BANNED USER: Repeatedly posting trollish "death to my outgroup"
22122
No bio...
User ID: 1194
Banned by: @Amadan
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
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
"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.
22122
1yr ago
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.
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
All the talk about Jesus 'sacrifice' but no one seems to remember two problems with this idea. First is that it does not make sense why God would want his only son to sacrifice himself in order for God to forgive the sins of humans. That jesus sacrificed himself is not a sacrifice from sinful humans but from jesus, which was god's son and did not carry any fault against god. Secondly, it didnt give humans any appreciable benefit because according to traditional christian doctrine, our sins are still going to be punished in purgatory and hell in a way that is way worse than what jesus endured on the cross. Instead of this incoherent sacrifice, it would have made more sense to kill the devil which continues to lead people into sin, or as the christian story goes.
22122
1yr ago
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?
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.
libertAryan = Valuing liberty (the positive, invigorating liberty of the non-gender-traitorous man seeking the reasonable fulfillment of his masculine birthright, not degenerate or effeminate "liberty") + the promotion of Aryan power and recognition of Aryan nobility (There's a character limit on flairs you see so linguistic economy via pun was necessary here.)
Any ideology can say they value liberty if they can limit it to only behaviors they consider virtuous or not transgressive as defined by their non-liberty-focused moral system. The whole point of liberty is that people with different moral beliefs and living preferences and purposes can coexist with minimal friction, so making use of social paradigms like property rights legal framework in order to maximize freedom. If you disagree, how are you defining liberty?
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.
22122
1yr ago
why does it matter what is improved in the future if you wont be alive to witness it?
22122
1yr ago
if sexual morality should not be about consent, then what do you think it should be about?
This place has never been free of unpleasantness, just look at how often innocent people get labeled as degenerate by right wing posters and no one bats an eye.
The poster was wondering why people do not approach his religion respectfully, and I explained why, yeah it was a bit snarky but nothing extraordinary for this forum. If a post with a similar tone was made against wokism or some other leftist ideology, I don't think it would be downvoted like this one and I don't think it would have been called out by a mod.
But maybe I am just hopelessly biased to see things accurately.
22122
11mo ago
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.
22122
1yr ago
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.
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.
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.
this is not convincing to me because in my opinion the purpose of sex is pleasure, reproduction is a secondary effect which is not necessarily desirable. People who have sex while denying its reproductive potential do not feel like they are wasting their desire, instead they feel like they are fulfilling it. I think you are the one who is confused here.
22122
11mo ago
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.
22122
1yr ago
A closed door rule works better almost all the time. As does a chaperon rule. Or a ban on premarital sex that is enforced against adults but not minors.
Are these rules meant for reducing sexual coercion? I am not sure what flaw of the consent based morality you think these rules can fix.
but then you say that it
takes away sexual adventurism more or less randomly
which your proposals all do even more.
yes, it is hard to prove that consent occurred but I don't think this justifies further restrictions on sexual freedom. If a woman wants to be safe, they can take precautions when around men. And if your problem is that it is too easy to falsely accuse people of sexual coercion then the solution is to raise the bar for evidence required to the 'innocent until proven guilty' level.
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?
22122
1yr ago
you can address drug addiction induced violence by punishing the violent people, its unfair to ban the drug thereby punishing nonviolent users.
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.
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