FlailingAce
No bio...
User ID: 1084
Another aspect may be the subjective experience of agency. Physical action is fundamentally agentic, so if the black male juror has experience with violence he would have a visceral sense that LC was taking action in her own hands. On the other hand, women are more likely to feel non-agentic, controlled by external factors - and not just women, but anyone inculcated with a postmodern paradigm that emphasizes how society shapes and controls everything about you. Non-agentic people are more likely to empathize with the idea of an uncontrollable psychotic break, because they already don't feel in control of their own lives.
This is a weak argument. They're not the same word in Greek. The flood 'took' (ἦρεν) them away, but the man in the field will 'be taken' (παραλαμβάνεται). The words are not etymologically related. The first has, among many meanings: 'to take from among the living, either by a natural death, or by violence'. The second does not have that meaning at all, but does have this meaning: 'to take to, to take with one's self, to join to one's self' - which is how we would understand the pre-trib rapture, Jesus taking his Church to be with him. If Jesus meant it to be a parallel use of the word 'take' he would have used the same word.
I think you're doing a good job convincing me the rapture is legit!
I'll be praying for you brother :)
I actually considered going to Catholic seminary years ago, when I was still a Catholic, but couldn't bring myself to do it because of doubts I had about certain Catholic dogmas and worries about this same issue, being required to positively assent to doctrines against my own judgement.
It seems to me that amillenialism is a perfectly arguable position and retains the imminency of Christ's return, which is the important thing! But your link doesn't seem to teach amill theology... paragraph 674 seems to say that Israel needs to profess faith in Christ before his return (more a dispensational view), and 675 seems to describe the tribulation, just not using that word. I think typical amill theology says that the Church is the new Israel and so has already returned, and that the tribulation already occurred in/around 70 AD.
So you think that the people "taken" are going to judgement? That seems much less in line with everything else the Bible teaches. Why would only the damned be taken, if they're going to the throne of God to be judged - doesn't the Bible clearly say that all will go to judgement at the same time? What's more, it's pretty clear that the Church will go up to meet Jesus, but here you're arguing the Church will just be left in the field or at a hand mill.
I don't think most pre-trib rapture advocates actually rely on these verses, but your interpretation of them just seems backwards. The use of the word 'taken' does not imply the same as dying in a flood - 'the flood came and took them' is not the same.
Yeah I don't see the connection exactly, but at a recent conference a guy told me they were basically the same thing, that each one entails the other. It's that kind of thinking that puts me off this kind of theology, even if I think the scriptural basis for pre-trib rapture seems reasonable.
Yeah it's an interesting position they take. It's not a dogma in the sense that we say it's definitely true, and we can have communion and agreement with churches that don't teach it, but it's considered a 'distinctive' trait of Calvary chapels and thus obligatory for affiliation with the overarching organizations.
From what understand it's emphasized largely for pastoral reasons, because teaching Christ's imminent return is valuable both for getting people to make a decision for Christ today as well as to provide hope to believers. That's the theory anyway. But in practice I see a lot of people trying to predict the timing of the rapture (and getting it wrong lol) which I think is unhealthy. I like pretty much everything else about the church and its distinctives though!
This may not be exactly 'small scale' but it seems like the best place for it.
I attend a Calvary chapel church, and I'm being considered for a teaching role, and potentially looking towards taking over when the pastor retires. Lots to consider about this, but one thing that's a sticking point for me: Calvary chapel dogmatically teaches a pre-trib rapture, and I'm not convinced.
So, my questions, for anyone who has thoughts on them:
-
Do any of y'all believe in pre-trib rapture, or more generally dispensationalism, and how would you steel-man the case for it? Or for others, how would you argue against it?
-
What are your thoughts on having to teach a doctrine you're not confident in?
In other words, the only thing that makes this psychosis is that she wanted to kill her kids? Then what distinguishes her 'psychosis' from any other criminal's desire to do evil? If I killed someone in a crime of passion, what stops me from claiming it was a temporary 'psychosis'? I really can't see the distinction here.
I'll concede to a little hyperbole, but I was responding to the question 'has any rapist had their mind changed' - not, is this brochure the best way to change minds, but literally 'I don't think a single one of these people could be convinced to stop raping'.
Anyway, I think there's two groups you're conflating. Rapists in modern cultures are generally sociopaths who don't care that what they're doing is wrong. But rapists from these immigrant communities are much more common than the incidence of sociopathy. They see nothing wrong with things that in Western countries we consider rape (e.g. date rape, marital rape, rape of those from a lower caste) because they are from a culture that sees these things as normal. They're not raping because they don't care about the rules, but because they are following different rules. It follows, then, that part of the solution must be educating them on the new rules. Not the whole solution, but a start at least.
Do you really think any rapist has had their mind changed by a brochure?
I mean, yes? What, do you think all non-Europeans are just animals that can't understand words? How do you propose to teach someone the rules of a society - should we strap them down Clockwork Orange-style? Or just chemically castrate them as a prerequisite for asylum?
I know, I know, the real solution is: let's not allow anyone into the country that isn't already a Western liberal. It's a bit late for that though.
Obviously this brochure isn't the complete solution, but it's a step in the right direction that admits to the problem and tries to address it.
He's proposing that the British take steps to ensure asylum seekers are socialized and understand local laws and customs. Which is what they did and what everyone is complaining about.
Prison has always been a bad solution. Per a comedian on a recent Kill Tony, 1/3 of the people in prison should really be in a mental hospital, 1/3 should be in drug rehab, and 1/3 should be taken out back and shot because they are irredeemable.
