@OracleOutlook's banner p

OracleOutlook

๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Fiat justitia ruat caelum

5 followers   follows 2 users  
joined 2022 September 05 01:56:25 UTC

				

User ID: 359

OracleOutlook

๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Fiat justitia ruat caelum

5 followers   follows 2 users   joined 2022 September 05 01:56:25 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 359

I'm tempted to point out that the hardware store will likely deliver or that Home Depot stores in the NYC area have light trucks which can be rented for a modest fee.

The same would be true of suburbia so I don't see the point.

Ok, if that's too implausible, what if you're in Manhattan and have young toddlers. You need a gallon of milk a day. How do you get the milk from the grocery store to your apartment? How often do you go shopping to be able to reasonably carry a gallon of milk plus whatever other food ingredients you need to keep your young family fed?

Let's say I'm in Manhattan, I purchase a condo or something, and want to paint the walls. How do I get 5 gallon paint buckets from a hardware store to my new abode?

No, most people would need to own a car or have a friend with a car or at some point use an uber. I don't dispute that. Though I think the same would be true of any city as well, and delivery options/remote work has flattened the difference considerably.

My entire point was and is "I think this neighborhood is one of the ideal examples of urban planning and wish there were more neighborhoods like it."

I've lived without a car twice and each time I had to account for weather, but honestly you might not appreciate how mild Redmond is. It "rains" almost every day but it's rarely stronger than a drizzle and doesn't go on that long. There were only a couple times a year that I thought it wasn't safe to take kids out, and those times were due to smoke.

In college I would do most grocery shopping at a Target that was reachable by a bus, but once a Wegmans was open I walked there despite it being what Google says is a 50 minute walk. I would regularly jog down there anyways just for fresh air. It wasn't an imposition to stop at Wegmans, fill up a reusable bag and then walk back. It didn't strike me as impractical or difficult.

My point is that someone designed a neighborhood (Redmond Ridge) in such a way that, despite having a car, I elected to walk 90% of the time. And this is a nice balance between surburb and city and more neighborhood planners should try to emulate this design.

I am not someone who does well in "real" cities. I find them exhausting.

I'm basically telling you I did this and you are still saying it's impractical.

Lol, you got pretty close to the mark with your example.

...Ok, you can't live every lifestyle there. I guess there are people who want to go to a gym for the community factor instead of just exercise at home. And there are people who want to dance...

But if your demographic is "married mother of 4" then you have:

4+ playgrounds that are close enough that a toddler to walk to.

Elementary, Middle, and Preschool also within easy walking distance.

Community center within walking distance.

Library drop off/pick up within walking distance.

Really great crosswalks and sidewalks and good laws/culture that mean cars have to stop to let people cross the road at designated crosswalks.

As far as your specific requests:

(1) Anytime Fitness is a 24 hour gym that is a 12 min bike ride or half an hour walk.

(2) The QFC is a 12 minute bike ride, which tbh I don't know many people who want to walk with groceries but biking with a trailer is fine and meets the "no cars" point. And there are bike lanes and trails. If you want to walk it's about half an hour which isn't a bad walk either, though I wouldn't want to make it with a gallon of milk in each hand.

(3) Ixtapa is a much nicer restaurant and a very easy walk.

(4) Palmer's East is in Redmond Town Center? There's a bus pick up by Rosa Parks Elementary (about a 10 min walk from your selected house with a stroller) that goes straight to Redmond Town Center approx every 1 hour. (DART Route 224) This is a harder requirement because I don't think this is as popular an activity in the area. Most live shows are in Seattle proper, which is a pain to get to whether you're on bus, car, boat, or bicycle.

(5) Redmond Town Center also has a Guitar Center, does that count? Otherwise there's a lot of other cool things within easy walking distance of Redmond Town Center. Big 5 Sporting Goods, Zumiez, etc. Home Depot is a little further away but is that a thing that might be worth finding your friend with a truck anyway?

Is the criteria "urban means they cannot afford a car" or is the criteria "urban means they don't need a car for 90% of the time?"

I can also say that in practice you can go months without needing to drive unless you want to go to a specific grocery store.

