OracleOutlook
๐บ๐ธ Fiat justitia ruat caelum
No bio...
User ID: 359
Can you name one dogma you think internet trad caths believe which the Catholic hierarchy does not teach?
Immigration is an area of prudential judgement and the Catholic Church has a nuanced view of it, more nuanced than you find here. The doctrines are to respect the host country's laws and customs, and for the host country to take in the needy as much as possible (acknowledging that there are goods such as social cohesion that can limit the host country's ability to take in the needy.) Trad Caths agree on these points, just disagree with the prudential judgement of whether or not the US has helped as much as it can and it's time to cool off on immigration.
This would be more convincing if the decision was close and there was a group of conservative justices who wrote in their dissents: "Children of illegal immigrants are not covered under the 14th amendment." However, 8/9 of the justices in their various opinions did not make that case at all. The dissenters mostly dissented over babies born on travel visas, where there is no intent to make the US a long term home. There just really isn't a strong case based on the 14th amendment to remove birthright citizenship from people here unlawfully. I'd rather good law than bad, regardless of the consequences. If we don't like it, we need to have a constitutional convention. We are more than overdue for one.
He genuinely hates the US and the West and would like to see it collapse.
I think we struggle right now with the opposite question: are there some people whose poor breeding cannot be improved with a good moral education?
It's not exactly capricious, the Ninevites explicitly go overboard in their repentance. Even the cows repent of their wickedness!
There are lots of layered takes to get out of the story, that's why it's so good! Jonah was punished for his disobedience but forgiven in the end. Also, God didn't just kill Jonah but brought him back - He could have just picked a new prophet but Jonah was given a second chance. Nineveh better at repenting than Israel/Judah. Israel has prophet after prophet spitting reams of flowery poetry sent to convert it and no one changes. Nineveh gets a half-assed "God's going to come down hard on you!" and they all immediately undergo a ridiculous level of fasting and repentance.
Jane Austen's novels primarily concern themselves with moral education. Is it possible to ruin good breeding with poor moral education? This was actually a somewhat scandalous take back then.
The primary application of Pride and Prejudice today is to present young women with caution about their selection of mates. Which is a very worthy task, even if half the class is male and might not see the point (though the truly wise will understand what make's Austin's heroes the hero and not the villain, and maybe learn from that.)
I actually have it in a collection of preschool books. Small kids love hearing the three voices ("Papa Bear said in his great BIG voice...") It teaches concepts of hot, cold, lukewarm. Big, small, medium. If there is a moral it might just be: looks can be deceiving. A nice cottage may look inviting, but maybe a family of bears lives there! Remember kids, don't take candy from strangers.
I think there are a few reasons the juicy cases tend to drop towards the end:
-
They genuinely take more time to write. More non-laywers will read them, so things have to be spelled out more. Future generations will read them and pull them apart, so they have to make sure they write only what they intend to convey and nothing more. There may be more concurrences/dissents to write.
-
If they release something that is going to cause non-stop protesting outside the Supreme Court for weeks, it's best to do that last, to minimize disturbances.
Democracy is a substitute for political violence. The second amendment protects the right for people to take up political violence if democracy fails. It only works if a plurality of people take up arms, swapping guns for votes. Small groups willing to take up arms against the government is not constitutionally protected - if they couldn't win an election with that number of people they don't have a right to a rebellion.
What I have seen from actual partisans:
- Plea deals considered witness intimidation.
- The officer actually shot himself while trying to shoot at Song. No really.
- Dallas field office investigated antifa chapters in their area in 2018 and found they werenโt then planning anything that would harm national security. This detail wasn't allowed into evidence. To partisans it means the government withheld key information that would have destroyed their case, which over the course of Internet Telephone became "The government withheld a key video that would have destroyed their case."
It's the "somewhat obsessive way" part that makes it more of a disorder than just an interest in areas forbidden to their gender.
But, when this group grew up with therapy to both accept that they liked these stereotypical girly things but that didn't make them a girl, and to slowly expose them to more masculine pursuits, the vast majority just realized they were gay men by adulthood. The 20% who still felt like the opposite sex I feel bad for, there might be something genuinely wrong with them.
I think that's just one segment of the second group.
Speaking of ROGD, its rhetorical use by anti-trans people is a peculiar example of a self-contradictory motte-and-bailey: usually the bailey is a stronger version of the motte, and thus necessarily consistent with it, but here the bailey ("all trans people are delusional and none of them are their stated gender") contradicts the motte ("some trans people with a specific presentation โ primarily adolescent girls โ are not actually their stated gender") because the latter presupposes that some trans people are, in fact, their stated gender. If you believe all trans people are delusional, why do you care about the specific etiology of the transness of a specific subgroup of trans people? The treatment, whichever you prefer, should be the same.
I think trans people can be largely divided into two groups:
People who had an affinity for the other sex from the time they were toddlers onward. A boy who prefers dolls and dresses to cars, etc. to the point of everyone around them knowing that this toddler is behaving like the opposite sex in a somewhat obsessive way. These people I have a lot of sympathy for, even if I disagree that this means that they are the opposite sex. Dr. Kenneth Zucker mostly treated this group, and in his clinical research about 80-90% went on to become normal gay men after puberty, with the remainder going through some sort of transition in adulthood. I honestly believe most have some kind of hormonal thing, maybe their mothers took estrogen during pregnancy, maybe some other endocrine disrupter got them early on. I still think the best thing is to wait and see if the desire to transition subsides after going through natal-sex puberty, but if the only group that transitioned was this group, as adults, then I would have few qualms for transition as a medical practice.
Unfortunately, there is the second group. Mostly consists of adolescents who for various reasons started thinking that transitioning will benefit them. The RODG group. The Autogynophelia group. Autistic girls who always felt something was off but never could put it into words. ETC. There might be some hormonal issues, but most of the time it's a social contagion of some kind. For this group, transitioning is probably the worst thing for them to do. It's a harsh medical intervention for something that will typically go away after puberty and therapy. Unfortunately, this group is the largest group getting medically transitioned and contains pretty much every transperson I know IRL.
I don't think any trans person is their desired gender, but that doesn't mean that they are delusional. It really is their desired gender. It's just that desiring a gender doesn't make them that gender.
Oh that makes more sense. If she was raised in certain parts of India I could see that being a real thing.
Did she have an eating disorder and did she ever do sports?
The only way I think in the US a woman might think that boys systematically get better nutrition than girls is if they have an eating disorder which they justify to themselves as "everyone does it."
51%, which doesn't surprise me at all. I regularly get confused during TV shows and movies about that random guy who I thought was the same character until I saw the two of them in a room together.
Cui bono? I think it's more likely Pratt would be responsible if anything, to drum up attention to the wastelands he formerly called home.
You can filter google results from before a certain year. Add before:2019 or before:xxxx date to your search query and it will return results that have not been updated since that date.
This article seems relevant: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-34641418
There is something about the situation that is horrifying.
Imagine two outcomes:
Outcome 1: The police arrive, notice that Nowak is not doing well, make him comfortable while they call an ambulance. He spends his final moments watching the second policeman have stern words with his murderer while the policewoman holds his hands as the world goes dark. He dies knowing that justice will be done and that he's not alone.
Outcome 2: What actually happened. Dies in an uncomfortable position being accused of a crime he didn't commit, while his murderer appears to get away with it. This seems to objectively be a worse fate, the suffering in Outcome 2 is much higher than in Outcome 1.
Now do we care about the suffering of the dying? It's not like they'll be around to complain about it! But I think that yes, most humans do care about the suffering of the dying. And it does seem the police's actions increased his suffering.
I feel weird getting nominated for a comment with less than 200 words, but thank you
I approve of that too. Washington never had natural-born children either but I wouldn't say he had no impact on the future.
You're going to need to be more concrete than that.
Let's say Social Security goes away before you are 65. Or even total anarchy. Are you better off with one or zero kids, or if you have four+. If you have 4+, at least one is likely to still have a fondness for you and might let you stay with them in your twilight years. If you have 0 kids you get to look forward to working until you cannot and rotting in a ditch after.
From where I stand, having kids is more upside than down. Sure I could afford more things without them. But I had the time of my life playing fetch with my 3 year old yesterday. I
I don't know how to explain it to someone who doesn't have kids. I have taught two little humans how to read. And for one of those humans it was a hard slog, I had to keep changing programs every year, trying to make an inch of progress at a time. I researched, I made schedules and lesson plans and sat down every day with a book and my girl and I persisted.
There's the mental cocaine of having your toddler call you "mamma." But there's more than chemicals. There's the concerted effort to help someone every day become a good adult human, and whoever you are it takes all of you. If you're good at research it takes research. If you're good at meal prep it takes meal prep. Whatever your thing is, you pour it on your kid and it's satisfying. It's climbing Everest, it's running a marathon, it's what life is for, the challenge you are supposed to be doing. The school of love you need to be a whole human being.
If the word society is tripping you up, just do it for yourself.
Agreed. But I would say that people need to pursue these goals, not just expect them to happen. I think most people get the "job" thing. People go to secondary school, study long hours, go to residency, internships, put in a lot of time and effort into getting the right credentials and getting the right job.
The same amount of effort needs to go into getting the girl. And not just dating, but actually discerning marriage with the girl. It shouldn't take more than a year to learn enough about each other to see if you can actually be spouses, and if at any point you think you can't be spouses then break it off.
For some reason people take this part of their lives unseriously when in hindsight it's the cornerstone of all other joys in my life.
You're not caught in traffic, you are the traffic. You don't have an obligation to "society" you are society and you have an obligation to yourself.
- Prev
- Next

It's a principle, which can be interpreted by different people in different ways. But that's not the part being interpreted. No one has a problem with setting up a temporary refugee camp for Canadians who are fleeing from the great Canada-Russo war of 2035 assuming the US still has enough oatmeal and blankets to keep them alive.
The part that people are interpreting differently is if the US already has all the people it can safely assimilate without massive social upheaval. The Catholic US Bishops are pretty clueless to the actual costs of mass immigration, the Catholic groypers have perhaps an oversized idea of the costs of mass immigration. The truth is that you can take a consistent set of principles and adjust what the recommendations are based on different facts available.
More options
Context Copy link