[ 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.4991[Reply][Last 50 Posts]

File: 1590018461969.png (256.62 KB, 880x1024, 55:64, gun.png) ImgOps Google

There's sorta a gun debate going in another thread, but not something I feel is appropriate for me to join as it started somewhere else.

In America, there seem to be two main groups, one favoring gun control -- bringing down the number of guns, basically; one that believes the greater quantity and quality of weapons per citizen -- especially per well trained, law-abiding citizen -- the better the society.  And I think most of us have seen sparks fly as the groups head off.

A question that comes to my mind: are there shared values between these two groups (values related to weapons and the debate, for those who like things spelled out)?  I know, for example, reducing gun deaths is not a shared value -- some deaths are seen as justified and many would say reducing gun deaths (by bad people) simply means an increase in death by other means.  So that's not the metric.  Is there one?
283 posts and 57 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.5300

>>5287
Zimmerman's race is disputed. Again, it is uncivil to keep accusing me of racism when I have not done so to you.

>>5286
You're only framing it as "freedom" because it benefits your narrative. We aren't allowed to buy plutonium, but somehow that isn't infringing on your "freedom".

>>5284
The fact you dont' afford Martin the same benefit of the doubt is troubling, but I think the issue is here. You say

>His life still has value.

But this person says

>>5288
>"His life has lesser value than that person he attacked".
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

 No.5306

File: 1590801434687.gif (1023.29 KB, 227x240, 227:240, 1425106784199.gif) ImgOps Google

>>5300
>The fact you dont' afford Martin the same benefit of the doubt is troubling,
I'm not sure what that is in reference to?

>For those that always value life, a gun has no value.
Huh?  That's not true at all!  Lots of people enjoy shooting paper targets and soda bottles at the range!  And not all lives have equal value.  Most people would agree that the life of a deer is worth less than the life of a human.  And if you eat meat, then you're in no moral position to condemn hunting.  And if a violent home invader is about to kill or rape your children, then obviously you should protect your family even if you need to kill the home invader.

>For those who believe that life can be devalued, then as soon as they do an action that devalues their life, the best course of action is to end that less-valuable life.
Nani???  That doesn't make any sense at all!  My stock portfolio lost a lot of value this year -- but did I end my portfolio as soon as it became devalued?  No!

>We hold completely opposite values on life itself.
I'm not so sure about that.  We might differ mainly in what system of ethics we follow (e.g., consequentialism, deontology, etc.) and its details rather than in axiology.

 No.5312

>>5300
While his race is disputed, he's most certainly not black.

>You're only framing it as "freedom" because it benefits your narrative. We aren't allowed to buy plutonium, but somehow that isn't infringing on your "freedom".
So long as you are able to store it safely without risk to those around you, I think you ought to be.
You can buy uranium ore, and similar samples as I recall.
http://unitednuclear.com/index.php?main_page=index&cPath=2_4

But, yeah, I would consider that an infringement, if I'm not hurting anyone with it.

>. For some people, life ALWAYS has value. No matter what a person has done.
Most people are not pacifists. For good reason. Pacifism is an inherently flawed ideology.

>For those that always value life, a gun has no value.
I'd still have my firearms regardless of my value in life, as the mechanics of them are interesting, and the shooting of them is fun. So, I don't really buy that.
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

 No.3811[Reply]

File: 1571795490065.png (318.04 KB, 720x720, 1:1, Concerned Celestia.png) ImgOps Google

Good evening ponies. Unfortunately, our testing period for Plan A has not yielded the result the staff was expecting.

As such, we are moving forward with Plan B, and issuing bans to a small pool of users who have been found to be particularly uncivil in their conduct on the board.

We will start with just a few bans, and escalate as needs must. Thank you for your understanding. I'm sorry it has come to this measure.

I truly hope this can help to resolve some of the civility issues and reports present on /townhall/.

 No.5299

Moved to >>>/arch/4337.

