Lawtonfogle

It is the same kinda of idea of banning big scary guns instead of going after the people who use guns to commit crimes (and also ignoring that the people who do commit crimes often aren't even using the big scary guns).

Regulators gonna regulate!

Welcome to the world of law. Often I've seen it said that thinking like a software developer, looking for edge cases and such, will get you smacked down by a judge who doesn't let you just use loopholes. There is an XKCD about insurance law on this topic. But the reality is that a lot of loopholes do work, and have a better chance of working if you have a really good lawyer. Part of the equation is how charismatic a lawyer is and if they can pull up records of the loop hole happening in the past (assuming you are in a court that allows past rulings to have impact).

From what I've seen it is extremely arbitrary and is extremely frustrating. I was on a jury once, where one witness was told to tell only what they had heard/seen/etc. They would try to say "I heard so and so say such and such", and the other side would object. The judge would then say to tell only what you saw, heard, etc., not what other people did or said. And I'm sitting there thinking "But what that is exactly what they were trying to do!" (of course I couldn't say a single word for risk to my own safety).

>And if this metaphor seems a little obscure, this is why it is irresponsible, populist and ultimately self-defeating for uBlock and chums to block self-hosted Piwik and other such internal analytics tools.

uBlock didn't block it. I blocked it, by using uBlock, which I picked because of its stance on trackers. So its more like I found a cloak of invisibility so I don't show up on your cameras. You can't blame the store selling the cloaks, because I and every user like me chooses to wear them. You have to blame the user for using the cloak... but to what point? You are blaming me for not letting your code run on my machine.

Information produced costs money. Groups that do not have equal funding can have far less information produced about them. This becomes a significant issue in social science where only certain questions get funding and related but opposite questions do not, resulting in a one sided view of information (especially since many people think that absence of evidence is evidence of absence).

The second amendment is being gutted every day. Along with most the rest of the amendments.

It is labeling what it is given the current culture.

Saying 'smoking pot is a crime' is only a statement of what something is given the current law. It in no way implies that it should be a crime, only that to that person in that jurisdiction, it is currently a crime. The same logic for laws holds for mores.

I have an apartment. I keep the toilet paper at the bottom of my closet. I keep a bulk supply of paper towels in the corner of the kitchen area. I have plenty of places where I can put bulk items. It would look cluttered, messy even, and it would put things where they wouldn't normally belong, but I could do it. But even if I had less space, I could still have space for the most common bulk items. (Now if I had a pet I had to keep the items away from, that would be another issue.)

Where I live, if it can be recognized as anything similar to something NSFW, then it is NSFW. Yes, the culture is extra prudish and I wish it wasn't, but I don't have any control over it.

I know chronic pain can last a lifetime. I was more so talking about one off aches that you can't find a cause for but which do often go away within the week.

But the pain isn't in the hand. Pain is in the head, caused by signals which normally come from the hand, and results in feelings that the head places onto the hand. So phantom pains in amputated limbs are caused by real things. Maybe the nerve that use to communicate the pain from the hand is sending in a false signal due to another reason. Maybe something in the brain is misfiring and some other sensation from another part of the body is registering as pain in the hand. Even if there is no outside of the brain cause for the pain, the brain is still feeling the pain so there is still an actual problem, just one with the brain.

So while there might not be much to do if the brain is just crossing signals incorrectly for a couple of days, I would still suggest significant pain be checked out and a doctor you are paying should help look into it.

Drug dealer meaning they reached some arbitrary definition that has only a passing relationship with dealing drugs.

The space issue seems to be a non-issue until you scale up to multiple bulk products. Unless you are talking about people living in either a shelter or the housing units that are basically a bed and everything else is communal.

Because the general rule is that you can't loan money to friends. Either it is a gift which may be repaid back, or the friendship gets put under extreme stress.

It may not be logical, but I accept it as one of the quirks of human behavior. Similar to how pointing out the economic nature of some relationships and interactions is often considered creepy and anti-social (for example, pointing out how certain commonly assumed altruistic behaviors are not altruistic).

I'm not sure about others, but I also had a NSFW picture load up. Are the pictures random, some of which are NSFW? (Maybe in some places it is different, but even classical art can be considered NSFW in parts of the US.)

>No complaints. No rules. Solutions or shut up.

How does this fix the problem of solutions not actually solving things?

The problem is you can't do a full social change. If all you do is stop the undesirable labor, you can end up with people unable to feed themselves. This has happened before with ending child labor.

