[ 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.8802[Reply]

File: 1618887416772.jpeg (95.93 KB, 640x871, 640:871, duke-of-sus.jpeg) ImgOps Google

Continuation from https://ponyville.us/pony/res/1080199.html of the discussion that started from >>>/pony/1080500 :
>certain prejudices in society are lessening (so statements like, say, "I'd never date a transgender person", ... et cetera are becoming highly unacceptable among regular people)
70 posts and 13 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.9221

>>9213
I've actually never played it. Have you?

 No.9234

File: 1619222275750.jpg (80.92 KB, 1280x720, 16:9, amogus-champion.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>9221
Nope!  Maybe one day.

 No.9236

>>9234
Same.


 No.8964[Reply][Last 50 Posts]

File: 1619062304639.jpg (32.71 KB, 500x375, 4:3, Forget-it-snoopy.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

Modern America today appears to be rather cleanly divided between two strictly divided social groups that both act in such a way that they can not only be analogized to warrying tribes, akin to ancient Romans fighting ancient Celts, but are approaching that of utterly alien separate species, akin the xenomorphs fighting the humans in the famous Sigourney Weaver helmed 'Alien' franchise.

On the one hand, you have white Christians who identify as nationalists (or, at least, act as such). This folds neatly into the conservative movement and the Republican Party specifically in terms of both of those actively seeking these people out as supporters, although of course one can be both a conservative and also a Republican while having none of those traits (please do not view this thread as being based on the premise that all Republicans/conservatives are nationalists). They genuinely and sincerely believe (or, at least, act as such) that their ethnic bloodlines as transplanted Europeans of some stripe embodies them with a long, prestigious heritage of intellectual worth, with everything from architecture to artworks to musical pieces demonstrating this civilizational inheritance. Similarly, as Christians they genuinely and sincerely believe (or, at least, act as such) that their faith tradition makes them an elect class among the general mass of humanity, with their prudence and virtue not only setting them upon a pedestal of superiority among other faiths but giving them a clear understanding that they are the anointed who can guide a fallen world into the light. These tie completely to nationalism given that, as these strident political activists argue, the Founding Fathers created the U.S. to be a white Christian nation based on the idea of a 'shining city on a hill' in which human rights are respected for those who deserve such rights in contrast to the mobs who claim freedoms but do not deserve them due to their wickedness.

On the other hand, you have everybody else. This includes not just everybody who isn't perceived as white and perceived as Christian but also anyone who doesn't fully line up on board with nationalism. In definition terms, certain classes of people such as the LGBT and others also apply here regardless of whether or not they identify as Christian or white, white Christian nationalists not considering somebody to qualify as a 'real American' / 'real Christian' if they don't conform to a certain narrow understanding of whaPost too long. Click here to view the full text.
180 posts and 17 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.9173

<I should've included: I take back my request for an apology. While it's deserved, my creation of the thread in the first place and my general behavior as such can quite clearly be said to have to have been 'asking for it'. Perhaps akin to the recent incident in which I sloppily was walking around with an expensive check poking out of a coat pocket and discovered its absence after a short while (most likely not pickpocketing but just that it fell, and somebody picked it up without being willing to return it), having no luck after retracing my steps. Behaving unreasonably in a way that's damaging to oneself is a bad idea. An apology can't be reasonably expected, and so it's not requested. Sorry for not including this addendum in my above post.>

 No.9179

>>9171
Your OP and the ideas therein had nothing to do with our troubles, and likewise for your political beliefs, as I told you directly several times.

And as for "asking for it" because you're supposedly acting like a doormat, a doormat wouldn't accuse me of something I did not do.
Doormats aren't in the habit of claiming something occurred that factually and objectively did not.

>>9173
A desire for apology shouldn't be a matter of reasonability, it should be a matter of morality.

To take your incident as an example, regardless of your own unwise action in relation to that check, if someone stole it, they acted immorally and, if they are a person of quality, should apologize and make it right.

Don't let your own troubles get in the way of seeing right and wrong. If something done is wrong, that ought to be all that matters.  Take some pride in yourself, and argue morality from what "ought", not what "is".
If enough of us do, we may well find the world improves.

 No.9182

I would like the thread to be deleted. If not, locked. Thank you.


