512
Oklahoma banned trans students from bathrooms. Now a bullied student is dead
(www.independent.co.uk)
this post was submitted on 20 Feb 2024
512 points (100.0% liked)
News
30440 readers
3099 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Another person murdered by Christianity.
This isn't "Christianity". And that's not to defend the religion, but it is just one head of this Hydra, not the core of the problem. People in power are using hate and fear in whatever medium they can to consolidate and increase that power, casualties be damned.
They all just happen to be religious by coincidence.
Religion is the tool, not the motive.
There are those that practice their faith the way it should be practiced, without causing harm to others.
And then there are others who want power, and will use the tool to manipulate others, to get that power.
But there's a reason why the tool is always religion
You'd be foolish to think that that is the only tool available for people to manipulate others with.
No one is saying that it is.
I was responding to a comment from someone else, and not from you...
If it's always religion then it can't be anything else, right? So that person was indirectly stating that's the only tool, and I was pointing out that there's multiple ways of manipulating others, besides religion.
Tell me the Bible passage that says that.
Because people are just their books, and have no free will of their own.
You point to me in the New Testament where Jesus himself advocates violence and harm to innocents, and then we can have a conversation.
Very well. In that case I want a citation. How did you determine the "right" way and why is everyone else wrong?
I already did this in this thread. Come on some level of effort on your point. He does it repeatedly! He talks about how he will be the future king and his enemies will be butchered then sent to hell. He makes a woman beg at his feet while calling herself a racial slur before he helps her kid. He rebukes a man with leprosy for having leprosy. He tells people to give up all means of support and their own families just to follow him.
You're being intellectually dishonest to suggest that I'm saying everyone else is wrong, as the point I'm trying to make is not that at all, that you can't judge a whole people based on what their religion is, as people have free will and follow there religion to their modern worldview, and see what are you with me not just what ancient text stated verbaten.
As far as how I determine what the right way is, I do it via The Golden Rule. Do onto to others, as you would have others do unto you. Basically, what Jesus taught at a summary level. Be kind of others, don't harm them help where you can, etc.
And for the record, I'm not a Christian, just in case you think you're arguing against one.
I would love to have a Christian scholar review what you're saying, especially the quotes that you're stating are coming from Jesus, for factuality.
Where did I say it wasn't part of the problem? I said the exact opposite, in fact.
This is exactly Christianity. Their book tells them to act this way and their shamans have been screaming for this conduct for twenty centuries. Every single Christian I have dealt with is about one bad day away from doing this and why shouldn't they? The have skydaddy telling them that they will be forgiven for everything and that it is a good thing to oppress the LGBT.
Again, I'm not defending the religion, just saying that blaming one thing here is missing the mountain of other contributing factors. If we erased christianity and every other religion you want gone from the world, the hate and fear would still be there, as would the people manipulating that to benefit themselves.
If cancer were cured tomorrow people would still die eventually, but I would rather live in a world without cancer than one with it.
Great metaphor, actually, since cancer is most often caused or exacerbated by something else. But you're still missing my point by a mile. Keeping going after the symptom rather than the sickness, I guess. I'm sure that'll solve everything.
I don't mean to be disrespectful to those who you are replying to, but are you sure those are even regular people you're talking to, and not bots?
Either they're very fanatical and can't see outside of their box, or they're being intellectually dishonest in how they respond to you, seeming to miss your point that's being expressed very well and straightforward.
Nope human. Got meat organs and everything. I love how the only defense of religion is to personally attack the guy calling out what it does
I got your point. You refuse to address the issue and instead want us all to wander around in circles finding "deeper" reasons.
Swing and a miss again.
Granted, I missed Jesus's sermon on the hill, but I'm sure I would have heard something about him okaying bullying and killing good people just because they're different.
Christian fundamentalists don't have nothing in common with Jesus. They are fake christians. Jesus preached tolerance so many times. They fucking don't get it that they ignore him completely.
That's the point I've been trying to make. That when everyone says Christians are bad there's actually two types of Christians, the Jesus type, and the modern Christians who use the name but don't act like how Jesus would want them to.
Do the Jesus types live in Scotland with the True Scots?
You know I do find it kind of weird to bring up the no true scotsman fallacy in this shit, when the real point of that fallacy is just kind of to get people to be conscious that their mental definitions don't actually exist in reality, and they have to work from a formal definition, right? But I think, without getting into the specifics of like, that guy's biblical interpretation, it's pretty obvious that they have a definition of "christian" that doesn't line up with the others.
You might, instead of bringing up the scotsman fallacy, have better luck in hitting them with what the scotsman fallacy hearkens to, and asking them for a clear definition that you might then be able to push back on with counterexample.
Basically, I am accusing you of the fallacy fallacy.
Jesus didn't exist. The fictional person in the Gospels preached a doctrine that his was the only way to salvation and all other ways lead to hell. That one does not have the right to basic sexuality, property, and what they say.
That is not any form of tolerance I have ever heard of. One the rejects freedom of religion, expression, sexual preferences, and possessions. What possible tolerance could there be in a world where a shaman can order you to only worship him, to hand over all your stuff, to love only whom he approves of, and only say what he wants you to say?