>Pretending that the lowest pits of wage-slavery,

Once you include wage-slavery as slavery, you open up a big question of what wage-slavery counts and what doesn't.

>Humans fed themselves for many thousands of years before the modern mechanisms of oppression were introduced.

Older forms of oppression have always existed. Look at other species to see that even without a culture or society, the weak are exploited.

It is impossible in the near term. One only needs to look at what happened when protest against child labor resulted in companies no longer using child labor in their supply chains. Ideally, those children should've been cared for by welfare, but in many places thew welfare system either wasn't there, wasn't able to handle the change, or it was too slow to aid. Many of those children ended up in a worse situation; some even changing to even worse illegal professions to survive.

Now, in the long run, that will be better than just keeping the status quo. But we should remember that a quick change can be significantly worse in the short term, especially one where the focus is incorrectly applied (in these cases, the focus is on goods being produced by a child labor instead of the conditions that result in children working to begin with; ending the child labor does not end the conditions and will sometimes make things much worse).

And remember, the police can lie to you.

Plea bargains are outright worse for the system. Instead, there should be no plea bargains and if the system is over burdened it should be forced to dismiss any court cases above the maximum it can handle, starting with the lowest level offenses and working its way up, blind to who the defendant is. This will combat the over legalization of society while ensuring true crimes are still punished.

>The only real recourse is to switch carriers; however even that is not real because they all play by the same rules.

The only recourse available within the given legal system. It is the legal system which limits our recourse against aggregated petty injustice, and so if people cared enough, the system could be changed or bypassed. The bigger problem is people just don't care about the many small problems... they really don't care about most big problems either. Some days I look at the apathy and wonder if I should just sign up alongside the likes of Verizon and try to profit off the apathy.

The thing is, you can always argue with evidence, you just need newer evidence.

There is only a few special case exceptions where this presents a problem, which are mostly thought experiments in astronomy where the evidence will be lost in the future.

>but still many people don't want sexual/life partners. However, everyone needs to eat and have some sort of shelter and access to health services.

First, only eating is really required, and it requires far less than a healthy diet. The rest of that you can find people who forgo. Also, there are some who choose to not eat and a subset of them do hold this choice until they die (which tends to be soon after and caused by not eating). Consider some monks who mummified themselves through strict control of their diet as one extreme example.

So what do we consider a need? If you'll live 40 years on gruel but 50 years on a balanced diet, is the balanced diet a need? What if the difference is 5 years and 15 years respectively? What if it is 3 months and 10 years and 3 months respectively?

>your worth as a person isn't -- shouldn't be! -- how much money you make or even whether you have a job

Then what should be? And what ever criteria you do choose to determine your worth to others, what of people who lack that criteria through no fault of their own?

How long ago does land have to be stolen for it to be recognized as belonging to the new owner? If you show that I have your family heirloom (but in no way show I was the one who took it, that question is still open), how long must I have held onto it for it to be mine?

You are both right. The softer the science, the worse the effect. I trust physics more than biology, and I trust biology more than sociology. Well, that implies I trust sociology... I really don't. Anything softer than physiological psychology is basically in the 'don't trust this until you have verify it, and then still mostly don't trust it'.

Which is why laws that coerce to not do this (and thus require use to 'sell' the idea to certain groups) need to be removed. If a Museum holds some artifact from long ago, their only claim to it should be that it was entrusted to them by the will of the people for safe keeping, so their only input to scanning should be based around protection of the original. Any sort of ownership of the artifact should only be upheld if they can show they have truthful ownership following back from creation of the artifact. Just because you bought it from some guy who stole it 100 years ago does not give you any moral claim to it, and any legal backing of such a claim is coercion against the many to serve the interests of the few.

>There are many cultures that don't value people based on how much they earn.

But how many cultures value people regardless of who or what they are? Even if it isn't tied to financials, it is tied to something and there are the haves and the have nots. You can even artificially create such values among children if you give them information to suggest that some arbitrary characteristic is a have and competing arbitrary characteristics are have nots.

Lack of touch will kill babies. The research wasn't extended any further because it is too harmful for ethics boards to allow. And loneliness is very harmful to one's own health which has been verified by research as well. Compare this to all the forms of welfare that do more than give the basic necessities to not die because they significantly improve qualify of life. We are social creatures, yet when we discuss needs we deserve to have met, people seem to forget that.

>In America the market dictates your self worth.

As it does everywhere in certain factors.

If you aren't attractive to a life partner, you don't get a life partner. Why should a work partner or an employer be different?