Jump to content

Jared Livesey

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Jared Livesey

  1. The question is loaded because the claim that blacks are disproportionately harmed by law enforcement on the basis of race is not a shared observation, but a contestable claim. I point you again towards the hypothetical Supreme Court justice who over her career hires 1 law clerk from a race that makes up 13.4% of the US population, and 149 law clerks from other races. I might ask, directly analogous to your question, "whether in light of those observations do you have any reason to think this Supreme Court justice is not motivated by racial animus in her hiring policies and practices?" Yet the loaded nature of the question is readily apparent - the hidden assumption being smuggled in is that all races possess aptitude for the job equal to their proportion in the population, which, if true, would entail that racially disparate outcomes can only be the result of discrimination on the basis of race. That assumption is not an observation, but a contestable claim. The hiring data given in the hypothetical does not prove the contested claim, since the data might be fully accounted for on a basis other than racial discrimination, such as by the existence of differences in aptitudes between the races. I have been asking you variations of the same question: how do you know blacks are disproportionately harmed by law enforcement on the basis of race? How do you know there is not a relevant criterion upon which law enforcement action is predicated which just so happens to be more concentrated among blacks than it is among other races? If such a criterion exists, then much, if not all, of the alleged disproportionately baleful effects of law enforcement upon the black community might be explained by those meeting the relevant criterion being themselves disproportionately represented among blacks. Neither disproportionate racial representation nor racially disparate outcomes is necessarily evidence of racial discrimination.
  2. @CV75 If I rhetorically characterize my claims as observations, then they aren't claims? Hit my post limit, unfortunately. I guess I don't quite understand your question. Whether what? Could you restate it?
  3. Well, it is only a working conclusion that you won't answer the question. Analogously, if you ask me "have you stopped beating your wife yet?" and if I were to respond, "upon what basis do you claim I beat my wife?" my question would take logical priority. After all, the point of your question would not really be to ascertain whether I have stopped beating my wife, but to make the accusation, at the least, that I have beaten her, and my question would address the potentially false accusation entailed in your question.
  4. I prefer to call things by their true names. It helps clarify things. "Government is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." - George Washington
  5. Ok, you don't know if it is possible for policies to be racially neutral and to be applied racially neutrally and yet have racially disparate or disproportionate outcomes. Would you agree that coercing people upon a basis that you aren't sure of is unjust - or, to put it in more actionable terms - do you want people to coerce you over things that may not exist?
  6. No, it does not take long to see that no fruit is forthcoming - the third time was the charm.
  7. Speaking very bluntly, and only because you asked, my working conclusion is to not attempt to engage you in conversation, as it proves fruitless.
  8. No, and that's not the topic I was speaking on. No, and that's not the topic I was speaking on. That depends on what we mean by "race." "Ancestral background" is a more verbose equivalent to what I use "race" to mean. Otherwise, I suppose we might type out "the human subspecies of whites of Northern European descent" and "the human subspecies of Sub-Saharan African Blacks," and so on, instead of using the words "whites," "blacks," and so on. How would you answer the questions I posed?
  9. My conclusion is that my question - is "disproportionate" or "disparate" "outcomes" by race sufficient to prove a charge of racial animus, such as the alleged existence of white "systemic racism" - has gone unanswered the three times I have posed it to you, and by that evidence you are disinclined to answer it. Fair enough. A necessary condition to problem solving is having an actual problem to solve. Suppose one sets about to solve the problem of "systemic racism," by which is meant white racism, but everywhere one looks, one cannot find it - the rules are racially neutral, and they are applied racially neutrally - and everything one tries does not eliminate its alleged symptoms, such as disparate or disproportionate outcomes, then one will begin to suspect the problem isn't the system - one will suspect the problem is whites qua whites. That reasoning ends in pogroms and holocausts. It seems wise to me, though I concede many disagree, to find out the truth first, and then see if the problem as originally hypothesized exists. If disparate or disproportionate outcomes may possibly not be the result of racial animus, but instead be explicable entirely as the normal outworkings of heritable differences in abilities among humans that are in competition with one another for resources, power, reproductive opportunities, pleasure, and popularity, then disparate or disproportionate outcomes may not be symptomatic of "systemic racism," and thus not evidence for its existence.
  10. Is it possible that government policy on a broader scale has a disproportionately negative effect on black citizens and communities, and yet the government policy on a broader scale be neutral with respect to ancestral background? If not, why not? If so, how does ancestral background become relevant to government policy, or, in other words, why are we talking about race?
  11. Is "disproportion" relevant? Suppose, as a pure hypothetical, over the course of her judgeship a Supreme Court justice hires one law clerk of a certain ancestral background that comprises approximately 13.4% of the general US population, and one hundred forty-nine law clerks not of that ancestral background, for a total of 150 law clerks. For reference, 1/150 is approximately 0.67% of law clerks coming from this ancestral background, which is less than the 13.4% this group comprises of the general population. If the justice hires law clerks proportional to their numbers in the general population with respect to their ancestral background, we would expect her to hire around .134 x 150 = 20 of them from this group. Would racial animus be implicated in this hypothetical twenty-fold disparity hiring with respect to ancestral background? Why or why not? And if not, why should law enforcement disproportionately (with respect to their numbers in the population) affecting Black citizens and communities be considered problematic?
  12. If our goal is to do as the Lord has commanded, neither more nor less, then we simply do not avail ourselves of Dr. Nelson's professional services. The Lord changes not (3 Nephi 24:6), and cannot contradict himself (2 Nephi 9:17; Mosiah 15:27; 3 Nephi 27:18; 2 Timothy 2:13), and the list under consideration, which itself is a "new revelation," is a repetition of the teaching of the Bible on healthcare (James 5:14-15). The point of the teaching is to persuade us to submit to all things the Lord sees fit to inflict upon us (Mosiah 3:19), remembering that his hand is in all things (D&C 59:21; Mosiah 2:21; Romans 8:28). We can, of course, rebel against him, strive to control our fate, lay up treasures for ourselves on the Earth, appeal to doctors and lawyers and politicians to save and protect us from the vicissitudes of nature and our enemies and extend and improve the quality of our lives, and hopefully, whilst perhaps medicated into painlessness, die in our sleep, surrounded by our loved ones, but that's not what he asked us to do (Luke 6:20-49; Matt 5-7, 3 Nephi 12-15:10). It is easy to check to see if it is true that the phrase "eternal progression" does not occur in the scriptures as I claim. To some, its absence might be significant, even if it is not to others. I am.
  13. The entire test of this life is only to see if we will do all things whatsoever God commands us (Abr. 3:25), even at the cost of our lives (JST Matt 16:27). If therefore our goal is to keep God's commandments, no more and no less, then we should do what he said to do with respect to health care, which is entirely contained in D&C 42:43-52. "And that not by the hand of an enemy." Who would go to an enemy to be nourished with all tenderness, with herbs and mild food? Or, perhaps we might more appropriately ask, what divides our friends from our enemies? After all, whoever wants to save his life in this world shall lose it in the world to come (JST Matt 16:27). The function of a prophet, if he is acting as a prophet, is to repeat the words the Lord God commands him to repeat. As for eternal progression, the phrase does not occur in the scriptures.
  14. "A man never spiritualizes, nor interprets, only when he does not believe what is written." This is consistent with Joseph's Rule of Interpretation. In light of this thread, however, it suggests a question: would an early Mormon of Joseph's persuasion, such as one holding the view in the quoted material above, believe modern Mormonism to be his own faith?
  15. If the early Mormons were correct - and for modern Mormonism to be true the truth of early Mormonism is a necessary, though not sufficient, condition - then how should we view departures from the views of the early Mormons? The early Mormons were of this view: There is more in this vein. And, as I point out elsewhere, Joseph Smith both taught and practiced literalism. What can be concluded from the rejection of early Mormonism's naive literalism by adherents of modern Mormonism?
