ChickenOverlord
No bio...
User ID: 218
Your comment here actually really got me thinking. My wife loves most bugs, and over the years we've found several struggling bugs that managed to find their way inside, usually cute ones like moths and box elder bugs (she has no qualms with killing pests like mosquitoes, flies, and wasps though). My wife will catch them, give them water and something to eat (like leaves or sugar water or whatever, depends on the bug), then release them in a nice place. Sometimes I think she goes a little overboard in making things nice for them, but her actions are driven by real love and compassion for the little critters. In fact just a week ago we found a vole trapped in one of our window wells so we caught him and brought him to a beautiful field a few miles away right next to a river.
In any case, my ooint is that for all of this abstract talk of bee consciousness and suffering, the idea of the weirdos writing this stuff having actual compassion and concern for these creatures doesn't seem to be the case. Maybe it's the virtue ethicist in me (and my utter contempt for utilitarianism as a guiding ethical framework) but all of these attempts to abstract moral and ethical behavior into quantifiable abstractions makes them seem like something an alien might come uo with. The human aspects of ethics are completely missing.
Almost makes me wonder if secret lizardmen aliens infiltrating human society conspiracy theories aren't true.
One of the times I was most proud of my dad was at scout camp. They had a bellyflop contest for all the scoutmasters and other adult leaders at the pool, and my dad had the smallest belly by a massive margin. And my dad isn't morbidly obese or anything, but he's certainly no beanpole either.
Abbott districts in New Jersey are one of the best sources of data for this. They're funded at (or higher than) the wealthiest districts in the state but still have dismal outcomes:
A way around this is to institute more competency tests, and make them rigorous. This will naturally raise the spectre of jim crow era literacy tests, but fuck it, if you cant recall basic facts like rules of the road, rules of gun safety, or what congress/the president actually do, you shoudlnt be able to shoot, drive, or vote.
Jim Crow needn't be brought up at all. The countless hoops that New York State has instituted just to be able to carry a pistol (despite being a "shall issue" state now thanks to the Supreme Court) makes it clear that such processes absolutely will be abused (and already are). If we could actually trust our elected officials not to be fuckwad tyrants I'd support measures like the ones you suggest, but until that day (i.e. likely never) I'll stick with near universal gun rights.
The author is making the case that the current status quo privileges men’s interests at the expense of women’s. Even if women would prefer a longer “runway” towards consummating a relationship, it’s the men who get to set the timetable, with their implicit threat of walking away otherwise.
The conservative Christian wait until marriage position is vindicated, yet again. Yet like Cassandra, they're cursed to have the rest of the world not believe them.
That's the one
Ideally the democrats can have their version of joe rogan.
I realize your whole post was sarcastic, but I'm reminded of something someone said here a week or two ago: Joe Rogan was the Democrats' Joe Rogan, they drove him and people like him away.
That said I'd love to see the dems put major support behind Hasan, the backfire would be hilarious and it would probably give Roach King Asmongold a year's worth of content from that alone.
Honestly I'm surprised the left hasn't tried to figure out Asmongold 's popularity with young men. He's a midwit at best on his good days, but his takes come across to audiences as "common sense" (regardless of if they actually are). He just has a disarming way of talking and presenting himself, and I think that's something shrieking feminist harpies are constitutionally incapable of.
Realistically they are bound by international laws about refugees that they are unlikely to tear up
International law only requires the first safe country that the refugees reach to accept them, refugees aren't given free reign to shop around for the best place to live. The overwhelming majority of "refugees" that flooded Europe in recent years passed through multiple safe countries but Euro governments cucked out and let them stay anyway.
One of my favorites, my only complaint is his hard on for boot camp that makes it take up so much of the book (and after that's done he decides to go to OCS for even more training!).
