@22122's banner p
BANNED USER: Repeatedly posting trollish "death to my outgroup"




0 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 14 13:15:07 UTC


User ID: 1194

Banned by: @Amadan

BANNED USER: Repeatedly posting trollish "death to my outgroup"



0 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 14 13:15:07 UTC


No bio...


User ID: 1194

Banned by: @Amadan

i dont want to hear about the holocaust again when stuff like this is part of their religion. holocaust might have been the most justified genocide in history. compared to a typical genocide, the people killed were foreign to the lands that they were killed in, had refused to assimilate for 2000 years into the society's that they were making money off of, and would have done the same thing a long time ago had the roles been reversed.

as far as I know Jesus only comment about the death penalty was "he who is without sin cast the first stone" which seems to imply that he is opposed to the death penalty unless the person imposing it is without sin. now you could say that that is only certain in the case of adultery which was the context of that quote, but given that statement and the general emphasis on focusing on the next life rather than this one, if I had to bet, I would assume jesus would be against the death penalty for other wrongdoings as well.

There are a complex set of economic arguments for why minimum wage might be good. It has to do with elasticities of prices, monopsony, and some complex models. But luckily ~100% of people arguing for minimum wage don't know any of those arguments. If you brought out those arguments to try and knock them down they'd just get annoyed and angry at you. "No, I support a higher minimum wage because people should be paid enough to survive!"

I think they are more thinking along the lines of why is it that some of the other employees of the firm they work for earn manyfold as much as they do and that they are thinking about minimum wage increases for them being funded by decreases in the wages of the higher earners, but in reality that scenario requires the government to regulate all wages not just the minimum.

if catholicism is anti-non-catholicism then why should not non-catholics be anti-catholicism?

christians upvoting this as if it does not prove that they are part of a corrupt religious tradition when the bible contains passages like this:

As he was setting out on a journey, a man ran up and knelt before him, and asked him, ‘Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?’ Jesus said to him, ‘Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone. You know the commandments: “You shall not murder; You shall not commit adultery; You shall not steal; You shall not bear false witness; You shall not defraud; Honor your father and mother.”’ He said to him, ‘Teacher, I have kept all these since my youth.’ Jesus, looking at him, loved him and said, ‘You lack one thing; go, sell what you own, and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me.’ When he heard this, he was shocked and went away grieving, for he had many possessions.”

“Then Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, ‘How hard it will be for those who have wealth to enter the kingdom of God!’ And the disciples were perplexed at these words. But Jesus said to them again, ‘Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God! It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.’

a dead person is a person whose brain is not functioning, a nonfunctional brain can not feel pain and thus can not be tortured, therefore a person can not be tortured if he is dead.

an alive person is a person whose brain is functioning, only a functioning brain can feel pain and thus be tortured, therefore a person can only be tortured if he is alive.

a person whose brain has stopped functioning can only be tortured if his brain is made functional, thus transitioning him from being a dead person to an alive person, in other words, by reviving him.

"the basilisk" can only torture a dead person if it revives him first, making his nonfunctional brain functional again.

a brain consists only of matter, therefore to change the brain state from nonfunctional to functional one must change the matter comprising the brain.

matter that cannot be accessed cannot be changed, therefore the basilisk can only torture a dead person if it can access the matter comprising his brain.

this is a necessary but not sufficient condition, i.e. obviously the brain state can not change from functional to nonfunctional only by accessing one atom from it.

also if the brain's matter has been transformed enough such as by being burned, its hard to say that its still a nonfunctional brain, rather than just a pile of ashes.

everyone should go to heaven. we should have been born in heaven.

in reality, i don't have a good reason to believe that i am going anywhere except the grave when i die. i think this afterlife stuff is wishful thinking at best, but cynically its deceitful manipulation.

This was the height of a moral crusade by Church and State to punish the wicked so that the good may live in peace.

But yet the same church says that we are supposed to suffer in this life and that we will get eternal peace in the next so this life doesn't even matter etc etc.

hell is not justice. infinite punishment for finite wrongdoing can not be just. no one should be sleeping easy because they think people they don't like are going to hell.

People still believe in Truth.

So youre saying people did not believe false things before the 21st century?

I have an extremely strong revulsion for gaslighting. I viscerally experience it as intrusion into the brain, and into that which brain exists for

But I don't see you keeping that same energy when posters here start talking about christianity as if it were true.

Christian ethics, and capitalism

i know people like to define christian ethics however they like but jesus in the new testament does not seem to agree with the capitalist mentality:

Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy and where thieves break in and steal, but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also. No one can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and money.

aren't most technocapitalists liberals?

Black Americans could find themselves much higher on the totem pole in West Africa, with a higher IQ genetically

this is almost certainly false. Black Americans are the descendants of west african slaves sold overseas, so not a random sampling of west african peoples, and the slaves cohort would have had a lower average iq than the non slave cohort, and the slaves sold overseas would probably have been lower quality than the slaves kept locally, at least you can assume the pretty women were not sold off but were made into wives of the victorious tribe.

But then couldn't I define my community as limited to my family and excuse myself for stealing from everybody else?

Every single person in history was created by growing inside their mother for ~9 months. It’s not slavery, it’s paying forward your debt to society.

There is no legitimate debt that somebody did not choose to accrue.

If consequence free sex in enshrined as a human right, then please tell me where I can find the nearest STD-free government funded brothel?

What liberals mean when they say that birth control is a right is that following from the principle of self-ownership, it would be immoral for another entity to penalize people for the mere act of providing or consuming it, not that people are obligated to fund its free provision whether through taxation or elsewise. In general, if an act is not violating somebody's rights, imposing penalties for that act constitutes a rights violation.

its easy for you to say as a man that banning birth control is no big deal, but imagine you were a woman seeking to avoid the problems of pregnancy and childbirth, you would probably have a different perspective. but even from the man's point of view, pregnant women are less enjoyable to make love with because most men find big pregnant bellies to be unattractive, also giving birth stretches out the vagina making sex less pleasurable, young children cry a lot disrupting your sleep, stubborn ones can test your patience, and other problems that im not aware of because i dont have experience with them lol. forcing people to make babies by taking away their birth control is a form of enslavement and i would hope that former birth control users would have the moral integrity to not take away from younger folks what they themselves took advantage of during their time.

south italians are about as racially foreign to nordic americans as jews are, do you have a problem with them too?

Why did this comment get 11 downvotes? It seems as though this community completely forgets about the guidelines to not downvote something just because they disagree with it whenever it comes to comments that are critical of christianity, and im not exactly sure why that is.

If a society is sufficiently opposed to birth control that banning it becomes feasible, the ban would probably not even be needed under your standard, because birth rates would likely be higher than they are today, yet alone 0.5.

we are facing a labor shortage and ultimately an economic collapse

not really, if there is a labor shortage then the available labor is offered high wages, so if you have kids they will be earning good. the problem is when your kids are forced to fund the pensions of old people who did not have kids of their own, but this is a problem with state policy and that is what should be changed to solve it.

In your second argument you are giving reasons why you believe it is in other people's interest to have kids, but you do not explain why it is in your interest to force them to have kids. You say reminding people of the value of sacrifice is a good thing, but I have no problem with you reminding people of that as part of your pro natalist message, my problem is with you wanting them to be coerced into having kids they don't want to have.

Like Aristotle, I don't think it's crazy to suggest that some people are best suited for slavery.

its always other people that are best suited for slavery, never the people saying this.

Simply making all abortion and birth control illegal would be pretty "forceful" by itself

making those illegal would be akin to slavery in that both involve an infringement upon property rights. arguably, slavery is defined by the state of lacking self-ownership, from which property ownership follows. So somebody paying half of their income as taxes to the state is in some sense a half slave to the state.

why do you care so much about other people's reproductive decisions?

"alcoholism is in some sense a fake problem, it could be solved tomorrow with a ban on alcohol"

this was tried in america in the early 20th century and did not work. how do you expect a ban on birth control would fare any better in practice.

not to mention, such a ban would be a terrible violation of human rights, but I guess the only right people here seem to care about is freedom of speech.

In general, having kids is a more valuable life project than whatever dumb crap the average person is up to.

its more valuable to you, but why should they do what you want and not what they want to do, theyre not your slaves.

Do you want society to place additional restrictions on sexual freedom mostly so that less people fall victim to sexual coercion, or are there other causes for which you think that certain restrictions are warranted?