*** Official Politics Shitposting Thread ***

[OngBonga]

Sounds like someone woke up on the wrong side of the bed this afternoon.

What is his subtle point?

I dunno, did you actually take that post seriously rather than me attempting to amuse myself with irrelevant banter?

[MadMojoMonkey]

How does one go about solving for cognitive dissonance?

It's called the scientific method, which is a process for us to discover when someone is trying to fool us, even when the fooler is our prior selves.

Citing cognitive dissonance when it's appropriate is one thing, but throwing it around whenever you don't follow someone's argument from their own first principles is kinda douchy. It doesn't help the conversation to bring up tangential topics like their cognitive state and/or abilities. If the argument doesn't make sense, then that is what is dissonant, not the mind that made the argument.

I've corrected your physics a number of times, but never did I find it relevant to point out that you could not have a rigorous or complete model of your world if you believe incorrect things about physics. It's true, sure. Any statement which doesn't hold up to physics means that your mind is doing gymnastics to believe it.

However, I'd put forward that everyone bears cognitive dissonance, as holding a consistent and complete world-view is probably impossible for a human, given all the evidence I've seen. Our meat brains are not even equipped to deal with the stimulus they receive in real time. Brains actively ignore most of the stimulus they receive. It's called short-term memory. As in, brain is not willing to sort out all that mess for more than about a couple of seconds before it is overwhelmed with what's build up to pay attention to in that couple seconds. Which is, at the hear of it, why we need science in the first place.

[wufwugy]

Citing cognitive dissonance when it's appropriate is one thing, but throwing it around whenever you don't follow someone's argument from their own first principles is kinda douchy. It doesn't help the conversation to bring up tangential topics like their cognitive state and/or abilities. If the argument doesn't make sense, then that is what is dissonant, not the mind that made the argument.

It may not be a good tactic. I don't know.

I know that knowing about my own cognitive dissonance has helped me greatly. And I believe that it is foolish to address somebody's argument from cognitive dissonance as if it is not. In practice, it has been a last resort thing for me. Once I view a conversation with a person as involving them ignoring my points and changing the subject while acting like my points have been successfully addressed, I believe I have one of two options: point out the cognitive dissonance or stop engaging altogether.

You're probably right, though. It would probably be better to simply point out that the point has not been addressed than to point out that the response is a tell for cognitive dissonance. I do the latter because that has helped me greatly, but it may not help others (especially when it's directed at them). So, maybe I won't use that now.

[JKDS]

I don't think most mass shooters care about how many other people may have guns. I think most believe they will be killed before their spree is over. As such, I don't think the choice of location has anything to do with the level of gun control in that location.

However, I expect gun availability does have other influences. If it's easy to get guns, more shooters will be able to accomplish the first step in their plan.

[JKDS]

Easier means a lot of things too. Your State may have tight gun laws like California, but guns are readily available since Arizona is right next door and is much much looser. Likewise the availability of gun shows or illegal dealers plays a part. The amount and ease of access to family or neighbors who have guns also affects it.

[MadMojoMonkey]

I wonder what JKDS' thoughts are on this idea:

Laws are to reduce the crimes that would be committed by semi-scrupulous people.
Laws cannot prevent crimes by unscrupulous people.

so, ultimately, the deep truth which the public at large doesn't understand is this:

Laws are not to prevent all crimes.
No system of law will result in a world (or neighborhood) without crimes.

[BananaStand]

Laws are to reduce the crimes that would be committed by semi-scrupulous people.
Laws cannot prevent crimes by unscrupulous people.

My grandfather used to say "locks are for honest people"

[wufwugy]

I don't think most mass shooters care about how many other people may have guns. I think most believe they will be killed before their spree is over. As such, I don't think the choice of location has anything to do with the level of gun control in that location.

Does somebody who wants to kill a lot of people target a place where he assesses very low probability of success regarding killing a lot of people with the same frequency that he targets a place where he assesses a very high probability of success regarding killing a lot of people?

[wufwugy]

My grandfather used to say "locks are for honest people"

A car audio system thief I once knew used to say "if it has an alarm, I don't even bother."

[wufwugy]

Laws are to reduce the crimes that would be committed by semi-scrupulous people.
Laws cannot prevent crimes by unscrupulous people.

What do you mean by unscrupulous?

Implicit from the principles we're taught in economics courses is that the only type of person that could be unaffected by outcomes are the sufficiently mentally insane such that they can't even know their preferences.

[Savy]

A car audio system thief I once knew used to say "if it has an alarm, I don't even bother."

Because there were enough targets that were easier to deal with. I'm not sure it follows that if everything had an alarm he wouldn't bother.

[wufwugy]

Because there were enough targets that were easier to deal with. I'm not sure it follows that if everything had an alarm he wouldn't bother.

That would cause the audio system thieves with insufficient marginal benefit of thieving to leave the market.

