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

/townhall/ - Townhall

A place for civilized animals
Name
Email
Subject
Comment
File
Flags  
Embed
Password (For file deletion.)

 No.2223[Reply]

File: 1569130010519.jpg (400.85 KB, 984x1138, 492:569, John_Locke.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

What is the nature of rights, and where do they come from?
25 posts omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.2306

>>2297
Like I said, I'd build it off of property rights.
it seems the most straight forward way to go.
Though, I'm not a philosopher, that's why I go that way.

>I think that having the right to do as you please with your life follows from having the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. But having the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness does not follow from having the right to do as you please with your life.
More or less. You can have a free life, a happy life, and a  long life. But, you aren't necessitated to have that, is more or less what I'm looking at.

>There is no contradiction. You have the right to pursue whatever you think will make you happy.
Ah, but it wouldn't be a life of "liberty", would it?
I suppose you could argue that you'd always have the right to end up saying "I no longer want this", though, to be fair.
So, in that respect, I suppose "liberty" could still apply.

>So the question is whether or not a person can revoke their own rights. I think that this requires a deeper moral and ethical framework than rights can provide, in order to answer.
Alternatively, you could figure that the 'right' there is not logically consistent enough to justify being a right on its own.
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

 No.2307

>>2300
More or less, yes. The big thing with rights is that they apply to everyone, equally.
Otherwise, you can't really claim they're just.

I think my outlook on rights shouldn't be too far from the average. At least here in the US. Though I know a lot of people believe in "God given" rights around here, which is a bit more complicated.
Personally, I believe in God, but, I'm functionally agnostic, in that I refuse to look to God for answers on morality or my own standards of decency.
These rights are essentially how I work to refine my view on what is "good" without simply giving in to some unknown power.

 No.2359

File: 1569435933430.png (432.68 KB, 2933x2200, 2933:2200, 2151929.png) ImgOps Google

The natural rights of man are what men agree for them to be, and they come from men. Or women. Doesn't really matter if they got an innie or an outie, unless social convention says otherwise.

But yeah. The rights of man are a collection of tacit agreements that are sacrosanct up until the moment that they aren't.

spooks


 No.1552[Reply]

File: 1567379306438.png (953.33 KB, 1280x905, 256:181, war.png) ImgOps Google

Can science decide questions of morals?

The current method of deciding moral questions seems to be might, accepting that people fight for what they believe, so might relates to how well moral ideas resonate.  The problem, if you value life and property, is incompatible moral ideas can resonate with different populations or individuals and the result can be unpleasant.  

Science has done a great job of confirming and rejecting models of physical systems based on objective tests, so is it possible to borrow any of these tools for questions closer to the heart?

(You might reject the use of the term science for that, so if you have a better word, that's fine.)
27 posts and 3 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.2308

>>2305
>i highly doubt any of these billionaires want to work 15 hour work days sitting in board meetings all day, and yet that's exactly what they do! Why not retire in luxury?

Some well-known tech entrepreneurs are workaholics -- Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos.  At some point Elon Musk became aware his work hours were probably effecting his health, I think he did end up cutting back.  I think it can be hard to do nothing, though.

>donate to a cause you care about?

Bill Gates transitioned to fighting tropical diseases, and I think most of the super-rich are donating to various causes.

>(make money to make money to make money....) loop.
Yeah, the Ebenezer Scrooge thing.

>been used as a legal defense before.

Huh, really?  I mean, not that I'm to judge the powers that be, but taking the stance in some official capacity that wealth can render people...sociopathic criminals, I mean, rational minds might come to some deductions about excessive wealth's value in society that the wealthy wouldn't care for.
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

 No.2321

>>2308
>Some well-known tech entrepreneurs are workaholics -- Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos.  At some point Elon Musk became aware his work hours were probably effecting his health, I think he did end up cutting back.  I think it can be hard to do nothing, though.

Elon musk i get. He actually has a vision. He has goals he wants to achieve related to pushing tech forward and improving humanity. He's spent a ton of money on developing cutting-edge tech, so i see him as doing rich correctly!

Jeff Bezos, i don't get him nearly as much. Amazon is convenient and all, but it hardly strikes me as moving the world forward in the same way ol' musky is. I don't get at all why bezos doesn't retire.

>Bill Gates transitioned to fighting tropical diseases, and I think most of the super-rich are donating to various causes.

