Harlequin5942
No bio...
User ID: 1062
Harlequin5942
3mo ago
Russia is not going to dominate Europe, force of arms or otherwise.
It's in the process of conquering the second largest country in Europe and would have succeeded if Trump had been president.
It's not so much that Russia is stronger than Europe, it's that it's crazier. Someone willing to fight can dominate a room full of equally strong people who aren't.
Harlequin5942
4mo ago
because Palestine regards all of Israel as Palestinian land
Palestinians do, but there is no Palestinian government, so attributing intentions to a Palestinian state seems wrong. Of course, this adds to your point about the meaninglessness of "Jews settling on Palestinian land." There is land where people who identify as "Palestinians" live, but there is and has never been a "Palestine" (in the contemporary sense) to have land as Palestine. It's only marginally less misleading than talking of Utah as "Mormon land."
In 2016-2020, Russia hadn't even prepared for annexing the Donbas, let alone invading Ukraine. Russia also had hopes of reversing Euromaidan. After all, Poroshenko was unpopular, Zelenskyy was an unknown quantity, and Ukraine had performed a similar reversal from West to East after the Orange Revolution in 2005. Invading Ukraine would guarantee that such a reversal would not take place.
By 2022, Russia and its Donbas puppets were militarily, politically, and administratively prepared, while Zelenskyy turned out to be just as much of a problem for them as Poroshenko.
Trump's reaction to Russia's invasion of Ukraine would have been to cry a few tears for the Ukrainians, praise Putin's savvy and genius, and provide less support for Ukraine than Biden has done, and hope to appease Putin by encouraging Ukraine to cede the territory that Russia wants. We can predict all that, because that's what Trump's position has been on the Russia-Ukraine war.
I am no fan of Biden, but it's irrefutable that Trump is far softer towards Russia than Biden. This is one reason why many people like Trump! Trump's policy towards Russia has always been appease, withdraw, and sincerely pray to the Almighty for the victims of the consequences.
Arab Israeli citizens have a right to vote, work, and move around freely.
Gaza and the West Bank are "apartheid" in the same sense in which Germans couldn't freely choose to work, move around, or vote in the US, UK, France, or USSR (but then again, neither could Soviet citizens...) after WWII. The German state had ceased to exist. The Palestinian state has never begun to exist. Palestine is occupied (in a very hands-off) way by Israel because there is no government of Palestine.
This is one of the problems with a "Two State Solution," which I favour. How do you have a two state solution with only one functioning state? You can say "Israel could take a more hands-off approach" so that a Palestinian state can emerge, but that's a lot to ask of Israel, given that Palestine is full of militants trying to kill as many Jews as possible.
The Allies allowed Germany to emerge from WW2 and even supported the development of German state institutions, but only AFTER Germans had stopped trying to kill the Allies.
So the best road to a Two State Solution, AFAIK, is Palestinian militants surrendering armed conflict and recognising Israel, on the condition of Israel at least permitting (even perhaps aiding) the emergence of a Palestinian state. I would also be fine with Jordan and/or Egypt taking over the West Bank/Gaza, under conditions of full recognition of Israel.
Harlequin5942
4mo ago
It's also, when probed, what is denied by many (most?) self-identified "anti-Zionists." Obviously, there are other anti-Zionist positions, e.g. Israel should not expand beyond its current borders or Israel should offer citizenship to Palestinians (perhaps just those in the West Bank and Gaza, perhaps those beyond as well who can prove ancestry). Those are bailies for anti-Zionists, though in my experience many of the more knowledgeable ones (typically Arabs) are quite frank that they just don't want Israel to exist.
Harlequin5942
7d ago
Then it wasn't something that men had as men, whereas women had their immunity from conscription as women. Different from today, but not that different, and no solace for an unmarried man who was conscripted (as many young, unmarried men were, sometimes violently e.g. press gangs).
Harlequin5942
15d ago
The only reason the West got sucked into the conflict in its current capacity is because Ukraine put up an impressive resistance
Was it that, or more that Russia is much more pathetic (and apathetic - just look at their public's reaction or the level of mobilisation/defence spending that Putin can muster) than anyone expected?
From what I have seen, it's not so much that Ukrainians have been fighting well, and more that Russia's ability to project power beyond its borders is almost completely gone. Once they could dominate Eastern Europe, now they take months of grinding to gain worthless plains within a country that they once lorded over directly.
Harlequin5942
1mo ago
I think that, in current year, "birth control issues" don't affect women per se differently; the people they affect are Humans with Wombs. So, with consistency, they wouldn't come under that category, though women would still be more likely to be Humans with Wombs (womb-men?).
Harlequin5942
1mo ago
I'm definitely not a fan of the Divine Command Theory, but I think you're being unfair here. Why not posit a difference in degree of disobedience? Surely murdering someone is more disobedient than committing adultery in your heart.
What's more disobedient about it? Both are breaking God's commandments.
