Phi for All

! Moderator Note One thread per topic, please.

So you're slow to realize that the words you use in this context are important. I'll repeat it again, it's easier to commoditize slaves in our minds than it is to think about keeping enslaved humans, because you're removing their humanity. I feel similarly about torture.

OK, but I didn't mention slavery itself. I mentioned how we still justify the past kidnapping and enslaving real people by thinking of them as "slaves", like a commodity bought and sold, and are only now coming to realize how harmful even that thinking was. A slave just isn't the same thing as an enslaved human. I think there must be similar nuance wrt torture for our modern times, or we're not progressing.

I hope it's been shown that you can devise a scenario in which people are painted into a corner that makes torture seem like a valid solution to the problem. Considering how many hoops you need to jump through to make it seem justified, perhaps this is a signal that torture doesn't align itself well with modern humanity. After all, we're slowly realizing that slaves were actually people who were kidnapped and enslaved, so maybe there's something undeniably wrong about torturing another person that we're not realizing... yet.

I don't agree at all. The only way, imo, that you make torture effective even in the extreme scenarios we've been talking about is to have a professional torturer, someone who could be effective (if that's possible) and still retain their sanity, if such a "person" exists. How can the choice of torturers be irrelevant when you then assert that the father would be "a poor choice for a number of different reasons"?

Then this is probably where we differ. I think you're assuming the father can make do with a few broken fingers, and enough blood to make the perp say he's sorry while he's telling him where the child can be found. You know, manly macho tough guy stuff. I think you're forgetting that the father may have to pay a much steeper price if he has to use some acid, flay some skin, and pull some teeth and fingernails to get information, even if it's accurate. I hope the state that sent this father into the kidnapper's cell will pay for therapy for the rest of his life. It was a criminal burden they put on that father.

Absolutely. And almost all of them are better than this one. Not my argument at all. In fact, in your scenario, I had already assumed the kidnapper in custody was guilty. My argument is that it would NEVER be right for the authorities to allow the father to torture the kidnapper. You replied, "Agreed". Aren't you assuming that there's nothing worse for this father than having their child kidnapped? Aren't you assuming all it will take is some pleading, or threatening, or beating the shit out of the kidnapper to make him divulge the location of the child? Aren't you assuming the father will be able to justify whatever he did every time he sees his child safe and sound? Much of this sounds like macho bullshit, a simple kneejerk reaction to an intensely complicated scenario. In real life, if the kidnapper won't tell, how far do you go? While I'm sure my child would be grateful to be alive, would they recognize me if I could justify the evil things I did to a human bound to a chair?

I don't think it would EVER be right for the authorities to put a father alone in a jail cell with the kidnapper of his child.

Have you tried searching with your computer?

Frankly, I'm appalled at the suggestion that a father torture a kidnapper for information about the location of his child. I might be interested in discussing the effects of torture on the torturer (especially in the case of the father pressing the kidnapper on the whereabouts of his child). The assumption is that there's nothing worse than losing your child, coupled with the assumption that recovering the child should be done at any cost. But you've reduced my interest in your OP by insisting on the parameters you have. The way you're approaching this, anyone who answers "no" has to argue against an unlimited amount of scenarios you can dream up. It feels cherry-picked and designed to appeal to emotion.

Are the feminists threatening the lives of the trans-females with beatings and guns and violent overthrow? Is there a feminist Jordan Peterson out there claiming you can't fully respect anyone you could easily beat up? I thought the women who feel their territory is being invaded by trans-females were working intellectually to change rules and laws, rather than physically bullying those they oppose.

Perhaps important enough for its own thread, but many downvotes seem aimed at repeated fallacies (mostly strawman and ad hom) where exactly this happens. There is a heavy tendency (especially in Politics) to use the argument that if you don't support x, it must mean you support y, and I think folks get tired of correcting such misrepresentations only in rebuttal. Repeated use of fallacies is against the rules but probably one of the hardest to be strict about. It's frustrating to discuss anything when you feel your points are misrepresented. Do we need to have some meta-threads about discussion among peers? I think no system is worse than this system, but no system is more honest than a like-only system. I didn't mean to suggest it's predominantly those not involved in the discussion, just that not all the votes are eligible for the "petty weapon" category.

I'll dig a bit deeper today, but many of the red & green points given in recent politics threads aren't from participants in the thread. To me, these represent the "Hear, hear!" and "Boo!" votes from folks who don't really have much to add to what's been said. I'm not sure these are the votes you're concerned about. Also, I'm watching at least one new person who seems to have a grudge against a long-time member and regularly downvotes them, but the rest of the members have been correcting it with upvotes, so it fell off my radar. This part of the system seems to clean itself fairly well. For the rest of it, I dislike the idea of a like-only system on a science forum. I know this is social media for lots of members, and the value of positivity in discourse is important, but I don't think any science discussions will be improved by removing any of the tools we use for measurement. I'd rather do away with all reputation if you don't like any part of it. It seems wrong to only allow the "Hear, hear!" and not the "Boo!" votes. It wouldn't hurt me or most long-time members. It removes a way for inquisitive newbies to gauge replies from some of our members who've been less than civil but not blatantly so, or who're repeatedly wrong (which isn't against the rules as long as you don't preach), or who argue using any of the annoying habits people regularly get downvoted for.

Primates in general exhibit this kind of behavior when they think their territory is being threatened. Humans, at times, are able to overcome baser instincts with bursts of higher intelligence and can more fully utilize the gifts evolution has given them. Unfortunately, Jordan Peterson and Trump and the Proud Boys.

Two wind turbines are talking to each other, and the first asks, "What kind of music are you into?" The second replies, "I'm a huge heavy metal fan!"

Nobody said this was "the best course of action", so stop complaining. I pointed out how you and others seem to hold only one side accountable for taking the high road when it comes to dirty tricks even while admitting that it's the other side that regularly pulls them. What a liberal thing to say! I hope you can remember this when the US GOP slides back in the mud. Personally, I wonder why they haven't floated the idea of putting a businessman on the SCOTUS, since lawyers don't always understand the bottom line. It worked so well for them with two presidents who had little political experience, and justices don't have to have a law degree the way a judge does.

Actually, this is probably the thinking that got us where we find ourselves. Perhaps we should be looking at the makeup of the SCOTUS as a whole, rather than as individuals assessed by qualifications for the job. I don't agree with your realization, or your analogy. This isn't about digging holes, it's about setting a steady course for our country. If you want that course to be inclusive of genders and people of color, it needs to veer sharply from old course. You're right, I've forgotten about them completely, almost as if they were never there. But what I objected to was claiming the Dems should take the higher ground only AFTER getting a dirty trick pulled on them by the GOP. You defend a LOT that the US GOP stands for (not everything) until they do something despicable, then expect the Dems to be the bigger people and avoid a civil war. There it is! It's all up to the US liberals you complain about so much!

I can appreciate your feelings towards the Dems, but I disagree that they use the same playbook as the GOP. Both sides are implementing the wills of competing extreme-wealth actors, but the GOP base has been declining over the years, even though they're better organized, which has forced them to cheat wherever possible. The Dems problems are different, since they seem to prefer an intellectual approach to emotionally charged issues that splits their efforts and makes them look weak. Meanwhile, it's perfectly OK for the GOP to do anything to win, since that's what business is all about in the US. As long as you're not currently in jail, the scummy things you do don't seem to matter as long as you're winning.

This tactic has worked well for the GOP. Do the dirtiest tricks you can and then pivot when your opponent retaliates in kind. Complain that they lack principles, force them to change their tactics, and then when it's your turn pivot back to the dirty tricks and negative campaigning. There's always voices like yours and MigL's calling for reform, but it's never when the GOP is being dirty. You allow the tit and complain about the tat.

What have you got so far?

In my experience, most folks follow the passive markings and the road laws to a certain extent, but inevitably there are those who drive the streets competitively and just do what they feel like, and others have to brake to avoid collisions with them (I shall call them Le Mans-ters). It's almost a guarantee here that if the traffic lights have all failed, Le Mans-ters are going to sew chaos every couple of minutes because they either don't know who's turn it is or don't care, and just go as soon as they reach the front of the line. That's the argument that shuts down any talk of implementation around here, that it's some kind of scam by the police to make money. To me, it just sounds like using a bigger net that catches more fish and frees up more fishermen to do the parts of the job the net can't handle. Even with ten times the police officers, they couldn't catch every violation the way the technology can. Do you think the speed traps and red light cameras make people drive slower and take less risks when they know such tech is around? That would be ideal. Having fewer police officers around seems like a trend, and one that the Le Mans-ters are taking full advantage of. I was hoping to make it harder for unapologetic assholes to drive a vehicle on the roads with the rest of us who understand how pieces of a system should behave.

! Moderator Note Posts on Automated Traffic Enforcement Effectiveness split to here.

It does. In the US, there's a great deal of pushback against automated enforcement, and we have very little in my state. Politicians don't want to change existing codes to implement such measures. In fact, our state assembly has ruled that these measures can't be used unless you post a big sign warning offenders that they'll be ticketed even without police presence: https://leg.colorado.gov/content/speed-photo-radar-and-red-light-cameras-automated-vehicle-identification-systems

I'm curious how much you've automated your traffic systems wrt law enforcement because of this. I think one of the best ways to defund police departments and make them more efficient is to take speeding and running red lights off their plates by having radar-type traps and cameras that send you a picture of you violating traffic these traffic laws. If this is too far off-topic, I can start a different thread.

Those protesting just the mandatory vaccination measures are battle fodder and future recruits for those with more hateful and long-term agendas.