[ home ] [ pony / townhall / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]

/townhall/ - Townhall

A place for civilized animals
Password (For file deletion.)


Interesting video to discuss.
41 posts and 4 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


>Did my saying that just now "suppress" gay porn? Does my refusal to buy it hurt the gay porn industry?

If you went to porn shops and told them you wouldn't go there if they sold gay porn, or harassed customers of it, then yea, you'd be being a nuance to that shop and hurting the industry in a small way. If you don't like something just don't buy it. You shouldn't mess with other peoples' ability to purchase and enjoy it. That's such a megalomaniacal attitude to have. Who cares if you don't like it if it makes other people happy? You're free to ignore it and move on with your life. I think that your attitude the because you don't like something, you don't think it should exist, well, that reveals a lot about you. I don't like a lot of things, but i don't begrudge their existence. There's of course times when i think something could have been done better, or where the circumstances of it's creation don't end up being worth the end result, but i would never say a piece of media shouldn't exist. And for personal distaste to be the reason? That's not even a decent excuse.

>Literally anywhere else but Targets in Australia are still selling the game. It's one of the best selling video games of all time.

In spite of the women. Not because of. They failed on a grander scale only due to a lack of power. Power fluctuates. You think they wouldn't wipe the game from existence if they could? If it was easy for them?

>Also, it's pretty inconsiderate to call these women "vile" when you don't know their motivations for protesting the game (something they have a right to do) or the circumstances surrounding it.

Yea, well, it wasn't very considerate for them to prevent people who wanted to buy a game to not be able to do so as conveniently because they personally didn't like something. They have the right to do it, sure, but that doesn't stop them from being vile. Their actions speak loudly enough. I have no sympathy for wannabe censors.

>All of this is quite literally a slippery slope fallacy. You cannot know that anything like what you are assuming can or will ever happen.

Post too long. Click here to view the full text.


> It wasn't a political protest. It was feminists protesting the fact you could commit acts of violence against women in GTA V.
That seems awfully political to me.  I don't think any Trump supporters would be part of that protest.  And as a side note, I'm pretty sure you could commit violence against both men and women in that game.


>>If you went to porn shops and told them you wouldn't go there if they sold gay porn

I wouldn't. Because I don't go to gay porn shops. Gay porn shops are already living in the reality I would threaten them with, one where I don't shop at their stores.

>>or harassed customers of it,
As far as I can tell from the news articles, there were no in-store or in-person protests. It was online petitions and email complaints to the corporate offices, not any of Target's other customers.

>>You shouldn't mess with other peoples' ability to purchase and enjoy it.

I actually agree. That's why I personally do not protest gay porn. But people have the right to protest whatever they want and stores have the right to pick and choose whatever they want to sell. For all you know, Target didn't stop selling GTA V because of "pressure" against their will, but because someone high up was actually swayed by an argument they made. It's not impossible.

>>You think they wouldn't wipe the game from existence if they could? If it was easy for them?

I don't know these women, so I couldn't say that. For all I know they love lots of video games and just don't care for this one. Also, that's another slippery slope fallacy. Please stop doing that.
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.


File: 1569797754995.png (255.05 KB, 745x470, 149:94, DiPdvA3XUAASrWz.png) ImgOps Google

The word "high" in the phrase "high crimes" refers to the office and not the offense, and the offense may not even be a breach of criminal statute.

There are allegations that (1) President Trump, acting in his official capacity, pressured Volodymyr Zelenskyy (President of Ukraine) to launch an official investigation of Hunter Biden's activities in Ukraine and (2) Trump's intent was to help his own re-election campaign, not to advance the interests of the United States.  If these allegations are true, would you consider Trump's conduct a high crime (or a high misdemeanor)?

If Trump were to be impeached by the House and convicted by the Senate, would another Republican presidential candidate have a better chance of winning in 2020 than Trump would if he were not removed from office?  Who do you think would be the Republican candidate best able to win the 2020 election if Trump is removed from office?
40 posts and 5 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


>So I'm not sure what that situation has to do with what we are discussing.
I thought you said you followed the logic, in >>2866.

Maybe you can elaborate on why you think a call to investigate Jussie Smollett who is proper, but Trump's called to investigate Biden was improper.  What is the important difference?


