@Tollund_Man4's banner p

Tollund_Man4


				

				

				
0 followers   follows 6 users  
joined 2022 September 05 08:02:59 UTC

				

User ID: 501

Tollund_Man4


				
				
				

				
0 followers   follows 6 users   joined 2022 September 05 08:02:59 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 501

And since South America lacks the advanced institutions of the cathedral to implement this outside of the viewpoint of the majority

The viewpoint of the majority is the reason a new constitution is being tried in the first place given that they voted to drop the old one in 2020. Without knowing more details it's hard to say whether it failed because the people don't like it at all or just because they don't like some parts of it.

Jacques Barzun - From Dawn To Decadence: 500 Years of Western Cultural Life. Interesting in its own right (I posted some excerps on /r/slowhistory), and as a jumping off point for further learning on the intellectual and artistic products of the West.

There was an article in the constitution that had a provision for a separate system (justice, medical, schooling) for the Mapuche people - which, at best, would be Jim Crow. At worst, it would be the effective division of the country on ethnic grounds.

How different is it to tribal sovereignty in the United States?

Hotkeys for formatting in comments would be nice. Right now I have to click the icon or type in the markdown to get italics, it would be nice to be able to just hit ctrl + i and summon **.

As for 2, doesn't that logic apply to any act and not just the decision to go vegan?

This seems more a reason to deem utilitarianism a useless framework for guiding one's actions than anything else.

I'm not a vegan myself but I don't think citing the hedonistic aspect of a morally questionable act as justification would fly anywhere else, why let it settle the argument here?

Why do we eat meat? Because we like meat. That we like it is justification enough, because humanity alone is the arbiter of right and wrong.

Why use 'we' here? Humanity is divided on this issue or else there would not be a debate. If you want to say 'meat eaters alone are the arbiters of right and wrong' that would be more precise and would sound pretty cool, but I'm not sure it settles anything.

I don't think it would be an absurdity to assert that the mass of people may be wrong.

I don't think that personal aesthetics become morals just through multiplication. Whether it's one person or many, you need more than a head count to substantiate a moral claim.

I think in that case it's more a matter of moral motivation than moral clarity. Disputing what is good vs knowing the good but failing to act on it.

Christians don't kid themselves here and readily admit that they are flawed relative to what God demands of them, the rest of us might at least take the lesson that the path to the good life may not ever intersect the path of least resistance.

What software should I learn how to use if I want to make an infographic?

Looks perfect, thanks.

The peaceful stupidity - It is said that some of the greatest inventions in the history of mankind come during times of war. Where the nation is put at risk and all resources are put into maximizing upgrades to ones technology or any capacity to beat the enemy. It was war that boosted the process of splitting the atom. It was the pressure of war that sent satellites into space. It was war that sent men to the moon long before they had any right to be there.

Yes there are some very visible technological achievements during war, but what's the counterfactual? More capital to invest in research, fewer short term economic decisions, fewer collapsed states, fewer dead scientists...

It's hard to believe that a Europe which didn't spend a decent portion of the last century blowing itself to bits isn't far ahead of where we are now. Where's our Austro-Hungarian space program?

I don't know why Europe industrialised while China didn't, the latter are in the same boat as other more warlike peoples for failing to do so.

Are you willing to allow for finer distinctions like 'the Hungarian race' and 'the Dutch race'?

If not, your definition of ethnicity leaves us lacking a term for the noticeable differences between groups within a race* . Maybe this isn't as clear in the US where whites are all mixed together, but a Pole looks different to a Scotsman (even if there's enough overlap that you won't always guess right).

*though I think race could be dispensed with altogether as it just marks a point where the differences between distantly related ethnicities are obvious.

Talking about a Hungarian race sounds weird though.

It was normal to use it this way in the past e.g the Irish Race Conventions.

If you need a term for sub-races, find one or make it up, but don't change "ethnicity", which is a perfectly usable term that means something else.

I haven't dived into its etymology but I don't think 'ethnicity' ever excluded sub-races to begin with, it's just that it also included a grab bag of other ways of distinguishing different peoples.

The awkwardness we feel lumping something biological like race in with arbitrary things like culture seems like something modern. Traditions, styles of dress etc once seemed about as immalleable as facial features, both because culture changed more slowly and because people used to have some weird ideas about how quickly environmental changes would bring about physical differences.

Also, in the absence of porn people will just jerk off to non-porn naked women, and then almost-naked women, and then mostly-clothed women

Do you think they'd do it as often? This sounds similar to saying that if you ban fast food people will just gorge themselves on healthy food, except they'd also probably stop gorging altogether.

I should rephrase.

Assuming you can enforce a ban, the further you go along the spectrum of ruling out easy, tasty, addictive, unhealthy foods: the less likely people are to gorge themselves.

And the same for porn, the further you go along the spectrum of removing the easiest, most stimulating porn, the less likely people will be to overindulge.

it seems that a lot of people are hardwired to count it as a status game so I guess I want to return the favor on my own terms rather than waiting if this other person ever wants to "call in the favor" for something more.

I'm like you with regards to feeling uncomfortable being in debt, but I've learned that trying to return a debt on your own terms can for some odd reason cause friction, I guess you can still be the annoying demanding party insofar as you're asking them to show up so you can pay them back.

I try to stay away from creditor/debtor scenarios when it comes to personal relationships. If you're a close friend who really needs it I'll just give you the money.

He'd have better right to claim German territories via his great-great-great-grandfather Albert; after all, the English long maintained romantic claims to territories not theirs (such as France) because a distant ancestor had been a noble there.

King Charles III is actually one of the many descendants of Brian Boru. If we're going by descent, he may actually (I don't know much about royal lineages) have more of a claim to Ireland than he does the Pictish lands.

I don't know about you but in my school we were watching porn before anyone was having sex. I really doubt that men are exhausting other avenues of achieving sexual satisfaction before going to porn. It's another case of the easier if poorer substitute outcompeting the real thing, and the substitute gets quite a head start.

I get it, pursuing women is hard. It is expensive in terms of money and opportunity cost, it opens you up to embarrassment, it requires a lot of self-development if you've got poor social skills, and it's worse these days if you don't have the right look for Tinder, but whenever I start making excuses, or hear someone else doing it, I have to ask 'how did your last 10 attempts go? Oh you didn't even make 10 attempts? Well there you go.'

I won't post a selfie, but I've been likened to both Ricky Hatton and Triple H, and still rarely has it not worked out for me when I've actually been trying.

If that's even sort of true, we're back at bioessentialism. Mind flayers and their elder brains are just naturally smarter than the average human peasant.

I haven't played D&D but unless it's really spelled out that they're smarter it seems like an easy way around it is to attribute their abilities to some special quality that doesn't intersect any culture war lines. Could a Mind Flayer exist in Harry Potter? If so, it doesn't seem like anyone has a problem with muggles not being born with that potential.

Of course changing the rules in response to CW pressure might still be a bad idea for other reasons, you do give up the defence of "it has always been like that and we're not changing it".

I think you can find plenty of examples in folk music.

"The Dutchman" (sung by Liam Clancy) is all about Margaret's love for her husband.

The thing about quoting aphorisms is that there's usually one that says the opposite.

Ok this isn't an aphorism, but quoting Shakespeare comes close:

Assume a virtue, if you have it not.

That monster, custom, who all sense doth eat,

Of habits devil, is angel yet in this,

That to the use of actions fair and good

He likewise gives a frock or livery

That aptly is put on. Refrain tonight,

And that shall lend a kind of easiness

To the next abstinence; the next more easy;

For use almost can change the stamp of nature.

I'd imagine the reverse would be true too. They'd be fascinated about things that seemed relatively minor in your day but which either presaged truly massive events or were just the current hot topic of the 22nd century.

"How did people at the time feel about president Biden's views on the Congo? He set things up masterfully for the 2050 pivot to Africa didn't he? Got well ahead of the poor Germans".