Where’s Razib, dammit?

118: >

In a lame attempt to channel the sadly-missing Razib

Razib is busy enjoying the fame of his name/blog appearing on page 69 of the Jan/Feb issue of SEED magazine ( which might have been itself worthy of the news tab but couldn’t find a web link )

Don’t worry, Manju, balance is alive and well!

(I also realize I didn’t address your analogy to black racism well. There are two points I wanted to make: First that Hindu religious fundamentalism in India has the ability to wield significant detrimental power – which is what I lazily referred to in the statement that nala took offense to, and second, while you might disagree, it is extremely dangerous to creeping danger of illiberalism in societies that actively cultivate their self image of democracy, rights and freedom, because the myth won’t change even as the facts do.)

And what about atheist neocons like Manju? Who would they have to condemn first?

Robespierre

The implications are interesting and many.

Yeah. Sales of Vaseline and other anal lubes should go up in the sub-continent. All “desis” travelling outside India will be a good target segment. Perhaps, south asia becomes the largest market for vaseline worldwide.

Isn’t a lot of this (those actors who fully deserve that label not brought to account for it) because of the failure of the courts in their own countries? (I don’t mean the U.S.) And they’re allowed into Western countries like the U.S. and the UK because whatever crimes they committed don’t factor into the current geopolitical scheme?

In the case of Luis Posada Carriles it’s because he was acting on behalf of the United States.

If you’re trying to maximize aggregate utility, how do you justify the “side constraints?” I.e., what happens if utility maximization in a particular case demands neglecting or overriding the “constraint”? (E.g., to be extreme, world will end unless you violate the side constraint–now, you can’t claim that respecting the side constraint, leading to the end of the world, maximize aggregate utility, can you?) You can’t always maximize utility and satisfy the constraints, no? They can conflict. Maybe the literature has made big advances that I am not up to speed on, but isn’t Rawls a (the!) big critic of utilitarianism? I am confused that you are invoking him (please try to explain more to me about why he is not a rule utilitarian–your description of him seems, to me, to be a canonical example of rule utilitarianism (don’t overlook the possibility that I may be missing something obvious)). Maybe we’re just disagreeing about labels–I don’t mean to, but I hope you can see my point.

<

blockquote>

But I’m way sexier than the guys in those pics you linked to.

I really appreciate your letting me know. I only hope, for your sake, that this opinion has more of a basis in fact than your other ones.

I dunno – I can’t get myself to stop looking at the guy doing the Hindu squat.

Much better than Hindu women doing the squat, it would seem.

C’mon, there’s much to be said for the theory of martial races. Let our precocious Curzon-In-Training continue on this merry pseudo-intellectual journey.

“rule-utilitarianism”

i did not mean rule utilitarianism, rob; i mean your garden-variety utilitarianism (greatest good for the highest number), and hence, the word, “side constraints.” [eg rawls uses "do not violate liberty" as a side-constraint in applying the difference principle]. maximize utility, but do not violate a, b, and c, which is not really rule utilitarianism. sorry, if that wasn’t clear; gotta go. i do agree, however, that rule ut. is untenable.