821–830 of 916 posts
It's like someone points out a problem, and then you stick your head in the sand and wait for things go away - or just let others deal with your issues. It's simply not the right approach.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> accomplished anything meaningful in terms of enforcing actual norms of behavior? Point being that the norm in question would be "not having the war".
Hasn't humanity been having at least one war since ... forever? I think the norm is war and what isn't normal are bullets and bombs that do far more collateral damage than "normal."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Statutory law fits perfectly with our capitalist society, efficient, inflexible, uniform, quick and cheap. Judges and juries are expensive. This seems a bit of a false equivalence. Capitalist societies are the ones that are based on liberalism and think individuals are important - important enough to make companies and agreements between each other. They quite often are the ones that also think individuals are dese…
Are you not confusing democratic societies with capitalist ones? I mean, there's some overlap, but if we're talking about clumsy equivalences... :) And to be honest I see ever less intersection between actual current "late stage" capitalism and the "rule of Law". Those I know in the legal profession complain we are in state of "lawfare", a state in which most of the common principles of justice have broken down in fa…
Well, they both are rooted in the idea that individuals are important, which is a relatively new idea, all things considered.
> How about I use the expression "greed driven societies" instead?
You can do, except I think it's not helpful, as you're joining the ranks of the people who misuse the word "society" to mean "how I happen to think about the stuff I don't like in the world".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nobody knows a vehicle is insecure when they buy it. It's simpler, more cost efficient, and more valuable to society just to require cars to have basic security features. Your idea of market correction doesn't work in this case, because it's never advertised as having shitty security, and the average (or even informed) consumer will have no idea this is a problem until after they've bought the car.
I never understand this arguement. I hear it in the form "we should just regulate cars to be safer", why dont you just buy a safer car? "What do you take me for? I got a mustang GT, the last thing that car is worried about is safety". Interesting, you bought a car because its fast, not paying any consideration to whether it could safely get you from point A to B, and this is what you rely on to get you to work? Its n…
I don't understand your argument. Do you expect every potential car buyer regardless of tech literacy to go to a dealership with an SDR setup on-hand, asking if they could test-out the key fobs, capture some signals, try to figure them out and look for common vulnerabilities on the new models? Do you expect the seller to explain the technical details of the key fobs at a depth you can be sure there's no vulnerabilities?
Determining that the key fobs were implemented securely is not something the buyer or even the seller will be able to determine. I would imagine a regulator has the ability to inspect them as they're being designed/built.
> if you go to buy a car you should have some simple considerations [...] Is it common for this car to be stolen?
By the time vulnerabilities are found and people start stealing them, there should already be plenty sold and roaming the streets.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sorry, that doesn't explain the massive fertility gap between atheists and theists or the fact that atheists are nowhere remotely near replacement rate
Just to understand here: you're claiming that since atheists have fewer children, they'll eventually be out-bred by the religious? Atheism is, in general, a consequence of, not a cause of, all the things that also result in lower birth rates. Birth rates in the US started to fall a lot earlier than religiosity did.
You can talk about the general population until you're blue in the face. That doesn't change statistical facts.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nobody knows a vehicle is insecure when they buy it. It's simpler, more cost efficient, and more valuable to society just to require cars to have basic security features. Your idea of market correction doesn't work in this case, because it's never advertised as having shitty security, and the average (or even informed) consumer will have no idea this is a problem until after they've bought the car.
I never understand this arguement. I hear it in the form "we should just regulate cars to be safer", why dont you just buy a safer car? "What do you take me for? I got a mustang GT, the last thing that car is worried about is safety". Interesting, you bought a car because its fast, not paying any consideration to whether it could safely get you from point A to B, and this is what you rely on to get you to work? Its n…
Put it another way: if it's all market based, your choices in buying just get 2x more complex. Is this car easily unlocked? Do the brakes often fail? Can it resist a collision?
Or even another thought: since most people don't think about security, companies will flood the market with insecure cars. Want a secure car? That would be niche and cost you double.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
At one time is was possible to open car doors with a coat hanger. Nobody suggested banning coat hangers. They fixed the doors.
I locked myself out of my car so often I ended up wedging a coat hanger under the rear bumper. You're right: car doors used to be trivial to yank open when you knew the trick. These days I'd love to create a little side project that sets the alarm off on my car any time a relay attack is detected. I'm sure Mark Rober or someone will end up doing it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hasn't humanity been having at least one war since ... forever? I think the norm is war and what isn't normal are bullets and bombs that do far more collateral damage than "normal."
I agree, but I don't see how that's relevant to the idea that the UN has changed the culture of the world to end war.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you not confusing democratic societies with capitalist ones? I mean, there's some overlap, but if we're talking about clumsy equivalences... :) And to be honest I see ever less intersection between actual current "late stage" capitalism and the "rule of Law". Those I know in the legal profession complain we are in state of "lawfare", a state in which most of the common principles of justice have broken down in fa…
> Are you not confusing democratic societies with capitalist ones? Well, they both are rooted in the idea that individuals are important, which is a relatively new idea, all things considered. > How about I use the expression "greed driven societies" instead? You can do, except I think it's not helpful, as you're joining the ranks of the people who misuse the word "society" to mean "how I happen to think about the st…
Helpful to who?
I see it differently. I think it helps us all to aspire to clear values. Karl Popper thought "there is no society". Lady Thatcher thought we merely misused the word society, not as you say - to universalise social facts - but to forget our "duty" (Thatcher's words) to ourselves and our neighbours (my emph). Thatcher sincerely saw business as a social good, as do I. Using the word society in that way is avoidant. You seem to think that's what I am doing?
Social facts exist, at least in Durkheim's view as behaviours and attitudes. They definitely include greed and selfishness as psychologically measurable traits. You may not think much of sociology and psychology, but to a lot of people they are solid sciences.
Moral judgements are also social facts. And for us Christians (as a moral framework), greed is more than a neutral, observable fact. It is an ugly weakness.
The hoarding of power and wealth by a tiny minority to assuage their insecurity , while returning nowt but "disruption" to the world is objectionable. Being parasitic upon the rest of the population is a harm.
So I've no problem declaring, greed, vanity, megalomania as "stuff I don't like in the world". Others may or may not agree with me. As an individual, you may disagree. But as an individualist you must concede my equal right to call out greed and selfishness as harmful to the rest of us - even without a "Logical basis". Further, you must do so without criticism.... unless you deny the existence of social facts, or yourself find greed attractive and virtuous?