The human genome contains about 3 billion base pairs, which means that the entirety of human diversity (genetically) comes down to about a million base pairs. I'd say that's probably more than enough to allow for separate 'races' or 'species', but I'm not a geneticist.
You can't vote your way out of anything. All voting will ever do is let you pick the least bad option from a list made by other people. You want something fixed? You gotta fix it yourself.
I wonder if I can say "Gas the rule16's", or if DoM will delete this post?
You forgot to mention that the ADL was founded as a direct response to the accusations against him. If not for that fact, I doubt he would be seen as historically significant.
No, because most of the information shared by doxxing is already considered public information. There are jurisdictions that have an anti-doxxing statute, but those generally have additional requirements (suggesting criminal behavior, for example.)
I knew Nimoy was jewish, but not Shatner. Given his ostracization from Hollywood/Trek over his views I would never have expected that.
This has to be a weird troll from some fag who spends too much time on /pol/ and /tg/, right?
...Right?
E: Oh, it's PbtA trash. Now I'm certain it's made by a troll. An actual jew would have used a system with much more rigid rules, and the metagame would be to subvert the rules to get what the player/character wants.
"Cunt" doesn't end with 's' so I'm not sure what the debate is about.
I got a genuine chuckle out of the joke, but isn't 'riding the rails' a euphemism for catching a ride on a freight train, not laying a track?
I only care about them in so far as they make any attempt to influence my life, and in so far as Hunter Biden had sex with one (both?) of them when they were not yet of age, and gets away with it purely because he's politically connected.
"Riding the rails" sounds like it has something to do with receiving anal from ladyboys to my uninitiated ear.
My problem with the court system is threefold:
- It structurally favors the sophisticated party to a degree that I don't feel is (inherently) present in private arbitration.
- Its edicts are backed by the overwhelming capability for violence of the state. As a rule, I avoid interactions with the state as much as possible for this reason.
- It completely eliminates the ability of the parties to choose an arbitrator that both find acceptable. The state picks one for you.
I don't think the advantages it provides are worth all that much in civil cases, but I'm very open to other opinions on the topic.
But not the best there ever was?
Arbitration is a superior form of dispute resolution, given one simple condition: that the arbitrator is impartial, and both parties trust the arbitrator to be so (OK, maybe that's two simple conditions, or one complex one, but you get my point.)
Our current system of binding arbitration ensures this condition is not met, and encourages people to take their disputes before the state, where one or both parties will, at best, waste several thousand dollars to resolve the dispute, and at worst will end up with the boot of the state on their necks to provide 'restitution' to the other party. Given these two options, you're going to see more and more people deciding to take the third option of exacting 'justice' themselves, and it won't be pretty.
A year? Depending on her specific job, that's likely to be closer to a couple months in New York than it is a year.
"Human Cent-iPad"
...Fuck, we really do live in Clown World, don't we?
OK, from the perspective of "Throw every possible defense at the wall and see what sticks", I get it. But you have to have less empathy than chan autists to think that this strategy gets you anywhere. They must be planning to settle, because if the plaintiff's attorney gets the fact that The Mouse tried to get a wrongful death suit tossed based on a Disney+ contract before a jury, the Fed is going to have to print more money just to pay the damages.
The thief who takes 1 dollar from 100 hungry mouths has captured the system to a far greater degree than the thief who takes 1 dollar from 100 tips left on the table at a fancy restaurant. Following the logic of the piece, this higher degree of capture would necessitate a higher degree of punishment (hence, logically, the prevalence of hand-removal in subsistence cultures for thieves, or the execution of cattle thieves, and the relative disappearance of those punishments as cultures develop/grow). Analogous to the example I laid out as a more clear replacement to your own
Your example wasn't more clear. It introduced/changed several variables and obfuscated the question (Whether punishment for cheating must increase as the prosperity of a society/organization increases.) When presented with a pair of examples where the only variable is the relative prosperity of the two societies, we both agree that the example with the less prosperous society ought to be punished more severely. You claim this follows the logic presented, but our conclusion directly contradicts the conclusion presented at the midpoint of the piece. Analysis of the rest of the logic in that paragraph is only useful to find where it is incorrect, as it produces an obviously incorrect conclusion.
