Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
September 30, 2016, 05:05:18 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

  Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 57
1  General Discussion / Religion & Philosophy / Re: Opinion of GNOSTIC CHRISTIANITY on: Today at 04:57:11 pm
Gnosticism in general, regardless of whether it is Christian, is a horrible religion that only pseudo-intellectual snobs could love.

If you love Gnosticism, you are something much more than a pseudo-intellectual. In fact, you might just be an intellectual, to the exclusion of all else.
2  General Discussion / Religion & Philosophy / Re: The Mormonism Thread 2.0 on: Today at 04:49:21 pm
How do Mormons feel about Freemasonry?
3  General Discussion / Religion & Philosophy / Re: Opinion of Julius Evola on: September 28, 2016, 08:04:43 pm
Also, Traditionalism > parochialism.

I don't know how to take this sentence.

Traditionalism: "The high cultures and esoteric traditions of the world contribute variously to the same path of enlightenment."

Parochialism: "My cultural heritage is unique and is worth preserving unchanged because it makes me unique."
4  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Has Glenn Beck lost it? on: September 27, 2016, 01:55:36 pm
It's no coincidence that someone who bought into Ted Cruz believes that "the idea of america" was ever something that most Americans believed in. The man is functionally incapable of distinguishing image from reality.
5  General Discussion / Religion & Philosophy / Re: Opinion of Julius Evola on: September 26, 2016, 08:57:19 pm
Freedom Fighter for the humor value.

Also, Traditionalism > parochialism.
6  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Should incest between siblings be legal? on: September 11, 2016, 12:26:00 pm
Well, I don't think you can argue against it on eugenic grounds, unless you want to keep mentally/physically handicapped people from having relationships as well.
7  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: If you were a Muslim woman, would you wear a hijab? on: September 06, 2016, 03:08:04 pm
Besides, the idea that human beauty is an expression of God's goodness has very disturbing implications.

Perhaps... but I can only think of positives.

Really?

I suppose that a cynical person could accuse unattractive people of being cursed by heaven, but then one would just have to point out that only good things flow from God.

If a person is physically ugly, it's a punishment for sin (slothfulness, gluttony, lust), or the persecution of Satan.

Hmm, interesting that you'd say that.

Does being able to afford to get work done in the name of beauty a sign of the morals of capitalism? Those who produce, the most moral?

Producing beauty may be humanity's purest moral action, as it brings unequivocal joy into the lives of others. Historically, a certain economic necessity has put a stop to the infinite multiplication of the beautiful, but in an ideal world, "those who produce" would be a synonym for "those who produce beauty"; one of the crimes of capitalism is that it perpetuates an artificial poverty, thereby putting off the realization of such a world. 
8  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: If you were a Muslim woman, would you wear a hijab? on: September 06, 2016, 12:47:08 pm
^ The sage is strong in this one.

That cuts deep, bro.
9  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: John Brown vs. George Washington vs. Nelson Mandela vs. Jesus Christ on: September 06, 2016, 06:59:38 am
Jesus: a cult leader who railed against the rich and was deemed a traitor by the government

Mandela: a great leader in race relations who ended Apartheid with a truly moving story

Explain to me how Jesus is better?

Jesus didn't just rebel against the rich: he rebelled against the whole priestly system of morality.

To this day, "the Sabbath was created for man, not man for the Sabbath" remains the most subversive statement ever uttered.
10  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: If you were a Muslim woman, would you wear a hijab? on: September 06, 2016, 06:48:17 am
If a person is physically ugly, it's a punishment for sin (slothfulness, gluttony, lust), or the persecution of Satan.

That's ridiculous.

The fact that you think so means that you haven't let Satan tempt you into vanity.

+1 for you, my friend.

I don't think that's what it means.

I was trying to be optimistic.
11  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: If you were a Muslim woman, would you wear a hijab? on: September 05, 2016, 09:19:24 pm
If a person is physically ugly, it's a punishment for sin (slothfulness, gluttony, lust), or the persecution of Satan.

That's ridiculous.

