This is a reading comprehension issue. Look at what I said more carefully, I am implicitly supporting the idea you are trying to help your kid and telling you to argue from a standpoint of human benefit rather than sovereignty. With the rise of Christian nationalism, we're only going to see an uptick in "children are the property of the parent" style reasoning, and we should all be fighting it.
GarbageShoot
joined 3 years ago
Obviously this is one of those "disagreeing with me is gaslightinging" things, but I don't get where the "crybully" thing came from. I'm not a victim of shit, I think your dismissiveness is unfortunate, but I'm not crying over it.
That said, I should have been more careful in my wording, because I was meaning to contrast "painting while blind" with "bodies having widths while you can't mentally picture them". I will repeat that you seem to not understand how NT people draw, which is unfortunate for how it makes the question of how you can succeed in drawing much harder to conceptualize.
if I'm not trying to understand material reality why should I use materialism
So don't use it for math, but I hope you aren't applying this statement to the rest of your life
Diamat is fundamentally to Marxist theory, there is little you can get without understanding it.
Your Christianity will turn into something more like deism if you keep amending your beliefs like you describe, but if you're fine with that then it's all good. If you want to say that God is either stepping in to alter the historical dialectic or that He planned it to have a certain outcome, you've hopelessly tainted the analytical framework.
I don't think the mathematician thing is a negative b3cayse you presumably understand that your math stuff derives from stipulated axioms and those axioms are not necessarily real. I like formal logic, and if anything it helps me understand how the idea people (including logicians) construct can be divorced from reality.
The marketplace of ideas tends to be a much weaker force than "what are my friends playing?" I'm all for treating kids as people, but that also means understanding that people mostly choose what lets them get on with their peers the most easily.
Sorry, I should have been more clear. Conceptually, I think it was the more interesting problem, but I don't think it would be worth discussing with you because you didn't want to discuss things from that angle and there's no sense in pressing the matter.
Insofar as I was hung up on the other aspect, I think it was me be careful about what I knew I could claim because I am not, in fact, ableist.
There is the direction of being a cold and bitter old man who doesn't have the youthful murder zeal but still is basically devoid of remorse and human empathy. I don't think it's as interesting as what they did with it, but it's a viable direction, basically transitioning from being a God of War to what he really was anyway, a God of Death.
I think there's a place for campy bullshit, it just shouldn't be the main mode of operation
You made the correct choice getting rid of Roblox and you don't deserve to get flak for it, but
I am allowed to parent my children how I see fit
This is a shitty way to view the question. As someone with unique authority over the child, you are obliged to do your best at doing right be them.
"But I am!" you say
Then say that instead of this children-as-property shit
Minecraft seems like the obvious choice for kids who liked Roblox. Terraria is another. If they can only play on a server that one of them hosts, then no need to worry about outside users.
Good on you and the other parents for getting that shit out of there, kids don't need addiction machines trying to pressure them into spending money.
LBJ was obviously a reactionary, but the sheer right-ness of the placement on the chart suggests to me that they mean Andrew Johnson, who I'd argue represented one of the most distinct rightward (attempted) policy shifts in US history, since he immediately undertook trying to kill Reconstruction.
looking into it
Pulling some examples from an arbitrary list:
Johnson vetoes a bill calling for the extension of the Freedmen's Bureau. The bill, a response to the repressive Black Codes of the South, would expand the power of the Bureau, the organization formed for the freedmen's protection.
Johnson vetoes the Civil Rights Act, a second attempt by Congress to provide freedmen with federal citizenship after the failed Freedmen's Bureau bill. The act sanctions the employment of federal troops for enforcement. The Senate overrides Johnson's veto on April 6. Three days later, the House of Representatives also overrides the veto.
With the mandate of the 1866 election, Congress (despite Johnson's veto) passes the First Reconstruction Act, setting up five military districts in the South, each under the direction of a presidentially-appointed military commander. The legislative body also passed the Army Appropriations Act, which lessens Johnson's control of the Army. Finally, Congress passes -- again over Johnson's veto -- the Tenure of Office Act, prohibiting Johnson from removing cabinet officers without the Senate's consent. In this final piece of legislation, Congress hopes to protect Secretary of War Edwin Stanton, the sole Radical Republican in Johnson's cabinet.
Johnson vetoes the Second Reconstruction Act, which orders military commanders to call elections in the South. Congress overrides Johnson's veto that very day.
Johnson vetoes the Third Reconstruction Act, which spells out election procedures in the South and reasserts congressional control over Reconstruction. Congress again overrides Johnson's veto on the same day the President delivers it.
A couple years later:
President Johnson delivers his final annual message to Congress, again requesting the repeal of the Reconstruction Acts.
He also campaigned against the "Radical Republicans" who wanted to, you know, oppose the reinstitution of slavery in the South and the reinstating of Confederates in seats of power, and fought with the more progressive cabinet members he inherited from Lincoln.
People talk about Lincoln being such a good President, but I really think all of Johnson's shit should be held fully against him, since Lincoln knew there was going to be a Civil War if he was elected (and likely if he wasn't) and the head of state being assassinated in [or after, as it was] a Civil War is just about the most unsurprising turn of events possible. He essentially appointed Johnson to the Presidency.
It is reactionary garbage tho