NYC First To Designate Social Media as Environmental Toxin (axios.com) 143
New York City declared Wednesday that it's the first city to issue an advisory officially designating social media as an environmental toxin. From a report: In response to the danger social media poses to the mental health of young people, the city's Department of Health and Mental Hygiene issued an advisory identifying unrestricted access to and use of social media as a public health hazard. The department urged parents and caregivers to delay giving children access to a smartphone or social media until at least age 14. They also urged federal and state policymakers to expand on legislative proposals that protect youth from "predatory practices by social media companies."
Yes and also, no (Score:2)
The department urged parents and caregivers to delay giving children access to a smartphone or social media until at least age 14.
This part is perfectly reasonable. Individual parents should be the ones to determine when their kids are mature enough to handle being on social media.
They also urged federal and state policymakers to expand on legislative proposals that protect youth from "predatory practices by social media companies."
They can't help but say the quiet part out loud. The nanny state just can't trust parents to be responsible, so obviously we have to make the internet safe for kids, because won't someone think of the children? Now here's where the slope starts getting slippery: If they're willing to take control away from parents (who are ostensibly adults), what's to s
Re:Yes and also, no (Score:5, Interesting)
The nanny state ...
We have a lot of laws deciding what children can do in meat-space: Please demand that parents choose when their child can drive a car, buy alcohol and tobacco, or concealed-carry a handgun.
Mums for Liberty want to make meat-space safe for children: They're forcing the removal of all mentions of bedrooms, nudity, sexual organs and fucking in all stories and textbooks. You're free to "trust parents to be responsible" but I won't. There's a lot of parents declaring little Suzie isn't ready for the truth. Where are the parents declaring little Suzie isn't ready for cyber-bullying, cyber-stalking, political campaigns and misinformation?
You never mention this problem, saving the parents was your priority: Parents aren't at school with their child, they're not in the chat-room with their child: They don't know when bad stuff happens. They don't see their child overwhelmed by danger or their own lack of experience.
Like posting photos of children, female nipples, or sexual penetration? Like messages urging everyone to visit Washington DC and invade the US Capitol building? Do you mean those uses of social media?
Children are still free to use their school-curated social network, Wikipedia, online games, parent's streaming account, Spotify and Youtube. Banning children from Facebook and X [Twitter] is no different to banning them from buying alcohol and driving a car.
Re: (Score:2)
There's a lot of parents declaring little Suzie isn't ready for the truth.
The real issue is that the truth is never told to poor Suzy. When she was a child she was told, "you are too young to understand", and when she was a teenager she was told, "wait until you are an adult", and then when she was an adult she was told, "why don't you know how this shit works?", and little Suzy cried after she was taken advantage of. Again.
Why is the truth so fucking hard to reveal? Why do people INSIST on having power over others. Fuck all y'all.
Irony (Score:3, Funny)
How ironic, given that all of NYC is a environmental toxin on the United States.
A danger to the stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: A danger to the stupid (Score:2)
We expect adults to assume personal responsibility for their own actions. We don't hold children to the same standard in all situations because they lack the maturity to make informed decisions consistently.
We also live in a society where some adults are irresponsible and lack the maturity to make informed decisions, but that's their problem now.
Re: (Score:2)
"the capitalists" are the only reason the middle class can't afford louis vouton handbags
Whataya mean? There is a guy on the wharf selling them for $10 apiece. He keeps costs low by not having a storefront, and only taking cash. He gets them straight off the boat from China, and passes the savings on to you!
"Environmental toxin"? (Score:5, Informative)
The words "environmental toxin" appear no where in the advisory [nyc.gov].
The only source I can find so far is the mayor's twitter post [twitter.com].
It is very bizarre language - a technical term that neither fits the description nor is a common metaphor that might come up accidentally.
Best guess is this is leftover from some idea-shopping of how they would justify their policy reach. Can't legally regulate something? No problem, just redefine it as something you can regulate.
Re: (Score:2)
Best guess is this is leftover from some idea-shopping of how they would justify their policy reach. Can't legally regulate something? No problem, just redefine it as something you can regulate.
I believe that social media is dangerous in a way gambling is and should be regulated. With that said, I do not support this initiative precisely because of overreach. I am confident that it will be used to selectively censor social media (i.e., post endorsing Trump is a toxin) rather than addressing engagement amplification algorithms that drive addiction and outrage.
Re: (Score:2)
the nanny state (Score:2)
Re:the nanny state (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
if a child wants to prostitute themselves i doubt very much theyd listen to whatever julie arnie has to say
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, heaven forbid we should regulate anything like narcotics, tobacco, alcohol, gambling, child prostitution, etc.!
How about concentrating on the economic health of your citizens as a whole before spending fucking EVERYTHING on stupid shit like managing narcotics?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Chill. They're providing advice. You can ignore it if you want.
Re: the nanny state (Score:2)
Shit I fucked up that link too.
NYC is not even on the list of the 15 most dangerous cities in America, all of which are in the Midwest.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree with the sentiment (Score:2)
I agree with the sentiment (in an election year, of course), though I doubt there's ever gonna be any follow through.
I agree and use NONE !! (Score:2)
Bad summary (Score:2)
You won't find the phrase "environmental toxin" or even the word toxin in the recommendation.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, but then we wouldn't have that click-driving headline!
"Environmental Toxin"? (Score:3, Interesting)
The claim that NYC designated Social Media as an "Environmental Toxin" seems, from a quick scan of the advisory [nyc.gov] release from the NYC Commissioner of Health and Mental Hygiene, to be hyperbolic. The words "toxin", "environment", and "environmental" don't appear anywhere in the release nor does it seem to imply any such thing.
Yes this is exactly what the environment needs (Score:2)
Let's make up shit and declare it toxic to the environment so we can clean that and feel that we did something positive.
Let's also make it carcinogenous and declare that it contains peanuts.
Idk exactly when it started but suddenly everyone feels so much stupider than they used to.
Re: (Score:2)
meant everyone IN OFFICE, but idk maybe i meant everyone everyone
Re: (Score:2)
Eugenics then?
Re: (Score:2)
You talking about Christianity? (Score:5, Informative)
The religion that:
Ended Infanticide and the abandonment of unwanted babies in the Roman Empire
Ended the mass killings as spectacle as to be seen in the Colosseum and elsewhere
Restored the expectation that marriage would be exclusive
Raised the status of women in the Roman Empire
Delegitimised genocide and bestiality
Eventually ended slavery across the world
Source: Alvin J Schmidt 'How Christianity changed the world' (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan 2nd Edition 2004)
Whilst it has also been the excuse for many bad things, its positive record in these areas is indisputable. There is no reason to believe that those things would have changed without the influence of Christianity.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Plagues, the legal precedent that slaves were not, for the purpose of trade, disposable, and the increasing effectiveness of the US underground railway (which may have been driven by Christian morals), did more to end slavery than Christian practices.
Raised the status of women ...
Once the Roman Empire fell, so eventually did the status of women: It's more obvious today with the Islamic Taliban and a certain US political party denying reproductive rights (and safety) to women.
Abolished in the British empire in 1836 (Score:5, Informative)
The UK - at the behest of Christian campaigners - abolished slavery across the British empire as early as that, in stark contrast to the USA where it persisted for almost another 30 years. In addition to enforcing this in its own territory, the British bullied such empires as the Ottoman to end it as well. So no - except perhaps in the USA - the underground railroad had nothing to do with its abolition across the world
UK compensated abolition (Score:3)
In other words, the slave holders were paid.
Try that in the US - no Civil War. Instead, 750,000 people got killed. So much for Christianity.
Compensated abolition [bankofengland.co.uk]
Re: (Score:2)
Compensated abolition [bankofengland.co.uk]
interesting reading. interesting to see government compensation schemes making work for collection agents, now its PPI
Not quite (Score:5, Informative)
The UK - at the behest of Christian campaigners - abolished slavery across the British empire as early as that, in stark contrast to the USA where it persisted for almost another 30 years. In addition to enforcing this in its own territory, the British bullied such empires as the Ottoman to end it as well. So no - except perhaps in the USA - the underground railroad had nothing to do with its abolition across the world
The fight against slavery didn't start there and didn't happen because of Christian evangelicals... Had the Evangelicals been in charge the UK would have still had slavery like the other pope endorsed European nations in the 19th century. English Christians were CoE (Church of England) which was set up by Henry VIII expressly to remove the pope's influence over the English Crown (and make religion servile to the state). The CoE is still one of the most moderate church's, claiming they were "Evangelical" is really drawing a very long bow, the "Evangelicals" left England somewhere around 1607.
The first recorded ban of slavery in the UK was in 1102 (some 600 years before the UK existed) when the city of London prohibited it. Slavery in total in England was abolished in 1574 when Elizabeth I emancipated the last of the serfs.
1706 - The English court ruled that "as soon as a Negro comes to England, he becomes free".
1772 - The Somersett's case determines a slave may not be forcibly removed from England and the condition of slavery does not exist in England.
1778 - Scots law accepts that the condition of slavery is not legal in Scotland.
1786 - The colony of New South Wales (Australia) bans slavery.
1787 - The colony of Sierra Leone is founded for emancipated slaves.
1807 - The Abolition of the Slave Trade Act abolishes the slave trade throughout the British Empire, Captains are fined £100 per slave, the West Africa squadron is formed by the Royal Navy to supress the Atlantic Slave Trade.
1811 - Slave trading is made a felony in the UK, punishable by transportation for both subjects and foreigners.
1817 - UK-Spanish treaty agrees to abolish the slave trade.
1818 - Bilateral treaties between the UK and Netherlands and Portugal agree to abolish the slave trade.
1827 - Bilateral treaty between the UK and Sweden abolishes the slave trade.
1833 - Slavery Abolition Act of 1833 bans slavery throughout the British Empire.
1838 - The Slavery Abolition Act of 1833 is completed after a period of forced apprenticeship in some colonies finishes.
1845 - The West Africa squadron becomes the largest fleet in the world, comprised of 36 ships.
1858 - The British government takes control of all lands owned by the East India Company making them subject to British anti slavery laws.
1867 - The West Africa squadron disbands, having freed over 150,000 slaves.
That's the abridged list, you're right about one thing, the British used their economic and military might to force other nations into anti-slavery conventions.
Seriously? (Score:5, Insightful)
'Had the Evangelicals been in charge the UK would have still had slavery like the other pope endorsed European nations in the 19th century.'
What on earth gives you that idea?
'The CoE is still one of the most moderate church's, claiming they were "Evangelical" is really drawing a very long bow, the "Evangelicals" left England somewhere around 1607.'
To describe the Puritans who left around 1607 as Evangelicals is problematic; there are significant difference in belief between Puritans and Evangelicals. The modern Evangelical movement emerges in the 18th century with John Wesley leading a revival that led to many 'Evangelicals' within the CofE although some of Wesley's disciples ended up outside, forming the Methodist church. Ever since that time Evangelicals, along with AngloCatholics and Liberals have been identifiable parties within the CofE, on the whole ignoring each other for long periods.
Re: (Score:2)
And let's not forget the Southern Baptists, who only last year apologized for being pro-slavery.
Re: (Score:3)
I REALLY don't get it. As soon as I heard of the concept of slavery (in Mesopotamia), I freaked the fuck out.
Supposedly, they would go up to the hills and capture tribes and force them to work. As a child, I wondered why the people would stay to work or not kill the people who took them.
I have more data to work off of now, but still, i would have walked back home after they tried to keep me as a slave.
So why would anyone think that slavery is reasonable if they would not want to be a slave themselves? I REA
Bernie Sanders calls himself a socialist (Score:2)
In doing so he is using the same term as Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot used of themselves. If he's allowed to deny any link to them, then Christians can deny any link to the obnoxious knuckle draggers that you're complaining about.
Re: (Score:2)
You forgot the German Nazi party. Please cite a socialist manifesto that demands genocide.
The Roman Catholic church demanded assassination and genocide.
Re: (Score:2)
You forgot the German Nazi party. Please cite a socialist manifesto that demands genocide.
The Roman Catholic church demanded assassination and genocide.
And the RCC provided assistance to the National Socialists, including smuggling ones out of Europe. Note that just because the Nasties had "Socialist" in their name, they were not socialists, but fascist. I'm sure you know that, but someone always tries to bring that up.
Re: (Score:2)
'Socialist' and 'social democracy' are complex. (Score:2)
For example the German Social Democratic Party was the Marxist party in Germany pre WWI.
However the point merely means that if socialists are allowed to use the label 'social democrat' to distinguish them from the misdeeds of other socialists, then modern Christians are allowed to use such labels to likewise distinguish them from the excesses of the church between 500 and 1500 - say. Which is the point I'm making; don't smear all Christians for the behaviour of some unless all labels are equally render thes
'Social Democracy' is a post facto label at best (Score:2)
Although in recent years it seems to have become associated with those of less extreme views, an overview of its usage in Europe gives us no meaningful difference, with parties with the label 'socialist' and 'social democrat' endorsing all possible left wing policies. Relative few countries had both 'socialist' and 'social democrat' parties; two of whom this is - or was - true, are Italy and Portugal. In Italy under the first republic the Social Democrats were a significant grouping who were usually in coal
Re: (Score:2)
Not a very good one, admittedly, but a social democracy all the same.
Really? (Score:2)
I'm sure Lenin and Stalin would recognise it as such...
Which, as I said, goes to prove that the term has been evacuated of all actual meaning except for political scientists seeking to label their specimens.
Cherry picking is fair (Score:2)
Because otherwise all ideologies become mired in the mistakes of the past and are automatically discredited to the modern generation. Both socialism and Christianity have their good moments - and also some howling mistakes. The dimension in which Christianity is different is that it provides an answer to the question: 'What happens when I die', because of the resurrection of Jesus, a fact which many have sought to disprove, and, rather steadily, find instead they are convinced. A good example of this is Lee
Re: (Score:2)
Because otherwise all ideologies become mired in the mistakes of the past and are automatically discredited to the modern generation.
And perhaps that's just as well.
because of the resurrection of Jesus, a fact which many have sought to disprove,
It's a fairy tale without proof, not a fact being sought to disprove.
A good example of this is Lee Stobel, a one time atheist investigative journalist, who turned his skills to investigating the Resurrection. And ended up convinced it was true
One guy being "convinced" does not a fact make.
Re: (Score:2)
The religion that: Ended Infanticide and the abandonment of unwanted babies
yeah, that seemed like a terrible waste, christian nutters often do have a soft spot for infants ...
Re:You talking about Christianity? (Score:5, Informative)
You went back to the Roman Empire to try and prove a point, but conveniently failed to mention:
Christian kings sending armies to conquer new lands in the name of their god.
Popes sending armies to some shithole spot in a desert because they wanted it for themselves.
An entire army made of children.
The Inquisition.
The mass killing of cats because they were evil.
The mass killing of Jews because they were evil.
Witch trials.
The deliberate slaughter of millions of Native Americans because they wouldn't bend the knee to Christianity.
The deliberate attempt to wipe out Native American culture and practices, including the theft of children and forced indoctrination, some of which lead to deaths of those children.
No mingling of the races because their god said so. (still ongoing)
This doesn't even touch on the current state of Christianity and its attempt to resurrect (see what I did there?) enforcement of its edicts on everyone with consequent punishment for not following their rules.
Christianity is a death cult. Its actions over history prove it.
Of course that's true (Score:5, Interesting)
But to blame modern all Christians for the excesses that you refer to is as logical as blaming modern socialists for the mass murders of Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot, who similarly CLAIMED the title socialist to the disgust of many other socialists. Or indeed to blame all Americans for the excesses of slavery, racial discrimination and avoiding WWII for as long as you could. Focusing on past mistakes is an easy way to avoid challenges we'd prefer to avoid...
Re: (Score:2)
If the claim is that Christianity is a net benefit, then it is not unfair to look at the actual history and the consequences. What you're doing is cherry picking.
Re: (Score:2)
But to blame modern all Christians for the excesses that you refer to is as logical as blaming modern socialists for the mass murders of Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot, who similarly CLAIMED the title socialist to the disgust of many other socialists. Or indeed to blame all Americans for the excesses of slavery, racial discrimination and avoiding WWII for as long as you could. Focusing on past mistakes is an easy way to avoid challenges we'd prefer to avoid...
And here we are - the No True Scotsman argument.
Just say that any action that doesn't fit your narrative isn't the real christians, but a Stalin version of christians.
Intellectual perversion is what that is.
A whole lot of evil has been performed in the name of various gawds, christianity is not alone in that truth. And good too. But your denial of the bad is working in association with the bad people, just a head in the sand attitude that ignores them.
Certainly a lot of evil people have performed
Condemning AND owning them (Score:2)
Of course Christians condemn the abuses perpetrated in the name of Christ - just as socialists legitimately condemn Stalin etc. There is no alternative to what is, in effect, cherry picking, because otherwise all ideologies become mired in the mistakes of the past and are automatically discredited to the modern generation. Both socialism and Christianity have their good moments - and also some howling mistakes. The dimension in which Christianity is different is that it provides an answer to the question:
Re: (Score:2)
If whether someone claims to be a Christian or not is meaningless, since we can just look at their actions and say "good guy = Christian, bad guy = not Christian" -- maybe we should just look at their actions. It would seem "claims to be a Christian" and "other Christians accept them as Christian" just aren't particularly useful data.
Re: (Score:2)
If whether someone claims to be a Christian or not is meaningless, since we can just look at their actions and say "good guy = Christian, bad guy = not Christian" -- maybe we should just look at their actions. It would seem "claims to be a Christian" and "other Christians accept them as Christian" just aren't particularly useful data.
As my grandparents, who were born again strict Southern Baptists preached, a person does not have to do good works, they only have to accept Jeebuz as their personal lord and savior. My parents, who were strict Catholics, believed that a person must live a moral lifestyle and do good works.
It was oh so much fun! growing up in my household. And then there was my Altar boy cousin. Yeah, the priest loved fucking him, and messed the kid's mind up as well.
The great irony is that my cousin committed suici
Re: (Score:2)
It's very sad when a person decides that someone needs killing, and confusedly thinks it's themself.
Re: (Score:2)
It's very sad when a person decides that someone needs killing, and confusedly thinks it's themself.
Yes, he had some pretty big emotional problems. It's ironic, but one of the biggest problems with pedophile victim shame is how over the top social reaction is to it. If people treat it like an unspeakable crime, the victim tends to think of what happened as unspeakable, and internalizes it, and that becomes agony and a lack of ability to process what happened to them, and ends up internalizing society's over the top reaction as something horrible beyond life.
So removing oneself from life is not all tha
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But to blame modern all Christians for the excesses/quote>
We don't. Christianity is a set of rules. People who don't follow the excesses are frankly not Christians, they are religious lite who would largely be considered heretics by true followers of the faith.
To deny the horrors of Christianity is to deny the teachings of the bible itself. To deny the bible is to not actually be following your religion, so why call them Christians?
Re: (Score:2)
This has been the dumbest thread. You're not helping.
To deny the bible is to not actually be following your religion
The doctrine of inerrancy is a relatively new, mostly American, thing. How important "the bible" is depends a great deal on the brand of Christianity, of which there are too many to count. Hell, you won't even find much agreement on what constitutes "the bible". To insist that Christians necessarily hold some particular belief because of "the bible" just highlights your own ignorance.
To deny the horrors of Christianity
This is also really stupid. When it comes to man's inhumanity to ma
Re: (Score:2)
Blaming modern Christians for the excesses of the past makes exactly as much sense as praising modern Christians for the positive effects on the Roman empire.
Re: (Score:2)
Ended Infanticide and the abandonment of unwanted babies in the Roman Empire
That was in the Medieval era, and they haven't progressed since [reddit.com].
Ended the mass killings as spectacle as to be seen in the Colosseum and elsewhere
Womp womp [deathpenaltyinfo.org]
Restored the expectation that marriage would be exclusive
Fucking assholes.
Raised the status of women in the Roman Empire
Did you know that the majority of church officials in the early Christian church were women? Roman women were considered the head of the household because they managed it. What happened to that?
Delegitimised genocide and bestiality
Bestiality was never mainstream, and an American Christian (a Catholic anyway, which is a Christian sect) recently bypassed Congress in order to continue funding a genocide.
Eventually ended slavery across the world
Slavery has not ended across the world. In fact it is
Re: (Score:2)
In fact it is explicitly still legal in the USA, for anyone convicted of a crime.
youve come out with some stuff in the past, but the might be a new PB
Re: You talking about Christianity? (Score:2)
AMENDMENT XIII
Section 1.
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 2.
Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Hope this helps, person who apparently hasn't read the Constitution but still wants to tell other people what's in it. Learn to read, kid.
Re: (Score:2)
Learn to read, kid.
burned
Re: (Score:2)
Not yet, it's a work day.
Re: (Score:2)
what amendments are — things we have added to it
Um... 'To amend' means 'to correct'. Amendments, then, are changes. That can mean making additions, but it's not limited to that. The 21st amendment, for example, does away with the 18th.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Began persecuting Jews almost as soon as it gained political power
Actually diminished the status of women in the Roman Empire
Replaced slavery with landed serfdom
Persecuted pagans and destroyed entire cultures in its desire to impose its religious beliefs
Committed various atrocities (such as the seemingly endless persecution of Jews, not to mention the Cathars, Lithuanian pagans, and when they ran out of other people to kill, then each other)
Supported divine right of kings and a highly stratified society
Re: (Score:2)
Restored the expectation that marriage would be exclusive
Restored what? Since when was that the expectation? You're cherry picking is creating some very circular references. Monogamy was a concept created by religion, not some concept that was "restored".
Re: (Score:2)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
seems to show that marriage doesn't have a lot to do with religion per se. It's worth noting that the gods of the Graeco-Roman pantheon were noted for their propensity to commit adultery. In both pagan Roman law and the Napoleonic code the man is free to have sex outside marriage without it being deemed to be adultery - something which Christianity reversed though later saw collapse again under Napoleon!
Re: (Score:2)
WTF?
"Ended slavery"? You want to go read the books and pamphlets written by pre-Civil War Southerners, about how it was good for the slaves? Like the Congresscritter that just said that last month?
And "raised the status of women"? (Looks over at the UK until the 1900's, rolls on the floor laughing).
Re: (Score:2)
Eh the Zoroastrians were promoting equality of men and women back before Christians were explaining how women should keep quiet in church and be subservient to their husbands. In fact it's likely that Christianity wouldn't have been invented if the Zoroastrian king Cyrus the Great, called in the Bible "God's messiah", hadn't allowed the Jews to return to Israel and rebuild their temple. In fact it seems likely that a lot of the better bits of Christianity were borrowed from Zoroastrians [wikipedia.org]. Anyhow, the Zoroast
Look at the early history of Christianity (Score:2)
It grew from nowhere to take over the Roman empire despite being persecuted, on and off, for over 300 years. No, it didn't grow by Roman emperors and popes "convinc[ing]" a lot of people to become Christian during that period, Yes, most modern Christians are embarrassed by the subsequent centuries of enforced Christianity, but find the pre-Constantine period a reminder of what it should be like.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, but all kinds of religions start from nowhere and gain followers. Roman religion had been in decline before Christianity was invented, and Rome had increased Israel's desire for a messiah, so being in the right place at the right time aided Christianity's early growth. But it was under Roman emperors and popes that Christianity became a major global religion, rather than another minor religion.
Also, original Christianity, imperial Christianity, and protestant Christianity are quite different from each
Worse than the original Roman empire? (Score:3)
'far-reaching, comprehensive, & brutal than the Roman Empire ever was'
Your knowledge of Rome's approach to conquest is limited. Julius Caesar records his deliberate genocide of millions in Gaul to get them under control; and that's the one we know about.
But that's not the primary point; the question is whether Christianity turned the Roman Empire away from a lot of bad stuff(TM). That it later collapsed into some very evil ways doesn't prove it wasn't very positive for a time, or that it has led to many
Re: (Score:2)
Your knowledge of Rome's approach to conquest is limited.
who let appraise-o-bot out of his enclosure again?
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
'Even now, in the US, you can see the Evangelicals carrying on the fine tradition of seizing political institutions to impose their beliefs and prejudices on a wider society.'
Whereas liberals 'seizing political institutions to impose their beliefs and prejudices on a wider society' is legitimate? Everyone has the right to campaign for what they believe in - that's the meaning of democracy. And remember that MLK was a pastor... Ultimately all criminal law is the imposition of somebody's morality; the only qu
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
And what, pray tell, are "liberals' imposing on you? This cult of victimhood really gets tiresome, particularly when it is its adherents doing unpleasant things like asserting ownership over other peoples' uteruses.
Liberals impose: (Score:2, Troll)
Abortion: the right of women to murder inconvenient children
Homosexual equality: bringing into question healthy same sex friendships. I invited one person I met over - and he had to check that he wasn't being invited on a gay date. Once we'd got past that, we grew a great friendship
Diversity hiring - driven by the belief that all talents are equally distributed. Kamala Harris - the best black woman candidate for the Vice Presidency.
Schools being used to indoctrinate kids that gay relationships are of equal
Re: (Score:2)
What a shame. A lot of what you've been saying has been reasonable. Then you had to go completely off the rails with this nonsense.
Abortion: the right of women to murder inconvenient children
Women? Don't forget about the countless children raped by close relatives who can't safely carry or deliver a baby because they're children. Or the right of women to get ordinary life-saving care. Or to not be arrested for having a miscarriage. Or to not tracked by law enforcement just because they had a positive pregnancy test.
The problem with your position is that you onl
Hard cases make bad law (Score:2)
Of course some terminations are necessary; the life of the mother v life of the child scenario is the most problematic. As to how to enforce a law against abortions? Yes, there are horror stories which I'm embarrassed by. However a response of allowing all abortions is equally problematic unless you define a fetus as a non-person, on a level with kulaks in Soviet Russia or landlords in Maoist China.
Yes, non-straight people have always existed. That doesn't give such people the right to sexual activity when
Re: (Score:2)
That doesn't give such people the right to sexual activity when its legitimation is damaging to wider society.
Legitimizing your bigotry causes harm. Legitimizing homosexuality does not. I can prove my assertion. You can not.
'What evidence do you have that they're not of equal worth?' to which the immediate answer is 'What evidence do you have that they are of equal worth?'
Bigots cause real, measurable, harm to society. I can prove that. Does that me we should we strip you of your basic civil rights? If you start with the premise that some lives are worth more than others, you're going to very quickly find yourself on the bottom of the resulting hierarchy. That's not a game you bigots want to play.
How do you decide? There's no objective answer -
Why don't we put it to a vote? Bigots are a shrinking minor
Do try and keep up (Score:2)
70 years ago the vast majority of the population of the USA was racist, sexist and homophobic. So if you had put the questions you want to put to the vote you would have got the wrong answer. Now you want to put the issue to the vote - because you believe you will get the right answer. That doesn't seem a good basis for morality...
'Really, the only fair thing to do is assume that all lives are of equal value.'
Ah - so because you assume that the vote would affirm that, you're now wanting to assume that.
'You
Re: (Score:2)
Now you want to put the issue to the vote
Apparently filthy bigots can't read. Why am I not surprised?
because you assume that the vote would affirm that, you're now wanting to assume that.
Nope. Learn how to read. Or are you reduced to lying about what I've said because, like all bigots, you can't defend your shitty, hateful, beliefs?
I don't have a problem with any speech.
You're either lying or you're really stupid. This has been explained to you more than once. You are very obviously against free speech. I want you to think about what you want and how that might affect the free expression of others. Now, consider how your life would be affected if those same stric
Re: (Score:2)
For millenia, belief in sky fairies has been causing hatred, making people kill each other and torture animals, as well as do all sorts of other stupid shit. It's long past time people grew up. Even the stupid ones.
Actually, I came here to say that this move of NYC is a religious move itself.
Since we've forbidden - supposedly - caring about how people treat each other and insisting that they have a humble view of themselves (real religion), we have to just make up a bunch of new rules.
Hence things like speech being redefined as "violence", NYC calling social media an "environmental toxin", and other howlers.
Re: And Religion? (Score:3)
People have misused religion for so long. At the very least we should include warning labels on priests.
Re: (Score:3)
The only available choice is "what kind of religion". We do need to reform or eliminate genocidal religions, like fundamental Islam, and we do need to maintain separation of religion and state, but this is the best we can do until humanity itself
Re: (Score:3)
Considering that religion is present in all human societies, even isolated tribes, your naive ideas of ending religion is utopian that like all other leftists utopian ideas will massively backfire and will end up killing millions. Just like Mao's and Pol Pot ideas. The only available choice is "what kind of religion". We do need to reform or eliminate genocidal religions, like fundamental Islam, and we do need to maintain separation of religion and state, but this is the best we can do until humanity itself changes. Recent experiments of eliminating Christianity in the West massively backfired, we now at the lowest point of individual freedoms in the last 50+ years, our populations are crashing, and our liberal societies are on the brink of getting turned into Fundamentalism run by the Woke Mullahs. The wheels will come off shortly after that and will will enter Dark Ages.
I think religion as traditionally practiced is at fault for a lot of the directions we're taking right now. No matter how good the concepts in the base teachings of a religion, there are always power brokers using that religion as an excuse to commit horrible acts on others. It starts with the idea of thinking that the religious teachings, allegories, fairy tales as life-lessons, are somehow true factual accounts of historical events, and using that as an excuse to reject the reality all around us. When rel
Re: (Score:2)
I think religion as traditionally practiced is at fault for a lot of the directions we're taking right now. No matter how good the concepts in the base teachings of a religion, there are always power brokers using that religion as an excuse to commit horrible acts on others.
I think that is the consequence of immutable nature of humanity. Religion is just another hierarchical structure that can get corrupted in a way you describe. However, I would argue that at least Christianity has built-in checks and balances against such corruption. I will even propose that in a thought experiment between Christianity and atheism based society, Christian society will do better in resisting corruption.
When religious types fight science, it ends up causing...
Exactly. Western society established mechanisms to counter such corruption. However, no suc
Re: (Score:2)
I think religion as traditionally practiced is at fault for a lot of the directions we're taking right now. No matter how good the concepts in the base teachings of a religion, there are always power brokers using that religion as an excuse to commit horrible acts on others.
I think that is the consequence of immutable nature of humanity. Religion is just another hierarchical structure that can get corrupted in a way you describe. However, I would argue that at least Christianity has built-in checks and balances against such corruption. I will even propose that in a thought experiment between Christianity and atheism based society, Christian society will do better in resisting corruption.
When religious types fight science, it ends up causing...
Exactly. Western society established mechanisms to counter such corruption. However, no such readily available response exists for atheists fighting science. For example, denial of biological gender, had it come from religious community would be shut down and mocked very quickly.
It starts with the idea of thinking that the religious teachings, allegories, fairy tales as life-lessons, are somehow true factual accounts of historical events, and using that as an excuse to reject the reality all around us. .
They are quasi-true, in a sense that they establish patterns of behavior that in most circumstances would result in well-functioning society. Religious literalism, a type of corruption, does not necessary means these stories are harmful. An example to demonstrate - I can take a book on exercising and take it to such extreme as to kill myself with exercise. This does not mean that exercising is harmful.
What we need is a more balanced approach than most any religion I've heard of. Buddhism, not really a religion but more a moral code, is about as close as I've seen to a balanced approach.
Yes, I agree. However, first we need to stabilize West society that got unmoored by emergency of quasi-religious cults (e.g., wokes, anti-humanist reduce the population greens, trickle-down capitalists, shareholder return optimization). Each and all of these I think demonstrably worse than, for example, modern Christianity.
I think that is the consequence of immutable nature of humanity. Religion is just another hierarchical structure that can get corrupted in a way you describe. However, I would argue that at least Christianity has built-in checks and balances against such corruption. I will even propose that in a thought experiment between Christianity and atheism based society, Christian society will do better in resisting corruption.
Considering how utterly corrupt most Christian organizations end up being, how would we know? It's the organization part that breaks the Christianity part, and more and more people succumb to the organization, and despite preaching the religion to people that don't want to hear about it, do not at all follow the religion itself.
Exactly. Western society established mechanisms to counter such corruption. However, no such readily available response exists for atheists fighting science. For example, denial of biological gender, had it come from religious community would be shut down and mocked very quickly.
There's an interesting premise/theory that our religious woo-woo roots in America's colonial period, Puritans and other 'persecuted' religions, the most nutty of the nutty were being
Re: (Score:2)
It's the fundamentalists that try to put a stranglehold on an entire political party and get that fundamentalism institutionally supported by the government that drive me absolutely bananas.
I have no hard data, but my intuition tells me that this is the case of nutpicking [rationalwiki.org] driven by the click-bait media. I think about 60% of US population today are Christians of some sort, out of these hundreds of millions, how many are advocating teaching creationism? If we could determine precise number, how that number would compare to crazies in atheist population (e.g., people insisting on teaching the 1619 project as history)?
Maybe we just haven't evolved out of our superstitious period enough to make a moral code that isn't corruptible by organizations...
I am almost certain that we haven't. In my on-going journey in search of underst
Re: (Score:2)
I have no hard data, but my intuition tells me that this is the case of nutpicking [rationalwiki.org] driven by the click-bait media. I think about 60% of US population today are Christians of some sort, out of these hundreds of millions, how many are advocating teaching creationism? If we could determine precise number, how that number would compare to crazies in atheist population (e.g., people insisting on teaching the 1619 project as history)?
In some ways I think this is American Exceptionalism percolating through the religious dogma and coming out the other end with the same conclusion far too many succumb to. Whoever the loudest, craziest asshole is is the only one that gets heard. Even if it's only a few outliers wanting this to happen, the fact that it actually *DID* happen in some districts in Texas is a sign that our government doesn't really have anything to do with listening to the majority. "Tyranny of the majority" is a thing, I know,
Re: (Score:2)
You also appear to be creating a false dichotomy by saying it either has to be religion, or a person has to develop morals and ethics on their own. No. People can be taught things through example, through guidance from elders, through watching good people around them.
Let me clarify. I am not saying that communal shared moral code without religion is impossible, but rather pointing out that it is not currently done anywhere by any type of human society. I speculate that any religion is a combination of two things - shared moral code and deferral to a higher authority. Any member of society could follow shared moral code, but it is the latter component, deferral to a higher authority, that both conserves the
Re: (Score:2)
I appreciate the opportunity to have this cordial conversation.
It is different, isn't it?
You also appear to be creating a false dichotomy by saying it either has to be religion, or a person has to develop morals and ethics on their own. No. People can be taught things through example, through guidance from elders, through watching good people around them.
Let me clarify. I am not saying that communal shared moral code without religion is impossible, but rather pointing out that it is not currently done anywhere by any type of human society. I speculate that any religion is a combination of two things - shared moral code and deferral to a higher authority. Any member of society could follow shared moral code, but it is the latter component, deferral to a higher authority, that both conserves the moral code and is at the root of religion. It is also the element that leads to superstition and is prone to corruption by power seeking individuals. So it is both necessary and dangerous. I am not convinced that a standalone moral code would remain sufficiently stable over even a medium-term. I think without deferral to (and fear of) a higher authority the temptation to reinvision and slide toward nihilism will be too great. For example, what would stop a society that went through a trauma of war (e.g., Ukraine) to return to enforcing moral code that states that murder is absolutely wrong? I think only religion, specifically a silly fear of going to hell, could do that.
OK, I get where you're at. I think that's the point where I get hung-up and say that we simply need to mature as a species. We remain rooted in our animalistic past, and defer to "natural tendencies," which at this point are pretty much an unjustifiable excuse in almost every case. We like to think of ourselves as intelligent, and typically, in smaller groups, we are. "A person is smart. People are blind, dumb, panicky animals and you know it." K (Men in Black).
I think, deep down,
Re: (Score:2)
I'm currently writing a very lengthy fictional fantasy/sci-fi account of a far-future "new god" who sees herself as an equal of her people, and interacts with them on a day-to-day basis. She wants her people to remind her when she steps out of line, and wants them to take her advice as suggestion, rather than commandment. It's a fantasy, of course, but it's what I've always wanted the core of current religions to eventually evolve into. She often scolds the elder gods. "A god that separates themselves away to bask in their own glory rather than walk among his or her people is a failure. We weren't put here to demand worship and protestations. We were put here to serve the greater good. And we can only do that working with our people and using our power to help everyone, not lording that power over them and telling them it's not available to them when they need it."
Interesting premise. Have you read Hard to Be a God [wikipedia.org]? In my very pessimistic take, I expect her to ultimately fail with humanity because people don't fear her and just ignore her wisdom out of petty selfishness. The sad conclusion that the goddess is forced to wipe the humanity and start fresh.
On a more positive note, just as it is possible to perform compute on a faulty hardware, as long as you know it is and have adequate error-checking, it should be possible to build egalitarian and prosperous society ou
Re: (Score:2)
I'm increasingly convinced that religion is not and never was a real causal factor. People are just dumb, prone to thoughtless prejudice and mass panic. Obviously this doesn't apply to any Slashdot reader since we're all straight-thinking lone wolves, but we still have some of that human stupidity lurking just beneath the surface.
Just read the story about Joseph Palmer. This happened almost 200 years ago, ostensibly due to religious conviction that wearing a beard is somehow evil, but I can see something si
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Far more people today are engaged with social media than religion. And although it's hard to quantify, I'd wager major stakes that the amount of disinformation on social media far exceeds the amount of "disinformation" in religion.
As I mentioned, Internet Atheists talk about religion far more than all of the extremely devout re
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)