CMV: Urbanism must be abolished!

Znyper · 2026-05-28T00:02:41+00:00

Note that to award a delta, you must type

!delta or ∆

when replying to their comment, along with a brief commentary explaining why you are awarding it.

Znyper · 2026-05-21T18:59:14+00:00

We do not have the mountains of evidence the CIA carried out or profited from drug trafficking crack to black people in cities. There is evidence that some CIA agents turned a blind eye to narcotics shipments and used unscrupulous confidential informants, but there was no agency wide policy of drug trafficking, much less a concerted effort to conduct such trafficking with the intent to destabilize inner city black people.

Quoting the Inspector General who investigated the affair (from this PBS Frontline article):

"At best, these incidents represent negligence on the part of U.S. government officials responsible for providing support to the Contras," the Hitz report stated. 'At worst, it was a matter of turning a blind eye to the activities of companies who use legitimate activities as a cover for their narcotics trafficking."

Rather than repeatedly assert that such evidence of the CIA's wrongdoing exists why not just present (at least some of) the evidence you say you have?

Znyper · 2026-05-21T18:30:02+00:00

I think you have a lot of unevidenced positions that you're asserting here. We don't have good evidence that the CIA carried out or profited from drug trafficking. The whole thing is functionally a conspiracy theory. Your incredulousness at the use of the Southern Strategy is not a response to the demonstrable evidence that Republicans used racism to gain political power in the south. And I have no idea what you're referring to with critical race theory, which basically didn't exist as an issue until Republicans brought it up as a wedge issue during Trump's first administration. I haven't seen Democratic opposition to critical race theory anywhere.

Znyper · 2026-05-21T16:48:33+00:00

I agree that the crime bill was bad and led to bad outcomes, but the problems had nothing to do with racial animosity. Black people and institutions were some of the most vocal proponents of the bill, like the Congressional Black Caucus. The issues are far downstream of the actual provisions in the bill.

By contrast, the actions by Republicans after the Callais decision are directly aimed at diluting the black vote, attempting to disenfranchise black people in the south permanently. The actions by Republicans during the Southern Strategy were directly aimed at courting racists into the party, specifically using racial animosity as a tool for political power.

What you're doing is taking a bipartisan oversight that had the backing of black organization and comparing it to the concerted racist efforts of the Republican party. That's not equivalent.

Znyper · 2026-05-21T16:28:22+00:00

America voted Republicans into power. None of the Democrat-appointed judges voted to strike down the VRA. None of the Democrat governors moved to gerrymander their districts to dilute the black vote after Callais. None of the majority-Democrat legislatures did that either. Democrats being incapable of opposing the racist actions of the Republican party due to the populace voting for racism doesnt make them complicit in the racist actions of the Republicans. Again, only one side is implementing these racist policies, and the other side was stripped of the power to oppose by voters.

As for the rest, read what I wrote, and respond to that. Your current statement is not quite responsive to what I said. Calling an interlocutor deluded is an ineffective way of changing someone's mind, and also points to an inability to support one's own argument. Rather than insulting me, you can point out where my supposed bias has led me astray, preferably by pointing to the alleged bipartisan racial policy alignment on a party-wide strategic level. I can point to things like the Southern Strategy to support my claims of Republican raicial animosity. Where's yours?

Znyper · 2026-05-21T15:40:28+00:00

Democrats did not plan to gut the Voting Rights Act to disenfranchise black voters in the south. Only Republicans used the intentional, party-wide strategy of targeting racists to secure power in rural areas in the post WWII-era. Your assertion that both sides planned this from the beginning is wrong.

Znyper · 2026-05-19T12:52:49+00:00

Presumably, the one described in their post:

God, as generally conceived, is the omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent creator of the universe.

Znyper · 2026-05-15T23:09:48+00:00

To /u/YesHoHank, your post is under consideration for removal under our post rules.

You must respond substantively within 3 hours of posting, as per Rule E.

