BANNED USER: Repeatedly posting trollish "death to my outgroup"
22122
No bio...
User ID: 1194
Banned by: @Amadan
the solution to the real problem with this is to privatize the medical industry. then people would have to pay for the costs of their unhealthy behaviors themselves. the other problems you listed are not externalities, if poor health lowers someone's productivity, that means their income is lower than it would otherwise be so the costs are borne by themself, and it doesnt impose costs on other people. maybe you think that people have a duty to not behave in ways that decrease their productivity and fertility, for the sake of the tribe/nation/race, but i disagree with that because that ideology denies people freedom and involves interfering in their property rights.
22122
1yr ago
If you want to avoid stds then be careful who you are having sex with. Gay people can only spread their diseases to people who are willing to have sex with them, they are not forcing disease upon anybody, therefore they are innocent.
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.
it does not make sense to me that people are not traumatized by someone around them that is suicidal, yet become traumatized when the suicidal person kills themselves. its like they dont care about the suffering of the suicidal person as long as he is living, but when he kills himself then they are affected. to me its selfish to require someone to continue living miserably when they would rather die.
22122
11mo 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
the strongest correlating factor for getting melanoma is number of moles, most of which arise during childhood from sun damage events, and actually fadeaway with continued sun exposure throughout one's lifetime. sustained and regular sun exposure is protective against melanoma, this is why melanoma rates have risen drastically over the past 100 years and are continuing to rise as people started spending less time outdoors, and are higher in indoor workers than they are in outdoor workers.
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
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
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
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.
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
1yr ago
As for Armenia and Azerbaijan - of course, my sympathies are entirely with Armenia. It's barely a third the size of Azerbaijan with fewer allies and no petro revenues. It's an ancient bastion of Christianity in a part of the world that's been hostile to it for the last thousand years. They've already endured one genocide. But there's very little the West can do here - Armenia is landlocked, has no land corridors to the EU, is a CSTO member, and the EU is in no position to start using energy sanctions on Azerbaijan (the US has more freedom to act, and I'm still holding out hope for Pelosi's visit). I have quite strong feelings about the conflict nonetheless, and if anything, Russia's abject failure to protect its own client state from a genuine case of unwarranted aggression and ethnic cleansing further diminishes my opinion. If there was ever a time Russia could deliver on its promise of upholding Christianity in Asia or of constituting an alternate source of global order, this is it: a small long-suffering Christian nation on Russia's doorstep is under attack from a larger richer Turkic Muslim aggressor, and they have every legal right to intervene, and could do so easily. At the current time, of course, they have the excuse (!) that any potential intervention might provide a distraction from their very important and sincere commitment to several more months of sustained militarised slaughter of Slavs up and down the Dnieper. But what of the 2020 war, when they could have quickly bitchslapped Azerbaijan into accepting the status quo, and proven themselves Armenia's saviour? But no, Putin was greedy and stupid and had no real ideological commitment to helping Armenia, so waited until most of Artsakh had been reconquered by Azerbaijan, then belatedly tried to insert himself as a 'diplomat' (except it turns out, people need to take you seriously for that to work, as we're seeing now). Yet more evidence that Russian civilisation would be a good idea.
Azerbaijan and Turkey consider one another as 'two states, one nation', so naturally Turkey was backing Azerbaijan which is arguably the reason Armenia is losing. Turkey is a decently young country with one of the fastest growing economies in the world, with a GDP per capita of $37k compared to Russia's stagnant economy with GDP per capita of $30k. In short, Russia can not compete with Turkey in West Asia. Also you seem to missing a lot of nuance about the origin of this conflict, basically it started around the time of the dissolution of the USSR, where Armenians living in western azerbaijan wanted their land to become part of the state of armenia while azerbaijan wanted to keep the borders of their national subdivision during USSR. There was a lot of ethnic cleansing on both sides and a lot of people got kicked out of their land. What should have happened was the territory should have been divided along property lines to bring ethnic group holdings into their respective ethnostate as much as possible barring 'islands' within the other's land.
22122
1yr ago
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.
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
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
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
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
christianity as it was originally intended and christianity as was traditionally understood in societies since shortly after becoming the state religion of the roman empire are two very different things. you can't govern a society around a religion that is based around the idea that the world is ending soon, hence the corruption was inevitable.
22122
1yr ago
yeah, kids in these societies are consuming a lot of entertainment creations from secular societies, having access to the internet. its no surprise islam is losing influence on them.
22122
1yr ago
God is also responsible for making the criminal in such a way that they would be inclined to commit heinous crimes...
22122
10mo ago
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.
"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.
More options
Context Copy link