BANNED USER: Repeatedly posting trollish "death to my outgroup"
22122
No bio...
User ID: 1194
Banned by: @Amadan
22122
1yr ago
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.
22122
1yr ago
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.
22122
1yr ago
I am totally certain that a society where 80% use fentanyl is grossly dysfunctional. The more fentanyl use you have, the more dysfunctional it gets. You'd be living in a shithole. The roads would be very bad, the medical system would be very bad, housing would be very bad. And where is the food coming from? What kind of industry goes on there - not very much aside from the production of fentanyl I'd expect. What kind of cultural life goes on there? Not a very well-developed one. Are the fentanyl addicts working together to make well-coordinated, long-term projects like computer games or book publishing industries?
Legalizing fentanyl would lead to a increase in rate of use among the population and however high it reaches, as long as property rights are enforced, people who do not want to use it can live pretty close to the way they would if it were nonexistent. There would be less workers to some extent, but those who do work would earn proportionally higher wages so it would not lead to impoverishment for us.
Why would good, sober people stick around providing services to drug addicts who then steal from their vehicles or break into their homes looking for something to sell? Even liberal-leaning, wishy-washy women are coming around to the 'hang them' solution, publicly on twitter.
I have no problem with hanging violent criminals, my point is that selling or consuming drugs is not a violent crime. There are plenty of drug users who are peaceful and for whom drug dealers provide an important service.
Firearms don't cause significant social harms in and of themselves and have many redeeming characteristics.
You are right. Perhaps alcohol would be a better comparison, you don't support banning that too do you?
22122
1yr ago
it’s a cleansing fire that “burns off” any horrible habits that have yet to be penance’d
what do you mean by burning off horrible habits, how does that work? if somebody died having stolen on some occasions, burning in purgatory is not going to reverse any of the thefts he did. and once he gets into heaven why would he need to steal anyway and if he steals in heaven, there is nothing in christianity about being kicked out of heaven, and if there was, purgatory would no longer be needed by your rationalization. the real reason why purgatory is a tenet in christianity is that it provides further deterrence against people breaking its rules, which means it would be included the same whether or not there was a story about jesus dying on the cross to save us.
You don’t flesh out the entirety of philosophy and theology before you assent to a religion, otherwise no one would ever be saved — you can’t read every book a theologian has written.
But if the religion contains contradictions, then it must be false, so why should I bother with it, and why are you lying to people about it?
Jesus tricks Satan into taking our place on the Cross; we “owed” Satan a debt due to our sins.
I have never heard this notion that we owe something to Satan in christianity. And no, its not a convincing story that Jesus tricked Satan like that, because Jesus dying in the cross is not a price paid by anybody except Jesus.
Another theory is that the Father demands that bad actions are punished, but out of Love the Father allowed the Son to take our punishment, and so by witnessing this happen and witnessing the terrors of sin’s punishments we are saved.
Why not dole out the punishment to satan rather than to his only son? And if its out of love, the more compelling question is why not forgive without having to punish an innocent person?
There are other atonement theories, and I’m sure you can find one that is persuasion to your own frame of mind.
The reason there are so many theories proposed is because it does not make sense, and that you need to throw a lot of flawed theories so that one is able to slip through the scrutiny filter of an inquirer because of his particular oversights.
(1) God, much like science, doesn’t care for you understanding every nuance of His ways, and neither could you understand every nuance in a lifetime; (2) God is beyond our comprehension, hence why the door to eternal life is accessed through faith and not the accumulation of human knowledge.
God is so different from and incomprehensible from us, yet he seems to care a lot about what we do in our lives, funny how that works. In any case, the most reasonable explanation for why your religion does not make sense is because your religion is fraudulent.
22122
1yr ago
Natural law has nothing to do with christianity. It was invented by greek pagans hundreds of years before christianity began, and only became part of catholic doctrine in the 13th century when Aquinas brought it in, and never got baked into the other branches of christianity like it somehow did with catholicism.
22122
1yr ago
you dont understand why people commit crimes. the reason is that they are chasing status and being a successful criminal gives them more status in the eyes of their communities than does working at some minimum wage job for their entire life. you can't really blame them for choosing the criminal route, as they are just trying to make the best of their lives in an inherently unfair society, why should they respect the rules of a society that is set up such that they fail and you succeed? now of course im not saying you are wrong for supporting their elimination, but that you dont understand what motivates them.
Yes, people like this murderous burgler should be publically executed, but I really do not want people like you driving a "law and order backlash" so much so that my internal reaction to you in particular advocating for it is to defend the other side, even though rationally I can not justify that position to myself. In my opinion people like you, because of your moral and political ideological inclinations are more dangerous over the long run as a group than these psychopathic criminals and should be among those being killed, and yes this is basically me admitting that I want certain segments of my outgroup killed.
