zoink
1yr ago
The sedevacantist group with ties to the mafia?
It's all Greek... er I mean Latin to me.
Yes, sedevacantist. He did go in to that, but not mafia, gonna have to look in to that one.
- a sedevacantist, particularly from out-there hardliners like the CMRI, would go there and 2) any regular Latin mass goer would find lots of open carry shocking.
And based on my culture waring these surprised me as well. I figured he'd hate a group like SPXX with almost more passion than the Holy See. Also I ribbed him about being surprised at open carry because his church is in an area of the country nationally famous for open carry. He said only like three guys in his congregation open carry. He's fresh moved there and is a Cali boy so I'm thinking he's still learning the ropes.
zoink
1yr ago
My hypothesis is that disagreement is not down to Dunbar’s number but down to a widespread suspicion that most economic theory is bunk.
Which stems from? That would be an actual response to OP's post.
zoink
25d ago
-
Yes
-
Red light yes, stop sign no. Very few people come to full stop at stop signs.
-
No
-
Yes, passing only, Cutting off and tail gating not fine.
-
Depends but I'm more for an aggressive merge than stopping on the on-ramp. A general leave a space or two when approaching an onramp if I can't get over. So many times people don't accelerate into it.
-
Same standards.
-
Use the slow vehicle turn out no matter how fast you think you are.
zoink
1mo ago
I prefer women who hold themselves to similar standards. I would recommend other men follow it for the reason Throwaway05 states, the downside is virtually none existent compared to the upside.
zoink
2mo ago
Who are these 100% blank slatist CICO advocates? Especially around here in the land of "IQ is real and probably has a large genetic component."
zoink
1yr ago
I guess that's a reason I have trouble relating. My grandma is in her mid 90's, grew up more remote than Kansas with a father killed while she was a teen. She keeps an immaculate uncluttered house with no collectables to speak of.
zoink
1yr ago
I guess spoilers
zoink
1yr ago
Gideon the Ninth tons of fun but Horrow was so bad. Nona is on the shelf... I hope Tamsyn Muir got good feed back on Horrow.
My wife and I are third-generation alumni of the same evangelical school. That's probably the primary purpose of non-elite religious schools. My father pursued a degree and went on to manage restaurants, and her dad was a baker. Both were very successful in their careers, and one could argue that they could have achieved that without a degree. Nevertheless, they cherished the sense of community and connections they gained from the school, becoming leaders in it. While my parents covered my entire tuition, hers covered half. They both loved that school. Nowadays, it costs well over 100k for a mediocre education, and the administration seems to have forgotten that the main point was to find a life partner. Personally, I knew the reason I was going there - it was free - but I couldn't understand why other kids were plunging into debt and not even coming out with a spouse. The state school was much cheaper, and, in my opinion, the girls were more attractive.
Furthermore, from the perspective of many parents, the theology professors at this mediocre academic school seem to turn about a quarter of the students into atheists. So, what exactly is the niche that this school is trying to fill? As far as I know, institutions like Liberty and College of the Ozarks are doing just fine.
Random story time! This is one of the first times I've encountered SSPX since my brother-in-law's wedding. His cousin joined CMRI a few years ago and came down for a wedding. He attended an SSPX for the Latin mass and was shocked to see half the congregation openly carrying firearms. Our families are both very evangelical Protestant, and as a recent convert, he is fervent about informing us that we're all destined for hell. Personally, that's never bothered me much. I mean, why should I care if another religion thinks I'm going to hell? I certainly don't believe I'm heading there, at least not for the reasons they believe.
Of course, this caused some tension within the family. What stood out, even more, was when he admitted that if he had his way, the US would be a theocracy, and all other religions or denominations would be banned from public practice. I pointed out that after enjoying the freedom to practice and grow his religion under the Protestant commitment to religious freedom, he would then take that very right away from Protestants. It seemed like an odd thing for a lawyer not to have considered before.
zoink
2yr ago
From: The Problem with “Fraud”: Fraud, Threat, and Contract Breach as Types of Aggression https://archive.is/qz0b8
I tried to to explain what fraud is, if it is to be considered a species of aggression (and to briefly debunk Child), in A Theory of Contracts (p. 34). As I wrote there,
The theory of contract espoused here demonstrates that fraud is properly viewed as a type of theft. Suppose Karen buys a bucket of apples from Ethan for $20. Ethan represents the things in the bucket as being apples, in fact, as apples of a certain nature, that is, as being fit for their normal purpose of being eaten. Karen conditions the transfer of title to her $20 on Ethan’s not knowingly engaging in ‘fraudulent’ activities, like pawning off rotten apples. If the apples are indeed rotten and Ethan knows this, then he knows that he does not receive ownership of or permission to use the $20, because the condition ‘no fraud’ is not satisfied. He is knowingly in possession of Karen’s $20 without her consent, and is, therefore, a thief.
In other words, for the libertarian, fraud is a type of aggression (namely, theft), just because it is a means by which one party receives or uses or takes the property of someone else without their consent–and there is failure of consent because the first party’s misrepresentation meant that one of the conditions to transfer of title was not satisfied. (I have elaborated on this in various articles and posts: see, e.g.: Reply to Van Dun: Non-Aggression and Title Transfer, pp. 60-61, where I tried to explain how a coherent theory of contract and fraud does, in fact, support a type of fraud claim compatible with the non-aggression principle; my exchange with David Heinrich in Comments: debt and the trade against risk; my comments in Objectivists on IP; my exchange with Heinrich regarding “limited liability” and corporations in this thread (2); my exchange, again, w/ Heinrich, regarding fractional reserve banking, in the comments section of Randians go from Mises to supply-side economics)
Looking at fraud this way, it is clear that for there to be fraud–at least of the type that counts as aggression–there must be some victim who did not give genuine consent for the defrauder to use or take his property. There must be a victim of the fraud, and the victimization must be of a type in which there is an ostensible title transfer but which fails because of lack of true consent.
zoink
2yr ago
Watched it over the last two days because you said it was amazing. My wife loved it I really liked it. We didn't pick up on much of these culture war angles. She liked how diverse the cast was, and while that does bug me it didn't feel out of place here. I never got that they were going with toxic masculinity when it came to Carmen; Richie sure. In the meltdown scene one could critique that one should never scream at someone unless it's life or death and they might not hear you, but in the case of the scene Sydney and Marcus both ignored Carmen multiple times before he started screaming. Even warning one of them that he was going to "fuck up their day" if they didn't stop doing exactly what they kept doing. Sydnie was not functioning well, and while Richie is an ass he only had a (by his standards) very light "see, I told you so" before getting to work the best he could to get through the crisis while Sydnie kept spiraling.
zoink
2yr ago
If you have consumed any of his content how legit is Paull Harrel?
Who are some of your favorite firearm youtubers?
zoink
2yr ago
This is the best article I've seen on the subject:
The conclusion:
So what’s the conclusion here? To me, this isn’t an argument for or against guns or for or against bear spray. It’s an argument that, despite the presence of deterrents, dealing with an aggressive bear encounter does not involve any sure outcomes. Rather than beginning and ending the conversation with a false statement about bear spray’s efficacy, we should instead acknowledge that recreating safely in bear country requires training and knowledge—not dogma.
Not Alaska Fish and Game but I used to work for a state Fish and Wildlife service in a state with Brown bears and worked with people who worked in Alaska. The article echo's this but for real deal likely bear encounters the best thing is to not go alone. When expecting bear encounters the Alaska F&G guys I knew of would carry 12 gauges with slugs. They would simulate an attack on the range for new guys, your back is turned and a target comes at you at 30 mph. Goal is to spin around and get a kill shot; pretty much everyone dies without a fair amount of practice.
Is/Ought... If you want oughts you have to start somewhere, this one starts with "self-ownership". If you're just an is guy, cool, not sure what the point of talking about it. Is there a axiomatic ought you'd rather start with?
zoink
2mo ago
My guess is you and most other's here are high enough status that y'all tend not to associate with dumb/low conscientious/high time preference, fat people.
I know it wouldn't be The Motte if it wasn't 10,000 words of caveats. Yes, these are exceptions that apply to a minuscule number of people, yet a bunch of people use them to make excuses for why they're fat.
It would not surprise me one bit that certain drugs and conditions reduce self-control and other's increase it. Some things make desired outcomes easier and some things make them harder. If you've got lots of self-control and you get some condition or start some drugs that make it harder to keep weight off, reduce CI until you stop gaining weight.
I would bet you think I have some normie conception of self-control: "self-control is easy! Just don't eat." Nope, self-control is really hard, and you're probably mostly born with it, like IQ. Can a midwit get a PhD in math from Harvard...? Well, are they black? No? Very unlikely.
I will point out that Scott has given literally hundreds of thousands of dollars of his own money to charity, so whatever else you want to say about the guy, it strikes me as very unfair to accuse him of only giving away other people’s money.
I will consider this if he working as hard as he can, living an ascetic life, giving it all away. One gets zero moral points taking the fruits of another person's labor.
I’ve obviously had to jettison some of the foundational tenets of Judeo-Christian morality.
Where did Jesus say one should advocate Caesar take money from others and redistribute it according to one's will?
zoink
6mo ago
I'm usually don't disagree. Mostly just trying to expand the subject. An example of a "disagreement" would be going into Hanania's theories from The Origin's of Work. Something like "Simply passing laws banning DEI isn't going to work, you have to gut disparate impact jurisprudence." I know better than to try to go as redpill as defenestrating parts of the civil rights act, they would not know how to handle that.
What are you on about? You falsely said this was a border dispute. I was informing you if you were ignorant or calling out a lie.
More options
Context Copy link