 No.8772[Reply]

File: 1616900903239.jpg (67.16 KB, 1100x1100, 1:1, yankee-hill-machine-r9.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

Is the $200 tax on mufflers unjust and/or unconstitutional?
16 posts and 1 image reply omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.8939

>>8937
I'm not familiar with either the FPC and GOA. Can you provide context?

 No.8941

>>8939
The FPC is the Firearms Policy Coalition, which seems to, rather than do the typical thing, attempt to challenge laws in courts instead wherever possible, as well as more generally push specific laws and bills, and does a fair bit of cataloguing new changes.

The GOA is the Gun Owners Of America, with the tagline "the only no-compromise gun lobby in washington". They're a more traditional type of rights lobbyist group, with the main distinction that they oppose any new violations of rights, regardless of if it's called a 'compromise' or not.
Their stuff is more the general lobbying type function, which is why I'm starting to lean more to the FPC, as it seems while lobbying certainly has an affect, the FPC is able to do a lot more with a lot less.

 No.8942

>>8941
Thank you.

My general viewpoint is that the primary threat to gun rights in the long run isn't government actions to restrict freedoms but a general change in the culture such that social attitudes keep evolving, with possibly gun ownership might eventually be seen akin to ownership of cartoon child pornography in the sense of being de jure legally defended but de facto broadly hated (please don't misinterpret this as me making the moral comparison myself as I'm only saying that others believe it).

I admit that while I see this as possibly happening... I don't really know how to respond.


 No.8762[Reply]

File: 1616711591297.jpeg (235.06 KB, 1280x960, 4:3, large.jpeg) ImgOps Google

Argument Summary: Raising the minimum wage hurts workers.

Supporting reasons:

- in the short term raising the wage makes jobs scarcer since fewer workers may be hired on a firm's labor budget.  This also encourages automation and process efficiency measures to reduce jobs, which might effect employment even if the minimum wage were lowered again.

- in the long term, raising the wage also reduces the number of jobs by forcing some businesses to close due to higher labor cost.

- in the long term, inflation proportional to the minimum wage increase causes no increase in buying power even for those workers privileged with a nominal increase in earnings.

Amplifying Rational:
Since an unemployed worker can be less expected to survive, at least appropriately, granting as many as possible a wage to live on, or as close as can be expected, requires minimum wage be abolished to maximize employment.

----

You are welcome to agree or disagree with portions or all of the argument, preferably with further discussion as to why.
2 posts omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.8770

File: 1616890555350.jpg (155.76 KB, 1024x1024, 1:1, large.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>8766
Ok, well, rebutting my own argument, I guess.  Rushing a bit because I have to get to work (for the ever-necessary OT).

>>8762

>higher labor cost.
>inflation proportional to the minimum wage increase

This seems to make the assumption all wage is payed at the minimum wage.  A quick Google search gives me 1.5% of workers in 2020 made minimum wage, and their proportion of labor cost must be much lower.  Roughly speaking, it's a drop in the bucket, which explains why inflation has been increasing in excess of minimum wage for decades.

>encourages automation and process efficiency measures

Maybe, but why can't we create economic systems where that's a win?  Or in short, why is it better to exploit low wage workers than to automate?

Yes, you may have a point, J. Griffon, some businesses that rely heavily on low wage work, and can't automate, might struggle.  On the other hand, as the wage increase occurs across America, if the product or service is really necessary, people will be willing to pay more.  That's the basic idea of paying what something costs.
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

 No.8771

>>8763
>There's also the argument that renters will just raise the rent with wage, meaning the only people who actually benefit are the renters.
"Renter" denotes a person who pays rent.  "Landlord" denotes the person who receives the money.

 No.8845

Raising the minimum wage, as far as research has found, tends to either not decrease employment or have a modest reduction in terms of those with jobs, in comparison to a widely substantial improvement in conditions for a large number of individuals.

An interesting article on this is at: https://journalistsresource.org/economics/federal-minimum-wage-research/

Ultimately, though, this gets into a moral question that's outside of traditional economics. Accepting that a significant hike is well understand to mean some harm in terms of lost jobs, how much negativity is acceptable in comparison to the total of those lifted out of poverty (as well as those of better life station more generally)? The counter-factual is also important. What if wage subsidies were enacted? Or additional stimulus checks to people? Or expansions in health care coverage for the poor? Or changes to the food stamp program?