I'm not aware of any call to further investigate Jussie Smollett. I was under the impression that it was an open and shut case. He created a hoax and was almost immediately found out.

As for Trump investigating Biden, I think the issue here is that Trump did not go through the proper channels and organizations to investigate it. Instead he tried to pressure another nation into giving him information he could use against a political opponent.



remember, the alt-right is essentially a cult


After a report sent about this thread, it's been locked, and we're currently reviewing the report and thread contents!


This thread has not been found to meet the site standards for /Townhall/, and has subsequently been locked. Thank you all for your cooperation!


File: 1570587910463.gif (3.17 MB, 400x225, 16:9, what is going on here.gif) ImgOps Google

Good evening, pony friends. I have an announcement today, from the staff.

The staff has been getting a lot of reports from /townhall/ lately, concerning the breaking of our rules on behavior and civility.

The staff has been discussing your reports, and your complaints about the system to us, and we've arrived at what we feel is a more fair, equitable way to proceed here on /townhall/ without the need for extreme action.

We've put together two plans, based on the two prevailing schools of thought here on staff.

First, is Plan A, which is our default plan, and how we'll be moving forward.

Under Plan A, everyone will be given a COMPLETELY CLEAN SLATE to start from, and thereby no amount of past history will influence decisions moving forward here on townhall, -but-, the rules will be here-on-out enforced a lot more strictly.

The first report a thread gets will cause that thread to be locked. This report has to come from a user with post history, and abuse of this system will lead to users being banned.

Thereafter, whosoever is deemed to have instigated the uncivil behavior, will receive a ban
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.
28 posts and 3 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


>This place doesn't have an explicit political focus.
It's got a serious topic focus, though
I guess if you mean more scientific or philosophic topics, sure. But, that's more or less in the same boat for me.
I was wanting something less serious.


We can't really force OP names, I think. There are some users on ponyville that are anonymous all the time.

I think you're right that it will create some discontent when users are banned for what is percieved as invalid reasons, but my hope is that people would channel that discontent by creating better threads and participating in the threads with the best frameworks.

if I'm right, I think this should lead to a system by which the quality of thread moderation systems is improved through an iterative approach.

But it could also suck major dick.


I can agree this can be a problem. And often times one mod would not see a post as a problem, then another would come and claim it was once the thread had derailed.

I think the problem with this plan is that the modstaff is relatively small, made up of volunteers with their own lives outside of moderating, and their own biases. I'm not sure this system is going to help the problem they think it will.


File: 1571540354830.jpg (97.26 KB, 1280x720, 16:9, slide_3.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

1. Suppose you are responsible for setting up a holiday party for your company.  And further suppose that your wife owns a catering company.  Would it be conflict of interest for you to personally select your wife's company to cater for the holiday party?

2. Suppose you are the chief executive officer of a very large organization.  This organization is going to be setting up a conference.  You happen to personally own a convention center.  Would it be a conflict of interest for you to select your own convention center as the location of the conference?
14 posts and 2 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


Most public organisations and government organisations have, or should have an acquisition process. If you have a conflict of interest you shouldn't be part of that acquisition process. You could nominate your business, on the premise of being cheap sure. But that shouldn't garuntee your success. You can't scratch your own back using someone else's hand.

Private enterprises are allowed to do what they wish. They are not using other people's money. You can subsidise one of your private ventures with the other if you really want.


Assuming that they are private ventures and you are the full owner. If it were an LLC or a publicly traded company then the laws are different.

Very very few companies have an ownership structure that would allow that degree of autonomy from an owner, including companies that only have one top executive who is the founder.


Realistically yes. private companies typically have an acquisition process because it's a good idea anyway. They do not however have fiduciary duty to anyone.


File: 1571330585709.png (282.97 KB, 526x353, 526:353, Shy Fluttersmile.png) ImgOps Google

...what are your thoughts on race, as they relate to culture? Should race and culture be completely separate? Are they, already?
19 posts and 6 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


Race is very much tied to culture, as certain cultures are more common or even exclusive to some races. But we should not use someone's race to guess their culture because it's possible to be any race and almost any culture.

