Moderation Questions

We live to give

Socialist countries historically were famously against the death penalty (lol no)

Rome was the most advanced civilization of its time, which was a long time ago. Even controlling for technology, I very much doubt you would actually prefer to live in Rome unless you were a member of the aristocracy. Depending on the time period, 30-40% of the population was literally slaves, and the average peasant probably not a whole lot better off.

Also, the Genghis Khan studies looked at genetic markers that probably included him and a large number of his extended male family/tribe. Not him specifically.

This is among the worst attempts at logic I have ever seen.

Extrapolating from the experience of Genghis Khan to draw conclusions about modern dating behavior or modern rates of reproduction among men seems . . . . dubious.

About a year ago, I went down the rabbit hole of reading the Online Dating thread in OOT. If the maturity level and and general attitudes of the men posting in that thread are indicative of men generally on dating sites (which may not be true and which I hope is not the case), then the stats that rickroll reported about how women view men on those sites are no surprise.

notsureifserious

Ok so about this ignore function on the new forum, it also blocks any post with the ignored poster quoted in it.
This is complete nonsense.
The old version is not responding way to often for me.
I guess that's how you kill a forum.

"Direct descendant" is a silly way to look at things. Why are we ignoring the female side?

I think there is an explanation for this.

Many people who use the ignore function have complained about the fact that they still have to read the content of folks they've put on ignore when those ignored posters are quoted by someone. Some have argued that to some extent that defeats the purpose of the ignore function since they are 'forced' to read the ignored poster when s/he is being quoted.

I know, why can't it just block the ignored user to appear though?
They don't have the technology yet?

It's just the proper use of words. To be antifascist you need to have policy takes that go opposite what fascism actually did. Not "vibes" or empty undefined labels.

If fascism did a very specific thing that very few other organizational systems did before, then THAT is what fascism actually is defined by. And so you need to oppose THAT to oppose fascism.

"reparatory marriage" institutionalized nationwide in the law was a very specific fascist thing, predicated on the idea that you could "recover" the rapist if you gave him a normal life.

So you have to oppose it *and the idea that rapists are recoverable in general* to be antifascist.

Same as , fascism was one of the first organizational systems that mandated vaccinations. That should make you exceptionally skeptic of mandated vaccinations, if you actually are anti fascist, and the whole concept that the state has a mandate to public health that justifies violating body autonomy *should be considered fascist adjacent*.

Same as, fascism was one of the first organizational systems that even without implementing full socialism, nationalized banks. That should make you exceptionally skeptic of nationalizing banks, if you are actually anti fascist.

And so on and on

Excellent question.

In addition to your argument being a complete logic fail, you are now shifting the goalposts.

that was the argument the logic of which you contested.

Lucio, you're well known for shifting goalposts and have been called on it numerous times by numerous posters, myself included, in fairness.

No. The bolded language is a significant caveat that you added.

I would say that’s a pretty bad definition of antifascism. But even if it was true…

I don’t see how you can say “hey fascists made the rape victim marry the rapist” and go from that to “therefore to be antifascist you have to be against the idea of rehabilitation for rapists writ large and be in favor of the death penalty for rapists”

How does that follow?

And anyway, the absurdity of the conclusion (you have to oppose any attempt to rehabilitate this very specific crime because one fascist entity made the criminal marry the victim) should let you know something is wrong with the premises.

If fascists were the first entities to offer clean drinking water for free to their citizens, should I be opposed to that too? lol

Basically you have an incredibly dumb definition of antifascism you want the world to use, and I can just say, nah I don’t want to use your very dumb idea. Thanks.

I have to believe that the resulting children included at least some girls.

Stick with the old version and just scroll past posts that quote those you've ignored, or alternatively don;t scroll past as it could be a pertinent reminder as to why you stuck them on ignore in the first place 😀

It's worse than that. He was arguing that, in your hypothetical, logic would require you to be opposed to clean drinking water if you wanted to say that you were antifascist.

i was the one to bring him up and the context wasn't dating behavior it was an anecdotal data point tossed into the conversation where people were debating whether or not the pareto principle applied to reproduction and that is strong indication it did

and yes, dunyain is correct again, it's not so much ghengis the wonder dick but rather that of his 15 children and various brothers and cousins and all of their children who all had incredibly important roles and were banging as they pleased

as dunyain stated

but also with this stuff it's usually x and y specific and you know y exclusively comes from the men and this mongol marker is on the y

fun fact - the main difference between northern han and southern han is the x whereas the y is largely unchanged - broadly supporting the historical accounts of sending in an army to kill off or drivie away the non chinese men living there and then have the army then settle down in the region "marrying" the remaining women

luciom would have agreed very strongly with ancient han chinese politics - even though that would entail them killing him and any males he sired and abducting his wife and daughters

lol this gave me a chuckle 😀