 No.4837[Reply]

File: 1588709216528.png (619.94 KB, 1200x744, 50:31, care-bears-ca079-cb-18-5.png) ImgOps Google

Pic Unrelated

I want to talk about the concept of forgiveness. So that we are all on the same page, we shall define "forgiveness" as "the intentional and voluntary process by which a victim undergoes a change in feelings and attitude regarding an offense, and overcomes negative emotions such as resentment and vengeance, however justified it might be." Many religions tout the virtues of forgiving and urge their tenants to forgive. However, atheism is on the rise. The number of Americans who consider themselves atheist is increasing. According to the Pew Research Center, 4% of Americans self-identified as "atheist" in 2019, nearly doubling from 2% in 2009. (https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/12/06/10-facts-about-atheists/)

With this in mind, do you believe that forgiveness is also in decline? I believe that forgiveness is baked into so many of the world's religions as a concept and a virtue because forgiving is not the natural human response to victimization, resentment and/or a desire for vengeance is. There is virtually no reason for an atheistic person not to follow these natural urges.  But can a society devoid of forgiveness function?
16 posts and 5 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.5058

>>4942
>>4942
>Ask who? Atheists? That's a lot of people to ask!

Wouldn't that imply that your generalizations are not justified?

>>4942
>That only makes sense if you see murdering a person as traumatic. Not everyone does or would

Again more reason the generalization is not rationally justified.

It's not a matter of human nature, it's a matter of individual differences.

>Atheists don't belive there is punishment for murder outside of government laws.

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

 No.5069

>>5058
> Some people fear looking weak in front of others, or find the humiliation of being very publicly mistaken.

That sounds massively insecure and immature. People can learn to admit their mistakes and be wrong. It's not social media's fault that some people refuse to do so.

>Social Media and the increasing pressure to participate in it as a neccessary part of being informed and in touch with society as a whole around us leave many of us in a heightened state of self-consciousness within our own homes and otherwise private spaces.

I mean... good? You should be aware of your actions and deeds and whether those things are wrong. People need to be called out when they are shitty and if you're constantly being called it, it's time to examine your shitty behavior.

>Empathy is a double edged sword.
I'm not sure how empathy could cause you to hurt people. If it does, it's not really empathy. It's selective empathy towards a small group you've deemed worthy of it. Both of these things are not the same thing. One needs a different word to describe it, because calling both "empathy" is not helpful.

>But apologizing is humiliating and sometimes people fail to have a tolerance for that humility and the act of simply apologizing is too painful for them and their egos.

Again, that sounds incredibly insecure and immature. Apologizing is not humiliating. Not if you genuinely care. What would be humiliating would be to continue to hurt someone out of your own insecurity/immaturity. I've NEVER thought lesser of a person who apologized, but I've always thought lesser of people who refuse to.
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

 No.5289

>>5069
>It's not social media's fault that some people refuse to do so.

You're right, human nature is to blame. People fear those things that hurt them, including humiliation or "losing face", and respond with a "fight, flight or freeze" response to those things they fear.

Social media just lets all the potential pitfalls of human nature of greatest consequence to social relationships, and to the media we consume, get magnified.

>I mean... good? You should be aware of your actions and deeds and whether those things are wrong. People need to be called out when they are shitty and if you're constantly being called it, it's time to examine your shitty behavior.

I meant that it primes people to see a judgemental or competitive subtext to other's actions that might not actually be there. Basically, social media makes people far more concerned about what other's think of them beyond the point of what's even reasonable to interpret as competitive or as judgemental.

>I'm not sure how empathy could cause you to hurt people. If it does, it's not really empathy.

Empathy causes one to empathize with another's lack of ability to empathize with someone who hurt them. Empathy can literally lead people to having their empathy guided by another's lack of empathy. In fact this collective empathization with a victim of a crime committed by an outsider is the very thing that fuels wars. I.e. like Pearl Harbor, everyone empathized with the vicitms and in turn that led to hate for not only the perpetrators, but the perpetrators entire nation. The empathy for the dead in pearl harbor led to the dehumanization of Japanese people regardless of whether or not individually they would have supported their government's war campaign, and even if they weren't actually Japanese citizens.  

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

 No.4932[Reply]

File: 1589526295458.jpg (162.68 KB, 701x1140, 701:1140, 1445918935305-3.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

Continuation of the locked thread on /pony/

>>1034155
You presume the assumptions are unknown. That's your problem.
Reality is, just examining the numbers demonstrates this.

Rent costs money. This alone makes the idea that businesses wouldn't shut down completely ridiculous on the face of it.
Businesses around the world already do when for whatever reason they get a several-month dry season.
Rent is expensive, and typically requires a down payment. They're typically set to a contract, too, with penalties and forfeitures in the event that contract is canceled.
The equipment then will need to be moved, if it is not sold to pay for the penalties which needless to say will also be difficult given the economic shutdown. Storing and moving that equipment costs additional piles of money.

