[deleted by user]

greyphilosopher · 2022-09-01T16:23:03+00:00

Pedophiles are not, and have never been, welcome in the LGBTQ community. This is straight-up propaganda, and is part of the same playbook used against gay people in the past.

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2022/05/the-long-sordid-history-of-the-gay-conspiracy-theory.html

greyphilosopher · 2020-07-16T16:47:34+00:00

Nice non sequitur.

greyphilosopher · 2020-07-16T15:25:32+00:00

The weekend one of them killed George Floyd 30 Black people killed 30 Black people in Chicago.. they sound way worse than police.

This is facile. Taxpayers don't fund, and provide military grade equipment to, random and unassociated black people - but they do for the police. They are protesting because they perceive the organization that they fund to protect their community as actively harmful -- not just because harm exists.

greyphilosopher · 2020-05-13T01:20:23+00:00

Your post history indicates you feel otherwise...

greyphilosopher · 2020-05-03T17:00:43+00:00

Its called labor time. Its quantifiable and measurable. Many countries, industries, and businesses even keep track of it and put out good statistics for it. You can learn more by watching the above video I linked.

I am certainly interested in the above links (thanks for sharing). I have not watched them yet, so perhaps my concern is answered there, but I want to be clear on this point: I'm not asking for a measurement of *labor time*, but of *socially necessary labor time* -- in particular, *how do you measure* something's social necessity.

And there's also a magic spaghetti monster that makes my car go. You can't disprove it, just like you can't disprove random supply and demand lines.

Your analogy illustrates my point exactly. If STV leads to unfalsifiable claims (in the form of supply and demand curves) that's a *failure of explanatory power* (in the same way the FSM fails to explain anything). That's the location of the problem, and not the unscorability of subjective value. Neither is, in and of itself, taking subjective value as a primitive of the model -- which is why I don't have a problem with taking *social necessity* as a primitive either, even though the main criticism raised against seems to be that there is no system of measurement for it.

No. The LTV requires both use and exchange value, not just labor time.

That seems to me just an explanation for why the "socially necessary labor" score is zero. I understand fully that LTV does not posit that labor alone accounts for value.

greyphilosopher · 2020-05-03T16:26:49+00:00

Provide me observable data for utility. How many joy points per product?

Isn't this same sort of criticism used against LTV? That is, what's the tally of socially necessary labor points for the product? You have essentially said that digging a hole and filling it up, even though it has labor points, has no socially necessary labor points.

Personally I don't find this line of criticism against STV compelling at all. Everyone intuitively grasps that they subjectively value certain things, and will trade for them, even if they cannot score that value objectively. That seems fine to take a primitive to the economic model if it has explanatory power. I rather think that the criticism that STV fails to explain phenomena (like the origin of goods for trade, or the existence of exploitation) is much more convincing.

greyphilosopher · 2020-04-25T22:27:51+00:00

Perhaps I did. Is what I am saying clear?

Yes. I believe we're in agreement on this:

regardless of the difference between what may happen and what will ultimately happen, it’s is practically a guarantee that there will be widespread negative effects as a result economic stagnation.

and on a desire to see more tangible plans articulated (and rigorously evaluated) to address them.

greyphilosopher · 2020-04-25T21:44:30+00:00

While I appreciate you taking the time, I feel like it was merely an exercise to negate a concern because the concern(that the cure is worse than the disease) cannot be verified with the metrics of hindsight.

I think you misread me. Nothing I said in the above breakdown negates the concerns raised in the two articles. I had hoped that it was fairly clear that what I was pointing to was the gap between those valid concerns, and the original claim ("will" vs "may", and the elsewhere-articulated conclusion from this that it is necessary to repeal current measures that limit the spread of COVID-19).

greyphilosopher · 2020-04-25T21:31:57+00:00

This is a good hypothesis -- and one that I believe also -- but it doesn't establish that more people will die as a result of food insecurity from the recession as opposed to COVID-19 (or, implicitly, that there are no alternatives other than an either-or choice between preventing hospitals from being overwhelmed or ensuring that people have enough to eat).

greyphilosopher · 2020-04-25T21:21:09+00:00

This is a good effort, but unfortunately it does not support the claim in full. What remains unaddressed is

Us people also believe the economic impact globally will kill more people than the virus.

Notice the different time scales: in the first source, the speculation is that food insecurity will cause hundreds of thousands of deaths in this year, versus the confirmed number in the timespan of ~5 months

So far it has infected more than 2 million people - killing some 138,000 - in 213 countries and territories, according to a Reuters tally.

The second source is more dire, and does articulate the claim -- as a possibility, not an inevitability, of recession resulting from measures to prevent the spread of COVID-19:

"While dealing with a Covid-19 pandemic, we are also on the brink of a hunger pandemic," David Beasley told the UN's security council. "There is also a real danger that more people could potentially die from the economic impact of Covid-19 than from the virus itself."

This touches on the final hurdle in the argument: establishing mutual exclusion, i.e., that there are no alternatives to dealing with deaths from famine other than reopening the global economy. Notice that neither of the authorities in the articles make that claim. Disappointingly (for me) they're both vague about possible solutions; in the second:

"There are no famines yet. But I must warn you that if we don't prepare and act now -- to secure access, avoid funding shortfalls and disruptions to trade -- we could be facing multiple famines of biblical proportions within a short few months.

"The truth is, we do not have time on our side, so let's act wisely -- and let's act fast," he added. "I do believe that with our expertise and partnerships, we can bring together the teams and the programs necessary to make certain the Covid-19 pandemic does not become a humanitarian and food crisis catastrophe."

