OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
No bio...
User ID: 359
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
2mo ago
A coconut is white on the inside... Really not a great thing to meme into existence.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
2mo ago
I guess this wikipedia article is going to be a major culture war battle:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_J._Harris&diff=1239033648&oldid=1238918997
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
2mo ago
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
2mo ago
Kamala Harris is of course, literally half black... Jamaican black father
This isn't actually as literal as you are lead to believe. Her father is partially of African descent. Her grandmother's maiden name is Finegan.
Donald Jasper Harris was born in Brown's Town, St. Ann Parish, Jamaica, the son of Oscar Joseph Harris and Beryl Christie Harris (née Finegan),[6][7] who were Jamaicans of African and European lineage. Donald's father had at least 50% European ancestry. [8] .[9][10] As a child, Harris learned the catechism, was baptized and confirmed in the Anglican Church, and served as an acolyte.
She is at most 1/4 African descent, maybe less.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
2mo ago
I will not defend Title IX. The rest of your comment reads like a "sour grapes" complaint. If people like to watch something, buy merchandise, etc, shouldn't they be allowed to do so? And if other groups do not inspire such a fandom, unfortunate for them but they can't force people to appreciate their matches.
Women's sports isn't as popular as male sports, so it's not as if there isn't some bias for excellence in what people prefer to watch.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
2mo ago
Do people sneer at Junior Varsity, Paralympics, and club sports? In the US at least we seem to be happy that someone's moving around at all, and will set up leagues for all sorts of ability levels and shower them with participation awards until kingdom come.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
2mo ago
the choice of exactly which people who would badly lose in an open tournament instead get to stand up and pretend to be among "the best in the world" is arbitrary anyway
I am a woman and I can recognize that the athletes in women's competitions have a similar strength as myself. I don't really have a problem looking at a female Olympic swimmer and saying, "Yeah, she's way better than me at swimming. She trained very hard to get there." She is "best in the world" in a category I belong to.
Meanwhile, I could look over at the high school boys team and say, "They are going through the exact same training regimen as myself, I'm even practicing in the same lane as some of them, but their race times are still faster than mine. Sexual dimorphism is weird." It's like we were two different species. I wouldn't try to race a barracuda.
I'm not arguing "fair competition" though some are in this thread. I'm arguing largely "freedom of association," our long lost freedom's last vestige. It should be possible for people with particular handicaps to set up leagues that only people with those specific handicaps can participate in. Why might they do this? if it doesn't appeal to you, don't worry about it. It appeals to a lot of people, hence Women's and Paralympic Games.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
2mo ago
Ok, sure. Or there are some people who like to watch women's gymnastics and there is a market reason to have both on at the same time.
What is your point here? You accept that woman's sports are a carve out but demand they stay X feet or Y days away from a no-carve out sport?
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
2mo ago
Women's Olympics is the carve out though. It just happens to be broadcast at the same time and place.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
2mo ago
Women's Sports exists much for the same reason the Special Olympics exists. It carves out a place for athletes with specific limitations to compete against others with the same specific limitations.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
3mo ago
Don't know. I think she acted dangerously, and I also think the officer could have responded in a different way that avoided any deaths. I vote Everyone's An Asshole Here.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
3mo ago
Does it change anyone's opinion on the competency of the police to know that the officer who shot the woman had been employed by six different police departments in a span of 4 years?
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
3mo ago
That's also why I thought it possible that there was friendly fire. Because firing towards the shooter would also mean firing over/through a large crowd.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
3mo ago
What gets me is that there were three people, in addition to Trump, who were seriously wounded or killed. First bullet when through Trump's ear and then took out someone to the stage left of him (saw a video of someone collapsing immediately, before the rest of the crowd got spooked.) Two more shots, two more dead/seriously wounded. It's certainly possible, like shooting fish in a barrel. But man, how unfortunate.
From the beginning I was wondering if they were trying to cover up a friendly fire incident, but I don't know.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
3mo ago
I'm against Libs of TikTok cancelling random poor workers for not knowing when to shut up. But this article makes a case for it.
First, the author makes a case that "Normie Bloodlust" is common and never punished. Think of people expressing hope that a rapist is raped in prison. I don't think the author believes that this behavior is good, per se, just common and usually unpunished.
He then goes on to say that "there’s nothing unfair, and certainly nothing unconstitutional, about facing social opprobrium for unpopular speech and behavior." He seems to support that sort of cancellation, whichever side of the aisle it is coming from.
But then he argues that the Right has been facing a different, unfair type of cancellation:
The reason you can get fired for liking a Steve Sailer tweet, or donating $25 to a legal defense fund, isn’t because of a Groundswell of Popular Outrage — it’s because your employer can face 9-figure fines if they refuse to enforce a particular set of social strictures.
When my doxx was released, the “expose” got 400 likes on Twitter. For perspective, I’ve had 10 tweets with more than that in the last 72 hours. 400 likes is not “viral”, even with a dozen antifa doxxing rings (at the height of their energy) and a reporter from the Guardian helping it along.
It turns out, nobody actually cares if an entry-level finance drone thinks that feminism sucks.
But it wasn’t about a “social media outrage mob”. My employer was a glowie intelligence contractor — they didn’t “cave to popular pressure”. They don’t even sell to the public.
It was about avoiding the threat of being sued for creating a Hostile Work Environment by allowing my words to go unpunished. They fired me to comply with federal law.
The last interesting point he makes is that:
A good friend who works in HR issues the following warning:
“not sure people realize that 1) a presidential assassination attempt is like a every 30 years black swan event where the HR Ladies are forced to fire anyone who says the wrong thing, and 2) the HR Ladies relish these opportunities to make a few ingroup firings because it reestablishes their neutrality and legitimacy”
“lots of ppl seem to be victory lapping over a "vibe shift" that is really more of a temporary vibe window that will snap shut within weeks”
I think he makes some good points though I disagree with the conclusion that it is fine and dandy for the Right to cancel struggling zero-influence people for saying things that were normal to say two weeks ago.
My theory is currently:
The shooter was a 20 year old disaffected youth who didn't like the idea of either Biden or Trump being our president. He wanted to do some political violence, so he found the nearest political rally, picked up some bullets, and went looking to shoot up the crowd.
When he got there, he saw a rooftop wide open and undefended, realized he had a shot at the big guy himself, and went for it.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
3mo ago
He's actually in the age range where it's not negligible. I don't know if he will shrug this one off.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
3mo ago
I'm saying that since 134981765480 and 134981765481 are mathematically distinct, a rudder made out 134981765480 atoms is formally distinct from a rudder made out of 134981765481 atoms.
I don't think I agree with that. They have different materials. I would say they both share the form of a rudder. The material is not the form. Maybe this image helps clarify?
Any 'human truth' that disregards this difference is really just a 'human heuristic' that evolved for a reason.
Well, we are talking about human morality here, and why a human understands one situation to be moral and another not to be moral.
Maybe try to apply it to something else, like the difference between a bullet in the chamber and a bullet two inches from your brain. It's like you're saying, "both situations are different forms of space-time, so why would one have moral significance from another?" But that would be generalizing out past the point of morality. Morality lies in the interplay between ideas and substances, not on the level of string vibrations where all is equal.
If you look at the situation rightly, you would recognize that a bullet heading towards your brain has a significance that a bullet in a chamber does not. And likewise, if you look at the difference between gametes and zygotes, you will see the difference of moral significance.
Once you have a conception of spacetime, you can reframe "a sperm near an egg" as a form in spacetime
You don't understand what a form is. The four causes don't depend on scientific understanding. They are a human truth, that when we say Why or How we mean four different things.
A "form in spacetime" doesn't really mean anything, or at least is so general that you can't really claim anything moral about it on its own.
An organism has an organizing principle that is distinct from the organizing principle of the egg and sperm. You have an organizing principle that has been the same since conception, even if you don't recognize it.
