ponow

Yes, wealth redistribution is genteel theft and should be thwarted at every turn.

That inflexibility must end.

For the love of God, please no mandatory licensing. Voluntary certificates approved by trusted institutions are sufficient. Businesses should choose which certificates they trust; politicians should have no power to define technical competence.

> Why should free speech be a right?

You cannot be serious.

"You're" quite right with your comment ;)

> capitalism forces us to become resource-oriented

This doesn't ring true, if only for the simple reason that even sub-median wealth people are now much more materially wealthy than, say, a thousand years ago, even two hundred years ago or less.

The need for two income is a huge time & energy drain for families, making it difficult to socialize. There was a post-WW2 sweet spot where you could live well on one income, and you didn't have to have many years of education. The US peace dividend was part of it, but I think that regulations that limit the housing supply and cause inflation are a major impetus for people working more to keep up their lifestyle.

This is the only comment that's half-way realistic. This intentional relationship stuff seems better tuned to the successful or the childless.

Intellectuals in the US love the state, or at least act like they do.

> Money and status fall by the wayside when you get past 50.

When one has these things.

No, the killer kills physically. Being told to is no excuse.

People choose to use social media, as they choose all media. People are individually responsible for the physical actions they make, even if a little bird told them what to do. It may be easier to control people by limiting what thoughts they're exposed to, but a people isn't free if that's done.

You'd think so, but an array of regulations makes that increasingly difficult. Fixing your own house or car can put you in legal hot water.

It's one thing to say that about very young men, and quite another who followed society's and especially goverment's pushing and funding of higher and higher education. Only later do they find out that their crazy study hours were largely wasted, and they'd have done much better in a trade. They were led astray.

It would be better for people to be integrated into the workforce _during_ their education, to ensure that it stays relevant and to keep the movtivation. This idea of education as a kind of social enlightenment is an elite luxury, and makes people more miserable and regretful and unemployable.

It does if you got a serious education that goes woefully underutilized.

I barely talked to any of them after some of these exchanges. I refuse to explain myself.

Bull.

You had said:

> Damore said that women biologically were inferior at science, that's what I am reading second-hand so might _also_ be filtered through a lens already.

That's a confession, or totally misleading.

He stuck out his neck only to those who appeared to welcome his supported and honest interpretation of the truth, only for the standards of discussion to change. He didn't post it on the open internet. If reality has asymmetries, don't blame him for reminding us of that. For example, barely after childbirth there are group differences in interest in people vs things.

Java will collect sets of objects with circular references: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/1910194/how-does-java-ga...

It is true, just incomplete. Preaching to the converted doesn't require this evidence and argument, but _in general_ you need that capability. If you want popularity you have to customize your pitch to the audience.

You didn't even read his paper, got him wrong, and yet you dismiss him. You're exhibiting the very trait that caused the injustice against him. After having studied that paper, look in the mirror and ask whether what he wrote was so unconscionable to require the wrath he endured.

Way to dismiss and mischaracterize that moment. Not only did he not claim any such inferiority, his post was in the context of discussions going on inside a private company that seemed to encourage such reflections, until they turned on him.

Yes, Germans do not take liberty seriously. You could handle the color constraint by contract, but it's easier to force people than bribe them to sign voluntarily.

What does it mean to own property? Does that meaning depend on a democratic majority? If so, then you don't have private property. Whatever restrictions you want to impose on neighbors due to high density can be done using contracts (added to deed). You don't need these laws. But people don't want contracts, because it's easier to force people to abide by rules that you can't get them to voluntarily agree too. These laws are a subsidy, because you'd have to bribe some people to sign agreements to accept certain restrictions.

Those people concerned about the potential for some new neighbor's junk cars can get everyone now to sign an agreement (attached to deed) preventing said. Of course there will be some holdouts, which you'll have to bribe. So it's clear that making a local law in lieu of said agreements is effectively a subsidy to those who would have had to pay this bribe.

Exactly. Since all member property owners voluntarily restrict their own deeds, nobody is forced to do anything. It's completely voluntary, unlike town bylaws that can oppress minorities, like those who fix cars on their own property. These bylaws are clearly subsidies, because if you'd have to bribe those who aren't disposed to agree otherwise.

No, you can bribe your neighbors to sign contracts to avoid whatever non-violent behavior disgusts you. Getting some majority of your friends to make a local law to do it is just a subsidy, paid for by the people whose behavior is physically harmless behavior is being constrained. Not everyone has the same pursuit of happiness.

This is so depressing.

> you're not american so I assume you're not morbidly obese or other issues

Had to slip in the insult, didn't ya?

This argument needs to be made more. Thanks!

Your point was that, now, "it is socially unacceptable to wear the same thing for days in a row, even if you change your undergarments", ergo, society has upgraded (its expectations of acceptable wear), i.e., moved the "goal posts". That means, we solved the old problem of not putting people in rags, and have a new problem, of constantly new outfits. Absolute gain: clothing problem "solved", replaced with new "wardrobe problem". This is what progress looks like. We always find new, harder, problems. The fact that there is a problem distracts people from admitting we have solved some.

You're moving the goal posts in your rebuttal by adding environmental concerns.

Absolute poverty has been dropping dramatically as a fraction of the growing world population. Look at the trends, not the snapshot. Show some fricking gratitude for the world of plenty in which humanity exists.