Israel/Palestine thread

Some rules are just designed to make municipalities more money.

Ye and in Italy, fleximan takes care of them

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/f...

Then vote people who made those laws out of the municipalities

Doesn't mean you don't have to pay it

If the land is municipal land, they have a right to decide rules that apply on that land

Yes and if people in that municipality think it's unfair they can vote for someone who campaigns to change it

I almost added to my post saying that I was sure that in Italy (definitely in France but probably also in Italy) people take care of that sort of stuff before it gets too bad.

we know how to live, and that very often means knowing when a complete disregard for "state" rules is warranted.

If the fear of that happening would reduce the chances that they would kill or seriously harm a child, threatening it is fine. If similar fears kept the war participants away from innocents, it is also fine to instill that fear. You can't possibly disagree.

Roko basilisk vibes.

Imho you are trapped in a working model that disregards second order effects like Roko was (is?)

Its your fault. When you make a list of eight points any one of which will refute an incorrect contention, you shouldn't participate in a derail to defend just one of those contentions that may be debatable. If they can't refute almost all of them, they lost the debate unless you give them a muddying the waters escape hatch. (I will probably have to follow my own advice regarding our list of eight reasons why it isn't always wrong to limp first in in our new book. It's inappropriate for me to tell you what they are in this thread but since I am too computer illiterate to simply provide a link, I scrolled down many lines for those who are curious. )

Limping First In (Reprinted From Small Stakes No-Limit Hold'em: Help them Give You Their Money)

Despite what you might have read elsewhere, it’s often better
to limp when you’re the first one in the pot, especially when the
game you’re playing is small stakes no-limit hold ’em against
weak players and stacks are moderate. Here are some reasons:

1. If that limp is the only money you put into the pot, losing will
cost you less. You also might save money when you do put
in more chips, because someone else raises and you call,
since the extra money that you lose will often not be as much
as it would have been had you raised yourself.

2. If you’re in a game where the players rarely raise preflop, (as
is often the case in small stakes no-limit hold ’em games) you
can add more hands to come in with. Partially because it’s
cheaper and partially because players who see that you
sometimes limp with monsters will hesitate to raise you.

3. Limping sometimes adds to your implied odds. If your
opponent’s stacks are moderate, you’ll sometimes be in a
situation where your downside is reduced while your upside
is almost the same since that upside is often winning all of an
opponent’s chips.

4. Limping will often entice bad players to call with hands that
you want in against you that would not play if you raised.
Sometimes those hands will actually wind up against you for
more than a limp if someone raises behind you and you both
call (but he wouldn’t call if the raise came on his right before
he had a chance to act.)

5. The normal arguments to raise are less persuasive. You give
up your chance to steal the blinds. But you could very well
make more money if you let the blinds play with hands that
will get them in trouble against you. You also lessen your
chances to get the pot heads-up. But heads-up pots that are
raked ten percent (and sometimes more) up to fifty bucks, as
small games are, mean that early bets are laying 5-to-4 odds.

6. If you limp a lot, you’re more likely to be able to pull off the
limp reraise play that is often very profitable since that first
raiser is apt to raise with hands he wouldn’t three bet with.

7. Limping tends to make the pots more likely to be multiway
and in small stakes games that’s a good thing. One reason is
that multiway pots are “protected pots” where few players
will try to bluff, so you rarely have to make “crying calls” in
hopes that they’re bluffing. Multiway pots are also good for
you because many of your winning hands are strong enough
that had more players played it would have added to the
money of your average win while rarely costing you the pot.

8. Another reason to only limp is what happens if you get
raised. If you only limped, the remaining effective stack
will probably be large enough for you to call and try to
flop a nice hand. But if you raised and are reraised, your
implied odds may now not be large enough for you to
profitably call.

For some reason these arguments, many of which we think
are kind of obvious, don’t persuade a lot of poker authorities that
limping first in is sometimes right. This is especially strange
because to our knowledge most don’t have a problem limping
second in. But there’s barely a difference in small stakes no-limit
hold ’em, especially when in early or middle position.

Don't know what that means. But it seems that I suggested something that neither you nor your biggest detractor agrees with.

Not certain but i think it means the point I've been arguing with you for years about utilitarianism.

You can't just add up the local/immediate pluses & minuses and then claim the utilitarian solution justified by maximimising/minimising them.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

the mega church mass shooter had " free palestine "on the gun.
whats up with that?

Utilitarians are soulless idiots

What you like Rawls better?

https://www.jpost.com/opinion/article-78...

