@OracleOutlook's banner p

OracleOutlook

πŸ‡ΊπŸ‡Έ Fiat justitia ruat caelum

5 followers   follows 2 users  
joined 2022 September 05 01:56:25 UTC

				

User ID: 359

OracleOutlook

πŸ‡ΊπŸ‡Έ Fiat justitia ruat caelum

5 followers   follows 2 users   joined 2022 September 05 01:56:25 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 359

Marcial Maciel

Before he was revealed to be an abuser, my response to that name would have been, "Who? Quien?"

Otherwise I largely agree with your post, except I think there is good reason to give primacy to celibate priests. The fact that abuse has gone down dramatically since 1985 while the church has kept celibate priests seems to indicated that changing the practice is not needed to reduce molestation.

The institution has both right wing and left wing positions, like the preferential option for the poor. More than that, in the 1960s and 1970s, a lot of incoming priests were pro choice, pro homosexuals, and pro divorce. There were a lot of progressive activists inside the Church joining the priesthood for this purpose.

It doesn't seem weaselly to me to ask, were the people who were doing the abuse actually conservative or where they progressive activists? And if the answer is actually they were progressive activists, then it seems to be more of what @faceh was saying.

Edit: see figure 12 here: https://catholicproject.catholic.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/NSCPWave2FINAL.pdf

How many priests are Right Wing Icons? ( I can only think of Fulton Sheen, who has not been credibly accused of abuse despite being a bishop and a TV Star)

And how many of abusive priests in the Catholic Church were left wing vs right wing? From the demographics we have now, priests ordained between 1960 to 1980 are more likely to be Left/Progressive, younger priests are more likely to be conservatives. (see figure on page 5). Most abuse cases also peaked between 1960 - 1980 (see page 28).

There is an argument that has been made that the abuse crisis was allowed to proliferate because of an increase in progressive thought - primarily the attitude that sexual abuse was a psychological problem instead of a sin, that sexual urges are higher in the order of goods than they were typically considered in prior Catholic thought, and that after a therapist gave someone the all-clear they were good to return to ministry.

If I understand correctly, the big problem with training doctors is they need to see a certain number of patients (say 10,000 for neatness) before they have seen 90% of the full gamut of what they might experience while practicing on their own.

This takes time and there's a saturation effect. You can make it take shorter time by forcing medical students to work for 80 hours a week, but you can't (or at least shouldn't) make more patients for trainees to see. In a given city, there will only be 100,000 people who need to see a doctor (in that specialty) that year, and so if you have a four year residency, each resident needs to see 2,500 patients a year, and only 40 people can be in residency a year in that city.

The confusing thing is how it ever worked. Was there a huge pathway from "war medic to ER doc" that we're missing now?

Am I pro-Israel? Wasn't Israel on the side of Iran during the Iraq-Iran war?

I mean, Iran did take over the US Embassy and hold Americans hostage November 4, 1979, right before the Iraq-Iran war which kicked off in 1980. It seems like there is evidence the current Iranian Regime considered the US their enemy before the Iraq-Iran war, and also perhaps some US participation in the Iraq-Iran war wasn't just shits and giggles but a response to actual grievances, such as 52 active hostages.

And this also happened decades ago, almost half a century ago, so either we're going back blow by blow or we aren't. At some point nations have to look at the world as it is now and make decisions based on what they think is best for the future, not past grievances. Iran was choosing a future where they have nuclear weapons that can reach Europe and the Continental US and a future where they are destabilizing their neighbors, arming terrorists and harming international shipping. And the US is trying to choose a future where Iran doesn't get to do those things. War is not the criminal justice system. Guilt does not need to be proven. It's divorce court and someone's going to get the kids and the house and the other is going to pay child support.

Or as one person put it:

Islamic terrorist attacks are just blowback from America’s GWOT, which was just blowback from 9/11, which was just blowback from America supporting Israel, which was just blowback from the Ottomans fighting against America and Britain in WW1, which was just blowback from Britain seizing Egypt and supporting Greek freedom from the Ottomans, which was just blowback from the Ottoman conquest of Constantinople and hundreds of years of oppression, which was just blowback from the Crusades, which were just blowback from the Seljuk conquest of Anatolia, which was just blowback from the Byzantine Empire’s expansion into Syria under the Macedonian dynasty, which was just blowback from the Arab conquest of Byzantine Syria and Egypt and North Africa and repeated siege attempts against Constantinople, which was just blowback from the Byzantines no longer paying Arab tribes to defend the frontier against Persia, which was just blowback from an extended Persian invasion of the Byzantine Empire, which was just blowback from 700 years of warfare between Rome and Persia, which was just blowback from Alexander the Great’s conquest of Persia, which was just blowback from Darius and Xerxes’ invasions of Greece, which was just blowback from Athens supporting the Ionian revolts against the Persian Empire, which was just blowback from Cyrus the Great conquering the Ionian Greeks of Anatolia, but before that everybody in history probably got along.

One off comments that lead to an impeachment?

On some level, we (the ancestors of our nation) brought in these people on purpose to exploit them, and now they can't return. It's like raising a tiger as a pet. Even when it's no fun anymore, you can't turn the tiger back into the wild because it doesn't have any of the skills it needs to live. You either make a tiger sanctuary, kill the tiger, or get eaten. We are somewhat choosing to make a tiger sanctuary, made imperfect by our unwillingness to see the question this way.

I don't know why you think there would be political will to remove the franchise from large swaths of the country but not political will to close the border. Closing the border would be much easier than shrinking the franchise.

All else being equal, I would support a system where the only people who got to vote were "net taxpayers." People who pay into the system more than they get out of it. And some kind of adjustment for kids, like if you get child tax credit and that is why you aren't a next taxpayer it can be adjusted somewhat.

However, not all is equal and this would disenfranchise not only the stupid, lazy, and shortsighted disproportionately, but also disenfranchise specific racial groups disproportionately. Which to some extent is fine, in the sense that it only does so because stupid, lazy, and shortsighted people are disproportionately in certain racial groups. But I am also uncomfortable with removing these groups from having much of a say at all in how they are treated and recognize the moral hazard there.

Huh. Don't all the passengers get the bends when that happens though? Recoverable if there are enough hyperbaric chambers, but still seems unpleasant.

Democrats also reject the legitimacy of elections, though with less concrete explanations of what would make them more comfortable with them.

For Trump, it was Russian Collusion. Bush was "Selected, not Elected.". In smaller elections there are complaints about voter suppression. Locally there was a big kerfuffle that State funding got pulled to send out extra busses to bring people to poll locations on Election Day.

Yes! The point is, more than the Lizardman Constant truly believes that there was fraud, when our system only works when we all agree that voting is fair and honest. Both sides need to bend over backwards to make sure that everyone has faith in our elections because that is the only way we keep the ship running.

At least the version I heard in school:

In the American past, there was a group of people (Freed descendants of African slaves) who had a legal right to vote but the people running the voting booths did not want them voting. They created lots of ways to prevent this group of people from voting:

  • Some created tests with a mix of hard and easy questions, and required someone had to answer five random questions correctly. Naturally the people running the voting booth would make sure the easy questions were given to people they liked, and the hard questions to people they didn't like.

  • Others skipped the test and made a "Poll tax" which was set in a way that most African Americans could not pay.

This was frowned upon by the rest of America and some severe and broad laws were passed to make it impossible to require someone to pay money or to take a test in order to vote.

Democrats complain that most Government Forms of ID require paying a small amount of money to discourage people from losing theirs and to help offset the costs of printing the card and maintaining the ID system. Voter ID is then associated with a Poll Tax, which we all learned in school is Racist and Bad.

There have been times where one party or the other sweeps the election, but the response is for the opposite party to adjust it's positions. Each party has the incentive to adapt their positions to the electorate, and because they are both doing this at the same time naturally it falls to around a 50/50 split. It's actually more like a 33% split because there's also a third of people who feel cut out of the process, are too apathetic or too adverse to both parties, and don't vote.

Given that we have more real-time feedback with internet sentiment and good polls, the parties adjust much faster now and it is unlikely there will be a sweep again.

That said, the real mystery is why the two parties are so different from each other. Or are they?

Someone who cannot read The American Reader: Words That Moved a Nation is not a literate American.

Or because they got government contracts to mass produce a bad product before there was any market feedback.

Things change when you're in a pressurized cabin designed to be as lightweight as possible. Which is also what gives us hope for space swords in the distant future!

There are copilots who should prevent this as much as possible, but realistically what would the average passenger do? A determined pilot could dive down faster than a passenger could react.

In development does not mean in production. He has approval from the rights holder (20th Century Fox/Disney) and the original show runner (Wheadon). He has the original cast and one of the show runners from Dollhouse on board. He has a script for at least the first episode of season 2. He has an animation studio that has declared interest.

It doesn't sound like he has money. Or as he puts it, "a home." But really it's the money needed to begin production which would be provided in the place where it will be distributed (these days a streaming service). Disney has first dibs, but would somewhere like Apple or Amazon pick it up? One thing that would encourage such a move would be to prove there are still fans out there, in sufficient quantities to make it worth it. Hence the hype campaign right now.

If the hype does not explode, this will go nowhere.

That's why it's an animated series, I expect.

But like I said, I thought a podcast audio drama would be the best possibility.

I think there is value to knowing the words the author selected. Consequence is a word that shows it's not just "class" and that class is more than just how comfortable your life is. Consequence means that these character's lives are considered more significant through the means they get their bread. The word choice is an introduction and an education into a mindset that is unlike ours.

With about 40-80 hours of practice, you can accustom yourself to the vocabulary and grammar differences. The number of words you will need to look up will go down to maybe a dozen a book. This is very different from requiring everyone read all novels in their original language, because learning a whole language takes 1000s of hours.

Also modern people write like that sometimes. Pick up This is Happiness by Niall Williams for example.

Nathan Fillion announced on Instagram that a second Firefly season is in development. It's a cult classic/niche hit. Has at least a million dedicated fans, which is an unfortunate amount. Disney Plus, which holds the rights at the moment, would probably need the number of fans to be in the 10s of millions to consider beginning production. It sounds like Disney was open to Fillion bringing the rights somewhere else so maybe he could manage a low budget thing on Crunchy roll but I don't feel like that's his goal.

I always felt that Firefly would make a good fan-funded high-quality podcast serialized story, like The Magnus Archives. This is a little ambitious but we will see how it goes. If you think Firefly has more than 1 million fans, prove it by liking the Instagram post. We will see how it shakes out.