You rarely get to pick and choose when it comes to culture. If the "complete package", myths and all, makes you more successful in life, then it's a good package.
In theory, sure, you can teach all the good moral lessons and social lessons and good habits without also teaching myths. But, you know, kids really like myths, and no one has actually managed to do this yet in a way that stands the test of time. A worthwhile endeavor, to be sure, and maybe somewhere in Europe will be sitting roud in a century or two saying "see, we did it", but today there's no ready-to-go off-the-shelf package like that.
So lots of parents send their kids to church, and then just don't emphasize the myths when reinforcing the other stuff at home. I knew many people who considered themselves Christian, and had a successful set of values, but saw Jesus much like Santa - a kindly myth that was useful when they were kids. (Morality is doing the right thing when no one is looking, but to get kids in the habit, it's handy to have a figure you pretend is always looking, whether Jesus or Elf on the Shelf).
Has nayone looked at Amazon's actually free apps to see if they're typical malware? Sure, there's a different compensation model for the devs, but my cynical assumption is that they also harvest everything they can. Would be pretty cool if they didn't though?
Where's the GOG of apps, anyway? The "one price upfront, guaranteed no data collection or in-app purchases"?
OK, I don't claim to understand any MRA terminology, but the red pill was the one that allowed you to escape the matrix, right? So those playing the normal dating game are the blue pills, and those who say "fuck that, it's not worth the drama" are the red pills, no?
Being an "Escort Wagon", I can presume what other options you're talking about...
For many years, a very prominent, high-traffic billboard in downtown Houston had a picture of an attractive girl in evening-wear and in large print "Need an Escort?" In smaller print it had "or a Taurus? Come to this Ford dealership!". It was a landmark, in more ways than one.
If we define "a god" as "a supernatural entity that people appeal to", then most the Hindus I've met have believed in plenty, from household gods and regional gods to the big ones, to the shallow extent most Christians actually believe in God (i.e., barely). The only one I've met who would insist on the who "only one Brahman" stuff was basically Hindu Flanders (except worse, since she was preachy).
Imposing your values on others is being a dick, pure and simple, but most religious people don't care. If you paint everyone religious with that brush, well, bit of a hypocrite there.
The abortion debate is different though. We all agree that it's right for any sort of society to impose certain basic rules on everyone, like "killing is bad". The abortion debate is a debate on "when is a fetus considered human". At whatever point that's true, it's automatically also true that our society already has the right to impose that rule on others. (And anyone who thinks they can pin down that point with 100% accuracy hasn't really thought about it much.)
And yet they came from a culture that cherishes and gives social status to intellectual fields and education, as opposed to the US culture where we tell kids "don't be smart". It can be hard to separate the religion from the culture - a religion is far more than its scriptures, after all.
That's just BS. Faith is in no way required to belong to a religious community, to be part of the culture, to act according to the moral principles of that religion, and so on. Heck, it's common enough for priests to not believe, but they're unquestionably part of the religious community.
You want to insist on a strawman, and it's pretty obvious that's what you're doing.
> Scientists must back up their claims with evidence,
Except for Dark Matter, Dark Energy, String Theory,... yup, plenty of evidence. NOT.
Marking you troll was terrible/. moderation. You seem sincere here. You're also quite wrong.
Dark matter and dark energy are observed "facts" that can't be explained by accepted theories. We know a little about each form those observations.
Dark matter has been found three different ways: in galactic rotation rates, in gravitational lensing where there's no visible matter, and in the balance of mass to electron count in the early universe, as observed via the CMBR. The observed ratio of familiar matter to unknown matter (called "dark" both becuase we don't know what it is, and because it doesn't interact with photons) is the same for both, and you don't need to invent anything else to explain the gravitational lensing, so it's accepted there is a common cause for these 3 unexplained effects. We also know, from these observations that it's slow-moving matter (not like neutrinos) that doesn't interact with light or EM in general, and that is was capable of forming in the first few hundred thousand years. All of this is observed fact.
