Jump to content

Chaircat Meow

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


About Chaircat Meow

  • Rank
    Oppressive Joke
  • Birthday 08/18/1989

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

17,053 profile views
  1. Nah. The May option, involving the UK becoming a rule-taker from the EU in order to avoid a chaotic transition is still the most likely option despite Johnson's resignation. On balance, I think Parliament will vote for the exit deal, following some fresh concessions to the EU. And this was probably always the most likely outcome of the Leave vote, especially given that the victory margin for Leave was narrow. The fact Labour did relatively well in the 2017 general election on the back of anti-Brexit votes helped as well. As for it being the stupidest thing not to demand a supermajority for leaving you're just wrong. There are constitutional precedents for this, including the 1975 referendum and the Scottish referendum in 2014. A simple majority is all that is required to exit the EU or to exit the UK. There is no comparatively strong precedent for a supermajority being necessary. You can only really insist on a supermajority if you're changing a hallowed document, seen as fundamental to the nation, like the US constitution, and the UK's EU membership just isn't that.
  2. Chaircat Meow

    Dutch man sues to change his legal age

    The sex/gender distinction might be helpful here. Biological sex is not supposed to equal socially constructed gender identity. It could work the same for age. There will be certain biological facts about the body that are not amenable to social interpretation but there will be a whole host of other characteristics that we associate with age that will be. For instance certain roles are expected of people at certain ages, they might be supposed to have achieved certain things in their lives or to have acquired a certain level of maturity. We get pigeonholed in categories like millennial or generation x. At certain ages people will face different sorts of discrimination, such as +50s returning to the job market. A way of describing age that coheres not with biology but social conventions would play the same role as the gender category does to the notion of biological sex. For some the social recognition that their social age differs from their biological age could be of vast importance to their self esteem. Give it 15 years, all those laughing at how ridiculous this is could be on the naughty step, just like Germaine Greer.
  3. Chaircat Meow

    US Politics: Dead Pimps Need Not Apply

    Is Donald Trump a world-historical figure and the embodiment of the world spirit? So esteemed a pundit as the chief foreign affairs commentator of the Financial Times certainly thinks so. Just as Hegel recognized Bonaparte after Jena as the great man of the age, the world spirit on horseback, so Gideon Rachman contends that Trump represents the ensoulment of the current zeitgeist. Progressives may wail but if history is a rational process, and teleologically seeks its end in the achievement of rational freedom, Trump may very well represent the synthesis to the progressive antithesis. His orange luminance bathes the United States from shining sea to shining sea and his triumphs have dealt stinging blows to progressivism across the globe. Now, if we are going to let Hegel illuminate the world-historical role of Trump for us we have to understand something of the progress of Geist hitherto. In bygone ages there was no such thing as the rational conscience and the inhabitants of the ancient nations of the fertile crescent perceived little distinction between the dictates of nature and the internal promptings of the moral sense. In the Hellenic age the independent city states developed the idea of free individuality. Yet this freedom was far from complete because the free man, although an individual centre of ethical force lived unreflectively for the particular, i.e. the city state and did not universalise the conclusions of conscience to the world as a whole. Under the empire the free individual was truly born, deracinated from the confines of the city state but still unable to order the world according to universal ethical principles on account of the tyranny then prevailing. The stoic retreated into himself and the luminaries of the Christian world were alienated from themselves, in thought bestowing the most distinguished aspects of man on the spirit dwelling beyond creation. At length the advance of Geist approached such a stage where custom and tradition were cast off, and every class, caste, hierarchy and institution was held up to the scrutinising glare of reason’s bright light. Yet the great doyens of reason overreached and blood flowed in rivers through the streets. Opposing forces gathered but after the great conflagrations of the twentieth century only two powers, embodying two spirits of freedom, remained. Both came to self-consciousness through their antagonism but as they sought to dominate the other, so too they desired the other. The chiliastic hope that the lesser brought down from heaven and bestowed on earth in the struggle of castes, the greater, the embers of its former fervour dimming as reason advanced, sought in self abnegation and the universalisation of its civilisation. Upon the collapse of its rival the remaining civilisation allowed the spirits of deluded freedom to erupt in full lustre. Now, as Hegel saw, reason is both universal and particular. Universal because it must develop to encompass the whole of the objectified world and because it represents the being of Geist in all of us, but also particular because it must be embodied individually. He understood that the unique genius of Christianity was to instantiate the universal in the particular; man’s thirst for the absolute and the recognition it can only be met in the particular find their embodiment in the Incarnation. The individual conscience, which gains freedom through structuring the world according to reason, desires its dictates to be universal. In this respect it represents an unquestionable advance on the old Hellenic ideal. Yet the antithesis constructed by this surviving power represents the annihilation of the particular and the unquestioning embrace of the universal. Rational freedom must overcome every constraint, overawing and eliminating all the old distinctions leaving only the individual, separated from all previously assigned senses of identity to chart an unburdened course through the world. To this is added another element, as the surviving consciousness gathers into itself the idea of an original sin, assigns to it a different provenance and perpetrator, and from it constructs its new earthly creed. It sees no reason why it should encompass the whole globe, why its insights are not universal and why the particular will not, in the fullness of time, fall before it and a millennium of multifaceted homogeneity dawn. It is to this antithesis that Trump, like Moses descending from the mountain, restores the particular and completes the synthesis. The antithesis will not stand, its universalising ambitions, and its millenarian sense of history are irredeemably false. In the creative destruction of the Trump administration, and its effects throughout the globe, Geist will march onwards and rational freedom will harmonise with the claims both of the universal and the particular.
  4. Chaircat Meow

    U.S. Politics: One Wave, Two Waves, Red Waves, Blue Waves

    What point are you making?
  5. Chaircat Meow

    U.S. Politics: One Wave, Two Waves, Red Waves, Blue Waves

    Do you think the US had good reasons in the 1920s then?
  6. Chaircat Meow

    U.S. Politics: One Wave, Two Waves, Red Waves, Blue Waves

    It read to me as though the denial of entry was in itself dehumanising, your little reference to the Holy Grail notwithstanding.
  7. Chaircat Meow

    U.S. Politics: One Wave, Two Waves, Red Waves, Blue Waves

    This is pure mince. I would not give up the day job to pen that tome. This Kitty has a broken laptop so is unable to respond properly but will do so in the fullness of time. For now, how do you explain how the USA preserved the rights of its citizens following the immigration stop of the 1920s and how Japan manages to be a liberal democracy today?
  8. Chaircat Meow

    U.S. Politics: For Whom the Bell Polls

    Well I think that it is a reasonable enough assumption (and I used the word assuming) that some false accusations (whatever the alleged crime) are not provably so, and that that there at least as many not-provably false accusations as provably false ones. I am happy with this assumption. I don't think I ever said we were not allowed to make reasonable assumptions. I am not saying this constitutes any reason not to take any given accusation seriously or to disbelieve a particular accuser. And this assumption wasn't central to the argument in any case. On para 2 I don't think I made this up at all. It is definitely a thing that SJWs want accusers in such cases to be presumed truthful from the get-go. If you scroll back through the thread you will find posters saying the right policy is to believe victims when they come forward. If the belief is supposed to be dependent on actual evidence why say accusers are to be believed, why not just form an opinion on the evidence as sensible people do. One example, the met in England did issue guidance to all officers that accusers were to be believed in sexual assault rape cases (although this has now been dropped as a policy). Anyway, I will say no more on the subject.
  9. Chaircat Meow

    U.S. Politics: For Whom the Bell Polls

    I don't think I'm doing that. I'm not saying because there are almost certainly some false accusations which aren't provably so, therefore in any one case, or in every case, we can believe one side over the other. I am criticising what I allege is the liberal argument (made by some SJWs and liberals) here; 'as 95% or 98% of rape and sexual assault accusations are true, and the conviction rate does not reflect this, or anything like it, we can lower standards of proof and automatically believe accusers.'
  10. Chaircat Meow

    U.S. Politics: For Whom the Bell Polls

    I am not going to get (much) further into this argument. All I will say is that I have seen liberals and SJWs bandy these 2%, 5% figures around and in many cases it appeared the point of doing this was to make this argument, or something like it, 'as 95% or 98% of rape and sexual assault accusations are true, and the conviction rate does not reflect this, or anything like it, we can lower standards of proof and automatically believe accusers.' Now, that's a bad argument anyway, but it is even worse once we've made it clear that the percentages are only speaking of provably false accusations. I would certainly feel comfortable in assuming that for every provably false accusation there is at least one false accusation not provably so and perhaps more.
  11. Chaircat Meow

    U.S. Politics: For Whom the Bell Polls

    You might be interested in the linked study, also reported on the beeb in relation to the Kavanaugh-Ford situation. It appears that the 6% or so false accusations rate derived from studies such as this means 6% of rape or sexual assault claims were proven to be false. That means the accusers admitted making it up, or witness testimony totally vindicated the accused (see the study for clarification on what proven to be false means). It is important to note that it can't be known what percentage of the cases not proven to be false were in fact false. Obviously in many cases such as this it is hard to prove either side of the account with tolerable accuracy. So the false accusation rate could well be higher than 6% on the basis of a study like this. Indeed, if we make the very modest assumption that there are at least some rape and sexual assault accusations which are false but which are not proven to be false, the false accusation rate would be higher than 6%, on the basis of this study and studies like it.
  12. Chaircat Meow

    Southron Ambitions - what were they?

    OK. Let’s go through this. 1. Here is Yandel. ‘When the Stark line was nearly obliterated by Mad King Aerys after Rhaegar’s abduction of Lyanna, some misguided men laid the blame at the feet of the late Lord Rickard, whose alliance by blood and friendship tied the great houses together and ensured they would act together in response to the Mad King’s crimes.’ Yandel clearly asserts Rickard’s actions (the ties made by blood and friendship) formed an alliance (and only one alliance) and it was this alliance which tied the houses together and ensured a united response after Rickard was killed. This isn’t a simplified version of the idea that the alliance that existed during the war formed after the death of Rickard. Or, if it is, you’ve really given us no reason to think so beyond an assertion. Yandel likely didn’t have detailed insider knowledge of Rickard, Jon and Hoster’s plans but he does have access to the archives of the Citadel, so he will be pretty well-informed about political events. 2. On Lord Steffon Central to your argument is the idea the Baratheons were a pro-Targaryen House but you fail to give much (or any good) reason for this. I can’t see the relevance of Lord Steffon fighting in the Stepstones (lots of people did) and his seat on the small council and errand-running for Aerys in the Free Cities do not show that he was loyal to the king. Perhaps they provide some evidence Aerys thought he was loyal, or maybe not. We know Aerys belittled and insulted those to whom he accorded the highest positions, such as Tywin Lannister. So it is hard to know how to interpret the king’s sending Steffon to the Free Cities. On the one hand the task was very important, so it might indicate great regard, on the other Aerys could have seen it as errand-running and a bit of a put down. In any case there definitely isn’t any reason to think Lord Steffon was the last person to be involved in anti-Targaryen plots, such an inference is totally unwarranted. 3. A few unclear arguments The reasons for supposing the Robert-Lyanna match had an anti-Targaryen intention are the reasons usually given for the southron ambitions theory, of either the 5 or 6 variety (see my earlier post for the numbers). I agree there are no other reasons for supposing it had an anti-Targaryen intention but can’t think what that proves or why it is relevant. I think you also hint at a very peculiar argument, namely, 'if Rickard planned war against House Targaryen why would he send his daughter (presumably after she was married) to Storm’s End in reach of the pro-Targaryen Tyrell army: did he want Lyanna to eat rats and shoelaces.' Well, looks like you answered your own objection regarding the gap between betrothal and marriage then; if Rickard let his daughter marry any noticeable period of time before he went to war he’d have to send her to SE, or rouse the king’s suspicions (and risk annoying Robert), so the marriage was to happen just before he raised his banners, or after victory was achieved. Just so you know, there is nothing that needs explaining regarding the gap between Lyanna’s betrothal and marriage, as she was possibly 14 when she was abducted but if there was you’ve just solved the problem anyway. 4. On Tywin Lannister Here the argument is that the putative STAB alliance would not have trusted the Lannisters, as they were too close to the Targaryens; in the event of a marriage Lysa could become a hostage, etc. First, the idea Tywin was not disgruntled and capable of turning against the king seems false; he had many reasons to be displeased with the king, even if you don’t suppose Aerys raped his wife. So the idea of him putting feelers out to STAB is not implausible. Secondly, the marriage of Lysa and Jaime would have been conditional on Tywin throwing his lot in against Aerys and may have taken place at the start of the war or just after it. As to why Tywin was still going after Viserys for Cersei, well, this seems a very much second best option to his preferred scenario of Cersei marrying Rhaegar, so presumably he was prepared to drop the Targaryen match if the Tully one went through. {I have a fuller explanation for this I might go into soon} 5. The Cat-Brandon match Is this statement by you: The betrothal of Brandon and Catelyn seems to have been the very earliest of the betrothals or negotiated betrothals, and we have no reason to believe that this betrothal was done with the Targaryens, or independent kingdoms, in mind … Meant to prove anything? The reasons we have for thinking it was an anti-Targaryen match are the reasons for the southron ambitions theory of version 5 or 6. This was mentioned above. Of course, there are no other reasons for thinking it was an anti-Targaryen match but this does not seem relevant. As to the other argument here, unless Hoster didn’t let his daughters marry somebody, somebody, namely their husbands, would have claims on his lands. So this is just a situation you have if you have two daughters. It doesn’t make marrying your daughters useless or mean that they can’t strengthen a bond between houses such that it leads to/sustains an alliance. 6. Last argument This rests on an idea which we have seen is unsupported, namely that we have reasons for thinking the Baratheons and Lannisters were pro-Targaryen houses: we have no such reasons.
  13. Chaircat Meow

    Southron Ambitions - what were they?

