Printable View
When did you start realizing that? Was it when I said you and wuf were begging to get sodomized? I only respond for my own entertainment. That said: claiming the stating of facts is an "empty generality" is not the most cunning comeback, even by your standards.
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20...rference.shtml
Seeing that she leaked something that never happened, this should be a clear cut case for a presidential pardon, don't you guys think?
Post #2773 is pure demagoguery, not facts. You really should learn the difference.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
Seems like someone could use a dictionary.
IndeedQuote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
I would be embarrassed if someone spoke a non-native language better than I speak my native language.
Lots of Africans speak better French than Canadians.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Most of the people I've met from the scary african rape invasion that is currently sweeping europe, speak at least 3 languages. Afrikaans is very close to dutch, which is close to german, and french and/or english are the most common official languages in africa. They tend to learn really fucking quickly. I've never had a good reason to go and I'm not much of a vacation person, but my mom has been to Namibia, and Rwanda recently - she was surprised that regular people would just respond in german when they hear a german accent, which is something you come to accept in italy and france, but you don't expect it when you're on the opposite side of a different continent.
I can't hold it against native english speakers when they don't learn a second language unless they're working abroad, so I think that's kind of a cheap shot. You're just not going to need it. Me personally, I generally prefer to keep the insults groin based.
What do you think would have been a useful response in this situation?Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Do the predetermined rules have unintended consequences?Quote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
I wouldn't mind discussing a specific issue you have in mind.Quote:
To me it's just not sufficient, that issues that have been around for hundreds of years under the influence of market forces without having been fixed, might be fixed at some point in the future.
http://thehill.com/latino/394563-mig...eedings-report
I guess you can't have baby jails without baby courtrooms. That would be unconstitutional. Next up: marsupial judges in literal kangaroo court.
When dealing with the non-experimental, answers are certainly knowable, yet nobody knows how to know them.Quote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
Killing/stealing what? Who? When? How? Who gets to decide what the parameters are?Quote:
We know perfectly well the answers to many questions, and not using that knowledge to patch the known errors seems folly. I'm all for maximizing liberties, but that does not extend to actions that affect other people's liberties.
Do you think killing and stealing should be legal?
My view is that "wrong" is the initiation of violence or fraud. Ultimately, a society is made up of a collection of persons who determine some mainstream view of how to regulate what is "wrong". My protest is when initiation of violence is used (tax based monopolies) to regulate. Laws are really, really great stuff, but laws that are funded by initiation of violence are not the kind of laws that I think people would choose if they could freely choose.
I would not be embarrassed if someone spoke better French than me. I grew up 3000 miles from French Canada and had about as much use for French as you have for Russian.Quote:
Originally Posted by Savy
But I would be embarrassed if an Austrian spoke better English than me 'cause I speak English every day of my life. See the difference?
If a 3 year old can't defend his actions in court he needs to go to jail really. A very small jail with a booster seat.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
Why do you answer so many points with questions of your own?Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
I'm pretty sure, in this context, CoccoBill refers to killing other people and stealing stuff also from others.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
If you kill an ant no one (should) give(s) a shit.
If you take a rock on a beach, no one (should) give(s) a shit either.
The parameters are those of modern civilized society LDO. Post vikings, genghis khan, mayas, django, wild west, etc. In some societies nowadays you steal and you get your hand cut off and that is also something I can't agree with (should you get your hand cut off because you were hungry and desperate and stole someone's loaf of bread? should you get your hand cut off when you stole someone's house(which is what those who administer this law do, yet get away with but that's another story)?), most notable example of this is pre-mohamed bin salman's saudi arabia
They might, that's why I suggested the rules need to be measured and revised is they don't work as intended.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Not sure what you mean by knowing how to know, but anyway it seems like you could support rules in all cases where experimentation can be used?Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Just in general. Sure there are some special cases, but let's just treat them as such.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
That sounds like a yes to me? So what is fundamentally different about rules against these activities, why not let trial and error work its magic here also?Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Because if two people have positions on something, they each filter any new information through their biases. By asking questions, I am attempting to cut down on some of that. It helps deter my own bias, helps me understand others, and (I hope) helps people examine their own positions better.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
What exactly constitutes murder in each circumstance and what exactly constitutes theft in each circumstance? Billions of dollars and countless hours are spent annually on answering these questions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
Would a more robust function for trial and error be better for measuring and revising?Quote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
I meant that anything that is outside the domain of some of the hard sciences has too much uncertainty for people to make claims of true knowledge. Can you think of an example of something society related in which there is no reasonable disagreement?Quote:
Not sure what you mean by knowing how to know, but anyway it seems like you could support rules in all cases where experimentation can be used?
