|
calusari posted:From the NYT: I too think we should hold journalists writing copy to the same level of foreign policy expertise as someone who wants to be president.
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 01:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 16:31 |
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:I'm surprised I've not seen much stuff on taking a balance book approach to utilitarianism. Where the goal is to maximize "headons" (ignoring the measurement problem) with one anti-headon cancelling out a headon. It avoids the negative utilitarianism problem of needing to kill everyone instantly and painlessly as well as the positive version where hive planets are ideal. That's Bentham!* Or maybe video game morality systems. Basically you're recreating the early drafts of Utilitarianism, which people have been trying to fix for like 200 years now. All the attempts have been built to try to fix the problem that crops up when you do sum-ranking. Either the average person is a net gain to the sum (so you need to make as many people as possible), or they are a net negative to the sum (kill everyone). Or maybe some people are net positives and some people are net negatives. In which case, Happiness is Mandatory. The whole wider world of consequentialism essentially sprung out of people abandoning utilitarianism for these exact reasons: once you start viewing people as a packet of good numbers and/or bad numbers, monstrous poo poo is in the offing real quick. Your only hope is to reject humanity-as-math-problem and explore the qualitative methods other people have devised. Join us! Run with the incommensurables! Be free! *That's Bentham! was the name of the philosophical sitcom pilot I wrote. Jerry Bentham and James Mill (and featuring Lil' Johnny as the precocious kid) hang out and have hijinks in London. All under the watchful eye of their custom-coded AI, the Panopticon, which has installed cameras in every room of their house to make sure they maximize their pleasure. We did not get picked up for a first season 
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 01:05
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:I mean this happens consistently in communist states. Central planning by the state doesn't work because it doesn't have the knowledge that is worked into the market. Did the price of thalidomide encode all the information you as an individual needed to know?
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 01:09
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:Yes, they should be regulated the same as drugs. But how do you feel about the free market overwhelmingly choosing "cures" that are just scams? Doesn't this and the countless other examples of the market choosing poorly refute all of your free market appeals? Poor information can lead to market failures too. Individuals lack the skills necessary to diagnose and treat most illnesses, though the common ones like scrapes and such are treatable. Diagnosis and treatment of the more complicated illnesses should require an expert's opinion before medicine prescribed for it. Personally I think more (non-recreational) drugs (or things that pretend to be drugs like herbal supplements and homeopathy) should be locked up behind a doctor's prescription. Recreational drugs are different insofar as the individual knows what they are getting them for, base pleasure, and are very competent in making decisions on their base pleasure. Drug companies will invest money in minor adjustments to the chemical structure over novel research, but there is still a great deal of novel research that goes on, and this could be solved by limiting the ability of companies to patent minor changes to existing drugs that have little to any affect to its efficiency. I don't think government investment is needed in the drug world.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 01:10
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:I don't think government investment is needed in the drug world. Based on ... empirical evidence of course.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 01:15
|
|
|
Goon Danton posted:That's Bentham!* Or maybe video game morality systems. Basically you're recreating the early drafts of Utilitarianism, which people have been trying to fix for like 200 years now. All the attempts have been built to try to fix the problem that crops up when you do sum-ranking. Either the average person is a net gain to the sum (so you need to make as many people as possible), or they are a net negative to the sum (kill everyone). Or maybe some people are net positives and some people are net negatives. In which case, Happiness is Mandatory. I'd be happy to discuss the pros and cons of the various ethical systems. I did major in philosophy, though it has been the better part of a decade since I've read any stuff on ethics due to my focus on law so I'm probably pretty rusty.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 01:22
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:Drug companies will invest money in minor adjustments to the chemical structure over novel research, but there is still a great deal of novel research that goes on, and this could be solved by limiting the ability of companies to patent minor changes to existing drugs that have little to any affect to its efficiency. I don't think government investment is needed in the drug world. Drug companies only go after the most profitable things to cure (as in, things that are very common or things they can convince you of) which is why they're so gung-ho about mood-altering drugs. Depression in particular they have a massive boner for; ever noticed how many commercials there are for depression meds on TV? They basically are along the lines of "have you ever felt sad or down? You're probably so depressed you might kill yourself tomorrow! Come get some happy pills, you disgusting wreck!" That and old people problems because everybody is going to get old some day if they live long enough and, right now, our population is its oldest ever. People are just plain living longer now than ever before. Meanwhile those same old peoples' grand children are loving broke and possibly effectively uninsured. Old people, however, generally have more resources to buy medicine, if for no reason than having old people government help. Young people are also more likely to not visit the doctor, partly because of the above issues, but partly because they aren't near the end of their