That said, I DO believe there are certain experiences and are universal to people of certain races. But that's not really a "culture", as it were.


Most of what Americans think of a "Chinese" food has a similar origin. What we think of as "Chinese" food is NOT what people in China eat. But that's pretty common. Pizza, as we know it, was invented in America. What Italian people call "Pizza" is very different from what we order from Dominoes.


Race is a folk taxonomy of people that sees people existing in discrete groups when otherwise humanity exist as what zoologists and ecologist call a "kline", that is alleles in the genepool tend to be spread out like a cloud, concentrated in one area of the geography spreading outwards and growing thinner to the point that discerning a discrete border is basically impossible.

So yes, race is pretty intrinsic to culture because it's up to culture to determine what arbitrary heritable characteristics you have are essential to determining your race, and distinguish them from the heritable characteristics they deem to be unessential in determining their own taxonomy of race caregories.

Should they be seperate? I mean, it might certainly allow some people a whole lot more personal freedom if cultural background was conceived as a wholly separate categorical scheme ... but that would most likely lead to subcultures that could still only be understood as intrinsically linked to those same race categories. Like, okay, "nerd" is no longer associated as a subcultural category closely associated with being white or asian, but now you have these distinct subgroups of that subgroup distinguished by race, i.e. "black nerds". I think, by their very nature, any social categorical schema generates a culture around the people placed in that category, especially if that category is based on something highly and constantly visible, which is biologically inherited and thus tends to occur in more concentrated in some locations than in others.

perhaps it would just be better to implement an educational curriculum that emphasizes critical thinking skills, with a big emphasis on the idea that the organizational schema you generate as you grow up from partly from experience and that you learn from cultural osmosis,  and which you use to make sense of and organize reality on a daily basis, is going to be perpetually tentative and need of revision when, inevitably, you run into real world exceptions to how you thought the world was organized, i.e. like when you run into that black nerd


File: 1571186685494.jpg (409.12 KB, 780x438, 130:73, 978ddb59-5d14-4fb2-b620-20….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

Any thoughts on the 3rd 4th Democratic debate?
60 posts and 13 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


>Bernie's heart attack makes me wonder if he's physically fit to take the office, in my personal opinion.
Did you watch the debate?  It cleared up that question for me.  Bernie gave a vigorous performance.  I'm more worried about Biden.  He seems a little bit senile.

>the last thing we need in the office is another old white guy.
Why do you think his race is relevant?  I think we should judge presidential candidates by the content of their character and other relevant job qualifications, not by the color of their skin.

>But I feel like the US, especially the older voting demographics, isn't ready for a gay president.
I disagree.  Of the people who would refuse to vote for a gay man, I think few would vote for any other Democrat either.


>Did you watch the debate?

I did. But one good performance doesn't mean Bernie is fit for the stresses of being the president for 4 years.

I don't think Biden is senile. I think he just has a tendency to ramble on.

>Why do you think his race is relevant?

Because race and racism, and reactions to said has been a polarizing issue connected with the current president. I want the next president to have pretty much the opposite opinions and stances to those issues that Trump does. And I feel like a person of color, who has real-world experience with racism and the divisive issues would be a better fit in these polarized times.

>Of the people who would refuse to vote for a gay man, I think few would vote for any other Democrat either.

That's a good point. But are you familiar with the Bradley effect?


Vigorous preformances doesn't exactly mean you're healthy. It just means you have conviction for what you believe.
I don't know how bad his heart attack was, though.


File: 1571163299834.jpg (166.86 KB, 1024x768, 4:3, Fillyflutter.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

...i wonder about something. It is more and more accepted that we should each be able to choose what to do with our own bodies, and that includes transgender stuff, cosmetic surgery, and abortions and things.

i think we can agree, these are important. And yet, why does the conversation about suicide seem the opposite sometimes?

Now... i want to be clear i am not comparing the former to suicide or depression. They are very different in nature.

But that is just the question... At what point -isn't it a person's right to choose what happens to their bodies?

