As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

The difficulty of understanding how other people live.

16364656668

Posts

  • spacekungfumanspacekungfuman Poor and minority-filled Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    Calixtus wrote: »
    I also don't like sitting near groups of women (especially black women) because in my experience they talk to each other loudly the whole time, but I don't think that makes me misogynistic or racist.
    And here I thought the most brilliant thing this thread was going to generate this week was equating something like this to slavery.

    I stand corrected, and wonder just how often you guys actually use the public transportation system in your respective locales? 'cause while the local establishments aren't exactly the Tokoy metro, they tend to be filled with people to a degree where actively avoiding subsets of them would be a pain in the ass (I don't think you could even see shit like teenagers in time to actively avoid them), and during rush hour possibly hazardous to your health because in, out or in between, the doors are fucking a-closing.

    You turn the volume on your headphones up if someone gets obnoxiously loud, but that's pretty much it. It's a public transportation system - it's filled with the public.

    Not particularly unexpected, nor a massive cause for concern amongst normal people.

    If I devote my time to making money to buy something (or to buolding something) and you deprive me of its use against my will, what else can you call that but a theft of the time I spent acquiring or making it? Let's say I was a farmer and tilled the soil, then every year you snuck in at night and stole 20% of my crop, or occupied part of my land and stayed there until the crops withered on the vine. You have now taken 20% of my labor, without my permission and without compensation. What other name for that?

    See the above re: trains.

    People can't steal your time, only objects. Your farmer analogy doesn't work since their crops are objects that can be stolen (thieves aren't stealing the time they had to use to make a crop), not quiet time on a train. You're confusing abstract and solid concepts again.
    Thejakeman wrote: »
    Thejakeman wrote: »
    The reason you lock your car is because you're afraid it will get stolen. The reason you (or they, dunno if you described yourself as this) avoid groups is because you're afraid they'll do some bad thing to you. So I don't know if you antagonistically hate those people or are just subscribing to the low-level resentment of "geez I wish these people weren't around and making my life inconvenient for me" but either way you're hating them (because you're afraid of them) by ascribing them special antagonistic powers.

    If it really wasn't a big deal, you'd just get on the train that is closest to you.

    I think distrust is a better way to put it. I don't think it is likely that they will do something bad, but I don't trust in their judgement or maturity, so I'd rather not leave myself in a position where they are making decisions that effect me. My concern is much more so about property rights (like them skateboarding in a parking lot, bumping into my car with the skateboard and running away) than personal safety (I don't worry that a pack of teenagers is going to mug or attack me or something).

    The other side of it is avoidance because past experience has shown me that these groups are pileup be loud. I don't like sitting near any groups on the train, but groups of teenagers are consistently louder than anyone other than crying children, in my experience. I also don't like sitting near groups of women (especially black women) because in my experience they talk to each other loudly the whole time, but I don't think that makes me misogynistic or racist. I jus want a quite train ride, and value certainty over giving people the chance to not be loud, since the cost of my choice is so incredibly low (just sitting somewhere away from them).

    If you don't think it's likely they will do something bad, why do you distrust them? Because you think they'll do something bad and you want to stop them from doing so before they can.

    It absolutely does make you both misogynist and racist, because the first thing out of your mind here is the assumption that black women are going to talk loudly amongst themselves.

    Living in a world where you're constantly trying to prevent other people from doing things that you imagine they might do is neurotic at best.

    Observation has taught me that women are more likely to spend an entire train ride talking to each other than men, and that black women often do so at a louder volume. This is just simple data collection from my life. Based on this, I try not to sit near these groups when I can avoid it, because I want a quiet train ride. Do I think all women will talk the whole time and all black women will do so loudly? Of course not. But my goal is just to have a quiet, relaxing train ride, and so yes, I will try to avoid any group on the train, with special pains to avoid groups of women (especially black women) because experience tells me that if someone is going to be particularly loud, it is them. I also try to sit between two women on a crowded train because I find that they will move over more than men to give you some space. The ideal is two Asian women, and Asian men are preferred over other types of men because I find that Asians also move over more. If I had some overarching explanation for this, like "women are loud because they lack self control, and doubly so for black women. Asians are meek and so retreat when you sit between them" maybe that would be racist, but I draw no such conclusions. I am just going based on my experience of riding on the train every day, and trends or patterns I have noticed that help me to have a better ride.

    I've never had that issue with women on a train or bus. Not all women do that or Asians are quiet on public transportation. Generalization doesn't work 100%, which is what you're doing. Just because someone is a stranger doesn't mean they're a threat or annoyance to you by existing.

    I have choices about how to spend my time. I can choose to spend it working to make money which I will then use to buy something I want. I would not spend time working if I was not given money, or if I could not buy the things that I want. If you destroy my money or my things, then you have invalidated my choice to work, because I have now done so without the reward the motivated me to do so. If you take my money or my things, it is even worse, because now I have chosen to devote my time to work instead of leisure, and you reap the reward. Both are forms of time theft, and what is the inability to determine how your time will be spent other than slavery?

    Because time theft doesn't exist. People stealing your stuff isn't touching the time spent making them, it's that someone stole an object that was your's. Slavery doesn't enter into the equation. They're stealing items from you, not making you a literal slave. It's not even similar indentured servitude. This is a bizarre form of though I've rarely seen before. Certainly not with the middle class or poor people I've met. I've met wealthy people as well and none have said anything resembling what you're going on about. Comparing abstract and solid subjects can be done but your examples don't sound logical to me at all.

    I think it follows naturally from Locke and labor theories of value. If the value of a thing is the labor expended to produce or acquire it, then the labor is what you are taking when you steal or destroy that object.

    @ronya

    How is the value of labor calculated in this context?

    If it's by the time expended, wouldn't that mean that stealing $100 from you should be less of a crime than stealing $100 from the person that cleans your office.

    Yes, but only to the extent that there are degrees of wrongness based on enslaving someone "a little." I would contend that there is no such distinction. This is also why I don't recognize a difference between "petty vandalism" and full on crimes against property, and I think both deserve substantial punishment.

    Does that mean you wouldn't make a distinction between someone who knocks the wing mirror off your car and someone who steals the entire car? That they should both receive the same punishment?

    If done intentionally? No, I would not. I would require that compensation be paid to the aggrieved party, and that would be less, but the actual fines imposed should be large for any property crime imo.

    I'm assuming both are intentional. If the compensation is less for taking out the wing mirror than stealing the car, you are recognizing "a difference between "petty vandalism" and full on crimes against property".

    Out of interest, how large do you think the large fines should be?

    I ask because (to pull some numbers out of my arse) if the fine is $100k+compensation, then there is no real difference between the deterrent for causing $1 of damage than for causing $1000.

    I'm not sure what it should be, but probably not that high. But why exactly would we think that our goal in deterrence is to deter larger property crimes and not smaller property crimes? Shouldn't we want to just deter property crimes from occuring at all?

    Of course we should, but if the punishment doesn't fit the crime, it doesn't have the same deterrent effect. Excessive punishment leads people to decide that the law is unjust and they don't feel that the law needs to be followed. It's the justice equivalent of the Laffer curve.

    A better analogy might be drug laws/classifications. If the government says that cannabis is as bad as crack and the schools just say "drug are bad, mmmkay", when a kid inevitably gets handed a joint at a party, they start to distrust everything they've been told about other drugs.

    With rigorous enforcement (a la Singapore), deciding not to follow the law because the punishment is too harsh will just result in irrational actors being punished. I don't see the problem here.

    So you agree that it's a good idea to have the death penalty for dropping litter - I mean, we all like clean streets, don't we?

    Given you used the phrase "irrational actors", I've this horrible feeling that you've been reading economics. You know it's more voodoo than science, right? People who always behave as "rational actors" in economics terms would be considered as deeply disturbed individuals in most other contexts.

    If we somehow had perfect enforcement and perfectly drafted laws which accounted for every possible justification for dropping litter, I would be fine with that, but neither of those preconditions can be satisfied. But as a general matter, my answer the any complaint that a punishment doesn't match the crime is "if you don't commit the crime, it doesn't matter." I don't see a problem with expecting people to follow the rules.

    You knew the rules, you believe following the rules is important and yet you're currently jailed.

    "Don't commit the crime" is not an answer to a complaint that the punishment doesn't fit the crime. It's just putting your hands over your ears and saying "la la la, I'm not listening".

    Running a foul of one man under a system which does not have clearly defined rules is signifigantly different than what we are talking about. I respectfully disagee with you as to your second point. I think that "don't commit crimes" is always a reasonable answer and expectation. If we criminalize the wrong things, then we should fix the laws, but that is a very different issue from having rules against damaging or stealing other people's property, is it not?

  • ThejakemanThejakeman Registered User regular
    edited November 2012

    You knew the rules, you believe following the rules is important and yet you're currently jailed.

    "Don't commit the crime" is not an answer to a complaint that the punishment doesn't fit the crime. It's just putting your hands over your ears and saying "la la la, I'm not listening".

