Disqus - Latest Comments for GavinSullivan

Re: The DMZ - Dec 1, 2022 - Bill Scher & Matt K. Lewis

Gavin Sullivan — Tue, 06 Dec 2022 20:44:30 -0000

Crypto is completely useless and should be banned, says Bill. How would one go about banning Bitcoin, a decentralized international network designed to thwart state attack? How would you force US-based Bitcoin holders to turn over their zeros and ones? Why would you do so, aware that it's unjust to arbitrarily seize people's property and that the network will go on with or without US participation? The US gov designates Bitcoin property and Bitcoin seems to be fine with that. Bill, the fact that millions of people are buying something that you don't like is not a good reason for outlawing their purchases and seizing their property. They can buy what they like. The US currency does not work just fine, Bill. It is designed to decline in value and it cannot easily be audited. Some people would prefer to hold harder currency. Bitcoin will be with us for the remainder of our lives; moderate-minded political analysts should make peace with reality. Many Bitcoiners do not call for an end to government. After calling to ban 'crypto' Bill later calls for 'regulation' albeit without specifics. Polite Bitcoiners look forward to your list of demands and thank you for another great episode.

Re: The Wright Show - May 21, 2021 - Robert Wright & Mickey Kaus

Gavin Sullivan — Tue, 25 May 2021 23:14:26 -0000

One other thing: If you agree with Ira and think Bitcoin has some likelihood of displacing major international currencies, long-term, you'd be behaving very unkindly to your heirs were you not to devote considerable resources toward acquiring Bitcoin. The average person on earth will ultimately own .003 Bitcoin. You can do better than that.

Re: The Wright Show - May 21, 2021 - Robert Wright & Mickey Kaus

Gavin Sullivan — Tue, 25 May 2021 21:18:33 -0000

Thank you Ira. Bitcoin is completely voluntary, no one not desiring to participate has any requirement to buy in. You can call it whatever you like; if 'currency' doesn't quite fit then let's think up some other word. I have listened and read quite a bit within the hobby and have not observed any consistent evil political intent. A new financial asset has been presented to the world and the world appears to be biting. I think Bitcoin should remain legal. Are we in agreement?

Re: The Wright Show - May 21, 2021 - Robert Wright & Mickey Kaus

Gavin Sullivan — Sat, 22 May 2021 22:05:04 -0000

Bitcoin will be extraordinarily disruptive; its ongoing growth will not be appreciably impeded by progressive jaw-jaw. It offers much more potential reward to new users than they can reasonably be expected to refuse in the interests of collective action. Bob sees no legitimate use for Bitcoin, but around the world many people will value the availability of a sound money which is not designed to decline in value--and vastly more unconfiscatible, portable and divisible than gold. Bitcoin allows individuals to exchange value quickly with no intermediary, regardless their locations. Criminals like Bitcoin because they prefer the best money; there had to be one, sorry. Over Bitcoin's history, some have predicted specific uses that have not come to pass, but if it were good for nothing other than replacing gold's financial role, that would be enough--and it will, and more. Like The Economist, Bob apparently thinks the masses will much prefer a 'govcoin' designed for stability [and surveillance]. Bitcoin's volatility is a fact of life as individuals around the world participate in a game-theoretical assessment of its eventual place in global economic life. It's here to stay--and it will become much much bigger.

Re: The Glenn Show - Aug 8, 2017 - Glenn Loury & Rajiv Sethi

Gavin Sullivan — Thu, 24 Aug 2017 05:03:21 -0000

Was any of the behavior of the deceased--a good person, tragically lost--in retrospect ill-advised? Sadly yes: When informing a cop you're armed, don't do so while reaching into your person. If I were entrusted to teach a concealed-carry class, I would review that obvious-seeming dictum.

Re: Czech National Bank: “Don’t Be Afraid of Bitcoin”

Gavin Sullivan — Thu, 03 Aug 2017 02:27:04 -0000

A national policy formulator perceives unpleasant aspects surrounding bitcoin's mass adoption and so requests the public shun it. But individuals cannot be expected to forever disregard their self-interest--and the masses could increasingly appreciate bitcoin's various attractive features. But: we haven't given serious enough thought to what the effects will be of the mainstreaming of bitcoin (or whichever other crypto eventually come[s] to dominate). Some effects may indeed, even while benefiting the individual, be negative at the society-wide level. At present we have some noisy ultra-optimists getting quite little informed, healthy pushback.

Re: All Your Questions About the Powerball Jackpot, Answered

Gavin Sullivan — Mon, 11 Jan 2016 14:46:55 -0000

People do many irrational things with their money. In the present case the spending seems to have little nefarious impact, when compared to other forms of gambling. The odds that a person who has purchased a lottery ticket wins are more than one million times greater than those of a person who has made no such purchase. In a better world, private businesses might be allowed to run their own lotteries--vastly increasing the potential for any specific ticket-purchaser to win--primarily by removing any lottery-funded 'charitable' funding. If any lottery winner deems it necessary to cleanse her haul via a large charitable gift, that decision ought to be left up to her. To purchase a lottery ticket is silly--though fantasies of all kinds have large irrational components, without losing their titillation. If a silly game gives you a moment's joy for $2 per week, it would strike me as weird to hear your neighbor Hemant--otherwise so pleasant--condemn you for throwing away a few bucks on such a tiny diversion.

Re: The Wright Show - Dec 24, 2015 - Robert Wright & Michael Brendan Dougherty

Gavin Sullivan — Sat, 26 Dec 2015 15:02:40 -0000

Within Roman Catholicism, to be outside the state of grace means to have committed a serious sin, not to have confessed it to a priest and not to have performed whatever act of penance he might demand. An example might help clarify: If you are an adult and have the capacity to refrain from masturbation and yet you consciously, freely decide to self-pleasure, once, you are thereafter outside the state of grace, up until the moment a priest absolves you.

Re: Bloggingheads.tv - Jul 31, 2015 - Micah Uetricht & Rachel Cohen

Gavin Sullivan — Sun, 02 Aug 2015 04:04:26 -0000

If public employee unions were banned, government workers would retain the same avenues available to all other citizens to shape the policies prevailing within their workplaces. Citizens would benefit from a modestly reduced tax burden--and public services would be provided more efficiently and with greater focus on the customer.

Re: The Wright Show - Jan 12, 2015 - Robert Wright & Jeet Heer

Gavin Sullivan — Wed, 14 Jan 2015 10:06:11 -0000

At 10:54 Bob says 'There was a woman at an atheist conference, I think she was a speaker. She got in an elevator, it was just her and this guy, she didn't know him, and he said something kind of suggestive and maybe asked her up to his room, something that made her feel creepy and rightly so because she's alone in an elevator with a guy who's saying weird stuff.'

Bob's recollection of the incident is inaccurate. We do not in fact know that 'she didn't know him'; they'd been drinking in the Dublin hotel bar and it was 4am--and in the elevator she claims he said, 'Don't take this the wrong way, but I find you very interesting and I would like to talk more. Would you like to come to my hotel room for coffee?'

The words Rebecca Watson attributes to the man cannot conceivably constitute a verbatim transcript of what he said. It would seem odd, in a hotel elevator, to refer to one's 'hotel room' no? Even accepting Watson's narrative, the man said nothing 'creepy.'

The issue was hotly contested within the online atheist community; the party line emphatically accepted--and accepts--that the man in the elevator behaved atrociously, unforgivably.

Dawkins published a response to Watson's tale that included some dumb words. Yet amid Dawkins' intemperate 'Dear Muslima' response the zoologist had an excellent point:

"...the 'slightly bad thing' suffered by Rebecca was not even slightly bad, it was zero bad. A man asked her back to his room for coffee. She said no. End of story."

Re: The Wright Show - Jan 12, 2015 - Robert Wright & Jeet Heer

Gavin Sullivan — Wed, 14 Jan 2015 09:23:25 -0000

At 7:40 Jeet--to Bob's apparent wry amusement--quotes 'a great passage' of Karl Marx: "Religion is the painted flower on the prison wall and our job should not be to simply erase that flower and leave the prisoner in the prison, it should be to eradicate the wall." Can someone provide the actual Marx quotation, and a source?

Re: "Atheists Can't Be Republicans" CJ Werleman on Atheists Talk #283, September 28, 2014 - Minnesota Atheists ~ Positive Atheism in Action Since 1991

Gavin Sullivan — Sun, 28 Sep 2014 08:17:22 -0000

What claptrap! The 'the other party isn't simply wrong--it's mentally ill' formulation is itself an example of partisanship run amok. Parties are big amorphous blobs of incoherent humbug.

Re: Friedersdorf - Sep 17, 2014 - Conor Friedersdorf & Jamelle Bouie

Gavin Sullivan — Fri, 26 Sep 2014 14:52:01 -0000

Conor supports the right of police officers to collectively bargain. I don't think government workers should be encouraged to form unions. We should strive for all our fellow citizens to enjoy equal access to political representatives. If a government-run organization is functioning poorly, write your congressional or state representative, whether or not you are employed by it. Government workers shouldn't enjoy any elevated access to politicians--their employers' designated representatives.

Re: Forgetting Randy Voas

Gavin Sullivan — Fri, 06 Jun 2014 15:55:37 -0000

Thanks for your comment, Gary. How in your view did I attack the status of a dead Air Force Officer? I don't recall doing that; indeed, I seem to remember referring [in my 6/13/12 post] to Voas' death as a 'tragic loss.' On this somewhat dormant blog, I have defended the notion that there are good ideas and bad ideas--and I am interested in productive discussion aimed at delineating that dividing line. One's views on who deserves to be viewed an American hero can be dumb or smart, whether one is a veteran or not--in other words.

Re: Forgetting Randy Voas

Gavin Sullivan — Tue, 22 Apr 2014 00:01:40 -0000

It's a great honor to receive your opprobrium, Bill. After garnering
your meatheaded verbal assault I privately invited you for coffee at
the location of your choice, welcoming our gentlemanly discussion of
your thus-far unexplicated thesis. You clammed up pretty quick once you
noticed your own gullibility isn't universal.

Re: Book Review: Doubting Jesus' Resurrection - Minnesota Atheists ~ Positive Atheism in Action Since 1991

Gavin Sullivan — Tue, 25 Mar 2014 18:41:57 -0000

A person considering adopting Christianity would do well to weigh the evidence in favor of Jesus' Resurrection. No evidence points in such a direction. That's 'the best tradition of graceless skepticism,' and, despite its vulgar brevity--has the pleasant feature of being true.

Re: Domestic homicides hit highest levels in more than a decade

Gavin Sullivan — Thu, 14 Nov 2013 16:41:09 -0000

In 2003 I was--fraudulently--accused of misdemeanor domestic assault. Cornerstone's representative attended all four days of my trial, siding with my accuser, to hell with the evidence. Fortunately, the jury did not share Cornerstone's instinctive belief (to my perception) that guilt = having X and Y chromosomes. Now I see (photo, above) the police are participating in pseudo-religious ceremonies flattering Cornerstone. Yuck.

Re: The Wright Show - Oct 8, 2013 - Robert Wright & Robert Kurzban

Gavin Sullivan — Thu, 10 Oct 2013 23:42:52 -0000

Kurzban plugs

Made to Stick: Why Some Ideas Survive and Others Die

http://www.amazon.com/Made-...

Re: The Posner Show - Sep 20, 2013 - Sarah Posner & Anthea Butler

Gavin Sullivan — Sat, 21 Sep 2013 19:38:46 -0000

The Catholic Church is a massive social institution which--at its core--venerates the sublimity of a mother unstained by penile defilement.

When staffing such an institution in 2013, Posner & Butler think women and men should have an equal shot.

How might the Catholic Church reform, so as to more effectively promote its remaining sexual obsession, historical falsehood and preposterous evidence-free claims?

Should we esteem a Pope who isn't a fiend to homosexuals and only screams about abortion once or twice monthly?

Unlike Posner and Butler, I am resistant to entering into such a discussion.

At her goofiest (17:20) Butler insists Nigerian priests need marriage so as to more effectively compete with Islam. Butler--speaking in the voice of a hypothetical Nigerian Catholic priest: 'If I'm not married and I don't have a family, I look very suspect.'

Marriage ought to be available to Nigerian Catholic priests--goes the 'progressive' mantra--in order to assist priests in evading pervasive African homophobia.

Alternatively, perhaps we might grapple with the religion's fundamental moral claim about the divinely-engineered spiritually polluting nature of the orgasm. If you think that's bullshit, then why try to reform Roman Catholicism?

Re: A Principal Allowed Her to Deliver Bible Readings on School Property Every Morning This Past Spring

Gavin Sullivan — Wed, 31 Jul 2013 17:52:20 -0000

In implementing my policy, Holytape, I accept that sometimes reasonable decisions will have to be made, such as in your example. I think reasonable people can address all such concerns; I simply don't think that a categorical ban on such speech constitutes an honorable solution.

I don't believe that my free speech zone proposal should be expected to exacerbate the difficulties experienced by adherents of minority religions/philosophies. If it does, a categorical ban on free speech is still not the best answer.

Nor do I consider a categorical ban to constitute a thoughtful answer to the problem administrative mediocrity.

You, on the other hand, do. Hence: We politely disagree.

