441–450 of 476 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How will you tell where to ship them if they've discarded their passports?
Ship them to the shore they came from, not their home country. The whole operation could take a couple hours, not weeks/months/years of paper-pushing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I don't see why it would be different here. It would not. But then the water-poor would realize its better to be practicial than idiological. I believe in real life noone is all-poor. One as an individual or group has always something to offer. The water-poor/everyone would realize that there is cost of socialism which not everyone can afford. > How does that make any sense? Ancap are not happy with current state o…
Thanks for taking the time to explain that stuff, btw. I don't agree at all with the philosophy but I think it's good to understand the logic behind it. > The water-poor/everyone would realize that there is cost of socialism which not everyone can afford. Except there are places today where there is a right to clean drinking water for everyone - presumably you and me are living in such places. (That's why I was sayin…
Economic warfare is the non-violent weapon. Win is not guranteed but still its very effective. You as water-blocker will lose something if not due to downstream community then others.
I also would guess that its a rare scenario otherwise market would have a solution.
> I don't see why violence is seen as such an important point here.
Because a violent actor is much worse. Ancap is solution to one specific problem not a path to utopia.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem is that the your entire argument rest on the assumption that every individual have equal power, which is objectively not true if you allow for property to accumulate in the hands of a small elite. The central flaw of libertarianism is that it depend on property rights to essentially be worthless to work in the real world, as any scarcity allows for a libertarian dictatorship based solely on the idea that…
> The central flaw of libertarianism is that it depend on property rights to essentially be worthless to work in the real world, as any scarcity allows for a libertarian dictatorship based solely on the idea that property rights are sacred, and need to be protected by the state. Could you reiterate this statement for me? I wasn't able to fully grok the meaning. Edit: Spelling.
i.e. you end up with a clash between the right to own/control property and any other right unless you have a post scarcity society with limitless resources.
I am not arguing that we should all go communist im arguing that Marx have point when he claimed that capitalism will devolve back into something similar to mercantilism* if property is allowed to accumulate in the hands of a few clans/corporations[1].
I know im being a heretic but someone have to as the current naive idea that freedom is not linked with real world resources can only lead to the erosion of any real meaning of the word freedom.
[1]in Smiths day corporations looked a lot like AT&T or Google today and Smith was a critic of the power concentrated within corporations like the British East-india Company(the target of the Boston tea part btw.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You have a bizarre picture of the past if you think that people were forced to fraternise. Similarly, the advent of the internet doesn't mean that people no longer interact physically. You say it's easier to remain close-minded, yet we are in a prosperous time with greater freedom across the board for all. Try being a minority fifty years ago, and see if you still think that people were more open-minded back then.
>You have a bizarre picture of the past if you think that people were forced to fraternise. I wouldn't necessarily characterize what I was discussing as fraternization, but no, I don't think that's bizarre at all when compared against today's culture of sitting indoors looking at a screen bare minimum of 8 hours per day. >Similarly, the advent of the internet doesn't mean that people no longer interact physically. Ob…
You only need to go back a few decades to get to a point where you could simply handwave away an opinion because the speaker was black or a woman. You can't get much more contemptuous of free speech than just ignoring someone out of hand. Your 'principles' don't exist in the actual past; they're a fantasy world that has never existed.
Even the idea that 'you can't bypass the public square' is simply not true, neither physically nor philosphically. Cities have been divided along class lines since forever, with little in the way of mixing. Even in a small town, it's not like you had to go to the square.
> You seem to be reading this from a very narrow perspective that's not ultimately relevant to the discussion at hand.
You're saying technology is holding us back, I'm arguing it's not. But it's nice that you bemoan the lack of communication, then try this dismissal. So much for 'open dialogue'...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem with "the freedom to exclude" is that the same argument underpins, for just one example: racial segregation. If the blacks want to go to the movies, well then they can have their own movie theater. We can't abridge the proprietor's "freedom to exclude" people from his own business. Except we can, and we did, and society was better for it. So as it turns out, the "right to exclude" is more of a guideline t…
>If the blacks want to go to the movies, well then they can have their own movie theater. We can't abridge the proprietor's "freedom to exclude" people from his own business. I'm sorry, but this doesn't disprove the OP's assertion. Doing business with someone is not the same as speech, and business in general is far more regulated than private life ever was. As a counterpoint, (in the US) there's still nothing preven…
Totally agree. Have a look at some controversial pages if you've never encountered one, like this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_assignment I'm triggered so here's my soapbox: Wikipedia currently undermines the idea that human beings have a sex that is grounded in biological reality, and pushes the notion of "sex assigned at birth", the unreality of biological sex and the reality of transgenderism as non-ment…
Your post is so problematic I can't even begin to dismantle it without wasting half my day. Please keep your transphobic layman interpretation of old school medicine to your self. gross
Would you care to give me some pointers/links regarding what you consider a better view on this?
Edit: if you want more of a handle on my problematic opinions, here's a fairly expansive dissection of the article by me: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14232717
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Erdogan is within his right to censor. Does that mean he does not censor?
Erdogan is preventing journalists and private individuals from publishing (or even talking about in some cases) their opinions. He does it to hide his own crimes. This is obviously very different from shutting down a government program. Trump is the employer of those people. He can tell them what to do. They are free to go home and say whatever they want, even about these decisions (and they are, in fact doing that).…
Does Erdogan ever actually violate Turkish law? You call what Erdogan does criminal, but I'm under the impression you're using "the letter of the law" as a measure for Trump, and "what's ethical" for Erdogan.