lives yet. Old people, on the other hand, are old and they know it. Once you get into retirement age every year may very well be your last; heart disease is a huge killer and cancer treatments can be ludicrously expensive. Guess where the money is? After all, what percentage of 20-somethings have high blood pressure? What percentage of 70-somethings? Hmm...which group has more money and probably feels a stronger need to go see the doctor? Take a wild guess how much money for-profit medicine wants to put into preventative care that prevents those same broke, young people from getting sick. The paying customers right now are the old. Guess who marketing is going to say you should go after. Aside from all of that you have to look back to the past and...well actually the present as well to see that snake oil with zero scientific backing and a huge heaping helping of bullshit is far more profitable because...hey, no research needed! Just a good sales pitch. People here think you're a dumbass because you are literally practicing praxeology. You're starting from "I believe this is true so it must be" and then massaging reality into whatever shape you need it to be to fit that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 01:29
|
|
|
I learned from ethics professor Dr. Neko that shooting the mad cat is ETHICAL and shooting the panda is UNETHICAL
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 01:37
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:I don't think government investment is needed in the drug world. I agree it would have been just as well if everyone had forgotten about penicillin because refining it was too expensive to bother with.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 01:38
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:Recreational drugs are different insofar as the individual knows what they are getting them for, base pleasure, and are very competent in making decisions on their base pleasure. Minor quibble: drug companies are interested in treatments, generally, not cures. Cures are temporary, treatments are forever.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 01:40
|
|
|
*straightens gold and black bowtie* "Hello, allied governments. I must inform you of the grave error you're making in sending men with guns to force peaceful people into paying for manufacturing research quantities of this 'penicillin', when the market (pbuh) in its glorious and infinite wisdom has already determined its worthlessness given the effort needed to obtain it and has encoded that information into a cost that free people are unwilling to pay. Now you know what is phenomenally successful? Dr Feelgood's Invigorating Coca Tincture, it was flying off the shelves until those meddling central planners got involved. Free the markets (pbuh) and let those with gangrenous limbs decide for themselves where research funding ought to be allocated: their direct material interest in a cure will guarantee the most efficient allocation of scientific effort"
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 01:57
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:Poor information can lead to market failures too. Individuals lack the skills necessary to diagnose and treat most illnesses, though the common ones like scrapes and such are treatable. Diagnosis and treatment of the more complicated illnesses should require an expert's opinion before medicine prescribed for it. Personally I think more (non-recreational) drugs (or things that pretend to be drugs like herbal supplements and homeopathy) should be locked up behind a doctor's prescription. Yes, generally poor information is why homeopathy and other scams continues to be so profitable. But if the free market can fail in medicine, then why can't it fail in news media or scientific research? "A great deal of novel research" vastly overstates how much novel research is actually being done by drug manufacturers.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 02:05
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:
And nevermind that those substances are typically highly addictive, and thus inherently compromise anyone's ability to make decisions regarding their continued use. And that many users could start using while unaware of this fact in a free market. Edit: You didn't think people were looking at the long term effects of opiate abuse and thinking "Hell yes, I want me some of that" did you? paragon1 fucked around with this message at 02:22 on Sep 9, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 02:19
|
|
|
*looks at The Faces of Meth* Yes clearly there are no problems here.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 02:26
|
|
|
Don't let WHAT'S GOOD be the enemy of WHAT'S REALLY GOOD
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 02:40
|
|
|
Caros posted:I too think we should hold journalists writing copy to the same level of foreign policy expertise as someone who wants to be president. They can google that poo poo
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 02:50
|
|
|
Let's distinguish between drug use for recreation, abuse, misuse, and addiction, please. All of these are uses of drugs on the various markets, and have vastly different supply and demand functions/curves.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 03:17
|
|
|
When I suck dick on the corner for crack, that is just me being homo (economicus)
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 03:19
|
|
|
archangelwar posted:When I suck dick on the corner for crack, that is just me being homo (economicus) No pomo.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 03:19
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:And nevermind that those substances are typically highly addictive, and thus inherently compromise anyone's ability to make decisions regarding their continued use. And that many users could start using while unaware of this fact in a free market. That just proves they have high time preference, and the market is reallocating resources toward individuals with lower time preference in accordance with the laws of nature.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 03:23
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:Recreational drugs are different insofar as the individual knows what they are getting them for, base pleasure, and are very competent in making decisions on their base pleasure. Jesus christ how do you manage to walk and breathe at the same time? Take five minute out of your busy life to go hit up, say, TCC and check out all the loving burnouts who have absolutely hosed themselves and in several cases died rather horribly because they thought they were competent in making decisions about drugs. This sentiment alone, among all things you say in this thread, shows that you are either an idiot or simply a sociopath.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 03:40
|
|
|
oh god a philosophy major how long before the marbles start shooting everywhere
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 03:51
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:And nevermind that those substances are typically highly addictive, and thus inherently compromise anyone's ability to make decisions regarding their continued use. And that many users could start using while unaware of this fact in a free market. How would you handle the enormously successful drug war then? I'd like to hear your policy. Perhaps you can persuade me.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 03:56
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:How would you handle the enormously successful drug war then? I'd like to hear your policy. Perhaps you can persuade me. The only thing the drug war has been "enormously successful" at is putting black men in jail.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 04:04
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:The only thing the drug war has been "enormously successful" at is putting black men in jail. If it wasn't clear I was being facetious.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 04:12
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:The only thing the drug war has been "enormously successful" at is putting black men in jail. Pretty sure that's his point hombre. Nitrousoxide posted:How would you handle the enormously successful drug war then? I'd like to hear your policy. Perhaps you can persuade me. Criminalize selling the most dangerous drugs (or manufacturing reagents such as pseudoephedrine) like we already do for say selling medicine without a prescription. Regulate drugs that are less harmful or are so easy to manufacture that prohibition is impractical (alcohol, tobacco, marijuana). Decriminalize possession and usage, provide free treatment for addiction.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 04:15
|
|
|
And encourage use of marijuana so some of these potential mass shooters can chill the gently caress out
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 04:18
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:How would you handle the enormously successful drug war then? I'd like to hear your policy. Perhaps you can persuade me. VitalSigns posted:
Also repeal stupid bullshit racist laws and police practices, but that's veering into different though related territory. Commute the sentence of every last single inmate in America that is only there for a possession charge. Lastly: "I don't think people should be able to do heroin for fun" does not equal "Ronald Reagan is my favorite president and his policies are kickin' rad". You're a loving jackass for attempting that pathetic false equivalency instead of actually addressing my point. Go gently caress yourself.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 04:49
|
|
|
Interesting how when someone says "People should be able to do whatever recreational drugs they want because they're rational and know what's best for them!" and gets "But many of those substances are addictive and compromise your ability to be rational when considering them, and the users often aren't aware of the risks." in return, the first person's reasoning suddenly becomes "BUT DRUG WAR BAD!?" Where did their original reasoning go!? It's like it was never here! Amazing! I find that funny. Don't you guys find that funny? Edit: How would you guys feel about the creation of massive government weed plantations, the proceeds of which should go to funding a GMI? Good or extremely loving good? paragon1 fucked around with this message at 05:10 on Sep 9, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 04:56
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:Central planning by the state doesn't work because it doesn't have the knowledge that is worked into the market.  Do you think that "central planning by the state" exists inside a literal black box with no windows?Please please expand on your idea there because I have an itchy "just post 'this is dumb and you are dumb for thinking it'" finger. Nitrousoxide posted:The thing about the market is, you don't even need to know how difficult getting the stuff for your product is, or how scarce it is, it's all priced into the goods. All you as an individual need to do is make the decision of whether the price it is currently at is worth it to you. On the other hand, recorded history. Exhibit 1, the passenger pigeon. Exhibit 2, fish stocks nearing collapse as we speak. Exhibit 3, Australian consumers pay $1 per litre for milk while milk producers go bankrupt and shut down, thanks to the glorious hand of the free market allowing a duopoly to form, start competing on price, and then squeeze the everloving gently caress out of the milk producers just so that they can say "shop with us, we have cheap milk!" Nitrousoxide posted:The pricing in the market encodes so much information as to dwarf what a central planner would hope to do. This is you just making stuff up. Nitrousoxide posted:This is all I have time for right now. How about instead of dropping into the thread, lowering your pants and spraying a fine mist of liquid poo poo over every single topic that was mentioned, you pick one topic and defend it properly? That way you wouldn't get caught saying stupid things like the third quote above. It would be a better use of everyone's time.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 05:12
|
|
|
Stinky_Pete posted:And encourage use of marijuana so some of these potential mass shooters can chill the gently caress out Unfortunately, and I forgot what this is called, maybe "adverse [noun]" the people we (the scientific community) would most want to delay or restrict marijuana use from are young men with family histories of psychosis. We aren't sure if marijuana is causing psychotic breaks in young men or if they increase marijuana use to cope with prodrome and psychosis onset symptoms. Edit: just to be clear, not making a policy suggestion other than "let's not encourage the group we think is most vulnerable to adverse effects to increase drug use."
