noqc

This is America, you can just call 345 feet a football field.

The form of government matters a lot, when evaluating its security apparatus. I feel a lot differently about the death penalty in America than in Iran too.

No, I really mean atheists that crave religion.

Same as it ever was, but with more of them, people are a little warier about their own, I think.

That's almost word for word what I said...

When I read the article in its entirety, I was pretty disappointed in its top-level introspection.

It seems to not be true, but I still maintain that it was obvious. Sometimes people don't pick the low-hanging fruit.

There are a lot of rationalists in this community. Pointing out that the entire thing is a cult attracts downvotes from people who wish to, for instance, avoid being identified with the offshoots.

Perhaps I will get downvoted to death again for saying so, but the obvious answer is because the name "rationalist" is structurally indistinguishable from the name "scientology" or "the illuminati". You attract people who are desperate for an authority to appeal to, but for whatever reason are no longer affiliated with the church of their youth. Even a rationalist movement which held nothing as dogma would attract people seeking dogma, and dogma would form.

The article begins by saying the rationalist community was "drawn together by AI researcher Eliezer Yudkowsky’s blog post series The Sequences". Obviously the article intends to make the case that this is a cult, but it's already done with the argument at this point.

probably add "in the negative", to that.

This system would make a lot more sense if the number of people you had to get to agree to a bill with a bunch of riders was more than 50%.

>I expect better science writing from them.

based on what?

> Musk is a clearly brilliant man

proof left as an exercise for the reader.

You are conflating civil law with international law. In a civil context, my right to self defense is very weak. If my neighbor is stockpiling weapons, and announcing his intention to kill me, I am obligated to trust the deterrent of the state. The state has the monopoly on force. I could easily be killed by this person, but they would be prosecuted by the state, and this system defends me quite well. It is only when my life is in active danger that I am allowed to take proactive measures. If the person shoots me in the leg and drops his gun and starts running away. I'm not allowed to pick it up and kill him in response. That's the state's job (There's no chance I would vote to convict this man if I was on a jury to be frank, but that's the principle).

This is very different from the interstate case. If a state shoots another state in the leg and runs away, the only way to establish a deterrent is to shoot back. There is no police force to do it for me. This is the main diffference between civil law and international law.

What point of mine do you think you are attacking? The parent comment said that these rights were being given up "in order to squash anti-war sentiment". This was wrong on two counts.

a) The rights were preserved, the assaulter walks free on account of the NYPD's misconduct. The rock throwers have zero cause to be upset, the law protected them from the police overreach successfully.

b) The student was not charged with "anti-war sentiment". He was charged with assault, for throwing rocks at people.