Comment author: shminux 12 September 2014 05:44:52PM 1 point [-]

In 2014, marriage is still the best economic arrangement for raising a family, but in most other senses it is like adding shit mustard to a shit sandwich. If an alien came to earth and wanted to find a way to make two people that love each other change their minds, I think he would make them live in the same house and have to coordinate every minute of their lives.

Scott Adams

Comment author: simplicio 12 September 2014 06:28:43PM 2 points [-]

What if he wanted to make them stay in love?

Comment author: DanArmak 29 August 2014 10:50:02PM 5 points [-]

And, of course, NATO's original purpose and whole reason for existence is precisely to contain the Russian/Soviet expansion to the west.

I don't think the reasons for forming NATO in 1949 are, or should be, relevant today. Upholding treaties is a legitimate concern, but what people cared about two generations ago when they formed them isn't.

Comment author: simplicio 11 September 2014 10:46:08PM 2 points [-]

East Europeans wanted into NATO for protection both from Communism and from Russian domination simpliciter. The latter consideration has not fundamentally changed.

Comment author: TheAncientGeek 01 September 2014 11:14:00PM -2 points [-]

It does to me.Have you tried getting sense out of an NRx or HBD.er?

Comment author: simplicio 10 September 2014 08:22:10PM 5 points [-]

Bracket neoreaction for the time being. I get that you disagree with HBD positions, but do you literally have trouble comprehending their meaning?

Comment author: Jiro 26 February 2014 05:06:03PM 1 point [-]

Since most people have probably stolen some nonessential thing at least once in their lifetime, the same reasoning means that a moral principle of never stealing nonessential things is also suspect. You'd have to have a principle "don't steal too often" or something like that, not "don't steal"/

Comment author: simplicio 27 February 2014 02:41:11PM 0 points [-]

If most people have stolen something (have they?) it seems more likely to be out of carelessness than out of irresistible temptation. If you asked me to go 5 years without stealing anything, no problem. I promise I'll never try a raisin from the bulk bin, or use vidtomp3, again.

No sex, talking, or spicy food for 5 years? Even if I could form the intention to do that, I'll fail miserably. It's not a reasonable thing to expect oneself to do.

Comment author: Discredited 17 February 2014 05:14:17AM *  1 point [-]

You are never going to catch up, and neither is anyone else.

-- Gian-Carlo Rota

Comment author: simplicio 25 February 2014 11:18:39PM 0 points [-]

Missing context, I think.

Comment author: [deleted] 22 February 2014 08:45:50AM 4 points [-]

What I'm saying is that to argue that our ancestors were sexual omnivores is no more a criticism of monogamy than to argue that our ancestors were dietary omnivores is a criticism of vegetarianism.

-- Christopher Ryan

In response to comment by [deleted] on Rationality Quotes February 2014
Comment author: simplicio 25 February 2014 03:30:02PM 1 point [-]

It could be, if you subscribe to a weaker version of Kant's "ought implies can" that says (roughly) "ought implies psychologically feasible".

The basic thought here is that moral principles are suspect if they are SO difficult to follow that practically everybody is just always drowning in akrasia & hypocrisy. Think of a moral code that forbids talking, sex, and non-bland food for everyone - it's not physically impossible for humans to follow such a code, so it doesn't violate Kant's original dictum, but it's just not reasonable to expect it to happen in practice.

So I could see an argument that says that asking all humans to be monogamous is like asking them to take a lifelong vow of silence. I don't buy that argument & I actually think monogamy is important, but the logical structure makes sense to me.

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 20 February 2014 02:57:11AM 0 points [-]

On the other hand some things really are complicated.

Comment author: simplicio 21 February 2014 07:21:12PM 5 points [-]

Right, but I think the spirit of the Krugman quote is that complication may be unavoidable, but shouldn't be made into a goal or a badge of honour the way the theorist did. Also that complicatedness is ceteris paribus weak evidence of incorrectness, because of the logic I stated earlier.

Comment author: EGarrett 13 February 2014 08:55:20PM -4 points [-]

"We cannot teach people anything; we can only help them discover it within themselves." -Galileo Galilei (via BrainyQuote)

Comment author: simplicio 19 February 2014 11:27:51PM -1 points [-]

This is basically just a rewarming of Socrates in the Meno, I guess? Only really works for mathematics & like subjects.

Comment author: ChrisHallquist 18 February 2014 08:52:54PM 4 points [-]

I once talked to a theorist (not RBC, micro) who said that his criterion for serious economics was stuff that you can’t explain to your mother. I would say that if you can’t explain it to your mother, or at least to your non-economist friends, there’s a good chance that you yourself don’t really know what you’re doing.

--Paul Krugman, "The Trouble With Being Abstruse"

Comment author: simplicio 19 February 2014 11:25:17PM 5 points [-]

big inferential distances usually --> long chain of reasoning --> at least one step is more likely to be wrong

Comment author: Nornagest 16 October 2013 06:39:00PM *  5 points [-]

I read it as a flowery, archaic way of saying something along the lines of "in the name of God", without needing to map it away from a modern meaning, so that's one data point for you. I don't recall hearing the phrase elsewhere, but there are lots of religious invocations along similar lines from various eras, and I may unconsciously be drawing an inference between them.

(My favorite might be "God's teeth!", although that conveys shock rather than supplication.)

Comment author: simplicio 22 January 2014 03:24:13PM *  0 points [-]

In Henry V, Shakespeare has the Duke of Exeter say:

Therefore in fierce tempest is he coming,

In thunder and in earthquake, like a Jove,

That if requiring fail, he will compel;

And bids you, in the bowels of the Lord,

Deliver up the crown; and to take mercy

On the poor souls for whom this hungry war

Opens his vasty jaws...

So it seems to have been a fairly common idiom in 17th C English.

View more: Prev | Next