Total posts: 502
Posted in:
There’s an error in the original post. It says:
So if we’re considering God’s existence from a Bayesian perspective, where H is the hypothesis that God exists and e is any evidence in favor of God, P(H) is low, so P(e | H) would have to be pretty high and P(e | ~H) would have to be pretty low for an argument in favor of God’s existence to not work.
That should read “in favor of God’s existence to work.”
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
I haven’t seen the comment, but my guess is I don’t.PS. I was wondering whether you agree with the comments of one atheist on the philosophic thread that God has nothing to do with philosophy since you bring up the subject?
Anyway, I’m not particularly interested in adjudicating the question of whether God exists. This thread was related more to comparing the relative strength of arguments against God’s existence than (1) discussing various arguments on both sides or (2) checking if this argument actually disproves God in the absolute, rather than relative to other atheistic arguments. So I’m not going to put in much effort in responding to you; my apologies! (Feel free to have the discussion in this thread if you’d like, though, I’m sure other people are willing to engage.)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
My problem with New Atheism isn’t the atheism. Rather, it’s three-fold: (1) The outright dismissal of people who derive meaning from their religious beliefs as irrational and stupid. This lack of empathy (combined with a lack of epistemic modesty) really gets me. (2) The kinds of arguments they make against God’s existence being very weak, making their dismissal of faith seem even more acutely bad. (3) The claim that we should attempt to somehow eradicate religion from society. I do not think religion does more harm than good, though it’s certainly possible, and I think it is near-impossible to eradicate religious belief in some form—evidenced by the fact that, at its peak, New Atheism became a sort of quasi-religion (and in its quasi-religious practices, created environments exclusionary to both other kinds of important discussion about science and philosophy and to particular groups of people, such as women).What is the difference between what you believe, and new atheism, that makes new atheism dumb and your belief not?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right
Someone prove to me why a human being, an objective life, should be killed.
No strong opinion here; my intuition is pro-choice generally, though, so thought I’d give this a shot.
I should start off by saying that the above sentence is a strawman. People who are pro-choice do not argue that fetuses ought to be killed. They simply argue that people who’re pregnant should have the right to kill them or have them killed if they so desire.
The fact that the fetus is a life does not mean it is entitled to rights; we often deny rights to living organisms, e.g., plants. If we give something a right to life, it must meet one of two criteria, at minimum. Either it must have a preference against dying or its death must cause negative externalities (i.e., harm to non consenting third parties). Why? Because the right to life is completely arbitrary when it comes to entirely unconscious beings.
In the context of abortion, neither of these criteria is met. Until at least 24 weeks, the fetus has no preferences or feelings; it is an unconscious entity. Furthermore, the death of a fetus rarely causes negative externalities large enough to outweigh the benefit to the person who gets the abortion. In addition, in reality, our standards to grant individuals the right to life is even higher. Animals can feel conscious states and have a preference against dying. Nonetheless, we do not prohibit killing animals. In many instances, we even allow torturing them or killing them for sport. The fetus is clearly less morally significant than most nonhuman animals, seeing as it does not experience conscious states for at least the first 5.5 months of pregnancy.
You might respond to this by suggesting that the fetus has the potential to be conscious and therefore is entitled to rights. However, that argument proves too much, because it would also entail that (1) everyone has an obligation to have children and (2) even sperm and eggs are entitled to rights, since they have the potential to become a life.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
The argument is that God cannot be simultaneously omnibenevolent and omnipotent. So it doesn’t “imply” it, it’s from the definition of God this argument uses.Isn't this implying God is good?
The argument has many problems, in my view, and I’d recommend searching for those problems on Google Scholar instead of asking me, since my explanations are probably pretty bad.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
I have never seen shapes likes those. Can you put this into words?
Oops, sorry.
P1) The probability that both G and S are true is 0 (or, in some versions of the argument, less than 0.5).
P2) The probability that S is true is 1 (or, in some versions of the argument, greater than 0.5).
C) Thus, the probability that G is true is 0 (or, in some versions of the argument, less than 0.5).
G is the statement that “God exists and is omnipotent and omnibenevolent” and S is the statement that “suffering exists in the world.”
Basically, if God is all-powerful and all-caring, he wouldn’t have created a world with suffering in it. Since we know suffering exists, that means God probably doesn’t exist.
What is “gratuitous puzzlement”?
