I'm saying that the surrounding culture shapes how people interpret religious scriptures.
You can have the most heinous religious scripture in the world but if that text is being interpreted and used in a peaceful culture, then most people will ignore the "bad" parts of the text.
Look at what The Lord's Resistance Army does with the bible.
But the issue about not following Islam strictly enough is also true for Christians.
The whole thing is really about the surrounding culture rather than the religion itself. If the culture supports violence then any religious scriptures will be interpreted as such as well.
That's very true. I mean, for one thing, you can do abortions much later in the USA than you can do in Sweden (later as in "late term abortions"). I guess even people who are supportive of abortion (but not supportive of late term abortions) will defend late term abortions simply because they fear that making them illegal will affect conventional abortions.
>> Seriously. For 10 million dollars he could of raised an army and taken over a small country. All he would have to do then is pass a law forbidding an extradition to America and he would of been set. 10 million dollars could have bought any number of extra-legal solutions to his problems.
Yeah I know. The republicans are all about making large infrastructure investments, but minority groups obstruct their plans every chance they get. It's like some Live and Let Die black conspiracy turned real.
Immigration is a hotter topic in europe specifically because we have better social security.
The US has this attitude of letting everybody in and just have them take care of themselves, while many european countries actually take care of their own people.
This creates a situation when we get people into the country who were not born there but who will get social security, free health care and everything like that.
But as far as I know, obscenity laws are completely different from the law/s against child pornography. The difference being that obscenity laws do not regulate possession, only distribution. You can't be prosecuted for owning something that is obscene, only for distributing it.
Well to be perfectly honest... I'm not that familiar with the american arguments on this subject, but I'm familiar with an argument by european proponents of this type of legislation... And that argument has nothing to do with the harm of the material itself, and this is specifically why their argument simply cannot be defeated.
Why?
Because they don't argue that the material itself causes harm. They argue that the material itself IS THE HARM. (sorry for the capitals, no \emph here)
When they look at it from that perspective, there's simply nothing that can change their mind because it doesn't matter what effects the material itself has. It doesn't matter whatever studies you show these people. Their argument is simply that the material itself is the actual damage done, and it must be forbidden.
If the IQ study is the one I think it is, it was based entirely on convicted child molesters, and not on the population of pedophiles as a whole. Therefore if, say, lower IQ causes these people to molest, then it also makes them more likely to get caught.
It'd be really interesting to see studies on the entire population, not just on incarcerated subsets.
Actually while I agree with what you're saying in general, I want to ask
1: Do you have any sources or links to such studies as you mention in the beginning of your post?
2: Comparing countries is a bit problematic because there might be a differences between two countries in terms of how likely people there are to go to the police following a rape. (though with japan it's probably a special case seeing that there's a study confirming that reported incidents of rape decreased as availability of porn increased, and it doesn't seem likely that japan became so much more sexist since the end of world war 2 that report frequencies changed as a result)
Most people I've heard speak highly of common sense tend to have a very superficial understanding of whatever they're 'invoking' common sense in response to.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm saying that the surrounding culture shapes how people interpret religious scriptures.
You can have the most heinous religious scripture in the world but if that text is being interpreted and used in a peaceful culture, then most people will ignore the "bad" parts of the text.
Look at what The Lord's Resistance Army does with the bible.
But the issue about not following Islam strictly enough is also true for Christians.
The whole thing is really about the surrounding culture rather than the religion itself. If the culture supports violence then any religious scriptures will be interpreted as such as well.
That's very true. I mean, for one thing, you can do abortions much later in the USA than you can do in Sweden (later as in "late term abortions"). I guess even people who are supportive of abortion (but not supportive of late term abortions) will defend late term abortions simply because they fear that making them illegal will affect conventional abortions.
>> Seriously. For 10 million dollars he could of raised an army and taken over a small country. All he would have to do then is pass a law forbidding an extradition to America and he would of been set. 10 million dollars could have bought any number of extra-legal solutions to his problems.
Is that some kind of slang?
What?
Internet: Where being upset is worse than being an asshole.
Yeah I know. The republicans are all about making large infrastructure investments, but minority groups obstruct their plans every chance they get. It's like some Live and Let Die black conspiracy turned real.
Wait... You believe the police should be privatized?
Gamergate IS the problem.
I'm impressed that someone dares speak the truth in here.
Oh god it's spreading outside of Sweden.
I thought this was a local fad among Swedish nazis, but apparently it's something more.
These people toss around the label liberally.
Immigration is a hotter topic in europe specifically because we have better social security.
The US has this attitude of letting everybody in and just have them take care of themselves, while many european countries actually take care of their own people.
This creates a situation when we get people into the country who were not born there but who will get social security, free health care and everything like that.
In this case I'd say it's more about sinuses.
But as far as I know, obscenity laws are completely different from the law/s against child pornography. The difference being that obscenity laws do not regulate possession, only distribution. You can't be prosecuted for owning something that is obscene, only for distributing it.
Actually... No.
Well to be perfectly honest... I'm not that familiar with the american arguments on this subject, but I'm familiar with an argument by european proponents of this type of legislation... And that argument has nothing to do with the harm of the material itself, and this is specifically why their argument simply cannot be defeated.
Why?
Because they don't argue that the material itself causes harm. They argue that the material itself IS THE HARM. (sorry for the capitals, no \emph here)
When they look at it from that perspective, there's simply nothing that can change their mind because it doesn't matter what effects the material itself has. It doesn't matter whatever studies you show these people. Their argument is simply that the material itself is the actual damage done, and it must be forbidden.
If the IQ study is the one I think it is, it was based entirely on convicted child molesters, and not on the population of pedophiles as a whole. Therefore if, say, lower IQ causes these people to molest, then it also makes them more likely to get caught.
It'd be really interesting to see studies on the entire population, not just on incarcerated subsets.
Actually while I agree with what you're saying in general, I want to ask
1: Do you have any sources or links to such studies as you mention in the beginning of your post?
2: Comparing countries is a bit problematic because there might be a differences between two countries in terms of how likely people there are to go to the police following a rape. (though with japan it's probably a special case seeing that there's a study confirming that reported incidents of rape decreased as availability of porn increased, and it doesn't seem likely that japan became so much more sexist since the end of world war 2 that report frequencies changed as a result)
Could be worse. Could be javascript.
The belief that abortion should be considered murder is absolutely fucking retarded, though.
Yeah right...
But what the schools are doing isn't necessary what the culture at large is doing.
You'll have to look beyond school. What is media telling men and women about IT?
Proponents of common sense rarely have any.
Most people I've heard speak highly of common sense tend to have a very superficial understanding of whatever they're 'invoking' common sense in response to.
Whoever invented the "who would have thunk it" expression should be shot.
The conservatives will just claim that the scientists involved are all biased and "politically correct".
"Social scientists, and I use the term 'scientist' very lightly here, tend to only want to consider the facts that don't hurt people's feelings"
Or perhaps those things you call facts simply aren't actual facts.