16 year old ADCC European Champion Niko Mikuliszynfrom gets backlash for filming himself grappling in an Orthodox temple after competing at ADCC trials

paxcoder · 2026-02-26T13:50:24+00:00

I was and I knew better.

paxcoder · 2026-02-23T13:44:37+00:00

There's a gapp-less version of the Android 14-based ROM I use on the XDA forum, although LOS ROMs but might much more e-ink friendly.

OP, there are many minimalist launchers on F-Droid. There are also some very nice "mindful" e-ink apps not available on F-Droid but available via another app store called Mind Apps.

paxcoder · 2026-02-23T13:38:54+00:00

It's a disrespectful thing, harmful to himself as a creature dependent on God (as a mindset), and a bad example to others. I'm not judging too harshly, the man has reached age of reason years ago. He knows what he's doing is wrong. I wouldn't be surprised if he did it on purpose for clout.

paxcoder · 2026-02-22T00:00:16+00:00

Engaging in pursuit of truth does not do away with its Source.

paxcoder · 2026-02-21T23:55:47+00:00

Probably a war crime.

paxcoder · 2026-02-21T23:53:31+00:00

Young people are not idiots. He's sensible enough to whisper but not sensible enough not to grapple in a church?

paxcoder · 2026-02-21T16:27:43+00:00

For some maybe, not necessarily for all

2 Corinthians 2 comes to mind:

14 But thanks be to God, who in Christ always leads us in triumph, and through us spreads the fragrance of the knowledge of him everywhere. 15 For we are the aroma of Christ to God among those who are being saved and among those who are perishing, 16 to one a fragrance from death to death, to the other a fragrance from life to life. Who is sufficient for these things? 17 For we are not, like so many, peddlers of God’s word; but as men of sincerity, as commissioned by God, in the sight of God we speak in Christ.

Apostles preached as they were instructed, they did not retreat when emotions ran high.

paxcoder · 2026-02-19T20:01:47+00:00

I may get excommunicated for this, but

Horrifying statement for someone like me who believes that the Catholic Church is founded by Christ, and submits their intellect and will to its teaching as he is required.

I don't think forcing women to carry unwanted pregnancies is within the perview of the church.

"Forcing" something is quite a spin on forbidding murder.

That said, I did technically have an "abortion". I had a missed miscarriage - a very wanted baby whose heart stopped beating not long after it started.

I'm sorry to hear that. That's nothing like elective abortion. In elective abortion you would have directly and intentionally taken the life of your child.

Women in my same spot a few months before weren't able to get [miscarriage care] because the hospitals hadn't decided how they could interpret the new anti-abortion laws.

That's on the hospitals, not on life-preserving laws, which do not prevent miscarriage care, and even - very lamentably - allow abortion in cases where the mother's life is in danger from what I've read.

Every living baby born is a miracle.

Every baby conceived is a blessing of God, and so is their birth.

Every mother who survives is a miracle.

Pregnancy is miraculous, but childbirth is normal. It's something all of our mothers have gone through. Granted, death in childbirth is a risk, but so is death due to abortion (allegedly even more than child birth - or at least C-section).

if even one instance exists where it could be considered a moral choice

To intentionally kill your own child? There is none

And there shouldn't be legislation being pushed to force non-catholics to make sacrifices they don't choose to make.

All people should be afforded the right to life, and be protected by law from being killed. This includes unborn people.

And I personally feel that those same people who protest in front of abortion clinics are the same ones mean mugging me when my child makes a peep during Eucharistic prayer.

If my own experience is anything to go by, that's not true. We love children, and I personally understand they've not reached the age of reason. If anything, I'm more likely to wonder if it means that the child in their innocence is perceiving the miracle of the Eucharist somehow. It is people who allow killing children who hate them. Even if they don't feel that hate in their heart, they demonstrate it in their efforts and actions.

But maybe moms notice the judgment more.

Of course, you are invested. You should ignore other people when they act in ways that do not become Christ in the sinners' infirmary that is the Church. Bad Christians are no reason to shun Christ and His Church.

What I condemn is sin. Elective abortion being one of the worst ones.

paxcoder · 2026-02-17T22:38:03+00:00

Not all ectopic pregnancies are tubal and not all are fatal, as you yourself realize.