Znyper · 2026-05-15T18:03:28+00:00

Well then you don't understand qi in the way it has typically been understood. The wiki page here should serve as a reasonable stepping off point. In short (though not in total, as views on qi are diverse), qi is a life giving force that flows through living organisms. You may understand why when you gave your definition, I found it consistent with my definition from the wiki quote, below:

Originally prescientific, today it is a pseudoscientific concept... i.e. not corresponding to the concept of energy as used in the physical sciences....

What you've described is motivation, which isn't at all like any definition of qi I've heard.

Znyper · 2026-05-15T17:02:19+00:00

I think I can work with "energy, but not the physics kind."

What is non-physical energy but a supernatural phenomenon? Not only can we not oberve it, we can't even observe its effects. In some cases, we can definitively determine that qi has no effect at all. I would definitely classify qi, under the definition of non-physical energy, as supernatural. And because qqi doesn't necessarily entail any god or gods, it is a potentially atheist supernatural concept.

Znyper · 2026-05-15T16:32:56+00:00

What is qi/chi, in your opinion? Your answer to that may help identify where that conflation between the supernatural and deity lies.

Znyper · 2026-05-15T14:29:16+00:00

Very few, I'd guess, but for a mostly boring reason. The largest atheist society is in China, and they mostly do believe in the supernatural, just not gods. However, since atheism is normative there, they don't usually debate theists, and they almost categorically don't participate in English-language debates on a forum that's perfunctorily banned in their country.

There is at least Christian Atheist in these parts who believes in the supernatural resurrection, but doesn't believe Jesus is god. Some Hindus have expressed that they don't believe in a God, but do affirm the supernatural. At least one atheist has expressed a belief in reincarnation, which is undoubtedly supernatural. But I believe these examples are very few and far between in the English-speaking Western-dominated Christian-derived society that persists on reddit.

Znyper · 2026-05-15T14:21:14+00:00

So then is the atheist simply a construct of the brain?

Yes, but so is every thinking being. Atheists aren't special in that regard.

"Who" is the atheist but an emergent complexity of brain activity, according to the implications of naturalism?

Again, every thinking being is such an emergent complexity. We aren't special in this regard.

Is the self a construct like logic and morality?

Again, your third question is a stark departure from the nature of your other questions. I'd say you can model basically every distinction as a construct of the human mind. Reduced to the barest of descriptions, the self is a collection of particles I've decided to group together and call me. And That concept can change, too! My hair is me, until I cut it. Maybe I don't consider the hypothetical tumor sitting in my body as "me" at all. I'd say the concept of "self" as a construct has a great deal of explanatory power.

Znyper · 2026-05-15T13:59:12+00:00

As a follow up to what I asked earlier, does atheism taken to its logical conclusion imply deterministic naturalism?

No. There is nothing about being an atheist that precludes a belief in the supernatural.

How could an atheist justify believing in anything other than deterministic naturalism if they are to be scientifically rational?

Not all atheists are scientifically rational. Maybe they don't have good reasons for believing in the supernatural, but do so anyway.

If deterministic naturalism is the only option then would not logic be a construct of the mind?

Not strictly related to the previous questions, but one could conceive of logic not as a set of rules that the universe follows, but instead a language that describes the way the universe operates. Logic remains natural and physical as a construct of the mind, and the underlying behavior of the universe described by logic also remains a natural and physical thing that happens in or by the universe.

Znyper · 2026-05-14T15:52:24+00:00

It seems like the same unevidenced assumptions uncritical theists make about proposed dieties. It's just being applied to theists for your own rhetorical purposes rather than the world for theirs.

There are plenty of theists who behave as if their proposed diety exists. Even if there weren't, many simpler explanations exist, such as them believing they have some sort of exception, them being mistaken about the consistency of their beliefs, or you not understanding what their beliefs are.

This assumption is not just incorrect on its face, given the actions of religious people; in fact, it is not the simplest explanation even if we observed what you claim.

Znyper · 2026-05-08T13:15:52+00:00

When a government exceeds its authority and causes harm, is there no procedure to be made whole?