[wufwugy]

Look at it like this. Let's say somebody benefits $20/hr of value* thieving non-alarm cars and it costs him $15/hr of value. Let's say his next best option (the option he would choose if he wasn't thieving cars) benefits him $15 and costs $13. He nets more personal value by thieving non-alarm cars than his next best option, so he thieves non-alarm cars. But then people start installing alarms and he has to start skipping cars. Let's say that this makes his value of thieving non-alarm cars drop to $19 and his cost increases to $16. He still nets 50% more than his next best option, so he still thieves cars. But then let's say every car gets an alarm, so he has no choice but to deal with an alarm if he wishes to thieve cars. Let's say this reduces his benefit to $18 and increases cost to $17. Now he experiences 33% of the value thieving cars that he does by not thieving cars. So then he stops thieving cars.**

* Value essentially encompasses every bit of preference the person could possibly have.

**We know that he would stop thieving cars because each of the payoffs accounts for every element. If he were to not stop thieving cars when his benefit of not thieving cars passes his benefit of thieving cars, it would mean that the presented payoff structure does not correctly assess his preferences in the first place.

[JKDS]

I wonder what JKDS' thoughts are on this idea:

Laws are to reduce the crimes that would be committed by semi-scrupulous people.
Laws cannot prevent crimes by unscrupulous people.

so, ultimately, the deep truth which the public at large doesn't understand is this:

Laws are not to prevent all crimes.
No system of law will result in a world (or neighborhood) without crimes.

Criminal laws punish crime. That's their clear intent and purpose. It's hoped that they also have some deterrent effect, but the end result is punishment.

[JKDS]

Does somebody who wants to kill a lot of people target a place where he assesses very low probability of success regarding killing a lot of people with the same frequency that he targets a place where he assesses a very high probability of success regarding killing a lot of people?

You assume killers target based on maximizing casualties, rather than targeting specific persons or groups. You also assume he believes success or failure hinges on the number of guns others are carrying.

The kid being bullied at school doesn't take a gun to a rodeo because the bullies arnt at the rodeo. He's not assessing number of guns, he's not assessing whether his targets will fight back. At most, he's assessing whether his target will actually be there. It's the rare case where a killing is truly random, in that the killer had no connection to the scene.

If maximizing casualties was the prime directive, and given that travel is very easy, shootings would only occur in incredibly population dense areas. Not movie theaters in Colorado. (Note that even though Colorado is lightly populated, phx is only a days drive away. There's also parades, sport events, rush hour, larger theaters, concerts, and other places with higher pop density)

There's more going on than numbers. It's emotional and personal.

[JKDS]

A car audio system thief I once knew used to say "if it has an alarm, I don't even bother."

Standard.

But it's a different kind of crime. On the one hand, you have stealing for monetary gain. On the other you have killing for fun or out of hurt or illness.

[wufwugy]

You assume killers target based on maximizing casualties, rather than targeting specific persons or groups. You also assume he believes success or failure hinges on the number of guns others are carrying.

When large casualties is the goal of the killer, yes I am assuming that.

The kid being bullied at school doesn't take a gun to a rodeo because the bullies arnt at the rodeo. He's not assessing number of guns, he's not assessing whether his targets will fight back.

He does assess that. In his case, concealed carry may be less of a deterrent than in other cases. However it would be a deterrent in other cases (Columbine type cases). In his case, there are other deterrents (like sufficiently credible metal detectors).

Note that here I'm not appealing for a policy, but claiming the existence of incentive changes dependent on relevant changes in variables.

If maximizing casualties was the prime directive, and given that travel is very easy, shootings would only occur in incredibly population dense areas. Not movie theaters in Colorado. (Note that even though Colorado is lightly populated, phx is only a days drive away. There's also parades, sport events, rush hour, larger theaters, concerts, and other places with higher pop density)

I think it is pretty clear that there is never one impactful factor regarding shootings. Killers select targets and time and places for a variety of reasons.

[wufwugy]

Standard.

But it's a different kind of crime. On the one hand, you have stealing for monetary gain. On the other you have killing for fun or out of hurt or illness.

In economics, they are both thought of in terms of utility (preferences). It can be thought of like how stealing for a particular monetary gain may benefit somebody by 30 utility while killing for fun may benefit him by 35 utility, which means he will choose to kill for fun since it better suits his preferences.

[Jack Sawyer]

Implicit from your stance is that when a person has a measure of a motive to slaughter, threatening his ability to slaughter doesn't affect the measure of the motive. I (and most people) do not find that logical or credible. Do you find that logical and credible?

No. My stance is, less guns overall, less shootings overall. No ands, ifs nor buts. My stance is backed by numerous factual real world examples, including e.g. darling Aussieland.


Your stance, as I understand it, is gun-free zones, therefore places with a drastically reduced amount of guns, are targets for those with a measure of a motive to slaughter and therefore resulting in more shootings. Implicit from your stance, more guns would (in those places) result in less shootings (because of the implied threat of being shot during an attack by someone holding a concealed firearm). I personally find that not logical nor credible, basing my opinion and conclusion on the matter on other real world examples and historical facts. Shit already went down in other places, and institutions have already dealt with them with varying degrees of success.


Shit already went down in other places, and institutions have already dealt with them with varying degrees of success.


I ask you to back your stance with actual facts because of the aforementioned reasons. Why would you think such (an) illogical thing(s)? You, in turn, also find my stance "not logical nor credible", yet offer no actual, factual, verifiable example as to on what you are basing this opinion on. To me, it seems you are thinking with feel-good emotions and not with logic nor reason.