This isn't some "cascade of events". This is a flat linear progression of a single event. Businesses are expensive. If they're not making money, they can't pay for themselves. This is something understood by any economist.

And speaking of "can't know", maybe you ought to look in the mirror? You sure make an awful amount of assumptions about what's going to happen with the virus, after all. Are you going to insist that's all guaranteed somehow?

Post too long. Click here to view the full text.
14 posts and 1 image reply omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.5068

>>5066
You've been making a lot of claims in this thread that i'm going to need some statistics on.

You claim hospitals are under capacity, but I'm still hearing of numerous places where this isn't the case. Such as Alabama (https://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/story/news/2020/05/20/montgomery-down-one-icu-bed-sending-virus-patients-birmingham/5227449002/). What is your source on this information?

You claim that most people do not need to recover from this disease in a hospital. What is your source on this information?

Also you keep asserting that the stay-at-home will irreparable damage the economy, but other countries have managed it without such a result. Where are you getting that information?  

 No.5070

>>5068
As far as the economic concerns, I already posted a direct link for that particular line talking about how many small businesses are in danger of closing forever.

In regards to the hospital ization rate, that was your claim. You said that it was great enough to be "likely".
I said I don't believe that's true.

Name regards to the Alabama ICU lot, as I understand it, that's a classic example of fake news, as what is really happening is that in order to lower chance of spreading, as well as keep emergency slots open, ICU rooms are being marked as unavailable when adjacent to occupied rooms.
I will see if I can get a link on this later.

none the less, I feel that you ignore the issues I continue to point out, as it is inconvenient to your narrative.
It strikes me that you aren't inclined to engage with any ideas read conflict with your particular worldview.
Why should we maintain a lockdown indefinitely?
That should be the crux of this issue. Alongside how we can afford it.

 No.5076

>>5070
You can't claim something is fake news without any counter-evidence. Yes, I'd like to see that when you get the chance to supply it.

>Why should we maintain a lockdown indefinitely?

No one is saying we should. Not a single person has suggested the lock-down last forever. It literally cannot. But it should last until all the possible precautions have been taken and the maximum number of people can be safe. And with cases of the virus still rising, that isn't the case. Many businesses still can't get sanitation supplies or masks for their employees or customers. Many hospitals are still over capacity and No clear universal safety protocols have been put into place. Like I said, look to other countries and what they are doing or did to prepare to reopen. Then look at America. We aren't doing enough. We can't send people to die.

 No.4945[Reply]

File: 1589834519621.jpg (86.51 KB, 980x653, 980:653, 1586660684250.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

Continuing discussion from http://ponyville.us/pony/res/1034371.html
35 posts and 7 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.5044

File: 1590176328041.png (116.61 KB, 660x908, 165:227, same-rifle-different-outfi….png) ImgOps Google


 No.5045

File: 1590178483716.jpg (46.09 KB, 800x1035, 160:207, ATF-shoestring-machine-gun….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>>/pony/1034440
>It feels like you have specific gripes with the way they handle certain regulations on guns rather than them being incompetent.
The ATF once wrote that a shoestring is machine gun.  Do you own any shoes with shoestrings?  Then guess what, the logical implication of the ATF's position (at that time) is that you are committing a federal felony by possessing your laced shoes!  And it took the ATF three years to realize the absurdity of their position and to correct it: now they only consider the assembly of shoestring + semiautomatic rifle to be a machine gun.

 No.5046

File: 1590178598267.jpg (75.9 KB, 637x824, 637:824, ATF-shoestring-machine-gun….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>5045
<= revised position letter

 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?
212 posts and 20 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.4967

File: 1589861760137.jpg (373.63 KB, 762x900, 127:150, 800a81004a8a970c7f20f8408b….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>4966

lol, it's just a necroed thread

 No.4968

Necroed or no, this is an interesting concept. I suspect that while society might enjoy some rather efficient, straightforward communication initially, after a few months it would splinter into a group of men looking for a way to bring women back, a group of misogynists trying to stop them, and a group of misogynists helping them for the purpose of enslaving all new women born so that they grow up believing they exist only to become the property of men.

