There is always this stupid idea that if only we were a bit kinder with those leaders (be it Hitler, Putin or others), if we had made just one or two small concessions, there would have been no war. But this is a complete misunderstanding of the nature of their regime. Whatever you give them, they see as a sign of weakness, a proof that they can push harder. You negociated with me about Syria, so that I can do anything there? I will also take Ukraine. You give me Danzig? I will also take Alsace. It's a game where they can only win: either you give them what they want, and they are stronger and can push for more, or you don't, and they get a casus belli.
EDIT:
In the wake of the 9/11 Attacks, the Jewish Neocons stampeded America towards the disastrous Iraq War and the resulting destruction of the Middle East, with the talking heads on our television sets endlessly claiming that “Saddam Hussein is another Hitler.”
By the way, I remember quite precisely what happened, and the jews were not responsible of it. All of America wanted this war. The people who opposed it took a ton of shit. You probably wanted this war yourself. But I guess it is easier to blame the stupid choices you made on the jews.
distic
2yr ago
Well it seems better for people there to let them go to moscow instead of stopping them and having them come at you. Civilians are not equipped to fight soldiers
distic
2yr ago
It's the only one that the Pope can really have. If Rome pretends to always tell the truth in a logical way, it's obviously false as some teachings have been contradictory. But if now you admit that it is not about the truth in a logical way, but about what must be believed, then it all makes sense. It even makes sense that they pretend to tell the truth in the usual meaning: they have to pretend it, because if something must be believed, it must be believed as if it were the only truth.
distic
2yr ago
You are still interpreting infaillibility as logical truthfullness. Rome is infaillible because what Rome says must be believed. If you want, Rome might not be wrong because the truth is whatever Rome says.
distic
2yr ago
There is a problem with your claim. Game-theory was once the best argument in favor of individualism. Game theory predicted that communism would fail because of the incentives. If people had been ready to ignore their own interests for the greater good, then individualism would have had a harder time. And how do you justify the sacrifices for individualism, if you are individualistic? It seems to me it makes no sense.
I think it touches the core of the problem, the heart of the internal contradiction of the american patriotism (or any kind of disinterested attachment to individualism). On one side, there is the individualism that you have learnt to love, and on the other side the attachment that you feel for it; you feel it so strongly that you are ready to sacrifice yourself for it. The problem is that both are contradictory.
Game theory is individualistic (it assumes everyone follows his own interests), yet it predicts that individualism will sometime be sub-optimal. It's like saying that saving America requires more state intervention, but more state intervention will destroy what America stands for. If what I just said is true, then America (or the world individualist party if you prefer) is doomed.
distic
2yr ago
Hannah Arendt had a theory that only others could tell who you are, preferably once you are dead (because any action can change the meaning of all your life). It's interesting because she also thinks that the main role of politics is to reveal who you are. So it's about identity... but an identity you can only show to others, without seeing it yourself.
If two people have different interpretations, how do you decide which one is correct? The number of protestant churches is still not reducing. Actually, it would be quite magic if everyone agreed. Look at the american constitution: it's a lot easier to interpret than the Bible, yet not everyone agrees. So if all well-intended people agreed on a religious doctrine, it would actually be some kind of proof that this religion is correct. But it seems to me that everyone agrees there will never be any such a proof (until the return of the christ if you prefer).
And for the record, I think catholics are concerned about the truth of their dogmas, but I also think they are more concerned avout other things like unity of the church. It's a very intellectual belief to think that religion must necessarily be about truth
distic
2yr ago
For the record, I'm not really a christian, I'm just telling you how I understand it from (almost) outside.
If I cut your arm, what is "you" after the cut? Yourself, or your cut arm? I was made to chant "we are the body of the christ, each of us is a member of this body". It's pretty clear, isn't it?
The size of the party, or the pope, do not matter. What matters is that the community remains functional if you remove a part of it. Sure, it will be less functional if you split it in half or if the pope is heretic, because that would have important consequences on the functionality of the church.
As I said Christians say that they are concerned by truth, but it does not mean they actually are. Yes, the protestant churches are organized in such a way that communities split if they don't have the same faith. So perhaps the protestants are more concerned by the truth than the catholics. But it can't really work. There is no practical way to discover the truth, as proved by the number of protestant churches. You can say if you wish that god will lead you toward the truth, but then you have to explain why God leads so few people toward it, even among the protestant. Making religion about faith and truth is deemed to disolve it. Ultimately everyone will have his own beliefs and there will be no religion at all.
The catholic way, to stick together and let the hierarchy decide what must be believed seems a bit dishonest, but at least it's not provably false that God leads the Catholic church as a whole toward the truth. Sure, individual belivers might be false (perhaps even all of them), but at the end of the day the Church will remain and improve. And as catholics care more about charity than about faith, it's not even that important if it happens that they are mistaken for all of their life. Remember that charity is love, and love is what make people want to live together and seek unity.
distic
2yr ago
The catholic community is the set of people that go the the same churches, that recognize the same pope, that have the same theology courses (be it catechism or university courses). Obviously you can ask whether south america catholics are really in the same community as rome catholics, but catholicism is heavily centralized and ultimately it's the pope who chooses the priests everywhere (through the bishops and the cardinals). If you recognize the priest the pope has chosen for you, you are a member of the community.
It allows reinterpretation because in practice it does not change the community to reinterpret. People won't leave the churches, they won't stop recognizing the priests. In fact, some might: some communities do not recognize vatican II, but they are very small minorities that do not matter much. Most catholics aren't theology nerds and the point of catholicism is that they don't have to. Knowing the dogmas and reading the bible is good for the priests, but the people just have to follow what the priests say. So why would they care if the dogmas change?
distic
2yr ago
It depends how you define catholicism, but it seems to me that there is in practice only one type of catholicism. They recognize the same pope, they go to the same churches. That is why you can actually reinterpret dogmas, even if you said you couldn't. Because the dogmas are defined by the catholic community, not the other way.
distic
2yr ago
Well it was also the opinion of vatican II that everyone could be saved on his own merits, if they did not reject jesus. So it seems that you can actually reinterpret dogma, because that's what vatican II did. Just like the catholic church always had a dogma that you could not make money from money, yet there are catholic bankers now.
distic
2yr ago
Everything is genetic at some point. Without arms, it is more difficult to steal. Having arms is genetic. Do you deduce that stealing is genetic? Then everything will be genetic. But everything will also be social, political, physical, economical, sexual...
Drinking might be partly genetic, but a woman who has the drinking genes and does not drink (for example because she can't, as there is no alcohol in her country) will have healthier children than a women who drinks even though she has no drinking genes (say someone forces her to drink). So the gene is only relevant as a factor in the drinking behavior. The behavior is everything.
On the other side, if there is an intelligence gene, no circumstance will change the final result: she can live her life however she wishes, it won't change the result. The only important element is whether the children get the gene or not. The behavior is not relevant.
distic
2yr ago
Then I know why EMH is not correct: it's because it's information-theoretical, it does not take the computation costs into account. The information might be present, but in such a way that you have to use a huge amount of computation to use it.
distic
2yr ago
I'm pretty sure Luther did not believe in free will, though: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Bondage_of_the_Will
It seems to me that for the catholics God knows (before your birth) if you will be saved, while for the protestants (at least those who don't believe in free will), God decides it.
distic
2yr ago
Yes, erasing people from history is a typical communist move. That's why you shouldn't do it, even to communists.
distic
2yr ago
But you'd think that the reading of scripture specifically is something that ought to be done by a Christian, or at least by a person who believes it.
I've been at some catholic weddings where the readers were atheists that were never christened. And there was no political pressure to be inclusive or progressive. So I don't think most people care about that.
distic
2yr ago
The catholic dogma was interpreted this way at the time of the Council of Florence (see also Dante), but it stopped to be long before Vatican II. For example:
To be in the communion of the Catholic Church and to be a member of the Church are two different things. They are in the communion of profession of her faith and participation of her sacraments, through the ministry and government of her lawful pastors. The members of the Catholic Church are all those who with a sincere heart seek the true religion and are in unfeigned disposition to embrace the truth wherever they find it. It never was our doctrine that salvation can be obtained only by the former.
John Carroll, first bishop of the US.
For the protestant, I don't get it. I was taught that they believe in fate, so that your salvation was decided by God before your birth and your actions don't matter, but I'm no expert.
distic
2yr ago
I mean, isn't it clear that mediocrity is at the origin of this activism? Havard can't afford to much mediocrity, at some point they have a reputation to hold. BAU, on the other hand...
distic
2yr ago
Anecdotally, I feel like even in the tech industry I am seeing a lower quality of college graduates the last few years, though it's hard to say how much of that is them being put through too many woke hoops and how much was Covid laying waste to academic rigor and accountability.
Have you considered that you might have become more competent yourself, and thus those student look more ignorant in comparison? It could explain the phenomenon at least partly.
distic
2yr ago
May it be that intraday trayding is profitable because the market is overall bullish? Are they still profitable in a bear market? Or do you have any kind of proof that they are beating the market? To reuse this comparison, in a bull market you can trade with astrology and still make money. Still genuinely asking, I'm seriously interested to know.
distic
2yr ago
What if they developped their own indicators? Would it count as special knowledge or as proving EMH incorrect? Genuinely asking
distic
2yr ago
The fact that they use sma and ema does not mean that it is what makes them earn money. If I use both astrology and science for agriculture, I will make money (astrology is useless, thus it is harmless) but it won't prove anything about astrology.
And what he is saying is that there are strictly more informations in the order book than in the price.
distic
2yr ago
Would you comply with your own requirement that "it would be forbidden for anyone to mention the way in which you differ from a native or a biological parent", your entire post could not exist. You need to be able to mention the fact that both differ to build your argument.
This feels like a straw man. Throughout the conversation we have implicitly been referring to saying these ideas in general society (in person, reddit, etc).
I can also say that trans women are not women here without facing any repercussions (as can you)
The issue is that you are advocating for some rule, such that enforcing the rule would weaken (or void) the case for the rule. And it wouldn't weaken it because it makes it less necessary, but because it forbids some arguments about it. It seems to me it is weird.
What I am trying to say, is that while there is a need for nationality even without ethnicity (even in a world where everyone has exactly the same DNA, there would still be different nations due to cultural and geographical differences), and there is a need for parenthood in a sexless world (assume children are fabricated, they still need people taking care of them), there is no need for genders in a world without biological sex. Genders are all about sex, and that is why transgenderism is a lie. You might say, look, genders are unrelated to sex, they have started to invent other genders than men and women (e.g. non-binary). You are right, but then this path leads absolutely nowhere, excepted in a place where everyone has his own gender because everyone has his own identity. And it is so because gender, outside of biological sex, is absolutely nothing.
distic
2yr ago
Some people have done it for millenia, but it doesn't mean that most have. Actually, if you take account of those who died as children, most people ever born have never got any children. You are the result of those who chose to have children, but it does not mean that most people have done it in the past.
Democracy means that everyone is responsible for what happens. Especially everyone which was in favor of the choice that was made. Sure, a guy in middle America wouldn't have been able to change anything himself, but it would have made a huge difference if a lot of angry Bob in middle America had opposed the war, instead of being in favor of it. The jews weren't a majority of the Bush electorate, and it's pretty clear that the Bush electorate supported the war.
People were angry. They wanted a war. So they are not completely innocent. Moreover, the problem of the war in Irak was more the war than the fact that it happened in Irak. All the other possible targets of the "revenge" were even worse: Pakistan has nukes, Saudi Arabia has oil. Other countries had no responsibilities in 9/11. They could have argued for peace, but you know very well that it wouldn't have worked. Some people have tried (some of them jewish), but they have never been heard. So the neocons provided you with what you wanted: the best (or the least bad) target they could find. That was not the main problem. The problem was that an angry mob was asking for blood. Being dumb and emotional is no excuse.
More options
Context Copy link