It's rather unclear what changes to U.S. government policy would precisely benefit the working poor the most. In my personal opinion, raising the minimum wage isn't necessarily a horrible idea but in comparison terms seems like a worse option than expanding the Earned Income Tax Credit or sweeting Obamacare exchanges or other measures that involve spending money on the downtrodden without, I believe, hurting jobs as much (or maybe even at all).


 No.8755[Reply]

File: 1616539894917.png (390.22 KB, 1024x1024, 1:1, large.png) ImgOps Google

This site is slow and sometimes I want to make a thread, but it's hard to know what people want to talk about.  Personally I'm mostly concerned with things related to science and software engineering (but most people don't really care about that).  So, maybe I'll let people pick from some ideas based on me watching Facebook.

1) Should the past acceptance of something guarantee future acceptance?  For example, is it inappropriate to cancel or revisit publications?  If not, how will such impulses be resisted?

2) America has had an odd quiet during the COVID-19 pandemic, but now we can ask again: are weekly mass shootings just the cost of living in a free republic?

3) Something about immigration.  Too many angles in this one, maybe you can help narrow it down.

I don't know.  I got a new lens (which is almost the same as my old one) and protective camera cases.  I'll be working a lot.  I don't have a clear idea how to estimate a point spread function but will generally work on it.  My scientific society is moving along.

Well, hope you all have a nice day.
9 posts and 2 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.8779

>>8769
I'm meaning in recent eras.
But, yes, ultimately I think if the argument is moral responsibility to foreign citizens, then the greater moral improvement would come from taking over those places and incorporating them fully as part of the United States.

I think this would hurt Americans, in all likelihood, but a 'greater good' would be served.
I, personally, do not really like 'greater good' systems as a whole, however.

 No.8780

>>8779
>greater good
Yes, the main flaw is people don't much agree on what's good.  Suppose your argument would be something like: republican government is good in the long run, America is the most experienced extant Republic, forcing others to conform to the American standard might be rough in the short term, but will be best for everyone in the end.

 No.8810

>>8757
>Automation is big issue here. Lots of workers are going to be automated out of jobs in the near future. This can be a huge disaster. I have a belief (epistemic status: quite uncertain) that humans have a psychological need to engage in productive work for their tribe/society. Going the "bread and circuses" route (i.e., a large percentage of the population on welfare) might cause the downfall of society.

I believe that this is absolutely factually correct. However, with 100% certainty we can predict that it won't happen like that. Most Americans currently refuse to even allow disadvantaged workers engaged in the labor force full time to experience the standard human rights guaranteed in other Western nations, such as the right to not be discriminated against due to identity status and the right to access to reliable health care. There will never, ever be a situation in the U.S. in which the state as well as the people agree to allow the downtrodden who might potentially survive if given enough support to get that support.

>And of course having millions of people starve to death due to being economically obsolete is also highly undesirable and would likely precipitate violent revolution.

This is half likely what will happen. America is a capitalist nation. America is a consumerist nation. America is a materialist nation. As trends continue, mass suffering is inevtiable. The advantaged will not share the benefits of progress with the general bottom half (or third or whatever) of society. That's just how it is.

I doubt that violent revolution would change a thing. Those in power would just slaughter the disadvantaged. It would be like gnats making war against semi trucks.

There's also a half likely chance that America stops being America. That some radical social advancement takes place that raises the ethical level of the general populace as well as the morals of the powerful. Moral awakenings are a thing. They have occurred. Because I want to be an idealist, I will hope for this.


 No.8703[Reply]

File: 1613738903946.png (201.41 KB, 896x1024, 7:8, large.png) ImgOps Google

We might imagine three communities:

1. Thomasites:

A religious organization with Scripture saying, "Those named Thomas are evil and need punishments, says the Lord.  Let you not suffer a Thomas to live."

2. Anti-Thomas Political Party

It's about time people named Thomas are moved to the lowest positions in society, if they even deserve to exist.

3. Nation of No-Thomas

It's a crime to have the name Thomas.  Even people named Tony or Tim may get roughed up by cops in this nation.  Nation of No-Thomas prides itself on being tough on crime.

-----------
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.
38 posts and 15 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.8753

Thomas needs some damn self-respect. In every instance, he puts his own personal worth behind everything else. In trying to be respectful, he doesn't even aim for fairness, instead just giving himself the short end of the stick by default. Ideas like "Countering a political party will be seen as against free speech" make it clear he doesn't value himself as much as others' opinions. Respect, kindness, and love mean little without self-respect.