Dark energy is just the name given to the observed fact that galaxies are not just moving away from each other, but accelerating over time. That's about all we know, but the math says that whatever it is, it's both the dominant energy in the universe, and astoundingly weak (the universe is mostly empty space, so there's no contradiction there).
I'd mod you insightful if I could. Trying to force your recipe on others is the opposite of compassion. Constantly going on about it, using strong social pressure, is dickish at a minimum.
The technical terms in philosophy are "ethical norms", "ethical principles", and "meta-ethics". Ethical norms are specific prescriptions and proscriptions, and the ancient religions were pretty much just a list of these, with induction left as an exercise for the reader (much like Babylonian math instruction - just a bunch of examples). Ethical principles are the values from which you can deduce the rules. More modern religions are built on these (Old vs New testament for example).
Meta-ethics is about "what rules could you use to decide what ethical principle are correct". Spoiler: there aren't any (unless you have a narrow sort of theology that omits any deceptive divine beings).
The Judaeo-Christian religions (includes Islam) are more like a collection of recipes with strict initiation rituals and prescriptions etc.
You do know the entire Reformation and the emergence of protestant faiths was a rebellion against this, right? Of course, there were a couple cases of "meet the new boss same as the old boss" but for the most part protestant churches have minimal ritual, just what's necessary to get a large group of people efficiently through shared activities (much like schools). Islam OTOH still hasn't had its Reformation - and man, it needs to.
Compare the Catholic Church when it was a government to when it wasn't. The Inquisition was just a part of it. Clearly in that example the "government" part was a net negative, pretty obviously because of that "all governments have become evil and corrupt" part.
religion has a motive. and it makes selective 'gifts'. to get the soup, you have to listen to the BS sermon. no listen, no soup. that's not a group of people I want running things.
100 years ago that was very true for Christians (and it still is for Islam), but modern Christian charities do a lot of normal, no strings attached charity work. Plus, religious people are just a lot more likely to give to charities of all sorts.
Some people are just compassionate, you know? And religion seems to attract that sort (among others).
Funny how people are quick to point out "the negative impacts that occur in some religious communities" without saying much about the positive. Some religious communities (it can be hard to separate the religion from the community) are clearly doing something right.
I can't find good current stats on household income by religion, but this 2009 survey breaks it down pretty well.
Hindus come out on top, as they have for some time now: evidence that the more gods you believe in, the more successful you are in life. Or maybe it's something to do with the number of pirates - the data is slim. In any case, religions are recipes for life, and some of them seem to still be pretty good recipes, much as/. would hate to consider such a thing.
So now it's compassion to give money and harbor to ungrateful losers who don't realize that THEY have requirements and responsibilities too?
Well, yeah, that's pretty much the definition of compassion: giving help to people who don't deserve it.
So it's just dad that has to do all the fucking work?
Yup, welcome to being a mammal. Once they're adults, you're entitled to be upset if they boomerang, but when they're minors? That's what you sign up for. Heck, the financial part isn't even being a father, that's merely being a baby daddy. Being a father is real work.
WTF is wrong with your generation?
While UIDs don't exactly correspond with age, there is a strong correlation there, kid.
I don't have a cent invested in anything that isn't real estate - because I don't like play money investments. Land doesn't go anywhere.
Her legal guardians at the time the photos were taken decided it was ok to put the photos online. She has a point about pictures taken now, as the parents are no longer her legal guardians.
So that's Austrian law then? Sounds like speculation. The rights of an adult regarding decisions make by their guardians earlier aren't exactly standardized.
I really don't care. I didn't want the kids in the first place... their mother is a wretch
Wow, what a shining example of human compassion you are. And/or you really can pick em.
And that stuff about 'deciding where you go to a retirement home' doesn't matter if you have your documentation properly written.
... and you have the money to pay for it. It's when things don't go as planned and you need your kids' financial help that you're totally at their mercy. I've known people who were well enough off at retirement discover this. Well, here's hoping the next 15 years' markets aren't the trainwreck the past 15 years' were.
