@FlailingAce's banner p

FlailingAce


				

				

				

					0 followers  

					follows 0 users  

					
joined 2022 September 09 19:25:25 UTC
				

				

				

				

				
				
				

				
User ID: 1084


				
				
				

			

		

	














	


		


			



	

		

			

			

				

					

						

							
						

						

							
							

								
FlailingAce


								
								
									
								
								

								

								
								
								

								
							
					
 
				


				

				
				
				

				

					0 followers  

					follows 0 users  

					joined 2022 September 09 19:25:25 UTC
				


				
					

					
No bio...

				

				

				

					

					

					
					
					

					
User ID: 1084


					
					
					
				

			




		

	

 











			
			

			
			

			




	


		

			
‎

			

				
				

					Hour
					Day
					Week
					Month
					
					All
				

			


			
‎

			

	
	

	 Hot Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
	



		

	






	

		
		

		
		
	

	

  







		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of November 9, 2026
			
		

	




	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
So if I understand you correctly, your motivation for this change is primarily that it would put women in their place?




and in fact mix genders in almost every activity now, even the Boy Scouts!




This isn't actually correct. Scouting troops can be mixed gender, in which case they are usually called 'Venture Troops' - and those have always existed. But the majority of troops are either all boys or all girls. As it should be!


When I was in scouts back in the day (probably around 9th grade) we had a few venture events, and they were deeply awkward. At one I remember we boys were playing football and this one tomboyish girl came up and asked to play with us. We couldn't say no, but it ruined all the fun. We couldn't tackle her properly or wrestle with her, even though she actually wanted to do all those things. I think the reason we couldn't is fairly obvious.


All this to say that actually, 'putting women in their place' should look like more segregation, more women only spaces, not more integration.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			
			
			
				

			
		

	







		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of November 2, 2026
			
		

	




	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Yes, I understand your position. In short, you don't value virtue except as a means to reducing suffering. Are you in fact a strict utilitarian? I find that philosophy obviously absurd because of its implications. Do you, for instance, support wire-heading as the greatest moral act?


The first thing I said to you was that you have a worldly perspective, and you've spilled a lot of digital ink agreeing with me. What you haven't done is provided any objection to my arguments on their own merits. I say: I believe in God, here's what I think God values, here's how that matches with what we see in reality. You haven't attacked the logic of my argument, you've just said 'well I don't think God should value that'. In other words, the second thing I said to you. 'If I were God, here's what I would value...'


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			
			
			
				

			
		

	







		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of November 2, 2026
			
		

	




	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


Is Heaven not a place without challenge and suffering?




Yeah that's a good question. I'm not confident about the nature of Heaven, I know plenty of theologians with different ideas about what it will look like. For instance, I've heard it argued that everything good on Earth will also be in Heaven, including things like tennis - but tennis by nature implies a winner and loser, and effort and challenge. So perhaps Heaven will have challenges, but we will rejoice in those things, as we are told by scripture to do now on earth. There's joy in overcoming limitations and growth, so why would we expect not to have that joy in Heaven?


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			
			
			
				

			
		

	







		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of November 2, 2026
			
		

	




	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


Virtue is independent of challenge or suffering.




Hard disagree. That is nonsensical to me.


How can you have courage without adversity? What would that even mean?


How can you have charity if there's nobody in distress to help?


How can you have industry if everything is already perfect and needs no improving?


How can you have temperance if there are no negative consequences to excess?


How can you care about another's wellbeing (i.e. love) if everyone's wellbeing is already met?


I can go on.




God would certainly not resort to such indirect and ineffectual methods as getting people to write and constantly reinterpret holy books if he wanted virtue. There are much more direct levers to push.




Yeah, my point. The question is 'why is there suffering in the world', and look at that, you've given an answer! "There are much more direct levers to push" - like, say, challenge or suffering that need to be overcome? Quod erat demonstrandum. By trying to pivot to some point about holy books, you've essentially argued that a world without challenge or suffering, but with holy books, is insufficient.


I'm confident that you'll dismiss this and try some other avenue of attack, because your objection to faith in God doesn't originate from argument. You have clearly set your heart against the idea of God. I would guess it's because you want to persist in some kind of sin that God condemns, that's typically the reason. The good news, though, is that God can and will forgive you for your sins if you just turn to him. I recommend it!


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			
			
			
				

			
		

	







		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of November 2, 2026
			
		

	




	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
The purpose of miracles isn't to occasionally fix God's mistake of creating diseases and disasters in the first place. The purpose of miracles is to point humans to God.


Here's a thought experiment, I'm curious to hear your reaction. Let's assume that God wants to instill virtue in people. Should he: a) create a world with challenges and suffering or b) create a world with no challenge and no suffering?


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			
			
			
				

			
		

	







		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of November 2, 2026
			
		

	




	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Yeah I get where you're coming from. I'll just add this: most service members, as they're getting out of active duty, are sheparded through applying for VA benefits and have very little control over the result of process. You basically can't finish outprocessing without completing the VA application, and the determination of benefits is done behind the scenes by a large bureaucracy.


I think I took offense to the idea that individual soldiers are fraudulently applying for benefits they don't deserve. The practical reality is that every soldier applies and the bureaucracy tells them what they will get. I also suspect that the rising number of disability payments is tied to the changes in transition procedures to ensure every service member applies. All of this, from my perspective, is at the level of policy, and it is working as those policy makers intended, whether for good or ill.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			
			
			
				

			
		

	







		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of November 2, 2026
			
		

	




	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Okay, I'm not sure if you know what a chain letter is? A chain letter would say something like 'forward this letter to three people or you will be cursed'. Revelation says 'if you forward (I.e. teach the contents of) this letter, you will be punished if you alter it'.


Imagine I sent a letter with some of my teachings to my student, saying 'hey student, please go ahead and teach this to people, but if you're teaching it in my name don't add any of your own ideas in there!' That would be eminently reasonable. Now imagine if the letter is an actual inspired prophecy from God, in which case editing it is literal sacrilege.


You get worked up over the strangest things. Pretty much every other OT prophet, not to mention Jesus himself, also told the people to believe them. As does literally anyone else trying to teach literally anything. Seriously I can't get over what an absurd objection this is.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			
			
			
				

			
		

	







		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of November 2, 2026
			
		

	




	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


It’s what Anglos mean by fraud.




Bullshit. Give me ANY evidence. And to be clear, "I say so" isn't evidence.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			
			
			
				

			
		

	







		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of November 2, 2026
			
		

	




	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


It's galactic-scale motivated reasoning, like anthropology or social sciences but without even pretending to be falsifiable, since they deny the very idea of testing their work.




This is simply false. A Christian should obviously test their beliefs. Scripture says, for instance: "Do not treat prophecies with contempt but test them all; hold on to what is good, reject every kind of evil." [1 Thes 5:21-22] More importantly, the Christian faith is not a random philosophy untethered to the world, it is specifically tied to the resurrection: "And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith." [1 Cor 15:14]


You seem to by relying on this idea of 'blind faith' which, though a common refrain in pop atheism, is contrary to what Christians believe. The Christian faith is confirmed not just by the resurrection, which, being historically distant, you can certainly have skepticism about - but it is also confirmed by the miraculous work of God in the lives of believers, which you can still see today (I think I predicted correctly that you didn't even bother to Google the case for miracles).


I will repeat this as many times as I need to: you are tilting at windmills. You are arguing against your own made-up idea of God and of Christianity.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			
			
			
				

			
		

	







		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of November 2, 2026
			
		

	




	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Still not sure what you mean by 'chain letter curse'. Are you talking about 22:18-19? Revelation was a letter written to the churches that was meant to be copied and distributed, and this warning is pretty standard - don't change anything in this letter when you copy it. There's no curse for reading it and then failing to pass it on, which is what 'chain letter curse' implies. At this point I feel like you're just making things up all over the place.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			
			
			
				

			
		

	







		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of November 2, 2026
			
		

	




	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Just as a side note, I don't think there's a nonfiction book in existence that tells its readers to question what it says. If someone writes something in a book it's a pretty fair assumption that the author wanted it to be treated as true.


