TruthAndDare

6 ms·

1.
by TruthAndDare 10y ago
> Most people would think an entire town deciding to exclude minorities is morally repugnant What? I'm not saying I don't. It's just irrelevant to the issue. > shouldn't be allowed. That's like saying that &qu
2.
by TruthAndDare 10y ago
"This"? People in a country or region deciding over that country or region? What do you suggest instead?
3.
by TruthAndDare 10y ago
> What if an entire town decides they don't want to allow minorities to live there? Yes, what if they do? Should they not get to decide because they might haver the wrong opinion? Who should decide instead? What if they have the wro
4.
by TruthAndDare 10y ago
> Why do the rights of the local people trump the rights of people from "elsewhere"? On at least some level, I find it reasonable that the people who live in a certain place decide over that place. In any case, that is rather c
5.
by TruthAndDare 10y ago
> the farm lobby can paradoxically be incentivized to vote for housing regulation Why is it paradoxical? Because they could otherwise have more buyers of their products?
6.
by TruthAndDare 10y ago
> How much right should I have to control what other people do because it might bother me? That's a valid question for every law or other governmental decision. But we can think of an idealized case, where an entire town, or state,
7.
by TruthAndDare 10y ago
I'm not sure what you mean. You don't have to build 50-story buildings just because you have created a demand for them.
8.
by TruthAndDare 10y ago
> If there's no market for them, they won't get built. That's something else, isn't it? The people who already live there might not want 50-story buildings, even if there are other people who would move into them if t
9.
by TruthAndDare 10y ago
> That's the rub That might be part of it, but it's not exactly obvious that you'd want to live in a place with 50-story buildings either.
10.
by TruthAndDare 10y ago
Cool! I've been wondering if there is a feed of only the good stuff. If HN itself doesn't provide one, maybe there should be a separate site that does that filtering. I was thinking it would be manually curated, but maybe a list l
11.
by TruthAndDare 10y ago
I recently returned to HN, having read it a little a few years back. I remembered it as a low-volume, high-quality feed, where I was hesitant to speak, because all the other comments were so full of knowledge. Now, HN seems to have become
12.
by TruthAndDare 10y ago
Because I think you shouldn't take deciding what other people are allowed to do lightly. Such things should only be done in extreme cases, like self defense or, perhaps, to prohibit ruining nature through littering.
13.
by TruthAndDare 10y ago
> Do you wish to live in a human society? As far as I can see, that is orthogonal to the issue at hand. > all this law does is to impose the costs on those who incur it. We might consider littering to be immoral, and might therefore f
14.
by TruthAndDare 10y ago
> deny economic coercion applies when e.g a bank charges overdraft or late fees no matter how ludicrous. That would depend entirely on whether the bank and its customer had agreed upon it before hand or not, wouldn't you say?
15.
by TruthAndDare 10y ago
Yes, deciding what others are allowed to do is something I am morally uncomfortable with. That is not to say that I have come up with something else that is not also questionable. In any case, I do think that we should strive toward having
16.
by TruthAndDare 10y ago
I'm trying to nail down what the actual issue of debate is, or should be. You are merely sharing your opinion on that issue. That is fine, but beside the point I was getting at.
17.
by TruthAndDare 10y ago
I am confused. You seem to be saying that the law had negative consequences for you and that you therefore think the cost needs to be increased to correct you into the intended behavior.
18.
by TruthAndDare 10y ago
> many people needed to experience the enforcement in order to be convinced of the benefits of changing their habits. So, do you mean that these people considered the outcome uncertain until it was tried?
19.
by TruthAndDare 10y ago
In both cases, the core of the matter is exposing oneself to danger for some higher cause.
20.
by TruthAndDare 10y ago
> Ireland did something similar years ago and the results were incredible. An almost overnight transformation of the cleanliness of the cities and countryside. Nobody would like to reverse the decision now despite significant opposition
21.
by TruthAndDare 10y ago
What about going after the tossing instead?
22.
by TruthAndDare 10y ago
Me too!
23.
by TruthAndDare 10y ago
What do you mean by "worked well"? What scenario would have had you conclude that it did not work well?
24.
by TruthAndDare 10y ago
"Hacker news"
25.
by TruthAndDare 10y ago
> It's disturbing that leaders (political or religious) would put their constituents in harms way. Like this? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0r73p95I-eE Or like in any military force, unless there was coercion goin
26.
by TruthAndDare 10y ago
> The guy said "in a temperature range where burns are more likely". Which makes it sound like there is a lower and an upper bound for this range. That's the issue.
27.
by TruthAndDare 10y ago
> That sounds linear to me What? Absolutely not. I'm just saying that it sounds reasonable to believe that burns increase with temperature, as opposed to being high in a range of temperatures and lower below and above that range. Fi
28.
by TruthAndDare 10y ago
> which is not generally what one expects from coffee I disagree. I think it's reasonable to expect that coffee and other hot drinks might be all the way up to boiling. > in a temperature range making burns more likely Is there a
29.
by TruthAndDare 10y ago
Maybe so. I don't know that that changes anything. In fact, I'm not sure what you even mean by "efficient market" in this context.
30.
by TruthAndDare 10y ago
> anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity. Do you think this post lives up to that? Aren't we setting the bar a bit low here? I don't see anything special about it.

More ›