I can’t because of my religion = Awesome.
You can’t because of my religion = Gobble deez nuts.
I hate when people say "I can't" and blame religion, religion is a choice, so they should say "I won't".
The way I see it, If people are genuinely convinced it's true, then it makes sense to follow whatever teachings they think go along with it, though I can't understand how people are genuinely convinced.
Still a choice, though.
Intentionally walking into traffic or having a nice picnic is a choice.
Doesn't mean one isn't more appealing.
If you genuinely believe that it's eternal paradise vs eternal damnation, technically it's a choice, but it's definitely weighted.
Not to defend actions taken by such people in pursuit of their believed outcome.
Religion makes as much sense as the Tooth Fairy, or Santa Claus, and I honestly think that MOST religious people, deep down, don't really believe all that nonsense. And that's what's scares them, and turns them into proselytizing fanatics. They want to believe, and they are trying to convince themselves as much as everybody else.
They say "I can't" when what they mean is "I'm not allowed to" the same way a child says "I can't, I'm grounded." Sure, they both can but by their rules, they're not allowed to, and in both cases, they believe that consequences will follow if they break the rules.
The difference to me is that people want to follow a religion, but they have to follow laws
Do they have to follow laws? Only if they're afraid of the consequences of breaking them.
You decide to follow the laws, everytime you do you take responsability for your own actions, laws are just as made up as religions
The hell I do.
It's funny that many religious people don't believe in evolution via natural selection, because the survival of religions themselves clearly favors the ones that are all fucking pushy and irrational about it.
More funny, all religions were "against the traditional values" of the time when they first begun. Especially the dominant religion at that time.
Preaching about love and peace? In the Roman empire? We gonna impale you!
Preaching about not burying your daughters alive? In Arabia? We gonna tell merchants NOT to sell food to your community again, and starve like 90% them!
I just don't see infamous misandrist PizzaCake being genuine in her experiences and criticisms. More like the type to see a sunny day and try to start fires. Remember when those alt accounts kept spreading gender war propaganda on the fediverse? She's a lot like those.
Holy shit, dude, get a life.
If they are referring to Christianity, the only time the new testament really says this is in a letter from Paul which was not actually written by him and a likely forgery. Jesus himself was radically egalitarian.
Also Paul never even met Jesus, yet speaks as if he did.
Well within Christian canon, he essentially met Jesus’ spirit many years after he had died. But obviously that only works if you actually believe in the supernatural aspects of it
Paul is fanboying about Jesus and it became canon
You can even believe the supernatural aspects of it and think Paul specifically was full of shit.
I bet Paul believed, and was some variety of schizophrenic.
He must've gotten tired of persecuting christ-followers so he decided to make up a story about his conversion experience in order to co-opt the movement, claim and assert his authority over it, and instill it with Roman-style systems of patriarchal morality...
That semantic is kind of like saying a page in the Narnia books was faked. Of course it was, it was all faked. The important thing is that some believe in it and that the different opinions of different authors get sorted as canon and noncanon by the various churches.
Eh, I think you're undercutting your own point here. Paul was a real guy, and actually wrote stuff. A page in a Narnia book very much can be fake, if it was written by someone other than Lewis Carrol but attributed to him. Likewise, if a writing attributed to Paul was not actually written by Paul, it's a fake.
There actually isn't a whole lot of evidence that Paul existed outside of the old copies of the new testament.
There also is no one true copy of the bible, no one true church.
So unless historical evidence such as preserved letters or records from ancient Rome resurface, everything about Paul from start to finish in the bible is equally legitimate; it's not really.
I think if I have to spell out my previous example more in-depth, you can't point to Aslan talking about the old magics as him lying, as the book it's mentioned in treats it as canonical fact in a work of fiction.
Ephesians 5:24: "Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands".
Colossians 3:18: "Wives, submit to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord".
Peter 3:1-6: Instructs wives to be submissive to their husbands, using Sarah's obedience to Abraham as an example.
Yeah, but some denominations of Christianity really hammer that idea in.
Let's not even talk about how little Mary Magdalene is in the Bible, even though it seems she might have been Jesus' #2 at a point.
A religion that says they're the correct one, and all the others are bad people, is a cult. And there are no good cults.
Its littered throughout the old testament.
Jesus himself was radically egalitarian.
Just radical enough to never suggest that people shouldn't own slaves
The bible as we know it is a book assembled by the Roman Senate in roughly 350CE(cant be arsed to find the real date). Oddly enough, it is the new testament books that are not in that assemblage that contain the forward thinking ideas(to the Romans, not to the remaining celts and gauls) of an idea of womens rights and of things likr private, personal religion.
So it's not actually "the word of god" because people chose what books to include, and they chose wrong (according to you).
Got it, thanks
It's just words. Never was a god.
But I was specifically talking about how they omitted the gospels of Mary and Judas. Two of the probably most important people in the story.
Jesus never existed and is a fantasy character.
Why do you say that? Modern scholars are generally in agreement that he was a real historical figure.
At some point, the man and the myth diverge into separate entities. John Henry was a real person, but the contest between him and the steam drill as remembered by folklore did not actually happen that way.
There has been no shortage of people named Jesus. "The Jesus" was probably not the only man named Jesus at the time. That being said, walking on water, coming back to life, turning a person into a pillar of salt, definitely the acts of a mythical version of Jesus that never existed.
Well yeah there was a guy named Jesus (or three), but the story of Jesus as recorded in the Bible doesn't talk about him/them.
It talks about some angry rabbi with super powers raising the dead and so forth. Not historical, i.e. fantasy
Because magic isn't real, no one can turn water into wine and come back from the dead.
It's in much the same way that while Saint Nicolas was a real person, Santa Claus is a legendary mythical figure. While the latter is based on the former, no way would Nicolas recognize himself as the source of the myth, if he could have known.
Jesus as we know him today is a legendary figure, most likely based on a real revolutionary from the time, probably named Yeshua or Joshua. Probably crucified by the Romans. We might even have the gist of some things he said. But he definitely didn't do most of the things we attribute to him. So again, same thing, Jesus is a legend probably based on a real person.
I understand that religion and belief bring people a sense of belonging and purpose - that's cool, and I'm happy for those who's lives are enriched because of it.
But when that sense of purpose becomes dictating to other people who aren't part of your religion what they can and can't do - pound sand.
Same feeling when I’m told not to stick my dick in another dude
"the lord says: believe in me"
"the devil says: believe in yourself"
Actually the devil says "I don't exist and your antisocial impulses are part of your biology that are no longer useful in modern civilization. You should learn some self control"
Actually the devil says "You probably didn't even know it, but I am a fiddle player too".
"kamina says: BELIEVE IN THE ME WHO BELIEVES IN YOU!"
absolute chaos
because the devil knows that the sin of Pride is the gravest, and that we are nothing without Christ
The devil absolutely doesn't say that lmao
Nothing pisses me off more than some religious moron expecting me to live by their dumb rules, for my own good. They know what's best for me, because obviously I can't make the proper choices, and allow Jesus, or God, or whatever mythical creature their particular cult worships, to control my life, and participate in ritual cannibalism. But I'M the weirdo.
She is trying to be cheesy and low effort, but this is actually based as fuck.
Then why do people defend Islam here so much, genuine question
People defend the right to HAVE and participate in a religion, Islam being one of them... not the right of religious people to impose THEIR beliefs on OTHERS
Can't really make it clearer than the comic did
You just made the point so much more clearly than the comic lol.
well, thank you :-)
The lady in the meme is literally slapping a guy for having a religion.
nope, shes slapping a guy for having bigoted views about women and bothering her about it
based reason to slap someone
She literally isn't, how can you type with reading comprehension like that?
clearly not, she is slapping a MAN stating how WOMEN should behave because of HIS religion
I like a woman who bully me a bit
Imagine if a Muslim walked up to these people and started talking about how "Allah has forbidden pork." Would they see the irony or just start screaming?
Am I the only one that thinks that physical assault isn't okay even if it's directed at a guy who has a religion that you don't like?
'Sure these guys want to turn all these girls into Handmaids but you're equally as bad as they are if you smack them.'
When people direct their religion at you then it should be considered as a valid option.
True, we should do chemical assault instead.
You struggled in school didn't you?
ok Fucker
My religion says im allowed to beat people up.
It’s called a meme.
Looks like it.
It must be SO HARD for her living in Canada as a woman. /s
Do you really think that Canada hasn't its fair share of christofascists, currently emboldened by their triumphant rampage south of the border?
Logic isn't part of this we're not supposed to like pizzacake. I've never seen any reason not to like her stated it was just something that happened one day. I think she's funny and enjoy her comics
They play coy about it because they know telling us the real reason wouldn't go over well.
I specifically have actually told you very specifically what in the past.
- Vote Manipulation
- Mass Censorship
- Misandry
- Her obnoxious fans and possibly her alts are a bunch of sealioning losers incapable of introspection.
You can find tons of dissent on her on YouTube and on Reddit where she comes from. Kiwifarms is not a great site, it's used to harass people which has caused unnecesary self harm in the past, but if you want a complete collection of every bone anybody's ever had to pick with here that's a place to find it.
I feel like grass is needed in your future
Lol you're pathetic
Sounds like crybaby bullshit to me.
What I think is that no matter where or how Pizzacake lives she will always draw herself as a victim like some kind of weird ritual. She's like the female version of Stone Toss.
I tell you what it looks like from an outsiders perspective. What you say looks like that in your opinion, Pizzacake has no right to make a stand for her values, which makes you look - even if you do not realize it conscientiously - like a misogynist.
Women all over the world (regardless where they come from! Misogyny knows no borders.) have the right to complain because there is still a large part of the male world population that wants to suppress women in any way they can get away with. I say this as a man who would never try to force my will in any way onto a woman (or anyone else for what its worth), because the same mechanism that suppresses women is suppressing men in many ways. And even in our "western world" i had a salesman talk only to me when going shopping for tools and supplies, even tho my ex knows tons more about that shit than me - i'm a computer guy, not a handyman.
That you coin this as "She personally can't be suppressed by virtue of where she lives" totally disregards that her avatar might be a stand-in for any woman - and that you totally ignore that reading makes you look like a misogynist.
Edit: And Stone Toss is a fucking Nazi - that comparison is fucking gross dude.
Pro GenAI, but Anti-GenAI-Corpos; this technology should be available to everyone, which would only be fair since we all contributed to it. Datasets and Models should be under the jurisdiction of UNESCO, since they are literally the distilled cultural output of humanity.
Well frankly if you're my opponent then that validates every belief I've expressed. I didn't even read GPT's comment that you just posted.
I never use ChatGPT dude (you even cited my Bio which states as much), my comments are coming from my brain and nowhere else. (The technology isn't the issue, what the corpos do is). Do you have anything not-braindead to reply or is that the only thing you are able to utter in your defense? Disappointing.