It's hard for me to quite tell where legitimate interest ends and tax break incentives begin in these cases.

>Huh, really?  I mean, not that I'm to judge the powers that be, but taking the stance in some official capacity that wealth can render people...sociopathic criminals, I mean, rational minds might come to some deductions about excessive wealth's value in society that the wealthy wouldn't care for.

Yea, the logical endpoint of that is not something to be taken lightly. It'll be interesting to see if that goes anywhere moving forward. I mean that might legitimately be a mental disorder though. Maybe being that spoiled warps your perception to the point of actual crippling mental illness. It might actually be cool if we could treat these people. Maybe that's been the secret Achilles  heel to capitalism and we can actually find and fix it. How cool could that be?!

 No.2330

>>2321
>actually has a vision
Right, getting humanity to Mars so humanity survives if all those on Earth die.

>Jeff Bezos
An obsession with customer service and creating the everything store.  Does sound a bit more pedestrian than Musk's vision.  Like Walmart before, trying to help people live better by exploiting economies of scale, pushing out inefficient small scale shops, to deliver products cheaper...so when you work at Walmart you can still buy things.

>tax break incentives begin in these cases
On the small scale, deducting donations from taxable income means you pay less taxes, but still leaves you with less money overall since you remove the donation from your wealth.  But I am...not rich, and it may be different there.

>being that spoiled warps your perception
My understanding is that mental illness is usually biological and it takes extremes to  induce it through experience.  An often studied case involves children severely neglected in Romanian orphanages, some developing autism like symptoms.  PTSD from war zones is another case of experience giving rise to illness.  It's hard to think getting expensive presents on your birthday or living in an extra big house is trauma in the same league.

I do think the mechanisms of creating and maintaining social hierarchy are poorly understood, partly because it's a sensitive topic.


 No.1993[Reply][Last 50 Posts]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7vEnTjs2RV0&t=64
>Hell yes, we're going to take your AR-15

Would you consider voting for a candidate who supports the idea of confiscation of AR-15 rifles?  Do you believe that AR-15s are protected arms under the Second Amendment (and therefore that it would be illegal for the government to confiscate them)?  Is there a chance that disrespect for the Second Amendment might cost the Democrats the 2020 presidential election?
276 posts and 23 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.2276

>>2269
Annoyingly, all my results are MSM dicks, who don't bother to show long-form videos of the event, so it's hard to find the guy I was thinking of. When it was going down, there was a wonderful video of a black man in a Confederate uniform talking to protesters screaming all sorts of obscenities about history and its importance.
I really liked that. It was a cool thing to do.
I do have this, at least. I'll see if I can find one of the old streams I used to have of the whole thing, from a fairly long form video. Had a lot of people talking and expressing themselves, and a fair few were not white. It's possible the reason I'm not finding them, though, is that Youtube pulled them, unfortunately.
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/black-supporter-unite-rally-matter-free-speech/story?id=57146215

>And I didn't say they were white supremacists. I said they were OK with the white supremacy on display. Which is true, of anyone who was there. Even if they were black.
Well that's a group that could absolutely contain "very fine people", couldn't it?
I'm a free speech absolutist. I'd defend the right for these people to assemble, and speak their views. Regardless of who they are.
It's why I'm not in favor of communists being locked up, for example.
People who'd defend that belief, I'd frame as great people, yeah. It takes a pretty strong guy to stand up for people's rights to say what they wish to, despite how terrible they are.

I'm OK with white supremacy on display. It's better that way, since I can directly engage with them, and tell them why their beliefs are backwards, dumb, and more importantly, point to them to show others why their beliefs are backwards and dumb.
It's why I support everyone's right to free speech so heavily.

 No.2277

>>2224

This isn't even remotely a strawman, but it is a bit uncalled for.  There's no need to make claims about someone's opinion of what an argument is, that doesn't contribute to the topic.  A lot of what's happening in the thread at this point isn't really "debate" in any manner, in fact, so I'm gonna lock the thread for now.

 No.2293

File: 1569135560526.jpg (86.93 KB, 750x500, 3:2, free speech.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>2252
Good morning, dear friends. So surprised to see us still at it, at this hour.

The team received two reports in this thread; one for "strawmanning" and one for this post, here.

The team did not identify strawmanning, and as such chose to dismiss that report.

That said, we encourage our users to conduct themselves with civility, and there was some implication of insult in that post.

