BANNED USER: Repeatedly posting trollish "death to my outgroup"
22122
No bio...
User ID: 1194
Banned by: @Amadan
22122
1yr ago
But you pay a price for enforcing property rights.
And there is a cost to enforce the ban on the drug trade too.
What if the police are too busy to prevent you being robbed or murdered by people who are out of their minds?
It would be cheaper to have places where people can get free fentanyl as long as they agree to stay inside the facility for a period of time so that the out of control people can overdose instead of doing violent attacks.
In a civilized society, people shouldn't need to carry firearms to protect themselves in major urban centres.
They would not need to even if drugs were completely legal. As long as hired patrolmen are allowed to beat up hostile people on the streets.
The lady from San Francisco begs to differ, as do those who flee from these deteriorating areas.
That's because those deteriorating areas allow aggressive people to loiter around and bother people, they should not allow that and this problem would be diminished.
It is frustratingly difficult for me to find information online about the percent of potent drug users that are violent, but I would imagine that one of the factors behind the correlation is that violence and drug use are both associated with impulsivity and that many of the violent drug users would still be violent even if they were not drug addicts.
22122
1yr ago
okay but parts of the personality are not burned, if you think that's a metaphor, then you should realize that catholics talk about people actually being burned in purgatory with all its pain, its understood to be a punishment and that is why believers are concerned about it.
in order to change somebody's personality, you need to rewire their brain, this should not be a painful process, and it prompts the question about why god did not do this in their first life.
22122
1yr ago
I am totally certain that a society where 80% use fentanyl is grossly dysfunctional. The more fentanyl use you have, the more dysfunctional it gets. You'd be living in a shithole. The roads would be very bad, the medical system would be very bad, housing would be very bad. And where is the food coming from? What kind of industry goes on there - not very much aside from the production of fentanyl I'd expect. What kind of cultural life goes on there? Not a very well-developed one. Are the fentanyl addicts working together to make well-coordinated, long-term projects like computer games or book publishing industries?
Legalizing fentanyl would lead to a increase in rate of use among the population and however high it reaches, as long as property rights are enforced, people who do not want to use it can live pretty close to the way they would if it were nonexistent. There would be less workers to some extent, but those who do work would earn proportionally higher wages so it would not lead to impoverishment for us.
Why would good, sober people stick around providing services to drug addicts who then steal from their vehicles or break into their homes looking for something to sell? Even liberal-leaning, wishy-washy women are coming around to the 'hang them' solution, publicly on twitter.
I have no problem with hanging violent criminals, my point is that selling or consuming drugs is not a violent crime. There are plenty of drug users who are peaceful and for whom drug dealers provide an important service.
Firearms don't cause significant social harms in and of themselves and have many redeeming characteristics.
You are right. Perhaps alcohol would be a better comparison, you don't support banning that too do you?
22122
1yr ago
In other words, it doesn't have nothing to do with it.
Christianity is fundamentally about God, right? So given that natural law came into one branch of christianity in the way that it did, the fact that there is no compelling indication that God cares about natural law is an argument against that branch of christianity moreso than it is against my point, unless you think Thomas Aquinas is the second coming of jesus or something.
Which is why I explicitly said that was an advantage of Catholicism over Protestantism, in this sense.
It is an advantage in what sense? Its not like it makes catholicism more likely to be true than protestantism, or the coptic church, greek orthodox church, armenian apostolic church etc.
22122
1yr ago
If you had a choice between living in a society where 0% of the population used fentanyl and one where 80% did, which would you choose? Which is better?
If 80 percent of people would use fentanyl if it were permitted, then I would rather live in the society which allows it because I would probably be one of the people using it.
At the end of the day, rights are there to get or avoid certain results. If the results are bad, one option is to change rights.
The real question is if the results are worse than if those rights were not there. Even if you think it would be better if an exception to property rights was made to ban drugs in order to decrease the rate that they are consumed, exceptions to a right beget more exceptions, some of which could personally harm you. For example, there are parallels between the arguments for banning drugs and the arguments for banning firearms, so if I want to own a firearm but do not care for drugs, I could ally with people who want the freedom to consume drugs under the banner of respecting property rights.
22122
1yr ago
it’s a cleansing fire that “burns off” any horrible habits that have yet to be penance’d
what do you mean by burning off horrible habits, how does that work? if somebody died having stolen on some occasions, burning in purgatory is not going to reverse any of the thefts he did. and once he gets into heaven why would he need to steal anyway and if he steals in heaven, there is nothing in christianity about being kicked out of heaven, and if there was, purgatory would no longer be needed by your rationalization. the real reason why purgatory is a tenet in christianity is that it provides further deterrence against people breaking its rules, which means it would be included the same whether or not there was a story about jesus dying on the cross to save us.
You don’t flesh out the entirety of philosophy and theology before you assent to a religion, otherwise no one would ever be saved — you can’t read every book a theologian has written.
But if the religion contains contradictions, then it must be false, so why should I bother with it, and why are you lying to people about it?
Jesus tricks Satan into taking our place on the Cross; we “owed” Satan a debt due to our sins.
I have never heard this notion that we owe something to Satan in christianity. And no, its not a convincing story that Jesus tricked Satan like that, because Jesus dying in the cross is not a price paid by anybody except Jesus.
Another theory is that the Father demands that bad actions are punished, but out of Love the Father allowed the Son to take our punishment, and so by witnessing this happen and witnessing the terrors of sin’s punishments we are saved.
Why not dole out the punishment to satan rather than to his only son? And if its out of love, the more compelling question is why not forgive without having to punish an innocent person?
There are other atonement theories, and I’m sure you can find one that is persuasion to your own frame of mind.
The reason there are so many theories proposed is because it does not make sense, and that you need to throw a lot of flawed theories so that one is able to slip through the scrutiny filter of an inquirer because of his particular oversights.
(1) God, much like science, doesn’t care for you understanding every nuance of His ways, and neither could you understand every nuance in a lifetime; (2) God is beyond our comprehension, hence why the door to eternal life is accessed through faith and not the accumulation of human knowledge.
God is so different from and incomprehensible from us, yet he seems to care a lot about what we do in our lives, funny how that works. In any case, the most reasonable explanation for why your religion does not make sense is because your religion is fraudulent.
22122
1yr ago
Your ancestors, and ultimately abiogenesis.
so to clarify, this duty you are referring to is about continuing the cycle of evolution where species change through generations to adapt to their environments by way of natural selection processes, and you are saying that abiogenesis started this duty? if so, thats gibberish to me because abiogenesis is not some person that can make a contract with anybody thereby giving them a duty, with all due respect, I think youre just making stuff up.
22122
1yr ago
And who started this duty in the first place?
How is it in your self-interest to restrict other people from making themselves immortal?
And so you have a concept like purgatory: if you die in faith, but never did penance for sins (usually easy stuff btw), there is a purifying punishment for these sins. This punishment is not greater than Jesus’ punishment, which is magnified for a number of reasons that would take a while to explain (his innocence, his being God, his emotional turmoil). Were the punishments equal, Jesus’ sacrifice would still be meaningful in that it grants Christians eternal life and access to God.
Considering the account of purgatory that christians have developed over the centuries (ie people being burned constantly for years), I would much rather be crucified than have to go through purgatory, so saying that jesus underwent a worse punishment comes off as gaslighting to me.
As for “why didn’t God kill Satan”, that’s like asking why we are not all already in Heaven. You can ask endless questions that have no quick answer whether you are a theist or an atheist, but theists can at least rest assured that the extra questions are irrelevant to one’s perfect happiness and destiny.
People ask those questions because they bring up contradictions in the beliefs espoused by the religion, a contradictory set of statements can not be true. God was the one who created Satan in the first place, and if you believe that God is omniscient, then it follows that everything Satan does is allowed by God. Moreover, in society there are consequences imposed for breaking rules, for example death penalty for muggers, in order to deter wrongdoing and remove wrongdoers from society, Satan is according to christians the most consequential wrongdoer in existence, created by and completely subordinate to God, yet God does nothing to deal with him.
As for “how could Jesus take our punishment”, this really isn’t problematic: because He was also God, or alternatively because our sins accrue a debt, but really, you just assent that He can to buy into the heart of the religion.
It does not make sense if I punish myself to forgive you for your wrongdoing against me. Neither does it make sense if I were to pay to myself the debt you owe to me. Your suggestion to just assent to that notion is effectively telling people to disregard reason when it conflicts with christian dogma, but christianity can not overrule reason, because you must exercise reason to be a christian in the first place, ie to understand what christianity demands and whether you are acting in accordance with those demands.
