@MadMonzer's banner p

MadMonzer

Temporarily embarassed liberal elite

2 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 06 23:45:01 UTC

				

User ID: 896

MadMonzer

Temporarily embarassed liberal elite

2 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 06 23:45:01 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 896

Herodias' daughter got the head of John the Baptist, which by most accounts is worth rather more than half the kingdom. (Note that this isn't Herod the Great, it's his younger son Herod Antipas who ruled a postage-stamp size kingdom in Galilee as a client of the Roman Empire).

Cross-checking your link against this one on euthanasia more generally and a quick google of individual churches suggests that the ELCA does oppose euthanasia, but not the removal of feeding tubes. Essentially all the major Protestant denominations support withdrawal of medical treatment in this type of case, but most make a distinction between medical treatment (which can be withdrawn) and food and water*(which should never be), or weasel out of taking a side on food. The SBC, for example is explicit that food is not medical treatment and should never be withdrawn, and the local SBC congregation excommunicated the judge in the Schiavo case.

Interestingly, even pozzed denominations like the Episcopalians still oppose euthanasia.

* A major part of the case against the Liverpool Care Pathway was that it was euthanasia by dehydration

If nobody wants it, it won't happen.

I'm not sure why randos are telling opinion pollsters that they expect a civil war in the next 10 years, but "they have carefully thought about the issue and made a considered judgement call, such that the wisdom of crowds applies" is not a credible answer.

In the UK, the number of people who want the culture war to go hot is indistinguishable from zero. In America day-of-the-rope poasters exist, and Musk amplifies their social media posts so they look more visible than they are, but my impression is that the actual numbers are Lizardmen-tier - and I am not even sure if they actually mean it rather than shitposting.

but that abortion for a life long disability is much more relatable

Most sane people think this. The thread is overindexing on social media disability activists, most of whom are mentally ill themselves.

Choosing not to actively prolong someone else's life is different than choosing to intentionally end a life. Your hypothetical situation here would not be murder.

Although euthanasia opponents consider something like the Liverpool Care Pathway to constitute euthanasia. So they draw the distinction between "actively prolong" and "intentionally end a life" somewhere other than where most medics would draw it. In particular, Christian euthanasia opponents consider withdrawing artificial feeding and hydration from a patient who can't eat and drink for themselves to be murder rather than "choosing not to actively prolong" - hence the Terri Schiavo case and numerous other less famous cases.

"Sophia" wasn't seeking MAID because she was homeless - it isn't even clear that she was homeless at the point she started the process. She was seeking MAID because she had a squirrelly illness which she (almost certainly wrongly) believed was caused by sensitivities to large numbers of common household chemicals, and the authorities refused to give her a chemical-free home.

Christians adopted their views about children when infant mortality was still around 50%.

The idea that "save every child" is something that might actually be achieved, rather than an expression of heroic virtue in the face of impossible odds, is something you start to see in the 19th century.

People should be able to abort for any reason except sex selection is a pretty standard lefty viewpoint.

although TradCaths should supposedly be quite down for criticizing the pope for being too ${CurrentYear}

TradCaths are willing to criticise the Pope for deviating from Catholicism. They aren't willing to criticise the Pope for deviating from secular conservatism. The idea that the Christian thing to do can be determined by considering secular conservative political theory is pretty much exclusive to American evangelicals.

Christianity is a universalising religion. You are going to struggle to get a Christian to endorse "Now the Good Samaritan has come to the attention of the authorities, time to deport him back to Samaria, ideally after a few weeks in a deliberately squalid prison camp to deter imitators" or "Actually it would have saved the Roman Empire a lot of trouble if the authorities in Roman Egypt had shipped the Holy Family back to King Herod" - even though the latter is probably correct. You can find Biblical prooftexts for "Rulers should do the politically prudent thing, not the WWJD thing" to go along with the usual secular arguments that immigration restriction is prudent. But immigration restriction isn't Christian doctrine. My understanding of modern Catholic teaching is that the only secular political questions which are a matter of doctrine are right-to-life issues.

If we're edgelording, I prefer "Mong". It's the term that was used in British school playgrounds when I was in school, though as with all such terms more for people who acted like they had Downs than for people who actually did.

Downs is a trisomy, not a mutation, so there are no healthy carriers in the sense that there are for e.g. haemophilia or cystic fibrosis.

(There are genes which somewhat increase the odds of a Downs baby, but the effect is small compared to maternal age).

The first historical pagan reference to Christianity is from ~112 CE by Pliny the Younger, governor of northern Turkey, asking the Emperor his advice on dealing with recalcitrant Christians.

Technically true because Josephus doesn't call it Christianity, but Josephus writes about Jesus in around 93AD, saying that he was hailed as the Messiah and that he was executed by Pilate. This implies the existence of a group of people doing the hailing - i.e. Christians.

common understanding of Jesus's message

It's not just a common understanding if Jesus' message, it's an obviously correct one.