Hold yourselves, please, to a higher level of candor

---

As to the "very fine people" issue, research determines that there is context that requires explaining.

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


 No.1866[Reply][Last 50 Posts]

I want to make a couple threads discussing immigrants an/or immigration soon, and I noticed that Last Week Tonight recently did a segment on the topic of legal immigration on their show. I'd like to share it so we can all be on the same page about this topic.

I'd prefer it if you watched the entire video, but in short summary, the segment discusses the difficulties and roadblocks people face when trying to legally immigrate to the United States. It's not a completely comprehensive detailing of those issues, but it does give one a basic overview of the difficulties faced by someone trying to become a legal immigrant. The segment also calls out the hypocrisy of the current presidential administration and its talk about supporting legal immigration while simultaneously taking steps to reduce it as much as possible.

For those of you who watched the video, I have a few questions. What do you think of our current immigration system? Were you aware of the issues and difficulties covered in this video? How do you think the legal immigration process could be improved?
116 posts and 10 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.1994

>>1992
>What would world domination achieve?  It'd be a pretty big accomplishment, at the least.  We'd go down in history.  Our country was so great that literally everyone in the world just said "You know what, we'd rather just be a part of your great nation."
Interesting idea.
>As essentially autonomous domestic enclaves, the way the states were supposed to be.
So, for the sake of argument, an autonomous domestic enclave with Sharia Law would be perfectly acceptable?
>I'm not sure how possible it is to just "send 200 million people", but if people are that concerned I'm open to more severe limits on the voting power of immigrants.  I already envisioned a significant wait period, at the least.
It's not that it would be easy necessarily, but given a nation with little regard for human rights (China) and a bit of imagination, it's something that could certainly be abused.
Along those lines, what's to keep America from being the rest of the world's Australia (penal colony), where they just send all their criminals here rather than jailing them, themselves?
>So having more people over here will definitely create demand, right?  We can agree on that much?
Yes.
>I think what you're saying is that the market won't necessarily respond to that demand and adjust to be able to sell more supply, but I don't think that's got any historical precedent.
It will respond to the demand, but probably not in the egalitarian way you seem to envision.
>I've kinda said my piece on this already to Courteous Gorilla, but that's a problem that needs to be solved even if we never had immigrants again, and once it's solved I don't expect it to be a significant problem at all.
I think CG said something along these lines as well, but even if that is the case, I don't see why overburdening the system now is better than fixing the system first.
>Moving forward, jobs can not be a requirement for living because jobs are going to go away.
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

 No.2048

>>1994
>Along those lines, what's to keep America from being the rest of the world's Australia (penal colony), where they just send all their criminals here rather than jailing them, themselves?
I believe Cuba did that in the 1980s affecting a very small part of the US and with minimal real effect on wages, employment, and crime.

 No.2152

>>2048
Cuba is a tiny country. Cuba in the 80s doesn't come close to china/russia/middle east of today in terms of population. Even today it only has 11.48 million people. America has 8 states with higher populations than that. This would be on a completely different scale.


 No.1863[Reply]

File: 1568594645988.gif (195.86 KB, 640x1024, 5:8, large.gif) ImgOps Google

Do do special things to hide from hackers, data-gathering corporations, and perhaps cyber-enabled states?  Or are these things just an acceptable background -- part of living in the modern world, and not worth spending extra time on?
6 posts and 1 image reply omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.1935

>>1864
I see.  Being without money is a robust strategy to avoid theft.  Well, theft of money, anyway.

>>1865
For those who don't know, such as me a few minutes ago:  Brave is a browsers that blocks ads and trackers.

"Pages load instantly. I can't really benchmark page loads since they happen faster than I can start/stop the stopwatch"

I host some websites.  While I don't use ads, I can see the motivation, so I'm OK with ads, but only to a point.  Some sites are so full of them they will basically freeze up my browser, plus as ads load, page content shifts around which make reading difficult.

>>1884
OK, that's good.

>>1888
uBlock -- looks interesting.
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

 No.1987

>>1935
It does a little more than that as I understand it. Also has a function for script blocking built in. Pretty nice, all in all.
I figure with it and Duck Duck Go I'll keep out most the stuff. Especially since I don't even use facebook, at all, anyway.
It is slightly bothersome now and again, since you have to manually allow some things. But, I figure it's worth it.