Unfortunately, our system of justice has to be 'blind', because society is too large and varied for subjective judgements about people. We can't look at a whole person, their life in the community, their past and future, and determine how best they should be dealt with to make them a useful part of society (even if judges do have some leeway on this). We have to look at the specific crime or law they've broken, and decide how to punish them for that. We have created a system that is as 'fair' as we can make it, even if the end result is a disaster for the individuals in it. In other words, our modern justice system is fundamentally bureaucratic over and above useful or even just.
I had the same thought, but then had this idea: there's also an element of mental rehabilitation. If Clancy is now in her right mind, she probably wants to be punished for what she did. Maybe not in an explicable way. But anyone who does something so heinous, whether they were in psychosis or not, will feel they deserve punishment, and will not be mentally whole until they get what they feel they deserve.
I don't necessarily stand by this as a theory of law, but thought it was interesting enough to share.
Has anyone played La Mulana? According to its fans it's one of the best games of all time, a true puzzle adventure where every detail is a clue or hint to progress. I've got it in my Steam library from a bundle years ago and never started it - wondering if anyone had an opinion if it's worth the alleged 100 hour investment?
Just watched Fall - that was one of the most stressful movies I've watched in a long time! Definitely an awesome movie.
I will dispute the intelligence of the characters though. They do spend the movie problem solving, but their solutions are pretty contrived to build tension. For instance,
Anyway, thanks for the recommendation!
So where are the novels about clueless but good-hearted losers reincarnating into rpg worlds with a special skill that makes them irresistable to a harem of ninja babes?
They're being published as comics. Take a look at Webtoons some time and you'll see that this is the plot of nearly half of the series they publish.
I'm partial to an Aviation. My friends have a Bartesian device that mixes drinks for you and makes a very respectable Aviation, so it's mostly what I drink when I'm visiting, which is the only time I really drink.
So if she'd survived then her hope would have been correct? That's post facto reasoning.
Hope is valuable in and of itself, because it is the counter to despair. This is something we should absolutely teach our children. What would you have preferred, that the Diary is just pages on pages of dwelling on the possibility of getting caught? Or perhaps rationally calculating and recalculating her chances of execution would be better?
The reason people like to read The Diary of Anne Frank and find meaning in it is because they empathize with the narrator. And the narrator in this book is likeable in part because of her hope in dark situations, which is a positive example for the reader. There's nothing offensive about that in the least.
The Diary of Anne Frank is a character story set against the background of the Holocaust. It's not a historical treatise. It's not about the Holocaust at all.
I think it's pretty explicit in the rest of his post that most people who make that gamble are big winners.
Kids aren't 'running the numbers', they're sitting on their phones waiting to be given stuff.
I appreciate your thoughts! I intended my original post as somewhat hyperbolic, I thought the last line made that pretty clear - that said, I do think the criticisms I leveled are valid reasons why basketball is comparatively worse than other sports in its fundamental design.
And the Finals MVP, from this years' championship team, is 6'2"
Fair enough, I didn't distinguish roles in my first post. Point guard is the one position where shorter guys can be successful (mostly because it's the position that doesn't take shots). Although apparently the average height of point guards has been increasing in the last few decades - they used to be able to be much shorter!
This "shooting baskets is stupid" (literally what you said) is taking a very specific item and stripping away all of the context around it as a means to paint the entire enterprise of Basketball as vapid.
I'm saying that shooting baskets is a far worse activity than shooting goals in other sports. It's interesting that you highlight "coordinating in real time with a group of peers" when practicing shooting baskets is largely a solo activity - again, in comparison with shooting goals in soccer (which you do against a goalie) or throwing a baseball around. In fact, have you ever seen basketball players get together and have fun practicing passing the ball? Of course not, instead they take turns shooting baskets, because that's the activity that requires the most practice. It's fundamentally less pro-social compared with other team sports.
But your position seems to be that we should turn a half-a-trillion-dollars into far, far less because you don't particularly like Basketball.
What are you even saying here? If basketball were replaced by indoor soccer then obviously soccer would make more money...
An amusing framing, no doubt! But the fundamental skill in kicking a soccer ball is not the propulsion of the ball, it's balance. Specifically, bilateral balance on a single leg under differing conditions and while under stress and perturbation. Ask a PT or OT and they'll likely confirm that this is one of, if not the most important physical skills to learn for lifelong health and injury prevention. It's what we train the elderly on to prevent falls.
Can't speak to hockey as much as I never played, but shooting a puck seems to involve whole body coordination in a similar way, and manipulating a stick with two hands is endlessly generalizable.
I'm not sure is it's talked about in current climate circles, but it's significant in modeling. Models (at least in the 2000s when I learned about this) had a multiplicative factor on climate forcing that was based on a positive reinforcement mechanism from water vapor - in other words, the calculated increase in temperature from CO2 was doubled or tripled because of the assumption of positive reinforcement. Notably, the models did not really model cloud albedo effects, which make water vapor arguably a negative feedback mechanism that stabilizes temperature instead.
Of course, the actual problem was that the models kept all this secret. They were considered proprietary (including the input parameters e.g. 'CO2 forcing' = 3x), so all we the public got to see was the predictions of catastrophe and runaway warming, without any visibility on how those predictions were made. Now that we have a better understanding, it's clear why the predictions of these models were simply wrong, but the trust is quite reasonably lost.
Learning to shoot a basketball has some utility, in the same way learning any skill has utility. But throwing a baseball or football is a much more translatable skill, and biomechanically what our shoulders are designed to do. The proper movement for shooting a basketball is almost unnatural in comparison, which is why most kids do it wrong until they're corrected and properly trained.
- Prev
- Next

I think the game you're describing is The Oregon Trail.
More options
Context Copy link