Needless confusion (as I noted above).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Are you saying the argument doesn't fail?
I don’t understand the question.
I don’t agree with any of the arguments I explained above, to be clear.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Explain the evil one.
The first order problem of evil says that the existence of an omnibenevolent and omnipotent God (say G) is mutually incompatible with the existence of suffering in the world (say S). Since S is true, it follows that G is false. In set form (if P(x) is the probability of x):
P1) P(G ∩ S) = 0
P2) P(S) = 1
C) Therefore, P(G) = 0
The second order problem of evil says that God’s existence is mutually incompatible with the existence of “gratuitous puzzlement.” Since the problem of evil is a form of “gratuitous puzzlement” (i.e., needless confusion about God’s own existence), and it exists, God wouldn’t exist. (Sounds bizarre, I know, I dunno what academic philosophy looks like.)
The nth order problem of evil says that the (n – 1)th order problem of evil poses gratuitous puzzlement, which means God doesn’t exist.
Created:
Posted in:
Staying out of the Religion forum.
On this site’s “precursor” of sorts, Debate.org, I’ve debated God’s existence a ridiculous number of times, from both sides. Eventually, the topic became relatively uninteresting and I stopped.
I’m an atheist, but I think New Atheism is mostly dumb, there’s a good chance religion is a net positive for society, quasi-religions are inevitable anyway, and most common arguments against God’s existence (e.g., the omnipotence paradox, the problem of evil, the second order problem of evil, the contradiction between omniscience and free will, some of the more apparently sophisticated arguments of people like the late Michael Martin and the late Victor Stenger) fail (though the same is true of most common arguments for God’s existence, e.g., the kalam cosmological argument, the various versions of “ontological arguments,” the teleological argument and its variants, the Leibnizian cosmological argument, the argument from religious experience, and so on).
I’ve come to think, however, that possibly the strongest argument against God’s existence—of course, it is very much rebut-able, and it is fairly straightforward to have a long debate about it—is prima facie unlikelihood. This isn’t quite the same as Occam’s razor or Russell’s teapot or whatever—it’s not about burdens of proof per se. It’s just that, other things equal, it seems bizarre that the universe is created and/or ruled by an interventionist humanlike giant. And we should have a strong prior against that. So if we’re considering God’s existence from a Bayesian perspective, where H is the hypothesis that God exists and e is any evidence in favor of God, P(H) is low, so P(e | H) would have to be pretty high and P(e | ~H) would have to be pretty low for an argument in favor of God’s existence to not work.
(I am aware of other relatively strong arguments against God’s existence – for example, that God’s existence is possibly incompatible with B theories of time, which special relatively points in the direction of; that minds are processes that could require time as a prerequisite; that God is an efficient cause and not a simultaneous one, and that time is a prerequisite for that, so efficient causation of the universe of any kind is incoherent; various versions “reverse modal ontological arguments,” e.g., God being necessarily existent entails that the universe exists necessarily, which either it doesn’t or it does while contradicting God’s existence; some of the more abstract work in the philosophical literature about God’s spatial location. I nonetheless think the basic Bayesian argument might be stronger.)
I probably won’t respond to anything on this thread, but in case you’re interested in discussing with others. This also isn’t a strong opinion or one I’ve thought about too deeply.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Barney
Religion would have to be separate from philosophy. For sure.
Economics should be clubbed into politics/society.
Created:
Posted in:
I'm so sorry to hear that, and about your loss.
If you ever do see this: I wish you well. And if we can find a way to keep in touch (if you somehow see this), I would appreciate that.
Created:
Posted in:
People:
Virtuoso
DebateArt.com
Debates:
Whiteflame vs. me on Israel's military
Created:
Posted in:
Debates:
Whiteflame vs. me on Israel
People:
Virtuoso
Castin
DebateArt.com
I'm not nominating DDO HoF people, because meh.
Created:
-->
@Trent0405
First, try Wikipedia. It’s highly underrated and not nearly as unreliable as you might think. But specifically, use Wikipedia as a device for exploring further—go down to the reference list and start reading the things there.
Second, use Google Scholar.
Those are basically my two main research tools for DART/DDO debates.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DapperMack
How about your thoughts on a UBI for America?
It’s a tough question. I think—not too much credence in this—I’d prefer a negative income tax.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
Freedom of debate. Freedom to argue offensive and controversial opinions. Freedom to dive straight into danger zones and cultural taboos. Etc.
My question was more specific than “why is racism not banned?”. It was: “why are personal attacks banned but racism not?”. Because personal attacks can also be justified—you can say “three reasons why [insert username] is an idiot.” So if the standard is freedom to argue offensive opinions and freedom of debate, why are personal attacks not allowed?
To be clear, I’m not arguing that personal attacks should be allowed. My point is, if the standard is harm, and if we as a community accept the principle that personal attacks shouldn’t be allowed, there’s no clear distinction between explicit racism and a personal attack.
Created:
Posted in:
Why do you like Noam Chomsky?
Where would you characterize yourself on the political spectrum? What are your “political compass” test results?
Do you think societies should recognize animal rights?
Do you still agree with CTMU? Can you explain what exactly CTMU is, and why you agree with it?
Created:
Posted in:
What are your favorite debate resolutions and what’s your preferred side on them?
What are the best resolutions you’ve debated, in your opinion?
Created:
Posted in:
Question about CoC policy: why is calling someone a “f*cking idiot who deserves to go to hell” a CoC violation but explicit racism not? It seems to me that the latter is more harmful.
Created:
I’d really like every candidate to be interviewed about their policy positions and why they believe them by a smart journalist who can cut through the rhetoric. To avoid nonsense like Beto O’Rourke’s lack of answer to the 70% marginal tax rate question in the first debate.
And press them until they give a straight yes/no answer.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
What is the best thing you know?What is the worst thing you know?
I have no idea.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Communism or Facism?
Both are pretty terrible, but in varying degrees -- communism is much better than fascism, in my view.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mharman
Do you consider yourself far-left or center-left?
Center-left or even centrist, I think.
Fairly left-wing on social issues -- marriage equality, abortion, social justice, criminal justice, etc. -- with some exceptions (e.g., I’m undecided about gun control). Centrist on social policy (education, health, and welfare) and economic policy. No knowledge whatsoever about foreign policy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DapperMack
Thoughts on DART?
Seems pretty cool. Not particularly active on here.
Forgive me because you might have expressed this already and I may have forgotten, but who is your ideal candidate for 2020? Why do you want (x) candidate to win?
I honestly dunno enough about economics, international relations, or public policy to have a good answer.
How can anyone conceivably beat Biden? (You don't have to answer this if you don't want to, he probably will win)
Seems plausible that he loses to me -- particularly given his record, sexual harassment accusations, and his relatively poor performance in debates.
How many economics-related classes have you taken, if any?
Official classes, just a basic high school level one. However, independently, I got a 5 on the AP Microeconomics and Macroeconomics exams (self-studied) and have read or am in the process of reading textbooks in intermediate microeconomics with calculus, partially intermediate macroeconomics, development economics, and public finance.
Why is capital so much more important than labor in the eyes of many?
I dunno what it means for capital to be “more important” than labor. If you mean in terms of boosting economic growth, it’s because people usually want to boost long-run per capita growth and not just overall GDP growth, so an increase in the number of people working doesn’t affect long-run growth in theory -- other things being equal.
What should the minimum wage be, or do you advocate for one at all? Why?
Undecided, because the research is really mixed and I’ve not read too many papers.
What financial struggles do you think Gen Z will face?
I dunno. Depends on which country I guess. Not sufficiently informed.
Do you still support affirmative action and if so, why?
In some contexts, yes, because it has -- in some contexts -- been shown to offset existing discrimination, create role models, and break stereotypes about minorities. It might also have a “critical mass effect,” in which a critical mass of minority individuals leads to better policies for other members of the same community. This needs to be balanced against the negative effects, such as backlash, however, and I’m not 100% certain where to strike that balance.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bsh1
Consider the topic “the US should substantially increase the number of H1B visas it issues.” That could also result in debaters talking past each other—Pro could do the entire debate talking about the interests of immigrants and argue a utilitarian framework, and Con could do the entire debate talking about the interests of the US. The way to resolve that clash would be to debate whether the US should only care about its interests.
But more specifically, it would be ridiculous for Pro in a topic that doesn’t even mention the US to talk exclusively about the US and have a weighing mechanism of “regrettable means regrettable to the US.” I imagine Con would tear down Pro’s framework in two seconds in the situation you mentioned, given that the topic says absolutely nothing about American interests. In fact, IRL, this topic was set at an international competition, not an American one. But sure, you could replace “regrettable” with “does more harm than good” or “on balance, undesirable.”