You could theoretically live in this neighborhood without a car: https://maps.app.goo.gl/SaPWqXz55VwMcyqh9

It has a couple bus stops, lots of parks, restaurants within a short walk, gainful employment (at Space X), a QFC, and other places. However, walk around on Google Maps and it will feel very suburban.

None of the parks have restrooms. The houses largely have property values in the millions. I think in the US "suburban" means area without extra crime but you still rub elbows with your neighbors.

(Honestly I think this neighborhood is one of the ideal examples of urban planning and wish there were more neighborhoods like it. Just with more reasonably priced homes, but maybe it doesn't work with reasonably priced homes.)

One thing people complain about on the drugs is anhedonia. Less desire for food, drugs, sex, caffeine, etc. I could see this turn into a spree of purchasing better and better things trying to chase their old high.

It prevents the Chinese from investing in Greenland, which they have been doing in the form of buying up mining rights. They've even tried buying the abandoned Grรธnnedal naval base in Greenland in 2016. That was rebuffed with pressure from Washington but there was no guarantee CCP-backed Chinese companies wouldn't keep trying and one day succeed.

https://pure.diis.dk/ws/files/4834625/Chinese_investments_in_Greenland_DIIS_Report_2021_05.pdf

I think we're taking past each other. Venerable Bede wrote:

"The battles recorded in Holy Scripture are not left to us merely as records of ancient bloodshed, but as lessons in spiritual combat. The enemies that Joshua was commanded to strike down without mercy are the very temptations and evil desires that rise up within the soul. To make a covenant with the enemy is to yield to vice; to put them to the sword is to mortify the passions through spiritual discipline." โ€” Thirty Questions on the Book of Kings, Question XI, Venerable Bede

The purpose of Joshua is not merely to record ancient bloodshed, but it was recorded as scripture for the a more allegorical purpose, in this case for spiritual combat. I can pull quotes from Origin, Augustine, Gregory the Great, Bernard of Clairvaux, etc that say the same.

Likewise, the beginning of the book of Genesis provided a thought provoking, textured, allegorical recounting of the origins of man. Everyone saw that there were two, contradictory accounts of the origin of man in the first two chapters. The purpose of handing down these chapters was not to present an accurate account of history but to present a Biblical anthropology. Most commentary on these stories focus on the relationship of God and man presented in the stories as perennial spiritual truths. They were also taken as the best account they had of the beginning of the human species.

I hope I didn't give the impression that I thought all Christians knew about evolution and the big bang since the 1st Century. Of course St. Augustine thought the Earth was created in a spectacular way. If I recall correctly "science" at his time thought the Earth was created in Spring and the Genesis account didn't indicate that (or something like that I can't look it up right now), which is why he wrote what he did about following the science instead of treating the creation accounts as literal.

But it is true that the average Christian looked to the first 11 Chapters of Genesis for allegorical, theological truths primarily, and a description of the actual beginning of the Earth secondarily. Same with the book of Joshua, it was primarily seen as an allegory for the importance of excising sin from the soul, and only secondarily as an actual historical record of something that happened. And this way of reading the narratives is not a post hoc rationalization in the face of evidence that should have disproved it, but rather just the natural way it's been approached applied to our present knowledge.

Hooray then! Dilemma solved.

The flood came and Took them all away. Then Jesus uses the word taken again. Taken means dead.

We have this cultural idea of the Second Coming and then look for passages that might pertain to it. However, if you strip away a lot of the cultural baggage and try to read the words in the way they would have been written a different picture emerges.

We live in the Age to Come already, we have been experiencing two thousand years of birthing pains, the Son of Man has come, Jesus' prophecy in Matthew refers to the fall of the Second Temple and might also refer to the inauguration of the New Heavens and New Earth we all await. The parable definitely refers to each of our individual deaths whenever they might happen.

It would not be a bad thing to be on Earth when Jesus comes to make all things New. We will have glorified resurrected bodies and live an embodied existence serving our purpose as God's image and likeness in material form.

...I am not in schism with St. Augustine. I'm BFFs with his mama.

And the point is that the dumb form of Christianity is relatively recent, local, and not representative of Christianity, so if someone intelligent converts they are not necessarily going into the dumb version.

There are actually two separate groups that make up each generation:

Millennials have Boomer parents who largely had GI Bill parents and so on.

Gen Zs have Gen X parents who largely had Silent Generation parents and so on.

