An oppressed people - the Jews, have become oppressors? This comment doesn't even attempt to draw the distinction between the government of Israel and the Jewish people. How would it feel if we said “The formerly oppressed Hispanic people have become the oppressors”, because one country in Central or South America has an oppressive government at some point?
There isn’t even recognition that the Israeli legislature might not be representative of most Jewish Israelis and instead be a consequence of political incumbents that are hard to unseat from power, like political dynasties in many countries.
Nor does it accept that even if this is the majority will of Jewish Israelis, there are plenty of Jews in Israel who disagree with the law (which is obviously true), and shouldn’t be lumped in as “oppressors”. The same way Trump and his followers actions shouldn’t impugn the moral character of all Americans.
No, this is a wholesale indiscriminate attack on Jewish people, global or Israeli. Purposefully vague and universal in it’s attack of an entire ethnic minority group There is no chance this comment isn’t xenophobic to it’s core.
> I'm going to strongly disagree with that, and not sure how you decided that was objectively true.
My argument was to point out a lack of good reason in the first place to have concerns over the age gaps. I agreed life experience can be different, even significantly, I just don't see evidence or reasoning (in any conversation on this topic) it has anything to do with greater potential or likelihood of abuse or any degree of taking advantage of people.
Like, you mentioned your own signals for red flags, where you would draw the line over age gaps, etc. But, to be frank, is there anything more to it than the ick factor? What happens when an undergrad does date someone in their 30s? I'd argue nothing, or nothing should happen, unless one has specific evidence against that relationship itself.
>The only claim here that this asks on society is that if you potentially are in a power imbalanced relationship, just take care and watch the details. I don't see the danger here you speak of.
In the article, the author claims how she was essentially ostracized from here friend group because of her romantic choice. This is the common pattern. I'm just against the casualness of assuming there's any good reason for this concern, because it just leads to non-defensible and damaging gossip for the supposed offender.
I do agree on the point that there isn't anything wrong with self-reflection of this sort, and relationship mistakes can come all sorts of forms and degrees, I just personally don't see the connection to concerns over age gaps.
> It strikes me as a genuine and reflective post from someone who cares, and I would hate to see others use "you are both legally adults" to avoid doing similar reflection.
However, 7 years is not a significant age gap (even when the younger partner is only 18), that this should even be considered as a concern, even preliminarily. If one speaks of life stages and resources such as jobs and independent housing, that varies as much by socio-economic status as it does by the age range in question. Do we hoist the responsibility for self-reflecting on potential past relationship abuse, a serious charge, on anyone who is of moderately higher wealth and life experience than their partner, even when they are the same age?
It is a dangerous trend in our society of taking tenuous theories about power disparities and using those to put the burden of proof on men that they are not taking advantage of younger women. And, pardon the hyperbole, it won't end with 7 years, and likely not even 5.
>> Organic for the most part is a myth. What they do is either spray with a pesticide that can be classified as organic
That's demonstrably untrue. Many organic methods use no pesticides at all because they use things like row covers or greenhouses which replaces them, or crop-timing to avoid source pests. Look at any farm inspired by Eliot Coleman methods, which can produce crops cost-competitively with conventional agriculture.
Organic and sustainable methods are more efficient, even without GMOs [1]. It is a myth that GMOs or high-tech is the answer to food production/land scarcity concerns, as simply managing a farm properly can lead to yield increases multiple times over conventional, unsustainable methods (annual tillage, broad spectrum pesticides, etc). This is in part because GMOs that are in wide use are little more than ways to deal with pests or herbicides, which high efficiency sustainable farms deal with much more cost-effectively anyway.
True, but the Great Oxygenation Event took an extremely long time to effect most species though, and there are certainly exceptions, but that's just it, they're exceptions. Humans are pretty much guaranteed to introduce change (we are innovators/technologists to our core.)
>But it's no more or less "natural" than ever. "Natural" is probably not that useful a concept in general, it doesn't really mean anything in general, just like it doesn't mean anything on your food label.
The term "Natural" is very useful, it purposely separates phenomena as resulting from human activity/technology from those that are the result of long standing, generally slow moving evolutionary/geological changes. As humans can introduce change rapidly into our environment as a result our ability to design, it makes a lot of sense to have a word to quickly describe the general high level cause of such quick change.
Requiring that it has "plane-ness" seems like an unpackable ambiguous criteria. I am speaking on a simple functional level.
Rather, a given iron atom is one of the atoms that make up a given 747, so it absolutely is (and here's where the tautology comes in) part of the distributed material that makes up the plane. Without such atoms there would be no plane. The same is being said here except with consciousness, no more.
>Now, if you want a particle to be conscious, your minimum expectation should be that the particle can change.
The crux of the argument seems to be here, and is simply a fallacious equivalency of free will/agency and consciousness. Two different philosophical issues that may have a unifying explanation, but not for now.
Besides, panpsychism seems to almost be tautological in its assertions: if we accept materialism, and we accept consciousness exists in some creatures, then where else would consciousness be "realized" in aggregate except distributed amongst the actual matter of the brain, down reductivly to sub-atomic particles? That doesn't mean it's a fully formalized robust theory, but the concepts underlying it are sound.
Layman here, are there any serious limitations to your approach, or is it fair to say with the algorithms and hardware you have that motion planning has essentially been "solved"? Thanks.
So people should ignore a counterargument that makes sense to them because Terry Gross has more experience? We should blindly follow authority in spite of our own reasoning abilities?
I'm always disappointed when these dismissive appeal to authority ad-hominems [1] are not only posted on HN comments but voted to the very top. These types of comments take no effort and don't add any information to the discussion. Isn't HN supposed to be better than that?
Why not instead respond to the actual specific arguments people have put up in objection to Terry Gross's advice? Then the insufficiency of her experience is plain to see: She has 40+ years of experience indeed, but in a relatively narrow form of conversational interview, and commenters here are rightfully pointing out that her advice doesn't generalize.
> "DH1. Ad Hominem. ... Saying that an author lacks the authority to write about a topic is a variant of ad hominem—and a particularly useless sort, because good ideas often come from outsiders. The question is whether the author is correct or not. If his lack of authority caused him to make mistakes, point those out. And if it didn't, it's not a problem."
There isn’t even recognition that the Israeli legislature might not be representative of most Jewish Israelis and instead be a consequence of political incumbents that are hard to unseat from power, like political dynasties in many countries.
Nor does it accept that even if this is the majority will of Jewish Israelis, there are plenty of Jews in Israel who disagree with the law (which is obviously true), and shouldn’t be lumped in as “oppressors”. The same way Trump and his followers actions shouldn’t impugn the moral character of all Americans.
No, this is a wholesale indiscriminate attack on Jewish people, global or Israeli. Purposefully vague and universal in it’s attack of an entire ethnic minority group There is no chance this comment isn’t xenophobic to it’s core.