bostonbananarama @ bostonbananarama @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

438

Joined

2 yr. ago

It's not even that, it's shocking to me because most of the people who love guns are on the side of the fascists anyway. Fight the government? They're going to vote for the authoritarians.

I just wish Dems would stop trying to ban any guns, and not because I'm against gun control, but because it's a losing issue. It's never passing through this Congress, and if it ever did, the Supreme Court would strike it down. Given that that's fairly undeniable, why lose the people who organize and vote on this issue alone?

It's like this, I'm not going to fault anyone who decided to get out of Germany in the 1930's. Similarly, I can't blame people who prefer to leave for greener pastures rather than deal with Christian White Nationalist a-holes everyday.

They make a quarter of a million...

You haven't seen CEO compensation lately. She makes between $6-12m depending on bonuses and stock options.

How does the saying go:

The beauty of their women and the taste of their food has made the British the best sailors in the world.

Not quite, it did serve as another example of different treatment that is based on personal features. Mission 100% absolutely successful.

OK, I agree, but how did that elucidate my understanding of the use of age as a factor in disparate treatment? Because, again, the myriad of differences between the two make the comparison inapplicable, IMO.

My argument is and has always been "fruit a belongs in the category fruits, just like fruit b".

I agree race and age are two bases for different treatment. If you have no point beyond that, then fair enough, your analogy is useless.

This standard of proof invalidates a massive chunk of historical figures that are commonly accepted as having existed.

And? It does not affect my life in the least if Alexander the Great didn't exist.

The only evidence we have of Socrates existing comes from his students; how do you know Plato and Xenophon didn't make him up?

I don't, but I also don't care. If there is wisdom in the words that are attributed to Socrates, what else matters? The existence of Socrates is meaningless. The Socratic method is great for instruction, and it remains such irrespective of who developed it.

It is not a reasonable null hypothesis to state that all sources describing a historical figure were lying, misled, or delusional. That is a positive claim that should not be accepted without evidence.

And no one is saying that, I'm afraid you don't understand and the null hypothesis. I am not making a positive claim that these figures are in fact fictitious. But someone is claiming they did exist, and they bear the burden of proof.

I think it's ridiculous to claim that an actual standard of evidence is too high of a bar. If you cannot reasonably demonstrate that a person existed, then why would you believe it? It's certainly shouldn't be accepted as truth, perhaps conjecture or hypothesis at best.

In these categories, they are exactly alike. IN. THESE. CATEGORIES. they are the same (again: not in all other features).

In other words, in the ways they are alike, they are alike. Congratulations, you've created a tautology.

Your objections amount to

No. I'm not claiming they're not fruits, I'm rejecting the claim that because they are both fruits their other qualities and attributes are transitive.

Your argument basically boils down to they are both fruits, therefore apples also have a lot of vitamin C.

I agree that age and race are reasons that someone could treat another person disparately but the similarities end there, which makes race a bad analogy.

Great, we agree that they share a single common factor, but that alone does not make race analogous to age. The many reasons why they're different, is why it's a bad analogy, it is why they're not analogous.

Here is my biggest issue with this question. Given the popularity of Christianity, Jesus is accepted by default. Mythicism, the idea that Jesus didn't exist as a historical figure, is regarded as a claim needing proof.

This is 180 degrees backwards. Jesus not existing should operate as the null hypothesis until his historicity is proven. Seemingly every discussion, even the quotes in OP's article, discuss historicity as the null hypothesis and require mythicism to proof the non existence.

David Fitzgerald is another mythicist who has published a few books on the subject.

Well, then how about you read the other points that supplement that one factor sufficiently and explain that

You've made no other points.

you are wrong in this regard.

In courts age related restrictions are reviewed using a reasonable basis standard, whereas race related restrictions are reviewed using a strict scrutiny standard for that exact reason.

I don't see how that analogy is lacking in any way

That's your problem. I can explain it to you, but I can't make you understand it. The closer the analogy tracks to the original statement the better the analogy. The fact that race and age are two criterion that a decision can be based is extremely weak. To point this out I named a dozen or more things that you could base a decision on.

