Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[smjjames]

That's expected. A tariff wall can do that: cause prices inside and out to go in different directions. e.g. suppliers can't sell as much of the goods to people behind the tariff wall, so more is diverted to markets outside of it. The big problem here is that while this might boost domestic production of the high-tariff nation, that production will be even less competitive in export markets than it is already. e.g. so you'll be rebuilding an American steel industry, that's 100% dependent on the domestic market, too expensive to compete in the export markets, and even more reliant on the tariff wall to remain in place lest the whole thing collapse. Plus, of course, the domestic market for steel will just shrink anyway due to high prices, and this will drive down overall investment.

And there's also the problem that by erecting tariffs against imports to the USA on steel etc, other countries will retaliate with tariffs against imports from the USA. The end result will be the Chinese selling steel to Europe more and buying more advanced European products, cutting the USA out of both deals.

e.g. don't do the trade war thing when you have multiple competitors who just might decided to trade with each other instead.

It’s also exactly what happens when you hit your three out of top five biggest trading partners with tariffs for utterly bullshit reasons.

[Dozebôm Lolumzalìs]

I'm having trouble parsing what you just wrote and how it's supposed to be logically equivalent to what Lord Shonus wrote.

If men were all sperm donors and first saw their children at age 18, then men would have no legal custody of their children

Well people who are donors don't have custody.

Should that mean that the mothers, who keep the children, shouldn't have legal custody of their children either?

Well no, but women who give their children up for adoption don't have custody. You're comparing apples and oranges here of people who do not keep the child vs those who do then assuming some fictional fantasy world that assumes all men are sperm donors and all women are caretakers, then saying that sperm donors and caretakers must have equal rights, so as not to be gender discriminatory. There are too many logical sleights of hand pulled there.

What Lord Shonus is saying is totally different. He's saying that the argument goes that "males do not get to choose to kill a baby so therefore females shouldn't get to kill a baby". I'm pro-choice but I'm having trouble seeing how your analogy fits that.

e.g. if you forced all men to be sperm donors only, and disallowed them custody, it would in fact be discriminatory to not also make that ruling for women, therefore in that case women should not be awarded custody, and the children would need to be provided for by the state. e.g. the sleight of hand there is that you mixed up "sperm donor" which is a voluntary thing with the idea of forcibly taking women's children away, which is an involuntary thing. It's discriminatory if either gender is subject to a forced ruling that the other is not. It's not discriminatory if both are forced to abide by the same ruling, no matter how shitty that ruling is.

You're right, that was a poor analogy given that custody is not determined by genetics. My thought experiment was that men were sperm donors by custom, though. (So it technically stands, but it's a stretch to say that it proves anything about the original argument.)

Perhaps a less directly relevant analogy would be better? “The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets or steal bread.” Except not quite, because it's not that men have no need to have an abortion, it's that they're physically incapable of having an abortion (barring the odd trans/intersex man).

Or maybe "it's not discriminatory against gay people to ban gay marriage, because both straight and gay people have the same right to marry the opposite sex." Caveat as above, but I think the analogy still holds.

My argument itself is that the original argument presented (although not necessarily endorsed) by Lord Shonus is engaging in sleight-of-hand. Everybody is forbidden from killing babies who have been born. Men can only access babies after they have been born. Thus, in practice, if any man has killed any baby, then that is illegal. But this is not itself a law - it is emergent out of the law against killing living babies, and the fact that unborn babies are inaccessible to men. If you take the emergent restriction as a law and then generalize it, then that's technically Fair and Objective, but it's also Fair and Objective to say "only kill babies who haven't been born" which in practice only allows women to kill babies.

Except I feel like I've reversed something. I think this argument went wrong somewhere, but I can't tell where.

I've got it! This is a Fully General Argument. All it shows is that it's more complicated - it can't legitimately support a specific side. But I already dealt with this when I said that both ways are Fair and Objective, so it's pre-salvaged.

[Trekkin]

I think this argument went wrong somewhere, but I can't tell where.

To be fair, the other side of the argument has probably been edited a dozen times since, each time finding a new and different way to misuse "e.g.", so some confusion is to be expected.

[nenjin]

e.g.ads.

[Dozebôm Lolumzalìs]

Wasn't it correct in my quote, though? It means "for example," right?

[Reelya]

Wasn't it correct in my quote, though? It means "for example," right?

probably means my stuff, i tend to write e.g. when I mean "thus" or similar, as a connective.

EDIT: though I think content-free criticisms of wording or grammar aren't really constructive or an example of good-faith discussion.

[Kagus]

Wasn't it correct in my quote, though? It means "for example," right?

probably means my stuff, i tend to write e.g. when I mean "thus" or similar, as a connective.

EDIT: though I think content-free criticisms of wording or grammar aren't really constructive or an example of good-faith discussion.

e.g. what happened here?

[Hanslanda]

Roe v. Wade settled this issue folks. Semantics are a fun arguing point though.

[Dunamisdeos]

The US court system said it was ok, so that means it is.

[Hanslanda]

Morality is a sociocultural construct of incredible fluidity.

[Dunamisdeos]

Unless it's settled by the US court system, then it's a done deal.

[Hanslanda]

You obviously misunderstood my point. It's legality was settled. Morality is irrelevant to the point. The quibble of pro-life pro-choice is the legality of abortion. Granted some people claim it's a moral issue, but deep down it's a legal question of rights.

[PTTG??]

Laws change. (And so does morality, on a long enough time scale.)

[Dunamisdeos]

I think my point is that the opposite is true, that saying that a thing is legal and morality is irrelevant throws aside every single thing that civil rights ever stood for and current social reforms are fighting for.

It's a convenient way to say that the way things are currently are the way I like them, and I don't want people to talk about changing it. The problem with institutionalized racism is a moral one. The problem with sexism and abuse that seems to run so rampantly in our celebrity class these days is a moral one. The problem with invading far away lands for profit at the expense of the population in question is a moral one. And finally, when someone says they believe an unborn baby is in fact the same as a born one in terms of a right to life and the morality of ending it, it's not a legal question.

EDIT: For the record, everyone here knows I'm a Christian... but I don't subscribe to the usual hardline stances on abortion that my fellow religionites tend to take.

[Frumple]

... so anyone else noticing reminders popping up that the hurricane related death toll from this administration's fuckups in puerto rico have hit something like seventy times the official count? There's variation depending on estimates and whatnot, but low end is "katrina happened again" and the likely ballpark is apparently "four thousand plus corpse tally". Starting to see the occasional tidbit on the subject, here and there.