 No.8754

>>8753
Thomas could create his own political party.  But to engage another party without sharing their goals will be unwelcome.

 No.8764

>>8703
Thomas' parents are dicks. They should have named him something that wouldn't screw him over, and he should just change his name. That's what i would do. Any parent that names their kid Thomas in this scenario is a dick who is unfit to be a parent.


 No.8744[Reply]

File: 1614473854819.png (492.52 KB, 1280x1415, 256:283, request__alovnek_s_bitcoin….png) ImgOps Google

2 posts and 2 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.8747

File: 1614583772282.jpg (65.77 KB, 772x646, 386:323, dash99.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>8746
>Who would you want to find it?
Whoever can solve the riddle first. If I'd set it up I'd hope someone would solve it and I'd want to see it being solved and enjoy the thrill.

 No.8748

File: 1614595523066.png (1.26 MB, 1094x1200, 547:600, 2996.png) ImgOps Google

It's always interesting reading the original sources to see what was omitted.

https://bitslog.com/2013/09/03/new-mystery-about-satoshi/
Best regards, Sergio.

EDIT: It looks that Eyal0 got it right. His explanation of the probability distribution is the most convincing: it’s not a probability distribution at all! He suggested that Satoshi had access to 58 machines for mining, so to avoid checking the same nonce twice he gave each machine a different id, which was stamped in the LSB of the nonce. I think the reason the machines 10-18 are missing is because they belonged to the next Computer Lab in Satoshi’s faculty, but at the last time he was forgiven access to that Lab.

This explanation could be proved/disproved by checking the frequency of ExtraNonces going back in time. If too many computers are mining together (started at the same time) then one would expect one to be slightly faster than the other, so ExtraNonces are not synchronized. Then a machine with a lower ExtraNonce can solve a block just after a machine with a higher ExtraNonce, and time seams to go back.

EDIT2: Still another theory is that there were only 6 computers, each running a limited range of 10 LSB nonces. One of them broke, and was not used at the last moment. But I don’t buy it, since 58 is not divisible by 6.

 No.8749

File: 1614608842970.png (348.04 KB, 781x786, 781:786, Screenshot from 2021-03-01….png) ImgOps Google

>>8748
Sadly that makes some sense.  58 PC's...hmm...hope Nakamoto was not mining Bitcoin at work, that would be naughty.

>what was omitted
Thanks for checking, yes.


 No.8465[Reply][Last 50 Posts]

File: 1609971316784.png (897.06 KB, 929x952, 929:952, 4654677.png) ImgOps Google

This will be the thread for any discussions concerning today's events at the capitol.

Please keep it civil.
107 posts and 51 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.8656

>>8652
>The justification for shooting her was that she was illegally breaking-and-entering into a restricted government area
I do not think this should be all that is required.
It should never be acceptable to gun down unarmed civilians, just because the area that they are in is "restricted".

> If the government is the one breaking into your home, then there is no similar justification for the government shooting you.
Why?
What is the moral difference between a government killing you because it declared the area you are in as "restricted", and the government just killing you?
What constitutes the use of lethal force to murder an unarmed woman whom objectively, as a simple matter of fact, does not pose an immediate threat, just because of where they are?
Why is it acceptable to murder an unarmed civilian in a restricted area, but not in a non-restricted area?

>And, e.g., a rioter who is trying to hit a retreating 17-year-old over the head with a skateboard also may be shot in self-defense.
The difference is, unlike this thug, Kyle Rittenhouse waited until they were an IMMEDIATE threat, as is required to constitute self defense.

He did not just start opening up into the BLM crowd, because they could be a threat.
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

 No.8658

File: 1611515343898.jpg (42.75 KB, 527x496, 17:16, 1505359329805.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>8656
>What is the moral difference between a government killing you because it declared the area you are in as "restricted", and the government just killing you?
In the first case, you have clear notice that what you're doing is liable to get you killed, yet you deliberately disobeyed the law anyway.  In the second case, you have no notice and haven't deliberately disobeyed the law.

At common law, the rule was that deadly force was lawful to stop any fleeing felon.  (I recognize that Ashli wasn't exactly a fleeing felon, but I'm just pointing out 'immediate danger' traditionally hasn't been considered necessary for the use of deadly force.)  The Supreme Court modified the 'fleeing felon' rule in Tennessee v. Garner (1985) to restrict the circumstances in which the government may use deadly force.  I take it that you would restrict it even further.

