Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - ﮎingulaЯiτy

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 194
1
Calling it a Muslim ban certainly made it sound a great way to attack Trump on a racist note though (even though it's bigoted, not racist).

Again, the implicit and explicitly stated intent of the ban, was to ban Muslims.

Just because Trump couldn't find a more direct path to banning all Muslims and had to use his lawyer's next best strategy for accomplishing a similar result, doesn't exonerate his attempt.

2
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Why do you support donald trump
« on: December 13, 2018, 06:50:49 PM »
Newt is still scum in my book.   Him and Trump are similar in more ways that just political views.
Had this open in another tab. I might as well share it.


3
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Why do you support donald trump
« on: December 13, 2018, 06:23:26 PM »
C'mon guys. You heard Trump. He's a victim of a bad lawyer  :o

But seriously, what do you do if a lawyer does give you bad/illegal advice and behind the scenes does all this dodgy shit because he's worried he might lose an incredibly wealthy and gullible client?

Also if Cohen evades tax, what does that have to do with Trump?

Cohen sounds like a piece of shit. Can you really trust what a criminal says who's offered a sweet plea deal to talk? Everything they are charging with and given Americas harsh and lengthy jail sentences, 3 years sounds like he got a pretty sweet deal. He could have said a bunch of nonsense giving Mueller what he wanted to hear because he knew he was cornered and going down

Have you ever considered that the investigators do not blindly believe what Cohen tells them?

They gave a piece of shit a sweetheart deal, thus making themselves a piece of shit in the process.

The specifics for of the deals tend to be made after the defendant has cooperated and given them evidence, and/or leads where the investigation was able to acquire evidence. This allows the special counsel office to evaluate the value of the cooperation, and pass along commensurate recommendations to the judge.

Mere words and baseless claims like "it was all Trump" would be of minimal value and unpersuasive evidence in a courtroom. This hypothetical scenario is incompatible with evidence of the observed leniency for Cohen's ~4 year prison recommendation. It is very probable that Cohen was able to give them something more meaningful than shallow testimony.

Once a client proves himself reliable and divulging valuable information, they may or may not start negotiations for continued cooperation. This benefits both parties because the specificity of the offers act as guarantees for the client, instead of relying the council abiding by the honor system as they continue to incriminate themselves and others. It is also an indication to the special council that the client is investing himself in the strategy of cooperation, instead of giving the least amount of info while still trying to appear cooperative.

Any attempt to incriminate Trump falsely using evidence which was substantial enough to try cut years off his sentence, would require fabricating that evidence. This is not motivated by our system. If they catch someone lying, they can revoke all their previous promises of leniency.

Part of this process is the back and forth process of investigating leads, verifying them, and moving forward with the cooperating witness. The story is not believed at face value, and it is cyclically questioned, tested, and corroborated, both for the sake of making the evidence ironclad in court, and to potentially avoid  wasting the special council's time and resources. That is why Flynn had ~19 different meetings with Mueller. I don't recall how many Cohen went up to.

Edit: I took too long to write my post. Jerkface already made this point.  >:(
Which makes me think he had some valuable evidence to negotiate with.

4
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Why do you support donald trump
« on: December 13, 2018, 02:36:36 AM »
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1072095127894667265
In all seriousness, the man is subliterate.  :'(
I first started paying attention two years ago when I first saw his public reading/writing/speaking deficits openly called out and measured against literacy tests:



Since then, there have been countless examples of him pronouncing words based on appearance and not spelling. Most recent examples are things like children's "future" = children's "furniture", "intercontinental" = "internet", etc.


5
You don’t see your system as broke because you are brought up in it (boiling the frog)
Just for the sake of highlighting this phenomenon: Is Obama white?

The prevailing idea of "whiteness" is a racial construct with subtle racist tones. It is an arbitrary edifice that a child is only white if his parents were both white. If one parent is black the child is black. This fundamental attitude is nearly universal and is hardly even questioned, despite its clear insinuations. Just the basic and universal pattern for applying "whiteness" to offspring, promotes a perception in which whites represent a status of purity, while minorities contaminate that purity. This can feed emotional concerns of racial rarity akin to pure-breeds, play on fears of eventual annihilation, invoke sentiments of race preservation, etc.

To be clear, calling Obama black doesn't make you racist. This example was just meant to illustrate how easy it is to adopt a racist cultural norm, probably without conscious consideration.