Trial and error is at play in sub-domains within the domain of tax-based initiation of aggression; it's just not as robust in most (or all) circumstances.Quote:
That sounds like a yes to me? So what is fundamentally different about rules against these activities, why not let trial and error work its magic here also?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LYQX-BPUqN4
3:40 :D #MAGA #MSGA
I don't know, what is a more robust function for trial and error?Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
I would say there are plenty of things where there is no reasonable disagreement, such as no consensus among experts. There are a lot of things that are objectively bad imo, regardless of their social acceptance or legal status in some area of the planet. DUI, the death penalty, genital mutilation, discrimination based on gender/race/sexual orientation, answering questions with questions etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Such as and why not?Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
One that allows people to more freely and easily choose.Quote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
Different places, different times, and different people have had different views on these than you. Do you think it is a good idea to establish those ideas as policies using a system that corrects very slowly if at all?Quote:
I would say there are plenty of things where there is no reasonable disagreement, such as no consensus among experts. There are a lot of things that are objectively bad imo, regardless of their social acceptance or legal status in some area of the planet. DUI, the death penalty, genital mutilation, discrimination based on gender/race/sexual orientation, answering questions with questions etc.
Two chief reasons they are not as robust are because of reduced skin in the game and increased asymmetric information. An example is when bureaucrats set regulations about plumbing. A better system is one that lets the marketplace of plumbing give rise to what works best through the price system.Quote:
Such as and why not?
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/07/trum...-trophies.html
Big win for the free market!
What do you think the effects of a ban policy on this type of thing are and what effects of a non-ban policy are?Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
A ban means fewer Americans will go to Africa to kill elephants because they can't bring back trophies.
Lifting the ban means Don Jr. can go and kill some elephants and bring back their heads to add to his collection of large animals he's bravely killed.
What do you think it means?
Thanks for the response, and thanks for asking.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
An increase in desire for trophies increases the desire for the animals, thereby incentivizing increasing and protecting the populations. A ban has an antithetical effect: reducing the desire for trophies, reducing the desire for the animals, and reducing the desire to increase and protect the populations.
There is a wealth of history of this playing out, and it is an area where there is little disagreement among economists.
I don't see how having more elephants or any other trophy animal is necessarily a positive for the animal (assuming we're interested in their collective happiness or whatever you want to call it). Certainly not if some proportion of them are going to get shot and killed every year.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
I think the idea of 'let's look after these animals so we can shoot them for fun' is kind of perverse really. How about looking after them and not shooting them?
The world is kind of perverse.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Looking after them and not shooting them has been tried. A lot. And it yields declining populations, extinction, and black market abuse that yields significant suffering of the animals.
citation neededQuote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Seemed to have the opposite effect on dodo birds, wild buffolos, the passanger pidgeon, tasmanian tiger, white rhinos and a couple hundred other species.
500 tons of ivory were imported to London annually before the ban on ivory trade. Elephant population dropped from 25 million to well under 1 million during the industrialization of the ivory trade. Thanks to massive conservation efforts the population is now stable, if only a fraction of what it once was. Wildlife rangers and animal protectionists get murdered every year by ivory traders and poachers.
https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/l...20/M820889.jpg
Another good reason to ban elephant trophies specifically is that elephants are among the smartest animals. They are one of only a couple species who can recognize themselves in a mirror, something humans can only do starting age 2 and up, and only a couple of primate and dolphin species can do. Killing an elephant should be (and mostly is) illegal. The hunting permit $$$ argument you're likely referencing is mostely horseshit. The countries involved make vastly more money from wildlife tourism than from shitheads like this one:
https://s7068.pcdn.co/wp-content/upl...nt-310x466.jpg
horseshit.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Write an open letter to the Jane Goodall foundation that they should really consider Gorilla hunting permits, why don't you.
You should really consider being less smug about things you know nothing about.
Let me know when you care what somebody else has to say.
You could start by digging up some sources for any part of this pile of shit:
Quote:
An increase in desire for trophies increases the desire for the animals, thereby incentivizing increasing and protecting the populations. A ban has an antithetical effect: reducing the desire for trophies, reducing the desire for the animals, and reducing the desire to increase and protect the populations.
I may have misunderstood. You suggested trial and error, I suggested rules based on measurement and revision. What is the one you're suggesting now?Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
No. Then again establishing them using a system that corrects itself regularly and systematically might be a very good solution.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Quote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
Could you try again in english? EILI5, remember the question was what's different about regulating against discrimination vs regulating against killing/stealing.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
We mean the same thing by "trial and error" and "measurement and revision". I want a system that best measures and best revises now and for the unknown.Quote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
I don't know what is different about regulating them. I'm thinking about the system used to determine how they are regulated.Quote:
Could you try again in english? EILI5, remember the question was what's different about regulating against discrimination vs regulating against killing/stealing.
I have a bachelor's degree in economics, am an avid student of philosophy of economics outside of that, and read (used to read) many different economists discuss these things as well as discussed similar with some of them.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
My research at university never encompassed this specifically, so I'll go to google. Here's a part of an abstract: "Trophy hunting is thus of major importance to conservation in Africa by creating economic incentives for conservation over vast areas"
https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...06320706003831
Skin in the game is a concept popularized by mathematician Nassim Taleb (yet is a common idea), which is when you have downside risk directly tied to the decisions you make. It is essentially that the more directly you are impacted by something, the more skin in the game you have.Quote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
Asymmetric information is a term used more frequently in financial economics. It's where there is a difference in the information a buyer and seller have, or more broadly the difference in information two different interacting parties have.
The marketplace increases skin in the game and reduces asymmetric information because in it decisions are made by those most impacted by those decisions and with the most relevant and related information.
I wonder what this dude's skin in the game is
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xnv4yeLSCaw
It's shit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
It's labelled 'trunews' so no-one confuses it with fake news and actual facts, apparently.
Ffs, no wonder some people are so retarded.
Without wanting to pay to read the whole thing, it sounds like there's both positives and negatives to the idea of conserving animals for the purposes of killing them. Who'da thunk it.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Restaurant-gate spreads to Canada. So fucking stupid. "I'm not serving you because I don't like what your hat says."
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/briti...ouse-1.4728720
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TLfmEZYdtrY
Meanwhile in the immigrant child prisons:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_q4zjlp9s6M
I would imagine so. Few things are wholly positive or wholly negative.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
I'm just going to assume it is probably going to reference the 1977 trophy hunting ban in Kenya. If you put your horse blinkers on, you could look at that and go: Omg, if I don't shoot that elephant, I'm killing it! So you would expect that after the 2014 trophy hunting ban in Botswana, it would have the same outcome, but then you remember Botswana's wildlife tourism industry is roughly 1000x it's trophy hunting industry.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
But whatever arguments you could find for very limited cases, this:
is still just as wrong, as evidenced by the hundreds of species that were hunted to or near extinction with no hunting bans to somehow accelerate their demise.Quote:
An increase in desire for trophies increases the desire for the animals, thereby incentivizing increasing and protecting the populations. A ban has an antithetical effect: reducing the desire for trophies, reducing the desire for the animals, and reducing the desire to increase and protect the populations.
I could have been more clear that when there is no infrastructure for a market, then what I described doesn't work. Tons of extinctions have happened because of that.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
This happened recently, and was a big deal when it happened:
An African rhino of an endangered species was killed by a hunter. There was great outrage that this happened by those whoe live half a globe away and feel rather than think.
The rhino was old and was attacking/killing younger breeding rhinos of the species. Killing him was best for the conservation of the species. His body was donated to a nearby village for food. The hunter was one of many who paid a lot of money to the conservation institution to enter a raffle for that opportunity.
