Tree
1d ago
That's obscuring reality. Zakat is a pillar of islam, an obligatory duty. Sadakat as you present it, in its non-discriminatory form, is a modern apologist concept no one cares about (nor should they, since it’s optional). In the coran when sadakat comes up, it means zakat. All muslim charities are 99% concentrated on helping muslims, when they’re not building mosques and supporting terrorism.
It is therefore usually only spent on causes that benefit the Islamic community, though if you look at uses of zakat in practice, it is often spent in ways that 'overflow' and benefit everyone (e.g. public health or infrastructure in majority-Muslim communities).
I’ll just quote this fatwa:
Is it permissible to give zakah to a children’s cancer hospital?
Building hospitals and equipping them them does not fall into one of the categories of zakah. It is very difficult for the one who gives zakah to a hospital to be certain that it will be spent in the manner prescribed. It might be spent on equipping or expanding the hospital, or purchasing equipment for it, or on salaries and bonuses for those who work there, or on buying medicine to be given to all the patients, both poor and rich, Muslim and non-Muslim.
When it ‘overflows’ and benefits everyone as you say, it is not an acceptable beneficiary of islamic charity.
We do not think that it is permissible to give zakah to such funds, because hospitals are not among the categories of people to whom zakah may be given, as stated in Islamic teachings, and one cannot be sure that it will be spent in the prescribed manner.
Tree
2d ago
Not all religions care about strangers. Islamic charity (zakat) is only supposed to go to muslims, because islam is Moral Defection At Every Level: The Religion. Charity from non-muslims towards muslims will never be returned, dogmatically. Obviously they should be kicked out of the circle of care.
Tree
2d ago
It’s nothing, I have admiration for people who iceskate uphill.
Arguing Trump’s deception is easy, the man lies constantly, even his supporters will admit that.
As to why his supporters supposedly ‘vote against their interests’, that’s begging the question. Tariffs, climate mitigation, immigration, increasing minimum wage, decreasing taxes, what-have-you, each policy either makes people's lives worse, or better. Which one it is is not obvious to you, me, trump, or the voters. That’s why we discuss and vote on the stuff.
Tree
2d ago
Note that in both french "chatte" and german "Muschi", a word for cat is used to refer to female genitalia, like "pussy". Pussy and muschi obviously have the same root, but that still leaves at least two language inventors who looked at a cat and were erotically inspired by its femininity.
Tree
2d ago
Be nice to the lefty. “stubbornly refusing to even acknowledge other people's points“ is an accusation leveled at every unpopular opinion on every circlejerk of the internet.
There is nothing troll-y about his counter-argument, it’s eminently sensible, I’ve made it myself many times against doomer/resource depletion types. It just happens to counter an immigration-restrictionist argument that this forum does not use, so it kind of falls flat here, but they can’t know that.
Tree
3d ago
The car seats aren’t shipped back and forth over the border because of some theory of economics, but because it’s cheaper.
Trade and banking have always felt fake to people. If you’re not plowing the field behind your house, it must be a fake job, useless shuffling, usury, exploitation.
Tree
3d ago
Right, once the religion died down, so did the ethnic strife, so religion was the dominant factor. I don’t think arab christians care all that much about which worldly ruler owns Jerusalem. It’s 99% religious-islamic reasons. Only islam provides palestinians with generational deep hatred through all the defeats and humiliations, and against every rational consideration. Even SS and functor would at some point, after yet another lost battle, surrender, lay down their arms and let their children live in peace and comfort.
Therefore Israel’s best chance is to destroy or weaken Islam before it destoys Israel. If the saudis can export wahhabism, the jews with their very particular skills can get apostasy going. Of course this eminently justified and thoroughly beneficial endeavour will be viewed in a negative light by morally confused people, but then there is nothing the jews could do that would not be.
Tree
3d ago
Plus the last ottoman elites declared that pillarization was out of fashion, and so decided to murder all their minorities instead. You can’t really go lower than dead, but I think they’d have even stronger misgivings towards a newly implanted jewish minority.
Tree
4d ago
in part to fix obvious problems of too much leftism
You can't expect much more from democracy than occasionally fixing obvious problems of too much leftism or too much rightism. Other regimes have a hard time clearing that bar.
Tree
4d ago
Or the high time of european chivalry, the Hundred Years War.
After a battle they routinely executed all prisoners who were commoners, while the nobles were allowed to ransom their lives. One such man was King John II “the good” who was living large in captivity while France bankrupted itself to pay his ransom. At the same time, his subjects had trouble surviving the standard noble chevauchée tactic, where a small mounted force kills villagers, livestock and destroys crops, to force the rest inside protected walls, destroying the enemy’s agricultural, tax, and ultimately, population base.
But, noblesse oblige. The financial obligations of his starving people to his noble title, that is. And he was considered particularly chivalrous, as his surname alludes to. For the people of the time chivalry did not mean what functor implies, some kind of protective duty towards the weak. It meant the right etiquette for courting highborn ladies, and riding into battle like a total jackass like King John the Blind, another shining beacon of chivalry of the time, who died strapped to his horse like a useless bag of fertilizer of his own chivalrous volition.
Tree
5d ago
Can’t turn back abortifacients.
And it’s one thing to want more children, another to force others to have children they don’t want to have.
Tree
7d ago
Yeah I understand what a patronage network is, and that the progressives have built one – but for the point under discussion, funding for ukraine, the term is not applicable. That’s the way I interpret @Chrisprattalpharaptr ‘lol’. That the term was rendered meaningless and reduced to a boo-light for ‘democrat spends money on something’ . Though it’s possible he was calling into question the existence of a democratic patronage network, idk.
Tree
7d ago
So Ukraine is part of the Democratic Patronage Network? Is everything trump spends money on part of the Republican Patronage Network?
Tree
8d ago
If the president wants something, who cares what the vice president thinks? The buck stops with women. Stop blaming the closest male for what is 100% women’s decision.
Tree
8d ago
There are no highly fertile people, only highly fertile women. Women alone make the decision, not couples. “Her body, her choice.” That is the way we have structured modern society. At the time, we didn’t know women would bail on their duty to reproduce. Instead of using the power they received wisely and dutifully, they abuse it to extort ever more resources, while failing to maintain even replacement-level fertility.
As you note, rationally speaking, they already have more than enough (public schools, free entertainment, essentially free healthcare, etc). Giving them even more would just encourage them to limit the supply of babies even more, like a cartel.
Tree
8d ago
I think "trads" propose things like making it easier to raise children on a single salary
I thought that was Elisabeth Warren.
And most women would be having maybe 6 kids
That seems a very low estimate. Reading wikipedia, you often come upon variations of “they had 14 children, 2 of whom survived”. Some entire countries' fertility rate is higher than 6, like Niger, 6.6.
Tree
8d ago
He has no say in the matter legally, therefore his opinion is irrelevant and he is blameless.
Besides, let’s go with your hypothesis, say in 40% of couples who could be having more children, the woman holds out – remove her lock, and that’s still a substantial increase in fertility.
Tree
9d ago
even the underclass doesn’t want to be “just wombs” professionally for 30 years.
Why not? I would consider it a nice career were it possible. Most middle class jobs are way more dull, burdensome and meaningless than professional womb-woman.
The average modern woman, who holds the future of humanity in its hands, appears overwhelmed by the responsibility; and incapable of reproducing, like the panda. So while various people want to take the responsibility away from her, I just propose to circumvent her. My solution, being entirely voluntary, is far softer than that proposed by “incels” and “trads”.
Tree
9d ago
Pumping out 20 children would be their career, they’d be comfortable. Just wombs essentially; artificial ones would also work. Our bottleneck is in the production of children, yet paradoxically, in resources, children are not costly, and we are swimming in resources. It should be easy to lift the barriers and ramp up production, provided we do not take an exceedingly sentimental stance on where children come from (“when a mommy and a daddy love each other very much….”) .
Then, if most women would rather have status than children, that’s not the state’s problem. It gets its taxpayers anyway, and children are brought into the world, which I find morally good, while still not forcing anyone.
Tree
9d ago
There couldn’t be professional rejecters – you’d get 3 rejects and then you’re out, you pay the bachelor-spinster tax. If you do not reject, and are therefore rejected by those who drop out, you keep getting official dates with counterparts. Imagine the creatures who would find each other in the deepest depths of hell, 20-30 one-sided rejections below ground.
Anyway the real problem is not lack of cohabitation/marriage but childnessness. And that power lies entirely in women’s hands, legally. Just give some of it back to men: no abortion or contraceptives unless the husband/boyfriend gives his consent. His DNA, his choice, it takes two to tango, whatever cliché you prefer. Then you put the spinster tax on childless couples.
Or just pay like 10% of the most motherhood-friendly women to produce 20 children and raise them in an orphanage (they can visit of course) , that also works and intrudes less in people's personal lives.
Tree
9d ago
Aside from how overused that one study is, the other major problem is that the womens’ answer is straight up incorrect, therefore bullshit. Women have the capacity to actually rank men on a respectable bell curve (just like gay men can rank women), they just choose not to because they concentrate on the ‘what will that answer say about me?’ implications. Similar to how straight men will sometimes performatively deny that an attractive man is attractive, or say that they can’t tell because they’re so straight it hurts and blinds.
The big advantage of the dating website rankings is that they greatly reduce Social Desirability Bias by getting both men and women in a “What do you REALLY think?” frame of mind.
It’s the opposite. If they were ranking some strangers as anthropologists, far from the context of their own coupling, they’d give a straight answer, as they usually do in the other studies. But on Okcupid, they think rating merely above average men as above average marks them as easy, low quality, desperate participants in the coupling game.
Tree
10d ago
mad libs nonsense
a kludge exploiting Guttenberg's error-prone moveable type
This cultural OS produced the illusion of escaping local maxima
Tree
11d ago
Both put a big chunk of their budget into popularity programs
Do you have numbers on that? Anyway, I heard estimates of cartels making between 11 and 40 B/y total. So a small share of that, at the utmost a few billion, for presents and disaster relief and other telegenic actions. Compared to the mexican state's budget all-in of around 500 B/y. I don't think you can fool the people with a pittance. A few songwriters, perhaps.
Alice is worried Carol might be a prion. She needs to be either refolded correctly like Dave or completely denaturalized like Bob.
More options
Context Copy link