Show me where this broad spectrum oppression of all forms is in the U.S.?

As for addressing the crux of your request for widespread discrimination, I'm not sure what evidence you would even consider valid. If bigots are mistreating and slighting people across the nation to the extent they can get away with or not notice themselves, the nature of the claim practically requires omniscience to prove. Only probabilistic arguments can ever be made for or against the hypothesis. I base my beliefs on probabilities, but would you accept:

  • An avalanche of credible anecdotes or accounts from personal witnesses? If you wanted, you could dismiss anecdotes as not technically proof. Just weak Bayesian evidence because they are just consistent with the hypothesis, but not proof.
  • An appeal to the known human psychology that we have rampant cognitive biases, predisposing humans to discriminate, which requires an active educational intervention of those biases to prevent?
    This kind of evidence clearly establishes a societal default that, unchecked, a nation will produce many bigots. Leveraging the fact that cognitive biases are not common knowledge nor included in school curriculum, is strong reason to suspect bigots are widespread, but that is inductive reasoning, not rigorous proof.
  • How about evidence that massive portions of the public holding bigoted beliefs and/or subscribing to bigoted ideologies? You could argue that his is technically not discrimination, even if it is the primary motivator consistent with (and predictive of) discrimination. Still not technically proof, just statistical correlation.

I will delve into that last one for convenience. The Muslim ban comes to mind.

Trump called for religious tests at the border, argued for 6 months for a complete shutdown specially blocking Muslims from entering the US, pushed for mass surveillance on Muslims nationwide, and proposed a Muslim registry.

His lawyer Rudy Giuliani confirmed on public television that the intent of the "travel ban" was to ban Muslims because they were Muslims, but that they had to masquerade it as a "travel ban" merely blocking certain countries in order to circumvent the constitution. He bragged about how they had to disguise it as a "danger" argument, instead of an ethnocultural argument to get it passed. This was extremely transparent, and since their stated intent of the ban was unconstitutional, the ruse still failed. Nonetheless, Trump's support never fell below 30%, suggesting that roughly a third of the population weren't particularly offended by his unconstitutional anti-Muslim propositions and rhetoric.

The most prevalent lethal domestic terrorist threat in the US, as measured by ideology, are right-wing extremists, but a substantial percent of Americans favor the anti-Muslim bans. Depending on the poll and phraseology of the questions, support for the ban often exceeds 50%. On that note, nearly 20% advocate stripping voting rights away from Muslims. (I would consider 1/5th of the country to be widespread.)

Xenophobia, racism, and general bigotry are real. Why is it a leap to think bigots behave in accordance with their beliefs?

6
I hereby demand, and will do so officially tomorrow, that the Department of Justice look into whether or not the FBI/DOJ infiltrated or surveilled the Trump Campaign for Political Purposes

I wonder if he understands the separation of powers?   

Sunday morning Trump tweetstorms are getting evermore deranged.   

Youi tell yourself if it makes you feel better.

If there is even a hint of truth in the tweets of Trump, that also is very disturbing. Does the insinuation not bother you? Should government departments have spies and moles in the government? And over politics? Is this something you prefer to be swept under the rug simply because Trump is in the firing line and you just want to see him gone like his hair in the wind?

Did the paranoid insinuation that Obama was spying on Trump though a camera in his microwave bother you?
Did the birther insinuation that Obama was a secret Kenyan Muslim who had violated presidential requirements bother you?

Evidence = Reason to Believe

There's enough problems to worry about without including Trump's baseless fantasies. Right now, this is one more bedtime story conveniently formed to cast media sympathy for him, and to deflect scrutiny and delegitimize the investigation that continually incriminates him while inditing member after member of his cabinet.

7
These quotes aren't from me, just saying.
Whoops. I'll fix the formatting.

Well, that just is not true. Space-time distorts at the speed of light.
Anyways, I don't really like how you refer to spacetime as "falling" into the singularity, by saying it's falling you're implying it's moving through space, and spacetime obviously doesn't move through space.

Interesting, of all the extended speculation in my post, I didn't predict that people would object to persistent FTL spacetime flow.

