Celestial-body-NOS
Why should Man not rebel against Nature, when Nature herself is in rebellion against Justice?
No bio...
User ID: 290
Celestial-body-NOS
Why should Man not rebel against Nature, when Nature herself is in rebellion against Justice?
6mo ago
Note that Genesis does not specify exactly what sins the people of Sodom had committed.
However, the book of Ezekiel, chapter 16, verse 49, describes it as:
Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy.
The Talmud further expands on Sodom's mis-deeds; they generally involve either callousness towards the poor or hostility to foreigners.
Celestial-body-NOS
Why should Man not rebel against Nature, when Nature herself is in rebellion against Justice?
6mo ago
Getting the girl to sleep more is the first choice.
True, but there is a difference between 'address why she isn't sleeping' versus 'ignore her goals and just issue a decree'.
They did ask why she wanted to stay up that late. The answer was that she was scared to miss a message and that any delays in responding to messages might decrease her social status.
That would not have been my first guess: I would have suspected either the standard circadian-phase differences¹ or bedtime procrastination².
If someone finds 'loss of social status from not responding to messages quickly enough' to be a worse outcome than 'lack of sleep leading to poor concentration'; the answer isn't to force her to endure the former, but to find a way that she can avoid both. (Note that when she is fully grown, she won't have parents there to limit when she can respond to messages.)
¹There has been much research showing that adolescents tend to function on later time-zones than other ages (possibly as an evolutionary adaptation ensuring that someone would always be awake to tend the camp-fire and watch for hostile mega-fauna), and that later start times for secondary schools would be beneficial.
²A phenomenon in which someone stays up late because they perceive that that is the only time that they have to themselves.
Celestial-body-NOS
Why should Man not rebel against Nature, when Nature herself is in rebellion against Justice?
6mo ago
Not necessarily; loss aversion is a thing....
Celestial-body-NOS
Why should Man not rebel against Nature, when Nature herself is in rebellion against Justice?
6mo ago
The parents found it easier to give their 12 year old daughter a schedule II drug than to set a simple limit that would have made her healthier.
I don't think either of those¹ should have been the first choice. Maybe ask why she wants to stay up until 0100-0200, and address that.
¹Beware the false dilemma!
Celestial-body-NOS
Why should Man not rebel against Nature, when Nature herself is in rebellion against Justice?
6mo ago
I suspect that those people would have been more sympathetic to Mr Penny if Mr Neely had been responsible for the cessation of the metabolic processes of an order of magnitude more Americans than Usama bin-Ladin....
Celestial-body-NOS
Why should Man not rebel against Nature, when Nature herself is in rebellion against Justice?
6mo ago
I literally had fights with my dad since I wanted to stay home and play video games, he told me "what are you doing on a friday night at home? Go out and get drunk!"
There's always a relevant xkcd....
I wouldn't be particularly surprised if half or more of the frequent posters are young women without children, but some child-related degree/occupation that makes them feel like they know what they're talking about.
Or possibly having been a child....
Celestial-body-NOS
Why should Man not rebel against Nature, when Nature herself is in rebellion against Justice?
6mo ago
"Moderate drinking at 17 damages developing brains" is only relevant if you think everyone was brain-damaged in a relevant way back in the day.
...which is, IMHO, not that far-fetched of a hypothesis.
Celestial-body-NOS
Why should Man not rebel against Nature, when Nature herself is in rebellion against Justice?
6mo ago
feminine methods of obtaining power.
Can you elaborate on what you mean by 'feminine' vs. 'masculine' means of obtaining power?
Celestial-body-NOS
Why should Man not rebel against Nature, when Nature herself is in rebellion against Justice?
6mo ago
In Rumania even the S.S. were taken aback, and occasionally frightened, by the horrors of oldfashioned, spontaneous pogroms on a gigantic scale; they often intervened to save Jews from sheer butchery, so that the killing could be done in what, according to them, was a civilized way.
Things became so bad that the local Nazi representative, German noble Manfred von Killinger, intervened and asked them to stop and defer to the Third Reich’s own efforts. I feel like when a Nazi named “Baron von Killinger” is horrified by your brutality, it’s time to take a step back and evaluate whether you may have crossed a line.
(Slate Star Codex, Review of Eichmann In Jerusalem, January 2017.)
