Tollund_Man4
No bio...
User ID: 501
I think the contradictions only arise if you ignore the good things Nietzsche says about slave morality (I’ll have to go digging for quotes but basically it made man "interesting", added depth to his soul and made him more cunning).
Nietzsche spends a lot of time praising master morality because it is the side which needs to be rehabilitated, but the Nietzchean project isn’t about going back to the Vikings. The higher type of aristocratic development he is aiming for is only possible in the man of mixed slave/master heritage, and it’s as much about creative ability and aesthetic sense as anything else – Shakespeare, Goethe and Da Vinci are mentioned as higher men alongside the military geniuses.
in terms of ease of use, lethality, and safety
It might sound odd but there's a difference between wanting to disfigure someone and actually trying to kill them. Irish traveller gypsies have these kinds of fights fairly often and they do actually shake ends after a few months/years of sending each other to hospital (here's an example of an ongoing 4 year long feud which might be ending). Killing someone on the other hand puts your whole family in danger for however long it takes for the other side to get real revenge (and obviously it can go on longer if the revenge cycles goes on).
Also I'm not really familiar with the UK legal system but I'd imagine it's like Ireland where murder is really the only guaranteed way to get decades in jail. You can do a lot of damage to someone and get a slap on the wrist compared to what your sentence would be in America.
(I wish we had some better phrase to refer to the offense than 'child rape', which includes this but also abducting and violently raping kindergardeners.)
Isn't the distinction already made in rape vs aggravated rape? We can be certain that a 12 year is a child and that the crime committed was rape, I see no issue with the term 'child rape'.
Yes, centrally planned militaries have outcompeted all other types of military organisation. The market can outcompete the state on many things but the monopoly on violence and it's successful preservation and expansion are, at least for now, domains in which state organisation dominates. Volunteer militias and private military companies exist and have had victories against state-led armies in modern times but this hasn't lead to any long-term changes in the meta (even when volunteer militias win they usually just go on to establish a traditional military).
If you accept this view then those left-wing individuals have just gotten you to concede the minarchist position. State-controlled industry, dissolution of property rights etc are hills the socialists still have to climb and the historical record is very against them here.
Edit: Breaking: Arson attacks on French rail lines.
Luckily it looks like some lines are already back up and running.
Good luck! Is the drinking social or just because you enjoy a beer?
Seems like she enjoyed your company but doesn't want to go on a date (assuming that's what you texted her about). That may only have become clear now of course, but often you only find out once you try.
In the early days of Trump's campaign I was confused at why so many conservative Americans were celebrating the drunken debauchery of Magaluf.
Free speech make sense in prosperous and stable liberal democracy because its enemies are mostly harmless.
The United States was not prosperous and stable in its early years, free speech made sense in a heavily indebted country experiencing periodic tax rebellions, Indian raids, slave uprisings (and the perceived powder keg of a Haitian style slave uprising), and the threat of further war from Britain.
Getting back into Kissinger's Diplomacy after taking a break from it to read Goethe’s Faust.
Kissinger is fairly critical of the containment policy of the Cold War. Committing to fight the expansion of the communist states everywhere meant that the ball was in the Soviets’ court to pick the most inconvenient places possible to start crises which America would be morally obligated to intervene in. The book is just about to start on the Vietnam war and what’s interesting is that the Soviets have not yet purposefully exploited this supposed weak point (he has given hints that Khrushchev was very good at creating difficult situations for the Americans but equally bad at finishing them, there’s an echo to an earlier chapter about Napoleon III here).
Kissinger repeatedly says that the Soviets are simply confused by America’s universal moral declarations and they refuse to take anything other than realpolitik seriously. Stalin gives lukewarm support to the Korean War not because it’s an inconvenient place for the US to defend but because he thinks it just won’t be a big deal. The Americans have said as much when discussing core strategic areas, yet when the war breaks out it becomes a place worth fighting for purely because America is bound by the implications of its stated moral principles.