>>8656
>We had an investigation.
>
>We have not had an investigation in this case.
Do you have a source for that?  My understanding is that the 2016 investigations were not timed or intended for being able to alter the outcome of the election.

>>8656
>They tried. They held an investigation. That investigation came up with nothing.
This year they don't have any evidence of massive fraud either.  So what would be your thoughts if Obama had done what Trump did, alleging without proof that Hillary was the true winner?
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

 No.8659

>>8658
>In the first case, you have clear notice that what you're doing is liable to get you killed, yet you deliberately disobeyed the law anyway.  In the second case, you have no notice and haven't deliberately disobeyed the law.
Law is not inherently just.  Whether or not someone breaks the law ought have no basis when it comes to whether they ought live or die.  Legality has no moral basis in and of itself.

>At common law, the rule was that deadly force was lawful to stop any fleeing felon.  (I recognize that Ashli wasn't exactly a fleeing felon, but I'm just pointing out 'immediate danger' traditionally hasn't been considered necessary for the use of deadly force.
If that is the case, I would say common law in that regard is immoral.
A felon does not necessitate someone is violent, let alone an immediate threat.

>My understanding is that the 2016 investigations were not timed or intended for being able to alter the outcome of the election.
They literally tried to impeach him because of this nonsense conspiracy theory.

This said, wouldn't that be reasonable, if we were to presume that Trump won through cheating with the Russians, we ought reverse that illegitimate process, or at least redo the vote?
As far as I understand, we do the same for athletic competition, so why not for things like this?
Again, what's the moral reasoning at play here?

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


 No.8674[Reply]

File: 1612122247290.jpg (267.36 KB, 720x1520, 9:19, IMG_20210131_154040.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

What?

 No.8675

>>8674
You didn't include a link, but I did a Google search and found it here: https://rockymountainoyster.com/google-maps-update-introduces-new-show-republicans-feature-to-protect-users-feelings/

Rocky Mountain Oyster is a satire site, like The Onion.

 No.8682

File: 1612171801182.jpeg (530.93 KB, 1000x664, 125:83, 111116_.jpeg) ImgOps Google

>>8674
...back in my day...


 No.8680[Reply]

File: 1612158433670.jpg (987.61 KB, 1414x2000, 707:1000, 1537045147285.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google



 No.8234[Reply][Last 50 Posts]

File: 1607374133054.jpg (93.58 KB, 889x1024, 889:1024, 130743680_1022122736378675….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

Saw this picture on social media today with a shit-ton of likes and I'm pretty down with memes and all.

But is this supposed to be humorous?
116 posts and 20 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.8568

Comet?

 No.8578

>>8551
As opposed to people like Strong Hippogriff, who want people to be locked away unable to provide the necessities they need to survive, in order to gain some ten years at best to people who didn't even ask you to.

 No.8660

Currently in the Netherlands groups of people are flocking in the street and they're targeting hospitals and Covid test/treatment posts.

Reactions on social media are still laughing about how this virus is a hoax to keep the people down and we need to rise up and take back our society.
While hospitals are taking yet another flood of patients.

I am deeply ashamed of how things are happening in our "civilised" Western part of the world.


 No.7348[Reply][Last 50 Posts]

File: 1602908688125.jpg (409.17 KB, 1332x1532, 333:383, 1602715851324.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

Will the Hunter Biden laptop leak have much influence on the election?
108 posts and 8 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.8579

>>8555
>But, uh. The court doesn't do investigations. You're supposed to be done with that by the time you press charges, especially in a civil trial.
I would suggest this is the big problem.
The state does not investigate itself. Not for things that matter. Everyone's forced to dedicate their own personal resources, while still lacking the abilities law enforcement can bring forth in their investigations.

It's almost like the entire system is built to ensure corruption is near impossible to uproot and show light on.

 No.8655

>>8579
There are actually multiple independent oversight agencies as well as mechanisms for people who thought there was fraud to trigger an investigation which has to go through certain mandatory steps and then publish their findings. All that happened. Multiple times. Even a recount. Even multiple recounts. I don't know what more investigation was wanted.

I'm just saying that if you wanted the court to investigate it more, courts don't do that.

 No.8657

>>8655
I want the federal government to investigate it, as was done in 2016 over a conspiracy theory quite literally created off of partisan interest funding a dossier which had no evidence behind it.

