jimmyk

9 ms·

31.
by jimmyk 9y ago
Nothing goes hand in hand with the first. The first is a failed attempt at rationalizing away the fact that there will always be people that have vastly more influence over politics than others do, and that there is no such thing as equalit
32.
by jimmyk 9y ago
>Yes, whoever owns CNN can use up all his airtime telling you that X is the greatest vandidate that's ever lived and yes, he will reach more people than I ever will. Yet, his vote has the exact same value as mine. Interesting logic.
33.
by jimmyk 9y ago
What can possibly be done about media outlets, whose owners choose what news gets reported and what slant it takes on so on? The more you restrict the ability of people to pay for advertisements, the more control the media has over what peo
34.
by jimmyk 9y ago
>you are throwing away the very foundation of democracy and equality amongst citizens when it comes to being represented. There is no such foundation. You're lying to yourself. At the very least, the owners of media outlets have far
35.
by jimmyk 9y ago
>same as any other citizen. Hardly. Some citizens own media outlets and can hire and fire journalists based on their political leanings. Some citizens pay millions of dollars to media outlets for non-political advertising and can adjust
36.
by jimmyk 9y ago
>Who are the losers in this case? Probably the very wealthiest individuals (not "the 1%" but the top 10-100 richest people), since it limits their influence. I would guess the opposite is probably true. The top 10-100 likely ha
37.
by jimmyk 9y ago
What is your alternative to the Citizens United ruling?
38.
by jimmyk 9y ago
>but you can't simply buy a $10k radio ad praising whatever candidate you like Can I buy a $10k radio ad supporting some particular issue that the candidate also supports? Can I buy a radio station and hire talk radio hosts that arg
39.
by jimmyk 9y ago
There are important cases where it is that simple. For example, people have different ideas about who should control certain resources. All sides can't get what they want.
40.
by jimmyk 9y ago
>I put ads up on TV for them using my money. How can anyone stop me without it being a First Amendment violation? How can we even decide whether an ad is for some candidate? If it doesn't mention them by name, but is plainly obvious
41.
by jimmyk 9y ago
>With shit like super-PACs and all the different shell entities that exist solely to funnel money through, all those should be struck from the books. In regard to promoting political candidates, what in particular should individuals unaf
42.
by jimmyk 9y ago
>For simplification, let's say if one wants to run for president, they can only use whatever is in the FEC public coffers. What in particular would they not be allowed to use private money to do? Would individuals that aren't r
43.
by jimmyk 9y ago
Do you doubt that ending a marriage tends to be more difficult than ending other romantic relationships?
44.
by jimmyk 9y ago
Why would echo chambers, where people are surrounded by those who think like them, convince anyone that they are alone in their beliefs?
45.
by jimmyk 9y ago
Which... I think is a great thing. You think it's a great thing that there is less dialogue between people with differing opinions and more places that function as echo-chambers?
46.
by jimmyk 9y ago
>right to exist unmolested by humans What right to exist unmolested by humans?
47.
by jimmyk 9y ago
I'm pretty certain Richard is not the author of that post. It seems likely it was written by one 'cybervegan'. In the second paragraph, the author of the post states "...after recently reading TGD..." which would be
48.
by jimmyk 9y ago
It looks like it's particularly dangerous to be trans and black, and also very dangerous to be trans and hispanic, at least in the US over the past few years. It looks like Manning doesn't have much to worry about, at least for be
49.
by jimmyk 9y ago
I agree, the suggested test for determining if something is absolutely moral would lead to that kind of off result. Let me ask you this: we can test theories about how light works by making predictions about how light will behave in some ci
50.
by jimmyk 9y ago
What is truly ethically absolute? Nothing, as far as I know.
51.
by jimmyk 9y ago
Depends on your value system It seems odd that an absolute would depend on something subjective, doesn't it? we would not be able to trust each other. That sounds like a pretty utilitarian concern to me, rather than a contradiction
52.
by jimmyk 9y ago
What you're talking about doesn't sound very absolute to me then, but relative.
53.
by jimmyk 9y ago
It seems odd that something can be absolutely moral one polling cycle and not absolutely moral the next polling cycle, if a whole bunch of subjective opinions change, as they have a tendency to do.
54.
by jimmyk 9y ago
What does it mean for something to be "absolutely moral" or "absolutely immoral"? What test can I perform to find out which bucket something falls into?
55.
by jimmyk 9y ago
Because they're threatening the lives of random innocent people over something as trivial as a their easiness to avoid problems with the law. You're suggesting that rich people commonly drive drunk solely because they get some k
56.
by jimmyk 9y ago
>I really don't see any point in trying to exhaustively account for public goods at the individual level I certainly agree that funding for public education cannot be considered a repayment for some personal debt, which is why I obj
57.
by jimmyk 9y ago
But many people have no public education, and they don't get a break on their property taxes.
58.
by jimmyk 9y ago
>Because you're good for it, it's convenient to assess and collect, and the property itself isn't going anywhere. OK but what does that have to do with paying back the cost of my own education?
59.
by jimmyk 9y ago
Then why does the bill change depending on the assessed value of my property?
60.
by jimmyk 9y ago
The people not choosing to compete and instead seeking cooperation will be at an individual disadvantage compared to those that compete, so it's hard to get people to cooperate on a massive scale because it's often a rather selfl

More ›