If sinwar dies both sides can justify stopping the war

The Veil of ignorance is an absurd tool to discuss anything.

It is predicated upon an objective falsity, and circular at that: veil ignorance is a tool to demonstrate the morality of equality, based upon an assumption of equality.

You are not yourself if you change anything about your ancestors or what happened in your life. You are someone else.

There is no you ex-your DNA and your personal history.

There is no you that can be ignorant of yourself and can be transposed geographically, historically, into another body built with another DNA.

Moreover, the "two principles" Rawls "deduces" from the veil of ignorance are in complete contrast to one another, as the "difference principle" requires exceptional continuous limitations to all basic freedoms, while the "liberty principle" would entail literally the opposite [so the model is literally meaningless lacking the most basic internal coherence].

To keep going, veil of ignorance considerations are usually about "how would you like society to be organized if you didn't know which part of society you and your family are from". Here instead we are been asked to use the veil of ignorance to judge "who is right" about a conflict, correct? the point of conflicts is winning them lol, not "being right".

Might is right regardless of your personal preferences or moral considerations. Moralization is what you do ex-post to increase support for your side, to increase the chances to win. There is no "absolute" moral to apply, you just want to win (if you don't, the other side wins so the conflict ends).

What pro-Israel and pro-palestine people do is trying to convince people not already on one of the sides in full, that their position is more moral. No veil of ignorance can be applied, as the specifics of what happened to lead to the conflict, and the narratives, contrast completly. The two sides don't agree on the facts that led to the conflict, nor on their legal and moral intepretation.

How can you apply the veil of ignorance if there are no agreed upon sets of facts to try to "impartially" judge? it's not like you take a society, measure (say) median income, income distribution, then apply the veil of ignorance to it to decide if it's a society you like or not if you are assigned an income randomly over that distribution, vs another possible median income and distribution.

Here (in israel vs palestine) we don't have any hard objective data to compare to another set of hard objective data and then apply veil of ignorance considerations.

Rawls has been poisoning human brains for a long while, as all marxists do (i am aware some marxists claim Rawls isn't marxist enough, but the fact that marxists often hate each others doesn't mean they aren't all marxists), it's time we completly reject the totality of marxist philosophycal concoctions as the absurdities they are.

Let's use that definition as a proxy of utilitarianism. Do you realize a very powerful and effective utilitarian, under that definition, would basically push society toward developing insensitivity to pain as in the extremely rare people affected by that congenital condition?

There aren't many things more "soulless" than planning and executing genetical modifications to all the population to make it impossible for everyone to feel pain.

Big fan of pain killers personally.

Not being able to feel pain is extremely dangerous so I doubt that's a utilitarian path.

Empathy blockers might be a better example of your point. As in dr who and the cybermen. Or life blockers

I don't think Rawls would have a problem with that. You can just say: "imagine you were another person born with different DNA elsewhere". It's a thought-experiment it doesn't have to be exact

If you have a different DNA you think differently, you cannot be you without your DNA, you can think you can imagine it, but you actually can't, same as you can't actually imagine of being an alien or a goat. You can create an idea in your mind of what being a goat would mean but it won't be you being a goat.

I can only say no. Profoundly no.

I know from inside the magic show everything makes sense, but it is actually pretty wild that by all appearances the Palestinian people still support Hamas.

Gaza gets a tremendous amount of foreign aid. Unimaginable billions. Hamas steals significant amounts of this to build underground tunnel cities and arm themselves with rockets and other weapons of war. They then start a war with Israel that has no upside at all for the Palestinians, and tremendous downside, which we are all witnessing play out.

They then spend the next 4 months hiding in their tunnel cities (occasionally popping out to steal aid) that they dont even let the Gaza citizens in, while Israel undertakes its campaign of retribution.

Say what you want about how US citizens (like Palestinians) would never except any sort of foreign control, and there would be guerilla efforts. This is probably correct. But we would also never just accept such a horrible, incompetent, cowardly govt/army to represent us. Sinwar and all the other Hamas commanders would have had their heads on pikes a long, long, long time ago. I think this would be true in most places.

Palestinian society really is bizarre that everyone knows what Hamas has been doing the last 4 months, and really the last 20 years, and how much they absolutely suck, yet by all accounts they are still popular and firmly entrenched politically with little internal opposition. And to this day have plenty of support from the Muslim world and progressive left.

It really does seem like a cheat code in this part of the world, that as long as you have some version of the word "Allah" in your name, and promise to kill Jews, you will be at least tolerated (and often loved unconditionally) no matter how much you actually suck.