Artifact gravitational waves can propogate out from events like colliding black holes, and those ripples certainly appear to propagate at light speed ...but the actual limits of stretching under persistent scenarios are often regarded as unbounded among my sources. Note that the stretching I am referencing doesn't allow for FTL information, whereas a ripple could theoretically send information. Ripples are like untaught fabric creating temporary deformation by exchanging space for time or vice versa, whereas black holes and cosmic expansion create persistent geodesic distortions always prolonging the speeds of objects travelling through that space. Describing spacetime as moving this way adopts the Gullstrand–Painlevé coordinate system, and it accounts for some descriptive intuitions that are lost in John Mitchell's depiction of black holes (that simply show funnels extruded orthogonality from a grid).

Lawrence Krauss hosted a brilliant lecture "A Universe from Nothing", about 50 minutes in, he described how the universe is expanding, and that given large enough distances (~14 billion light years) that expansion outpaces light trying to traverse it. Objects further away than those 14 billion light years, will have apparent recession velocities faster than the speed of light, meaning they are permanently inaccessible to us even if we could achieve light speed travel. This was to make a point that Astronomers in the distant future won't be able to detect anything outside our own galaxy.

BBC science documentaries and PBS Spacetime videos make countless videos that all build and relate to this topic. Here is a brief clip describing space time flow it the same way I used it as related to black holes, courtesy of Lehman astrophysicist Matthew O'Dowd: (Skip to 8 minutes 12 seconds.)

8
His position would be called "social democrat" in Europe. But as far as I know "social democrat" and "socialist" means the same there (as opposed to "communist").
Well that makes no sense...
I agree. I would love to adopt the European usage of social democrat in the states. The crux of my objection was that Bernie as "democratic-socialist" lost a lot of support from people who did not understand that he did not advocate changing ownership of the means of production, or that he did not reject capitalism.

However, it seems like that false perception did extend overseas to some extent; I lost a lot of respect for Garry Kasparov, when he announced publicly that he was unwilling to listen to Bernie's platform because he lived through socialism.

Also beware that Americans may be referring to different ideologies something different when they reference libertarianism.  Libertarianism in Europe more closely resembles classic liberalism (compatible with the views of Locke, Jefferson, Madison, Bastiat, de Tocqueville, von Mises, Hayek, and Sowell) while the American version advocates anarcho-capitalism (the elimination of the state in favor of rampantly free markets). Ex. The Koch Brothers platform in the Libertarian Party (LP), stated they wanted exactly zero regulation of businesses and zero taxation. No safety standards, no pollution caps, no minimum wages, no food or drug testing, no public programs handing out food to starving children.

I would be open to discussing why I think Trump and Hitler have more ideologically overlap than Bernie and Hitler.
Start a new thread.
I'm not yet convinced that's warranted. It's more relevant to the OP than discussions of mustaches, but if people take me up on my offer and it becomes a larger separate discussion I wouldn't mind splitting the threads apart.

9
Hitler was a socialist [...] Bernie Sanders is more comparable to Hitler [...] both [Bernie & Hitler] are socialists

Simply false.

Indeed, my point proven again.


Hitler was head of a socialist party (the National Socialist German Worker’s Party), but wasn't a socialist.

North Korea isn't a democratic republic. For the same reasons, the Nazis re-branded themselves to include the word "socialist" in their party's name, to manipulate the superficial public perception.

It was an attempt to draw support from the left who was not attracted to the NAZI's extremely right-wing authoritarian hyper-nationalism. People tend to confuse the two models because both are authoritarian, but they are substantially different. In broadest terms, socialism is far left and fascism is far right.

On that note, I feel obligated to point out that Sanders was not socialist. I have my strong suspicions why he chose to self-identify as democratic-"socialist", but he was a liberal, not a socialist: Bernie advocated "tax and spend" policies in accordance with liberal positions, pushing causes like single payer healthcare and public education (extending through college instead of high school). Yet, public schools are not socialist, medicare is not socialist, fire fighters are not socialist, etc.

Note how Bernie did not advocate any of the major tenants of socialism. Ex. Bernie rejects the idea of communal ownership of the means of production. All the candidates in this past election were supporters of capitalism which is mutually exclusive with socialism.

So we have one side of the political fence comparing Trump to Hitler and the other side comparing Sanders to Hitler. I mean, where does it stop?

Bernie and Hitler both applied the word "socialism" to their platforms incorrectly. That is an example of a comparison I would stand by. Saying any two people have something in common can be fair as long as people are careful about what conclusions they try to extract from the comparison.

I'd also add to beware of the centrist's fallacy. Two Hitler comparisons on either side don't make those comparisons equally valid or invalid.

While acknowledging that Trump is not Hitler, I would be open to discussing why I think Trump and Hitler have more ideologically overlap than Bernie and Hitler.