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bsh1
“Regrettable” meaning “undesirable.” So it’s up to the debaters to decide a weighing mechanism to decide what “regrettable” means—the same way they would to define the word “should” in a resolution.
I did a debate on this resolution and both teams ended up agreeing on a utilitarian metric.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
It already does, not sure if this is somehow a public unknown thing. It actually forces the patches to happen, ASAP
No, it runs them through something called the “Vulnerabilities Equities Process,” and patches some and stockpiles others. That is, it searches for defects, and decides whether to notify a manufacturer about them or to keep it secret so that it can be exploited in a cyberattack or as a surveillance tool elsewhere. For example, EternalBlue—the exploit responsible for the WannaCry cyberattack—was initially developed by the NSA using a vulnerability in Microsoft Windows. The topic says the NSA should stop stockpiling any vulnerabilities and should patch all of them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mharman
My current DDO “Big Issues” answers represent my views pretty well: https://www.debate.org/tejretics/
Created:
Posted in:
More Parli-Only Topics
The World Health Organization should adopt a convention which bans the sell of drugs with high resistance tendencies (e.g., antibiotics) to countries which do not comply with WHO guidelines regarding their medical and agricultural use (either)
Governments should ban non-disclosure agreements in cases of workplace sexual harassment (Pro)
The US should further limit qualified immunity for police officers (Pro)
Governments should be able to legally access any encrypted device (Con)
The National Security Agency should notify software manufacturers of all zero-day vulnerabilities it finds in order for them to patch these defects (Pro)
Government assistance to historically marginalized cultural groups should be contingent on policies to combat traditional gender inequality (Pro)
Countries should transition to cashless economies (Pro)
Governments should impose a 100-percent estate tax (Con)
Twitter does more harm than good (Con)
Microfinance loans do more harm than good (Con)
Governments should require that meat packaging include images that vividly reflect the experiences of the animals throughout the manufacturing process (either)
Factory farming should be illegal (Pro)
Inndigenous groups in parliamentary democracies with historically marginalized indigenous populations (e.g., the Maori in New Zealand) should form independent political parties instead of encouraging their members to vote for, and run on behalf of, existing parties (Con)
Casino gambling should be illegal (either)
Governments should implement “filial responsibility laws” (either)
The partition of India has done more harm than good (either)
It would be preferable to the status quo if the Big Three credit ratings agencies were nationalized (Pro)
Commercial surrogacy should be legal (Pro)
Developed countries should require that their international development aid budgets are approved by popular referenda (Con)
Governments should legally recognize exclusively marriages between partners of the opposite sex/gender (Con)
To clarify: These “parli-only” topics are ones I’m only willing to do in live debates in a parli format (such as APDA, NPDA, or Australs).
Created:
Posted in:
I’m interested in either having a live or text debate on one of these topics. For live debate, I can either do evidence-based (e.g., the LD or Policy formats, though without spreading/pre-fiat kritiks) or non-evidence-based limited prep formats (e.g., “APDA motions,” Australs, NPDA, World Schools, maybe even British Parliamentary), though I prefer the latter. For text debates, I prefer either three speeches per debater (10,000 characters per speech) or four speeches per debater but with the fourth speeches being character-limited to 5,000 characters. Preferred position is in parentheses (note: my preferred positions do not necessarily reflect my real life beliefs—I am undecided on most of these issues). I don’t guarantee that I will accept any offers; just looking out for interest.
