Press J to jump to the feed. Press question mark to learn the rest of the keyboard shortcuts
1.4k points · 5 days ago · edited 5 days ago

Words are wind. It's your choices that reveal your character. If you claim that you don't support X, and then you turn around and voluntarily contribute money to fund X, you are a hypocrite and a liar.

A lot of Catholics and Catholic-adjacent people like to make a big show of engaging in fake moral outrage, usually by making arguments beginning with "I don't support pedophila, but...", and think that this means they've done their part and are now absolved of all guilt.

It doesn't. This behaviour puts you on the level of the German Citizen who, while he isn't personally interested in murdering his Jewish neighbours, still cheers at Hitler's rallies, wears Swastika merchandise, and votes for the NSDAP. Citizens who quietly "had grave reservations" about "a small minority of extremists", but who kept those reservations to themselves because they're convinced that their local Gestapo officers were all "very fine people".

Historians have a word for those people, and that word is "Nazi".

I get that the desire to belong to a club is a big part of human nature. But couldn't you try picking a club that isn't built on a foundation of Pure Evil?

see more

People: "I refuse to fund planned parenthood because even though they do some good things, a small portion of money goes towards something I think is evil. By giving money I would he condoning the evil thing and that is morally unacceptable"

The Same People: "I'm gonna give money to the church despite it helping them perpetuate something evil because the vast majority of the money goes towards good things, and over all it's still a force for good"

12

First, I realize this is an expensive sport, but how much do you think most people spend per year on the sport? Obviously there may be some higher costs at the beginning as I'm just starting out, and I'm okay with that, but I want to make sure that I can afford to stick with this sport before I spend a lot of time and money learning it.

Next, how do I know if I even live in an area with consistently decent conditions for kite-boarding? If days with passable conditions are few and far between, then it might not be worth putting all the time and money into learning. I live in Northern Maryland, and I'm willing to make the trip to most MD, DE, and NJ beaches for surfing depending on where conditions are (relatively) good. I also Wake-board on the bay which is closer. How do I find out what the kite season is like around here?

Next, assuming my area has appropriate conditions for kite surfing, how do I pick where to get my first lesson? What are some things to look for (or avoid) when selecting a lesson, and what is a reasonable price-point for a lesson? Should I look for a multi-lesson package, and if so how many lessons should I expect before I reach the point where practicing alone doesn't pose a massive risk to myself and others?

Finally, what can I do before the lesson to get the most value out of my time with an instructor?

Edit: Thanks everyone for being so incredibly kind and helpful. I'm super exited to take the plunge!

12
29 comments

Hey! Thanks for reading the FAQ. Much appreciated.

  1. This answer depends. Your 2 main money sucks for kiting once you're done with lessons are gonna be gear and travel. Some people swap out their gear every single year, some people are still kiting on kit from 2009. Travel.. I take 2-3 trips a year and end up burning cash on that.

  2. You're gonna need to do a bit of research. Some basic googling will get you local spots. But you're also going to want to figure out wind season. To do that it may be best to contact your local shop or do some research on a site like windfinder.com and see when it blows in your area. You'll want winds above 15 knots. Windfinder has a nice monthly statistic page for most spots. But local knowledge is clutch here so I'd recommend calling your local shop.

  3. For lessons I'd suggest going through a school that has their IKO certification or at least has a decent reputation locally. 2 shops sorta close to you that I've at least heard about are East of Maui and Greenhat Kiteboarding. Price point you're looking at around $100 an hour. Multi lesson packages are often a solid deal and shops will often discount their gear for people who purchase lessons through them. As far as how many lessons to take, that once again depends. It sounds like you wakeboard, so you have the board skills. I'd estimate around 4-8 hrs of lessons should get you to a point where you're comfy learning by yourself. You'll want to definitely learn how to self rescue and upwind body drag comfortably before setting off by yourself.

  4. I'd buy a trainer kite and learn some kite skills. Check out progression.me for some tips on their site as well.

see more
Original Poster3 points · 7 days ago

Wow, this is a fantastic reply, thank you for taking the time to help me. I'm gonna be honest, I didn't expect anyone to respond so quickly. I'm definitely gonna dig more into all those resources you provided later tonight, do you mind if I ask you any follow up questions I may have after doing some research?

