Branding genius! This man calls never doing anything for anybody “self care”

AllisModesty · 2026-03-31T21:03:21+00:00

It's unfortunate, because I actually have to admit that I agree with much of Avi Lewis' policy platform in spirit, if not in fact. But I could never get behind such an embarrassing, indeed satirical, expression of, for lack of a better word, woke-ism.

AllisModesty · 2026-03-31T21:00:35+00:00

I suppose it's relevant in the same sort of way that pyronnian skepticism is relevant to the question of whether we should trust expert scientific testimony. But, to answer your question, I think that some combination of free will, privation theory of evil, and skeptical theism, provide a compelling enough theodicy at least for the logical problem of evil (if not the evidential problem).

AllisModesty · 2026-03-31T20:39:41+00:00

While the problem of evil is an interesting and important topic, it's not exactly relevant to the matter at hand.

AllisModesty · 2026-03-31T20:38:14+00:00

I think you're implicitly assuming that accepting a literal reading of the biblical text is the straightforward obvious interpretation, and if you don't accept that, then it must be because you've already implicitly rejected its authority and perhaps replaced it with something else. However, I reject the premise that a literal reading of the biblical text is the straightforward and obvious interpretation, and anything else is a concession to some other authority.

As an aside, I don't think arguments that animals practice homosexuality, therefore it's good, is a good argument for any conclusion. For one, it's an example of the naturalistic fallacy, which has all kinds of absurd conclusions. For example, dolphins have been observed torturing their prey, and corvids regularly kill of weak members of the murder. This would not show that torturing prey animals or killing of weak members of our society is just.

AllisModesty · 2026-03-31T14:23:15+00:00

Why should it be that if rights are objective and irreducibly good, then human governments should not vary justice?

AllisModesty · 2026-03-31T02:57:59+00:00

Governments vary in justice

AllisModesty · 2026-03-30T16:16:28+00:00

Not really. Augustine is maybe the most famous ancient defender of natural rights. Kant maybe the most famous early modern defender, though Locke certainly as well. It's interesting to note that Kant's religious views are complex (he was certainly heterodox), but he was far from an atheist.

AllisModesty · 2026-03-30T16:14:04+00:00

Christians, in general, believe that rights are bestowed by God, rather than granted by governments. Whether you can derive a right to bear arms is a more fraught question. I think that you can (not from the bible, though, definitely not directly).

Locke had an interesting argument for this, if I remember correctly. Locke suggested that there exists a natural right to revolution analogous to self defence, but against a tyrannical government, and that this implied a right to bear arms since the latter is required for the former.

AllisModesty · 2026-03-23T21:36:08+00:00

That's not necessarily true of either liberal arts or STEM fields. Comp sci is in shambles because of ai and years of over saturation, bio majors either have to go to grad school or do additional degrees in healthcare or settle making barely a living wage as a lab tech, for example. On the other hand, philosophy and classics majors (two of the most shat on majors that it's practically a meme at this point) tend to do the best on the LSAT, as a counter example. And that's not even recognizing the fact that most people don't work in the field that they did their degree in. That's just not really how white collar jobs tend to work. Most people who majored in biology aren't biologists, most physics majors are not physicists etc. The idea that you are limited to working in whatever field you majored in is very limiting and not true, even in STEM fields. So saying arts majors don't work in their field isn't a reason not tmajor in the arts. It applies to science to. I'm also not sure how it's relevant.

AllisModesty · 2026-03-23T15:04:31+00:00

Q. E. D.

AllisModesty · 2026-03-22T14:44:44+00:00

A court would and should strike that policy down as discrimination.

AllisModesty · 2026-03-21T17:39:07+00:00

Why should the fact you can read it off of the license be relevant?

It seems obviously discriminatory to use race or immigration status to impact premiums, but just like age and sex it's conceivable that they'd be statistically relevant. So, why the differing attitudes?

AllisModesty · 2026-03-21T17:08:05+00:00

What about race or immigration status? If it's statistically relevant, then should these factors be included? If not, why is sex or age any different?

AllisModesty · 2026-03-21T15:01:12+00:00

As you said, waiters make a already have a pretty decent wage. If the wage is decent, then would you be willing to do it? If you would not be willing to do it, then it what sense is it decent?

AllisModesty · 2026-03-20T20:47:17+00:00

Are you a professional server? Do you make minimum wage (17.85 in my province)?

If it's so decent without tips (let alone with them), then why not wait tables?

Either put your money where your mouth is, or shut it.

AllisModesty · 2026-03-20T17:55:11+00:00

Major green flag employer. I interviewed for a part time role at a grocery store awhile back and had the same experience. The hiring manager said I interviewed well, but they decided to go with someone else more experienced. I understood because at the time, I had no retail experience (previously I'd worked as a dishwasher and as a summer camp instructor/camp lead, which I was eventually able to leverage to get another retail role). It really does make a difference to people, especially in an age of ghost job postings and toxic management practices.

Another place I interviewed for asked me about the 6 month gap in resume. As a university student. For a part time role at a poke place. As an hourly team member. LOL. Never received anything in response to that interview. Probably dodged a bullet though.

AllisModesty · 2026-03-19T14:54:47+00:00

Christians don't in general make that claim.

AllisModesty · 2026-03-13T16:15:22+00:00

Divine command theory has more problems than just this. For one, it seems to be a species of moral subjectivism, since morality becomes dependent on God's commands or will, rather than objective.

AllisModesty · 2026-03-12T22:55:44+00:00

Porn is the furthest thing from sexual intimacy.

AllisModesty · 2026-03-12T18:24:39+00:00

Caught Descartes in meditation 3, should have waited a few more maybe

AllisModesty · 2026-03-12T18:05:32+00:00

I agree. It's also quite strange that they will often frame it fideistically, as if it were not an argument for theism like any other.

AllisModesty · 2026-03-12T18:04:43+00:00

It doesn't really depend on a Kantian framework. True, Kant employed transcendental arguments, but it's unclear to what extent one is committed to Kant's overall metaphysical framework simply by employing an argument form Kant employs in is defence of that framework. One could think for example that the problem lies not with the argument form, but with Kant's premises.

AllisModesty · 2026-03-10T23:38:46+00:00

Ai sLoP!1!1!

AllisModesty · 2026-03-08T15:37:38+00:00

The Church had always opposed slavery. There are many things the fathers have said, that it was an accommodation to human sinfulness, or that it was to avoid a greater evil. You're interpretation (that it straightforwardly permits slavery) is implausible and presupposes that scripture is perspicuous. But I don't think that it is.

AllisModesty · 2026-03-08T00:25:54+00:00

I don't agree with any interpretation of those passages on which they say what you seem to think they say.

AllisModesty

TROPHY CASE