endeavours directly compete with each other to gain access to the mineral. The mineral is of course limited, and as a such, increasing the activity of one endeavour decreases the activity of the other.
In a world where nuclear power plants and space exploration coincide, and where both use the same energy source (e.g. uranium) for their function, both endeavours directly compete with each other to gain access to the mineral. The mineral is of course limited, and as a such, increasing the activity of one endeavour decreases the activity of the other.
So exactly contrary to what you just said above, two objectives can inherently ‘be opposed’.
I think it is you that needs a chance to explain why you disagree with the notion of tradeoffs.
Created:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit: You will excuse me of course if this sentiment doesn't frighten me as much as you seem to have thought it might.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Save the need to make any erroneous assumptions on how you think I feel regarding you on any matter here. You could have simply admitted that you either didn’t read it or couldn’t quite grasp the idea of the concept, as your selective paraphrasing suggests.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Your concerns aren't very specific or well-defined. Just a generalized "technology can be dangerous sometimes so if we have a lot of technology it might kill everyone... maybe... possibly... or possibly not who knows lol."
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
By now you probably realise how a forum works. You don’t flood the room in your initial post with a long winded text, espousing your position of the topic on every conceivable angle. You proceed in gradual steps and wait for the discussion to evolve before you introduce your next position or argument. But let’s take your first post as an example.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Discipulus_Didicit: The first is valid only insofar as it is true. Space exploration is dangerous. Radiation, heat, lack of basic necessities such as oxygen or gravity... Space is a place that tries its best to kill anyone traveling it. I don't think the dangers of space flight come close to making a situation where the pros outweigh the cons,......
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Lovely stuff. Notwithstanding the fact that you forgot to mention some graver dangers—you casually end the sentence by making a cost benefit analysis based on absolutely nothing. We just have to take your word for it.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Discipulus_Didicit:The second seems outright wrong just on the face as it implies a dichotomy between space exploration and other issues whereby addressing one requires one to ignore the other. This is a dichotomy which I simply don't see as actually existing in real life.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
So in this argument you flatly deny the possibility of there being a tradeoff, and implicitly assume that, in real life (of all things), ressources and human time are unlimited entities—and similarly to the time before, you provide absolutely no reason why we should just take your word for it.
It almost sounds like your views ‘aren’t specific...or well defined’. Oh, hang on: you end your post by admitting that this ‘is a quick bare-bones version of what I think’, and that you will ‘go into a bit more detail tomorrow.....’.
Which means you really do know how a forum works. Maybe it’s a case of thinking that what applies to others really shouldn’t apply to you.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Discipulus_Didicit: if anyone has any specific questions please ask.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
So, I looked at your ‘tomorrow’ post and found nothing to reassure me that tradeoffs don’t exist, and unfortunately, I’m still stuck with the idea that human time and ressources remain in limited supply. How exactly did you come to ignore the notion of tradeoffs (with regards to space exploration)?
Created:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
That wasn’t the type concern I had in my first post either. I guess you might have only read the first sentence.
Created:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
My first sentence was an introduction and in context of my preceding sentences, and therefore, held on its own, my first sentence doesn’t adequately represent my position when taken out of context....but nonetheless ...
Your concern for how the history books are written is the result of you placing a higher value on our known history than all the possible hypothetical ones, which is somewhat understandable. But because it would be impossible to know the history of a hypothetical world in which Columbus never made it to America, I think it would also be impossible to assume that the history in which Columbus made it to America is somehow the best one.
But then, Columbus is a bad example, because what was good for Spanish royalty certainly wasn’t good for the Native North and South Americans. European technology (along with their diseases) completely destroyed their civilisations, which wouldn’t have been possible several hundred years prior.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgmi
If you could define exactly what you mean by ‘a conspiracy theory’, or ‘conspiracy thinking’ it would be extremely helpful.
Created:
-->
@Jeff_Goldblum
The benefits of prioritising space exploration might result in us reaching the objective of space travel and habitation, but it might also not.
As technology continues to inexorably increase, the ease at which we can do something extremely complicated and difficult similarly increases.
And because technologies aren’t easily quantified as either ‘beneficial’ or ‘harmful’, and because it is almost impossible to control its use (especially as the ease of use continues to increase), and because, somewhere out there, exists some novel or increased level of technology (and potentially harmful technology) at which civilisation almost certainly gets destroyed— I’m seriously uncertain of the idea that humans will reach the level of technology required to explore and inhabit space before they reach the level of technology at which civilisation almost certainly gets destroyed.
