Lawtonfogle

>That involves moving out of the realm of consenting individuals. That is what changes.

Note that I also said we can avoid this by only looking at other animals where notions of consent don't apply. Ideally psychology should realize that consent is a human abstraction.

>I agree that there is a point at which abnormality becomes illness - my (draft) definition is drawn when the abnormality causes pain (especially chronic pain), or early death.

Look at honey bees again. How much longer could individual drones live if they didn't sacrifice themselves for the colony. But wouldn't selfishness be a big problem for the colony as a whole? We cannot optimize on either the individual nor the colony to determine what is a mental illness.

Also, consider issues of causing pain to others. Every animal that eats meat causes pain to the victim it consumes. But that is clearly normal behavior.

And I'm sure we can find other examples of things that cause pain to self or others which we would find normal.

I read it. There seems to have been a bunch of studies that reached the consensus that the laws had little impact on a trend that existed before the laws and continued afterwords.

>The authors conclude that "the hypothesis that Australia's prohibition of certain types of firearms explains the absence of mass shootings in that country since 1996 does not appear to be supported

>In 2006, the lack of a measurable effect from the 1996 firearms legislation was reported in the British Journal of Criminology. Using ARIMA analysis, Dr Jeanine Baker and Dr Samara McPhedran found no evidence for an impact of the laws on homicide.

>In 2005 the head of the New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, Don Weatherburn,[49] noted that the level of legal gun ownership in NSW increased in recent years, and that the 1996 legislation had little to no effect on violence.

One of the only 'wins' seems to be that people who committed suicide were less likely to use guns, but more likely to use other methods.

>As hanging suicides rose at about the same rate as gun suicides fell, it is possible that there was some substitution of suicide methods. It has been noted that drawing strong conclusions about possible impacts of gun laws on suicides is challenging, because a number of suicide prevention programs were implemented from the mid-1990s onwards, and non-firearm suicides also began falling.

>Most recently, McPhedran and Baker found there was little evidence for any impacts of the gun laws on firearm suicide among people under 35 years of age, and suggest that the significant financial expenditure associated with Australia's firearms method restriction measures may not have had any impact on youth suicide.

There is a really deep question of when does abnormal become a problem, a sickness, or a disability.

For example, homosexuality is rare and decreases the chance of having direct descendants. But would that qualify as an illness or a sickness? In some parts of the world being homosexual can result in a significantly reduced qualify of life, but is that a problem with the person or with society?

Now switch homosexuality for some far less socially acceptable (at least in Western cultures) attractions. How does things change?

Now, say we count out humans for a second (so messy legal/moral concepts like consent are less involved), and apply the thinking to different species of animals. When does abnormal behavior become illness?

Look at honey bees... most of the colony doesn't reproduce and takes roles that limit any ability to directly pass on their genes, but that is how the species works.

The difference between normal and abnormal, well and sick, mentally healthy and mentally ill are problems with not just autism, but with abnormal psychology in general.

Just look at gun control arguments to see why people think outlawing activity will stop criminals.

You gave an answer that was clearly on the 'too far' side, but you didn't answer the question of where the line was actually at. There are a lot of things in life where it is easy to put something on one side or the other, but where drawing the exact line is hard.

For example, how to tell what species something is. Simple question, right? One only needs to look at a cat, dog, human, or some bird in the sky to easily see they are all different... until you consider the corner cases like ring species. Suddenly the really easy question of how to tell two species apart doesn't always work. Getting the exact answer can be very difficult if not impossible (often because these questions derive from placing human created abstraction onto reality, and often the fit is not perfect no matter how tightly we press down).

I do mean pay. I'm kinda assuming someone isn't going to be stealing from the cartel. That would be... bad for ones health.

>Who cares?

People who are hurt by drug cartels. It is one thing to let people grow their own pot and sell it when they are law abiding (or otherwise law abiding) individuals. But when you get drugs from the drug cartel, the harm that goes into the production makes it wrong to use. We should support legal production and importation from human sources. But we should not legalize anything coming from the cartels.

Why not: Here is my link to my facebook portal (include public link). I cannot give you my credentials because I am in a legal agreement with facebook to not give my credentials to anyone.

My own experience has been background checks always.

Work with military data was by far the most extensive (required approved clearance). Government positions were the most varied, with one being very thorough (not quite as bad as the military), and an other being the least intensive. Financial institution were middle of the road.

But everywhere where I had database access required a background check and only one place didn't require a drug test. The lower income positions I worked required neither.

One thing I did notice from my friends is that smaller shops are less likely to have institutionalize policies. A small startup is less likely to background check you than a fast food chain likely has a policy requiring it. But this applies to any large organizations, not just lower income positions.

I was thinking more along the lines of what subreddits they still allow and what subreddits have been banned (or at least 'encouraged' to go private).

I've seen other places do them before. I do wonder what the personality of my D&D dice ended up being...

Reddit really has a really hard to follow rule as to what content is or isn't allowed.

Anyone could've created a movie. Only those given rights could profit off of it.

>Blizzard have right to control the history and evolution of the WoW universe.

Do they? They have the right to profit off of it and are allowed to set the only profit, but others are allowed to create evolutions of the universe in other directions as long as they don't profit. And if any of those are more popular, Blizzard has no recourse.

>Leave your work laptop at your desk. Get a second laptop, tablet, etc that doesn't have work stuff on it if you're going to use electronic stuff around the family outside work hours.