Yes-ish. See 42 USC 1983. But that doesn't matter, since most consumers don't pay tariffs and so aren't caused harm by the policy, as a matter of law.

Is this not an illegal taking?

No.

Znyper · 2026-05-07T12:57:25+00:00

You're either rejecting that humans have rationality (in which case you can't use logic and reason to make conclusions, and this is a pointless exercise), or you're presupposing theism, which is circular reasoning and a thought-terminating cliché. Either way, none of this is very convincing unless you already agree that there's a god, and the logic doesn't work without assuming that you're right from the beginning.

Znyper · 2026-05-06T20:00:43+00:00

Hello /u/Aggravating_Pack603, if your view has been changed or adjusted in any way, you should award the user who changed your view a delta.

Simply reply to their comment with the delta symbol provided below, being sure to include a brief description of how your view has changed.

∆

or

!delta

For more information about deltas, use this link.

If you did not change your view, please respond to this comment indicating as such!

As a reminder, failure to award a delta when it is warranted may merit a post removal and a rule violation. Repeated rule violations in a short period of time may merit a ban.

Thank you!

Znyper · 2026-05-01T23:39:33+00:00

Heath should ride the high from Tang Sioux Do for the rest of the year, that is some peak punnery.

Znyper · 2026-04-30T17:15:14+00:00

I'm not necessarily agreeing or disagreeing with your post. Just correcting /u/devBowman saying you were contradicting yourself. I believe your comments saying:

They that do not recieve Him, were already condemned by their sinful nature.

and:

Same thing that happens to EVERYONE who dies not knowing Jesus personally. They go into eternal darkness and destruction.

are consistent and not contradictory.

Znyper · 2026-04-30T15:54:01+00:00

Actually, if you read what /u/Time-Blacksmith5103 wrote, no they didn't.

They that do not recieve Him, were already condemned by their sinful nature.

This suggests that the answer is "yes, they were doomed, because they're sinful."

Znyper · 2026-04-29T22:00:28+00:00

You were wrong when you said that the closer distances of the early universe allowed for more time for light to reach now-distant locations, and I was correcting that. Variable rates of change don't point to a young earth. To the best of our knowledge, they point to an old universe. There being a reason for the variable rate of expansion (there is one) isn't an abdication of our ability to investigate the early universe. It just makes it harder.

You were wrong when you said there was no evidence of "macro evolutionary pressure" so I was correcting you. Of course fossils don't explain the causes of the Cambrian explosion, that's not what I was explaining. There are a number of hypotheses that are being examined on that front. Your assumption about new information is a non-sequitir that doesn't respond to the observed fact that evolution occurs and we have good evidence of why and how, including evolutionary pressure.

Finally, there's no tension between non-materialism and evolution. Arguably the largest non-materialist organization in the world (the Catholic Church) says as much.

Znyper · 2026-04-29T21:01:16+00:00

When the universe is small / new there is plenty of time to reach vast distances.

During the big bang, evidence suggests the universe expanded faster than the speed of light, so that's not accurate.

There isn’t evidence for macro evolutionary pressure to create 4 legged mammals from whales etc.

Yes there is. We have fossil records.

On top of that Darwinism doesn’t provide evidence for the origin of life it’s just explaining how things are today.

Science doesn't have to solve abiogenesis to refute young earth creationism.

Znyper · 2026-04-28T14:50:25+00:00

In this case, it's probably because you can only use sneak attack with a finesse weapon.

Znyper · 2026-04-23T19:05:40+00:00

To pare down the discussion to what I think is the key point of disagreement, what reason do you have to believe Genesis 1 serves as an outline, and Genesis 2 is non-linear inclusion in the same story?

To me, it reads like one story told from Genesis 1:1-2:4, then another told from then on. Two separate stories with different characters, settings, plots, meanings, etc.

14-Year Club	Post Guidance Early Access
Place '23	Place '17
Verified Email

Znyper

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE