|
It makes a lot more sense to reduce the amount of nicotine in cigarettes than to do what Canada has done, which is essentially the opposite: limit the amount of nicotine in tobacco-free alternatives and make them less desirable, while basically not restricting the amount of nicotine present in tobacco products. For example, tobacco-free snus must have <4 mg nicotine/pouch to be legal to even import into Canada, yet traditional tobacco snus available for sale here has up to something insane like 28mg/pouch. Vapes are also limited as to strength, unlike cigarettes, and of course the government is trying to ban flavours entirely. I think this proposal to make cigarettes/tobacco the least attractive form of nicotine use, rather than arguably the most attractive and most accessible, is actually quite clever.
|
#
¿
Jun 21, 2022 15:46
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 14:10 |
|
|
The mere fact of being dependent on a substance is neither good nor bad, inherently. Many people are dependent on various sorts of medications to keep them alive or functional, and even if you want to take the example of an addiction which does have mild negative health effects and is completely unnecessary, I'd point you in the direction of caffeine. If you are going to draw the line between addiction and dependence on the basis of negative consequences, then I'd argue that transition to tobacco-free nicotine delivery is allowing people to maintain physical dependence on nicotine while stopping the addiction, because the consequences of nicotine in and of itself are quite minor, even if it does cause physical dependence. The real issue is that the most effective and prevalent form of nicotine -- cigarette smoking, or tobacco use in general -- is incredibly bad for your health. And, arguably, the fact that the most popular alternative also involves inhaling a foreign substance other than tobacco smoke... probably isn't great either. That being said, there are tobacco-free alternatives that don't involve inhalation.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 21, 2022 20:09
|
|
|
Randalor posted:Get hosed Collins, you knew exactly what was going to happen. Unless you're going to call for removing them from the bench or expanding the court, you're not feeling sorry at all. Is she one of the people from the Invention of Lying? Like, did she actually not know that people could just lie? What is going on in her head?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 24, 2022 19:08
|
|
|
I really, really want to play poker with Collins and Manchin. I have a feeling it would be incredibly lucrative.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 24, 2022 21:24
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Finishing reading the Oklahoma decision and Gorsuch is really mad. Gorsuch is interesting because he has this one particular area of law on which he has consistently good opinions, and then the rest of his entire personality is trash. That's still better than Amy C. Barret, or Judge Beer, or god forbid, Thomas. I think it would be tolerable to have an ideologically balanced court -- i.e. some conservative justices, if they were more like Gorsuch and less like the beer weeper.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2022 16:32
|
|
|
haveblue posted:New York has passed their updated gun laws, so now that you can get your concealed carry license actually performing concealed carry has gotten much harder, especially in New York City. Is it "places where alcohol or marijuana are consumed" or "places where alcohol or marijuana may be legally consumed?" If it's the former, I'd say they've effectively banned concealed carry.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 2, 2022 16:16
|
|
|
BRJurgis posted:In my experience, leadership and responsibility are tough and its much easier to be told what to do than to be responsible for organizing and directing people for the collective good. To extend on that, and I think it has direct impact on the political situation in most of the developed world: it's really easy, and therefore desirable, to be a leader when times are reasonably good and you don't have to do a whole bunch. With COVID, among other things, we've really quickly hit the point where leaders at all levels -- both in private business and in government -- have to make difficult choices with no inherently correct answer, and every possibility will piss a large number of people off and have negative consequences. Well, tough poo poo; you thought leadership pays well because we love your amazing insight when times are good? No! It pays well because, when it really matters, leadership mainly sucks. It's difficult and unpleasant, and if you accept the position of leadership and all its benefits... well, you gotta eat the poo poo sometimes too.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 2, 2022 21:08