4 points · 7 days ago

Hey man, I'm a new kiteboarder, started last year in the same area. (I'm Northern Virginia)


The main locations people kite near you are Dewey Beach, Delaware, and Triton Beach, which is on the Chesapeake. The forums for the local area are: http://eastkb.com/


You can also hop on the discord and I'll get you sorted. Link: https://www.discord.gg/Ayr9GpH


ping @Iridian


The local shop is East Of Maui, though the shop website seems to be down.


There's a local guy who gives lessons, goes by the handle Coog. I can pm you his phone number so it's not public if you want.

see more
Original Poster1 point · 6 days ago

That's great news! Glad to know other people in the area are learning too! I'll definitely be over on the discord. Thanks!

Load more comments

All these points you're making seem like non-issues in the information age of today. I can look up any politician and find their views on everything. We dont need to divide the country along arbitrary lines to get things done. All that does is promote tribalism. I don't want my representatives voting with other people just because they share the same party. I want them to vote on things because they think it will benefit me as their constituent.

see more

A two both essential and inevitable in a first past the post voting system like the one we have. In a ranked choice voting system, or other voting systems, this argument might fall apart. But short of a major constitutional amendment, we're stuck with the system we have.

Lets say there are 3 candidates. Candidate A and B are fairly conservative, and candidate C is fairly liberal. Lets say 60% of the country leans more conservatively. The election comes, and 30% of the people vote for A, 30% for B, and 40% for C. C ends up winning the election despite most voters leaning more towards the position of A and B. So next election, A and B decide that 6 months before the vote one of them would drop out of the race so they don't split the vote. You've essentially just forced the creation of a party and a primary. Now all the candidates with views similar to C will do the same.

But why two parties? Lets imagine that three parties X, Y, and Z form. X and Y are conservative, and 60% of the voters views align with them over the more liberal party Z. X, Y, and Z each hold their own primaries, submitting candidates x, y, and z. Again, x and y split the vote and z wins. Next election, party X and Y hold a joint primary and submit a single candidate, essentially merging X and Y into one party, leaving us with 2. Or perhaps next election they do the same thing, but voters for the slightly less popular party X leave for Party Y because they would much rather see Y's candidate win than Z's. Eventually, X loses enough voters to Y that it's no longer is a relevant player, and you're left with 2 parties again.

Under the current system, if politicians didn't group themselves into two parties, they would be handing an advantage to people with far "worse" views.

Comment deleted by user12 days ago

No no no...

120min -> 240min -> 240h

It takes 6 days to fix the bug, the remaining 4 days are fixing the things that the bug fix broke.

Links? I haven't seen any of that, but I'm not on the site regularly.

Here's one where a true statement about the Green New Deal is rated "false". The document put out by AOC calls for this to happen. I could see rating it half true if the statement were "the Green New Deal is about cow farts and trains to Hawaii", but this one is pretty unambiguously true.

Here's one on Trump and here's one on Bernie. If you guessed they'd be nice to Bernie and mean to Trump, you'd be correct.

In both of them, they quote two sentences from the politician, and they fact-checked one of them.

In Trump's case, he tweeted "Senate Democrats just voted against legislation to prevent the killing of newborn infant children. The Democrat position on abortion is now so extreme that they don’t mind executing babies AFTER birth". (He also made a second tweet with two more sentences in it that are factually correct) The first sentence is factually accurate, so they chose to fact-check the second sentence. They note that Senate Democrats had just voted against a bill to prevent precisely that.

Instead of noting that actions speak louder than words, and saying that Trump's description of their motives was at least plausible, they asked Democrats what their spin was and took their spin on it as a fact. They also took issue with the use of the word "execute", which they felt was not "appropriate". In other words, they disagreed with his wording, and took their own side's spin at face value, and then they rated Trump's sentence as "false".

In Bernie's case, they quote two sentences from a town hall, where he said "It's not only that we have a president who wanted to throw 32 million people off of the health care they had, after promising that he'd provide health care to everybody. This president is the first president in the modern history of our country who is trying to divide our people up, based on the color of their skin, the country they were born in, their sexual orientation, their gender, their religion." The second sentence is simply factually incorrect, so they didn't fact check that. They fact checked the first sentence instead.

Unlike the Trump tweet, where they very carefully made sure to get the Democrats' spin on it and based their ruling on their stated motives, they didn't do it for Bernie. The only facts they checked had to do with the number quoted, not the alleged desire, despite there being evidence in their fact-check that countered the idea that he had such a desire. They note that the 32 million came from a CBO estimate of the effect of simply ending Obamacare without a replacement after 9 years, assuming nothing else happened. They mention the efforts at repeal-and-replace, and tweets suggesting repealing now and replacing it after a hopefully short interval after repeal-and-replace had failed. However, they didn't take that into account. They rated this clearly false, or at least mostly false statement as "half-true".

If theres any evidence of them omiting key details or putting flase details in, that would shatter my trust.

I don't know of any evidence of false details, but that's probably because their spin is so heavy it's already dishonest, so I haven't looked. Even if they don't lie about details, they have a heavy bias, and that factors into the selection of details to report or not report.

I think it's very plausible that different groups of human lie or are misinformed at different rates.

Sure, but there's no reason to assume that the people PolitiFact doesn't like are the ones that lie more without any evidence.

see more
1 point · 13 days ago · edited 13 days ago

First, I'll read the 3 links and write my thoughts. Then, I'll read your analysis and see what changes.

I think that they were certainly a bit harsh on both republican claims you linked. As I was reading each one, I was expecting a mostly false since their claims were based off some kernel of truth, but distorted to the point of being untrue.

With the green deal, I think a statement saying that the green deal aims to reduce air travel would be accurate, but no one is talking about building high speed rails across the ocean and truly ending air travel. If the actually details had any regulations on flights, I might be inclined to put this into the half true or even mostly true category, but since there are no direct measures planned for flights, the only method of reducing air travel in the plan is simply providing alternate options to the best of our technological ability. That difference in wording between reducing and ending is really big imo. One indicates a realistic approach to a tough problem, the other implies that this plan is not grounded in reality and shouldn't be seriously considered. I agree that false is too far. I would rate it mostly false. Keeping in mind that there is a rating more false than 'false', I think this is a close enough assessment. (I think it's really dumb that false isn't their most false rating, and the skewed rating system where half true is not the middle rating will certainly make liars look less truthful than they are, but I think that showing a republican rated one place lower than they should be isn't necessarily bias yet)

Next we move onto the abortion claim. Again, it comes down to the wording here. Execute at least strongly implies (if it doesn't explicitly mean) an active hand in killing. However, that's not what this is about. This is about forcing doctors and parents to do everything in their power to keep an infant alive. This is about taking the infant off life support or not even trying life support in the first place. The distinction might seem trivial, but if this was a teenager no one would bat an eye at a parent and medical professional agreeing that taking away life support was the best course of action, yet if anyone actively intentionally killed the teenager they would spend years in jail for murder. Since the distinction is small, I see how this is founded on some truth. However, since the way we as a society react in each case is drastically different despite the small distinction, I think the it's fair to say the change in wording is a big deal and should get this rated mostly false. I think it's fair to say that no one wants to actively kill an infant that would otherwise survive, which makes the statement mostly false. Now, we have two republicans being rated lower than I would have rated them. That's beginning to look like a pattern. That's definitely enough to take all the ratings with a grain of salt, but since they were only one off my confidence isn't greatly shaken. Whenever I see a rating on a scale like this, I automatically treat it as that rating +/- 1 to account for the fact that it could have been on the borderline between two ratings anyway. I feel as though that policy is still sufficient so far.

Next we come to the Bernie statement. Again, we have something that is at least based on some kernel of truth. There is certainly sufficient evidence that trump was advocating for a plan that would throw tens of millions of Americans off the healthcare they currently have. Most estimates showed Bernie's figure of 32 million to be too high, but some estimates did predict 32 million as the upper bound. It is unlikely but possible that as many as 32 million people would thrown off the healthcare they have, and the core facts of the claim (trumps suggestion would throw tens of millions off they healthcare they have) seems pretty accurate. I do wish they had examined the 'wanted' more, but if they president tweets his support for a plan that directly causes X, I don't think that's entirely unfair. For me, the use of wanted is what drops this from a mostly true to half true. I think they were spot on here.


Hmm not much more at add on the Abortion or Green Deal one after reading your thoughts. Language matters. For the abortion one they even clearly state that "Poor word choice" was the reason for their rating in the brief overview under the meter. Again, I think it should have been mostly false, but at least they seem fairly transparent.

