Felagund
6d ago
You can't use DNA evidence from a place to prove you weren't there, which is what he's trying to do.
Felagund
6d ago
I was pretty sad to see that Louisiana v. Callais was delayed. I was looking forward to that.
Maybe if one reads the 10th amendment broadly?
I suppose the real question is about what relation the founders would have intended the common law to have to the state governments, and what would they have considered to lie within their powers.
Felagund
14d ago
I don't have an opinion on end times things at the moment (but thanks for the mention!). Among many of the contemporary reformed, I think amillenialism (we're living in the millenium right now) is the most common view, and is probably what you refer to as the most reserved interpretation, though there do exist postmillenials (especially among the Doug Wilson-adjacent) and premillenials. Dispensationalism is usually seen as beyond the pale, though.
Historically, many in e.g. the 17th century read Romans 11 as talking about a future conversion of ethnic Israel to Christianity, though that's less popular of a reading now.
Felagund
20d ago
Why bother? Because forcing yourself and the other person to dig, think through unexpected things, etc. makes both of you come to more nuanced, defensible, in-touch-with-reality versions of your positions.
And secondly, for the sake of those watching, who may not yet have committed to positions.
I'm agreed with you that we're on a terrible trajectory. E.g. the judiciary and presidency are on a crash course almost no matter what happens, given that, right now, all the district judges are making ridiculous TROs far overstepping their power (so that ignoring the courts is a growing sentiment on the online right), and on the other hand, the democrats want to pack the court. The chances we have a judiciary functioning properly in 30 years feel much lower than I would like. That's just an example, across the board, from both sides we're seeing escalations, radicalization, degradation of norms, which invites more of the same.
Felagund
20d ago
Could you elaborate on what you meant by this? I'm not tracking perfectly:
Because there's still quite a lot of us on the left who fundamentally dispute the framing of
COVID gamesmanship about religious services or with visas
I very much do not grant this!
Felagund
1mo ago
I'm also curious about what the new version looks like, though I read the web serial version.
Felagund
1mo ago
Yes, but:
- It's so massive that it's actually inconvenient. It's around 3 times the length of the entire Harry Potter series, which is a lot to jump into. 2.If this matters to you, it felt like there were more gay than straight characters.
Felagund
1mo ago
Why would they reject you? My impression was that forecasts were one of your big things?
Felagund
1mo ago
I think the desire to persuade is often to some extent due to vice. See pages 16-18.
Felagund
1mo ago
You can type them with the option key on a mac, or by holding down on the hyphen key on an iphone.
Felagund
1mo ago
No, it wasn't? They changed which line was the official one in the 20th century.
Felagund
1mo ago
Why are you recommending extramarital sex right after invoking your religious affiliation?
Felagund
2mo ago
My sense is that most theists here tend towards an old earth, and if not, they stay quiet.
Felagund
2mo ago
That wouldn't put an end to the problem. NGOs literally fly them into the country.
Felagund
2mo ago
In my library, there are more than 100 ebook copies of "This Book is Gay," of which 1 is being read at the moment. That probably costs this particular library system $5000 per year.
I've heard that you can often find similarly ridiculous numbers of copies of some other leftist books at other library systems.
Felagund
2mo ago
It's progressives, generally speaking, who dislike "child marriage" being legal (which usually means, you can get married at 16 or 17, provided that a parent or the court system signs off on it being fine). I don't think that this is accurate.
Not a good look for Cremieux. That's a shame.
Edit: Not as bad as I first thought, as he included the source in a series of links at the end, labeled, "Links:"
Still not great.
Felagund
2mo ago
It doesn't assume that there's sufficient evidence to conclude that God exists. It merely assumes that there's more than literally zero evidence for one sort of action being favored over another. Which will roughly always be the case.
It doesn't matter how strong the evidence is for/against there being a God; the relevant question is something closer to, "what course of action has, in my own evaluation, the best chance to get me infinite rewards/avoid infinite punishment?" Which has more to do with what sort of god is most likely to exist than what the absolute probability is.
They actually say intermediate scrutiny, not rational basis, I believe.
More options
Context Copy link