/townhall/ - Townhall

>>7895
Yep, it's the thing I'm talking about is a wider phenomenon which inclues it. It's actually pretty much this in fact: >>8033

>>8016
I don't think you read the "no parking" example right. The hours it's pointing to are in the daytime, nighttime is the time it's not mentioning. But anyway, given that I'm explicitly not arguing how things should be but how they are, the mismatch with your explicitly saying you're not arguing how things are but how things should be kind of leaves no point in a discussion. It's literally perfect complements. There's plenty I'd disagree with anyway in what you wrote in this section, but since we're again seeing the explosion of ><><><>< here I think that's a good reason to cut it there in the interest of nipping it in the bud. If you want me to respond to it anyway, please try to narrow it down to some fragment or otherwise collate it somehow. Instead, onto the examples.

>symbols

The point of asking you about the symbols was to establish whether you completely reject using context to inform your readings or not. It seems now we agree after all that the context is important for the reading of the message, even if you focused on "it's fine" vs "it's not". Okay, so what makes symbols special where they get to have that but text doesn't, with the text requiring the use of literal reading only? What of text in another language? Imagine a local Chinese mafia is using these symbols: 鸡块. Do you consider a guy more likely to be one such triad when you see he has those symbols tattooed? Should we start to discard such information once we learn that these symbols are actually legitimately text, text whose literal reading isn't "triad member" but "chicken nugget"?

>autodestruct

What's the hypocrisy that the sign has shown in its opponents? I don't see it. Interpreting things in the worst possible light (regardless of whether that's actually what happened or not, since it's a side discussion of its own) isn't hypocrisy? As for your example of ice cream rage guy, my answer is "it depends". Why is the guy punchy? Some possibilities:
1. Let's say he's gotPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>8032
>Someone will always be offended by something. I don't think it's realistic to idiot proof every single thing you say.
Here's a good example of how to clarify to avoid misinterpretations:

https://youtu.be/tYLZL4GZVbA?t=1301
(from 21:41 to 22:33)

Notice that he specifically disclaims implications that people might otherwise infer from his statement.

>>8033
>It's true that it's impractical to ward off every possible misinterpretation.  But if you realize that a large percentage of people might misinterpret your message, it's probably best to clarify it.

Yes, this is utterly correct.

Seconding in the strongest possible sense.

Suppose I walk up to a place with a large sign that says "The Rapists Here" and ask what the hell is going on only for somebody to say "This is a psychological counseling center, with our message meant to be 'Therapists Here'.". It's completely right to call them out and tell them that they should think about the consequences of their actions. Give reasonable criticism.

>>7922
>I think it's difficult

Yeah, I can see that it's difficult.  Getting rights for black people has always been difficult.  It's like 200+ years of difficulty over here.

>>7931

Yeah, unfortunately we can't really police (pun intended) who shows up to a protest, and people of all walks will gladly take advantage of the chaos to do whatever thye feel like.  In a sense I'm actually opposed to protesting, I just feel like it hurts a movement more than it helps.  That's a whole different topic, though.

>>7937
>You can't just go to the 1/3 to 1/10 of Americans that are bigots and say "Fuck off!" and expect that that's the end of that

Certainly not, no.  Telling them that we disagree is merely the first step.  It's after that when we have to try to wrestle power away from them.

>>8028
Eh, I think you can at least police your own to some extent, even with the most simple of actions just condemning the violence, and of course physically stopping, documenting, reporting,  all go a ways to help.
As is,  it seems like nothing is being done.

I don't disagree with you in regards to the effect of protests. I don't think they typically build much support. Though they might still work well at lest for getting publicity from media types.
The people you're going to interact with, though, aren't likely to be swayed and are more likely I think to become bitter to your cause

This is probably a dumb question, but from what I understand, what really matters is the voting of electors on Dec. 14.  Do electors have to vote based on vote counts?  How does it work if votes are not satisfactorily counted by then?

>>7630
>what really matters is the voting of electors on Dec. 14.
Yes.