  16. If "freedom" entails "freedom from compulsion," then the answer is, and straightforwardly, "yes." If freedom does not entail freedom from compulsion, then whatever does the word actually mean? While Thomas Jefferson justified the Louisiana Purchase by appealing to this "principle," it is nothing more than a declaration that the American government is unprincipled (ie, lawless), and that whenever the cost of obeying the Constitution seems sufficiently high, then, quite bluntly, it won't be obeyed. However, baptism is a suicide pact, assuming that by being baptized one witnesses to God and men that one is willing to keep Jesus's commandments at the cost of one's life. Is there any license in the Sermon on the Mount for using coercive power (threats or force [such as laws]) towards one's fellow beings to stop them from doing as they will, or to make them do what they will not? Is it consistent with the Golden Rule to use compulsion to prevent others from doing with themselves what they will, or to compel them to do with themselves what you will? And behold, it is written: An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. But I say unto you that ye shall not resist evil, but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if any man will sue thee at the law and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also. And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain. Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn thou not away. And behold, it is written also that thou shalt love thy neighbor and hate thine enemy. But behold, I say unto you: Love your enemies! Bless them that curse you! Do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you and persecute you, that ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven, for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good. Break not my commandments for to save your lives; for whosoever will save his life in this world shall lose it in the world to come.
  17. To be sure, truth is not popular. One person's absurdity may well be another's straightfoward deduction. It is self-contradictory to assert that property rights in bodies gets one only abortion and not also slavery, organ harvesting, prostitution, recreational drug use, tattoos, and so on. Abortion and slavery and organ harvesting and prostitution and recreational drug use and tattoos and so on are the price of property rights in one's body - if one is consistent. And if one sees those things as bad, all one has to do is turn others into property by coercing them into doing what they do not wish to do, or coercing them away from doing what they do wish to do. We might call this exercise of coercive power to convert people into property "government" sometimes, but it is simply slavery under a different name. But coercive power applied against others to to control them does not refute the fact that people are property - resources monopolized by coercive power - but merely demonstrates its truth. The lens we are looking through is power. And that is the real argument with respect to abortion: who has power over whom; that is, who owns whom, and what narrative best preserves the illusion that the winners in that contest are good people. Thus generalized, both sides seem alike in principle. What is obvious to one may well be absurd to another. For example, to one it may be obvious that property is naught but resources monopolized by coercive power. To another, on the other hand, it is obvious that one first claims resources as property (and there are competing theories on how, precisely, resources get converted into property, but the end result is always the same:) then one defends one's property by coercive power. To the first, it is obvious that the second is merely reframing aggression as defense, and that property claims straightforwardly violate the Golden Rule. And to the second, it is obvious that property and its perhaps unfortunate and necessarily attendant inequality and violence is "the only game in town" when it comes to the allocation of scarce resources, which is apparently at best a zero-sum game. Even if property were evil, are not all guilty? Doesn't every political ideology presuppose property, disagreeing only in what form the owner of last resort should take and why? How could it be possible all of them are wrong? Our entire society and all its marvellous works rest upon the foundation of property! What else should we be doing? Well, what did Jesus say we should be doing? And behold, it is written: An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. But I say unto you that ye shall not resist evil, but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if any man will sue thee at the law and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also. And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain. Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn thou not away. He said give it up.
  18. Indeed. So it seems that he isn't the owner by my definition. That is an example of equivocation.
  19. As I mentioned when you similarly disparaged the proffered functional definitions the first time, to each their own. Others may find meaning in it where to you it seems as the noise of wind.
  20. The operational definitions being used are in my earlier post. You will find that most problems may be resolved by strictly determining the actual owner of the resources in question. For example, in modern USA, the rapist and the victim are both owned by another entity. That entity is the one issuing laws, granting rights and privileges, and enforcing them.
  21. Yes, they are, as defined within the schema - or, if not the mother, then someone else owns them, and owns the mother, as well. Who, for example, stops the mother from doing whatsoever she will with her child?
  22. Actually, it means precisely that. To each their own.
  • Create New...