I almost want to write a book on this now.

 No.4969

>>4966
It literally is, and its from back then >>4965

 No.4830[Reply]

File: 1587945543435.jpg (54.82 KB, 1249x1024, 1249:1024, ts_spells.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

There's not much going on on this site.  I've mostly been working at my confidential job -- spring is our busy season and we are essential, but the thing that's been on my mind that I can talk about is creating a science society.  Managing social groups is not something I would generally do -- I tend to upset people because there are details about being human that I guess I don't get -- but I feel like scientists should stick together and this is important enough.  I guess in this thread I'm looking for ideas about creating and managing professional societies, or helping scientists.  Has anyone done anything like this?
1 post omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.4937

File: 1589588354143.jpg (129.92 KB, 1280x704, 20:11, bacteria-3662695_1280.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>4832
I think as far as research availability, I would leave it to individuals to decide whether to put their work behind a paywall or not.  I'd just note that if someone can't talk about their work in a society -- for confidentiality or national security reasons -- their participation will be kinda one-sided.

>group needs a more clear-cut purpose
I'm thinking of it being somewhat local, and focused most on the needs of independent scientists, and value diversity the best I can.  I would focus on one kind of science, but I do work with plants and animals and astronomy, along with computer science, and I don't want to create a lot of groups.  There's always an option for sub-grouping if necessary.  Really depends on if anyone joins, I guess.

Sorry, still been very busy with one of my jobs, just trying to survive.  I think in a few weeks I will be able to get back to the scientific profession.

 No.4944

I see you're still not very good at maintaining your anonymity

At what point would you consider someone a "scientist"? Only people who work in a scientific field? There are plenty of people with a casual interest in science like me. What about students who don't have a job in the field yet? Or people who invent in the spare time? And what fields would count? There's scientific components in a lot of fields that aren't considered "science", like cooking.

 No.4959

File: 1589846191334.png (296.22 KB, 562x1024, 281:512, ssss.png) ImgOps Google

>>4944
>maintaining your anonymity
That involves authorities on this site.  I have no role in being anonymous.

>At what point would you consider someone a "scientist"?

For the sake of my group, someone who does some kind of science, is able to talk about science, and is not a troll.  One of my values is making science more democratic.

(Suppose I might have to make some judgements on people who pursue scientific work but only tolerate one result -- eg. fundamentalist Christians trying to prove the literal truth of the Bible.)

>And what fields would count?
My impulse is to avoid fields where science and public health intersect too much -- medicine, mostly.  I want to encourage people to do scientific experiments but not endanger the group through association with people getting hurt, I guess.

 No.4828[Reply]

File: 1587771753887.jpg (40.21 KB, 960x638, 480:319, 13718523_1578085229165175_….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

If someone has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution, but has subsequently received treatment and can demonstrate, by a preponderance of evidence, that he/she no longer poses a heightened risk of being a danger to self or others, should his/her civil rights be restored?
4 posts omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.4835

>>4834
If a licensed psychologist can prove someone has one, why can't they prove it ended?

 No.4923

>>4835
True.  So if they don't it's not that they can't, since they are authorities and may do whatever is their pleasure in their domain, it's more a standard.  In the Rosenhan experiment where people briefly feigned illness, the best psychologists could do was say the disease was in remission.  All the fake patients were eventually released, showing release is probable following remission.

 No.4931

>>4828
I think there's a lot of room to question restricting people's rights based solely on their mental health, as opposed to anything they've done, on the face of it, honestly.

 No.4821[Reply]

File: 1586771852446.png (145.35 KB, 1326x1119, 442:373, 20200415-graph-Italy.png) ImgOps Google

Italy is showing a continued decline in the rate of deaths from COVID-19, presumably that also means a decline in viral activity.

Some predict the pandemic will meet decline at herd immunity.  With a basic reproduction number (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_reproduction_number) of 3 -- I see numbers between three and four -- that would mean at more than 66% immune, viral activity begins to decrease because there becomes a better and better chance that the average of three who have contact with an infected person are immune.  Italy is seeing decline far below this level, enough that I want to say herd immunity isn't the factor, it is more changing behavior.