10
The belt trick is cool, but I don't really see the relevance. Also it doesn't really make much sense to say "space time fabric is already modeled by relatively to be capable of exceeding the speed of light.".

What I was attempting to convey is the space time can stretch and distort faster than massless particles can travel through it.

A black hole is comparable to a water fall of space time fabric. Light can act like fish swimming up stream, but will never escape (if the flow of space is falling in on itself too quickly).



Space time never has to move faster than light in the case of black holes, because space-time is not affected by itself.
I'm not sure what you're saying. I didn't say space time affects itself directly.

You'll have to apply this hypothesis to electron-field, the higgs-field, and so on.
I was treating those fields as being built into the space time fabric. The particle I mentioned was an electron, and I agreed with it being an excitation in space time.

You'll also have to express how the belt trick explains how a particle deforms the field it is part of in better detail, such as what the deformation is like at what range.

Deformations around the electron would likely fall off with the square–cube law, quickly approaching no deformation at all. This is similar to the video, in which the belts anchored to the outside world which remain unaffected by the twisting in the middle.

11
I see Bullwinkles point. I've read up on Hitler and I've been watching trump closely and I've got to say that it's an unreasonable comparison. Very different motivations. Very different skillset. Sure there's some overlap but there's a little Hitler in all of us.

Off the top of my head a better historic figure to compare trump to would be pt barnum.
1. Hopefully the previous post better illustrates how I never compared Trump and Hitler. One of my worse cognitive biases is assuming other people connect the same dots I do when given the same information. They might connect different dots.

As it happens, my second post's disclaimer of the association fallacy was insufficient for explaining the intent of the first post.

2. I would agree that Hitler and Trump are completely different people, but I'm also not convinced comparing them is unfair. Comparisons should ever be off limits. If a comparison is shallow, it should be called out and exposed. If their argument has merit, it should be examined.

If someone wanted to talk about Trump's ideologies in terms of what constitutes fascist inclinations, that's not a conversation I'd dismiss out of hand.

If Hitler said the sky is blue and Trump agreed, people think that's a valid reason to call Trump a 'Hitler' and all his supporters as Nazi's. It's f#&ked up state of affairs. How long do you want to stretch the bow to make a stupid point

Trump is not the same as Hitler.

Not even close.

This is surreal. I have explained this more and more explicitly.

...I would understand if no one actually clicked my links explaining the fallacies I specifically went out of my way to reject... but I just categorically debunked that exact train of thought within the last few posts.

I will be as clear as possible:
1. It's called Reductio ad Hitlerum.
2. It is a guilt by association argument, aka Association fallacy.
3. I do not subscribe to it.

Quote
For starters Hitler was a socialist and anti capitalist. I would say Bernie Sanders is more comparable to Hitler. It's just as silly but hey at least both are socialists  :P

Simply false. I'd advise you consult dictionary definitions to learn what Fascism and Socialism are.

12
I see Bullwinkles point. I've read up on Hitler and I've been watching trump closely and I've got to say that it's an unreasonable comparison. Very different motivations. Very different skillset. Sure there's some overlap but there's a little Hitler in all of us.

Off the top of my head a better historic figure to compare trump to would be pt barnum.
1. Hopefully the previous post better illustrates how I never compared Trump and Hitler. One of my worse cognitive biases is assuming other people connect the same dots I do when given the same information. They might connect different dots.

As it happens, my second post's disclaimer of the association fallacy appears to have been insufficient at explaining the intent of the first post.

2. I would agree that Hitler and Trump are completely different people, but I'm also not convinced comparing them is unfair. Comparisons should never be off limits. If a comparison is shallow, it should be called out and exposed. If their argument has merit, it should be examined.

If someone wanted to talk about Trump's ideologies in terms of what constitutes fascist inclinations, that's not a conversation I'd dismiss out of hand.

13
Bullwinkle dismissed my posts the instant he saw Hitler's name, before reading enough of it to know that post wasn't calling anyone a Nazi. I deliberately clarified I was not committing Reductio ad Hitlerum, (aka Reduction to Hitler).

You either made a comparison or you just blurted out Hitler for no reason whatsoever.
Hitler was mentioned, but only to illustrate the morally ambiguity of virtues without context. Not to compare him directly to Trump.

If you read back, I was describing two ends of a spectrum spanning from commendable ↑ to the condemnable ↓ versions of virtues.

