What is something that should have died out a long time ago?
9mon 8d ago by lemmy.world/u/chunes in asklemmy
Nazis
Young earth creationism and flat earth
Young earth creationism
What I hate so much about that, is all the "evidence" just points to some near extinction level event that humans worldwide suffered.
And obviously for that to have happened, it means there had to be a lot more people.
Like, entire cities/tribes/whatever were wiped out everywhere, but some had individuals survive. Which explains how "the last two people" could have kids who just happen to later have spouses and kids of their own without any explanation for where the new people came from.
They were just outside of walking distance.
Over the 300,000 plus years anatomically modern humans have been on Earth, that's probably happened a bunch. Hell, we've had 2-3 actual ice ages over that span.
We don't know shit about 250k of those years.
From what I understand (and as a Christian), it's those Christians that take a literal reading of the Bible, not understanding that those parts of the Bible aren't meant to be read literally but are about the WHY of creation rather than the HOW. It's about WHO God is rather than how He did things.
Either that or Genesis is just an explanation made up by a people group that had little to no idea how anything in the natural world works lol
If you squint real hard, Genesis is a tale of stellar and planetary formation. Then comes evolution. Give the first bits a read! Yeah, evolution is mixed up a little, still surprisingly on point for a bunch of Bronze Age sheep herders.
Then there's a second tale, in the same short book. What a clusterfuck. But I can still see some real history in it. If I squint real hard.
Yeah seeing as the writers of the Pentateuch didn't even know what the stars were, I'm pretty sure that's all a coincidence lol.
Squint so hard your eyes are closed, maybe. Any overlap between biblical verse (translated through at least two languages) and modern scientific understanding is coincidental.
Like a prophecy referencing cities burning being reimagined as a nuclear exchange instead of, you know, a fire.
I always thought 2 Peter 3:8 basically addressed this issue.
Wow! Nailed it! I had thought that as a young Christian, didn't know there was a verse for it. Lost my religion long ago BTW.
What's weird is the young Earth thing is relatively new. Before the 1850s or so, you would be laughed out of the room. As ignorant as we were, naturalists were having a hard time trying to figure a world that was millions, or 10s of millions, of years old. Churches, of any stripe, sure as hell wasn't preaching it.
And here we are, with the flat Earth idea being even newer.
Child labor.
Despite progress, child labour still affects nearly 138 million children worldwide
https://data.unicef.org/topic/child-protection/child-labour/>
Affects is such a strange way to put it. Like, "they caught a case of child labor."
I get you, but how would you phrase it? I expect, BTW, that it might be intended to cover both the extreme of children forced to work in a sweatshop 12/7 and children who have to help their parents with some subsistence tasks.
Those two should not be counted in the same category.
Maybe not, but the boundaries can be fuzzy, and statistics tend to get built on technical language that may not treat the fuzziness the way you or I would agree with. So I get the urge to use vague language like 'affects' or the difficulty in finding language that is general enough without sounding mealy mouthed.
Religion
Easy to say, but I'd argue it's baked in.
“Fifty thousand years ago there were these three guys spread out across the plain and they each heard something rustling in the grass. The first one thought it was a tiger, and he ran like hell, and it was a tiger but the guy got away. The second one thought the rustling was a tiger and he ran like hell, but it was only the wind and his friends all laughed at him for being such a chickenshit. But the third guy thought it was only the wind, so he shrugged it off and the tiger had him for dinner. And the same thing happened a million times across ten thousand generations - and after a while everyone was seeing tigers in the grass even when there were`t any tigers, because even chickenshits have more kids than corpses do. And from those humble beginnings we learn to see faces in the clouds and portents in the stars, to see agency in randomness, because natural selection favours the paranoid. Even here in the 21st century we can make people more honest just by scribbling a pair of eyes on the wall with a Sharpie. Even now we are wired to believe that unseen things are watching us.”
