FlyingLionWithABook
Has a C. S. Lewis quote for that.
No bio...
User ID: 1739

But then again, so was nearsightedness, and yet here I am.
Nearsightedness appears to be primarily caused by lack of sufficient exposure to sunlight during childhood while the eye is developing. So in all likelihood if you had been raised in the ancestral environment you would not be nearsighted.
Similarly, a car is in fact just a simplified animal that's made out of steel.
People tend to lack self control. If you had self control you wouldn't be fat.
Its well known that certain medications lead to weight gain: do you believe they do so because they reduce the self control of those who take them? Does hyperthyroidism cause significant increases in self-control, and does hypothyroidism erode self-control? Do GLPs work because they increase the individual's self-control?
If not, then factors other than self-control are at play.
This scales much beyond this case. "Oh, we are sorry your honor, we honestly thought that you had authorized that no-knock raid against that (suspected) Tesla-burning terrorist. Anyhow, now he is dead, so there is nothing we can do about that misunderstanding. All's well that ends well, I guess."
That's already how things work, and how they have worked for years. Ever heard of qualified immunity? I means if the cops get the address wrong and shoot you to death they just have to say "Whoops, our bad, sorry about that. Total mistake on our part" and they're good to go. The Supreme Court recently declined to overturn a cop's qualified immunity for having done exactly that. (Well, not exactly that: they only flashbanged them and held the family at gunpoint, but if they'd gone ahead and shot them it would be much the same).
In the book the quote is from (Orthodoxy) Chesterton uses the word "democracy" to generally mean the liberal idea that ordinary people should have a vote, as opposed to aristocracy where only the elite have a say in things (which was a live issue at the time in Britain). Here's where he defines his use of the term:
I was brought up a Liberal, and have always believed in democracy, in the elementary liberal doctrine of a self-governing humanity. If any one finds the phrase vague or threadbare, I can only pause for a moment to explain that the principle of democracy, as I mean it, can be stated in two propositions....This is the first principle of democracy: that the essential things in men are the things they hold in common, not the things they hold separately. And the second principle is merely this: that the political instinct or desire is one of these things which they hold in common. Falling in love is more poetical than dropping into poetry. The democratic contention is that government (helping to rule the tribe) is a thing like falling in love, and not a thing like dropping into poetry. It is not something analogous to playing the church organ, painting on vellum, discovering the North Pole (that insidious habit), looping the loop, being Astronomer Royal, and so on. For these things we do not wish a man to do at all unless he does them well. It is, on the contrary, a thing analogous to writing one's own love-letters or blowing one's own nose. These things we want a man to do for himself, even if he does them badly. I am not here arguing the truth of any of these conceptions; I know that some moderns are asking to have their wives chosen by scientists, and they may soon be asking, for all I know, to have their noses blown by nurses. I merely say that mankind does recognize these universal human functions, and that democracy classes government among them. In short, the democratic faith is this: that the most terribly important things must be left to ordinary men themselves—the mating of the sexes, the rearing of the young, the laws of the state. This is democracy; and in this I have always believed.
it's weak evidence that Christianity is the result of the same process that makes humans tell pagan myths
Lewis would agree, but would say that the process that makes humans tell pagan myths could be the fact that there is a God, so it's not good evidence either way.
You are right to feel underwhelmed, because Lewis wasn't so much putting forward an argument in favor of Christianity there but responding to one of the current significant arguments against Christianity of his day: that because Christianity is similar to other myths, it must not be true. As Lewis wrote,
If you start by knowing on other grounds that Christianity is false, then the pagan stories may be another nail in its coffin: just as if you started by knowing that there were no such things as crocodiles, then the various stories about dragons might help to confirm your disbelief. But if the truth or falsehood of Christianity is the very question you are discussing, then the argument from anthropology is surely a petitio*
In other words, yes, "people tend to tell the same kind of stories" is a perfectly reasonable explanation of the phenomenon. But its not a good positive argument against Christianity being true, which is what atheists were claiming at the time.