For the healthcare case, you claim "they mention the efforts at repeal-and-replace, and tweets suggesting repealing now and replacing it after a hopefully short interval after repeal-and-replace had failed. However, they didn't take that into account." I disagree. I think they did take it into account. The claim isn't about trump leaving 32 million without insurance, or leaving 32 million worse off. The claim is merely forcing that he wants to force 32 million off their current insurance. Even under an ideal repeal and replace, you are still talking about kicking them off their current insurance despite the fact you are replacing that insurance with better options.

I do find your claim about them being selective about what they fact check interesting. They are very clear on what is being fact checked and don't try to pass off judgement of one part of a statement for judgement on the entity of the statement. For trumps tweet, it is very clear that the rating they have only applies to that ones specific sentence. Perhaps the other part didn't get look at because no one was disputing its truth? Ideally a fact checker would check all claims, but realistically that won't happen, so some selectivity is to be expected. However, when we look at the next example, I become concerned. There was no reason to even include the second sentence. It's not relevant to the first. It's not attached like it in the same tweet. It's never examined. It shouldn't be there. The only reason it's there is so people read bad things being said about someone they don't like. I think as of now it seems reasonable to support the idea that politifact does let bias influence them. Or perhaps, if someone shows me evidence of them being biased the other direction as well, then I would conclude that they are just inconsistent and bad rather than biased (which would honestly make me truest them even less). However, I haven't seen evidence that they are just some spin factory. Their ratings might be a little skewed, but generally they land seem to land in the right ball park making it still a useful preliminary tool, particularly if you read the facts and draw your own conclusion. If they straight up made up evidence or omitted key details, then they would be useless, but neither of us have heard of that and nothing is coming up from a quick google, so until I'm shown otherwise I feel pretty confident in drawing my own conclusions from the facts they provide.

Sure, but there's no reason to assume that the people PolitiFact doesn't like are the ones that lie more without any evidence.

There's also no reason to assume that the PolitiFact, a website supposedly dedicated to truth, doesn't simply just dislike the less truthful party. Again, we really don't have enough information to make claims either way here. Both scenarios are very plausible, and we should reserve judgement. Regardless of if one party lies more than the other, I do find it very plausible that democrats have a smaller percent of their lies selected by PolitiFact due to some selection bias. As a result I find that it's unreasonable to conclude republicans are any less truthful than dems, but I also don't think it's reasonable to conclude that political has massively skewed the ratings of the things they did review, since it's very plausible that they simply select a much larger percent of Republican lies to review while hardly skewing the judgement of those lies. This certainly isn't good, however, at least they seem to review all the most talked about & controversial statements regardless of who said them.

All in all, they still seem like a clearly flawed yet still reasonably reliable tool for the big stuff.

I think that they were certainly a bit harsh on both republican claims you linked. As I was reading each one, I was expecting a mostly false since their claims were based off some kernel of truth, but distorted to the point of being untrue.

The AOC claim was simply factual. It wasn't even spun for political effect or claiming to mind read the opposition in the way the Trump and Bernie claims were.

There were two separate statements AOC made in her FAQ explaining her intent, both of which declared her intent to eliminate air travel. She may not think this goal of hers can be achieved in 10 years, but she very clearly stated that this is her goal.

That difference in wording between reducing and ending is really big imo.

This doesn't make sense to me. She's in favor of reducing it as much as possible in 10 years because she doesn't think eliminating it within 10 years is possible. It's clear that the only reason she's not proposing ending it within 10 years is because she doesn't think it's possible.

What were his words? "working towards ending air travel" That is exactly what she said she wanted to do.

Again, it comes down to the wording here.

Why would wording matter? What matters in a fact check is what the facts are.

If you or PolitiFact substitute your judgment on wording for a judgement on the facts, what you're doing isn't deciding whether the statement is true, you're deciding whether or not you agree with the statement. Those are not the same thing.

PolitiFact claims to be making neutral judgments based on facts, when in fact they are giving their opinion.

if this was a teenager no one would bat an eye at a parent and medical professional agreeing that taking away life support was the best course of action

That's not a fair comparison. If this were a teenager, we would demand a justification from parents and doctors of why they had to. "Well, the parent just wanted to for convenience" would not be acceptable.

I think it's fair to say that no one wants to actively kill an infant that would otherwise survive, which makes the statement mostly false.

