Eh, this only applies to people into popular culture, which the smart and curious of any age never are. I’ve never met or heard of anyone at any age who isn’t braindead being obsessed with celebrities.

How did logic ever hurt you that you hate it so?

Following “Christ” means doing the very very minimum of what “Christ” said to do. Anyone who believes otherwise is an illogical nihilistic moron.

This nihilistic attitude is exactly what people in power desperately want. The minimum requirement to any ostensible commitment to “Jesus” is abiding by “His” explicit commands.

That’s logically non-negotiable. Calling yourself Christian doesn’t make it so. And we are fools for failing to rub it in their anti-Christian faces.

anti-Christian right. There are no right-wing Christians. The whole concept is oxymoronic. It’s like meat-eating vegans or smart crypto bros.

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

Our whole civilization is a fundamentally asymptotic project. The same way that artists, scholars, and athletes are never satisfied. It’s the human condition.

That said, your claim that

morality has no place in a justice system

is such a basic misunderstanding of the entire point of human civilization, I’d be curious to hear what you think we’re doing when we debate and pass laws.

Yes, it does mean there was an injustice. Any discrepancy between the moral outcome and the legal one is an injustice. Civilization is the struggle to reduce or reconcile that massive dichotomy.

The morally ideal outcome for rapists is instant death. That’s impractical (since it would endanger victims, for instance, and make people upset). So we have optimum alternatives.

A $26 fine ain’t it.

You’re misinterpreting my claim. The optimific outcome, the one that results in the most moral good, is the death of the rapist. Literally. If a law of the universe caused rapists to be instantly struck dead, this would be best.

The different normative question of what we should do (by definition, morally speaking) is also a practical one, exactly as you said.

The purpose of my original claim is to highlight the distance between the morally optimal outcome (simpliciter) and the justice system.

You mean it’s impractical — which has very little to do with what I said.

The morally correct recourse for rape is death.

If she’d run him over with her car or raped him, no big deal. But drugs! Drugs are bad, or something, idk.

deleted by creator

They definitely know how to make customers happy, something EA never understood, but I’m old enough to remember when Valve used to be horrible 15 years ago. They’d sell you broken games with no return system. They’d straight up delete games out of your library with no recourse, amounting to outright theft. The EU rolled out regulations targeting Steam’s shady practices. They’ve been okay since.

Valve is a company that garnishes 30% of all video games sales. It doesn’t matter what their corporate structure is at that point. It could be two guys with buckets on their heads and they’d make bank.

Valve has the sweetest of all business models: do almost nothing, make tons of money. They have so few employees.

Same vibes as “my calculator has a tiny mathematician trapped inside.”

Or “there’s an artist inside of my printer who turns numbers into pictures.”

deleted by creator