    He's actually jailed cause he said the trail of tears was a nifty-cool thing that the government handled well and legally, which is not really against the rules per se, just a general "don't be a heinous jerk" sort of infraction. SKFM is more or less an extremist formalist with no real sense of strong social obligation. There's a strong possibility that he might be on the autism spectrum somewhere. He values rules and structure over people or emotions and tends to reject criticisms of that structure out of hand.

    Thejakeman on
  • LoveIsUnityLoveIsUnity Registered User regular
    I don't think we need to play armchair psychologist here. He's just incredibly privileged and doesn't realize that someone with Amindian blood, like myself, would be hurt by his repugnant comments. Or, if he does realize, he doesn't care. He's either ignorant or callous.

    steam_sig.png
  • Clown ShoesClown Shoes Give me hay or give me death. Registered User regular
    edited November 2012
    Calixtus wrote: »
    I also don't like sitting near groups of women (especially black women) because in my experience they talk to each other loudly the whole time, but I don't think that makes me misogynistic or racist.
    And here I thought the most brilliant thing this thread was going to generate this week was equating something like this to slavery.

    I stand corrected, and wonder just how often you guys actually use the public transportation system in your respective locales? 'cause while the local establishments aren't exactly the Tokoy metro, they tend to be filled with people to a degree where actively avoiding subsets of them would be a pain in the ass (I don't think you could even see shit like teenagers in time to actively avoid them), and during rush hour possibly hazardous to your health because in, out or in between, the doors are fucking a-closing.

    You turn the volume on your headphones up if someone gets obnoxiously loud, but that's pretty much it. It's a public transportation system - it's filled with the public.

    Not particularly unexpected, nor a massive cause for concern amongst normal people.

    If I devote my time to making money to buy something (or to buolding something) and you deprive me of its use against my will, what else can you call that but a theft of the time I spent acquiring or making it? Let's say I was a farmer and tilled the soil, then every year you snuck in at night and stole 20% of my crop, or occupied part of my land and stayed there until the crops withered on the vine. You have now taken 20% of my labor, without my permission and without compensation. What other name for that?

    See the above re: trains.

    People can't steal your time, only objects. Your farmer analogy doesn't work since their crops are objects that can be stolen (thieves aren't stealing the time they had to use to make a crop), not quiet time on a train. You're confusing abstract and solid concepts again.
    Thejakeman wrote: »
    Thejakeman wrote: »
    The reason you lock your car is because you're afraid it will get stolen. The reason you (or they, dunno if you described yourself as this) avoid groups is because you're afraid they'll do some bad thing to you. So I don't know if you antagonistically hate those people or are just subscribing to the low-level resentment of "geez I wish these people weren't around and making my life inconvenient for me" but either way you're hating them (because you're afraid of them) by ascribing them special antagonistic powers.

    If it really wasn't a big deal, you'd just get on the train that is closest to you.

    I think distrust is a better way to put it. I don't think it is likely that they will do something bad, but I don't trust in their judgement or maturity, so I'd rather not leave myself in a position where they are making decisions that effect me. My concern is much more so about property rights (like them skateboarding in a parking lot, bumping into my car with the skateboard and running away) than personal safety (I don't worry that a pack of teenagers is going to mug or attack me or something).

    The other side of it is avoidance because past experience has shown me that these groups are pileup be loud. I don't like sitting near any groups on the train, but groups of teenagers are consistently louder than anyone other than crying children, in my experience. I also don't like sitting near groups of women (especially black women) because in my experience they talk to each other loudly the whole time, but I don't think that makes me misogynistic or racist. I jus want a quite train ride, and value certainty over giving people the chance to not be loud, since the cost of my choice is so incredibly low (just sitting somewhere away from them).

    If you don't think it's likely they will do something bad, why do you distrust them? Because you think they'll do something bad and you want to stop them from doing so before they can.

    It absolutely does make you both misogynist and racist, because the first thing out of your mind here is the assumption that black women are going to talk loudly amongst themselves.

    Living in a world where you're constantly trying to prevent other people from doing things that you imagine they might do is neurotic at best.

    Observation has taught me that women are more likely to spend an entire train ride talking to each other than men, and that black women often do so at a louder volume. This is just simple data collection from my life. Based on this, I try not to sit near these groups when I can avoid it, because I want a quiet train ride. Do I think all women will talk the whole time and all black women will do so loudly? Of course not. But my goal is just to have a quiet, relaxing train ride, and so yes, I will try to avoid any group on the train, with special pains to avoid groups of women (especially black women) because experience tells me that if someone is going to be particularly loud, it is them. I also try to sit between two women on a crowded train because I find that they will move over more than men to give you some space. The ideal is two Asian women, and Asian men are preferred over other types of men because I find that Asians also move over more. If I had some overarching explanation for this, like "women are loud because they lack self control, and doubly so for black women. Asians are meek and so retreat when you sit between them" maybe that would be racist, but I draw no such conclusions. I am just going based on my experience of riding on the train every day, and trends or patterns I have noticed that help me to have a better ride.

    I've never had that issue with women on a train or bus. Not all women do that or Asians are quiet on public transportation. Generalization doesn't work 100%, which is what you're doing. Just because someone is a stranger doesn't mean they're a threat or annoyance to you by existing.

    I have choices about how to spend my time. I can choose to spend it working to make money which I will then use to buy something I want. I would not spend time working if I was not given money, or if I could not buy the things that I want. If you destroy my money or my things, then you have invalidated my choice to work, because I have now done so without the reward the motivated me to do so. If you take my money or my things, it is even worse, because now I have chosen to devote my time to work instead of leisure, and you reap the reward. Both are forms of time theft, and what is the inability to determine how your time will be spent other than slavery?

    Because time theft doesn't exist. People stealing your stuff isn't touching the time spent making them, it's that someone stole an object that was your's. Slavery doesn't enter into the equation. They're stealing items from you, not making you a literal slave. It's not even similar indentured servitude. This is a bizarre form of though I've rarely seen before. Certainly not with the middle class or poor people I've met. I've met wealthy people as well and none have said anything resembling what you're going on about. Comparing abstract and solid subjects can be done but your examples don't sound logical to me at all.

    I think it follows naturally from Locke and labor theories of value. If the value of a thing is the labor expended to produce or acquire it, then the labor is what you are taking when you steal or destroy that object.

    @ronya

    How is the value of labor calculated in this context?

    If it's by the time expended, wouldn't that mean that stealing $100 from you should be less of a crime than stealing $100 from the person that cleans your office.

    Yes, but only to the extent that there are degrees of wrongness based on enslaving someone "a little." I would contend that there is no such distinction. This is also why I don't recognize a difference between "petty vandalism" and full on crimes against property, and I think both deserve substantial punishment.

    Does that mean you wouldn't make a distinction between someone who knocks the wing mirror off your car and someone who steals the entire car? That they should both receive the same punishment?

    If done intentionally? No, I would not. I would require that compensation be paid to the aggrieved party, and that would be less, but the actual fines imposed should be large for any property crime imo.

    I'm assuming both are intentional. If the compensation is less for taking out the wing mirror than stealing the car, you are recognizing "a difference between "petty vandalism" and full on crimes against property".

    Out of interest, how large do you think the large fines should be?

    I ask because (to pull some numbers out of my arse) if the fine is $100k+compensation, then there is no real difference between the deterrent for causing $1 of damage than for causing $1000.

    I'm not sure what it should be, but probably not that high. But why exactly would we think that our goal in deterrence is to deter larger property crimes and not smaller property crimes? Shouldn't we want to just deter property crimes from occuring at all?

    Of course we should, but if the punishment doesn't fit the crime, it doesn't have the same deterrent effect. Excessive punishment leads people to decide that the law is unjust and they don't feel that the law needs to be followed. It's the justice equivalent of the Laffer curve.

    A better analogy might be drug laws/classifications. If the government says that cannabis is as bad as crack and the schools just say "drug are bad, mmmkay", when a kid inevitably gets handed a joint at a party, they start to distrust everything they've been told about other drugs.

    With rigorous enforcement (a la Singapore), deciding not to follow the law because the punishment is too harsh will just result in irrational actors being punished. I don't see the problem here.

    So you agree that it's a good idea to have the death penalty for dropping litter - I mean, we all like clean streets, don't we?

    Given you used the phrase "irrational actors", I've this horrible feeling that you've been reading economics. You know it's more voodoo than science, right? People who always behave as "rational actors" in economics terms would be considered as deeply disturbed individuals in most other contexts.

    If we somehow had perfect enforcement and perfectly drafted laws which accounted for every possible justification for dropping litter, I would be fine with that, but neither of those preconditions can be satisfied. But as a general matter, my answer the any complaint that a punishment doesn't match the crime is "if you don't commit the crime, it doesn't matter." I don't see a problem with expecting people to follow the rules.

    You knew the rules, you believe following the rules is important and yet you're currently jailed.

    "Don't commit the crime" is not an answer to a complaint that the punishment doesn't fit the crime. It's just putting your hands over your ears and saying "la la la, I'm not listening".

    Running a foul of one man under a system which does not have clearly defined rules is signifigantly different than what we are talking about. I respectfully disagee with you as to your second point. I think that "don't commit crimes" is always a reasonable answer and expectation. If we criminalize the wrong things, then we should fix the laws, but that is a very different issue from having rules against damaging or stealing other people's property, is it not?

