Interesting, interesting, interesting.

The law converts knowledge to power.

It also provides one with a tool to coerce the individual. It constrains the behaviour of the official.

Why does this model no power on the part of the individual.

Hm.. this viewpoint is quite "amoral" and the world is not amoral.

You have individuals, their best interest an power. It is not the this modeling or viewpoint is wrong, but that it is partial. v

To gain the acceptance of the people, while covertly operating another system that gives them power.

Is it? Why do people care about chaos. From a "power theoretical frameowrk" you have to either model things in terms of rebellion

The consistency may also be due to a shared morality that constrains their actions, or because they have known rules to follow, or because they are actually in some sense carrying out the will of the people in the sense that if they did not the citizens would rebel, or given a more fine-grained mechanism of "rebellion" and "feedback to rebellion" that politics provides respond.

This this this this this.

Interesting... interesting... interesting.

I'm not sure about this.

By way of analogy common law serves, in part, to create certainty at the price of understandability. Case law is to require a large amount of context to interpret legislation and what goes on in text.

True.

Conventional semantic meaning.

Interest interesting, shared technolects created by the expected audience.

The discussion of the drafting of legislation is available freely online in many countries - though not summaries thereof.

Also, somewhat irritatingly, old law can be hidden.

An author could write for "technolects" rather than individals.

This is interesting... you in effect have a mapping between "glossaries", "technolects", "social groups" and models of though. I wonder if people have done work on this field. Formalizing foucault as it were.

There is an interesting "meta" perspective here, the reader might be naive to the meanings of the word.. though be aware that there is a particular "technolect" (shared langauge of a particular field exists) and learn it. I kind of enjoy interacting with technolects... because they can identify the "intellectual source" of ideas. In the case of law, interpreations may come from linguistics, mathematics, physics, religion, philosophy of legal theory.

It's interesting why this distinction exists.... is this a quirk of language or something fundamental to language I wonder.

So you have a statement. It has content. Then there are implications drawn from the statement based on its content... but the meaning of the sentence must be inferred based on the context of the sentence as well, rendering the meaning distinct.

Perhaps you then, are separating the world into different "models of the world" and defining a process of inferring a meaning in each.

Is this a meaning a sentence has?

Or perhaps this gets into theory of mind, or intersubjectivity. How a sentence might be interpreted by a general group of people, out of context (or with a limited amount of context added back in) versus the meaning in context.

Indeed... perhaps these models are limits of the contexts that can be used to interpret a sentence, and perhaps they exist for rational reasons. I imagine this is a problem in the interpretaion of langauge, deciding on the context to use to interpret it.

This comes up in nlp... I guess it is the idea of "attention" determining the context in which to evaluate the meaning of a word or sentence. Though in this formulate "context" is defined as a set of other words or perhaps the state derived from words. NLP is so interesting and the analogues to natural language theory are fun indeed.

Okay... this is more boring than I imagine. It's just describing different types of language rather anything to do with interpretation itself. I guess this interesting thing is going to be what a *non-textualist framework is"

It's interesting that this definition would appear to mirror the "reasonable man" definition of terms used in the law. I wonder why the law uses these definitions. I'm tempted to think the only reason is that this parallels the court process itself... which is interesting. The court process embedded in people's minds. I wonder whether I implicitly do this when thinking about things.

Can this actually be cleanly broken from level one or are these the same acitivity.

I imagine you can get "thin" and "thick models of semantics.

Textualism is part of "meta-legal theory" it is a word that describes a style of interpretation that pervades different parts of legal interpreation.

Defined here: https://hyp.is/yjR35kzdEequLlMuAdWMxg/lsolum.typepad.com/legaltheory/2012/05/legal-theory-lexicon-textualism.html

Link

Is this a good model? is it sound?

• So level one is to model the process of interpretation. Or rather the act of interpration itself.
• Level two is a mapping of of the text to this interpretative model
• Level three adds a moral and normative aspect to to the interpretative model
• Level four doesn't really seem to do anything much - other than talk about how people can teach things.

Is this correct? How do we comment on the correctness of models? Meta-philosophy as it were.

So a first critique might be the idea that there is only one model. I mean, these are critiques that your model doesn't like up with reality.

This seems sound enough. But should try to attack it. The first observation is that the interpretation of the text cannot be separated from "common sense".