A writing habit of mine is to prove ideas as I build on them. Should anyone disagree that there were reprehensible contexts for virtues, it would be necessary use examples. Hitler is cliche because he is the epitome example of the most condemned figure (at least famous enough to be recognized).

The whole reason I invited you to elaborate on what you meant by "effective", is because I was leaving Trump's placement on that spectrum undetermined. The crux of my post was that "effectiveness" was still ambiguous for judging Trump and that we needed more context from you.

My guess is that when I was denouncing Hitler's "effectiveness" or Hitler's "goal-orientation", that you mistakenly thought I was comparing Hitler to Trump in the form "both Trump and Hitler were 'effective' and 'goal-oriented', ergo Trump is like Hitler".

This is patently absurd reasoning. Stephen Hawking was "effective" at researching black holes. MLK Jr. was "goal-oriented" try to achieve non-violent social change.

After you took offense, I recognized the potential for a misunderstanding here. That is why I politely clarified in my second post that I had not committed an association fallacy, and apologized for any accidental offense, and stressed my sincerity... all in the hopes that you would re-read it without that underlying assumption.

14
The North Korea nuclear test site at Mount Mantap likely collapsed.

It would be unrelated to who was elected in the US. It's not about Trump nor about Chinese sanctions, it appears North Korea's tests created an earthquake that heavily compromised their nuclear facility.

Their announcement to close down the facility suspend all nuclear and intercontinental ballistic missile tests is not surprising. It is a rush for North Korea to take political credit and save face, while Chinese authorities are testing to ensure radiation from the at least partially demolished nuclear site doesn't spread across their border into China.

15
You used the magic words. At least you acknowledge your own posts as devoid of argumentative merit.

Uh what?

I mentioned Hitler in a relatively polite context where I was not comparing Hitler to anyone else.

Bullwinkle dismissed my posts the instant he saw Hitler's name, before reading enough of it to know that post wasn't calling anyone a Nazi. I deliberately clarified I was not committing Reductio ad Hitlerum, (aka Reduction to Hitler).

He stated that he instantly devalues any posts mentioning "Hitler" regardless of context, and said that in a post while mentioning "Hitler". I merely hung a lantern on his post because I found it amusing how his statement accidentally used self-referential logic to undercut itself.

16
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Why do you support donald trump
« on: April 30, 2018, 02:34:14 AM »
I'm going to pretend as if you did not bring up Hitler, again.

Hitler's name on the left is always on the tip of their tongue..this means Hitler is always on their mind...I wonder why??

I don't care why. Someone says Hitler or Racist and the conversation is over. I'm not going to pretend like they have anything to say.

You used the magic words. At least you acknowledge your own posts as devoid of argumentative merit.

17
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Why do you support donald trump
« on: April 29, 2018, 11:48:55 PM »
You both demonstrated the exact Pavlovian responses I specifically cautioned against. You assumed the content of my posts were offensive without comprehending them.

Instant vindication might sound nice, but really it's just disappointing.  :-\

18
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Why do you support donald trump
« on: April 29, 2018, 04:25:53 AM »
I'm going to pretend as if you did not bring up Hitler.
It's understandable you may feel Hitler's name is often used in fallacious ways, but I'd also caution against any Pavlovian response of instantly dismissing any arguments the instant Hitler's name gets mentioned. I didn't mean it as an insult to you or your beliefs, and I apologize if my post came off as abrasive.  :-\

I made a deliberate effort to avoid committing an ad hominem attack or Nazi association fallacy.

My intent was merely to discuss how the moral praise of certain words is directly contingent on their context. Hitler happens to be the epitome counterexample to moral praise, so he seemed like the ideal example for contrasting contexts for virtues. (Not for drawing equivalencies between them.)

Asking what Trump was "effective" at was sincere, not an attempt at character assassination.
What I expected was for you to mention something like his healthcare or tax changes as examples of his effectiveness, which would suggest you approve of the plans he passed, which may invite more productive conversation.

Your posts are usually good and all, but... Why do you talk so formally?
Whatever idiosyncrasies pervade my speaking habits seem natural to me.
...Please don't tell the Turing test administration office. <|°_°|>

19
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Another mass shooting...
« on: April 29, 2018, 02:50:28 AM »
However, it has been established that the NRA directly backed the lawyers arguing for individual gun rights. NRA lobbying and financial backing certainly went into controlling the outcome of that case.

It's quite a leap going from paying lawyer fees to controlling the outcome of a case.

Ah I meant to say "attempting to control". My mistake.

Lawyers on both sides got paid.

I wasn't objecting to them getting paid. I was calling attention to the concerted efforts of a vested interest.

Which side does not have an interest in the outcome?

lol, I wasn't objecting to the NRA as being invested in the outcome either.

If you are digging for my reasons for my own personal condemnation of the NRA, let me help you out:
Looking at just the Heller case (and not the plethora of shady business practices and propaganda), then I personally condemn them for injecting themselves and ~3.5 million dollars worth of legal interference into the court proceedings of an existing two party civil suit between Heller and the State in which the NRA had no legal standing to bring a suit themselves.

I personally define "government corruption" as the undue influence of a third party interfering in normal government operations in order to appease government figures or shape government policies for personal gain/profit.

Ex. Bribing a police officer to overlook your crimes would be corruption.
Ex. Big Oil giving gifts to senators to pass their laws would be corruption.

The normal government operations would have been between 1. the people who are interested in trying to adhere to the historical precedents and preserve the founder's intent for guns and enforce the existing laws, and 2. the security guard who was was suing the government because he was denied a gun permit under the current laws.

The NRA was a third party who had no role as either plaintiff nor defendant. They were just a wealthy organization who stood to profit off the rampant proliferation of guns. I consider any gifts that may have been bestowed to any judges, and any legal teams inserted into those court proceedings to be inappropriate and immoral influences. Summarily, I consider them a literal source of corruption.

20
Physicists often describe quantum particles as excitations in space time fields ...while describing relativistic physics as bending space time. Something my brother and I have been toying with for a few years is the concept that quantum particles are excitations, but as eddies in the space time fabric (which is already notorious for acting like a super-fluid).

Anytime an electrically charged object is spun, a magnetic field is produced. We measure quantum spin by the magnetic fields they produce. For anyone who hasn't looked into quantum spin, there are some strange differences from classical spin: Classical spin requires particles to physically move. As a soccer ball spins, particles far away from the center of rotation must travel farther. Classical spin has the distinct quality that of massive objects must move through space time.

Our measurements led us to describe all elementary particles with notions of half-spin meaning that they must rotate 720° to reach their original state. What's fascinating about this is how highly reminiscent it is of the belt trick: It illustrates how a single point in space can rotate endlessly without tangling itself up.



In this video, the cube would represent a single 0-dimentional point in space, while the belts would represent the unbroken untangled connectivity to the rest of the space time fabric. (Note the configuration only loops every 720°... This is seen as any individual belt alternating between looping above and below the cube every 360°).

This hypothesis would also resolve the problem of explaining the strength electrons' magnetic fields. If the cube still represents a 0-dimensional electron position, the belts would actually be required to exceed the speed of light in order to produce magnetic fields as intense as the ones we see around electrons.

What's great about this interpretation is that the space time fabric is already modeled by relatively to be capable of exceeding the speed of light. For example, blackholes are mathematically modeled as space time fabric flowing into the singularity faster than light can traverse it.

Wouldn't it be interesting if general relativity was described the large scale deformations of space while particles ended up being the tiny deformations in space? Obviously this is just speculation, but you can't deny it would be elegant.  ;)

21
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Another mass shooting...
« on: April 28, 2018, 08:30:05 PM »
However, it has been established that the NRA directly backed the lawyers arguing for individual gun rights. NRA lobbying and financial backing certainly went into controlling the outcome of that case.

It's quite a leap going from paying lawyer fees to controlling the outcome of a case.

Ah I meant to say "attempting to control". My mistake.

Lawyers on both sides got paid.

I wasn't objecting to them getting paid. I was calling attention to the concerted efforts of a vested interest.

22
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Why do you support donald trump
« on: April 28, 2018, 08:23:57 PM »
Re-railing this thread for a moment, what I'm more curious to hear is whether any Trump supporters here can identify any specific virtues that they would firmly associate with the man.

Confident, determined, goal-oriented, effective, visionary.

That was actually quite helpful. It highlighted a divide in our uses of the word virtue: Your use of the word includes descriptors (which may be more mainstream), but strike me as more conditional. I was looking for virtues as things I would praise more or less aside from context.

Being "effective" begs the question: Effective at what? (That's not rhetorical)

Apologies for the cliche example, but Hitler was a determined/goal-orientated, effective, visionary. Hopefully neither of us would have considered praising Hitler as virtuous for his "effectiveness" or his "goal-orientation". Similarly, sexual predators aren't usually praised for being assertive.

This dependency in definitions may account for a selection bias in which virtues I listed as examples... I tended to prioritize things like compassion, integrity, or wisdom, because I see those traits as less corruptible.

As a final note, confidence is also fickle. Trump could easily be called arrogant or self-important instead. Personally, I don't generally think of confident people as having fragile egos.

23
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Another mass shooting...
« on: April 28, 2018, 05:33:44 PM »
However, it has been established that the NRA directly backed the lawyers arguing for individual gun rights. NRA lobbying and financial backing certainly went into controlling the outcome of that case.

It's quite a leap going from paying lawyer fees to controlling the outcome of a case.

Ah I meant to say "attempting to control". My mistake.

24
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Why do you support donald trump
« on: April 28, 2018, 05:31:01 PM »
Re-railing this thread for a moment, what I'm more curious to hear is whether any Trump supporters here can identify any specific virtues that they would firmly associate with the man.

If I were to say "Trump embodies exactly zero virtues as a human being", is there a counterexample anybody is willing to argue for?

Ex. Honesty, integrity, empathy, compassion, conscientiousness, emotional detachment, dignity, ethical consideration, trustworthiness, forgiveness, generosity, honor, humility, integrity, kindness, self-discipline, patience, respectfulness, tact, tolerance, wisdom, etc.

25
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Another mass shooting...
« on: April 28, 2018, 05:11:47 PM »
To use this ruling as evidence the only reason Heller won was because of the NRA spewing propaganda is faulty at best.
Don't worry, I wasn't.  :)

Every case I listed was intended only to establish a running precedent for every time the second amendment was interpreted. Each instance (prior to Heller), it was interpreted consistently under one of two models: "States' Rights" versus "Incorporation".

The Cruikshank case was only mentioned because it was an instance of when the Supreme Court happened to reaffirm the existing interpretations of the second amendment. Case specifics were merely incidental. ...I was not endorsing their final decision.

As for my comment mentioning the NRA, I was primarily referring to the NRA's direct influence on the Heller trial.

Justice Scalia was notorious for accepting gifts from parties and business interests whose cases appeared before him. In the Heller case, Scalia's majority opinion won out 5 to 4. Accusation of NRA influence on his ruling strike me as highly plausible, but I currently am unaware of substantive proof. However, it has been established that the NRA directly backed the lawyers arguing for individual gun rights. NRA lobbying and financial backing certainly went into their attempts to control the outcome of that case.
 
I would agree with notions that NRA propaganda exists and may have played a role, but I also should disclaim that I don't consider the NRA's roles to be the only contributing factors. For example, I'd also wager 44 states who granted gun rights contributed heavily to public perception on what the second amendment actually meant prior to 2008.

Anecdotally, I knew very few people who didn't already think there was a federal right to own a gun for individual purposes.

26
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Another mass shooting...
« on: April 27, 2018, 05:42:31 AM »
(Selective v. Total Incorporation - Expansive Series),
The first ruling, to me, reads that private citizens can bar you from being armed on their private property.
The first entry is referencing a series of cases about whether or not the Bill of Rights was selectively applied at the state and local levels of government. In the century after the Bill of rights was ratified, the vast majority of regulation was done by states, and the first case law on weapons regulation dealt with state interpretations of the Second Amendment. 44 states have chosen to explicitly embody a right to bear arms into their state constitutions.

1. As rights of the states interpretations argued, civilians DID NOT have constitutional gun rights and only people on duty in official state militias were granted guns rights.
2. The standard model argued civilians DID have a right to own guns, but only the type of arms that are useful for militia service. 19th-century state supreme court cases frequently referenced the "civilized warfare" test. This is the model that won out.

Examples of those many rulings are here.

(United States vs. Cruikshank 1875),
The second ruling only mentions that assembling as a militia can be subject to state legislation. It didn't say that citizens don't have individual rights to keep and bear arms.
Perhaps I should have gone into more detail. I shouldn't expect other people to dig through court notes, but I was just worried that too many citations and explanations would bloat an already long post. The Court Opinion clearly stated the "Second Amendment has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National Government" again deferring to the context of the state militias.

Evidence?
Here's a John Paul Stevens excerpt (Associate Justice of the SCOTUS 1975-2010) hosted under the Washington Post.

