OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
No bio...
User ID: 359
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
1yr ago
What would be the appropriate response from the courts if Obama tried to run for a third term? What if he was really popular?
The issue at hand, which I don't think most of the comments here are addressing, is that a significant number of politicians, lawyers, etc believe that President Trump is disqualified from being on the ballot in the same way that Obama is disqualified from the ballot. They mostly come to this conclusion by looking at the January 6th report.
The most significant thing is that the court ruled that the January 6th report could be admitted into evidence and is being used as fact. The Supreme Court of the United States cannot contest that as it is a state-level decision, and the USC decides matters of law, not fact.
The cries that this is anti-democratic is missing the point. Restrictions on our elections are intentionally anti-democratic, but our books are full of them. Term limits, age limits, etc. This suits me, as I much prefer to live in a Republic than a Democracy.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
9mo ago
If a man has not already asked a woman out, it's either because she has failed to entice him with visual signals and flirting, or he is too socially incompetent or low self esteem to be worthy.
If batting your eyes and saying, "You know, I like spending time with you," doesn't work, then best to cut losses then and there. Guy isn't going to know the first thing about building a good life together.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
2yr ago
Re: transmen - I think our culture sees male as the default, and women as a defective male who needs special accommodations because of this defect. Things like birth control, abortion, and protected maternity leave seek to even the playing field between men and women, a necessity because the game we are all playing assumes a male player. Gender by Ivan Illich spells out the argument that this is a necessity in an industrialized society.
Transmen are a manifestation of this expectation that male is the default. They feel like a defective man, therefore they take steps to reduce the defect.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
1yr ago
They need to love the US Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Founding Fathers. They need to be non-violent, prosocial, and always happy to help a neighbor.
The percent of immigrant population would ideally be between 5-10% to accommodate integrating them into our culture without American culture being upended too quickly. Currently the percent of the foreign born population is 13.9%
I would be very sad if the percentage dropped to 0%. We are a nation of immigrants after all. But I would hate for America to stop being America.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
1yr ago
This highlights the difference between a deontological vs consequential framework. Using an inverse categorical imperative, I have a hard time pin pointing exactly what actions Israel has done that I would forbid everywhere and that would have changed the outcome. I admit that in total the actions of the Israelis has caused grief in the region. I don't see a way out without an atrocity on the part of Israel or Hamas. Several of Israel's individual actions are bad, but the substantive, broad strokes actions that created the bulk of the mess seem ethical to me.
Regardless of what Jews called their organization (at a time when "Colonialism" was an acceptable activity, and therefore calling it that might have been propaganda to make their actions appealing to Euopeans), the majority of Jews came as refugees. They had a real, genuine, rational fear for their lives in Europe, the Middle East, and Africa. They don't have anywhere they could conceivably go back to. Jews have always lived on "other people's land."
Let's play alternative Earth. Groups of Indigenous people in South America are under severe persecution by their governments. Simultaneously, the Native American lobby in the USA is able to convince the Federal Government to fast track immigration for these persecuted refugees. Both refugees and locals buy large swaths of Wyoming over several dozen years through legal and fair transactions. Several thousand white Americans lost their homes and were evicted as their landlords sold their houses out from under them, but they were able to move to other parts of Wyoming or the US. These people were upset and anti-Native American sentiment increased.
Gradually the number of South American refugees outnumber the local Wyoming Native American population 10:1, and achieve parity with the white Wyoming population. The local Wyoming Native American population mostly does not mind, and is happy to bond with the newcomers over shared history and goals.
Fifty years later, the US Federal Government decides Manifest Destiny was a bad thing with terrible consequences. Therefore, they are reducing their territory to just the original 13 States. Every other state is going to need to self-govern. They want to do this with the least amount of bloodshed, and the case of Wyoming poses a problem. The Federal Government is aware that the white population of Wyoming hates the natives, and left to their own devices without US Marshals keeping the peace, a massacre will likely happen. Therefore, the Federal Government performs one last act, splitting up Wyoming into two seperate States. The Native Americans agree to the deal, the Whites attack the Native Americans once the Federal Government exits. Astoundingly, Native Americans win, and even take over more territory than was allocated to them by the Federal Government.
Which parts of this process would you object to? Which specific action would you universally outlaw?
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
9mo ago
That is not my heuristic.
He liked me first. I figured out that he liked me and then I signaled to him that it was ok to ask me on a date using an indication well-known in my social circle. He read that signal successfully, indicating he belonged in a compatible social circle.
Then he identified a common activity we could do together, set a time and place, and summoned the courage to risk the wrath of HR and the rejection of the girl he liked. These all demostrate the bare minimum agency, risk tolerance, and self-confidence (which of course would continue to be vetted during the courtship.)
Your rebuttal seems to mostly be that this would rule you out. I'm sure you're nice to hang around, but based on what little I know, I wouldn't want to marry you even if we were both free to marry. I'm sure the feeling is mutual. Another win for the heuristic.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
1yr ago
Anyone here concerned about bird flu passing to cattle? Anyone avoiding dairy, beef, or chicken?
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
2yr ago
I would much rather the life of a peasant, but it's not possible to live such a life now. They ate well, had well made (if fewer) clothes, and largely happy lives. But such prosperity depended on the existence of the commons, from which peasants could obtain firewood, fish, trap small animals, etc. Once enclosure made these illegal, the common people chose to move to the cities and become wage slaves. It was preferable to attempting to be peasants under the current private property regime. Given that they had direct experience with both realities, I trust their judgement that I would not want to be a peasant without access to a commons and a traditional community.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
1mo ago
I'm not sure which theological/philosophical tradition uses the word "omnibenevolent" when describing God, but it's not mine. It kind of implies that a theist believes that he is "well-behaved," which is a category error. God is good, in that he is "actual" - to say that X is good is to say that it has succeeded in being in some way. A pencil is a good pencil when it is able to draw, is sharp, long enough to be held easily in a hand, etc. God is good in that sense. God is not good in the sense of being accountable to others for duties and obligations that he performs admirably.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
9mo ago
Is the woman saying this while batting their eyes? Acting bashful or coy? Are her hands clasped behind her or is she leaning forward? She might actually want you to flirt back. But that doesn't mean she would accept a proposition. She might want a proposition, to stroke her ego, but she wouldn't accept it.
It's about posture and context. "I would like to spend more time alone with you" is way different from "I'm glad you were the one assigned to this task" or "I like to hang out with our group of friends, of which you are one." It's the woman's job to figure out how to get across "I would like to spend more time alone with you" without crossing the line of plausible deniability (because if she has to throw herself at a man, he's probably not invested in her.)
Is it fair that it's this way? Women have the more vulnerable role in continuing the species. She needs a man who will actually support her, and that is generally a man who seeks her out.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
9mo ago
It's the same picture.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
1yr ago
I wish we could amend Article 14 and change it to "convicted of insurrection in a court of law" or something like that. Most restrictions to office are ones that can be resolved by a simple glance at a birth certificate or official register.
By "I wish we could" I mean that the political will to come together and amend the Constitution no longer exists and I do not expect it to ever exist again. It is ironic that an article intending to defend against insurrection might be a cause of one.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
1yr ago
The one thing that I'm fairly certain of is that existence cannot be simply explained by an infinite casual chain. Lets say there was an infinite line of people, each has their hands by their side. They all have the command that when the person to the left of them raises their hands, they will raise their hand. If no one has their hands raised, then no one ever will raise their hands. It doesn't matter if they're standing in a circle. It doesn't matter how many infinities of people there are.
(Edit: This doesn't mean that there can't be a infinite causal chain, just that by itself it doesn't answer the question at hand.)
The question of "why something, instead of nothing?" does not rely on the universe having a beginning. It begins with the attempt to explain the existence of a single thing, here and now, that has the potential to be many other things, and going on from there.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
1yr ago
Why is it that the universe needs to be created but God needs no creator?
The universe is composed of parts that change. Everything that changes is composed of the actual (what it currently is) and the potential (all the states it could be in.) Everything that is composite like this needs some sort of explanation for why it is in this current condition and not a different state.
The classical theist definition of God solves this problem by proposing something that has no composition, no change. Because there is nothing else that it could be, its current state needs no explanation. This changeless, fully actual thing is that which we call God. Based on knowing that it is without composition, fully actual, philosophers can then derive proofs for the other common attributes of God.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
4mo ago
If we want DOGE to be popular long term, so that Congress backs its recommendations and they become more permanent than the sitting president, we need to stick with things normies can understand and get behind. If Edgy Tweets turns 5% of normie opinions against DOGE, then DOGE can lose significant ground in the theater that matters..
