She's entering her mid-20s and isn't sure it's worth wasting her time on dating.
I have listened to many such claims from men and women. In the end, majority of those cases were just excuses. The thing is, that these people are not having problem with dating or finding a partner. They have problems with any relationships, period. A normal social life works with Dunbar number where you have 1-2 intimate friends, 5 very good and reliable friends that help you, 15 friends that invite you for birthdays etc, 50 or so members of your tribe - people with whom you can create groups when necessary, who vouch for you in a new job or who will group with you if you meet them on vacation. The rest are at least good colleagues or contacts that will let's say write you a linkedin review if asked. However the way you develop this network is the other way around, you meet people and then move them closer to more intimate circles. You do not hookup and spread your legs to randos from internet every other day like a lottery. Life partner will not fall on your head from the sky, you don't order him from dating app according to your excel checklist - it requires constant work cultivating social network and relationships.
Most often people who whine about how hard dating is have problem with any relationships. I know literal loners who do not know anybody with whom to go out for a beer or who would invite them for birthday party. Heck, they often do not even think to call their own mothers for months. They are socially inept, they have anxieties even thinking about calling a call center. No wonder that these hermits cannot find any dates. Who would want to go to such an empty and parched social circle - and more importantly where would they meet them? Ordering doordash for her permanent homeoffice? Just look at reddit and nonstop threads of thing like "how to meet people"? What the heck? You are 30 years old and do not know how to meet people and make acquaintances or friends? This is something that 5 years old do naturally on playground, what is next - asking how to wipe your ass and wash you hands? It is depressing.
If your daughter had healthy social circle, then for sure some of her friends would either be male, or her female friends would have their own brothers or their boyfriend's friends she could naturally meet during social occasions such as birthday parties or any other activity. This social circle serves for vetting via gossip as well as matchmakers of potential mates in similar social and cultural milieu. If she was competent in social situations, it would be no trouble to find somebody interesting to have relationship with. But most likely she is incompetent, just guessing from her stance that dating is "waste of time". What a stupid thing to say - every social interaction has potential to develop into friendship or even dating and romantic relationship. It is opposite of wasting time.
georgioz
3hr ago
All of this is so silly to me. The answer is women's education reduces women's fertility, and there's no real way around this problem. Women, when given the choice, do not choose children, and so by allowing them to support themselves and choose whether to have kids, they choose not to.
This is loading the question. I was thinking about it a lot and to me one of the major factor is that the whole society is built around women. Women are huge net negatives when it comes to direct welfare costs, they draw more than they pay in taxes. Moreover, women employment is largely in state or semi-state professions like teachers or bureocrats or bullshit jobs. Thirdly, women are using the whole state apparatus in their favor, I would not be the first one to note that in a sense women married state. Just name a government policy and it disproportionally benefits women: progressive taxation, public healthcare, welfare, public employment or even other things like military draft etc.
So in my eyes it is not a simple natural "choice", the whole environment is built so that women do not have any duties and do not shoulder any burden of society - they do not even reproduce. The choice of "hey, here is free stuff and no responsibility" is an artificially created one. They get stuff for themselves and then renege on any responsibility or duty. Just slash government spending to let's say 5% GDP and watch how women fall in line and start to actually plan and work for their security. Suddenly having family and social ties suddenly becomes more important.
All of this is so silly to me. The answer is women's education reduces women's fertility, and there's no real way around this problem.
Incorrect. Israel is interesting opposite case. They have large urban population, educated women and everything. And even secular population has TFR above 2. Education is important, but there are other things as well. Also there are logical things, for instance education may work indirectly - not indoctrination or that it educates women not to have children. In fact fertility has famous U shape as low income uneducated women have more children than middle class women, but upper class women rebound in around $100k and cross toward 2.1 TFR at income of around $200k. So there may be a different issue and indirect effects. As women spend the most fertile years at school and then they work to wipe out debt, they are not reproducing until after late 20ies early 30ies. Then they usually have smaller families as they spent 10 fertile years on school and work. Who knows, maybe there can be a system where women have children first and they will have something like GI bill when they will get free education if they have two or three children or some such. Like KaiserBauch mentioned, it is a complex problem.
georgioz
4hr ago
I also think we should reduce emissions (and I care about various environmental concerns), but most of your argument hinges on us in the EU having a significant impact, which we don't. From a short check, we're currently at around 6-8% depending on how exactly you count. We can go net-zero and it will literally not even reduce emissions by a tenth. We also increasingly have less international sway. All of this goes doubly for germany specifically, which I consider the worst offender in this regard. So adaption is mandatory, reduction is a nice-to-have bonus.
Agreed. The 2 degrees change budget is around 1,000 gigatonnes of CO2 and even if we froze the situation globally as we are now (just stopping increases) - the global spending would reach this budget it in 25.7 years. If EU magically went net zero tomorrow, the global budget will be spent in 27.4 years. So at best the EU will delay the inevitable for around a year. The whole thing is impossible to solve. Even the COVID lockdown measures decreased the global CO2 emissions by around 17%, when everybody was at home. Even if we had these lockdowns perpetually, it would delay the 2 degree budget spending by around 3 years.
People underestimate the scale that is needed, nonexistent technologies necessary etc. The only thing that makes sense now is to just adapt either personally, in community or nationally.
I think the most important part of the rankings is to provide solid criteria for selection. I am not that good with songwriting, but I can use Mike Duncan's criteria for greatest Roman emperors until official fall of the Western Empire. He named three criteria: what cards were they dealt with - a self-made man like Caesar or Augustus and specifically Aurelian are ranked higher than emperors who had great starting point - like let's say Titus or Antonius Pius. Second criteria was his impact on the empire, which is combination of longevity and reforms done. Augustus is absolute beast in this criterion, Aurelian is a sprinter as he did amazing stuff during his short reign. And last criterion was how they handled the succession. This absolutely tanks Marcus Aurelius as 1/10 in this category as despite his supposed stoic rationality, allowed his retarded degenerate son Commodus on the throne, who then promptly destroyed the empire.
The same here with music. For instance the OP has disdain for rap, which is fair given the structural difference between rap and other music. Rap lyrics are built into the loop, rock and other genres use chord progression and melodies meant to be sung. On the other hand rap lyrics have denser linguistics space, rappers like Aesop Rock or GZA have famously large vocabularies densely packed across their songs, especially compared to linguistically more simple pop songs. Of course then there is also a tension that OP recognizes - are we going for artistic merit or are we going for popularity, maybe one criterion or even a requirement can be how many songs written by a specific songwriter hit top 10 charts or some such. Are we valuing mastery over one genre or are we going for versatility of working with many different artists? Are we discounting writing for famous artists who are guaranteed to be successful over actually making unknown talent break through with a hit written by that songwriter? Are we valuing just pure success at the time in terms of awards, copies sold at the time vs cultural longevity, impact and universality of the lyrics for songs that maybe started as obscure or hated, and which are now universally famous? Just think "We Are the World" vs "Hallelujah" or something like that, with the former being song of the year and 8th best selling song in history, the latter never receiving any award and selling less copies - although spread over years.
In a sense true value of these discussions is not necessarily the actual list, but the surrounding discussion of what criteria to use, how to analyze success and if there are some outliers. You may have almost infinite lists depending on what criteria you use, which is the fun part of the game playing with the topic.
georgioz
1d ago
On the one hand we are bombarded with platitudes about how the good life consists of being free to be yourself, i.e. the postmodern ethic of self-actualization.
This was never the case. If you decided to be gun loving religious republican, you were never celebrated for your unique identity. As usual, it was word game since start where the only legitimate identity is the progressive one, every other identity is unauthentic, performative and driven by false consciousness and internalized isms and phobias such racism, misogyny and whatnot. As James Lindsay said, activists share your vocabulary but not your dictionary. It goes with all other words including the words I used, but also words like ally, representation, violence, inclusion or even democracy and myriads of other words.
So, let's start with some of the most obvious differences. Climate change is a truly global problem in the sense that it's literally impossible to fix locally. This is the reason why the EU/german-style Energiewende is so insanely myopic and short-sighted; Even if it worked relatively fine on its own merits (i.e. reducing emissions to near-zero with minimal damage to the economy) AND if everyone on the entire globe did the same, it still requires adaptions to the already-changed climate. Instead it not only is sold as an alternative to adaption, the rest of the world isn't doing the same anyway, and of course it isn't working well on its own merits, either.
I think that both problems are global and local at the same time. Climate Change can be adapted to locally or even individually - just move to a place less impacted by it. Countries can adapt to different climates, hundreds of millions of people in Middle-East, India and Southeast Asia already live in environments with prolonged wet-bulb situation of deadly heat+humidity. And they adapted and survive. The same with demographic crisis, you can move, you can create your own community and move over to self-sustaining or community system when the social situation inevitably collapses and autarky will rule the day.
Both of these also have unpredictable global impact such as migration, wars etc. But guess what also has unpredictable impact: migration, wars and plagues and the rest of it. We had two world wars even without Climate Change - although arguably both were brought about by demographic boom and relative adjustment of power of various countries. The same goes for current issues - for instance since end of WW2 the population of Africa increased seven fold from 200 million to 1.6 billion. This by itself causes strain on resources, there are much more severe issues than just climate change. Even regular environmental mismanagement and resource scarcity can create destabilization and huge issues.
I agree with KaiserBauch, there is not much to do other than to adapt. But this is not something new - imagine being born lets say in Austria in 1895. You had bad luck, your life saw such unpredictable changes and so much misery but also wonders that was impossible to prepare. The best you could do is to cultivate skills, social networks and self-sufficient mindset that could carry you and your family over in unpredictable situation when everything around you broke down and you could relay only on yourself, your friends&family and your ability to bribe and navigate the situation.
I think that the issue is of a different kind, something James Lindsay refers to as "woke right". It means that ideologically it actually agrees with left narratives, it only turns them on their head. Patriarchy oppresses women? Yes and it is a good thing, be a chad like Tate and deal with the hoes and their white knights like rabble they are. Radical feminists rave about beauty hierarchies and pretty privilege? Fat activists talk about how fat people are oppressed? That is true, be beautiful and openly sneer and mog all the ugly degenerates, objectify everybody.
This woke right shit is literal heresy to leftwing activism, it can accept all the premises and just declares "and it is good". Hierarchies are not unjust, they are natural. Systems of oppression should not be dismantled, you should strive to play the game and be on top. It is woke version of satanism, that is why it actually cuts more deeply - mostly because the leftwing ideology actually gives them ammo, they agree that all these things bring privilege. Leftists just assume that people will intuitively say that having privilege is bad, and that people will automatically cheer for the underdog - without actually explaining why. It is actually a big weakness, Lindsay likened it to vampire ideology: you have to invite it to have power of guilt and shame over you. If you make yourself immune to it and openly laugh at it and if you are able to live through cancellations and struggle sessions, you are beyond their reach. It has no longer any power over you.
Leftwing activists are much more likely subject to be subverted into these movements as they are primed to the language, these movements are more dangerous to them than let's say libertarians or neoliberals etc.
I think it is a standard tactics of ideological defense in depth, where arguments are used as soldiers. You can have simultaneous and contradictionary propaganda aimed at different parts of the population. In modern information environment, you have simultaneous message for different audiences. Maybe you know the "narcissistic prayer" meme:
- That didn't happen
- And if it did, it wasn't that bad
- And if it was, that's not a big deal.
- And if it is, that's not my fault.
- And if it was, I didn't mean it.
- And if I did, you deserved it.
You have a message for everybody. Loyalist can be in denial in order to prevent infohazard and keep ideological purity - everything that was said by opponents is Conspiracy Theory, just focus on our message. Moderates and apologists can be equipped with minimization arguments, which can even be linked to one another, just to flood the infospace and make truth hard to discern. And the last message can be aimed at radicals and fanatics in order to generate more of the things that supposedly did not happen - with plausible deniability generated by moderates.
In a sense it is a brilliant information warfare strategy.
More generally: it’s important for everyone to contribute and compromise for society, the problem is when people asking/enforcing don’t evenly contribute and compromise themselves. I think growing lack of effort and honor within the working class should and would be fixed by seeing more effort and honor from their leaders.
I think that this is feature and not a bug. For instance it is legally and financially high-risk situation to hire random bum to get him mow your lawn for cash. This simple interaction is covered by literally thousands of pages of regulation. You have tax liability, you have premises liability, you have equipment liability, you have environmental liability and million of other things. The system is designed that such a simple and age old interaction is basically impossible.
This is the litmus test of how tyrannical the government is. It basically forces local bum to begging, as he is incapable of getting regular job, not to even talk about being able to do the paperwork necessary to be a small business operator. And you as a customer cannot profit from this opportunity and you are forced to contract companies who have to finance all that regulation. Large corporation can utilize economy of scale, their operations can afford regulation compliance, which only incentivize them to lobby for more. Alternatively you just do it yourself, which in this tax and regulation environment seems to be more and more attractive, incentivizing autarkic economies.
On an intuitive level, the modern society especially in the west is absolutely unfree under pretext of safety.
georgioz
7d ago
For myself, I desire freedom. I desire the ability to walk my clean streets in safety. I want my neighbors to look and act like me, to believe in similar things, to hope in similar things. I want my children to grow up around adults who will seek to instill similar morals and myths. I want to be led by someone who genuinely has my best interests in mind, and not simply simpering for my vote. I want to be free of the tyranny of the election cycle.
I actually equate freedom with something completely different and it seems to be incompatible with modern state. I think freedom is to have taxation on level of 1 or 2% of GDP like in 1775 USA. I see it as ability to sell and purchase goods and services without constant oversight of taxman. I see it as being able to have contract without tyrannical book of regulations that are impossible to read withing my lifetime. In a sense of freedom, I think that the modern people are completely cucked and lulled into absolute egregious compliance.
Sure, you can also say that you are atheistic theist and that they both have in common that they discuss God and that it makes you feel good as part of your CBT. I am not denying that, I am just arguing that saying I think rationalism is kind of like stoicism is incoherent, that is all.
georgioz
7d ago
Their similarity is in following logical, thought-out principles. The real opposite is normiedom, i.e. just do whatever everyone else is doing, and "we do it like this because we've always been doing it like this, my father and his father did it so as well" and I live my life like this because that's what everyone else expects and they would point their fingers and laugh at me otherwise
This is actually a false dilemma fallacy, you can use the same logic to show how any coherent philosophical system has more in common with one another compared to "normiedom". Additionally it is self-defeating specifically from rationalist perspective. Adhering to tradition and proclaiming normie beliefs is absolutely a rational thing to do. One can argue that these norms are just highly-optimized and time tested heuristics. My argument is that following stoic as opposed to rationalist philosophy would lead to a completely different heuristics and norms.
Both Stoicism and rationalism are about taking control of your own simpleton mind and applying superior individual control over it using one's own willpower and superseding the trappings of regular normal-people thinking. I know that this is a broad umbrella, but "just be a normal person and do what everyone else is doing, go with the flow, don't ever be weird" is the true opposite pole.
There is no need to sneer at it. In fact stoics did not sneer at simpletons, they saw them as agents with spark of logos fully capable of manifesting it. Additionally one of four cardinal virtues of stoics was wisdom in both senses - Sophia as understanding of math and logic, but also Phronesis as practical wisdom rooted in tradition. Plus again stoics were interested in personal virtue, many of their individual or societal prescriptions would be sneered at by rationalist as backwards and "irrational" in Yudkowskian utilitarian/consequentialist sense.
georgioz
7d ago
They are not only different, they are opposite to each other in all ways that matter. They are bitter enemies.
I think rationalism is kind of like stoicism (both philosophies I like and try to practice, though I don't really "identify" as either a rationalist or a stoic)
They are absolutely different philosophies. Ethically, Stoicism (similar to Christian ethics) is virtue ethics system, rationalists/Yudkowskyans are utilitarian consequentialists. Stoicism is focused on individual and it teaches how individuals can lead a virtuous life. One of the principles is Hierocles’ Concentric Circles (similar to Catholic subsidiarity) where responsibility flows from virtuous individual to virtuous broader society. Yudkowskyian rationalists have completely opposite system, they ground their morality in "greater good" of Effective Altruism, where they obsess about macro level and maximizing utility for maximum number of conscious beings including those not yet born.
Rationalists are reductionist materialists/physicalists. The universe is dead, intelligence is emergent property of unthinking universal wavefunction, morality is accident of evolutionary engineering of biological computers that gave birth to human intelligence. Stoics believed that the universe has telos, that it is a thinking organism and by being virtuous you align with this universal telos - it is similar to Thomistics natural law philosophy.
Those two systems could not be more different. In fact it is one of my main criticism of Rationalists.
The problem is with the wife and husband to be. If they are both Catholics, for a valid catholic marriage they need to be married by a properly ordained catholic priest. If two Catholics get married by protestant pastor, their marriage is invalid from catholic perspective. This is an interesting situation - for instance if there are two atheists who married in front of Elvis and who later convert to Catholicism, their marriage is considered as valid natural marriage and it is automatically promoted to sacramental marriage upon baptism. If one of them was atheist but the second one was baptized catholic in apostasy and they both married in front of Elvis, then their marriage is null and void from catholic perspective, they are just living in concubinage as lovers. They need to remarry right after baptism of the atheist and after the apostate goes through general confession (the special confession taking into account his whole life).
This seems strange, but from the standpoint of Catholic Church the Catholics as soon as you are baptized you are bound by the canon law for life. You agree that the Church is providing the legal structure to your life. Protestants or atheists did not do that, so they are not obligated to follow it.
It’s helpful to look at the history; old Catholics did originate with a handful of individuals who disagreed with papal infallibility, one of whom was a bishop.
It is more complicated than that. The whole succession of bishops goes back to 1723 where Jesennists had dispute with Vatican regarding ecclesiology, the remnants just joined forces with other rebels over time. These things tend to split and merge, for instance even Union of Utrecht had merger with Polish Catholics who then left after they saw the push toward liberalization. In a sense these wandering rebels just use random bishops to create their own priests.
The SSPX does not have mercenary origins. It continues to deny Mel Gibson communion for adultery despite his fame and large donations. It does not endorse whatever is fashionable on the political right(much to the chagrin of some members), and only cooperates with secular politics when it thinks it needs something.
Nevertheless they are strictly radical. They go hard against Vatican II and demand that the Catholic Church declares at least parts of it as in error. This never happened in Catholich Church for 2000 years. Even most egregious doctrines like Doctrine of Discovery are not outright dismissed as erroneous, they are declared as "product of their time" or some such. This is by the way exactly what Benedict XVI offered with hermenautics of continuity: interpret church documents in a way that gives primacy to more important dogmas and doctrines thus basically castrating them.
All in all SSPX are absolutely boneheaded:
-
The whole crusade against Vatican II is by itself one of the most radical and modernist stances currently available. If Pope can annul results of ecumenical council such as Vatican II then why not Trent or Nicaea? This only gives ammo to radicals. Vatican II will stand, there is no way it will be overturned or declared as erroneous as it would mean that the visible Church was in error for over 60 years now and counting. This creates orders of magnitudes more problems than it solves.
-
It will not even help. There are older documents like Summi Pontificatus and Plane Compertum Est by Pius XII in 1939, which (re)introduced concept of incluturation - incorporating local customs into Catholic life. This is at least as radical as Nostra Aetatum or Dignitas Humanae as it basically makes what "traditionalists" considered as idolatry permissible directly overturning Ex quo singulari from 1742 by papal fiat. And BTW SSPX consider Pius XII as a good and traditional pope and they have no problem with Summi Pontificatus, they just obsess over Vatican II. If you specifically focus on the inculturation vs idolatry doctrine and Magisterium, there were several 180 degrees turns at least since 600 till Vatican II and beyond. There are dozens or hundreds such historical documents for this or other topics, that can be used by progressive pope to bash over peoples head, Vatican 2 is not some unique aberration that changed pristine history of church Magisterium.
I studied SSPX and I even have some sympathies toward them. But I concluded that they are bunch of morons who at this point just revolt for revolt's sake. Their arguments are circular, illogical and ultimately come from place of pride - they use strong language more suited for online CW as opposed to theological disputes inside Cathoilicsim. They will never be a better deal than the one offered by Benedict: having personal prelature (bishop structure under pope himself sidesteping local diocesan bishops), just having to pay lip service to accept Vatican II as a valid ecumenical concil that is to be interpreted correctly, having full right to be custodians of Tridentine Mass and all that.
Instead SSPX chose confrontation. There will for sure be more splits and arguments inside the SSPX, the whole thing is unstable as it is self-defeating, the whole movement is based on personal reading of what the church teaching means and it will be their undoing.
Punishing people for not having children is a bad idea. If you are single woman, a harsh tax + good benefits is going to result in you having children out of wedlock.
There is no material difference, single people will be always punished. It does not matter if you let's say have $10k tax for both and give tax credit of $5k to family with children or if you have tax $5k and gather extra $5k tax from childless family. Single person pays $10k and family pays $5k in taxes in either case.
But that's not the sort of society Bezos got married in. In the one he did, monogamy is the law and women are considered partners in a more substantial sense by both the feminists and Christians, even if they manage it differently. It's dubious if Western civilization has suffered from treating the one wife as more important and precious, even if the idea of giving away half your earnings to someone now incentivized to take it is galling.
There are two different arguments here. On one level, we can look at relationship between man and woman overall, which ranges from whores, suggar babies/daddies, friends with benefits, situationships, cohabitation, common-law marriage to secular marriage or religious marriage and many other forms between. The modern secular western view constantly blurs difference between these relationships, just look at so called toothbrush case from Australia 16 years ago. So if a regular escort like Aella has toothbrush in your home, she can be your defacto wife. That is the actual legal minimum when a whore "deserves" half of your wealth for her "partnership", so who are we kidding here.
I as a Catholic also agree with you, but I am also much more strict even than many of my fellow believers. I do not consider anything other than religious marriage as such, I do not see a point why should I in any way respect the aforementioned bastardization of this sacred institution. I do not care about "she is my monogamous partner" and other such nonsense - including divorced couples - which is something that should not happen in the first place. It is all just heathens doing their depraved shit, up and including gay "marriages" and various polycules and some such. I take it as a wordgame, where degenerates appropriated the word and completely inverted its meaning beyond recognition, transforming it to something completely different as usual. To me it is all just cohabitation in some concubinage and people having basically business contracts between themselves, especially if you include various semi-crazy prenups. Again, it is a farce.
So I do not see any issues for me to hold both of these points. If a supposed believer divorces her husband, she automatically falls under category of oathbreaker and I cannot find any sympathy for any case of how she deserves wealth for some vague concept of "partnership", that is not a standard I recognize or respect. The fact is, that she herself turned her sacred marriage into moneygrabbing operation as opposed to acting according to her duties.
This is just wordplay. In that sense even Aella is not just a lover or a whore, she is partner of sorts for powerful, intellectually stimulating them toward higher success. Maybe she also "deserves" billions of dollars. The word "deserves" carries a lot of weight here, even today there are countries where divorcees do not get shit when it comes to wealth - the whole Middle East and North Africa for instance. Similar rules exist for widows, where wealth is inherited by closest male relatives. All these countries apparently decided that wives do not deserve shit.
The point stands. Golddiging under various circumstances is highly profitable for women, even an utter bimbo without any hard skills outside of seduction can amass huge wealth and power that way. That is in fact vast majority of cases how women do it all around the world.
In grand scheme of things these whores like aella are the very bottom of intellectual courtesans. They are vastly overshadowed by lovers of powerful men who can amass properties, jewels or even yachts and other luxury items worth much more - cases such as Corinna zu Sayn-Wittgenstein-Sayn, who was a lover of King of Spain and recieved property in Marakesh and $70 million in literal direct wire transfer. And even those are of course nothing compared to wealthy divorcees such as Bezo's ex wife MacKenzie Scott. There are many more such cases such as Jocelyn Wildenstein who got $3.8 billion divorce settlement etc. If you look in top 100 wealthiest women, almost 80% inherited their wealth often from deceased spouses. Only around 14 of them are self-made. It is almost inverse of men, who are almost 80% self-made billionaires. This is how things simply work for women.
georgioz
1mo ago
As other said, there is vast difference between Christian denominations, some such as Calvinists/Reformed are more harsh, that may be why you think that. Other such as Catholic Church explains original sin as state of depravity from grace, they inherited the broken nature of humanity from Adam and Eve. It is the whole basis for Christology as second Adam who provided humanity a path to reconciliation. In a sense using the word sin in Original Sin is in a different sense, for instance Orthodox Christians choose different name such as Ancestral Condition. Which by the way is also consistent with Catholic Dogma, there is just a little bit different way of thinking about it.
That is because Christian Charity is not utilitarian, but based on Christian virtue ethics. Even people like Saint Ambrose with radical view on wealth accented the impact of lack of charity on the salvation of the giver, not only on earthly comfort of the one receiving such charity. It also flows into Thomas Aquinas hierarchy of need, where only extreme necessity requires immediate action, and even then in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity - meaning you are responsible for ever expanding circle that however starts with you. So in that sense a heathy beggar who is hungry because he is lazy, is failing in his responsibility and in fact steals from truly needy. Enabling his behavior is at best lack of prudence, and at worst you become complicit, as you trap them in their sins.
It is one of pet peeves of mine - when modern Christian Churches entangle themselves in social policies and preach about human rights or inequalities or even utilitarian systems such as Effective Altruism often calling it as strategic choice. This is secular vocabulary is alien to core social teaching. E.g. talking about American poor is absolutely stupid, they are basically yesteryear millionaires with access to everything they may need materially.
This is needlessly limiting criterion, almost example noncentral fallacy. Eugenics is not only a government policy, it is also an ideology and a social movement. Eugenicists are interested in outcome of improving DNA of the population, the means to do that can vary. There were rabidly antistatist eugenicist of old, such as radical libertarian Herbert Spencer. They had more in common with modern technocratic approach of "nudges" - moral stigma, social engineering, subtle subsidies or penalties or outright propaganda in lieu of brute coercion.
My personal theory is, that the whole identification of eugenics with fascists and statists was just a standard Progressive PR campaign to clear the stain and declare post-hoc victory of always being on the right side of the history. But underlying impulse and logic is still there. They are defacto eugenicists, they just don't want to be identified with Nazis.
Not necessarily. There is often implicit understanding that after school you have to develop your carrier. Why study law or medicine when you then go straight toward part-time work and childcare? You will have gap in your CV and your opportunity may be lost forever as your social network moves on. It is a trap of school, carrier, maybe some real estate and material security. It is not only after 30 where some women feel secure to search for relationships, while others select to be childless to pursue their career more - it is not as if the treadmill stops after 5 or 10 years.
This is inherently male behavior, with huge caveat that men historically did that in families. Men could work 12 hours a day while their wife was at home with kids even when husband was 20. For women it is possible only if childless or with immense pressure and/or external help. The reverse situation where high powered attorney returns to work at 26 with her toddlers at home with her husband is exceptionally rare. It is not how things work, men and women are not interchangeable.
More options
Context Copy link