351–360 of 406 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The casual misogyny of this thread is impressively internalized.
Misogyny? Where's the specific hatred of women? If anything, it's (well-placed) misanthropy.
If you don't understand why this is a misogynistic statement, I think the best advice I can offer you is to research why it might be considered as such. Ask a feminist you know and trust more than me, as a suggested start.
To massively simplify a complex debate, there are 2 main schools of thought with respect to how to decrease future crime once a criminal has been apprehended [1]. The first is to make the punishment disincentivize future transgressions, and the second is to rehabilitate the criminal so that they won't make the decision to break the law again. Recently, society has been coming to terms with the fact that strict senten…
The inferential gap between EA and Objectivism is obviously huge, so it's not worth giving a full argument here. For the intellectually curious, though, I'll simply say that the two schools of thought fromthemorning cites both assume that the purpose of morality is to maximise the greater good (rather than, say, teaching individuals principles to maximise their own long-term personal happiness).
On the off chance that someone on the fringes of the EA movement reads this, someone who shares the concerns I once had - the ultimate issue with EA is that it's hyper-empiricist: EAs love evidence but are highly distrustful of theoretical arguments. This is an understandable position, but ultimately a mistake, because you end up unable to synthesise the vast amounts of data you gather. All truths are simplifications - what you need are rules to form correct simplifications.
Objectivism isn't taken seriously in mainstream intellectual circles but it should be, because it shows how to avoid the pitfalls of both empiricism and rationalism. (See Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology for details).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The casual misogyny of this thread is impressively internalized.
I deserved that. I have a great capacity to become an asshole when I'm being glib. I would like to add that there's nothing impressive with how well casual prejudice becomes internalized because that is literally the easiest and laziest thing a brain can do.
Thank you. It made my day incrementally better.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I still maintain that there is never a reason to steal from your fellow man. * Stealing something back * Stealing Hitler's secret plans * Stealing a portion of everybody's property/income, but providing vital protection, infrastructure and social services in return. * Stealing the heart of a girl from a guy who abuses her. * Stealing land from the commons to efficiently put it to work * Stealing land at market valu…
I respectfully disagree. Property rights have a moral component independent of their economic value, similar to privacy rights. Say someone says "let me search your car, what have you got to hide?" What argument can you use against it? The problem is that we've been manipulated to believe privacy has no real moral claim. In reality, you should be able to just say "it's private" and not feel compelled to provide furth…
Tell it to the ghost of Houdini.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I'm apparently in the minority, but, after reading the article, I still maintain that there is never a reason to steal from your fellow man. The Catholic Church would agree: stealing is intrinsically evil, and thus wrong always and everywhere. The way they handle situations like this is by defining "stealing when starving" as "not stealing at all, but reappropriating things according to God's design for them." They…
> The Catholic Church... are in no position to lecture anyone on morals. Read "The God Delusion" if this isn't abundantly apparent to you from studying history and/or reading the news.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It is black and white That you believe this makes it absolutely impossible for me to think you're not in a privileged position. > The whole point of government social programs is to provide for survival. There are organizations that provide and places to go. Great when you know where to go, and they work as they should. They are not perfect. And people are not perfect. Especially not when starving.
Why are you so obsessed with his personal life? Are you hoping you can neatly fit his life experiences into a box you call 'privilege' and then dismiss everything he has to say without argument? That sort of behavior is mostly frowned upon around here.
Nuance always matters. Context always matters. You won't derive meaning without them. (And if you aren't trying to derive meaning from something, if you're just aiming for the reptile-brain blood rush of Airing That Opinion--frankly, there are easier methods to replicate that that don't involve bothering other people.)
And while I am emphatically not accusing you of anything in your post, my experience has led me to the rule of thumb that the fear of such a rhetorical dismissal, as you expressed, stems from a desire to dismiss out of hand something challenging. It is in almost every case I can think of a do-unto-others-before-they-do-unto-you defense (even when, as is generally the case, nobody's doing unto you in the first place), so I'd personally think pretty hard before being too holy about it and telling vidarh what's frowned upon here.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I deserved that. I have a great capacity to become an asshole when I'm being glib. I would like to add that there's nothing impressive with how well casual prejudice becomes internalized because that is literally the easiest and laziest thing a brain can do.
I am sorry to be blunt. Someone called it "snarky." I am happy we can reflect publicly and agree that this relatively common phrase is somewhat problematic. Thank you. It made my day incrementally better.
Every once in a while I need a reminder that my loose tongue can make people feel marginalized. What you do is thankless and I know people resent you because they feel like you're trying to censor everybody. I know you're just trying to protect people who don't have a thick skin. Not everyone can have a thick skin, so somebody should look out for them.
I almost responded differently but I'm really glad I didn't. The world doesn't need more distance between people.
To massively simplify a complex debate, there are 2 main schools of thought with respect to how to decrease future crime once a criminal has been apprehended [1]. The first is to make the punishment disincentivize future transgressions, and the second is to rehabilitate the criminal so that they won't make the decision to break the law again. Recently, society has been coming to terms with the fact that strict senten…
Interesting to meet an effective altruist here. I was somewhat involved in EA for a while and even interned at an EA org, but after reading up a bunch of different philosophies the one which I found most consistent with reality was -- perhaps surprisingly -- Objectivism. The inferential gap between EA and Objectivism is obviously huge, so it's not worth giving a full argument here. For the intellectually curious, tho…
If you're gonna force business owners to give to the poor, why not do it through an established and equitable mechanism like taxation/redistribution, instead of subjecting select types of business owners to the whims of a mostly subjective claim? Why force the burden on a bakery but not a tailor or a chocolatier? I can't help but be concerned about this growing trend of governments slowly pushing off the burden of ge…
Actually, when you think of it, maybe it's better to legalize stealing than establishing a government agency in charge of equitable redistribution. I would imagine stealing would work more efficiently and more fairly. (You see a problem and you say: Hey, let's establish a government agency to solve that problem. Now you have two problems.)
It's not hard to find videos on the web where a mob of shopkeepers beat the crap out of (or even shooting) someone caught shoplifting. We don't have cops to protect us from criminals. We have cops to protect people accused of crime from summary judgement.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The supermarket owner does have that right, and likely would if asked discretely. People are generally good and would probably forgive. Many do. That's why it is so important to donate to food shelters (don't forget toys for children - feed the body and mind). But saying stealing is ok is wrong.
People are generally good. But some people aren't. Incidentally, those are the people who tend to accumulate wealth and power. There are certainly people in this world who would sit on top a mountain of food that will spoil if not eaten a foot away from a starving dying man and tell him he's not allowed to have any because they'd like to watch him suffer. In that case stealing is quite alright by me.
Hell, there are people in this thread who would apparently play the role of the foodpile guy because of their intensely, sincerely held moral conviction!