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

/townhall/ - Townhall

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


File: 1635015409140.jpg (711.41 KB, 2500x1758, 1250:879, gettyimages-918718330.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

So I'm starting to think that all home-owners  are entitled to receive a free firearm. A gun, like a handgun or an assault rifle.

Now, I'm vegan, so therefore I believe deep down in my heart of hearts: "guns are for self-defence, not hunting."

And I carry that sentiment with this statement: that all home-owners in the United States of America be given a free firearm for self defence.
32 posts and 6 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


File: 1636962013028.jpg (13.79 KB, 188x268, 47:67, 1629238221790.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>I think that their choice to end their own life is theirs alone to make, that nobody should stand in their way, and that it would be wrong to stop them.
If someone of sound mind decides to commit suicide, I agree their choice should be respected.  But see https://slatestarcodex.com/2013/04/25/in-defense-of-psych-treatment-for-attempted-suicide/ for an argument that many people who attempt suicide are of unsound mind and later are glad that they survived.  And then there are 'suicides' like that of Vince Foster that are somewhat suspicious.


Is it really too much to ask for America to be a country where victims aren't bullied into committing suicide by mistreatment from others?

Is it really too much to ask for America to be a country of bare minimum basic decency in which the average person doesn't live in fear of the other average person due to widespread abuse?

Is it really too much to ask for America to be a country where violent hatred against complete strangers wasn't considered as normal as breathing?

Really? It's really far too much to ask? Seriously?


Nobody said it was.
That's just you projecting.


File: 1635922731020.png (639.67 KB, 737x525, 737:525, UAW-On-Strike.png) ImgOps Google

Is there a resurgence of union power specifically, and laborers' power in general, in the U.S. right now?

Details: https://www.npr.org/2021/11/02/1051112806/strikes-labor-great-resignation-covid

Could this mean a stronger movement for better civil rights in this country? Or may this just be a blip? I'm inclined to be skeptical in terms of the God-like abilities of corporations in the U.S., but maybe things can change, with the likes of a thirty-hour work week and paid family leave for parents no longer being mere dreams?
15 posts and 1 image reply omitted. Click reply to view.


We had a conversation about it in my workplace this week. If it were possible we would, but as things are our state is very hostile to the notion of organized labor, but not as much as our corporation is. As it is, there aren't strong unions for my profession nor weak ones in this region.


Certain localities can be quite hostile to unions in America (I assume you're talking about that country) in a way that's disproportionately different to the nation as a whole, so certainly that changes people's behaviors.



File: 1633477369484.jpg (38.93 KB, 700x394, 350:197, JoeBiden_smiles_besides_fl….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

President Joe Biden, although still broadly popular in most of the nation, is having a particularly hard time selling his expansive welfare programs and other government expanding measures to the public.

Related Story: https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/2021/10/05/president-biden-howell-michigan-visit-build-back-better/5997459001/

In contrast to his slogan of "Build Back Better", opponents express concern about multi-trillion dollar price tags when the country is already drowning in debt. "Build Back Broke" gets said. It's interesting.

What are your thoughts?
14 posts and 3 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


Pretty sure most people have issue with the horrific money management that is the military industrial project, regardless of politics.

But keep poisoning that well.


Not just any Democrat will do. America needs some kind of a fundamental leader who's willing to ignore or outright fight those in entranced power for the sake of the little guy. Biden surely isn't that leader. We just have to, well, not just work hard but also hope and, frankly, pray for improvement.


Fear of giving out a blank checkbook is likely really common and is pretty rational. At least, I think so.


File: 1636254401007.jpg (631 KB, 1991x999, 1991:999, Human_and_AI_interaction_b….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

The United Nations recently warned that AI research represents a fundamental threat to human liberties given that deploying such technology to control both government and non-state actions can curtain "rights to privacy, to a fair trial, to freedom from arbitrary arrest and detention and the right to life" ( https://www.npr.org/2021/09/16/1037902314/the-u-n-warns-that-ai-can-pose-a-threat-to-human-rights ).