22122
1yr ago
wealth inequality is probably the biggest factor, and society is set up so that certain people can not make as much money as they want because of lack of intelligence, disinterest in the available options for highly compensated work, mental illness, etc. even though criminality pays less than working as a menial laborer on average, a successful criminal is more attractive in the eyes of some women being seen as a 'bad boy', so higher status where it matters, than a law abiding drudger.
22122
1yr ago
the strongest correlating factor for getting melanoma is number of moles, most of which arise during childhood from sun damage events, and actually fadeaway with continued sun exposure throughout one's lifetime. sustained and regular sun exposure is protective against melanoma, this is why melanoma rates have risen drastically over the past 100 years and are continuing to rise as people started spending less time outdoors, and are higher in indoor workers than they are in outdoor workers.
22122
1yr ago
the problem is with intermittent intense exposure that your skin has not built up protection against because it has not been trained on gradually increasing doses of radiation from throughout the year, if you gradually increase the intensity by spending time in the outdoors during the midday hours every day starting from early spring, you will develop a protective tan that will prevent excessive damage in the summer midday sunlight that causes sunburns in people who spend most of their life indoors.
22122
1yr ago
All the talk about Jesus 'sacrifice' but no one seems to remember two problems with this idea. First is that it does not make sense why God would want his only son to sacrifice himself in order for God to forgive the sins of humans. That jesus sacrificed himself is not a sacrifice from sinful humans but from jesus, which was god's son and did not carry any fault against god. Secondly, it didnt give humans any appreciable benefit because according to traditional christian doctrine, our sins are still going to be punished in purgatory and hell in a way that is way worse than what jesus endured on the cross. Instead of this incoherent sacrifice, it would have made more sense to kill the devil which continues to lead people into sin, or as the christian story goes.
22122
1yr ago
why does it matter what is improved in the future if you wont be alive to witness it?
22122
1yr ago
not realizing that because God never gave him a clue for it? God knowing that he would not realize it and yet not doing the necessary correction. So God in this scenario is as effectively impotent as always.
22122
1yr ago
the resurrected person would be a copy of that person who long ago died and was buried in a grave, I think its arguable to say that its the same thing as extending your life without death.
22122
1yr ago
as long as they don't use my money for it, I don't care what people choose to spend their money on. the problem is that those financial incentives from the government are funded by unwilling taxpayers such as myself who would rather keep that money and spend it on something else.
22122
1yr ago
Natural law has nothing to do with christianity. It was invented by greek pagans hundreds of years before christianity began, and only became part of catholic doctrine in the 13th century when Aquinas brought it in, and never got baked into the other branches of christianity like it somehow did with catholicism.
22122
1yr ago
if sexual morality should not be about consent, then what do you think it should be about?
22122
1yr ago
How do you think parenting should be improved, and what are the values that you want society to agree upon?
22122
1yr ago
you dont understand why people commit crimes. the reason is that they are chasing status and being a successful criminal gives them more status in the eyes of their communities than does working at some minimum wage job for their entire life. you can't really blame them for choosing the criminal route, as they are just trying to make the best of their lives in an inherently unfair society, why should they respect the rules of a society that is set up such that they fail and you succeed? now of course im not saying you are wrong for supporting their elimination, but that you dont understand what motivates them.
22122
1yr ago
christianity as it was originally intended and christianity as was traditionally understood in societies since shortly after becoming the state religion of the roman empire are two very different things. you can't govern a society around a religion that is based around the idea that the world is ending soon, hence the corruption was inevitable.
22122
1yr ago
Drug dealers (by which I mean fentanyl and the like) are a net malus for society, they have only a very small chance of making positive contributions and have many bad effects. They should be killed.
Dealing drugs does not violate anybody's rights. Consuming drugs does not either. Please be careful before calling for the deaths of innocent people.
Drug dealers provide positive contributions to drug enjoyers.
Are these rules meant for reducing sexual coercion? I am not sure what flaw of the consent based morality you think these rules can fix.
but then you say that it
which your proposals all do even more.
yes, it is hard to prove that consent occurred but I don't think this justifies further restrictions on sexual freedom. If a woman wants to be safe, they can take precautions when around men. And if your problem is that it is too easy to falsely accuse people of sexual coercion then the solution is to raise the bar for evidence required to the 'innocent until proven guilty' level.
More options
Context Copy link