@Celestial-body-NOS's banner p

Celestial-body-NOS

Why should Man not rebel against Nature, when Nature herself is in rebellion against Justice?

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

				

User ID: 290

Celestial-body-NOS

Why should Man not rebel against Nature, when Nature herself is in rebellion against Justice?

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

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 290

Note that "marg bar _____", while literally translating as "death to _____", is often used as an idiomatic expression of general hostility; compare how N. W. A. were not expressing carnal desire for the local constabulary.

What is shame for? Why do we have it? To bully people into doing things that are pro-social. There's a reason why fat people are shamed and it's not just because of cruelty for cruelty's sake, there's value in it as well.

But the value is vastly less than the cost, even before one takes into account the low effectiveness.

Progressives can post just as easily as they used to, they just don't want to do it when non-progressives have the right to respond.

In other words, they were accustomed to privilege, and now equality feels like oppression?

The cost of obesity is enormously high economically, medically and aesthetically.

The cost of fat-shaming, in human suffering, is higher.

He could have been motivated by a (real or perceived) personal or professional slight which he blamed on the individuals targeted.

Like with Charles Guiteau shooting James Garfield?

A country capable of such measures is not worth defending.

He spoke of “building bridges,”

'Pontiff' derives from 'pontifex', Latin for 'bridge-builder'.

I'm wondering, I suppose, whether there's a way we can employ shame in a truly good way as a society? Can we somehow shame people without turning into monsters ourselves...?

Public shaming is a very dangerous weapon, and, if its use is normalised, can easily change targets to things that aren't anyone else's business (e. g. hair length in the 1960s).

Therefore, if it is employed at all, it should be reserved for situations of exceptional moral gravity, of a degree far beyond that attained by any of Aella's lifestyle choices; her father's parenting practises, or the making of excuses for them, would rise to that level.

(Also, the Third (Protestant)/Second (Catholic) Commandment, while commonly interpreted as an injunction against shouting 'G-dd-mn it!' when Mr Hammer meets Mr Thumb, might more accurately be rendered as 'Thou shalt not carry the name of the Lord thy God in vain', i. e., do not claim divine endorsement for your personal prejudices/power-complexes/&c. Thus, calling one's sadistic child-rearing programme 'God's Way' could be argued to be far more blasphemous than the output of Andres Serrano or Chris Ofili that drew so much controversy from Concerned Citizens.)

the argument that roads are paid for with fuel taxes and vehicle registration fees

This probably won't be a popular sentiment here, but I believe that we ought to move more in the direction of funding roads out of general revenue.

My white, Evangelical, smoking and drinking are sins circle faired very well.

I think this part should be hyphenated, as otherwise it becomes a garden-path sentence.

2: Stop signs are periods, not commas.

3: Where do you live where they have letters in the speed limits? All the ones I've seen are made out of numbers!

Inter-ethnic conflict that expresses itself in “cruelty as deterrent” is as historically common as the summer rain.

A lot of things are historically common, but we still condemn them as bad; inter alia, chattel slavery, spousal and child abuse, and many types of war crimes.

This is very “rootless cosmopolitan” coded.

Fair cop; I'm the kind of person who, as Scott Alexander described, sees a headline 'Victory for Man United' and feels inspired until I look at the article and realise it's just some sportsball thing.

After they wipe out the malarial mosquitos, ticks should be the next target.

I could be wrong about their motivations, but the impression I get from the Episcopal Church's decision is something along the lines of "The administration is aiding white people who are or might be in danger of their lives, while telling people of colour in similar danger that they are obligated to stay in their own countries and die. This suggests that the administration believes that the life of a white person matters more than that of a person of colour. This belief is a grave sin, and we refuse to be complicit in it."

Same thing applies to the Blue-Tribe hue and cry over the government paying Elongated Muskrat to put their satellites in orbit....

(edit: the government's satellites; NASA, USGS, NRO, &c. &c.). Sorry if that wasn't clear.

  • -23

"Fighting for peace is like screwing for virginity."

To which some wiseacre responded "You have a better way of making more virgins?".

they don’t think any nation is really worth defending on its own terms

Correct. Individual human beings are worth defending as an end in themselves; all organisations, from the nation to the East Cupcake Middle School Parent-Teacher Association, have value as a means to an end. (cf. Immanuel Kant).

self-checkout machine

efficient, human-free experience

What kind of machines do they have where you live?

before his own people hung him from a bridge

Hanged him from a bridge. He's not a bloody tapestry!

'If you won't marry anyone but a virgin, then you'd better leave a few of them around!'

What conditions did they refuse to accept?

they commit murder over promiscuity

seems odd to square with claims that promiscuity is "harmless"

Because the harm is attributed to the person who chose to commit murder.

If Alice does $THING (being promiscuous, wearing the 'wrong' clothes for her gender, expressing unpopular opinions, eating rice on Tuesdays, &c., &c.), and Bob chooses to kill or otherwise harm her over it, that does not make $THING responsible for the harm done to Alice; the blame lies on Bob. Otherwise, Bob would have the ability to prevent Alice from doing anything he didn't like. (cf. the Heckler's Veto.)

smoking was intentionally used as a patsy for a lot of cancers caused by commonly used industrial compounds

Sometimes they can compound each other; e. g. asbestos fibres will stay in the lungs of a smoker long after they would have been expelled from a non-smoker's lung due to the former having killed off their cilia.

Most of those are "little 8 year old Timmy has cancer" not "CW grifting".

I regard both of these as examples of grifting.

Does that include the cases in which they actually do need the money to pay Timmy's medical bills? (Edit: and he has a 1% chance of survival without treatment and a 99% chance with)

If so, what, in your opinion, is the ethical path for Timmy's parents?