-->
@bsh1
I suppose you could put it in that way, yeah.
AMA: Bsh
Posts
Total:
155
-->
@triangle.128k
So, I have big issues with Theocracy given the reality of pluralism. I believe in religious freedom, not rule by religion. As for monarchism/authoritarianism, it seems to me that while monarchs and dictators may occasionally be quite capable of governing, often they are entirely incapable of doing so. Given that such forms of governance often lack peaceful, institutionalized means of removing incompetent leaders from office, democracy seems better. At least some of the time voters will oust inept politicians. That said, it seems as though if we take freedom of choice seriously as a right, it would be impossible to endorse authoritarianism or monarchy because the ability of the people to choose their leaders is not respected. People should have a say, directly or indirectly, in the laws which and the persons who govern them.
-->
@bsh1
That and, what are your general views on extremely conservative views pertaining to society and social issues?
Sorry if I'm bugging you with the questions (this is probably the last lol), I'm just curious to hear your general statements/points of view. You seem to be not only firm in your beliefs, but great at defending them in debate, and somewhat intelligent.
-->
@triangle.128k
I'd love to see a debate with you and bsh
-->
@David
Kind of busy right now, maybe later after December when I have time
That and, what are your general views on extremely conservative views pertaining to society and social issues?
I generally find extremely conservative views problematic, as they too often fail to recognize that substantive freedom is just as, if not more, important than literal freedom.
Sorry if I'm bugging you with the questions (this is probably the last lol), I'm just curious to hear your general statements/points of view. You seem to be not only firm in your beliefs, but great at defending them in debate, and somewhat intelligent.
OMG. Another complimentary insult.
-->
@bsh1
3. Thoughts on efforts of radical life extension.I think it would probably drive us insane.
My thoughts as well. Making the body and brain live forever could possibly have some unexpected psychological impacts, as well as whatever problems could arise from maxing our brains out.
6. Favorite slasher flick?I don't even know what that is...
Like Hallowee, friday the 13th, nightmare on elmstreet etc.
8. Is it better to do things that will bring about a utopian world in 123 years or things to eliminate suffering now even if the consequences 123 years down the road for those actions are bad?The former.
It's odd. I thought you would side with Keynes who said we should fuck over our grand children and future generations so this one can be better off.
"“The long run is a misleading guide to current affairs. In the long run we are all dead.”16. Why should a person be banned for driving drunk, if they can still drive better than the worst sobor drivers who are free to legally drive on the road?Because individual exceptions like that cannot be factored into laws which must govern society in general.
Can't be factored in because it is not practical to do so, or because it is unethical?
-->
@bsh1
Literal freedom must come first. It currently doesn't exist and we see the results. We have a world where injustice, poverty and suffering are common place. We tried the path you reccomend and are currently trying it, and it has failed us.I generally find extremely conservative views problematic, as they too often fail to recognize that substantive freedom is just as, if not more, important than literal freedom.
Like Hallowee, friday the 13th, nightmare on elmstreet etc.
I don't watch horror movies. Ever...
-->
@Wylted
I totally disagree with that analysis, but I'm not going to really debate it here.
-->
@bsh1
I doubt you do disagree with the premises.I totally disagree with that analysis, but I'm not going to really debate it here.
This thread will be open for questions for about another two hours.
This thread is closed for questions. Thanks to everyone who participated :)
-->
@bsh1
hi hun, how are you doing?
-->
@WarriorQueenForever
Good. You?
-->
@bsh1
That's good. Glad to hear. I'm ok.
-->
@bsh1
I’m going through a “phase” of becoming more and more undecided about a lot of political issues. Given that, I’m going to ask you some questions about your positions on some political issues, how you came to them, and how you deal with some arguments that people of the opposite views make.
(1) Why do you prefer a negative income tax to a guaranteed minimum income with work requirements, an unconditional minimum income that is means-tested, a universal basic income, and a safety net comprised of giving people access to specific services/vouchers for those services (e.g., free healthcare, free education, food stamps)?
(2) Why do you prefer single-payer healthcare to Hillary Clinton’s plans to expand Obamacare or a means-tested healthcare program, or even an entirely cash-based system of health services with subsidies? How do you deal with the argument that the costs of single-payer healthcare would be better spent on welfare reform and that limited political capital for Democrats means they should prioritize spending that money on welfare?
(3) I’ve seen you argue before for animal rights using the “argument from marginal cases.” Do you think eating meat, dairy, or eggs is morally justified? Would you vote for a candidate who is fantastic on animal welfare but terrible on the economy and social justice? “No” to the first question and “yes” to the second (given the extent of abuse animals face) seem like the logical extension of the “argument from marginal cases,” given that I imagine that’s what most people would do if severely mentally enfeebled individuals or infants were treated in similar ways.
(4) What gun control laws do you support? Do you believe that gun rights deter crime? If no, why not? If yes, why do you still support significant gun control measures?
(5) By a “living wage,” I assume you mean a federally-mandated minimum wage of $15/hour. If yes, how do you deal with the argument that a federally-mandated minimum wage would cause significant unemployment, especially since the US doesn’t have experience with minimum wages going that high? Even pro-minimum wage economists such as Alan Krueger, per my knowledge, wouldn’t go as far as $15/hour.
(6) How would you respond to the argument that legalized prostitution would lead to increased human trafficking because (a) it would increase demand and (b) it would make it harder for law enforcement officials to catch human traffickers due to the difficulty in distinguishing between sex workers who consented to be sex workers and sex workers who are victims of trafficking?
-->
@Tejretics
Why do you prefer a negative income tax to a guaranteed minimum income with work requirements, an unconditional minimum income that is means-tested, a universal basic income, and a safety net comprised of giving people access to specific services/vouchers for those services (e.g., free healthcare, free education, food stamps)?
I'd love to debate someone on this, actually. But, in general, a basic income doesn't focus its benefits among the most needy in the way that an NIT does. I would give NIT benefits to those without income as well, as long as they declared so to the IRS. I also don't like work requirements in general, because (a) someone's life and health should not be taken away because a person is lazy and (b) they are tokenistic in the sense that they are included primarily to appease certain political groups without regard to whether the programs actually foster industriousness (is having a job meaningful if you don't do it well?). And then there's always (c): what if you're laid off or its a recession and you can't get a job?
Why do you prefer single-payer healthcare to Hillary Clinton’s plans to expand Obamacare or a means-tested healthcare program, or even an entirely cash-based system of health services with subsidies? How do you deal with the argument that the costs of single-payer healthcare would be better spent on welfare reform and that limited political capital for Democrats means they should prioritize spending that money on welfare?
Healthcare is a fundamental right, IMO, just like education or due process, for example. We shouldn't make people pay (beyond taxes) to exercise their fundamental rights--that seems like a kind of unacceptable imposition. I shouldn't have to fork out $10,000 in order to go to high school or to have a trial by jury. So why should I have to fork that out in order to receive healthcare? So long as we regard healthcare as a fundamental right, ought it not be free? If "yes" is the answer to that question, means-testing goes out the window, because healthcare ought to be free for everyone, since everyone can claim it as a fundamental right.
The latter portion of your question is a bit more complicated, because I think--essentially--the welfare system should be overhauled. We should basically have: single-payer; guaranteed food security; guaranteed housing; a small tax credit for parents, the aged, and the disabled; a living wage; and an NIT. All other programs should be scrapped (though I am open to reconsidering that on a program-by-program basis). I think, practically, single-payer is a kind of welfare reform, and so many of the necessary reforms can be packaged as one thing more or less, to maximize political capital.
-->
@Tejretics
(3) I’ve seen you argue before for animal rights using the “argument from marginal cases.” Do you think eating meat, dairy, or eggs is morally justified? Would you vote for a candidate who is fantastic on animal welfare but terrible on the economy and social justice? “No” to the first question and “yes” to the second (given the extent of abuse animals face) seem like the logical extension of the “argument from marginal cases,” given that I imagine that’s what most people would do if severely mentally enfeebled individuals or infants were treated in similar ways.
I am starting to come around to the notion that eating meat is probably immoral, but that doesn't mean I plan to stop (tu quoque, I guess). I am even starting to embrace positions like personhood for rivers and forests. Dairy and eggs are separate issues--I don't think that milk and egg consumption (much like the use of wool in coats or eating honey) is immoral to the extent that their harvesting does not harm the animals involved and to the extent that the eggs are sterile or non-viable.
I would probably prioritize the economy and social justice. While I believe the argument from marginal cases is viable, I don't think it definitively establishes that the interests of humans possessing meaningful agency do not outweigh the interests of animals. So, I would prioritize those humans' welfare, but I would still factor animal rights issues into my vote.
(4) What gun control laws do you support? Do you believe that gun rights deter crime? If no, why not? If yes, why do you still support significant gun control measures?
I'd be down for just banning private ownership of guns, period (though I would allow state-owned gun clubs to lease guns for short durations and only for certain purposes). But, if that weren't an option, it would be easier to tell you what I would permit: owning a rifle or shot gun capable of firing no more than 6 shots before needing to be reloaded. The firearms would have to be stored separately from the ammunition, and both the ammunition and the firearms would need to be stored in locked compartments. Gunowners would need to submit to three random inspections a year to verify that they are storing the firearms correctly. Gunowners would need to pass, once every five years, a gun safety and use assessment. Every gunowner would need to pass a background check and a mental health check administered by a panel of psychiatrists. Every ten years the background check and mental health check would need to be repeated.
-->
@bsh1
How much does it mean to you that you were made head mod here?
Why was it you Mike chose? Do you admit to having known him beyond this DA-public-meeting interaction?
-->
@Tejretics
(5) By a “living wage,” I assume you mean a federally-mandated minimum wage of $15/hour. If yes, how do you deal with the argument that a federally-mandated minimum wage would cause significant unemployment, especially since the US doesn’t have experience with minimum wages going that high? Even pro-minimum wage economists such as Alan Krueger, per my knowledge, wouldn’t go as far as $15/hour.
So: "Back in 2015, The Economist estimated that, given how rich the U.S. is and the pattern among other advanced economies in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, “one would expect America...to pay a minimum wage around $12 an hour." I'd be down for $12-15 for a living wage. I am just not sold on the idea that a $12-15 LW would cause large scale, long-term unemployment. If anything, it would boost consumer's lagging purchasing power, and could potentially energize certain sectors of the economy. Temporary subsidies might be needed to offset market shock, or the wage could be phased in. But once it's implemented, it should be indexed to inflation so that we don't have to go through this LW rigmarole again, and so there's market certainty. It should be automatically adjusted every three years based on that indexing.
(6) How would you respond to the argument that legalized prostitution would lead to increased human trafficking because (a) it would increase demand and (b) it would make it harder for law enforcement officials to catch human traffickers due to the difficulty in distinguishing between sex workers who consented to be sex workers and sex workers who are victims of trafficking?
The increase in demand is an obvious consequence of legalized prostitution. The question is whether human traffickers and unscrupulous brothel owners would be able to disguise their activities from law enforcement, because even with rising demand, if they aren't able to conceal their activities, the question is moot. There seem to me to be quite a few factors at play. First of all, prostitutes would more likely be willing to seek help if they did not have to face potential charges themselves. Second, government regulation of brothels would force brothels to submit to inspections, to file paperwork, and to be audited. These kinds of activities don't currently happen in brothels. Their presence increases the potential to catch malfeasance. Third, willing volunteers would likely reduce the demand for traffickers themselves. So yeah, the industry demand will go up, but the demand for traffickers may simply go down because people willing to do the job would come forward themselves. Finally, you could require all sex workers to be citizens, to reduce the risk of trafficking in foreigners.
There's also a sense that criminalizing prostitution actually makes it harder on victims of trafficking. Not only can they be trafficked, but once they get to their destination, they can be arrested for prostituting themselves. That seems like a double-wrong. Are we really okay with that? Sex trafficking is gonna happen, but at least with legalization, sex workers aren't hit with two wrongs...
-->
@RationalMadman
See the OP: "feel free to ask me anything as long as it's not about moderation."
-->
@bsh1
Lol, this was about how much it means to you, I was genuinely curious.
-->
@Tejretics
How so? Why? Did my answers help?I’m going through a “phase” of becoming more and more undecided about a lot of political issues.
-->
@RationalMadman
I did not know Mike prior to becoming a mod and it means that I get to help/perform a service to a community that I care about, and that is valuable to me.
-->
@bsh1
Do you enjoy being recognised for doing well, the struggle towards doing well or doing well more?
-->
@RationalMadman
Can you rephrase that?
-->
@bsh1
- being recognised for doing well
- the struggle towards doing well
- doing well
Which do you enjoy most and why?
-->
@RationalMadman
Not necessarily in the context of moderation, but probably 1. Struggles and journeys may be the real lessons, but they are called "struggles" for a reason. Doing well is nice, but it's not as good as doing well and getting recognition for it. So, numero uno.
Are you, or are you not a Lizard person and/or a card carrying member of the Illuminati?