― Peter Watts, Echopraxia
I kinda get it. Everyone needs something to look forwards too. Sadly, for some, there's only the idea of afterlife for that.
Religion isn't necessarily the problem, people (as usual) are.
All religion is baseless bullshit, so yes, it is problematic in itself.
It is divisive by nature/design.
And it is made worse by people abusing it for power over others or discrimination.
I think it’s a bit of a stretch to say it’s all baseless. It could just as easily be the passing down of allegorical tales — stories seeded by some guiding or controlling force countless generations ago in our collective development. There are even arguments for things like a collective consciousness or sub-atomic networks, suggesting that our linear experience of time might just be a way of processing information.
Honestly, who really knows? But speaking as someone who has oscillated between Christianity, Buddhism, and atheism in my youth, I’ve come to see atheism as just as much of a limiting dogma as any other belief system.
After posting my comment, I figured the baseless part might get some critique, but I decided to leave it. I meant it as 'not based in realty or not based on facts', if that helps clarifying.
Also, if you heap in atheism with Christianity and Buddhism, you don't understand what atheism is.
Christianity and Buddhism are actual systems of belief, while atheism is simply a lack of belief in any god or deity.
Anyone who does not believe in some god/deity/greater power, is an atheist. Whether they like it or not, that's what it is. A simple definition about a persons lack of belief. It does not come with any other rules or dogma. No rituals or leadership at all, so it can't be a system.
I wouldn't say I heap them in together. At times in my life I have rejected a belief in anything 'higher', which fits your definition of atheism, although perhaps my mindset was closer to an agnostic atheist stance, which to me is more along the lines of 'I don't believe, but I can't be certain as there's a limit to my knowledge', as opposed to being a strong proponent of the belief that there is nothing beyond death.
Fair point. No one can be sure about there being anything after death. For me it's like the safest and most logical bet that there won't be anything. All other 'options' come across a lot like wishful thinking. No one is going to believe in anything that doesn't fit their own narrative.
Personally, I would not be able to believe Santa Claus is real, so why would I believe in anything supernatural? I'd rather find answers in science.
Also, the idea of there being eternal life after death would just terrify me. It would be the most boring and useless way to spend time. It is the notion of my time being limited that gives it value. When time is unlimited, everything loses meaning.
I hear you. But then does the existence of some sort of higher purpose/unknown science necessarily imply everlasting life?
No not necessarily, but it is the selling point of most religions that I'm aware of. Either eternal life itself or in the form of reincarnation.
Dying again in any way after our initial death doesn't make very much sense to me and doesn't have much selling power, I'd imagine...
Anything existing after death just brings way too much fantasy/wishful thinking for me to be comfortable with. I love these concepts in movies or books, but they go straight into the horror or fantasy genres for me.
There's simply no evidence for anything existing after death. If that changes at some point, then I'd be willing to look into that and change my point of view on it. But I'd be surprised if that happens before my time is up...
@MotoAsh@lemmy.world @TomMasz@lemmy.world
Firstly, it's obvious "believing" means "zero evidence". If a belief had any solid evidences, it wouldn't be a belief, it would be a peer-reviewed scientific paper instead.
That said, you're conflating "belief" with "religious hierarchy" when, in reality, belief isn't necessarily dependent on hierarchy. I believe in Lilith and Lucifer, and I have no one "above me" except for Her and Him. In fact, the belief I follow on my own isn't even compatible with any kind of hierarchy, because these entities represent independence and rebelliousness, so it'd be quite paradoxical for me to have a leader/master/priestess/whatever.
Finally, I challenge you to point out any kind of "humanity's ill" inflicted by Luciferianism and other left-hand path beliefs, even those who actually have hierarchies (e.g. Quimbanda).
So, I sincerely remind you, don't generalize and attack every single religion and belief system on Earth because of a half dozen big ones who actually are to blame for many historical wars ("Holy wars") and their interference on scientific progress. Don't demonize the demons and demonesses, we're friends of scientific inquiry. Beware not to do friendly fire.