A whole lot of good came out of that.
The point is, the trophy trade legitimizes "trophies" as something of value, which is something countries like Kenya and Botswana are actively fighting. They burned 100 tons of ivory in 2016 alone - for the same reason the DEA destroys heroin. If they sell it, they legitimize the trade. They don't think it should be something of value, therefore they destroy it. I'm sure the Trump bill includes some things I don't give a shit about like zebra skins, but specifically regarding elephant and rhino parts, it undermines the effort of countries like Kenya and and Botswana and plays well with kleptocracies like Zimbabwe that allow trophy hunting.
Of course I don't believe for a second that this is something that Trump thinks of in conservationist terms. This is a gift for his son because that's how politics work now.
I find this interesting because aren't they just increasing it's value and in turn doing the exact opposite that they want. I agree it shouldn't be happening but it's a complete waste to then not use it for beneficial purposes.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
Ivory being different to heroin in that heroin is abundant and not going anywhere whereas ivory literally is running out.
The type of thing you describe certainly can be an unintended consequence of letting the price system work on the open market. Though, there can be unintended consequences of taking the sort of action you describe as good too.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
In general, taking action like destroying product to deter desire for it doesn't have the intended effect because of how it increases the price on the black market.
Maybe the greatest thing ever made
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ZeGUqVZwzg&t=25s
Making the world a little less racist
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/tr...D=ansmsnnews11
There are two ways to devalue something that is of no inherent value: increase the supply, or convince people that it's worthless. You can do the latter by stigmatizing it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Savy
Heroin was a bad analogue because heroin has an inherent value.
Ivory prices have fallen sharply since 2016, and since then China flollowed suit and burned their ivory reserves.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.60c3495e013f
Also worth noting that this is an Obama policy and Trump seems hellbent on reversing every single Obama policy. I would not be surprised if they have a special task force currently trying to resurrect Bin Laden.
^^Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
I lol'd
Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Translation: It was OK when affirmative action screwed with white people. But now it's affecting non-whites, so it's bad.Quote:
“The whole issue of using race in education is being looked at with a new eye in light of the fact that it’s not just white students being discriminated against, but Asians and others as well,” said Roger Clegg, president and general counsel of the conservative Center for Equal Opportunity. “As the demographics of the country change, it becomes more and more problematic.”
How crazy is that?Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
The price has bombed because of changing ideals of the market, I still think burning the stuff is counter-productive.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
It probably is. Reducing the supply of something doesn't reduce the demand of that thing. What Oskar is referring to as an effective way to reduce price by stigmatizing it is essentially reducing the demand. The public show of burning the product probably does have some demand reduction attribute, but I'd think effective policing and some other stuff is much better at that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Savy
I like the flip flop, myself.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
In a perfect world, people wouldn't discriminate over stuff that someone can't choose for themselves.
However, in this world, people do, and it's ugly and inhumane to deny someone education based on stuff that has no bearing on their ability to excel in their field.
So we want people to stop doing inhumane shit, and they say they will, and we give them the shot to do so.
Then they don't do what they said, and we step in and say, look... you had your shot and you blew it.
Now follow these rules for a while.
Then the rules have unintended consequences, and we lift them.
It's all fine, IMO.
I don't think "unintended" is an appropriate word to use here. They knew exactly what they were doing.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
If you have decent grades, but are Asian, your chances of getting into Harvard Medical School is 6%. If you're black, and have the same grades, your chances are 46%.
That was EXACTLY the intention all along.
Ladies and gentlemen, we got him
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...-is-resigning/
What don't you like about him?
Another butterfly caught in the net! No, that's not it... Fish in the barrel? Witch hunt! Total witch hunt!Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
Hint....it starts with TQuote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Easy: I hate all white people.
I hate everyone. I win! :lynch:Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net...e5&oe=5BAD04A7
Jokes aside, bad parenting may be one of the main drivers of youth rebellion towards disaster.
https://scontent.fqlf1-1.fna.fbcdn.n...59&oe=5BE6680B
Wait is this the right thread?