@Celestial-body-NOS's banner p

Celestial-body-NOS

Liberalism has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and left untried.

0 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 05 00:16:31 UTC

				

User ID: 290

Celestial-body-NOS

Liberalism has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and left untried.

0 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 05 00:16:31 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 290

If they would still be subject to U. S. immigration law, it's a non-starter. In the event that some other country starts persecuting its Jewish population, they can move to Israel under Chok ha-Shvut; a homeland under the jurisdiction of the goyim would be tempted to refuse them entry on the usual grounds, as occurred prior to the Second World War.

I'm not saying it's guaranteed to work; I'm saying it has a possibility of working, whereas the chances of a good outcome from a constant battle between racial groups are as near as makes no difference to zero.

If you go into a casino and bet on a single spin of a roulette wheel, you probably won't win if you bet on any of the numbers from 0-36, but you'll definitely lose if you bet on 93.

We shouldn’t bury our heads to this.

If Fulan al-Fulani commits numerous acts of of sexual assault and grievous bodily harm, we shouldn't bury our heads to it, and Mr al-Fulani should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law; I do not disagree with you on this.

However, if Dhuhath al-Dhuhathi has not committed any such crimes, he does not deserve to be treated as bearing responsibility for the actions of Mr al-Fulani.

I would not want to be held accountable for things I didn't do, merely because the people who did them all looked like me; therefore, the Golden Rule precludes subjecting Mr al-Dhuhathi to the same fate.

I have. I have never supported cultural relativism, and have long argued against the pernicious notion that a vile act done by a white man somehow becomes excusable when done by a Person Of Colour.

I stand against anyone, alt-right or ctrl-left, who claims that a thing forbidden one person ought be permitted another, solely on the grounds of their respective race, class, gender, religious affiliation, &c., or that blame for the misdeeds of one person ought fall on others sharing the aforementioned characteristics.

And if everyone but whites follow that ethic, and whites are the only ones that don't, then what happens?

By setting a good example, you convince everyone else to follow, bringing us to a world where people of every colour and creed work together for mankindish goodgain.

That may seem like a long shot to you, but the odds are a damn sight better than they would be given the eternal existential zero-sum racial warfare advocated for by the failed painter.

If I recall the reports of Rotherham correctly, the typical victim was from the underclass.

This leads us to the deeper origin of the atrocity in question: the belief that humanity can be divided into Lives That Matter and Lives That Don't Matter. Some of the Muslamic Ray Guns made the division at 'Muslims' v. 'infidels'; some of them, the ones who victimised children of Pakistani extraction, drew the line at 'members of my clan' v. 'everyone else'; the police who ignored the issue saw it as 'respectable people' v. 'chavs'. But if your solution is to concede that pernicious belief, and merely to move the boundary to 'white Anglo-Saxons' v. 'brown foreigners', you are not just letting in the proverbial camel's nose, you are admitting almost the entire animal and trying to exclude the tip of its tail.

The correct solution is to put all the progeny of Adam and Eve into the 'Lives That Matter' category; if you need an outgroup to define yourselves against, let it be the Nature which wants half of all children, the white just as much as the brown, black, yellow, and red, to die before they are grown.

And then there's the point that we tolerate from family what we don't from neighbors or strangers.

And my point is that we need to stop doing that.

If everyone follows an ethic of 'lenient rules for Us, strict rules for Them', humanity falls into the abyss of endless conflict. It is only with a universalist ethical system, in which the permissibility of an action does not depend on race, religion, or rank, that we stand any chance of reaching the stars.

I can make assumptions too! Assuming that a large portion of the population has a genetic propensity not to commit violent crime if not committing such guarantees that they will not be convicted of it, and also a genetic propensity, if they are likely to be convicted of horrifying crimes whether or not they committed them, to lash out against the system that put them in such an impossible position out of spite (defecting against those who defected against them in the previous round), rejecting Blackstone might result in more violence than a few 'orrible murderers getting away with their deeds.

Thou call'dst me dog before thou hadst a cause, But since I am a dog, beware my fangs.

