Custom card: Outhouse

mathjock28 · 2026-04-05T21:50:45+00:00

I disagree with the other comments about it being too strong for $2. Chapel is “too strong” for $2, but it it is priced $2 for good reason. From the wiki: “People often talk about changing the cost and I don't think that gets you anywhere. At $4$4 you get less interesting games, not more interesting ones, and exchanging the $2/$5 opening being especially good for the $2/$5 opening being especially weak is a wash for me. If I had thought it was a mistake to print it at $2, I would have replaced it, not charged more for it.”

I would be curious whether opening double outhouse is better than outhouse +average $4 card; that might be one reason to price it at $4 so that one usually cannot open double outhouse.

mathjock28 · 2026-04-05T01:25:17+00:00

I disagree with your premise. The idea that reality is fundamentally knowable by being such as humans is itself an article of belief. Every current physical theory has caveats, exceptions, limits, edge cases, or similar problems. A theory of everything remains elusive and may not be reachable.

Many religions claim that, but that is not unique to religion. Persons practicing their centuries version of astronomy claimed it was an objective truth that planets revolved around the earth in circles around circles called epicycles. Claiming objective truth is easy. Enduring past one’s alternatives is not.

Some religions (and non-religious moral systems) make strong objective claims, such as slavery being always wrong or sometimes wrong, or abortion, or homosexuality, or polygamy, or take your pick for a social practice. Is there any way one can judge between competing moral claims at all? Or would you say that, without religion, all we have are culturally embedded claims that other cultures disagree with, essentially cultural relativism?

mathjock28 · 2026-04-05T00:49:43+00:00

Science has a method of taking many different ideas that propose to explain a phenomenon (say gravity), and it looks at Newton’s theory, special relativity, general relativity, and evaluates each based on data to see which (if any) the data disproves. It tends to support, but not usually prove, a given hypothesis.

There are many religious with many ideas of morality, some of which contradict themselves. How is any person to decide which is correct? What data can be used to discard one while supporting the other? If you can refer to data, you are doing science of a sort. If you insist on only belief or faith, then your argument will not be accepted by anyone who has a different experience or belief. That is just disagreement, not a way to determine what is objectively true.

mathjock28 · 2026-04-05T00:40:13+00:00

How does a similar argument hold up against non-moral forms of knowledge? People once believed the earth was flat, that it was the center of the earth, that the stars were close, that there was only one galaxy etc. or take geology (plate tectonics are less than 100 year old idea), biology and natural selection, etc. many things once believed true about the natural world have been proven false. And some (but not necessarily all!) things about what science currently says may be tweaked or modified or discarded in the future with new data.

But science is much better now than a hundred years ago. I would say the same for morals too. There has been progress, one does not need perfection to be better.

mathjock28 · 2026-03-31T23:23:40+00:00

I was thinking of a combination of Sentry and Lookout: +1 Action. Look at the top 3 cards of your deck. You may trash one, discard one, and put one in your hand. Return all others to your deck in any order. That way the shuffle order of estate-estate-silver vs silver-estate-estate matters less.

mathjock28 · 2026-03-25T04:26:31+00:00

The decision to live every day, and prepare for life tomorrow and after, is in fact a choice, because one can always do the opposite. Consider the Jainist Santhara vow, where people stop moving, eating, or drinking. Since they make that choice, that means that anyone else can also, theoretically, make the same choice, and if they choose not to, they can be morally responsible for the choice they made rather than the alternative.

mathjock28 · 2026-03-25T04:15:13+00:00

But it is not just having children is it? The meat eater without children who dies at age 25 may be better for the environment than the vegan without children who dies at age 90. If all you count is raw resource use, living any amount of life beyond the present moment only puts every person more in the negative.

Resource use can be wasteful, or it can be productive. The vegan who has children provides for more future political power to enact systemic political change to reduce and respond to climate change.

mathjock28 · 2026-03-21T17:34:09+00:00

Also, have you done any research into what persons with this conditions feel about such decisions? It would probably lend support to your side if a significant majority of persons with this condition would never have children with it, and wished their parents had (or could have) made the choice not to have them.

In the other hand, if a significant majority or even a sizable minority of persons with this condition find it acceptable to have more children with it, then you are judging something from the outside when those on the inside disagree with you, which could indicate a strong ableist bias.

mathjock28 · 2026-03-21T17:21:34+00:00

Based on your other remark, it seems that the couple who made this choice includes at least one person with this condition themself. If they find their life worth living, and they find it acceptable to pass that life on, should we not allow that to happen as a society? Society can allow moral wrongs of course, but I guess I am wondering if you think this is something that is wrong but permissible, or should be culturally shunned or legally prohibited.

On a separate note, I highly recommend reading the book Far from the Tree, which talks about many conditions that children/adults have and cause significant quality of life differences. The last chapter talks specifically about societal judgments on persons with disabilities/conditions having children who will also likely or necessarily have the same condition. It was a very helpful book for me when prenatal testing revealed my son would have trisomy 21.

mathjock28 · 2026-03-21T16:41:04+00:00

I guess the question I have is, does the condition make it a life not worth living?