Edit: your ship of Theseus example just kind of show how you keep talking about a different How. The ship of Theseus is an example of swapping out a Material cause while keeping the Formal Cause the same.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
3mo ago
The sperm in my father and egg in my mother were not me. I don't share an identity with either. I would not be who I am without my mother. I would not be who I am without my father. The blastocyst in my mother was me because it had both genetic components.
The blastocyst relied on a particular environment, sure. So do I now. The blastocyst was pretty helpless, at times I need help as well. The blastocyst didn't have consciousness. Daily I also become unconscious.
We universally acknowledge that it is wrong to kill a sleeping human, even if they wouldn't even notice it. People speak of a continuity of consciousness that depends on the existence of consciousness prior to the unconsciousness. I think that this continuity extends backwards as well as forwards.
I think you are arguing that the blastocyst needed nutrients to grow into an adult, and a egg and sperm needed to meet in order to grow into an adult, so why is one need considered matter of fact and protected and the other need extra ordinary and not protected? I think you are conflating two different types of causes. When someone asks Why or How, there really are four different categories of causes they could be asking.
The Efficient Cause of a human is when two gametes meet and conception occurrs. There is no moral requirement for any particular human to be efficiently caused. After the gametes meet, there exists a new Formal Cause, an organism, and this formal cause is the same throughout the organisms entire lifecycle. A formal cause is what makes a thing what it is, and is the difference between a pile of chemicals and a human being. The formal cause of an organism is different from the formal causes of the gametes that existed prior.
There is a moral requirement for parents to care for their offspring as best as they are able.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
3mo 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
3mo ago
If it's a bio-ethical question, reach out to the National Catholic Bioethics Center.
Otherwise, read books on the topic, get a Spiritual Director, something in between. One time I booked an appointment with my parish priest and all he said amounted to, "Yeah, that sounds like a difficult situation."
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
3mo ago
If baby-killing is based on whether it can be kept alive outside the mother using current technology, does this imply that the invention of full artificial wombs would turn disposal of embryos by IVF clinics into baby-killing?
Yes
For that matter, would it turn the death of sperm or eggs into baby-killing, since theoretically each sperm can survive if you can stick it into an artificial womb with an egg and have it become a child?
No. No living organisms of the species homo sapiens were harmed
Is it baby-killing to shed skin cells if the latest technology can turn them into embryos and then develop them outside a human body?
No. No living organisms of the species homo sapiens were harmed
You are conflating ignoring the potential to create a new organism with the harming of existing organisms.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
3mo ago
The specific problem that conservatives are deriding is when a woman has a late-term abortion but the child is still alive after the procedure. Is this a common occurrence? I don't think anyone argues for that. (Though "Most clinicians (69%) who report performing D&Es at 18 weeks last menstrual period or greater do not routinely induce fetal demise preoperatively." apparently, which changes my mind a little towards "this could be happening more often than I would guess.")
The important things to note are that:
-
It does happen occasionally. Dr. Willard Cates, then-director of abortion surveillance at the CDC, estimated “that 400 to 500 abortion live births” occurred every year in the United States.
Melissa Ohden is famously a survivor of a Saline Abortion at 31 weeks. She was saved by a nurse who heard her crying as she lay among medical waste at a US hospital. Not only does it happen, it happens to neonates who might be able to survive, if provided the same level of care that a wanted child of X gestational weeks would receive as a matter of course.
-
It seems like an obvious area where Liberals and Conservatives could come together and agree on what is right and wrong. "My body, my choice," OK, maybe Liberals really believe that. But once the child's out of the body, then it's not the mother's choice, is it? Why wouldn't such children be provided the same level of care that neonates receive in every NICU across the country?
But yet there is no agreement from the left of the aisle on this. The Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act has faced fierce partisan opposition. Why is this?
The Secret History of the Catholic Church that you won't learn in school is that, as mean as we can be to non-Catholics, our most vicious attacks are reserved for other Catholics.
More options
Context Copy link