As it is, I've yet to get any viruses from your usual weblinks any more. Seems like it's pretty much completely solved that, so as long as I don't download an actual file I'm good.

At this point, all I really have left is the tracking IP type stuffs.
Eventually I'll get myself a VPN, just to be completely safe. Especially since your providers apparently save a lot of that data. But for now, I don't really care. I don't think it'll matter too much if Mediacom figures out I surf e621.

 No.1990

>>1935
Not just money. I lack anything of value worth stealing.


 No.1599[Reply]

File: 1567953620967.gif (12.72 KB, 125x125, 1:1, clap.gif) ImgOps Google

So here's a question to pose to Townhall. You find yourself suddenly in charge of a nation, and it is your duty to implement a government. The only requirement is that your people will probably murder you if you do not at least maintain the illusion of democracy. Do you implement true universal suffrage, one person one vote on every matter? Enlightened despotism where real power lies with the head of state for the good of the people? A simple autocratic dictatorship?

Let's hear some ideas. As I said, it must be some form of democracy in at least name. No kingdoms, empires, or other blatant autocracy without pretense.
52 posts and 7 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.1861

File: 1568562973486.jpeg (395.2 KB, 2560x2076, 640:519, 2142381.jpeg) ImgOps Google

>>1860
As long as it aligns with the culture and expectations. Otherwise I feel like meritocratic voter pools are particularly prone to external toying with.

>choosing of executives from within the legislative body
Strictly at the highest level! I haven't decided what to do with city aldermen and the like. Judges are often in the most crucial positions and I'm a big fan of supremacy of the law so those need to be well insulated from political hobnobery. I'm still thinking on that one but would appreciate input. But for the strict code of laws lifting an existing code would probably be best. It doesn't really matter which one.


>local and relatively small elections
Ranked voting may be appropriate for the alderman. I worry a little about such systems because they can be pretty opaque for people looking from outside. Encouraging compromise too much is a hazard in and of itself. Passion is a key element in the system. It's certainly the fairest. Sometimes people need a mechanism to get things that they don't deserve to stay engaged.

Besides. I think the popular 1 and 2 makes the inevitable partisanship more interesting, considering that they're going into a pool of legislators rather than having actual power themselves.


A triumvirate offers a degree of flexibility that an individual would lack. When the institution itself comes under assault the three would unify, and would otherwise be disparate representing maligned interests. How much partisaning should be allowed at this level... I am unsure. It's ideal for disparate factions to have a vested interest but minimal influence, but that's a balancing act.

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

 No.1936

File: 1568771606270.png (672.12 KB, 960x1252, 240:313, Ladies and gentlemen.png) ImgOps Google

>>1861
>Otherwise I feel like meritocratic voter pools are particularly prone to external toying with.
This is true.

>Judges are often in the most crucial positions and I'm a big fan of supremacy of the law so those need to be well insulated from political hobnobery.
So would they be their own independent branch perhaps? Well, mostly independent. They wouldn't be the ones passing legislation after all.

>Ranked voting may be appropriate for the alderman. I worry a little about such systems because they can be pretty opaque for people looking from outside.
Maybe some leeway for the aldermen to be chosen with a system dependent on the community? Within reason of course.

>When the institution itself comes under assault the three would unify
Well, hopefully. Unfortunately such things are not guaranteed. Not the concurrent triumvirate, but I'd be worried about The Year of Julius and Caesar repeating itself because one or two of the triumvirate decide to invite outside attack on the third. If that sort of disunity could be at least culturally distasteful it could work. That would take a lot of entrenching.

>Unless the executive chose to own and rent all of the land.
I think that would be a bit too much!

 No.1962

File: 1568862681216.jpeg (340.76 KB, 2560x1920, 4:3, 2137788.jpeg) ImgOps Google

>>1936
>I think that would be a bit too much!
And I think that this is my government?

An independent judiciary is crucial, yes. Perhaps combine it with the military arm.

Not too much leeway. We don't want local fiefs happening without consent.

Good. As long as constitutionally the triumvirate emerges as a triumvirate after the upheaval. A little instability is good for progress. We do want things getting done despite resistance if they have *that* kind of strength behind them.


