/townhall/ - Townhall

Are Americans, who we might define as all living or having lived in the jurisdiction of the government called The United States of America, the most free people?  That is, does the range of freedom experienced and being experience by all humans meeting this definition exceed the range of freedom possible outside the jurisdiction of the United States of America?

Or would you say Americans are equally free or have at any time been equally free, to at least one other human living elsewhere?

Do you agree with today's Supreme Court ruling that it's illegal for federally-funded universities to racially discriminate in admissions?

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/20-1199_hgdj.pdf

Why are Japanese cities so safe and low in crime?

Don't you ever wonder why you would't go out and try to get rich pulling blatant scams on a lot of people with no risk on repercussions?

Are people idiots for working in call centers off shores pretending to be Microsoft engineers?
Or are we all the idiots for not seeing the lucrative business model in parting money from some gullible elder somewhere?

Overall, what do you think of scammers who keep getting away with it?

One of my projects involves finding the location in space of something like a cell phone.  Google has been playing with various ideas that might get the precision down to 10 cm, although that's best-case and widespread adoption will likely be slow for a lot of reasons.

While I deal in the technology, do you think a 10 cm precision milestone would mean anything politically, as in the power to gain deeper insight into people's patterns of life might have effects beyond giving individual users more precise information about themselves?

Let's say you spent your whole life being an atheist, or maybe at least a good chunk of your life, and then some events happen that make it very difficult to sit with that atheist mindset and be comfortable there. Or, to put it another way, you have seen or experienced too many things that you tried, and failed, to simply explain away with anything rationale. And let's add another layer to this.

Let's say that even if you get to this point, and one day someone or a few people come along, that have the answers to those experiences and can perfectly replicate them or explain them and make them rational for you. But because you had your belief system shook, you now, even with the evidence, still wish to believe in something other than atheism.

Do you believe that you have a moral obligation to still uphold science and modern medicine, psychiatry, and basically the 'best that we got at the moment' tools to deal with our struggles and problems first? Or do you believe it's okay to go full force into this new belief and suggest to other people to say, just for an example, pray instead of making a doctors appointment. Or pray before going to a doctor.

Do we have some kind of moral obligation, in essence, if we want to believe in something that science can't explain, or can't yet explain?
_____________

So that's the prompt. My own personal feeling that I'm willing to discuss if others want to, is that yes I do think we have a moral obligation to use science and the tools that we have either first, or equally as alongside, whatever spiritual beliefs we may have. I have formed this opinion based upon the countless years of history that have shown how much damage religion or spiritual beliefs CAN cause, when not handled carefully or used to fuel a fire. I also feel like there should be a similar checks and balance with science and modern medicine, but that could be a discussion for another thread. I would like to focus on this aspect for the thread first.

Nobody owes you anything.  You owe others respect for their human rights.

States don't owe you anything.  You owe states loyalty and obedience.

Politics is full of contrary ideas and best avoided.

Perhaps this can be a month to focus on modesty, and tolerance of diverse perspectives on various topics, especially topics that seem to divide ponies and humans.  Perhaps we can focus on how everypony can feel safe and accepted this month.

Hasbro Posted on FB: "Today and every day we celebrate everypony’s unique sparkle  Be true to who you are – hoof to heart!"

That sounds like a good message.  Let's debate how to best let everypony be true to themselves!

Ponies can have nice friends.  And if there are no nice friends around, you can have imaginary friends and be friends with yourself, and that's just as good.

Are you worried about deceptively aligned mesa-optimizers?

https://AsTralcoDexten.substack.com/p/deceptively-aligned-mesa-optimizers

Most people I know don't have cars anymore (largely, I think, they can't really afford them).

I gather the most common way to transit in the USA is a private pickup-truck or sports utility vehicle.  I gather some would consider using these vehicles the most American way to get around, and would say anyone wanting anything different is against freedom.

The debate topic is that it's not anti-freedom -- treason to America, perhaps -- to be OK with walking, taking a train, riding a bus, biking, or using a private vehicle that is not classified as a truck.

Should laws and culture try to look out for normal guys who have flaws that can be exploited by MBAs?

https://www.twitter.com/Steve_Sailer/status/1647836562959499265

Facebook has been preferring to show me more of what I would consider hate speech, or perhaps just showing me more hate that I remember as relevant to my...situation.

And maybe rather than getting all bent out of shape, I can think of it as people being free to express their opinions without some totalitarian control structure.  Nobody can be forced to like anyone else, and some people have negative opinions to share.  Knowing how people feel about different groups can be adaptive, and freedom is a positive trait of a community.  Perhaps it would be better yet for people to have freedom and not wish to use that freedom to express hateful opinions about groups historically marginalized, but that's probably fantasy.

Of course, in cases where the speech, beyond a reasonable doubt, is a statement of imminent intent to do credible violence against specific individuals who are your duty and business to protect, then maybe you might get upset.  But opinions and hyperbole are just that, and nobody should be attacked.

Are you worried?

I find myself drawing parallels between the LGBT movement and the civil rights movement [for legal and social equality on the basis of race and/or perceived race].  But it also occurs to me that trying to draw any meaning comparison, especially to further my own opinions, could be a kind of cultural appropriation, even given that race can be intersectional with LGBT issues.  (I am white.)

Should groups facing opposition to their liberty...stay in their own lanes, so to speak, just to be on the safe side?