The fact that you think so means that you haven't let Satan tempt you into vanity.

+1 for you, my friend.
12  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: If you were a Muslim woman, would you wear a hijab? on: September 05, 2016, 04:43:16 pm
Besides, the idea that human beauty is an expression of God's goodness has very disturbing implications.

Perhaps... but I can only think of positives.

Really?

I suppose that a cynical person could accuse unattractive people of being cursed by heaven, but then one would just have to point out that only good things flow from God.

If a person is physically ugly, it's a punishment for sin (slothfulness, gluttony, lust), or the persecution of Satan.
13  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: If you were a Muslim woman, would you wear a hijab? on: September 05, 2016, 03:53:07 pm
Human beauty is an expression of God's goodness, and teaching people that they should be ashamed of their beauty is immoral.

Is that a more valid argument?

Yes, except for the fact that it presupposes that hijabi women are or should be acting out of shame. Surely some are--again, I don't buy the 'hijabi is intrinsically liberating and secretly feminist!' argument either--but it hardly strikes me as fair to claim that all are.

I'm sure the hijab can serve as a Muslim equivalent to the crucifix or the yarmulke, but the fact that it's only worn by women, and that it's specifically designed to cover parts of women's bodies that man find attractive, leads to me to believe that symbolism is more of a secondary factor.

Besides, the idea that human beauty is an expression of God's goodness has very disturbing implications.

Perhaps... but I can only think of positives.
14  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: If you were a Muslim woman, would you wear a hijab? on: September 04, 2016, 06:31:40 pm
If I were a Muslim woman, I'd be too busy being absolutely beautiful to join this useless forum and answer your inane questions.

That's actually a pretty good answer. Although it also implies that you wouldn't wear one.

Excuse me!? *slap*

Arab and especially Persian women usually have beautiful hair though. Obscuring that with a hijab is pretty wrong and repressive. Not that most Arab and Persian-American women do of course.

I'm not fond of arguments that hijab is oppressive in general (although I also don't buy that it's intrinsically liberating; it strikes me as one of those things that is what you make of it), but at least such arguments tend to be more valid than 'if part of a woman is physically attractive, it's wrong and repressive to cover it'.

Human beauty is an expression of God's goodness, and teaching people that they should be ashamed of their beauty is immoral.

Is that a more valid argument?
15  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Opinion of the "Polyamorous community" on: September 03, 2016, 12:54:31 pm
And don't people sometimes submit themselves to relationships for reasons other than romantic attraction? I mean, let's be honest here: we don't think that Brigham Young could have procured 55 wives if he were just a blacksmith, do we?

They do, but not often to the detriment of their long-term well-being. Yes, you can pluck some examples from history or even recent history, but virtually every situation has outliers that are troublesome. What you're saying is basically the wholesale deregulation of the economy and to be honest I don't feel the need to say why that would be a terrible idea. It's not really even a proper equivalency here. You can't compare the crushing poverty the 99% would face in such conditions to a few people who want to engage in a polyamorous relationship...

Amusingly, I think that the opponents of polyamory would say the same thing about that peculiar institution.

I'm not really advocating for it, I'm just saying people should have the option and shouldn't be judged so harshly for it. Obviously I am not a fan of Warren Jeff-type situations where there is rampant abuse or what have you. It wouldn't be fair to compare all polyamorous relationships to that or other prolific cases of abuse.

So, the argument isn't one of principle, but one of consequentialism. In that case, you may very well be in the right: as long as polyamory remains a fringe of a fringe, it probably does harm than good to discriminate against it.

I just wish that people would refrain from invoking moral principles when they aren't willing to follow them to their logical conclusion.
16  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Opinion of the "Polyamorous community" on: September 03, 2016, 12:14:30 pm
More like, people agreeing to work for eighty hours a week, in unsafe working conditions, for five dollars an hour. By what right does the government pass moral judgement on such an arrangement?

Because no doubt many people would find themselves with no other option but to enter into such poor work conditions/compensation.

And don't people sometimes submit themselves to relationships for reasons other than romantic attraction? I mean, let's be honest here: we don't think that Brigham Young could have procured 55 wives if he were just a blacksmith, do we?