--William Shakespeare, The Merchant of Venice

[I]f you are maximally mean to innocent people, then eventually bad things will happen to you. First, because you have no room to punish people any more for actually hurting you. Second, because people will figure if they’re doomed anyway, they can at least get the consolation of feeling like they’re doing you some damage on their way down.

--Scott Alexander, Slate Star Codex, August 2014

sometimes innocent people are convicted and sometimes the criminal murderers go free

And it is a fundamental principle of English Law, that one instance of the former ought to be prevented even at the cost of allowing ten of the latter.

Especially if one's surname is 'Bates'.

No, this thread started by talking about how it was a 'great injustice' that a trillionaire existed. That's already out of the realm of engineering; you don't get to switch now and ignore 'philosophical' objections.

Identifying the problem is philosophy; figuring out how to fix it is engineering.

By then Trump will no longer be president and it will be someone else's problem.

Hopefully, someone who knows more of tactics than a novice in a nunnery!

Many African countries have also improved economically.

Dark humour is like an un-vaccinated child: it never gets old.

I meant if everyone applies your proposed course of action, including the lower-albedo populations. We are no longer living in the age of "We have the Maxim Gun, and they don't."

That has a vague shred of plausibility because the Totenkopf did not originate with the SS, at least according to Wikipedia, they adopted it as lineage from Prussian and imperial military

"Evil cannot make; it can only mock."

My more pagan impulses say you punish the rival tribe when they misbehave and harm your tribe.

So when a foreigner in your homeland stabs to death someone in your tribe you torture them for a month. Then you post their mutilated body on your city gates for a year as a sign of what happens to someone who kills a UK citizen.

Now try to consider what happens if that maxim is made a general rule. I highly doubt that it would make for a more peaceful or prosperous world.

Gentlemen-rankers out on the spree, Damned from here to Eternity,

We aren't no thin red 'eroes, nor we aren't no blackguards too,
But single men in barricks, most remarkable like you;
An' if sometimes our conduck isn't all your fancy paints,
Why, single men in barricks don't grow into plaster saints.

("You like Kipling?" "Dunno, I've never kippled!")

If you're referring to Amy Coney Barrett and Merriam-Webster's usage note in the entry for 'sexual preference', please note that at least that particular lexicographic outfit considers their vocation to be describing how words are used, rather than prescribing how they ought to be used; thus they were not, like Willy the Word Decider, decreeing the term to be doubleplusungoodspeakful, but noting that many other people had taken offence at its use. (This is the same reason that certain four-letter words for below-the-waist bodily functions are listed as more taboo than four-letter words referring to the loss of eternal salvation: the man on the Clapham Omnibus will take more umbrage at "Fuck $NAME1" than he would at "God damn $NAME1".

  • -11

I’ll even admit torture can have value. Perhaps for information. Potentially to discourage future bad behavior in your enemy if you have sufficient power. Like the guys who killed Nowak. I probably feel they should be executed. And I might even want to discourage that behavior in others in the future by not giving them a clean death.

But as the wise man said: “If you did it for a good reason, you'd do it for a bad one. You couldn't say 'We're the good guys' and do bad-guy things.”

This is something called Chekhov's gun, which is a storytelling principle that says if a gun is shown on screen, it must be fired later in the story.

Note that in the original form, the principle was that 'If a gun is shown on stage, it must be fired later in the story.' Live-theatre productions usually do not have as elaborate set decoration as film or television.

it's completely inconsistent with the show's genre, which has no magical elements up until that point.

But was it portrayed as actually happening within the storyline, or was it a dream or hallucination? (I haven't seen the show.)

That's not to say it's true or accurate, any more than Islam being able to compel suicide bombers means Mohammad actually flew to heaven on a winged unicorn.

Minor nitpick, but the animal on which Muslims believe Muhammad flew to heaven was not described as a 'winged unicorn'; it is usually depicted by less fundamentalist denominations as a winged horse with a human face.

The biggest difference is that Floyd was human excrement.

Less of this, please.

I think the 'eggshell skull' principle would apply to this case.

Or, as the Rightful Caliph put it,

A car with a broken engine cannot drive backward at 200 mph, even if the engine is really really broken.

"Reversed Stupidity Is Not Intelligence", December 2007