    If the proposition is "the punishment is excessive", the only answers are "no it's not" or "yes it is" with a range of no-ish and yes-ish in between. The answer is never "don't commit crimes".

    Thejakeman wrote: »
    He's actually jailed cause he said the trail of tears was a nifty-cool thing that the government handled well and legally, which is not really against the rules per se, just a general "don't be a heinous jerk" sort of infraction. SKFM is more or less an extremist formalist with no real sense of strong social obligation. There's a strong possibility that he might be on the autism spectrum somewhere. He values rules and structure over people or emotions and tends to reject criticisms of that structure out of hand.

    Unfortunately, by SKFM's own standards, being a silly goose or borderline sociopath are not excuses - rules is rules.

    Clown Shoes on
  • spacekungfumanspacekungfuman Poor and minority-filled Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    Thejakeman wrote: »
    Thejakeman wrote: »

    You knew the rules, you believe following the rules is important and yet you're currently jailed.

    "Don't commit the crime" is not an answer to a complaint that the punishment doesn't fit the crime. It's just putting your hands over your ears and saying "la la la, I'm not listening".

    He's actually jailed cause he said the trail of tears was a nifty-cool thing that the government handled well and legally, which is not really against the rules per se, just a general "don't be a heinous jerk" sort of infraction. SKFM is more or less an extremist formalist with no real sense of strong social obligation. There's a strong possibility that he might be on the autism spectrum somewhere. He values rules and structure over people or emotions and tends to reject criticisms of that structure out of hand.

    If you want to start a thread to discuss the trail of tears, by my guest. I don't think that discussing my infractions is appropriate to this thread (or anywhere else on the boards, for that matter) nor do I appreciate you stating that I may suffer from a mental condition which I most certainly do not have. I believe in the strong legal positivist position, locke's strong conception of property rights, among other things, as theoretical matters, but do not live my life in accordance with them. The way that I would design a world has little if any bearing on how I interact in the world that we have.

  • LoveIsUnityLoveIsUnity Registered User regular
    To be fair, there are a lot of people who are still disadvantaged socially and economically as a result of the government's policies that affected Native Americans. You can state that not discussing the trail of tears isn't relevant to this thread because it hasn't impacted your family for generations. There are other people for whom it still has lasting consequences. For you this is theoretical and something that happened in the past that you don't need to worry about anymore. Must be nice.

    steam_sig.png
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    As someone who is socially and economically disadvantaged by what happened to my ancestors, let's not fucking drag that up again.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • Clown ShoesClown Shoes Give me hay or give me death. Registered User regular
    I don't think that discussing my infractions is appropriate to this thread (or anywhere else on the boards, for that matter) nor do I appreciate you stating that I may suffer from a mental condition which I most certainly do not have.

    We're just trying to "understand how other people live".

  • spacekungfumanspacekungfuman Poor and minority-filled Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    Calixtus wrote: »
    I also don't like sitting near groups of women (especially black women) because in my experience they talk to each other loudly the whole time, but I don't think that makes me misogynistic or racist.
    And here I thought the most brilliant thing this thread was going to generate this week was equating something like this to slavery.

    I stand corrected, and wonder just how often you guys actually use the public transportation system in your respective locales? 'cause while the local establishments aren't exactly the Tokoy metro, they tend to be filled with people to a degree where actively avoiding subsets of them would be a pain in the ass (I don't think you could even see shit like teenagers in time to actively avoid them), and during rush hour possibly hazardous to your health because in, out or in between, the doors are fucking a-closing.

    You turn the volume on your headphones up if someone gets obnoxiously loud, but that's pretty much it. It's a public transportation system - it's filled with the public.

    Not particularly unexpected, nor a massive cause for concern amongst normal people.

    If I devote my time to making money to buy something (or to buolding something) and you deprive me of its use against my will, what else can you call that but a theft of the time I spent acquiring or making it? Let's say I was a farmer and tilled the soil, then every year you snuck in at night and stole 20% of my crop, or occupied part of my land and stayed there until the crops withered on the vine. You have now taken 20% of my labor, without my permission and without compensation. What other name for that?

    See the above re: trains.

    People can't steal your time, only objects. Your farmer analogy doesn't work since their crops are objects that can be stolen (thieves aren't stealing the time they had to use to make a crop), not quiet time on a train. You're confusing abstract and solid concepts again.
    Thejakeman wrote: »
    Thejakeman wrote: »
    The reason you lock your car is because you're afraid it will get stolen. The reason you (or they, dunno if you described yourself as this) avoid groups is because you're afraid they'll do some bad thing to you. So I don't know if you antagonistically hate those people or are just subscribing to the low-level resentment of "geez I wish these people weren't around and making my life inconvenient for me" but either way you're hating them (because you're afraid of them) by ascribing them special antagonistic powers.

    If it really wasn't a big deal, you'd just get on the train that is closest to you.

    I think distrust is a better way to put it. I don't think it is likely that they will do something bad, but I don't trust in their judgement or maturity, so I'd rather not leave myself in a position where they are making decisions that effect me. My concern is much more so about property rights (like them skateboarding in a parking lot, bumping into my car with the skateboard and running away) than personal safety (I don't worry that a pack of teenagers is going to mug or attack me or something).

    The other side of it is avoidance because past experience has shown me that these groups are pileup be loud. I don't like sitting near any groups on the train, but groups of teenagers are consistently louder than anyone other than crying children, in my experience. I also don't like sitting near groups of women (especially black women) because in my experience they talk to each other loudly the whole time, but I don't think that makes me misogynistic or racist. I jus want a quite train ride, and value certainty over giving people the chance to not be loud, since the cost of my choice is so incredibly low (just sitting somewhere away from them).

    If you don't think it's likely they will do something bad, why do you distrust them? Because you think they'll do something bad and you want to stop them from doing so before they can.

    It absolutely does make you both misogynist and racist, because the first thing out of your mind here is the assumption that black women are going to talk loudly amongst themselves.

    Living in a world where you're constantly trying to prevent other people from doing things that you imagine they might do is neurotic at best.

    Observation has taught me that women are more likely to spend an entire train ride talking to each other than men, and that black women often do so at a louder volume. This is just simple data collection from my life. Based on this, I try not to sit near these groups when I can avoid it, because I want a quiet train ride. Do I think all women will talk the whole time and all black women will do so loudly? Of course not. But my goal is just to have a quiet, relaxing train ride, and so yes, I will try to avoid any group on the train, with special pains to avoid groups of women (especially black women) because experience tells me that if someone is going to be particularly loud, it is them. I also try to sit between two women on a crowded train because I find that they will move over more than men to give you some space. The ideal is two Asian women, and Asian men are preferred over other types of men because I find that Asians also move over more. If I had some overarching explanation for this, like "women are loud because they lack self control, and doubly so for black women. Asians are meek and so retreat when you sit between them" maybe that would be racist, but I draw no such conclusions. I am just going based on my experience of riding on the train every day, and trends or patterns I have noticed that help me to have a better ride.

    I've never had that issue with women on a train or bus. Not all women do that or Asians are quiet on public transportation. Generalization doesn't work 100%, which is what you're doing. Just because someone is a stranger doesn't mean they're a threat or annoyance to you by existing.

    I have choices about how to spend my time. I can choose to spend it working to make money which I will then use to buy something I want. I would not spend time working if I was not given money, or if I could not buy the things that I want. If you destroy my money or my things, then you have invalidated my choice to work, because I have now done so without the reward the motivated me to do so. If you take my money or my things, it is even worse, because now I have chosen to devote my time to work instead of leisure, and you reap the reward. Both are forms of time theft, and what is the inability to determine how your time will be spent other than slavery?

    Because time theft doesn't exist. People stealing your stuff isn't touching the time spent making them, it's that someone stole an object that was your's. Slavery doesn't enter into the equation. They're stealing items from you, not making you a literal slave. It's not even similar indentured servitude. This is a bizarre form of though I've rarely seen before. Certainly not with the middle class or poor people I've met. I've met wealthy people as well and none have said anything resembling what you're going on about. Comparing abstract and solid subjects can be done but your examples don't sound logical to me at all.

    I think it follows naturally from Locke and labor theories of value. If the value of a thing is the labor expended to produce or acquire it, then the labor is what you are taking when you steal or destroy that object.

    @ronya

    How is the value of labor calculated in this context?

    If it's by the time expended, wouldn't that mean that stealing $100 from you should be less of a crime than stealing $100 from the person that cleans your office.

    Yes, but only to the extent that there are degrees of wrongness based on enslaving someone "a little." I would contend that there is no such distinction. This is also why I don't recognize a difference between "petty vandalism" and full on crimes against property, and I think both deserve substantial punishment.

    Does that mean you wouldn't make a distinction between someone who knocks the wing mirror off your car and someone who steals the entire car? That they should both receive the same punishment?

    If done intentionally? No, I would not. I would require that compensation be paid to the aggrieved party, and that would be less, but the actual fines imposed should be large for any property crime imo.