Re: A Principal Allowed Her to Deliver Bible Readings on School Property Every Morning This Past Spring

Gavin Sullivan — Wed, 31 Jul 2013 17:26:04 -0000

Thanks for another learned reply, EvolutionKills.

To repeat: The Lemon Test pertains to 'legislation concerning religion.' Since I have proposed no such thing, the Lemon Test has no bearing one way or another upon my proposal.

The speech advocated by our hypothetical pamphleteers comes labeled 'not endorsed by this high school.' Ergo, the Establishment Clause--like the Lemon Test--has the same relevance as does the pencil test.

In my proposal, EK, lit-distributors and speakers would be required to respect students' right to refuse interaction. Should you succeed in locating any misrepresentation on my part, I hereby release you from keeping it a secret from Friendly Atheists worldwide.

You insinuate that my goal is to promote Christian proselytization; you err. I am an atheist who happens to believe our cause can easily prevail within a community that honors civil exchange--even when we are outnumbered.

I foresee value in treating older teens as adults during an extremely brief period of their day. You believe it of great importance to shield them from the viewpoints of civil, orderly, peaceful adults. That's the essence of our dispute; I am entirely proud to stand on principle here, in opposition to your preferred nannystatism.

Re: A Principal Allowed Her to Deliver Bible Readings on School Property Every Morning This Past Spring

Gavin Sullivan — Wed, 31 Jul 2013 14:29:43 -0000

Thanks for your most recent effort, dear EvolutionKills.

I'm not commenting here on 'legislation concerning religion'--so the Lemon Test does not in any way apply. Within the free speech zone that I have advocated, school administrators would inform students that any such statements would enjoy no governmental endorsement--so Dover is likewise irrelevant.

To say that two things are similar in some respects is not to claim that they are identical. I provided the two analogies merely to show that non-school-employees have frequently been able to express their views within public schools and that this has been largely positive and beneficial.

Again: I have advocated a policy of content neutrality with regard to peaceful, orderly adults who want to distribute literature or perform speech acts as high school students enter or leave the school building. So I propose the school not discriminate between someone handing out pamphlets entitled '5 Excellent Reasons for Becoming a Liberal' and a person saying the rosary.

Re: A Principal Allowed Her to Deliver Bible Readings on School Property Every Morning This Past Spring

Gavin Sullivan — Wed, 31 Jul 2013 14:16:24 -0000

Thanks Holytape; you and I have got to the nub of our dispute: I think it is reasonable, during a brief period before and after the school day, to treat older teens as adults. You think that's unreasonable. So we have an entirely upright disagreement, wherein I have confidence in the upcoming generation--and you think they need to be shielded until they achieve majority age. Fair enough.

Re: A Principal Allowed Her to Deliver Bible Readings on School Property Every Morning This Past Spring

Gavin Sullivan — Wed, 31 Jul 2013 07:08:48 -0000

Thanks for your comment, EvolutionKills. I agree with you that government representatives can frequently think up 'every reason to prevent' the peaceful transmission of views among citizens. Unlike you, I don't view the high school students as governmental possessions: The lit distributor is not requesting the state provide her with an audience--she is simply asking the state to get out of the way, allowing peaceful, orderly communication among citizens without undo state interference.

We are having a discussion, in part, about whether my idea (applying the First Amendment to daily life at school) is a good idea. If you consider allowing free speech to take place near a high school entrance to be empty and facile, I sincerely disagree.

I would be happy were the principal to make clear to students that the speech directed at them is not endorsed by the school. You dogmatically assert that once someone is on school grounds, their statements enjoy administrative endorsement--that the lit distributor becomes 'an agent of the state.' Nonsense.

When I was in high school we had a 'candidate day' before elections--in which candidates or their campaign workers were welcome to set up booths in the auditorium and argue (face-to-face, with students) on behalf of their ideas. Third party candidates often attended--directly interacting with the high school students, often confronting them with radical ideologies unlike any to which they'd previously been exposed. It was a great experience. In a religion class we had adherents of various faiths come and speak about their religions.

Please be aware that I am arguing for the way things ought to be, my good EvolutionKills. I am not making a claim about existing law.

Re: A Principal Allowed Her to Deliver Bible Readings on School Property Every Morning This Past Spring

Gavin Sullivan — Tue, 30 Jul 2013 19:13:15 -0000

Thanks baal.

So we have a clear and upright difference in perspectives: I think peaceful, orderly citizens out to be able to engage with students on high school campuses--and you don't. I consider both text- and sound-based speech to have equal claim on First Amendment protection. I accept that the principal should make clear any such statements are in no way endorsed by the school.

btw: I'm an atheist.