I'm sure you've heard by now all about the illegal spying and data collection by the NSA. A lot of people seem very concerned that their privacy has been violated and worried about being harassed, exposed, etc.
Here's why it's not a big concern of mine:
Yes, our information is being illegally mined, collected and stored somewhere for the NSA to access whenever they want. Yes, as a matter of principal such illegal data mining should be halted and those responsible for breaking the law prosecuted.
However, with so much information to deal with how likely is it they're going to notice any specific one of us in the clutter? Statistically, you probably have a better chance of randomly pointing to a spot in the picture and having your finger land on Waldo than the NSA actually taking enough interest in you to bother accessing any of their stored data about you specifically. Personally, I'm not going to be losing sleep over my name being in some insurmountably massive NSA database where it's likely no human will ever lay eyes on it, even if it is an illegal invasion of my privacy.
Showing posts with label logic. Show all posts
Showing posts with label logic. Show all posts
5/16/2015
1/28/2015
Are We Equal?
While the message of "we should stop this" is good, the "are we equal" question is actually a wasteful and even offensively dismissive distraction.
Every culture where female genital mutilation is practiced, male genital mutilation is also practiced, so the answer there would be "yes, you are equal." In terms of number of victims worldwide, male genital mutilation has many more, though, so the answer there would be "no, not equal, you are less commonly mutilated."
Asking "are we equal?" makes zero argument for stopping female genital mutilation.
Where female genital mutilation is outlawed, male genital mutilation is still legal, so the answer there would be "no, not equal, you are more protected." In those cases, would they want to be equal?
Asking "are we equal?" makes zero argument for stopping female genital mutilation.
In addition, they use the same old "female genital mutilation is much worse than male circumcision" argument, which serves no purpose besides suggesting one should get attention and the other shouldn't.
Again, "are we equal?" is a pointless question, because not only does it not provide any argument against female genital mutilation, but they obviously don't want to be equal, or they wouldn't portray the issue as "horrible genital mutilation" for one sex and "just circumcision" for the other.
I am of course all for ending genital mutilation, but people need to think through things before they go making videos which don't provide intelligent arguments and attempt to trivialize the issue regarding anybody not within their pet demographic.
10/18/2014
"That other place has cheaper gas..."
I'm really sick of hearing this pointless monologue. If you are too, here's some simple figures you can toss out the next time somebody goes off on a rant about "which place has cheaper gas."
Let's be generous and assume your car gets 20 MPG driving in the city.
Let's also assume a median estimate of 10 gallons you're putting in your tank.
And gas right now is around $3 per gallon, where different stations around town likely have about 5¢ total difference in price. For the benefit of the doubt, we'll assume the highest price is the one closest to you.
Now, if you shop around and find the absolute lowest price in town, the difference in price will be a total of 50¢.
If you drive even just 2 miles out of your way to get there, you're already losing money just at the pump alone. Round trip = 4 miles, 4 miles being 1/5 of 20 miles, 1/5 of $3 is 60¢, 60¢ subtracted from 50¢ = -10¢. For every mile out of your way beyond that, subtract another 30¢. (3 miles = -40¢, 4 miles = -70¢, 5 miles = -$1, etc.)
In addition, let's assume you make a menial wage of $9 per hour.
If you figure in time as well (for example if you have to clock out of work while doing this) you could easily spend 10 to 15 minutes driving that 2 miles out of your way to get gas, losing another $1.50 to $2.25.
So in total, you're looking at between $1.60 to $2.35 (or the equivalent of more than half a gallon of gas) that you're losing by seeking out a lower price, even with very conservative estimates.
When you go to put gasoline in your car, quit annoying people by incessantly nit-picking about where it's a little cheaper and just fill up at the closest place. In the end, you're actually saving money by not worrying about it.
Let's be generous and assume your car gets 20 MPG driving in the city.
Let's also assume a median estimate of 10 gallons you're putting in your tank.
And gas right now is around $3 per gallon, where different stations around town likely have about 5¢ total difference in price. For the benefit of the doubt, we'll assume the highest price is the one closest to you.
Now, if you shop around and find the absolute lowest price in town, the difference in price will be a total of 50¢.
If you drive even just 2 miles out of your way to get there, you're already losing money just at the pump alone. Round trip = 4 miles, 4 miles being 1/5 of 20 miles, 1/5 of $3 is 60¢, 60¢ subtracted from 50¢ = -10¢. For every mile out of your way beyond that, subtract another 30¢. (3 miles = -40¢, 4 miles = -70¢, 5 miles = -$1, etc.)
In addition, let's assume you make a menial wage of $9 per hour.
If you figure in time as well (for example if you have to clock out of work while doing this) you could easily spend 10 to 15 minutes driving that 2 miles out of your way to get gas, losing another $1.50 to $2.25.
So in total, you're looking at between $1.60 to $2.35 (or the equivalent of more than half a gallon of gas) that you're losing by seeking out a lower price, even with very conservative estimates.
When you go to put gasoline in your car, quit annoying people by incessantly nit-picking about where it's a little cheaper and just fill up at the closest place. In the end, you're actually saving money by not worrying about it.
6/23/2014
Men vs Women Re: "Gendered" Crime
I've written about "gendered crime" before, but it occurs to me that there's another angle to consider here.
For a moment, let's forget about the statistics, the estimates, the convoluted gender theory. Let's pretend that the differences in figures that "gendered crime" proponents like to use can't be explained by simple reporting/measurement bias. Let's just consider some basic, necessary conditions for "gendered crime" to be a real thing.
The claims:
The conditions:
#1. Women are inherently not as capable as men - that is, women cannot commit these crimes on an equal level to men, because they lack the ability to do so. Women are inferior to men.
-or-
#2. Women are inherently better people than men - that is, women have all the same ability to commit these crimes on the same level, but simply choose not to. Women are superior to men.
If there is a "significant difference" in risk and perpetration of "gendered crime" then one of those two conditions must be true. If they are both false, that inherently means there is no "significant difference" based on the popular "because gender" prejudice. (and suggests you should probably take a closer look at where those claims come from) So, if you're one of the "gendered crime" proponents, please tell me which of those two conditions you think is responsible for the "significant difference" in "gendered crime." In your mind, are women inferior to men, or are women superior to men?
For a moment, let's forget about the statistics, the estimates, the convoluted gender theory. Let's pretend that the differences in figures that "gendered crime" proponents like to use can't be explained by simple reporting/measurement bias. Let's just consider some basic, necessary conditions for "gendered crime" to be a real thing.
The claims:
Women commit these crimes at a significantly lower rate than men do.
Men don't have to worry about being raped/assaulted by women the way women have to worry about being raped/assaulted by men.
The conditions:
#1. Women are inherently not as capable as men - that is, women cannot commit these crimes on an equal level to men, because they lack the ability to do so. Women are inferior to men.
-or-
#2. Women are inherently better people than men - that is, women have all the same ability to commit these crimes on the same level, but simply choose not to. Women are superior to men.
If there is a "significant difference" in risk and perpetration of "gendered crime" then one of those two conditions must be true. If they are both false, that inherently means there is no "significant difference" based on the popular "because gender" prejudice. (and suggests you should probably take a closer look at where those claims come from) So, if you're one of the "gendered crime" proponents, please tell me which of those two conditions you think is responsible for the "significant difference" in "gendered crime." In your mind, are women inferior to men, or are women superior to men?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