It's actually not fair to say that at all. The whole point of the pro-choice movement is precisely to kill infants that would otherwise survive. You could object to the word infant while it's in the womb, of course, and pro-choicers do, but then Senate Democrats just voted to kill a measure that would precisely kill infants outside the womb.

We could argue the pro-choice vs. pro-life viewpoints here, but that's beside the point. What you're doing here, and what PolitiFact did, was substitute your pro-choice viewpoint for the facts. You are taking as a fact your pro-choice perspective in evaluating the factuality of a pro-life statement.

Fact checking should not be about perspective. Perspective is subjective, and that's precisely what should be filtered out in a judgement on facts.

I find Bernie's statement to be false, maybe mostly false if you're generous, and Trump's statement to be true. Yet if PolitiFact had dealt with both of the statements in the same way, I could go along with that. Maybe they could say they're both false, because they both assume intent on behalf of a political opponent. Maybe they could have a rating for "heavy spin" or "bias detected". Maybe they could say they're both half-true, because they're based on something factual, but contain spin.

But PolitiFact did not treat the statements the same way.

Most estimates showed Bernie's figure of 32 million to be too high, but some estimates did predict 32 million as the upper bound.

The 32 million would have been a reasonable number, if Trump's intent were to repeal but not replace for at least 9 years. Trump has demonstrated the intent to repeal and replace repeatedly, not only in his rhetoric, but in his negotiations.

In other words, for the factual content of Bernie's statement to be correct, we have to assume Trump's intent to be contrary both to his repeated words and to his repeated actions.

Ideally a fact checker would check all claims, but realistically that won't happen, so some selectivity is to be expected.

I'm not complaining about the fact of selection. I'm saying that it's clear they're biased in which things they select.

There is certainly sufficient evidence that trump was advocating for a plan that would throw tens of millions of Americans off the healthcare they currently have.

That's not even close to correct.

I do wish they had examined the 'wanted' more, but if they president tweets his support for a plan that directly causes X, I don't think that's entirely unfair.

Compare your evaluation here with your evaluation of the claim about AOC. The president did not make statements about his intent, yet you feel mostly comfortable with their claims about what his intent was. AOC did make clear statements about her intent, yet you objected to a Republican clearly stating exactly what she'd said. You're treating them with different standards.

Compare also how PolitiFact treated intent. For Trump, they're willing to assume his intent was bad despite evidence to the contrary. For AOC, they are unwilling to conclude what her intent was, despite her own words that described her intent. For Bernie, they are unwilling to assume his intent.

They're treating them with different standards, while claiming to be a neutral fact checker.

The claim is merely forcing that he wants to force 32 million off their current insurance. Even under an ideal repeal and replace, you are still talking about kicking them off their current insurance despite the fact you are replacing that insurance with better options.

Oh, come on. Substituting one form of insurance for another is not "kicking someone off health insurance".

There's also no reason to assume that the PolitiFact, a website supposedly dedicated to truth, doesn't simply just dislike the less truthful party.

So despite being dedicated to the truth, they let their emotions cloud their judgment and they start distorting the truth? Even if that were true, it's not flattering to PolitiFact.

Now, we have two republicans being rated lower than I would have rated them. That's beginning to look like a pattern. That's definitely enough to take all the ratings with a grain of salt, but since they were only one off my confidence isn't greatly shaken. Whenever I see a rating on a scale like this, I automatically treat it as that rating +/- 1 to account for the fact that it could have been on the borderline between two ratings anyway.

What you've been doing is looking at your agreement with the statement, rather than its factual basis. You have a bias against Republicans, and you've been evaluating your agreement with the statements rather than factuality, so we could expect you'd evaluate them negatively, and yet PolitiFact consistently rates them worse than you do.

It's not that they are near your assessment within +/- 1, sometimes randomly being higher and sometimes being randomly lower. They are consistently rating them worse than you do.

see more

That difference in wording between reducing and ending is really big imo.

This doesn't make sense to me. She's in favor of reducing it as much as possible in 10 years because she doesn't think eliminating it within 10 years is possible. It's clear that the only reason she's not proposing ending it within 10 years is because she doesn't think it's possible.