    Your main objection seems to be something like this: If houses are plotting and the plots are to be sealed by marriages, the bride and groom must get married as soon as they are 13 or 14 if the betrothal has already been arranged. And that's just a daft unsupported premise which there is no reason to believe. Most people know it is better to wait to bear children until a bit later, weddings take time to arrange, and so on. Even worse, only Cat was significantly above this age anyway, Lyanna may have been 14 at Harrenhal. So I just don't get it. As for some of the other points, Hoster and Robert weren't going to be able to secure their bannermen's loyalties with one or two marriages. Even if Hoster had promised Lysa to one of his bannermen, that's only one lord out of what appear to have been half a dozen or so who fought for the Targaryens (same for the stormlands). And there are always other considerations at play here too, like health of the potential partner, suitable matches in the relevant houses, etc. As for the examples I gave regarding lords sometimes not marrying when your logic seems to dictate they should I think they are relevant. They demonstrate that although you can make a case for why x or y ought to have married given their political ambitions people in world don't necessarily think like that, so your argument does not hold. And you also didn't say why they weren't relevant, presumably it was even more crucial for Robb to marry in the context of GoT given it was wartime and so inexplicable by your logic why he did not.
  14. Chaircat Meow

    Southron Ambitions - what were they?

    1) The examples I gave show that houses contemplating, or embroiled in, war, don't always go through with planning for or going through with marriages when they could. You haven't explained, for instance, why arranging a marriage for Robb was not a priority as soon as war with the Lannisters was suspected and Bran crippled, or why Robb waited so long to marry a Frey. And other examples, such as that of Renly, show marriages can be carried out very quickly. So it seems many of these lords just do not think like you do, so your argument fails. 2) Another consideration you disregard is that too many marriages or hasty marriages, carried out with undue speed and while the bride and groom are quite young might alarm the suspicious king and give him cause to wonder what the marriages portended. 3) The point about Lords Stark, Tully and Baratheon all having heirs young enough that they would not be lost in battle, thus lessening the need to procure marriages to be assured of more heirs, was not addressed. 4) The point about some of the children, such as Lyanna, being too young to be married much earlier anyway was not addressed. 5) Robert was in charge of Baratheon marriages, only Stannis was old enough for a marriage to be arranged in the years leading up to the rebellion, and Robert probably couldn't be bothered to do it. 6) I also don't know how committed or in the loop all these lords were. Remember, Hoster isn't getting a royal marriage out of this alliance, and he upped his demands (too husbands) following the death of Rickard, so if you want we can say he was half-in and so perhaps in no rush to fully commit by going through with the marriage, and the betrothal represented his tentative support. I am not endorsing this, but if it will ameliorate your issues we can run with it.
  15. Chaircat Meow

    US Politics: Red Whine Hangover

    I don't think so. Here's what you said to begin with. ''It does appear as if large parts of that argument are based on the common fallacy though, where someone makes a comparison between the US and 1930s Germany, invoking Hitler, and this is rebutted by complaining that the comparison is faulty because the modern US isn't like 1940s Germany. The point is not whether the US is there, but whether it is moving in that direction. You have not really made any substantial argument against that latter point, preferring to make arguments against the former.'' So the fallacy is here claimed by you to be comparing Nazi Germany with the present day USA, and not taking into account the fact that the liberal thinks the USA isn't yet like Nazi Germany (of the 1940s) but is becoming so. Unfortunately, the ill-founded piece of reasoning you identify in the above quote in the text box is not the same piece of reasoning you criticised to begin with. In the above quote in the text box you claim the problem lies in comparing the possible future America of Trump to 1939-1945 Germany rather than 1933-1939 Germany, but this is a wholly different objection. Indeed, in the first objection you accepted that the comparison was to 1940s Germany. So even if this new objection is a fair objection, it does nothing to prove your point that the fallacy you originally identified can be ascribed to me. Now, I never made any mention of a distinction between pre-war and during-the-war-Germany in my original post in this thread, I just said Nazi Germany and the possible future America of Trump. And the reason for this is simple: Browning didn't make any mention of it in the portion of the piece I quoted in order to register my objections. It was his comparison I was criticising and as he juxtaposed the Nazi assault on homosexuals, the handicapped and the unborn with the policies of the possible future America of Trump and made no distinction between pre-war and during-the-war-Germany I criticised the comparison on the basis on which he gave it. So, that's that.