domain:archive.ph
At the end of the day, romantic drive (in the storge sense)
I don't know that storge really describes what I'm getting at when I talk about romantic drive, but that word has been used in all sorts of contexts to mean so many different things, so I don't know.
I find it hard to meaningfully distinguish "companionate love" from "passionate love." I can understand the difference between infatuation (which often involves an impossible idealization) and a deeper intimacy based on truth, but I see a great overlap between the concept of eros and the more companionate romantic love you're describing as storge. In particular, I've been in relationships where the passion increases over time, rather than decreases -- and also where lots of things that are described as characteristic of infatuation (like "'Desire for "complete union,' permanency") also grow over time.
But infatuation is also fun! Yes, it's dangerous. Yes, it has led men and women off cliffs into the great dark beyond. But many great and valuable things begin with a little risk. When I fell in love with a woman for the first time, it was one of the most intense experiences of my life, and I've only ever been able to describe it in spiritual terms, both then and now.
Would you say that you've felt limerance before and believed on that basis that it's dangerous, or is your cynicism about eros based mostly on observing others who've experienced it?
but older liberal women especially seem to have an unfortunate tendency to speak publicly as though they are talking to children and struggling to make themselves understood, rather than struggling to persuade
It's called "condescension".
Oops you're right. I'm blind
No, it shows PP with 4% odds, when he had 1% moments before, and the newspapers had all called the election against him.
This screenshot was sent in a group chat as we talked shit about the election, not saved to specifically document the timeline of odds.
You don't have to believe me if you don't want to.
You could even probably dig into the comment section of the market and find all the people saying "hold the line" if you were so inclined.
Well, I assume people here are rational and know both the common and academic meanings of words until they prove otherwise, and are not intentionally taking things to absurd extremes- especially without any attempt to elaborate.
"even if someone gives fully informed consent...they have the right to [revoke it]"
Heading off on a bit of a tangent, I've seen arguments like that a few times. They never quite sit right with me, or at least they feel incomplete.
When I see that argument, I imagine a hierarchy of agreements: at the bottom are mundane ones that anyone can agree to. In the middle are serious agreements that are restricted to adults of sound mind (legal contracts, etc.) because children can't fathom the consequences of signing. At the top are super serious ones that no living human could be expected to follow through on (e.g. that take on the violinist) because adults can't fathom the consequences of signing.
With that in mind, the fully-consenting-violinist arguments says that (by analogy) motherhood is a superhuman commitment that no adult should be held to, regardless of any indications they might make otherwise.
The King in Philosopher-King means conquring warrior, leader of men, and warlord. They are just philosophers, at best.
Sure, but it's also perfectly accurate; the problem comes from outdated notions of attaching a moral valence to it. It's just what each partner in a relationship has a high statistical probability of bringing to the table (or the opposite partner have a high statistical probability of attaching outsized value to) when negotiating how to live together- nothing more, nothing less. It and [love for one's partner] remain compatible with this view; indeed, love is the notion of long-term investment/convergence backstopping these negotiations.
Without that framing, the dynamics around the argument aren't comprehensible. You even get comment chains like this that show the people making these arguments are so incredibly close to completely understanding it, but are lacking that one final piece/self-honesty... or they're just burying it.
free IUDs and Nexplanon as humanly possible
Awfully bold assumption that I don't think birth control pills are similarly murderous.
Old liberal women are just like that- I think it's a blue tribe cultural thing that just comes off wrong to non-blue tribers(which, coincidentally, all[literally] swung away from Harris).
It's not lost on me that if you actually listen to the humour and derogatory stereotypes blacks tell about whites, it's, uh, not aimed at conservatives(they call us 'rednecks' and the humour is quite a bit more good-natured).
You can respond to this in two ways:
- Tell them not to have premarital sex.
- Tell them to keep the baby because single motherhood is a heroic thing to do; you're CHOOSING LIFE.
Why not both?
The fact that they're funding Harry Sisson, of all people, indicates that there's a major hole in this control of the mainstream media. Catturd may be ridiculous but nobody on the left measures up.
This is a perfect explanation for the semi-rhetorical question later posed by @hydroacetylene here- as a response to you, in fact- the reason "liburals" (I prefer "progressives" for this group- progressives are not classical liberals so I don't call them that) don't take traditionalists seriously about decreasing baby murder is that decreasing baby murder is obviously not a terminal value for them and it's just a fight over aesthetics (because if it was, traditionalist organizations would be handing out as many free IUDs and Nexplanon as humanly possible; since they oppose this, they're obviously not serious about solving the problem as long as it's not their way).
You're also wrong about age of consent laws. Before 1900 most states set the age of consent at 10-12. Higher age of consent laws are a modern invention.
No, you're proving my point. Gynosupremacy/feminism pushed for high age of consent laws coincident with their emergence as a viable political force, which itself follows socioeconomic effects (gender equality following the decoupling of physical strength from production of goods) in industrial societies; I'm explaining why they did that. I can't link to the original post(s) here more fully explaining this because the person who made them has their account set to private (and they're banned, or at least their alt is).
In the Greco-Roman world infanticide was allowed.
Yes, obviously. Children are property of those who make them, and it is their right to dispose of them as they wish coincident with the child's ability to resist it as dictated by market conditions (usually a society's age of majority, though less than that due to the fact an age of majority results in market distortions so it's usually higher than it actually is).
