• Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


FunkyTown last won the day on June 20 2018

FunkyTown had the most liked content!

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

FunkyTown's Achievements

Senior Member

Senior Member (4/4)



  1. So it depends on when you're applying it. A beginner weightlifter might be able to deadlift 150 kg but, in the course of getting ready for his first competition, increases in muscle mass to the point that he's lifting 165 kg. Through great effort, he gave 110% of his initial achievement. His effort may have remained at 100%, but he didn't say "I gave 100% of my potential willpower." but rather "I worked so hard that I gained an increase of 10% over my previous maximum."
  2. So I like these questions. However, I would suggest that there is a flaw: 1) There are certain things which are not 'wants' in the traditional sense. An addict who 'wants' to quit smoking has an addiction to smoking, but does not 'want' to smoke. Similarly, someone blinded by rage might not 'want' to commit an act, but due to a blinding emotional state they find themselves either unable or unwilling to fight a compulsion. 2) The more water we drink, the more we want water. The more love we share with our family, the more we want to love. We may not be able to 'control' our wants, but we can certainly influence them. This leads me to a question I have yet to find a substantive answer to: God is omniscient. We have free will. We can choose to go with God, but we might not. God knows whether we will or will not even before we're created. So why create us, knowing that even though we could choose the right thing, that we won't. If I put a child in a crib on a tightrope and that child plummets, even though the child could have stayed safe, I knew the child wouldn't. How much of our failures does the omniscient being bear? What I believe is that God does know even before we are created and given a body what our ultimate choice will be. I suspect that his sacrifice allows us to make a certain amount of bad choices and that he reaches out to us at all points to try to bring us in. I believe that those who make the deliberate decisions cannot hold Heaven hostage to their own bad choices. But I still don't know why they're created in the first place.
  3. This is really interesting. I looked at Macrotrends, because I look at data analysis, and this is what I saw: <a href=''>U.S. Death Rate 1950-2021</a> I'm curious as to why some sources of the death rate seem so different to others. It's unprecedented to see such vast disparities in the data and I'm unsure why. That doesn't have the same number of deaths as your source. I'm very confused. Why are different sources for the death rate showing different options? Why are some showing such a vast difference? EDIT: Actually, since mine is deaths per 1000 rather than raw data, if there was a massive influx of immigrants in the US, that would explain the discrepancy. Or just a huge... HUGE... MASSIVE baby boom. Cloning could also explain it. Or incorrect data from one source. Any of those would work. Some are more likely than others.
  4. Maybe it's because I'm not American, but can we get some context on those numbers? I live in the UK, and here is our death rate in total for 2021, and you can go back decades as well 2019 has the same death rate as 2020. The same. No excess deaths at all. 0. I know the US is different, but if we're in Spanish Flu territory, you should be able to show millions more deaths than ha 2019, right? Can I get your sources? Not Coronavirus numbers. Just raw deaths, please. Heart attacks and cancer deaths as well as suicides shot up during lockdown, so there will inevitably be an overage. I just want to see the millions more.
  5. Everything works that way: "I don't mean to sound racist, but every time I say 'I don't mean to sound racist.', I sound pretty racist." "Not to butt in, but... *proceeds to butt in*" For me, it's "With all due respect." The moment that's said, it means there isn't any respect due.
  6. Habitus - The theory that sticks. So there was a guy named Bourdieu. French. Born in a small, rural, and desperately poor area of France where he gained an accent and linguistic attainment that placed him pretty low in the hierarchy. Imagine if Albert Einstein said things like, "HOO-EE! Ah'm'onna git me wunna them thar THEE-OH-RYES on Relatumivity, sho' nuff!'. Only, because France is more protective of its language, he was even more displaced. He went on to become one of the most famous liberals of the 20th century, and he did it with his theories on something called Habitus. Habitus is the physical embodiment of cultural capital, the habits, skills and dispositions we acquire and it deeply affects who we are and how our life will play out. It sounds complicated, but it's really something intuitive that we know. Imagine someone born the son of an Oxford Professor. He grew up going to to Oxford formal dinners. He learned what topics you spoke about and what you avoided if you wanted to be part of the 'in' crowd. He learned the language and cultural norms of that group. He made friends with future Prime Ministers and heads of companies and knew who to go to for help and