    I'm assuming both are intentional. If the compensation is less for taking out the wing mirror than stealing the car, you are recognizing "a difference between "petty vandalism" and full on crimes against property".

    Out of interest, how large do you think the large fines should be?

    I ask because (to pull some numbers out of my arse) if the fine is $100k+compensation, then there is no real difference between the deterrent for causing $1 of damage than for causing $1000.

    I'm not sure what it should be, but probably not that high. But why exactly would we think that our goal in deterrence is to deter larger property crimes and not smaller property crimes? Shouldn't we want to just deter property crimes from occuring at all?

    Of course we should, but if the punishment doesn't fit the crime, it doesn't have the same deterrent effect. Excessive punishment leads people to decide that the law is unjust and they don't feel that the law needs to be followed. It's the justice equivalent of the Laffer curve.

    A better analogy might be drug laws/classifications. If the government says that cannabis is as bad as crack and the schools just say "drug are bad, mmmkay", when a kid inevitably gets handed a joint at a party, they start to distrust everything they've been told about other drugs.

    With rigorous enforcement (a la Singapore), deciding not to follow the law because the punishment is too harsh will just result in irrational actors being punished. I don't see the problem here.

    So you agree that it's a good idea to have the death penalty for dropping litter - I mean, we all like clean streets, don't we?

    Given you used the phrase "irrational actors", I've this horrible feeling that you've been reading economics. You know it's more voodoo than science, right? People who always behave as "rational actors" in economics terms would be considered as deeply disturbed individuals in most other contexts.

    If we somehow had perfect enforcement and perfectly drafted laws which accounted for every possible justification for dropping litter, I would be fine with that, but neither of those preconditions can be satisfied. But as a general matter, my answer the any complaint that a punishment doesn't match the crime is "if you don't commit the crime, it doesn't matter." I don't see a problem with expecting people to follow the rules.

    You knew the rules, you believe following the rules is important and yet you're currently jailed.

    "Don't commit the crime" is not an answer to a complaint that the punishment doesn't fit the crime. It's just putting your hands over your ears and saying "la la la, I'm not listening".

    Running a foul of one man under a system which does not have clearly defined rules is signifigantly different than what we are talking about. I respectfully disagee with you as to your second point. I think that "don't commit crimes" is always a reasonable answer and expectation. If we criminalize the wrong things, then we should fix the laws, but that is a very different issue from having rules against damaging or stealing other people's property, is it not?

    If the proposition is "the punishment is excessive", the only answers are "no it's not" or "yes it is" with a range of no-ish and yes-ish in between. The answer is never "don't commit crimes".

    Thejakeman wrote: »
    He's actually jailed cause he said the trail of tears was a nifty-cool thing that the government handled well and legally, which is not really against the rules per se, just a general "don't be a heinous jerk" sort of infraction. SKFM is more or less an extremist formalist with no real sense of strong social obligation. There's a strong possibility that he might be on the autism spectrum somewhere. He values rules and structure over people or emotions and tends to reject criticisms of that structure out of hand.

    Unfortunately, by SKFM's own standards, being a silly goose or borderline sociopath are not excuses - rules is rules.

    No, you can also say it is an irrelevant question and just not answer it.

  • CalixtusCalixtus Registered User regular
    kuhlmeye wrote: »
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but after looking at that link, Right to Roam - in most cases - specifically excludes private property/a persons yard. What it does include is the countryside or uncultivated land, like forests and places in the middle of nowhere with no one living nearby.

    Even in the countries it lists as the most respectful of Right to Roam - Norway, Sweden, Finland - you still cant go trouncing around on someones lawn without permission and call it Right to Roam. In fact, I don't see a single country listed on here where someones lawn, and in most cases private property (farms included), is applicable to Right to Roam.
    I was using the lawn thing figuratively, sorry. Private gardens are excluded for privacy reasons (formally, "distance from dwelling"). Cultivated land is excluded because, well, it's pretty hard not to fuck with crops if you walk over a field. It does not exclude other private property, so specifically, it goes against "Noone has a right in my property but me". As long as it doesn't disturb the privacy or your home, your crops, damages the land or involves hunting, you have the right to roam. But no, hanging out on someones law would not be allowed - but not because being on someone elses property means you enslave them.

    (It's also worth noting "in middle of nowhere in this case", well, I doubt there's a soul in Sweden who couldn't use a car for 10-20 minutes to find a piece of land where access would be permitted specifically by right to roam. Outside of urban centers it'd be shorter than that.)
    If I am told that this tiny rock which is no inconvenience to me will protect me from tigers, and I want to avoid tiger attacks, I am perfectly happy to continue carrying the rock instead of experimenting, because tiger attacks come at a terrible cost.
    And what harm has ever been wrought upon the world by people who believe the things that cost them the least to believe rather than pursue costly facts?

    I think you would enjoy Pascals wager. Eternal damnation is, after all, the most terrible of costs.

    -This message was deviously brought to you by:
  • spacekungfumanspacekungfuman Poor and minority-filled Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    Calixtus wrote: »
    kuhlmeye wrote: »
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but after looking at that link, Right to Roam - in most cases - specifically excludes private property/a persons yard. What it does include is the countryside or uncultivated land, like forests and places in the middle of nowhere with no one living nearby.

    Even in the countries it lists as the most respectful of Right to Roam - Norway, Sweden, Finland - you still cant go trouncing around on someones lawn without permission and call it Right to Roam. In fact, I don't see a single country listed on here where someones lawn, and in most cases private property (farms included), is applicable to Right to Roam.
    I was using the lawn thing figuratively, sorry. Private gardens are excluded for privacy reasons (formally, "distance from dwelling"). Cultivated land is excluded because, well, it's pretty hard not to fuck with crops if you walk over a field. It does not exclude other private property, so specifically, it goes against "Noone has a right in my property but me". As long as it doesn't disturb the privacy or your home, your crops, damages the land or involves hunting, you have the right to roam. But no, hanging out on someones law would not be allowed - but not because being on someone elses property means you enslave them.

    (It's also worth noting "in middle of nowhere in this case", well, I doubt there's a soul in Sweden who couldn't use a car for 10-20 minutes to find a piece of land where access would be permitted specifically by right to roam. Outside of urban centers it'd be shorter than that.)
    If I am told that this tiny rock which is no inconvenience to me will protect me from tigers, and I want to avoid tiger attacks, I am perfectly happy to continue carrying the rock instead of experimenting, because tiger attacks come at a terrible cost.
    And what harm has ever been wrought upon the world by people who believe the things that cost them the least to believe rather than pursue costly facts?

    I think you would enjoy Pascals wager. Eternal damnation is, after all, the most terrible of costs.

    My position on property rights is painfully simple. My labor is an extension of myself, and do Thr thing I acquire through it are also an extension of myself. Your use of my things without my permission is a violation of my personhood.

    I've always been interested in this argument, but in this particular case, I can't help but think YOLO as the kids say. devoting a life to god and being wrong is also a terrible cost.

  • LilnoobsLilnoobs Alpha Queue Registered User regular
    Wow. So if Labor is an extension of oneself, then I suppose students shouldn't use any knowledge gained from teachers without written approval? Wouldn't want to violate their personhood or something.




  • ElJeffeElJeffe Moderator, ClubPA mod
    This thread needs to stop being about why forumers got jailed and what sort of psychological disorders you think they have and also everything else stupid going on in here if it wishes to continue to exist.

    I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
  • AtomikaAtomika Live fast and get fucked or whatever Registered User regular
    I have difficulty in understanding how people choose to pay good money to go on vacation all the way to New York City and end up eating at the Times Square Olive Garden.

    Because you know what New York is famously short of? Italian food restaurants.

  • spacekungfumanspacekungfuman Poor and minority-filled Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    I have difficulty in understanding how people choose to pay good money to go on vacation all the way to New York City and end up eating at the Times Square Olive Garden.

    Because you know what New York is famously short of? Italian food restaurants.

    I think there is a general fear when traveling to another region that you will make a poor choice of restaurants, so people go with what they know. I agree that it is stupid, since a lot of the fun of traveling is getting to eat in new places that make authentic types of food. I don't generally eat deep dish pizza, but you can bet I get it when I go to Chicago.

  • AtomikaAtomika Live fast and get fucked or whatever Registered User regular
    edited November 2012
    People do it in their own hometowns, too.

    Even when I've lived in some shabby places, there's still no shortage of decent independent food options. Yet people flock to overpriced and shitty chains like Applebee's and Fridays. I drove by a really terrible fast-food BBQ chain last night and there were people waiting in line and every spot in the lot was full.

    I was all, "Seriously? In Texas?"

    Atomika on
  • spacekungfumanspacekungfuman Poor and minority-filled Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    So we have clearly established that shopping is not a mainstay activity for many people. My question is what people do instead. A typical weekend for us involves going out to eat a few times, plenty of relaxing, but also at least one trip to a mall, downtown or outlet mall to walk around and do some shopping. We might not buy anything, but it is a good place to walk, and gives something to do instead of just walking forever. What do people who don't shop much do with their time?