Don't buy it.

I'm not sure this ever really happens I think people just have more fixed lives - potentially.

Careful. Brains change in adults as well, and in response to activities.

This is a topic I've been interested in for a while.

Yawn.

An interesting way to frame things... kind of psychologising oneself.

If makes sense from the point of view of a "power politics". You put people with whom you have family relations in a position of power to have more influence over them.

You effectively get to be present in more meetings.

Okay... that's fraudulent.

I wonder if they are actually fraudulent.

No it doesn't (see private prosecutions).

Interesting... I'm not sure if this is the case for medical operations.

I think the qualifications are legitimate, it's just the process is illegal.

This is interesting.

So pregnancy is clearly a mild disability, but not a particular major one.

Rather the issue is looking after a child once it is produced, and here the problem is maybe more to do with breast feeding than antyhing else.

"oppression" why is this oppression and who is doing the oppresing?

This might solve the ethical argument... though there are trade offs against the potential damage to the life of the potential baby.

I would naively expect it to be unethical to raise a foetus within an artificially womb. I don't know how this "ethical chasm" could be bridged effectively - perhaps for women who cannot conceive, or for whom pregnancy is dangerous.

Unfortunately, I suspect taht for your suggestions to be effective they need to be far more detaile.d

These are strong claims that you don't address in your piece.

The standard approach here is for the body to make its decision making transparent rather than changing its decisions in response to backlash from the student body.

An analogy might be made to "liberal democracy", where the actions that a body is willing to make are limited by general principles. And that these general principles must be altered separately from any single case.

The value of academic work is different from the value of debating.

Academic work is of higher quality (in the sense that it must be carefully thought through and place itself in the context of other work), it has a different readership, it is subjected to stronger standards of review and criticism, it is written.

This is a problematic position, unless hateful is very tightly defined. It should be noted that "opposing viewpoints where some who oppose the viewpoint are hateful" should not be considered hateful in and of itself, in my opinion.

How do you know this? How can we be aware of the intent of a piece like this.

Certainly questions of intent are sometimes necessary questions.

The piece does not say that women are inherently manipulative. It states that "false allegations of rape can and do happen" which might, rather, acknowledge that false allegations of rape are not common.

The piece does not explicitly address any social movement.

One could definitely write a more negative piece.

Are you sure this is what it says, it might, rather, say: a woman might do so because and here is an example.

I am not sure this an accurate characterisation of the piece.

It is slightly unfortunate that the piece does not comment on the rates of false rape allegations compared to actual rapes, and because of this it might lead a reader to think that a large proportion of rape allegations are false.

It is also unfortunate that the title is "why women lie about rape" rather than "why a woman might lie about rape".

Defending against this general claim we should note that the article includes the following:

• The piece starts with the sentence "Two sensational rape stories in the media have brought to light the question of false allegations, prompting many to wonder just why a woman would lie about rape.". This means that piece could be considered to address "what are the motivation for false rape allegations given a false rape allegation"

Should this topic be addressed in a free standing article at all. I think it should be. I do feel it is unfortunate that it does not, however briefly, address base rates.

https://j4mb.org.uk/13-women-who-lied-about-being-raped-and-why-they-did-it/

How about you try some journalism rather mere value-revealing ad-hominem.

Boundaries please!

The issue here is that scandals can be constructed via social media which can then be used to tar an individial, as does seem to the case for Carl.

Would you care to prove this statement?

The counter argument, put forward by respected academic stephen pinker, is that by not addressing these questions academically one leaves this issue open to half truth and political campaing.

This might be a relevant argument.

Listen to the majority of vocal majority on a particular issue.

That gets complicated. "supporters off"

I want evidence for this.

Hmm.... that's an odd statemtn.

Eye roll. Danger danger, can't be near these people.

There is perhaps an argument that the resulting protests might be dangerous...

Citation needed!

That may well be accurate... however neither perhaps would many a political party including perhaps the conservative or liberal democrat party.

This is accurate. It is also a group that highlights men's issues.

Not exactly....

https://hyp.is/phI1Zkt5EeqUTSsEtoPr6A/www.law.uchicago.edu/socratic-method

"days"

Summary:

Unknown costs

There are several parts of the cost of using serverless technology separate from the cost of handling requests themselves. A case study is presesnted, the main component of the costs for this AWS app seem to be gateway costs (rather tham lambda costs). Though there are dozens of components that make up the cost of maintaining an app.