 No.1358[Reply]

File: 1566590049287.jpg (101.84 KB, 1280x720, 16:9, maxresdefault.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

So the rainforest is on fire and it's all over social media.  It generally seems to be regarded as some kind of tragedy, but from what I've heard it was actually set alight on purpose in order to make room for agriculture.  Assuming that is true, is it a good idea to remove portions (or even all) of the rainforest in order to use the land for other purposes?
4 posts omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.1457

>>1400

Were these not the indigenous people of Brazil?  I'm unaware of the Brazillian population.

 No.1462

>>1457
The fires are being started by outsiders and other usurpers who are trying to eliminate the indigenous population. It's something rather disturbingly close to ethnic cleansing. See: https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/afraid-indigenous-guardians-brazil-amazon-190827235511318.html

 No.1862

>>1358

No. Not at all. We need the oxygen, we need the removal of CO2. Plus the cattle are going to be C02 factories, so we're kindof fucking ourselves on both ends here.


 No.1169[Reply]

File: 1565053792140.png (763.59 KB, 1280x536, 160:67, world.png) ImgOps Google

Just to float an idea, the greatest barriers I see to a positive future are:
1) Nuclear War
2) Regions of desperation and extermism
3) Wealth Inequality
4) Climate Change

Each would seem easiest to address with world government, or at least, each is hard if every nation puts their own local, short-term interests first.

My attitude toward state enforcement is complicated, and I don't think a world superstate would make it any simpler, but I just thought I'd ask your thoughts.  Would a world government be a good idea, do you think?
20 posts and 4 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.1851

What kind of government would be best for a hypothetical world government?

 No.1856

>>1851
Something that strongly resembles a system of treaties between sovereign countries.

 No.1857

File: 1568523258502.jpeg (36.24 KB, 1075x550, 43:22, 1765787.jpeg) ImgOps Google

I'm more of a Pan-American.


 No.1580[Reply][Last 50 Posts]

File: 1567889761410.jpg (867.95 KB, 2133x1200, 711:400, dc1rbog-7377b99c-7de6-47df….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

Lets give two hypothetical scenarios:

Let's say, science discovers a way for two men to reproduce with each other. The result is always a  baby boy and the men born from this process are able to repeat it and reproduce with other men as well, when they reach sexual maturity.

Now let's also say that, through some mechanism, it was possible for a person to quickly rid the world of all human females, in such a way that no one would be able to stop the process once begun. All biological women would suddenly disappear from the Earth and cease to exist.

Would men alone create a better society than the current one? A "better" society in this context meaning a society with less crime, less violence and less inequality for it's members. And if so, would someone be morally right, or even morally obligated to commit this act?
204 posts and 17 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.1847

>>1846
Sure, man. That's why I can literally cite the entire fucking conversation, where I repeatedly say over and over "There's a difference between doing something, and being born as something.".

This, this right here is why I say you're a dishonest guy. This is why I say you are here arguing in bad faith. This is why I say you're not interested in actual conversation, exploration, dialogue, or anything. You're just after trying to do whatever you can to claim you're right. That's all you've got. It's why you'll demand, repeatedly, over and over again, that others answer your inane, stupid, backwards questioning, while refusing to ever respond in kind to any questions asked of you.
This repeated refusal to ever actually engage with people, not just jam words in their mouth and dance around like you've somehow done something clever, all the while ignoring anything anyone actually raises up.

You want to act like it's somehow unjust, like I'm somehow treating you poorly, when you repeatedly pull shit like this. You say I've taken a "hostile attitude before we even begun", when you start off with this shit.

Going to be honest with you; I think this is why you never wanted to talk outside of Ponychan.
I think this is why, despite my constant offerings, especially during your little political ban, you always squirmed away from it. Because you'd not have any real way to accept such an offer, and yet still claim I'm the one who's supposedly holding things up. I'm somehow the one who's never let productive conversation happen.
It just wouldn't work out to answer someone's call for private dialogue where concerns of reputation and appearance no longer matter. After all, if you did that, you might actually have to start treating them like they're human.

 No.1848

>>1847
No, the reason I don't want to talk to you outside of the site is because You've done nothing but show stubborn adherence to what you already believe and have never shown me any interested in listening to my side.  I think that you won't listen and it would be a waste of time.  


Not to mention, I think a lot of your views are abhorrent and I believe have genuine reasons to be afraid of you.

 No.1849

>>1847
>>1848

I think everyone is now well aware of how little you want to talk to each other, but in lieu of waiting even longer for you to act on it, I'm just going to give you each a short ban.  Walk away from this and stop derailing the thread.


