patrick.net

  new post  
register or log in

Free Speech Forum

Dan8267's comments

1   Dan8267   12:00pm today  ↑ Like   ↓ Dislike  

Heraclitusstudent says

I guess that is an argument in favor of men having no choice, paying child support for their offsprings and being needed for their productivity.

2   Dan8267   11:56am today  ↑ Like   ↓ Dislike  

Now your third statement, "whether the population is growing or shrinking, human being are net producers", is also most certainly wrong. Human beings are committing massive resource depletion, pollution, and extinction. In the past 40 years, half of all wildlife has been destroyed. Clean water reserves are being permanently depleted. A third of the world doesn't even have adequate clean drinking water supplies. How have you factored this into your math? How is a higher population going to help these problems? It's not. It's going to make all these problems worse.

3   Dan8267   11:56am today  ↑ Like   ↓ Dislike  

Heraclitusstudent says

I never said greater populations is best for economic productivity. I said on average, whether the population is growing or shrinking, human being are net producers.

Actually what you said was

A woman having a baby is not putting society on the hook, it has a net positive effect on society once the baby becomes a productive adult member.

This is simply not a true statement. The statement, as you wrote it, means that every baby becomes a productive adult and pays back society for the costs it imposed. This is simply and clearly not true.

Then you revised your statement to say that the average baby will become a productive adult with a net-positive flow back to society. This may be true -- you certainly have not proven that, but for the sake of argument, let's give you this point even though it's probably not true -- but that does not mean
1. That the median baby will become a productive adult with a net-positive flow back to society.
2. That the average baby born to poor women will become a net-productive adult. In fact, empirical evidence shows that the most productive people in our society are those not born into poverty. Poverty generates more poverty.

So your revised statement is also completely wrong.

[stupid comment limit]

4   Dan8267   11:31am today  ↑ Like (1)   ↓ Dislike  

Heraclitusstudent says

I've just showed that on aggregate (doing the sum) human beings are necessarily net positives. Divide that by the number of people and ON AVERAGE human beings are net positives.

Here's for your math, Einstein.

1. Your math is wrong because you aren't taking into consideration environmental degradation including pollution and resource exhaustion.
2. The average being positive would not imply, in any way or form, that the average or median baby born to poor women grow up to net produce.
3. The greater the population, the less productive each person is due to resource contention. If this were not the case, then an infinite population would be best. Obviously an infinite population is not best, or even possible, therefore there most be some point where population increases are net bad.
4. China empirically disproves your hypothesis that greater populations is best for economic productivity. China had to go to extremes to get its population under control.
5. Ditto for Africa. African women having lots of babies is one of the chief causes of starvation. It's the tragedy of the commons.

5   Dan8267   11:26am today  ↑ Like   ↓ Dislike  

Heraclitusstudent says

Dan8267 says

This argument is essentially, society needs slaves. The degree of slavery might vary, but it can never be zero.

Call it what you want

What it's called is irrelevant. It's slavery by any name.

Heraclitusstudent says

It's what always happened, and will always happen, however you feel about it.

How I feel about it is irrelevant to my argument. The messenger is always irrelevant.

Second, just because something has always happened in human history does not mean it has to continue to happen. A mere two hundred years ago, you could truthfully said that most children died before reaching adulthood and that's the way it's always been. Is it true today, though?

Also just because something never happened in human history does not mean it won't be common from now on. Before 1903 no human had ever flown. Now it's common. Before 1940 no human had ever used an electronic computer. Now you have one in your pocket. Before 1975 no person owned his own computer. A decade later they were common household items. Before 2000 no one had smartphones and digital video cameras, now they are cheap. Yes, there are new things under the sun every day.

6   Dan8267   11:20am today  ↑ Like   ↓ Dislike  

Heraclitusstudent says

Yes the costs are heavy, and it should be obvious that all these costs are absorbed always by adult working people and we still have resources left to eat, provide for the sick and the retired, etc... that proves that human beings on average are net producers even considering the cost of childhood, education, retirement and sickness when these human beings have to rely on others.

You are almost as bad at math and logic as Marcus. Average and median are not the same thing. The median person can easily be net-negative productivity while the average is net-positive. Furthermore, environmental degradation means that we as a society can be net-negative productive while still having resources left to eat, provide for.... etc., at least for some time.

7   Dan8267   11:16am today  ↑ Like   ↓ Dislike  

Heraclitusstudent says

It is obvious that men would benefit greatly from denying this support role and just keeping resources for themselves to enjoy life.

