@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

Cats do have loyalty, which is different from bred servility because it's not unconditional.

If it's clear to you, you can hire a bunch of junior engineers for your project and have them become greybeards for half the wage. Then you get more than a cookie.

Otherwise you only get a cookie, which is still more than being unclear (a whole cookie), so I don't know what injustice you see here.

Doesn't look like the youths are spending so much more on eating out that it is a big factor, the way I read this.

There is a difference between the kind of conscription where no one really wants to be the first to volunteer, yet will acquiesce if/when voluntold, and Ukraine. Men of apparent fighting age are being ganged up on and forcibly packed into buses by recruiting officers. Either the people do not want to fight or the government is being very stupid by overreaching where a gentler hand would work.

Also, it being a "normal" or "legitimate" thing to do or not has nothing to do with whether the people want to fight or not. You asserted they do. I see little evidence of such, and ample evidence to the contrary.

unless the people wish it (which they don't).

How do you figure that? I do not think the brutal extent of conscription in Ukraine is currently deniable. If the people wish it, how come volunteers are so insufficient? And it's not like you can ask them because elections were suspended.

Perhaps it is a noble and un-futile fight, but from what it seems, the people (as opposed to the leadership) are sorely lacking the will to fight it.

Property is something you can own.

Parents (including adoptive parents, or legal guardians) do not own their children.

It is possible to own a person extralegally (such as through enslavement by human trafficking), but this is not an inherent part of surrogacy.

Thus I figure surrogacy does not make children into property. Not any more than being able to waive parental rights does.

How do you define surrogacy as selling children if at no point does the child become the new parent's property?

That argument applies to surrogacy 1:1.

Perhaps in the world before, when children were factual property of the head of the house. Today, as some lament, we do not own our children.

What does it mean to "not be Christian enough"? This sounds more like a political division than the faith that all are saved if they follow Jesus Christ.

Marriage was a contract historically, at least until it's become more like a suggestion in many countries.

That was pretty much my first thought. If you sign up for surrogacy, by all means keep the baby even if they're gonna be half-braindead, but don't expect to be paid for the job.

If anything here can be called demonic (as in, driven by alien forces beyond mere human wickedness), it is not the act of purchasing a child from a woman individually (rather than in lifelong contract), but the use of courts to arbitrarily litigate sums in vast excess of the original contract from, as far as I can tell, thin air.

I liked the sequel more, actually. "I guess we'll just have to kill 'em" is far more honest. Every atheist who's talked to smart theologists knows there can be those who can beat you in an argument even when they're wrong.

I do not put triumph over sickness, infirmity and hunger in the same box as deciding that you don't need to consider fellow humans either.

As theistic debates go, this appears to be a particularly crude one on part of Lewis. Not only being inherently deficient because he writes for both his side and his opponent, but also writing his opponent's side inarticulately. This is the equivalent of drawing the christian as the chad and the atheist as the soyjak.

I do not believe the sort of people you exalt is an improvement. Certainly I do not wish to see them anywhere near power, especially power over me or any number of my kids.

I want to see leaders who have paid and continue to pay for leadership in sweat and/or blood. Even the most venal and corrupt of leaders today do pay, although some of them pay insufficiently and that makes them complacent and fattened on power.

There is also the thing where you deny that you see yourself among the elite of the new world order, but the plausibility of that denial strains my credulity. You display exactly the same mindset that you believe should be empowered and you're frankly displaying the worst of that mindset. When I imagine the world you're portraying I imagine a world where potential men like you have been given power by a thought experiment god (since you're unfit to seize it). It's a deeply contradictory world.

There is plenty of discontent in Russia about how the war is going, included among the opinion makers. It does not rise to unrest because unrest is outlawed and the law is enforced.

(The discontent among the opinion makers is, admittedly, primarily of the "we should be having this war but the leadership are thieves, morons and cowards" kind rather than "we shouldn't be having this war" kind because expressing discontent of the latter kind as a public person is extra no bueno.)

I do not believe Putin has memories of Operation Barbarossa, he wasn't there. Invocations of WW2 sentiments just sound extremely fake and contrived to me.

That's closer to what hubris means, unlike your initial attempt to apply it to what I said.

I think the word you're looking for is "selfishness".

Hubris would better describe someone who seeks the fruits of power with profound ignorance of how power is claimed and held.

You asked why I responded to you in an emotional way and I answered.

Regarding your view on the world, I won't be sacrificing myself to perpetuate those smarter and more beautiful than me, and that goes double for those whose genius and beauty is only evident to themselves.

Equality is not the same as fairness. I believe those who labor to better the world should be compensated. The potential men who could maybe better the world, but only if they feel like it and also if everyone stops getting in the way, should not be compensated for potential.

I disagree with yours.

One could say that I observe a stable moral-aesthetic superposition between "the world should be fair!" and "the world is unfair, act like it". "The world should be unfair in my favor" is not a part of the superposition.

I don't think I'd make the cut, in no small reason because I'm far from making the cut in the current elite structure.

The emotional reaction you're noticing is in response to the fact that you seem to think you'd make the cut. The_Nybbler has put it better than I could, you don't have the qualities that form the core of any aristocratic class.

My oughts about higher education institutions are different than my oughts about the base structure of society. If you looked for my opinion on something that's even lower stakes, such as competitive gaming, you'd find that it doesn't align with my views on an ideal society either.

It seems so to you because you believe that you're obviously correct and perhaps that you're a natural ally to me, so it must only be "false consciousness" clouding my mind.

One's welcome to not accept it, and I wish him luck in getting more than what he's given. I just don't care for made-up justifications for why he "deserves" more than mere dregs of an upper middle class salary.