...i hope nobody will be offended by my question. That is not what i want to do, or imply anything at all.
17 posts and 3 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


I've had fleeting thoughts that the people who did not want me to kill myself were being selfish. They did not know my pain, of what I had to do and deal with every day to continue living. That if they truly cared, they wouldn't try to stop me from ending that pain and suffering in what I thought was the only way I could ever escape it. But that was just my perspective as the person who wanted to commit suicide, and it was skewed by my emotions at the time. If you asked someone else, who's on the other side of seeing someone they cared about not wanting to live anymore, they would tell you the opposite. I think this song illustrate the dichotomy well.


I fucking hate that song. Not because it's bad, but because my husband showed that to me and I spent months being terrified that he was going to try and kill himself. But yes, it's tells it quite well... I think this song shows another side too.

Eh but, what you were saying:

>If you asked someone else, who's on the other side of seeing someone they cared about not wanting to live anymore,

I don't know if it would be the opposite, exactly, so much as that they see a way that you could be, were you free of that pain. And maybe sometimes have no way to get you to that freedom, and that in it's own way can hurt very badly too. It's all very painful.



File: 1570906083542.jpg (32.12 KB, 408x409, 408:409, madmans_knowledge.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

In the short story "The Ones Who Walked Away From Omelas" by Ursula K. Le Guin, the city of Omelas is a beautiful, perfect city. An absolute utopia.

However, it is that way because there is a child kept deep beneath the city who is beaten, abused, and tortured. All citizens learn about this child, and see them, and learn this is the cost of their perfect life.

That said, I pose this question: Would you be able to live, and stay, in this perfect utopia knowing this? Or would you walk away?

I cannot honestly say what I would choose, personally. I want to say I would leave, but also I can recognize my own selfishness of wanting things easy and to have a perfect life. What about you?
8 posts and 3 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


Yes. Easily. One child being beaten, abused, and tortured is a ridiculously low cost to pay for utopia. Think about how many abused children a large city naturally produces based on the natural harshness of reality, how many people suffer from sickness and homelessness or dead end jobs or gang violence or drug abuse... Trade the suffering of hundreds for the suffering of one? Easy. Why is this kid's suffering worse than the suffering of those who would suffer were he/she not?

Naturally i'd be curious to see what the details of the circumstances of this system are. If somehow getting the poor kid an epidural or otherwise mitigating his/her suffering while still maintaining the circumstances for utopia, of course it should be done.

If seeing something happen vs. not seeing something happen is someone's threshold for making decisions like that, i have no respect for that person. That's a weak, cowardly, ignorant, immoral perspective to have.


I need more information.

Does what is done to the child actually cause the peace and utopia? Like through some sort of supernatural or magical means? Or is it just a tradition that is kept with no real effect? Does the child need to be constantly abused, or can he be shown kindness in between? How is the child chosen?  

I get that it is a metaphor. That for developed nations to function, especially in capitalism there must be an exploited underclass. But you are asking me to take the story literally, so I need more information.


It would be good to seek an alternative, but realistically would I leave utopia over this?  I don't think so, no.  All societies have been built on some amount of suffering, and none of those have been utopias.  That we've managed to advance society to a utopian level while also reducing suffering to just a single person is rather a magnificent feat.  Ideally, moving forward, even that person could be saved, and I'd stick to it in hopes that I can see that happen.


File: 1571058128717.jpg (177.96 KB, 1000x993, 1000:993, TGSA04810.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

The dandy creates his own unity by aesthetic means. But it is an aesthetic of singularity and of negation. "To live and die before a mirror": that, according to Baudelaire, was the dandy's slogan. It is indeed a coherent slogan. The dandy is, by occupation, always in opposition. He can only exist by defiance. Up to now man derived his coherence from his Creator. But from the moment that he consecrates his rupture with Him, he finds himself delivered over to the fleeting moment, to the passing days, and to wasted sensibility. Therefore he must take himself in hand. The dandy rallies his forces and creates a unity for himself by the very violence of his refusal. Profligate, like all people without a rule of life, he is coherent as an actor. But an actor implies a public; the dandy can only play a part by setting himself up in opposition. He can only be sure of his own existence by finding it in the expression of others' faces. Other people are his mirror. A mirror that quickly becomes clouded, it is true, since human capacity for attention is limited. It must be ceaselessly stimulated, spurred on by provocation. The dandy, therefore, is always compelled to astonish. Singularity is his vocation, excess his way to perfection. Perpetually incomplete, always on the fringe of things, he compels others to create him, while denying their values. He plays at life because he is unable to live it. He plays at it until he dies, except for the moments when he is alone and without a mirror. For the dandy, to be alone is not to exist.