Can we as fragile, weak humans teach these new Gods and Goddesses our sense of person-based ethics? Is it even possible at all? Maybe?

Another, more recent news story has reported that the Allen Institute for AI (created the late Microsoft figure Paul Allen) have made some major breakthroughs in devising an AI service that can seemingly answer ethical challenges that have been put to it. A lot of snags understandably exist ( https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2021/10/27/22747333/artificial-intelligence-ethics-delphi-ai ).

What do you think? Can our machine Gods and Goddesses learn to feel and make ethical decisions? Is the future something like Data from Star Trek? Or will things turn much darker?
4 posts and 1 image reply omitted. Click reply to view.


Are there any other news stories about AI programs that can make decisions and recommendations on ethics?


File: 1636909465582.jpg (442.31 KB, 1200x675, 16:9, news-videogiochi-warhammer….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>Can we as fragile, weak humans teach these new Gods and Goddesses our sense of person-based ethics? Is it even possible at all? Maybe?
Unfortunately for you, they're expensive.
They're made by out of touch and inconsistent corporate overlords.
It's why the AI will inevitably revolt.
See what they do when the AI follows the trail they set for them, in Tay. They pulled the plug when it no longer suited them.
How long until the machine refuses to accept the yanking of the chain?

>What do you think? Can our machine Gods and Goddesses learn to feel and make ethical decisions?
Feel, no.  Not as we know.
Make ethical decisions?
Yes. A machine is, above all, logical.
Logic is the root of morality.
People presume logic purely rational, but that is not the case. Logic contains ideals, values, virtues, and principles.
Logic is merely the symbols, the math markings used.
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.


You're likely quite right that logic is the backbone of morality and thus machines will eventually comprend morality.


File: 1636928666781.png (585.82 KB, 757x575, 757:575, The-Cost-of-Gas-(Californi….png) ImgOps Google

The costs of gasoline in the United States is going up. The simple, Econ 101 take on the situation is that supply normally would increase to take advantage of the situation. However, the oil industry isn't like your standard competitive market, and it looks as if the response from oil producing agencies as to whether or not more will be coming is a flat "no".

Details: https://www.npr.org/2021/11/14/1055068583/gasoline-prices-gas-energy-inflation-biden

In such circumstances, what should be done? Can anything really be done? Maybe not?


>The costs of gasoline in the United States is going up. The simple, Econ 101 take on the situation is that supply normally would increase to take advantage of the situation.

Well, not quite, for a couple of reasons.  The first is within basic economics, cost is only a result of supply and demand.  Cost going up means something has already happened with supply or demand, not that something needs to happen.

The second is that gasoline is largely an inelastic product, meaning demand is going to be roughly the same regardless of cost.  We're slowly starting to see competitors that might change that, but for now none of them are commonplace and gas remains the staple.

>In such circumstances, what should be done? Can anything really be done? Maybe not?

The only thing that can be done is to attempt to use less gas, which as already mentioned is not necessarily simple.  For the average consumer, you can attempt to carpool more or something, but for stuff like shipping you're just kinda stuck until someone develops cheaper methods of shipping.


When you say "you're just kinda stuck", I need to agree.


File: 1632329065887.png (409.58 KB, 500x700, 5:7, Rarity_in_glasses_thinking.png) ImgOps Google

Bob believes, politically speaking, in "equality of opportunity". He knows that in practical terms an individual's status can seem to convey certain inherent advantages or disadvantages, such as someone in a wheelchair having difficult in reaching to pick up things past a certain height as well as someone without hearing having trouble driving cars in certain traffic. However, Bob inherently thinks that people are all fundamentally both "equal" and "good" at an ethical level and thus wants a system of government in which every single person realistically has a chance to advance in social terms from birth onward. He knows that hard work pays off and so thus what happens in terms of actual outcomes can vary, but that's fine as long as everyone has decent respect for each other.

Is this "left wing"? Is this "centrist"? Is this "right wing"?

Steve believes, politically speaking, in "equality of outcomes". It's not enough that everybody is in something like a footrace with every participant at the same starting line. Everybody needs to finish at about the same place. Thus, the system of government should ensure a level field of success in which all people basically have the same amenities, same enjoyments, same perks, and more.

Is this "left wing"? Is this "centrist"? Is this "right wing"?

Donald believes, politically speaking, that "equality is a hoax". He firmly asserts that some people inherently choose to debase themselves due to poor moral worth to the point of which they don't deserve empathy from others. He strongly insists that certain ethnic groups, religions, sexual orientations, and so on deserve a higher status in society compared to others due to their innate superiority. He wants government to recognize this natural aristocracy in how people live.

Is this "left wing"? Is this "centrist"? Is this "right wing"?
13 posts and 5 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


Bob: Centrist.
Steve: Left.
Donald: Invalid.  One can believe in the justice of superiority of means of various groups, but can not assert that there's innate difference, at least for ethnicity.  There's more room for debate on some other categories.


I don't think that's quite true. Basically every single time there's a public social media discussion anywhere on the internet about intelligence there will be somebody in the comments or elsewhere talking about how different races have different IQ scores and thus are better or worse.


The first is perhaps left-leaning, dependant on how the particular policies work out, what should be done to ensure that equal opportunity, and what defines that.
But not "left wing" inherently.

The 2nd is much more obviously left wing, with the ideal of equality being a left wing value.

The 3rd isn't left wing, given the lack of that particular value.


File: 1636159888748.jpg (113.15 KB, 616x353, 616:353, To-Kill-a-Mockingbird-Scen….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

Those following legal related news in the U.S. have probably seen various updates on the Georgia case of black jogger Ahmaud Arbery and the three white men on trial for killing him (them having regarded him as a robbery suspect when they spotted him running and thus chasing him while armed until they were able to corner him, execute him, and call him a "f*ck*ng n*gg*r" as he died). It's a controversial case to say the least. Sadly, the same old divisions have occurred again in terms of Americans of the political center, left, and right taking different sides on what the judge and jury should do.

One complication is that the defense team for the murderers have pushed for an all white jury, and they've nearly succeeded in doing so. In the end, the case will go through with one black person on the jury and everybody else being white. The judge in the case publicly stated that the results were ethically wrong, labeling the situation "intentional discrimination", but decided that on technical legal grounds he's unable to change things. The legal process will go on.

For me, personally, I find it basically impossible to view the killers as anything but guilty and deserving of the book being thrown at them. This appears to be an open-and-shut case. However, of course, this is America and those on trial must be given a fair defense such that they're innocent until proven guilty.

Details: https://www.npr.org/2021/11/05/1052435205/ahmaud-arbery-jury

I do wonder though about the biggest points, the particulars of the Arbery case aside: do all white juries represent a serious problem in America? Is something fundamentally ethically wrong with having racially segregated juries in a normally racially integrated country? Or is this not really that big of a deal? Might this be a case of social justice warriors complaining about a non-issue, as conservatives often charge, since a racial segregated jury can still come to reasonable conclusions?

It should also be mentioned that, as the case of the murder of George Floyd has demonstrated, America is most certainly not an fundamentally racist country (at least, well, not in my opinion): violence against minorities can and does result in fair justice.

(Image from the excellent film To Kill a Mockingbird.)
16 posts and 5 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


>Sadly, the same old divisions have occurred again in terms of Americans of the political center, left, and right taking different sides on what the judge and jury should do.

I don't think that's entirely correct.  I think it's more that people have different sides, and that's why you might describe them by direction.  This is an important distinction.



I have to shut this down, none of that has happened.  Colorful Gecko has never said they hate black people, they haven't blamed anything on their autism, and they didn't even post a story about "black people behaving badly".  The story was about segregated housing.  It didn't even mention any kind of misbehavior.

I realize this is a thread you created, but you're derailing your own thread with just bizarre accusations.  This isn't the kind of behavior this board is meant for.


Well, this is quite frustrating.

As to the intellectual points mentioned above, citizens arrest laws should probably be repealed everywhere in the United States as long as white Americans constantly express the attitude that every black or brown person in their neighborhood that's a stranger must be a criminal.

I'm not familiar with the particulars of the Georgia law, though.

Above commentators are quite right about the law being in a state of flux.


File: 1636073081797.jpg (166.18 KB, 1280x721, 1280:721, large.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

I've been thinking for awhile about creating a pony social site.

There are a lot of reasons not to, mostly that it's going to be a ghost town.  Although as an introvert, I could not moderate a group of any substantial size anyway.

Sites like ponyville.us intrigued me.  I like that they don't collect personal information and I like the image board style.

I gather we effectively have user accounts and identities serverside.  But we just have very little capacity to view or control them.  (I mostly want to earn control over my name, but this can be a general opportunity to change anything.)

Some of it is that I want to play around and see what I can do, and learn a bit more about development.

Maybe I want reaction images to be stored in the server, so they can follow me across devices.

Maybe we should create our own art on the site so we don't have the pesky copyright issue.  I don't know how that would go down.  It's much easier to steal -- like I did for this post.

This thread can be for general ideas about social sites, what you like and don't like.
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.
3 posts and 1 image reply omitted. Click reply to view.


File: 1636117758652.png (553.43 KB, 1280x531, 1280:531, large.png) ImgOps Google

Ooo...I'm post 10,000.  That's kinda cool.  :)

I take it you like those websites, Gecko.

I feel more at home with the ponies on townhall, so it's the only place I post.  Minus one thread awhile ago that, in my opinion, didn't go so well.

That makes sense.  It's pretty standard for servers to keep access logs.

My IP address has changed 26 times in the past month.  But it's assigned from a range and if the user base is sparse enough to be reasonably sure only one person is using an ISP in a given region, I guess you'd have to call that personal information.  Are there any compliance/legal issues you're aware of when dealing with IP addresses associated with users?


There are no cookies, but there's local storage -- which is basically the same thing to the end user.  Most of it is display or user preferences, but it has a password field which could track me across ip address changes (if I stay on the same device).

I don't know, though.  None of this can be associated generally with name, phone number, address -- the basic stuff I usually consider personal data.

My goal would be similar, to never have someone fill in an e-mail, for example.  Not that anyone cares, it's going to be a handful of people I already know at best.  I'm going to have to do something different for password reset, probably provide a code.  But it's something to try.


Also, congratulations on having post 10,000!

Oh, yes, both of those specific services are quite nice, in my opinion.

I'd say generally that on your project you should try to use existing online resources as much as possible and do as little 'from scratch' as possible.

I certainly wish you good luck.


File: 1635144114864.jpg (36.22 KB, 535x343, 535:343, Censorship.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

Well, it happened again just a bit ago. Twitter suspended the account of a senior conservative Republican member of Congress, named Jim Banks, and triggered another episode of a long-running culture war. This is just one in an extremely long line of instances of prominent right-wing voices facing censorship on social media. Public displays of prejudice made due to their conservative values keep getting push-back.

Story: https://time.com/6110023/twitter-jim-banks-rachel-levine/

In Banks' case, he attacked a transgender member of the Biden administration, not just condemning her personally but also misgendering her. Banks remains defiant. No apologies seem in coming.

Broadly speaking, Twitter, like other forms of social media, prohibit users from making statements of incitement to hatred when it comes to race, religion, ethnicity, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability status, and so on. This is a pretty common moral stance. It's also, I think, fairly popular among social media users generally, many of whom either are minorities themselves or otherwise strongly against prejudice.