@MotoAsh@lemmy.world Where in centuries of human history were there any wrongdoings stemming from Luciferianism and other leaderless occult belief systems? Where in centuries of human history did Luciferianism and other occult belief systems interfered or tried to hinger with scientific progress?
Go on then try to explain how pagan religions that boil down to "don't fuck with nature, it'll kill you" are damaging?
my point that it doesn’t matter which religion
idk man saying it doesn't matter what religion you're talking about sounds like you think they're all equally bad to me.
Also idk who's beliefs you think I'm making a strawman out of but I was refering to my own beliefs that help me to actually go into nature as I can at least 4 times a year to help with my depression, maybe I'm more open to it because up until a few years ago I was studying to become a conservationist but it's certainly better than back when I also thought that anyone who believes in something is a dumbass
I'm leaning more into druidic paganism personally but paganism has had a massive impact across the planet through it's different forms.
Vikings, Celts, Romans, Greeks, ancient Egyptians, native Americans and aboriginal Australians all practiced / practice some form of pagan religion. If you genuinely believe that not a single one of those culture groups have done anything throughout history then you clearly need to learn some things yourself before you criticise people for believing in any religion.
But I guess I shouldn't expect someone who can't even remember their own arguments to actually understand anything about the world outside their basement.
Ok you know what it's on me for falling for a troll, clearly I'm just trying to stop you from believing in something without evidence. But that's just something idiots do right?
Don't demonize the demons and demonesses
You are all following demons. Self-proclaimed Satanists, Atheists, "progressivists", billionaires, nazis, racists, bigots, child molesters, and rapists. Men who abuse women and women who abuse men. And those demons hate you more than anyone else can. They'll lead you to the everlasting hellfire. They won't be your friend.
we're friends of scientific inquiry.
Christians basically invented the scientific method. It has never rejected science apart from some fringe beliefs.
Where's the evidence that your partner loves you?
Also, there is evidence for the resurrection of Jesus, people just reject it because it doesn't fit their desires and makes them cry like a waa waa baby
at best its a waste of human energy and maybe good for those that require that emotional crutch
your argument is the same for guns, which we as a species should also mature out of
That's essentially the same as saying guns aren't the problem.
Tips. How ridiculous is it that restaurant owners guilt us into paying their employees salaries because they are too cheap to pay them a living wage? How unjust is it that we chose to tip the people who bring our food from the kitchen to our table and leave the hundreds of other service workers without tips?
A better understanding will flow from knowing that federal minimum wage for tipped employees is $2.13 per hour.
So there is specific legislation in place to abuse restaurant workers, restaurant owners take full advantage of this.
Here, the minimum wage for servers is $17.20, same as any other worker.
It is the same in Canada. However, there are still special provisions that 2nd class the labor rights of restaurant employees.
In Ontario, minimum wage is the same for all.
Thank the fucking tax software lobbies for that. Assholes
The complication is mostly determining what actually counts as income and the insane amount of deductions and credits you might be eligible for.
For most people a simple standard deduction is very easy to file, and can be done on paper in 15-30 minutes. But I agree that this is still too complicated.
Racism, but here we are in 2025 it being more prevalent than ever.
Racism will never die as we evolved to be tribal. Best we can do as a society is make it unacceptable. Which was happening when I grew up in 70s/80s America. Now we've backtracked and gone all-in with dog whistles.
That's not true. Sure, we have tribalism, but there's no reason it has to be about race. It could be about religion, politics, country of origin, and countless other things
Sports. Watch the crowds in some European soccer or basketball matches and you'll see how we managed to keep tribalism alive and well, but (mostly) harmless.
(You need stadiums that can handle tens of thousands of people bouncing on the stands for ninety minutes without collapsing, though.)
In reality, it's not purely about race. Most racism isn't between groups that are culturally identical, it is between groups with significant cultural differences. Race is just the most obvious attribute used to identify the other group.