File: 1571059645980.png (707.63 KB, 633x795, 211:265, Podium.png) ImgOps Google

Don’t be deceived when they tell you things are better now. Even if there’s no poverty to be seen because the poverty’s been hidden. Even if you ever got more wages and could afford to buy more of these new and useless goods which industries foist on you and even if it seems to you that you never had so much, that is only the slogan of those who still have much more than you. Don’t be taken in when they paternally pat you on the shoulder and say that there’s no inequality worth speaking of and no more reason to fight because if you believe them they will be completely in charge in their marble homes and granite banks from which they rob the people of the world under the pretence of bringing them culture. Watch out, for as soon as it pleases them they’ll send you out to protect their gold in wars whose weapons, rapidly developed by servile scientists, will become more and more deadly until they can with a flick of the finger tear a million of you to pieces


There's some interesting parallels to modern social media. Rebellion for rebellion sake and defining oneself through other people.


File: 1570352238514.jpeg (148.08 KB, 1536x861, 512:287, 2100295.jpeg) ImgOps Google

Americans are becoming better sorted into social classes by intelligence.

At least, that's the thesis of the book The Bell Curve by sociologists Herrnstein & Murray (1994), and you might be able to weaken the claims a bit, but the trend seems accurate.  Now this means, smart people have more control, and that's generally what you want.  But class, by any selective function, is a means to divide and isolate, and at least when it comes to earnings, the range of division is increasing.

It seems to me, you could ague IQ is as much an accident of birth as class background.  Few try to be unintelligent, just as few in Elizabethan England would have tried to lower their social standing.

So is this societal reconfiguration, which I guess is better approaching the American ideal of meritocracy, a reasonable and stable one?  What are your thoughts?  Well, we're all anonymous, so where you do fall on the spectrum of class, and how does the world around you look [if you want to answer, no need to reveal too much, but sometimes I wonder how different my world is from others]?
40 posts and 10 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


This is really a nuclear level take, lol.


>any social hierarchy will be the right social hierarchy for its proper subjects
What do you mean by "proper subjects"?  Depending on what you mean, I'd say that your statement is either true by definition (in which case some social hierarchies don't have any 'proper subjects'), or else obviously false.


I'm going for more, true by definition.  Wherever and whenever you have authorities and subjects, and these authorities support hierarchies that put some above others, in terms of a range of social measures -- wealth, freedom, power, whatever.  If you are to be generally respectful -- and I gather that's what makes people happy or at least the least unhappy -- you must see these systems of enforcement and rank as moral systems applied to proper subjects, at least mostly.


File: 1570495567242.png (174.67 KB, 768x768, 1:1, Untitled.png) ImgOps Google

As outlined in this video by Now This
In the state of California, Minimum wage is not a livable wage (if you're a single mom just trying to make ends meet).

This video, intended to argue for the raising of minimum wage, raises a common outcry "Minimum wage isn't meant to be a living wage!"

The question I pose is this: How should this hypothetical single mom earn her livable wage? If Minimum wage is meant to be for an unencumbered 15-25 year old to earn job experience, and a single mother is forced to try to live off of that wage, which part of the system is broken, and how would you fix it?
60 posts and 8 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


In the same way that many tyrannical regimes are "democracies". Sure.

>I would take that even further, and say that corporate america cannot help but exploit the workers because that's how capitalism functions as a model, and then there's this additional problem of them essentially having complete control of legislation.
I would disagree. I do not think it is something inherent with capitalism, rather I think it's something inherent with cronyistic governments who facilitate corrupt standards.
Though I suspect you and I disagree on what "exploitation" is.

>Sure, but that kind of agrarian society not subject to rule typically isn't capitalistic.
I know?
But Clam brought up feudalism in regards to concentrations of populations.

>You've named a thing that is essentially pre-capitalism.
I didn't. You just missed the context of this particular line of discussion.
Which I have to admit is a bit odd, considering it's greentexted.
I mean, you know what greentext is, right?
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.


