[removed]

>nly that action and inaction are both still choices and the article makes a false distinction between them.

You killed people today because you drove your car to work instead of taking the bus. You killed people today because you ate meat.

if not doing something causes a death and you are responsible for the action you never took then you are responsible for killing people every day.

No philosophical system worth it's salt should hold people responsible for things they are not responsible for.

that wasn't a vs thing. You read that comment wrong. That was me responding to some of your examples. You said "Are you responsible for their death because you didn't give to a charity, or stop eating meat, or failed to take the bus to work?" So I mentioned charity and bus in my response. Those were things you brought up. How easy they were was not in my comment and has nothing to do with culpability.

The point of my original comment has nothing to do with how easy an action is. Only that action and inaction are both still choices and the article makes a false distinction between them. It acts like not voting isn't an active choice but is a passive act. The reason I brought up the trolley problem is because some people argue that not throwing the lever on the trolley and allowing 5 people to die is the right thing to do because you aren't responsible for the trolley traveling down the tracks or the 5 people being on the tracks and so if you let it happen you didn't actively kill those people but if you throw the switch then you are actively doing something and so are responsible for the one person that does die. But this is a false distinction because in the trolley problem choosing to not throw the switch is still a choice. Plus in the real world you didn't just magically appear on the trolley you chose to get on it. To relate this to voting, what the article is about, voting third party is an active choice to not vote for the better of the two most likely to win candidates because you and I and everyone that votes or doesn't vote is part of the system that has taken us to the point where the lesser of two evils is the best choice. We are all responsible for it and so if we choose to vote third party and so a republican wins instead of the democrat that we would prefer over a third party candidate that we would like even better we helped put the republican in office. We cannot pretend that we are not involved in the whole system. We don't just show up on election day and vote as though the rest of the world doesn't exist and that we aren't responsible for parts of it.

Isn’t it called Western culture?

When you talked about pushing a button in front of you vs giving to a charity.

At your leisure my dude…

Before I write you off as absolutely insane do you mind pointing out where you think I said anything about how easy something is being part of the equation?

The realms in which they actually competed were basically centered around climbing the government and bureaucratic ranks by lying and deceiving others.

Yes you did bring it up.

Consider yourself lucky then! 😂

Actually j/k, you may like it.

There is; it is just extremely small.

r/Epicureanism

But it would solve most modern problems!

We're here to observe the universe's beauty. To prove that the universe is so so much more, not just only matters!

Thanks for reading over and providing a review.

What I mean by observable is not literally observable by the eye, but "able to be noticed or perceived." The fact that we can understand phenomena like dark matter or abstractions like geometry place it within the world of the objective.

Language falls within the objective since you are capable of understanding different languages. The words you read or hear are presented to you the same way they are to everyone else and are subject to equal comprehension, unlike the subjective, which requires our unique set of innate tendencies and experiences (along with their interactions) to comprehend to the same extent.

The portrait of the mona lisa is material and falls within the objective. Its our perceptions of the painting that are within the subjective. Some may see it and have their lives changed, for others, the painting doesn't do anything.

I suppose I am a prisoner of common language and shouldn't call how we want to feel happiness? Surely being trapped by this word is the nail in the coffin for my position.

I do believe there are times we would rather feel misery and sorrow than joy. After a great tragedy, I would rather feel misery or sorrow. I will want to mourn my parents when they pass, and I will want to feel all sorts of ways that are not just happy. Moreover it is GOOD that I feel those ways. Or would you tell someone grieving it is bad that they feel grief?

As for your last point, I don't understand why you are moralizing against the BDSM community.

Edit: Language is important and shared. Dictionary definitions are not as clear in their reporting of usage as you insinuate: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/happy

Thank you for your insight. I am in material engineering, and I emphasize having representative data, but I have heard at conferences that the results shown are sometimes the top outliers, outside of the average.

I completely agree about the publication of negative results. Many times I have wondered how many people have tried the same idea, only to find out it didn't work and did not or could not publish it. And thus another team will spend effort and money because nothing was ever reported.

I've never heard of Hacker News.

Biden, trump and bernie are running for office. If you vote Bernie instead of Biden on principle and trump wins the supposed lesson that Biden would learn is that he needs to be more leftist to get those bernie voters to back him next time (this doesn't really work for individuals but for parties at large. again I am simplifying) So the next election comes up and Biden is supposed to pitch more left to get the Bernie voters and the Biden voters. That is supposedly what happens when people make a third party protest vote.

But what I am suggesting is that there is just as much of a chance for Biden to try to be more centrist, thus lean to the right more, to steal votes away from Trump and allow him to win with or without the Bernie voters.

>The objective is publicly observable, articulable, and determined.

i kept stumbling into these over generalizations and they detract from taking any of this essay seriously. if you study physics you'll know that the physical world is one based on probabilities; so it is not in a determined state. much of the physical world isn't even observable (i.e. dark matter, etc.)

​

>The objective includes mutually comprehensible reality and abstractions like math, science, language, logic, and ethics.

language and ethics are objective? its not possible that they're relative? and subjective? because i speak a different language than some other people do and my ethical behavior can be questioned by people who don't share my values. according to this essay i should be standing up for myself and insisting that my language and ethical values are objective truths that everybody should be using/following. i definitely cannot take that seriously.

​

>The objective has no authority over the subjective

so. the real mona lisa (and what she actually looked like) had no impact on her portrait? i would suggest it did.

sorry. i'm confused about what you are saying.

but most of these 3rd party scenario tropes tend to rely on the outcome to justify or un-justify the means. you won't know who will win in advance.

i.e. people voting for nader in 2000 had no way of knowing how many of their votes it would take away from gore. some of those people wouldn't have voted if it weren't for nader and many of them were the same that always vote for the green party anyway. if nader had won all of the gore voters would have been sneered-at as if they might've thrown the election. and in the next cycle, when people had the chance to toss out bush, they didn't. no split votes. bush served 8 years on his own political capital.

>If your candidate has no chance of winning, it's the same as not voting.

that means one would have been a fool to have voted for Hillary in 2016 or Trump in 2020 since they had no chance of winning.

all of those votes for the losers throughout history were the same as not voting?

how are people supposed to know in advance of the election that they are voting for losers?

I like to understand this as "The more data we have, the more obvious our core assumptions are flawed."

And there isn't a single ML schema that isn't built on terribly flawed assumptions, the most critical being how we classify data in the first place.

Aristotle: “justice is every virtue summed up”

My take on the replication crisis is that it is something 60% bad incentives, 35% bad statistics and 5% malice. Bad incentives is the whole journal system, which incentivizes getting good results and does not deeply scrutinize methodology and source data, the lack of incentives for preregistration, poor quality journals existing, etc.

Bad statistics is mostly the fact that people interpret p<0.05 as true and p>0.05 as worthless results and use it as a threshold for publishing, rather than the crude statistical tool that it really is. Plus just a general bad understanding of statistics by most social scientists. I'm currently doing some research in causal inference, developing methodology that can be used in social science, and it's embarrassing how slow social scientists are in using tools from causal inference. In economics applications are usually 10-20 years behind the research but in psychology for example they often don't even attempt any kind of causal identification but then suggest that their studies somehow show causality.

Malice is scientists just outright faking data or cherry-picking. But even that is tied to the incentive structure. We should normalize publishing negative results

Hey, be nice. There might be some libertarians able to read in this thread.