cauch

43 ms·

331.
by cauch 2y ago
Again, if the authorities are in the pocket of the politicians, then they could already today declare it's a murder when a politician says their opponent has cut a blade of grass and it is a murder. This is what I don't understand
332.
by cauch 2y ago
I have a pretty clear understanding that the crazy misuses that some people are pretending will happen are obvious and will not happen because it's basic law making. It's like saying "they say they want a new law that reduce
333.
by cauch 2y ago
Don't miss the forest for the tree. There are plenty of sentences said by politicians that are easily ground for attacking them for libel. So, if you find excuses to reject some of my example, you can just do a little bit of effort and
334.
by cauch 2y ago
Sure, but you can already tie your opponent up in court by accusing them to be drug dealers or having embezzled party money. It does not happen, because there is a political cost of the public opinion of doing that. If indeed your opponent
335.
by cauch 2y ago
You realize that lies are already illegal in plenty of other situations. For example, lawyers and doctors cannot lie or deliberately deceive. Or you can be prosecuted if you lie when under oath. You know that no lawyer or doctor are arreste
336.
by cauch 2y ago
Punished by the same people who punishes all the other infractions. The same way doctors are punished if they are abusing their patients, or drug dealers who are selling drugs, or rioters that burn cars, or ... No one is going to build a br
337.
by cauch 2y ago
People dies when politicians lie. People dies when politicians decide what's the truth. What is proposed here is that the truth is decided on a judicial trial based on facts and proofs. If you think it will not work because the politic
338.
by cauch 2y ago
Exactly, I really don't understand the logic of people saying that it will allow to arrest the opposition. Surely, if the people in power have such power that they can force the judicial system concludes that an opponent has lied when
339.
by cauch 2y ago
How can you arrest your opponents in such system? It is explained that it will go through the independent judicial system. If your argument is that the judicial system will be captured by the power, then, why is this law a problem: if the j
340.
by cauch 2y ago
It's not up to governments to agree. Right now, there are encrypted communication solutions that exist. None of them have been built by a government. We can build Chaum's network and start to use it. If we do that, government will
341.
by cauch 2y ago
> If that’s your position you should remove the word “therefore” from your final sentence. Because that word means that the conclusion was drawn from the previous statements. What if I would have said "the solution on the left is ob
342.
by cauch 2y ago
> That conclusion is logically wrong and does not follow from the premises. I am not saying "the good argument is moderation" (argument to moderation fallacy), I'm saying "the two extremes are obviously wrong, and, it
343.
by cauch 2y ago
I'm seeing more value in your comment than, apparently, the other people who have answered it here. I think you are 100% right that above-the-law communication is not good for society. This should be obvious. At the same time, allowing
344.
by cauch 2y ago
The same article was written billions of time in the past 20 years (at least). Few thoughts: - Popularity may imply things that are fundamentally incompatible with the way Linux works. Imagine Windows or Mac giving the possibility of fork,
345.
by cauch 2y ago
> Not really And again, "con artist" was not talking about start-up. > This is absolutely the implication of what you said. That is incorrect. I can see why you can interpret it like that, and indeed I should have been more
346.
by cauch 2y ago
You are the one who started talking about "scammy". Look at what I've said, I've JUST said that US is more tolerant with con artist and bullshitters. I did NOT say "start-ups are con artist and/or bullshitter&q
347.
by cauch 2y ago
I'm not saying they are more scammy, I'm saying that the reputation score is computed differently in US and in Europe, and having a scammy aspect is penalizing the startups more in Europe than in US. You can start from exactly the
348.
by cauch 2y ago
Something that was not really approached in this article is the underlying assumption that "entrepreneurship is good" and the difference of culture towards that. Start-ups can be seen as the things that bring society forward, or t
349.
by cauch 2y ago
I don't think the person you are answering to is referring to IQ tests. Do you often have proper IQ tests when navigating in the academic sector? I personally never have one. On top of that, I'm not sure IQ tests themselves are re
350.
by cauch 2y ago
It's a detail, but I disagree with the fact that looking at who is worrying is not a good element to evaluate if the problem in question has legitimate arguments to generate worry. If someone usually optimistic is worried about the sub
351.
by cauch 2y ago
I don't think #2 as an argument "just relies on stretching questionable analogies". I think the point of this argument is that you have to consider the prior and correct for it. If I do a scientific experiment and reach a con
352.
by cauch 2y ago
The way I see it is rather: The past has shown that for each technology, there were "worriers". Imagine a distribution graph with the x-axis being the scale from "very worried" to "confident in the future". For
353.
by cauch 2y ago
I think there is a problem with the "rationalist" people. Opinions in itself is a useful and scientific tool, but they seem to consider it as an insult. The reality is that as soon as you go further than quite simple discussion, y
354.
by cauch 2y ago
That's rich coming from you. > This is the only observation my argument needs Are you really unable to understand that "whites are smarter than blacks" and "we observe a statistical discrepancies in the observed IQ&qu
355.
by cauch 2y ago
> Namely, that the measured Black-White IQ gap is not crackpot science but is accepted by most people who study the issue. I have said that Bostrom gave credit to science quackery. You answered saying that it is not, explaining that the
356.
by cauch 2y ago
> I cherry-picked a sentence from the summary section for the sake of providing a representative statement of the content of the article relevant to the discussion. "cherry picking" is a term used to talk about picking the &quo
357.
by cauch 2y ago
As I've said, I don't consider Bostrom as a racist, I consider him as an idiot because he felt for the first scientific quackery that sounds edgy. Even in 1996, it was obvious that "Blacks are less smart than Whites" is
358.
by cauch 2y ago
Did you even read the article you point to? It looks like you just cherry picked a sentence that says what you want to hear. The passage that you highlight does not say that there is a gap not explained by socio-economical status, it says &
359.
by cauch 2y ago
This is what is called a spurious correlation, and it is wildly considered as a scientific mistake to call it simply "a correlation", because either the person that talks about correlation has made a mistake by not checking if it&
360.
by cauch 2y ago
We are saying the same thing. I'm saying that someone is a foreigner _not because of the color of the skin_, but because they are identified, in a way or another, as a foreigner, and put in one or more of the outgroup. The whole Black

More ›