My solution would be just to set up a fund people can use after a set amount of time that gives basic moving capital.
Basically, enough to get started somewhere else. Pay for your basic transportation and a bit of rent.

I think you'd find development start naturally as a result. People'd move where the cost of living is low, and work is available. Demand would end up spreading out, and thus, equalize better.

Granted, this idea is expensive. But, so is welfare, and better-off citizens can be taxed. So, hopefully, it should balance out. Granted, that's idealism at play there.


Yes, and that business is a product of globalism. Something I am entirely in favor of stopping.
It'd solve the issues around that particular facet of 'captialism'


File: 1570921625869.png (282.97 KB, 526x353, 526:353, Shy Fluttersmile.png) ImgOps Google

i was talking to a dear friend the other day, about how to address others who you do not agree with. And it got my wondering whether or not our differences came from how our respective cultural communities handle issues thrust upon them

i am an Asian American. in my life, my family, my community, and all people of my culture have a general understanding of how to handle conflict.

There is a sort of put your head down and power through mentality that comes with East Asian culture. A sort of don't punch up, work within the system mentality that comes from millennia of Confucianism.

It gives us the appearance of meekness to the white American majority, but also the appearance of cooperation. A model minority.

On the flip side, black culture does not have this same millennia of Confucianism that East Asian cultures have.

It makes me wonder if, perhaps, it has been presumptuous of me to focus so much on how i have been taught to handle conflict when having discussions on the nature of conflict with my friend.

i believe it is immensely important to understand where another individual is coming from, even if you immensely disagree, and that you will only be understood if you can understand yourself, and that if heads are being butt together, there is not going to be any useful result.

What do you think? i will state as well that i could not think at all of the right way i wanted to word this topic, but still felt it would be good to discuss.
71 posts and 28 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


File: 1570950182590.png (287.91 KB, 693x507, 231:169, 26.png) ImgOps Google

People handle things differently because they're different from one another, yes.


File: 1570950475798.jpg (47.01 KB, 426x512, 213:256, futaba-akane-8cb1c8121e39e….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

Anyway, I agree that it is best to remain calm and rational, and try to avoid emotion in argument/debate.

>Good debates do not necessarily need a loser.
^this, very much this.
Often, people can find common ground or alternatively pinpoint their source of disagreement to a different balancing of competing values and just agree to disagree on how best to make that balance.

Goodnight, everyone!


File: 1570950574956.png (127.44 KB, 252x305, 252:305, 13.PNG) ImgOps Google

I mean, I agree. I just don't think that's what happened here in the first place, or that it's the practical definition of 'argument' or 'debate'.


File: 1570484894635.png (138.01 KB, 800x350, 16:7, mlp-twilight-sparkle-readi….png) ImgOps Google

Since this is a board where careful logical reasoning is important, I thought it might be good to have a thread for practicing this skill.  Please feel free to contribute any exercises you might have.  I'll start with one, below:

Consider the following proposition P: "An outlet for population overflow is required for a country's economy to prosper."
Now the consider the following argument A against proposition P: "We need only look to our own shores to find counter-evidence: Cuba has long been able to discharge its surplus population by sending people here, and yet its economy has done quite poorly."
Why is A an invalid argument against P?
8 posts omitted. Click reply to view.


Seems correct.  Although in practice there will only be so many children, so a parameter will only be approximated by a population, the expected value can be figured exactly.

>>3258  >>3254
Right, the government might (and mostly did) simply limit families to one child.  In which case if they got a girl, better luck next lifetime, I guess.  In letting parents have children until they get a boy, some control is placed on population -- parents might really want several boys -- but parents at least won't miss out on having a boy.  To be honest, I'm not well versed in the history of China, but I think both versions happened, at least in some part, at least for some period of time.

I thought not giving the sex ratio of a birth might be an issue, although people have assumed 1:1 which was fine.  Solving for an arbitrary ratio would be fine as well.  Noted I should have said "Parents want families consisting of more than one boy."  I guess one can't change the past, so one will change the future.

Logic Exercise 2:
In China, parents want families consisting of many boys.  The government wants to limit births, so they compromise: parents may have children until they get a boy.  For simplicity, we'll say every family has one boy and however many girls preceded that boy.  At birth, the sex ratio may be assumed to be 1:1 -- that is 50% chance of male, 50% chance of female -- but arbitrary ratios may be used as well.  What is the sex ratio of Chinese children (and please specify if not using a 1:1 birth ratio)?

>finding the area compounded by
I convinced myself I can show convergence of the series, but it would be a bit long to type out.  You mention area -- did you compute a integral?


hi friends! Please note the following changes to board operating procedure:



I was thinking someone might come to it, but a simplifying insight is that in broad terms, parents are having babies, each birth an independent, random event.  There is no way to skew the expected birth ratio by choosing which family will have a child.


File: 1570656290796.jpg (135.44 KB, 820x1200, 41:60, https://36.media.tumblr.co….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

Do you frame your political philosophy more in terms of what you support, or what you oppose? How do you think this influences others' perception of your politics, as well as your own? If it's a conscious thing, what's your reasoning behind it? Is your reasoning consistent?

Even when this choice ultimately boils down to two mutually exclusive, collectively exhaustive sides of the same coin, I find that framing and connotation still influence the way beliefs are communicated and understood.

For instance, I tend to more frequently describe myself as anti-capitalist than socialist. This is in part because I have more conviction in capitalism being fundamentally flawed and unethical than I do in socialism being the best alternative, and also in part to avoid semantic confusion over what socialism actually means.

I'm also more likely to call myself anti-authoritarian than libertarian, because I believe the status quo in most of the world is authoritarian, and identifying authoritarianism as the problem by positioning oneself as explicitly opposed carries more of a proactive implication that it authoritarianism is a problem that needs to be addressed, compared the relative passivity of framing oneself as libertarian, which could just as well mean more liberty and autonomy is preferred or wanted rather than a necessity. (There is also a semantic problem here, particularly in the US, where the term "libertarian" is associated more with Randian right-libertarianism and the capital-L Libertarian party.)

But, I tend to describe myself as for LGBTQ liberation rather than anti-$(sexuality/identity)phobia. This is because the core of my position is that LGBTQ people have rights and dignity and deserve liberation/empowerment/respect; bigotry and discrimination are bad, but they're bad as a corollary of the previous statement, not the other way around. At first glance, this seems to contradict my anti-authoritarian/libertarian reasoning, but "liberation" carries an explicitly proactive connotation -- and, indeed, if true LGBTQ liberation were achieved, the potential harm done by bigotry would be orders of magnitude less severe.

Note: this thread is intended to be about pro-/anti- framing in particular, the reasoning behind it, and how this influences the way beliefs are communicated and understood, not about value judgments or scrutiny pertaining to specific views themselves, except where directlPost too long. Click here to view the full text.
4 posts and 3 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


I just don't really frame it at all, honestly. If I had to, I'd probably go from 'oppose' more than 'support', but I think that's a side effect of living in a mostly free western nation, and so having a lot of stuff to oppose adding, as opposed to removing.


I tend to be against dogmatism so much that I prefer not to adopt any label for my political beliefs, lest it become some sort of identity.

I don't believe in adopting political belief systems whole cloth that one is expected to adhere to completely just for the sake of being able to adopt as an identy or to be part of some group. There is quite nothing like tribalism and all that moral imperative to fit in and be loyal that can use a person's principles so effectively against their capacity to reason.

So, I don't really frame my beliefs as anything other than I guess ... pragmatic.

I guess I could frame myself as opposed to certain ideologies, philosophies and positions though.


File: 1570858720312.png (2.56 MB, 1280x1789, 1280:1789, you.png) ImgOps Google

Generally I don't come to townhall because I'm not interested  in debating about "x" topics


I'm more interested about that OP pic.

So the Charitable Squirrel, I would like to know about that Illustration.
If is not a big problem.

Who drew that illustration? Osamu Tezuka?
Those 3 strange characters from what manga are they from?
In what part/page of tumblr did you download that picture?

P.S. Yes, I know.... maybe I'm breaking the rules but I want to know about that illustration.... if my post gets deleted... The Charitable Squirrel find me in /pony/ so you can tell me about that illustration.
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]
[ home ] [ pony / townhall / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]