@hydroacetylene's banner p

hydroacetylene


				

				

				
8 followers   follows 1 user  
joined 2022 September 04 20:00:27 UTC
Verified Email

				

User ID: 128

hydroacetylene


				
				
				

				
8 followers   follows 1 user   joined 2022 September 04 20:00:27 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 128

Verified Email

I mean, US justice hasn’t been properly retributive in a long time. I don’t know that it matters that these men will die of old age in prison instead of getting executed in a few decades.

The big thing is the three he didn’t commute- it seems like he should have commuted all forty(what’s the political consequences- he doesn’t get re-elected?).

Sir John of Joinville’s biography of king Louis IX. I just finished the chapter where he meets the assassins, and they do not come off well- they’re cowards who are easily bullied by small numbers of crusaders, accept bribes readily, and seem to have effect mostly through bragging rather than actual ability.

Where does your commenter say that only people she dislikes should have to make any lifestyle changes?

Yes, Muslims, like Christians and Jews, believe it's okay to lie to unbelievers who are persecuting them or to protect others.

Christians are not allowed to lie to escape persecution under traditional interpretations of moral theology.

That's certainly what Scott seems to think.

Of course, we know how Christians were perceived- altruistic, odd, generally upstanding, welcoming of converts, treat their subordinates well in sometimes baffling ways- and we know how Christians liked to represent themselves and thought their communities should behave. But what we don't really have is anthropological studies of how Christian communities acted among themselves. Like we can tell that Christian men in 200 AD generally treated their wives better than Pagan men did, but not a lot of concrete examples of what that looks like(I suppose the martyrologies are evidence that Christianity forbade or heavily restricted domestic violence, and there are records of the church fathers exhorting Christian husbands to be affectionate with their wives, but we don't actually know what that was like on the ground). We know the pagans thought becoming Christian when you were down on your luck was the sort of thing that made sense to do, but mostly from satires which present it as a natural thing for the down on their luck to do- we don't actually know what Christian charity looked like or how it worked(although we know pawning or selling possessions and giving the money to bishops to hand out to the needy was at least a thing that occasionally happened[and in Roman eyes would be seen as a comprehensible part of religious practice- with the exception that ancient temples would have kept such a gift for themselves], and that free food was a regular handout perhaps used as a recruitment tool). But how Christian charity was administered? Whether there were any measures taken to prevent dependency? Nada(and Roman satirists would have treated any help granted without recompense as being taken advantage of).

There are functionally no Maronites in Syria. There were, however, quite a few Melkites, a different tradition.

The barn with figurines of Joseph and Maria and the magi is obviously based on the bible, while the date (Winter solstice) and the Christmas tree (as a symbol of something visibly being alive in the depth of winter) seem pagan-ish to me.

The date of Christmas is actually based on philosophical beliefs about great men dying on the same day they were conceived, plus math(Good Friday actually has a known date if you take the bible completely literally- March 25 33 AD). And Christmas trees probably have a real origin of 'it's one of the few things that looks nice that time of year, and Christmas is a major religious Holiday so we want decorations to look nice'.

Likewise Easter: remembering the crucification and supposed resurrection of Jesus is one thing, but the rabbits and eggs seem pagan to me -- after all, Jesus died for mankind's sins, not to restore fertility to the natural world.

Rabbits might be an unrelated folk tradition(but it also might just be seasonal associations- right around Easter is when you start seeing rabbits in Europe), but eggs come from fasting rules in the medieval church. Easter was a huge feast in the throw-a-giant-party sense in the days when Lenten penance was quite a bit more rigorous than it is today, and foods which were forbidden during lent but otherwise part of the diet were a big part of that. Eggs are one example- I believe that in Eastern Orthodox cultures which forbid dairy during lent, butter or cheese plays a role in Easter celebrations. Of course eggs are also easy to decorate and play fun games with.

Just to add on to this- the Latin American immigrants who immigrated to Spain are mostly from elite or at least upper-middle class strata who may not be 100% pure European but are at least majority European.

Do you actually believe this will happen?

I don't find it ridiculously implausible that there will be a stratum of society with a TFR of <1 which embraces gene editing technology. But high human capital embracing natural reproduction at high rates seems a necessity for maintaining industrial society over the long run, because of that TFR issue.

It is difficult to imagine gene editing not driving down fertility rates among whoever embraces it. I'm a techno-optimist; I think cheap fusion and orbital solar power and space colonization are solveable problems. But I also think we need the people to do it. And the people who can do it don't have any room for their TFR to drop any further. South Korea is the most innovative country in the world(literally). There is a human element to our science fiction future and that human element needs to be taken into account. Gattaca was a dystopia because it comes off as one, no one gives a damn whether you think it sounds nice in theory, not in their heart of hearts.

I think what I'm trying to say is- your idea of making superbabies by gene editing won't produce enough of these superbabies to even maintain itself. Because it just doesn't fit what people actually want.

I've seen a lot of Indians in the South. I've never seen a culturally Southern Indian

What kind of Indian? Culturally southern Kashadas and Cherokees are a dime a dozen.

Dot Indians seem to be straightforwardsly here as a minority that doesn't want to assimilate in any way, and that is how most legacy southerners- both white and black- seem to view them as well.

Now unlike you I do care about preserving southern culture. I probably wouldn't let my daughter marry an Indian who hadn't been disowned, but that's because of their culture. Marrying a dot Indian woman is a different matter; she can learn to make gravy.

