@sun_the_second's banner p

sun_the_second

could survive a COD lobby and a gay furry discord server

0 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2023 October 31 11:26:45 UTC

				

User ID: 2725

sun_the_second

could survive a COD lobby and a gay furry discord server

0 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2023 October 31 11:26:45 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 2725

The laws of the state are not the same thing as the laws of a religious group, so, no, it's not obvious.

For starters, people obey the laws of the state because those are enforced, while religious law, outside of places where the church and the state are integrated, is much more of a suggestion. Then there's also the historical disconnect between religious law that was written 2000 years ago and the today, as opposed to state law which is usually updated a bit more frequently.

You've never seen those Twitter posts of jews shit-talking white people, identifying as white when and only when they can derive an advantage from it?

And also the posts of jews who do not. But these are usually not counted, for some reason.

By now, you should have learned that most conspiracy theories were true.

I have learned that a person who yells out at every minute that it is 13:56 might be correct at least once every day, but he can't be relied on to tell the time.

The distinguishing feature of schizos is not that they believe that there's a They who want to do Something (most normies believe some form of that, and it is not surprising or significant that if Jews are highly represented in philosophy and politics in general, they will also be highly represented in evil philosophy and evil politics). It is that the schizo's fixation is all-consuming and all evidence against it is merely more evidence in favor to him.

If it is Jewish law and yet most Jews do not appear to act or express beliefs matching it, is it Jewish law?

Hard to see how it's the female soldiers' fault that Israel can't forever eat the costs of Iron Doming the water pipe missiles from Gaza without doing something about the people who launch the missiles.

At best the portraits are net neutral (they're not required, just describe the characters like all the authors of pictureless books did before you). At worst the slop illustrations degrade the experience, not unlike reading food porn about some kind of grand feast while consuming McDonalds.

what would they do with a captured American gay soldier?

How would they know the soldier is gay? Are there pink triangles on their shoulder straps?

I think the point here is that most women aren't having children in present continuous, right now in a way that would stop them from doing much else.

I don't think anything can be done until the wisdom of "there aren't gonna be enough unattached successful men at the finish line for all of us" forms anew for women.

I've always thought that the core idea of coolness is not caring what other people think in the moment.

Well unfortunately, states are not human and at times their interests are against the collective interests of citizens. That doesn't make states mad, it makes them evil.

How so? Would you die to keep your finger safe?

I suspect most men aren't weirdos like Musk or Durov who get off on the purely intellectual exercise of knowing that your sperm, somewhere out there, has reproduced with a woman.

Usually when I see a war being called existential, "your country becomes a political nonentity" is included into the definition. Certainly there have been many times the current war was described as existential for Russia.

It might be madness for citizens to fight on for the sake of the state, but the state is what's making decisions at the moment.

Hey, if they can steal so much and the front still doesn't collapse, what does that say about the state of the war?

What's weird about it? It is as you said: Mind Flayers are an acceptable "evil" race because they are literally an obligate predator of humanoids. Traits that aren't present in real humans are an acceptable factor to base "evilness" upon. Aside from small clusters of the kind of people who hate Frieren for writing demons as evil anyway.

Tismchads stay winning.

Unless he's getting plenty of coaching from someone older and wiser.

Depends on what you count as coaching.

High-functioning parents won't need the law for their children to take their opinions into account. For others, it looks like the perfect way to go from filial disinterest to open revolt and spite.

If they want me to use it they can put it on the keyboard.

Parents should own their children.

We're past the society where parents owning their children translated to direct economic benefits, though, such as help on the farm or apprenticing in your profession. How exactly do you propose the parents should extract the value from their children? Lifelong alimony?

If your proposition is that we factory-farm the fairer sex such that every man is free to go through a hundred a year

Being free to buy a chicken does not mean there must be enough stock available at all times. If the chicken are scarce, the price will simply be higher.

According to the chicken analogy, every man should be free to buy as many chickens as he can afford. Rationing them at one-per is the kind of thing that has been tried for 70 years and ended in disaster.

Capitalism everywhere except for the bedroom.

Sure, you can throw tiktok in, too. Tinder does take up some of the "fearmongering about male bad behavior" space with all the low effort dick pic guys, or so I'm told.

I don't think obesity is a factor for most guys in question. The sentiment I observe is usually "no one is interested in me", not "only the fatties are interested in me".

See, people seem to read that into any ambiguity I leave in my writings.

Not just your writings. Thing is, the people who want the RETVRN generally have an entire detailed vision of what the society is supposed to look like at the endpoint (even if they arrived to the vision entirely by calculating exactly what will trigger the libs the hardest). While the people who see the problems with the status quo but are closer to

a social order that grants people maximum autonomy, but also a culture that provides basic life scripts that young people can follow to produce generally good outcomes in their life if they're not

than Handmaid's Tale, and I'm including myself into that group... generally don't. So speaking loudly about problems with the status quo in a certain perspective becomes a heuristic for certain assumptions.

It also doesn't help when you write things like "I THINK WE'RE ABOUT TO SEE [what happens when too many young men are hopeless and angry]" in all caps. It reads like you're rooting for the civil war.

The one thing that genuinely peeves me off is when I see people in positions of power/authority making absolutely DUNDERHEADED policy decisions, causing untold amounts of suffering or economic loss, and then skating off unscathed because they had no direct stake in the outcome/were poised to benefit either way.

Indeed.

There's an element of faith required, and that seems to be in shorter supply.

Indeed. And I'm specifying that in this case it's specifically faith that not only things are going to be bad, and not only that they can be made better, but that the windows for going to be bad and able to be made better intersect just right.

If a king genuinely believed in an all-powerful creator who could and would punish them eternally after death, that would indeed incentivize 'better' behavior during their life.

In that case it does not look like elites were ever selected for their genuine belief. Genuine belief appears to be the kind of thing that was mostly for the downtrodden classes and the kind of clergy that was secluded in monasteries and not making too much political noise.

Unless you're arguing that there is a hard limit on how long humans can live, ingrained at a biological level, I don't see this as discouraging.

I'm not well-versed enough in biology to confidently state a number, no. But from what I know, organs tend to wear out and fail, the very structure of bones tends to become brittle, telomeres in your DNA shorten with time and gradually stop protecting you from runaway cancers, and brains degrade to senility. To my knowledge we have not yet found ways to reliably halt even one of those processes. I said 120 years because this is the current world record for where the combination of genetics + personal decisionmaking + medicine can get you. So when the first human lives to 150, I expect it to be because of massive breakthroughs in medicine.

Some US states have their age of consent at 18. But even if it wasn't, it's not like the moral outrage would stop over that. I notice that people who loudly decry sex with late-teen girls generally aren't considering local ages of consent as a valid argument in favor. It would simply shift to "they weren't adults".