antillean's comments

If you happen to live in London or ever go there, you can see one of the oldest surviving New Testament Greek manuscripts. It's called Codex Sinaiticus (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Sinaiticus), dates from the 4th century AD, and is always on free public display at the British Library in London.

It's worse than that. As the next paragraph says:

"The online data were collected in two stages. In the first stage, the participants were recruited via several open internet discussion forums and several student mailing lists. In this stage, data about religious and paranormal beliefs, systemizing, mechanical abilities, and core ontological confusions were collected. The rest of the data were collected 1.5 years later. The recruitment message was sent by email to all individuals who had participated in the first stage and who had given their email address for participating in further studies (N= 1537). Of them, 237 could not be contacted because of outdated email address, and 887 did not take part in the present study."

So this is a self-selecting study: the initial group of 1537 (which was self-selected) was whittled down (largely through self-selection) to the final 258 on whom the results are based. Further to that, the authors gave no information on which of the "several open internet discussion forums and several student mailing lists" they recruited or how they did that recruitment. And they made no comparison between the demographic makeup of their sample and the general Finnish population. (Probably because it would've counted against the validity of the study since, y'know, Finland isn't 63% female or 44% students.)

There's a lot of trust of the government here[1] and in general[2] -- though, as that Gallup link shows, it MASSIVELY depends on which arm of the government you're talking about.

Again, not many people live in or around the libertarian bubble. And there are lots of intelligent people who avoid it for very, very good reasons.

-----

1. http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2016/02/apple-fb...

2. http://www.gallup.com/poll/1597/confidence-institutions.aspx

Two responses to that.

Firstly because, well, that's just the way it is sometimes. Putting a gate in your wall can let in bad guys who can plunder your city, yes. But it can also let in good guys who can fortify it. You just need to design and use your gate well...and, I suppose, think of the government as good guys. (Soz, I've been indulging in some nostalgia with AOE 2: HD recently....)

And two: who says this has to involve decreasing IT security? I haven't seen enough evidence of cooperation between the gov't and the tech industry on this for me to believe that an agreement on this would require decreasing IT security.

It feels like everyone would be better served if the tech community admitted the legitimacy of the government's (and many, MANY people's) security concerns and stopped pretending that the right to privacy always trumps the right to security of the person. (All occurrences of the string "secur" in that EFF letter[1], for instance, are in reference to data and computer systems. Not one is in [direct] reference to people.) Or, if we don't go that far, we need to at least realise the need for political communities to have serious discussions about how to reconcile those two rights without jeopardising either of them.

The tech community's solutions WAY too often feel like they're motivated only by libertarian concerns for freedom which, while extremely important, are not exhaustively fundamental or final to -- and certainly do not settle the question for -- non-libertarians.

1. https://act.eff.org/action/tell-congress-stop-the-burr-feins...

Ah, yeah, you're right. My bad.

Ah

How does that work with Norway and Switzerland? Or is that different because they're members of the Schengen?

Gove's statement today -- http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/eu-referendum-... -- sounds to me like he'd also like the UK to leave the ECHR.

True.

I'm one of those Commonwealth nationals resident in the UK with the right to vote in this referendum. I had thought the case for the UK staying in the EU was obvious until I started thinking about it and, in the process, stumbled upon a frustratingly alluring argument for me -- and other non-EU, British-resident Commonwealth nationals (that is, other Commonwealth nationals legally living in the UK who are not also nationals of an EU country) -- to vote for the UK to leave.

The argument runs like this.

The UK's current level of migration is seen as a problem by the current UK government, by a significant proportion of British citizens, and probably even by a good few in the left-leaning parties. While the UK's in the EU, there's almost nothing that can be done to curb skilled or unskilled migration from the EU. Any government of a UK in the EU that wants to curb migration has to do so by clamping down on non-EU migrants. There's already no legal unskilled migrant route to the UK, so that means cutting back on skilled migration.