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
11mo ago
Why would morality track technological development in this way
I'm 100% pro life, so I don't think morality tracks development this way. But someone on the fence might say something like, "A fetus has significant moral worth, though not enough to balance out the singular imposition on the mother. Once that imposition is removed, there is no justification to not provide all available medical technologies to caring for the well being of the child."
both are similarly capable of developing into a human if given extensive support.
This is completely false. One already is a human organism, one is not human any more than a pile of water (35 L), carbon (20 kg), ammonia (4 L), lime (1.5 kg), phosphorus (800 g), salt (250 g), saltpeter (100 g), sulfur (80 g), fluorine (7.5 g), iron (5 g), silicon (3 g) and trace amounts of fifteen other elements.
(And braindead humans are organisms too, are they included?)
Of course. I get the feeling we're on different moral planets. I'm a human-protectionist.
sapient alien or a member of Homo Erectus pleading for his life wouldn't?
Where do you get that idea? I would extend the protection and provision of resources to not only these sapient aliens, but also their entire lifecycle from moment of whatever the equivalent of conception is for them.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
1yr ago
“No one has given any reason to think that the First Cause is all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good, etc.” is not a serious objection to the argument.
People who make this claim – like, again, Dawkins in The God Delusion – show thereby that they haven’t actually read the writers they are criticizing. They are typically relying on what other uninformed people have said about the argument, or at most relying on excerpts ripped from context and stuck into some anthology (as Aquinas’s Five Ways so often are). Aquinas in fact devotes hundreds of pages across various works to showing that a First Cause of things would have to be all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good, and so on and so forth. Other Scholastic writers and modern writers like Leibniz and Samuel Clarke also devote detailed argumentation to establishing that the First Cause would have to have the various divine attributes.
Of course, an atheist might try to rebut these various arguments. But to pretend that they don’t exist – that is to say, to pretend, as so many do, that defenders of the cosmological argument typically make an undefended leap from “There is a First Cause” to “There is a cause of the world that is all-powerful, all-knowing, etc.” – is, once again, simply to show that one doesn’t know what one is talking about.
To give these arguments takes pages and pages, here is a very hasty version missing all the background for the purpose of fitting into a comment. Chapter 6 of Five Proofs of the Existence of God provides a much more detailed argument.
Several attributes seem to follow immediately and obviously from God’s being Pure Act. Since to change is to be reduced from potency to act, that which is Pure Act, devoid of all potency, must be immutable or incapable of change (ST I.9.1). Since material things are of their nature compounds of act and potency, that which is Pure Act must be immaterial and thus incorporeal or without any sort of body (ST I.3.1–2). Since such a being is immutable and time (as Aquinas argues) cannot exist apart from change, that which is Pure Act must also be eternal, outside time altogether, without beginning or end (ST I.10.1–2).
As the cause of the world, God obviously has power, for “all operation proceeds from power” (QDP 1.1; cf. ST I.25.1). Moreover, “the more actual a thing is the more it abounds in active power,” so that as Pure Act, God must be infinite in power (QDP 1.2; cf. ST I.25.2). In line with the mainstream classical theistic tradition, Aquinas holds that since there is no sense to be made of doing what is intrinsically impossible (e.g. making a round square or something else involving a self-contradiction), to say that God is omnipotent does not entail that he can do such things, but only that he can do whatever is intrinsically possible (ST I.25.3).
The Fifth Way, if successful, establishes by itself that God has intellect. Furthermore, intelligent beings are distinguished from non-intelligent ones in that the latter, but not the former, possess only their own forms. For an “intelligent being is naturally adapted to have also the form of some other thing; for the idea of the thing known is in the knower” (ST I.14.1). That is to say, to understand some thing is for that thing’s essence to exist in some sense in one’s own intellect. Now the reason non-intelligent things lack this ability to have the form of another thing is that they are wholly material, and material things can only possess one form at a time, as it were. Hence immaterial beings can possess the forms of other things precisely because they are immaterial; and the further a thing is from materiality, the more powerful its intellect is bound to be. Thus human beings, which, though they have immaterial intellects are also embodied, are less intelligent than angels, which are incorporeal. “Since therefore God is in the highest degree of immateriality … it follows that He occupies the highest place in knowledge” (ST I.14.1). This argument presupposes a number of theses in the philosophy of mind and cannot be evaluated, or even properly understood, unless those theses are first understood. We will explore these theses in chapter 4.
We can also conclude, in Aquinas’s view, that “there is will in God, as there is intellect: since will follows upon intellect” (ST I.19.1). Why do will and intellect necessarily go together? For Aquinas, things naturally are inclined or tend towards their natural forms, and will not of themselves rest, as it were, until that form is perfectly realized; hence the acorn, for example, has a built-in tendency towards realizing the form of an oak, and will naturally realize that form unless somehow prevented by something outside it. What we are describing in this example is of course the goal-directedness of the acorn as something having a final cause. But other sorts of thing have final causes too. In sentient beings, namely animals, this inclination towards the perfection of their forms is what we call appetite. And in beings with intellect it is what we call will. Thus anything having an intellect must have will. (We will return to this topic in the next chapter.) Of course, since God does not have the limitations we have, he does not have any ends he needs to fulfill, any more than he needs to acquire any knowledge. Thus, as with our attribution of power, intellect, and other attributes to God, our attribution of will to him is intended in an analogous rather than a univocal sense.
Since something is perfect to the degree it is in act or actual, God as Pure Act must be perfect (ST I.4.1). Given the convertibility of being and goodness, God as Pure Act and Being Itself must also be good, indeed the highest good (ST I.6).
Feser, Edward. Aquinas: A Beginner's Guide (Beginner's Guides) (pp. 95-96).
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
2yr ago
As a different perspective, avoiding fantasizing about things that would be bad to do in real life sounds like an aspect of virtue ethics. It is neurotic and unhealthy to focus on something that will never happen. Epicureans would focus on obtainable pleasures. Buddists would say that these desires cause suffering. And so forth.
I think @SubstantialFrivolity is arguing that there is a very real moral and psychological injury being done to the people engaged in making and consuming these AI Generated images. I don't know if they would extrapolate to porn in general, but I would.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
22d ago
Lately I've been thinking of the argument made in this video: https://youtube.com/watch?v=F9xYqQDTHnk
God's love remains, even when we are at our worst. Basically, Christianity is a relationship with Jesus. Jesus looks at us, loves us, first. Being loved comes first, then repentance is the response to that.
Repentance is important, but it's not first. First is being loved by Jesus and us, His body on Earth.
To me mercy and justness simply seem like different virtues
Justice classically defined is to give someone exactly what they deserve.
Mercy classically defined is to give someone more than they deserve.
They are contradictory, and calling God both Just and Merciful is one of the classic "mysteries of faith."
In God they are all the same virtue, because God is one simple thing. The most simple thing in existence. He is composed of no components. He has no composite parts.
then you are "judging" God if your praise of His merciful treatment of mankind constitutes a positive claim that it is present; if you can imagine a world where God was less, or was not, merciful, and in which consequently you would not be moved to compliment Him in this particular way. This seems to hold even if you think no negative judgement would be warranted in the absence of that mercy.
I guess we are judging as in assessing. Like I judge an apple to be an apple when I eat it. I can assess that God is merciful. And by merciful I mean something like, "humans are merciful sometimes, and God is doing something analogous to that when He paved a way for our salvation." But not that God is merciful in the same way a human is merciful. Our version of mercy is a pale comparison. The reality of mercy that has its source in God's nature is beyond our comprehension and our own behavior.
The difference is that Orcus, as a pseudo-Devil (though not a fallen angel), would be a scriptural figure and thus one priests had cause to talk about
Ok, Dolphins aren't explicitly in there, but Genesis Chapter 1 does come up and I was actually explicitly thinking of it when I called dolphins good:
And God said, “Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the vault of the sky.” So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.
God saw that it was good. Great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems. God saw that it was good. This is one of those places we see that word. I hear homilies all the time on the significance of this. So is there something else that is different between Orcus and Dolphins?
he's good in the sense of being a good person;
Don't get me wrong, He is both good and a person. Just our idea of a good person is limited by our overemphasis on our own species and nature.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
1mo ago
that God is not just good by analogy,
God is not just good by analogy, but what humans like you and I can understand about His goodness is only by analogy. He is not good the same way you are (presumably) good. When we see a saint, we see God's goodness there. A saint is good in the way God is, but God is so far beyond human behavior that we can't work the other way back to him. It's directionally confused.
And pure reason would never imagine a God who is communion, who is Father, Son, and Spirit in an eternal relation of love.
Yes, we learned something additional to God's nature through revelation, that doesn't discount the things we can reason about His nature and is revealed in Scripture as well.
as though "well-behaved" exhausts what it means to describe someone as "good."
No, explicitly God is good but not in the sense we mean when we say a human is good. When we say a human is good, we colloquially mean something along the lines of a human behaves well. That is not what we mean when we describe God as good, that is entirely the point I am trying to make!
Omnibenevolence is a recent term and I object strongly to people outside the religious tradition inventing it and then using their own invention as an attack against the logical consistency of God. I have no objection to calling God benevolent. He is. I object to Omnibenevolent, because it can be defined any which way. It's the "omni" part that I object to.
Goodness, must I sing God's praises with every Motte Post!
God is great, He created us for such good things. He is an ocean of love. He holds nothing back, He takes pity on my who is weak and has entered into the depth of God-forsakennesss for our sake. God went out from God to the furthest reaches of not-God, to the furthest reaches of degradation, torture, despair, guilt, shame, DEATH! So that no matter how far we run away from him, He will always be there first. So we can always find our way back to Him. Forever His praise shall be on my heart!
If I start every theological discussion like that will it make people listen better?
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
1mo ago
Ok? Sure God could strike someone with lightning. No problem with that at all in most Christian belief systems. I think it's actually a cliche? A literal literary trope? You keep throwing these at me and I don't know why.
God could also preserve someone who was struck by lightning miraculously. He doesn't have to. But he could preserve and give being to a body that was struck by lightning so that no biological disruption occurred.
God can and will destroy the whole world one day - He will no longer provide it with the constant ground of being and will remake it. When God destroys He does so by no longer providing for being for a thing. Everything that exists now only does so due to God's continuous, active action of providing being to everything. He can remove this at any time without being malevolent. Nothing is owed existence except in the sense that God owes it to Himself to keep his own promises. God breaking His own promises would be an injustice to His own simple, unchangeable nature.
Saying, "well what about a hypothetical where God isn't the sustain-er of being" is just describing a hypothetical without anything that pertains to what I understand the category "God" to be. "What about a circle that had no sides?"
God made tigers. A good tiger is not a friendly or well-behaved tiger. "What about a God who made you a tiger? No eternal life, no love, just violence and raw nature?" Ok, there are tigers. It does seem to be within God's capacity to make a tiger. What does it prove that you think Christians don't know already?
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
1mo ago
I am specifically a Catholic, so great.
I would recommend reading Brian Davies "The Reality of God and the Problem of Evil" for a study on this topic. Catholics do not believe saying "God is Good" is tantamount to saying "God is well-behaved."
Satan is not good, his nature is to be an angelic messenger in constant adoration of God and serving humanity. He is not living up to his nature at all. He is a very bad example of an Angel.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
1yr ago
This series is a pretty off-beat musing on Power and Tyranny.
They distinguish between two forms of power: Non-Tyrannical power which is rule for the common good, and Tyrannical power, which is rule for private gain. Tyrannical power requires using others for the use of the master's end. Non-Tyrannical power is used for the good of the one on whom it is wielded.
People give up power to masters because when they believe that this giving up of power contributes to their own good. In a non-Tyranny, people cooperate together to do more things than they could have accomplished individually, and this belief is justified. In a Tyranny, often there are true believers who think they are serving the common good, while they are really being exploited. Other times, in a Tyranny people give up power by seeking their own good to protect them from a sense of danger the Tyrant has caused.
One video goes into how Bureaucracy is a requirement for a Tyranny, because it is a means by which a Tyrant is able to enact their will on a wider scale.
The series is done by a couple of Catholics and occasionally they mention Church things, but I think the series is worth listening to even if that is off putting at first.
Sounds like a Christian should have reached out to her and told her that she is loved - explained forgiveness, sanctification, and water that does not leave you thirsty. Instead, she got a mob calling her names.
More options
Context Copy link