  • AtomikaAtomika Live fast and get fucked or whatever Registered User regular
    My wife and I go to a ton of movies, and we also tend to travel a lot. We probably go to the movies 3-5 times a month (during the busy seasons), and we probably go out of town for the weekend at least once a month.

    We have jobs that enable this lifestyle, however, as we only work three or four days a week, and often have long periods off together. Plus, my wife works from home about half the time.

    We're thinking about trying to have kids soon, so the way we spend our leisure time may change, from what I hear.

  • redxredx I(x)=2(x)+1 whole numbersRegistered User regular
    I have difficulty in understanding how people choose to pay good money to go on vacation all the way to New York City and end up eating at the Times Square Olive Garden.

    Because you know what New York is famously short of? Italian food restaurants.

    I think there is a general fear when traveling to another region that you will make a poor choice of restaurants, so people go with what they know. I agree that it is stupid, since a lot of the fun of traveling is getting to eat in new places that make authentic types of food. I don't generally eat deep dish pizza, but you can bet I get it when I go to Chicago.

    Chains are comforting. They are all the same. You know what you are going to get when you go to a starbucks, or whatever, in New York, Seattle, Frankfort, Rome or Paris. Traveling is stressful, particularly when you have to deal with all sorts of new environments and cultures. It's nice to be able to step away from all that, and get a crappy American burger or bad latte.

    It's not totally stupid, and doesn't necessarily mean that is how someone is spending their whole vacation.
    I mean, it's a little stupid as you are going to end up paying too much for an inferior product, but there's can be reasonable enough motivations behind it. Particularly if folks have kids, who tend not to be too adventurous when it comes to food.

    It's not how I roll. I love food, and tend to go in for local specialties, ideally locally sourced. However I can understand how it can be nice to have food you don't have to worry about, when there can be so much other stressful crap going on when you are somewhere unfamiliar.

    They moistly come out at night, moistly.
  • AtomikaAtomika Live fast and get fucked or whatever Registered User regular
    redx wrote: »
    I have difficulty in understanding how people choose to pay good money to go on vacation all the way to New York City and end up eating at the Times Square Olive Garden.

    Because you know what New York is famously short of? Italian food restaurants.

    I think there is a general fear when traveling to another region that you will make a poor choice of restaurants, so people go with what they know. I agree that it is stupid, since a lot of the fun of traveling is getting to eat in new places that make authentic types of food. I don't generally eat deep dish pizza, but you can bet I get it when I go to Chicago.

    Chains are comforting. They are all the same. You know what you are going to get when you go to a starbucks, or whatever, in New York, Seattle, Frankfort, Rome or Paris. Traveling is stressful, particularly when you have to deal with all sorts of new environments and cultures. It's nice to be able to step away from all that, and get a crappy American burger or bad latte.

    It's not totally stupid, and doesn't necessarily mean that is how someone is spending their whole vacation.
    I mean, it's a little stupid as you are going to end up paying too much for an inferior product, but there's can be reasonable enough motivations behind it. Particularly if folks have kids, who tend not to be too adventurous when it comes to food.

    It's not how I roll. I love food, and tend to go in for local specialties, ideally locally sourced. However I can understand how it can be nice to have food you don't have to worry about, when there can be so much other stressful crap going on when you are somewhere unfamiliar.

    I can see that excuse working in most situations, but the Times Square thing doesn't stand up to scrutiny. It's a location where basically only tourists go, and you don't have to go very far even walking to find fare popular with locals.

    But every night, the Fridays and Olive Gardens and Bubba Gumps are stowed out with people who probably had to make reservations to eat there.

  • MegafrostMegafrost Leader of the Decepticons Registered User regular
    So we have clearly established that shopping is not a mainstay activity for many people. My question is what people do instead. A typical weekend for us involves going out to eat a few times, plenty of relaxing, but also at least one trip to a mall, downtown or outlet mall to walk around and do some shopping. We might not buy anything, but it is a good place to walk, and gives something to do instead of just walking forever. What do people who don't shop much do with their time?

    By myself, I generally spend my time playing video games or studying Japanese. On weekends I typically hang out with friends or family doing one of the following:

    * Watching either some DVDs or something on computer (like Netflix)
    * Playing video games
    * Playing pen & paper games
    * Talking

    Exceptions exist, of course. Smashed some pumpkins a few weeks ago, and just now my wife and I made a coconut creme pie (mostly so that I'd have some practice before trying to do it again for thanksgiving). But in general my free time looks like the above.

  • OrganichuOrganichu poops peesRegistered User, Moderator mod
    edited November 2012
    some people actually enjoy chain restaurants. i don't think it always implies laziness or lack of adventurousness or whatever (though they very well might both be the case). my very poor family love olive garden and applebees and so on. they legitimately think of them as a treat- my aunt was overjoyed when her husband took her to olive garden on their year anniversary. it's her favorite restaurant, and $50 is a great deal of money to spend on food, to her. it does not feel like settling or going with what's familiar to them.

    Organichu on
  • AtomikaAtomika Live fast and get fucked or whatever Registered User regular
    Organichu wrote: »
    some people actually enjoy chain restaurants. i don't think it always implies laziness or lack of adventurousness or whatever (though they very well might both be the case). my very poor family love olive garden and applebees and so on. they legitimately think of them as a treat- my aunt was overjoyed when her husband took her to olive garden on their year anniversary. it's her favorite restaurant, and $50 is a great deal of money to spend on food, to her. it does not feel like settling or going with what's familiar to them.

    It's this phenomenon that confuses me, because it's so similar to my experience in growing up. If you took a date out to Outback Steakhouse it was a big deal, but I still have no idea why. It's pricey, but the food isn't that great and the atmosphere is casual and homogeneous. There were local independent places that were better and had more ambiance that were about the same cost, and there were other places that offered better casual dining experiences for more reasonable prices.

    I mean, I can go to some pretty decent places for $20-30 per steak. Outback is not one of them. But a lot of people really think they're living it up when they go to these kinds of places. It's weird.

  • MuddBuddMuddBudd Registered User regular
    Organichu wrote: »
    some people actually enjoy chain restaurants. i don't think it always implies laziness or lack of adventurousness or whatever (though they very well might both be the case). my very poor family love olive garden and applebees and so on. they legitimately think of them as a treat- my aunt was overjoyed when her husband took her to olive garden on their year anniversary. it's her favorite restaurant, and $50 is a great deal of money to spend on food, to her. it does not feel like settling or going with what's familiar to them.

    It's this phenomenon that confuses me, because it's so similar to my experience in growing up. If you took a date out to Outback Steakhouse it was a big deal, but I still have no idea why. It's pricey, but the food isn't that great and the atmosphere is casual and homogeneous. There were local independent places that were better and had more ambiance that were about the same cost, and there were other places that offered better casual dining experiences for more reasonable prices.

    I mean, I can go to some pretty decent places for $20-30 per steak. Outback is not one of them. But a lot of people really think they're living it up when they go to these kinds of places. It's weird.

    Because anything other than home cooking or the occasional fast food is a luxury for them. Either due to low income or more likely, just a very tight budget.

    It's also comforting as you know basically what you will get at any of the chains stores. They may not be the best or cheapest, but they are predictable.

    There's no plan, there's no race to be run
    The harder the rain, honey, the sweeter the sun.
  • Brian KrakowBrian Krakow Registered User regular
    edited November 2012
    If being rich means shopping is a mainstay form of entertainment then I'm glad I'm a pleb.

    In all seriousness for fun I usually just watch TV, play video games, hang out with my cat and my friends, with trips to hiking trails and museums or various other locations to prove that I'm not a vampire.

    Brian Krakow on
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    edited November 2012
    MuddBudd wrote: »
    Organichu wrote: »
    some people actually enjoy chain restaurants. i don't think it always implies laziness or lack of adventurousness or whatever (though they very well might both be the case). my very poor family love olive garden and applebees and so on. they legitimately think of them as a treat- my aunt was overjoyed when her husband took her to olive garden on their year anniversary. it's her favorite restaurant, and $50 is a great deal of money to spend on food, to her. it does not feel like settling or going with what's familiar to them.

    It's this phenomenon that confuses me, because it's so similar to my experience in growing up. If you took a date out to Outback Steakhouse it was a big deal, but I still have no idea why. It's pricey, but the food isn't that great and the atmosphere is casual and homogeneous. There were local independent places that were better and had more ambiance that were about the same cost, and there were other places that offered better casual dining experiences for more reasonable prices.

    I mean, I can go to some pretty decent places for $20-30 per steak. Outback is not one of them. But a lot of people really think they're living it up when they go to these kinds of places. It's weird.

    Because anything other than home cooking or the occasional fast food is a luxury for them. Either due to low income or more likely, just a very tight budget.

    It's also comforting as you know basically what you will get at any of the chains stores. They may not be the best or cheapest, but they are predictable.

    It's not just predictable, it's known. As in, if you don't go out very much, you have no idea wtf is around.

    I cook at home 90% of the time. I couldn't name most restaurants in my neighbourhood. I don't go to them, so why should I know anything about them? Meanwhile, your chain restaurant is a known quantity. Because it's a chain and thus that one you went to 5 years ago is basically the one that's down the street. Chains are easy to find and you know to look for them. That's the whole point of a chain restaurant.