What, you weren't told "I brought you into this world, and I can take you out of it" as a child? That was a Cosby show thing, I believe.
You strike me as a secular right-winger who's grasping for straws to justify why the church lady anti-abortion crusade is actually rational and BASED, anything other than accept that maybe the hated liburals are right about a single subject.
You really haven't read enough of me.
Publicly excommunicate AOC? Put major thumb on the scale in the NYC primary?
Greg Abbott literally let the Texas Catholic bishops write the exactitudes of clarifying the state's maternal health exceptions- just like in Andorra, where the local bishop as co-president prevents any liberalization of abortion, the threat of excommunicating Greg Abbott prevents any abortion loophole-abuse in Texas.
There are no homeless people starving to death in the USA(source- look at their waistlines). There are probably some who freeze to death from lack of shelter, or die of ordinarily quite preventable diseases due to poor hygiene, or..., but not as many as simply die from drug overdoses.
The far-right prefers option 1
Can I just register my annoyance with this kind of boo-light? Yes, I am just as annoyed by "radical feminists" and "extreme leftists," which 9 times out of 10 is used to refer to normie feminists and center-libs.
In fact pretty much all religious people (if they follow a religion that makes any pretense of traditionality) would prefer people not have premarital sex. Even liberal denominations in theory advocate against it, though you won't hear a peep of actual condemnation from the pulpit nowadays.
Conservatives generally would prefer people not have premarital sex, but if they do, they would prefer the babies that result not be aborted. I wouldn't say they glamorize single motherhood, but if you want babies not to be aborted, it is both ineffective and cruel to say "You're not allowed to abort, but we will not lift a finger to help you and your child because poverty is what you deserve."
No idea how I would figure it out, either.
try to ask people in field for advise? they need to be somewhere. but if you get paid for embedded systems programming in C and your product work, then I bet that your assessment of "I feel like I suck at programming" is wrong
(I am paid more, in lower cost-of-life country and I assure that I regularly feel "I am terrible at programming" then I proceed to ignore it as I realized that it is misleading)
Riiiight, so they can be more easily doxed and their families threatened.
That's called terrorism and rebellion, and there are other ways of dealing with it. A state that hasn't at least partially failed doesn't need to hide from terrorists.
The person too busy with Warhammer to date, the person who uses birth control, the person having abortions whenever she gets pregnant and the person who just murders her babies are all preventing new persons from coming into existence despite there being a potential if they made different choices.
I do not have a high opinion of NEET Otakus(which is what I consider warhammer fans to be, regardless of the japanese-ness of warhammer- it's nerd shit and that's that). Otherwise eligible men who are too busy with videogames should quit the gaming and start dating seriously. Married couples should be having regular sex unless medically contraindicated.
Religious and clergy are different, of course, but every society in history has had to deal with a class of men that would prefer cheap sexual vices(in our case, porn), gambling(on sports in our case), and entertainment(mostly videogames today) to marriage. The RCC has not, historically, had a high opinion of this class, and most societies in history have attempted to discourage it.
Surely you can do both; don't have premarital sex, but, as a fallback option, of course single motherhood is better than many alternatives.
Medicaid is for single mothers with small children who are just trying to make it. It's not for 29-year-old males sitting on their couch playing video games. We're going to find those guys, and we will SEND them back to work!
In some states anyway, pregnant mothers and their young children qualify for medicaid even if they are married and making the median family income for their state. Even if they already have family healthcare coverage through their employer, and nobody in their family has challenging health conditions. They not only pay for appointments, but give them toys and stuff when they go. This might be reasonable from the point of view of the state -- I'm sure dealing with complications after the fact is outrageously expensive, and making childbirth and infancy safer is one of the great triumphs of modern medicine.
I wouldn't expect the average 29 year old man to consume all that much healthcare, and if they are it's likely to be for the same reasons they're struggling to work.
Adding: I'm mildly in favor of publicly funded healthcare for sort of basic things that we're good at doing, like things requiring antibiotics, it's dumb that the 29 year old man might not go to the hospital for pneumonia because it could cost $10,000 (who knows? It's inexplicable) somehow, despite really mostly needing $20 worth of antibiotics.
Ok, assuming this is true, this means there's space for money to potentially go back to men more, right?
While there's very few people who listen to the pope uncritically, there's a very large number who pay attention to the pope, consider the pope to have some moral authority, etc. We already know AI is a topic the Vatican is somewhat interested in addressing, and we already know pope Leo considers addressing AI in the development of Catholic social teaching(to be clear- Catholic social teaching is vague AF from a political standpoint, and it probably always will be. I don't expect an address of AI to change much about that) to be one of the priorities of his magisterium- he considers this a reason for picking the name Leo, after the author of Rerum Novarum(I've been told, but cannot confirm, that great respect for cardinal Burke was another major reason).
A good rule of thumb to predict a pro-life person's opinion on something is to mentally replace the fetus with a 1 week old (post birth) baby. Or, if you don't think babies should have rights either, maybe a two or three year old. That is the logical implication of believing fetuses are people.
Would you have sympathy for a mother who killed her 1 week old baby because her husband committed suicide? Would that sympathy extend far enough to excuse the act?
More options
Context Copy link