I've never stated that those aren't two things you can base a decision on, but you continue to explain that point over and over again anyway. Race doesn't track closely enough to age, an example of that is that age can often be a permissible reason to differentiate, but race never is. Ergo, bad analogy.

Smell: yes. Height: yes. Hair style: yes. Food choice: yes. Suit color: yes. Religion: yes. Party: yes. Education: yes. Speaking style: yes. Gender: yes. Handedness: yes. Weight: yes. Place of birth: yes. Sports team affiliation: yes. Personality: yes. Previous employment: yes. Name: yes. Ethnicity: yes.

^^^ They all fit as well as yours, since they can-be-a-resson. TERRIBLE ANALOGY! The only connection is so broad that a thousand other things can apply in the same way.

But both can be reasons for different treatment and in that one particular feature, they are the same, thus the sound analogy.

No, sorry, it remains terrible. In the same way stealing a candy bar and murder aren't analogous simply because they're both illegal. Although, at least in that analogy both would always be illegal. In your analogy, disparate treatment based on age can often be valid and permissible, well disparate treatment on race can never be.

There are two definitions for discriminate:

1. make an unjust or prejudicial distinction in the treatment of different categories of people

2. recognize a distinction; differentiate

Either considering Biden's age isn't discrimination because it isn't unjust, because those factors are an important consideration; or every choice is discrimination because we're using the differentiate definition. Personally, I believe the second definition is useless and doesn't convey the obvious connotation of discriminate.

Race is a terrible analogy for the same reason it receives strict scrutiny, there are no readily apparent reasons to use race as a determining factor. Age is not remotely in the same ball park, because there are numerous reasons to consider age. The piece you're missing is that age can be used as the reason for disparate treatment and be within the bounds of the law. Race can...almost...never be. (Can't think of anything, or any case law that upheld a race criterion, but maybe it's possible).

By that definition, every choice is discrimination because any criteria you set necessarily excludes so other group.

You keep pivoting to race as your analogy, but it doesn't fit. Look at the scrutiny courts give to race versus sex or age. Laws based on race receive strict scrutiny, gender gets intermediate scrutiny, and age is judged with a rational basis scrutiny.

So, yes, while discrimination can mean that, it certainly has a connotation that makes it a poor word choice. It is misleading as to what's happening. Using age as a selection criteria is based on rational facts, selection based on race is based on hate. Poor analogy.

Possibly one of the most needlessly pedantic comments I've ever received.

Age discrimination is typically, almost entirely, discussed as a legal issue, most often within the arena of employment. The reason being that most people realize and accept that age affects abilities. So taking into account the age of a candidate wouldn't be age discrimination in the typical sense.

His age does indeed put him into a risk group for possible dementia, true, but the criterion disqualifying him would be if he specifically does have dementia or not - not his age.

And he's going to take a cognitive test at my request and share the results? And those results will guarantee that he won't develop dementia for the next five years? If the answer to either is no, then I need to make a decision based on probability. He's far more likely to develop dementia than someone in their 70s, and I would guess hundreds to thousands of times more likely than someone in their 40s.

Not to mention that life expectancy would hold that he'd be dead by now. He's fairly likely to die in office, especially when considering the stress of the job.

Yikes

I know... Science!!! Absolutely terrifying!

"he's old" is literally age discrimination.

I mean, it literally isn't. Voters can choose any criteria to choose their political candidate.

Of all the criticisms of Biden, "he's old" is not relevant in the least.

How is age not relevant? The risk of dementia quintuples from 70s to 80s. The elderly are more susceptible to almost every disease. Not to mention that the presidency is one of the most stressful jobs, just look at the before and after photographs of presidents.

As in other studies, the ADAMS analysis showed that the prevalence of dementia increases significantly with age. Five percent of people ages 71 to 79, 24.2 percent of people 80 to 89, and 37.4 percent of those 90 years or older were estimated to have some type of dementia. The estimated rate of Alzheimer's also rose greatly with older age — from 2.3 percent of people ages 71 to 79 to 18.1 percent of people 80 to 89 to 29.7 percent of those age 90 and older.