The historical Jesus was, whether he was God the Son or not, an apocalyptic preacher who at the least didn't correct his followers' belief that the Second Coming and Last Judgement would happen during their lifetimes. Jesus' teaching on politically-sensitive topics is a combination of heroic personal virtue on one hand and political quietism/obedience to secular authority on the other - he is teaching in a context where the Roman Empire is what it is and rebelling against it is obviously stupid (which did not prevent the Jews rebelling, or suffering the consequences). And with that background, "regardless of what ICE is or is not doing, you, personally, should show love for the illegal immigrants as a display of self-sacrificing personal piety" makes perfect sense.

The Gospel simply isn't trying to be a source of secular wisdom for princes (or democratic citizens) - hence the consistent attempts by Christian political theorists to find Christian political wisdom in the Old Testament and needing a way round the fact that Solomon definitely was not Christian and was subject to ritual laws that we are not because they have been fulfilled in Christ. But most Christian political movements get their secular politics from secular sources.

Eugenics is broadly popular unless:

  • You call it eugenics or
  • It involves State coercion to remove people from the gene pool

Think about attitudes to choice of donor gametes in the IVF industry.

Agreed - it would be less scandalising for a middle-class woman in most places to have an illegal abortion than to use a Baby Moses law.

I think it's been a soap opera staple all the way back to Roe in the US and the 1967 Abortion Act in the UK. But the first time the abortion actually happened in a British soap was surprisingly late - before Emmerdale in 2020 all abortion plotlines ended with the mother keeping the baby, or the issue being defused by a miscarriage.

But medical abortions, including if the child has Down's Syndrome, are always allowed. If your child has Down's Syndrome, that's a valid reason for abortion, and pretty much nobody would say otherwise, including conservatives.

Abortion of sufficiently disabled fetuses (up to and including completely nonviable ones such as anencephaly) are where the views of pro-life Christian conservatives diverge from normie social conservatism in a way which has driven some of the nastiest post-Dobbs rows. Christian conservatives support a reasonably broad physical health of the mother exception and want it to work for the small number of women who need it - the reason why it doesn't in some red states is incompetence rather than malice. But Christian conservatives, for reasons which are good and sufficient if you accept their view of Christian morality, want no exceptions whatsoever for fetal illness, and the post-Dobbs abortion bans don't include them.

I gotta say, this Platner guy is proving his enlisted status more every day.

Gentlemen-rankers out on the spree,
Damned from here to Eternity,
God ha' mercy on such as we,
Baa! Yah! Bah!

[Kipling, 1892]

I'm not sure what you mean by the word "grift." To me, if a group of allied people work in informal concert to grab resources, it's still potentially what I would call a "grift."

I would say an activist movement is a grift if the primary goal is to transfer other people's money to the activists and their immediate social network, but not a grift if the goal is to transfer money to the group the activists claim to be speaking for. The organised BLM movement, for example, turns out to be a grift on this definition - they raised a lot of donations and mostly kept the money. The traditional Black urban political machines are not pure grifts on this model - although they take a lot off the top, they spend more taxpayer money on their constituents than they do on themselves.

Political lore is that this was SOP in statewide elections in Illinois, with the Daley machine in greater Chicago and the Republican machine in the rural south trying to delay releasing results until they knew how many votes they needed to steal. But that doesn't describe how the most famous rigged election in Illinois history (the 1960 Presidential election) went down - Kennedy was ahead of Nixon throughout the "count", and Cook County on average reported faster than the rest of the state.

I'm saying that competence and riggedness are orthogonal. You can rig elections competently or incompetently, you can count honest elections competently or incompetently. An incompetently run election is more vulnerable to external fraud, but the claim OP is making about California is about insider fraud.

And this isn't one of them. The terms of the market were:

This market will resolve to "Yes" if MicroStrategy sells any of its Bitcoin by 11:59 PM ET on the date specified in the title. Otherwise, this market will resolve to "No". The primary resolution source for this market will be information from MSTR and on-chain data, however a consensus of credible reporting will also be used.

This is unambiguously a statement that the sale will occur before 1159, not that the publicly available information confirming it will appear before 1159. MicroStrategy sold Bitcoin before the deadline, and this was confirmed by "information from MSTR" in the ordinary course of business, on the timetable you would expect for a sale shortly before the deadline.

This makes the LIBOR bros look honest.

Yes - gayness is a modern western construct. The old school way has manly men who did the dicking and a mix of women, transwomen, effeminate men who like it up the butt, teenage boys, and weak men who can't say no who took it.

AFAIK Leviticus is the first time an authority unequivocally condemns dicking another guy. But the Biblical framework condemns the top and the bottom separately, it doesn't lump them together as "gay".

(1) more goodies (money, power, status, etc.) for women;

Stop saying "women" when you mean "feminists". (Incidentally, advice which most people should think about most of the time.) Feminism isn't a pure grift - individual feminists genuinely want other feminists to get more gibmedats and not just themselves - but the point isn't to uplift women as a whole, it's to subsidise a particular female life script (see Obama's notorious Life of Julia ad, but the critical point is that women who seek to have children in actually-committed relationships with men are SOL) with the goal of changing female behaviour such that a large enough pool of able women pursue meritocratic competition that they can achieve a 50-50 power elite by affirmative action without promoting obvious numpties.