Lol
Speak of the devil and the ones equating skin color with culture will appear
Bring any nuance to a charged topic and the ones who think in black and white terms will come to misinterpret what you said in the least charitable way.
Mhmm, the nuance of racism and "it just being biology/tribalism/instinct," haven't heard that before.
The was no 'just', just as there was no equating.
equating skin colour with culture
Not equating. They said that people of an ethnicity are often also of a culture common among those of that ethnicity.
I'm in Costa Rica, and people are likely to (correctly) assume that I'm a foreigner here because I'm white.
It's not equating. It is, however, a way to tell what is likely.
Dog whistles? It's open now.
IPv4! Hail IPv6
Every single fucking isp (at least in the states): nah
Really? Both my home internet and my mobile phone internet give me ipv6 addresses.
My cellular yeah, though I don't consider them an isp since most throttle or deprioritize data after ~50 gigs. But both isps I've had, and all of the friends who I've helped with networking stuff (basically all of them), IPv4. Sometimes, some janky 'conversion' at the modem that leaves them with just v4 anyway. That was with their isp-supplied hardware...
but IPv4 is so much nicer to read :((((
/s in case it's not obvious
Private health insurance.
Religion.
It served a purpose when societies were first moving from hunting and gathering to agriculture. A community needed to coalesce around something tangible for resource sharing, protection, decision making, etc...
It's why, from a societal evolution perspective, we went from totemic religions based on fertility and family groups, to mass religions with defined hierachies and roles, because the evolution or religions reflect that evolutions of society at the time.
We don't need that anymore. It does more harm than good in the modern world.
People used to need religion to stop them from functioning the same as animals back then, but in this century, if someone needs to be told by a religion that murder is bad to stop them from doing it, then they should be locked up.
Also so much molesting goes on at religious places that people just sweep under the rug. And what batshit crazy is going on with women in religions? Like there is a stoning sentence for a married woman who cheats, she just cheated! Get a freaking divorce and move on.
Cults get so much shit but what exactly is the difference between a religion and cult? They sound pretty similar if you look from an outside perspective.
The most important thing is we gotta think about the children. Just imagine how cruel it would sound to an alien.
"We make our 9 year Old daughters up before sunrise every morning to pray but our sons can avoid that till they are 14"
"We make our kids go without food or drinks for 16 hours everyday for a month every year. It is good for their body! (Kid passes out in the background)"
"My daughter is having her first child too late. She is 14!"
"So we send our daughters to be nuns, they will live there until they die."
"I cut my son's dongdong."
Charlie Kirk
On that note, Ben Shapiro as well.
Andrew Tate, though that may be dangerous as he'll probably turn into a martyr.
There's a good list forming here.
You know, I actually don't think it'll be a good idea to kill people who are only powerful because they can talk. The more I think about it, the more I think they'll be turned into martyrs by their followers. It'll only embolden them.
So, something that really upsets the world in a tangible way would be...
Shooting more CEOs. And bankers.
😬🫥
I would be inclined to believe you, looking at these protests and manifestations that happened in London after the Kirk shooting. Scary works right now.
I still want to believe we live in a world where there are more welcoming people than there are hostile people. Otherwise the world is truly lost.
Capitalism meow
Did you say “meow?”
mrrrreow mrrrreow meow :3
Did I say wHat, meow?
Love the H
Heroin is a hell of a drug.
MEOWMROWMEOWMEOWMEOW
Billionaires, government officials owning stock, private campaign finance, the two party system, racism, sexism, health insurance, private equity, for profit prisons, for life Supreme Court appointments, Nazis, Zionism, Wall Street, unregulated banking,jobs that don’t pay a living wage, unaffordable housing, student debt, the police state and lobbyists
I thought phone numbers and traditional telephone service would be dead by now. Instead, purely internet-based communication services often use them as an identifier.
telephony only uses a subset of internet things so building just telephone lines is cheaper, which matters especially in the global south
I'm no expert on the subject, but it's my understanding that mobile networks are being deployed much more widely in the global south than wired telephone lines, and they're usually internet-capable.
wait, you're right. not sure what i was thinking of... then i guess it's an easy way to get a unique human-readable subscriber identifier?
the republican party in the us.