Ah, yes, the "unalienable rights." Each year someone quotes that magnificent poetry. Life? What "right" to life has a man who is drowning in the Pacific? The ocean will not hearken to his cries. What "right" to life has a man who must die if he is to save his children? If he chooses to save his own life, does he do so as a matter of "right"? If two men are starving and cannibalism is the only alternative to death, which man's right is "unalienable"? And is it "right"? As to liberty, the heroes who signed the great document pledged themselves to buy liberty with their lives. Liberty is never unalienable; it must be redeemed regularly with the blood of patriots or it always vanishes. Of all the so-called natural human rights that have ever been invented, liberty is least likely to be cheap and is never free of cost. The third "right"? - the "pursuit of happiness"? It is indeed unalienable but it is not a right; it is simply a universal condition which tyrants cannot take away nor patriots restore. Cast me into a dungeon, burn me at the stake, crown me king of kings, I can "pursue happiness" as long as my brain lives - but neither gods nor saints, wise men nor subtle drugs, can insure that I will catch it.
- Robert Heinlein, Starship Troopers
Rejecting the Nicene conception of the Trinity seems like a fundamentally different idea to me than what this "Imaginal Christianity" is doing, i.e. denying any and all supernatural aspects of Christianity.
But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen: And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. ... If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable.
1 Corinthians 15:13-14,19
Why bother calling it Christianity if you're going to hollow out the most fundamental claims of Christianity? It's just secular humanism wearing Christianity as a skinsuit. It doesn't provide a way to be forgiven of your sins, it doesn't even think sin is real! It doesn't provide for resurrection or life after death, it doesn't believe in life after death!
So long as we're coming up with skinsuit religions, I hereby propose Pigfucking Islam, I-Want-To-Achieve-The-Opposite-Of-Nirvana Buddhism, and Do-ALL-The-Harm Jainism.
is not incompatible with having empathy for her and awareness of the life history that likely brought her to the set of beliefs you find odious.
Sorry, my lack of free will prevents me from choosing to feel empathy
Literally saw this dynamic last week when the neighbors behind us were getting their lawn installed. A single white guy on the crew, and the rest of the crew were shouting jokes to each other in Spanish that he couldn't understand.
We have good evidence to believe that free will is mostly BS
Sorry, I can't choose to not judge Aella as a nasty hoe even though she had a rough childhood because I lack the free will to choose otherwise.
the pagans thought it was a bridge for the gods to access the world
Some argue that the Bifrost is referring to the northern lights as opposed to a rainbow
Heck if anything I've always considered Freddy Got Fingered to be a Gen X comedy. The movie came out in 2001 when the oldest millennials would have only been 20 and Tom Green himself is Gen X.
Even Ross just got social engineered.
Nah, Ross was straight up retarded and ordered fake ids from Canada to his actual home address
Isn’t the solution to reduce executive power so whoever wins the next election can’t just destroy whatever’s been built? On the other hand, much of what restrained the executive was convention and tradition, which has been razed in the last 10ish years.
10 years? Try 200. There hasn't been any real appetite in the general public (nor amongst elected officials) to reduce the power of the executive since Andrew Jackson. Jackson, Lincoln, and FDR are some of the starkest examples of executive power increasing significantly (and never really decreasing after).
Defense spending in the US (about $800 billion) is about 1/3 the dollar amount spent on Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid (about $1.9 trillion). Even if the US spent closer to what a typical country spends on defense (about 1.9% of GDP as opposed to the US's 3.4% of GDP) it would still spend about $450 billion on defense. Right-wing love of defense spending doesn't even hold a candle to left-wing love of entitlement spending.
You're only looking federally (and even then I'd say the GOP still has a slight edge because they're less willing to waste money on patently obviously useless spending like trans operas in Latin America etc.). But at the state and local levels, the GOP is clearly the party of fiscal responsibility, as can be seen by comparing debt levels (absolute and per capita) between various strongly blue vs strongly red states and cities.
And that's also assuming that cutting spending so drastically wouldn't have negative second and third order effects on the overall economy that lowered tax revenues in the process.
I haven't kept up with his content in recent years but my goto for his classics is Paradigm Shift 2070, where he tricked the organizers of a TedX conference into thinking he was some genius young entrepreneur so they let him speak. His talk includes things like teaching African refugees JavaScript on ipads, state-mandated homosexuality, and farming cheesy sea potatoes that will blow your socks off on the ocean floor:
As someone struggling with infertility, if there was some magical way to turn ball kicking into having kids I'd gladly take it despite the pain (in reality ball kicking tends to have the opposite effect).
- Prev
- Next
X as well with Seymour wanting to become Sin so he could give everyone the sweet release of death
More options
Context Copy link