*** The Official MAGAposting thread ***

[oskar]

When did you start realizing that? Was it when I said you and wuf were begging to get sodomized? I only respond for my own entertainment. That said: claiming the stating of facts is an "empty generality" is not the most cunning comeback, even by your standards.

[oskar]

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20...rference.shtml

Seeing that she leaked something that never happened, this should be a clear cut case for a presidential pardon, don't you guys think?

[BananaStand]

That said: claiming the stating of facts is an "empty generality" is not the most cunning comeback, even by your standards.

Post #2773 is pure demagoguery, not facts. You really should learn the difference.

[Poopadoop]

Seems like someone could use a dictionary.

[BananaStand]

Seems like someone could use a dictionary.

Indeed

[Poopadoop]

I would be embarrassed if someone spoke a non-native language better than I speak my native language.

[Savy]

I would be embarrassed if someone spoke a non-native language better than I speak my native language.

Lots of Africans speak better French than Canadians.

[oskar]

Most of the people I've met from the scary african rape invasion that is currently sweeping europe, speak at least 3 languages. Afrikaans is very close to dutch, which is close to german, and french and/or english are the most common official languages in africa. They tend to learn really fucking quickly. I've never had a good reason to go and I'm not much of a vacation person, but my mom has been to Namibia, and Rwanda recently - she was surprised that regular people would just respond in german when they hear a german accent, which is something you come to accept in italy and france, but you don't expect it when you're on the opposite side of a different continent.

I can't hold it against native english speakers when they don't learn a second language unless they're working abroad, so I think that's kind of a cheap shot. You're just not going to need it. Me personally, I generally prefer to keep the insults groin based.

[oskar]

http://thehill.com/homenews/media/39...s-just-a-troll
https://www.nytimes.com/video/us/100...-violence.html
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...today-maryland

Probably unrelated

[wufwugy]

I find that when people respond to a list of grievances with a non-sequitur, it's usually because can't defend their position.

What do you think would have been a useful response in this situation?

[wufwugy]

Combining the trial and error process with predetermined (but dynamic, that is, the performance of which are regularly measured and adjusted when necessary) rules for known errors would give the best of both worlds.

Do the predetermined rules have unintended consequences?

To me it's just not sufficient, that issues that have been around for hundreds of years under the influence of market forces without having been fixed, might be fixed at some point in the future.

I wouldn't mind discussing a specific issue you have in mind.

[oskar]

http://thehill.com/latino/394563-mig...eedings-report

I guess you can't have baby jails without baby courtrooms. That would be unconstitutional. Next up: marsupial judges in literal kangaroo court.

[wufwugy]

It's certainly preposterous to claim to know the right answers to everything, but the same goes for claiming all answers are unknowable.

When dealing with the non-experimental, answers are certainly knowable, yet nobody knows how to know them.

We know perfectly well the answers to many questions, and not using that knowledge to patch the known errors seems folly. I'm all for maximizing liberties, but that does not extend to actions that affect other people's liberties.

Do you think killing and stealing should be legal?

Killing/stealing what? Who? When? How? Who gets to decide what the parameters are?

My view is that "wrong" is the initiation of violence or fraud. Ultimately, a society is made up of a collection of persons who determine some mainstream view of how to regulate what is "wrong". My protest is when initiation of violence is used (tax based monopolies) to regulate. Laws are really, really great stuff, but laws that are funded by initiation of violence are not the kind of laws that I think people would choose if they could freely choose.

[Poopadoop]

Lots of Africans speak better French than Canadians.

I would not be embarrassed if someone spoke better French than me. I grew up 3000 miles from French Canada and had about as much use for French as you have for Russian.

But I would be embarrassed if an Austrian spoke better English than me 'cause I speak English every day of my life. See the difference?

[Poopadoop]

http://thehill.com/latino/394563-mig...eedings-report

I guess you can't have baby jails without baby courtrooms. That would be unconstitutional. Next up: marsupial judges in literal kangaroo court.

