“We are a nation of many nationalities, many races, many religions-bound together by a single unity, the unity of freedom and equality. Whoever seeks to set one nationality against another, seeks to degrade all nationalities.” ~ Franklin D. Roosevelt

Evolutionarily speaking: If cooperation did not give advantages, why the fuck did we become a social species? Going for anti-cooperative strategies only ever makes sense in zero-sum games and practically nothing in life is.

In game theory cooperation does give advantages.

Both co-op: +1/+1 Both defect: 0/0 Defect/co-op: +3/0

That’s just one interaction. When you expand the experiment, predictability becomes a positive trait and risk is avoided. So by more often choosing cooperation, you become more predictable, avoid the risk of not gaining any points through mutual defection, and more people are likely to interact with you. More interactions=higher potential for points. When you adjust the rules of the game to not define a set number of interactions with each player and you can choose the frequency of interactions with bad reputation players, cooperating is naturally selected for. Conversely, as the pool gets collectively nicer, defection will net more benefits and the pendulum will start to slowly swing the other way.

I’ll ignore the first half of this reply because we won’t agree. Not every choice is a conscious decision in my eyes, but the vast majority are.

As for the second half, believing that bad actors would be weeded out based on the principle of free will is naive. Consider game theory. Two people have something to gain from cooperation, but more to gain from defecting. Meanwhile, the other gains nothing or very little. That simple thought experiment incentivizes bad actions from time to time. You have more to gain by acting selfishly.

Now blow up the experiment. You vs the world and reputation is introduced. Someone with a perfect cooperation rate is flawed. They offer nothing but blind trust and can be taken advantage of. The opposite also displayed. Someone who makes selfish decisions all the time offers nothing but blind distrust. You’re left to choose which people to interact with that are somewhere along the middle of the reputation gradient. Those that are 70% or lower seem unpredictable or untrustworthy so many choose to interact with people on the higher end of the reputation spectrum when available and reflect that in their own decision making. You can’t always choose who to interact with, so eventually you’ll have to interact with a bad actor. You’ll get burned by making a cooperative choice and they will benefit from it. In turn, ensuring that they will survive natural selection.

I can only speak for my own beliefs. I don’t believe in an omnipotent god. I believe that god holds dominion over the heavenly afterlife and that is all. The universe was created by pushing over the first domino, two atoms collided, and now life exists. It’s up to us to use the gift of life as fully and morally as possible. To leave the world a better place than when you first arrived. I don’t think that we are some pet project for a God that can change everything on a whim.

Catholicism teaches that God is all forgiving and loves unconditionally. For as many flaws as the Catholic Church has or has had, they’ve generally been the Christian denomination that’s preached forgiveness the most to my knowledge. Maybe I’m wrong.

And I was talking about my beliefs growing up in the Catholic Church not Catholicism as a whole.

I don’t believe in a spiteful god, but sure man, go off I guess.

Can’t speak for everyone. But for myself, the world and humanity was created with free will and it’s up to us to choose good vs evil. God only has dominion over the heavenly afterlife and the hellish afterlife is forced to exist on the principle of yin and yang. There can be no good without evil.

For context I consider myself agnostic but was born roman Catholic and base my morals on the teachings that everyone was created equal and forgiveness should be shown to those that can be helped. Forgiveness isn’t a requirement in the cases that someone willingly chooses evil in the face of morality over and over. (Putin, Hitler, Trump, Netanyahu, serial violent criminals, etc.)

Fot more information

🤦

Ortberg had on Wednesday urged workers to vote against a strike, warning it would, “put our shared recovery in jeopardy, further eroding trust with our customers and hurting our ability to determine our future together.”

This is the exact same thing that brought them to where they are. I trust the direction of the company more now that they’re striking than I would if they had agreed to a temporary deal so they can kick the proverbial can down the road till some arbitrary future date.

What is there to really dislike about Pokemon? I didn’t realize that it was intrusive enough on those that don’t play or watch it to trigger such strong feelings.

It seems like we mostly agree then. I only disagree with the term “murder” when it’s applied to Obama’s authorization of the strike that killed Anwar Al Awlaqi. That carries with it the presumption of unjust killing that was being pushed by Republicans in the run-up to a 2016 election. It ended up being one of the few criticisms of Obama’s time in office(in my opinion). Would I have liked him to take a more hardline stance on his Supreme Court appointment in 2016 and pressured RBG to step down prior to 2016? Yes. And would I have wanted him to put the nails to Republicans to get ACA though with minimal changes? Yes. But overall I felt that in the 8 years he was president we moved forward as a society.

Its not a perfect system, I’m aware. I actually wish that the SC would have taken up the case so we could have a ruling, but I do believe that this particular closed-door meeting constitutes due process. I think its an unfortunate concession to feel more protected from terroristic action, but necessary. I would feel way more comfortable if the term “public danger” could only be applied to specific individuals rather than broad descriptions(like the one you referenced from Trump). And could only be applied by a committee of legacy members of the federal government shielded from presidential or political appointments. Then any killing carried out should be subject to increased investigation and review to confirm the justification. Any deaths or casualties deemed unnecessary can then trigger criminal actions against those that authorized them.

It seems like we mostly agree then. I only disagree with the term “murder” when it’s applied to Obama’s authorization of the strike that killed Anwar Al Awlaqi. That carries with it the presumption of unjust killing that was being pushed by Republicans in the run-up to a 2016 election. It ended up being one of the few criticisms of Obama’s time in office(in my opinion). Would I have liked him to take a more hardline stance on his Supreme Court appointment in 2016 and pressured RBG to step down prior to 2016? Yes. And would I have wanted him to put the nails to Republicans to get ACA though with minimal changes? Yes. But overall I felt that in the 8 years he was president we moved forward as a society.

Its not a perfect system, I’m aware. I actually wish that the SC would have taken up the case so we could have a ruling, but I do believe that this particular closed-door meeting constitutes due process. I think its an unfortunate concession to feel more protected from terroristic action, but necessary. I would feel way more comfortable if the term “public danger” could only be applied to specific individuals rather than broad descriptions(like the one you referenced from Trump). And could only be applied by a committee of legacy members of the federal government shielded from presidential or political appointments. Then any killing carried out should be subject to increased investigation and review to confirm the justification. Any deaths or casualties deemed unnecessary can then trigger criminal actions against those that authorized them.

Fair enough. I just feel as though there are extenuating circumstances surrounding his specific case. I believe that his due process was rather not denied, but expedited due to his own behavior. His due process took place in a briefing room of national security advisors discussing what violence he could be capable of before international police were able to capture him. I believe that he knew that his status as a US citizen would shield him from military action for some time and would be willing to use that time to orchestrate further attacks on western civilians for as long as possible.

I liken it to a hostage situation at a bank. A group of people commit armed robbery and 2 of the 3 have killed civilians. So in response they were killed by a SWAT team. The ring leader is the only one left and is holding hostages in a room with no windows, but is able to communicate with a negotiator. The orchestrator tells the negotiator that he has no intention of killing people but is holding hostages to ensure his safety. There’s already been lives lost so how willing are you to allow him to negotiate an arrest without further casualties? He’s holding hostages with the threat of violence but hasn’t killed anyone yet. Eventually he is killed without incident by law enforcement and the hostages are brought to safety. Is that situation a denial of due process by a court of law?

Up until the recent Supreme Court decision there was already oversight. Al Awlaqi was deemed to be an imminent threat and his killing was authorized by the National Security Council which would include 10-20 other individuals with access to superior knowledge of Al Awlaqi’s actions and includes the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Director of National Intelligence, and the Homeland Security advisor. All people tasked with positively identifying imminent national security threats. The country he was seeking refuge in had even ordered him to be captured dead or alive. And if you’re questioning his involvement in al-Qaeda, he appeared in a video bearing al-Qaeda’s emblem praising the two prior mentioned terrorists and called them students of his.

You’re asking this question for no reason as the answer is clearly no.

And I don’t really think you’ll garner much sympathy for Anwar Al-Awlaqi’s “murder”. He left the United States and was orchestrating terroristic plots to murder innocent civilians in the United States. He was involved in two high profile incidents of terrorism as a commander for al Queda. Nidal Hasan’s mass shooting at Fort Hood and an attempted bombing of an intentional flight from Amsterdam to Detroit.

Obama will take the high road. A lawsuit would just make him martyr and give some semblance of evidence to the radical left trying to silence him and his right to free speech like the gag order. Obama really has nothing to gain but a lot to lose. He’s more coy than that based on his prior actions. I suspect that he’ll sit on that for awhile, give it its time in the media to get as widespread attention as it can, then release a statement enthusiastically endorsing her while citing her policy and character.

The judge in this case is allowing the woman affected by the original murder charge to sue the prosecution for $1 million in damages for jailing her for 2 days. It’s a garbage ambiguous title meant to farm outrage when it could instead be instilling hope in progressives wanting to undo the harm that took place.

Supreme Court function is a hot button topic right now because of Roe v. Wade. The vast majority of Americans agree that at the very least SCJs should have term limits, so start there and force a vote on an amendment. Then if it fails, you have votes on record for the next election. Many Republicans have pro-choice, pro-union, anti-lobbying stances that aren’t aware that their representative in congress would vote against because it never comes to their table in the first place. Some(not all) would change their vote from red to at least 3rd party if we were able to highlight those issues in voting records during campaign season.

And even if you feel that isn’t worth the time or energy for only speculative shifts in the public vote, the opinion you’re expressing is that the constitution should remain unchanged until some undetermined date in the future which may never come. And that is more damaging to the bureaucratic system than a proposed amendment failing because definitions shift over time. It wasn’t too long ago that property was determined to include black people because it suited the interest of wealthy land owners in the south. Then because of that we ended up fighting a civil war.

So what happens when the judges chosen for a case interpretation end up being 7-2 in one party’s favor? Conservatives would be sitting at the slot machines in a diaper pulling the lever until they hit a jackpot. It’s not like making them sit out of some cases based on a lottery is going to make them any less hypocritical or prone to power tripping and bribery. They’ll just wait their turn.

Appointees should just be subject to term limits and yearly affirmation votes by members of the BAR association to renew or revoke their qualifications. That way members of the public that are still well versed in law are able to hold them accountable.

That’s not entirely true with Kamala being tied to his administration. I still think it would only make her more popular, but his actions aren’t truly lame duck.