Celestial-body-NOS
Why should Man not rebel against Nature, when Nature herself is in rebellion against Justice?
6mo ago
And if the Nations didn't want Jewish people to conspire internationally to blah blah blah, maybe don't try to wipe them out every time you're looking for a scapegoat.
(I don't believe there is any international Jewish conspiracy¹, but if there were, I'm not sure I'd blame them.)
¹"I can swear to you, there is no Jewish banking conspiracy. Do you know why? Jews can't agree with other Jews on where to go for dinner! There's no way we control the banks! We couldn't even get that meeting started! 'Alright, Saul, Morris, everybody sit down, we're gonna start the meeting to control the banks.' 'Oh sure, who died and left you king? No, sure, start the meeting, I'll sit over here, I'm nobody, I'm nothing, I got no opinions.'" -- Jon Stewart
Celestial-body-NOS
Why should Man not rebel against Nature, when Nature herself is in rebellion against Justice?
6mo ago
Would Putin accept any settlement short of "I get some of what I want now, and come back for the rest later."?
Celestial-body-NOS
Why should Man not rebel against Nature, when Nature herself is in rebellion against Justice?
6mo ago
had a wife he slapped around occasionally and kids he'd over-discipline when drunk
We're definitely too soft on that sort of crime.
Celestial-body-NOS
Why should Man not rebel against Nature, when Nature herself is in rebellion against Justice?
6mo ago
hypothetical
Many bad things are hypothetical, but we guard against them anyway. It's quite hypothetical that Mozilla headquarters catches on fire, but we still insist that they have fire-alarms, sprinklers, and stairwells with doors and walls that won't burn through in less than two hours.
Furthermore, the CEO having given support to government discrimination against gay people signals to gay employees 'You Are Not Welcome Here', to homophobic employees that they are more likely to get away with mis-conduct aimed at gay people, and to managers dealing with said mis-conduct by sub-ordinates that a vigorous response to said mis-conduct might not be appreciated.
Celestial-body-NOS
Why should Man not rebel against Nature, when Nature herself is in rebellion against Justice?
6mo ago
It seems that you have a strong belief that there is no acceptable reason (without animus) to treat one group of people separately from another. Is this correct?
I believe that right and wrong consist in how one treats individual human beings; 'committing a wrong against a group' is an abstraction of wrongs committed against individual members of that group. Thus I would phrase it more as "Membership in a group is not an acceptable reason to treat one person worse than another."
Likewise, a heterosexual marriage is not literally exactly the same as a homosexual marriage: in one, two people of the same sex are marrying, in the other, two members of the opposite sex.
Anyone can regard this distinction as being relevant or as being irrelevant.
The distinction is irrelevant with regard to the State. For legitimate government purposes, 'same/different genital configuration' of the persons marrying is approximately as relevant as 'same/different astrological sign', or 'same/different final digit in Social Security Number'.
Someone who believes that marriage is primarily about financial cooperation, or about publicly celebrating subjective affection, may regard the distinction as irrelevant. Equally, someone who regards marriage as being the joining of two complementary sexes to form a well-rounded whole, or as the basis for the creation and nurturing of genetic offspring, will see the homosexual / heterosexual distinction as highly relevant.
The government's interests in marriage largely involve 'financial cooperation', along with things like 'this person is in hospital, unconscious; whom do we ask about their wishes: the person with whom they have lived for two decades, or their parents who kicked them out when they were 16?'.
'The joining of two complementary sexes to form a well-rounded whole', being, if not a religious belief per se, at least religion-adjacent, is not a legitimate foundation for government policy. 'Nurturing of genetic offspring' is also, while easily pattern-matched to the legitimate government interest in ensuring that children are cared for by someone, not a valid argument against same-sex marriage, as a same-sex couple can adopt children or conceive via surrogacy or gamete donation, and opposite-sex couples in which one or both members are infertile are not excluded from government marriage.
This applies to civil marriage; a church which teaches the doctrine of 'complementary sexes forming a well-rounded whole' and thus only solemnising opposite-sex marriages is a different matter. There were proposals made that the State withdraw from the business of marriage entirely, issue 'civil unions' to couples without regard to gender, and leave 'marriage' to religious organisations, which could set whatever criteria they darn well pleased.