22122
1yr ago
There is no absolute true personal freedom in the ideal platonic sense, because one's behaviors are inevitably heavily influenced by the incentives present in one's environment (and one's ancestral environments via the behavioral impact of evolution, instincts that modern environments can trigger or not). The same person born in two different environments will act in completely different ways.
To the extent that people can alter the environment, the environment should be the result of decisions that individuals freely make, as long as they are not denying the freedom of others.
So why not ensure an environment that has a greater tendency to result in men being inventors, athletes, entrepreneurs, sex gods, artists, warriors, powerlifters, engineers, and scholars instead of gluttons, addicts, weaklings, poofters, premature ejaculators, and degenerates? (Unless you're advocating for absolute libertarianism for the youngest children too, heroin for 3 year olds, then you're going to have to make this choice anyway about which kind of adult their young childhood filters them towards being.) Is the second category really "freer" because they were born in a society that made it easier to fall to their temptations and they "voluntarily" did? Free to do what? Rot?
Yes the second category is truly freer because people are not prevented from being tempted into certain behaviors. If you are someone who has a strong desire not to become a certain way, then you should be able to resist the temptation to, if you can not then that just reveals your true preferences meaning you were not understanding yourself accurately when you thought it was something that you dislike.
This is a very naive view of psychology, neurology, and human behavior that denies the definitions of, among other words, "temptation", "procrastination", and "addiction". Sure our desires are a part of ourselves, but so are parasites. It is well-known that humans don't always behave as they would genuinely prefer to in their most decisive thoughts if they had more willpower. Thus willpower is the essence of true liberty itself. So shouldn't a properly libertarian society have as its first aim maximizing the willpower, discipline, etc. of its citizens such that they can always make the choice they'll wish they had made tomorrow?
Parasites are a part of ourselves that we generally desire to get rid of. Now some people could desire to get rid of certain temptations but doing that would conflict with other people's freedom to tempt them, and so would not be acceptable, and no that doesn't mean the tempters are reducing your freedom, it just means you lack willpower. "It is well-known that humans don't always behave as they would genuinely prefer to if they were different people" is approaching tautology.. This is the first time I am hearing that libertarianism is about maximizing willpower and discipline of the populace.
Really? That's the only issue people have with heroin addictions? That they're disgusting and repulsive? Not that they can take over people's lives to the point of precluding engaging in basically all productive and/or prosocial behaviors? That people are driven to buy heroin instead of buying their kids food, driven to do heroin instead of writing that book they had in mind, driven to steal to afford their addiction, driven do heroin instead of accomplishing anything?
Yeah, those are the potential tradeoffs of a heroin addiction, some people choose to go through with it regardless.
Does retroactive choice not factor into your analysis of liberty here at all either? Most people who get addicted to heroin, even if they "chose" to try it at first in the moment, say that if they could they'd love to go back and choose the opposite. Does that choice not matter? Is true liberty merely the liberty to regret your decisions?
They would love to go back and choose the opposite, but that's not a choice that they have.
22122
1yr ago
first of all, please update your quote to match my edited comment. second of all, i dont understand why you think my comment was more antagonistic than the example i gave, would you mind elaborating?
I don't think his views are unpopular around here, just the opposite, alot of people here have a lot of sympathy for orthodox religions even if they are not themselves believers, and this shows from looking at comment ratings. If you look at his posting history, you will find that posts where he defends or promotes his religion usually garner plenty of upvotes on net. Meanwhile posts on this forum that are critical of religious orthodoxy usually are unable to get off the ground in terms of rating.
Also one of the reasons why it can be productive to say things in a tone that is more provocative than is necessary is because it increases the chance of drawing engagement, which can overall makeup for the unpleasantness of the post that sparked it.
22122
1yr ago
yeah, if sexual pleasure was not related to reproduction it would not have evolved to be a thing, so reproduction is its purpose in that sense. but i was referring to purpose as something that is determined by the user, so in that case sex would not have the same purpose for everyone.
in the case of eating, i would not say it is primarily for pleasure, but for an obese person it is, because they would not have to eat nearly as much if their primary purpose was sustenance.
in my opinion creating more people is not obviously valuable, so it may be a negative, idk.
What is sex, or pleasure, without that? Why does satisfying 'desire to have sex' mean anything without sex?
satisfying the desire to have sex creates pleasure which is intrinsically valuable imo, just as you believe creating more people is valuable, i think pleasure is a good thing that is meaningful of itself.
Why not just jerk off? Or do heroin for that matter.
jerking off is usually not as pleasurable. and heroin has side effects that can spiral out of control.
Why do comments like these imply that the culture which prioritizes career and the single life over parenthood is evil, by comparing them to Molochian processes like immoral business practices. Preferring childlessness is not necessarily 'anti-family'. Its a bit irritating to me that a place like this which should have people with different outlooks on these topics seems to be in overwhelming agreement about them. Why is the culture giving status for wealth considered "molochian", but not the culture giving status for having a big family. Am I mistaken about what "molochian" means, because this seems to be a case of consensus building.
But wait you say! There's too many people on the planet anyway! So what if we shrink our population for a couple generations anyway? Just accepting this argument on its face for now (I don't actually), you're not actually solving the issue, merely delaying it and hoping in a couple of generations it will resolve itself. Why would this trend reverse? The only way this trend "reverses" is that the sub-populations with extremely high fertility rates (Amish, ultra-orthodox Jews, hyper-tradCaths) basically take over the population (and somehow themselves don't get subjected to the same forces of low fertility). Maybe you're an anti-natalist, a nihilist and you don't really care what the future holds for humanity assuming there is even a future. But you must at least understand that some people might actually care.
This argument misses the point that the only way for a population to compete with those orthodox religious groups is to emulate those groups in the ways that are relevant to boosting birth rates. But those religious groups rely on fear, shame, and the threat of violence to enforce their restrictive rules, and this is unacceptable in a liberal society. The best a liberal ideologue can hope for is that the future is filled with people who reproduce a lot because that is what they truly desire, and not because they are forced to by their religious beliefs, but this hope is naive.
But shrinking population means a shrinking economy, and the debt will only ever grow. Young people will be saddled with an increasingly unpayable debt given to them by the previous generations. Not having children is basically a free rider problem. You're expecting someone else's kid to care for you and pay of the national debt in the future. Suppose if no one chose to have kids anymore, then who would be left to actually do anything? We'd just be a dystopia of elderly people, Children of Men style. Humanity doomed to die off.
The solution to the debt problem is for the government to not spend in a way that accrues debt. You can internalize the externality by making people either have to save money to fund their retirement, or have kids to provide for them in old age. If everyone stops having kids, there is probably a good reason for that, and having a society full of only elderly people is not their biggest problem.
On to the things that are harder to quantify or definitely prove - I think the drop in fertility rate and the rise of childless and single child families is not social healthy, and is generally bring misery. The direction causality between between the atomisation of society and low fertility rates is uncertain, it's probably a feedback loop with many other related factors at play. We are facing a crisis of meaning and community in the West, and I think this has been driven in large part by the destruction of the family. Young adults may be happy to leave a hedonistic life free of familial responsibility in their youth, but when the reach their 40s and 50s, loneliness will and has hit them hard. It's incredibly short sighted and yes, based on instant gratification. They're the farmer who has eaten their seed corn and has nothing to harvest for the future.
Then wouldn't the solution to this be to spread the message that not having kids causes loneliness later in life. For what its worth, I think people already realize this, that some people are short sighted and end up regretting it is not a good reason to coerce those who do this but don't end up regretting it, its hard to know if a decision will be regretted, and some people like to take the risk. Also, the regret could be mistaken, an elderly person who chose to have few or no kids might believe it would have been better if they had had more, but only because they have changed as a person or do not remember exactly why they made the decision that they did.
It's hard for me to take your suggestion that childlessness is just the result of innate preferences when this is an incredibly recent phenomenon, it hasn't been this way for the entirety of human history up into this point. It also make no sense evolutionarily that our innate biological preferences is to not have children (some people are argued that we are wired to have sex, not raise children, but this still makes little sense to me, because we are a K reproductive strategy species, not an r).
There has been at least one other society in history that has had the same trends, which is roman society. The reason this is a recent phenomenon is because in the past, religious and cultural pressure prevented people from deciding for themselves whether they want sex to bring about babies for them.
Additionally, we live in an age of unprecedented information, ideology and propaganda. I don't believe or one second that say, feminist ideology hasn't had an impact on fertility rates.
Of course it has, but I don't see the problem, if people were convinced by feminist ideology, there is probably a good reason they were.
22122
11mo ago
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.
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.
22122
11mo ago
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.
22122
1yr ago
People still believe in Truth.
So youre saying people did not believe false things before the 21st century?
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.
22122
1yr ago
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.
22122
1yr ago
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?
22122
1yr ago
Your ancestors, and ultimately abiogenesis.
so to clarify, this duty you are referring to is about continuing the cycle of evolution where species change through generations to adapt to their environments by way of natural selection processes, and you are saying that abiogenesis started this duty? if so, thats gibberish to me because abiogenesis is not some person that can make a contract with anybody thereby giving them a duty, with all due respect, I think youre just making stuff up.
I think there are limits to free speech. If the free speakers are convincing society that other freedoms should be restricted, in a way which violates property or self ownership rights, then such speach should be shut down because it is dangerous, however, if it convinces people to live differently but leave other people alone, that is fine.
More options
Context Copy link