There is some intermingling and drift, some people were born to parents in their early 20s and have kids in their early 20s, but by large there are actually two sets of Americans with different genetic makeups and values living beside each other.

Gen X and Gen Z tend to be the more pragmatic generation.

The pre-trib rapture seems to be based on a misunderstanding of one of Jesus' parables:

"Two men will be in the field; one will be taken and the other left. Two women will be grinding with a hand mill; one will be taken and the other left." (Matthew 24:40โ€“41)

So there will be people who are taken, raptured, right? Except what was the context of this:

For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark; and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man...

So the people "taken" are taken by the flood. Being "taken" doesn't seem to be a good thing here. It seems to be saying that people will die suddenly.

Maybe that's the difficulty - you have only encountered the weakest versions of Christianity. Most educated Christians for most of history regarded the first 11 chapters of Genesis as myths that present theological truths about our identity as humans in relationship with God. Reading the Garden of Eden as something that has to be literally true or else all of the Bible and Christianity is false is something that developed relatively recently.

Origen:

I do not suppose that anyone doubts that these things figuratively indicate certain mysteries, the history having taken place in appearance and not literally" (The Fundamental Doctrines 4:1:16 [A.D. 225]).

Augustine:

"at least we know that [the Genesis creation day] is different from the ordinary day with which we are familiar" (Genesi Ad Litteram, AD 415).

Also St. Augustine:

It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation.

With the scriptures it is a matter of treating about the faith. For that reason, as I have noted repeatedly, if anyone, not understanding the mode of divine eloquence, should find something about these matters [about the physical universe] in our books, or hear of the same from those books, of such a kind that it seems to be at variance with the perceptions of his own rational faculties, let him believe that these other things are in no way necessary to the admonitions or accounts or predictions of the scriptures. In short, it must be said that our authors knew the truth about the nature of the skies, but it was not the intention of the Spirit of God, who spoke through them, to teach men anything that would not be of use to them for their salvation.

That said, it's not like there are no miracles either. There are books of the Bible that consider themselves to be histories, some that consider themselves to be biographies, some that are poetry, some that are advice. Each book needs to be read according to its genre. For example, this is an interesting look at how an event in 2 Kings shows up in the historical record of surrounding nations.

It being impossible is the whole point! If people could just rise from the dead all the time on their own then it wouldn't be a big deal! Why is the objection to miracles "but that isn't what physics allows?" That's how you know it's a miracle. It's no surprise to the Gospel writers that it's impossible, that it was impossible and happened anyway is what made it paradigm-changing!

I wake up to both my parents watching the TV, which is odd because I usually got up before my mom and we didn't watch TV in the morning. They seem upset about something, and I could see there is a sky scraper on the TV that is on fire. I don't have any context for whether that was something that happened often. My mom has siblings that live in New York and she tells me one of her sisters called her and she's worried for a cousin.

Almost as soon as I take this in the tone shifts. Whatever is going on in New York is no longer sad, it's scary. I know this because my parents are scared and not because I have any idea of what is going on. I wake my siblings up and help them eat breakfast. My parents tell me they won't take me to school today. My mom tries to call her family back east and she can't get through to a single person for hours.

My father tells me we'll be going to war. The TV is filled with News and before now News had always been boring adult stuff. I don't understand what they are talking about, what a terrorist is, what a hijacking is, what the tower is or how many people may have been inside it or why it mattered. It seems like anything could happen or might have already happened. Anyone could die, any landmark I had ever seen on TV could be destroyed. My father tells me that evil people far away are celebrating and good people far away are pledging support.

With the TV occupied by my parents and school cancelled, I spend the day playing with my toys and trying to figure out how Batman would have saved everyone. I can't figure it out and it bothers me because I've never encountered a situation like this before. I bring in my Aladdin doll but even with this back-up the problem seems too much. They can't get everyone out before the towers collapse on them as well.

The next day at school all the girls talked about their daddies maybe going to war, maybe there would be a draft, maybe we would be next because we had an Air Force Base nearby. All the boys wanted to fight, (fortunately the worst of the fighting would be over before they turned 18.)

The only way to keep home prices where they are as foreign residents leave the country and Boomers die off is to inflate the dollar, so this kills two birds with one stone. Total Boomer victory. The rest of us will have fun in the ashes of a once great civilization, I'm sure.