If such a proposal had been on the ballot, support thereof would not constitute animus against gay people.
Celestial-body-NOS
Why should Man not rebel against Nature, when Nature herself is in rebellion against Justice?
6mo ago
· Edited 6mo ago
At the time of Eichgate Eichpot Dome Eich Mobilier Let's go Brendan whatever we're calling the matter, I was just beginning to follow the rationalist sphere; the wokists, then called 'social justice warriors' or 'SJWs', had not yet burned all their credibility, and I still looked with favour on the movement, despite dis-agreeing with it when I felt it was wrong.
I thus held the following Views on their actions:
- Desiring that the State offer privileges to opposite-sex couples that are un-available to same-sex couples, ceteris paribus, constitutes animus against gay people.
- A person who harbours animus against gay people ought not be the CEO of a company, as they cannot be trusted to take sufficient action should gay employees face discrimination from their supervisors or harassment from their colleagues. (The same applies to the head of the HR department.)
- However, such animus ought not be dis-qualifying for other positions; had Mr Eich been dismissed as CTO, CFO, EIEIO, Assistant Regional Manager, Assistant To The Regional Manager, or Deputy Assistant Head Of Purchasing For Custom-Colour Office Supplies Such As Red Staplers, despite not having acted on his animus while on the job, one could reasonably argue said dismissal to be an act of injustice.
Celestial-body-NOS
Why should Man not rebel against Nature, when Nature herself is in rebellion against Justice?
6mo ago
"Our world-view is Basic Human Decency/Objectively Correct Reality; therefore, explicitly acknowledging it as true is un-remarkable, while disagreeing with it, or even not explicitly affirming it, is Shoving Your Politics In My Face."
Celestial-body-NOS
Why should Man not rebel against Nature, when Nature herself is in rebellion against Justice?
6mo ago
· Edited 6mo ago
Horse!
Mule!
Horse!!
Mule!!!
HORSE!!!!
MULE!!!!!
(Fiddler on the Roof, referenced by Slate Star Codex, March 2016.)
Celestial-body-NOS
Why should Man not rebel against Nature, when Nature herself is in rebellion against Justice?
6mo ago
Feminism as a concrete social movement is about advancing the material and social interests of women (or at least, the interests of a certain subset of women). It's not about "giving people the freedom to explore their identities" or "recognizing the complexity of every human" or any claptrap like that.
Until men or other women disagree with it, whereupon they retreat to "Feminism is simply the radical notion that women are people!" (This is why it is helpful to replace the symbol with the substance; yes, I Am Once Again Asking You To Read The Sequences.)
Celestial-body-NOS
Why should Man not rebel against Nature, when Nature herself is in rebellion against Justice?
6mo ago
Ideally energy should be very cheap.
Good thing Australia has a bunch of uranium lying around!
Celestial-body-NOS
Why should Man not rebel against Nature, when Nature herself is in rebellion against Justice?
6mo ago
· Edited 6mo ago
Children who have grown up in a WEIRD¹ society that teaches them barking-mad ideas like "When you're hiring someone with Other People's Money, you should pick the best person for the job, rather than the applicant who gave you a wad of cash." or "It matters whether someone did something wrong, not just whether they are related to you."
¹cf. The WEIRDest People in the World (Joseph Henrich), which postulates that "Western, Educated, Industrialised, Rich, Democratic" societies have world-views which are very un-common elsewhere.
Celestial-body-NOS
Why should Man not rebel against Nature, when Nature herself is in rebellion against Justice?
6mo ago
· Edited 6mo ago
The strongest argument for it, actually. If the only proposition made by Sklavenmoral were that 'the weak ought to be protected from the strong', and the only proposition made by Herrenmoral were that 'the strong ought to be able to do to the weak whatever they feel like', the former would be called 'morality' and the latter by the sort of words discussed in the 'Taboo vocabulary' category on Language Log.
The strongest argument in the other direction, on the other hand, is their respective attitudes towards those who Accomplish things, such as ending the almost-nine-year gap during which America Could Not Into Space.
(cf. Matt Yglesias Considered As The Nietzschean Superman, Astral Codex Ten, July 2024).
Celestial-body-NOS
Why should Man not rebel against Nature, when Nature herself is in rebellion against Justice?
6mo ago
I'm going to push back on the assumption that nurse practitioners, or even registered nurses, tend provide worse care than doctors for most patients. I want something more than an impression of anecdotes--preferably actual studies--because in my circle complaining about getting misdiagnosed made by doctors is a well-honed pastime.
I haven't been able to find it again, but I remember reading a story somewhere (possibly by Dave Barry, but I could be wrong) that went something along the lines of:
My tongue was swollen, and I went to my doctor. He did an examination, then diagnosed me with two Latin words, that when I looked them up later, turned out to mean 'swollen tongue', and told me to come back if it hadn't gone away in two weeks. I then asked a nurse, who told me to gargle with salt water; I did and the swelling was gone quickly. I'm hoping my dog's tongue becomes swollen; if the vet tells him to gargle with salt water, I'm taking all my medical problems to him.
(If anyone knows the source of this, please let us know.)
Celestial-body-NOS
Why should Man not rebel against Nature, when Nature herself is in rebellion against Justice?
6mo ago
· Edited 6mo ago
Laws which in practice aren't really enforced when a man is perceived to have gotten himself in over his head -- that's the point.
Yes, society still has a ways to go before it lives up to the ideal of being perfectly just.
Where $THING <> "force other people to pretend that you've changed your gender" I guess
I would describe it more as 'exist while presenting as the gender opposite that associated with your genitals at birth'.
resort to violence is not a part of the masculine story
There are times when it is perfectly justified to resort to violence; if Albert starts hitting Benjamin, I certainly do not think that Benjamin is obligated to stand there and let Albert continue. What is not justified is to impose an asymmetric standard of inter-personal respect on people smaller than yourself, or to de facto prohibit conduct which does not harm anyone, and which violates no applicable legal code.
to the extent that anything's actually changed
I don't know whether or how much it has changed, but if it hasn't, it needs to.
Who's this 'one'?
Anyone who is trying to move society in a direction in which Andrew being twice the size of Bill does not mean that the norms of society reflect Andrew's opinions more than Bill's, nor that Bill is obligated, under threat of bodily harm, to show any respect to Andrew that Andrew is not similarly obligated to reciprocate.
What does Tim Walz ... have to do with anything?
I was alluding to the speech in which Mr Walz said:
... we respect our neighbours and the personal choices they make, even if we wouldn't make the same choices for ourselves, because we know there's a Golden Rule: "Mind Your Own Damn Business.".
Even if one disagrees with the transgender ideology, a person, born with the genitals associated with one gender, choosing to exist in public while, via clothing choices/bodily alterations/whatever, presenting as the opposite gender is none of the business of the people standing next to them.
Celestial-body-NOS
Why should Man not rebel against Nature, when Nature herself is in rebellion against Justice?
6mo ago
· Edited 6mo ago
"Acknowledging" is the wrong word. You were advocating for or choosing those circumstances
No, I was admitting to where I am least certain of my position. In the circumstances I listed, it would still be better if they were dealt with by something akin to a legal process, so that Adam has just as much recourse even if Bob is much larger and stronger.
based on your own principles of what is most offensive.
Based on my priors of what is most likely to signal the likelihood of impending violence against Adam, or against people he cares about.
These do not turn out to be universal.
I think the notion of "(1.) Speech should not be responded to with force; (2.) if (1.) is ever not the case, it would be when the speech indicates the impending use of force.", if not universal, is at least universalisable in the Kantian sense.
For instance, insulting someone's mother's the way you mentioned is often considered sufficient provocation
Probably as a hold-over from societies in which it was a prelude to "...therefore your family is dis-honourable, therefore my family and our allies can get away with taking your stuff." (This was a much bigger threat in places with-out robust public order, which is why, even though I sympathised with many of the complaints raised in 2020 about the tactics and methods used by police, the calls for the total abolition of police departments never sat well with me.)
Thus, among the examples listed in the second group, it is the closest to the line, even if I would still not hesitate to find Adam liable were Bob to sue him and I were to be on the jury, whereas I would be less immovable in the first group of examples.
you'd only expect Bob to do it if he WANTED a physical fight
That is the other exception to "The person who threw the first punch committed a tort."; covering professional pugilists, people who mutually decide to settle their disputes outdoors, and certain non-standard carnal practises.
When France legalised no-fault divorce, male life expectancy went up by a year.
More options
Context Copy link