    If I want some italian food, I know East Side Mario's will have it. I'd have to go looking to see if there even was a non-chain italian restaurant nearby.


    On vacation I'd say it makes no damn sense though because the whole point of a vacation to another city/country/etc is looking up shit you've never heard of or been to before and going there.

    shryke on
  • Jam WarriorJam Warrior Registered User regular
    So we have clearly established that shopping is not a mainstay activity for many people. My question is what people do instead. A typical weekend for us involves going out to eat a few times, plenty of relaxing, but also at least one trip to a mall, downtown or outlet mall to walk around and do some shopping. We might not buy anything, but it is a good place to walk, and gives something to do instead of just walking forever. What do people who don't shop much do with their time?

    You, you really can't imagine what to do with your free time when not spending money on consumer goods? That's, just, man. Man.

    MhCw7nZ.gif
  • Clown ShoesClown Shoes Give me hay or give me death. Registered User regular
    Calixtus wrote: »
    I also don't like sitting near groups of women (especially black women) because in my experience they talk to each other loudly the whole time, but I don't think that makes me misogynistic or racist.
    And here I thought the most brilliant thing this thread was going to generate this week was equating something like this to slavery.

    I stand corrected, and wonder just how often you guys actually use the public transportation system in your respective locales? 'cause while the local establishments aren't exactly the Tokoy metro, they tend to be filled with people to a degree where actively avoiding subsets of them would be a pain in the ass (I don't think you could even see shit like teenagers in time to actively avoid them), and during rush hour possibly hazardous to your health because in, out or in between, the doors are fucking a-closing.

    You turn the volume on your headphones up if someone gets obnoxiously loud, but that's pretty much it. It's a public transportation system - it's filled with the public.

    Not particularly unexpected, nor a massive cause for concern amongst normal people.

    If I devote my time to making money to buy something (or to buolding something) and you deprive me of its use against my will, what else can you call that but a theft of the time I spent acquiring or making it? Let's say I was a farmer and tilled the soil, then every year you snuck in at night and stole 20% of my crop, or occupied part of my land and stayed there until the crops withered on the vine. You have now taken 20% of my labor, without my permission and without compensation. What other name for that?

    See the above re: trains.

    People can't steal your time, only objects. Your farmer analogy doesn't work since their crops are objects that can be stolen (thieves aren't stealing the time they had to use to make a crop), not quiet time on a train. You're confusing abstract and solid concepts again.
    Thejakeman wrote: »
    Thejakeman wrote: »
    The reason you lock your car is because you're afraid it will get stolen. The reason you (or they, dunno if you described yourself as this) avoid groups is because you're afraid they'll do some bad thing to you. So I don't know if you antagonistically hate those people or are just subscribing to the low-level resentment of "geez I wish these people weren't around and making my life inconvenient for me" but either way you're hating them (because you're afraid of them) by ascribing them special antagonistic powers.

    If it really wasn't a big deal, you'd just get on the train that is closest to you.

    I think distrust is a better way to put it. I don't think it is likely that they will do something bad, but I don't trust in their judgement or maturity, so I'd rather not leave myself in a position where they are making decisions that effect me. My concern is much more so about property rights (like them skateboarding in a parking lot, bumping into my car with the skateboard and running away) than personal safety (I don't worry that a pack of teenagers is going to mug or attack me or something).

    The other side of it is avoidance because past experience has shown me that these groups are pileup be loud. I don't like sitting near any groups on the train, but groups of teenagers are consistently louder than anyone other than crying children, in my experience. I also don't like sitting near groups of women (especially black women) because in my experience they talk to each other loudly the whole time, but I don't think that makes me misogynistic or racist. I jus want a quite train ride, and value certainty over giving people the chance to not be loud, since the cost of my choice is so incredibly low (just sitting somewhere away from them).

    If you don't think it's likely they will do something bad, why do you distrust them? Because you think they'll do something bad and you want to stop them from doing so before they can.

    It absolutely does make you both misogynist and racist, because the first thing out of your mind here is the assumption that black women are going to talk loudly amongst themselves.

    Living in a world where you're constantly trying to prevent other people from doing things that you imagine they might do is neurotic at best.

    Observation has taught me that women are more likely to spend an entire train ride talking to each other than men, and that black women often do so at a louder volume. This is just simple data collection from my life. Based on this, I try not to sit near these groups when I can avoid it, because I want a quiet train ride. Do I think all women will talk the whole time and all black women will do so loudly? Of course not. But my goal is just to have a quiet, relaxing train ride, and so yes, I will try to avoid any group on the train, with special pains to avoid groups of women (especially black women) because experience tells me that if someone is going to be particularly loud, it is them. I also try to sit between two women on a crowded train because I find that they will move over more than men to give you some space. The ideal is two Asian women, and Asian men are preferred over other types of men because I find that Asians also move over more. If I had some overarching explanation for this, like "women are loud because they lack self control, and doubly so for black women. Asians are meek and so retreat when you sit between them" maybe that would be racist, but I draw no such conclusions. I am just going based on my experience of riding on the train every day, and trends or patterns I have noticed that help me to have a better ride.

    I've never had that issue with women on a train or bus. Not all women do that or Asians are quiet on public transportation. Generalization doesn't work 100%, which is what you're doing. Just because someone is a stranger doesn't mean they're a threat or annoyance to you by existing.

    I have choices about how to spend my time. I can choose to spend it working to make money which I will then use to buy something I want. I would not spend time working if I was not given money, or if I could not buy the things that I want. If you destroy my money or my things, then you have invalidated my choice to work, because I have now done so without the reward the motivated me to do so. If you take my money or my things, it is even worse, because now I have chosen to devote my time to work instead of leisure, and you reap the reward. Both are forms of time theft, and what is the inability to determine how your time will be spent other than slavery?

    Because time theft doesn't exist. People stealing your stuff isn't touching the time spent making them, it's that someone stole an object that was your's. Slavery doesn't enter into the equation. They're stealing items from you, not making you a literal slave. It's not even similar indentured servitude. This is a bizarre form of though I've rarely seen before. Certainly not with the middle class or poor people I've met. I've met wealthy people as well and none have said anything resembling what you're going on about. Comparing abstract and solid subjects can be done but your examples don't sound logical to me at all.

    I think it follows naturally from Locke and labor theories of value. If the value of a thing is the labor expended to produce or acquire it, then the labor is what you are taking when you steal or destroy that object.

    @ronya

    How is the value of labor calculated in this context?

    If it's by the time expended, wouldn't that mean that stealing $100 from you should be less of a crime than stealing $100 from the person that cleans your office.

    Yes, but only to the extent that there are degrees of wrongness based on enslaving someone "a little." I would contend that there is no such distinction. This is also why I don't recognize a difference between "petty vandalism" and full on crimes against property, and I think both deserve substantial punishment.

    Does that mean you wouldn't make a distinction between someone who knocks the wing mirror off your car and someone who steals the entire car? That they should both receive the same punishment?

    If done intentionally? No, I would not. I would require that compensation be paid to the aggrieved party, and that would be less, but the actual fines imposed should be large for any property crime imo.

    I'm assuming both are intentional. If the compensation is less for taking out the wing mirror than stealing the car, you are recognizing "a difference between "petty vandalism" and full on crimes against property".

    Out of interest, how large do you think the large fines should be?

    I ask because (to pull some numbers out of my arse) if the fine is $100k+compensation, then there is no real difference between the deterrent for causing $1 of damage than for causing $1000.

    I'm not sure what it should be, but probably not that high. But why exactly would we think that our goal in deterrence is to deter larger property crimes and not smaller property crimes? Shouldn't we want to just deter property crimes from occuring at all?

    Of course we should, but if the punishment doesn't fit the crime, it doesn't have the same deterrent effect. Excessive punishment leads people to decide that the law is unjust and they don't feel that the law needs to be followed. It's the justice equivalent of the Laffer curve.

    A better analogy might be drug laws/classifications. If the government says that cannabis is as bad as crack and the schools just say "drug are bad, mmmkay", when a kid inevitably gets handed a joint at a party, they start to distrust everything they've been told about other drugs.

    With rigorous enforcement (a la Singapore), deciding not to follow the law because the punishment is too harsh will just result in irrational actors being punished. I don't see the problem here.

    So you agree that it's a good idea to have the death penalty for dropping litter - I mean, we all like clean streets, don't we?

    Given you used the phrase "irrational actors", I've this horrible feeling that you've been reading economics. You know it's more voodoo than science, right? People who always behave as "rational actors" in economics terms would be considered as deeply disturbed individuals in most other contexts.

    If we somehow had perfect enforcement and perfectly drafted laws which accounted for every possible justification for dropping litter, I would be fine with that, but neither of those preconditions can be satisfied. But as a general matter, my answer the any complaint that a punishment doesn't match the crime is "if you don't commit the crime, it doesn't matter." I don't see a problem with expecting people to follow the rules.

    You knew the rules, you believe following the rules is important and yet you're currently jailed.

    "Don't commit the crime" is not an answer to a complaint that the punishment doesn't fit the crime. It's just putting your hands over your ears and saying "la la la, I'm not listening".

    Running a foul of one man under a system which does not have clearly defined rules is signifigantly different than what we are talking about. I respectfully disagee with you as to your second point. I think that "don't commit crimes" is always a reasonable answer and expectation. If we criminalize the wrong things, then we should fix the laws, but that is a very different issue from having rules against damaging or stealing other people's property, is it not?

    If the proposition is "the punishment is excessive", the only answers are "no it's not" or "yes it is" with a range of no-ish and yes-ish in between. The answer is never "don't commit crimes".

    Thejakeman wrote: »
    He's actually jailed cause he said the trail of tears was a nifty-cool thing that the government handled well and legally, which is not really against the rules per se, just a general "don't be a heinous jerk" sort of infraction. SKFM is more or less an extremist formalist with no real sense of strong social obligation. There's a strong possibility that he might be on the autism spectrum somewhere. He values rules and structure over people or emotions and tends to reject criticisms of that structure out of hand.

    Unfortunately, by SKFM's own standards, being a silly goose or borderline sociopath are not excuses - rules is rules.

    No, you can also say it is an irrelevant question and just not answer it.

    So you think it's irrelevant whether the punishment fits the crime or not?

  • bowenbowen How you doin'? Registered User regular
    edited November 2012
    Organichu wrote: »
    some people actually enjoy chain restaurants. i don't think it always implies laziness or lack of adventurousness or whatever (though they very well might both be the case). my very poor family love olive garden and applebees and so on. they legitimately think of them as a treat- my aunt was overjoyed when her husband took her to olive garden on their year anniversary. it's her favorite restaurant, and $50 is a great deal of money to spend on food, to her. it does not feel like settling or going with what's familiar to them.

    It's this phenomenon that confuses me, because it's so similar to my experience in growing up. If you took a date out to Outback Steakhouse it was a big deal, but I still have no idea why. It's pricey, but the food isn't that great and the atmosphere is casual and homogeneous. There were local independent places that were better and had more ambiance that were about the same cost, and there were other places that offered better casual dining experiences for more reasonable prices.

    I mean, I can go to some pretty decent places for $20-30 per steak. Outback is not one of them. But a lot of people really think they're living it up when they go to these kinds of places. It's weird.

    I know in my cases, if it's not a pizza joint I will actively avoid restaurants in general. Most of these places are the most vile and disgusting things. Chains usually have a deeply seated quality control in order to keep their franchising. So much so the supervisors tend to be ingrained with it.

    Those independent restaurants? Yeah a good 40% of them are probably a few weeks away from either shutting down or being on fucking Kitchen Nightmares.

    If I can't see their food prep area, fuck that. And I don't know how much they cycle through food (pizza joints tend to go through food like wildfire).

    bowen on
    not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
  • spacekungfumanspacekungfuman Poor and minority-filled Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    So we have clearly established that shopping is not a mainstay activity for many people. My question is what people do instead. A typical weekend for us involves going out to eat a few times, plenty of relaxing, but also at least one trip to a mall, downtown or outlet mall to walk around and do some shopping. We might not buy anything, but it is a good place to walk, and gives something to do instead of just walking forever. What do people who don't shop much do with their time?

    You, you really can't imagine what to do with your free time when not spending money on consumer goods? That's, just, man. Man.

    Like I said, we spend a lot of time just relaxing at home, watching movies, playing board games, etc. But we like to go on walks, and unless you want to walk forever and do nothing else, going for walks in a downtown area, outlet mall, or (when weather is bad) an indoor mall seems like the only thing that makes much sense. Looking at the responses, it seems like other people are mostly describing things they do alone, not with a spouse. Except Atomic Ross who goes to a lot of movies and on a lot of weekend trips, which is nice, but is also them going out spending money (even I think movie tickets are expensive ;) ).

  • spacekungfumanspacekungfuman Poor and minority-filled Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    Calixtus wrote: »
    I also don't like sitting near groups of women (especially black women) because in my experience they talk to each other loudly the whole time, but I don't think that makes me misogynistic or racist.
    And here I thought the most brilliant thing this thread was going to generate this week was equating something like this to slavery.

    I stand corrected, and wonder just how often you guys actually use the public transportation system in your respective locales? 'cause while the local establishments aren't exactly the Tokoy metro, they tend to be filled with people to a degree where actively avoiding subsets of them would be a pain in the ass (I don't think you could even see shit like teenagers in time to actively avoid them), and during rush hour possibly hazardous to your health because in, out or in between, the doors are fucking a-closing.

    You turn the volume on your headphones up if someone gets obnoxiously loud, but that's pretty much it. It's a public transportation system - it's filled with the public.

    Not particularly unexpected, nor a massive cause for concern amongst normal people.

    If I devote my time to making money to buy something (or to buolding something) and you deprive me of its use against my will, what else can you call that but a theft of the time I spent acquiring or making it? Let's say I was a farmer and tilled the soil, then every year you snuck in at night and stole 20% of my crop, or occupied part of my land and stayed there until the crops withered on the vine. You have now taken 20% of my labor, without my permission and without compensation. What other name for that?

    See the above re: trains.

    People can't steal your time, only objects. Your farmer analogy doesn't work since their crops are objects that can be stolen (thieves aren't stealing the time they had to use to make a crop), not quiet time on a train. You're confusing abstract and solid concepts again.
    Thejakeman wrote: »
    Thejakeman wrote: »
    The reason you lock your car is because you're afraid it will get stolen. The reason you (or they, dunno if you described yourself as this) avoid groups is because you're afraid they'll do some bad thing to you. So I don't know if you antagonistically hate those people or are just subscribing to the low-level resentment of "geez I wish these people weren't around and making my life inconvenient for me" but either way you're hating them (because you're afraid of them) by ascribing them special antagonistic powers.

    If it really wasn't a big deal, you'd just get on the train that is closest to you.

    I think distrust is a better way to put it. I don't think it is likely that they will do something bad, but I don't trust in their judgement or maturity, so I'd rather not leave myself in a position where they are making decisions that effect me. My concern is much more so about property rights (like them skateboarding in a parking lot, bumping into my car with the skateboard and running away) than personal safety (I don't worry that a pack of teenagers is going to mug or attack me or something).

    The other side of it is avoidance because past experience has shown me that these groups are pileup be loud. I don't like sitting near any groups on the train, but groups of teenagers are consistently louder than anyone other than crying children, in my experience. I also don't like sitting near groups of women (especially black women) because in my experience they talk to each other loudly the whole time, but I don't think that makes me misogynistic or racist. I jus want a quite train ride, and value certainty over giving people the chance to not be loud, since the cost of my choice is so incredibly low (just sitting somewhere away from them).

    If you don't think it's likely they will do something bad, why do you distrust them? Because you think they'll do something bad and you want to stop them from doing so before they can.

    It absolutely does make you both misogynist and racist, because the first thing out of your mind here is the assumption that black women are going to talk loudly amongst themselves.

    Living in a world where you're constantly trying to prevent other people from doing things that you imagine they might do is neurotic at best.

    Observation has taught me that women are more likely to spend an entire train ride talking to each other than men, and that black women often do so at a louder volume. This is just simple data collection from my life. Based on this, I try not to sit near these groups when I can avoid it, because I want a quiet train ride. Do I think all women will talk the whole time and all black women will do so loudly? Of course not. But my goal is just to have a quiet, relaxing train ride, and so yes, I will try to avoid any group on the train, with special pains to avoid groups of women (especially black women) because experience tells me that if someone is going to be particularly loud, it is them. I also try to sit between two women on a crowded train because I find that they will move over more than men to give you some space. The ideal is two Asian women, and Asian men are preferred over other types of men because I find that Asians also move over more. If I had some overarching explanation for this, like "women are loud because they lack self control, and doubly so for black women. Asians are meek and so retreat when you sit between them" maybe that would be racist, but I draw no such conclusions. I am just going based on my experience of riding on the train every day, and trends or patterns I have noticed that help me to have a better ride.

    I've never had that issue with women on a train or bus. Not all women do that or Asians are quiet on public transportation. Generalization doesn't work 100%, which is what you're doing. Just because someone is a stranger doesn't mean they're a threat or annoyance to you by existing.

    I have choices about how to spend my time. I can choose to spend it working to make money which I will then use to buy something I want. I would not spend time working if I was not given money, or if I could not buy the things that I want. If you destroy my money or my things, then you have invalidated my choice to work, because I have now done so without the reward the motivated me to do so. If you take my money or my things, it is even worse, because now I have chosen to devote my time to work instead of leisure, and you reap the reward. Both are forms of time theft, and what is the inability to determine how your time will be spent other than slavery?

    Because time theft doesn't exist. People stealing your stuff isn't touching the time spent making them, it's that someone stole an object that was your's. Slavery doesn't enter into the equation. They're stealing items from you, not making you a literal slave. It's not even similar indentured servitude. This is a bizarre form of though I've rarely seen before. Certainly not with the middle class or poor people I've met. I've met wealthy people as well and none have said anything resembling what you're going on about. Comparing abstract and solid subjects can be done but your examples don't sound logical to me at all.

