I still have an iPod in my car and I still have a big collection of music but I've stopped collecting music. I haven't bought/downloaded anything in years because there is so much good streaming out there. I mostly switch between nts.live 1 and 2, dublab, and dublab Germany. When there's something annoying on one channel there is almost always something good on another.
The state shouldn't be able to take your life outside of war. I've had this strict belief since junior high, maybe because I was raised catholic. I don't understand how anyone can see otherwise. Do you want your neighbors to be able to kill you?
Is your belief based in something? You say "shouldn't be able to..." but, like, why not? To convince anyone else of it you'd have to agree on the framework in which states are and aren't allowed to do things.
I think for most people the intuition is something like: the state is there to protect people (in principle at least); when someone is sufficiently dangerous to others they forfeit this right and it becomes just about protecting others from them; whereupon 'vengeance' is basically permitted against them, but then this is also delegated to the state to deter people from doing it individually because that's destabilizing, hence a death penalty.
Seems pretty natural to me unless you happen to have an infinite negative weight assigned to killing someone, which I do not. I mean, I have a large negative one, but it's not infinite. (Maybe yours is, perhaps from the catholic upbringing, which is why this doesn't make sense?)
(No idea what the neighbor thing has to do it; obviously nobody is arguing that neighbors should be (legally) able to kill anyone.)
> I think for most people the intuition is something like: the state is there to protect people (in principle at least); when someone is sufficiently dangerous to others they forfeit this right and it becomes just about protecting others from them; whereupon 'vengeance' is basically permitted against them
There's no connection between "protect[ing] people" and "vengeance", The latter is not necessary for the former.
The retributive instinct should not be "fed" by the State. It is perfectly normal to have that feeling, but we should recognize it for what it is and let it stay as such. You might think this isn't possible or stable but the Nordics would prove you wrong.
No they're just two different things. That's my point. On the one hand the state is delegated with using violence for protection. On the other hand the state is delegated with carrying out retribution.
If you had no state you would see people build the exact same delegations in private: first, people would enact their own protection and retribution; then, they would coordinate to make it more just by centralizing those powers and (theoretically) subordinating them to some system of justice that uses them more fairly than individuals would. We're just on the other side of that process, which is why I'm saying it's the explanation for why the state has those powers.
This has no bearing on the morality of "should the state do this"; it's just how it actually is, and why it makes sense of the minds of people who are okay with it (since the OP said they couldn't imagine a reason).
But, I think, if you aren't going to let the state carry out vengeance at all, you do need to figure out what you're going to do about people's desire for it to happen. (In practice though, you definitely are, you're just going to modulate how extreme it can be, i.e. killing people vs incarcerating them.) Just, IMO, the people who pretend like the justice system is not at all about retribution and only about rehabilitation/protection are... living in a fairy tale version of reality. Like I would love if that were the case, and if everyone was reformable and came out repentant for their behavior then it would be possible, but in practice, people want other people punished for their crimes. Consider that the point of jailing executives for fraud, which everyone wants more of, is not to prevent fraud but to actually punish them. Since it is the punishing that has a theoretical chance of stopping other people from fraud.
> But, I think, if you aren't going to let the state carry out vengeance at all, you do need to figure out what you're going to do about people's desire for it to happen.
You educate/culture it out of them, which is what the Nordics, and Western Europe more generally, choose to do. Seems to be working fine so far.
> Seems pretty natural to me unless you happen to have an infinite negative weight assigned to killing someone, which I do not. I mean, I have a large negative one, but it's not infinite.
What's your negative weight on killing someone who is innocent? A justice system cannot be perfect. There are too many people, too many motivations/biases, and too much nuance involved. If a justice system is not perfect and it executes people, innocent people will have their lives unjustly taken from them by us. If it's 99.9% accurate (I'd argue that even 99% is an impossibly high bar), then an innocent person has likely been intentionally killed by the federal and/or state governments in the last 20 years. Are you cool with that? After execution, it's not generally possible to file an appeal on behalf of the executed even if new evidence demonstrates innocence. This has the implication of multiple injustices - an innocent person is killed by the state, the true murderer gets no punishment, and society incurs the risk of wrongful execution with no protection from the true murderer.
Or we could take the less expensive, partially reversible route of putting the convicted in jail until they die.
you will be glad to know my weight against killing someone innocent is very high. personally i think the only defensible version of capital punishment uses it only in the case where there is literally no doubt about the guilt, like, many unbiased people saw it happen or there's a recording or they credibly confess or stuff like that. it boggles my mind that it is used outside of this. Feels like people say "beyond the shadow of a doubt" and then somehow don't mean it? Everyone is detective-story pilled like they think a watertight explanation of a thing is the same thing as eliminating doubt, and that's just not at all true.
I'd go so far as to say that the standard should be, if people agree on capital punishment and turn out to be wrong, then they should be tried for murder themselves. Not fair as things are currently designed because the standard is (apparently!) not that high, but that's how high I would set it.
but anyway I was not describing my own view but rather what I saw as the view of people who generally support it by default, since the OP did not seem to understood how that was possible.
The state has a monopoly on violence. In exchange for this great power we expect great responsibility. A state that is flippant with its use of violence signals something to its people. I believe that even if there are zero incorrect convictions that the state should use the minimum of violence to improve the safety of the populace. The death penalty (as opposed to lwop) does not protect anybody from crime. It does not deter people. Its only function is vengeance. And when the state uses violence in vengeance it degrades society.
yeah but then you quibble over the definition of "flippant". What if the state is maximally responsible about its use of violence, so there's no arguing that it could be any more violence. Now what? You have to find a different argument.
(Well, there is the "the limiting case of maximum responsibility is still nonzero errors therefore it is always unjust", which is a coherent stance, but I kinda get the impression that it's a fake one? Like it is not the actual reason that the people who profess it are opposed to the death penalty; instead it's a reason they kinda confabulate to justify their opposition even though it's not their actual reason. Their actual reason is closer to: nothing will ever get them to fully trust the state with killing. Which is much more reasonable, IMO, so I wish they would just state that directly. (this is all me trying to vibe out where other people are coming from, though, so I could be wrong)
I was describing the thought process: the reason for a death penalty (which, to be clear, I am not arguing for either way, I am describing why I think it has come to be at a practical level) is that given that vengeance/retribution is a thing that people 'want', the state assumes the responsibility of carrying it out (responsibly) so as to avoid vigilantism / preserve the monopoly.
> Their actual reason is closer to: nothing will ever get them to fully trust the state with killing. Which is much more reasonable, IMO, so I wish they would just state that directly.
Huh? I just told you that this is my opinion. There is nothing that will ever get me to fully trust the state with killing. Even if God Himself came down and said that so-and-so was definitely guilty I would still oppose executing that person.
I think you misunderstood me. I wasn't talking about you. I was trying to disentangle three arguments:
1. we can't trust the state with killing because it is always necessarily imperfect
2. we can't trust the state with killing abstractly, because we simply don't trust the state in principle
3. we don't want the state to do killing for moral reasons unrelated to trust
I was saying that people say (1) but, I suspect, they really mean (2) or (3). It's not the imperfection of the state, or its flippancy, that is the actual problem. It's other stuff, which is perfectly fine. I just think that's it a lot less confusing if people say the other stuff outright instead of talking about the imperfectness of the system which is just a distraction.
uh... no? that's not what I said. I wasn't arguing for the position. I was describing how the position works. And I don't think it's a motte/bailey at all because they really do have the one thing for protection and the other thing for vengeance. It's not a case of using one to justify the other, it's just two separate things that they justify.
I didn’t realize you weren’t arguing in favor. Still I do see this formulation frequently used to argue for capital punishment. They will fall back on claims of protection whenever challenged, but the core argument (that not everyone accepts!) is that victims have a right to vengeance.
I think people are get very muddled when they attempt to put their positions into words. That doesn't necessarily mean they're being deceptive. Sometimes it's just a skill issue. I think that what I have described is the "coherent" version of the position (the steelman, if you like). I like to lay it out like that because it makes the discussion about the thing it is actually about, which is, as you said, whether a right to vengeance makes sense or is something we want to enshrine in our society.
Now that I'm thinking about it there is at least one other coherent position I know of for it, which is: if you start out thinking of life as rather 'disposable' (so humans are somewhat equivalent to animals, which we regularly raise to eat; war is okay; things like that), then the argument for keeping people alive is that they contribute to society or at least don't heavily detract from it, and the argument for putting them to death is that people have proven themselves not even worth keeping alive. This opens a whole different can of worms though where you have to explain where your bar for keeping people alive is. but I do think it is ultimately how a lot of people think about it, as well---at least in regard to people who are not part their personal community.
> This opens a whole different can of worms though where you have to explain where your bar for keeping people alive is.
This risk shouldn’t be understated—there’s a lot of unpersoning happening right now among those with political sway, and if it continues we could easily swing back around to the eugenics and mass killing of the early 20th century. The modern notion of human rights was explicitly created as a reaction to the mass death and atrocities of the world wars.
There’s a tendency among the powerful to view those at the bottom as “useless eaters,” so when you start making decisions about who should be “kept alive” this can become quite dangerous.
Could you defend your claim if the exception for war was confined to non surrendering enemy combatants? After all, I did not take the comment on "except war" to envisage the slaughter of civilians or execution of POWs.
I mean if it was a just war I don’t disagree, but people on both sides of every modern war I can think of deserved to die a lot less than people who commit whatever sort of crime still lands you on death row these days (with the possible exception of the actual leadership in a small number of those wars but still not many).
I think it is fair to assume they meant a just war. At least, that would have been my starting assumption. This concept also has a rich literature in Catholic history, fwiw. The question of whether most modern war qualifies as just feels like a separate question that is out of scope for the present discussion, though I don't disagree with you.
How nice to see that in truth, we have the three of us all found ourselves - at least at a high level - in agreement.
So if most modern wars were just and a handful weren’t I would think it’s unfair to focus on the minority case. But it’s the other way around and it’s not even close.
Though, I am coming from a perspective rooted in the theory of human evolution, where for me warfare is just if the men fighting instinctively register that it’s just based on the true situation (the instinct which propaganda aims to stir up artificially with lies), and this precludes basically all top down state directed offensive warfare from being just. If there was a draft or if the men were not aware of the real reasons for the war, it isn’t a just war. That covers everything America was involved in for at least 100 years. Something like the Poles defending themselves against Germany could be considered just, though as far as I can tell that war started due to the Polish government stubbornly acting against the interests of its own people (land bridge and Danzig demands weren’t that unreasonable, not worth sacrificing your own people over), and if the government is acting in an unjust way towards the interests of its own people then the reaction of others becomes sort of a fruit of the poison tree situation (defense is just in isolation, but the actions of the Polish state in general were not IMO).
I don’t really care what the Catholics think or thought, they were operating from a pre-Darwinian understanding of human nature which is largely incorrect.
What was this murder, if not a one-woman civil war?
>Do you want your neighbors to be able to kill you?
My neighbors are always inherently capable of starting that one-man civil war with me, even when locked inside institutions specifically meant to prevent that.
Indeed, the law in the country we're talking about is very explicit about being able to own the tools to wage that civil war as a direct consequence of this fact.
Hiding from that reality has never worked for any other group; why do you think it's going to work for you?
> What was this murder, if not a one-woman civil war?
Is this supposed to be an intelligent move? Is the distinction between a war and interpersonal violence really lost on you? A "one-woman civil war" is simply a sentence that fails to compile for anyone with even a passing familiarity with the history of civil wars.
It's ironic you speak of apprehending reality when you speak with such stretched symbolism as to render whatever your point was incomprehensible.
Can you try again without this goofy civil war metaphor? I have to as an exercise in good faith conclude this framing was somewhat unserious.
Options can be worthless I've had two friends whose options were clawed back. Exercise the options asap - harder to steal the stock back than the options.
I have property in zone 4a. It's in WI about thirty minutes south of Lake Superior. I had read that they have pawpaw at UW Madison so I bought five seedlings as an experiment. The first year two survived the winter. The next year one of them was hit by a mower and died. The survivor is still alive after five years.
Pawpaw reproduce sexually so this year I bought five more plants from a farm in Michigan. These were older than seedlings and not cheap. Anything to wed my lone pawpaw.
Ilk know in the spring if any survived the winter.
The seedlings can be disappointing. Pawpaw is a lot like peppers. Selected cultivars are good, but wild ones can be awful. I strongly advice to plant certified cultivars of your preferred flavor. My Shenandoah has a lot of banana mixed with caramel and the texture reminds to a lemon mousse that does not taste at all like a lemon. Also wait for them to be really ripe but not overripe (The flavor spoils). The fruits fall when are ripe and then is a speed race with slugs, coons and squirrels.
It needs water and grows well were hazelnuts also grow. Take advantage also of the relatively brief but good butter yellow fall color placing for example some chokeberries (melanocarpa Viking for fruit, arbutifolia Brilliant for red color), or a Japanese maple like Seiryu fast grower vertically providing a decent canopy, rusty fall color and great under spring lights, Hogyoku or Emmet's Pumpkin have great oranges and reds in fall and a decent sized leaf that unlike Seyriu will not dissappear around the huge leaves of the paw paw but is a question of personal taste. Put each tree well spaced but close enough to be seen as one scene and plan in advance as this trees don't like at all to be moved later.
Paw paws grow happy under canopy, specially for its first years, but produce much better at full sun (flies don't like shadow). Can be hand pollinated in any case.
This is great info. I've wanted to grow some for years, but I live in CO, and won't be moving to a region where these are viable for a few years yet, so I've got plenty of time to plan. I had no idea there even were cultivars for this fruit, but I was aware they like to start in shade, then explode once started.
In the Southwest, there are many environments where a tall, shady plant grows quickly, sets the stage for plants that need only initial shade, and then the fast-grower eventually loses out on the plot once the slower-growers have a chance to establish themselves. Once those slow growers are in place, a new generation of smaller, shade-loving plants will often follow, filling in the area that the fast-growers left.
I wonder if there are analogues you're meant to plant first, to get the pawpaw going.
> I had no idea there even were cultivars for this fruit
Many breeders in USA. There are selected early (Allegheny), mid season (Prima), and late varieties (Susquehanna).
There are also selections with small fruits of 70-95 g (Allegheny, Rappanock), medium fruits (KSU Atwood, 120 g) and some able to produce a few huge fruits reaching up to 450 g (Belle, Mary Foos Johnson). On average 150-250 g are not uncommon.
Small fruits are reliable bearers. Sometimes is more convenient to have 95 fruits of 95g each of Rappahannock and one Raccoon in the garden than 7 big 400 g fruits of Belle and one raccoon. Often the biggest the fruit, the more prone to damage and fragile the skin so expect brushes when falls from the tree
Some selections provide different flesh colors: whitish (Shenandoah), yellow or orange (Wells, Mango)
-------------- Flavor and texture
Texture may vary between avocado firm and creamy melting in your tongue like a yogurt.
Acetogenins are dangerous, but the dose makes the poison. Some people choose deliberately selections higher in acetogenins like Susquehanna, KSU Atwood or Allegheny because they introduce complex flavors. Is difficult to describe a flavor, but lets say that there is banana in the background and it can be topped with other things depending on the cultivar. The flavor of Paw paw has been described as a mix of banana and one of more of this: more banana, mango, vanille, pineaple, caramel, passion fruit, bubblegum and horribly sour.
A tree produces typically between 7-12Kg of fruit each year. Some may bear until 50 pounds. The flavor is also inversely proportional to the harvest. If your clear some of the fruits, size and flavor will improve. Too many fruits in the tree one year: expect a more plain flavor and much smaller size. Overriped fruits got black spots and get sour over time, but it can last for a week in the fridge easily, probably two.
-------------- About chemicals
The tree is a cocktail of chemicals with pesticide properties. Acetogenins accumulate in the bark and seeds. Fruit skin must be also discarded. Is better to avoid completely to try infusions with the leaves, bark or flowers.
Acetogenin effect will accumulate damaging the nervous system, but eating a moderate amount for just one month each year should be reasonably safe, and some of this chemicals have anticancerous properties also.
Sunflower, Wabash, Potomac, Zimmerman and Wells are cultivars selected for decent taste with a reliable low content level of acetogenins.
Some people get their stomach upset after eating it. And in a few cases allergies and rashes can appear by contact. In this case is better to avoid it. (before discarding the fruit from your diet, you may check for other possible causes to the stomach troubles or try the low acetogenin content cultivars).
-------------- Culture
The harvest period is short, around September. The change of color in the mature fruit is subtle and it will not mature if cut unripe, so is better to check each morning for recently fallen fruits that are guaranteed ripe.
A couple of varieties (Prima, Sunflower) are sold as able to produce self-compatible pollen, but for best results is much better to have two different trees. It will need also flies in April/May to pollinate it. Neither bees nor butterflies will visit the burgundy flowers. In any case is easy to pollinate it by hand if you have two varieties. Just cut a dark red flower in its male late phase, remove the petals and use it as a small brush on paler flowers in the other tree that are recently opened. One single flower can bring 2-4 fruits, so just one gentle brush can bring a lot of weight, but you need to synchronize your move with the correct time. Repeat it for a few days to be safe.
About the canopy, it depends on your climate, if the tree has plenty of water is happy in full sun, but in very hot or windy climates the leaves can scorch or be thorn and you will need something that fast but not much thirsty. Is not a big tree, so may never reach the full sun area in a canopy but the paw paw is not really bothered by it. The tree can be pruned if necessary and responds well to pruning. The root is strongly vertical and transplanting it from soil means often its dead by breaking the main root near the trunk.
Besides accessing your page are random people able to use your server as an exit node? Am I thinking the right thing... I met someone in Switzerland that was hosting anonymous exit nodes to some anonymous network and he said that it was a pain having to explain what was happening to the police.
Exit node are an entirely optional part of the Tor network. If you run a relay or a hidden service you are not forced to participate in the exit node side of things. It's also not recommended to combine these roles because it could have security implications for your hidden service.
The exit nodes of Tor are a big weakness of the connective layer with the internet. For this reason I prefer to think of Tor as its own internet. Exit nodes are basically just inefficient VPNs. If traffic stays inside Tor it stays secure.
When I moved to Switzerland I was given a bunch of funny stories about integration. Most were relevant (e.g. if you're American don't invite your subordinates to a weekend bbq) but one story that wasn't relevant but particularly funny was a British man who met his old father returning from a first vacation in France. He asked his father how it went and the father said it was horrible. Everytime he asked someone 'where is the train station' the French people would practically fall on the ground laughing. The French word for train station is la gare, while the word for war is la guerre, and so when an old British man would run up to them and shout where is the war, well...
I wonder if your bad cholesterol goes up in this case? This is because the liver uses cholesterol to create gall enzymes, which it excretes into the gall bladder with a bunch of left-over cholesterol too.
Gall bladder stores bile, which continues trickling down the common bile duct whether a storage facility sits off to the side ready to dump a bolus into the common bile duct. . With no bladder storing a bile bolus fatty foods might not be adequately digested from the trickle.
Yeah and obviously it was impossible to put solar on the roof to power the AC because of their vanity roof design. So worse indoor air quality, and more heat and humidity. What a triumph of design!
reply