Doubletree3
10d ago
Just a bit too pat and simplistic. Looking around, it seems to be precisely the illiberals of all stripes who cannot engage civilly.
if liberalism generates values diversity, then illiberalism has a symmetric failure mode whereby, due the illiberals' need to enforce cultural uniformity, tribal boundaries are formed along literally any cleavage site in value-space (no matter how close the groups' values may be in absolute terms), and are amplified until civil behavior becomes impossible. Indeed, some of the most horrific and bloody human conflicts have been between some of the most culturally similar tribes.
Doubletree3
12d ago
You don't have to leave home and go on a thirty-year career as a stranger everywhere you live
You don't have to, but you give up huge potential future earnings by not doing so. "Move to the big city for economic opportunity only to see your fertility plummet" has been a thing for as long as cities have existed.
Doubletree3
12d ago
Unlike climate change laws, I can easily ignore them.
"At least for now" is doing a heroic amount of legwork here. To the extent it is true, today (and in some parts of the country it is even now false), it is not for lack of demand or intent. It is due to a set of political norms that have so far prevented the social conservatives from taking away others' liberties for their own instrumental ends. However, those norms are being intentionally dismantled as we speak. If they succeed, then the entire conceit of your post will rapidly become false.
As to the global/local distinction well.. the same people who handwring about TFR certainly don't see it that way. It is highly relevant to this group /which/ subpopulations have which tfr (either high or low) at the global level. Indeed we are talking about subpopulations at the level of nation state or higher, hundreds of millions of people. The "just use your personal freedoms" argument is hardly convincing to me, let alone (likely) anyone who worries about great replacement topics.
but it's hard not to notice that they are all fundamentally cultural
The opportunity cost argument is not cultural, it's largely about economic incentives.
A single look into the lifestyle of the ultrafertile makes it clear that all the personal reasons seculars usually give are basically bullshit
There's no discrepancy here. "You can have more kids if you drive yourself into (relative) poverty" and "populations that face a lower opportunity cost for having kids have more kids" are just two sides of the same coin. The seculars' statement, "I need more income/resources to have kids and maintain my economic standing" is just the inside-view expression of that fact.
Doubletree3
13d ago
The answer is women's education reduces women's fertility, and there's no real way around this problem.
What's the evidence that this is the true root cause, over or relative to any other number of competing explanations?
Doubletree3
23d ago
The 2a is not even a complete sentence and is ungrammatical punctuated. In your own post you have insert assumed words and change punctuation just to make it grammatically correct. And yet you presume to claim that the plain text is so exactingly clear that there can be only a single valid interpretation (conveniently, yours).
This is both found in the conveyed language, for if diplomats who are here through the most rightful means (and who are not named in 14A!) are not under our jurisdiction, so much less then are illegal aliens not under our jurisdiction, and it is found as an axiomatic power in the prerogative of the sovereign.
This assertion is of course justified nowhere in the plain text of the 14th. Its just your opinion. The degree to which it is or is not true legally is certainly subject to a considerable degree of legal judgement. And the people who are constitutionally authorized to exercise that judgement seemed to have just come to the opposite conclusion.
Anyway, I find your continued claims that certain interpretations of the constitution text are unambiguous or axiomatic, when they just plainly ain't so, to be a sign. I don't think I will continue here. Happy 4th and may America have another great 250.
Doubletree3
23d ago
Curious objection. Bulverist arguments against the left/libs are basically their own subgenre of mottepost. In fact, specifically, excoriating the woke left for its victimhood obsession, or "oppression Olympics", is so common here we can all write that effort post in our heads. Yet I have never seen a conservative criticise another conservative's argument on these grounds.
No, I suspect the reason why magicalkittycats post was not highly upvoted (relative to the average aaqc), has nothing to do with the form of the argument. The answer is just that the motte is mainly populated by people who upvote (downvote) based on superficial criteria like "this post criticizes (praises) my outgroup or praises (criticizes) my in-group."
Doubletree3
26d ago
What's your ethnic background? What ethnicities would you include or exclude from the category of "true" American people?
Doubletree3
26d ago
It's going to be a different country anyway, even if you had a magical way to make it majority white. Change is not death. And anyway you are not the sole arbiter of what future trajectories constitutes death of the usa.
Yep. And "a well regulated militia" similarly modifies the following clause in much the same, equally unambiguous, way.
The inclusion of the clause is unambiguous that not all those born in the United States are subject to its jurisdiction
Given the style in which the constitution was written, it's not clear to me that this is true. Phrasing, punctuation are clearly not modern. is not clear to me, just based on the text itself, if "and" is intended to be something more like a boolean union vs a logical AND.
even if you are correct about the logical parsing of the sentence, it could be the case that the category of "born here but not subject to jurisdiction" does not include categories like "child of mexican immigrant" but more things like "child of foreign ambassador" or "denizen of sovereign native American tribe". Illegal immigrants can definitely be tried in American courts for American crimes and then put in American jails so they definitely are subject to American jurisdiction to some degree.
Your confidence in what is or is not ambiguous is unearned imo.
Does it seem that way? I don't think I gave any indication that I believe only liberals can be civil. Illiberals of a tribe can often be civil to illiberal members of the same tribe.
As for the rest of your questions, they come across as an antagonist gishgallop. Instead of subjecting me to a barrage of questions that clearly veil some point you are trying to make, you would do well to simply state your point clearly.
Now it is you who are begging the question.
If your idea of "too different in values" applies to two groups of Arab muslims who have the same genetics, same language, same religion, same basic economic modes, who disagree over point of theological authority, then your conception of distance in value space is hardly meaningful and not useful as a predictor of conflict. It's probably borderline tautology, for obviously any conflict arises over some difference or another.
More options
Context Copy link