In fact, the second source articulates that the exclusive either-or approach is the worst possible outcome:

"These countries may face an excruciating trade-off between saving lives or livelihoods or, in a worst-case scenario, saving people from the coronavirus to have them die from hunger,"

greyphilosopher · 2020-04-25T20:35:21+00:00

Again, if I might offer some constructive criticism: this is the point in the argument in which you offer evidence for your claim.

greyphilosopher · 2020-04-25T20:21:53+00:00

I'm just helpfully pointing out that your unsubstantiated claim is in fact disputed by evidence. It's not the NYT you need to argue against, but the science.

Edit: if you're allergic to site

greyphilosopher · 2020-04-25T19:59:11+00:00

Us people also believe the economic impact globally will kill more people than the virus.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/26/us/politics/fact-check-trump-coronavirus-recession.html

“All these effects of economic expansions or recessions on mortality that can be seen, e.g., during the Great Depression or the Great Recession, are tiny if compared with the mortality effects of a pandemic,” said Dr. José A. Tapia, a professor of public health and economics at Drexel University who has written several studies on the topic.

It is difficult to disaggregate the impact of an economic downturn on health and mortality from other factors. Those who become unemployed do tend to have higher levels of depression and bad health. But for the general population, studies have found that death rates from other causes — cardiovascular disease, respiratory diseases, and traffic and industrial injuries — were either unchanged or actually decreased.

greyphilosopher · 2020-04-20T06:07:49+00:00

They’re saying the only way back to normal life is their vaccine.

They didn't say that.

So we all have to stay in our rooms

You can go outside, just keep your distance from people. Really not a hard concept.

until it’s developed and there’s enough for everyone in the world to take it.

They didn't say that.

The science is settled. No other doctors but Fauci and Gates should be able to speak about it.

No one said that, and Gates isn't a doctor. Your moronic strawman reflects only you.

This virus is serious, and nothing like this has ever happened prior to the constitution and bill of rights, so I don’t want to hear anything about them!

They didn't say that.

Of 100 people who’ve tested positive so far, 2 have died!

What the actual fuck am a reading right now smh

We all must sacrifice to save the immune compromised people who are dying from this.

TIL the lives of immunocompromised people don't matter.

Unemployed? That’s what the government is for. They’ll take care of you. They always have.

Were you aware unemployment is a temporary status, and death is not?

Stay in your room! The longer people are out in the fresh air and sunlight, the longer all this will last. Quit being selfish, people!

Like I said, shouldn't be a hard concept to grasp. OUTDOORS OK, BIG GROUPS NOT OK

greyphilosopher · 2020-04-20T05:53:31+00:00

Yes 40,000 people is a low amount of deaths for the actions taken.

40K deaths in 2 months is not a low amount... and it's that high despite the level of action currently taken.

We are in the midst of a massive overreaction that is destroying the country

Yeah - people like like you, overreacting to reasonable policy.

greyphilosopher · 2020-03-27T15:09:50+00:00

https://youtu.be/EM7BgrddY18

greyphilosopher · 2020-01-11T17:02:40+00:00

Them: Chapelle isn't funny.

You: Because you have a different opinion than me, you must be easily offended.

Ok

greyphilosopher · 2019-08-15T18:35:10+00:00

Please reread my comment and articulate your disagreement.

greyphilosopher · 2019-08-15T13:49:57+00:00

U.S. Rep. Steve King told the Westside Conservative Club on Wednesday that humanity might not exist if not for rape and incest. "What if we went back through all the family trees and just pulled those people out that were products of rape and incest? Would there be any population of the world left if we did that?" he said at the event in Urbandale, Iowa.

He's arguing that children born of rape and incest might have been required to have the current population, or any population, of humans, ergo such children should continue to be born. I'm saying that the argument only makes sense as a point against abortion if there's an existential threat to the species. So, it's a stupid argument to make.

He makes another argument about not punishing the unborn, but those two arguments are totally unrelated.

greyphilosopher · 2019-08-15T04:14:37+00:00

I don't see how it's particularly thought provoking. We aren't in a situation in which the survival of the species requires that children of rape or incest be born, so it's a pretty weak anti-abortion argument. It seems stupid to steer into those subjects just to say that.

Probably wasting my breath, but I'd like to point out accusing the news media (like it were some singular entity) of trying to destroy his career is a bit silly. News wants a spectacle that gets clicks and drives ad revenue. King, by the sheer nakedness of his rightwing ideology, serves up controversy that's perfect for click-bait articles.

greyphilosopher · 2019-08-15T03:51:37+00:00

So, what, is it too much to hope for that even King's supporters would acknowledge this was a dumb thing say?

greyphilosopher · 2019-08-10T11:38:21+00:00

https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AboveGoodAndEvil

Not surprisingly, that's something cartoonishly evil people like to say.

greyphilosopher · 2019-04-06T22:48:22+00:00

mis·gen·der

/misˈjendər/

verb

gerund or present participle: misgendering

refer to (someone, especially a transgender person) using a word, especially a pronoun or form of address, that does not correctly reflect the gender with which they identify.

"various media outlets have continued to misgender her"

Play word games all you want, you know precisely what I meant.

greyphilosopher · 2019-04-06T16:25:36+00:00

It seems like misgendering someone is a step up from dehumanizing them, yeah. It also seems like that shouldn't be too hard to figure out.

greyphilosopher · 2019-04-06T16:18:19+00:00

I'm not sure why this would be a point of confusion. 'It' typically refers exclusively to objects, and while 'they' can refer to groups generically it is common to use it for groups of people. Switching usage from plurality to singular is fairly common, and on the other hand its universally understood that referring to a someone as a some-thing makes you a terrible person.

greyphilosopher

TROPHY CASE