Hostile questioners tried to trap Jesus into taking an explicit and dangerous stand on whether Jews should or should not pay taxes to the Roman authorities. … Jesus first called them hypocrites, and then asked one of them to produce a Roman coin that would be suitable for paying Caesar’s tax. One of them showed him a Roman coin, and he asked them whose head and inscription were on it. They answered, “Caesar’s,” and he responded: “Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s”. (
It's spelled "Hanson", not "Hansen". I'm not sure which of his statements you're referring to that endorsed that. I do know that Metropolis was written by a member of the Nazi party though.
Watch "Metropolis". Then clinically starve any and all people like this dude, who back the type of eugenics that produced the "hypothetical character "Kahn" in the Star Trek movies. Both Hansen and
Rodenberry are projecting a future that can branch between absolute stratification of the human race, and the path we've been n with or without tech giants.
Let The Rich determine the future of the human race, and you'll just be creating a layfrounds for the Rich, with us underground lubricating the rides.
I'm sad to see so many low-quality comments in the previous threads about th ese issues.I suspect this is because reason is accidental product of the Enlightenment.
What really interests me is why so smart & successful people be live and demonize their opponents (eg. Krugman). Some of them are just psychos but definitely not most; like Tyler told how he changed and realize maybe he was the villain in some cases after many years of study. I wonder if better training in rationality would improve this.
Maybe some of CFAR's stuff could be included in school curricula.
People have hard time thinking through hypotheticals especially if they go too close to their moral sensibilities.
There's no any way kind of casual way bad beliefs about the world. If you design a bad bridge, it will collapse. If you make a bad argument, or believe wrong things, nothing will happen.
I think the only way to get better at promoting better arguments is to give higher status to people who are better at logic.
Jesus clearly distinguished between public and private religion. It’s a basic distinction that maps pretty well to the official / personal scheme. Nothing baffling about it, really.
No "perpetual motion machines" are needed ... what a stupid strawman and a complete failure of imagination. Consider for a moment that crime could be completely eliminated by making all behaviors legal. Not to be advised, but it makes clear just how moronic Hanson's notion is that there's "an optimal intermediate level of crime" and that it depends on the cost of crime and the cost to discourage it.
Funny how I already knew from your "Help us out" that you were a liar, an idiot, and an asshole.
Now FOAD. I won't waste any more of my time on you.
An anti-Trump progressive tried to murder a bunch of Congressman a few months ago. Shall we now denounce all anti-Trump progressives as violent, homicidal maniacs?
Great examination. I"m not sure you could have avoided this. I tried to clarify the straw men of your argument going around and constantly get ignored. It seems on emotional topics like this people dig in their heels and see what they want to see.
It's not just economics, but philosophy in general, as much human knowledge is careful generalization. Taking a similar example: the thought experiment of organ transplant (a utility monster who harvests a innocent patient's organs to save multiple patients in need of healthy organs) may be repugnant, but is illuminating to think about.
This sort of abstract question is enough to get people to think through the consequences of an approach and sometimes help them reconsider it.
If some folks manage to interpret the question as an actual proposal, I suspect their belief in an approach (utilitarianism, or income redistribution, or whatever is put in doubt by the hypothetical) is so firmly anchored in their mind that the suggestion that it has bad logical consequences (and therefore isn't righteous after all) is intolerable.
You are factually wrong. It is entirely possible to "hoard" sex, if, for example, you put 10 men and 10 women on an island and it turnes out all 10 women want to have sex with the top 3 men. And this is pretty much what our past genetic evidence and our present perceptions confirm.
Chad, you're correct that there is inequality in the amount of sex people have. The trouble with the analogy to income is that this sexual inequality really is down to personal choice first and foremost. If you really just want to have sex with people, full stop, it is relatively easy to do so.
But it's not sex inequality that drives feelings of exclusion and frustration in lonely people - it's something more diffuse, and the exact nature of it will vary from person to person.
That's why Robin's whole approach just doesn't work. If sex inequality was the root cause of people's pain, and the root cause of the murderous anger of incels, then the most obvious form of 'redistribution' would be to get everyone who feels dissatisfied to put themselves on a register, and then pair these people off with one another on a rotating basis. Hey presto! You've generated a new sex 'revenue stream'.
Robin hasn't suggested any such thing because he knows, on some level, that this is the answer to the wrong question.
To look at it the other way round, imagine that we lived in a utopian society with an almost limitless supply of well-paid jobs (by which I mean jobs with an income that guarantees a comfortable standard of living). Suppose that in that society there were a group of people who were profoundly dissatisfied because they didn't have the top jobs, the ones that carried the most authority, the ones where you get to be in charge. Do we really think that anyone in such a world would be trying to address this problem by talking about 'income redistribution'?
It's spelled "Hanson", not "Hansen". I'm not sure which of his statements you're referring to that endorsed that. I do know that Metropolis was written by a member of the Nazi party though.
