@TheLoser's banner p

TheLoser


				

				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2024 April 26 00:14:48 UTC

				

User ID: 3024

TheLoser


				
				
				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2024 April 26 00:14:48 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 3024

If by Natural law you mean law derived from natural principles (i.e the Natural world), that does not necessarily imply abortion bans. Natural abortifacients exist, and animals kill their off-spring all the time. Many animals also engage in homosexual behavior. Why does Natural law then support your beliefs? Or is Natural law merely the name for your preferred moral sensibilities, in which case its arbitrary?

This dovetails into another topic that I, like you, don't have it in me to effortpost about right now, which is: how do you guarantee that your reforms don't change, and revert back to standard liberalism? Many of your proscriptions/desires/policies, resemble those of 1950s America, and we know for a fact that those changed to align with progressive mores. Does not the fact that we did have "Government policies that respect the natural law", and those policies were changed, evidence contradicting your claim that "Government policies that respect the natural law ... have the potential to create a literally virtuous cycle between law and custom"? That is empirical evidence that, no, conservative laws are not naturally resistant to progressive agitation, and in fact, seem very vulnerable to them; hell, conservative customs aren't very resistant to liberalization. So how can you be sure you won't just repeat the cycle all over again?

They have by no means conquered the UK, as evidenced by the healthy and explosive pushback that has occurred recently. Besides that, they have been "liberalized" in a way. They smoke, they drink, and they fuck before marriage. They steal, rob and rape. They present as ultra-conservatives, and then engage in the most degenerate shit. Effectively, they've been converted into the homogenous globalized underclass, which Liberalism creates. Their present dysfunction is proof of Liberalism's power.

Lebanon's Islamisation occurred due to an influx of Palestinian refugee's, sectarian infighting, and a much larger state sponsoring said Islamic paramilitary. And besides, Lebanon was by no means a secular Liberal Society. The Lebanese Christian, Suni, and Shia, themselves, not the Sunni Palestinians, engaged in all manner of war crimes; these groups did not believe in Liberalism as you understand it. In the Middle East, ethnic and religious conflict is usually solved by appeals to overriding authoritarian nationalism, not by principled Liberalism. When that authoritarian nationalism falls apart, as in Lebanon, Iraq and Syria, then sectarian conflict occurs.

Hezbollah was not a genuine Lebanese reaction towards Liberalism. It was a foreign paramilitary force, funded, armed and supported by Syria and Iran, that took advantage of the Lebanese state's weakness; it was never indigenous to Lebanon, or had a broad base of support. In fact, due to Israel's war, they've been neutered as an effective force in Lebanon, so ironically, they are an example of Liberalism (or whatever the fuck Israel is) triumphing over Islam.

He's asking you what time period was at the top of the slippery slope.

Exactly what is wrong with bars with videogames in them, as opposed to normal bars with no videogames in them? Are parents not allowed to go to bars? Or is the presence of video games too childish for your tastes?

Pool tables and darts are standard fare in bars, so why is the presence of "video"games verboten?

The Gulf's government (monarchy) is not conservative. It is an open secret that the Gulf monarchies drink alcohol, and fuck prostitutes. The reason that the Gulf populace is conservative, is because social conservatism is part of their founding national myth; khaleejis (gulf Arabs) literally define themselves as the originators of, protectors of, and most devout followers of Islam.

Islam is incredible intertwined with how Gulf Arabs see themselves, and is the reason for the population's continued conservative. Although, I do have to note that even that is changing. In 2022, Saudi Arabia formally cutoff its association with the Islamic clergy. The population is quickly becoming westernized.

Government policies that respect the natural law and seek to make obedience to it easier push back against this, and they have the potential to create a literally virtuous cycle between law and custom. They also facilitate human flourishing, which is no small thing.

What does this look like? Be specific, and where possible, please point towards historical examples of these policies.

True, but the GDP Abu Dhabi, which makes up more of the UAE's economy than Dubai, is still predominantly based on oil exports. Whether Dubai's wealth is sustainable or not without Abu Dhabi's economic engine is still in question.

Values-coherence is a prerequisite for the formation and maintenance of a functional society; the aim is to achieve values-coherence with others, band together for mutual benefit and defense, and prevent rule by those who hate you.

I have to ask, becuase this seems like a pretty important wrinkle in your thesis here. To what degree and type of values-coherence do you require? You are a Christian, so I presume you are against pre-marital sex. In your ideal society, would anybody who thinks pre-marital sex is fine be expelled? Would anybody committing it be imprisoned?

My question really is how much values-coherence is enough; that is, where is the line? And how can you even quantitatively/rigorously determine where the line is?

I am very curious to hear what you would say. Try to dilute the message so it's acceptable, as painful as that may be for you.

"Ibrahim" isn't a Muslim name. It's literally jusy the arabic version of Abraham; plenty of Arab Christians from Christian families have it.

Ali is distinctly not a popular name in non-islamic cultures, since it is very distinctly Muslim coded. Also, I don't know where you got that Ali is the short form of Alexander from. The short form for Alexander is Alex, not Ali.

In a roundabout way, yes. He signed a letter that was used to support policies that funneled money and grants away from non-progressives to progressives.

While it isn't well know, there is an immense profit motive for trans medicine. Jennifer Pritzker came out as trans as an adult man in 2013, well before the social movement spun up in its modern incarnation. The market cap for gender transitioning is $200 billion. While I wouldn't say that the profit motive is the main reason for the increase in trans identification, it's at least a contributing factor, just because of the immensely powerful players identifying as trans, as well as the immense size of the market. The state of trans research is a mess, and recommendations are made based on faulty evidence; it is plausible that such reduced standards are pushed (or at least encouraged/ignored) by pharmaceutical/insurance companies that just want to make a quick buck.

Can you please give some specific examples about how treating women like narcissists/children works? Like specific anecdotes and stories. I've always heard that the red pill implies this interpretation, but I've never read any stories that actually show this phenomenon.

And I'm saying that someone who is violent and drugged up is significantly more lethal with a gun than without one. Are you seriously suggesting that an armed insane person is not signficantly more dangerous than an unarmed insane person?

I'm sorry, but if being equiped with a gun doesn't increase your lethality, then what's the point? Is not the very purpose of a gun to increase the lethality of whoever weilds it?

It seems trivial to me that a person with a gun is several orders of magnitude more deadly than an unarmed person, no matter how violent or drugged up they are.

How are images of the facts on the ground curated propaganda? Is reality propaganda at this point?

Importing large amounts of people who have radically different beliefs and allegiances also foments civil war.

A simpler explanation; transwomen are often formerly (still?) autistic men, who have difficulties with regulating emotions, especially emotions that arise from what they feel as personal attacks. This would explain the overly violent comics and memes; it's emotional dysregulation.