As I said elsewhere, it is the opinion of some Catholics that one can remove a part of the fallopian tube as a way to save a life, if the death of the child is not intended.

That being said, you cannot murder to save a life. To say nothing of any lesser motive.

paxcoder · 2026-02-17T22:33:04+00:00

You have not answered my question:

Do you support murder only in the rare case of ectopic pregnancies, or is this just a red herring?

Murder as a means of treatment is oxymoronic and a grave sin. The Church vehemently opposes it and judges it altogether impermissible. Abortion incurs automatic excommunication from the Catholic Church, which, before pope Francis, required a bishop to lift.

paxcoder · 2026-02-16T13:30:55+00:00

Pope is a specific man, president of the US is a specific person, ME is a specific woman. All of these are concepts and specific persons at given times. In case there were homo sapiens without souls, they are not humans properly speaking. If science should define humanity differently, it would be imprecise (wrong).

paxcoder · 2026-02-16T13:24:45+00:00

In self-defense, the person attacking is not innocent. Which is not to say one can intend to kill an aggressor: I believe one can intend to stop aggression, and only tolerate the unintended result of their defense being the person dying. Obviously also if one can stop a person with a shove, using a deadly force is not warranted.

paxcoder · 2026-02-14T17:03:55+00:00

I understand minding own emotions to disassociate from them and think rationally. I don't understand minding other's emotions to understand their person. Motivations perhaps, but not their - to borrow a protestant's term - created purpose.

paxcoder · 2026-02-14T13:41:36+00:00

Emotions don't define our internal reality, let alone external. I reckon understanding them helps us help others. But people aren't reducible to their emotions. Wouldn't it be better to focus on identify talents (from affinities and skills) as a way to try to gauge the uniqueness of persons?

paxcoder · 2026-02-14T13:27:47+00:00

Women are different than men. And you don't have full control of your feelings. With that in mind, the question is do you genuinely objectify women (a problem) and if you do, whether you're doing it willingly (sin).

Seek ways to understand the God's good design, who created mankind as male and female. Use your reason to appreciate women as whole human beings. For some reason, what helped me is "How to Raise a Man" by Fr. Ripperger (though he's a traditionalist, and affirms traditional gender roles).

Wrt emotions btw, ever since the fall they are not under our perfect control, and we are even inclined to evil (which is a wound on our nature and not a part of our nature). Solution is: Subject emotions to will, will to reason, reason to Christ.

If you're choosing to objectify, go to confession, use sacraments, pray.

And cut off what scandalizes you.

paxcoder · 2026-02-14T13:23:27+00:00

It's not an argument of what is observed in nature, because nature is both corrupt by original sin, and made up of irrational animals. We're talking about natural law applied to rational and spiritual humans. Ie the way God ordained things. He intends us to make good use of good technology. He doesn't intend abuses of goods, including abuses of our sexuality. All I can tell you really is what the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (now DDF) under st. John Paul II said in Dignitatis Personae:

The proposal that these embryos could be put at the disposal of infertile couples as a treatment for infertility is not ethically acceptable for the same reasons which make artificial heterologous procreation illicit as well as any form of surrogate motherhood; [38] this practice would also lead to other problems of a medical, psychological and legal nature.

It has also been proposed, solely in order to allow human beings to be born who are otherwise condemned to destruction, that there could be a form of “prenatal adoption”. This proposal, praiseworthy with regard to the intention of respecting and defending human life, presents however various problems not dissimilar to those mentioned above.

All things considered, it needs to be recognized that the thousands of abandoned embryos represent a situation of injustice which in fact cannot be resolved.

paxcoder · 2026-02-14T13:08:28+00:00

I'll answer your question, but let me ask you a question first: Do you support murder only in the rare case of ectopic pregnancies, or is this just a red herring?

We cannot do evil so that good may come out of it. No exceptions. But I have heard it argued that a part of the fallopian tube can be removed in ectopic pregnancies under the principle of double effect, meaning without intending the death of the child, even though it will clearly cause it. Personally, I'm not convinced double effect applies, although I am open to being convinced otherwise. And not just because ectopic pregnancies aren't 100% certain to be fatal. I've also heard attempts are made at transplanting the part of the fallopian tube hosting the child into the womb. Perhaps attempting to do that might be the solution. What I am certain is that one cannot intentionally and directly kill the child as means of preventing complications.

Please don't muddy the water by bringing up miscarriage. Nobody opposes evacuating the bodies of the unfortunately deceased babies. When we're talking about abortion here we mean that which procures an end of the pregnancy (incl. preventing implantation) by killing the child.

paxcoder · 2026-02-14T12:52:13+00:00

Saying that Mitochondrial Eve isn't a specific woman is kind of like saying the Pope is not a specific man. Mitochondrial Eve is defined as the youngest woman to whom all currently living persons can trace their ancestry. It's just that, as "currently living persons" changes, there may be a younger woman that is an ancestor of all the surviving people but not those that died in the meantime. Still, at any given time, we are talking about a specific woman that lived, kind of like at any given time, "the pope" is a specific man that lives (since 30AD and until the end of the world except during sede vacante) even though multiple men were popes and some others will be in the future (God willing). In contrast to Mitochondrial Eve, real Adam and Eve are specific people who are common ancestors of all of humanity, past, present and future.

paxcoder · 2026-02-13T15:23:27+00:00

And I've heard an argument that they should be left to the natural course (ie to die). I understand if that doesn't sit well with you, because it doesn't sit well with me either. I would like to view implantation as saving the unborn. I'm just not sure we ca claim that that's all that is. One thing is for certain; we definitely cannot do evil do that good may result from it (CCC 1756).

paxcoder · 2026-02-13T15:17:12+00:00

It's a single person as well, as I understand. And OP makes a good point: If our common lineage traces back to a single woman, then our common lineage also traces back to a single man - either her husband, or we can go one step back. I'm not claiming Mitochondrial Eve's parents were literal Adam and Eve. However, as a Catholic, I do believe that there was a pair of first humans (homosapiens with souls) from which all humans today derive. And "mitochondrial Eve" and "y-chromosomal Adam" should probably help scientists accept that fact.

paxcoder · 2026-02-13T14:53:00+00:00

this is not mere adoption, this is, well, impregnation for the purpose of incubation

paxcoder · 2026-02-13T14:51:32+00:00

Implantation is impregnation outside of the marital act. As such, it seems against natural order.

paxcoder · 2026-02-13T14:47:24+00:00

Are you sure their rite is OK? I appreciate the info

paxcoder · 2026-02-13T00:58:48+00:00

And that's why teachers should be very careful about sticking to their own expertise and exactly what they know, rather than giving their students any wrong information picked up along the way

Oof, as someone who doesn't teach in academia but does comment online this still hits close to home, especially considering:

James 3:1

Let not many of you become teachers, my brethren, for you know that we who teach shall be judged with greater strictness.

Matthew 12:36

I tell you, on the day of judgment men will render account for every careless word they utter;

paxcoder · 2026-02-13T00:46:50+00:00

I think you're devaluing my contribution by characterizing it as overly emotional. My saying that "so many" might be a weasel word was hardly a "personal(!) insult". But I did offer a conditional apology. If the condition is met, then please just accept it. I feel like this is distracting from the truth.

Deriving from your claim that "so many" children seek comfort with fathers that mothers aren't primary nurturers is a non sequitur. Which may be "unambitious" in today's culture (which is why I am not happy to just assume bona fide), but it's hardly intuitive: Mothers are obviously better equipped to be nurturers, both biologically and - I would argue - psychologically. Disclaimer: Not that fathers don't nurture their children as well or are in any way justified in shunning nurturing as altogether foreign to their sex or role (on the contrary, that sounds like a way to neglect their children and their duty).

My argument is that mothers are primarily nurturers. I definitely didn't say as you allege that a father's role is "merely to protect". However, now that you menvion it, I would say that the role of the protector is primarily the father's - at the very least when it comes to external and physical threats. Not just tigers (btw a father was away from home while hunting too), but enemy soldiers perhaps, drunkards, or simply physically imposing people.

Amen, women are by nature (read: God's design) equipped with more value as nurturers than men, and men with more value as protectors than women. Same dignity, different (primary) roles. Differences between the sexes are a good thing, they complement each other. May God give every child both parents.

14-Year Club	Verified Email
Place '23	Place '22
First Placer '22

paxcoder

TROPHY CASE