To specifically address your claim that pointing out cognitive dissonances is ad hominem, I don't think it is. Ad hominem is when essentially you attack the person instead of the argument. When I point out cognitive dissonances, I have no intention of addressing the person making them, but to address the argument. It's like this: if you get straw manned, pointing out that the person erected a straw man is not ad hominem. Pointing out the straw man is useful to understand what is and what isn't addressing the arguments and it can help keep the subsequent arguments relevant to the original arguments.

You appear to be more concerned with detecting and referencing logical fallacies rather than with the actual substance of what is being debated

The other day I saw a billboard that sparked disagreement in me. I went on about a ten minutes intellectual exercise explaining why the claim of the billboard was wrong, but then I realized my very first response to the claim was cognitive dissonance on my own part. That means that the rest of my argument was basically irrelevant. I was arguing against an illusion.

This doesn't surprise me one bit, and I am glad you realized it on your own. That takes character; to admit being wrong to oneself after realizing it

How does one go about solving for cognitive dissonance? It can be hard, but it's doable. Take a step back and address the claim head on, like yes or no and why it is or isn't true. Then if you want to make a different argument that carries with it implication that the impact of the previous claim is not that important, that's fine.


Simply just sidestepping the claim and presenting a new claim masquerading as a response to the original claim is how most arguments seem to go, and it never gets anywhere.

I try to understand the issues first, try and see of historical precedence, what has been done to fix said issues already and which measure of succes said attempt(s) had, and try to implement tried and true solutions to solve it. Nothing is new under the sun; teachings are only lost to be rediscovered later. Like Damascus or wootz steel.

Does somebody who wants to kill a lot of people target a place where he assesses very low probability of success regarding killing a lot of people with the same frequency that he targets a place where he assesses a very high probability of success regarding killing a lot of people?

Assuming the mass killer is rational. That's a bit of a stretch for mass killers. It's perhaps less so for serial killers. I hope you can clearly see why.

Laws are not to prevent all crimes.
No system of law will result in a world (or neighborhood) without crimes.

Clearly you've never seen nor read Minority Report. That's a terryfying all-too-possible future though

Look at it like this. Let's say somebody benefits $20/hr of value* thieving non-alarm cars and it costs him $15/hr of value. Let's say his next best option (the option he would choose if he wasn't thieving cars) benefits him $15 and costs $13. He nets more personal value by thieving non-alarm cars than his next best option, so he thieves non-alarm cars. But then people start installing alarms and he has to start skipping cars. Let's say that this makes his value of thieving non-alarm cars drop to $19 and his cost increases to $16. He still nets 50% more than his next best option, so he still thieves cars. But then let's say every car gets an alarm, so he has no choice but to deal with an alarm if he wishes to thieve cars. Let's say this reduces his benefit to $18 and increases cost to $17. Now he experiences 33% of the value thieving cars that he does by not thieving cars. So then he stops thieving cars.**


* Value essentially encompasses every bit of preference the person could possibly have.


**We know that he would stop thieving cars because each of the payoffs accounts for every element. If he were to not stop thieving cars when his benefit of not thieving cars passes his benefit of thieving cars, it would mean that the presented payoff structure does not correctly assess his preferences in the first place.

Whenever I see this kind of reasoning, it makes me think along these lines


https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...ubris-disaster

Economics, this seems to say, is not a social science but an exact one, like physics or chemistry – a distinction that not only encourages hubris among economists but also changes the way we think about the economy.


A Nobel prize in economics implies that the human world operates much like the physical world: that it can be described and understood in neutral terms, and that it lends itself to modelling, like chemical reactions or the movement of the stars. It creates the impression that [strong]economists are not in the business of constructing inherently imperfect theories, but of discovering timeless truths.[/strong]

And even better

After the crash hit, Greenspan appeared before a congressional committee in the US to explain himself. “I made a mistake in presuming that the self-interests of organisations, specifically banks and others, were such that they were best capable of protecting their own shareholders and their equity in the firms,” said the man whom fellow economists used to celebrate as “the maestro”.


In other words, Greenspan had been unable to imagine that bankers would run their own bank into the ground. Had the maestro read the tiny pile of books by financial anthropologists he may have found it easier to imagine such behaviour. Then he would have known that over past decades banks had adopted a “zero job security” hire-and-fire culture, breeding a “zero-loyalty” mentality that can be summarised as: “If you can be out of the door in five minutes, your horizon becomes five minutes.”

Illustrating that his models couldn't really predict the one outcome which everyone else not bubbled by this kind of thinking could have foreseen like Nostradamus himself. And yet this kind of bubbled thinking, in the position he was, lead to infamous the crash of '08. And still, he was/is incapable of admitting he fucked up.


Theories are nice. The real world, however, always finds a new, undetected variable to throw into the mix, to make these social-totally-not-social theories baloney. So while they are nice, one is sadly mistaken to think of them as gospel. Which is why I prefer to observe, see where it has already happened, see how it has already been dealt with, and copy/paste said succesful measure(s), hoping to possibly add something better to the mix in the process as well.