*Meaning, begging the question.
No. This implies that everyone has evidence for miracles, and only by faith can they be denied. This is just plain false. Likewise, many who believe in miracles have only books to go on.
Chesterton argues (quite rightly) that everyone does have evidence for miracles: the evidence of testimony. People have been writing about miracles and testifying to having witnessed miracles since as far back in history as we have records for. People report the supernatural and miraculous all the time. Chesterton's point is that theists can take each miracle claim and accept it based on the evidence: is this person a reliable reporter, how likely are there to be natural explanations, how probable is it that it was a trick, etc. But the atheist must begin by dismissing the possibility that the miracle could have happened at all, because the atheist is committed to the "doctrine" that miracles do not happen. Even if the evidence was very strong that a miracle occurred, the atheist would alternative explanations to be more probable from the get go, since he "knows" that miracles do not happen.
Here's the full quote, which captures the nuances a bit better:
Any one who likes, therefore, may call my belief in God merely mystical; the phrase is not worth fighting about. But my belief that miracles have happened in human history is not a mystical belief at all; I believe in them upon human evidences as I do in the discovery of America. Upon this point there is a simple logical fact that only requires to be stated and cleared up. Somehow or other an extraordinary idea has arisen that the disbelievers in miracles consider them coldly and fairly, while believers in miracles accept them only in connection with some dogma. The fact is quite the other way. The believers in miracles accept them (rightly or wrongly) because they have evidence for them. The disbelievers in miracles deny them (rightly or wrongly) because they have a doctrine against them. The open, obvious, democratic thing is to believe an old apple-woman when she bears testimony to a miracle, just as you believe an old apple-woman when she bears testimony to a murder. The plain, popular course is to trust the peasant's word about the ghost exactly as far as you trust the peasant's word about the landlord. Being a peasant he will probably have a great deal of healthy agnosticism about both. Still you could fill the British Museum with evidence uttered by the peasant, and given in favour of the ghost. If it comes to human testimony there is a choking cataract of human testimony in favour of the supernatural. If you reject it, you can only mean one of two things. You reject the peasant's story about the ghost either because the man is a peasant or because the story is a ghost story. That is, you either deny the main principle of democracy, or you affirm the main principle of materialism— the abstract impossibility of miracle. You have a perfect right to do so; but in that case you are the dogmatist. It is we Christians who accept all actual evidence—it is you rationalists who refuse actual evidence being constrained to do so by your creed. But I am not constrained by any creed in the matter, and looking impartially into certain miracles of mediaeval and modern times, I have come to the conclusion that they occurred. All argument against these plain facts is always argument in a circle. If I say, "Mediaeval documents attest certain miracles as much as they attest certain battles," they answer, "But mediaevals were superstitious"; if I want to know in what they were superstitious, the only ultimate answer is that they believed in the miracles. If I say "a peasant saw a ghost," I am told, "But peasants are so credulous." If I ask, "Why credulous?" the only answer is—that they see ghosts. Iceland is impossible because only stupid sailors have seen it; and the sailors are only stupid because they say they have seen Iceland. It is only fair to add that there is another argument that the unbeliever may rationally use against miracles, though he himself generally forgets to use it.
The last two paragraphs I quoted use opposing arguments to come to the same conclusion: Similarities to the "monomyth" are evidence of Truth and differences from the "monomyth" are also evidence of Truth.