Herd immunity pretty much has to work to send a virus into decline, if it comes to that.  The question on my mind is whether pandemics typically come to that.  The Spanish flu is said to have infected 1/4, which would mean viral activity was probably in decline at 1/8 or so of the population (if for simplicity, I assume a symmetric curve), so a reproduction number of 1.14 -- pretty low.  Or sustained changes in behavior brought the basic reproduction number down before herd immunity had any significant input.

My question is, given lockdowns and isolations are hard to sustain, especially as the virus declines in a country or state and these measure seem less necessary, and a vaccine only possible later in 2021, is herd immunity still a reasonable prediction for the final end of COVID-19?
1 post and 1 image reply omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.4826

File: 1586908898810.jpeg (73.9 KB, 1002x1024, 501:512, bb.jpeg) ImgOps Google

>>4825
The prediction of when a vaccine comes out comes from various articles that say 18 months is the best we can hope for, the worse being never.  It's been a month or two, so perhaps 16 months, now.  Personally, I know about nothing about how vaccines are made.  I do know there's a fairly widespread fear of vaccine side-effects, a vaccine must be trusted enough that >67% of people will take it, and of course, it must actually provide immunity.

The FDA is retarding the process, I take it.  Are other countries less held back, and can America get vaccine from elsewhere if they have an effective one?

 No.4827

>>4826
ya know?
It will be finding a balance to popping out a vaccine asap without relying on a dud or worse

 No.4836

>>4825
I'd like a citation on this if you don't mind. Specifically on the phase 3 trials being held back for ethical reasons.

 No.4793[Reply]

File: 1583035773971.png (327.59 KB, 1480x1556, 370:389, 6b2.png) ImgOps Google

Which presidential candidate would do the best job managing the pandemic?
5 posts and 2 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.4799

>>4793
I would probably lean more towards a dem for a disease problem. Republicans like the free market healthcare system, which is going to be garbage for managing a pandemic. The American health system is good at providing the best treatment for a small number of cases, not for a widespread pandemic, as people just won't be able to afford to go to the doctor without it ruining them financially, so they just won't go, and so the disease spreads and kills.

A dem is a lot more likely to prioritize American lives over stock market numbers, and as such be willing to do things like quarantine and provide treatments that don't destroy people financially for the rest of their lives.

 No.4800

File: 1583379085800.png (978.49 KB, 1920x1080, 16:9, DAH!.png) ImgOps Google

One that doesn't go playing musical chairs of who is in charge of actually dealing with it, and lets the CDC do its job.

 No.4823

File: 1586773808307.png (78.91 KB, 300x351, 100:117, medicine.png) ImgOps Google

>>4793
>Which presidential candidate would do the best job managing the pandemic?
They all do great for various meanings of 'best job.'  I listed areas where the current American President is doing an outstanding job, but the list started to look sarcastic, so maybe someone else should make the list.

 No.4811[Reply]

File: 1586052609229.png (148.55 KB, 324x351, 12:13, holo-wearing-mask.png) ImgOps Google

So apparently the shortage of hand sanitizer [1], test kits [2], and N95 masks [3] is a result of stupid regulations.  Distilleries could easily pivot to making hand sanitizer but for heavy-handed regulations.  NIOSH said that they'll take 45-90 days to inspect new N95 factories before they're allowed to sell N95 masks, despite the severe shortage facing our nation.  (It is relatively quick and easy for a doctor to test an N95 mask for functionality.  So concern about bad batches shouldn't hold up production, because they can detected and rejected by the purchaser and the user.)

Obviously some amount of regulation is good for addressing bad actors in the private sector.  But at this point, I think we'd be better off temporarily repealing all regulations that impede production of necessary goods to fight COVID-19.

[1] https://reason.com/2020/04/02/the-fda-is-making-it-much-much-harder-for-distilleries-to-produce-hand-sanitizer/

[2] https://reason.com/2020/03/19/coronavirus-testing-fda-cdc-covid-19/

[3] https://medium.com/@curtis.yarvin/plan-a-for-the-coronavirus-7db3997490c1
4 posts and 2 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.4819

File: 1586474243337.png (522.47 KB, 1024x707, 1024:707, 334102.png) ImgOps Google

>>4818
>denatonium
I suppose the worry is still that dedicated alcoholics would avoid tax.  Or maybe it's harder to make.  Well, really I don't know.  You seem to know more about this than me, so why don't they use that?