>>7631
>Do electors have to vote based on vote counts?
Depends on the state.  In Chiafalo v. Washington (2020), the Supreme Court held that "A State may enforce an elector's pledge to support his party's nominee—and the state voters' choice—for President".
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/19-465_i425.pdf

>How does it work if votes are not satisfactorily counted by then?
Again, varies by state.

Trump is going to try and delay the inevitable, no doubt. But Biden's lead is looking to be so big I'm not sure it will matter. It's being reported that those around Trump are trying to make him aware of this.

That said >>7539 can wait until January 20th to eat his MAGA hat.

>>7501
Well, then rather than calling it "Supreme Court", you should call it "Supreme Legislature".  And I would disagree with a doubly indirect method of altering the fundamental fabric of the Republic.  Such alterations should need to be approved either directly by the people or via only one layer of indirection (the people's elected representatives).

>>7502

Perhaps, sure.  My reasoning here is that the actual Legistlative branch is a bit more open to minorities, as was mentioned, and while I think minorities should have an important position in law making, they won't necessarily have a complete knowledge of law history.

This third branch, regardless of what we call it, should be one that does absolutely require a healthy background in law and law history, for the purpose of determining exactly what was meant and intended not just by our constitution but by any laws enacted since then, such that they'll be able to write down and set precedents based on this.

I would say this is most similar to what we currently call the Supreme Court, but not necessarily the same thing.

>>7503
Although major Constitutional rulings get the most press, a lot of the Supreme Court's work is ordinary judicial work interpreting federal statutes.  (E.g., Liu v. Securities and Exchange Commission (2020) dealt with 15 U.S. Code §78u(d)(5).  The Court held: "A disgorgement award that does not exceed a wrongdoer’s net profits and is awarded for victims is equitable relief permissible under §78u(d)(5)".)  In such cases, Congress can effectively overrule the Supreme Court (but only prospectively, not retrospectively) by altering the statute at question.  And furthermore, the questions are often rather technical, and don't really involve any consideration for minorities.  What is desirable there is simply highly competent jurists.  So I'd say that we still need an institution like the Supreme Court to resolve splits between federal circuits and especially splits between state supreme courts and co-territorial federal circuits.

The housing market is particularly explosive right now because of the riots, lockdowns, and laws completely destroying states like New York, causing people to move out of the state to safer and more lenient states.

But for the economy as a whole, it's already booming back from covid lock downs, and will continue to do so if Trump wins, but economists are saying the value of the dollar is ready to plummet if Biden wins because of his economic policies.

So the housing market is going to be pretty good for some time, but the economy as a whole depends on the election.

To me freedom of religion implies that you can follow and practice any religion freely, but you shoud still abide by the laws society put in place. Religion does not make you exempt from the law.
On the flipside, separation of Church and State should imply that laws shouldn't be made to single out and attack a religion.

> Should a private company be able to deny legally mandated Healthcare benefits to its employees?
No. If it's set in the laws that certain rights are given to your employees, religion doesn't make you exempt from this. If someone calls inspection, they have every right to penalize you.

> Should a private company be allowed to discriminate against a protected class?
I suppose it depends what the laws say. I think it should be morally rerehensible, but not really a legal matter what people you deny service to.

> Should parents be allowed to exclude their child from parts of education?
Around here, kids are by law forced to take schooling until they're 18. And even in private schooling and homeschooling, there's an education plan that sets requirements on what knowledge needs to be acquired.
So it is against the law to deny your kids set education standards.

> Should a government employee be allowed to not perform critical functions of their job?
Religion should not be a reason to not perform your duties as an employee. But this is up to the employer, I suppose.
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>7339
>Can my church be tax exempt too?

I believe so, if you do the right paperwork.

>Or should we take tax exemption status from religious organizations?

As they seem to be grouped with other non-profits, I don't have a strong opinion, I don't think.

The boundary, in my experience, is best outlined by saying this: You can't force someone to do something they believe to be morally wrong, with a few exceptions like repayment of debts, punishment for crimes, fair compensation in a trade, and the fulfilling of contractual obligations.

Using that basic outline, here are my answers:

>Should a private company be able to deny legally mandated Healthcare benefits to its employees?
No. That falls under fair compensation in a trade.

>Should a private company be allowed to discriminate against a protected class?
Yes. No classes should be protected, and businesses should have the right to choose who they do business with. If they wish to miss out on profits because of bigotry, that's entirely on them.

>Should parents be allowed to exclude their child from parts of education?
Depends. Parents should have almost total control over what their child learn in education, however, preventing their children from getting an education altogether could and probably should be considered child abuse to some degree.

>Should a government employee be allowed to not perform critical functions of their job?
Yes, absolutely. Every individual should be allowed to make their own moral judgements about what parts of their job they will do. If the employer wants to fire or replace an individual that will not do that part of their job, then that is also valid.
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>7442
A nation at least has obligation to its citizens.
I don't think the same ought to apply to those of other nations. At least as far as things like open boarders go.

Half-hearted responses get half hearted results.
If we're going to save the world, we ought to simply invade their countries and fix them ourselves.

>I'd like to imagine that nothing is keeping these people from simply not participating if they think it's a bad situation.  The same would go for crossing our borders.
I'd say you underestimate the human inclination to assuming the grass is greener on the other side.
Especially when basically everyone tells you it's the land of opportunity, where anyone can make it big. I'm personally skeptical such presumptions are true, living here.

>Every participant in the free market uplifts the free market.  
I am not so convinced. Any market when flooded with a good will end up inevitably losing value on that good.
Turning the job market from where the seller has the greater power, to where the buyer has the greater power, just means lower pay and worse conditions for those of us who are not so fortunate as to sit on the higher racks.

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

>>7444

Yeah, those are fair criticisms, I don't really have any rebuttal for most of those.

>I am not so convinced. Any market when flooded with a good will end up inevitably losing value on that good.

To some extent that one is still good, though.  Like in theory the ideal is that all goods have no value.  We want to reach that point of post-scarcity.  This, of course, would require further adjustments to how our society functions, but in the long term and with proper support, floods of goods is good.

>>7445
I'm not so sure. There's use in value. I can't imagine the world where nothing is valued. One where basic survival needs are unvalued, sure, but everything?
How a society like that would even function on the basic level without turning to some serious eccentricity I cannot fathom.

But, in any case; people are at least one thing we shouldn't have as without value.

>>7370
Going off of a bit of what you said, I'd like to rant a little bit (not that you're talking this position, but I see this position advocated a lot online):

I hear talk from a lot of ultra-libertarians in terms of ending the drug war. That it also means ending the welfare state. I can't see it.

I just want to debunk that view right now... the Ayn Rand fantasy of a minimalist state in which 25% of the population lies dying in the gutter due entirely because of their bad luck of being born to the wrong parents while right next door another 25% of the population live in marble column covered mansions with gold plated toilets, the middle 50% being in Brazilian-style favelas or such merely eking out a living and scrimping to survive... it just can't work. Putting morality aside, it's simply impractical. Civilization doesn't achieve stability that way.

A world without charity, Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, et cetera would be a world in which different social groups are so alienated from each other that the culture achieves total dehumanization. Eventually, the 75% majority would up and murder the ruling class. They'd have zero reason not to. They're on the edge. Nothing to lose.

Honestly, the fact that "voluntary slavery" is considered a legitimate topic in such ultra-libertarian circles is a nice sign that they're full of a lot of hardcore nonsense. For real.

You're your brother's keeper. You can't fuck up your life entirely without it getting un-fucked. You're a part of organized civilization, and you matter.

To the central point, well, people should ideally just not be left behind. They'd be able to fuck up again and again. And they'd be picked up each time. "We hang together, or we hang separately" as the saying goes.

>>7373
I wouldn't advocate for a complete riddance of welfare. But I would want to see welfare go to people who put effort in standing on their own.
People who give into their vices, knowing full well that it makes them unable to function in society should be dealing with the consequences.

People who get laid off and are out of work and can't get a job for some time, or people who due to medical reasons outside of their own choosing are unable to perform still should get plenty of support. Same for people who actually can contribute, but are paid less than what a good lifestyle would require.

>>7375
What do you think about the Martin Luther King Jr. idea of everybody receiving a guaranteed minimum income every month just for being a law-abiding citizen?

I can't say any such hall of fame is very important to me. Induction into one such hall of fame can often be a popularity contest and lots of times great people don't make it in, or are passed on for way too long.

I don't really care about the purity of the RRHOF, but it does seem really weird to include acts that are not rock and roll! Did they issue a statement on the decision?

>>7357
It's indeed weird to include acts with nothing whatsoever to do with rock n' roll. I agree totally. I love, say, Whitney Houston in particular. Yet she's known for a mixture of pop music with classic soul stylings. Nothing "rocking" per se.

In terms of statements, the institution recently-ish released this:

> https://www.rockhall.com/class-2020-inductees#:~:text=Rock%20%26%20Roll%20Hall%20of%20Fame%20Induction%20Ceremony%202020&text=The%20special%20presentation%20will%20honor,Jon%20Landau%20and%20Irving%20Azoff.

It's not that helpful in my opinion, though.

>>7345
Do you have a pointer to more information about this?  I vaguely remember encountering an argument that seemed plausible that white males are in fact somewhat more likely than black males to go on high-body-count murder sprees (e.g., school shootings).  

>>7346
I think you're missing the point. Even if there is a higher likelihood of that, it's going to be for cultural reasons, not because of their race. That's the point.

It seems rather unfortunate but clear-cut that anybody with an accent that makes their words hard to understand will have trouble, particularly when they encounter short-tempered individuals assuming the worst in conversations. I agree. Not sure what advice to give, alas.

well, I better start working on my accent then.

>>7117
In my profession accents are not a major barrier because most communication occurs in documents, or person-to-person communication is discouraged.  It probably depends on what you're doing.

>>6950
The Trump administration from stem to stern is based on lies and manipulation. There's little reason to trust just about anything that comes out of it. From anybody.

Again, I'll take a vaccine when Trump's OWN FAMILY gets GODDAMN IMPALED WITH NEEDLES and we see it for our own eyes. Then, well, there will be some credibility. Some skin in the game, literally.

>>7054
I'd question the extremity of what you say, but I agree with the basic concept involved.
Unless I see a fair bit of solid evidence it's safe, I don't think I'd get a vaccine. Especially since I'm, frankly, not in the risk bracket.

>>7086
If anything, I'd say that I'm not being extreme enough, but... yeah, evidence is the key.

>>7313
Are rap songs that refer to black people with the "n"-word racist?

>>7314
>>7316
If somebody isn't being deliberately obtuse, then it would be easy for them to understand that Person A feeling hatred upon Person B and then venting out a slur in order to try and harm Person B is a negative context. A context in which it's blindly obvious that racism is taking place. Of course.

>>7318
Negative does not inherently mean racist.

>>6937
>>6938
>>6958
Way belated, but: I typed "conservative" while meaning a different label, sorry about that. Would be genuinely like libel to act as if regular conservative fellows are somehow rooting for individuals' deaths.

(Or maybe it's technically not libel since the internet is different than print media, eh, whatever.)

>>7272
>Giving a range of 5 to 10 million per life seems a bit misleading as best estimates tend to give it as 10 million (or 9 million) or so...
Ah, sorry, I didn't spend a lot of time digging into this and just used my memory and a few quick searches to find a rough range.  I had the $5 million figure in memory (maybe it's outdated now from when I'm remembering it from) and also found it in some sources (e.g., https://www.livescience.com/15855-dollar-human-life.html), so I included it as a lower-end.

>>7274
I understand, just wanted to expand on the point.

>>7260
Meh. They are the only source of decently drawn maws.

>>7261
>r.e. your sheep vore post
Um, that's a "vore fetish" image?  Just looks like a cute, silly Wooloo image to me.  

>>7260
> Vore is a bad fetish and you should feel bad.
Should a baker be allowed to refuse to bake a cake decorated with a "vore fetish" image?

>>7265
>Should a baker be allowed to refuse to bake a cake decorated with a "vore fetish" image?
Yes, provided he pays the appropriate "weird fetish" premium.

ft. a furry