    I think it follows naturally from Locke and labor theories of value. If the value of a thing is the labor expended to produce or acquire it, then the labor is what you are taking when you steal or destroy that object.

    @ronya

    How is the value of labor calculated in this context?

    If it's by the time expended, wouldn't that mean that stealing $100 from you should be less of a crime than stealing $100 from the person that cleans your office.

    Yes, but only to the extent that there are degrees of wrongness based on enslaving someone "a little." I would contend that there is no such distinction. This is also why I don't recognize a difference between "petty vandalism" and full on crimes against property, and I think both deserve substantial punishment.

    Does that mean you wouldn't make a distinction between someone who knocks the wing mirror off your car and someone who steals the entire car? That they should both receive the same punishment?

    If done intentionally? No, I would not. I would require that compensation be paid to the aggrieved party, and that would be less, but the actual fines imposed should be large for any property crime imo.

    I'm assuming both are intentional. If the compensation is less for taking out the wing mirror than stealing the car, you are recognizing "a difference between "petty vandalism" and full on crimes against property".

    Out of interest, how large do you think the large fines should be?

    I ask because (to pull some numbers out of my arse) if the fine is $100k+compensation, then there is no real difference between the deterrent for causing $1 of damage than for causing $1000.

    I'm not sure what it should be, but probably not that high. But why exactly would we think that our goal in deterrence is to deter larger property crimes and not smaller property crimes? Shouldn't we want to just deter property crimes from occuring at all?

    Of course we should, but if the punishment doesn't fit the crime, it doesn't have the same deterrent effect. Excessive punishment leads people to decide that the law is unjust and they don't feel that the law needs to be followed. It's the justice equivalent of the Laffer curve.

    A better analogy might be drug laws/classifications. If the government says that cannabis is as bad as crack and the schools just say "drug are bad, mmmkay", when a kid inevitably gets handed a joint at a party, they start to distrust everything they've been told about other drugs.

    With rigorous enforcement (a la Singapore), deciding not to follow the law because the punishment is too harsh will just result in irrational actors being punished. I don't see the problem here.

    So you agree that it's a good idea to have the death penalty for dropping litter - I mean, we all like clean streets, don't we?

    Given you used the phrase "irrational actors", I've this horrible feeling that you've been reading economics. You know it's more voodoo than science, right? People who always behave as "rational actors" in economics terms would be considered as deeply disturbed individuals in most other contexts.

    If we somehow had perfect enforcement and perfectly drafted laws which accounted for every possible justification for dropping litter, I would be fine with that, but neither of those preconditions can be satisfied. But as a general matter, my answer the any complaint that a punishment doesn't match the crime is "if you don't commit the crime, it doesn't matter." I don't see a problem with expecting people to follow the rules.

    You knew the rules, you believe following the rules is important and yet you're currently jailed.

    "Don't commit the crime" is not an answer to a complaint that the punishment doesn't fit the crime. It's just putting your hands over your ears and saying "la la la, I'm not listening".

    Running a foul of one man under a system which does not have clearly defined rules is signifigantly different than what we are talking about. I respectfully disagee with you as to your second point. I think that "don't commit crimes" is always a reasonable answer and expectation. If we criminalize the wrong things, then we should fix the laws, but that is a very different issue from having rules against damaging or stealing other people's property, is it not?

    If the proposition is "the punishment is excessive", the only answers are "no it's not" or "yes it is" with a range of no-ish and yes-ish in between. The answer is never "don't commit crimes".

    Thejakeman wrote: »
    He's actually jailed cause he said the trail of tears was a nifty-cool thing that the government handled well and legally, which is not really against the rules per se, just a general "don't be a heinous jerk" sort of infraction. SKFM is more or less an extremist formalist with no real sense of strong social obligation. There's a strong possibility that he might be on the autism spectrum somewhere. He values rules and structure over people or emotions and tends to reject criticisms of that structure out of hand.

    Unfortunately, by SKFM's own standards, being a silly goose or borderline sociopath are not excuses - rules is rules.

    No, you can also say it is an irrelevant question and just not answer it.

    So you think it's irrelevant whether the punishment fits the crime or not?

    El Jeffe told us this line of discussion needed to end. We are talking about chain restaurants and leisure activities now.

  • HacksawHacksaw J. Duggan Esq. Wrestler at LawRegistered User regular
    edited November 2012
    So we have clearly established that shopping is not a mainstay activity for many people. My question is what people do instead. A typical weekend for us involves going out to eat a few times, plenty of relaxing, but also at least one trip to a mall, downtown or outlet mall to walk around and do some shopping. We might not buy anything, but it is a good place to walk, and gives something to do instead of just walking forever. What do people who don't shop much do with their time?

    Masturbate. Play videogames. Cry. Masturbate while crying. Sit in an uncomfortable chair, in an unlit room, alone, recounting your mistakes and regrets, a Dixie cup half-filled with Jack Daniel's at your side. And you're just sitting there, staring into the darkness in front of you, wondering how it all went wrong, how it all came down to... this.

    Hacksaw on
  • bowenbowen How you doin'? Registered User regular
    So we have clearly established that shopping is not a mainstay activity for many people. My question is what people do instead. A typical weekend for us involves going out to eat a few times, plenty of relaxing, but also at least one trip to a mall, downtown or outlet mall to walk around and do some shopping. We might not buy anything, but it is a good place to walk, and gives something to do instead of just walking forever. What do people who don't shop much do with their time?

    You, you really can't imagine what to do with your free time when not spending money on consumer goods? That's, just, man. Man.

    Like I said, we spend a lot of time just relaxing at home, watching movies, playing board games, etc. But we like to go on walks, and unless you want to walk forever and do nothing else, going for walks in a downtown area, outlet mall, or (when weather is bad) an indoor mall seems like the only thing that makes much sense. Looking at the responses, it seems like other people are mostly describing things they do alone, not with a spouse. Except Atomic Ross who goes to a lot of movies and on a lot of weekend trips, which is nice, but is also them going out spending money (even I think movie tickets are expensive ;) ).

    Poor people like me call this window shopping. Which means you walk for a few hours looking at all the nice things you want. I can probably afford it, but, it's a bit outside my budget to buy it.

    So I don't. I just look.

    Just like I daydream about what I'd do if I won $640,000,000 from the lotto.

    not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
  • spacekungfumanspacekungfuman Poor and minority-filled Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    bowen wrote: »
    So we have clearly established that shopping is not a mainstay activity for many people. My question is what people do instead. A typical weekend for us involves going out to eat a few times, plenty of relaxing, but also at least one trip to a mall, downtown or outlet mall to walk around and do some shopping. We might not buy anything, but it is a good place to walk, and gives something to do instead of just walking forever. What do people who don't shop much do with their time?

    You, you really can't imagine what to do with your free time when not spending money on consumer goods? That's, just, man. Man.

    Like I said, we spend a lot of time just relaxing at home, watching movies, playing board games, etc. But we like to go on walks, and unless you want to walk forever and do nothing else, going for walks in a downtown area, outlet mall, or (when weather is bad) an indoor mall seems like the only thing that makes much sense. Looking at the responses, it seems like other people are mostly describing things they do alone, not with a spouse. Except Atomic Ross who goes to a lot of movies and on a lot of weekend trips, which is nice, but is also them going out spending money (even I think movie tickets are expensive ;) ).

    Poor people like me call this window shopping. Which means you walk for a few hours looking at all the nice things you want. I can probably afford it, but, it's a bit outside my budget to buy it.

    So I don't. I just look.

    Just like I daydream about what I'd do if I won $640,000,000 from the lotto.

    As much as the economy has sucked for the last 4 years or so, it's been a great time for shopping, because low demand = great sales. Last weekend I bought a $300 cashmere sweater for $100, and my wife spent $150 on clothing but saved $270. We also spent $35 in the body shop for $95 in products. Shopping with deals like that is fun.

  • bowenbowen How you doin'? Registered User regular
    I splurged and bought myself two new sweaters for $40. Oh and a jacket, because my 15 year old jacket is falling apart.

    not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
  • spacekungfumanspacekungfuman Poor and minority-filled Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    bowen wrote: »
    I splurged and bought myself two new sweaters for $40. Oh and a jacket, because my 15 year old jacket is falling apart.

    My father in law only gets 2 years out of a winter coat for some reason. Every two years, he buys another north face winter coat. I don't get it. A coat should last way longer than that, and if yours isn't, then why keep rebuying the same one?

  • bowenbowen How you doin'? Registered User regular
    I could live a lavish lifestyle off your... "wasteful" overspending.

    not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
  • PhyphorPhyphor Building Planet Busters Tasting FruitRegistered User regular
    I buy maybe 2-300 in clothes a year. Of course money not spent on clothes just means more electronics. I am the opposite of a mall person/shopper

  • bowenbowen How you doin'? Registered User regular
    I probably spend $300 if I'm going crazy!

    not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
  • PhyphorPhyphor Building Planet Busters Tasting FruitRegistered User regular
    Also if you want to walk a lot, outdoors is pretty much perfect for that. Though maybe not in NY. But, don't live in Manhattan then!

This discussion has been closed.