Skip Navigation

Posts
0
Comments
48
Joined
1 yr. ago

  • That's a more realistic analogy, but my point here isn't that autism is not a multidimensional and continuously distributed trait. My point is only that a spectrum and dichotomized group membership are technically conceivable, even if substantively absurd.

  • There's a conceivable reality where you have a spectrum of autistic traits, but whether someone is autistic is a strict binary. Imagine a lamp that can have any color, but that is either turned on or off. This would be quite funky, because there'd have to be some sort of mechanism that causes strict grouping - something you see in psychology maybe sometimes in sequence learning research and some types of reasoning research, but otherwise is quite rare.

    However, this is obviously not reality.

  • There's people with more pronounced autistic traits and those with less pronounced ones. There isn't half an autist, but there can be someone whose autistic traits' intensities are near the middle of those of a person who clearly is autistic and those of a person who clearly isn't.

    The categorical nature of diagnoses does not reflect the underlying phenomena, it reflects arguments about healthcare resource allocation. The actual phenomena are more nuanced

  • L loss Y ymca i assume

  • Crocodilia, like birds, are archosaurs.

  • Usually more of a logarithmic relationship though

    Either way, keeping at it is essential

  • Ah. It's somewhat odd for me, as my love for and of nature, as well as (and in the same vein) my ideas about human potential and dignity come from a specifically un- if not anti-spiritual place.

    Something like: The material world is not only beautiful (in a fundamental way, I don't merely mean pretty like a forest on a hill, but also beautiful like all the interconnected systems that make it a forest), but also all there is, and that is part of the reason why caring about feeling beings is important.

    But yeah, we always gotta make some judgement calls on who and what we exclude and include with the terms we use.

  • Note: I include a love of nature, humanism, etc. under the 'spiritual' label, as well as traditionally religiously spiritual.

    Huh. Why?

  • Rule

    Jump
  • Because that empirically tends to negatively interfere with rehabilitative functions of justice. If crime is bad, preventing crime is good, and stopping crime prevention therefore is bad.

  • *make the distinction

  • Cool, can you show how big the effect is, based on your team's efforts? And what the distribution of values is, based on sponsor?

  • Can you conceive of other motivations?

  • Do you believe that the point of such assignments is because the teacher desires to read a couple dozen nigh-identical essays on the topic at hand?

  • Firings and jail time.

    In lieu of that, high fines and firings.

  • Re-forming with a new name is covered by the ban.

    The rules they'd have to comply with to circumvent the ban are antithetical to what they are.

    You can play the game, but flipping the table cannot be a legal move.

  • Don't believe nazi propaganda about those things. They were largely inefficient and disorganized, they just predated others to fuel their goals. It's one of the economic reasons for waging war on everyone: once you use up your local stolen wealth, you gotta raid other people's. Nazi organizational structures were famously broken, with different redundant levels of political control pitted against each other, in line with social darwinist ideas.

    And by far not all Nazis were true believers. Tons were "merely" playing along, because they thought they'd get something out of it. They often did, with the wealth of previously Jewish owned (and other) companies being handed to people close to the leadership.

    These are parallels, not contrasts.

  • They are replaceable, it just takes some tools and work, both of which you can get at the phone repair shop.