Celestial-body-NOS
🟦 The mills of G-d grind slow, but they grind exceeding small.🍞🌹
No bio...
User ID: 290
Not until 2020 did Florida scale back its ~1000hour license for interior residential decorating.
Was that the one they put in place after an interior decorator killed sixteen Czechoslovakians?
So, if J. R. R. Tolkien had been Chinese, Lord of the Rings would have been wuxia, and the Silmarillion would have been xianxia?
The states were made for the people, not the people for the states.
[land] should be returned to the states
Or the Native Americans/Indians/First Nations/whatever the preferred nomenclature is this week.
But that cry of pain from the hound had blown all our fears to the winds. If he was vulnerable he was mortal, and if we could wound him we could kill him.
Arthur Conan Doyle, The Hound of the Baskervilles.
I think I see where you're coming from. I suspect that the candidate may have been grasping at the concept of universalisability, in the Kantian sense. (See "You Kant Dismiss Universalizability", Slate Star Codex, May 2014.)
Catholicism and Protestantism are the type specimens for freedom of religion in Western political thought, precisely because 16th- and 17th-century Catholics believed that 'everyone has the right to save their souls through converting to Catholicism, adhering to Catholic faith, and worshiping Jesus Christ according to the teachings of the Holy Roman Church', and 16th- and 17th-century Protestants believed, just as strongly, that 'everyone has the right to save their souls through converting to Protestantism, adhering to Protestant faith, and worshiping Jesus Christ according to the principle of sola scriptura'; they also both believed that they had the right to impose the true religion by force on those who did not accept it willingly.
This culminated in the Thirty Years' War, which caused a six-foot decrease in altitude for 4-12 million people; seeking to avoid further bloodshed, Europe and its descendants arrived at today's conventional understanding of religious freedom; that if Mary believes in Catholicism and Elizabeth believes in Protestantism, Mary has the right to be Catholic without interference from Elizabeth, and Elizabeth has the right to be Protestant without interference from Mary; each doing unto the other as she would have the other do unto her. (This is the 'reciprocal liberty' of the Quakers, described in Albion's Seed.)
So I followed up, "For example, would it be a 'universal human right' to save one's soul through worship Jesus Christ in the one-true-way of Catholic faith?"
The candidate replied, "You mean the right to religion? Yes, the right to religion would be a universal human right."
And I said, "No, I mean specifically the right to save one's soul through, specifically, converting and adhering to Catholic faith."
"Yes, that is a subset of the right to one's religion. If you have come to the conclusion that Catholicism is true, wish to join the Catholic Church, and they wish to welcome you as a baptised and confirmed member, you have the right not to have that interfered with."
I mean, even just a year or two ago when Monkeypox was spreading, the humble suggestion that gays stop having giant unprotected orgies with multiple strangers was viewed as a demand that "gays stop having sex". There seems to exist a certain vocal segment that gets their way that any insistence that gays use protection or practice monogamy is akin to trying to get them to stop being gay.
My interpretation of it was more that, if you decouple 'advice given to gay people' from 'advice given to straight people', those who harbour animus against gay people could then tell gay people to abstain from any sex, even in a monogamous marriage, while placing no burdens on straight people, and there would be little to no motivation to ever lift that injunction. One could avoid this by imposing the same interventions on straight people, and not lifting them on straight people until one lifts them on gay people.
That said, do you mind elaborating?
Not at all. I believe everyone is entitled to my opinion.
If bringing the mind in line with the body is so costly (in the sense that it's better to do the opposite), why is it ok to force the majority of the population to see trans women as women "in every way that matters outside the bedroom and doctor's office"?
It's not about the majority's minds, per se, so much as their manners: what Tim Walz described as:
We have a Golden Rule: Mind your own damn business!
There are physical differences between the sexes; we can change some of them, but have yet to discover how to change others; measuring and sorting along these physical attributes can sometimes place trans individuals in the category opposite their identity. However, these physical attributes should not be relevant outside a narrow set of circumstances.
Also, why those particular exclusions
They are the most obvious instances where someone's genitals might matter.
how do you argue against people who think even those are also a sign of bigotry?
WRT bedrooms, I again refer to Mr Walz' Golden Rule. If I am not, personally, dating someone, than the difference between their being attracted to/not attracted to 'people born with female/male/ambiguous parts', 'people identifying as women/men/non-binary', and 'people who look feminine/masculine/androgynous' is very low on the list of my concerns.