On Matthew 22, the key term here is magos (μεγας) which is used in the New Testament to mean largest or highest in rank, just as "greatest" is ambiguous in English. One clever thing about the commandment Jesus gives is that it is both largest in scope (every violation of every other commandment is an instance of it) and rank. If humans truly had complete faith and love for God, then they would neither commit adultery in their hearts, nor murder.
Note I'm not saying that this is common sense, but just a natural implication of an unranked DCT.
I think the better question is why you'd give your own interpretation of Divine Command Theory any time at all, given the many times in the Bible when it's explicitly contradicted.
Oh, that's just teasing! Don't be so coquettish, show the goods.
Harlequin5942
8mo ago
I think affluent African parents are more relaxed about their kids marrying white than many Asian (especially South Asian) and Arab/North African parents, possibly for cultural and religious (they're usually Christian) reasons.
And because parents, like women, tend to be hypergamous, and a white son-in-law is higher status than an Asian/Arab/Indian/etc. son-in-law.
When someone is talking about the 'sexual market place' in the context of dating in the western world they are obviously not talking about brothels and prostitution. You are not being rational or precise with language when you play these word games. It is at best obtuse and obfuscatory.
If someone uses "Nazi" to mean "conservative", then they obviously don't refer to conservatives, but would their usage really not affect their inferences or the inferences of others?
The point I'm making is extremely simple. Man A gets approached by women, gets replies on dating apps and in general finds casual sex and relationships very easy to come by. Man B gets none of those things. In fact women don't even look at him for longer than 2 seconds to decide that he is not attractive.
Man A doesn't need to think about his life goals in terms of what he needs to garner attention from women. Man B does. Man B recognizes that if he does not come by some form of 'thing' or 'currency' or 'bargaining chip' or 'whatever word you want' to balance out his apparent unattractiveness to women, he will likely end up alone or unhappy. Both of these guys might be similar otherwise, but their struggle is not the same. Both want sex and affection. One needs the 'thing' to even be able to play the game, the other does not.
True, different men, like different women, have to work more or less hard to get romantic success. (This is more unforgiving for women than men: almost any woman can get sex, but what people usually want is a loving long term relationship, and men tend to be the gatekeepers for that. A man can work to balance out his unattractive physical traits, whereas a woman's degree or money is unlikely to help her much with the opposite sex.) This is because people care about physical appearances. Physical attractiveness is certainly helpful for initial attraction, though things like conscientiousness and agreeableness seem to be more important for maintaining love long term, since the latter requires a lot of empathy and (rewarding) hard work.
Now, why is working harder to get what you want through labour, exercise, study etc., rather than largely getting it due to inborn attractiveness, not "masculine"? Stereotypically, I would have thought the opposite: a man who is admired by women through displaying virtues and competence is more "manly" than one who is admired by women purely on innate physical grounds. Consider a reversal: is there something unusually masculine about the story of a woman who DID win the affection of her beloved through her abilities and character, despite her plain looks and innately awkward personality?
I appreciate the appeal of gaining easy approval due to one's looks, but I see it as a more classically female way to gain romantic success. Even in nature, among animals that do mating rituals, it's the male that needs to prove himself through dances, chasing the female around etc. in order to mate. Usually, the female just has to look fertile and healthy, and perhaps not even that, even if the result of mating is the male being eaten.
Think Cinderella (be beautiful and agreeable, then someone will eventually be nice to you) vs. Indiana Jones (handsome man, but still only gets the girl by proving himself, proves himself by solving problems and by saving her from danger - sometimes repeatedly in the same movie). Obviously, the latter is more of a classically masculine archetype: the questing knight in European folklore.
This is also seems to be why "saving the man from danger" has more of a maternal rather than romantic feel when it's a woman doing the saving, whereas "saving the woman from danger" has more of a heroic and sexy quality when it's a man doing the saving, unless it's literally saving his daughter as in the Taken movies. And if a man can save the village/kingdom/world/universe, then he's that much more of a classically masculine figure, since he must display great virtue/competence to do so.
Harlequin5942
11mo ago
Art only has to inspire emotions in people.
Is that true?
If we could inspire the same emotions by taking the relevant pills, would art be redundant?
Harlequin5942
24d ago
The Twitter account is run by the character's creator, Andrew Doyle, and has some funny moments. As often happens, the best stuff is the material that is JUST plausible enough to get sincere reactions. Or when reality catches up with parody:
https://andrewdoyle.substack.com/p/the-prophecies-of-titania-mcgrath
Harlequin5942
1mo ago
The truth is rich people aren't actually that much smarter than poor people
Your source fails to support your assertions in two ways:
(1) This source might reasonably be taken as supposedly contributing towards your final claim "The simple fact is, luck actually produces most of peoples fortunes." However, it says, "The work reveals that while exceptionally smart individuals typically earn more, they are also more likely to spend to their credit card limit, compared with people of average intelligence." Is it luck if someone has high time preference? It seems more connected with someone's choices than their IQ, supporting a "Victorian values" style conservativism about "thrift" and "clean living."
(2) The claim in the study is that when you control for other factors (and assume that these are causally independent of IQ) then the link with wealth disappears:
On the surface, people with higher intelligence scores also had greater wealth. The median net worth for people with an IQ of 120 was almost $128,000 compared with $58,000 for those with an IQ of 100.
But when Zagorsky controlled for other factors – such as divorce, years spent in school, type of work and inheritance – he found no link between IQ and net worth. In fact, people with a slightly above-average IQ of 105 , had an average net worth higher than those who were just a bit smarter, with a score of 110.
Worst of all, your sources do very little to support your claim that "What I'm saying here is that society-wide, resource distribution is the most important variable to what's being addressed here." To substantiate that claim, you need to show that "resource distribution" is crucial. A good start would be to clearly define what you mean by that. Then support it with evidence, rather than sweeping claims e.g.:
why it's almost impossible to escape poverty no matter how talented you are or how hard you work.
Is it? Even when including time preference under "hard you work"? Obviously, anyone can avoid wealth if they are spendthrift enough. Mike Tyson is smart, phenomenally physically talented, and hard working, but he still ended up bankrupt.
As far as I know, there's no equivalent reliable quantitative data on the prevalence of child sexual abuse in the past. However, I'm no expert.
Note that "no equivalent reliable quantitative data" does not entail "We have no idea about the prevalence."
Also, I should clarify that my claim is that it's misleading to have a simile that presupposes that the changes in prevalence over time are analogous, not that we know the differences in prevalence are comparable. In particular, we don't have good reasons to think that the prevalence of child sexual abuse was lower e.g. in the 1970s, and we know that the prevalence was high. Whether it was higher or lower than today would require reliable quantitative data that isn't available AFAIK.
Harlequin5942
4mo ago
Saying that we're guarding against it more, therefore it is less likely too happen, is like saying "can you imagine how many burglaries there must have been in the past? people didn't even lock their doors back then!".
But we have evidence that sexual abuse of children was rampant in the past, especially in the immediate wake of the Sexual Revolution. I suppose you might think that we have lots of Jimmy Saville-types around right now, but then that's the claim without evidence: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Savile#Sexual_abuse_by_Savile
In contrast, we have a lot of statistics on burglary that suggest it followed the same rise-and-fall pattern as most other crimes, for reasons that are still not understood: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States#/media/File:Property_Crime_Rates_in_the_United_States.svg
Harlequin5942
6mo ago
By the standards of Jesus's audience, Marxism aims at making everyone rich men. Obscenely rich. It really didn't take much, by modern standards, to be "rich" in Jesus's day.
Harlequin5942
6d ago
That's not really 'Irish,' though.
They were in the eyes of Americans at the time, specifically Scotch-Irish. Also, Scots are Celts, though views about that at the time were sometimes complex.
Aside from their Catholicism, there was little to distinguish a typical Irishman from a typical Protestant Highlander. (Their languages would have been slightly different, but equally alien to an English American in 1850.)
Harlequin5942
15d ago
Salami tactics. That was apparently what Putin was trying prior to 2022, but changed his mind for some reason, possibly because of Ukraine's arms buildup.
Harlequin5942
15d ago
This is not to say that passion is a necessary component of great writing
Do you mean sufficient effect?
For Sonic fan fiction, I bring you the lowest depths to which the human mind and soul can sink: https://youtube.com/watch?v=LCWoZEXyGU0
Harlequin5942
21d ago
Esteem/affirmation culture, in my view, lends itself far more to mere masturbation-by-proxy than a guilt or shame culture does.
Plausible and interesting. I shall look more into this issue.
Though I am not a Christian or against homosexual behaviour as such, I shall say this: their separation of (a) homosexual preferences from (b) homosexual behaviour ("It's ok to be born gay, as long as you don't do gay things" etc.) is already more sophisticated than many of the takes I hear from my students when debating this issues. Again, what people are vs. what they do.
Harlequin5942
1mo ago
'Scottish-Gaelic' and 'Irish-Gaelic' can get confusing.
It would be easy if they were spelt Galic and Gaylick, though the former would cause confusion with the French and the latter would cause confusions best not discussed on a family-friendly forum.
Harlequin5942
1mo ago
was a non-starter
That doesn't stop it from being Hitler's choice. "I want to do X" is difference from "I was forced to do X."
Harlequin5942
2mo ago
But when the same people who convinced you to subscribe to a consent-only sexual ethic
How are you using the word "you" here?
I have never subscribed to a consent-only sexual ethic.
That's vague. Men had a higher legal status in some respects and in some situations, but a typical man in a typical historical society had absolutely no authority over any women, except his wife and daughters if he had any.
More options
Context Copy link