You can login if you already have an account or register by clicking the button below.
Registering is free and all you need is a username and password. We never ask you for your e-mail.
Firstly, we get along. I'm working through the same ideas you are. Free market separatism. I'm deep into Propertarianism and the Alternative Hypothesis.
I don't want to talk past each other. I want to hear what you have to say about the banking discrimination I mentioned.
also I didn't mean to suggest Jewish people talk about EN, I meant USA.
[+]7e62ce850 points0 points0 points
ago
(edited ago)
[–]7e62ce85[S]0 points
0 points
0 points
(+0|-0)
ago
(edited ago)
I don't want to talk past each other.
Sorry if I sounded a bit harsh.
I'm deep into Propertarianism and the Alternative Hypothesis.
While I like parts of propertarianism I think it has some flaws. Specifically things such as suing people for not telling the truth.
It is scientifically impossible to prove truth, you can only disprove theories.
Even then determining truth can be hard and no one here likes censorship I am sure.
That makes propertarianism unworkable in my mind. I'm down with strong property rights otherwise which is also in our constitution.
Alternative hypothesis seems like a cool site. Haven't seen it before.
I want to hear what you have to say about the banking discrimination I mentioned. [...] For instance, banks take race into account when the lend to clients. A black person with the same credit score as a white person is more likely to default on their loan, so the banks racially discriminate such that whites and blacks have the same rate of default because more blacks are denied loans. This is the system working as intended to minimize bad loans using all available information.
My answer to this was that the private sector can do as they like (see our rule 8 making private discrimination a right).
I will elaborate. A bank is a business, therefore if someone is truly discriminated against they can just go somewhere else.
Now the more difficult question is if true statistical information can be used in the courts? Maybe if you could show the accused had a specific gene known to cause aggression it could play a very very small part.
However, generally you need "evidence beyond reasonable doubt" and statistical information would be a minuscule part of that.
Generalizations are useless in specific legal situations. We would not want a white murderer to go free just because "most whites don't commit crime" either.
(This is exactly what Jewish judges do and how they subvert the legal system.)
Further we do not have evidence that blacks are in fact discriminated against by banks to a significant degree. It is entirely possible that they simply don't qualify for loans at the same rates as others.
A bank would be losing money by turning away blacks that qualified.
We know that the racist south of the US would hire blacks when they worked for less despite any racism there may have been. Money seems to conquer racism.
I didn't mean to suggest Jewish people talk about EN, I meant USA.
They can talk about us, just not live with us.
The US, sure I guess although they pretty much own it by now. All the West is crumbling the way I see it so they can do what they like.
Further we do not have evidence that blacks are in fact discriminated against by banks to a significant degree. It is entirely possible that they simply don't qualify for loans at the same rates as others. A bank would be losing money by turning away blacks that qualified.
We do. BUT, this is the point I want to impress upon you, this is not a bad thing and the banks are justified in doing so.
I know this topic is touchy because of the "equal outcomes" commie logic used to justify wealth transfers to promote dysgenic behaviors and genes. That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about what James Scott calls legibility the ability to make different people, places, and things equally identifiable and assessed. We need a STANDARD UNIT OF MEASUREMENT which takes into account that someone of an IQ from 85-100 (Naughty Nineties) is more likely to be a repeat offender. These people have a different syndrome and need a different treatment, so to speak. The unit of measurement in this case would be reduction of violent crime.
I think the "equal under the law" aspect could transform into "Equal Cost Under the Law" meaning you can't impose excess costs on the state, but when you start acting out the state draws from your budget to try to rectify your situation on an individual basis. This is just one concept which has its own problems and tradeoffs, but you see that I'm not trying to convince you of communistic egalitarianism. We don't treat children the same as adults or men the same as children. It would not be a just system if we did. What we must do is reduce the unquantified preferential treatment different groups receive, that's our real goal.
When building a country or solving any large problem, you have to address the cause, not merely treat the symptom. The cause of disparate outcomes is that people are different. Imagine playing a video game. The enemies are different but the goal is the same, they all need to die. You have to use different strategies to achieve the same goal. The goal of a society is adherence to the social contract, contribution to the commons, and responsibility to defend them both. If it's too costly to integrate people into your society, they should not be allowed to join because they fail to meet those conditions.
We can get into Propertarian Testimonialism some other time if your interested. It doesn't ban free speech, it prohibits pollution of the common trust through error, bias, decrepit, delusion, framing, loading, overloading, lying by omission, conflation, and lack of due diligence in these things. You can joke around with your friends and have drinks and talk shit, but you wouldn't want to host a late night talk show and tell people How the world IS when you haven't gone through a series of defined and verifiable steps to confirm you're not lying by neglect because anyone who was damaged by your false statements could sue in tort for damages. You couldn't say that European settlers genocided American Indians when in fact most died of disease and alcoholism, and every European descended could sue for to compensate for the damage to their reputation. Basically, you can't insult through lies, shit we used to duel over. You can tell the truth, or at least confirm you did your due diligence.
view the rest of the comments →
[–] BlackSheepBrouhaha 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago (edited ago)
Firstly, we get along. I'm working through the same ideas you are. Free market separatism. I'm deep into Propertarianism and the Alternative Hypothesis.
I don't want to talk past each other. I want to hear what you have to say about the banking discrimination I mentioned.
also I didn't mean to suggest Jewish people talk about EN, I meant USA.
[–] 7e62ce85 [S] ago (edited ago)
Sorry if I sounded a bit harsh.
While I like parts of propertarianism I think it has some flaws. Specifically things such as suing people for not telling the truth.
It is scientifically impossible to prove truth, you can only disprove theories.
Even then determining truth can be hard and no one here likes censorship I am sure.
That makes propertarianism unworkable in my mind. I'm down with strong property rights otherwise which is also in our constitution.
Alternative hypothesis seems like a cool site. Haven't seen it before.
My answer to this was that the private sector can do as they like (see our rule 8 making private discrimination a right).
I will elaborate. A bank is a business, therefore if someone is truly discriminated against they can just go somewhere else.
Now the more difficult question is if true statistical information can be used in the courts? Maybe if you could show the accused had a specific gene known to cause aggression it could play a very very small part.
However, generally you need "evidence beyond reasonable doubt" and statistical information would be a minuscule part of that.
Generalizations are useless in specific legal situations. We would not want a white murderer to go free just because "most whites don't commit crime" either.
(This is exactly what Jewish judges do and how they subvert the legal system.)
Further we do not have evidence that blacks are in fact discriminated against by banks to a significant degree. It is entirely possible that they simply don't qualify for loans at the same rates as others. A bank would be losing money by turning away blacks that qualified.
We know that the racist south of the US would hire blacks when they worked for less despite any racism there may have been. Money seems to conquer racism.
They can talk about us, just not live with us.
The US, sure I guess although they pretty much own it by now. All the West is crumbling the way I see it so they can do what they like.
[–] BlackSheepBrouhaha ago
We do. BUT, this is the point I want to impress upon you, this is not a bad thing and the banks are justified in doing so.
I know this topic is touchy because of the "equal outcomes" commie logic used to justify wealth transfers to promote dysgenic behaviors and genes. That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about what James Scott calls legibility the ability to make different people, places, and things equally identifiable and assessed. We need a STANDARD UNIT OF MEASUREMENT which takes into account that someone of an IQ from 85-100 (Naughty Nineties) is more likely to be a repeat offender. These people have a different syndrome and need a different treatment, so to speak. The unit of measurement in this case would be reduction of violent crime.
I think the "equal under the law" aspect could transform into "Equal Cost Under the Law" meaning you can't impose excess costs on the state, but when you start acting out the state draws from your budget to try to rectify your situation on an individual basis. This is just one concept which has its own problems and tradeoffs, but you see that I'm not trying to convince you of communistic egalitarianism. We don't treat children the same as adults or men the same as children. It would not be a just system if we did. What we must do is reduce the unquantified preferential treatment different groups receive, that's our real goal.
When building a country or solving any large problem, you have to address the cause, not merely treat the symptom. The cause of disparate outcomes is that people are different. Imagine playing a video game. The enemies are different but the goal is the same, they all need to die. You have to use different strategies to achieve the same goal. The goal of a society is adherence to the social contract, contribution to the commons, and responsibility to defend them both. If it's too costly to integrate people into your society, they should not be allowed to join because they fail to meet those conditions.
We can get into Propertarian Testimonialism some other time if your interested. It doesn't ban free speech, it prohibits pollution of the common trust through error, bias, decrepit, delusion, framing, loading, overloading, lying by omission, conflation, and lack of due diligence in these things. You can joke around with your friends and have drinks and talk shit, but you wouldn't want to host a late night talk show and tell people How the world IS when you haven't gone through a series of defined and verifiable steps to confirm you're not lying by neglect because anyone who was damaged by your false statements could sue in tort for damages. You couldn't say that European settlers genocided American Indians when in fact most died of disease and alcoholism, and every European descended could sue for to compensate for the damage to their reputation. Basically, you can't insult through lies, shit we used to duel over. You can tell the truth, or at least confirm you did your due diligence.