Politics Needs Science

[Red]

What kind of evidence are you looking for?

Concrete proof that laws make crimes happen more often, and getting rid of those laws makes them happen less often. This is your claim that you need to prove.

Do you think rape should be legal?

You're so ideological about this that it doesn't seem like anything will change your mind.

Where do you draw the line, I mean, you don't think somebody who says we should end killing animals for food bears the burden of proof,

Of course it does. Pretty much any claim carries some burden of proof. Here, the burden of proof is met.

There is a possibility you are right (a very tiny one). I will be on board with you if you can provide evidence.

so why do you think somebody who says we don't need prisons bears the burden of proof?

Are you really saying you have no burden of proof? Really?

You're the one calling for a change in society. You have to prove this.

The burden of proof is on one proposing that we should have more laws, rather than on one proposing we should have fewer laws.

Now you're shifting the burden of proof?

I'm not making any claims. Though I've already explained why laws deter crimes, as they act as the third party to settle the dispute. And smart people are deterred from doing criminal activities.

I don't think this is a correlation-causation fallacy. You claimed the fact that more murders are solved now is the reason there are fewer murders now, right? I showed you that the fact that more murders are solved today is wrong, and that's a valid response.

I didn't say that, I said there are improved forensics. That makes more (intelligent) people think twice about murder, which is why there are less people murdering. What about the fact that there are less murders today than there were 500 or even 100 years ago?

Is it fool proof? No. But it isn't something we can't improve.

And who bears the burden of proof, one who claims it was done intentionally or one who claims that it was done unintentionally?

YOU, for claiming it was done unintentionally. Courts do not make judgments on a whim.

[teo123]

Do you think rape should be legal?

Yes.

Here, the burden of proof is met.

How? People stopping eating meat and other animal products will obviously produce big changes in society, and it's hard to say whether they will be positive. Sure, we will postpone or stop the development of superbacteria, but it's very hard to tell whether there will be some nutritional deficiencies caused by that, especially among the poor people. Animal products are not the only food that contains significant amount of lysine, but they may very well be the cheapest. Cow's milk is a few times less expensive than soy milk. It's a complicated topic and it's very hard to tell, but obviously those who claim we should continue eating meat bear the burden of proof.

You're the one calling for a change in society.

The society is always changing. One who claims we should use force to change something about it (be it putting murderers in jails) is once who bears the burden of proof.

What about the fact that there are less murders today than there were 500 or even 100 years ago?

Again, there are countless other factors. Also, do countries with better forensics tend to have lower murder rate? I don't see it. In Europe, Sweden has a particularly high murder clearance rate (over 90%), yet it also has relatively high murder rate.

YOU, for claiming it was done unintentionally.

Now, I am not aware of the legal technicalities here, but it seems to me it's way easier to prove something was done intentionally than that it was done unintentionally.

[Red]

Do you think rape should be legal?

Yes.

Murder is usually objectively worse than rape, but something about this I find just so outrageously offensive.

I don't think there's any reasoning with you on this. I don't think it's possible to say shit like this and still be considered reasonable.

What else should we legalize? Slavery? Sex trafficking? Theft? It'll all go down if we legalize it, right? No, it won't. It's your ideological thinking getting in the way of rational thought. In the same way Murray Rothbard thought that selling children will actually decrease child abuse by pulling some free market miracle bullshit out of his ass.

You've crossed the line, Teo. I mean, you've crossed it when you said murder should be legal, but this is an even more egregious one to cross.

How? People stopping eating meat and other animal products will obviously produce big changes in society, and it's hard to say whether they will be positive.

It's safe to assume it will be, based on what we do know. You're making claims on things we don't know. With an understanding of ethics, you'll know that killing animals unnecessarily for their meat is immoral, has a strain on the environment (thus climate change), prevents us from feeding the world sufficiently, and overall harms public health.

Imagine if someone in the 1800's said 'We won't know what the changes in society will be if we are to abolish slavery!' Sentiments such as this must be eschewed in the name of social progress.

Animal products are not the only food that contains significant amount of lysine, but they may very well be the cheapest.

There are also pretty cheap supplements.

Cow's milk is a few times less expensive than soy milk.

You don't need milk of any kind in your diet.

It's a complicated topic and it's very hard to tell, but obviously those who claim we should continue eating meat bear the burden of proof.

Vegans have a burden of proof too, it's just one that's met. Since vegans have met their burden of proof, it won't be easy for meat eaters to meat theirs, if possible at all.

The society is always changing.

You're calling for such a radical change. Lenin implemented radical change, how'd that turn out?