That clamping down is for me a personal pain, so much of a pain that it feels like every time I see Theresa May in the news it's because she wants to make it harder for me and other non-EU nationals to work in the UK. (I try really, really hard not to hate her.) If the UK left the EU, that'd allow the British government to apply the same rules across the board (to EU citizens as well as non-EU citizens) which'd probably lead to any UK government (from migration-hating UKIP to migration-loving Greens) having a more sensible approach to skilled migration. And not only is that in my own interest as a non-EU Commonwealth national, it's also in the UK's interest as far as having a sensible skilled migration policy goes.

This argument is, of course, too narrow on something as broad as the UK's members in the EU to be enough: it doesn't deal with the host of other things around British EU membership (wealth, security, environment, international influence etc). But my working visa issues are so frustrating that I find it a very, very tempting argument.

Eh, what? Hasn't the ROI had a say up to now? What's about to change? Is the EC about to invade the ROI?

Uh, no. Neither Ireland nor the UK is in the Schengen. The UK didn't want to be, and Ireland opted out because of the UK. From the BBC[1]:

"The UK and Republic of Ireland have opted out. The UK wants to maintain its own borders, and Dublin prefers to preserve its free movement arrangement with the UK - called the Common Travel Area - rather than join Schengen."

1. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-13194723

Do you know what the estimate is for the proportion of monozygotic twins that are discordant for schizophrenia?

> There is also a quote of Gandhi I cannot find. So I'll paraphrase: If you are angry at someone, and he did not intend to hurt you, you should not be angry. If he did intend to hurt you, he is not as wise/it's in his nature, and you should not be angry.

What? Why shouldn't I be angry if a fool intentionally hurts me?

Wait. So, on your view, it's fair -- "Treating people equally without favouritism or discrimination" or "Just or appropriate in the circumstances", according to oxforddictionaries.com's top two definitions -- for a rapist-murderer to be able to get on with his life (maybe after 20 extremely frustrating but possibly also fruitful years for him) while an innocent young lady's is tragically cut short?

And you think it's an indictment on Biblical (and, apparently, also Oxonion) definitions of "fair" that they'd disagree with you on that?

On one version of retributive thinking, retribution isn't really about restoring fairness, about balancing out cosmic scales of justice. It's about giving a person what's due to him or her. We call it reward when what's due to her is a result of good she's done, and we call it (retributive) punishment when it's as a result of evil she's done.

On that view, it's generally just right to reward people for good and punish them for evil. Consequences -- even grand ones like balancing the cosmic scales of justice -- don't enter it.

That's an extremely narrow view of "secular".

Not all secular societies or people are consequentalists. Some are at least as interested in the moral righteousness of a system -- in its means, in its processes, in what it does on the way to its ends -- as they are in what that system accomplishes. There are secular humanist deontologists and virtue ethicists.

So if imprisoning people for beyond 16 years doesn't provide better opportunities for rehabilitation or reintegration, isn't that a reason to continue imprisoning them beyond 16 years in order to protect society from them?

As a family of concepts human rights often rely on the concept of dignity, so all law (or ethics) -- European, American, African, Samoan, Caribbean, Peruvian, whatever -- that is based on or significantly influenced by human rights often also relies on the concept of dignity. But yeah, as you say, the concept is so broad and, without a substantiating framework, generally empty of meaning that I can imagine that (though not how) some could use it to say that even 1) planning and intentionally murdering 77 innocent people and then 2) going on to remain unreformed and unrepentant of it shouldn't "justify the destruction of all of a person's future". (Though, thankfully, as far as I know, people who think like that so far either 1) lack the courage of their convictions or 2) lack the power (or both) to actually impose that view of 'dignity' on any society.)

So 16 years is the magic point (for Danes? for [Western] Europeans? for all human beings?) beyond which imprisoning people has no impact on crime rates. Do you have any evidence that 1) that's actually the case for Denmark or anywhere else, and 2) that's actually the reason the Danes and others have set that limit?

That's a strange use of the word "secular", for which the Oxford dictionary that Google uses lists as "not connected with religious or spiritual matters". What's particularly religious or spiritual about the idea that the justice system ought to be about meting justice?

> "Coming from Denmark where life is max 16 years..."

What's the rationale for that limit? Is that the maximum time it takes to reform someone? The time after which anyone's being a threat to society expires? The magic number of years for just retribution for all (combinations of) crimes?