As an aside, Trump and his staff have removed press from press meetings and refused to let certain question be asked. Those actions aren't arrests but they don't particularly cultivate a climate of open debate either.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In a referendum with tons of irregularities and many reports of government thugs intimidating voters.
Please give me a break, the great majority of the Turks living in Germany (just as an example) not only voted yes in the referendum but after it won there were major celebrations on the streets of a lot of big German cities by Turks living there. Please stop this nonsense of trying to pretend it's always somebody else's fault other than the majority of the Turks. They choose to transform their country in the mess it…
Totally agree. Have a look at some controversial pages if you've never encountered one, like this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_assignment I'm triggered so here's my soapbox: Wikipedia currently undermines the idea that human beings have a sex that is grounded in biological reality, and pushes the notion of "sex assigned at birth", the unreality of biological sex and the reality of transgenderism as non-ment…
I respectfully disagree with you on Wikipedia's article on sex assignment. To me, it covers the issue in detail, going over the mental health aspects that have persisted. Additionally, it explicitly notes that the surgeries if done in a child could be construed as human rights violations, with notions of respect to a child's autonomy and right to privacy/identity. If you could point me to where in the article you hav…
>> In some cases, sex or gender assignment does not align with future gender identity, and the assignment can be problematic.
For starters, while this is a fringe case (~0.3 - 0.6% is a lazy estimated range taken from Wikipedia) it takes up 2/5 of the introductory section.
Sex assignment not matching future gender identity "can be problematic". This is something I do not agree with; I'm of the opinion that gender and sex should be treated very much separately, and this posits that assigning a sex at birth is "potentially problematic" just because the person's gender might not match up later in life.
>> Reinforcing sex assignments through surgical and hormonal means may violate the individual's rights.
That's well and good, but this is only relevant for intersex people, and this seems to imply that it is also so for transgender children. Intersex occurs significantly less than transgenderism, at around 0.06% of the population.
This kind of thinking can and has resulted in the thinking that it is a child's right to determine their sex; see for instance the gender reassignment clinics in Canada that treat children as young as 4 years old. I find it very hard to envision a reasonable country where a child of 4 is given the choice to undergo intensive surgery which will also render them infertile.
It's already forbidden for Canadian schools to tell parents if their children are identifying as the opposite gender at school; I suspect the next step will be placing children out of their homes if their parents refuse to let them transition. A brave new world.
To add insult to injury, child gender reassignment surgery and the usage of puberty blockers are still highly experimental. A few things are known (like the decreased bone density) but many important questions remain unanswered, like the impact on brain development. It will be a long time before this is solved because there just aren't a lot of children undergoing sex reassignment surgeries, thank god.
>> Terminology
This section goes to great lengths to only use "Male" and "Female" in the context of "Assigned X at birth". In fact, the whole article contains not one mention of the names of the two sexes, except when narrating about people who do not "fit typical notions of male and female bodies", the one in "Terminology". Again, over half of this section is dominated by transgenderism-related text.
>> Assigned X at birth
To me this idea seems to imply that sex is something that is arbitrarily chosen by a Doctor at birth; the Doctor here being portrayed as the personification of "the Patriarchy". As if sex has nothing to with sexual organs and the means of procreation.
>> Sex reassignment: ... physically change a person's gender to match their gender identity after a putatively erroneous sex assignment at birth
"Physically change a person's gender". I don't agree that gender is a physical thing at all. I consider gender to be a set of social protocols that generally ease interactions between individuals, by providing a default set of roles a person of either gender can build their identity off, and while also easing day-to-day interactions between the sexes by defining common protocols.
"putatively erroneous sex assignment at birth" implies that gender dysphoria is more real than a person's sex, ignoring the fact that a person's sex does not change with "sexual reassignment surgery" as a person's chromosomes don't change and that person will never have the same sexual function as a person of the sex whose visual characteristics they imitate with surgery.
Neither this section or the rest of this article acknowledges that sex is in any way grounded in biological reality. There is a much better Wikipedia article on "Sex determination systems", but none of the information there is mentioned in the "Sex assignment" article. It's also not mentioned in the "See also" section.
>> Assignment in cases of infants with intersex traits, or cases of trauma
This belongs in the main article ("History of intersex surgery") but takes up twice as much as the introduction and Terminology section.
>> Challenges to requirements for sex assignment
"the perceived need to legally assign sex is increasingly being challenged": there goes the narrative again, "assigning sex is bad and you should feel bad".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If people having opinion X, are banned on social media I'm not in favor of people being banned, but of ideas being flagged - not censored. For example, I don't want to do any kind of business with anyone who is advocating policies that I have a strict moral disagreement with. The nature of that moral disagreement could vary. Popular sentiment should be employed not to determine whether a given piece of media is accep…
They are doing this to Scott Adams, Trump, Snowden and others on twitter. I'm following their accounts and seldom times see any updates from them, the updates are filtered (shadowbanned). Scott Adams himself mentions the same: http://blog.dilbert.com/post/159566176596/am-i-shadowbanned-... If you tag people with whom you have a strict moral disagreement to avoid doing business with them, this is actually what nationa…
It is extremely dishonest of you to attempt to alter the terms of my argument like this and just goes to show how weak your own position is.