Sorry about the derail. It got too long and I didn't really care about editing anymore. Carry on with the political shitposting

[JKDS]

In economics, they are both thought of in terms of utility (preferences). It can be thought of like how stealing for a particular monetary gain may benefit somebody by 30 utility while killing for fun may benefit him by 35 utility, which means he will choose to kill for fun since it better suits his preferences.

What of the person who kills for sport, and enjoys the challenge of it all? You're trying to say "ppl with guns deters other ppl with guns", but that only works with ordinary people...if it works at all. People willing to massacre Innocents are not ordinary. Their motives are different from ours.

Burglars tend to fit your theory. I live in an area with lots of snowbirds, aka travellers who visit during the winter months. Their homes get burglarized in the summer, because they arnt here to defend them. Clear case of opportunity...but it's because the success of a burglar depends on maximizing income, and minimizing getting caught. The only examples of deterrence working, that I know of, come from burglaries. (Gun laws, actually. By increasing the felony and punishment if a gun was involved, burglars carried guns less often)

That's not the case with other crimes. People are freaking weird, and do all kinds of things for all kinds of reasons. If a kid really wanted to shoot up his school, he's gonna try. Metal detectors be damned

[wufwugy]

What of the person who kills for sport, and enjoys the challenge of it all? You're trying to say "ppl with guns deters other ppl with guns", but that only works with ordinary people...if it works at all. People willing to massacre Innocents are not ordinary. Their motives are different from ours.

Using the usage "massacre", how do they massacre those who can defend themselves? I ask this because I think the frame you are using assumes a type of preference that can be deterred. If a person is looking to massacre and there is sufficient reason for him to believe he won't be successful at massacre, he is deterred. However, if you are positing that somebody wishes to kill regardless of probability of success of outcome, then yeah they can't really be incentivized against it*. Though the casualties can be kept minimal through other means.

If a kid really wanted to shoot up his school, he's gonna try. Metal detectors be damned

The metal detectors deter the kid who wants to shoot up his school marginally.** Though it doesn't deter the kid who has sufficient desire and capability to bypass the metal detectors.

*In economics, this would be somebody sufficiently crazy that they don't know their own preferences or that their preference is to have low success at killing.

**This means that a kid who desires and is capable just enough to shoot up a school when there is no metal detector, yet is deterred when there is. Not all killers fall under this type of category, but some do. Also, everybody falls under a "marginal" category; there are just differences in what is marginally beneficial to each person.

[Jack Sawyer]

Meanwhile, in Texas

[wufwugy]

No. My stance is, less guns overall, less shootings overall. No ands, ifs nor buts. My stance is backed by numerous factual real world examples, including e.g. darling Aussieland.

Your stance, as I understand it, is gun-free zones, therefore places with a drastically reduced amount of guns, are targets for those with a measure of a motive to slaughter and therefore resulting in more shootings. Implicit from your stance, more guns would (in those places) result in less shootings (because of the implied threat of being shot during an attack by someone holding a concealed firearm). I personally find that not logical nor credible, basing my opinion and conclusion on the matter on other real world examples and historical facts. Shit already went down in other places, and institutions have already dealt with them with varying degrees of success.

Shit already went down in other places, and institutions have already dealt with them with varying degrees of success.

I ask you to back your stance with actual facts because of the aforementioned reasons. Why would you think such (an) illogical thing(s)? You, in turn, also find my stance "not logical nor credible", yet offer no actual, factual, verifiable example as to on what you are basing this opinion on. To me, it seems you are thinking with feel-good emotions and not with logic nor reason.

I commend you for having a more sophisticated response.

You appear to be more concerned with detecting and referencing logical fallacies rather than with the actual substance of what is being debated

Note that the referencing logical fallacies is an attempt to keep from diverting from the topic.

Assuming the mass killer is rational. That's a bit of a stretch for mass killers. It's perhaps less so for serial killers. I hope you can clearly see why.

It's a fine assumption to make since that's what we are discussing. If we are discussing truly irrational killers, we would be discussing a type that we almost never encounter. They would be sufficiently insane that they don't even know their own preferences.

Whenever I see this kind of reasoning, it makes me think along these line

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...ubris-disaster

And even better

Illustrating that his models couldn't really predict the one outcome which everyone else not bubbled by this kind of thinking could have foreseen like Nostradamus himself. And yet this kind of bubbled thinking, in the position he was, lead to infamous the crash of '08. And still, he was/is incapable of admitting he fucked up.

It's hard to find somebody more skeptical and antagonistic to economic thought than me. The utility scenario I described is among the most solid areas of economic thought I have studied.

About the quote of Greenspan, it's unfortunate he said that. Just yesterday I was reading academic literature that implies he spoke from a position of ignorance. Note that the claims I have made in other conversations we have had do not assume veracity in what Greenspan said. If what he said reflects what he believes, he was ignorant to believe that banks did not have distorted incentives created by Federal Reserve and Treasury policy such that they would rather take on more risk.

[Jack Sawyer]

It's a fine assumption to make since that's what we are discussing. If we are discussing truly irrational killers, we would be discussing a type that we almost never encounter. They would be sufficiently insane that they don't even know their own preferences.

Ok.