All Formats
On balance, economic globalization benefits worldwide poverty reduction (Pro)
Capitalism is preferable to socialism (Pro)
Rent control does more harm than good (Pro)
Gentrification does more harm than good (Con)
The US should implement Elizabeth Warren’s plan to break up large technology companies (Con)
Developed countries should impose a tax on automation (Con)
Assuming the 2016 Brexit referendum did not happen, the UK should leave the European Union (Con) *
Western developed countries should require that pharmaceutical companies dedicate a portion of their budget to research on tropical diseases (Pro)
It would be preferable to the status quo if the US legalized the sale of human organs (Pro) **
Western countries should end their arms sales to Saudi Arabia unless it scales down its military operations in Yemen (Pro)
The dominant narrative in children’s entertainment that good always triumphs over evil is regrettable (Pro)
Developed countries have a moral obligation to mitigate the effects of climate change (Pro)
* (I want to debate the merits and demerits of Brexit without getting into arguments about democratic will and the backlash from disrespecting a referendum, basically)
** (limiting to US because easier to find research from there and “status quo” differs across countries)
Non-Evidence Formats (Parli) Only
Sports regulatory authorities should permit the use of performance-enhancing drugs by sportspeople (Pro)
The US should grant amnesty to all undocumented immigrants currently in the US who have not committed crimes (Pro)
Countries should abandon the strategy of decapitation in counterterrorism (either)
The glorification of soldiers does more harm than good (either)
Charities and humanitarian aid organizations should not use images of graphic suffering in their ad campaigns (Pro)
Current sanctuary cities in the US should stop being sanctuary cities (Con)
Online entertainment platforms (such as Netflix and Spotify) should remove works of art created by people who have committed violent crimes (Con)
The US should ban the private ownership of firearms (either)
On balance, the rise of China in international geopolitics is undesirable (Pro)
Parliamentary democracies should implement quotas for women in national legislatures (Pro)
Slum tourism in developing countries does more harm than good (Pro)
Schools should stream students into classrooms based on their academic performance (Con)
Within broad budgetary constraints, environmental policy should be decided by unelected scientific experts selected by their peers (Pro)
Effective altruism does more good than harm (Pro)
A world with memory rewriting technology would be preferable to the current world (Con)
The US should reinstate Glass-Steagall legislation that separates commercial and investment banking (either)
Created:
Posted in:
Just curious. Not asking for your personal opinions on these issues, asking for whether you think these are balanced and interesting debates.
Set 1:
- Governments should actively prevent gentrification.
- The NSA should alert software manufacturers of all zero-day vulnerabilities it finds in order for them to patch these defects.
- In cinema, creating new lead characters for minorities (e.g., Black Panther, Hancock) is better than recasting existing roles played by members of social majorities with minority actors (e.g., Ghostbusters, The Little Mermaid).
- The United States should break up Amazon.com, Inc.
- Newly established governments in postconflict societies should adopt truth and reconciliation commissions.
- Payday lending should be illegal.
- It would be preferable to the status quo if national legislatures reserved seats for politicians under the age of 30.
- Countries should ban the practice of “bride importing.”
- A world where people took in their elderly parents would be preferable to one where they supported them to live separately.
- China’s attempts to become a dominant global power are regrettable.
- Charities and humanitarian organizations should not use graphic images of suffering in their ad campaigns.
- The glorification of soldiers as heroes does more harm than good.
Set 2:
- South Africa should forcibly break up exclusive Afrikaaner enclaves.
- Protections of international law conventions and treaties should not apply to combatants from terrorist organizations (e.g., prohibitions on torture, prisoner of war status, guarantee of post-conflict release).
- Governments should implement substantial measures to impose long-termism in corporate investment culture (e.g., minimum holding periods for shares, yearly rather than quarterly financial reporting, long-term executive compensation plans).
- Megacities should be granted autonomous control over their economic and social policy (e.g. immigration, health, criminal justice) with national taxation policy remaining under the control of the federal government.
- The United States should actively disengage from Syria.
- Developing countries should privatize their state-owned enterprises.
- The World Health Organization should adopt a convention which bans the sell of drugs with high resistance tendencies (e.g., antibiotics) to countries which do not comply with WHO guidelines regarding their medical and agricultural use.
- Governments should significantly increase their use of big data-based predictive models in decisionmaking to replace human judgments (e.g., criminal justice policy, allocation of healthcare resources, housing development).
- Governments should require that all financial institutions back up all deposits with an equivalent value of government-backed safe assets.
- On balance, humanity will likely be worse off 100 years from now.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
Sure.
However, there’s two considerations: (1) I suspect more people have some mental illness or have some significant mental health struggles than people who’re, say, gambling addicts. (2) There’s also a nonconsequentialist element of complicity here -- it is certainly conceivable that DART (like any other Internet forum, ranging from Facebook and YouTube to mafia forums) exacerbates problems such as anxiety and depression in a way that it doesn’t with alcoholism, and therefore has responsibility to partially compensate for that by giving people access to help.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Pinkfreud08
Virtually every modern state redistributes wealth.
Even a 10 percent flat tax would tax the rich more and the poor less in absolute quantity, and some of that money would be spent on services used by the poor. That’s clearly not a sufficient standard. The question is the level of redistribution.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Pinkfreud08
More socialistic policies whether it be to enact a minimum wage, socialized healthcare, or socialized education.