Nazis.
Fossil fuel subsidies. No longer needed since we have more viable alternatives, and they just contribute to global warming, and litter.
farm subsidies too, the only reason they are even here is because its a large voting block.
I saw a vlog that interviewed local farmers that were trying to be diverse planting strawberries and veggies. They explained that they were barely making it, but if they just planted corn the subsidies would kick in and they're make a lot more.
I'm not sure that's true.
The supply chain for food is heavily dependent on diesel. All machinery on farms is diesel, and the trucks that move the food to silos then mills then factories and then shops are all diesel.
Presently there's no real substitute for that machinery. Sure it might be technically possible to construct an electric tractor or truck but it's not economically viable at this time.
The subsidies don't really serve to make fossil fuels continue to be viable, it's more like a measure to avoid sudden inflation due to fluctuations in the price of diesel.
🤣🤣🤣🤣 There are dozens of companies making electric tractors, AND in a rural area it is much more viable to have solar panels than to rely on the next diesel delivery, or make long trips to the nearest filling station.
Areas with solar panels are even posting higher crop yields.
I think you misunderstand the economic choice that smaller farms are making. When you can get a 50 year old workhorse tractor for 20k that you can actually maintain yourself, it makes far more sense than any 200k+ tractor whether diesel or electric. Additionally folks are used to diesel, they've already got a big tank on the property that they refill every few months, and they might not have sufficient electrical connection to get several of the giant swapable battery packs for their tractors and keep one on the charge while they work.
If farmers were starting from scratch, sure it might make sense to go all solar and all electric, but these are folks who are constantly squeezed for cash, constantly relying on crop insurance and well-timed loans and subsidies to stay afloat living on 200 year old farms that have been in the family since the land was stolen from the native Americans, and probably still using the equipment dad bought in the 60s and 70s because that's the most financially viable option.
Ahahah, tractor you can maintain yourself. In America. What a joke
That's one of the reasons why many smaller farms run 50-70 year old tractors, they're machines designed to be maintained and kept running indefinitely so we have farmers using literal antiques to get work done. Literally they'll drive off the field to the antique tractor ride then head back to the field to finish the days work after the ride.
A diesel engine can literally run on vegetable oil. We don't need fossil fuel subsidies to keep farm tractors working.
If we must distort the market directly, we should do so on the demand side. Give farmers a per-Joule fuel subsidy, and let them use petro-disel, bio-disel, or electric as the market may provide.
Either we believe that markets work or we don't
Obviously, there isn't enough vegetable oil to run every tractor and every truck.
In Australia, bio diesel is subsidised in the same way regular diesel is.
Measles.
Polio.
Kinda surprised we eradicated smallpox, yet polio still exists.
It’s only a handful of people in the mountains of Afghanistan; there’s a lot of fear around letting westerners in with needles.
Don't worry, the anti-vaxxers are going to give it a comeback.
Yeah i was just on a forum and some MAGA idiot was so obtuse he didn't see what the connection was. When i said hope you didn't vote for Trump on a posting about an iron lung. 🤣🤣
Well, facism seems like the obvious choice right now, but I'm going deeper and choosing bigotry.
The Donald
Lol who downvoted this
Measles
Blockchain. It was an interesting poc, but it has yet to have a useful implementation apart from scams.
Tamper evident logs are a good use case for blockchain.
I worked in a company where this was used for implementing tamper evident logs, that allowed auditors to check for tampering.
Blockchain is just a tool that can have legitimate uses other than scamming people.
Donald Trump and the GOP
Coal power plants.
Humans organised by hierarchy.
It never works and always ends with civilisations that ever attempt it collapsing. No matter how often we do the same dumb shit over and over it never works.. Are we insane anons ?
It works in communities of around 100 people, like those human evolved in. Which is why this is our default organization structure, every form of government devolves to sooner or later. Maybe we should give up the idea of countries or at least try to keep it in check with smart laws somehow.
Oh we definitely are. We already have had so many profound human beings that to live well all that is needed is just listen to them and apply what they have said. But no, people choose to do dumb shit yet again and again
Charli...
The oldest two mechanisms of authenticating on credit cards.
From oldest to newest, they are:
-
Printed data on card.
-
Magstrip (which basically has the same data in machine-readable form).
-
Smartcard chip with contacts.
-
Wireless.
The first two mechanisms hand over all the data required to impersonate the cardholder whenever used, which isn't very secure. Yes, there's value to keeping a mechanism around for a while to permit transition time, but we should have had tap-to-pay hardware on PCs and phones and the like a long time ago.
I disagree that we should have a card reader on our computers for payments.
That is just a way too big of a security concern.
I prefer something like the Swedish system Swish, you have a separate app on your phone where you can send money to friends and family as well as pay for stuff online.
Sadly, while Klarna supports Swish, they require the use of a Klarna account to use it, and since most internet shops in Sweden uses Klarna it limits the ability to use it as I want to.
and with that you need a smartphone, with a google-approved operating system and with it half of the factory bloatware, or otherwise you are barred from paying online, right? that sounds such a good idea.
no.
I said nothing about the OS on the phone, why would you assume that I like Android?
I am an iPhone user, but that is beside the point, if Swish and BankID could run on an open mobile plattform, I'd be happy with that.
My point it to separate the main computer from the payment system while still being convenient.
I am a bit confused as how you missed that...
I said nothing about the OS on the phone, why would you assume that I like Android?
that's not what I assumed. I assume that this app would only support the 2 most popular mobile platforms, and that on android, as is tradition with payment related apps, it would refuse to work when it detects that your phone's software has been changed in any significant way.
if Swish and BankID could run on an open mobile plattform, I'd be happy with that.
current trend is to make these apps OWASP compliant, which dictates that all apps should at least be an undecipherable, obfuscated black box, and better even make use of the OS's integrity checking system, like play integrity on android.
My point it to separate the main computer from the payment system while still being convenient.
I am a bit confused as how you missed that...
I did not miss that. I was commenting on this, why it would be harmful in today's world.
Something attached to the main computer, but with its own firmware/controls is still far better than having no device at all, and relying on external code for verification. Would a discrete box separate from everything else be better (independent of mobile phones as well)? Sure. But a great step that would be progress compared to the current status quo is what the other poster describes, with logic and chip verification running on a device attached to the device or computer with which you wish to pay.
Does smartcard and wireless actually have an encryption layer of some kind?
I'd assume so, but more importantly, for both, there's a cryptographic signature being performed by the card. The credentials never leave the card --- there's a private key on the card, and what goes out is a signature on the transaction, which is useless for doing other transactions.
That's not true for all cards, at the very least. Skimming wirelessly by RFID is or was a thing. The whole backbone of the credit card system is designed to expect the number.
July and August Add them to the end of the calendar or rename them properly, there is no reason September-December should have been globally accepted out of order for over 2000 years
Pandas.
The animals or the python thing?
yes
Polars gang
They are cute chubby cuddle fluffs though. Just look at them!
🐼
only kept alive by the CCP, because they can use it as a form diplomacy. otherwise the chinese wouldve eaten away the pandas or turn them into herbal medicine.
Chat control and any similar legeslations
Humans
English orthography. It's like this close to being random.
Other languages have reformed theirs (or theres or they'res) to make sense at some point since the dawn of modern literacy.
We did address it. And then everyone immediately changed how they pronounced every vowel.