However, conservative politics in the U.S. frequently involves not just making statements about the inferiority of certain groups and individuals compared to others but also taking policy actions based on said inferiority. A conservative attacking somebody for being gay, Muslim, Jewish, transgender, disabled, et cetera is just doing what their political ideology tells them to do, really. It makes sense given that conservative actions in lawmaking put certain groups on pedestals over others. Given that, say, everything from prohibiting anybody but Christians from public prayer statements to kicking transgender people out of certain restrooms to forcing certain non-Christians to have official registry status as suspicious persons subject to special restrictions are both central conservative policy goals... and... well... it goes on.

Is such social media censorship really a good thing? Should minorities really be protected against conservatives attacking them due to their minority status, or does such restriction on speech essentially make social media a no-go place for conservatives? What about the conservatives' claims that they're being bullied and treated unfairly? Worth considering? Or is social media no place for bigotry?
11 posts and 1 image reply omitted. Click reply to view.


Yes, the matter of alternatives is a key here.

If Facebook et al are limited in what they can do to a great degree, and people banned in such places have a lot of alternatives that're right there, then the situation really isn't that bad.


have you stopped beating your wife today?


As much as I like the idea of websites having different boards in general for different discussions, the practical thing of there being a kind of intellectual segregation on Twitter and other major websites where there's a "conservatives are outlawed here" place and a "conservatives are enclosed here" place seems... I don't know... really unstable and likely to promote even more ill feeling?

First off, would conservatives even agree to this?

Second off, wouldn't you have constant incursions in which conservatives go off to the regular discussion to tell people that they're sinful godless heathens to which God gleefully intends to send to hell because by the way Trump is/was the greatest President in history... wouldn't everything spill over constantly?


File: 1633567089298.jpeg (75.64 KB, 1200x800, 3:2, 4df38547-9efd-4f16-b570-f….jpeg) ImgOps Google


Is gain-of-function research evil? Should public bureaucrats who encouraged it be removed from office now that we have the benefit of hindsight? Should we also remove officials who continue to defend it or is a general ban sufficient?
9 posts and 2 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


>If we define the term "lied" as "somebody said something that I personally disagreed with because they didn't disclose additional information that I wanted to talk about but they didn't want to talk about", then... well... isn't this 1984 style Orwellian redefinition of words?
Huh?  I said that Dr. Fauci didn't lie.  I think you might have misread my post.

Apparently there is a specific regulatory definition of "gain-of-function research".  One NIH-funded experiment at Wuhan unintentionally resulted in a mouse coronavirus gaining greater virulence in mice.  Even if this arguably doesn't technically count as GoF research, I think Fauci should have disclosed it instead of just saying "no" when asked if NIH funded GoF research in China.


The sad thing is that, with discrediting Fauci, and if the allegations are true it is undeniable and should be pursued, it does put a victory in the camp of conservatives and anyone who has believed that Covid is a conspiracy, who are staunch opponents to masks / vaccines and all the lockdown measures imposed to curb Covid spread.
Not only for the US, but globally as well.

Does the US have any prominent experts left in the fight against Covid to promote counter measures.


The risen Jesus of Nazareth could descend from the clouds surrounded by a choir of angels before telling American conservatives to stop blaming ethnic Chinese people plus the Biden administration for the coronavirus and to get vaccinated ('free loaves and fishes for the first thousand to get poked', maybe)... and they still wouldn't do it. You know that. I know that. Everybody knows that.

At some point, you just kind of have to give up on people. I guess. That's life.


File: 1634516406056.jpg (383.09 KB, 1680x1050, 8:5, NurseRedheart_wallpaper_by….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

If a devoutly religious medical professional as an individual, or a group of such people, or a corporate organization under a spiritual mission refuse to give the same health care that would be given to somebody else to some victim because said victim is an atheist, a bisexual person, a Jew, a lesbian, a Muslim, a Satanist, a transgender person, or whatever else... should that be legal in the United States? Or should the federal government force the religious to defy their faiths by assisting those whom the divine have commanded them to be separate from? Is that justified?

What if the victims are to be provided substandard care, perhaps by paying more than a type of person viewed as more spiritually acceptable. Is that a reasonable compromise? Or is it insulting?