This idea that 'the Bible tells you not to question it' is somehow a mark against it is just special pleading.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			
			
			
				

			
		

	







		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of November 2, 2026
			
		

	




	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
From your linked post:




It is fine to miss those people after they are gone, but it seems that, in addition, their death is considered a tragic event to be mourned, and also if possible to be postponed.




Here's the issue. The Christians that I know behave exactly how Tyler claims they should. I've been to funerals where the attitude is exactly as described - joyful that the deceased is with God. And I've also been to ones where the attitude was mournful, and those were the ones where the deceased weren't Christian. It's a stark difference.


Of course this is my anecdotal experience. But this argument in the form of 'If Christians really believed, they would do this' is exceptionally weak, especially since stories of Christians joyfully going to their deaths as martyrs are so common.


Indeed, this whole argument about Lisbon rests on the assumption that they were cowering in fear rather than joyfully praising God. As far as I can tell there's no basis for that assumption. You're assuming your conclusion.


I think, if anything, Tyler's and perhaps your experience are because so many people today who claim to be Christians simply don't actually believe. It's certainly true that polling of certain denominations shows mass amounts of people who don't believe in even basic doctrines. At my church, though, we rejoice when someone goes to be with God, knowing that they faithfully ran the race.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			
			
			
				

			
		

	







		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of November 2, 2026
			
		

	




	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Okay let's go back to first principles. What is your purpose? Why do you exist?


Christianity teaches that your purpose is not physical well-being, it is not hedonistic pleasure, it is not propagating your genetic material. It's not any of these worldly goals.


You are arguing strenuously that the Christian God doesn't make sense because He doesn't provide the very things He has clearly said are not important. The contradiction you are describing is between reality and this made-up version of God in your head. Again, "If I were God this is how I would see things..." It's quite literally the most basic error you can make in theology.




Why not have the devout be capable of wishing for manna, isn't that something Christians are supposed to be capable of? Or were those relegated to metaphors since you can't actually accomplish such miracles, only intangible wishes and copes?




Christians do pray for many such things, and those prayers are often answered. I've personally witnessed God's provision, even to the point of the miraculous, and I know plenty of others who have seen similar things. Plus, there is a massive body of literature on miracles and the evidence for them. I recommend Dr Craig Keener if you're interested to learn more, he has a book "Miracles Today" that covers a lot of this. There's also a lot on Youtube you can check out. However, honestly I doubt you'll do any such thing, it sounds like you've already made up your mind without bothering to look at the evidence.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			
			
			
				

			
		

	







		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of November 2, 2026
			
		

	




	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


Circular argument: your canon has coherency issues, but it says not to question itself.




It doesn't say that. Interpretation of scripture is all about questioning the text to determine what it means.


Charitably, you seem to be assuming that certain fundamentalist interpretive frameworks are actually found in the text, rather than being imposed from without, but if you think that you've been misled.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			
			
			
				

			
		

	







		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of November 2, 2026
			
		

	




	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


No, I am the final arbiter of whether I think there was a conspiracy, and thus whether I am engaging in conspiracy thinking; I already gave you the verdict.




Yes, and you AGREE that you think there was a conspiracy. What exactly are you arguing against here?




You appear to be a protestant of the low-church, charismatic variety. It was founded in 1965 and only exists because it decided the prior 1900 years of Christianity years got baptism, church government, the gifts, and the sacraments wrong.




Protestantism is and always has been an attempt to reform the church to make it more in line with the original, apostolic teaching and practice. This means going back to original sources, especially scripture itself, and modern scholarship around it. My church in particular is what we would call an Acts 2:42 church - "And they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers." [Acts 2:42] In other words, minimizing later traditions and focusing on the activities that the original church did. But I also support high church traditions and think they have a beauty and value of their own. I believe the church has many instantiations that meet the needs of many different kinds of people. Though, there is a dividing line between a Christian church that believes in the essentials of the faith, laid out in, say, the Apostle's or Nicene creed, and a body that rejects some or all of those beliefs and is therefore not essentially Christian. Hope that helps.


You, on the other hand, seem to have decided to discard the majority of the evidence of the beliefs and practices of the early church in favor of a radical heresy of your own devising. That's not in the same ballpark as doctrinal differences between churches.




Considering you probably take damningly literally, maybe an actual argument for my soul, good sir, if I should be so lucky?




I'm not quite sure what you're asking for here? I'll just repeat that I've encountered plenty of people like you in the past, in fact I was pretty similar when I was a teenager. In my experience, the biggest thing standing in the way of your salvation is pride in your own intellect.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			
			
			
				

			
		

	







		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of November 2, 2026
			
		

	




	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


this is a third world definition of fraud and not a definition of an Anglo country.




Words have meanings. You can't get mad because your made up redefinition is called out.




I find your view abhorrent disgusting and I would strip you of citizenship if I could.




K thanks for the conversation. Glad you got to explain your totally reasonable position.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			
			
			
				

			
		

	







		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of November 2, 2026
			
		

	




	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


What kind of omnipotent, all-loving God treats his followers this way?




You are thinking in a worldly manner. If those people were God's followers, they are now in heaven, which is a far better fate than anything that could have happened to them here on earth.


Why doesn't God just end world hunger? For that matter, why doesn't he conjure me up a steak whenever I pray for one?


Any time you find yourself thinking 'If I were God, I would have done this instead...' you are demonstrating the cardinal sin of pride, i.e. putting yourself in the place of God. We are not God, which is why we don't know or understand everything He is up to. As the scripture says, 'My ways are not your ways.' But on the other hand, we can and do see the evidence of His work in our own lives and in our own hearts. At least, I do, and other Christians report that they do as well.


My hope for you is that you have the humility to consider asking Jesus into your life, not as a test, but as a genuine request for a relationship with your Creator. You might be surprised by what happens next.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			
			
			
				

			
		

	







		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of November 2, 2026
			
		

	




	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Not sure where your numbers come from, but the data I found has less than 30% of disabled veterans at 100% disability. Additionally, many of them are older veterans whose percentage rose after a second or third claim.




So if someone doesn’t have an actual injury that prevents them from working but gets disability that’s not fraud?




You may be misunderstanding what 100% disability means. The answer to your question is yes. From benefits.com:




A 100% VA disability rating reflects the total severity of service-connected conditions, but it doesn’t mean a veteran cannot function in daily life. This rating acknowledges that service-related injuries or illnesses may significantly impact a veteran’s ability to work and maintain quality of life.






The VA recognizes two pathways to 100% compensation. Schedular 100% is achieved when a veteran’s combined service-connected conditions meet the criteria for a 100% rating based on the VA’s rating schedule. Total Disability Individual Unemployability (TDIU) allows veterans with lower schedular ratings to receive 100% compensation when their service-connected conditions may prevent them from maintaining substantially gainful employment.




For instance, you can have one big injury like an amputation, or multiple smaller ones that add up according to the VA's formula, or you can have a specific set of injuries that you have documented prevent you from, say, holding a particular job (which could be otherwise minor things like insomnia). All of these require pretty extensive medical documentation, and then it is the job of the VA to make those determinations.


'Fraud' implies that the person getting the benefit has lied to get something they don't deserve, but that is simply not the case here. The input to the system is medical documentation of conditions. It seems to me that you are objecting not because you think 90% of veterans are forging a bevy of false doctor's notes, but rather because you think that specific conditions don't deserve to get as much disability pay as they do. This is not a question of fraud, it's a question of policy.