The act of attempting a moon landing in the 50s and 60s had the effect of creating many new technologies that we casually use today. The act of attempting to travel and inhabit space would be no different. The result could be the development of a whole slew of new, enhanced and potentially beneficial or (harmful) technologies that could be casually used in the future. And therefore, space exploration could have as indirect outcome the destruction of human civilisation, unless quite extraordinary and historically unprecedented degrees of preventive policing and/or global governance are implemented.
The irony of this particular scenario, in this particular thought experiment, is that the act of developing space exploration has the outcome of destroying human civilisation and therefore the development of space exploration itself.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Trent0405
Trent0405: The problem is, if it is correct that economists are practically the only people to research this, then no, it wouldn’t really be a notable problem for me to purely use economists to establish my position. Whether economists are a good source of info or not, if they are practically the only people to offer anything then I am merely working with the evidence presented to me.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
We are now descending into a non-critical analysis of information with the sole objective of comforting one’s preexisting position on the issue, without listening or responding to the attacks made of that position.
Ive sufficiently outlined why I think the supply and demand theory is an insufficient and erroneous model to understand rent control outcomes, and therefore, why it is wrong for economists to blindly use this model in making claims against it (yet they almost all do). However, this attack to the core of economic thinking and doctrine didn’t even register with you as something important, worth absorbing and considering, and you just carry on chanting the ’more-research-papers-equates-to better’ mantra.
Completely beside the point and in response to you, more of something bad doesn’t magically transform into good. It’s just overall increasingly bad.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
But I don’t have access to these opinions, so I can’t know if urban planners have a strong opinion, how they reach their conclusions, or what hard statistics they are working with. Urban planners and their work are wonderful and add value to society, but if I can’t see their work, I’m left to purely hypothesize about their opinions, and how they reach them.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
That is a little disingenuous.
Why do you incessantly use the words ‘urban planners’ in the context of looking for research papers? I’m growing increasingly weary of repeating myself without you modifying your stance in light of what I just said. I repeatedly stated that urban planning is a multi-disciplined field of study, and therefore, the people working there will come from many different fields, and so will their research papers.
But even before we start analysing the research output, we would have to know what the objectives and goals of a given urban space should be. From there we can direct our attention to researchers working in the field and see what research has to say about optimising those goals, using data and methodology that is as unbiased and as reliable as possible (and not overly dependant on supply and demand thinking, unless you adequately respond to my attacks on it).
Ultimately, goals define outcomes. Change the goals and you will directly influence the results and outcomes.
For example: the urban goal here is to maximise the building of new houses (for the rental sector). According to the supply and demand model, increasing the profit margins of landlords will increase the potential of them to build new houses, and therefore, increase the supply of housing as a whole. And so the policy (based on the simplistic supply and demand model) is to deregulate the rental market. It roughly assumes that, because landlords are making more money, this will automatically result in them building more houses, and that some ideal equilibrium will be reached at some point.
This is a foolishly over-simplistic assumption. We haven’t begun to understand the behaviours and incentives of landlords and tenants, much less the specific urban environment ( much less where will the equilibrium be). But anyway, the goal and policy outcome was set.
Another specific example could be: the urban goal is to provide cheap housing for people living in the center of a large city (with a high population density, and with a low capacity to build new houses) and to reduce their commuting time. The urban goal rightly assumes that long commuting to work has overall negative outcomes. In this example, the policy outcome considers an urban space with limited potential to expand and sets additional goals such as the price of rent and the reduction of commuting time.
These 2 examples could be two different goal-sets, applied to one specific region. Their stipulated goals are different and so are their policy outcomes. The first demands for rental price deregulation, and the second would probably come to the conclusion that rental controls are important.
They could additionally both be right, based on what their specific goal was.
In other words, goals determine outcomes (and also what and how we measure results).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Fauxlaw: And there is the crux of the failure of the posit that a "machine should run the world." Until A.I. demonstrates the actually ability to think, that is, to rise above the processing of data, for whatever purpose, to developing a data set of its own devising, wholly different, syntactically and semantically, from data it has been fed, it is incapable of properly running the world. It must, in a sense, achieve mastery of the distinction between a cold, 1-0-ciphered justice and warm, infinite-ciphered mercy. If it cannot tell me the time of day on Mars, it certainly cannot read my heart, can it?
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Putting aside for one instance the question of whether a future AI can think.......there is insufficient knowledge to claim that a future ‘machine should run the world’, but there is an increasingly strong claim that ‘humans shouldn’t be running the world’.
