smhost

It's also strange to compare two economies that have vastly different economic strategies, especially by measuring one of the areas where they diverge most strongly.

It's an evolutionary argument. A society that produces the kind of people who value harmful or useless things is not tenable, so societies tend to produce the kinds of people who value helpful things. In the long run, this tendancy is absolute.

Things have value because they help, or at least don't hinder, the reproduction of society.

You've misunderstood your own sources. The Lutheran doctrine of two kingdoms, according to which the church is not a legal entity but which exists in the spiritual kingdom, was a way to protect the church from the law and other secular authorities. This doctrine was then adopted by Calvinists, one way of which is the way that you're talking about.

> this has nothing to do with consent laws, which are entirely a matter for the state.

That's what I've been saying. And it has nothing to do with my point.

> Let us now consider what a church is. A church, then, I take to be a voluntary society of men, joining themselves together of their own accord in order to the public worshipping of God in such manner as they judge acceptable to Him, and effectual to the salvation of their souls.

Where do you see "legally registered organization" in this defintion?

Of course, within existing legal doctrine, "separation of church and state" could only refer to legal technicalities. And that's the whole point I was making, that separation goes both ways. For you to redefine the idea behind separation of church and state in merely legal terms is itself a breach of that separation.

You've contradicted yourself multiple times. You've used the legal categories of rape and child pornography to try to justify the motives of a legal entity. The entire basis of motivation that you yourself have presented is instantiated within the context of a state authority.

The institution of a church in the theological sense has nothing to do with a legally registered organization. The domain of the church, in the sense of "separation of church and state", is in the psychology and interal belief structures of the mass of people. The Enlightenment thinkers who asserted a separation of church and state were not making an assertion about mere legal technicality.

This is just a variation of the ontological argument.

You say there's neither church nor state, but then you cite payment processors and legal consent, which are both constructs that are determined by the state. And the content that's in question is sexual consent. The idea that there should be an additional mind (e.g. a legal mind) regulating the behaviors of sexual participants is an old religious conservative idea.

If you still insist that the church in this sense has no meaning, and that this isn't a question of church and state, then you don't believe that there is fundamentally a problem of church and state at all, which in itself is an old religious conservative idea.

By this logic, separation of church and state doesn't matter to you as long as you can construct some legitimate arguments in favor of theocracy.

While you're gathering data for that counterfactual, you may want to look into how Japanese fascists used mindfulness to transform its army into perfect soldiers.

Why is that funny? It's supposed to be a substitute, not something entirely different altogether.

There's a difference between real charity and a charitable impulse. A charitable impulse is good and it's what's being measured here. Real charity as it exists in our world breeds horrible dependency issues and is responsible for keeping entire continents in a state of forced infancy.

How many more dead bodies do you want to add to your tally for your Hollywood movie moment? They don't want a civil war. How is that not obvious to you?

Have you noticed how quickly Americans discovered that they in fact care so deeply about Muslim lives and Filippino fishermen that they're willing to risk nuclear war and total destruction of its west coast? Ridiculous.

> freedom and democracy

Are you aware that one of the most cliché jokes told outside of the U.S. is some variation of "when an American says democracy, everyone ducks for cover"?

> The only thing US soldiers left us europeans with are a massive influx of refugees

Don't forget the military bases and the half-secret spy networks linked to terrorist attacks.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Gladio

https://www.italy24news.com/local/143373.html

U.S. could have not cynically installed the most pliant pro-American corrupt thugs to be in charge and told the people to obey, after having destroyed their homeland and treated them like idiot children for an entire generation.

> Rejecting accepted definitions in discourse and propaganda has proven intellectually and politically dangerous in the past, even when the redefinition is made honestly and explicitly. Devastating when made dishonestly and opaquely.

And if the accepted definition is already the dishonest and dangerous type?

> there seems to be lots of evidenxe that founders telling stories is valuable, and little evidence that it's not.

Storytelling is common to successful startups and to the mass graveyard of failures. The question isn't whether storytelling is necessary given the way things are done currently (it is necessary, therefore it is necessarily effective), but whether the gap between storytelling and the ground truth is necessary.

Rejecting accepted definitions is fine if you have a purpose for doing it. The problem with Chapman is more that he's very sloppy with his langauge. If you read his blog, you might be left with the impression that Nietzsche is just some simple pseudo-mystical bullshitter, because Chapman doesn't explain Nietzsche's double movement from knowing to unknowing and vice versa. To use Chapman's own taxonomy, what Chapman thinks he's doing is dwelling in the space between meaningfulness and meaninglessness, but he's just being meaningless while expecting Nietzsche to somehow do the heavy lifting. Nietzsche probably would've hated this guy.

you didn't read the article. the author is not making a distinction between intangible value that's useful to the worker vs value that's useful to the customer. they're making a distinction along the axes of intangible/tangible and short/long term, all of which is measured by usefulness to the customer. they're saying to be careful not to destroy long-term intangible value (that's of use to the future customer) in exchange for short term tangible value (also measured by the customer).

What's funny is that the differences in pedagogy is probably a result of that "ideological corruption". Going through the American education system, it's clear to both professors and students alike that the system was designed on the assumption that there should be winners and losers, and that meaningful education is an afterthought. My math professors complained that the way the system worked made it impossible for a student to have continuity in their learning experience, and if you measure the number of A-students in one course who get an A in immedate next course, it's random. They weren't talking about courses that have large conceptual leaps between them. They were talking about first semester calculus vs second semester calculus.

I'm not naturalizing organized violence, you are. I'm talking about the history of one institution and its forms of reproduction. How are you going to "deal" with today's prison system without understanding how it reproduces itself (through the law, through the indoctrination of people such as yourself, etc)?

There are no "lines of evolution" like carcinization for modern policing. They were caused by the same social and political necessities and they serve the same function.

> The actual, intended purpose, in a functioning society, is to {serve fair punishments and rehabilitate, enhance quality of health, etc}.

I'm not sure which history books you've been reading, but modern police were invented in the 17th and 18th centuries as brutal forms of population control. In America, the "actual, intended purpose" was to be a genocidal force that clears the land of Amerindians, to patrol the slaves, to terrorize the workers, and so on. In the South, you can trace the history of police departments directly to Confederate troops, who, immediately after losing the war, rounded up people and threw them in prison on fabricated charges. To a lot of people, it was as if the war never happened. The fact that there was no reign of terror in the south tells you everything you need to know. And the slavery continues to this day. So I have no idea what you mean when you talk about this fantastical "intended purpose".

Maybe these will help

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status_quo_bias

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_to_moderation

noise pollution laws already exist. why wouldn't drones be subject to them?

they're saying it's a sit-in

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sit-in

if by "sort of thing" you mean anything related to industry, then maybe you're right. but this is a claim about a particular technology, not a claim about aggregate capacity. if you're using russia as a point of comparison, this is maybe the one area where it might not be to your advantage, since one of the few things russia excels at is producing and selling nuclear technology. people might not take russia's claims about pig exports too seriously, but people do take seriously their nuclear claims (such as announcements about nuclear icebreakers, or whatever).

yeah, the old clintonites, the sinemas, maybe you can toss mitt romney in there. they're the most powerful political bloc currently, if you're new to politics

> In review, Foreign Policy covers news related to foreign affairs with minimal bias. Headlines are generally free from loaded words, though at times moderate such as this: Bernie Sanders Still Doesn’t Pass the Commander-in-Chief Test (anti-progressive) and this Trump Doesn’t Want to Play Peacemaker (anti-Trump). Both articles use proper sourcing. In general, Foreign Policy leans slightly right in their news coverage but balanced in reporting and well-sourced.

This is hilarious. I wonder if there's a political group that benefits from attacking both these positions.