Explain yourself
-
@asdf said in Explain yourself:
There is evidence that there is a correlation between the number of partners and the likelihood that a relationship will succeed, but I'm not entirely convinced that there is a causal relationship between the two.
I'm no psychologist, but I have heard of a theory that the ability to pair bond decreases with the number of partners.
-
@antiquarian said in Explain yourself:
I have heard of a theory that the ability to pair bond decreases with the number of partners.
This is just a hypothesis. The cause of the correlation might as well be that people who have never had much desire to bond naturally have more sexual partners.
-
@Polygeekery said in Explain yourself:
As an atheist, I believe that once they are dead their suffering and punishment is over. It is more of a punishment in my mind to keep them in prison for life.
I do wish to point out something I find jarring: how can it be possible for the death penalty to be at once both too harsh and too mild?
@Polygeekery said in Explain yourself:
Third, it is not a deterrent to crime. It just isn't. No one would be on the precipice of killing another person and think, "Wait, I could end up getting the chair for this" and then going on about their merry way as a model citizen. If it were a deterrent, I would likely rethink my earlier stances. I cannot say that I would change them, but I would definitely reconsider their weighting if it could be proven that it would deter other murders.
I'd like to see evidence for this in the other direction. I've heard both liberals and libertarians suggest this, but I've never seen any support for the argument.
@Polygeekery said in Explain yourself:
First, our justice system is not perfect and mistakes are made. Once you execute a person, you cannot do anything to rectify that mistake. It is too permanent. If we could say with 100% certainty that person is guilty, I would be OK with it. But we cannot.
Honestly I think this is the crux of the issue. It's one of the reasons I presented myself as a Christian libertarian rather than a classic libertarian. From my perspective, the death sentence is something you definitely don't want to hand out on strong suspicions or whims, but it's not a end to existence. Worldview (or meta-narrative if you prefer the term) matters!
-
@pydsigner said in Explain yourself:
I do wish to point out something I find jarring: how can it be possible for the death penalty to be at once both too harsh and too mild?
When did I say it was too harsh?
I said it was not something you could take back if the person was innocent. I do not think I said it was too harsh.
On mobile, so I CBA to go back and look over wording.
-
@xaade said in Explain yourself:
@Dragnslcr said in Explain yourself:
Every political party will have some number of issues where the party policy is inconsistent with their general positions on the economic and social axes.
Well, yeah. That's the inherent problem with parties, and letting parties work together to create law.
As you said just above "So, it's not even a good solution. It's just the best one we have." It is interesting to think about why we have political parties, given all the shortcomings they have. I remember a very enlightening discussion of that in Tocqueville (written in the 1830's, so at a time when the notion of political parties wasn't yet clearly settled).
-
@Polygeekery said in Explain yourself:
@pydsigner said in Explain yourself:
I do wish to point out something I find jarring: how can it be possible for the death penalty to be at once both too harsh and too mild?
When did I say it was too harsh?
I said it was not something you could take back if the person was innocent. I do not think I said it was too harsh.
On mobile, so I CBA to go back and look over wording.
You didn't use the word "harsh". But whether we like it or not, all punishments are fairly permanent. Let's say we put you on a life sentence for murder, then 30 years later discover that you were innocent. Well, good thing you're not dead! Except you just lost 30 years of your life, permanently. Well, so let's go with a fine instead... Oops, we made you miss out on all sorts of opportunities that we can't restore, even if we refund you the fine with inflation allowance. And that's beyond the unwritten social penalties. Do you see what I'm trying to say?
-
@pydsigner said in Explain yourself:
Do you see what I'm trying to say?
Yes, but I disagree with it in this case. If you serve 20 years in prison and then get out on appeal because you were innocent, you still get to be free. Yes, you lost 20 years of your life and the experiences you would have had. But...You are not dead. You get to live out your remaining years, not rot in a grave.
-
@Polygeekery said in Explain yourself:
@pydsigner said in Explain yourself:
Do you see what I'm trying to say?
Yes, but I disagree with it in this case. If you serve 20 years in prison and then get out on appeal because you were innocent, you still get to be free. Yes, you lost 20 years of your life and the experiences you would have had. But...You are not dead. You get to live out your remaining years, not rot in a grave.
Yes so, you lost 20 years of your life rather than 40 or 60. The punishment is less harsh or severe.
-
@pydsigner I feel like you are missing something in what I am saying here...
-
@asdf said in Explain yourself:
While I don't completely disagree with the view you express in your post, I want to point out that the above can be dangerous if you don't carefully question whether the conventions you observe actually are best practices or rather nonsensical or even unjust.
Unjust according to what definition of justice? Most people's sense of fairness is based on exactly the same limited sense of short-term cause and effect that necessitates having a moral code in the first place. Therefore, if morality comes into conflict with such a sense of fairness, all too often that's a feature, not a bug!
-
@masonwheeler said in Explain yourself:
@asdf said in Explain yourself:
While I don't completely disagree with the view you express in your post, I want to point out that the above can be dangerous if you don't carefully question whether the conventions you observe actually are best practices or rather nonsensical or even unjust.
Unjust according to what definition of justice? Most people's sense of fairness is based on exactly the same limited sense of short-term cause and effect that necessitates having a moral code in the first place. Therefore, if morality comes into conflict with such a sense of fairness, all too often that's a feature, not a bug!
I know it sounds unjust for us to sacrifice you to the gods of code but it's the only way I can get my tests to pass!
Sometimes the seeming injustices of religion are just plain injustices.
-
Wow. A civilized politics discussion on WTDWTF! Congrats!
Me? I like freedoms of most kinds and dislike injustices of all kinds. I have an opinion for any specific case presented to me (sometimes even an educated one!), but don't believe in trying to summarize them into a single policy or world view (thereby likely mutating them into something they're not).
-
@CreatedToDislikeThis I think in this discussion there are like a few hard rules for most people that they don't want budge on.
For me it is violence against those that aren't.
I also believe in Free Speech. It shut shit ideas down really quickly.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4iKfrY9l2kY
(the first two parts is where he gets pwned)
For me this was the greatest proof of free speech. We now have less free speech ... And more racists are coming out of the woodwork again.
Just saying.
-
Market-based social liberal.
But the important thing to remember is that all of the awesome things that happen when there are market-based solutions only happen when the market is actually competitive. Otherwise, you end up in various kinds of markets, with their own kinds of economics and incentives and disincentives. (Things can get weird. There are mixed-regime economies/games where the best way to win is by losing in each regime. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parrondo's_paradox)
Non-competitive markets are frequently hugely distorted and impose enormous social costs, forcing people to pay for damages that firms cause. Frequently, these firms would go bankrupt if they had to pay for the damages they cause. Instead, they get to push them onto other people. Pigouvian taxes are one solution to that problem, but not the only one.
More fundamentally, I'm a Utilitarian of the Millean stripe, and a Buddhist. (I grew up Catholic and Republican.)
The point is that governments aren't the only forces that can take away our freedoms without our consent. And that happens frequently, with major consequences to all our lives. It's just hidden from us, behind the veil of "free markets" that are not competitive.
-
@Captain said in Explain yourself:
But the important thing to remember is that all of the awesome things that happen when there are market-based solutions only happen when the market is actually competitive.
i totally agree because we saw that in the Micro computer wars. The PC clones eventually won.