The core investigation of the book seems to be about how Wilson caused Western leaders to question the old balance of power model in favour of a model based on universal declarations of rights, personal goodwill between leaders, collective security organisations and alliances concerned just as much with agreeable domestic institutions as military advantage. Despite the initial failures of the League of Nations and the misplaced trust in Stalin the Wilsonian style of diplomacy never really went away, and the next decades show Britain being won over by this vision (with Churchill being a solidly old-school exception), America learning hard lessons which temper its idealism and the Soviets being terribly confused at what America is actually willing to start a war over. Kissinger is very critical of the Wilsonian vision but he does give it one piece of high praise: to sustain the kind of long term commitment that fighting the Cold War required the American public needed an ideal which could motivate them.
Not OP but Tim Dillon is usually pretty funny.
You'll probably see some xitter users proclaiming that results show a rise in republicanism due to Sinn Fein being the largest party, but the reality is a lot of the results appear to be down to petty squabbles related to power sharing and other administration-related issues.
The biggest reason the DUP lost is probably that their leader (up until 3 months ago) was recently charged with rape and 17 other sex related offences.
I'm not sure what the norm actually is in Ireland, there are plenty of houses with the rule and plenty without.
Sorry if it's weird to bring up an old comment but I was reading Gerald of Wales' 12th century Topographia Hibernica and I found it pretty funny how much his opinion on Irish looks lines up with yours:
Moreover, I have never seen in any other nation so many individuals who were born blind, so many lame, maimed or having some natural defect. The persons of those who are well-formed are indeed remarkably fine, nowhere better; but as those who are favoured with the gifts of nature grow up exceedingly handsome, those from whom she withholds them are frightfully ugly.
it's something that came out of the academy
Did it? It has been in place for over 100 years in Ireland ever since the UK wanted to boost the minority Unionist vote, maybe this all started with an academic paper but it seems like the academy got interested in something that already existed.
Both far left and far right would likely agree on official policies of banning books and jailing opponents of the regime,
Sure, but they probably wouldn’t agree on which books, and which opponents.
Surprisingly it was quite peaceful, the Young Irelander Rebellion of 1848 was just a single shootout and was the first uprising in 40 years, the real violence started from the 1860s on as the Irish in America never shed their bitter feelings. The American Civil War changed a lot too because from then on you see things like ex-Union captains being executed in Britain for killing police officers.
It tended to be a common rhetorical device in countries which actually slid into violence too.
Yes, greatly, but while I’m sure something I did contributed to the change have no idea why it happened!
In Ireland it’s not uncommon for judges at sentencing to say something like “I have to judge in accordance with the law as it stands but the legislation needs updating on these points”.
Ireland is moving to recognize Palestinian statehood
Looks like the plan is to do it in concert with Spain, Slovenia and Malta.
Lady flashing her tits at the Times Square portal
On the Dublin side there was a guy showing photos of 9/11, another guy snorting coke, a guy showing his ass and a homeless woman raving before being taken away by police, it’ll be funny if some tit flashing is what gets remembered as the true scandal.
Sinn Fein is an explicitly socialist party, and advocated quasi-revolutionary socialism until relatively recently.
Sure, but Sinn Féin only represents a portion of Irish nationalism. Aside from the minority of socialists who took part in the fighting in 1916/1919-21 they are basically the only explicitly socialist Irish nationalists worth mentioning, and they had very little presence in the Republic of Ireland until quite recently.
A similar response from the media too, the attacker was described as an 'Irishman' because he had migrated from Algeria and attained citizenship. This fact itself was quickly overshadowed by the riots but I can see why it made people angry in the context of Irish men being told to stop being so misogynistic after the killing of Aisling Murphy by a migrant and Irish men being told they need to fix their homophobia problem after 2 gay men were beheaded by an Islamic migrant.
More options
Context Copy link