BANNED USER: Repeatedly posting trollish "death to my outgroup"
22122
No bio...
User ID: 1194
Banned by: @Amadan
there is nothing inherently christian about natural law, it only became part of catholic theology in the 13th century because of thomas aquinas incorporating ideas from aristotelian philosophy, and even then his synthesis was controversial and took some time to be accepted. I assume early christians based their teachings off of the judaic teachings at the time.
also i have never heard natural law described that way, can you elaborate what you mean? like what is considered the game theoretical optimum?
22122
11mo ago
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.
22122
1yr ago
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.
22122
1yr ago
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.
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
What does the strip club visit have to do with your point about homeless people, strip clubs don't cause anyone issues that they didn't put themselves into. I dislike the word degeneracy, because it implies that innocent activities are malicious and that the people who do them are bad people, I dont think that sort of slander should be allowed in a forum like this. Its like a leftist calling rightwingers racist and fascist.
Giving a homeless person candy is a legitimate act of charity, I am not sure why your criticising that. Homeless people are chronically hungry, and feeding the poor is helping them, its definitely not harming them. It also makes them feel like other people care about them.
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
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.
And so you have a concept like purgatory: if you die in faith, but never did penance for sins (usually easy stuff btw), there is a purifying punishment for these sins. This punishment is not greater than Jesus’ punishment, which is magnified for a number of reasons that would take a while to explain (his innocence, his being God, his emotional turmoil). Were the punishments equal, Jesus’ sacrifice would still be meaningful in that it grants Christians eternal life and access to God.
Considering the account of purgatory that christians have developed over the centuries (ie people being burned constantly for years), I would much rather be crucified than have to go through purgatory, so saying that jesus underwent a worse punishment comes off as gaslighting to me.
As for “why didn’t God kill Satan”, that’s like asking why we are not all already in Heaven. You can ask endless questions that have no quick answer whether you are a theist or an atheist, but theists can at least rest assured that the extra questions are irrelevant to one’s perfect happiness and destiny.
People ask those questions because they bring up contradictions in the beliefs espoused by the religion, a contradictory set of statements can not be true. God was the one who created Satan in the first place, and if you believe that God is omniscient, then it follows that everything Satan does is allowed by God. Moreover, in society there are consequences imposed for breaking rules, for example death penalty for muggers, in order to deter wrongdoing and remove wrongdoers from society, Satan is according to christians the most consequential wrongdoer in existence, created by and completely subordinate to God, yet God does nothing to deal with him.
As for “how could Jesus take our punishment”, this really isn’t problematic: because He was also God, or alternatively because our sins accrue a debt, but really, you just assent that He can to buy into the heart of the religion.
It does not make sense if I punish myself to forgive you for your wrongdoing against me. Neither does it make sense if I were to pay to myself the debt you owe to me. Your suggestion to just assent to that notion is effectively telling people to disregard reason when it conflicts with christian dogma, but christianity can not overrule reason, because you must exercise reason to be a christian in the first place, ie to understand what christianity demands and whether you are acting in accordance with those demands.
europeans are themselves a product of race mixing over the past 8000 years. to be vague, west asian ancestry from neolithic anatolians coming in from 8000 years ago and replacing the native european race, mixed with ponticcaspian herder ancestry from 5000 years ago who were mostly derived from preneolithic european ancestry. south europeans have lower proportion of ancestry from those ponticcaspian steppe people which explains the observation that they resemble west asians.
22122
1yr ago
Jail is not enough of a deterrent for certain crimes. Most people fear death more than they fear jail. Also executing someone is more humiliating to them than jailing them. Also if you execute them you don't have to pay for the costs of sustaining them in jail.
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
1yr ago
its not like the romans did not change christianity when they converted to it.
22122
1yr ago
I don't get this insistence on labeling the holocaust as undeniably evil when in this same forum you have guys celebrating the fact that their ancestors 'destroyed the Indian nations' and getting a bunch of upvotes for it. If you think that a group being a threat, competitor, or burden to your group is justification to exterminate them, then why would that principle not apply to what happened to the jews in europe.
22122
1yr ago
There is no pedofascist freedom to become a society of weak, effeminate, fat, etc. porn, drug, gambling, etc. addicts.
This statement doesn't make sense. Society's don't have freedom, people do, if you are scared of too many people freely choosing to become those things such that you believe it warrants coercion against those innocent behaviors, then you are not in that sense any different from ideologies that do not claim to support freedom.
In that sense, the pedofascist conception of liberty includes a consideration of what genuinely expands masculine potential (and thus masculine freedom to pursue different avenues of opportunity) as opposed to what is simply "voluntary" (as man can be easily "voluntarily" enslaved by his baser, degenerate impulses).
Why is voluntary in scare quotes? Man can not be 'voluntarily enslaved' by anything because that would be an oxymoron. Those 'base, degenerate impulses' you refer to are a description of their own desires and are thus a part of themselves, so you are effectively claiming that people are able to enslave themselves which if anything is a weird way to describe the notion of self-ownership.
Pedofascist (and all fascist IMO) liberty is far less about the "freedom" to do heroin all day or walk around as a man dressed like a woman as in modern conceptions of it. As with Roman libertas, it is about being a master instead of a slave. And he who is not even master of himself is no master at all.
Isn't this just saying, "your doing behaviors I consider disgusting or repulsive, therefore you must not be in control of yourself", which is a convenient narrative for you, but is not convincing for me.
pedofascism accepts the argument that freedom of choice/exit/association is ultimately the most important freedom, with the reasonable curtailment of certain other "freedoms" within a limited context often being acceptable to achieve particular kinds of polities catering to particular kinds of individuals (with those who don't agree having options to leave).
Isn't this just another way of saying, "if you don't like the laws in this polity, then leave", which is freedom in the unsatisfactory sense of the mugging victim having freedom to give his money to the mugger in exchange for being spared of his attack.
I agree with you on the proposal that fucking or marrying consenting girls should be permissible regardless of age, but I wish you would mention arguments that appeal to property rights, freedom, and self ownership considerations, which would entice liberal minded people to agree. Your arguments are convincing to reactionary/traditionalist or fascist rightwingers but are repulsive or ineffective for people of other political ideologies.
22122
1yr ago
can you not call gay men cesspools here, im pretty sure insults like that are not allowed here.
American football and Basketball are nowhere near the skill expression of soccer and tennis, demonstrated by the many many pros who picked up the sport at something like age 16, so they are much easier for the dumb, but athletic to get into at any age.
Dexterity and coordination required to be skilled in these sports is not all that much related to intelligence iirc, but fast processing speed is a skill rewarded by team sports that is well correlated with intelligence.
arent both behaviors maximally natural just as any behavior, because we and everything we can interact with exists within nature? how do you define natural such that taking gender transition hormones is unnatural while taking hormones as a male to become stronger and more masculine is natural?
22122
1yr ago
it’s just that conservative communities have recently gotten better at staunching the bleeding from their young men
how so?
22122
1yr ago
The unprovoked attacks on supposed Christian hypocrisy
He has a point on this though, while jesus "the son of god" talked a lot about feeding the hungry, loving the poor, and stuff along those lines, orthodox christians talk alot about.. gender roles and birth control.
22122
1yr ago
and those traits can be predicted to change substantially because of evolution, race mixing or not, your descendants will look and act less like you as time goes on.
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.
Forgive me for having a condescending attitude towards Catholic theology, which argues in favor of eternal punishment for finite sin, burning heretics at the stake, and claims that masturbation is worse than rape.
More options
Context Copy link