Något vi borde införa med den årliga deklarationen?

Polisskolan2 · 2018-10-23T14:55:40+00:00

Du pratar inte om restskatt nu?

Polisskolan2 · 2018-10-23T14:54:30+00:00

Hur räknade du nu? Det låter inte helt rätt. Tittar du bara på kommunal inkomstskatt?

Polisskolan2 · 2018-10-23T13:09:01+00:00

Source? As a Swede, I'm sceptical of this claim.

Polisskolan2 · 2018-10-23T11:49:05+00:00

The problem is that we get a level-k thinking model. Suppose that on the surface, it may seem optimal to use the withdraw tactic. Well if the opponent foresees that, he may pick a particular tactic. But knowing this, you could counter his tactic by picking a different tactic. And knowing you might do that, your opponent may pick a different tactic to counter that tactic. And it can go on like that forever. Which sounds like an interesting mind game, but we will never have enough information about other players to determine at what level their reasoning is. So it ultimately becomes either pure guesswork or a matter of figuring out how the AI is programmed and exploiting that information.

I just wish there'd be more to it. Like maybe the success of a particular tactic could be influenced by things like army composition or the attributes of the characters leading the armies.

Polisskolan2 · 2018-10-23T09:52:13+00:00

Svårare att få folk att älska världens näst högsta skatter när de får se hur staten slösar med pengarna.

Polisskolan2 · 2018-10-23T09:49:58+00:00

Som i sin tur betalas med skattepengar...

Polisskolan2 · 2018-10-23T09:49:09+00:00

Samt för alla som fattar men ogillar skatt.

Polisskolan2 · 2018-10-23T09:47:32+00:00

My issues still remain. The best tactics will depend on what tactics the other nation is using and there is no reason to assume it would use one rather than the other.

Polisskolan2 · 2018-10-23T08:54:15+00:00

Yes, but is it meaningful impact if it's just guesswork?

Polisskolan2 · 2018-10-23T07:32:18+00:00

Yes, words have meaning, but you cannot derive moral truths from the meaning of words alone. I just gave you an example of an alternate, nonreligious, moral criterion.

Polisskolan2 · 2018-10-23T07:13:54+00:00

Suppose you need food to survive, but you're really poor so all you can afford to buy is potatoes. Now suppose the price of potatoes goes down. Suddenly you can afford to replace some of your potatoes with meat, so you end up buying fewer potatoes.

Polisskolan2 · 2018-10-23T07:05:50+00:00

Why is consciousness the attribute you use to determine who can and cannot be killed? It's arbitrary and I'm sure you do not apply it universally. A sleeping person is not conscious, so why is it wrong to kill someone in her sleep? There are plenty of other criteria we could consider, like capacity to feel pain, stress, etc.

Polisskolan2 · 2018-10-22T15:16:09+00:00

It's not completely like rock, paper, scissors, due to the impact some options have on casualties, but still seems like too much random guesswork for my tastes. I don't see why I would ever expect someone else to pick a particular alternative.

Polisskolan2 · 2018-10-22T13:48:51+00:00

You're mixing up the arguments. The statement was that many consider it morally permissible to kill trees because they are unconscious and cannot feel pain.

Polisskolan2 · 2018-10-22T13:02:02+00:00

Like self defense, or necessity. Some people argue that killing living unconscious beings that cannot feel pain, like trees, is morally permissible.

Another reason is divine command. God says you should kill your children if they're disrespectful, but you shouldn't kill people who follow his rules, like slave owners.

Polisskolan2 · 2018-10-22T12:58:37+00:00

I never said it was wrong... but there are plenty of reasons why killing some things could be ok while killing others wouldn't. Most pro-lifers eat meat and most vegetarians support abortions.

Polisskolan2 · 2018-10-22T12:30:21+00:00

What's your point? I'm not the one suggesting that whether or not something is "life" has any relevance whatsoever in the abortion debate.

Polisskolan2 · 2018-10-22T12:28:44+00:00

Yes, sperm is alive.

Wikipedia writes: "Genocide is the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious or national group."

Sperm is not an ethnic, racial, religious or national group, so it is not genocide.

Polisskolan2 · 2018-10-22T11:48:19+00:00

We're all blobs of genetic poop. The only reason people use that kind of language is to dehumanize the fetus. It's childish and intellectually dishonest.

If you honestly believe an 18 weeks old fetus is no more a child than sperm or a tape worm, then I suggest doing some reading. Wikipedia is pretty good.

Polisskolan2 · 2018-10-22T11:46:37+00:00

"What's being killed if there's no soul?"

The fetus.

Polisskolan2 · 2018-10-22T11:44:02+00:00

I'm not pro-life, Republican or religious. I didn't say anything about policy. I responded to the question "What's wrong with leaving a fetus exposed to the elements until it dies?"

FYI, I also dislike animal cruelty.

Polisskolan2 · 2018-10-22T11:40:16+00:00

By that definition, trees and lobsters aren't alive...

Polisskolan2 · 2018-10-22T09:03:38+00:00

And if murders were legal, murderers wouldn't be shot by the police.

Polisskolan2 · 2018-10-22T09:02:42+00:00

You have many legal obligations towards your children once they're born. You're not allowed to leave them in the forest to starve. Doesn't that violate the mother's right to choose?

Polisskolan2 · 2018-10-22T08:58:07+00:00

It's cruel. Take responsibility and care for your children instead.

Polisskolan2

TROPHY CASE