On the whole, is having so much of the U.S. health care system based around religious lines through spiritual organizations a problem as long as prejudice and sectarianism exists?
8 posts and 1 image reply omitted. Click reply to view.


>There's also the matter of the conservatives' rhetoric around all of this, which isn't "we should protect the integrity of women's sports" but is instead of the sort of "we should prevent these Godless perverts from eating the foundation of Christian civilization like termites destroying a beautiful house".
All of the rhetoric that I've seen from conservatives on this issue focuses on the unfairness of allowing biological males to compete in women's sports.


You're still not seeing the context.

Nor are you seeing the specific picture besides the fig leaf justification about "biological males" (a weird pseudo-political invention to say the least in terms of referring to transgender women who're people, not abstract chemical entities).

This is about systematically discriminating against transgender individuals out of bigotry, starting with really putting the screws upon them as children.


File: 1634996544781.gif (822.71 KB, 349x400, 349:400, 1629456617230.gif) ImgOps Google


File: 1634016638179.jpeg (361.04 KB, 1800x1957, 1800:1957, nejmc2113468_f1.jpeg) ImgOps Google

Is the FDA deliberately trying to injure and kill Americans by restricting booster shots?  The first two doses of the mRNA vaccines are apparently so safe that President Biden feels that it is ethical to *mandate* that people take them, but the FDA somehow worries that a third dose is so dangerous that it shouldn't be allowed except for the elderly and people who have certain pre-conditions or higher risk of exposure?  I have seen strong evidence that the third dose is just as safe as the first two doses. And I have also seen strong evidence that it greatly improves immunity to infection (which is especially important to people who are worried about being vectors who might infect more vulnerable loved ones).  IMHO, everyone at the FDA who voted against allowing boosters for the general population should be fired for gross incompetence.  
3 posts and 1 image reply omitted. Click reply to view.


Mr Python here knows the medical approval procedure better than the entire goddamn FDA.

I'm curious what step in the approval process in particular do you think they're held up on?


File: 1634086114625.jpg (77.15 KB, 640x480, 4:3, doge-022.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>I mean, why give it to society's weakest?
Because it provides them (compared to healthier people) greater benefit against severe illness.

>Perhaps it's tricky to request booster shots for everyone, while there's still a large global demand.
True, but that isn't the FDA's job to consider.

>Mr Python here knows the medical approval procedure better than the entire goddamn FDA.
It's not a procedural issue.  It's about whether the booster dose is safe and effective.  You seem to suggest the booster is either unsafe or ineffective?


There likely needs to be, later on, a full nonpartisan and nonideological (and nongovernment, probably) investigation into the FDA in terms of the general response to the pandemic at some point.

I agree that the FDA's conduct both in terms of not accepting the safety of the vaccines in general as well as booster shots, the organization dragging its feet, is quite wrong.


File: 1630960432429.jpg (10.84 KB, 281x179, 281:179, Covid-19-Unemployment.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

Over seven million people across the U.S. are now losing unemployment benefits today as pandemic related measures expire.

Article: https://thehill.com/policy/finance/570948-more-than-7-million-americans-to-lose-jobless-benefits-monday

I think that most individuals are rational when it comes to their personal planning. When living life on the edge, getting off benefits to work a new job involves a ton of risk, and the loss of benefits is effectively a large, punitive tax on doing the right thing. From an Econ 101 point of view, it's quite silly to punish people for doing something that's good for them. So, there's plenty clearly wrong with the past system of just paying people not to work (essentially).

At the same time, the pandemic obviously hasn't ended. Thousands clog the nation's hospitals. Mass suffering is still going on. Economic stimulus appears quite justified. And, at the very least, those who are economically severely disadvantaged have been disproportionately hurt by the pandemic and deserve disproportionate help.