And yet mental illness is basically the number one purported cause when referring to mass shootings. A mentally ill person cannot be thought of as rational. Do you agree with me on that stance?


https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4318286/


If we have to assume they are rational, then the mental illness and gun shooting relation kind of like shouldn't come up again, no? Agree/disagree? Being mindful that you cannot have a cake and eat it too

About the quote of Greenspan, it's unfortunate he said that. Just yesterday I was reading academic literature that implies he spoke from a position of ignorance. Note that the claims I have made in other conversations we have had do not assume veracity in what Greenspan said. If what he said reflects what he believes, he was ignorant to believe that banks did not have distorted incentives created by Federal Reserve and Treasury policy such that they would rather take on more risk.

The unfortunate part isn't that he said it; the truly unfortunate part is that he allowed it all to happen. Under his watch. He, and 99.5% of the others involved, got nary a wrist slap. The fact that he said this is just an indicator as to the WHY, why it happened under his watch

[Jack Sawyer]

From the study

This is not to suggest that researchers know nothing about predictive factors for gun violence. However, credible studies suggest that a number of risk factors more strongly correlate with gun violence than mental illness alone. For instance, alcohol and drug use increase the risk of violent crime by as much as 7-fold, even among persons with no history of mental illness—a concerning statistic in the face of recent legislation that allows persons in certain US states to bring loaded handguns into bars and nightclubs.49,50 According to Van Dorn et al., a history of childhood abuse, binge drinking, and male gender are all predictive risk factors for serious violence.51


A number of studies suggest that laws and policies that enable firearm access during emotionally charged moments also seem to correlate with gun violence more strongly than does mental illness alone. Belying Lott’s argument that “more guns” lead to “less crime,”52 Miller et al. found that homicide was more common in areas where household firearms ownership was higher. 53 Siegel et al. found that states with high rates of gun ownership had disproportionately high numbers of deaths from firearm-related homicides.54 Webster’s analysis uncovered that the repeal of Missouri’s background check law led to an additional 49 to 68 murders per year,55 and the rate of interpersonal conflicts resolved by fatal shootings jumped by 200% after Florida passed “stand your ground” in 2005.56 Availability of guns is also considered a more predictive factor than is psychiatric diagnosis in many of the 19 000 US completed gun suicides each year.11,57,58 (By comparison, gun-related homicides and suicides fell precipitously, and mass-shootings dropped to zero, when the Australian government passed a series of gun-access restrictions in 1996.59)

This, to me, is common sense. Sound, totally bulletproof logic.

Yet we need studies to indicate and corroborate it.

[wufwugy]

Ok.


And yet mental illness is basically the number one purported cause when referring to mass shootings. A mentally ill person cannot be thought of as rational. Do you agree with me on that stance?

The examples we have are of rational people.

The unfortunate part isn't that he said it; the truly unfortunate part is that he allowed it all to happen. Under his watch. He, and 99.5% of the others involved, got nary a wrist slap. The fact that he said this is just an indicator as to the WHY, why it happened under his watch

I totally agree. Railing against the Fed fucking things up is my thing. There are serious problems in academia, government, and professionals such that they caused this problem then the problem was misdiagnosed by consensus. Things ARE getting better though. A subset of people have done a great service by pushing the remaining in the right direction.

[wufwugy]

A number of studies suggest that laws and policies that enable firearm access during emotionally charged moments also seem to correlate with gun violence more strongly than does mental illness alone

Makes sense since gun violence and emotionally charged situations probably occur simultaneously far more than mental illness does with either.

52 Miller et al. found that homicide was more common in areas where household firearms ownership was higher.53 Siegel et al. found that states with high rates of gun ownership had disproportionately high numbers of deaths from firearm-related homicides.

Makes total sense. Note that people who support the right for individuals to protect themselves don't argue against this.

54 Webster’s analysis uncovered that the repeal of Missouri’s background check law led to an additional 49 to 68 murders per year,

Some parts of St. Louis are a killzone (roughly speaking). Using data on it and extrapolating leads to bad conclusions.

55 and the rate of interpersonal conflicts resolved by fatal shootings jumped by 200% after Florida passed “stand your ground” in 2005

How much of that is statistical noise, which is very very common given the parameters, and how much of it is directly related to new and unjustified stand your ground action?

56 Availability of guns is also considered a more predictive factor than is psychiatric diagnosis in many of the 19 000 US completed gun suicides each year.

Makes sense. Mental problems are pretty much a scapegoat. I'm not sure how meaningful saying a place with more guns has more gun deaths is.

(By comparison, gun-related homicides and suicides fell precipitously, and mass-shootings dropped to zero, when the Australian government passed a series of gun-access restrictions in 1996.59)

Just the other day I saw data suggesting that the opposite happened. I took that with a grain of salt since I know how easily datasets can mislead.

[JKDS]

Using the usage "massacre", how do they massacre those who can defend themselves? I ask this because I think the frame you are using assumes a type of preference that can be deterred. If a person is looking to massacre and there is sufficient reason for him to believe he won't be successful at massacre, he is deterred. However, if you are positing that somebody wishes to kill regardless of probability of success of outcome, then yeah they can't really be incentivized against it*. Though the casualties can be kept minimal through other means.



The metal detectors deter the kid who wants to shoot up his school marginally.** Though it doesn't deter the kid who has sufficient desire and capability to bypass the metal detectors.

*In economics, this would be somebody sufficiently crazy that they don't know their own preferences or that their preference is to have low success at killing.

**This means that a kid who desires and is capable just enough to shoot up a school when there is no metal detector, yet is deterred when there is. Not all killers fall under this type of category, but some do. Also, everybody falls under a "marginal" category; there are just differences in what is marginally beneficial to each person.

Ah, so we agree that some shooters, at least, are not influenced by success.

Now consider this list of American shootings, and how many end in planned suicide...or end in suicide by cop.
http://timelines.latimes.com/deadlie...ting-rampages/

Also consider how the locations were typically personal in nature, rather than tactical. Their workplace, their school, their wife at a hair salon, etc.

These killers were motivated by emotion, not by deterrence. It's not that people may have guns, it's that the person they wanted to kill would be at a certain place and certain time. That's all that mattered.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Some parts of St. Louis are a killzone (roughly speaking). Using data on it and extrapolating leads to bad conclusions.

I live here (in StL). What are you talking about?

[MadMojoMonkey]

These killers were motivated by emotion, not by deterrence. It's not that people may have guns, it's that the person they wanted to kill would be at a certain place and certain time. That's all that mattered.

... so the call for legislation to prevent this kind of crime is absurd, right?

[JKDS]

... so the call for legislation to prevent this kind of crime is absurd, right?

As typically touted...yes.

Even if every state banned guns, that doesn't eliminate the huge amount of guns already here. So long as they are available, you can't stop shooters.

I'll be dammed before blanket "no gun" legislation is passed though.

[JKDS]

I also don't think we understand the mindbrain well enough for psych checks to be a perfect solution. A large number would fall through the cracks I think.

[wufwugy]

I live here (in StL). What are you talking about?

I have family that lives there too. Their description of the crime that makes St. Louis statistics look very high are concentrated in certain areas of the city.

[wufwugy]

Ah, so we agree that some shooters, at least, are not influenced by success.

The sufficiently insane ones such that they can't even know their own preferences. Each example provided so far has not been of sufficiently insane people as far as I can tell.

Now consider this list of American shootings, and how many end in planned suicide...or end in suicide by cop.
http://timelines.latimes.com/deadlie...ting-rampages/

This is a great example of the type of shooting that would be virtually uninfluenced by the kind of firearm self-protection I am talking about, in large part because success to the shooter is to die, and they shoot others only because that gets them shot. If we made people better able to protect themselves, then it would not deter this shooter. However, we haven't been talking about this type of scenario, but more specifically about the impact in gun free zones. If a shooter goes to a gun free zone seeking to die by cop, dying by cop is certainly not his only measure of success and he was looking for success at slaughter too.

Also consider how the locations were typically personal in nature, rather than tactical. Their workplace, their school, their wife at a hair salon, etc.

These killers were motivated by emotion, not by deterrence. It's not that people may have guns, it's that the person they wanted to kill would be at a certain place and certain time. That's all that mattered.

Totally. This is one of those coincidence things too. People who want to slaughter also tend to want to slaughter something "close to the heart." That doesn't mean that their acting out a slaughter can't be influenced. Let's say a kid is so mad that he wants to kill a lot of people at his school, but in every classroom the teacher has an AR-15 strapped to his chest and the hallways are roaming with police and they are all very highly encouraged to shoot any shooter on sight no questions asked. In that case, the kid who wants to kill a lot of people realizes he won't have success, and then the potential killer does not become actualized when he otherwise would have without the deterrent factors.

Note that I'm not suggesting that the hypothetical should be policy (it shouldn't). I'm trying to illustrate why incentives exist.

Can optimizing self-defense and security and safety influence every motive and every action? Definitely not. But can they influence most? It certainly seems that way.

[wufwugy]

I live here (in StL). What are you talking about?

BTW if you don't like that I said "killzone", okay, I just really wanted to use that word (it's fun!).

The point I was getting at is that the high murder rate in Missouri comes from a handful of small regions in St. Louis, and that looking at a correlation between a change in a law and a change in the murder rate of Missouri doesn't tell us much about what is actually going on.

[wufwugy]

I also don't think we understand the mindbrain well enough for psych checks to be a perfect solution. A large number would fall through the cracks I think.

I agree. In fact I think medical and psychiatric "solutions" would be unproductive at best and counterproductive at worst.

[wufwugy]

O
The unfortunate part isn't that he said it; the truly unfortunate part is that he allowed it all to happen. Under his watch. He, and 99.5% of the others involved, got nary a wrist slap. The fact that he said this is just an indicator as to the WHY, why it happened under his watch

What do you think the solution to this problem is such that the type of problem is fixed and doesn't reoccur?

The Fed really screwed the pooch in 2007-08. And not only did they have no idea they screwed the pooch, but they believed they were doing the opposite and actually making bad things better. And showing how they screwed the pooch is really easy. They were just blind and ignorant and did things that textbook and consensus said was very bad. The Fed (and some other central banks like the ECB) were the cause of the 2008 financial crisis and the subsequent Great Recession.