One thing to consider: the older you get, the more you're going to want your kids to contact you, and the less they'll need for you. Don't burn those bridges.
She's an adult now. You will probably want your kids to talk to you when you're 70. No one is going to carry a grudge about the lack of ice cream dinners, but this sort of thing? Public embarrassment of an adult? Questionably legal (clearly they don't have her consent as a model, though I'm not sure how Austrian law works for photos)? That's the sort of thing that makes people decide their life is better if they disown you.
Oh, all the super villains know his secret identity. But it's not like he's weaker at work or anything, and they want him to spend 8 hours a day working a normal job!
It always shocks me how many people can remain detached from their desires when confronted with the actual evidence that children are actually physically molested and yet no physical punishment occurs to the perpetrator beyond jail time. Or, better spoken, why WOULDN'T you want to put a bullet through the brain of a serial pedophile? Maybe you need to be able to think if it was YOUR kid that happened to. Maybe if it happened to YOU. Then you can ask why wouldn't the desire to become a vigilante be natural?
It must be the norm, given the problem the UK had with immigrants grooming underage girls, progressing to basically making sex slaves of them, which affected hundreds of girls, and was ignored for a year because the police didn't want to accuse immigrants of crimes: it's still happening. Oh, the police are finally policing, after the scandal broke, but the problem hasn't been solved. This is exactly the sort of situation where I'd expect vigilante justice:a heinous crime, and the police not helping.
But do realize that's not the norm for pedophiles and molested kids. Almost always, when a kid is molested it's a relative. Vigilante justice is less appealing in that case, except perhaps to the kid.
Slashdot Mirror
Because many old recipes aren't that great to the modern palate? Still might have some useful bits in them, though.
You rarely get to pick and choose when it comes to culture. If the "complete package", myths and all, makes you more successful in life, then it's a good package.
In theory, sure, you can teach all the good moral lessons and social lessons and good habits without also teaching myths. But, you know, kids really like myths, and no one has actually managed to do this yet in a way that stands the test of time. A worthwhile endeavor, to be sure, and maybe somewhere in Europe will be sitting roud in a century or two saying "see, we did it", but today there's no ready-to-go off-the-shelf package like that.
So lots of parents send their kids to church, and then just don't emphasize the myths when reinforcing the other stuff at home. I knew many people who considered themselves Christian, and had a successful set of values, but saw Jesus much like Santa - a kindly myth that was useful when they were kids. (Morality is doing the right thing when no one is looking, but to get kids in the habit, it's handy to have a figure you pretend is always looking, whether Jesus or Elf on the Shelf).
Has nayone looked at Amazon's actually free apps to see if they're typical malware? Sure, there's a different compensation model for the devs, but my cynical assumption is that they also harvest everything they can. Would be pretty cool if they didn't though?
Where's the GOG of apps, anyway? The "one price upfront, guaranteed no data collection or in-app purchases"?
One and a half decaplenties.
C'mon, that's a sesquidecaplenty! (At least, if we're going to be sesquipedalian about it.)
OK, I don't claim to understand any MRA terminology, but the red pill was the one that allowed you to escape the matrix, right? So those playing the normal dating game are the blue pills, and those who say "fuck that, it's not worth the drama" are the red pills, no?
Being an "Escort Wagon", I can presume what other options you're talking about...
For many years, a very prominent, high-traffic billboard in downtown Houston had a picture of an attractive girl in evening-wear and in large print "Need an Escort?" In smaller print it had "or a Taurus? Come to this Ford dealership!". It was a landmark, in more ways than one.
If we define "a god" as "a supernatural entity that people appeal to", then most the Hindus I've met have believed in plenty, from household gods and regional gods to the big ones, to the shallow extent most Christians actually believe in God (i.e., barely). The only one I've met who would insist on the who "only one Brahman" stuff was basically Hindu Flanders (except worse, since she was preachy).
Imposing your values on others is being a dick, pure and simple, but most religious people don't care. If you paint everyone religious with that brush, well, bit of a hypocrite there.
The abortion debate is different though. We all agree that it's right for any sort of society to impose certain basic rules on everyone, like "killing is bad". The abortion debate is a debate on "when is a fetus considered human". At whatever point that's true, it's automatically also true that our society already has the right to impose that rule on others. (And anyone who thinks they can pin down that point with 100% accuracy hasn't really thought about it much.)
And yet they came from a culture that cherishes and gives social status to intellectual fields and education, as opposed to the US culture where we tell kids "don't be smart". It can be hard to separate the religion from the culture - a religion is far more than its scriptures, after all.
That's just BS. Faith is in no way required to belong to a religious community, to be part of the culture, to act according to the moral principles of that religion, and so on. Heck, it's common enough for priests to not believe, but they're unquestionably part of the religious community.
You want to insist on a strawman, and it's pretty obvious that's what you're doing.
> Scientists must back up their claims with evidence,
Except for Dark Matter, Dark Energy, String Theory, ... yup, plenty of evidence. NOT.
Marking you troll was terrible /. moderation. You seem sincere here. You're also quite wrong.
Dark matter and dark energy are observed "facts" that can't be explained by accepted theories. We know a little about each form those observations.
Dark matter has been found three different ways: in galactic rotation rates, in gravitational lensing where there's no visible matter, and in the balance of mass to electron count in the early universe, as observed via the CMBR. The observed ratio of familiar matter to unknown matter (called "dark" both becuase we don't know what it is, and because it doesn't interact with photons) is the same for both, and you don't need to invent anything else to explain the gravitational lensing, so it's accepted there is a common cause for these 3 unexplained effects. We also know, from these observations that it's slow-moving matter (not like neutrinos) that doesn't interact with light or EM in general, and that is was capable of forming in the first few hundred thousand years. All of this is observed fact.
Dark energy is just the name given to the observed fact that galaxies are not just moving away from each other, but accelerating over time. That's about all we know, but the math says that whatever it is, it's both the dominant energy in the universe, and astoundingly weak (the universe is mostly empty space, so there's no contradiction there).
I'd mod you insightful if I could. Trying to force your recipe on others is the opposite of compassion. Constantly going on about it, using strong social pressure, is dickish at a minimum.
The technical terms in philosophy are "ethical norms", "ethical principles", and "meta-ethics". Ethical norms are specific prescriptions and proscriptions, and the ancient religions were pretty much just a list of these, with induction left as an exercise for the reader (much like Babylonian math instruction - just a bunch of examples). Ethical principles are the values from which you can deduce the rules. More modern religions are built on these (Old vs New testament for example).
Meta-ethics is about "what rules could you use to decide what ethical principle are correct". Spoiler: there aren't any (unless you have a narrow sort of theology that omits any deceptive divine beings).
The Judaeo-Christian religions (includes Islam) are more like a collection of recipes with strict initiation rituals and prescriptions etc.
You do know the entire Reformation and the emergence of protestant faiths was a rebellion against this, right? Of course, there were a couple cases of "meet the new boss same as the old boss" but for the most part protestant churches have minimal ritual, just what's necessary to get a large group of people efficiently through shared activities (much like schools). Islam OTOH still hasn't had its Reformation - and man, it needs to.
"religions are recipes for life"
The worst people I have ever met in my life are religious.
That's not a contradiction, you know? Some recipes are, well, quite bad.
Compare the Catholic Church when it was a government to when it wasn't. The Inquisition was just a part of it. Clearly in that example the "government" part was a net negative, pretty obviously because of that "all governments have become evil and corrupt" part.
religion has a motive. and it makes selective 'gifts'. to get the soup, you have to listen to the BS sermon. no listen, no soup. that's not a group of people I want running things.
100 years ago that was very true for Christians (and it still is for Islam), but modern Christian charities do a lot of normal, no strings attached charity work. Plus, religious people are just a lot more likely to give to charities of all sorts.
Some people are just compassionate, you know? And religion seems to attract that sort (among others).
Funny how people are quick to point out "the negative impacts that occur in some religious communities" without saying much about the positive. Some religious communities (it can be hard to separate the religion from the community) are clearly doing something right.
I can't find good current stats on household income by religion, but this 2009 survey breaks it down pretty well.
Hindus come out on top, as they have for some time now: evidence that the more gods you believe in, the more successful you are in life. Or maybe it's something to do with the number of pirates - the data is slim. In any case, religions are recipes for life, and some of them seem to still be pretty good recipes, much as /. would hate to consider such a thing.
So now it's compassion to give money and harbor to ungrateful losers who don't realize that THEY have requirements and responsibilities too?
Well, yeah, that's pretty much the definition of compassion: giving help to people who don't deserve it.
So it's just dad that has to do all the fucking work?
Yup, welcome to being a mammal. Once they're adults, you're entitled to be upset if they boomerang, but when they're minors? That's what you sign up for. Heck, the financial part isn't even being a father, that's merely being a baby daddy. Being a father is real work.
WTF is wrong with your generation?
While UIDs don't exactly correspond with age, there is a strong correlation there, kid.
I don't have a cent invested in anything that isn't real estate - because I don't like play money investments. Land doesn't go anywhere.
It's like 2008 never happened.
When everyone you see is an asshole: look in the mirror.
Her legal guardians at the time the photos were taken decided it was ok to put the photos online. She has a point about pictures taken now, as the parents are no longer her legal guardians.
So that's Austrian law then? Sounds like speculation. The rights of an adult regarding decisions make by their guardians earlier aren't exactly standardized.
I really don't care. I didn't want the kids in the first place ... their mother is a wretch
Wow, what a shining example of human compassion you are. And/or you really can pick em.
And that stuff about 'deciding where you go to a retirement home' doesn't matter if you have your documentation properly written.
... and you have the money to pay for it. It's when things don't go as planned and you need your kids' financial help that you're totally at their mercy. I've known people who were well enough off at retirement discover this. Well, here's hoping the next 15 years' markets aren't the trainwreck the past 15 years' were.
Boomer: '45-'65
Gen X: '65-'85
Millennial: '85-'05
The people who cut off Millennial at '95 need to share their definitions of generations...
This. If you don't think someone born at the turn of the millennium is a Millennial, well, don't expect others to share your private definition.
One thing to consider: the older you get, the more you're going to want your kids to contact you, and the less they'll need for you. Don't burn those bridges.
She's an adult now. You will probably want your kids to talk to you when you're 70. No one is going to carry a grudge about the lack of ice cream dinners, but this sort of thing? Public embarrassment of an adult? Questionably legal (clearly they don't have her consent as a model, though I'm not sure how Austrian law works for photos)? That's the sort of thing that makes people decide their life is better if they disown you.
Oh, all the super villains know his secret identity. But it's not like he's weaker at work or anything, and they want him to spend 8 hours a day working a normal job!
It always shocks me how many people can remain detached from their desires when confronted with the actual evidence that children are actually physically molested and yet no physical punishment occurs to the perpetrator beyond jail time. Or, better spoken, why WOULDN'T you want to put a bullet through the brain of a serial pedophile? Maybe you need to be able to think if it was YOUR kid that happened to. Maybe if it happened to YOU. Then you can ask why wouldn't the desire to become a vigilante be natural?
It must be the norm, given the problem the UK had with immigrants grooming underage girls, progressing to basically making sex slaves of them, which affected hundreds of girls, and was ignored for a year because the police didn't want to accuse immigrants of crimes: it's still happening. Oh, the police are finally policing, after the scandal broke, but the problem hasn't been solved. This is exactly the sort of situation where I'd expect vigilante justice:a heinous crime, and the police not helping.
But do realize that's not the norm for pedophiles and molested kids. Almost always, when a kid is molested it's a relative. Vigilante justice is less appealing in that case, except perhaps to the kid.