Quote
We've been through this before - it didn't work out.

Amusingly, I think that the opponents of polyamory would say the same thing about that peculiar institution.
17  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Opinion of the "Polyamorous community" on: September 03, 2016, 11:26:35 am
So, if all consensual sexual relations are unimpeachable, then all consensual economic relations...?
What makes you think sexual relations are similar to economic relations?

That, apparently, the same logic underlies both.

So, if all consensual sexual relations are unimpeachable, then all consensual economic relations...?

What, like say, drug deals?

More like, people agreeing to work for eighty hours a week, in unsafe working conditions, for five dollars an hour. By what right does the government pass moral judgement on such an arrangement?
18  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: Wulfric Rules of Socialist Identification on: September 03, 2016, 10:40:08 am
If one becomes a socialist, are their next three generations of offspring also considered socialists?

Aye, but if a person recants, their descendants shall be free from the charge of socialism, even unto the fortieth generation.
19  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Opinion of the "Polyamorous community" on: September 03, 2016, 10:02:36 am
So, if all consensual sexual relations are unimpeachable, then all consensual economic relations...?
20  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Who would you vote for: a social justice warrior or a white nationalist? on: September 03, 2016, 07:44:19 am
This is a very loaded question.  To what extreme are these fellows?  Social justice is a good thing but is used in bad ways like promoting the dangers of socialism and communism.  White nationalism has no place in this country.
No, social justice is not a good thing. Social justice is collectivism - it's all about the rights of the collective, not the rights of the individual. Social justice is incompatible with American values and traditions.

"values and traditions" is the epitome of collectivism, bud.
21  General Politics / Political Debate / Re: Can one be a pro-choice social conservative? on: August 30, 2016, 08:58:14 pm
Honestly we would have a much calmer well ordered society if better sex ed and free contraception was available.  I simply don't see how having a bunch of broke uneducated people spitting out babies in tumultuous relationships makes society more "conservative".

Here's your answer (and I'm surprised that someone with the username "mencken" couldn't have come up with it on his own).
22  General Politics / Political Debate / Re: Do you support open borders? on: August 30, 2016, 03:26:59 pm
But at some point you have to confront the artificiality of it all, right? We correctly decry the Soviet's and Chinese restrictions on internal migration as well as the shoddy justifications behind Apartheid South Africa's bantustans; but surely these criticisms (moral and economic) can just as easily be applied to the global order?

The nation-state was not built for the current world we live in. Every day we see the same inherent contradictions of trying to (to borrow Stalin's phrase) build socialism in one country. Capital flight, races to the bottom, the inherent wastefulness of sprawling militaries, the worthlessness and dead-ends of protectionism.

If putting an end to capital flight, races to the bottom, sprawling militaries, and protectionism really were in all peoples' interest, then nation states would put an end to them; what keeps them from doing so is the reality that we care more about the success of people who are "like us" than the success of people who aren't. Now if you believe that regional differences are accidents of history, that no one way of life is better than any other, this argument is likely to make you support open borders all the more, as your desire is to see humanity made homogeneous. However, if you believe that traditional conceptions of the good life have a lot to teach us about how to live, and that the state (in its purest form) is designed to facilitate such a tradition, then you will not want to see the state deprived of its integrity.

Quote
You also ignore my very first post. I don't advocate shock therapy in really any scenario. I would seek to gradually abolish restrictions on immigration, while also forcing through the mandatory protections that everybody on earth should have as their birthright. i don't even object to the idea of a surtax on migrant workers (paid by employers) for the necessary infrastructure needed to support them. I certainly don't think there is societal collapse, any more than the U.S. is in a state of societal collapse, because hypothetically everybody in Puerto Rico, Missisippi, Detroit and West Virginia could move to NYC. Imagine taking it the other way, and saying that either Missisippi or NYC would be improved by regulating internal migration. It would be crazy!

The reason that Mississippians don't move to New York is that doing so wouldn't improve their economic standing (or if it did, it wouldn't do so by much). However, even if Mississippians did move to New York, their cultures are similar enough (in spite of what someone from either place might tell you!) that assimilation would not be hard. What I find disconcerting about your vision is that you want to make everyone in the whole world - from the Inuit of Greenland to the San of Namibia - as similar to one another as the Mississippian is to the New Yorker.

This seems crazy to me. You're effectively saying individuals should be subservient to their cultures, enough to bury their own personal identity. Why shouldn't an Inuit or Namibian break away from their culture if they chose to do so? What if they personally identify along a non ethnic barrier? I don't seek to homogenise humanity - I think we are strengthened by our diversity as a species - but, to the contrary, I feel our variety is limited by playing ourselves in these basic rigid constructions. What if, upon opening up the barriers of society, we began to sort ourselves in ways that make more sense to us?

Your first point is weird as well. You think because something hasn't happened yet, it is impossible?

Here's my point: each culture has a unique idea of "the good life", and while many social institutions exist to support that idea, it's the government's job to support it in a way that only the government can. Of course, people are allowed to question traditional ideals - in fact, I would encourage them to do so! And if an Inuit finds that he can neither live with his cultural inheritance nor change the way it's practiced, I would encourage him to move in with whatever people practice a way of life that he finds amenable. However, if states lose the power to maintain their cultural integrity, no one would even be able to make that choice, because life in all places would lose its unity. And I think that that would be sad.
23  General Politics / Political Debate / Re: Do you support open borders? on: August 30, 2016, 12:31:29 pm
But at some point you have to confront the artificiality of it all, right? We correctly decry the Soviet's and Chinese restrictions on internal migration as well as the shoddy justifications behind Apartheid South Africa's bantustans; but surely these criticisms (moral and economic) can just as easily be applied to the global order?

The nation-state was not built for the current world we live in. Every day we see the same inherent contradictions of trying to (to borrow Stalin's phrase) build socialism in one country. Capital flight, races to the bottom, the inherent wastefulness of sprawling militaries, the worthlessness and dead-ends of protectionism.

If putting an end to capital flight, races to the bottom, sprawling militaries, and protectionism really were in all peoples' interest, then nation states would put an end to them; what keeps them from doing so is the reality that we care more about the success of people who are "like us" than the success of people who aren't. Now if you believe that regional differences are accidents of history, that no one way of life is better than any other, this argument is likely to make you support open borders all the more, as your desire is to see humanity made homogeneous. However, if you believe that traditional conceptions of the good life have a lot to teach us about how to live, and that the state (in its purest form) is designed to facilitate such a tradition, then you will not want to see the state deprived of its integrity.

Quote
You also ignore my very first post. I don't advocate shock therapy in really any scenario. I would seek to gradually abolish restrictions on immigration, while also forcing through the mandatory protections that everybody on earth should have as their birthright. i don't even object to the idea of a surtax on migrant workers (paid by employers) for the necessary infrastructure needed to support them. I certainly don't think there is societal collapse, any more than the U.S. is in a state of societal collapse, because hypothetically everybody in Puerto Rico, Missisippi, Detroit and West Virginia could move to NYC. Imagine taking it the other way, and saying that either Missisippi or NYC would be improved by regulating internal migration. It would be crazy!

The reason that Mississippians don't move to New York is that doing so wouldn't improve their economic standing (or if it did, it wouldn't do so by much). However, even if Mississippians did move to New York, their cultures are similar enough (in spite of what someone from either place might tell you!) that assimilation would not be hard. What I find disconcerting about your vision is that you want to make everyone in the whole world - from the Inuit of Greenland to the San of Namibia - as similar to one another as the Mississippian is to the New Yorker.
24  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Should underage male (non-medical) circumcision be banned? on: August 25, 2016, 02:04:48 pm
It's not as if there's no precedent for adult circumcision (see: Father Abraham).
25  General Politics / Political Debate / Re: Do you support the death penalty? If so, in what cases? Why or why not? on: August 25, 2016, 02:04:04 pm
You're still missing the point, my friend.
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 57


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines