alphanullmeric

Does your anarchism extend to the aforementioned left leaning foreign governments?

Oh this is hilarious. Not only do you confirm that you wouldn't support them doing what they choose to with their service in the absence of government intervention, you would actively support the same government intervention you pretended to be against if it meant you could force them to do something you benefit from.

If you wanted to prove that consistency wasn't exclusive to me you've done a pretty poor job. Combing through someone's account to avoid a yes or no question is especially pathetic.

While you're running away from that other yes or no question, I might as well try asking you this one - do you support privacy?

No. The US government should stay out of other countries business’. They should even stay out of NATO. But again, I’m sure you don’t have that level of consistency.

I don’t support any government bullying of private companies, although I’m sure any level of consistency would be unfamiliar to people like you.

Should TikTok be allowed to control what goes onto their service? That’s a yes or no question.

TikTok is a private company and your use of their service is not a right.

So no, “it’s the law” doesn’t apply to you. Answer the question or I’ll answer it for you. Thanks for playing.

Does “it’s the law” apply to all laws?

Does “if you don’t like it then leave” apply to all people?

Are you sure I can’t find a counterexample? You have yet to present a single consistent idea and I doubt either of these will be any different.

You will support privacy for one person but not another solely depending on how much money you think you could nab. We’ve already established that.

You are free to sacrifice your own privacy. This discussion is about whether you have the right to forcefully sacrifice mine. You’re only consistent in doing what benefits you, even if that means your support for a policy depends on who is involved and not what it does.

It’s how it works for people that lack consistency. If you don’t want absolute privacy then you are also free to support an absolute lack of it. “I want privacy except when it stops me from getting at other people’s money” is not an acceptable option.

Funny to see this make headlines here, where many people would gladly support using mass surveillance to fund the government. The same ones that support financial privacy restrictions are quick to play victim when the same violations are applied in ways that don’t benefit them.

Compared to what? An equivalent framework costs more in Canada when you factor in a student discount.

I find it hilarious that you decided to respond to a single sentence out of my comment, and then proceeded to say exactly what I claimed you would say in the rest of my comment. If you can quantify the "indirect benefits" I get from services you chose to use without my input, then you can quantify the indirect benefits a lemonade stand gets from the theatre that opened up next to it. Stop trying to have it both ways.

If AMC opens a theatre next to a kid's lemonade stand at a loss, indirectly benefiting the stand, do you believe he owes AMC money? I'm looking for a yes or no answer, or I'll answer for you. An essay that runs around the question is not an option. If you truly believe the fair share includes "indirect benefit" then your answer should be a yes.

That’s correct, you pay for what you use and don’t pay for what you don’t. It’s irrelevant as to how much something someone else chose to do benefitted me. My lemonade stand doesn’t owe the cinema you decided to open up next to me any money. The only case where you ever have a right to force me to pay you is if we both voluntarily entered an agreement to transact. The “indirect” talking point is something some people like to say so that they can arbitrarily increase someone else’s tax burden by claiming they benefited from an infinite list of things without needing to quantify anything. Simultaneously they can arbitrarily decrease their own tax burden by choosing a threshold of income above their own at which they decide these “indirect benefits” come into play. I’m not interested in that argument. Pay your fair share.

There you go. So to answer the question you avoided, yes you are the only one asking to literally threaten others at gunpoint to enforce laws that allow you to violate a contract you voluntarily signed. You do not believe that force is only justified in response to force, despite pretending to make that your position in your initial comment. Thanks for playing.

It should be neither. Taxes should be a service fee proportional to your usage of a government service. Income shouldn’t even be part of the equation. The USPS charges more if you want to ship heavier packages, not if you get a raise. Personal vs corporate is irrelevant. Pay your fair share.

This is an EU country. Their response to not liking your overreach is to make it illegal to complain, mantle it illegal to leave.

ok. Say we didn't have ICE. How will you now justify holding others at gunpoint to violate a contract you voluntarily signed while having the part that benefits you still enforced? Or is immigration the only thing you were thinking of when you asked for more laws?

It doesn't matter what you consider yourself. Or who is doing to considering, despite your efforts to emphasize that.

The proofs are math. We've already established that math is sound. This discussion is not about the merits of math, we're talking about philosophy. Things like "The transfer of understanding from one person to another is not automatic. It is hard and tricky. Therefore, to analyze human understanding of mathematics, it is important to consider who understands what, and when." are philosophy. It's not difficult to separate, you're just trying to make it seem like it is to blur the lines between a pseudoscience and actual science. Again, disguising worthless philosophical ramblings with mathematics doesn't make your philosophy any more useful.

What gun? I see only the one you’re asking to be pointed at others.

Sure thing. Then I'm sure you can evenly distribute seven marbles to four people, or make gold with alchemy. My prejudices must just be wrong.

It’s amazing how bad the competition is. The A17 pro has 2 performance cores and 4 efficiency cores. The Google G3 has 9 cores of 3 different types, the fastest being slower than Apple’s performance cores, the most efficient being less efficient than apple’s efficiency cores. And it’s a phone so you don’t take advantage of the extra parallelism. You just get the worst of both worlds. no wonder these android phones have 50% more battery and 50% less battery life. Is it that hard to just copy the winning formula?

It doesn't matter what they believed. Philosophy never involves rigorous proofs. By adding them you would just end up doing math. A partially finished proof is still math and not equivalent to 20 pages of worthless babble about human understanding. Throwing darts at the page and putting equations where they land will not change that. Philosophers constantly pull from the same small bag of tricks - inserting "science" or "philosophy of <science>" or "meta<science>" into their titles, Sokaling in random disconnected bits of scientific terminology to sound more credible, and trying to claim criticizing philosophy is philosophy to avoid criticism. It's unconvincing and embarrassing to hear from the self declared intellectuals responsible for some of the biggest false beliefs about science in history.

Criticizing philosophy is philosophy so it cannot be criticized, the classic philosopher get out of jail free card.

Philosophy is absolutely nothing like math. Math can be proven. Math maps to physical quantities. Changing how you interpret math doesn’t change the physical world. Philosophers do what is equivalent of arguing that prime numbers aren’t real because base 10 is arbitrary. Philosophers have proven nothing about the universe, those are the contributions of physics. The things philosophers discuss about the universe is more akin to religion and mythology. You, again, keep trying to take credit for the work of other fields.

Is it a fact that the United States is the most free country? Your index isn’t called “index of phones by number of parts replaceable”, just like mine isn’t called “index of countries by gun ownership”. Like I said, you attached a number to your opinion and want to present it as a fact.

Any kind of privacy. I don’t cherry pick like Europeans do.

And like before, if you isolate the philosophy in their work, it’s useless. Philosophy by a mathematician is still philosophy. There is a clear distinction between rigorous proofs and blathering about how people think, or making up a bunch of axioms to prove god (Godel). You don’t get to take credit for contributions from other fields.

False hypotheses like the roundness of the Earth, or the existence of gravity, or the orbit around the sun? All of which have been denied in the past by philosophers and other pseudoscientists with cultural “proofs” to the contrary?

Attaching a number to your opinion and presenting it as a fact is not statistical analysis, as social studies people have been known to do. The democracy and freedom indices are prime examples of the survey statistics that they’re known for. Or this hoax, which doesn’t read too far off from metaphysics publications.

No, it isn’t. “Do you support privacy” is a yes or no question, not a “depends on for who” question.

We worry less about other people’s money from this side of the ocean. You lack the consistency to make a statement of support/opposition about all privacy, because like other Europeans, you feel the need to make exceptions for cases that benefit you.