I'm curious, is your thinking on this down-stream from the Platner controversy? I saw a tweet on one thread claiming the same '90% of VA Disability claims are fraud' - maybe that's where you set your baseline.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			
			
			
				

			
		

	







		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of November 2, 2026
			
		

	




	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
If you had any interest in considering this topic seriously, you would engage with scholarship and apologetics on these topics. You have not done so. Instead you post a half-baked theory about how the gnostics were really right but the evil church kept them down. Your reason for believing this is not from scripture or from history, but from your belief that the scriptures were redacted and that the redacted parts probably support your theory, and that the history was written by the winners who were trying to suppress the truth.


This is textbook conspiracy thinking. You do not have any evidence for your position other than your sense that it 'fits' or 'feels right'. I pointed out that you are required to make absurd leaps to reach your conclusion (most damningly, rejecting the entire Old Testament!) and your response to this is 'oh that's just sneering!' i.e. 'I can't answer your objection so will cry foul'.


I've had plenty of discussions with people like you on these very sorts of topics, and generally found it a waste of time. The reason is that those like you are not interested in investigating the truth, but are instead interested in showing how clever you are for figuring out what's really going on. Have some humility and accept that the last 2000 years of Christian scholarship might have gotten a few things right.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			
			
			
				

			
		

	







		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of November 2, 2026
			
		

	




	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Listen, I understand the instinct to be contrarian, I really do. But if you're going to try to understand Christian theology you shouldn't start from the weirdest fringe interpretations and non-standard translations, and then work backwards to conclude that actually this is a totally normal perspective and it's the early Christians who suppressed this clear truth. This is conspiracy-brain thinking.


Maybe you're just new to Christianity, but these objections have been dealt with over and over again. The fact that one of your big objections is inconsistency in the birth narratives shows that you haven't made the most basic effort to seek out the standard Christian answers to these questions. Though to me perhaps the bigger absurdity in your thinking is that you found that the genealogy of Adam adds up to 4000 years and decided this means you should throw out the entire Old Testament. This is deeply unserious thinking.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			
			
			
				

			
		

	







		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of November 2, 2026
			
		

	




	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I'm neither 'curious' nor need to 'begin to educate' myself, I'm in the military and know many people on VA disability. A friend of mine had to fight for years to get 100% disability, he hasn't been able to work since he got out. Another one got blown up and it affects his ability to think - is that fraudulent because it's mental health?


If you want to argue that military servicemembers don't deserve disability payments, or that they should be less, or that standards for medical evidence are too low, then make that case. But calling it 'fraud', even '90% fraud', is simply offensive.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			
			
			
				

			
		

	







		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of November 2, 2026
			
		

	




	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


Military disability pay. My gut says like 90% of it is fraud




What in the world do you mean by this? Military disability by definition only goes to those who were in the military, and who have documented injuries/disabilities related to that service. Where do you imagine fraud comes in to it?


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			
			
			
				

			
		

	







		

			
			
				Small-Scale Question Sunday for October 25, 2026
			
		

	




	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


No unchaperoned co-ed events?




Amen


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			
			
			
				

			
		

	







		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of October 19, 2026
			
		

	




	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Yeah that makes sense. But I would argue that just because she doesn't have an interest in fashion/niceties/etc doesn't mean she can't or doesn't pull it off.  Quite the contrary, the plot is often about why these political niceties actually matter in politics, and her having to compromise her no-nonsense vibe to succeed.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			
			
			
				

			
		

	







		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of October 19, 2026
			
		

	




	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
The MC in The Diplomat is not disorganized or bad at fashion or manners. She is in fact explicitly hyper competent, to the point she's being considered for the vice presidency based on merit. That's the point of the show. The conflict in her character is that she's not where she wants to be, doing things she doesn't want to do, tied to a marriage she wants to end but can't, and surrounded by people who lie to her. I personally quite like her characterization.


Calling that show crowd-pleasing does not match my experience. My normie wife could not make it through a single episode. Whereas I like it because I'm a nerd for international relations and US Gov stuff. On the other hand I think a show likes Fleabag is much more of a crowd pleaser, with all its little winking naughtiness and fourth wall breaking, it's very modern vibes, no wonder it gets so much acclaim. And yet I got bored and couldn't finish the first episode, partly because I found the MC insufferable.