For good measure, here's a gun advocate site that sells ammunition. It has this history page, which closely echos my list and condemns the long history of rulings for the same reasons I listed. We are both are pointing to the recent changes in rulings, but this site's motivation is to point out what it deems as "progress".

27
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Why do you support donald trump
« on: April 27, 2018, 04:15:28 AM »
That's tough but fair. Thank you for illustrating my point so succinctly
Dare I ask how my post to illustrates your point?  ???

28
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Another mass shooting...
« on: April 27, 2018, 03:52:58 AM »
For the record, the second amendment is a single sentence: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The founders' repeatedly expressed their intent was to create one more check/balance to potentially allow states to overthrow a tyrannical federal government. This is consistent with the first 10 amendments to the Constitution all placing limits on the powers of the new federal government.

Pretty early on, the Supreme Court was forced to settle whether or not the right to bear arms included civilians. Since its earliest ruling, the Supreme Court held that American citizens had no inherent right to bear arms under the Second Ammendment. They officially interpreted the second amendment to extend gun ownership rights to people only under the context of contributing to the common defense against tyranny. Civilians had a civic duty to overthrow a corrupt government. For over 200 years the U.S. Supreme Court consistently ruled that the Second Amendment did not grant individual gun ownership outside the context of a militia. Four distinct occasions mark these rulings:

(Selective v. Total Incorporation - Ongoing series),
(United States vs. Cruikshank 1875),
(Presser v. Illinois 1886),
(United States v. Miller 1939)

This understanding that guns were for only the "common defense" was only overturned recently during the District of Columbia v. Heller case in 2008. It's just this last decade of NRA lobbying that the supreme court started saying that the second amendment grants gun rights for "personal defense".


Confiscating self defense tools is not as simple as passing a law.
It would require a constitutional amendment revoking the second amendment.
[...]
Foreigners and ignorant Americans think laws can just be made up on the fly to suit the mood du jour.
Depends. Essentially any laws can be passed as long as the judiciary branch doesn't intervene to interpret the laws as unconstitutional during Judicial Review. I suspect any legislation over gun control would get plenty of attention, but the notion of "gun control" has been constantly reaffirmed as constitutional.

For example, AR-15s and AK-47s were banned from 1994-2004 without any amendments being passed.

Still, we can entertain the hypothetical scenario in which a gun control law was passed that you considered unconstitutional. In that case, then you (as a civilian) could sue the government.*

If the court ruled the legislation was unconstitutional, only then the law would be revoked. Alternatively, if the supreme court didn't conclude the law was unconstitutional, then technically no constitutional amendment was needed. As the first part of my post covers, interpretive constitutional protections of "self defense tools" is extremely new, and is a product of flipping court interpretations-- no amendments needed.

To summarize, whether or not an amendment is needed depends entirely on the specifics of the proposed law and the whims of the judicial interpretation.

*State sovereign immunity (aka the inability to sue the government) does not extend to cases in which the government is accused of violating the constitution.

29
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Why do you support donald trump
« on: April 27, 2018, 01:14:47 AM »
The reason I don't bag Trump out as much is because in reality, we really don't have much to complain for. We have a lot to be thankful for, even in the age of Trump.

So what you really want is to have a requirement for a minimum level of virtue signalling before anyone is allowed to complain about Trump?

Sure, why not?

See: tu quoque logical fallacy
And: fallacy of relative privation


30
The demand for labor is very inelastic (about -0.1 to -0.2 in America). In other words, businesses will continue employing workers despite the increased cost, because their work is more valuable than their cost. There will of course be some dip in employment, but it is more than compensated for by increase in wealth among the working class.

Workers benefit from an increase in the minimum wage rate as long as the demand for labor is inelastic (eL > −1)

"It is evident from Figure 1 that at the average short-term value of v, workers would
gain from an increase in the minimum wage rate unless their risk aversion is improbably
high (S ≥ 13)."
http://ftp.iza.org/dp3150.pdf

A meta-analysis from Doucouliagos, Hristos, and Tom D. Stanley. “Publication Selection Bias in Minimum-Wage Research? A Meta-Regression Analysis, shows the distribution of many measurements for labor elasticity:


https://www.researchgate.net/publication/227371443_Publication_Selection_Bias_in_Minimum-Wage_Research_A_Meta-Regression_Analysis


...So yes, I am in favor of raising the minimum wage.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 194