Celestial-body-NOS
Social Dominance Orientation is the root of all kinds of evil.
No bio...
User ID: 290
“The poor will always be with you” is not a moral statement, it’s just a fact. We cannot, long-term, take care of everybody that we might like to. And no politics, no ideology however well-meaning can make it otherwise.
--Corvos, 2026
The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s and 1980s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now.
--Paul Ehrlich, 1968
The abolishment of pain in surgery is a chimera. It is absurd to go on seeking it... Knife and pain are two words in surgery that must forever be associated in the consciousness of the patient.
--Alfred Velpeau, 1839
Same schist cheems mindset, different day century....
a tiny fortress of blue beset on all sides by an encroaching jungle of red
I've heard that described as 'a blueberry in tomato soup'.
And the paramilitary organisations that ended up becoming Israel were trying to kill Palestinians before Israel even existed.
And Palestinian Arabs were killing Jews even earlier. Haganah was founded following the 1920 Nebi Musa riots; Irgun was founded in 1931, two years after the Hebron massacre; Lehi wasn't founded until 1940!
(Also, re your previous comment, the 'Stern Gang' and 'Lehi' were the same organisation; listing both of them is redundant.)
and the Jews lasted for quite a while without [a sovereign state of their own].
...up until the post-WWI imposition of widespread migration controls. If the United States had let in the passengers on the MS St Louis, and those following in their footsteps, the impetus for a Jewish-majority state would have been greatly diminished.
I don't think it'd be that bad if they went wandering for another thousand years
In that case, I'll be happy to see you at the open-borders-for-every-country-including-Israel/Palestine/combination-thereof protest marches!
given what they've done with the state that they actually got.
The actions of Benjamin Netanyahu, many of which I do not condone, nevertheless are not something for which future-Anne-Frank-times-six-million bears any culpability. It is her, and her 5,995,000 innocent compatriots, about whom I am concerned.
given the actions of Israel itself, I don't think they can be trusted to have a sovereign state of their own
...actions which only occurred because people were trying to kill them. Mordechai didn't just attack Haman for no reason.
I don't think they can be trusted to have a sovereign state of their own
And given the events of the MS St Louis, the Nations can't be trusted without such a state!
but I don't think anyone should have nuclear power (see my comments in other threads - it isn't a viable energy source
In a sovereign Jewish state, that would be up to its citizens; however, I'm sure many of those citizens would agree with your position on that particular issue.
No problems with them setting up a nice big solar/wind farm though!
In that case, for 'NRC' substitute 'EPA' and for 'potential radioactive releases' substitute 'disruption of endangered desert fauna by solar panels and birds by wind turbines'.
they can live in a multicultural and multi-ethnic society like the rest of the world.
I believe that that is a laudable long-term goal, and hope that is achieved someday; however, I doubt that all the necessary pre-conditions have been established, or that it would be appropriate, given the events of the II quarter of the XX century, for such to be imposed on the Jewish people from without.
A world with many multi-cultural multi-ethnic societies with no immigration controls, in which ethno-nationalism and restriction of immigration had long and continuously been outside the Overton Window, would, I suspect, find the people of Israel much more amenable to a one-state solution.
and given that most of the [J]ews I meet in person(at anti-zionist protests) don't fall into this category I'm not going to be persuaded that this is arguing for their ethnic cleansing.
Unfortunately, many people do not make such distinctions.
same forces that made men's survival contingent on physical toil.
Which we have ameliorated with the steam engine, the internal combustion engine, the electric motor....
this enables Alice to functionally rack up infinite debt
"The problem with infinite debts is that they are really hard to repay. On the other hand, the interest can be quite manageable." -- Slate Star Codex, May 2014
Yeah, I hate working for shitty bosses too
...which is why unions were invented.
Yes, that would be the null hypothesis. The observed differences in height, both in the observed tribe members and in human beings in general, is the evidence with which we reject the null hypothesis, but it does not stop being the null hypothesis because it is rejected.
Then she dies or becomes undignified.
And how is that not a worse outcome than Bob being expected to pay a slightly higher marginal tax rate‽
Bob may find it undignified to act as Alice's fetch-and-carry servant.
'Getting things off a high shelf because he is taller' is a metaphor for paying a higher tax rate because he can more easily afford to.
So we can blame gestures at everything on Nyarlathotep?
It’s circumstantial evidence, but we’re reaching “Scott Peterson switching all his dating profiles to ‘single’ 12 hours before his wife went missing” levels of circumstantial evidence.
"Circumstantial evidence is occasionally very convincing, as when you find a trout in the milk, to quote Thoreau's example." --Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, "The Adventure of the Noble Bachelor".
[H]ow exactly is an institution supposed to maintain credibility with the entire population?
They could start by admitting that they are capable of being wrong, and when they update their advice, not pretending that We Have Always Been At War With Eastasia.
I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible that you may be mistaken!
In that case, (assuming we have not discovered a method of directly measuring souls) we would have to examine their capabilities to make a determination.
(Some have hypothesised that the Pirahã might be such a population. Sometimes I wonder how Pokó's daughter would have grown up had she been adopted by a Brasilian family.)
Genitals and reproductive systems are not a resource, and making women's survival contingent on marriage has often given abusive men the ability to inflict terrible suffering on them.
Being expected to contribute to your neighbour's well being is not subjugation. Conan the Barbarian's desire to crush the adjacent tribe, see them driven before him, and hear the lamentations of their women is not the same thing as expecting that if you have more food than you could possibly eat before it spoils, and your neighbour is near the point of dying from hunger, you ought to share you food with him.
The 'thing for which we are looking' is usually 'a difference in variable X between group A and group B.
X can be 'rate of disease progression/recovery' with A and B being patients administered a new medication vs. a placebo.
X can be 'susceptibility to radiation' with A and B being species of bird.
X can be 'biological capacity for intelligence' with A and B being human ethnic groups.
My point was that Ayn Rand and Peter Singer are both wrong; If Alice needs help, and Bob has the means to assist, I reject both the notion that 'Bob has exactly zero obligation to help' and the notion that 'Bob is obligated to contribute even to the point of self-destruction'.
I have discovered a truly marvelous definition of one person's obligation to their neighbour, which this forum is too narrow to contain. I don't have a *complete answer', but there are some useful heuristics.
For the most part, mind > body > personal possessions > non-personal property (idiosyncratically referred to by Marxists as 'private property').
The genitals and reproductive system ought not be subject to the dictates of the community, provided that everyone involved is a consenting adult.
If you do not live or work in the same place as someone else, in a modern society your obligation to them can usually be discharged by financial support, allowing them to purchase whatever they need from someone else.
And if 'getting what's on the shelf' is a metaphor for survival? Maintenance of human dignity?
Can you be certain that the precedent that you set won't come back to bite you in the hindquarters?
I would rather live in a world where the sink-or-swim, devil-take-the-hindmost, law-of-the-jungle social-Darwinist mode of organisation is left in the past and remembered as one of humanity's many mistakes, even if it means that if I become extremely wealthy my taxes will support people who are not useful to me.
I assume you are familiar with the phrase "with great power comes great respons[i]bility."
I am familiar with that phrase. Part of the responsibility is to not use that power to do bad things. Reducing someone else to a state of subjugation, for no other reason than that you can, is a bad thing.
saturday trading
I thought most Christians held Sunday as the Day Of Rest....
civilization has also historically required the less able to defer to the more able.
People have historically done lots of things that they ought not to have.
The able help and do a disproportionate share of the work, and in turn, get status and power, the less able give up status and power in exchange for being provided for.
Almost, but not quite.
If you have the ability to help someone, and you help them, you deserve appreciation. In extraordinary cases, you deserve prestige. You are not entitled to dominance, and you sure as hell aren't entitled to dominance over the people you helped.
Alice has a womb and Bob does not, but Bob wants to have a genetically-related child. Since Alice is "more able" than Bob, does she therefore have an obligation to provide Bob with a genetically-related child?
No, because the cost to Alice is far greater in that case.
She can go find a ladder. Or offer Bob something of value.
And if there aren't any ladders around, and Alice doesn't have anything Bob wants?
The null hypothesis would be that the value of X (in this case, susceptibility to radiation) does not differ between group A (previously known birds) and group B (the previously unknown species).
During the holocaust, many [J]ews and [Romani] wanted to initiate violence upon the Germans
'During' implies that it had already started; they weren't taking any actions against Germany prior to the German government trying to kill them!
When you unwind the chain of violence backwards, you end up with the Irgun, Haganah, Stern Gang and Lehi using violent terrorism to achieve statehood. Defending their actions and the state of Israel means defending this violence and there's no real way out of it.
I think that proves too much; does defending the existence of the Republic of Kenya mean defending the Lari massacre during the Mau Mau rebellion? Does defending the independence of Algeria mean defending the Oran massacre?
Furthermore, not defending Israel means placing the survival of the Jewish people dependent on the opinions of the Gentiles, unless a sovereign Jewish state exists elsewhere.
After the Shoah, the Jewish people resolved "Never Again!"; the meaning of this, as can be expected from anything in Jewish culture¹, is widely disputed; however, my understanding of it is something along the lines of "Never again will the goyim be in a position to tell us 'You exist because we allow it, and you will end because we demand it.'."
This makes a 'bi-national one-state solution' unworkable, except under the following circumstances:
-
A Jewish-majority state exists elsewhere.
-
This state is a sovereign state; no more subject to the domestic laws of any other state than Israel is.
-
It has the capacity to support the population of Israel.
In your 'Jewish state in America' proposal, would these conditions hold?
Specifically, would the Jewish state in America be subject to U. S. immigration law, or would they have the legal right to admit even individuals whom 95% of the population of every U. S. State would prefer be turned away?
Would the Jewish state in America have access to the ocean, for a seaport and desalination not dependent on the permission of the U. S. Government?
Would they be subject to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, or would they have the authority to build their own nuclear power plant to power said desalination without having to tear everything out and start over halfway through?, and decide for themselves how to balance the risk of radioactive releases with the geopolitical risk of being dependent on importing water or electricity?
Nazi Germany was. How many members of Hitler's government continued to stay in power in Germany after the war ended?
And if Netanyahu's government were removed from power and a new Israeli government were established in the pre-1967 territory, or at least the areas allocated to Israel under the U. N. partition plan....
Usually, countries with reasonable immigration policies take matters like these into account. Are you proposing that the hypothetical Jewish state in America would be unwilling to take these people in?
They would; but the U. S. Government as a whole might be more reluctant; thus making significant the question of which one is making the decision!
¹I suspect this tendency might be behind some anti-Semitism, as it makes gaslighting the public more difficult; it is also one of the things I find most admirable in Jewish culture, as people's adherence to social consensus even at the cost of 'denying the evidence of their own eyes and ears' is an alarmingly common failure mode in society; we could all benefit from more people willing to stand up and say "Whaddya mean the Party says the sky is pink? Anyone can see it's blue! What do they know from colours anyway?".
How long in the past do you prolong 'universal humanity'?
To the first point at which apes became capable of hosting immortal souls made according to Tzelem Elohim; 50,000 years as a lower bound.
Note that the distinction is academic absent the general resurrection of the dead, whether via divine intervention or, per Nikolai Fyodorov, human agency; in either case, the question would be answered by the same changes that made it practically relevant.
'Null hypothesis' does not mean 'most likely hypothesis'; it means 'the hypothesis that the thing for which we are looking does not exist.'

Land may be inelastic, but the inelasticity of housing is a choice.
Also a choice; see the writings of Jack Devanney. (Summary will be posted below.)
Artificial constraints such as 'the elites and middle managers must not be stopped in their monkey-dominance games', 'land-owners must never see their assets not gain in value', 'advances in nuclear technology must not be used to make cheaper energy if they can instead reduce already minimal radiation exposure by epsilon', &c., &c.
More options
Context Copy link