> Most people would think an entire town deciding to exclude minorities is morally repugnant What? I'm not saying I don't. It's just irrelevant to the issue. > shouldn't be allowed. That's like saying that "these people…
"This"? People in a country or region deciding over that country or region? What do you suggest instead?
> What if an entire town decides they don't want to allow minorities to live there? Yes, what if they do? Should they not get to decide because they might haver the wrong opinion? Who should decide instead? What if they…
> Why do the rights of the local people trump the rights of people from "elsewhere"? On at least some level, I find it reasonable that the people who live in a certain place decide over that place. In any case, that is…
> How much right should I have to control what other people do because it might bother me? That's a valid question for every law or other governmental decision. But we can think of an idealized case, where an entire…
I'm not sure what you mean. You don't have to build 50-story buildings just because you have created a demand for them.
> That's the rub That might be part of it, but it's not exactly obvious that you'd want to live in a place with 50-story buildings either.
Cool! I've been wondering if there is a feed of only the good stuff. If HN itself doesn't provide one, maybe there should be a separate site that does that filtering. I was thinking it would be manually curated, but…
I recently returned to HN, having read it a little a few years back. I remembered it as a low-volume, high-quality feed, where I was hesitant to speak, because all the other comments were so full of knowledge. Now, HN…
Because I think you shouldn't take deciding what other people are allowed to do lightly. Such things should only be done in extreme cases, like self defense or, perhaps, to prohibit ruining nature through littering.
> Do you wish to live in a human society? As far as I can see, that is orthogonal to the issue at hand. > all this law does is to impose the costs on those who incur it. We might consider littering to be immoral, and…
Yes, deciding what others are allowed to do is something I am morally uncomfortable with. That is not to say that I have come up with something else that is not also questionable. In any case, I do think that we should…
I'm trying to nail down what the actual issue of debate is, or should be. You are merely sharing your opinion on that issue. That is fine, but beside the point I was getting at.
> many people needed to experience the enforcement in order to be convinced of the benefits of changing their habits. So, do you mean that these people considered the outcome uncertain until it was tried?
In both cases, the core of the matter is exposing oneself to danger for some higher cause.
> Ireland did something similar years ago and the results were incredible. An almost overnight transformation of the cleanliness of the cities and countryside. Nobody would like to reverse the decision now despite…
What about going after the tossing instead?
Me too!
What do you mean by "worked well"? What scenario would have had you conclude that it did not work well?
"Hacker news"
> It's disturbing that leaders (political or religious) would put their constituents in harms way. Like this? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0r73p95I-eE Or like in any military force, unless there was coercion going on…
> The guy said "in a temperature range where burns are more likely". Which makes it sound like there is a lower and an upper bound for this range. That's the issue.
> That sounds linear to me What? Absolutely not. I'm just saying that it sounds reasonable to believe that burns increase with temperature, as opposed to being high in a range of temperatures and lower below and above…
> which is not generally what one expects from coffee I disagree. I think it's reasonable to expect that coffee and other hot drinks might be all the way up to boiling. > in a temperature range making burns more likely…
Thanks! I can see it now, but I still can't comment on it. Is that because the author deleted it or something?
> Most people would think an entire town deciding to exclude minorities is morally repugnant What? I'm not saying I don't. It's just irrelevant to the issue. > shouldn't be allowed. That's like saying that "these people…
"This"? People in a country or region deciding over that country or region? What do you suggest instead?
> What if an entire town decides they don't want to allow minorities to live there? Yes, what if they do? Should they not get to decide because they might haver the wrong opinion? Who should decide instead? What if they…
> Why do the rights of the local people trump the rights of people from "elsewhere"? On at least some level, I find it reasonable that the people who live in a certain place decide over that place. In any case, that is…
> How much right should I have to control what other people do because it might bother me? That's a valid question for every law or other governmental decision. But we can think of an idealized case, where an entire…
I'm not sure what you mean. You don't have to build 50-story buildings just because you have created a demand for them.
> That's the rub That might be part of it, but it's not exactly obvious that you'd want to live in a place with 50-story buildings either.
Cool! I've been wondering if there is a feed of only the good stuff. If HN itself doesn't provide one, maybe there should be a separate site that does that filtering. I was thinking it would be manually curated, but…
I recently returned to HN, having read it a little a few years back. I remembered it as a low-volume, high-quality feed, where I was hesitant to speak, because all the other comments were so full of knowledge. Now, HN…
Because I think you shouldn't take deciding what other people are allowed to do lightly. Such things should only be done in extreme cases, like self defense or, perhaps, to prohibit ruining nature through littering.
> Do you wish to live in a human society? As far as I can see, that is orthogonal to the issue at hand. > all this law does is to impose the costs on those who incur it. We might consider littering to be immoral, and…
Yes, deciding what others are allowed to do is something I am morally uncomfortable with. That is not to say that I have come up with something else that is not also questionable. In any case, I do think that we should…
I'm trying to nail down what the actual issue of debate is, or should be. You are merely sharing your opinion on that issue. That is fine, but beside the point I was getting at.
> many people needed to experience the enforcement in order to be convinced of the benefits of changing their habits. So, do you mean that these people considered the outcome uncertain until it was tried?
In both cases, the core of the matter is exposing oneself to danger for some higher cause.
> Ireland did something similar years ago and the results were incredible. An almost overnight transformation of the cleanliness of the cities and countryside. Nobody would like to reverse the decision now despite…
What about going after the tossing instead?
Me too!
What do you mean by "worked well"? What scenario would have had you conclude that it did not work well?
"Hacker news"
> It's disturbing that leaders (political or religious) would put their constituents in harms way. Like this? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0r73p95I-eE Or like in any military force, unless there was coercion going on…
> The guy said "in a temperature range where burns are more likely". Which makes it sound like there is a lower and an upper bound for this range. That's the issue.
> That sounds linear to me What? Absolutely not. I'm just saying that it sounds reasonable to believe that burns increase with temperature, as opposed to being high in a range of temperatures and lower below and above…
> which is not generally what one expects from coffee I disagree. I think it's reasonable to expect that coffee and other hot drinks might be all the way up to boiling. > in a temperature range making burns more likely…
Thanks! I can see it now, but I still can't comment on it. Is that because the author deleted it or something?