C. S. Lewis laid out the central "similarity to monomyth argument" in more detail in his essay "Religion Without Dogmas" He's a key quote:
"If you start from a naturalistic philosophy, then something like the view of Euhemerus or the view of Frazer is likely to result. But I am not a naturalist. I believe that in the huge mass of mythology which has come down to us a good many different sources are mixed—true history, allegory, ritual, the human delight in storytelling, etc. But among these sources I include the supernatural, both diabolical and divine. We need here concern ourselves only with the latter. If my religion is erroneous, then occurrences of similar motifs in pagan stories are, of course, instances of the same, or a similar error. But if my religion is true, then these stories may well be a preparatio evangelica, a divine hinting in poetic and ritual form at the same central truth which was later focused and (so to speak) historicized in the Incarnation. To me, who first approached Christianity from a delighted interest in, and reverence for, the best pagan imagination, who loved Balder before Christ and Plato before St. Augustine, the anthropological argument against Christianity has never been formidable. On the contrary, I could not believe Christianity if I were forced to say that there were a thousand religions in the world of which 999 were pure nonsense and the thousandth (fortunately) true. My conversion, very largely, depended on recognizing Christianity as the completion, the actualization, the entelechy, of something that had never been wholly absent from the mind of man. And I still think that the agnostic argument from similarities between Christianity and paganism works only if you know the answer. If you start by knowing on other grounds that Christianity is false, then the pagan stories may be another nail in its coffin: just as if you started by knowing that there were no such things as crocodiles, then the various stories about dragons might help to confirm your disbelief."
In his autobiography he discussed the "difference from monomyth" argument:
"I was by now too experienced in literary criticism to regard the Gospels as myths. They had not the mythical taste. And yet the very matter which they set down in their artless, historical fashion—those narrow, unattractive Jews, too blind to the mythical wealth of the Pagan world around them—was precisely the matter of the great myths. If ever a myth had become fact, had been incarnated, it would be just like this. And nothing else in all literature was just like this. Myths were like it in one way. Histories were like it in another. But nothing was simply like it. And no person was like the Person it depicted; as real, as recognisable, through all that depth of time, as Plato’s Socrates or Boswell’s Johnson (ten times more so than Eckermann’s Goethe or Lockhart’s Scott), yet also numinous, lit by a light from beyond the world, a god. But if a god—we are no longer polytheists—then not a god, but God. Here and here only in all time the myth must have become fact; the Word, flesh; God, Man. This is not “a religion”, nor “a philosophy”. It is the summing up and actuality of them all."
The historian Dr. Keener researched how common miracle claims are both currently and throughout history and published his results in two big ol' books. Unfortunately I don't own those two tomes so I don't have the hard data to throw at you, but based on reviews and interviews it seems that Keener has collected data on millions of miracle claims all over the world and finds that such claims are still pretty common.
For some statistics, according to Pew Research 29% of Americans claim that they had an experience of being in touch with the dead, 18% claim to have seen a ghost. In a more global study they found that among Christians (sadly they didn't study everyone, but given that 1/3rd of people are Christians it still covers a lot of ground) in the U.S. 29% claim to have witnessed divine healings, 39% say so in Brazil, 26% in Chile, 56% in Guatemala, 71% in Kenya, 62% in Nigeria, 38% in South Africa, 44% in India, 38% in the Philippines, and 10% in South Korea. That's a lot of miracle claims! It's certainly not uncommon.
EDIT: Also don't forget that the 2020 SSC Survey asked people if they ever had a spiritual experience or a religious experience. 21.6% said they had a spiritual experience, with 18.7% saying they might have had one, and 8.2% said they had a religious experience with 8.9% saying they might have. And this was a survey in which over 60% of the respondents were atheists, a very different sample from the general public (which, in the US, is about 4% atheist).
They got movies and shows and such too. I think Jordan Peterson is working on his second exclusive series for them.
I agree, which is why they'll be fine if the IMLS disappears. They don't need other people's money to get by.
The amount per taxpayer is small, sure, but the question is whether the amount should be used to fund other people's libraries. That question remains the same whether the tax is $1.50 or $1,000 per taxpayer.
As explained in that comment, most of library funding is already local, and in the case of Alabama, you pointed out that Alabama effectively got $0 from the federal government for 2024.
Puerto Rico got $2,147,080 and they're not even a state.
And I don't want to encourage local and regional brilliance, I want to encourage people paying for the services they enjoy instead of getting other people who don't enjoy them to pay for it.
Last I checked, Daily Wire was doing a victory lap after Trump's election. This doesn't seem like the result of Boreing screwing up, he's always been more interested in making movies.
Though their DailyWire+ subscriber counts are not public, they have announced numbers from time to time. They said they had 1,000,000 subscribers in 2022. According to Axios last year they had over $200 million in revenue, and in 2023 they had a capital valuation of over $1 billion (https://www.axios.com/2024/12/10/the-daily-wire-eyes-growth-investment-in-2025).
I don't see any signs of Daily Wire declining, in a business sense. They seem to be headed up and to the right.
Let's assume that $211m was equally distributed among the states
It is not. They make their largest grants to state libraries, but they don't distribute it evenly. In 2024 they didn't even give Alabama state libraries a grant at all! California got $15,705,702 for their state library system, the only grant that went to anybody in Alabama whatsoever in 2024 was $184,876 to the Alabama African American Civil Rights Heritage Sites Consortium.
Here's the full list of 2024 grantees under their "Grants to State Libraries" program:
California State Library $15,705,702
Texas State Library and Archives Commission $12,512,132
State Library of Florida $9,533,426
New York State Library $8,125,215
Pennsylvania Office of Commonwealth Libraries $5,891,819
Illinois State Library $5,736,330
State Library of Ohio $5,448,084
Georgia Board of Regents $5,162,498
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources $5,089,381
Library of Michigan $4,788,124
New Jersey State Library $4,506,420
Library of Virginia $4,289,358
Washington State Library $3,948,629
Arizona State Library $3,804,635
Tennessee State Library and Archives $3,689,581
Massachusetts Board of Library Commissioners $3,642,371
Indiana State Library $3,589,836
Missouri State Library $3,338,467
Maryland State Library Agency $3,332,465
WI Div. for Libraries and Community Learning $3,230,831
Colorado Department of Education $3,218,246
MN Dept of CFL/Library Development & Services $3,165,524
South Carolina State Library $3,028,013
State Library of Louisiana $2,726,161
KY Department for Libraries and Archives $2,708,198
Oregon State Library $2,597,695
Oklahoma Department of Libraries $2,529,938
Utah State Library Division $2,289,874
State Library of Iowa $2,210,343
Nevada State Library and Archives $2,205,502
Connecticut State Library $2,164,184
Arkansas State Library $2,157,781
PR Dept. of ED/Public Library Programs $2,147,080
Kansas State Library $2,109,780
Mississippi Library Commission $2,109,457
New Mexico State Library $1,797,977
Nebraska Library Commission $1,746,652
Idaho State Library $1,741,500
West Virginia Library Commission $1,668,036
Hawaii State Public Library System $1,541,630
New Hampshire State Library $1,529,144
Maine State Library $1,526,754
Montana State Library, Natural Resource Information System $1,427,530
Rhode Island Office of Library & Information Services $1,413,623
Delaware Division of Libraries $1,389,442
South Dakota State Library $1,346,956
State Library, North Dakota $1,295,858
Alaska State Library $1,276,792
District of Columbia Public Library $1,256,248
State of Vermont Department of Libraries $1,244,357
Wyoming State Library $1,220,427
And did most of them really eat your internal organs after raping your children?
Depends on the tribe, really. I recall that the Five Civilized Tribes weren't so bad, but when you get to the plains it's a real horror show. The Comanche were not nice guys, to say the least.
Museums, libraries, etc., primarily benefit local communities. Why should my tax dollars go to a local library 1,000 miles away: can't they fund their own library if it matters so much to them?
An additional bit of info: for 2024 their largest grantees were:
California State Library: $15,705,702
Texas State Library and Archives Commission: $12,512,132
State Library of Florida: $9,533,426
New York State Library: $8,125,215
Pennsylvania Office of Commonwealth Libraries: $5,891,819
The big grantees are all state libraries, looks like they give a grant to each state. The lowest state library grant? Wyoming State Library, $1,220,427.