From an evolutionary perspective, this is a self-correcting problem. Simply require females to choose mates that will provide support and you'll get future generations in which men are supportive. If such support turns out to be unnecessary because women can support the children themselves and choose to shop for the best looking men rather than the best supportive men, then again, by evolution this is a self-correcting problem. Men cease to be needed for economic productivity and become simply peacocks. And if that is to be their function, then fine. Under such a system men should just be exercising, pruning themselves, fucking women, and playing x-box. If anything, women should be taxed to pay for the living expenses of all men in such a society. Men would just be reproductive children, but evolution is a-OK with that.

Heraclitusstudent says

Thus society needs a mechanism to force men to contribute their due whether through marriage or child support. If men could opt out of child support, then I would say all childless adults should pay a special tax as a compensation that would used to help single parents.

This argument is essentially, society needs slaves. The degree of slavery might vary, but it can never be zero. As a liberal, I reject that position.

The solution is to restrict reproduction to those who are licensed after demonstrating financial solvency. Any woman who violates this restriction gets fined and denied all social services including housing subsidies and food stamps.

8   Dan8267   11:11am today  ↑ Like (1)   ↓ Dislike  

Heraclitusstudent says

Women always bear a disproportionate portion of the cost in time of parenthood.

Yes, but this is irrelevant to the questions of
- whether or not men should have the right to opt in to parenthood
- whether or not there should be licensing for parents

Women have always had the better deal when it comes to reproduction. Barring death or infertility, they are guaranteed reproductive success if they want it. For women, reproduction is a right. For men, it's a privilege. There was a PatNet thread referencing that throughout history only about 5% of males actually reproduced and that changed only recently (past 1000 years or so).

Second women are guaranteed parental certainty. Without paternity tests, men have no such guarantee.

Heraclitusstudent says

The role of men in every society is to provide resources for the society to perpetuate itself, i.e. share resources with mothers who are spending their times on the child rearing task.

Should this be the purpose of man? To be a slave?

9   Dan8267   11:05am today  ↑ Like (1)   ↓ Dislike  

Heraclitusstudent says

The premise that men and women should be equal only makes sense if you are talking to a feminist.

1. Define feminist
2. Define equal. Are you talking about equal rights (equality under the law) or something else?

Heraclitusstudent says

Having a baby or not is her choice. It is basically deciding what to do with her body or not.

It's more than that. It starts out as just that when the egg is fertilized, but by the time the baby is about to be born, it's not just about the mother. A baby one minute before birth is not materially different from a baby one minute after birth. So yes, there is a time limit before the rights of the offspring must be considered. That doesn't happen at fertilization, but it does happen before birth.

Heraclitusstudent says

- A woman having a baby is not putting society on the hook, it has a net positive effect on society once the baby becomes a productive adult member.

1. No. The fact that we have financial safety nets like food stamps, assisted housing, public schooling, etc. means that there is most certainly a non-zero cost to society when a woman has a baby, and even more so when poor women have babies. In fact, there is considerable cost. We spent a lot of our local government spending and land on children from schools to parks to child-related services.

2. Not all people become net-productive people. I question if even half the people in our society contribute more than they consume.

10   Dan8267   10:32am today  ↑ Like   ↓ Dislike  

HEY YOU says

VOTE or lose your free speech....& your life.

Instead of trying to force people to vote, how about reforming elections so that everyone's vote actually counts, and counts equally. Use a popular vote that is not grouped by geography. No congressional districts. No electoral college. Proportional representation for Congress and instant run-offs for the presidency.

11   Dan8267   10:31am today  ↑ Like   ↓ Dislike  

HEY YOU says

Now let's move on to D & R voters.

We're going to have to build more jails.

So voting should be mandatory, but if you vote for the wrong person you should be imprisoned?

12   Dan8267   10:30am today  ↑ Like   ↓ Dislike  

Patrick says

Both for wasting $14 trillion to please the Saudis and for the deaths of American soldiers and vast numbers of Iraqis under obviously false pretenses.

And for the deaths of foreign non-combatants. The life of an Iraqi citizen is equal in value to the life of a U.S. soldier. All human life is equally valuable regardless of nationality.

13   Dan8267   8:48am today  ↑ Like   ↓ Dislike  

georgeliberte says

Does it really require a Chinese billionaire to state the obvious? Libertarians have stated this for years.

Yeah, but Libertarians have also said batshit crazy things like privatizing the ocean will prevent overfishing and pollution.

14   Dan8267   8:42am today  ↑ Like   ↓ Dislike  

https://reason.com/blog/2017/01/17/womens-march-strikes-sex-worker-rights

Nope, you cannot be anti-choice and feminist. Forcing birth on unwilling women is a misogynist act.

So Susan B. Anthony and all the other suffragists were misogynists? What a stupid statement. This is the entire problem with the use of the word feminist today. It means nothing because any asswipe can self-identify as a feminist and then can call anyone else, even the leaders of the real feminist movements of the early 1900s, misogynists and anti-feminist. The word itself is just poison today.

15   Dan8267   8:32am today  ↑ Like (1)   ↓ Dislike  

Patrick says

Sometimes it's a trap. She wants the kid and the money. Our even just the money.

Our society should require a license to become a parent. To get the license you must prove
- you are financially capable of supporting a child (having at least $100k of savings and zero debt)
- you are financially stable (having an income of at least $50k/yr uninterrupted for each of the past 5 years)
- you are emotionally stable (no depression or bipolar issues)
- you are educated about being a parent (testing)

16   Dan8267   8:28am today  ↑ Like   ↓ Dislike  

lostand confused says

A man should first have the choice to not pay child support if the child is proven by DNA to not be his. In several states,

If consent to have sex were consent to have a child, then abortion would not be a right. Equal rights under law for all requires that men cannot be forces to become fathers against their will.

Patrick says

One more proposal: mandatory paternity testing at birth, so that there is absolutely no doubt about whose child it is.

This should happen automatically, not only to protect men from massive fraud, but also to protect the baby from misinformation. Having misinformation about your genetic background and family medical history is far worse than having no information.

Of course, pseudo-feminists will venomously oppose this as it would expose a lot of paternity fraud.

17   Dan8267   8:23am today  ↑ Like (1)   ↓ Dislike (1)  

Patrick says

If she has the right to refuse responsibility for the baby, he should also have the right to refuse responsibility for the baby.

Absolutely, and for the exact same reasons.

And women should consider whether or not the man is going to accept being a father when deciding if to become a mother. A child is a responsibility, not an accessory.

18   Dan8267   8:20am today  ↑ Like   ↓ Dislike  

In order to make voting mandatory without being grossly unjust, the following changes must be made first.
1. All citizens over 18 can vote. No exceptions. Not even for felons.
2. There can be no other actions, forms, or disclosures that a citizen must fill under penalty of perjury to satisfy the mandatory voting requirement. This includes, but is not limited to disclosure of address, where the person physically stores his body at night, or any other information. Any exceptions violates the Fifth Amendment.
3. Voter registration should be completely automatic. No forms should be required at all.
4. It should be utterly impossible for a voter to be turned down at any polling site. Whatever ID is used to vote should allow anyone to vote anywhere and their vote is associated with their state. Better yet, completely remove Congressional districting and the electoral college.
5. A vote of no-confidence should be allowed. If no-confidence wins, no one holds the office until the next election. An election can be held for the office as early as three months later. Yes, this includes the office of the president. Presidential responsibility fall to the next ranking official in that area. For military issues, it falls to the highest ranking general.
6. Voting must not take more than ten minutes including wait times.
7. Voting must be done on the weekend or as a national holiday where employers cannot make their employees work except for emergency services like hospitals and then only four hours max.

19   Dan8267   Jan 18, 11:55pm  ↑ Like   ↓ Dislike  

Heraclitusstudent says

A neural network just crunches a bit of data. An assembly of neural network just crunches more data.

Tell us how you need to assemble it so this data crunching somehow amount to "pain".

You do realize your brain is a neural network, right? Empirically then that "crunching of data" is what pain is.

Heraclitusstudent says

since you can't possibly know what the program feels,

Why would you think that? There is no reason to believe it is impossible to understand what a mind is experiencing, whether that mind is implemented as a neural network or by any other means, if you have sufficient knowledge and understanding of that mind and its processes.

And if you mean is it possible to experience what another neural network is feeling, then yes, it's possible simply by augmenting your brain with a copy of that other neural network. Attach your neurons to those in the other network and you can literally expand your mind encompassing the other one. This can be done with either physical or virtual neural networks.

20   Dan8267   Jan 18, 10:10pm  ↑ Like   ↓ Dislike  

Confirmed. Fixed.

home   top   users   register  

#housing   #investing   #politics   #economics   #humor  
best comments   random post   patrick.net on twitter   about   contact  
please recommend patrick.net to your boss