BANNED USER: Repeatedly posting trollish "death to my outgroup"
22122
No bio...
User ID: 1194
Banned by: @Amadan
22122
1yr ago
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.
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
the audacity to immigrate to a country and hate the people who built it and let you in...
22122
10mo 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.
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
Except my post was saying more than just that. I don't merely think that it is stupid because there is no reason or evidence which justifies its claims, but further that what it stands for is deeply immoral, incompatible with liberal morality, and dangerous for myself and most everyone outside of its grasp.
22122
1yr ago
If you had a choice between living in a society where 0% of the population used fentanyl and one where 80% did, which would you choose? Which is better?
If 80 percent of people would use fentanyl if it were permitted, then I would rather live in the society which allows it because I would probably be one of the people using it.
At the end of the day, rights are there to get or avoid certain results. If the results are bad, one option is to change rights.
The real question is if the results are worse than if those rights were not there. Even if you think it would be better if an exception to property rights was made to ban drugs in order to decrease the rate that they are consumed, exceptions to a right beget more exceptions, some of which could personally harm you. For example, there are parallels between the arguments for banning drugs and the arguments for banning firearms, so if I want to own a firearm but do not care for drugs, I could ally with people who want the freedom to consume drugs under the banner of respecting property rights.
22122
1yr ago
If its that easy to undermine the norm of monogamy, then that is what should happen. People are naturally polygamous, that is why people take a lot of risk to cheat on their consort, fucking the same person gets old after a while and so less pleasurable. I thought you were gay? Ymttm you dont make it a point to make love with new guys on a regular basis?
Private sexuality is a norm that if dissolved, would allow people to enhance their pleasure by having sex in public if that is what pleases them, and by letting people who want to see other people have sex because it gives them a fluttery feeling that they like and gives them something to think about afterwards be able to satisfy these desires.
Men flashing children on the subway is not bad unless the subway owner does not allow it but I think the subway owner should allow it because of pretty much the same reason as for the prior idea.
22122
1yr ago
why does it matter what is improved in the future if you wont be alive to witness it?
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.
22122
1yr ago
No. My quote reflects why you were modded.
Just to make sure we are on the same page, I meant the quote within your post where you were responding to the example I gave of a comment that follows the same format as my post that was modded but is directed against woke ideology instead. Not sure why you would be against updating it to match what you are responding to.
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?
Every week there are several discussions brought up on this roundup about how low birth rates are a problem and people need to be convinced through propoganda and or religious manipulation or in some other way incentivized to make decisions that contribute to higher birth rates. Its rare that the other side gets argued for, either that higher birth rates would be bad, or that there is nothing wrong with current breeding patterns in our society. It seems to me like low birth rates are a result of people having the freedom, in accordance to their right to self ownership, to limit or delay or prevent the birthing of children, and that the resulting low birth rates are a reflection of the revealed preferences of the population. I also dont see any negative externality to people having less kids, its not like they are indirectly supressing the fertility of others who desire more kids. Which is why Im confused why its such a big deal to people on here and related spaces. Ive heard conspiracies about how culture has been altered by influential people with an antinatalist agenda to make childrearing lower in priority to women than having a career or marrying late, but I think its more likely that you are seeing these messages because a large segment of the population agrees with them because these life styles match their innate preferences. I think as long as society does not shame women who want to be fecund mothers, its a lot better than in the past where women were not allowed to pursue an alternative life plan. In general, I think its better if people have kids because they want to, not because they feel pressured to or forced to. I personally am debating whether I even want to bring children to this world, there is too much suffering and worry.
22122
1yr ago
wealth inequality is probably the biggest factor, and society is set up so that certain people can not make as much money as they want because of lack of intelligence, disinterest in the available options for highly compensated work, mental illness, etc. even though criminality pays less than working as a menial laborer on average, a successful criminal is more attractive in the eyes of some women being seen as a 'bad boy', so higher status where it matters, than a law abiding drudger.
22122
1yr ago
Drug dealers (by which I mean fentanyl and the like) are a net malus for society, they have only a very small chance of making positive contributions and have many bad effects. They should be killed.
Dealing drugs does not violate anybody's rights. Consuming drugs does not either. Please be careful before calling for the deaths of innocent people.
Drug dealers provide positive contributions to drug enjoyers.
22122
1yr ago
don't christians believe that god created the devil? who else could have? weird that god would create a immortal being with magical powers whose purpose is to advance the cause of evil. seems like god and the devil have more in common than christians like to admit...
Would the following comment receive a warning?: "Forgive me for having a condescending attitude toward woke ideology, which argues in favor of disordered sexuality, double standards that unfairly treat my race, and the violation of my property rights and freedom of association."
I doubt it, and I have a feeling it would be highly upvoted rather than sitting at -7.
22122
1yr ago
so your complaining that you don't have the freedom to force your children to live the same lifestyle that you do? and that this differs from authoritarian societies because there society would make sure that your children obey your desires?
22122
11mo ago
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.’
22122
1yr ago
But you pay a price for enforcing property rights.
And there is a cost to enforce the ban on the drug trade too.
What if the police are too busy to prevent you being robbed or murdered by people who are out of their minds?
It would be cheaper to have places where people can get free fentanyl as long as they agree to stay inside the facility for a period of time so that the out of control people can overdose instead of doing violent attacks.
In a civilized society, people shouldn't need to carry firearms to protect themselves in major urban centres.
They would not need to even if drugs were completely legal. As long as hired patrolmen are allowed to beat up hostile people on the streets.
The lady from San Francisco begs to differ, as do those who flee from these deteriorating areas.
That's because those deteriorating areas allow aggressive people to loiter around and bother people, they should not allow that and this problem would be diminished.
It is frustratingly difficult for me to find information online about the percent of potent drug users that are violent, but I would imagine that one of the factors behind the correlation is that violence and drug use are both associated with impulsivity and that many of the violent drug users would still be violent even if they were not drug addicts.
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.
22122
1yr ago
And who started this duty in the first place?
How is it in your self-interest to restrict other people from making themselves immortal?
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.
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.
More options
Context Copy link