Here you go again - presented with a discussion prompting short text piece, you began with personal attacks and hostility and have continued ever since. Frankly it’s ironic you say:
If you want to have a good faith discussion…Take a step back and look at the questions you're being asked
without a utilitarian lens first[your strikethrough]; you might find they're not the questions you've been answering.
Go fuck yourself. You're being disingenuous and you know it. Those two sentences are in separate paragraphs and are at literal opposite ends of my post. It's completely inappropriate and contrary to the idea of a good faith discussion to quote them that way. To this point I have made exactly two statements that could be reasonably construed as personal attacks. In the first, I mildly insulted your intelligence and suggested you find some better sources of literature and philosophy. This was at the conclusion of my first post. The second was when I just told you to go fuck yourself. Every other attack I've made has been on your actions or arguments (or those of the unnamed Destiny writer[s] responsible for the piece.)
You say I'm looking for an own, by which I assume you mean a minor error in logic through which I can justify dismissal of the piece. If this was the case, I would not have started my first post by attacking the foundation of the argument made by the piece, nor would I have challenge the central conclusions of the piece (literally, the conclusions in the middle of the piece, in this case.) You claim that I'm focusing on semantics in a discussion on logic, philosophy, and morality; a discussion where semantically incorrect arguments have no value. You claim I'm not engaging with the discussion questions in good faith. I've not answered a couple rhetorical or compound questions, and when I misunderstood a question, I explained the cause of my misunderstanding and answered the clarified question. You, on the other hand, have repeatedly misquoted me, engaged in personal attacks on my motives, and otherwise acted in and assumed bad faith. I'd say you'd get better discussion if you didn't, but seeing as how active I've been in this thread, maybe that's incorrect.
Dude, I'm sorry that your English education has had gaps that lead you to make word choices that fail to properly communicate your ideas, but me pointing that out isn't being a prick. If you want to have a good faith discussion you shouldn't lash out when someone tells you why they misunderstood you.
You're also very clearly attached to the belief that the central statement of the piece is valid, and when presented with examples that challenge it, rather than showing why the example is invalid, you present an improperly constructed counter-example, or you conflate two similar but disparate concepts and act as if this proves your argument.
And stop acting like Utilitarianism is some fundamental philosophical law. I understand the appeal of Utilitarianism (and would consider myself to be a utilitarian, broadly speaking), but it's neither a complete moral system (it requires an underlying framework to assign values to actions), nor was it ever intended to be applied beyond the level of an individual judging his own actions, as when applied at a societal level it can very easily be used to justify heinous evil. Take a step back and look at the questions you're being asked without a utilitarian lens first; you might find they're not the questions you've been answering.
Humanity as in “every other person in existence”.
I'm not sure you understand how 'devoid' is typically used in English. "A devoid of B" implies that "B" is a typical property or content of "A" (and thus that "A" and "B" are different in character) such as "A home devoid of furniture" or "An argument devoid of sense." Your phrasing of the question implied that by "humanity" you meant "the intangible (or perhaps physical, if you're a materialist) qualities that makes one 'human'", not "the human race."
even Adam, the perfect man, needed Eve
He still had worth prior to the creation of Eve. After all, how could it be "not good" for him to be alone if he had no worth? A human, in the total absence of other humans, or even the total absence of the possibility of other humans. still has worth.
You want to dismiss this piece because you perceive it as dismissing the value of the individual, I think that’s a misreading.
I'm not dismissing it, I think it's midwit philosowank and I'm dissecting it and showing why.
What conclusion?
That a "structure must punish cheaters with a violence that grows in proportion to its own success." Not only is the logical chain incomplete, but the conclusion can, on it's own, be shown to be incorrect. As an example: two men with identical backgrounds decide they're going to steal a dollar from 100 people. One does so in an impoverished country where a dollar is the average monthly income of a working individual. The other does so in a country where the average monthly income is ten-thousand dollars. Which should be punished more harshly?
