@SubstantialFrivolity's banner p

SubstantialFrivolity

I'm not even supposed to be here today

4 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 04 22:41:30 UTC
Verified Email

				

User ID: 225

SubstantialFrivolity

I'm not even supposed to be here today

4 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 04 22:41:30 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 225

Verified Email

Yes, we all know you think that lockdowns were an abject display of evil which was bad enough to justify your Holocaust comparisons. You're wrong.

There's a whole lot of people in this thread who don't understand that being in the wrong isn't a zero-sum game. Like you said, it's hard to tell if the woman actually acted like the teens claim she did (since they have every incentive to lie and all), but still. Assuming they are telling the truth, it sounds like everyone here acted poorly.

Nobody said that nothing should ever be compared to the Holocaust. But comparing COVID lockdowns to the Holocaust is ridiculous and without any merit.

It provides a sense of pride when beating the game. The fact that some people cannot beat the game but you can, is a potential source of pride. If you enable everyone to beat the game, it is gone.

This is, to be blunt, a character flaw and not a good argument against difficulty settings. If your sense of pride in your own accomplishments depends on others not being able to do it, that reflects pretty poorly on you.

I find your other arguments flawed as well (though I don't want to go point by point because I find that kind of obnoxious). I think that the "it doesn't affect you" argument for lower difficulty settings is correct, and that your arguments don't really counter it.

No it isn't. A person of good character strives to excel because excellence is its own reward, not because they can beat others.

And if your argument was "Christianity can't provide comfort to the victims of sectarian violence", that would be a valid point. But your argument instead was "Christianity is disordered because its adherents sometimes commit sectarian violence", so your point is rather off the mark.

As I said, nobody ever updates.

It is so ironic you say this given you had multiple people giving you examples of them updating. It sure sounds like you yourself didn't update.

We seem to be in agreement that there's no malicious intent. But if there isn't, then it isn't an invasion no matter how many people come over. Even if people immigrating for honorable reasons were to fundamentally change the nature of the country (which again, it won't in my opinion), if that isn't the reason they are coming over it doesn't matter. It is absurd to say that people immigrating into a country, one which is known for welcoming them, becomes an invasion when enough of them do so.

You have yet to demonstrate that there's an intent to take over the country. The more likely explanation is that immigrants are coming here because they feel they can have a better life here, and the various NGOs are helping because they are compassionate towards the less fortunate. It doesn't take a conspiracy theory to explain this.

And, as I've already said, I don't agree with your idea of what the result here is going to be.

Are you proud of breathing? No, because everyone can do it.

No, it's because it isn't challenging for me. Whether other people can do it doesn't factor in.

Are you proud of knowing how to swim? No, because it's extremely common to be able to swim.

I am in fact mildly proud of knowing how to swim, because it was challenging for me to learn. Less proud because I haven't swam in years and so I've lost the skill somewhat, but I still have reason to be proud of the effort I made.

This is as true for achievements as it is for physical goods.

It's not at all true for achievements.

Cooking. It's not hard to do, almost everyone can cook to some extent. But when I cook a dish that is challenging (for me), I'm proud of it no matter how easy it would be for most people.

We aren't talking about economic value here. We're talking about the virtue of overcoming challenges, which is not limited, and in no way requires an external reference.

I'm sure you can find lots of examples of people who claimed to be honorable and did that. But those people were not, in fact, honorable. They showed it by not acting honorable.

Honor is like principles: if you only uphold it when it's convenient for you, then you don't actually have it. It's the times when it bites one in the ass where you see who is actually honorable/principled versus who merely claims to be.

In my mind there has to be a compelling reason not to vote for Trump.

That makes no sense. You don't have to vote for anyone, so the default option should be "don't vote for anyone".

For example, where’s the indisputable evidence faith healing works?

I don't think there's indisputable evidence for much of anything, so that might be too high of a bar you're setting up. But the Catholic Church does require evidence that miracles were performed due to the intercession of a saint before that person is canonized. And sometimes, those miracles are the healing of a person which gets investigated and determined to be due to prayer.

I have no doubt that one can find cause to doubt that evidence. It's not indisputable (though like I said, I don't know that any evidence ever really is). But it does exist, so I would look there if I were you.

If you wish to act in bad faith because others have, I certainly can't stop you. And I doubt I could convince you that it's folly. But you have no right to complain that others act poorly when you are willing to act poorly yourself when it benefits you.

Are you sure that your sense of pride is completely independent of your environment?

Yes, of course I'm sure. The pride is in the challenge I overcame, not because it makes me better than anyone else.

Then I think your argument isn't very good because virtue is not lessened by lack of scarcity. Almost nobody murders people, but that doesn't mean it's not valuable to refrain from killing. And if someone really struggled with anger issues such that it was a real struggle for them to not get violent with people, I would say they should be proud at their success even though most people find it easy.

First, the current situation was neither unstoppable nor unavoidable. True, those things didn't happen, but that doesn't mean it was never possible.

Second, I don't think understanding is really ever useless. It can help you formulate a strategy for next time. It can help you to sway others to your point of view. If nothing else, people generally like closure and understanding can help provide that. Understanding has value even if it didn't help you to avoid an outcome you consider bad.

Biden said that Tara Read said untrue thing, Trump said E. Jean Carroll lied. That's a distinction without a difference.

No it isn't. Lying is saying something true with deliberate intent to deceive or mislead. It is, by definition, only a subset of saying untrue things. One can say untrue things without lying by:

  • someone says something untrue to you, and you believe it
  • misremembering
  • just plain old human error causing you to be mistaken

The difference is that those situations aren't generally considered to be a moral failing, while lying is. Therefore, it's derogatory to say a person is lying while it's neutral to say that what they said isn't true.

The end result of invasion of the Mexican army attacking or migrants is the same.

Even if that's true (which is a big if, one I disagree strongly with), the end result isn't all that matters. Invasion requires intent as well as results.

Yes it is. You don't have to fill every spot on a ballot, and indeed don't have to vote at all if you don't want to.

Look, you're allowed to care about the clothes you wear. Where it becomes a dick move is when you start looking down on others for not caring as much as you do. Lighten up.

He's not a very good father, putting very little time or effort into it, but he still does it which seems better than just never having kids at all because "it's too much work."

I don't think that's better at all. The kids whose parents put no effort in generally grow up to be a serious drain on society.

I disagree. I think that the path to addiction starts precisely in small places. Nobody starts by drinking several bottles of liquor a day. It starts when you treat alcohol as something you need to get by in this small way. Then once you normalize that, you start using it more often, or in other situations, and it snowballs from there. As such, when someone is asking for advice I think "you should drink" is always bad advice.