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:I think this is why those tropes about Make Them Do It, in which Do It = anything contrary to their donors' interests, rub me so wrong. "Welp, voters just don't like stuff like single-payer; time to shovel more money in subsidies to private insurers!" when polling for single-payer usually follows what low-info voters' favored pols are spouting at the moment (see, e.g., the bump among Dem voters for fracking once Biden came out in favor it during one of his debates with Trump). I'd agree with that, and I'd go further and say there's a particularly feckless sort of leader who looks at a good but unpopular option, and a bad but somewhat popular option, and reasons that the best compromise is a bad and unpopular compromise. I'd say it's not necessarily based on political position looking at my own non-US context. Our conservative premier just got shitcanned because, on COVID, he managed to do nothing of any use for people who recognized COVID was a threat, but did entirely too much in the opinion of people who thought COVID was a "globalist conspiracy plandemic." Margaret Thatcher, we are richer for having lost her, and may Satan piss on her miserable soul, said one thing that's completely correct on the subject of leadership: "Standing in the middle of the road is very dangerous; you get knocked down by the traffic from both sides." The middle ground is not inherently safe and you should only stake out the middle ground on its own merits. In some cases, the middle of two extremes is prudent; in others, you're choosing between a correct option and a wrong option, and the compromise is to select an option that's half-poo poo and usually won't even bear the few benefits of the fully-poo poo option, while pissing everyone off. Our erstwhile premier, may he suffer 100 mosquito bites on his cockend, made this mistake just the same as the Democrats in the US, so I don't believe it has anything to do with ideology, but rather with cowardice, and that comes back to what I think it means to be a leader. They came of age, in a sense, where leadership meant moderation and compromise, and therefore they equate those things with leadership itself rather than viewing the situation contextually and realizing that the key point of leadership is directing all efforts at what needs to be done. At times, it may be moderation and compromise; now, clearly, that is not the case.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 2, 2022 22:44
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:Weird that Jim Hightower would agree with Margaret Thatcher but one of his favorite sayings (and the title of one of his books) was "There's nothing in the middle of the road but yellow stripes & dead armadillos." Would that we'd (in the global sense) have a democratic socialist leader with half the guile and cunning of Thatcher, poo poo might actually improve.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 2, 2022 23:43
|
|
|
Not treating minors like property of their parents, or suggesting that you can't assault them under the guise of "discipline"? That's absurd and un-American! There are public schools in the US where teachers are permitted to hit children with paddles -- assault and battery with a weapon. It still blows my mind.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 6, 2022 14:16
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:International Swimming, Rugby, Wrestling, and U.S. college swimming have all confirmed new policies that ban trans athletes from competing in women's sports unless they transitioned before age 12. It also creates a new third "open competition" category where people of all genders can compete. This policy is appallingly transphobic on its face, but fascinatingly I think it might actually be a way to end-run around this whole debate if we give it time. Men will mostly not compete in the open category unless you eliminate the male-only category entirely, because it's an admission that they're not good enough to compete at the absolute top level. Look at how many male boxers refused to fight Patricio Manuel simply because it's either: you beat him, and everyone thinks it was easy, or you don't, and people laugh at you. What, then, if you're a top level cis female athlete with no intersex traits? Well, you have the choice of the "I've always, and only, had a vagina, ovaries and estrogen" category, or the open competition, where you probably won't have to compete against any particularly serious men, and you'll still be competitive against trans/intersex athletes because -- prior to these ridiculous rules -- it's not like trans people were, in general, enjoying particular athletic success. If you can compete at a high level, you wouldn't take the route perceived as "easier" that's actually not meaningfully easier, because it can only possibly lower your prestige in victory. The end result is, essentially: this policy exists for the explicit purpose of transphobia while having no particular other motivating factor toward its existence, but if we can hold our nose for a bit regarding how stunningly awful it is, it's entirely possible it could end this horrifically stupid debate about Who Is Cis Enough to Compete As A Woman. I have strongly mixed feelings about exactly how good or bad that is. I'd like that debate to die, but I'd prefer to avoid the inherent transphobia in this solution.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 7, 2022 06:23
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:This is the most recent one I recall: I should also say: I know anecdotes aren't data, but I spoke to a part-time coworker I really respect, and his main job is as a teacher, and honestly it gave me a whole new perspective on the restrictions. We're both pilots and we both, obviously, care very dearly for our own personal medicals, but the mental health struggles he saw (and the lack of capacity to handle them) were sobering, for me, and having someone I trust, someone who put himself at risk the whole time and dealt with the fallout,, rather than some fucko conservative weasel make the case, honestly made a difference in how I view the issue. I have to concede maybe I was wrong. I don't get it myself, I would've loved it. But apparently a lot of teenagers were in crisis. I don't know what the solution is anymore. You have kids saying they don't feel safe attending school due to COVID, you have kids that need crisis treatment because they can't go to school anymore. Who takes precedence? Who should we care more about?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 8, 2022 06:26