Most academics would consider that “social democracy,” not “socialism,” and even then, only when coupled with strong unions.
The US has a minimum wage. So it already meets one of those three criteria.
Ok, elaborate these countries have higher levels of socialization with socialized medicine, education, powerful unions, minimum wages, regulation, and the redistribution of wealth.
Switzerland doesn’t have socialized medicine—all health insurance is private (i.e., there’s no state-run insurance—even the US has a more socialized system in that respect than Switzerland), but signing up for health insurance is mandatory. K–12 education in Switzerland, as far as the level of state ownership goes, isn’t that different than the United States. I’m not in the mood to go through each of these countries, but a lot of this still applies. For example, the Nordic countries don’t have higher “regulation.” As another example, the UK doesn’t have “socialized education”—just like America, it has public and private universities. Even Oxbridge are private universities.
“Socialized” means predominantly owned and operated by the government. But I would contend that unless industry, to a significant degree, is owned and operated by the government—and not just goods that have positive externalities that need to be internalized and treated as public goods—it’s not a socialist state. The Nordic countries meet that criterion, but they have sufficiently free markets that I’d say they’re not socialistic.
Created:
Posted in:
To be clear, I'm not highly confident in my opinion on abortion -- I'm calling out the argument, not whatever your political view is with respect to abortion.
Created:
Posted in:
This is a motte and bailey argument.
The motte is that “murder, when defined as the killing of a human being after birth, is a bad thing.”
The bailey is that “murder, when defined as the killing of any human life whether before or after birth, is a bad thing.”
The first is intuitively obvious. The second is not. You’re just using the standard pro-life tactic of exploiting the intuitive response to the word “murder” and then slightly redefining it to suit your argument. I’ll hear you when you actually make the argument.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Pinkfreud08
What do you mean by "socialization"?You may point to countries such as the Soviet Union and Venezuela however you have Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Germany, Switzerland, United Kindom, and Australia.These are countries with very robust economies with high levels of socialization.
Certainly, the UK, Australia, Switzerland, and Germany are dominated by the private sector. And while Norway, Sweden, and Denmark have large state-owned enterprises, powerful unions, and a welfare state, they also have relatively free markets.
Created:
Posted in:
I think the first problem is defining what "socialism" is.
Is Sanders's/AOC's social democracy a form of socialism?
Is complete state ownership over the means of production socialism? What about organizing the entire economy into cooperatives? What about a mixed economy with 51% state-owned enterprises? What about libertarian socialism?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
Isn't that like assuming the reason people join DA is that they are depressed or suicidal?
No -- it's simply assuming that some people who join DART happen to have mental health issues, usually unrelated to the reason they joined, and that disseminating information about resources has some plausible value.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@David
@bsh1
Could the “About DART” thread, as well as the “Introduce Yourself” thread, have links to helplines for suicide, depression/anxiety, PTSD, and a general mental health thing? Could be useful.
Created:
Posted in:
I'm currently reading Steven Pinker’s Enlightenment Now. I’ve enjoyed it so far.
Recently, I read Tyler Cowen’s Stubborn Attachments and Abhijit Banerjee and Esther Duflo’s Poor Economics.
Created:
Posted in:
What are your favorite nonfiction books about science or the social sciences?
I'm particularly interested in readable, modern books about cosmology, quantum physics, public policy, gender, development, economics, and philosophy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
(1) For anyone else, I’d have guessed it was joking around -- though supporting constitutional monarchy is fine, I guess, fairly low-impact in my opinion -- but I’ve heard you say you wanted a constitutional monarch before, hence asked.
(2) Slate Star Codex article: https://slatestarcodex.com/2015/06/06/against-tulip-subsidies/
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
PF has set substantially more controversial -- at least within the United States -- topics in the past, including reparations for African-Americans, universal background checks on gun ownership, single-gender classrooms (related to gender equality), and amnesty for undocumented immigrants. It has also set topics about how the poor are treated in society, including whether India should prioritize economic development over environmental protection and whether public infrastructure spending is more effective at reducing poverty than means-tested welfare.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
When you say your ideology is “monarchism,” do you mean absolute monarchy or constitutional monarchy? Because I’m guessing support for the latter isn’t really an ideology -- there are people across the political spectrum who support constitutional monarchies.
Created: