I mean, yes and no

this simultaneously exposes therapy as “less scientific” (meaning, it’s not as step-by-step as other hard sciences like math where calculations follow definitely) while also affirming that many “wholesome” activities in life are “therapeutic” naturally

this isn’t advice either but I hear a lot of people say not to time the market, just “hodl”

https://www.morganstanley.com/atwork/employees/learning-center/articles/cant-time-market

not everyone has to be good at it, but it’s often about just following instructions, or maybe you didn’t have good teachers, if you’d still like to improve with it

http://www.khanacademy.org/ is one resource for learning up to high school math I think

the “higher” math seems more conceptual than it is focused on calculations

I mean in school they often had us calculate a lot of things by hand, but we have access to computer calculators and computer programs which can do the calculating for us. So idk there can be a different approach to “doing math” when you aren’t expected to calculate by hand but just to plug in the right numbers for a calculator or computer program to calculate for you

It can be like following the step-by-step recipes for baking, doing some math

Sede View at a Minimum

I forget Lovs if I have posted about my developed thoughts on this situation as time’s gone on, but I think basically right now we have the sedevacantist view which in some way I think at a minimum all Catholics need to adopt (the view that Catholics currently have no pope, and Vatican 2 must be rejected)

Clergy Issue with Sede View

However, the sedevacantist “pure” view is kind of cornered: they have no pope, yes, but much more than that, no clergy with ordinary jurisdiction. This seems to logically imply to me that there must be Catholic clergy in the Vatican 2 church.

Another Western Schism?

The only way to “have this both ways” then I think is to think of the situation as a kind of “virtual schism” like the Western Schism was. During the Western Schism, there were two antipopes and a pope and confusion about if there was a pope at all or who the pope was, for 40 years. Those Catholics following antipopes were not considered to be formal schismatics, nor even “material” schismatics, but fully Catholic.

Implying a Future Resolution

Likewise today I think most people conventionally think Vatican 2 is Catholic and Francis is the pope of Catholicism - if this is incorrect, as sedevacantists assert, it doesn’t seem that such people are to be considered to be non-Catholic for erronenously following a big institution that purports to be the Catholic Church. I think there is instead a “genuine confusion” and therefore that the remedy to this will have to be the whole Vatican 2 church along with the scattered “independent” traditionalist groups all coming together, affirming a rejection of Vatican 2, and proceeding to elect a pope who is actually Catholic. This will have to mirror the papal election that ended the confusion of the Western Schism, where the pope and antipopes resigned mutually and then a pope was elected and agreed upon and the confusion was ended (Martin V was elected at the Council of Constance).

Alternative Proposed Resolutions

A lot of the alternative view seems to go in some “independent” direction, which has led to a bunch of schisms, no one agreeing on things, strained small groups, people without authority being thrust into leadership positions, and so on. This has implied to me a need for a more “total” solution that “converts” the V2 church back to Catholicism, rather than set up an enduring “independent” entity. A minority simply thinks there is no pope nor clergy today and awaits the end of the world, some “home alone sedevacantists”. My main problem with this view is simply that the world continues, now even decades after they have been thinking the world will end “imminently”. Another alternative view was the idea sedevacantists should just elect a pope separately of their own and forget the V2 church (“conclavism”). This has been attempted, but never really took off, and to me again implies a need for a “bigger” solution to the problem. Then there are all these various “independent” religious organizations or chapels, who are often in disagreement with one another, are disorganized, and are scattered. I don’t think they have authority to operate (they lack ordinary jurisdiction), but in themselves whatever is to be said of them, they’re not a long term solution that addresses how Catholics are to get a pope, unless they are a variant of a group waiting for the end times. So I haven’t really liked this approach and attempts at organization have been thwarted with disagreements and schisms.

Conclusion

The groups like in the OP are a temporary and necessary attempt to separate from a formerly Catholic system which is “off kilter”. However, I tend to think the Vatican 2 church can and must be “reformed” back to pre-Vatican 2 traditional Catholicism, rather than that Catholics will end up leaning in to these fractured “independent” entities for the long term. Somehow the world must become convinced of the sedevacantist position, which will lead naturally to a resolution with the election of a future pope who will be Catholic without question.

on the Catholic front Fr. Lasance comments on this topic in “My Prayer Book”, p. 55: https://archive.org/details/MyPrayerBookHappinessInGoodness/page/55/mode/2up

Attempt at Summary

The heresy of Jansenism in the 1600s tended towards a strict view of salvation that only a few would be saved. Over the centuries we are now tending towards the other condemned view of “universal salvation”, or that all will be saved no matter what. A common opinion of theologians is that “few” will be saved, but we know not how many.

Fr. Lasance writing in the early 1900s mentions that it is permitted to believe that a majority of Catholics will be saved, or the majority of mankind; Catholics have not authoritively stated we must believe this number or that number will be saved.

People are simply encouraged to strive to be among the few; if only a few are saved, then hopefully they are among that number, and if many are saved, then they should also be among that number:

If you want to be certain of being in the number of the Elect, strive to be one of the few, not one of the many. And if you would be quite sure of your salvation, strive to be among the fewest of the few. -St. Anselm

Strive to enter by the narrow gate; for many, I say to you, shall seek to enter, and shall not be able. Luke 13:24

(Note on Feeneyism and Opposite Error of Universal Baptism of Desire)

(A parenthetic note that today there is a “strict” error Catholics have had to deal with dubbed “Feeneyism”, or the view that only the water baptized may be saved. Catholics have acknowledged that one may be “baptized by shedding their blood” or “baptized by virtue of desiring baptism”. There are many examples of martyrs who were not baptized by water, but “by their blood”, who are considered to be saints, or among the saved. I think this error of “Feeneyism” came about in reaction to an opposite error of “universal salvation by baptism of desire”, or modernists arguing “everyone has an implicit desire for baptism, whether they know it or not”. In effect they were arguing that almost everyone will be baptized, simply because they have an unknown desire for baptism, and therefore will be saved. This seems to plainly conflict with people who are aware of a need to be baptized by water, but who for whatever reason do not go and receive baptism, nor make any attempt to do so; the counter-argument would be here that there are at least some people who have had a desire for baptism they haven’t acted on or have opposed, which would be considered to be “morally imputable”. In any event, I think these are twin erroneous tendencies, with “Feeneyism” taking a strict incorrect approach, with the “universal baptism of desire” approach, which is unnamed, having an incorrect “broad” view of things, and with Catholics taking a “moderate” position that some may be “baptized by blood or desire” and be saved. For another thread but it ended up coming up in response to this post naturally… I have heard some young people have become attracted to the idea of “Feeneyism” as a “strict” reaction to some “broad” erroneous attitudes today)

“it’s just the right thing to do, whether the law says so or not”

Trump or civil rights activists?

any tips on how your’e profiting from it

well how was it did you see it

should be some human intermediary with ai decisions, I’ve seen ai go wrong plenty of times. I just asked for a calendar date of like easter the other day and got the wrong date for this year, which I only caught because I doubted it was correct based on some vague idea of what date I was looking for already

I’m fine with keeping downvotes out because bots will swarm downvote content

yet, if on the other hand you wanted to enable them for the lulz, it could be tried

forgot to mention I also like to redshift all the time normally lol

alice, plz

that sounds kind of cryptic but if you want to solve rubik’s, here’s a guide: https://www.rubiks.com/solution-guides

I read on the infinite / finite game and the author takes their definition in a totally different direction, defining life as the only “infinite game” I think… which I guess is true but I’d break it up more or at least tried to for my purposes of definition

what’s going on right now with romania, didn’t they have an election and this guy and maybe some other politicians rejected it and delayed another round of voting? I was wondering when he would step down if so, not surprising they’d threaten impeachment for him cancelling voting and just lingering as leader “undemocratically” if so

I’m sure this will reduce conflict in the area there…

go on to reddit: they’re all complaining about usaid aid being cancelled

right wing spaces online: displaying all the fraud done with usaid

are leftists unaware of the fraud or is the right lying about the fraud, I guess is the question

“Meh”, hbu

I was gonna do a post on vaccines

Lack of Clarity With Terms

I think some confusion comes in when people use the word “vaccines” when they really mean “all vaccines” or “some vaccines”, or “vaccine theory”

Some Vaccines Harmful

It should be an uncontroversial statement, to claim “some vaccines are harmful”. Some people today consider covid “vaccines” (which are thought to be slightly different than traditional vaccines) to be in this category of the “some vaccines [that] are harmful”. That can be debated, but it does not logically imply that if one believes covid vaccines to be harmful, that they believe all vaccines to be harmful.

Vaccine Theory Versus Vaccines Available

Thus for example also, one might believe “vaccine theory” to be sound, but for “all vaccines” available today to be harmful. This would be like believing food to be healthy (generally accepted), but if there was only a contaminated source of food available to an island, that that island might argue “all [their] food is unhealthy”. Does this mean they are denying that food itself is unhealthy? No, just that all the food they’re getting is unhealthy.

“Vaccines are Harmful”

So when some people are saying this phrase (“all vaccines are harmful”), they might mean either they believe vaccine theory is wrong, that all vaccines available today are harmful, or that some vaccines available today are harmful. There really isn’t a clarity on what is expressed; likewise then the “other side” may argue against positions that they are not taking.

Problem of Verification

Overall one of the big problems with vaccines today is the lack of ability for the average person to confirm the quality of the vaccine being offered to them; many of us do not have access to labs to test things ourselves, hence would be dependent on the opinion of alleged experts to determine if the vaccine is healthy or not, and such people’s opinions can be wrong. This makes vaccines often a kind of unexaminable “black box” to the average person.

Amish as an Example

Fueling such further speculation about vaccines, we have “control” groups like the Amish who have low vaccination rates, and also low autism rates: https://www.insidermonkey.com/blog/10-autism-facts-and-statistics-autism-rates-in-amish-countries-that-dont-vaccinate-and-more-600444/3/

Correlation does not imply causation, however it does prompt questioning.

Conclusion

The discussion on alleged health benefits of vaccines should maintain clarity to work to get to the root of the issues and should be open about limitations. For example, the flu shot prior to covid was thought to be the “weakest” in effectiveness in recent years… and in looking to link to this story, I see a fresh story about how weak the vaccine is for this year’s flu season: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/flu-vaccine-selections-suggest-this-years-shot-may-be-off-the-mark/

To the contrary, the placebo effect of getting vaccinated should also be considered… but, if vaccines were to only offer a strong placebo, then we could substitute placebos for vaccines.

The roles of sanitation (quarantining) shouldn’t be downplayed in preventing the spread of disease, versus the effectiveness of vaccines: https://covidcalltohumanity.org/2022/04/28/study-shows-sanitation-nutrition-better-than-vaccines-at-protecting-children-from-disease/

we had a couple instances before this (yeah, you remember EH), not sure if any others popped up and if there is a network of conservative federated instances

“”“yes”“”