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:People inexplicably loved Christie because he was exactly the guy you meet like 15 times a day in New Jersey. The Dems (and their fellow travellers around the world) need to realize: that poo poo counts even if you can't quantify it. Fetterman should give them a clue, I hope. Democratically elected politicians represent us. That's literally the definition of their job, that's why the exist. People we cannot relate to, and who do not attempt to relate to us, will suffer at the ballot box. And, here's the great thing: you can totally fake it! Look at GWB and Trump and BoJo! They're rich assholes who don't give a gently caress about you, and have no idea what your life is like, and they'd kill themselves if they had to switch places with you, but they learned to fake it. It's not debate club, you can't win just by having the best argument. You should, as a general principle, do right by the people you represent and by society as a whole, but that's not sufficient to guarantee electoral victory.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 12, 2022 00:35
|
|
|
Why are used car salesmen the go-to for disgusting, venal rear end in a top hat comparisons when realtors are right there? In the year of our lord 2022, we should have a better idea of who our enemies are.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 12, 2022 04:28
|
|
|
I'm not so sure! A lot of conservatives are adamant that immigration is okay if people do it The Right Way (the Right Way being only extended to people they like, in general) it's just all those MS-13 caravans that are the problem; that's a sufficient fig leaf for them to feel their racism is excused and try to fish a new pool of voters. Just look at all those sufficiently pale fuckers who "lost their family farm in Cuba" and had no choice but to flee to Cuba. They fit right in! Your large adult son could even become a senator for Texas, with that kind of plucky, upstart background. EDIT: Hmm, just looked it up, Ted Cruz's father actually left Cuba after being beaten for opposing the Batista regime, pre-Revolution. I would not have guessed that. PT6A fucked around with this message at 18:47 on Jul 14, 2022 |
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2022 18:44
|
|
|
Here's a question: do you think there's any way she or anyone else could report relevant facts to the public in such a way that people motivated to interpret those facts in bad faith could not use them as justification for hateful bullshit? I absolutely agree that the impact of her words is terrible and probably irresponsible, but I don't believe there's any way she could have avoided that short of purposefully withholding information. If the COVID response has shown anything, it's essentially that the public at large should not have access to statistics or data or scholarly research, because they will do insane, stupid and hateful things with it. That's one way to go, but it has its own drawbacks in a free and democratic society.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 31, 2022 01:37
|
|
|
Gripweed posted:She could have said something like, "while the disease is currently primarily seen in gay men, cases like the two children and others show that everyone is vulnerable" Do you think that would not have been equally twisted to demonize MSM? I don't think the people going on unhinged rants about gays being evil child molesters are arguing in good faith. I don't think we need to assume they are.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 31, 2022 02:35
|
|
|
Gripweed posted:No, of course it wouldn't have been equally twisted. Because the original statement wasn't twisted. Walensky said gay men are giving children monkeypox. The right wing can repost that verbatim. My suggestion would have had to have been twisted, because it does not include a causal link. No, she said they have been traced back to the MSM community, which is either factually correct or it isn't. There are children with gay parents, children with gay siblings, and other situations where children might have sufficient contact with men who have sex with men, in a completely non-sexual way, that they could get the disease and it could be traced back to the MSM community. It's not a moral judgement unless you choose to make it one, and the people who are choosing to make it a moral judgement would do so regardless of how it was phrased, regardless of what evidence or lack thereof was presented.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 31, 2022 03:10
|
|
|
My argument is that no matter what she says, if she communicates the current spread pattern of the disease, it will be used to justify hatred and queerbashing. If the information is made publicly available I don’t think there’s any avoiding that, sadly. So you’re in fact saying that the CDC should refuse to disclose this information — essentially treating it as classified material. I think, on the balance, that’s not the worst idea, but can you imagine the conspiracy theories that would create?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 31, 2022 05:13
|
|
|
Bar Ran Dun posted:As I’ve said previously she’s very bad at being the head of the CDC. There is a profound naivety about human behavior outside the academic bubble that is persistent in her decisions that has caused profound harm. I agree, but I think there's a larger structural problem that's been loving poo poo up since COVID began too: the CDC is tasked with being both an impartial developer and provider of data and relevant scientific communications, and also a public-relations arm. These two tasks are at odds with each other. Their communications on COVID were awful, and we're still paying the price, with insufficient quarantines, misinformation about droplet spread, people clinging to ideas about mask effectiveness based on poo poo that was done out of expediency in 2020. Providing the raw data direct to the public didn't work either, you had tons of base rate fallacy and other rookie statistical errors, some of them building to the level of actual conspiracy theories. The CDC, as an organization, has been placed in an impossible position, and I don't think it's fair to blame Walensky for occupying the seat which best encapsulates the inherent contradictions of the CDC's mission, because I fundamentally don't think anyone could do better. Maybe you have to refactor the entire organization into two separate bodies, one of which is concerned with controlling disease via communication with the public, and another which provides relevant scientific, medical and statistical data to healthcare professionals. I don't think one organization can do both at once without compromising one side of its mission, and the fact that Walensky has been asked to do both, means that she has been set up to fail.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 31, 2022 15:14
|
|
|
I mean, if it were me, I would simply blame homophobia on the sick, stupid bastards who, in the year of our lord 2022, still make the choice to be bigoted loving assholes.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 31, 2022 18:27
|
|
|
Mendrian posted:I mean to put this in perspective, I went the high school in the late 90s, significantly after the height of what we would consider the AIDs crisis. I remember having a conversation with my mother around that time where we talked about AIDs and she said she was relieved I was straight because it couldn't be transmitted from 'straight' sex. I told her I was pretty sure that wasn't true, and left my mother with the uncomfortable revelation that anal sex was not a synonym for gay sex, which is what she had previously believed. "Blah blah blah, we need to coddle stupid bigoted rear end in a top hat and forgive them their stupidity." Like, sorry, the transmission of accurate, factual information is not the issue here. You can't have an organization which is tasked with disseminating scientific data, and then bitch when they do so! If you want to bitch about poo poo, bitch about the fact that you live in a pseudo-theocratic hellhole and no one's done gently caress all about it for hundreds of years. That's not the loving CDC's fault. We bitch at them when they alter their messaging for practical purposes, as they did with COVID isolation advice, we bitch at them when they shoot straight. I don't mean to be an rear end in a top hat, but, have we not set up a situation where they're the whipping boy no matter what they do? You have to deal with the homophobes. There's no other option. You can't live in fear of the giant body of homophobic, moronic assholes, and modify your behaviour to placate them; you must simple excise them from society, and salt the earth from which they grow.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 1, 2022 07:07
|
|
|
some plague rats posted:Oh drat that's right! We should just deal with the homophobes! Why didn't we think of that?? Well, no offense, but everyone here is acting like half the US is the "and then they EAT THE POO POO!" guy, and there's no loving getting around that with messaging if they are. Everyone's assuming that "these children were linked to people in the MSM community" will be interpreted as "the gays are molesting children" and, if that's the case, your society is deeply, deeply hosed and homophobic. That's an absolutely insane thing to assume in a first-world country in the year of our lord 2022.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 1, 2022 15:49
|
|
|
Americans, apparently: "it's excellent that we're bordering on a pre-modern 'shithole' society. The real problem is messaging." The post about someone who is quite homophobic but is not seen as homophobic due to absolutely ridiculous levels of homophobia in your society, makes my point.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 1, 2022 16:13
|
|
|
Civilized Fishbot posted:Is this what you think we're saying? Yes, you're getting angry at a scientist for saying the truth because American society has spent decades being virulently homophobic and not dealing with it. It makes no sense to people who don't live in that society.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 1, 2022 16:20
|
|
|
Civilized Fishbot posted:Centuries, obviously. No, it's decades since most of the rest of the world had a parting with America on this subject, and that's relevant. The rest of the developed world largely decided to consign the interference of religion in public affairs to the bin, where it belongs; it's only America where it continued unabated and in fact has strengthened since the middle of the 20th century.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 1, 2022 16:55