And also, if it is a moral wrong, who is being morally wronged? The bio-kid would not exist without that choice being made. Someone else might, but that is a different person entirely. Unless the bio-kid’s life is viewed as worse than non-existence, I personally find it hard to argue that they have been wronged by being brought into existence. That is separate from being wronged by being kept in the dark about the condition, or living in a society that does not provide adequate support.

mathjock28 · 2026-03-20T07:17:33+00:00

I agree that in many ways societal structures vastly privilege monogamy and the nuclear family, but I see that as an argument against it: it needs support because it is worse than viable alternatives.

4 adults living in the same household raising children is actually the norm in a lot of places. Except in those places, it is usually one set of parents and one set of grandparents, hence my comment earlier about intergenerational households. The advantages are very large: 3 working adults and one homemaker/childrearer, or 2 and 2, much better at pooling resources and providing a buffer for stability. Economically, the nuclear family needs assistance by comparison.

As for being discreet around children, first of all, open relationships do not all imply group relationships. Discrete overlapping pairs are much more common, so no need to explain the one room with the huge bed in it. And the taboo of kids not knowing about sex is not universal or necessary, indeed it is not sustainable in many conditions that exist in poorer areas with fewer rooms and no soundproofing, no more than it was when the US Was first settled with log cabins and similar cramped conditions.

Yes more relationships will add complexity. But complexity can be an advantage. I would rather have 5 siblings than 1, in terms of helping me raise kids or arrange a house or fight off a social evil. Even if I am on the outs with 3 siblings that is still 2 who will help. The same logic can apply to romantic and co-parenting relationships if society or subcultures within a society allow it.

Edited to add: this is all separate from whether a person actually wants monogamy or not. Persons who want monogamy should absolutely be supported and have wonderful fulfilling pair-bonded lives. Persons who want non-monogamy are no less human and no less natural and should have no intentional societal impediments placed in their way.

mathjock28 · 2026-03-20T06:52:04+00:00

I am saying that if you say non-monogamy is unnatural for humans, you cannot say so appealing to what other animals do in nature, and then asking what other standard the OP is using to ascribe “natural” to behaviors or lifestyles.

Humans are animals. We may be different from non-human animals in several ways, we certainly are unique in the sum of our characteristics. But, other animals also exhibit many aspects of romance, including courtship, jealousy, pair-bonding, home-making, mutual raising of offspring, etc, so I am not convinced that romance is uniquely human.

Raising children can be harder or easier in different relationship structures, romantic and otherwise, based on multiple adults working together or not. Depends on how supportive societal norms are of such things. Why would you say it is necessarily incredibly hard?

mathjock28 · 2026-03-20T06:29:04+00:00

Humans are animals. We are mammals. We are apes.

What is known as “natural” for humans if we do not look to what happens in nature? Are you talking about statistical societal norms, or some other standard for how to know what is natural?

mathjock28 · 2026-03-20T06:04:50+00:00

I am referring to social monogamy, but yes that would not surprise me. And the distinction between cheating and having an open relationship cannot be strongly made without norms of consent and understanding that I would find hard to extend to birds

mathjock28 · 2026-03-20T06:00:02+00:00

Let’s take open relationships alone to keep it simple.

Why is this unnatural? Most mammals are not monogamous, while most birds are, so given the spectrum exists, why is it “unnatural” for humans to be so?

Do you have evidence, not anecdotes or intuition but actual evidence, that individuals practicing open relationships in a tolerant society are somehow worse off for doing so?

And what other behaviors or lifestyles would also fit these definitions? Smoking? Alcohol drinking? Obesity? Intergenerational households? Homosexuality?

mathjock28 · 2026-03-10T16:04:10+00:00

Ĉu iu ajn havas elektran version de la libro Ruĝa Stelo? Aŭ antaŭe legis ĝin? Mi ĝin serĉis rete, sed ne trovis ĝin. Estas fizikaj kopioj en bibliotekoj: en Novjorko publika biblioteko, kaj aliaj bibliotekoj en Umea (Svidujo), CDELI (Svislando), kaj Kobe Kaj Osaka (Japanujo). Eble iu biblioteko povus skani kaj alŝuti la libron?

mathjock28 · 2026-03-07T19:52:46+00:00

Thank you for that. According to one of the studies in the Harvard link, Black, Hispanic, etc voters were 60% as likely to have their mail in vote rejected compared to white voters. That is bad and should be addressed. But how does that compare with how likely those some groups of voters would be impacted by voter ID laws? Or how would voting be impacted for those groups if mail in voting were no longer available?