 No.1384[Reply]

File: 1566697888524.jpeg (478.76 KB, 2000x1000, 2:1, job-line-robots.jpeg) ImgOps Google

It is conceivable that, in the coming decades, automation of jobs increases unemployment to above 50%.  What should be done in such a situation?  Would some variation of Universal Basic Income (
UBI
) be enough?  Can people be happy even if they are essentially told by society that they are useless to the economy?  Is doing useful work important to a person's happiness?  Should small-scale farming and livestock raising be encouraged, so that people have work to do that directly benefits them?  (I guess this will require reversing the trend of urbanization, so that people have enough land.  Perhaps also increased population control.)
18 posts and 4 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.1409

Yea, as automation keeps rolling forward, we need to move equally towards socialism with it. An automated socialist state is a utopia, an automated capitalist state is hundreds of millions dying of hunger as oligarchy takes root. Let them eat cake and all that.

Assuming the former, i think it would be a great thing! People could pursue their passions! Even if you're "useless to the economy", you could literally pursue anything you wanted! Want to try painting? Landscaping? Medicine? Go for it! You could actually be whatever you wanted to be. It would be beautiful! More art would be made, there would be lots of tight-knit friendships over common passions! More people would be free to truly live life to the fullest!

 No.1424

File: 1567035419451.jpg (421.95 KB, 1137x766, 1137:766, 1503256105152.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>1403
>I hear that floated around *a lot* and I'm still confounded as to why it continues. It inevitably goes into bizarre political directions without stopping for a second to consider the economics of the situation.
I don't think economics plays into it much.  It's simply about the trend of increasing AI, automation, and robotics.  If this trend continues, then many jobs will be done better by machine than by man, enough so that eventually a majority of the working-age population isn't desirable to be hired.

 No.1560

File: 1567388015154.png (167 KB, 401x567, 401:567, O50.png) ImgOps Google

Hopefully with the increased automation and demand for more specific jobs the population of the planet will decrease along with it. Say in 50 years robots are able to do most any blue collar job at a cheaper rate, the best idea would be for there to be population control to prevent people from suffering starvation/homelessness and other such examples of poverty from unemployment.

Or the ideal could be reached where we have some sort of Dyson sphere that collects unlimited energy and everyone on Earth gets a free ride. Population control would still be a good idea though.


 No.1404[Reply][Last 50 Posts]

File: 1567026776216.jpg (371.14 KB, 566x720, 283:360, ef2.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

Lets give two hypothetical scenarios:

Let's say, science discovers a way for two women to reproduce with each other. The result is always a  baby girl and the women born from this process are able to repeat it and reproduce with other women as well, when they reach sexual maturity.

Now let's also say that, through some mechanism, it was possible for a person to quickly rid the world of all human males, in such a way that no one would be able to stop the process once begun. All biological men would suddenly disappear from the Earth and cease to exist.

Would women alone create a better society than the current one? A "better" society in this context meaning a society with less crime, less violence and less inequality for it's members. And if so, would someone be morally right, or even morally obligated to commit this act?
139 posts and 18 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.1551

>>1550
Given what the op has said? if such a technology wherever to come about, yes, I would be worried that individuals who believe what I thought believes would literally tried to genocide me.

he is actively advocating for the genocide, and instead of saying that is not acceptable, you okay it, and refused to allow people to argue against it

I am sorry, Mooney, but this is disgusting behavior. Somebody with your level kindness would never ever stand by something like this. I don't know who understaffed convinced you that this is okay, but it plainly is not.

The history is irrelevant to the principal.
I do not get to say that because it hasn't been done before, it is okay to murder all men.
I sure as fuck do not get to Dodge augmentations made by others, simply because they cite examples that I would disagree with, in a cold and rational manner to explicitly demonstrate that what I am saying is wrong.

This is a horrible thing to argue Mooney.

 No.1553

>>1550
>You're male, yes? Do you have ant conceivable reason to fear male genocide? Is there any historical precedent for that? i think, objectively, the two topics are wholly dissimilar.
Isn't that just a matter of practicality though?  What if it were possible to genocide the male gender, and more than just radical feminists on Tumblr were talking about it, and unironically?  As a matter of principle, the two situations seems pretty similar to me.

 No.1554

File: 1567379470130.jpg (11.17 KB, 300x168, 25:14, images.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>1549
Refuse to comply with what, exactly? Not being racist? That's all i'm asking. Debate the OP if you wish: the staff doesn't agree with your take that the OP advocates genocide, but we believe you have a right to argue that.