>Coronavirus is an RNA-only virus.
Yes, I think that's correct.  My confusion is whether the primer would be RNA or DNA.

 No.4820

File: 1586573060478.jpg (430.19 KB, 1500x1500, 1:1, 89921170_3114579858553689_….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>4819
>so why don't they use that?
The issue is that the distilleries can't add it to their industrial equipment, because cleaning it out would be very difficult, and it would make their beverages taste disgusting.  

 No.4822

File: 1586773013885.jpeg (176.14 KB, 600x600, 1:1, 2151816.jpeg) ImgOps Google

>>4820
The denatonium can be mixed at a final stage in the process, perhaps even off site.  Adapting the brewing process to produce methanol, I thought, was the main concern.  Perhaps I am confused somewhere.

 No.4801[Reply]

File: 1583618701708.png (589.02 KB, 861x899, 861:899, 1512787489649.png) ImgOps Google

Is there an unmoved mover?

 No.4802

I don't think they're any evidence for such a thing, nor reason to believe one might exist.   Even deities are subject to the laws of physics.

 No.4809

Our universe likely exists as a part of many universes in a kind of hyperspace superstructure.

What lives out there in hyperspace? Who can say! Gods? Goddesses? Intelligent robots? Creatures identical to ourselves? Creatures we couldn't even see let alone relate to?

The possibilities are exciting! Hopefully, humanity will travel to see what is out there someday!

 No.4816

File: 1586435106628.jpeg (140.29 KB, 819x1024, 819:1024, sun.jpeg) ImgOps Google

>>4801
In reference to Thomas Aquinas' proofs of God?

Sure, if you like.

In physics, macroscopic motion is not a conserved quantity in general, but for those things that are conserved, I suppose you can either posit they have never changed and time goes back without end, or they were begun by something outside the rules of conservation.

 No.4769[Reply]

File: 1581811589599.jpg (142.38 KB, 372x376, 93:94, flower-from-bambi.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

There exists a hypothetical poster who might go by the name Flower and use pictures of skunks sometimes.  Perhaps this person reads a book on Marijuana and finds out skunks and Flower(s) -- as in Flower Power, and the part of the plant potent in cannabinoids -- both have associations with this schedule 1 narcotic.  Maybe some people were worried about this.  To be helpful, I will make a thread about the harms of cannabis.  (You don't need drugs to be cool.)

Cannabis is know to the United States Federal Government to be highly harmful,  immoral, and not at all good, but if you use some other authority, I guess you could talk about other things, maybe.  If nobody is worried about that.
11 posts and 5 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.4810

File: 1586046716568.png (1.16 MB, 1024x1024, 1:1, fs_aaaaa.png) ImgOps Google

Hey, this thread is still here.  I've been a little busy with worrying about the virus and being an essential worker.  Anyway, someone complained about marijuana smoke coming from our apartment and said they'd call management if it happened again.  Although I think you're suppose to not complain about smoke since many people smoke, but anyway if marijuana gets me evicted, I will have an even more negative view of the narcotic.

I should probably make some new threads or something.  Still a little annoyed about not getting to have a name.  Eventually I'll make my own site where names are allowed.  Anyway, take care, everypony!  (I've got to go to work again now.)

 No.4814

>>4810

>apartment complex

Vapes smell less and of course edibles produce no smell

 No.4815

File: 1586392499766.png (302.38 KB, 638x347, 638:347, 1777039.png) ImgOps Google

>>4814
Likely true, but such decisions are not my prerogative, I am only involved in the consequences.

 No.4763[Reply]

File: 1581485867195.png (134.63 KB, 600x733, 600:733, ssd-autogenderphila.png) ImgOps Google

>Picture a very beautiful woman. How sexually arousing would you find it to imagine *being* her?
Answering "a lot" to this question would signify autogynephilia: getting aroused by imagining oneself as a woman.  (Likewise, "autoandrophilia" means becoming aroused by imagining oneself as a man.)

Blanchard and Bailey speculated that auto{gyne,andro}philia are the most common cause of transgender.  The Slate Star Codex survey data suggests a different hypothesis: if you identify as a gender and you’re attracted to that gender, then it’s a natural leap to be attracted to yourself being that gender.  This hypothesis can also explain other things that Blanchard and Bailey can’t explain.

Is this subject of interest to you?  And if so, do you have any thoughts on it?