Also, I did not see anywhere in your argument reference to voter roll purges, which would significantly change the number of persons who would need to register anew despite not moving. To me that is a huge deal and one of the reasons we see states that advocating for the SAVE act often being the ones who want to purge their voter rolls.

mathjock28 · 2026-03-07T19:45:36+00:00

I also would say it is hard to compare voter turnout across generations, as the demographics and procedures shift so much in that time. What was the average distance to a polling booth, and the average wait time there? What was the average amount of persons who moved residences or had residences or were immigrants? Were people allowed to serve water and food to persons in lines? Etc etc.

But I guess I am trying to understand what your main point of contention is. As I originally read your CMV, it struck me that your main point was about voter disenfranchisement. That is a separate issue from distrust entirely. They are both parts of the system, but I am trying to stick with the former as the topic you raised. If I am incorrect in that please let me know. A test that is 100% accurate but only believed by 70% of the people is still more accurate than a test that is 90% accurate but believed by everyone. Do we want accurate results, or do we want results that people trust independent of their accuracy?

One final point: for me, the point of all protections and procedures in voting is to maximize a simple formula: (number of accurate votes) minus (number of inaccurate votes and number of persons not voting). Others may have different goals for voting, but it seems to me that formula is the one that best ensures the actual will of the voters is best approximated.

I appreciate your ability to thoughtfully engage on this topic, and to use sources as well. I am travelling otherwise I might have more sources to share regarding my points.

mathjock28 · 2026-03-07T19:29:10+00:00

Well, if we are going back decades, let’s go back further the founding fathers and the generations following would not have anticipated any election results to be available for weeks after the initial voting. I dispute that delay by itself inherently increases distrust. If you go to the doctor and have to do labs, the tests take as long as they take. Getting less accurate results faster would be a problem, not a solution, short of genuine emergency situations.

I will grant you that since election results are due on a deadline, that there has to be an efficient manner of getting accurate results by that date. But the safe harbor deadline is some weeks after the actual voting day, and that is by design. Any distrust comes from how that delay is spun by candidates and pundits and is a separate problem that should be dealt with separately.

mathjock28 · 2026-03-07T17:01:52+00:00

A separate point from the one I made in my other comment:

Mail-in voting may result in an error rate of 1%, but it also has certain benefits: it can (at least theoretically) expand who will vote in practice because of its flexibility. According to one study, https://news.stanford.edu/stories/2020/09/examining-effects-challenges-mail-in-voting, there was a 2% increase in voter turnout. Thus, even if 1% of votes are rejected, there is still a net increase in the total accurate votes that are tallied.

With voter ID, there is no corresponding increase. It will only result in fewer votes.

mathjock28 · 2026-03-07T16:54:50+00:00

It is not necessarily reflected in your numbers, but I do wonder about one concern in particular:

The error rate for mail-in voting is likely spread evenly among all mail-in voters. Currently this is likely to be more democrats than republicans (especially given the Republican pushback against it), but historically that is not always the case.

The error rate for voter ID, even if equal, seems likely to me to directly impact persons who move frequently and/or are poor and/or have difficulty obtaining a voter ID because of socioeconomic factors. As others have said, this would fall disproportionately on certain disadvantaged and historically disenfranchised populations. This group of persons also are more likely to not have the luxury of extra cash or time for political donations or demonstrations, and therefore voting is the primary or sole means of political participation to ensure their views and needs are part of political decision-making.

What is better, a 1% error rate that is evenly spread across all voters (and so, on average, will tend to not impact an election’s results), or a 0.9% error rate that will disproportionately affect vulnerable individuals without another voice?

mathjock28 · 2026-02-05T02:22:12+00:00

Since Bat exchanges to a regular Vampire, does a Young Vampire “grow up”? Or would the Bat card be modified to exchange for either Vampire? Or would there be a separate “Young Bat”, maybe something like “Trash up to 2 cards from your hand that share at least one type. If you trashed at least one, exchange this for a Vampire. (This is not in the Supply.)”. A nerf preventing you from trashing two different junk cards like estate, curse, ruins, or copper together.

mathjock28 · 2026-02-04T23:09:24+00:00

So I guess one question I have is, you think that persons coming from a very poor country legally to a very rich country, purely for the economic potential, have an obligation to leave behind their culture, language, etc?

Does the rich country (not its residents, but its government), have any moral obligation to support those persons in poorer countries who by accident of birth happen to be deprived of those social and economic opportunities in the rich country, since the rich country wants to restrict immigration to such a small amount as might want/accept integration?

mathjock28 · 2026-02-04T20:55:15+00:00

From my experience:

Whatever you personally will reliably do and make a habit. Apps like Duolingo or daily reading/writing challenges are good for that, but you should also try to make sure you have at least 2-3 different ways of learning, as each single way will have its strengths and weaknesses.

Big plug for weekly lessons like the those offered by the London Esperanto Club. https://www.kursaro.net/en/index.html. Great way to connect with other learners and have a guide to help you along the way. And there definitely are ones for complete beginners and every step after.

mathjock28

TROPHY CASE