DreadNaught52

Catholic, contractor.

[DreadNaught52 @DN52000]

@YVrillain @KaiserLoengramm What happened to Lafayette was tragic. What happened to Paine was, well, probably deserved.

[Brian Kemple @realbriankemple]

My brother and his wife would never ask for help themselves, so... me and the rest of my family will ask for them.

https://t.co/YCcRBjc1N5

My sister-in-law, mother of ten, has been struggling with prolonged, severe health issues. She spent about a month in the hospital...

[Hughes de Payens 🇻🇦✝️📿 @hdpayens]

In 450 AD, a pope wrote a letter commanding priests to stop making Christians confess secret sins publicly. His reason: private confession is the apostolic rule.

The common claim is that private confession to a priest was invented in the Middle Ages, maybe at the Fourth Lateran Council, and that the "pure" early Church knew nothing of it.

Pope Leo the Great's letter Magna indignatione says the opposite. Around 450 AD, he learned that some bishops in Campania and Samnium were reading out a list of sins before the congregation and requiring public satisfaction even for secret faults.

Leo was furious. He forbade the practice outright.

His reasoning is remarkable. He called it "against the apostolic rule" to make public what God wanted hidden. Public sins, he said, could be remedied publicly. But secret sins required only private confession to a priest, followed by the priest's judgment on the appropriate satisfaction.

Notice what this assumes rather than argues.

Leo assumes confession to a priest is already the normal channel of forgiveness. He is not introducing it. He is regulating an existing practice, and he appeals to apostolic tradition as its basis.

That is 1,000 years before the supposed medieval invention.

One letter, and the timeline collapses. If private confession was normative in 450 AD, the question is not whether Catholics invented it later. The question is who removed it.

Why do you think this document is so rarely mentioned in these debates?

[Dave Greene @GreeneMan6]

I actually do want to have a dialogue with right wing critics of Christianity. I share many of their complaints with the church.

However, my instinct is that there is something fundamentally wrong with this frame. It arrives once more from the “view from nowhere”, as if man is sitting at the end of history with a stop watch and a caliper measuring the fitness of various deities.

But any Deity worth the name would immediately ask:

“Where for comes this caliper and who sets the time for your watch?”

There is something to the tradition where people have an understanding of God, a priori, as the origin of order and goodness then ask a specific revelation to demonstrate credentials.

AKA: “I am the lord your God who brought you out of Egypt!”

But this is a different conversation to the one going on here. If we were addressing in the question classically, we would be comparing revelations and spiritual experiences, not grading one religion against another standard based on metrics.

[DreadNaught52 @DN52000]

@HerniatedDiscus @EBryceLee @Devon_Eriksen_ @AuronMacintyre I think calling it Christian when it has become explicitly atheistic and secular in nature is a bit of a stretch.

Our ruling philosophy owes far more to enlightenment thinkers than anything to do with the ethics of the church.

[DreadNaught52 @DN52000]

No. Traditional Christian ethics are highly critical of such things as false weights and measures as well as wider ideologies such as marxism.

It's true that you can try to take a passage of the Bible out of context to support almost anything but that's also true of every text ever.

[DreadNaught52 @DN52000]

@Devon_Eriksen_ @AuronMacintyre I'm sure there are dumber takes out there, but this one is up there.

[DreadNaught52 @DN52000]

@reggggiecyde @Devon_Eriksen_ @AuronMacintyre I didn't. But it let him keep his pride, and it compensated me for what I might have done with the money otherwise.

Still, were I to do it again, I would try to insist on no interest, or at least try to lower it. He insisted on paying it, but I still feel like I was greedy.

[DreadNaught52 @DN52000]

She did not "withhold medical aid". This is a falsehood spread because she didn't offer the dying serious medical services and strong painkillers.

But nuns aren't doctors - they don't have the training for serious medical work. And, at the time, India had banned narcotics, so painkillers were unavailable.

No one was helping the people St. Theresa and her sisters helped. The alternative was leaving them to die on the street.

[Vincent 🐈‍⬛ @vincent_maurin]

les gens détestent Elon pour des raisons complètement débiles

pollution, climat, net worth, individualité, etc.

alors que c’est un des types qui fait le plus pour tout

le cybercab :
- moteur sans métaux rares
- voiture plus légère, moins chère à produire
- 100% électrique, zéro CO2 à l’usage
- un seul véhicule qui sert des dizaines de personnes → moins de voitures au total
- dispo jour et nuit, pas d’indisponibilité
- facile d’accès, ultra sécurisé
- ça va faire chuter les morts sur la route de manière massive

starlink :
- internet accessible partout, pour tous

spacex :
- a cassé le prix d’accès à l’espace
- fusées réutilisables, cadences de lancement absurdes
- veut rendre l'espèce multi-planétaire

neuralink :
- déjà utile pour des gens qui ne pouvaient plus bouger / communiquer

X :
- info en temps réel, moins de filtre politique
- a open-source l’algo

énergie :
- défend le solaire au-dessus du reste, devant le nucléaire et le fossile
- pousse une énergie abondante et clean

optimus :
- un robot humanoïde qui peut faire les tâches répétitives / dangereuses

c’est objectivement l'un des plus grand entrepreneur de ce monde et certainement l'une des personnes qui a le plus d'impact positif pour l'espèce

[DreadNaught52 @DN52000]

A serious answer:
Usury is that which is to take advantage of another.

I once had a coworker who had a payday loan on his car. I paid it, and asked him to pay the sum plus 10%, IIRC (far less than the loan company was charging). In the end, he insisted on paying it, to his credit, even though I was willing to accept the principle. Was that usury? Probable not.

Was the payday loan usury? Absolutely. It was designed to escalate into a spiral of debt resulting in the repossession of his only vehicle.

