JeSuisCharlie
Sumner, Hebdo, Kirk
Some times Charlie was in the trees.
User ID: 4009
imagine what damage coordinated rival nations could deal if these nutjobs could have access to major weaponry.
Then this is no longer a legal matter but rather one of foriegn policy.
We make it known that if material furnished by your nation is used in such an attack that attack will be treated as having come from your nation and let the rivals police themselves.
JeSuisCharlie
Sumner, Hebdo, Kirk
2hr ago
think that literal interpretations of the Constitution don't work in practice though, because it almost unambiguously says that the government can't stop me from having nuclear weapons
JeSuisCharlie
Sumner, Hebdo, Kirk
15hr ago
Which specific portion of my comment here are you claiming is inaccurate or improper?
JeSuisCharlie
Sumner, Hebdo, Kirk
15hr ago
The sort of tribalism you describe is far older than anything remotely resembling secularism, and "identity" does not have to involve bespoke Marxian analysis.
No it doesn't and that doesn't make them any less the enemy.
It is worth remembering that Yglesias doesn't actually disagree with the activist left's goals, he just wants them to keep those goals on the DL until after they get elected.
The whole point of his "Popularism vs Populism" bit was that left wing activists would be better served by trying to boil the frog slowly rather than turning the heat up all at once.
Because it is.
Secular morality revolves around "context". Secular morality holds that what is happening matters less than who it is happening to, see "punching up" vs "punching down" and "no enemies to the left". Harper Lee's book is in many respects a condemnation of this attitude/sentiment.
JeSuisCharlie
Sumner, Hebdo, Kirk
16hr ago
No, it "shits" on secular morality by explicitly rejecting identity in favor of conduct.
Why should the world be so convenient?
Why shouldn't it?
The idea that big problems can't have simple and straight-forward solutions is a lie that the expert class tells us to justify funneling more power and prestige to the expert class.
If a disproportionate percentage of violent crime is perpetrated by repeated offenders, why can't we solve (or at least significantly reduce) violent crime by removing repeat offenders from the general populace? The answer is that we can but the experts don't want us to. The experts don't want safe streets. They want to have their bigotry validated.
This is why they will allow a violent schizophrenic like DeCarlos Brown to walk free after his 17th arrest while demanding that a random normie with no criminal record do life in prison for taking a selfie on the senate floor.
JeSuisCharlie
Sumner, Hebdo, Kirk
1d ago
Bullshit, either education has a sufficiently large effect size to overcome breeding or it does not.
It's not "the opposite question" it is the same question.
That question is which has the greater effect, education or breeding?
JeSuisCharlie
Sumner, Hebdo, Kirk
1d ago
Presumably because it shits on secular morality in the same w as y that the story of Jonah does.
JeSuisCharlie
Sumner, Hebdo, Kirk
1d ago
Isn’t that part of the point?
In the the Book? Yes. I think a lot of the film adaptations end up missing out by casting Mrs. Bennett as a silver-haired matron and Mr. Bennett as a dottering old man, rather than as they were originally described.
JeSuisCharlie
Sumner, Hebdo, Kirk
1d ago
Maduro is hardly a Bond villain.
In License to Kill the primary antagonist/villian is a cartel boss who has installed himself as the effective dictator of a Caribbean island with the assistance of a foreign communist regime seeking to destabilize the region. Maduro is literally a bond villian.
If they were protected by 2A this would challenge the present US air defense concept
Were you aware that before he became NASA administrator Jared Issacman was best known in gunnie circles for registering a fully armed and operational Mig-29 with the ATF as a Destructive Device? There are a lot of old warbirds in private hands out there and a non zero number of them are still "fully functional" if you cattch my meaning, yet society persists.
Excellent post!
As an aside we need more adaptations with a hot MILF Mrs. Bennett, she's only in her 40s and supposedly a complete smoke-show. Her character becomes so much more layered if you imagine her as coming into the room with "hot chick at the club" type energy only to get brushed off.
JeSuisCharlie
Sumner, Hebdo, Kirk
2d ago
Is it possible to ruin good breeding with poor moral education? This was actually a somewhat scandalous take back then.
It's arguably a pretty scandalous take here and now.
I can never understand the trad Christian love for the Russian state as some enabler of Christian virtue
It makes sense once you recognize that it's mostly Edge-lords and Astroturf. As a general rule, sincere trad Christians aren't hanging out on "this part of twitter" and the ones who do are weird.
The first 5 Halo games are arguably far more "Christian" in both message and tone than many churches these days. Ditto Project Hail Mary though I don't have a effort post I can link for that one.
Specifically the themes of hope in the face of hopelessness, and the idea that the righteous and honest will always find themselves in conflict with the worldly.
JeSuisCharlie
Sumner, Hebdo, Kirk
2d ago
he still wishes to see Nineveh destroyed, and is angry when it is not.
I think this is the part that trips up a lot of secular readers, they see God as "chickening out" because, like Jonah, they aren't really worried about fighting sin as much as the are hating the outgroup.
JeSuisCharlie
Sumner, Hebdo, Kirk
2d ago
Except it's not "capricious" in the slightest. The people of Nineveh repent their wickedness and are spared. Jonah rebels and is punished. And all the while God tries to reason with Jonah and bring him on side rather than just leaving him to suffer.
It's a story about free-will and the difference between punishing sins and punishing sinners.
Jonah (like many people who subscribe to a "secular morality" these days) has become high on his own sense of righteousness and as such has become more concerned with sticking it to his outgroup than addressing real problems. This prompts God to test him and ultimately call him out on his bullshit. If God calling someone out on their self-righteous bullshit violates your precious sensibilities perhaps you are the one who needs the message most.
JeSuisCharlie
Sumner, Hebdo, Kirk
3d ago
If access to chemical weapons is incompatible with a stable modern society, AND Aum Shinrikyo had chemical weapons, the only possible conclusion is that Japan is a not a stable modern society.
Would you endorse that statement?
Nobody is trying to claim those they are US citizens though is what the case is about.
The original claim that @Celestial-body-NOS was responding to was that "subject to the jurisdiction” needs to mean something and it does.
The question is about whether someone who is in the US illegally is formally under US jurisdiction or not?
he is saying that the text of the 2nd amendment doesn't distinguish between "citizen grade weapons" like AR15s and "military grade weapons" like F35s, VX gas grenades, and nukes, and therefore taking it literally and seriously would allow nuclear-armed Branch Davidians and suchlike, and that that is not compatible with a modern society.
I'm not entirely convinced the distinction is necessary. Anyone who is has the resources and know-how required to procure and operate an F-35 or Nuclear Weapon is going to be a lot more than just some "fringe whacko" in a compound somewhere. We're talking Bond villains not Branch Davidians, and you don't send cops to arrest a Bond villain, you send SOCOM to "extract" them.
The separation of church and state fundamentally, but silently, assumed that we all had a church we were leaving behind when interacting with the state. The Founders assumed that each man had religious beliefs, likely a formal denomination, which answered questions about life, the universe, and everything and that we would all lay those disputes aside when interacting within government structures. The assumption was that our public schools would be secular, but that was ok because nobody in the room fully believed in what was being taught in that school, we were all setting aside and sacrificing some separate religious belief and finding common ground in the secular.
I think this is an under-appreciated insight and it reminds me of @BarnabyCajones' old post on tolerance vs denial of sin. He argued that there was a qualitative difference between acknowledging the existence of a sin and choosing to tolerate it and denying the existence of a sin entirely even if the policy outcomes were ultimately the same.
I think that a fundamental limitation of secular/materialist ideologies is that they don't really allow for anything resembling traditional western notions of "right", "virtue" or "sin". See the famous Terry Pratchett bit from Hogfather about grinding down the universe to find a single particle of "mercy". Justice is a metaphysical construct, liberty is a metaphysical construct, rights (inalienable or otherwise) are metaphysical constructs and there is no place for the metaphysical in a strictly secular worldview.
Its not like a diplomat (or their child) can commit a homicide and the US will just ignore it and not prosecute.
The US would prosecute a US diplomat or service member because they are subject to the jurisdiction of the united states regardless of whether they are residing in the US. Foreign diplomats and service member's are not subject to US jurisdiction and so they are considered separately.
The child of a US service member born on a US military base is a US citizen even if that base is outside the US. The child of a French diplomat is a citizen of France and not the US even if they are born within US territory.
I think you are being intentionally obtuse.
Material furnished is exactly what it says, if a nation or any other organization gifts or sells that material outside normal channels they are on the hook for how it is used.
I also dont understand your preoccupation with deniability, we're not talking about citizens with consitutional rights, we're talking about sovereign nations. "Drop the act, we know it was you" is a perfectly valid realpolitik response to such behavior.
More options
Context Copy link