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 05:12
|
|
|
Nonsense, drugs are perfectly harmless for everyone forever Anyway, FEDERAL EMA is up to no good! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zD5YZ4-G7sI
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 05:59
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:Interesting how when someone says "People should be able to do whatever recreational drugs they want because they're rational and know what's best for them!" and gets "But many of those substances are addictive and compromise your ability to be rational when considering them, and the users often aren't aware of the risks." in return, the first person's reasoning suddenly becomes "BUT DRUG WAR BAD!?" Where did their original reasoning go!? It's like it was never here! Amazing! I'd prefer to see it treated as an OTC intoxicant like alcohol, and have edibles become the standard because smoking things in general is terrible for your health, but the herb's got a lot of potential as a useful medicine.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 06:35
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:I'd prefer to see it treated as an OTC intoxicant like alcohol, and have edibles become the standard because smoking things in general is terrible for your health, but the herb's got a lot of potential as a useful medicine. Usually you make edibles with THC-infused butter, which is probably just as bad for your health. Maybe it's possible to create THC-infused olive oil or something, that'd be pretty cool
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 07:18
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:Usually you make edibles with THC-infused butter, which is probably just as bad for your health. Last I knew, butter will get you fat and possibly contribute to heart problems if combined with other poor diet choices. Lung/throat/mouth cancer doesn't gently caress around, and pot's not as bad as commercially produced tobacco but still a significant issue.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 08:34
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:Personally I think more (non-recreational) drugs (or things that pretend to be drugs like herbal supplements and homeopathy) should be locked up behind a doctor's prescription. You're literally saying that we should flip our drug scheduling. Why? Because of the loving drug war? Really though, I want to hear your reasoning on being more restrictive for "non-recreational" drugs which is a pretty broad loving topic. What drugs are you talking about here? Ibuprofen? Silver nitrate? Hydrocortisone? Pseudoephedrine? What public health goal are you hoping to accomplish with this proclamation?
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 08:56
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:Last I knew, butter will get you fat and possibly contribute to heart problems if combined with other poor diet choices. We make a big deal about how smoking leads to health problems, but death due to heart disease is much more common. Making something with butter won't directly cause heart disease, nor will smoking one joint lead to lung cancer. I'm just saying that you can't point to lung cancer and say "well obviously edibles are better than smoking" when most edibles contribute to heart disease.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 08:56
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:Usually you make edibles with THC-infused butter, which is probably just as bad for your health. Yay, I get to tell one of my chemistry stories! I needed to buy a specific piece of laboratory glassware for a polymer purification I was doing, and it was very expensive on the normal suppliers' websites but all over the goddamned place for cheap on ebay and the like. I was curious as to why, and it turns out THC is (a) soluble in most alcohols and lipids (which should include olive oil), and (b) trivially easy to extract, to the point where a bunch of untrained stoners were doing it successfully. Stinky_Pete posted:Anyway, FEDERAL EMA is up to no good! I just automatically continued that sentence with "started making trouble in my neighborhood," which shows how stale my Internet Web Memes are and why I'll never get the big bucks from the Johnson campaign.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 12:18
|
|
|
Goon Danton posted:I just automatically continued that sentence with "started making trouble in my neighborhood," which shows how stale my Internet Web Memes are and why I'll never get the big bucks from the Johnson campaign. No, I'm with you on that aged reference. I laughed myself sick at that Zero Punctuation video that came out a while back where Yahtzee referenced the Fresh Prince. I wouldn't want the money of anyone who would support Gary Johnson (then again, I wouldn't want the money of anyone who supported Trump or Clinton either), but if it makes you feel better I will contribute to your Kickstarter.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 14:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 16:31 |
|
|
JustJeff88 posted:No, I'm with you on that aged reference. I laughed myself sick at that Zero Punctuation video that came out a while back where Yahtzee referenced the Fresh Prince. Don't feel bad taking money from Johnson supporters. They'd just try to help Johnson's campaign with it if you didn't, and no one wants that. Maximize hedons, man! And I'm glad you'll support my kickstarter! I just need to come up with something to kickstart. I hear spaceship games are popular...
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 15:18
|
|