Even if you don't work from home, keep work devices and personal devices separate. The closest I'll mix the two is logging into a public facing email portal if one is available. Want me to have official stuff on my smart phone? Then I need to be provided with one. Want me to take work home with me? Then I need a laptop.

I do not mix company and personal devices to reduce liability to myself and reduce risk to the company (I do my best to avoid getting viruses, but it would be hubris to think I'm immune to such).

People get the security they pay for. Look how much a security expert will get paid. Look at the training offered in our society to developer people into security experts, be it during childhood, at college, or once they are part of the work force.

Now look at how our society handles sport stars. Their pay. The training kids get which is needed to give rise to the stars.

I'm not convince our society cares about being secure when you measure by actions instead of words.

They changed the gender that society assigned them with. And on some level you might be able to say they changed the gender of their body to match the gender of their mind (depending upon where you fall on the mind/brain/body terminology).

It is one of those behaviors where we think it is cool to do it, but uncool to admit you are doing it. In a lot of human interactions, there are things that are fully accepted and cool to do, but if you try to point it out (or if you can't naturally do it and poorly attempt to emulate it), it becomes very uncool if not downright creepy.

>When people don't have any actual evidence to support their claims, they use bullshit phrases designed to push emotion over facts.

Often I'll use emotions over facts even when I have facts. My own experience has been that discussing with other humans goes easier when you include emotional arguments. While a mix of both works best, if you have to give a very simplified argument and cannot include both factual and emotional argument, the emotional argument will tend to go better.

I fully agree with your claim that those without factual argument will use emotional argument, but the use of an emotional argument does not guarantee they are lacking a factual argument.

For example, if I describe someone as an intern due to their lack of maturity, I may have numerous stories to tell about their lack of maturity, but as I only have one line to describe them in, I stick with describing them as an intern.

Now imagine what other abuses they can have.

"We can seize all this money and put you in jail, or you can decide to talk to use without a lawyer and we'll let it all stay."

Coercing rights away is never a good situation to allow. Not that he was wrong in accepting it, but that the police were wrong in being able to offer the option.

>it's a choice, after all.

What about religion. It is an interesting intersection of 'is a choice' and 'protected demographic'. And why should it be any more acceptable to harass someone for what they choose? Is it more acceptable to discriminate against a Hispanic individual for choosing to identify with their heritage (a choice) than to discriminate against them for being Hispanic (not a choice)? Both seem wrong to me.

>that's not something I chose. I was born that way.

What about those who are of a different gender/sex than they were born? What about people who choose to change their gender?

Even your response itself can be an issue, as there is an implication that others are born a given gender and cannot change it.

Harassing and touching shouldn't be and isn't permitted, but asking someone out on dates is pretty common (even if maybe it shouldn't be). The problem is that a mere question can seem like harassment when the ratio of askers to askees becomes too skewed.

There is also the issue that what is socially acceptable behavior depends upon characteristics which we do not want to admit. The difference between creepy and acceptable behavior is sometimes not found in the behavior itself, but in things like the race or appearance of the one engaging in the behavior.

>Sorry, learning social skills, learning to manage your time so you can meet people, etc. is not the job of an employer or a profession as a whole.

Didn't learn job skills, wasted a free k to 12 education, made bad financial decisions? Here, let society help you. We'll tax people to help fund a social safety net because there should be a basic standard of living.

Didn't develop social skills? LOL, LOSER! Why don't you try to teach yourself some social skills. You deserve to be alone until you improve yourself.

Crass and perhaps too blunt, but people should be able to get the basic idea of this double standard.

The only way this would work is to remove income taxes and use other forms of taxes to pay for basic income. This would ensure those that own the automation pay for it. But as being discussed elsewhere in this thread, the more likely result is that people who are working for income will end up with less money than before (even when you count in the basic income), thus being rewarded less for working as hard as before.

I don't much care where people spend their own money. But welfare money isn't the same as their own money.

Be careful of the incentives you create with these methods.

As a side note, will a poor person who is unable to have a child be allowed to adopt and receive an increase in basic income, and will the adoption process by significantly more discriminating in who is allowed to adopt compared to who is allowed to have children?

>Not paying taxes is leaching.

Not paying at all and expecting society to still support me, yes that is leaching. But thinking I shouldn't be forced to pay to blow up innocent children or to subsidize the break down of traditional families... how is that leaching.

>Taxation is obviously not theft, any more than charging for goods is.

Pretty sure when you force or coerce someone to buy something they do not want, it is illegal and immoral. And if the value of the item is significantly less than the price paid, it is theft in all but the most pedantic ways.

The fact that the battery needs to be disposed of sooner should be factored into the price of the phone. I don't see the issue if they are willing to accept a battery which will need to be disposed of sooner in exchange for a discount.

All research the university does is different than all research the professor does.

As long as they are at a university being funded by the public, the public has a claim to the research. If they want to do private research, they can switch to the private.

If a person is being paid by the public, why should they be able to spend their time and resources working in private? Think of it like a general IP ownership agreement at work. Anything you create at work, using the tools your work provides, belongs to the one paying you. Now claims like any similar work you do even after you leave, or work you do on your own equipment on your own time are unreasonable, but I see nothing wrong with that requirement while being paid by the public and using equipment paid for by the public.