Germany, Ireland, Finland, and the UK have very different cultures about assimilation. Famously France thinks it can assimilate Africans; German identity seems a bit more racially-exclusivist in comparison.

The second is that this is all "Taqiyya", and the perp was a genuine Jihadi.

IANA muslim scholar, but isn't taqiyya a mostly shia doctrine which tends to apply to either A) hiding religious mysteries from the uninitiated or B) escaping imminent persecution for the sake of continuing the faith, and not something which could easily be weaponized by Jihadis?

It seems true that Islam allows adherents to hit defect a lot more than Christianity does. But I don't think 'pretend to be an apostate to kill non-believers' is something Islam allows, or is believed to allow by actual Muslims.

It's interesting to note that the other ancient monotheistic religion which survives to this day, Zoroastrianism, is also very pro-social and big on sin reducing the favor of God.

The difference is that Abrahamaic religions command their adherents to improve the world. Zoroastrianism does not; in Zoroastrianism the adherent is commanded to do charity, but it doesn't actually matter if that charity helps the recipient. There is no equivalent to teach a man to fish as there is with Christian charity, which is big on education, hospitals, etc in comparison.

Much higher fertility rate and offering a better deal to people who had some influence in Roman society but weren't particularly esteemed. I encourage people to actually read the church fathers talking about how Christians should behave- it's not really a mystery why lots of people shut out of formal power in Roman society but with a bit of influence really liked Christianity. They got much better treatment that way.

The first laws Christians used their newfound power to get passed under Constantine, after of course protections for themselves, were slave welfare laws. That attitude extended up the totem pole; 'not getting treated like dirt by your immediate superiors' is a hell of a benefit in a strongly hierarchical society.

I'm willing to believe that mild autism today presents more strongly because in the fifties if you were a weird kid who acted awkward and mildly rudely you got beaten until you stopped doing that.

I won't claim this would be an improvement over 'mildly autistic people get to be offensive in an awkward way'. But it would enable lots of very mildly autistic people to come off as normal.

The baby boom had extremely high fertility rates, however. So we should see lots of baby boomers who were younger children in their families with autism if this is a driving factor- do we?

Did the average Roman of those days think that the Christians were insane? Did he think they were evil? Did he secretly sympathize with them?

This is actually a question with a known answer; Roman(well, Greco-Roman) satirical literature aimed at as close to a popular audience as any literature in the Roman empire was addresses Christians. Lucian represents Christians as a known phenomenon in the ancient world at a relatively early date, and one of his protagonists becomes a Christian in a spoof. In Lucian's classic fashion, he narrates this after leaving Christianity.

It does not appear that the lowest literate classes in ancient Rome thought Christians were evil, so much as weird. Not WEIRD. Strange. We know Christianity was very attractive to women and the down-on-their luck. Christians were portrayed as near-pathologically nice people with funny beliefs(and AFAICT modern day pagan societies sometimes have the same view). We also know that they refused to do some things which the Roman empire demanded, and that this was a source of great frustration to the elites. Christianity's moral strictness is also documented at an early date, and the fact that this was rarely addressed in Roman literature probably tells us that this was seen as a good thing on at least an individual level, even if elites didn't like being told to improve their behavior.

Probably, but there should be safeguards- an IFF system to start with, and probably also a human that needs to sign off on weapons free. And IANA navy sailor, but that human is almost certainly an officer who should know better.

TDLR, someone screwed up big.

I’m doubting the Houthis shot this plane down, but the friendly fire explanation has a hole in it- namely, who did the navy think they were shooting at?

It’s not like the Houthis have f-18’s.

I know a small-time landlord who got fed up with finding good HVAC guys. He just went to a community college to do the learning (not sure if this is even strictly required) and took the EPA's test.

Minor counterpoint- the EPA’s test is not intended as an occupational licensing regulation. It’s intended to enforce an environmental regulation.

Now most HVAC techs will tell you that that regulation is stupid. But what he did is entirely in line with the EPA’s regulation, which does not really care very much about having a contractor supervising the work- just about not venting Freon. You do not have to take classes at community college for the test- there’s study guides you can order online and take the test at a supply house, and honestly not using the study guide might get a passing score- but community college classes are certainly a way to get it.

Contractors licenses are mostly about insurance responsibility and code compliance. Now the lower grade(s) of licensing is straightforwardly a poll tax, but outside of unionized blue states no more than that.

Canada is much more welcoming of outsiders than Poland, though.

The canon of Latin works is well translated into modern languages, you are unlikely to find new insights by reading the originals.

There are actually a number of untranslated(at least to English) Latin works out there. Moral Theology by St. Alphonsus of Ligouri is likely the most prominent.

All human beings have equal dignity. It is no lesser tragedy for Nigerians or Congolese to be massacred than for Norwegians or Irishmen.

That being said, the distribution of natural gifts among different groups is not equal, and it must be admitted that Europeans get the better split compared to Bantus or Arabs. It is perfectly reasonable to oppose immigration from the Congo or Iraq on the basis that these people will lower the average abilities of an individual in your country, and this is not based in hatred of Congolese or Iraqis.

Counterpoint: there seems to be a massive backlash to migration in Canada from Indian immigrants, and that is not caused by crime or terrorism by Indian migrants.

Counter counterpoint- they're Indian. Mexican and Ukrainian and Vietnamese immigrants would have gotten away with it.

Eh, I think Maronite and Coptic immigration is mostly pretty uncontroversial in the societies to which they migrate.