It seems to the case that the "sysadmin" related to a serverless app creates more code - I'm not sure why this should be the case, and why tools for removing code duplication could not be used.

Savings

• No server cost
• Sysadmin cost

Code complexity saving

You don't need to

• Scale up / down
• Provision servers

How odd... I wonder why.

"Please don't charge me money for what I buy".

Is there an argument for why these costs should be lower (e.g. competition could provide these services, this cost prevents adoption etc).

No fixed cost.

:/ This has to be offset against the additional costs of:

• Learning APIs and configuration for tasks that you already know
• Debugging being harder
• Reimplementing services that exist elsewhere (for example, if you use lambda to serve http request you can't easily use standard web frameworks for things like cookies etc)

The issue is that it men and women silencing rational discussion about particular topics.

False certainty

False claim to authority

Fuck performance. Okay, let's be more charitable, why does or should anyone care about performance? You might care about learning, you might care about what your compnay is doing, you might have some goals you want to acheive.

There are other differences. That some forms of "female circumcision" involve removing parts of the clitoris, or indeed large parts of the vagina (see the discussion of FGM)

Yes.

Why?

Base rate please.

I don't believe it.

Again, this is beyond your realm of expertise.

This is not necessarily your place to comment on. imprisonment serves a number of purposes, including importantly retribution and deterrent, and these decisions are best made politically.

Indeed, however economics tells us that a reduction in GDP will lower standards of living and result in deaths.

Unfortunately we have no idea what perfect climate change policy is...

No it isn't. It may contribute to success. Well it depends what you define resilience as.

:S

That's an interesting concept - I would like to have this introduced. I wonder if there is a lexicon that is expected of the reader. I wonder who the reader is.

So I have jungian ideas of "fragmented psyche" going round my head when reading this.

I'm suspicious of the word resilience.

From my reading on PTSD, I suspect that much of this "resilience" is hard coded, and can be limiting in other areas. Specifically, for PTSD neuroticism, novelty seeking, and risk avoidance are correlated with developing PTSD.

That's interesting.

I wonder what is meant by a public health intervention here? Is it an intervention in the style of public health.

Do we? Terrorism acts seem to be difficult to prevent and discussion surrounding antiterrorism efforts tends to be censored.

And yet this number remains vanishingly small compared to road traffic accidents.

In a tangential way proportionate to their fear.

Causal contribution does not necessarily imply responsibility.

Another explanation would be that introduces the behaviour as one to be explored.

No, it is the assumption that people who engage in abuse might be 'naturally' violent.

This could be explained by the fact that other situations are less provoking, for example if one partner is deliberately antagonising the other in order to get them to behave abusively.

The truth of a theory should not necessarily be based on how easy a theory is to be misused.

There is an argument that proceeds that the utility of an argument to the person who conceives of it decreases the probability that it is true, but this does not apply in this case.

I am not sure this quote is relevant to the point at hand. Those who engage in immoral acts may seek to find excuses and socially acceptable activities.

But I am not sure what bearing this has on the attempt of finding how someone's behaviour may contribute to an abusive relationship, other than that these are similar activities. I guess it suggests that sharing these theories with the victims of abuse must be done with care (since an abuser may have done this in a manipulative fashion).

This is a very complicated claim that is rather contentious and would require the review of a large amount of literature to understand.

So I fully believe that there are bad models for how an abusee's behaviour may contribute to their abuse (or how it might reinforce a mutually abusive relationship).

This is not to say that the effort to investigate whether abusee's may engage in behaviour that increases the likelihood of abuse, not that a model can be found.

Commenting on models that are bad without attempting to find the best versions of a model seems like an exercise with little purpose: you cannot completely write off a field of explanation based on the fact that there are bad models.

I tried to find this reference. This might be the document:

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1046/j.1440-1819.1998.0520s5S145.x

This document does not contain the terms risk factor, predictor or background.

It appears not address the issue

I doubt this is true. I bet having been abused before is a better predictor.

I don't believe this. I guess that means I need to read the paper!

Within a political framework ?

There are perhaps the factors that support learned helplessness.

It can be combined with other models.

I'm not sure about this, psychiatric drugs are powerful things. I suspect that they might be unethical though.

Hmm... empirical evidence for evolutionary biology is hard to come by, though perhaps secondary evidence could be found (e.g. one could investigate factors that are correlated with hostility towards a partner).

Theories don't necessarily immediately suggest action, rather they further one's understanding.

Desire for truth?

This.

That's not really responding to the question. The argument from Lord Singh is, I think, that global stability would reduce immigration.

I suspect that decentralizing might prevent accountability in some ways because there are too many people to hold accountable.

Hmm... I'm not so sure - we may find that they catch up rather too much as the centralization of media allow the government to easily control social media.

this

Yikes.

Read this as in considering this issue we must take the effects upon victims into account.

I am cautious about the definition of Far Right here. I would ideally like to know why these leaders are considered far right.

I wonder what effect the visibility of the internet is having.

This issue here might revolve around how the in-group and out-group are defined, and the degree to which the out-group can exist given it's exclusion by the in-group.

An example: "Medicine is not place for sexist doctors". Is this hateful extremism?

This is rather theory-laden word.

:/ there is plainly a moral case for violence (e.g. war, facism)

Hmm... is to hate extreme. Other discussions I have heard talk about terrorism and fear rather than hate.

Perhaps more importantly it also demands a definition.

Hmm.... I wonder if this is a reasonable response given that in your role as MP you are forced to represent all citizens.

Hmm... there is a slight problem here in that one may need to contact an MP. I'm not sure what a good solution is - appoint a designated intermediary to act on his behalf in correspondence with his MP?

Though... it is indicated by the presence of an object, and missing when one uses that, e.g:

• "The man that I hit"
• "The man that hit me"

Well how it has worked historically.... perhaps the rise of the internet may fix the meaning of language.

Also that some people can act with no business model.

This is innaccurate as applied to youtube - coverage is often in far more depth that news is

So this isn't the issue... the issue is that you are forcing people to undergo a relatively minor medical procedure.

I suspect that carrying out dna tests on the placenta (with the consent of the father) might have fewer issues..

I don't believe that this is a crime.

I don't believe you.

I don't think this is true. It does seem to the case that circumcision reduces the transmission rate of HIV.

That seems entirely reasonable. The issue is that trying to reduce cases of circumcision would be political difficult, while preventing FGM is easy, and many forms of FGM are more debilitating than removal of the foreskin.

I imagine the real answer is:

• Some forms of FGM have more extreme effects that circumcision (though there are some acts analogous to circumcision that are classified as FGM - removal of parts of the vagina but not any clitoral material). I suspect that the existence of these extreme forms have lead all forms of FGM to be targeted - this may be reasonable.
• Circumcision is culturally accepted in american
• Circumcision is culturally accepcted by Jewish People

That's a rather problematic claim.

Well... at a societal level looking at the causes of actions that might be labelled an individuals "responsibility" can be an effective way of reducing actions that you do not like.

Different feminists believe a range of different things!

Umm... not necessarily as obvious as it might seem. My understanding is that in sweden there are comparatively low security prisons.

Are you sure you actually want to say this?

I mean... this is a real issue right?

That is a reason, another reason will be that women on average commit less crime.

This might become a little tiresome!I mean, the overarching point is valid - if something affects a larger number of people then it may justify more investigation.

There is a valid reason to look at proportional differences in mental health issues.

That is interesting... I wonder what it means.

Statements like this are problematic. One needs to assume that enough good faith that someone is using statistics fairly and it is problematic to assume that someone is just lying (rather than merely interpreting facts badly).

This way no discourse exists.

That's a little disturbing. I wonder what the source of this mistake was. Perhaps a habit of just assuming that sexism exists in all fields.

Is that picture really necessary? I am unsure whether turning the criticism of a report into an attack on an individual (which this picture seems to do) deligitimizes. criticisms and detracts from the the consideration of the report as a document.

This is a very nuanced and complicated claim.

Saying that aspects of feminism cause a crisis of masculinity may have nothing to do with me to.

"the men's rights movement" probably doesn't exist.

First in their personal priorities.

Or woman?

Thought apparently not very well based on your reading on the article. The issue is that you are misinterpretting the claims.

Some aspects of these things are zero-summy. E.g. how the government spend resources.

I don't believe you. The question her is partly what prison is for. It might still be effective for reducing crime, or a statement of moral judgment.

