Dennis Hackethal
@dennis-hackethal·Member since June 2024
Activity
Force means you get people who don’t care about justice. For example (emphasis added):
Another issue that makes me a bad juror is I simply don't care. Unless someone does something to me or someone I care about, I don't care. If someone had done something to me or mine then I couldn't be a juror for that trial anyway. If John Smith steals Jane Doe's car, I don't care. Even if John Smith kills Jane Doe's [sic], I don't care. I think killing someone is wrong but if it doesn't effect [sic] me personally I don't care what punishment they get. If that makes me a bad person, so be it.
Force means you get a bunch of people on a jury who don’t want to be there. This introduces friction because they will drag their feet.
Force means you get a bunch of people on a jury who don’t want to be there. This either introduces friction because they will drag their feet, or they will just vote for whatever outcome will get them out of there the fastest, which isn’t necessarily justice. For example (emphasis added):
[A] guy said to use the opportunity to fight back against laws you don't agree with. I thought about doing that even though we were asked if we could put personal feelings aside and enforce the law and I didn't want to be the one to say I couldn't so I stayed quiet. Then I thought, “What if I'm the only juror who thinks the law is unjust”? “Do I really want to drag this out just to fight the system”? I decided to make my decision based solely on whatever would get this over with the quickest. In this particular case a guy was charged with crimes that I don't think should be crimes anyway. Since I know the majority of people in my community feel the opposite, I chose to keep my opinion to myself for fear of ridicule of people knowing my feelings.
Force means you get a bunch of people on a jury who don’t want to be there. This introduces friction because they will drag their feet.
I understand that you don’t want to introduce bias, but it just doesn’t follow that jurors have to be selected by force. You can make it voluntary without introducing bias.
“The random selection helps keep all citizens equal.” (Source)
#3303·Dennis HackethalOP, 3 days ago“If we make it a profession, we'll still have elites judging commoners and commoners unable to get justice.” (Source)
Why would it automatically be an elite profession? Just adjust your selection process accordingly.
“If we make it a profession, we'll still have elites judging commoners and commoners unable to get justice.” (Source)
#3301·Dennis HackethalOP, 3 days ago“If we only take volunteers, we'll be perpetually lacking jurors or we'll have jurors that don't represent the general populace.” (Source)
No, again (#3300), if you make it worth their while, plenty of people will show up voluntarily.
“If we only take volunteers, we'll be perpetually lacking jurors or we'll have jurors that don't represent the general populace.” (Source)
#3299·Dennis HackethalOP, 3 days agoWe need jury duty because without it, “we can't guarantee the accused their right to trial by a jury of their peers if we don't have peers available to serve on juries.”
If you make it worth their while, you will have plenty of people signing up voluntarily.
We need jury duty because without it, “we can't guarantee the accused their right to trial by a jury of their peers if we don't have peers available to serve on juries.”
A duty is an unchosen obligation. It’s an expression of mysticism. Immanuel Kant is responsible for spreading this anti-concept.
@zelalem-mekonnen shared in my Twitter space that he has been ‘summoned’ for jury duty. It seems strange and incompatible with freedom that the courts can just ‘command’ you to perform a service for them.
#3278·Benjamin Davies, 5 days ago… any replicator’s primary ‘concern’ is how to spread through the population at the expense of its rivals.
Why “through the population”? Doesn’t this presuppose a replicator needs to exist within a population to do what it does? The first replicator spread with no population to spread into.
A population of 1 is still a population.
#3278·Benjamin Davies, 5 days ago… any replicator’s primary ‘concern’ is how to spread through the population at the expense of its rivals.
Why “through the population”? Doesn’t this presuppose a replicator needs to exist within a population to do what it does? The first replicator spread with no population to spread into.
Accounts of the origin of replicators (such as RNA World) involve proto-replicators. By the time the first ‘full-fledged’ replicator came on the scene, it was already part of a larger population of proto-replicators.
#3278·Benjamin Davies, 5 days ago… any replicator’s primary ‘concern’ is how to spread through the population at the expense of its rivals.
Why “through the population”? Doesn’t this presuppose a replicator needs to exist within a population to do what it does? The first replicator spread with no population to spread into.
I suppose it’s theoretically possible for the very first replicator to exist in isolation until it replicates for the first time. But that’s what it does right away anyway.
#3279·Benjamin Davies, 5 days ago… any replicator’s primary ‘concern’ is how to spread through the population at the expense of its rivals.
Why “at the expense of its rivals”? Isn’t the concern to spread at all, regardless of the outcome of rivals?
I’m using standard neo-Darwinian phrasing. Compare, for example, BoI chapter 4:
The most general way of stating the central assertion of the neo-Darwinian theory of evolution is that a population of replicators subject to variation (for instance by imperfect copying) will be taken over by those variants that are better than their rivals at causing themselves to be replicated.
And, same chapter:
[T]he knowledge embodied in genes is knowledge of how to get themselves replicated at the expense of their rivals.
See also several instances in chapter 15 in the context of meme evolution.
Richard Dawkins’ The Selfish Gene has a ton on rivals (alleles), too, for example (chapter 2):
Ways of increasing stability and of decreasing rivals’ stability became more elaborate and more efficient. Some of them may even have ‘discovered’ how to break up molecules of rival varieties chemically, and to use the building blocks so released for making their own copies.
#3279·Benjamin Davies, 5 days ago… any replicator’s primary ‘concern’ is how to spread through the population at the expense of its rivals.
Why “at the expense of its rivals”? Isn’t the concern to spread at all, regardless of the outcome of rivals?
Rivalry means competition, win/lose outcomes. If one replicator spreads, it will be at the expense of its rivals (if any), eg taking up niches that rivals would otherwise have taken up.
#3289·Benjamin Davies revised 5 days agoMy charitable interpretation:
“Less and less possible” is a loose way of saying something like “more and more difficult to achieve”, or “occurs less and less often in the multiverse”.
That’s fine if you want to interpret it charitably, but that isn’t a criticism. Maybe you’re implying that I’m not being as charitable as I should be. That would be a criticism, but it should be made explicit.
#3285·Benjamin Davies, 5 days ago“([T]hey say)” presumably means he is paraphrasing people who get it wrong.
I realize that. I don’t see how that’s a criticism.
#3261·Dennis Hackethal revised 5 days agoWhat happens when you fail to commit to these values?
I think forgiveness could be another core value. Something like 'when I make mistakes, I will pick myself up at the earliest possible time and keep going.'
Based on what you write in #3270, it sounds like you’re talking specifically about forgiving oneself, not forgiveness in general.
I have an … unconscious preference for removing rough/uneven parts of my nails as soon as possible …
This preference is not unconscious. You are aware of it, otherwise you could not have written about it. Maybe you meant to say that you sometimes enact this preference automatically/uncritically/mindlessly? (I think those three words basically all have the same meaning.)
I have an … inexplicit/unconscious preference for removing rough/uneven parts of my nails as soon as possible …
This preference is neither inexplicit nor unconscious, at least at this point. You have made it explicit, and you are aware of it, otherwise you could not have written about it. Maybe you meant to say that you sometimes enact this preference automatically/uncritically/mindlessly? (I think those three words basically all have the same meaning.)
#3183·Benjamin Davies, 6 days agoI am a life-long nail-biter. I am thinking a habit like nail-biting can be thought of as an addiction in this way.
I have an explicit preference for letting my nails grow normally, and an inexplicit/unconscious preference for removing rough/uneven parts of my nails as soon as possible (this part seems entrenched).
…this part seems entrenched…
Well, both preferences are entrenched as a result of the conflict between them being entrenched.
We could just as well say that the other preference, the one for letting your nails grow normally, is entrenched.
I’m sensing a bias in favor of explicit preferences and against (what you think are) inexplicit/unconscious preferences.
#3183·Benjamin Davies, 6 days agoI am a life-long nail-biter. I am thinking a habit like nail-biting can be thought of as an addiction in this way.
I have an explicit preference for letting my nails grow normally, and an inexplicit/unconscious preference for removing rough/uneven parts of my nails as soon as possible (this part seems entrenched).
If you carried a nail clipper or nail file with you at all times, would you use them instead of your teeth?
#3183·Benjamin Davies, 6 days agoI am a life-long nail-biter. I am thinking a habit like nail-biting can be thought of as an addiction in this way.
I have an explicit preference for letting my nails grow normally, and an inexplicit/unconscious preference for removing rough/uneven parts of my nails as soon as possible (this part seems entrenched).
I have an … unconscious preference for removing rough/uneven parts of my nails as soon as possible …
This preference is not unconscious. You are aware of it, otherwise you could not have written about it. Maybe you meant to say that you sometimes enact this preference automatically/uncritically/mindlessly? (I think those three words basically all have the same meaning.)