If a 3 year old can't defend his actions in court he needs to go to jail really. A very small jail with a booster seat.

[Poopadoop]

What do you think would have been a useful response in this situation?

Why do you answer so many points with questions of your own?

[Jack Sawyer]

Killing/stealing what? Who? When? How? Who gets to decide what the parameters are?

I'm pretty sure, in this context, CoccoBill refers to killing other people and stealing stuff also from others.

If you kill an ant no one (should) give(s) a shit.

If you take a rock on a beach, no one (should) give(s) a shit either.

The parameters are those of modern civilized society LDO. Post vikings, genghis khan, mayas, django, wild west, etc. In some societies nowadays you steal and you get your hand cut off and that is also something I can't agree with (should you get your hand cut off because you were hungry and desperate and stole someone's loaf of bread? should you get your hand cut off when you stole someone's house(which is what those who administer this law do, yet get away with but that's another story)?), most notable example of this is pre-mohamed bin salman's saudi arabia

[CoccoBill]

Do the predetermined rules have unintended consequences?

They might, that's why I suggested the rules need to be measured and revised is they don't work as intended.

When dealing with the non-experimental, answers are certainly knowable, yet nobody knows how to know them.

Not sure what you mean by knowing how to know, but anyway it seems like you could support rules in all cases where experimentation can be used?

Killing/stealing what? Who? When? How? Who gets to decide what the parameters are?

Just in general. Sure there are some special cases, but let's just treat them as such.

My view is that "wrong" is the initiation of violence or fraud. Ultimately, a society is made up of a collection of persons who determine some mainstream view of how to regulate what is "wrong". My protest is when initiation of violence is used (tax based monopolies) to regulate. Laws are really, really great stuff, but laws that are funded by initiation of violence are not the kind of laws that I think people would choose if they could freely choose.

That sounds like a yes to me? So what is fundamentally different about rules against these activities, why not let trial and error work its magic here also?

[wufwugy]

Why do you answer so many points with questions of your own?

Because if two people have positions on something, they each filter any new information through their biases. By asking questions, I am attempting to cut down on some of that. It helps deter my own bias, helps me understand others, and (I hope) helps people examine their own positions better.

[wufwugy]

I'm pretty sure, in this context, CoccoBill refers to killing other people and stealing stuff also from others.

If you kill an ant no one (should) give(s) a shit.

If you take a rock on a beach, no one (should) give(s) a shit either.

The parameters are those of modern civilized society LDO. Post vikings, genghis khan, mayas, django, wild west, etc. In some societies nowadays you steal and you get your hand cut off and that is also something I can't agree with (should you get your hand cut off because you were hungry and desperate and stole someone's loaf of bread? should you get your hand cut off when you stole someone's house(which is what those who administer this law do, yet get away with but that's another story)?), most notable example of this is pre-mohamed bin salman's saudi arabia

What exactly constitutes murder in each circumstance and what exactly constitutes theft in each circumstance? Billions of dollars and countless hours are spent annually on answering these questions.

[wufwugy]

They might, that's why I suggested the rules need to be measured and revised is they don't work as intended.

Would a more robust function for trial and error be better for measuring and revising?

Not sure what you mean by knowing how to know, but anyway it seems like you could support rules in all cases where experimentation can be used?

I meant that anything that is outside the domain of some of the hard sciences has too much uncertainty for people to make claims of true knowledge. Can you think of an example of something society related in which there is no reasonable disagreement?

That sounds like a yes to me? So what is fundamentally different about rules against these activities, why not let trial and error work its magic here also?

Trial and error is at play in sub-domains within the domain of tax-based initiation of aggression; it's just not as robust in most (or all) circumstances.

[Jack Sawyer]

3:40 #MAGA #MSGA

[wufwugy]

[CoccoBill]

Would a more robust function for trial and error be better for measuring and revising?

I don't know, what is a more robust function for trial and error?

I meant that anything that is outside the domain of some of the hard sciences has too much uncertainty for people to make claims of true knowledge. Can you think of an example of something society related in which there is no reasonable disagreement?

I would say there are plenty of things where there is no reasonable disagreement, such as no consensus among experts. There are a lot of things that are objectively bad imo, regardless of their social acceptance or legal status in some area of the planet. DUI, the death penalty, genital mutilation, discrimination based on gender/race/sexual orientation, answering questions with questions etc.

Trial and error is at play in sub-domains within the domain of tax-based initiation of aggression; it's just not as robust in most (or all) circumstances.

Such as and why not?

[wufwugy]

I don't know, what is a more robust function for trial and error?

One that allows people to more freely and easily choose.

I would say there are plenty of things where there is no reasonable disagreement, such as no consensus among experts. There are a lot of things that are objectively bad imo, regardless of their social acceptance or legal status in some area of the planet. DUI, the death penalty, genital mutilation, discrimination based on gender/race/sexual orientation, answering questions with questions etc.

Different places, different times, and different people have had different views on these than you. Do you think it is a good idea to establish those ideas as policies using a system that corrects very slowly if at all?

Such as and why not?

Two chief reasons they are not as robust are because of reduced skin in the game and increased asymmetric information. An example is when bureaucrats set regulations about plumbing. A better system is one that lets the marketplace of plumbing give rise to what works best through the price system.

[oskar]

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/07/trum...-trophies.html

Big win for the free market!

[wufwugy]

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/07/trum...-trophies.html

Big win for the free market!

What do you think the effects of a ban policy on this type of thing are and what effects of a non-ban policy are?

[Poopadoop]

What do you think the effects of a ban policy on this type of thing are and what effects of a non-ban policy are?

A ban means fewer Americans will go to Africa to kill elephants because they can't bring back trophies.

Lifting the ban means Don Jr. can go and kill some elephants and bring back their heads to add to his collection of large animals he's bravely killed.

What do you think it means?

[wufwugy]

A ban means fewer Americans will go to Africa to kill elephants because they can't bring back trophies.

Lifting the ban means Don Jr. can go and kill some elephants and bring back their heads to add to his collection of large animals he's bravely killed.

What do you think it means?

Thanks for the response, and thanks for asking.

An increase in desire for trophies increases the desire for the animals, thereby incentivizing increasing and protecting the populations. A ban has an antithetical effect: reducing the desire for trophies, reducing the desire for the animals, and reducing the desire to increase and protect the populations.

There is a wealth of history of this playing out, and it is an area where there is little disagreement among economists.

[Poopadoop]

Thanks for the response, and thanks for asking.

An increase in desire for trophies increases the desire for the animals, thereby incentivizing increasing and protecting the populations. A ban has an antithetical effect: reducing the desire for trophies, reducing the desire for the animals, and reducing the desire to increase and protect the populations.

There is a wealth of history of this playing out, and it is an area where there is little disagreement among economists.

I don't see how having more elephants or any other trophy animal is necessarily a positive for the animal (assuming we're interested in their collective happiness or whatever you want to call it). Certainly not if some proportion of them are going to get shot and killed every year.

I think the idea of 'let's look after these animals so we can shoot them for fun' is kind of perverse really. How about looking after them and not shooting them?

[wufwugy]

I think the idea of 'let's look after these animals so we can shoot them for fun' is kind of perverse really. How about looking after them and not shooting them?

The world is kind of perverse.

Looking after them and not shooting them has been tried. A lot. And it yields declining populations, extinction, and black market abuse that yields significant suffering of the animals.

[oskar]

There is a wealth of history of this playing out, and it is an area where there is little disagreement among economists.

citation needed

Seemed to have the opposite effect on dodo birds, wild buffolos, the passanger pidgeon, tasmanian tiger, white rhinos and a couple hundred other species.
500 tons of ivory were imported to London annually before the ban on ivory trade. Elephant population dropped from 25 million to well under 1 million during the industrialization of the ivory trade. Thanks to massive conservation efforts the population is now stable, if only a fraction of what it once was. Wildlife rangers and animal protectionists get murdered every year by ivory traders and poachers.



Another good reason to ban elephant trophies specifically is that elephants are among the smartest animals. They are one of only a couple species who can recognize themselves in a mirror, something humans can only do starting age 2 and up, and only a couple of primate and dolphin species can do. Killing an elephant should be (and mostly is) illegal. The hunting permit $$$ argument you're likely referencing is mostely horseshit. The countries involved make vastly more money from wildlife tourism than from shitheads like this one:

[oskar]

The world is kind of perverse.

Looking after them and not shooting them has been tried. A lot. And it yields declining populations, extinction, and black market abuse that yields significant suffering of the animals.

horseshit.

Write an open letter to the Jane Goodall foundation that they should really consider Gorilla hunting permits, why don't you.

[oskar]

You should really consider being less smug about things you know nothing about.

[wufwugy]

Let me know when you care what somebody else has to say.

[oskar]

You could start by digging up some sources for any part of this pile of shit:

An increase in desire for trophies increases the desire for the animals, thereby incentivizing increasing and protecting the populations. A ban has an antithetical effect: reducing the desire for trophies, reducing the desire for the animals, and reducing the desire to increase and protect the populations.

[CoccoBill]

One that allows people to more freely and easily choose.

I may have misunderstood. You suggested trial and error, I suggested rules based on measurement and revision. What is the one you're suggesting now?

Different places, different times, and different people have had different views on these than you. Do you think it is a good idea to establish those ideas as policies using a system that corrects very slowly if at all?

No. Then again establishing them using a system that corrects itself regularly and systematically might be a very good solution.

Trial and error is at play in sub-domains within the domain of tax-based initiation of aggression; it's just not as robust in most (or all) circumstances.

Such as and why not?

Two chief reasons they are not as robust are because of reduced skin in the game and increased asymmetric information. An example is when bureaucrats set regulations about plumbing. A better system is one that lets the marketplace of plumbing give rise to what works best through the price system.

Could you try again in english? EILI5, remember the question was what's different about regulating against discrimination vs regulating against killing/stealing.

[wufwugy]

I may have misunderstood. You suggested trial and error, I suggested rules based on measurement and revision. What is the one you're suggesting now?

We mean the same thing by "trial and error" and "measurement and revision". I want a system that best measures and best revises now and for the unknown.

Could you try again in english? EILI5, remember the question was what's different about regulating against discrimination vs regulating against killing/stealing.

I don't know what is different about regulating them. I'm thinking about the system used to determine how they are regulated.

[wufwugy]

You could start by digging up some sources for any part of this pile of shit:

I have a bachelor's degree in economics, am an avid student of philosophy of economics outside of that, and read (used to read) many different economists discuss these things as well as discussed similar with some of them.

My research at university never encompassed this specifically, so I'll go to google. Here's a part of an abstract: "Trophy hunting is thus of major importance to conservation in Africa by creating economic incentives for conservation over vast areas"

https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...06320706003831

[wufwugy]

Could you try again in english? EILI5, remember the question was what's different about regulating against discrimination vs regulating against killing/stealing.

Skin in the game is a concept popularized by mathematician Nassim Taleb (yet is a common idea), which is when you have downside risk directly tied to the decisions you make. It is essentially that the more directly you are impacted by something, the more skin in the game you have.

Asymmetric information is a term used more frequently in financial economics. It's where there is a difference in the information a buyer and seller have, or more broadly the difference in information two different interacting parties have.

The marketplace increases skin in the game and reduces asymmetric information because in it decisions are made by those most impacted by those decisions and with the most relevant and related information.

[Jack Sawyer]

I wonder what this dude's skin in the game is

[wufwugy]

I wonder what this dude's skin in the game is

It's shit.

[Poopadoop]

It's labelled 'trunews' so no-one confuses it with fake news and actual facts, apparently.

Ffs, no wonder some people are so retarded.

[Poopadoop]

https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...06320706003831

Without wanting to pay to read the whole thing, it sounds like there's both positives and negatives to the idea of conserving animals for the purposes of killing them. Who'da thunk it.

[Poopadoop]

Restaurant-gate spreads to Canada. So fucking stupid. "I'm not serving you because I don't like what your hat says."

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/briti...ouse-1.4728720

[Poopadoop]

Meanwhile in the immigrant child prisons:

[wufwugy]

Without wanting to pay to read the whole thing, it sounds like there's both positives and negatives to the idea of conserving animals for the purposes of killing them. Who'da thunk it.

I would imagine so. Few things are wholly positive or wholly negative.

[oskar]

Without wanting to pay to read the whole thing, it sounds like there's both positives and negatives to the idea of conserving animals for the purposes of killing them. Who'da thunk it.

I'm just going to assume it is probably going to reference the 1977 trophy hunting ban in Kenya. If you put your horse blinkers on, you could look at that and go: Omg, if I don't shoot that elephant, I'm killing it! So you would expect that after the 2014 trophy hunting ban in Botswana, it would have the same outcome, but then you remember Botswana's wildlife tourism industry is roughly 1000x it's trophy hunting industry.

But whatever arguments you could find for very limited cases, this:

An increase in desire for trophies increases the desire for the animals, thereby incentivizing increasing and protecting the populations. A ban has an antithetical effect: reducing the desire for trophies, reducing the desire for the animals, and reducing the desire to increase and protect the populations.

is still just as wrong, as evidenced by the hundreds of species that were hunted to or near extinction with no hunting bans to somehow accelerate their demise.

[wufwugy]

is still just as wrong, as evidenced by the hundreds of species that were hunted to or near extinction with no hunting bans to somehow accelerate their demise.

I could have been more clear that when there is no infrastructure for a market, then what I described doesn't work. Tons of extinctions have happened because of that.

[wufwugy]

This happened recently, and was a big deal when it happened:

An African rhino of an endangered species was killed by a hunter. There was great outrage that this happened by those whoe live half a globe away and feel rather than think.

The rhino was old and was attacking/killing younger breeding rhinos of the species. Killing him was best for the conservation of the species. His body was donated to a nearby village for food. The hunter was one of many who paid a lot of money to the conservation institution to enter a raffle for that opportunity.

A whole lot of good came out of that.

[oskar]

The point is, the trophy trade legitimizes "trophies" as something of value, which is something countries like Kenya and Botswana are actively fighting. They burned 100 tons of ivory in 2016 alone - for the same reason the DEA destroys heroin. If they sell it, they legitimize the trade. They don't think it should be something of value, therefore they destroy it. I'm sure the Trump bill includes some things I don't give a shit about like zebra skins, but specifically regarding elephant and rhino parts, it undermines the effort of countries like Kenya and and Botswana and plays well with kleptocracies like Zimbabwe that allow trophy hunting.
Of course I don't believe for a second that this is something that Trump thinks of in conservationist terms. This is a gift for his son because that's how politics work now.

[Savy]

The point is, the trophy trade legitimizes "trophies" as something of value, which is something countries like Kenya and Botswana are actively fighting. They burned 100 tons of ivory in 2016 alone - for the same reason the DEA destroys heroin. If they sell it, they legitimize the trade. .

I find this interesting because aren't they just increasing it's value and in turn doing the exact opposite that they want. I agree it shouldn't be happening but it's a complete waste to then not use it for beneficial purposes.

Ivory being different to heroin in that heroin is abundant and not going anywhere whereas ivory literally is running out.

[wufwugy]

The point is, the trophy trade legitimizes "trophies" as something of value, which is something countries like Kenya and Botswana are actively fighting. They burned 100 tons of ivory in 2016 alone - for the same reason the DEA destroys heroin. If they sell it, they legitimize the trade.

The type of thing you describe certainly can be an unintended consequence of letting the price system work on the open market. Though, there can be unintended consequences of taking the sort of action you describe as good too.

In general, taking action like destroying product to deter desire for it doesn't have the intended effect because of how it increases the price on the black market.

[wufwugy]

[wufwugy]

Maybe the greatest thing ever made

[wufwugy]

Making the world a little less racist

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/tr...D=ansmsnnews11

[oskar]

I find this interesting because aren't they just increasing it's value and in turn doing the exact opposite that they want. I agree it shouldn't be happening but it's a complete waste to then not use it for beneficial purposes.

Ivory being different to heroin in that heroin is abundant and not going anywhere whereas ivory literally is running out.

There are two ways to devalue something that is of no inherent value: increase the supply, or convince people that it's worthless. You can do the latter by stigmatizing it.
Heroin was a bad analogue because heroin has an inherent value.

Ivory prices have fallen sharply since 2016, and since then China flollowed suit and burned their ivory reserves.

[oskar]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.60c3495e013f

Also worth noting that this is an Obama policy and Trump seems hellbent on reversing every single Obama policy. I would not be surprised if they have a special task force currently trying to resurrect Bin Laden.

[Poopadoop]

I would not be surprised if they have a special task force currently trying to resurrect Bin Laden.

^^

I lol'd

[BananaStand]

Making the world a little less racist

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/tr...D=ansmsnnews11

“The whole issue of using race in education is being looked at with a new eye in light of the fact that it’s not just white students being discriminated against, but Asians and others as well,” said Roger Clegg, president and general counsel of the conservative Center for Equal Opportunity. “As the demographics of the country change, it becomes more and more problematic.”

Translation: It was OK when affirmative action screwed with white people. But now it's affecting non-whites, so it's bad.

[wufwugy]

Translation: It was OK when affirmative action screwed with white people. But now it's affecting non-whites, so it's bad.

How crazy is that?

[Savy]

There are two ways to devalue something that is of no inherent value: increase the supply, or convince people that it's worthless. You can do the latter by stigmatizing it.
Heroin was a bad analogue because heroin has an inherent value.

Ivory prices have fallen sharply since 2016, and since then China flollowed suit and burned their ivory reserves.

The price has bombed because of changing ideals of the market, I still think burning the stuff is counter-productive.

[wufwugy]

The price has bombed because of changing ideals of the market, I still think burning the stuff is counter-productive.

It probably is. Reducing the supply of something doesn't reduce the demand of that thing. What Oskar is referring to as an effective way to reduce price by stigmatizing it is essentially reducing the demand. The public show of burning the product probably does have some demand reduction attribute, but I'd think effective policing and some other stuff is much better at that.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Making the world a little less racist

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/tr...D=ansmsnnews11

I like the flip flop, myself.
In a perfect world, people wouldn't discriminate over stuff that someone can't choose for themselves.
However, in this world, people do, and it's ugly and inhumane to deny someone education based on stuff that has no bearing on their ability to excel in their field.

So we want people to stop doing inhumane shit, and they say they will, and we give them the shot to do so.
Then they don't do what they said, and we step in and say, look... you had your shot and you blew it.
Now follow these rules for a while.
Then the rules have unintended consequences, and we lift them.


It's all fine, IMO.

[BananaStand]

Then the rules have unintended consequences.....

I don't think "unintended" is an appropriate word to use here. They knew exactly what they were doing.

If you have decent grades, but are Asian, your chances of getting into Harvard Medical School is 6%. If you're black, and have the same grades, your chances are 46%.

That was EXACTLY the intention all along.

[wufwugy]

[wufwugy]

[Jack Sawyer]

Ladies and gentlemen, we got him


https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...-is-resigning/

[wufwugy]

What don't you like about him?

[oskar]

Ladies and gentlemen, we got him


https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...-is-resigning/

Another butterfly caught in the net! No, that's not it... Fish in the barrel? Witch hunt! Total witch hunt!

[BananaStand]

What don't you like about him?

Hint....it starts with T

[oskar]

Easy: I hate all white people.

[Shotglass]

Easy: I hate all white people.

I hate everyone. I win!

[wufwugy]

Jokes aside, bad parenting may be one of the main drivers of youth rebellion towards disaster.

[CoccoBill]

Wait is this the right thread?