You can quibble with the specifics or adjust the parameters, but ultimately, punishment should be based on the harm caused by (or, if you're not a pure utilitarian, the 'wrongness of') an action, not the success of the 'structure' it occurs within. And don't try to tell me that it's talking about overall punishment and not specific instances. A prosperous structure has far more ability to absorb corruption and remain functional than an impoverished one.
You’ve never heard of Game Theory I take it?
I have. You clearly don't understand what Game Theory is. At a fundamental level, it has nothing to do with determining moral action, merely obtaining the optimal result from a given set of parameters. It's a field of mathematics closely related to sociology and psychology, and has been used to study ethics and the development of social mores, but outside a purely utilitarian system where every action has a knowable, quantifiable moral value, even its use as a tool is limited.
Ok let’s. The incentives in most renditions is “people I {like/dislike} will {die/not die}, my decision is based on how I want the world, and humanity, to look going forward.
Those are value judgements made by the actor, not incentives given by a 'structure' he is a part of.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_8BZVpl2dMc&pp=ygUWa290b3IgeW91IGd1dGxlc3Mgc2ltcA%3D%3D
does a human being, devoid of humanity, have worth, or meaning?
You'd have to define 'humanity' for me to answer that question properly (unless you did define it there, in which case your definition is circular), but I'd suggest that there are times when a human can by their actions negate their inherent worth through harm to another, without losing that worth.
Should [an authority figure] who abuses his position [be punished more harshly] than a common citizen?
Yes, but that's not what the post states (nor the question it addresses). If they weren't more concerned with using flowery language than being logically and semantically correct, they could have properly stated the entire causal chain, but they skipped a couple steps (most importantly, that the existence of a proscribed punishment will inevitably result in the application of that punishment), and as a result, their conclusion falls apart.
Realistically, I struggle to think of an example of a moral dilemma which doesn’t fit into this “basic” shape [the alignment of individual incentives with the 'global' needs of the group.]
Incentives have nothing to do with morality or ethics, those lie within the realm of economics, civics, or politics. Take the classic example of a moral dilemma: the trolley problem. The question isn't "How do we convince the actor to flip the switch, resulting in the death of one person instead of some greater number of persons?" Rather, it is "Is it moral for an actor to act in a way that would cause the death of one person in order to save the life of a greater number of persons?" This is the basic shape of all moral dilemmas, not anything to do with incentives.
This piece doesn’t really “suggest” what you claim it does
It absolutely does, though whether by intent or incompetence I cannot say definitively.
There are several flaws in the above argument. The most obvious (though perhaps least significant) is that the analogy is inapt. A human being has worth on their own, while an individual human cell (generally) only has worth in aggregate. You can't draw direct parallels between cells in a human body and human beings in a society and expect them to be valid.
The second that stands out to me is that it suggests that punishment should not be relative to the crime, but rather the success of a society. I don't see at all how this follows. At best it's a poorly explained causal chain, and at worst it's just a flatly untrue statement.
What I find to be the most significant flaw, is the following:
[T]he basic problem of morality [is] the alignment of individual incentives with the global needs of the structure.
This, frankly, I find to be nonsense. It suggests that the needs of the individual are totally supplanted by the needs of the state/society. This is exactly the "morality" practiced by the global elite, where whatever propagates the state is right, and whether that displaces or destroys the citizens (subjects, really), of that state is of no moral concern.
Now, I'm not shitting on you for posting this (though if it gets downvoted and you delete it again, I will definitely shit on you then.) But if you think this is some deep philosophy, and poorly founded moral reasoning wrapped in flowery writing, then I think you might need to find some better sources of philosophy and literature than Destiny lore.
My favorite troll is back! And he's apparently got a downvote squad now! +whatever / -22 here I come!
GDP per capita doesn't mean shit when the middle class gets destroyed and there's no way to work your way up the economic ladder, and your relative ranking doesn't matter when things are getting worse across the whole (developed) world. I don't know the specific numbers, so I won't make any specific predictions, but I don't think things are going to stay OK in Canada for too much longer.
Wait, run that by me again?