who to avoid if he wanted to get something done. Now imagine someone who grew up in the South Side of Chicago. He knew what colours not to wear, which gangs control which territories. He knows how to be involved in the invisible economy of the area, and how to avoid entanglements that might get his butt kicked. Now imagine you and the place you work: You know who you can ask for help. Who you can joke with and who will go straight to HR if you blink the wrong way. You know which managers will tow the company line and which will be willing to bend the rules for you. You know this because you've been a part of this for so long. Someone new to the area does not. Now let's take both of those people, who developed skills and talents which benefited both of their lives in very specific circumstances. If you take the person who grew up in the South Side of Chicago and dumped him willy-nilly in to the Oxford Formal Dinners, he would be far more likely to fail and to make enemies and bad decisions because he doesn't have the skills to work well. Someone who followed CRT would call such a thing White Privilege because someone would be more likely to be white in order to grow up the son of an Oxford Professor. The truth is, however, that someone who grew up in the Appalachians is very unlikely to successfully navigate this area of power and privilege despite having similar skin colour. The flip side of this, is that if you take the son of the Oxford Professor and dump him in the South Side of Chicago with no support, he is also unlikely to prosper. The real advantage of Habitus is that it requires the least amount of assumptions about other people. It requires the least amount of assumptions about situations as well and it also doesn't ignore a lot of counter-evidence.
  7. And herein lies the real problem with CRT. If racism were the source of discrepancies, then when those laws and discrepancies were removed we should have seen an improvement in the life of those who suffered under it. We did not. Discrepancies have shown: Discrepancies in wealth: (White families have, on average, 8 times the wealth of black families and 5 times the wealth of hispanic families) The counterargument is that averaging wealth isn't appropriate in this case. If a tiny proportion of white individuals have absurd wealth, or are more likely to enter in to absurd wealth territory industries such as banking, then we aren't showing real proportionate examples. The problem with CRT is that it has no falsifiability. Falsifiability is just having a test by which a hypothesis can be proven false. Without it, you can prove anything. I could say, for instance, "Human brains are actually just swiss cheese." to which people could say, "But FunkyTown - We've cut open people and found that brains actually contain brain matter and not cheese." to which the Swiss Cheese hypothesist would say, "That's because our brains are made of swiss cheese. Do you really expect legitimate answers to tests from something whose brain was just swiss cheese?" Science-based knowledges, like chemistry or physics or even maths, have falsifiability. Asking most Sociologists what the falsifiability is for their theory will get furrowed brows and confusion, followed by statements like "If you want to prove that racism isn't behind racial disparities, just prove there are no racial disparities at all."(Or something similar). This is not falsifiability. That's just a circular argument. Proving there are disparities does not prove the causation, which is just a fancy way of saying "What caused this to happen?". Causation is an important thing to discover. If you walked in to a parking lot and saw your formerly pristine car suddenly had a dent in it, you could infer that another car hit it. That wouldn't mean it necessarily did, however - It could have been a shopping cart, or an angry thug kicking it, or a meteor from the sky smashing it in the side. Some of those are more likely than others, but the cause in this case isn't guaranteed. If you want to solve the problems of your car being dented, you need to figure out what caused it in the first place. CRT assumes the cause, and that cause has to assume motive on behalf of another person. Assuming motive is difficult to prove.
  8. I meant it was trivially true. As in, "It's true, but it's simplistic and obtained with little effort." - Yes, we should discuss it. But that doesn't suggest whether it's true or not. The second is more interesting. A moral imperative isn't a moral imperative if it is imposed by outside forces. That isn't true, and you know it isn't true. You aren't advocating the removal of murder laws, despite those being imposed by outside forces. You aren't advocating the removal of rape laws, despite those being imposed by outside forces. You aren't advocating the removal of intellectual property laws, despite those being imposed by outside forces. You're advocating a specific application of that particular idea, and only as it applies to supporting something you already support. That is an example of 'motivated rationality'.
  9. Yes, but it is trivially true. We're having the discussion now. Saying we should have the discussion when we are having the discussion says nothing about what the outcome should be. There is something called a "base moral imperative" - that is, a base reason that something is immoral or moral. "Murder is wrong", for instance, would mean that we should pass a law preventing murder and we should protect others from murder Sometimes, those can be in conflict - you and I probably agree murder is wrong. But what if someone is attacking you or a loved one? Or an innocent? Is murder wrong if done in defense of someone's life? But those moral imperatives we have are still there. In this case, if we believe the greatest moral imperative is the defense of the Innocent, then there is a moral obligation to get the vaccine if the science says so. If it's body autonomy and the defense of the Innocent doesn't trump that, then there is a moral imperative to stop attempts to force the vaccine.
  10. I agree. But "We should discuss this" is a far cry from, "Vaccines shouldn't be mandated." It's true, but says nothing about what the consequences of those discussions are. "My body, my choice" is a rallying cry of something already enshrined in law. If it's true, then the effects on others is irrelevant. If it's not, and we must consider the effects our choice about our bodies has on others, then prochoice arguments must be revisited.
  11. I understand what you're saying here, but it isn't what you said previously. That makes your first argument a red herring - something irrelevant. So the counterargument would be that the nonvaccinated person made choices as well, and there will be due process in investigating their guilt with regards to the vaccine as well. Your arguments against the vaccine also encourage a prochoice view. What you are engaging in is called "motivational reasoning" . You ignore evidence counter to what you want to see while focusing on what you want. That's fine: Everyone does to some extent, but not seeing it means it's difficult to counter the oppositions arguments.
  12. So if it was supported by the science, you would be in favor of forced vaccinations? If I could show evidence that, say, vaccinated people were less likely to pass on COVID and less likely to develop symptoms in the first place you would say, "Break put the lawbooks, because everyone should be forced to take it"?
  13. That's interesting. Why is regionally majority attitudes the only thing relevant? Do you think that is a useful metric for what is moral?
  14. My favourite thing when I hear about the Vaccine rule is to say, "My body, my choice!" It makes pro-choice advocates mad and they say, "But your choice impacts other people because herd immunity is impacted. You could kill someone by passing on COVID." And it makes pro-life advocates mad because you point out that not getting the vaccine could cause deaths of others through no fault or choice of their own. Interestingly, most pro-life are anti-forced-Vax and most pro-choice are anti-Vax-choice.
  15. I'll address these points, though the specific examples you gave are anecdotal: [1] Some men don't trust women and are 'Going their own way'. The MGTOW movement is understandable, and the men who do it I accept. It's sad, but it's a consequence of the fact that men are at risk every time they speak to women. A single accusation with no proof is often enough to end a man's career, and there are enough examples of false accusations that it's become a real thing. It's exacerbated by the fact that there are no overarching rules: Men are still expected to make the first move, for instance. They are expected to be the initiators. Many in the 'Me, too' movement use poorly assessed initiations as examples of men harassing them, despite those some harassments being welcome in other circumstances. Women initiate 70% of all divorces and those court-mediated divorces still overwhelmingly favour women. I understand this. They have made a decision and I respect it, though I think they're making the wrong choice. [2] When you refer to 'women stringing along men', you're referring to younger women. Statistically speaking, women overwhelmingly have the power in gatekeeping relationships up until the age of 35. Once that age is hit, men tend to lose interest. This is why women are finding at about 35 that there are 'No more good men'. What they mean by that is that there are no more men that they are attracted to, that earn what they are expecting, that treat them with the deference they have become used to. This often renders them embittered at men in general. By the age of 48, men tend to become more happy while women tend to become more unhappy. [3] Men find women between the ages of 20-24 the most attractive, regardless of whether they're 20, 30, 40 or 50. Handy-dandy image here: This is just fact. What this means is that a woman who has spent their life pursuing a career, finding men who are attractive and successful, find themselves unable to attract the people they did as they gain age. Hit 30, and it starts to fail. Hit 35, and they feel invisible to men. If you've become a manager, own your own house, have kept fit, most women wonder why they can't find a man any more. This is why. The successful men who take care of themselves, become a manager and get their own house are dating 20-24 year olds.