People who commit crimes tend to be in unfortunate positions.

You mean don't self-harm? Because that's what the last sentence was about.

Oh look and a fifth is higher, :eye roll:

Self-harm and attempted suicide are odd things are stupid things to group together.

Self-harm is very common.

The controversy would be to argue that these "attempts" are not real attempts.

That's not a fair reading of the claim in the tweet (though the tweet is in a short form).

The claim would seem to be that the high homelessness rate amongst men suggests that austerity is having an effect on men.

From the source, "The analysis is based on tax and benefit changes since 2010, with the losses apportioned to whichever individual within a household receives the payments."

So this mostly says that women are in higher receipt of benefits

Statements like this can't be incontrovertible fact. They are statistical averages highly suspect to interpretation (e.g. is a woman who is supported by her husband truly affected by something, if a couple is acting as a financial unit and the effects are on part time labour), even if you can agree on the theoretical interpretation the effects are across a population, and your choice of aggregate with have a result.

This makes me think of you as a bit of an extremist really.

Hmm... do you think any arms length government funded bodies (e.g. the judiciary, the bank of england, the law commission etc) can functin.

I'm not sure how true that is though... since the government has control over their funding.

Is the government actually incapable of guaranteeing funding.

"Entirely right" I'm not sure that's clear. Perhaps it would be appropriate for the bbc to try to prevent others from using their content to

• Reduce molestation if one does not have a TV license
• Reduce the chances of people breaking the law

I'm not sure whether a brand represents the "bet of Britain" is relevant here. It is unclear if the BBC is an optimal vehicle for the generation of public media.

Though... I suspect that if the BBC is to be replaced it might be better to cause the BBC to change gradually, or gradually create an alternative.

Hmm... youtube has allowed massive decentralization of media.

Perhaps he doesn't agree ?

explaining

This is sexist language

Sigh. And what are you to do if your MP fails to do their job.? T conhe world is not always a nice place, the government can be broken, and one cannot achieve all that one wants by acting within the the constraints of "politeness, concision, and what other people choose to term abuse", though these things are to be preferred most of the time.

Now what's the point of saying that. And what exactly is he trying to say, and why does he feel that this is the case.

There are forms of FGM that are this extreme. Most are not. Much of the clitoris is internal, so Type I FGM (which remove the prepuce or clitoris) might consists of removing part of the head of the penis.

There is, both are an often unnecessary modification to the genitalia that can impair sexual function.

Now, it is certainly true that many forms of FGM are far more extreme that circumcision. Type IV FGM might be considered as analogues to male circumcision https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/43839/9789241596442_eng.pdf;jsessionid=EEC0073A6F9F049616EBECC434C9D35D?sequence=1.

Probably not true.

"choice to make"

Stupidity shaming is not fair but that doesn't mean being stupid is an okay choice to make.

This isn't necessarily clear.

Some onsideration:

• There is some body fat self regulation
• There is a suggetion that the isue is the types of food rather than the food themselves
• There is some suggestion that the lack of activity may be more explicative than anything else.

So it's not clear that humans in a hunting society actually work for that long.

Why is it postmodernist? I guess it is cultural. What i your definition of propaganda.

Such an idiot.

So sure... but these motivators come with certain costs things like misanthropy eating conditions etc.

:eye-roll: as if nothing in people's lives can ever going wrong enough to cause them to gain weight.

Has the feeling of pseudo evolutionary biology. I rather doubt that obesity was controlled by social pressure... given that it is controlled metabolically.

More black and white thinking, idiot.

Perfect control, no control black and white thinking.

Idiot, as though there can't be other causes.

:eye roll:

Not true - brain damage resulting in changes in behaviour.

Yawn. Bingeing and purging is part of bulimia.

No, while talking to an incenduary idiot.

idiot.

It's absurd to the point of being useless.

Pschotic in a metaphorical sense - detached from reality.

It can do. There can be hormonal causes. The problems may be more behavioural.

I am entire unclear whether we are more or less accepting towards obesity nowadays.

idiot.

Well, you are wrong.

Kind of depends upon the social environment doesn't it. Go have a picture of starving people in a third world country - kind of thin.

Stupid idiot.

Depending on the formulation on fat acceptance it may, but

• Removing stigma
• Making it easier for people to seek help
• Stopping social isolation.