|
|
|
Crain posted:Since the "high school debate club"-tier rules now imposed on this thread by toddler brained seem to be keeping people from just saying what needs to be said, I'll do it: How am I the problem for pointing out how backward the US is? You're sitting here pretending you can reason the loving Jewish space-laser woman, like picking the right words will make her and the morons who vote for her, somehow less insane and stupid.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 1, 2022 17:56
|
|
|
It does absolutely matter what government agencies say. They should be truthful and honest. That should be the main concern, because you can't say anything that can't be twisted around and misinterpreted by lunatics and morons.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 1, 2022 17:59
|
|
|
A big flaming stink posted:isn't pt6a Canadian Aye, and while we certainly have homophobes, we simply shout them down instead of pretending maybe it’s our fault they’re hateful because we didn’t phrase things properly.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 1, 2022 18:28
|
|
|
A big flaming stink posted:Do you think the CDC has any responsibility to correct the AP if they release misinformation I think they do, and they should be doing that right the gently caress now.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 1, 2022 18:29
|
|
|
some plague rats posted:Wait, so if I want to not experience homophobia any more I should simply shout them down? drat I never knew it was that easy, I've been getting homophobic abuse for years when I didn't have to! That's so embarrassing, for me No, it's a sickness in society. Your neighbours and friends and countrymen should shout them down. I live in basically the bible belt of Canada, and we recently had a local businessman implode his own business overnight by spewing some homophobic QAnon poo poo, because the community, even as conservative as it is, did not and will not tolerate that. It must not be tolerated. It's not the responsibility of the person receiving hatred to stand against it; rather, it is the responsibility of society as a whole to make clear such behaviour will be condemned at great personal cost to those who would engage in it. We had a client at work who made homophobic remarks. We told him: this is your one warning and there won't be a second, don't ever say that poo poo here again or you will be told to leave and never come back. You can do that! It's within everyone's power to make society completely intolerable for homophobes. I just don't understand what y'all have going on down there, I really don't. I try to, but it makes no sense to me. PT6A fucked around with this message at 22:09 on Aug 1, 2022 |
|
#
¿
Aug 1, 2022 22:07
|
|
|
BIG FLUFFY DOG posted:germany and japan, the two developed nations with the most affordable rent have attained this through the magic idea of building units to match increases in population. Tokyo is one of the most expensive cities in the world yet the average price for a studio with kitchen in shibuya is around $800 USD , In berlin you could be looking at around 1000 euros which would make it competitive with cosmopolises like Cleveland and Nashville in the US to live in one of the world's great capitals.if you see cranes everywhere and they build 5000 units but your city at the same time has 10,000 more households then there's going to be an increase in rent because demand is higher than supply. housing construction in the US and especially in big cities takes forever to work through the permits, and then once you do get the permits in order some NIMBYs will organize a campaign against it. It can take several years before you even put something in the ground. That means in realistic terms that demand is almost always going to be higher than supply in the us. Even when there is construction taking place its responding to the demand from 6-7 years ago not the demand from today so by the time the needs of the people from 7 years ago is filled there's now a couple thousand more who need housing and are pushing prices up. I think the other issue that's sort of implied by your post, but should be made explicit is the following: in Canada and the US, we have a huge issue in that we have lots of land and houses, lots of cities and larger towns, where it basically loving sucks to live for most people, and until we figure out how to make those places more desirable to more people, major markets like NY, SF, Toronto, Vancouver, are going to be nuts because you have induced demand for economic, cultural and social reasons that's exacerbating the housing shortage. It's an economic issue, it's a cultural issue, it's a political issue.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 5, 2022 18:46
|
|
|
BIG FLUFFY DOG posted:i mean we know how to make it more desirable: walkable mixed-used with street shade trees and public amenities. its just that would require voters making their commutes take longer or move closer to their jobs or middle american cities having development plans other than give tax breaks to big companies until they move their facilities here and nobody wants to do that. Well, it's not just that, is it? Assume you have a great, modern, walkable city with good transit and amenities at the local level, but it's located in a state or province run by vengeful conservative assholes that limit your ability to make policy municipally, that systematically destroy things like education and healthcare at a state/provincial level, that are committed to removing people's basic human rights. I don't give a poo poo how walkable the city is or how many trees there are, people are going to want to move away from that poo poo. It's not a question of urban planning alone.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 5, 2022 18:54