Your bio-mother was a good person.

Part of the motivation for infanticide is the sense that it would be awful for the kid to be raised by someone else. The kid being raised by a stranger, losing control of the child, appears to be more awful than ending the child's life.

There is a similar motivation for abortion in most cases. This is why many women abort instead of putting the child up for adoption. Many pro-life organizations have realized this which is why they have moved on from promoting adoption to promoting support for young mothers and assistance with school and housing.

If you've been a pregnant woman maybe you understand. Maybe if you are a father you understand? I've been pregnant before at times where it felt impossible to have another kid. The temptation is not to then put the new kid up for adoption. That would be awful, having a kid somewhere out there and no idea what's going on. That little piece of your heart walking around out there without you to protect it.

The temptation is to kill the kid, to make the child not exist, to remove that bond entirely. It is highly irrational, but how many families put 2nd or 3rd siblings up for adoption vs abort them?

60% of women seeking abortions already have one child. One-third of mothers seeking an abortion have two or more children

Women with two or more children are generally not opposed to pregnancy from a body horror aspect. Some may have health issues, but the majority give the reasoning that their family is already the right size, they can't afford another kid, and other reasons that would equally be an excuse to go to an adoption agency and voluntarily relinquish the kid in exchange for the adoptive parents covering the cost of health care (which they will happily do because infants are hard and expensive to adopt.)

Meanwhile, voluntary relinquishment of infants is low. Only 1% of babies born to never-married women were relinquished by their mothers for adoption within the first month of the babiesโ€™ lives. The number is much smaller for married women.

@Bombadil commented that "The fact that you can hold the baby in your arms changes the calculus so drastically." But consider that this is actually a separation to the mother. The birth of a baby is not the revelation of the baby to the mother but the beginning of a loss of intimacy. The baby is ever present to the mother while in the womb, realer than real, and yet there are still places where women can kill their kids up until the last day of pregnancy. We pretend that abortion after quickening exists solely for health reasons but the majority of third term abortions are for convenience. "The most common reasons for delay were that it took a long time to make arrangements (59%), to decide (39%) and to find out about the pregnancy (36%)."

Citation Needed on English common law allowing abortion for centuries (instead of just classifying it as something wrong but not yet murder), but I know that the stance of the Catholic Church is often misrepresented in these online fact checks.

Many people are surprised to learn that there was, in fact, a range of views among Catholic canonists at the time about the severity of very early abortion. On the strict end were those who held that very early abortion was, very simply, murder. On the lax end where those who held that intentional very early abortion was not quite murder. These laxists treated very early abortion as a severe crime that ought to be punished โ€œas for murderโ€ (canon Si aliquis), but argued that, technically, it wasnโ€™t actually murder, and so didnโ€™t need to punished identically to murder. In 1942, scholar John Huser described the โ€œlaxโ€ position:

The Decretists, notably Rufinus and Bernard of Pavia, indicated that abortion of a non-formed fetus was considered quasi-homicide, that is, the penalties were similar to but not so severe as those for true homicide.

It would never even have occurred to any of these writers that some future hostile reader would attempt to interpret their words in that way as permitting very early abortion. Every one of these men taught that a single act of deliberate masturbation condemned a man to Hell unless the sin was repented.4 The very laxest view available in the 12th century was that very early abortion was a serious crime that wasnโ€™t quite as bad as full-on murderโ€ฆ but it would still definitely send you to Hell!

As for England, a cursory search turns up:

Under the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 (Section 58), procuring an unlawful abortion was a criminal offense punishable by up to life imprisonment.

Before then, women were punished through religious penance for procuring an abortion. The Laws of Henry I prescribed three years of religious penance for procuring an abortion before quickening.

But that's a religious penance and not a punishment from the government? We have to consider that before industrialization, the tools available to the government were execution, corporeal punishment, and imprisonment in the case of someone wealthy enough to be worth it. It has been very unpopular to execute or beat women publicly, and proving an early abortion wasn't a miscarriage in a court of law would have been difficult. A religious confession to the crime, followed by a period of required penance, was the best means to punish something that was at the least highly frowned upon at the time.

We have enough evidence to show that abortion before quickening was not considered an unalloyed good like it is today.