And you may say, well, why shouldn't they have done, if they could do it, for a greater profit?

And I say, I worked with him for years, and even though he doesn't like me, I was his neighbor. I owed him help, because I am a Christian, and he is my neighbor.

As best I understand, as a Catholic, usury is the the use of money to destroy your community for your own benefit.

[DreadNaught52 @DN52000]

Did you even read what I wrote? I'm not defending Clancy, my opinion of her is that she is absolutely sane. She premeditated the attack, she acted methodically - insane people don't do that. I was defending the philosophical basis of the insanity claim.

Nothing I've learned about Clancy makes me think that she was in any way incapable of choice or discerning reality. Even if she was hearing voices (which I really doubt), auditory hallucinations do not force you to do something. Depression does not make you kill your kids. Plenty of people every day try to kill themselves without going on a killing spree.

Dahmer knew what he was doing was wrong, and he tried to hide it. He still did it because he wanted to do it. He enjoyed it, and he decided his enjoyment was more important than people's lives. That's a choice. That's why he was evil. If he'd killed someone and eaten them in public because he was genuinely hallucinating that he was in Hawaii, slaughtering a pig, and holding a BBQ for the neighborhood, that would be insanity. We'd still have to lock him up, but that would be insanity.

Yes, a literal cannibal can be sane. The fact that evil can be stupid and bizarre doesn't mean the perp isn't capable of rational thought. Sanity is about being able to apprehend reality. Wanting to do something disgusting is about desire and will, not sanity.

The problem with the insanity claim is that we've so medicalized every explanation of evil that having the temptation to do something wrong becomes evidence of insanity because "no sane person would do that". That's bullshit - knowing how reality works doesn't change anything about perverse human nature. People will rationalize anything.

As for drunk driving, you are responsible for that if you do it because you chose to drink. Also, many people drink and don't drive. Alcohol doesn't make you drive, you choose to. And if you drink so much that you forget why you shouldn't drive, that was your choice as well.

[DreadNaught52 @DN52000]

Yes. Dahmer knew what he was doing was wrong, and he meant to do it. In fact, he usually had to get himself drunk to psych himself up to do it. Like I said, the insanity defense is often abused.

Insanity is when you cannot recognize reality, and/or you can't make logical connections about your actions. For example, if a man thinks that he can fly, jumps off a building in order to demonstrate it, and injures someone when he falls on them, that's not intentional assault and battery, that's insanity.

EDIT: had to repost because I meant to say yes to begin with and accidentally misread your post. Sorry.

[DreadNaught52 @DN52000]

This is not a defense of Clancy, as I don't believe it applies to her.

Suppose I dosed you with a powerful drug that caused you to act homicidally, like meth can. You don't normally act like that, but you end up harming someone. Is that my fault or yours?

Mine, you'd probably say. You didn't choose to take the drug. Whether something is your choice matters.

What if your bad actions were instead caused by a disease that altered your mental condition, like rabies or a brain tumor? Well, most people would probably admit that that isn't exactly your fault either.

What if it was some defect of the brain?

And that's the insanity defense. If you can show that you normally wouldn't act in such a way, but some physical condition imposed (and imposed, not just affected) itself on you, that takes out the component in justice of "choice".

This comes from our human intuition that humans are not just their bodies, that there is a soul, spirit, or something that is the essence of the person, and it is the choices that that essence makes which are the "real person". That it isn't just to punish someone who did something without full capacity to understand what they are doing and intent to do it. People have understood this in some way since ancient times. The Bible, for example, makes a clear delineation between killing by accident and by intent.

Now, if you bite the bullet on that and decide that humans are just their bodies and no more, then the insanity defense makes no sense. But then, neither does punishment. In that case, men and women are just products of their biology and environment, so the best thing to do is just "fix" them. If we could just implant people with a chip or give them a drug to prevent them from committing crimes, we should just do that and empty the prisons tomorrow.

But most of us understand implicitly that the second idea is not the case, and the logical consequence of that is that some people who commit crimes are not morally culpable for what they did. A woman dosed with GHB and raped did not choose to have sex. A man with mental disabilities who wanders onto a freeway is not guilty of impeding traffic. The insanity defense is a logical consequence of understanding humans as moral agents. Is it abused? Absolutely. But it is still a real concept.

[DreadNaught52 @DN52000]

@GreeneMan6 It is because it is not a vindication of Clancy. It's not "hey, she got away with it". I think that would be much worse, if it convinced women such behavior was not risky.

[Brian Niemeier @BrianNiemeier]

Had a great time talking with @GreeneMan6 tonight about how to take back higher education, publishing, and other cultural power centers.

Many thanks to David for having me on. Excellent conversation.
https://t.co/g2b5JrWbVh

[DreadNaught52 @DN52000]

Considering the absolutely venomous way some women speak about children, I'm pretty sure they will.

Oh, not in the "hiding in the bushes and leaping out to stab someone" sort of way, but in some sort of state-sanctioned way.

After all, I'm pretty sure at least some of the people offering up children to moloch were women.

[pagliacci the hated 🌝 @Slatzism]

one of the most transphobic posts I’ve ever seen and it’s just a tranny casually posting a photo of his bedroom

[Fr. Brendon M. Laroche @padrebrendon]

I cooked a thing. You cn watch this video and learn how to make it. Then, if you’re so inclined, you can donate money to my parish to help us build our parking lot. Or don’t. I’m not your supervisor.

https://t.co/aVA4YeB07D

[Auron MacIntyre @AuronMacintyre]

Haiti is dangerous because Haitians live there

If you move Haitians to America they don't magically become Americans, they just make America more dangerous

That is what we are doing here, protecting our nation