We've had hundreds of sworn statements at this point. It seems to be an objective fact as far as I've seen that ballot watchers were prevented from doing their job. Likewise, states ignored their constitutional requirements, and changed restrictions on voting without going through the required channels, without consequence.

I will not be happy until the individuals responsible for the objective mistakes that have occurred, that we know for a fact have occurred, are at the very least removed from their position and barred from ever doing that again,.
I do not care if they try to hide behind 'glitches' or 'mistakes' or orders from someone else, they should not be granted the trust to fail like that again, and throw our entire democracy at risk because of their actions.

Yet, nothing like that, at all, seems to have occurred. All that we get is time and time again they say "Well, it's not enough evidence of fraud", or worse "You just don't have standing to complain about this".

What is the point of law enforcement if they do nothing about matters of the sanctity and trustworthiness of the nation?
If we do not have a system that ensures it is just and fair, what's the moral justification for the system at all?
Why not secede from what appears to many a blatantly unjust, untrustworthy, and corrupt state?
Why listen to the demands of what appears, to many, an illegitimate president?


 No.8558[Reply]

File: 1610581868442.jpeg (429.97 KB, 1920x1280, 3:2, 27c3acf721bffc0279f6e039a….jpeg) ImgOps Google

36 posts and 14 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.8640

>>8639
>Yes, but that is a generalized injury, not a particularized injury.
It's a state. Any injury is going to be generalized. It is not an individual, it is effectively a member nation.

>Even Trump's own Supreme Court appointees agreed!
As I recall, there was an opinion writ from at least one of them saying that the Supreme Court didn't have the authority to refuse a case from the states, regardless of if they have standing or not.
They had not participated in the vote due to the conflict of interest, however.

>I strongly disagree.  I'm not a lawyer, but I know something about standing.
Okay. I strongly disagree with your disagreement, as per what I have seen and heard in regards to the argument.
They could've refused Texas after hearing their case, but instead they refused to even allow Texas to get to that point.

>Query: If Trump knowingly told falsehoods about election fraud to solicit donations, is he criminally liable?
The presumed falsehoods were post election, so that quite clearly wouldn't be the case.

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

 No.8642

File: 1611368317073.jpg (259.07 KB, 708x1000, 177:250, 33c5f9f95a8bad57ed633855e5….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>8640
>As I recall, there was an opinion writ from at least one of them saying that the Supreme Court didn't have the authority to refuse a case from the states, regardless of if they have standing or not.
Yes, Justice Thomas and Justice Alito believe that Supreme Court must grant leave for states to file a Bill of Complaint invoking the Court's original jurisdiction, even if the Supreme Court will inevitably rule against the state on grounds of standing.  I don't have an informed opinion on whether original jurisdiction is mandatory (as Thomas and Alito believe) or not (as the rest of the Supreme Court justices believe).

>The presumed falsehoods were post election, so that quite clearly wouldn't be the case.
Trump raised over $200 million after the election by soliciting donations to fight the alleged fraud.

 No.8643

>>8642
>Trump raised over $200 million after the election by soliciting donations to fight the alleged fraud.
Fair enough. However that still leaves both my other points;

>>8640
>"However, besides that, no, I would say, that wouldn't be. Because quite literally every single politician lies on the campaign trail."
>"I would say that you would have to prove he lied, knowingly. Failing to do that would result in an unjust outcome."


 No.8590[Reply]

File: 1611135663992.jpg (43.13 KB, 500x534, 250:267, f12.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

So I got lost once more in the whole list of videogames and violence memes. And I think it's clear that it's wrong to state videogames are responsible for the stuff media would claim they are.

Personally, I know the pull of videogames and some other media, both growing up and now. And it takes some discipline to set yourself at work on something without getting distracted.
So I do feel like there is some responsibility on the parent's part to limit the time their kids spend on TV and video games.

When it comes to sex and violence, there is still a societal pressure that enforces that viewer rating code. And people who let their kids watch, say, porno will definitely be questioned.
To a lesser extend, there might be questions asked when a 7 year old kid discusses beating hookers to death in the latest GTA game.

So what do you think?
Is there a responsibility for parents to put some restrictions on the time kids spend on video games?
And is there a responsibility for parents to put restrictions on the content of the video games played by their kids?

By extension, these questions can also cover other media of course.

 No.8606

File: 1611218135488.png (2.4 MB, 3000x2000, 3:2, ff878de.png) ImgOps Google

Yeah, i do believe reasonable restrictions are important. But only in the sense that too much of anything is a bad thing. If a child did nothing but read books, i'd have the same thought. Books are great, but maybe you can play a video game together, go for a hike, or cook a meal together. You might need to hunt for things they enjoy, but i think it's important to making a well rounded person.

In terms of content, kids can handle more than we give them credit for. But it's still a good idea to be mindful of their maturity level when introducing to them violent or sexual content. There's no one size fits all age, it takes actually knowing your kid and assessing this in them.

 No.8611

>Is there a responsibility for parents to put some restrictions on the time kids spend on video games?
>And is there a responsibility for parents to put restrictions on the content of the video games played by their kids?

In either case, I see no reason to bother.  There's probably some extreme cases that might warrant intervention, but those are gonna be rare.


 No.8532[Reply]

File: 1610319552625.jpeg (78.02 KB, 512x384, 4:3, unnamed.jpeg) ImgOps Google

Whenever I talk about states, I seem at odds with the more common Lockean view of states as tools for individuals to secure freedom.

My sense of Locke is -- "sounds nice; not how things work."  I try to hold the premise that human society is mostly good (and has been through history) -- I try not to become a cynic.  And I find myself more on the side of Hobbes, who sees more respect owed authorities if there must be state power.

I don't have a clear goal of what to accomplish with this thread, except not discussing the topic too much on other threads.

Question for discussion, if you like: "If people have the right to rebel when they feel their rights are violated (but the state disagrees, obviously), why do states also have the right to use violence to subdue the rebellion?  And if you question a state's right to use violence to subdue someone who feels they ought have more freedom (basically what state violence is for, right?), how do you value states at all?"
11 posts and 7 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.8576

>>8532
Hobbe's is the definition that is used in practice, whereas Locke's definition is the one we can use as it pertains to morality.

Hobbes defines what a state does regardless of its morality or legitimacy, whereas what Locke is essentially describing is the moral reasoning for government to exist, and consequently, when rebellion is acceptable.

"No taxation without representation" was the initial call for rebellion in the colonies. Those without a say as it pertains to their right will inevitably rise up against the state. What Locke is pointing to, in essence, is the reason for it.

>If people have the right to rebel when they feel their rights are violated (but the state disagrees, obviously), why do states also have the right to use violence to subdue the rebellion?
Depends on the context. But, overall, presuming the reasons for rebellion are justified, I would say that they don't.
At least, in the sense of a moral right.
You might say the rebel has a moral obligation to pursue all peaceful means of retaining their rights, but even there, personally, I'd just consider that a nicety.

>If you question a state's right to use violence to subdue someone who feels they ought have more freedom (basically what state violence is for, right?), how do you value states at all?
States as I believe Locke sees it exist to protect your rights, whether that be from a foreign power, or an individual.
Someone who steals from you is violating your rights.
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

 No.8577

>>8547
This is why I personally am more absolute about it.
The 'greater good' is irrelevant, by my reckoning.
Otherwise, you get this contradiction you note.

Rather, the question simply needs be "are rights being violated".
Of course, my standard also means you have justification for rebellion over a traffic ticket. But, on the same token, I'm not overly hurt by that possibility.
That might be my inclination more towards martyrism, though. Still, I doubt there'd be as much corruption in the police departments if getting shot was a regular consequence for a betrayal of one's oaths.

 No.8589

File: 1611100151545.png (20.13 KB, 230x207, 10:9, 1361157.png) ImgOps Google

>>8532
>Hobbes defines what a state does regardless of its morality or legitimacy
I think that might be more correct for Machiavelli.

>Those without a say as it pertains to their right will inevitably rise up against the state.

Perhaps.  Following America, rebellion against monarchy spread to Europe.  Constrained to look at that period, you would say autocracy is unstable.  Simply having the most people, perhaps the modern period is the best to look at for understanding states, so yes.

>But, overall, presuming the reasons for rebellion are justified, I would say [the state has no right to put it down].

OK.  That's the typical view, yes.  I don't know.  Just seems to place states in a problematic light, especially if they are granted the power to subdue, but may not have the moral right.  You could say between anarchy and state power, states are the lesser evil.  But I won't advocate granting evil authority, so that won't do.

-

Maybe I'm coming to a reckoning.  If I were observing a study group of alligators, I would think of what they did and the causes.  There wouldn't need to be good and bad alligators.
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.


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