|
Miltank posted:Progressives are about to discover Christianity again and poo poo is going to get way real. It'll be a progressive movement up until the moment the real world forces those religious progressives to contradict a portion of their faith in favor of additional forward progress. As an example, lots of the church goers who were just fine pushing for racial civil rights were more than willing to stab LGBT people in the back over their attempts to get rights. Lots were actual functioning human beings and supported the cause, but acting like that was anywhere near the majority. Hell, in this thread, you jut tried to whitewash women's rights, very possibly because of your regressive religious views regarding sex.
|
#
¿
Jul 9, 2014 18:00
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 15:05 |
|
|
Miltank posted:please explain the individual's role within his society using science tyia Best answer to the meaning question is that there is none.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 9, 2014 18:05
|
|
|
Miltank posted:I think a women should have 400 abortions if she wants to doesn't matter to me. Then stop carrying water for anti-woman and anti-choice cavemen. Your whole question was challenging the idea of basic bodily autonomy for women. quote:The trick will be eliminating social norms that are masquerading as religious doctrine. There is no difference. Religious rules (at least for the more established religions) are just the social norms of dead people. I could care less about the wishes of the dead-- their wishes stopped being relevant the second they stopped breathing.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 9, 2014 18:12
|
|
|
Miltank posted:seems like a bit of a cop out to me. Except that everything we've seen scientifically shows us as not being important at all. At worst, we can only meaningfully affect a few nearby planets, and in all probability not even having a real affect beyond Earth. Figuring out that everything I was worried about was in the end meaningless and unimportant was perhaps the most liberating thing ever. Instead of worrying about life being some vague test or something where all decisions had to worried about to one were even in the worst case we only were loving over a microscopic corner of reality takes quite a load off your shoulders. Who What Now posted:You're right. Meaning is whatever we want it to be for ourselves, and morality is what societal consensus dictates it to be. It's pretty rad. Hence why both concepts are meaningless and unreal.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 9, 2014 18:19
|
|
|
Miltank posted:Does anyone here want to ban birth control? The OP doesn't and neither do I so why not PM kyrie elieson if you wanna have this fight? I reject that women are inherently property without the availability of contraceptives but luckily contraceptives aren't going away because that would make no sense. The OP does. And you're whitewashing how awful it was for women before reproductive control (and the other freedoms that came from it) became more common again. Without the ability to control if a man wants to force you into a fairly dangerous nine-month ordeal, women don't have the ability to be one even footing with men, and will thus be treated as chattle and brood mares. Christianity is nothing but religious rules, same as every other religion. Some might be worded more nebulously, but all affect final action so are as problematic as strictly written rules if not more so.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 9, 2014 18:36
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:Institutionally hostile to pacifism, really?? Well, there is the idea of a Just War, which suggests that violence is allowed in some circumstances. Opening the door to violence is pretty toxic to the idea of pacifism. In recent history (last 100 years) we already have the church supporting one side of a war in Spain. Hell, they supported the literal fascists, a philosophy steeped in the idea of eternal conflict. That would seem pretty antithetical to any supposed pacifism. Nobody was turned over to authorities or tried after the West finally beat back the fascists, either, saying to me that everything was a-okay with doing this. I'm sure you'll give some platitude about forgiveness, which only underlies how bad this idea of Christian theocracy (actually any type) is. If leaders are allowed to help line people up for death and simply get off with an "I'm sorry" instead of the gallows or a lengthy prison term and removal from the apparatus of power, that's a huge flaw.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 15, 2014 11:50
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 15:05 |
|
|
Miltank posted:your life probably won't change too much unless you are downtrodden or unless you own capital. Or you're a person who's part of a religious outgroup and wants representation. By creating differences in the ability to have the government represent different religious groups, you've created a scenario of the unrepresented, which is a pretty straight line towards exploitation historically. At best, you'd get a "white man's burden" type of thing where the empowered class tries to halfway guess and appease the underclass with something less than full societal participation. Western democracy doesn't have a great track record with this either, but the solution is not to take a giant step away from the people being given control over the levers of power. As Ghandi said, good government is no substitue for self government. The better theocracies suggested here are benevolently authoritarian towards outgroups, and the worse are just bog standard oppression.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 18, 2014 18:00
|
|