it's messed up they sometimes cost so much, like the whole point was to save money with a smaller design
sparrow
Joined 2 years ago
Comment points: 263
Post points: 1287
sparrow
Consume Tiny Houses
by
sirdigby
2
2 years ago
2 points
(+2
/
-0
)
Permalink
Context
Reply
None
'NOT TOLERATED' Huge ‘white lives matter’ sign blasted after it appears over Scots city (thescottishsun.co.uk)
by
ThisAccountGlows
2 years ago
2 points
(+2
/
-0
)
1 child
good to see more traffic here
and would be nice to see more gardens
The thing is, it can be a good thing that the U.S. grows less of its own food
It's really a question of how many gains you want to make economically and how you want to engage in division of labor
Because it's simple economics that if you can say work as a programmer for double the money you can farming, then if you outsource the food production somewhere else while you're a programmer, you make more money and everyone can kind of "win" with there being higher productivity
however, this doesn't work out purely because we don't live in a perfect world. If we didn't grow any of our own food, and the people we get our food from one day decided they don't want to sell to us, we would face food shortages.
So I suspect there may be some conversations to be had about the tradeoffs between gains from division of labor versus security of doing some of these things ourselves
It's an open question of how much risk people want to take
and would be nice to see more gardens
The thing is, it can be a good thing that the U.S. grows less of its own food
It's really a question of how many gains you want to make economically and how you want to engage in division of labor
Because it's simple economics that if you can say work as a programmer for double the money you can farming, then if you outsource the food production somewhere else while you're a programmer, you make more money and everyone can kind of "win" with there being higher productivity
however, this doesn't work out purely because we don't live in a perfect world. If we didn't grow any of our own food, and the people we get our food from one day decided they don't want to sell to us, we would face food shortages.
So I suspect there may be some conversations to be had about the tradeoffs between gains from division of labor versus security of doing some of these things ourselves
It's an open question of how much risk people want to take
None
2 years ago
0 points
(+0
/
-0
)
In particular his last dotcom post gives a sample of his understanding of all the issues: http://pope-michael.com/2021/07/19/thoughts-on-the-recent-motu-proprio-of-francis-pope-of-the-conciliar-church/
the mentioned moto proprio by "pope" francis was attacking traditionalists in the Vatican 2 church. prior to vatican 2, traditionalists would have been promoted rather than attacked. This shows a clearly anti-Catholic / anti-Christian attitude prevails in the Vatican, such that many Catholics have concluded it is no longer Catholic (sedevacantism). From that point, those like "pope" Michael simply reasoned that if Catholics did not have a pope but instead had a fake woke "Catholicism", that Catholics should separate from such an institution and elect a pope for themselves. I disagree with this argument, but it is little examined so hard to tell if it cannot hold at all.
As far as I know, no plans were made to elect a "pope" to continue this lineage.
the mentioned moto proprio by "pope" francis was attacking traditionalists in the Vatican 2 church. prior to vatican 2, traditionalists would have been promoted rather than attacked. This shows a clearly anti-Catholic / anti-Christian attitude prevails in the Vatican, such that many Catholics have concluded it is no longer Catholic (sedevacantism). From that point, those like "pope" Michael simply reasoned that if Catholics did not have a pope but instead had a fake woke "Catholicism", that Catholics should separate from such an institution and elect a pope for themselves. I disagree with this argument, but it is little examined so hard to tell if it cannot hold at all.
As far as I know, no plans were made to elect a "pope" to continue this lineage.
None
2 years ago
1 point
(+1
/
-0
)
1 child
> flat earth I’m still an agnostic
I feel like the arguments lean round earth but I want it to be flat for some reason. There are some clear uses of deception like with the picture of the earth that was a "composite" rather than actual picture. Which makes us wonder why that was faked. But probably it was just to siphon off tax monies by presenting grander space achievements than are real to get more funding.
I feel like the arguments lean round earth but I want it to be flat for some reason. There are some clear uses of deception like with the picture of the earth that was a "composite" rather than actual picture. Which makes us wonder why that was faked. But probably it was just to siphon off tax monies by presenting grander space achievements than are real to get more funding.
None
2 years ago
0 points
(+0
/
-0
)
1 child
this link has a flat earth link, r u a flat earther too or is there a post to discuss the topic
didnt listen but infant baptism I presume arose from reasoning that no one could go to heaven without baptism, so "why allow unbaptized kids to be deprived of a chance at heaven?" was probably the thought
plus maybe they prayed about it and concluded they thpught infant baptism was God's will
didnt listen but infant baptism I presume arose from reasoning that no one could go to heaven without baptism, so "why allow unbaptized kids to be deprived of a chance at heaven?" was probably the thought
plus maybe they prayed about it and concluded they thpught infant baptism was God's will
None
there's this idea of "appropriate technology" which might fit the bill: https://infogalactic.com/info/Appropriate_technology
Ted himself is not totally against tech I thought, I thought he was more in to just like pre-industrial society rather than some of the primitivism of like John Zerzan (who rails against things like agriculture or something more basic like language)
I find primitivism vs. technology to really be another political consideration entirely, it really spans the political spectrum as like another dimension of thought. The libertarians are interested in it because tech can give or threaten freedom, while authoritarians are interested in it because tech can threaten the authority of their group or defend it. Conservatives are open to creating new traditions or defending the old, which is for or against the primitive, while socialists have been against it as luddites since tech can destroy jobs and "save" labor or are sometimes for it in order to save labor for the common laborer.
Ted himself is not totally against tech I thought, I thought he was more in to just like pre-industrial society rather than some of the primitivism of like John Zerzan (who rails against things like agriculture or something more basic like language)
I find primitivism vs. technology to really be another political consideration entirely, it really spans the political spectrum as like another dimension of thought. The libertarians are interested in it because tech can give or threaten freedom, while authoritarians are interested in it because tech can threaten the authority of their group or defend it. Conservatives are open to creating new traditions or defending the old, which is for or against the primitive, while socialists have been against it as luddites since tech can destroy jobs and "save" labor or are sometimes for it in order to save labor for the common laborer.
None
Ted sounds ignorant on these issues but it's interesting to read
ecofash is a specific thing but I think authoritarian primitivism seems coherent and stands in contrast to the anarchist primitivism which is often attempted to be inseparably linked; what I would argue is I mean I think authoritarian primitivism is an alternative he is not understanding as a possibility or is purposely deflecting from this fact (of which ecofash is a subset)
I think some of them are against tech entirely so #1 would be wrong
also with #2 in his explanation, it would just suggest that an authoritarian primitivist view is globalist in orientation, or would have to forcibly prevent the development of tech in some other society or societies
anprim kind of has the same globalist problem or orientation that unless everyone is anprim, someone might start developing or overdeveloping tech
idk what a Christian view of tech should be, maybe tech in moderation? too much tech is leading to an anti-Christian materialism. but too little tech might not help us as much as we are able. I think Christians might have a lower time preference in contrast to atheists who believe this is the only life so they want maximum tech now, some of them, where Christians might be take it or leave it in their attitudes.
ecofash is a specific thing but I think authoritarian primitivism seems coherent and stands in contrast to the anarchist primitivism which is often attempted to be inseparably linked; what I would argue is I mean I think authoritarian primitivism is an alternative he is not understanding as a possibility or is purposely deflecting from this fact (of which ecofash is a subset)
I think some of them are against tech entirely so #1 would be wrong
also with #2 in his explanation, it would just suggest that an authoritarian primitivist view is globalist in orientation, or would have to forcibly prevent the development of tech in some other society or societies
anprim kind of has the same globalist problem or orientation that unless everyone is anprim, someone might start developing or overdeveloping tech
idk what a Christian view of tech should be, maybe tech in moderation? too much tech is leading to an anti-Christian materialism. but too little tech might not help us as much as we are able. I think Christians might have a lower time preference in contrast to atheists who believe this is the only life so they want maximum tech now, some of them, where Christians might be take it or leave it in their attitudes.
> it goes back to 1666
Hmm, what do you have in mind going back this far? I've thought jansenism might have been set up as a heresy to then push the opposite heretical reaction, of strict going to loosening the rules. Also there were relaxations of opposition to interest on loans. There seemed to be a weakening over time but no overt embrace of heresy that I could find. But Vatican 2 didn't happen overnight.
I take the sedevacantist view and reject the SSPX / sedeplenist viewpoint, although certainly they're in agreement on many other issues.
And yes the (latin) mass was also suppressed. I have just been posting continually on all the things that were changed to try to get people to question it. To me getting rid of Prime seems in some ways like a pretty big deal like the suppression of mass. It's basically getting rid of the discipline of prayer of the clergy, which would seem to open the Church up to spiritual "attack". To anyone watching it just should look like a giant red flag. All these changes don't look like "genuine" developments but red flags with no real purpose but destruction, or at best being random changes.
Hmm, what do you have in mind going back this far? I've thought jansenism might have been set up as a heresy to then push the opposite heretical reaction, of strict going to loosening the rules. Also there were relaxations of opposition to interest on loans. There seemed to be a weakening over time but no overt embrace of heresy that I could find. But Vatican 2 didn't happen overnight.
I take the sedevacantist view and reject the SSPX / sedeplenist viewpoint, although certainly they're in agreement on many other issues.
And yes the (latin) mass was also suppressed. I have just been posting continually on all the things that were changed to try to get people to question it. To me getting rid of Prime seems in some ways like a pretty big deal like the suppression of mass. It's basically getting rid of the discipline of prayer of the clergy, which would seem to open the Church up to spiritual "attack". To anyone watching it just should look like a giant red flag. All these changes don't look like "genuine" developments but red flags with no real purpose but destruction, or at best being random changes.
None
2 years ago
0 points
(+0
/
-0
)
the destruction of the nude statues is not surprising, as they are considered indecent by the Christian West and were made in presumably pagan Rome / Greece
and also because yes you would want your enemy to have a culture of physical weakness so you'd destroy statues that seem to show strength
also I think farming might require some strength so idk if that's going to make people weak necessarily
and also because yes you would want your enemy to have a culture of physical weakness so you'd destroy statues that seem to show strength
also I think farming might require some strength so idk if that's going to make people weak necessarily
None
Toast message