We should address it again, and fix the way a ton of words have been Anglicized at the same time, but we're far from alone. French is loaded with needlessly silent letters as well, just as the first example that springs to mind.
(actually, can we just switch directly to the International Phonetic Alphabet?) (This is a bad idea for reasons that are probably obvious, it's a lateral move at best)
We did address it. And then everyone immediately changed how they pronounced every vowel.
What do you mean? The Great Vowel Shift happened well before any standardisation of spelling I'm aware of. And there's plenty of problems beyond just the vowels.
French is probably number two on the shit list, but there's at least a consistent pattern there.
The printing press, and more importantly the people running them, codified spelling toward the beginning of the Shift. I may have implied more intent than actually existed but spelling became a lot more standardized with the mass production of written works, particularly the bible.
That sounds right, although you do still see ye olde writing as late as the 1700s. It was both random and gradual.
Adopting IPA would be wrong because it would require that everyone talk exactly the same way.
Speaking as someone whose native language uses phonetic writing, it simply makes sense. You just write what you say. Yes, some people talk differently, and because the writing is phonetic you can easily capture that in writing and you have multiple spellings for the same word in the dictionary (some marked as regionalisms). And as pronunciation of certain words shifts in time, so does the spelling. When more and more people start writing the word as it sounds, instead of the "correct" spelling, the new version gets added to the dictionary.
It just means abandoning the idea of a "correct spelling".
Or you'd have an accent in your writing as well as speech, which isn't bad necessarily.
The bigger hurdle is it's just a very big change when all we really care about is the system being somewhat predictable and conveying meaning, not exact pronunciation.
fykst yt for ÿu
Inglyš orþografi. Ic laÿk dis klows tu biyņ random. Aðer laņgwajez hav riformd derz (or derz or derz) tu meÿk sens at sǎm poÿnt syns de don ov modern lyterasi.
Teräs Käsi.
Most types of industrial scale pollution, but it's cheaper to bribe some key people than actually care about the environment
@chunes Rupert Murdoch.
Gender essentialism and tuberculosis
Stupidity and ignorance.
Gnats. And flies.
Probably a huge food source for other organisms, so I guess they better keep on existing... Might upset some important balance otherwise...
But they can be a nuisance for sure!
Yeah, i know, spiders and the like. But mosquitoes on the other hand are apparently not even a good food source.
Sadly that's not true, apparently mosquitoes are very important to the ecosystem. Ze Frank did a True Facts episode on them.
Social media
interesting timing
my self-preservation instincts
The United States.
Empires take time to rise and fall.
Me. I feel like I shouldn't be around anymore since quite some time
I think your real answer is depression, since that's the cause of why you feel the way you feel. We haven't cured depression, but there are ways to combat it. Medical health professionals, medication, friends, mindfulness, exercise, etc are all ways to combat depression. When you're depressed, basically all seem impossible, but you just have to take it one baby step at a time
Thanks for your words. I've been in treatment for a long time, I even believed to be feeling better, but then I became aware of all the lost years of my life. More than a decade now... and then I've been feeling like that again
Aw, dang. This was gonna be my answer, too.
Why? Do you know him?
Huh? No. I was gonna make the suicide joke. They got here first so I won't make the same joke.
But instead I made one.
🫂
Internal combustion engines.. We just don't need them anymore.
Their continued use really only measures up to hubris.
I just posted this in response to another idiot, but it works here too:
I'm not sure that's true.
The supply chain for food is heavily dependent on diesel. All machinery on farms is diesel, and the trucks that move the food to silos then mills then factories and then shops are all diesel.
Presently there's no real substitute for that machinery. Sure it might be technically possible to construct an electric tractor or truck but it's not economically viable at this time.
The subsidies don't really serve to make fossil fuels continue to be viable, it's more like a measure to avoid sudden inflation due to fluctuations in the price of diesel.
Actually there is.. Like i said before there are many high quality electric tractors. I have even seen so many farmers even convert their old tractors to electric in response to John Deere's shitty policies.
Farm equipment doesn't care what is is run on.
Even if that were true they're not presently in common use. Agriculture presently runs on diesel.
The belief that somehow through democracy and a constitution written by slave owners, somehow a country with half of the population being crazy, nationalistic nazis and the other half believing it's enough to live with these kind of people because of said democracy and constitution, that somehow society can go on and prosper just 'cause.
Lithography.... That's the origin of phones, satellites, and rapid communication which apparently is something we as a species can't handle.
What?
Electricity
Atheism
Why? It's actually grown pretty much as long as it's verifiably existed as an identifiable group.
Because Flax is a conservative and he got triggered by the religion comment so he can't think of anything more important.
They lack a good moral code. Although by this logic I could also say that on this basis, I think Islam should have died out. But I am British and that's "racist" apparently.
Atheists don't have a unified moral code though, since atheism doesn't advocate for any specific one. Christianity's moral code is undeniably flawed though, as are the ones for most religions.
There are no flaws in the Christian moral code.
Not sure if trolling or really deep in the delusion
I'm not the deluded one here.
Islam is literally a slight rewriting of Christianity.
Book 3 in the trilogy, if you will.
"slight". How is it "slight"? You go from a religion of bearing suffering, being saved by grace, monogamy to one of polygamy, conquest and slaughter, works based salvation and many rituals. The Muslims don't even worship Christ. Mohammed basically copied some stories, Christian practices, then made the rest up.
True. But, practices and stories are what a religion is made out of. The dietary laws are in the bible even if they're interpreted as no longer applying, most of the other things that are forbidden to Christians are still forbidden, and they're really big on charity and not worshiping other gods. The fasting is new, I guess, as is the specific style of prayer.
I kind of have to go through the rest piece-by-piece.
bearing suffering
Subjective, so I'll just leave it.
being saved by grace
How that's interpreted varies massively by denomination and through history. The protestant version I was taught isn't even the original one historically - everyone had to keep up with their confessions before the reformation.
monogamy to one of polygamy
I suppose there was a pretty decent divergence there, although I'm surprised to hear it as a grievance.
conquest and slaughter
... You're British. It's a Christian nation that has a certain history.
and many rituals
Almost everything that happens in a church qualifies as well. Some of the more American-style churches are flexible about it, and drink their grape juice out of plastic cups n fold-up chairs, but AFAIK the King's church still keeps the old flair.
The Muslims don’t even worship Christ.
He's #2 after Mohammad. It's true he's not worshiped though. You need a trinity to make that not idolatry, which is one of the bones Muslims have to pick with Christians.
The Bible doesn't mandate any rituals beyond Holy Communion and Baptism. Anything else is optional. It also teaches salvation isn't by works.
Using what Christian's did to define Christianity isn't genuine either. The Qur'an speaks of subjugation.
Yes, I don't blame Christianity for that either. I've actually noticed no moral variation between people based on what religion they're brought up in.
I've only read fragments of the Quran, but I'd be surprised if there was more brutality than in the torah/old testament.
It also teaches salvation isn’t by works.
A billion catholics would disagree. Even Arminians and Calvinists (the two main protestant schools on this, for anyone unfamiliar) can require more than just passive acceptance of doctrine for it to count, each in their own ways. If you're being hyper-literal here, both works and faith figure in to salvation by grace, which is the main alternative.
The passages used to justify the role of faith are the ones like John 14:6. It definitely implies Jesus has to be involved in salvation, but anything beyond that is a matter of interpretation, and massively contentious to the point wars have been fought.
Gotta say that I have heard much less bad about atheism than about religions.
I wonder how widely is atheism used to oppress, control, brainwash, kill or torture people.
It's used to kill around 1 million people per year in the USA.
Also kills the soul.
It’s used to kill around 1 million people per year in the USA.
I think you're confusing healthcare denial with atheism
What's "healthcare denial"