Nope, but I like the use.

Your naive human rights theories are disproved by the fact that lawless areas in the world have worse human rights records. As usual you have nothing interesting to add with your ideas that are utterly detached from reality.

It's not a view, it's factual. The human rights regime allows for laws to suspend human rights. The necessity for this is obvious.

You are now also arguing against the fact that well organised states are good at protecting human rights. Must be fun being so ideologically blinkered that you get your very own Orwellian world where good things are really bad.

I agree the probability isn't very high but at the same time there's no scientific proof available, that I know of, that it couldn't have been engineered to some extent. If I've missed something, happy to be corrected (I am tired of Covid news to be honest). There was a Nature article early on in the pandemic that was reported by mainstream media as excluding the possibility but this turned out to be wrong. The EU has sent people over to investigate the lab leak theory but no conclusive evidence either way.

I don't think I agree. If it is a lab leak and how China dealt with that then I'd like my 45 billion EUR spend on Covid measures back. And we'd probably be far less relaxed next time something like this happens.

Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.
In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.

Human rights are not absolute or inherent but granted, in any case, by states and really just exists in wealthy counties that can afford it. Inequality and corruption are predictors of bad human rights practices. There are no weak or failed states with adequate human rights protections.

I never denied the possibility of a lab leak, in fact, I've openly changed my mind on the likelihood of that being true in this very thread. But I am denying that Telegraph article correctly interprets the results of the find.

Yes, I think that's clear for those examples but the Collatz sequence goes all over the place. The intuition would be that as long as you don't end up in a loop, you're bound to hit the stack since 3n+1 is always an even number and dividing by two is either odd or even. So the sequence will generate an infinite amount of different even numbers which should hit the stack at some point.

If there are infinite numbers in the stack and the sequence generates infinite new numbers (so it's not stuck in a loop), I would think it's bound to generate a number of the stack. Unlike, say, 2n-1 there's nothing inherent about the sequence that would make it avoid stack numbers.

Probably my idea of infinity is mathematically wrong and therefore the above is gibberish.

Even an infinity of sequences hitting your stack, and your stack being infinitely large, doesn't entail that every single number hits the stack right? All it takes is one. — fdrake

Why doesn't it make a difference that it's a sequence? So yes, not every single number hits the stack but as long as the sequence continuously generates a new number, it is bound to?

So then the only real risk of it not being true seems to be the existence of a loop that doesn't contain the number 1. If you take 3n-1 instead of 3n+1 there are two other loops possible early on that don't contain the number 1. Makes me wonder what the meaningful difference is here between those two equations, which don't seem fundamentally different but yield such different results.

Oh god, that's the video that prompted my question. What did I miss?

EDIT: I guess my question is what constitutes mathematical proof. And why does my example not work as an (inductive) mathematical proof?

I wasn't aware it was still in doubt such research was done there. So nothing new to me at least. The second part I'll ignore at the useless speculations of a layman. Especially since actual experts now think it's more likely there is a natural origin instead of a lab leak based on the find in Laos. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02596-2

I suppose that's what you get from reading the Telegraph. :vomit:

clickbait.

Speaking at the Institute of Economic Affairs in London, the peer said: “Banal-52 is not close enough to be the progenitor, it's still not the smoking gun, but it's pretty good. So maybe this virus started in Laos, not China. Interesting possibility.

Sorry, on my phone and it autocorrected and I didn't double check. I meant, what did you think of that book?

Skin in the Game, by Nassim Nicholas Taleb — 180 Proof

What suits you think of this?

I think there's an important difference between Regular Joe making an idiotic video and another member of parliament, senate, house or what have you, doing the same. I expect politicians to have thicker skins in order to deal with all the shit they get from citizens that disagree with what they stand for, the policies they enact or when they blame them for whatever unenviable circumstances they might find themselves in.

Being threatened, even as a joke and even aside from what appears to be becoming a tactic, by a peer, who is supposed to be part of the common legislative process in a country is simply in a different ballpark.

And while I support the inviolability of anything said within the legislative body, this in my view doesn't fall within the scope of that protection.

Unfortunately, we've got a jackass in parliament here who is only too happy to emulate this style of "politics". Comparing non-vaccinated to the new Jews, those promoting vaccination as nazis, spreading disinformation while all the while pretending he's "telling it like it is".

Meanwhile, there's definitely stuff to be critical about. They're now discussing the "2G" access rules, which I think is an infringement of personal rights. In that event, only vaccinated or recovered people can enter all sorts of locations (these change continuously because we have a hopeless government with no vision or clue of what they're doing). Currently, if you're not recovered or vaccinated, you need to show a recent PCR test to gain access to various locations. Under 2G testing no longer grants you access.

Personally, I'd rather be in a room with recently tested people who know they were negative yesterday than a room full of vaccinated or recovered people who might be infectious but don't know it. So the rule is also bullshit and just designed to force people to get a vaccination.

EDIT: well, that was a tangent...