How do you think we solve for this? Do we get better people at the Fed? The people at the Fed are already the best and the brightest. Seriously the smartest and most well-researched economists in the world work at the Fed. I don't think it's reasonable to think that having smarter and more well-informed people in power could have solved this problem. What I see as the key issue is lack of accountability. The Fed is a government granted monopoly. When it fails it still keeps all its power (indeed it even gains power). Its members never get blamed for anything (indeed they get defended for being saviors). So, how do we bring accountability to the Fed? Do we educate the people? Fat chance at that. Economists have far more education on monetary policy than is reasonable for the average person, and yet they are clueless about much of monetary policy and what goes on at the Fed.

The only solution I can think of is disrupting the government granted monopoly on money. That would bring accountability to issuers of currency, and in the competitive market that would arise once government stops granting monopoly power to one institution, the best results and the people who get the best results would rise to the top.

[Jack Sawyer]

What do you think the solution to this problem is such that the type of problem is fixed and doesn't reoccur?

Actual criminalization of white collar crimes for starters. What we have now is a few boogiemen paying for every crime, while the rest getting golden parachutes and bonuses.

This incentivises reckless behaviour

[wufwugy]

Actual criminalization of white collar crimes for starters. What we have now is a few boogiemen paying for every crime, while the rest getting golden parachutes and bonuses.

This incentivises reckless behaviour

While I agree, here's the thing: pinpointing actual crimes committed regarding the 2008 financial crisis and subsequent Great Recession is nigh impossible. I've studied it quite a lot, and I haven't even come across actual crimes. It's hard to even pinpoint things people did wrong. Did lenders and banks do things wrong? Actually, no they didn't. The housing issue preceding 2008 was caused by perverse incentives due to government law and government behavior.* The crash and subsequent recession was caused by the Fed mishandling monetary policy,** which is essentially a mechanism informed by theory (and data and history). People haven't been charged for crimes because they didn't actually commit crimes.

* ** And there is a great deal of debate and uncertainty in the profession about all this. It took the economics profession approximately 40 years to reach consensus that the Fed caused the Great Depression via malfunctioning monetary policy. It was merely an accident or misinformed idea for which no crime was committed. The same essential things happened in 2007-2009, and the profession is slowly learning that the Fed caused the calamity again this time. Crimes committed? Kinda none. Accountability in these areas of policy theory won't come by making not sticking to one theory a crime.

[wufwugy]

This is a great example of the type of shooting that would be virtually uninfluenced by the kind of firearm self-protection I am talking about

I should clarify that when people are allowed to protect themselves appropriately, this type of shooting would not be disincentivized but the quantity of casualties would.

[OngBonga]

Has poop not come back since I jokingly called him stupid? Did I actually offend him?

[Savy]

Has poop not come back since I jokingly called him stupid? Did I actually offend him?

It wasn't so much calling him stupid that was the problem it was the fact you said he was more stupid than wuf.

[wufwugy]

since im the second stupidest person in the world, things do not bode well for the doop

[BananaStand]

Has poop not come back since I jokingly called him stupid? Did I actually offend him?

Nice misdirection.....but we all know that Poop is just one of your many troll accounts on here

[OngBonga]

Nice misdirection.....but we all know that Poop is just one of your many troll accounts on here

Actually you just made everyone suspicious of you, because that's exactly what I'd have said if you were a troll account of mine.

And I'd say this.

[CoccoBill]

I'm fairly certain it's just been me and wuf here all these years, all the rest of you are his alts. I'm fine with that. I just hope it hasn't been all me.

[MadMojoMonkey]

since im the second stupidest person in the world, things do not bode well for the doop

the second most stupid, wuf

[OngBonga]

the second most stupid, wuf

But if he said that then he wouldn't be.

[Jack Sawyer]

[BananaStand]

Trump is responsible for every random ass-hole now?

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/hm...yIx?li=BBnbfcL

It's impossible to say if this incident is a result of a political climate in which some feel emboldened and not being politically correct was part of a major candidate's campaign, said Barry Burden, a University of Wisconsin-Madison political science professor. ....So I think if we think about the Trump era in that way, there definitely is a rising temperature in that the election of Trump has emboldened some people to feel more comfortable saying things to groups they think are not American enough because of skin color, language, country of origin, dress, anything else

[CoccoBill]

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-a8094321.html

Thank god you didn't elect some crazy warmonger like Hillary.

[BananaStand]

I soundly reject any decision making input that looks anything like this:

Don't do [something] because if you do, arab people will react violently.

Really really really fucking sick of the days where not-tiptoe-ing around the Arab world is the same thing as war-mongering.

[CoccoBill]

I'd hope more people are more sick of the days where telling the Arab world "Hey guys, you know your holy city? I don't think you should be there, it belongs to the guys who've been oppressing you for a few decades." is not the same thing as warmongering.

[BananaStand]

it belongs to the guys who've been oppressing you for a few decades."

A few decades huh? Maybe those guys feel owed after the FEW THOUSAND YEARS of oppression they experienced

[CoccoBill]

I'm pretty sure none of them have lived a few thousand years, and even if they had, I don't think one wrong justifies another.

C'mon man you can think of a better excuse.

[BananaStand]

C'mon man you can think of a better excuse

This is a shitposting thread man. If you wanna have this debate, I might not be the right guy. I can't say I keep my finger on the pulse of Isreali-Palestinian relations. But from what I can tell, both sides are fucking vile to each other.

However, Israel is nice to America and has a stronger military. Since we can pick our friends, they win.

I don't think one wrong justifies another

So we agree, it's on the arabs if they choose to go ape-shit and kill people because the US chose to move its embassy. That would not be justified, in your opinion. Correct?

Why should the US concern itself with un-justifiable reactions of others? If you're gonna go down that road, then you're giving all the power to the most violent and over-reactive factions of the world.

[CoccoBill]

So we agree, it's on the arabs if they choose to go ape-shit and kill people because the US chose to move its embassy. That would not be justified, in your opinion. Correct?

Correct, yes.

Why should the US concern itself with un-justifiable reactions of others?

Because policies and decisions should be based on reality, and the [justifiable] reactions and the [unjustifiable] violence will both be very real.

In other news: https://www.thebeaverton.com/2017/12...s-part-mexico/

[BananaStand]

Because policies and decisions should be based on reality, and the [justifiable] reactions and the [unjustifiable] violence will both be very real.

I notice you snipped my quote so you could conveniently ignore the ramifications of what you're suggesting.

There's a reason we don't negotiate with terrorists. It only encourages more terrorism.

[CoccoBill]

One man's terrorist is another one's freedom fighter. We absolutely should negotiate a peaceful resolution, whether it's the 2-state model or something else. What we should not do is meddle by taking a dump on one of the parties, which is what Trump is doing. World wars have started for far less. He outraged a billion people, and apart from a few rednecks the other 6 billion aren't too happy either.

[BananaStand]

What we should not do is meddle by taking a dump on one of the parties.

No way around it. It doesn't matter where we put the embassy, one side is gonna be pissed. Choosing not to piss off a loyal and militarily powerful ally seems like the smarter play.

Israel has felt dumped on by Obama for the last 8 years. That's all ok because Israeli's won't blow up buses over it?

What kinda logic is this??

[CoccoBill]

Somehow all other countries on the planet have been able to handle their Israeli embassies without making front page news.

[wufwugy]

If one side laid down its arms, peace would happen. If the other side laid down its arms, it would cease to exist.

[wufwugy]

I find Linda Sarsour kinda hot. I wonder why. I think it's because if a chick desperately wants to be tied up and controlled I'm like okay.

[spoonitnow]

I find Linda Sarsour kinda hot. I wonder why. I think it's because if a chick desperately wants to be tied up and controlled I'm like okay.

She's so retarded. Bitch is running a "Woman's March" and all of the sheep get in line while she's talking about wanting to bring in Sharia Law and inviting a convicted terrorist murderer and convicted rape-torturer/murder to speak at the fucking thing.

I'm talking about Rasmea Odeh (convicted terrorist murderer) and Donna Hylton (convicted rape-torturer and murderer), specifically.

[Poopadoop]

She's so retarded. Bitch is running a "Woman's March" and all of the sheep get in line while she's talking about wanting to bring in Sharia Law

Religion should just stay the fuck out of government, period. That goes for Christian Law too.

[wufwugy]

Indeed.

A neat thing is that it was Christians who put into practice separation of church and state in order to protect Christianity.

[boost]

Or that's how a group of deist, agnostics and atheists sold secularism to the masses.

[wufwugy]

Or that's how a group of deist, agnostics and atheists sold secularism to the masses.

My professor of American Christian history told me that at the time of the framing, there were virtually no non-Christians. "Atheism" at the time was essentially Deism. What made Deists thought of as atheists at the time was that they believed God didn't actively influence human lives. They still believed in God.

I forget which primary documents are used to support the idea that the Freedom of Religion hinges on the desire by Protestants to protect the numerous quantity of different sects in America, but they were by prominent figures.

[wufwugy]

One of the main reasons American Protestants didn't like Catholicism was because of how state-like Catholicism was. There were so many different types of Protestants in America that they didn't want to codify any one sect with legal power.

[wufwugy]

That was one of the most informative classes I've taken. There is a strong argument to be made that the movement to restrain government and empower the people was primarily for the purpose of protecting religion.

[hlester25]

So much ridiculousness in this thread. So much of Scientism is based on the occult. Scientism is the one-world religion talked about in the Bible. People have been fooled into thinking that because science says so that it is fact... and they've also been fooled into thinking what a fact actually is. Before one can truly know what truth is, he must first realize that no one "knows" anything, and everything we think we know we actually just believe.

[CoccoBill]

Hi spoon.

[MadMojoMonkey]

everything we think we know we actually just believe.

No. You know about yourself. You know what you are thinking, what you observe, what you prefer, what you remember, etc.
Whether these bits of knowledge are worth believing is another question entirely. If your perceptions are being fooled is not known, but what you perceive is known.

[BananaStand]

No. You know about yourself. You know what you are thinking, what you observe, what you prefer, what you remember, etc.
Whether these bits of knowledge are worth believing is another question entirely. If your perceptions are being fooled is not known, but what you perceive is known.

You teach right? Are students attending your class required to bring their own bongs? Or do you provide them?

[MadMojoMonkey]

Most people don't need drugs to have an open mind.

A couple of paragraphs on the problem statements of epistemology will get you up to speed on this subject.