Watch "Metropolis". Then clinically starve any and all people like this dude, who back the type of eugenics that produced the "hypothetical character "Kahn" in the Star Trek movies. Both Hansen and
Rodenberry are projecting a future that can branch between absolute stratification of the human race, and the path we've been n with or without tech giants.
Let The Rich determine the future of the human race, and you'll just be creating a layfrounds for the Rich, with us underground lubricating the rides.
I'm sad to see so many low-quality comments in the previous threads about th ese issues.I suspect this is because reason is accidental product of the Enlightenment.
What really interests me is why so smart & successful people be live and demonize their opponents (eg. Krugman). Some of them are just psychos but definitely not most; like Tyler told how he changed and realize maybe he was the villain in some cases after many years of study. I wonder if better training in rationality would improve this.
Maybe some of CFAR's stuff could be included in school curricula.
People have hard time thinking through hypotheticals especially if they go too close to their moral sensibilities.
There's no any way kind of casual way bad beliefs about the world. If you design a bad bridge, it will collapse. If you make a bad argument, or believe wrong things, nothing will happen.
I think the only way to get better at promoting better arguments is to give higher status to people who are better at logic.
Jesus clearly distinguished between public and private religion. It’s a basic distinction that maps pretty well to the official / personal scheme. Nothing baffling about it, really.
There are a lot of people out there who need to review definitions and examples of irony and satire. When do they lose their senses of humor?
Because they are subjective and based on conformism.
"if all else than spending is fixed"
First, all else is obviously NOT fixed. Second, crime is human behavior and can be influenced by all sorts of things other than expenditures.
"i still no reason to not use the concept "optimum crime rate"."
I said nothing about not using that concept.
I won't waste any more of my time responding to morons and their strawmen.
No "perpetual motion machines" are needed ... what a stupid strawman and a complete failure of imagination. Consider for a moment that crime could be completely eliminated by making all behaviors legal. Not to be advised, but it makes clear just how moronic Hanson's notion is that there's "an optimal intermediate level of crime" and that it depends on the cost of crime and the cost to discourage it.
Funny how I already knew from your "Help us out" that you were a liar, an idiot, and an asshole.
Now FOAD. I won't waste any more of my time on you.
DukeofBurgundy would never dare to apply that logic universally.
Are you saying there is no sex inequality in the West?
That's a really old Volokh Conspiracy link which may look odd when loaded up. But they revisited the topic recently, so I can link to that as well.
An anti-Trump progressive tried to murder a bunch of Congressman a few months ago. Shall we now denounce all anti-Trump progressives as violent, homicidal maniacs?
Great examination. I"m not sure you could have avoided this. I tried to clarify the straw men of your argument going around and constantly get ignored. It seems on emotional topics like this people dig in their heels and see what they want to see.
It's not just economics, but philosophy in general, as much human knowledge is careful generalization. Taking a similar example: the thought experiment of organ transplant (a utility monster who harvests a innocent patient's organs to save multiple patients in need of healthy organs) may be repugnant, but is illuminating to think about.
This sort of abstract question is enough to get people to think through the consequences of an approach and sometimes help them reconsider it.
If some folks manage to interpret the question as an actual proposal, I suspect their belief in an approach (utilitarianism, or income redistribution, or whatever is put in doubt by the hypothetical) is so firmly anchored in their mind that the suggestion that it has bad logical consequences (and therefore isn't righteous after all) is intolerable.
You are factually wrong. It is entirely possible to "hoard" sex, if, for example, you put 10 men and 10 women on an island and it turnes out all 10 women want to have sex with the top 3 men. And this is pretty much what our past genetic evidence and our present perceptions confirm.
Chad, you're correct that there is inequality in the amount of sex people have. The trouble with the analogy to income is that this sexual inequality really is down to personal choice first and foremost. If you really just want to have sex with people, full stop, it is relatively easy to do so.
But it's not sex inequality that drives feelings of exclusion and frustration in lonely people - it's something more diffuse, and the exact nature of it will vary from person to person.
That's why Robin's whole approach just doesn't work. If sex inequality was the root cause of people's pain, and the root cause of the murderous anger of incels, then the most obvious form of 'redistribution' would be to get everyone who feels dissatisfied to put themselves on a register, and then pair these people off with one another on a rotating basis. Hey presto! You've generated a new sex 'revenue stream'.
Robin hasn't suggested any such thing because he knows, on some level, that this is the answer to the wrong question.
To look at it the other way round, imagine that we lived in a utopian society with an almost limitless supply of well-paid jobs (by which I mean jobs with an income that guarantees a comfortable standard of living). Suppose that in that society there were a group of people who were profoundly dissatisfied because they didn't have the top jobs, the ones that carried the most authority, the ones where you get to be in charge. Do we really think that anyone in such a world would be trying to address this problem by talking about 'income redistribution'?