domain:link.springer.com
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
1m ago
a more... nature-focused sort of an understanding of various things, such as sexual relations.
Something that Americans also adopted the instant the birth-control pill hit the shelves (hippies were famous for this). Being able to not get pregnant on a whim is a massively transformative technology; so is having so much food the poor only starve if they're explicitly trying to, for that matter.
traditional religious morality
The foundation of traditional religious morality is not meaningfully distinguishable from "sex bad reeeeee" (no other intelligent examination other than "Bible says it's bad"), so it makes sense traditions holding that viewpoint get absolutely bodied by the new reality that a good chunk of why it was destructive is now obviated by new realities. Some traditionalists have tacitly accepted this, but they won't actually say it for Overton window reasons.
The more intelligent traditionalists focus on "but a woman who has a body count is spiritually degraded" for that reason- if they had any better arguments, I think they'd be making them, but they aren't. So "vibes" (and "men want virgins", when they're being more honest- and I can accept that doing things that help men would make society better, but in a general sense rather than this specifically) is obviously the best they have.
I'm sympathetic to those for whom biology meshes better with first-century sexual norms, but they're too busy thinking with their other head in this matter. So putting them in charge in a context where technology has obviated most of the previous reality they cling to is (rightly) viewed by everyone else as destructive. (The same is true when you put women doing that in charge, but rejecting that is an even more cutting-edge idea.)
fmac
Ask me about bike lanes
1m ago
I guess what I'm trying to understand about your view is why knowing the scale doesn't matter.
Bigger country = need more bombs = less bombs to deter China. Why isn't that important to understand?
I guess you can respond by saying "well we should simply make more bombs", which is correct, but the political party who is more willing to make bombs is currently in power and they're not exactly going hard on increasing defense production (happy to be proven wrong here, I would like USA to be stronger vs China than it is).
If Ted Cruz overplays America's hand due to ignorance, we all suffer
Hadad
1m ago
I agree. But I look around at modern society -- hateful, demoralized, mentally ill, pumped full of medications, fat, not having kids, eschewing relationships -- and I struggle to think paternalism would be worse.
Modern liberalism is great at facilitating hedonism. That seems to be it. This, of course, makes it wildly popular, but I don't think that's a good thing.
The_Nybbler
In the game of roller derby, women aren't just the opposing team; they're the ball.
4m ago
We need less redditor justices!
Fewer. We need fewer redditor justices.
TequilaMockingbird
Brown-skinned Fascist MAGA boot-licker
5m ago
fmac
Ask me about bike lanes
5m ago
I am actually somewhat in favor of more paternalism, but it's hard to have that not go absolutely fucking sideways
oats_son
6m ago
Haha, this was actually what I was thinking of, I think. Quoting that study exposes you as a redditor. We need less redditor justices!
Hadad
15m ago
All fair concerns for you to have, just not ones I share. I genuinely don't think it matters at all if Ted Cruz knows the population of Iran, because its population isn't one of the relevant metrics for our decisions.
Hadad
17m ago
I'm sympathetic to fatties, I'd say there's plenty of reasons. But it also goes for smokers, drinkers, for people who get into toxic relationships, etc.
Comfort is seductive. Pleasure is seductive. No matter the costs, people gravitate toward them. This is why society should try to restrict them, not facilitate them -- nobody needs help pursuing vices.
fmac
Ask me about bike lanes
17m ago
These are logistics, and it is not the place of US Senators to do the logistics work of the US military.
Doing another Ceteris Paribus, I would much rather my elected officials understood the scope/scale of the military conflict they are pre-commiting the military people to executing on.
For a more tangible point, every missile fired at Iran, and every defensive interceptor used to protect American assets against Iran, cannot be used for a war against China. The bigger Iran is, the more of those you will need. T
here is a serious opportunity cost to committing to a war, especially when you are in a cold war with a country that is expanding its military faster than you.
Maybe you think it's more important to smash Iran than be maximally prepared against China, in which case fair enough.
But to confidently say "I don't care if the people in charge of deciding to start a war don't understand basic facts about the scope and scale of the war they're committing us to" I think you should have much higher standards for your elected officials.
Jiro
20m ago
Minority outcomes have shifted very little in any positive directions.
I think "not being a slave" is pretty positive.
hanikrummihundursvin
23m ago
That might be true but I'm not sure what that changes.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
24m ago
I did not say the population would drop 80%. I said food production would drop by 80% (though that's a rough estimate). There's give in a few places (the USA exports food and that would be redirected; grain-fed animals would be replaced by eating the grain; also, while Westerners do need more food than Third-Worlders to not die - because the body stunts from undernutrition, but that's not retroactive - we don't need quite as much food as we get) - just not 5x worth of give.
I think you also have a different opinion of what constitutes "a going concern" than FCfromSSC.
fmac
Ask me about bike lanes
25m ago
I got nothing for that, fair enough
Honestly I ask myself that every time I see a fat person. I have my own shitty habits but that level of self-destruction blows my mind.
Hadad
26m ago
Healthy lifestyles are harder work than unhealthy ones, and people are accustomed to self-destructive hedonism. Why don't fat people just eat less?
fmac
Ask me about bike lanes
27m ago
Great points
My observations are obviously effected by my biases, you see what you expect
fmac
Ask me about bike lanes
28m ago
Oh no worries, I was just making sure I wasn't missing anything
You introduced me to the fact you can see gross up/downvotes, you can do no wrong by me on this day
Hadad
28m ago
If that's true, then you're fucked no matter what happens in Iran. You'll eventually be washed away in a tide of foreign brown.
Hadad
28m ago
We can always make more. I'm not persuaded by material limits -- we're the richest people in the history of the species.
fmac
Ask me about bike lanes
30m ago
Your points are fair, but I guess to rephrase my point as a question
If Christianity dominated times were so much better (or not worse for women/minorities/whatever) than why does only a rather small portion of western society (a good chunk of the GOP, and tiny fractions of other right-leaning western populations) want to go back?
Why isn't "make $COUNTRY a Christian theocracy again" a winning political strategy?
BahRamYou
31m ago
I really think you're delusional/mistaken about how powerful the US air force is at that kind of thing. It's built for precision strikes, not mass destruction (unless nukes). "kill every single scientist and engineer" and "transform mountains into infernos" is just not what they do. Israel wants them to use this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GBU-57A/B_MOP on Iran's mountain nuke research facility, but there's only 20 of them in existance and that's basically the only weapon capable of penetrating (maybe?) deep into a mountain. And Iran has a lot more than 20 mountains.
roystgnr
32m ago
Okay, I think I've edited out all my idiotic identity confusion from my reply. So, that said:
Always open to feedback
I actually have no negative feedback on your comment. My only other nitpick would be with:
it feels independent of comment quality
The bias here might be independent of comment quality, but it's not always large enough to be overwhelmed by comment quality. I see left-wing comments here get highly upvoted regularly, just not as highly upvoted (and not as consistently upvoted) as a right-leaning comment with the same quality would probably have been. So the effect of the bias depends greatly on comment quality: someone who's already on top of their game might not be getting too much unwarranted net negative feedback regardless of their politics, but someone who wanders in here to write right-wing cheap shots probably isn't made to feel as uncomfortable about that as they should be, whereas their left-wing counterpart probably gets scared off too quickly to consider improving instead of leaving.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
32m ago
First, you have to determine whether or not the law itself makes a distinction based on sex. This is a legal question, not a biological one.
Not really. If the law says "you can't change sex" to both sexes, it's not a sex-based legal distinction. It's a sex-based biological distinction, because how exactly you'd go about changing your sex is a biological matter.
It would be better for the first 10-50 years, after that, open question.
Iran is pretty paternalistic and I don't want to live there.
More options
Context Copy link