Don't advocate for Racialism - that's the warning we're giving the thread.

For everything else, calm down, for goodness sake. This kind of hellacious anger over is a little ridiculous.

>>1551
...but the OP doesn't believe that. That much is stated in the hypothetical,.if you read between the lines.

Nobody reasonable believes that. You are spooking yourself over invisible monsters, and getting angrier and angrier... For what?

Look, just don't bring racism into this debate. That's the point of these mod posts.

...after multiple reports, we're locking this thread. Sorry to all the innocents involved.


 No.1072[Reply][Last 50 Posts]

File: 1564368404682.jpg (59.67 KB, 640x640, 1:1, Funny-Unisex-Toilet-Sign-P….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

Is there any good argument for segregating bathrooms by sex (or even gender)? Are we not uncomfortable with the idea of being in a bathroom with the opposite sex only because that's how things have always been? I personally couldn't care less who is in my bathroom, as I see it all humans are there to do the same tasks and nothing more.
83 posts and 5 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.1350

>>1124
>1. Women have periods, so their toilets have the potential to be more hazardous to the health.

Toilets also hold shit, which is just as, if not more, dangerous than blood. But even if that were a concern, you would have to have been doing something pretty fucking weird to that toilet to contract anything. Or have an open wound on the part of your but where you sit down, and if that's the case, wipe the seat off first.

I have never heard of a person getting sick from a toilet seat.


>Keeping Group A, which has more potential to make Group B unhealthy than Group B does to themselves, separate, is the logical thing to do.

Well actually it's not logical at all because you have a higher chance of getting sick from not washing your hands after touching a shopping cart. Should we seperate everyone in the store to their own unique bubbles as well?


>2. Keeping male/female energy separate is important for the perpetuation of the species and overall happiness. If everyone sacrificed their innate attractions for [the misguided application of] the ideal of equality, we would end up with a society that must repress their natural inclinations in the inherently private context of going about one's business in the bathroom.

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

 No.1381

Animal Shithouse.

 No.1471

I think it would be more accurate to label toilets based on their facilities (i.e. cubicles, urinals, disability assistance, baby changing, squat toilets, etc)


 No.1351[Reply]

File: 1566523686460.png (193.37 KB, 1280x960, 4:3, justice.png) ImgOps Google

What is justice?

Plato wrote a book as an answer.  It's a bit nutty, though.  Maybe we have better answers now.
24 posts and 2 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.1378

>>1376
>It is not always Fair.

It is always fair to the person seeking it.  That is why they are seeking it.  To them it is just.

 No.1379

>>1378
I'd disagree. I think even they realize, in extreme cases, it's far from fair.
Killing someone's family because someone stole from you might fall under the umbrella of vengeance, bit I doubt the guy doing it thinks it's actually any kind of equal exchange.

But, if you want to make this case, fine. That's why I'm opposed to vigilantism.

 No.1380

>>1375
>Seems you'd need some kind of general agreement on value, or at least an understanding of what each considers harm and help so you can respond in kind.  But yeah, I think that's a pretty basic ethic.

That would be the ideal role of the judicial system, judges and all that, to determine the standard as used by the system prior primarily, with reference to law put in practice by officials representing the populace.
Ideally, of course.
Doesn't always work out


 No.1241[Reply]

File: 1565469142118.png (271.31 KB, 615x716, 615:716, 1565442211922.png) ImgOps Google

There is speculation that Jeffrey Epstein acquired his wealth via a blackmail scheme instead of as a legit hedge-fund manager.  New York Magazine reports ( http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/07/hedge-funders-have-some-thoughts-on-what-epstein-was-doing.html ):
"the hedge-fund managers we spoke to leaned toward the theory that Epstein was running a blackmail scheme under the cover of a hedge fund."
The article points to https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1148303671857491968.html for details about how such a blackmail scheme may have worked.

Paul Krugman comments ( https://www.twitter.com/paulkrugman/status/1160191016726609920 ):
>If we were living in a paranoid fantasy universe, I would be very suspicious about the Epstein suicide, even about whether it was really suicide. And you know what? The Epstein case itself shows that we *are* kind of living in a paranoid fantasy universe

What do you all think?  Was he just a sex offender, or also the mastermind of a blackmail operation?  Did some of his blackmail victims have a role in his hanging?
9 posts and 2 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.1343

>>1241
I don't tend to keep up with this sort of thing. I just know it's pretty suspicious, and awfully convenient.
But, that's just more of the same. This stuff happens pretty often.

 No.1345

>>1317
>>1340
This is pretty fucking backwards. The three branches of government are majority conservative and Republican leaning. The only exception is that the Democrats have the House, which is kind of useless at the moment since the Senate kills everything they do. The conservative Republicans also have the fundamental U.S. power structure on their side from the military-industrial complex to the prison-industrial complex to the energy industry and so on.

What are the Clintons compared to this? Peanuts. Come on.

 No.1349

>>1340
>Why do you think the leftist media has been on a constant smear campaign of Trump for years despite most claims being either disproven or downright fabricated?

Trump has done plenty of legitimately critisizable things. I'm not sure where you are getting that it is fabricated.


>Why do you think the FBI wasted so much manhour and spent so many millions trying to find proof of collusion on Trump

Because there was evidence towards collusion. There still is. Trump was not exonerated for that, despite what he constantly claims.


>Yet turn a blind eye to Democrats doing the same thing right now by campaigning in other countries and encouraging illegals to vote?

Do you have any evidence that this is true? Trying to improve relations with other countries isn't the same as colluding with a foreign power. Even if a Democrat went to another country and said "Vote for me!" to the people living there... that's not the same thing as collusion. And it's certainly not "collusion" or "encouraging 'illegals' to vote" for a Democrat to reach out to Latin-American communities. You're really going to need to back this claim up with some hard evidence.

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


 No.1228[Reply]

File: 1565419840395.jpg (9.48 KB, 250x250, 1:1, Will_it_ever_stop.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

At the moment, seventeen states in the U.S. have laws that allow police officers to take somebody's weapon(s) away if a judge determines that said person poses a danger to himself/herself and/or others. California is one of them. Interestingly, though, few in law enforcement seem to even be aware of the law, let alone enforce it properly.

This is often floated as something that could get implemented in all fifty states in order to stop gun violence. Efforts would also have to be made to train individuals into understanding the law and enforcing it effectively. The idea has garnered some popular support.

Details at: https://www.nbcbayarea.com/investigations/Friends-Teachers-Coworkers-Could-Soon-Have-Authority-to-Remove-Gun-Owners-Weapons-A-Look-at-Californias-Red-Flag-Law-529032441.html

Does this seem like it will be an adequate solution to fight against gun violence in the U.S.?

My personal $0.02 is that this makes sense in terms of reducing deaths overall. BUT it won't solve the mass shooting problem since almost all (I think) of those killers murder because they're extremists acting according to some ideology. They're "good guys with guns" until they start killing, lacking both records of crime and of mental illness. The only way to comprehensively get rid of that problem, likely, is to either ban all civilian held guns or else screen everybody who wants a gun in terms of politics/social views. Neither of those is probably going to ever happen.
55 posts and 7 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.1346

>>1344
Personally, I'm in favor of things like tax breaks, benefit programs for new families, grants, that type of deal.
I think saying "if you're married and looking for a house, we'll give you a chunk towards the down payment" would go a long way to encouraging the stuff.

 No.1347

>>1346
Going beyond tax breaks to an active pro-family economic policy with workplace childcare benefits, widespread well-funded preschools, and so on would probably make more of a difference, yes.

But then if you advocate such things, something like 1/2 of America is going to label you an evil communist/Marxist/socialist because how dare you hurt capitalism with your evil welfare programs. And big business is going to work hard to squash you like an insect because you're daring to take away even a penny of their profits. You're clearly evil if you suggest that there's more to life than making money, apparently.

It's a nice thought, but can it be done? In today's America?

 No.1348

>>1347
Given the policies already put in place on various items, I think it's probably the easiest big needed fix out there, at the moment.
I'd not say it's easy, but, it's certainly more likely than a lot of things we desperately need fixed, ala copyright law, healthcare, drug reform, corporate monopolies, and so on.

The 'evil communist/marxist/whatever' label doesn't do much in my experience, any more, probably as a side effect of actual marxists cropping up, and the big business guys are easy to distract or appease. They're deal-makers, after all.
I'd bet it could be done. Like I said, not easily. But, I'm fairly confident it could be done. Maybe I'm an optimist, though


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