What were his words? "working towards ending air travel" That is exactly what she said she wanted to do.

hes said "The Democrats’ Green New Deal includes 'working towards ending air travel'." The Green New Deal is a 10 year plan. Specifically, that plan does not actually contain any provisions for reducing air travel (other than incidental reduction from better alternatives). Even if some of the authors of the plan hope to eliminate air travel eventually (which I highly doubt, I don't see anyone being against air travel used for emergency purposes), the plan they drafted certainly does not aim to end air travel. And yeah the reason why the plan doesn't propose to end air travel in the next 10 years is for the same reason dems aren't introducing a plan to end world poverty within the next 10 years; it's totally bat-shit crazy. That's why this is mostly false.

Why would wording matter? What matters in a fact check is what the facts are.

Using precise language is important. Words have definitions. The only way we can evaluate the truth of a statement is first by figuring out exactly what the statement is actually claiming, and we can only do that by paying close attention to word choice and language. Only then, we can check the facts against the claim and see if it is true.

I think it's fair to say that no one wants to actively kill an infant that would otherwise survive, which makes the statement mostly false.

It's actually not fair to say that at all. The whole point of the pro-choice movement is precisely to kill infants that would otherwise survive. You could object to the word infant while it's in the womb, of course, and pro-choicers do, but then Senate Democrats just voted to kill a measure that would precisely kill infants outside the womb.

Looks, weather or not a fetus should or should not be legally protected is a messy issue. Realistically, I'm not going to change your mind there, and you aren't going to change mine. However, objectively, a fetus is not an infant. Language is important. Regardless of your beliefs about the person-hood of a fetus, or even the facts about a person-hood of a fetus, a fetus isn't an infant. Perhaps they should be given the same protections, just like an infant and a toddler are both given protections, but just like infant and a toddler, fetus and infant are not interchangeable terms. If you are unwilling to evaluate statements based off the actual definitions of words, and instead choose to use your own personal definitions, then you can claim any statement is true or false. Unless there's a compelling reason to believe that a person meant something other than the definition, I'd appreciate it if you were willing to accept using the widely accepted medical distinction. So I'll stick to my claim, no one (in this case referring to major political figures in the US such, I'm not making claims about crazy wackos on the street) is supporting the active killing of an infant that would otherwise survive.

They didn't pass legislation that would force infants born prematurely through attempted abortion onto life support. It is still legal to not resuscitate an infant (in some places), but doctors are still accountable for that decision in the same way they are accountable in the teenager case. Hopefully you see why weather the doctors role in the death of an infant is passive or active is an important distinction to many people (given the massive difference in how our legal system handles that difference in other situations)

During campaigning, he said healthcare was easy. He said he would solve it quickly. Years later, after having a republican legislature to back him, he then tweets to repeal now and replace later. Twice. If there was a good solution on the horizon, then why the urgency and instance that we repeal now and figure out the replace later. It's certainly plausible that it could take 9 years to get a solution passed, even if it is unlikely. I don't think 32 million is objectively false, but it's not exactly a point in favor of the statement being truthful either. Given that the number is a possible outcome and given that on the scale 'all Americans' the number is really not that far off from the most likely predictions, the number isn't really that far off. The 32 million is pulled out of his ass, its grounded in real evidence based speculation about a worse case scenario for trumps plan.

There is certainly sufficient evidence that trump was advocating for a plan that would throw tens of millions of Americans off the healthcare they currently have.

That's not even close to correct.

The claim is merely forcing that he wants to force 32 million off their current insurance. Even under an ideal repeal and replace, you are still talking about kicking them off their current insurance despite the fact you are replacing that insurance with better options.

Oh, come on. Substituting one form of insurance for another is not "kicking someone off health insurance".

Then it's a good thing that the claim isn't "kicking someone off health insurance." The claim was specific. It was about throwing them "off of the health care they had." The statement they are fact checking makes no claim on if there would be a replacement, or the cost/quality of the replacement if one did exist. The statement only claims that they would lose their current insurance, which objectively they would.

So despite being dedicated to the truth, they let their emotions cloud their judgment and they start distorting the truth? Even if that were true, it's not flattering to PolitiFact.

Well if party X lies more, then the fact checkers will naturally start looking at party X's statements more. If you have time to look at 100 statements a week, and you want to catch the most lies, wouldn't you spend a disproportionate amount of time looking where lies are more likely to be found? And just because they don't like them doesn't even necessarily imply they that let their bias effect them. Bias is never a good look, but it exists everywhere, and the best we can do is minimize it's impact.

It's not that they are near your assessment within +/- 1, sometimes randomly being higher and sometimes being randomly lower. They are consistently rating them worse than you do.

Even if they are consistently -1, for republicans and +1 for dems, they would still be within a reasonable ballpark. They aren't calling things truth unless they are at least mostly true, and they aren't calling anything false unless it's at least mostly false. The fact that they are consistently slightly off in very predictable ways makes them still fairly reliable since that's easy to correct for, and you can draw your own conclusions when you have time.

I do wish they had examined the 'wanted' more, but if they president tweets his support for a plan that directly causes X, I don't think that's entirely unfair.

Compare your evaluation here with your evaluation of the claim about AOC. The president did not make statements about his intent, yet you feel mostly comfortable with their claims about what his intent was.

The statement wasn't about AOC though. It wasn't even about the parties long term environmental goals. It was about the goals of the plan. not the simplified overview of the plan, but the actual deal itself. The deal itself doesn't even mention air travel. To say that the plan supports a reduction in air travel is probably fair, since it does take measures that would indirectly lead to to more air travel and reduced air-travel is a plausible outcome. The end of air travel or anything even close to the end to air travel is outside the realm of possibility for this plan it's laughable.

What you've been doing is looking at your agreement with the statement, rather than its factual basis

I don't think so. Can you point to where my reasoning is based off my agreement and not based off of the claim vs the facts?

Load more comments

You're really asking why a company should legally have to be honest about something for which money is changing hands?

see more

I mean if you have an idea that I think is worth $44M, in what world am I required to tell you that? Why can't I just offer you 10K? There would never be any negotiations if companies were always required to reveal exactly how much they think something is worth.

Look at it this way, you can go to a car dealership and offer them less money than they're asking for a car, but you can't pretend to be a cop and say you need the car for evidence and then drive away in a free car, because you shifted the transaction in your favour by defrauding the other party with deception.

Companies can negotiate because one party can offer whatever they want and the other can want to pay whatever they want, and if they both find a spot they agree on then both sides win, but one party can't shift the price in their favour by creating a false scenario that tricks the other party.

see more

But did they actually lie? I am objectively not a cop and I objectively do not need the car for evidence.

Sears knows it it worth 44M. 44M is not a lot to Sears, and company with billions and billions. Sears says it's not worth a lot, because from their perspective, it isn't. Since "a lot" is inherently relative, its not objectively false

Load more comments

5

Essentially the title. I could see some small minority of people having them as pets. Some small few may be able to survive in the wild. Zoos would likely keep a few. But I can't imagine them being able to sustain even 1% of their current population.

This leads me to the question: "is it better to live a life that is nasty, brutish, and short, or, is it better to have never existed at all?"

I personally would rather live a life that is nasty brutish and short than never exist.

However, both options seem like shitty outcomes. What do you think a realistic best case scenario looks like for these species?

5
15 comments

You are having a common fallacy about “never being born.”

If you apply this to humans, this means not only no abortions and no birth control, but every woman should be pregnant all the time to not deprive potential individuals of life.

Obviously we don’t believe this, we don’t think it is wrong for someone not to be conceived.

I mean, if we did, we can just go all out and breed tons of humans for slavery and cannibalism because according to your argument it would be doing them a favor.

see more
Original Poster1 point · 17 days ago

Let me try to reframe the issue. It's a thousand years in the future. Humanity has been conquered by a far more intelligent alien species. Would you rather

Option A: The breed us, pack us in together very tightly, and we essentially just eat and shit until they kill us. But they also take care of us and boost our immunity to various diseases. Trillions of human are spread across the galaxy in many facilities

Option B: humanity is reduced to a few thousand individuals. Most are kept in captivity and alien zoos, but a few are kept as exotic pets. Most humans will never meet more than 3 or 4 other humans in their entire lives. Some may be separated from their parents before they can even remember them, and spend their entire lives never seeing another human face.

I would choose option A.

1 point · 16 days ago · edited 16 days ago

If the aliens are us and humans are animals, vegans don't promote option B, which you seem to imply. This is a false black & white scenario.

In B there is serious harm done: An intelligent species that needs social and cognitive stimulation is withheld the very same; whilst its cognitive abilities is evolved enough to realize that it is not free and held in captivity.

In "Option Vegan" there is no harm done. Vegan aliens would just leave us alone. Some would try social bonds, or help us if we're in need.


Edit: We can also play lottery.

In the world of Option A there are 7 billion free humans and 50 billion captive humans in horrible conditions.

In the world of "Option Vegan" there are 7 billion free humans.

Which society would you choose to live in, if you couldn't control who you're born as? You're born either way, you exist and you can vocalize your preferences.

Non-existent people, on the other hand, have non-existent preferences.

see more
Original Poster1 point · 16 days ago

Unfortunately, leaving then alone isnt a realistic option at this point. Their habitat has been taken and destroyed by humans. In this hypothetical scenario, aliens wanted to develop earth, so they destroyed our cities, houses, roads, etc. and replaced then with their alien habitat, which is inhospitable for humans. Maybe they left us a few natural reservations, like they let us keep New Zealand and Japan or something, but generally our habitat has been taken. Do you really see humanity giving up most of the land it's taken to let animals roam free and wild as a realistic option?

Also, many farm animals are social/herd animals that absolutely feel loneliness.

Load more comments

Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg, and it certainly doesn't change the number of legs a dog has. However, we aren't talking about how many legs there actually are, we're talking about how many legs a person believes there are.

You are trying to twist the meaning of "belief" beyond the bounds of rationality, like trying to call a tail a leg. Infants don't know or believe anything before birth, and an infant's inchoate understanding of their parents as they begin to learn is not belief in the sort of god that the religious bandy about. Certainly the childlike act of believing everything their parents say can resemble religious devotion, but I think you've got things reversed. Childrens' utter belief and subservience to their parents (and the loss of it in the teenage years) quite handily explains why a super-parent might be imagined and used for control of adults.

I do know that infants are not blank slates. They conciousness begins in the womb (not at conception, but definitely pre-birth).

Where they learn Calculus, Latin, and Byzantine Architecture, I suppose? Infants arent even fully conscious in the womb. You admit they're blank slates at some point while in the womb, so at what point are the blank slates being written to, and what god-belief(s) could they possibly have picked up between then and birth? They don't have language, they aren't fully conscious, and they don't even have concepts beyond the most basic of sensations, "hungry, uncomfortable, sleepy", which they don't feel until birth, when they boot their metabolisms to full and begin breathing for the first time.

There really is no way to twist it. Babies are born atheists, lacking any beliefs whatsoever, much less positive ideas about magic sky-daddies. Twisting the meaning of "belief" completely out of kilter won't change that.

see more

You are trying to twist the meaning of "belief" beyond the bounds of rationality

So what? Beliefs can be irrational.

Childrens' utter belief and subservience to their parents (and the loss of it in the teenage years) quite handily explains why a super-parent might be imagined and used for control of adults.

Fully agree. But I dont see the relevance to what infants believe.

Where they learn Calculus, Latin, and Byzantine Architecture, I suppose?

Just because they dont know everything doesnt mean they have 0 thoughts and beliefs. Dont waste my time with clearly ridiculous claims.

they're blank slates at some point while in the womb

Why make that assumption? Why can't the slate be formed with writing on it? In fact it seems likely that the slate is formed with many instincts written upon it.

babies are born atheists, lacking *any beliefs whatsoever

Again, you make that assertion without showing any evidence to back it up.

"If you call the tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have? The answer is 4. Calling it a leg doesn't make it a leg."

Infants are not born believing in god(s), full stop. That makes them a-theist by default. They don't believe anything. Do you understand the idea of a blank slate? If it's blank, there is zero writing on it. Human infants are blank slates.

Trying to twist the clear meaning of these words to support yourself is obfuscation and apologetics, and really, not a good look on you - could you not? Thanks!

see more
1 point · 18 days ago · edited 18 days ago

Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg, and it certainly doesn't change the number of legs a dog has. However, we aren't talking about how many legs there actually are, we're talking about how many legs a person believes there are.

I personally dont know enough about the cognitive abilities an infant to pass judgment over weather or not is possible that some could believe deities exist (obviously in a far less formalized manner). If there's science that rules out that possibility I'd love to see it.

I do know that infants are not blank slates. They conciousness begins in the womb (not at conception, but definitely pre-birth). Theres more than just experience that effect thought, but there's also underlying genetics/chance that makes each brain structure and brain chemistry unique. Nature and Nurture play roles

Load more comments

u/TwentyFive_ShmecklesReddit Premium
Karma
26,227
Cake day
February 28, 2016
Trophy Case (3)
Three-Year Club

Reddit Premium

Since March 2019

Verified Email

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.