|
|
|
projecthalaxy posted:Is there a good horizontal study on similar "pop quiz randos on the street" in other places? Like obviously the 30 or 50 percent Americans who can't name the branches of government is bad, but is there some fact based way of comparing that to like random Austrians or Eritreans or Cambodians knowledge of their government in the same situation? Like if it's 53 percent here and 60 percent elsewhere vs 53 percent here and 99.9 percent elsewhere thats a big difference! Well, given that during the weird anti-COVID restriction protests, most of our morons here in Canada were citing bits of half-understood US constitutional law, and being upset that other sovereign nations were denying them entry, which was clearly the Canadian government's fault for some reason I'm gonna say that the US isn't a huge, huge outlier. EDIT: Every election here, and I'm assuming it's quite similar in most Westminster systems, people seem shocked that we don't actually vote for Prime Minister.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2022 20:45
|
|
|
I mean, it's Donald Trump, so I imagine the truth of the matter is far stupider than we can conceive up. Not to say it's not serious, just that the circumstances will be absolutely, mind-bogglingly dumb and weird if/when we learn the full truth.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 12, 2022 04:22
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Someone just rushed a stage where Salman Rushdie was speaking and stabbed him. He was stabbed 2-3 times, collapsed, and the assailant ran off. Goddamnit 
|
|
#
¿
Aug 12, 2022 17:06
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Security tackled the guy who did it and police have him in custody. Glad to hear that, at least. Still, what a lovely thing to have happen.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 12, 2022 17:12
|
|
|
Young Freud posted:https://twitter.com/Josiensor/status/1558230358134587395?s=20&t=kpmvHLHesG_KrmEKYxL7yw I think one of the most interesting details, in terms of providing context, is that the suspect is a mere 24 years old, not someone who remembers what this entire issue is/was actually about when the fatwa was first decreed. Religion has a lot to answer for right now, precisely because it drives this unthinking bullshit where either a young guy can be convinced to stab an author for essentially no reason, or, let's face it, young men who don't know a uterus from a unicycle can be convinced to attack women's rights, or entire groups of people of all ages can be convinced to downplay the most vile, heinous forms of child abuse. I don't think you get to that point without religion, and I think as a society, we need to start religion like alcohol: sure, maybe not everyone has a capital-p Problem with it, but it's a motivating factor behind a lot of awful, awful poo poo, and we need to stop treating it as a completely harmless personal choice, culturally speaking.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 13, 2022 13:57
|
|
|
smug n stuff posted:Hm okay, what would that look like to you, to treat religion like alcohol? As a society, we must begin to treat it as a thing that has the capacity to cause problems for both the "user" and society in general. Prohibition is obviously off the table in both cases, that's been tried and it simply doesn't work and it never will. What strikes me about the Rushdie case is, as much as it was violent, it was also intensely self-destructive. This 24 year old man, barely an adult, has ruined his own life in addition to whatever results from this deplorable act of violence. It's very, very likely he will go to prison for a fairly long time, and for what? So he could stab an author? No one wins here on any level, everything that happened is strictly bad, with no silver lining. I agree that this can happen with any idol/ideology and religion isn't special in this regard, but the reason I want to compare this to substance abuse is that they're both trying to fulfil unmet needs, and we need to reach out and help meet those needs in a way that doesn't end in a tragic situation like this (or an alcoholic killing someone while driving drunk, or committing suicide-by-cop in a drunken stupor, whatever you like).
|
|
#
¿
Aug 13, 2022 15:29
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 14:10 |
|
|
Epicurius posted:Except there are Hindua who are opposed to thr caste system, Christians who are fine with homosexuality, and Christians and Muslims who don't believe nonbelievers are going to hell. Well, this is kind of what I was getting at with my comparison to alcohol. Most people who drink alcohol don't abuse alcohol, or drive drunk, or get drunk and beat their spouse, or any of that really negative stuff. But some people take the drinking too far, and do that sort of thing! So it is with religion: for most religious people, religion is a positive force in their lives. But some people take it way too far, and end up doing heinous poo poo. Most don't... but some do. So we need to accept that it does have the potential for significant harm, and if it's a negative influence in your life, the people around you need to say "you need to chill."
|
|
#
¿
Aug 13, 2022 23:43
|
|