What I was getting at is that these lawmakers pass laws where this behaviour between colleagues is grounds for termination and considered harassment. These people are still colleagues regardless of the fact they represent different interests. It's not about the necessity of AOC having thicker skin, it's about the apparent double standards.

And we again have nothing. Carbon offsetting is a tool to allow polluting countries to continue to pollute instead of cutting emissions. What a surprise when the two largest polluters align on the subject (anyone happy with the US - China declaration needs to get a primer on international relations). Meanwhile, they will fuck around with the method of carbon accounting to allow effective increases in emissions. We're fucked, obviously, but then I didn't expect them to solve this anyway.

Let's hope awareness continues to spread and that businesses, investors and consumers continue to make better choices so that environmental friendly products are no longer optional but necessary to survive as a company.

The Republic is a good starting point for philosophy in general. You don't need to read the pre-socratics per se. My philosophy professor swore by Eric Vögelin's work as a secondary account of Plato and Aristotle in his third volume of Order and History.

Not seconded! It's precisely because Plato is more prosaic it stimulates more to think and wonder about it by yourself. What does he mean? What do you think he means? Why? How? etc. Aristotle is too dry for my taste.

Also, can't help with the OP. I did delve into her at some point. The only thing that stuck was a teleological basis for her ethics (which is Aristotlean). Apparently she missed Darwin as proof a teleological basis is wrong.

EDIT: Oh yeah, I also recall she was very negative about Kant. Turned out she never read him though. So there's the lies too.

But if there is no unilateral amendment, then there IS consideration. DOH! It takes at least two to agree, two to contract. Consideration is what they agree to exchange. If there is no unilateral amendment, then what was given or foregone to permit the change in the original agreement? Whatever that was, was the consideration, either as permitted in the original contract, or by amendment. — James Riley

Jesus, I'm talking to a lawyer who doesn't even understand the doctrine of consideration while being raised in an Anglo-Saxon country. I'm done.

Help this Anglo-Saxon dummy from America: If you offer to give me a gift and I agree to accept it, then what contract is there to enforce? Unless and until there is detrimental reliance (i.e. consideration) then there is no valid contract. I suspect you don't know what you are talking about. :roll: — James Riley

For the umpteenth time. Other jurisdictions don't require consideration for a valid and enforceable contract - yes, that's not a contract under Anglo-Saxon law, no, we don't care because those laws don't apply here. Stop projecting the shit system you have in the US.

It's not even as if consideration hasn't been questioned for years already within your own legal system as messy and outdated. Plenty of scholars who argue in the US that a clear intent to be bound by the terms by one party and detrimental reliance on the part of the other party should be sufficient - mostly because half of your judges are shit and don't apply the doctrine of consideration correctly to begin with. And you'd know that if you were still active in the field.

I really don't get what's so difficult to grasp here. Different countries, different rules.

So you can unilaterally amend a contract in Dutch Land, without a provision therefor in the agreement? How's about you just say "Hey, I'm not going to pay. But thanks for building this house for me." Is that how you do it over there? No, it's not. I don't care how long you've practiced law in the Neverlands. You have offer, acceptance and consideration. The Dutch aren't stupid. — James Riley

Wow, you're a terrible lawyer who can't read and apparently doesn't know how it's works in your own jurisdiction. I didn't say there was a unilateral amendment. I said there's no consideration. The contractor already promised to do what he's signed up for. That it turns out more difficult is neither here nor there with respect to consideration. So the other party agreeing to pay more is not an enforceable contract under UK law or US law. Still, quite a common occurrence.

No, if it is refused, there is no contract, by definition. If it is accepted without consideration, it is a gift. There is no contract. — James Riley

By Anglo-Saxon definitions. If I accept a gift, there was a gift offered and accepted, which results in a valid contract under Dutch law and every other European jurisdiction. In fact, even without acceptance a gift can be enforced as a unilateral contract ("eenzijdige overeenkomst"). It's time for your to stop trying to correct me on Dutch law. You simply don't know what you're talking about.

Another example is an amendment to a contract where the scope of work doesn't change but the contractor simply asks for more money because of underestimated circumstances. No consideration either, valid under any continental jurisdiction as a contractual amendment and therefore a contract. Not so under UK law (barring some exceptions even there under UK law that no consideration is required). It's fine if you don't believe me but repeating the rules of your own jurisdiction is just stupid.

a gift can be refused, so there's offer and acceptance, which makes it a contract. And no, the doctrine of consideration did not exist before 1500.

Okay, so the Dutch don't contract. Got it. Hmmm. Give me an example. "I offer to do something for nothing." And "I accept your offer to do something for nothing." We're good. :roll: — James Riley

I guess it's hard for a US citizen to imagine things can and do work differently elsewhere. We have a different definition of contract that doesn't require consideration. You know, like the UK did before the 1500s. Or are you going to pretend they didn't have contracts before? For instance in Roman times.

And Anglo-Saxon law still has special contracts passed as deeds, which are still contracts proper. So even in your own legal system there's recognition of contracts that do not contain consideration.

Yes, let's argue with a qualified Dutch lawyer whether Dutch contract require consideration. :lol: We don't, never have and never will.

I don't know the US court system wel enough but in the UK there are no civil remedies to enforce a promise because its not a contract. You only have equitable remedies. I don't think the US has equitable courts though so how does that work? Or can you go to civil court to get an equitable remedy?

But how does it work? Presumably I own my own stuff. If it's stolen, when or by operation of what do I cease to own it? It ends up in the hands of an innocent possessor. Does he now own it? With some obvious exceptions and qualifications, here ownership is absolute and cannot ordinarily be alienated except by express act of the owner. In The Netherlands you make it appear that ownership can be alienated by any stranger. — tim wood

It recognises there are two interests and property is simply not considered so absolute I guess in continental Europe. There's a few rules actually. If you buy something that wasn't stolen (someone legally borrowed it and sold it on) the good faith works as explained. In case of theft, the original owner can reclaim his good within 3 years. However, if I bought stolen goods in a store that would normally offer such goods, that rei vindication no longer works and, provided I bought it in good faith, would become owner.

And do you mean that children cannot be owners of anything? They can certainly be possessors, and by definition (I should think) innocent possessors. — tim wood

Children cannot enter into contracts, so any contract of sale would be void and an original owner can reclaim any way.

In the Netherlands you can enforce a promise? — tim wood

Yes. Everywhere in Europe actually.

Yes it is. In almost every jurisdiction in the world. Obviously you have very little experience in cross border contracting.

Based on your preconceptions of justice. In the real world it works perfectly well and answers to people's idea of justice perfectly fine. You're just to stuck in what you know which means you have trouble wrapping your mind around it. The original owner is usually left with more than just owning the original as he gets whatever amount he needs to replace it. Replacement value is usually higher than the actual value. Where it concerns unique items, the likelihood that the duty of care on the buyer is met decreases significantly.

You not only need offer and acceptance; you need consideration. — James Riley

Just no. That's a purely Anglo-Saxon thing, which everybody in the rest of the world scoffs at.

Ownership here means it's mine, and only I can transfer any rights in it or to it. Apparently according to you the thief acquires a right that he can transfer - either that or the ownership is created out of mere innocent possession. And how does that work with children? They're always innocent possessors, yes? And so forth. — tim wood

The thief doesn't have that right but it doesn't necessarily mean ownership isn't vested by the new buyer as long as he can demonstrate good faith and it doesn't concern a registered good.

Children cannot enter in valid contracts because they do not have the necessary will for offer and acceptance.

And there's no problem, it's been working fine for at least two centuries.

How worse the state that backs the hand of a thief, or backs the buyer who benefits from theft? That buyer bought on the street because it was cheaper than going into a store and buying legit. — James Riley

Go back and read again what I wrote about good faith, because this is again a blatant misrepresentation of what I said. I would think as a trained lawyer you'd actually be interested in realising there are different approaches possible.

I make it a rule not to argue with idiots. Maybe study some actual cosmology.

It could be that the Dutch, like Bartricks, are wrong. It sounds like the old legal principle "finders keepers, losers weepers" that we use in America on the kindergarten playground. I wonder what, if anything, the Dutch do to make the victim whole? Maybe it's a hold-over from Dutch Colonialism? Not sure. — James Riley

It's not just the Netherlands, it's continental Europe. Definitely since the code civil and possibly since the Codex Justinianus depending on how old caveat emptor is exactly.

In any case, I don't recognise anything of what I explained in your childish simplification except an idiotic arrogance that the system you grew up with is the only sensible one.

Edit: actually if you think about it also makes more sense. It only requires the original owner to sue the thief to be made whole. In the other case, the original owner sues the buyer, and the buyer has to sue the thief, which is cumbersome and a waste of time.

That wouldn't qualify as good faith in the Netherlands because the ridiculously low price means you should've been aware or be able to demonstrate you researched why this bike in fact is legit. There's a duty to investigate which duty might be higher under circumstances. A very low price, not being it in a store etc. are circumstances requiring more investigation by the buyer.

Yes, only compensatory damages could be claimed.

He acquired ownership as long as he can demonstrate good faith in his acquisition. The original owner is left with a claim on the thief.

Just because your moral intuitions are wrong doesn't mean I ignored them when I disagreed with them. — James Riley

Then please explain why Dutch law protects the buyer of stolen goods if he acted in good faith (barring goods registered in public register). Good faith would be he wasn't aware and was, given the circumstances, not required to be aware the goods were stolen.

And legality and ethics aren't as related as you make it out to be. Laws are about economics more than about ethics.

So true. Today I'm 43. My dad used to be a refinery manager, working late often. My mom complained about that regularly and I apparently replied when I was 4: "that's a good thing. He's inventing things that are better for the environment."

We've known for decades. Just like smoking, over fishing, pollution and diminishing biodiversity.

"Après nous, le déluge..."

Jesus fuck. 11 pages of scientific illiteracy despite having been pointed out that fact on almost every page. :roll: