Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
Religion / Philosophy Talk / Re: Should Confessions be protected?
« Last post by Andrew Clunn on Today at 04:59:02 AM »
I was unaware that clergy's immunity is greater than that of spousal immunity.  If that's indeed the case, then I am all for having it reduced to equivalent levels.
No difference for the average human or canine but for the enlightened it's a step closer to Nirvana.

So no use for you then.
A lifestance would be a kind of worldview that is not a religion, but similar to it. The humanist movement tries to present humanism as a lifestance to be an alternative to religion.

Again, why should I give a rotten rat's rectum what the humanist movement thinks?

Because that's what the question is about? Why are you posting here unless you care about what the humanists think?
Probably greater achievements exist compared to cell phone technology.

Which is why I added space exploration. Probably mankind's greatest technological achievement.
Though you have to admit having a GPS system in your pocket is a pretty amazing consequence of the Theory of Relativity and totally unforeseen until many decades after Einstein came up with it.

We have no way of knowing what effect the discovery of Gravitational Waves will have on future technologies and science.
Right.  Gravitational waves are unlikely to change our world one way or another.  The grandest discoveries in the cosmos, if they are more than mathematical probabilities or a perception  have always been there. 

Pens that write in an upright position are great but so are pencils

No difference for the average human or canine but for the enlightened it's a step closer to Nirvana.
Who are the enlightened?

How does it bring them closer to Nirvana?

What would distinguish a mental universe from a material universe?
Religion / Philosophy Talk / Re: Should Confessions be protected?
« Last post by arthwollipot on Today at 04:38:08 AM »
I'm really shocked to hear that. Can anyone show me an official church resource that would indicate that we haven't misinterpreted this?

What you're looking for is the 1983 Code of Canon Law:

Can. 983 — § 1. Sacramentale sigillum inviolabile est; quare nefas est confessario verbis vel alio quovis et quavis modo de causa aliquatenus prodere paenitentem.

My high school Latin (and Google Translate) isn't that great, but this basically says "The seal of the sacrament is involable, therefore it is a crime for the confessor to betray the seal in any way".

Can. 1388 — § 1. Confessarius, qui sacramentale sigillum directe violat, in excommunicationem latae sententiae Sedi Apostolicae reservatam incurrit; qui vero indirecte tantum, pro delicti gravitate puniatur.

"A confessor who directly betrays the seal of the sacrement incurs a direct and immediate excommunication reserved for the Apostolic See, but he who does so indirectly shall be judged according to the severity."
Podcast Episodes / Re: Episode #553
« Last post by 2397 on Today at 04:29:12 AM »
If the robot needs everything to be exactly in place, it sounds inevitable that there will be cascading and escalating errors, without constant maintenance. A.k.a. entropy.
General Discussion / Re: Real True Science Facts
« Last post by arthwollipot on Today at 04:22:39 AM »
I'm nor sure how these could be used educationally.  Most of them are not logical fallacies, they are just lies.

They are truthy sounding lies. They make people question what they read on Facebook and encourage them to look things up for themselves. How many times do we hear complaints that people believe everything they see on Facebook? These are clearly untrue things that superficially appear like true things, and they make people think.

And that's a Good Thing, right?
A lifestance would be a kind of worldview that is not a religion, but similar to it. The humanist movement tries to present humanism as a lifestance to be an alternative to religion.

Again, why should I give a rotten rat's rectum what the humanist movement thinks?


You're very forgiving of the extremists on "your side". (We agree about them being childish.) You are quick to oppose any notion that your side has any responsibility or connection to them. But you do not extend that consideration to the other side.

I consider myself an egalitarian. After all... it's not only men's rights that I'm interested in. People started calling me MRA long before I called myself one. Eventually it started to feel like a stretch, to say "I'm not an MRA but". At a certain point, when enough peope call you something, you reach for the middle finger, and start to call yourself that. It happens enough that you might say, it's a phenomenon. Some groups/people name themselves. Others are named by others. And it seems to be a complex matter, which names stick, and which fall away.

And so the more people you dismiss, or condemn as MRA, they more likely that they will call themselves MRA. The more feminists take oppositional stances on men's equality issuess, the more egalitarians will consider themselves anti-feminist, the more comfortable they become with the term MRA. And frankly, I would prefer that the reasonable people band together as egalitarians, and leave the genders terms behind.

Yes. MRA, and feminist are both self-applied by groups, and individuals. And they are both used as a pejorative by opposers. I try to acknowledge the existence of equality-feminism by saying "RadFem", when I remember. But RadFem is doing all they can to excommunicate and delegitimize equality-Feminism.

SJW is certainly used more as a pejorative, than it is self-applied. The word "warrior" is a snarky, cutting description of the attitude it spdescribes. It makes sense that few people would want to call themselves that, and that the barrier would be high. But self-application is growing, as you've observed above.

And it is a badly needed term, to describe the intersection where RadFem, Leftist Islamism, Anti-white Race bating, "Heterophobia", "Cisphobia", Post-Modernism, Victim Culture, and Social Marxism collide, in a nexus of hypocrisy. A pejorative term seems appropriate for this phenomenon.

Perhaps there should be a term, for somone who advocates for a related issue social, in a sincere, non-hypocritical way. Can someone suggest one?

I haven't forgiven or minimized TERFs or whoever you think is on my side. It would make sense to claim that the extremists who don't believe what i believe aren't on my side, though, as this isn't a two-front war. I don't need to ally with the TERFs and tankies any more than I need to allied with the 'berts and MRAs. In fact what I have done is repeatedly point out that the core of the MRA is still and has historically been about pushing back against feminism rather than about pushing for men's rights.

You've been the one who goes from complaining about RadFems to femsinists, tarring all with the same brush, and teying to shove the TERFs under the feminism blanket and describe Sommers as the Real Feminist, while trying to disavow all the major MRA groups and their anti-feminist agenda, from AVFM to Reddit to the top 10 list you linked that still listed feminism as a bigger issue for MR than unequal sentencing.

There's no need for a single term to encompass things like "leftist-Islamism" and cisphobia because they don't exist (cue frantic googling and links to Tumblr blogs as sources of authority, or Breitbart) in the real world. They're things the reactionaries made up. Same with anti-white race baiting. "Anti-White" is some Stormfront bullshit, and has no connection to the other made-up stuff like heterophobia.

Aside from maybe radical feminism and post nodernism, those things don't exist. Terrified neoreactionaries made them up so they could feel like they were the underdogs fighting for justice instead of admitting that there are real problems in the world that stem from demonizing members of a religion for the actions of people a world away, or from the way we treat survivors of rape and abuse, or from trying to correct and alleviate the issues of systemic racism and sexism.

How you managed to link all those things together eludes me, but worse is the proposed guilt-by-association of trying to come up with one label for all of it so you could smear the whole thing on someone like dogshit. Worse yet, you're trying to set up a bidirectional battle. That shit doesn't exist. Equality is not a zero-sum game.

That line of thinking is disgustingly illogical, and I would urge you to take a long hard look at where that came from and what's influencing it. It's certainly not an objective look at the world. That kind of zero-sum bidirectionality is where the Tumblr children I mentioned in another post and their mirror numbers on r/KIA to come to the idea that Those Who Disagree Must Be Destroyed (praise be ethics in video game journalism) because tearing them down will lift us up.

That's how children think. That's how petty little children rationalize attacking others, whether it's because they feel better about themselves or because they think they can really get a leg up by bullying others, it's not a rational approach and it's not an approach of equality either. I don't care if it's SCUMM or Marx or Neitzche, you don't achieve equality by war and destruction.

Complaining about cis/hetphobia and anti-white racebaiting, then including victim culture in the same paragraph is so lacking in self-awareness on a level that would make Deadpool's brain hurt.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10