fuckduck9000
2yr ago
Completely unacceptable. The rule protects all the other hospitals. If neutral doctors and observers lying about military presence was morally acceptable, the bombing of hospitals and civilians would have to be morally acceptable. It’s worse than a crime, it’s a perverse exploitation of humanity’s good will, actively destroys it.
fuckduck9000
2yr ago
Not capricious.
To you he’s god, so of course he can walk on water, but if you take him as a literary character, he is consistently behaving in a childish, bloodthirsty and petulant manner. The crimes and behaviour of his enemies, supposedly inviting his ‘just’ punishment, are not in any way worse than his own. How many innocents have to die for his ego? Who is lower than the child murderer? What kind of leader repays the loyalty of his followers with the death of their children?
Are we clear on what he should be compared to (a capricious man) , or do you simply deny that his actions can be interpreted at all, as in your defense of job’s treatment?
Their own first-borns are killed by God as punishment
He shouldn’t have hardened Pharaoh’s heart, then (exodus 7:3).
It is not claimed that God acts arbitrarily
A psycho does not need to claim he acts arbitrarily to act arbitrarily. His actions in the examples are not the result of a consistently applied universal rule (which would be barbaric, but not capricious), but depend on his whim of the moment.
Stop claiming that expert-based consensus settles arguments
@HlynkaCG is the one who first invoked the specter of expert-based consensus to compensate for his lack of arguments. If anyone who disagrees with him must believe the ‘lies’ of experts, then what of his beliefs, whose usual and most fertile ground is found in the overly trustful minds of children? I did not come with a sword, telling him to bow to the experts, but to bring arguments, and he once again found nothing better than to retreat into bulverism and his conspiratorial, anti-intellectual shtick. I merely helped myself to the can of worms he opened.
fuckduck9000
2yr ago
I don’t see how. As a political group, they’re a status quo anchor with heavy susceptibility to ‘care-based’ arguments and other immature, conventional justifications. You can’t use them as trailblazers and schock troops. They’ll just follow the mass of winners and push them a bit further by inertia. One should always emphasize self-interest, conformity, and good intentions when speaking to large groups of women, but that also applies to large groups of men (where it is referred to as ‘populism’).
The power of women as political actors is overrated. Like black people and other ‘oppressed’ groups, their privileged legal position and the prestige they enjoy in mainstream discourse is not down to anything they did, it has been granted to them by others, and can be taken away.
fuckduck9000
2yr ago
It's only an open question for those who don't pay attention. Responding to jewdefender in earnest is the 4chan equivalent of taking the bait. Newbies take this one-sided charade at face value, while from a higher vantage point, the hard right only dupes itself. That would be alright with me, if it didn’t lower the quality of discourse in the process. To be fair to oblivious newbies, they probably expect a guy with such a long and unquestionable history of bad faith (just to name one, his deletion of all his old comments to prevent just that discovery) on here to be banned, as he should.
fuckduck9000
2yr ago
The flood, sodom and gomorrah, the binding of isaac, being a dick to job, the killing of egyptian first-borns (was that some genocidal form of proto-identity politics, I wonder) are the most well-known and really define his personality, but the bible is full of examples:
Exodus 4 : 24 On the way, at a place where they spent the night, the Lord met him (Moses) and tried to kill him. 25 But Zipporah took a flint and cut off her son’s foreskin, and touched Moses’ feet with it, and said, ‘Truly you are a bridegroom of blood to me!’ 26 So he let him alone. It was then she said, ‘A bridegroom of blood by circumcision.’
Kings 4 : 23 And he went up from thence to Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, little boys came out of the city and mocked him, saying: Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head. 24 And looking back, he saw them, and cursed them in the name of the Lord: and there came forth two bears out of the forest, and tore of them two and forty boys.
Judges 11. 30 And Jephthah gmade a vow to the Lord and said, “If you will give the Ammonites into my hand, 31 then whatever1 comes out from the doors of my house to meet me when I return in peace from the Ammonites shall be the Lord’s, and I will offer it up for a burnt offering.” 32 So Jephthah crossed over to the Ammonites to fight against them, and the Lord gave them into his hand. 33 And he struck them from Aroer to the neighborhood of Minnith, twenty cities, and as far as Abel-keramim, with a great blow. So the Ammonites were subdued before the people of Israel. 34 Then Jephthah came to his home at Mizpah. And behold, his daughter came out to meet him with tambourines and with dances. She was his only child; besides her he had neither son nor daughter. 35 And as soon as he saw her, he tore his clothes and said, “Alas, my daughter! You have brought me very low, and you have become the cause of great trouble to me. For I have opened my mouth to the Lord, and I cannot take back my vow.” 36 And she said to him, “My father, you have opened your mouth to the Lord; do to me according to what has gone out of your mouth, now that the Lord has avenged you on your enemies, on the Ammonites.” 37 So she said to her father, “Let this thing be done for me: leave me alone two months, that I may go up and down on the mountains and weep for my virginity, I and my companions.” 38 So he said, “Go.” Then he sent her away for two months, and she departed, she and her companions, and wept for her virginity on the mountains. 39 And at the end of two months, she returned to her father, who did with her according to his vow that he had made.
(ie, burnt his own daughter as a randomized trade/thank you note for crushing the ammonites. The morale of the story presumably being, you never know what’s gonna come through that door)
Freud was one of the most convincing antitheist professors that has ever lived. Do you believe that this was because his arguments were correct?
Again with Freud. Look, it’s not a binary. All else equal, an adult being convinced by arguments is more evidence of them being correct than a child believing something (eg, santa claus).
Just because they’ve had two thousand years to hone a lie, doesn’t mean it isn’t one. He’s a capricious blood god in the mold of allah or odin. You know why people believe the ‘antitheist professors’? Because what they say is convincing. They don’t rely on the gullibility of the recently born and the soon-to-be deceased. And for the record, I did not have to wait for college to notice the discrepancy between the old god and the new. Besides, those most involved in selling the image of a nice new testament god aren’t guys like me but modern christians, who by embuing him entirely with enlightenment values, sanewash christianity. I guess even the common man knows which way the bread is buttered, and it sure as hell wasn’t the old god that buttered his.
fuckduck9000
2yr ago
I think my facile conjectures make more sense than yours. Get rid of the old testament god, and what's left? A shitty version of the enlightenment.
fuckduck9000
2yr ago
What is Judiaism without God if not Identity Politics?
Christianity. They play trinity-card-monte with god and replace him with the afterlife.
fuckduck9000
2yr ago
The way SS presents his antisemitism, it’s both intellectually robust somehow (‘anti-fragile’) and dependent on the behaviour of jews. But we’ve established that it’s neither of those things.
As an example, I love my family members and would never sacrifice my mother to save some random financial criminal. I'm not changing my mind on this matter, but the belief is very clearly falsifiable and testable.
I think you’re conflating yourself, namely, the predictor and the subject of the prediction. “Luke says Mark would never sell his mother”. Luke is supposed to change his mind if mark sells his mother. SS says, if jews do X, it will “visibly validate the arguments made by antisemites “. SS is supposed to change his mind if they don’t do X. There is no way to validate or invalidate his argument if it just consists of his personal hatred of jews (or love of mother).
fuckduck9000
2yr ago
I’d just attack the central point: the average man has *more *agency than in the past, and the leaders are reluctant because the followers are rebellious. Who wants to babysit a hundred Han Solos? In the land where every man is king, who wears a crown?
The forces we are subject to are distant indeed, nothing like the brutal personalized hierarchy of the past. If our literature celebrated a slavish reverence for authority, should we really conclude that all is well with our dear leaders?
Does our fiction say anything about our society?
Obligatory anti-woke rant: I’m not sure we’re going to be able to do art criticism much longer, since so much of recent art is corrupted by the artist’s conscious metadecision to ask that same question ‘what is this piece saying about our society?’ . What can a soviet or nazi morality tale tell us about their societies? Not much more than what they wanted us to think. It would be ludicrous to claim that soviet realist movies reflect the reality that soviet man felt oppressed by capitalism. In that vein, perhaps the iliad is nothing more than the condemnation/exhortation of a mirage, rather than a reflection of something real.
You can get a view of the late 19th century from reading zola, but that was already ‘committed literature’, so it’s hard for me to take it at face value. It’s only on the edges, far from an author’s central message, that there is truth. The more ideologically cleaned up works of fiction are, the least can be gathered from their study. They told me the role of art was to change the world, but I wanted it described, and perhaps embellished.
fuckduck9000
2yr ago
I thought it was sarcasm. A would-be alaskan lumberjack does not choose physical death over online ribbing.
Also reminds of the ‘jews/liberals condemning muslim immigration’ current thing and all the right-wingers who can’t take the W.
fuckduck9000
2yr ago
And jews for hitler was a thing, so there.
fuckduck9000
2yr ago
You said above or equal. I think you would agree it's impossible to treat a child on the other side of the world better or the same as your own child. Proximity matters. People, here jews, having a preference for their interests, their family, their race, their football teams, does not result in unavoidable conflict.
fuckduck9000
2yr ago
So their failure to meet your hypocritical, admittedly impossible demands apparently constitutes a validation of your worldview. Try again for the falsifiable prediction.
Unless they agree to serve your interests above all others, they’re nefarious. I don’t even treat my own brother this way. I guess your philosophy boils down to egoistic militarism, which denies the converging of interests, where every man is in a death struggle against all the others. If there can be no convergence of interests with jews, I don't see why there should be with my brother, and all the less so with the very very very extended family which constitutes my race. And at this point, I'm related to jews as well, it's just one more 'very'.
fuckduck9000
2yr ago
In the past I've described antisemitism as anti-fragile. So let's say Jews are going to respond to antisemitism. What are they going to do that isn't going to further and visibly validate the arguments made by antisemites?
Indeed, there is nothing they can possibly do that would bring antisemites to change their position. There's another word for that sort of belief: unfalsifiable. Any action 'the jews' take that isn't obviously in line with the antisemite view is just evidence of ever more complex trickery. And so it is found that both 'pushing for greater authoritarianism' and 'staying mum' all leads to the same rotten conclusion.
fuckduck9000
2yr ago
You can. It’s just that people have a tendency to defend even bad arguments if they feel it comes from their side, because in their view losing one argument weakens all the others(arguments as soldiers). So a dishonest actor like jewdefender can make a side look silly.
And all the opponents can’t resist smacking down the silliness for some easy status points, even when they know that the argument is coming from a suspicious source, and the dumb argument has been dogpiled to death already. So the corrupted discussions look like one-sided routs even though in general, the two sides could be equally correct/credible.
fuckduck9000
2yr ago
fuckduck9000
2yr ago
This is dishonest. I have not not found it, I have not gone looking for it. I don't think anyone should have to go looking for a refutation of any numbers, unless the person making the original claim vouches with their reputation for the statistics used to that back it.
Do you need an official “I vouch for those numbers on my children’s children lives” ? Rae and I will suffer some reputational damage for defending those numbers if you find contradicting ones, and that is usually enough of a motivation for others.
I did find them suspiciously low myself, did a quick search, saw no contradicting statistic. This is the point where your priors should move somewhat (since, as in the literacy numbers, there is an alternate universe where they are easily debunked by the quick search), not where you double down on your intuition. And please don’t call me dishonest lightly. Whether you went looking for them or not, you haven’t found them. I am not trying to deceive anyone.
People who think it's a good thing those surgeries are being performed are still aware of their political environment, and the backlash that will come if the awareness of high numbers spreads to the public.
Then why haven’t they lied on the 42k diagnoses ?
Ok, so someone does a study estimating the number of gender-affirming surgery in the US, but they aggregate the youngest age group into 12-18 year olds, so you don't actually know how many have been done on minors
The study said “3678 (7.7%) were aged 12 to 18 years“ (gender-affirming surgeries over 4 years). That’s in the same ballpark as “282 mastectomies per year on minors”, no matter how they choose to massage the disaggregated data.
fuckduck9000
2yr ago
Don’t waste your time defending the idiotic utterances of this troll. He is not on your side.
fuckduck9000
2yr ago
There has to be a way to push back against suspicious statistics.
But just pointing to a completely different false statistic + your intimate conviction is not the way. What is the rule being applied here? All statistics are false if I feel like it?
Your ‘deboonking’ quip is invalid, it’s supposed to make fun of people’s tendency to falsely claim they have debunked their opponent’s statistics. But on the literacy numbers, it would be hard to find a halfway reasonable ‘antiracist progressive’ who would still support the original claim after the debunking. Ergo, it’s a true debunking, not a ‘deboonking’.
They were lying about hormones and surgeries being done children at all.
Who is ‘they’? To make the “282 teenage mastectomies” claim false here, one researcher has to lie, and then all the other researchers have to support it by not publishing any contradictory evidence (since you haven’t found it). And that group includes a lot of people who think it’s a very good thing that those surgeries are being performed, so the dubious claim can be attacked both from a pro-trans and anti-trans perspective. The ‘they’ obscures the difference between a few liars within a broadly sympathetic group and an extremely well-coordinated conspiracy, requiring all to act as one.
fuckduck9000
2yr ago
You know, this actually reminds me of the discussion downthread, about some author misrepresenting/misunderstanding stats to try to show that a greater proportion of whites are illiterate than blacks in CA.
This is weak. You can’t just associate a statistic you cannot debunk to one that has been. If trans researcher lie, I think it’s much more likely that they lie on the positive effects of transition rather than on raw numbers like these.
But your own source pointed out it was likely undercounting, because it was only capturing a very narrow statistical category of trans youth. Namely, youth with a formal diagnosis and formal prescription for gender dysphoria.
I don’t think it’s a narrow category. The adolescents, and the parents who go along with it, think it's What The Science Says. They're not out there getting gonzo surgeries on their own initiative. If you want to play up scary numbers, it seems that the number of kids diagnosed with gender dysphoria rose from 25k to 42k from 2020 to 2021, and the mean age for the diagnostic is decreasing. It could be that there’s tens of thousands of kids in the pipeline for such surgeries, they just didn't have the time to get to the previous ones in large numbers before they matured.
fuckduck9000
2yr ago
I used to use Head and Shoulders daily
Wait a sec, that seems a lot for a guy who has all these skin problems. I’m sorry for the ‘have you tried turning it off and on again?’ question, but have you tried using mild/no soap?
fuckduck9000
2yr ago
They have to call them something. I can offer ‘progressives’, or ‘PC left’(that one aptly suggests the outsized importance they place on ‘political rhetoric’), or any other term that’s sufficiently neutral. The negative valence opponents assign to whatever term they use is unavoidable, simply a function of their alignment.
To be clear, strictly speaking I am a consequentialist myself, I just don’t think their calculation of consequences is correct. “Your policy results in two groups incapable of finding the truth, who hate each other and cannot compromise” is consequentialist reasoning.
fuckduck9000
2yr ago
This is why we can't have nice things. Using such consequentialist logic, I can't support the woke even when they are doing and saying things I agree with. This is really the best way to polarize an open society into two groups who hate each other and will support their team whether they are right or wrong.
If I, in possession of tremendous dog intelligence and dog-might, wanted to teach my loyal beagle his duty, he would not stand confused at the end. He would especially not recognize in me the traits of lesser dogs he despises.
It might have been enough for a guy like Job, but I for one am not satisfied with the extent of god’s revealed scientific knowledge. For such a gifted kid, would it really be that much to ask to put a few differential equations in there?
Besides, this line is different than arguing that god isn’t a capricious blood god… it proves too much: god isn’t good, or merciful, or wise, or truthful, or coherent, or anything, if he’s just incomprehensible.
More options
Context Copy link