The smallest grant of 2024? $2,510 to the Seneca Nation of Indians, in a grant they will use for a "Kid's Reading Project".
How much money are they actually giving out here? How many local libraries are going to disappear because they don't have federal grants?
You can search their list of awarded grants here (https://www.imls.gov/grants/awarded-grants) and for calibration's sake I looked up the town whose library I spent the most time in as a wee one, wandering the stacks. Looks like that library has received zilch from the IMLS. They did give a local wildlife park near the town $1,775 back in 2003, and the local "Pioneer Farm Museum" (which is just a little farm all done up in historical style where kids can take a trip and learn how to churn butter or whatever) got $6,370 in 2002. That's it.
Searching around, they seem to give out a lot of $10,000 grants to native tribes, presumably for village libraries. So where is the big money?
So I went ahead and searched for Tacoma, which was the closest city to where I grew up that had proper museums, big ones that people like to go to. What did I find? $400k to the University of Washington, $630k to something called "Environment & Culture Partners" which appears to be an NGO that tries to get museums to talk more about climate change, $170k to the Museum of Glass (a great museum I must admit, check it out if you're in Tacoma), $250k for the Children's Museum, $145k for the 9th and 10th Horse Cavalry Buffalo Soldiers Museum (never heard of it), $140k to the Washington State Historical Society, and $25,000 (Back in 2014) to the Pierce County Library System (which, come to think of it, my hometown library was part of. Still, 25k spread over all the libraries in Pierce County is kind of small potatoes).
My test seems like a mixed bag, since the Glass Museum and Children's Museum were pretty nice to go to as a kid (and even today, for the glass one). On the other hand, shouldn't a big city like Tacoma be able to support their own museums? I doubt either of these places would close their doors without the IMLS in any case: the Museum of glass got exactly two grants, one in 2024 and one in 2006, so I doubt they're relying on the money to stay open. Meanwhile it seems like a lot of this money gets funneled to universities and NGOs.
Why would Walsh leave the Daily Wire? I don’t see anything particularly verboten to Shapiro about either of those tweets. I’ve heard Ben say much the same on his show many times.
It doesn't matter whether it was binding or not because we haven't broken it in any case: in the Budapest Memorandum we promised not to invade Ukraine ourselves, and complain to the UN Security council if someone else did. That's it. We never promised to protect them, just to leave them alone.
Yeah, Matthew Stover’s version is the best version of RotS for sure.
I would object to describing the situation as “Christian gangsters going after Christian community leaders”. I don’t think anyone can rightfully complain “No True Scotsman” if I say that the vicious killers of the cartels, who murder pastors because they help addicts recover, are not Christian.
If you think their standards are too loose, fine, but is there any doubt that millions of Christian’s are currently being persecuted? If not in Mexico or Columbia than certainly in China, North Korea, India, Malaysia, Pakistan, and other countries that enforce laws against Christian religious practice.
It makes sense that they get stuck at Cerulean City: the only way to leave the city and progress is to go on a side track to rescue Bill, then you need to go in an NPCs house and then out their back door. Most NPC houses don’t have back doors, and this is the only time you need to go through a house to progress instead of going in a house and then leaving the way you came in.
- Prev
- Next
Hypothyroidism typically reduces appetite, yet you still gain weight despite eating less. Similarly, hyperthyroidism typically increases appetite, yet you lose weight even though you're eating more. Thyroid hormones are needed to make a lot of metabolic processes run, and if you don't have enough (hypothyroidism) then your temperature goes down and a dozen other processes don't work well and stop using up calories, so most of what you eat ends up in fat storage. If you have too much (hyperthyroidism) then your body temperature goes up, a dozen metabolic processes go into overdrive, and you lose weight despite eating more.
You could argue that someone with hypothyroidism could still use self-control to eat less and not gain weight, which is technically true. They'd probably end up in the hospital, but they could do it.
More options
Context Copy link