WRT the field of medicine, my recommendation is to Replace The Symbol With The Substance. If Alice:
- has XY chromosomes
- was born with a penis
- currently has a vulva
- is not capable of reproduction
- has a female-typical hormone profile
- uses she/her pronouns
&c., &c., list that on her medical chart. Asking if she is 'really' a man or a woman is, at that point, superfluous. (Cf. "A Human's Guide to Words", E. Yudkowsky, February 2008)
I doubt that there is a 'Jewish Conspiracy', but if it exists, its motive is probably something along the lines of 'not being murdered or driven from their homes.'
Mauritius closing the airspace over the the Chagos Islands
🇬🇧: You and what army Air Force?
Was Huckleberry Finn equipped to make that call, or should he have sent Hard-R Jim back into bondage?
Ultimately he has to follow his conviction, as we all do.
And my conviction is that trans-women are women in every way that matters outside the bedroom and the doctor's office, that if the mind and body disagree on whether someone is werman or woman it is better to bring the body in line with the mind rather than vice versa, that if two people engage in coitus the morality or immorality of their act does not depend on their genders, and that parents of teenagers developing same-gender attractions or children with genital dysphoria do not have an inalienable entitlement to force or gaslight them into a heteronormative mould.
"God will decide for me whether I survive this flood."
"I sent you two boats and a helicopter!"
Probably my fault but I'm not grasping the relevance.
Human actions, including those that appear to go against nature, might be part of God's plan. For instance, Eliot Page being born with female parts doesn't necessarily mean that He intended Mr Page to live as a woman; His plan might very well involve hormones and surgery.
be the hammer not the anvil
Ackchyually, the hammer tends to break first.
I do favour providing aid to the Global South because I believe that it is the right thing to do, and wish everyone else supported it for the same reason.
However, as many people here do not share that moral instinct, I am left only to appeal to their self-interest.
The fact that they point in the same direction is not a coincidence but the working of karma. If you harden your hearts towards the suffering of the least fortunate among you, it will come back to bite you in the rear end.
If the United States tells the people of the Global South "We have the ability to save you from a painful death, but we are choosing not to For The Greater Good", the survivors will be fertile soil for Usama bin-Ladin 2.0 or some other radical cultists. They will be much more sympathetic to the Peking Clique, if and when they decide to demand something Washington is unwilling to concede. No fortress you can build will be strong enough to keep them out, when, like Belshazzar, you are numbered, weighed, and divided.
The cost of indefinitely providing medical care to people who cannot care for themselves may seem steep, but it is trivial compared to the cost of not doing so.
I will concede that the Khmer Rouge were at least as evil as the Nazis, if not worse. (Given certain proposals of the more extreme Greens [the term 'Khmer Vert' has been mentioned among certain climate dissidents], this puts Elongated Muskrat's disputed gesture in a different light.)
I would just like to make the point at this time that Lenin, Stalin, and Mao had power over larger populations than Hitler.
Stalin and Mao also ruled for longer.
If Adrian Monk were a country....
the board was ten times more likely to take action in a case alleging unlicensed practice than one complaining about service quality or safety
Probably a case of the Streetlight Effect; determining whether John Doe installed an alarm system and whether he had a licence to do so takes less effort than determining whether he, being licenced, had installed it properly.
But it might, at least, make the arguments from each side less aggravating....
Okay, fine; there is no answer that involves making the current population smarter.
I still think that that is a bit premature. It is far from certain that we will not find a way to increase g post-birth.
(Whenever I read a story with the plot 'character tries to overcome natural limitation, first attempt fails or has very bad effect, no further attempt is shown' (e. g. Flowers for Algernon, Hawthorne's Dr. Heidegger's Experiment), my interpretation isn't 'one should resign oneself to what Nature wants us to suffer' so much as 'they should have tried again, and kept trying until they or someone else figured out how to make it work.' (cf. Edison, "I didn't fail, I discovered 10,000 ways not to make a light bulb!")
assuming raising taxes is unacceptable
And do you know what happens when you assume?
And Asians seem to mostly have views on other non-white groups that make storefront look tolerant.
Colemak keyboard?
- Prev
- Next
In other words, Black Women Are Less Likely? (Slate Star Codex, February 2015)
More options
Context Copy link