I recall--can't give a cite, I'm afraid--but I remember reading that human senses can distinguish "some versus none" far better than "some versus more". That is, if you put a feather on my hand I can tell you; but if you take the feather away and then put two feathers on my hand, I probably can't tell you that there are twice as many feathers now.
"I wish that Republicans were principled enough to say that there are things that are none of the government’s business. Not even homosexuality or abortion, maybe."
Sounds good to me. That's why there should be no Federal funding of abortion, no Federal tax breaks for same-sex partners, no Federal involvement in State-level statutes regarding same-sex marriage...
Wait, what? You're upset by that? I thought that homosexuality and abortion were none of the government's business.
I'm reminded of the bit in Stephenson's "Zodiac" about pH levels. It was something like...
"They're putting stuff into the soil that's pH 13. That's more than twice the legal limit."
"Shit, man!"
That's one reason why I liked Gomez. He hadn't yet gotten jaded about toxic dumping; he still got excited about stuff like that.
Except that I was still lying to him, in a way. pH works by powers of ten; pH 13 isn't just twice the legal limit, it's ten thousand times the limit. But you can't just drop a number like that on people. They're think you're making it up. It's too far beyond their daily experience; they have no idea how badly chemical-emissions laws get violated on a daily basis.
The point wasn't "everyone loved the Alien And Sedition Acts"; it was to refute the old Libertarian saw that The Founding Father Would NEVER Countenance This!
"Who better to represent the concerns of the teachers than a body selected and empowered by the teachers? Wouldn’t any “third way” you propose that eliminates the teachers’ right to represent their own interests in negotiation essentially be saying that this third party knows better than the teachers themselves what the teachers need?"
Wait, waitaminute. First you say that teachers should turn over their negotiation rights to "a body". Then you say that nobody knows what the teachers need better than they do.
So, which is it? Do the teachers negotiate for themselves or let someone else do it for them?
"The teachers’ union is not tasked with optimizing the school system; it is tasked with optimizing the outcome for the teachers."
So I guess you forgot that part a whole six posts ago where I said "If the recognized authories physically bar your leaving (and forcibly return you should you escape) then you’re a slave, or a prisoner."
Unless you're claiming that slaves who ran away would not be returned to their masters if caught.
"Oh, but in the North--" yeah, didn't I already address this objection? Yes, as a matter of fact I did.
*****
"I can't leave because everywhere else sucks!" So this argument is acceptable when we're discussing slavery, but not acceptable when we're talking about executive compensation or workplace conditions or other employment-related issues? If "everywhere sucks" absolves you of responsibility for your choices, then it's a perfect defense. Texas didn't have any choice but to take Federal money because the other option was untenable.
The problem is that, in American discourse, "slavery" is inherently linked to "racism", and in the mind of a zealot there's no such thing as a continuum of racism. Either you're a racist or you aren't.
Yes, it does. If you choose to stay then you are not a slave. It doesn't matter how bad the options are. Saying "I'm a slave and all my other choices suck!" is a way of childishly blaming all your sadness on other people.
Insisting that circumstances force you into slavery--and that the chance to choose differently is only an illusion--is a foolishly anti-intellectual method of denying responsibility for your actions. "It's not MY fault," you say, "I'M just a SLAVE here, all I can do is what I'm TOLD to do." This is where Zero Tolerance policies and TSA foolishness come from; it's people who honestly believe that they're slaves to written policy, that their actions are dictated entirely by circumstance, and that they haven't got any choice.
Exactly what I was going to say. If you can walk away, then you aren't a slave.
And no, "they'll ruin your credit" or "you'll get sued" isn't preventing you walking away. If the recognized authories physically bar your leaving (and forcibly return you should you escape) then you're a slave, or a prisoner.
It sounds like an interesting discussion could be had over whether Martin always wanted her that way, but lacked the writing ability (in skill or experience) to make it work.
Didn't Penn and Teller do something similar in the 2008 election? Conducting a "survey" where they attributed Obama's positions to McCain, and vice versa, and found that people agreed with McCain's statements if they thought Obama was the source?
It's interesting how Western society has decided that Odysseyus is the big hero of the Trojan War.
I guess it's for two reasons:
1) Western society is built on the notion that wisdom beats strength, and Odysseus was the one who came up with the Trojan Horse idea, so of course we see him as an intellectual hero rather than a sniveling wretch too craven to fight up-front like a man.
2) The author made Odysseus the main character of the sequel, although there's a lot of fanfic about the rest of the people involved (indeed, Virgil wrote a whole series of spinoff fanfics about a minor character!)
In fact, in that second one I find a common misconception (one that, in fact, I held myself.) People think of Odysseus's quest to return to Penelope as being some kind of romantic thing; he's got to get home to his wife! That's probably part of our attraction to the character.
But...the Classic Greeks didn't think like that. She wasn't his object of romantic affection; really, she was property, more like a slave than anything else. If there's romance involved it's Odysseus and Circe.
"I had occasion to fly over AMARC and saw the fruits of our Cold War labor..."
Yes, you flew in an airliner that's an evolution of technology first developed in the middle of the century, using navigation systems based on satellites first proposed and worked on in the middle of the century, and stuffed with microprocessors whose predecessors were invented to support the air-defense network built in the middle of the century. And you were able to make this flight because of satellite-based weather predictions--which satellites were, again, first built and orbited in the middle of the century.
Your original argument was that "[t]he aerospace industry of the late 50s featured fiasco after fiasco." You've backed off to "oh, well, all military spending is inherently foolish" and "technology can't solve everything" and similar platitudes.
"I see I’m about to get the Tang Argument, wherein every modern invention can be ascribed to NASA."
I should point out here that you're the only one who's brought up NASA so far.
I like how you just totally sailed by the successes I cited. So you honestly believe that weather satellites aren't a useful thing that we successfully developed?
And before you say "NASA built those"...no, they didn't. The weather satellite program was run by the Air Force and the NRO, and was exactly the kind of consistent and remarkable success that you believe never happened.
"The idiocy of Mutual Assured Destruction..."
...is an entirely-logical outcome of game theory. I guess you aren't up on your logic studies. I mean, I'm sure you've read the Wikipedia article about the Prisoner's Dilemma and therefore consider yourself an expert, but since you don't understand where MAD came from then you clearly have a long way to go.
Here, let's ask this: Why, in the context of global nuclear war, would a ballistic-missile defense system be destabilizing?
Dude...Corona? DMSP? Microprocessors? You're saying that these don't represent success stories, that they weren't successful efforts, that they didn't produce technology that's useful and being used today? (Or are you suggesting that the Russians had all these things first?)
You say you have the facts. Let's see some facts. Not "oh we had to play catchup" this, or "generalized fuckfuckery" that. Show me the facts.
If you want to point to Russian successes? Fine! That's not the same thing as suggesting that there were no American successes, that everything the Americans did was "generalized fuckfuckery".
Look, you've obviously got nothing here beyond the party-line Sovophile bullshit that the aerospace industry has had to deal with since Eisenhower's time. (And still has to deal with; viz. all the pantswetting over the PAK-FA, the S-400, the J-20, etcetera.)
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “The Percentage Sign as a Signaling Device”
I recall--can't give a cite, I'm afraid--but I remember reading that human senses can distinguish "some versus none" far better than "some versus more". That is, if you put a feather on my hand I can tell you; but if you take the feather away and then put two feathers on my hand, I probably can't tell you that there are twice as many feathers now.
On “We, as a society”
"I wish that Republicans were principled enough to say that there are things that are none of the government’s business. Not even homosexuality or abortion, maybe."
Sounds good to me. That's why there should be no Federal funding of abortion, no Federal tax breaks for same-sex partners, no Federal involvement in State-level statutes regarding same-sex marriage...
Wait, what? You're upset by that? I thought that homosexuality and abortion were none of the government's business.
On “The Percentage Sign as a Signaling Device”
I'm reminded of the bit in Stephenson's "Zodiac" about pH levels. It was something like...
"They're putting stuff into the soil that's pH 13. That's more than twice the legal limit."
"Shit, man!"
That's one reason why I liked Gomez. He hadn't yet gotten jaded about toxic dumping; he still got excited about stuff like that.
Except that I was still lying to him, in a way. pH works by powers of ten; pH 13 isn't just twice the legal limit, it's ten thousand times the limit. But you can't just drop a number like that on people. They're think you're making it up. It's too far beyond their daily experience; they have no idea how badly chemical-emissions laws get violated on a daily basis.
On “Beyond Unions”
It is awfully unfortunate that we no longer have farms or factories or unskilled-service jobs where the non-school students can go after sixth grade.
"
"Collective bargaining, whether on the part of capital (corporations, partnerships, etc.) or labor (unions) requires delegation of bargaining power."
aaaaaand this goes back to my question of why you're saying that individuality is important and therefore teachers should give theirs up.
On “Secret Trials, Secret Laws”
The point wasn't "everyone loved the Alien And Sedition Acts"; it was to refute the old Libertarian saw that The Founding Father Would NEVER Countenance This!
"
I'd think that John Adams would have been entirely okay with it, considering that he signed the Alien And Sedition Acts.
On “Beyond Unions”
"Who better to represent the concerns of the teachers than a body selected and empowered by the teachers? Wouldn’t any “third way” you propose that eliminates the teachers’ right to represent their own interests in negotiation essentially be saying that this third party knows better than the teachers themselves what the teachers need?"
Wait, waitaminute. First you say that teachers should turn over their negotiation rights to "a body". Then you say that nobody knows what the teachers need better than they do.
So, which is it? Do the teachers negotiate for themselves or let someone else do it for them?
"The teachers’ union is not tasked with optimizing the school system; it is tasked with optimizing the outcome for the teachers."
Well, at least you're willing to admit it!
"
Your question is unanswerable because it's the wrong question.
The right question is to ask why teachers--who are most surely highly-educated persons with prized skills--need to be in a union at all.
On “Secret Trials, Secret Laws”
Maybe if Americans weren't so worried about people knowing the length of their todgers we wouldn't have this mess.
On “Bullshit News vs. Real News: A User’s Guide”
Hey, I resemble that remark!
On “Demoktesis”
And you'd be talking about what an idiot Palin was for not knowing that "genocide" referred to wiping out an entire race.
Just like if she'd ever said "decimate" you'd suddenly be a classical-definition prescriptivist.
"
So I guess you forgot that part a whole six posts ago where I said "If the recognized authories physically bar your leaving (and forcibly return you should you escape) then you’re a slave, or a prisoner."
Unless you're claiming that slaves who ran away would not be returned to their masters if caught.
"Oh, but in the North--" yeah, didn't I already address this objection? Yes, as a matter of fact I did.
*****
"I can't leave because everywhere else sucks!" So this argument is acceptable when we're discussing slavery, but not acceptable when we're talking about executive compensation or workplace conditions or other employment-related issues? If "everywhere sucks" absolves you of responsibility for your choices, then it's a perfect defense. Texas didn't have any choice but to take Federal money because the other option was untenable.
"
"The actual slaves of the Old South had much better options than Auschwitz. They could have run away."
And if they got caught they'd be sent back, which is what I already fucking said.
"Not if they made it to certain states in the North!" Well, yes, and you'll recall that we had a huge war over that issue.
"Say you’ve got two choices:
A: You’re a plantation slave in the Old South.
B: You’re imprisoned at Auschwitz."
Congratulations, you've invented reductio ad absurdum.
"
The problem is that, in American discourse, "slavery" is inherently linked to "racism", and in the mind of a zealot there's no such thing as a continuum of racism. Either you're a racist or you aren't.
"
Yes, it does. If you choose to stay then you are not a slave. It doesn't matter how bad the options are. Saying "I'm a slave and all my other choices suck!" is a way of childishly blaming all your sadness on other people.
Insisting that circumstances force you into slavery--and that the chance to choose differently is only an illusion--is a foolishly anti-intellectual method of denying responsibility for your actions. "It's not MY fault," you say, "I'M just a SLAVE here, all I can do is what I'm TOLD to do." This is where Zero Tolerance policies and TSA foolishness come from; it's people who honestly believe that they're slaves to written policy, that their actions are dictated entirely by circumstance, and that they haven't got any choice.
"
Exactly what I was going to say. If you can walk away, then you aren't a slave.
And no, "they'll ruin your credit" or "you'll get sued" isn't preventing you walking away. If the recognized authories physically bar your leaving (and forcibly return you should you escape) then you're a slave, or a prisoner.
On “Cersei”
Less like "loyal unto death" and more like "passing the buck".
"
It sounds like an interesting discussion could be had over whether Martin always wanted her that way, but lacked the writing ability (in skill or experience) to make it work.
On “Political Compass Open Thread”
Didn't Penn and Teller do something similar in the 2008 election? Conducting a "survey" where they attributed Obama's positions to McCain, and vice versa, and found that people agreed with McCain's statements if they thought Obama was the source?
On “Euripides: “Daughters of Troy”, the Spoilers of War”
Darrh. Calypso, not Circe.
"
It's interesting how Western society has decided that Odysseyus is the big hero of the Trojan War.
I guess it's for two reasons:
1) Western society is built on the notion that wisdom beats strength, and Odysseus was the one who came up with the Trojan Horse idea, so of course we see him as an intellectual hero rather than a sniveling wretch too craven to fight up-front like a man.
2) The author made Odysseus the main character of the sequel, although there's a lot of fanfic about the rest of the people involved (indeed, Virgil wrote a whole series of spinoff fanfics about a minor character!)
In fact, in that second one I find a common misconception (one that, in fact, I held myself.) People think of Odysseus's quest to return to Penelope as being some kind of romantic thing; he's got to get home to his wife! That's probably part of our attraction to the character.
But...the Classic Greeks didn't think like that. She wasn't his object of romantic affection; really, she was property, more like a slave than anything else. If there's romance involved it's Odysseus and Circe.
On “Nostalgia & Freedom”
"I had occasion to fly over AMARC and saw the fruits of our Cold War labor..."
Yes, you flew in an airliner that's an evolution of technology first developed in the middle of the century, using navigation systems based on satellites first proposed and worked on in the middle of the century, and stuffed with microprocessors whose predecessors were invented to support the air-defense network built in the middle of the century. And you were able to make this flight because of satellite-based weather predictions--which satellites were, again, first built and orbited in the middle of the century.
Your original argument was that "[t]he aerospace industry of the late 50s featured fiasco after fiasco." You've backed off to "oh, well, all military spending is inherently foolish" and "technology can't solve everything" and similar platitudes.
You're all done, hoss. All done.
"
"I see I’m about to get the Tang Argument, wherein every modern invention can be ascribed to NASA."
I should point out here that you're the only one who's brought up NASA so far.
I like how you just totally sailed by the successes I cited. So you honestly believe that weather satellites aren't a useful thing that we successfully developed?
And before you say "NASA built those"...no, they didn't. The weather satellite program was run by the Air Force and the NRO, and was exactly the kind of consistent and remarkable success that you believe never happened.
"The idiocy of Mutual Assured Destruction..."
...is an entirely-logical outcome of game theory. I guess you aren't up on your logic studies. I mean, I'm sure you've read the Wikipedia article about the Prisoner's Dilemma and therefore consider yourself an expert, but since you don't understand where MAD came from then you clearly have a long way to go.
Here, let's ask this: Why, in the context of global nuclear war, would a ballistic-missile defense system be destabilizing?
"
Dude...Corona? DMSP? Microprocessors? You're saying that these don't represent success stories, that they weren't successful efforts, that they didn't produce technology that's useful and being used today? (Or are you suggesting that the Russians had all these things first?)
You say you have the facts. Let's see some facts. Not "oh we had to play catchup" this, or "generalized fuckfuckery" that. Show me the facts.
If you want to point to Russian successes? Fine! That's not the same thing as suggesting that there were no American successes, that everything the Americans did was "generalized fuckfuckery".
Look, you've obviously got nothing here beyond the party-line Sovophile bullshit that the aerospace industry has had to deal with since Eisenhower's time. (And still has to deal with; viz. all the pantswetting over the PAK-FA, the S-400, the J-20, etcetera.)
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.