Reform is the way to go; Yes, it's slow, but it allows you to test certain things out to see if things work; if you have something that isn't working as intended, you have the opportunity to undo it, as well as offering society time to adjust to changes. With a revolution, or other radical change, you don't have that luxury.

One who claims we should use force to change something about it (be it putting murderers in jails) is once who bears the burden of proof.

That isn't how it works, as I've explained. I also talked about how the law prevents crimes, but you didn't listen to it.

Again, there are countless other factors. Also, do countries with better forensics tend to have lower murder rate? I don't see it. In Europe, Sweden has a particularly high murder clearance rate (over 90%), yet it also has relatively high murder rate.

There are many factors, but it's a big one.

Also, Sweden is among the lowest murder rates globally.

Now, I am not aware of the legal technicalities here, but it seems to me it's way easier to prove something was done intentionally than that it was done unintentionally.

You still have to prove this, not just posit blind speculation.

[teo123]

Murder is usually objectively worse than rape, but something about this I find just so outrageously offensive.

And how is rape actually done? Obviously, you need to be on some drugs to be able to run after a woman without losing the erection. Don't you think it's much more reasonable to get people off those drugs than to put them in jail?

Slavery? Sex trafficking?

But isn't slavery and sex trafficking almost the opposite of anarchism? Slavery is only possible in a world in which the government puts the liberators of the slaves into prisons and catches slaves that fled at low cost to return them to their masters, all in the name of "protecting property rights".

Theft?

Well, yes, don't you think the governments preventing theft leads to wealth inequality? Sure, protecting property rights probably helps us long-term, but in the long-term, we are all dead.

has a strain on the environment (thus climate change)

Climate change is a relatively minor issue. In fact, addressing it probably hurts the environment more than it helps. I mean, much more methane is produced by pasture-raised cows than by factory farmed cows. And if we switch from pasture raised cows to factory-farmed cows, we are protecting ourselves from a minor danger (climate change) by putting ourselves into a much greater danger (superbacteria).

Imagine if someone in the 1800's said 'We won't know what the changes in society will be if we are to abolish slavery!' Sentiments such as this must be eschewed in the name of social progress.

But that's exactly the point! You are saying we don't know what exactly will happen if we legalize murder, and that that's why we shouldn't legalize it, right?

Since vegans have met their burden of proof, it won't be easy for meat eaters to meat theirs, if possible at all.

Then we don't have a proof beyond a reasonable doubt, so it's not exactly proof.

Lenin implemented radical change, how'd that turn out?

How can you compare Bolshevik revolution to legalizing murder? Bolshevik revolution literally required people getting killed. Legalizing murder doesn't require people getting killed. Leninism and especially Stalinism advocated the use of force. Anarchism is against the use of force.

Also, Sweden is among the lowest murder rates globally.

Globally, yes. In Europe, no. In fact, it has higher murder rate than Serbia, yet alone Croatia. Sweden is the only country in Europe whose safety is even comparable to that of the US. Speaking of that, why do you think the US is so unsafe? I think it's due to the high incarceration rate being counter-productive at preventing crime.

[Red]

Teo, I'm done with you. I'm going through some shit right now, and just seeing your baseless, idiotic assertions isn't making me feel any better. You've pretty much have gone back to your old flat earth ways, and I see no chance of you ever changing your mind on this. You're so hooked onto this ideological way of thinking.

If someone else wants to school you on this, let them. I'm done.

[teo123]

Anyway, @brimstoneSalad, what do you think, is it ethical to develop antivirus software? I think it's unethical for three reasons. First, right now, they probably do at least as much harm as they do good, because the problems caused by false positives (such as preventing Chrome from using newer versions of OpenSSL and thus using strong cyphers, or misdetecting CSRSS as malware and preventing the computer from booting after installing the updated version of the OS) are about as bad as malware. Second, developing antivirus software gives the initiative to the hackers to develop more and more sophisticated malware. Third, the development of the antivirus software relies on telemetry, and telemetry in case of antivirus software means letting the good guys know which executable files (and scripts inside of Word documents...) you have on your computer. But if you are making it easier for the good guys to do that, you are also making it easier for the bad guys to do that. Development of antivirus software, in my opinion, makes us all less safe.
And I think that, by the same logic, the government catching criminals and putting them into jail makes us all less safe: there are false positives (sometimes innocent people end up in jail, I am very sure my mother was innocent when she ended up there), the development of forensics causes criminals to develop better tools for hiding what they did, and effectively catching criminals probably involves compromising our privacy. Plus, I think most murderers murder because of psychological problems, and that jail is a place from which they will return with even more psychological problems.