On the other point, you yourself admitted that the Mars24 app could tell you the time of day on Mars—and I suppose it could also tell you the season, amongst many other things you couldn’t calculate. That the Mars-focussed app wasn’t integrated to your AppleHomePod tells us nothing about whether a future AI could or couldn’t think, or that it is simply a case of ‘garbage in garbage out‘. It is an anecdote that serves to point towards specialisation in technological systems.
If I asked you for the gravitational time dilation of a given space located 100 light years away from a specific black hole, you might similarly tell me ‘I don’t know where that is’, or, ‘I know too little about the theory of relativity to give you an answer’. You are also a highly specific and specialised machine, but I equally wouldn’t argue that you weren’t a thinking machine.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Melcharaz
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Trent0405
Trent0405: My main question here is what utility does your opinion serve. I ultimately want studies, reports, papers, meta analyses... this is the way I am to change my opinion.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Yes. To propose the idea that, maybe, economists are not the best people to inform policy makers what housing policy should be like, is hardly a utilitarian conclusion. I never suggested otherwise. I merely pointed out that your initial post used economists as the only reference point to gauge the question of whether rent controls were useful or not, and that this was insufficient. I don’t need ‘studies, reports, papers, meta analyses’ to do that.
More than an end goal of changing ones’ opinion, this discussion served to exemplify (to me, and maybe you) how complicated and multifaceted housing policy can be, and that this policy couldn’t be accurately analysed using, for example, the old and over simplistic model of supply and demand. ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Trent0405: If economists aren’t the right people to look to for answers about rent control, and I should look to urban planners, I need something from urban planners on rent control, if I could see a decent number of studies from urban planners that support rent control, then I would immediately make changes to my stance on the issue. I have heard a lot of reasons why economists aren’t valid, but your alternatives are worse because they haven’t offered anything of their own.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
I have repeatedly stated that this is a problem of this-and-that, and not either-this-or-that. You need a multi-field system of analysis— which includes urban planners along with a certain group of economists (including other fields too), and certainly not just economists (or even just urban planners, even tho the term ‘urban planners’, by definition, includes many different fields of study).
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Trent0405: Is it not true that urban planners have offered practically nothing on the issue? Is it not correct that I should value economists more because they have offered a significant amount of research(sadly no meta-analyses though)? All I know is that economists are the only group of academics that research the issue to my knowledge, so, even if I Concede all of the topics brought up, I still couldn’t, and wouldn’t say that urban planners will be the people to construct my opinion on rent control.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
The term ‘urban planner’ is a somewhat loose term that includes individuals with an education background specifically in the field of urban planning to individuals with a background in a variety of other fields. What makes them ‘urban planners’ is the vast field they are studying and influencing. So research papers won’t necessarily come with the tag ‘urban planners’, etc....Additionally, a large number of urban planners work for government groups and associations that don’t publish via the classic peer-review journal system, but through internal papers that report directly to government.
Your second question asks whether I would agree with you that, because economists have supposedly ‘offered a significant amount of research’ in the field, that I should somehow ‘value economists more’ on the topic discussed. In this particular instance, even if it was the case that economists have published more, it tells us nothing about the quality or accuracy of the published content. ‘More‘ doesn’t always equal ‘better’, especially when the question of conflict of interest arises.
Created:
Posted in:
Nemiroff: You say these policies distract from fundamentals, im assuming you mean overall prosperity, security, etc. But if, hypothetically speaking, you are feeling oppressed, and the general prosperity is not reaching your neighborhood, and the security seems to target you, those identity issues are very important to you.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Yes, I agree that if a feeling of oppression is legitimate, then the cause for oppression is something that needs to be considered. Of course the examples of general prosperity and security are completely legitimate concerns.
However, my other point was that this feeling of oppression is not always legitimate. If you are told (by friends or society as a whole) what kind of oppression or grievance you ought to be feeling, and if the system is open to abuse in that, a greater perception of oppression leads to a higher point value, then you have just made the perfect system to increase the perception of oppression in society as a whole.
Not only has the system increased the number of illegitimate complaints (because of an rigged system that can be abused by false claimants), but you have also increased the total number of legitimate claims, because the system also dictates and expands on what you should be feeling oppressed by.
Not only has the system increased the number of illegitimate complaints (because of an rigged system that can be abused by false claimants), but you have also increased the total number of legitimate claims, because the system also dictates and expands on what you should be feeling oppressed by.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Nemiroff: And rather than break down the unity, it should unite us in our search for equal rights, much like the white people who marched for black rights, or the men who march for womens rights. I dont believe in equal outcomes, but i do believe in equal opportunity.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Do you really believe that an oppression-value system could unite us? The system just relegated me (a white male)— based on a warped and fallacious reading of history, of which I took no part—to being completely illegitimate in any conversation or discussion related to pretty much anything. What the system has done so beautifully, and contrary to its expectation, is force me out of my naturally left-wing disposition, and into the arms of right wing groups. This is called division and not unity. And therein lies the other danger. This system is partially responsible for a rise of dangerous right wing groups and their perceived attractiveness to many people, and the consequences that may follow.
The idea that a division-based system could unite us is as preposterous as saying, ‘divide to unite’.
The idea that a division-based system could unite us is as preposterous as saying, ‘divide to unite’.
I also believe in equal opportunity but not necessarily in equal outcomes.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Nemiroff:.....a policy like affirmative action (and no other policy) sounds like favoritism, but can you honestly say that without affirmative action black people would see equal opportunity?
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
I can honestly say that affirmative action resulted in increasing their sense of inequality and perception of racism—and potentially stigmatises minorities as academically challenged and intellectually weak, to produce added psychological pressure that undermines performance.
But then what do you think a system that encourages people to identify as disadvantaged, even if they are not, will do? Firstly, it will never eliminate the feeling of being disadvantaged—in fact it will probably enhance it. Additionally, if they never felt disadvantaged but are then encouraged to classify themselves as being part of a group that was once disadvantaged, they are very likely to start feeling disadvantaged.
And I haven’t even begun talking about how it might increase racial tension and discriminate against the least fortunate in majority groups, or, how..... because affirmative action was originally set up to compensate African Americans for past discrimination under slavery and segregation, the system is now visibly being abused by (more recent) immigrants affiliated to these minority groups.
Notwithstanding how affirmative action discriminates against high achievers.
In sum, affirmative action is the perfect policy that exemplifies why an oppression-point system would be counterproductive and would increase the sense of inequality, racism, and division between us. Imagine affirmative action a thousand times over, and that is the practical application of postmodernist identity politics based on a perception of oppression.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Nemiroff: Its a terrible bandaid, but its better than letting the wound just sit open. Do you have a better suggestion?
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
I disagree. It’s analogous to putting salt in a wound.
But you came up with the solution yourself. Equal opportunity, but not necessarily equal outcomes. Strive to increase equal opportunity—without systems that increase a group’s sense of inequality and without deceasing the opportunity of other groups. That said, I’m more of a critique person than a policy guy.
But you came up with the solution yourself. Equal opportunity, but not necessarily equal outcomes. Strive to increase equal opportunity—without systems that increase a group’s sense of inequality and without deceasing the opportunity of other groups. That said, I’m more of a critique person than a policy guy.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Nemiroff: By not outlining a process where humans associate with certain groups does indeed result in a view where humans are a pureed mishmash of *unlabeled* features. That is demonstrably false. I dont know what post modern ideologues you are talking about, but they must be wrong. Why else do people label themselves non controvertial labels such as gamer, or new age, or entrepreneur, or stoner. We are our labels. Our many many labels. So which do you believe in? Labels, or pureed mishmash?
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
How exactly does....’not outlining a process’ result in creating a ‘view where humans are a pureed mishmash of unlabelled features’? I just didn’t outline a process to explain the self. Which doesn’t stop me criticising a viewpoint for being too rigid or over-simplistic.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Nemiroff: getting targeted by police resulting in over arresting for low level crimes ruining your life, or death is hypotherical subjective? Sounds alot more pressing than taxation without representation.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Are you suggesting that the problem could be fixed by saying......’a black man gets extra points for being black, to the detriment of a white man’....and that this would magically fix the problem, and wouldn’t result in creating more problems?
How does creating an entirely new value system, which discriminates people born in one group (white) to the benefit of other people born in another group (black) actually work?
I think we can both agree that a certain number of people in this country are racist (even tho the numbers seem to be falling) and that inequality is too high, but on the other hand, we probably disagree on the best strategy to combat it. I personally feel that identity politics, of any kind (but esp the type that uses oppression as a benchmark for value), are counterproductive and would have many unintended outcomes.
Created:
-->
@User_2006
If you can somehow determine what this hypothetical ‘unneeded’ might be.
Created: