domain:anarchonomicon.com
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
50m ago
A peasant from the middle ages is more free than you are in all the ways that actually matter to the individual experience of the world to a degree that is comical.
You cannot be serious. What's comical is your lack of knowledge about the lives of peasants and your idealization of some "free men of the soil" living like Hobbits in Middle Earth.
He pays less taxes,
Peasants paid whatever tax rate their lords set for them, which could range from bearable to crushing.
owns more space,
Peasants did not "own space" - generally they literally owned no land at all, and at best had tenure on it. The dwellings they lived in were tiny by modern standards.
has more social relationships,
Peasants "social relationships" were generally limited to the village they lived and died in. They had no other options and were often not even legally allowed to move to a city with more social relationships available.
works more for himself
Peasants didn't work for themselves, they worked for their lords, and had very little volition in what work they would do. Peasants didn't choose their careers.
doesn't have to spend much of his life in a school
Peasants didn't spend much of their lives in school because school wasn't available to them. Education wasn't available to them.
can't be conscripted into wars
Peasants absolutely could be conscripted into wars.
doesn't need to fill as much paperwork...
Peasants couldn't fill out paperwork because they were illiterate, and thus had no way to even know if any theoretical rights they had were being violated.
the list goes on.
Do go on.
But sure, if you would prefer to be a medieval peasant than a modern man, that route is available to you. There are many places yet even in first world countries where you can disappear, build yourself a cabin, and live alone in the woods.
fmac
Ask me about bike lanes
51m ago
I'd argue the difference between autocratic islam and autocratic Christianity is wayyyyy smaller than either side will ever admit
jkf
52m ago
You really can't think of any logical reason for somebody to oppose high levels of immigration? It's not a particularly important issue to me, and I can easily throw few lines of argument in the ring:
-
<insert country> is overcrowded already -- bringing in more people is creating an inferior experience for the existing people in terms of overcrowding, cost of living, increased crime, etc. -- and is therefore undesirable to the current populace.
-
If we are talking about immigration from less developed countries to richer western ones (which we usually are), and the pro-immigration interlocutor believes that AGW is a significant threat to the global environment (which he usually does), then bringing large numbers of people from a poorer, less carbon-intensive lifestyle to a more consumptive place where they produce more GHGs seems like an obviously bad idea.
-
More spicily, if one considers the existing culture of one's country to be generally superior to that of other countries, then importing people from other cultures would dilute the existing culture, which would be undesirable. If this one is not logical enough for you, you will have no trouble at all finding somebody around here to make a similar argument based on extensively cited research around HBD -- it's not an argument I care to make, but seems to meet your criteria. (other than containing ideas that you undoubtedly disagree with of course)
Hadad
55m ago
The goal isn't genocide. Genocide is just an acceptable cost. Nothing stops Iran from abandoning its nuclear ambitions before dying, much like how nothing is actually stopping Palestinians from not embracing a life of suicidal terrorism.
This requires no sociopathy, fyi. You're correct that I'm not sociopathic. But I'd absolutely push The Button. I'd mash it, and then continue to exist as a stable, psychologically well-adjusted person. The outgroup has no moral value to me. If you're convinced I wouldn't, well, okay. I say I would, you say I won't, guess the conversation's done.
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
56m ago
The promises to Abraham which Cruz references are interpreted in the New Testament as applying to Christians as follows:
Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. He does not say, “And to seeds,” as referring to many, but rather to one, “And to your seed,” that is, Christ. […] All of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s descendants, heirs according to promise.
I think the easiest argument against any kind of dual covenant is that the first recorded preaching by Peter is to Jews in Israel, in Acts 2. They are told to repent, be baptized and believe in order to be saved.
Hadad
58m ago
Fortunately, I'm not inviting you out to eat, and Ted Cruz isn't reading The Motte. Everyone wins!
RoyGBivensAction
Zensunni Scientologist
59m ago
This isn't just an internal Dem party thing. This strategy is even prevalent in local government in red states.
Sure. Here is Practical Ethics (That PDF is kinda terrible, but it appears that libgen is down.).
On page 85 (pdf page: 98), Singer argues that people mean different things when they say human being. One meaning is
Then he goes (p.87):
In the following pages, he goes on about why being a person makes a difference for involuntary killing.
More options
Context Copy link