For more details, please see: https://slatestarcodex.com/2020/02/10/autogenderphilia-is-common-and-not-especially-related-to-transgender/
6 posts and 1 image reply omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.4805

>>4763
Seems reasonable. The different experience alone is likely to be interesting and that is about half of the interest in porn
No reason to assume it must or is likely to mean one is actually trans. If anything, I would presume that would be less of a sexual item in that case.

 No.4806

>>4804
I wanted to add to this. You often have to be sexually positive if you're transtioning.

You've been in the wrong body for years, been denied engaging with other people in the way that feels right for you, and now you have to make up for potentially decades of sexual and intimate inactivity.

Add to that the world certainly isn't going to praise or accept your sexuality, or know anything about it at all, and that you have to defiantly assert your sexual nature in order to be recognized as having one at all, and you can start to get the perception that people who are transitioning are overly sex-focussed or sex-positive.

In reality society really really really really really wants trans people to dissappear, or failing that, they definitely don't want them to have a sex life or to be any kind of open in public. Once you're on the margins like this, already completely rejected and incapable of being socially acceptable, there's no reason to not just do exactly what you want  all the time. Snuggle up to someone you like in public? Yeah, why not, society retches when it sees my adams apple anyway, so its not like some weird stares are gonna discourage me.

Talk openly about my cabinet of sex toys or the threesome I wanna have tonight? Yeah, definitely, I've already got enough people calling me a freak tonight, it's not like them reasserting it is going to make me feel less safe.

I think everyone really has similar desires to sex-positive trans people, they're just holding on to society's acceptance by their fingernails instead of letting go entirely.

 No.4807

>>4779
>>4780
>>4804
>>4806
I was going to post something, but really these four comments do a fantastic job of speaking the truth. I've really nothing to add here, at least, nothing that I can think of at the moment. Ditto.

 No.4781[Reply]

File: 1582414579692.png (963.1 KB, 1080x1080, 1:1, note_2020-02-17 01 28 00.png) ImgOps Google

The 1960's and 1970's saw some rudimentary online communities, and futurists predicted increasingly better audio and visual links would allow people to diffuse from cities, presumably people wanted to live in more natural settings if jobs and social opportunities weren't concentrated.

Things didn't pan out that way, at least as far as I see.  It is true that most Americans live in suburbs, but rural areas are in decline, and younger people are more likely to end up in cities.

My question: is there something about face-to-face contact or being on site that technology isn't going to replace anytime soon -- from the perspective of employers, friends, and partners -- or is tech too clunky now, and as soon as we get good VR or something, location won't be a deciding factor in people's work and social life?
1 post omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.4784

File: 1582504432806.png (948.42 KB, 1080x1080, 1:1, note_2019-09-03 23 36 00.png) ImgOps Google

>>4783
>There's been online internet communities in the 60s?
I guess 60's is pushing it a bit.  PLATO and ARPANET birthed in the late '60s, but how much there was an online community, in the first few years, I don't know.

>I didn't consider the internet mainstream until the late 80s or 90s...

I guess it's somewhat a matter of terms, the world wide web didn't begin until the 80's or 90's.  The 70's was a time of large mainframes, however since these mainframes serviced many simultaneous users, some at remote stations, and some mainframes were interconnected as well, the small group that had access were using things much like discussion boards, e-mail, and instant messaging.  It was pretty siloed, not until later would worldwide standards for communication between systems be developed.

>I still get the message accross better in face-to-face interaction.

I'd mostly agree there.  Face-to-face seems more efficient, at least for some things.

>retail, drone delivery
The book The End of Man, which is classed as satire, so I think in part it was suppose to be making fun of all the futuristic predictions at the time by taking it to the extreme, imagined a conveyor belt to everyone's house.

People still do a lot of shopping offline, supporting local business is one reason certainly.  Living in apartments, I've found delivery uncertain (for example, the UPS guy can't get into our building so unless I want to wait all day at the door, getting my package is a bit of a questionable thing), but that's a bug that I assume will be worked out by the likes of Amazon eventually.

 No.4787

>>4781
Touch is still always going to matter when it comes right down to it.

But as long as its in there somewhere, the sky's the limit on remote togetherness.

 No.4788

I think economic factors explain it sufficiently, no need to square it with the fact that social media exists and is more technologically advanced than it was in the 70s.

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