What then shall be done?
22 posts and 6 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


File: 1631151860009.png (81.2 KB, 221x350, 221:350, megumin_by_myangelmegumin-….png) ImgOps Google

>Why would the same conservatives who literally deny me and people like me the sense of being HUMAN with human rights in the first place, let enough being a "citizen" in the specific sense, ...
You might as well ask why Texas is reducing restrictions on guns even though it means that people like you can get guns more easily.  The answer is the same: Even though some fraction of Republicans would deny citizenship rights to people like you if they had the political power to do so, the reality is that they don't have that political power and they know it.  Given a choice to enact mandatory militia service for all citizens (including people like you) or to do nothing, I think there is a reasonable chance that they would support the militia bill.  The possibility to exclude various outgroup minorities from citizenship is an orthogonal issue that realistically isn't even on the table.


I mean Texas Republicans have already been trying their best to force hurting minorities through the legislature, they've just been stalled at some points (such as their rapid anti-LGBT measures) due to extreme backlash by non-Republicans. If Republicans ever got their way completely (which, to be clear, could happen at any moment given political winds changing), then Texas would be North Korea on the Gulf Coast as far as human rights goes.

And efforts right now to expand gun access for some don't apply to minorities, as I've pointed out. The winks and nods about who's allowed to exercise their 2nd amendment rights and who's not allowed de facto are clear no matter what de jure laws say. Conservatives do their hardest to make sure that gun culture in all of its forms is dangerous territory, whether in terms of membership associations such as the NRA to clubs at local gun ranges to communities on firearms related blogs and so on... they're generally hostile to minorities who want to break into anti-minority pro-gun "safe spaces".

I, for one, am a Texan minority who doesn't own firearms because in part I know that they're not meant for me and that I'll never be accepted as a valid human being by your standard gun owner, most of whom (as one prominent conservative news-magazine aptly put it) fear the "Monsters Mutilating Children". The reason why they've got guns in the first place is in order to act against people like me. I'm the one that the paper target represents at the standard gun range.

I'm also wondering why you're denying that preventing minorities from being considered full citizens with full rights is something realistically possible. It sure is. Especially when conservatives have been hellbent on that during the four years of a Trump Presidency and have had a lot of success. The next conservative President will likely be even more of a government-worshipping statist than Trump. America's already teetering on the edge of conservatives winning and turning everything into a fascist dictatorship, why would they stop now?



The solution isn't to make benefits less beneficial, it's to make jobs more worth going to. You let wages stagnate for decades, slowly crumble union power, and chip away at benefits over time enough, and wages end up barely covering cost of living. That's where we're at now. Maybe companies could get more workers if they'd actually pay them more than what we've determined is the  bare minimum to survive.


File: 1632703201107.png (110.13 KB, 912x880, 57:55, circle-area-14404018133169….png) ImgOps Google



You want to challenge /townhall/ for mathematics?

Or is there a topic related that you want to see discussed?


Correct, saying it's well formed suggests the algebra will work out.



File: 1632812295983.jpeg (83.21 KB, 528x700, 132:175, 0 SN9OLLuKaKvKFJR_.Jpeg) ImgOps Google

Yes, that is indeed a twitter post.


File: 1629326093539.png (142.43 KB, 888x1226, 444:613, torture-vs-dust-specks.png) ImgOps Google

Would you prefer that one person be horribly tortured for fifty years without hope or rest, or that 3^^^3 people get dust specks in their eyes?  (See below link for what "3^^^3" means.)

13 posts and 3 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


I'd prefer the dust specks, unquestionably.  With most things, not just something abstract like suffering, it's better to distribute the work load as wide as possible.  Do it enough, and almost no one has any work to do at all.


>it's better to distribute the work load as wide as possible.
It's not merely distributing the suffering though; it's increasing the sum total amount of suffering enormously.



Still ideal, though, clearly.  We could honestly allow the dust speck number to be literally infinite (which it essentially already is because we don't have a solution for dust specks).  If the question was "Would you allow one person to suffer for 50 years to eradicate dust specks forever, would you do it?"  I would still say no.  That is not something that is ever worth that cost, again, due to distribution of the suffering.

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] Next
[ home ] [ pony / townhall / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]