Ballsy of you to say that. I'd like to know what proof you have of that.
Honestly not saying that you're wrong, but it's really tired of people who say things with such certainty when they're just pulling it out of one of their orifices.
[Citation Required.]
Sure. Total lack of contemporary evidence, lack of all relics from his life, the inability of anyone to keep basic biographical details about his life straight, clear and obvious plagiarism from texts in wide circulation at the time, lack of a dynasty, and easier explanations for the scarce data that we have.
You could write Paul's letters completely from just being told 2 things about Jesus and being familiar with Jewish and Greek writings. You could write the entire gospel of Mark with the letters and again some familiarity with the writings of the time. Matthew adds almost nothing. Luke-Acts just adds stuff about Paul.
Want the Euchrist? Guess what eating your god was a common mystery cult practice. Want a dead leader? All over Judaism start with the Maccabees. Want the last supper? Common fiction trope at the time. Want the Tomb? Again already in fiction. Feeding the multitudes and healing the sick? Easy, Elijiah.
Being serious? All that stuff about giving up your property to charity, ripping your eye out instead of looking with lust, condemning people for not saying that he was lord?
Yeah, I really am, honestly.
As I mentioned to you somewhere, I'm not a Christian.
So if you actually got proof that Jesus is a bastard please do so. Be specific about it and don't just say something without any connotation about who's saying it or where it's cited from. Because from all the quotes you've been making I literally can't touch tell which one of those are from Jesus.
I already gave this to you
This is all in there. NIV translation is what I used.
Chiming in here to say that generally you need proof of positive claims in a debate, rather than proof of negative claims. Claiming dragons are real requires evidence, claiming that they are not real, well, I mean, first you'd have to establish a definition of what dragons are, but mostly, it wouldn't require evidence to claim they're not real, because proving such a thing would be a feat an order of magnitude greater than proving they exist.
In any case, have fun with your debate.
Well aware but thanks. I gave my evidence.
I'm not asking him to prove a negative, I'm asking him to prove his firm assertion that Jesus did not exist.
My understanding is there's no conclusive evidence either way, so when somebody states either one of the extremes, that he absolutely existed, or he absolutely did not exist, I want to know where their proof is coming from that allows him to say such a thing with such certainty, because I know the evidence is inconclusive (at least at the last time I took a look into it).
I've actually blocked him at this point, so there won't be any further debate. My first block on Lemmy actually, I try very hard never to do that.
Yeah I kinda brain farted on positive vs negative claims there, it always confuses me as to whether or not you can make a positive claim on a statement about how something doesn't exist, and it's more about, the most reasonable thing is to not really know for sure one way or another, and you're actually making the negative claim against certainty. I dunno, confuses me still. On the rank, it would still make more sense to argue for a lack of a thing than for existence of a thing, right? Sort of along the lines of the raven paradox?
and nah, I had to do that earlier to a dickhead I was arguing with, very obviously bad faith, only cherry picked specific pieces of my arguments, you know how it goes.
tried very hard not to as well, but damn, that motherfucker kinda pissed me off, ngl. I dunno. I find I have a much higher hit rate on this website than any other, in terms of positive engagements, right, but because of that, I would also engage with people more here than on other platforms, where I might instead put in much less effort. so it's sort of a double edged sword, because people can much more easily waste my time. I think I've just come to the conclusion that I'm writing for myself as a creative exercise, beholden to my own standards, more than I'm writing specifically for them, you know?
at least, that mentality helps me.
It's best not to overthink it, as it seems you are doing (no offense meant).
If someone says 'a' is true, you can ask them how do you know 'a' is true, and if they just say oh because I know, then you can push further because that's just a bullshit answer. Especially so if you take the comment in relation to the whole conversation you're having with them, and the level of intellectual honesty they have in conversing with you.
As far as conversations go here on Lemmy, I'm not finding good quality of conversation here on Lemmy at all, and I'm seriously considering leaving and going back to Reddit because of that, unfortunately.
From the quality of new posts people are making to the arguments that end up happening right away inside of each one of them, it actually seems a lot worse than it was on Reddit. Good to hear it's working out well for you though.
yeah, I've probably fried my brain thinking too hard about it fs, just in general.
A lot of it is up to figuring out who's going to be the best person to engage with, which I think is pretty easily done just by looking at post length. Longer posts require higher effort, = this person will be more likely to engage in good faith. Trolls tend to leave little quips, rather than large spiels.
Also, lemmy, just like reddit, also tends to be, if not an echo chamber, then certainly, a place where you can see who's popular, and who's unpopular. Who holds the most mainstream "lemmy" opinion. I think it's generally better a lot of the time to engage with people who get a lot of downvotes, but seem to be acting in good faith otherwise, cause they have interesting opinions, and I think interrogating them is a good way to help them build their case, when otherwise it would just kinda be left to shit a lot of the time. The exception are political posts where you're going to have to uproot someone's whole worldview in order to make them see the light.
Weirdly counterintuitive, right, because you would expect most people to be more combative after going through the ringer of downvote oblivion, but it has been my experience that if you show them a modicum of sympathy they will respond to you oftentimes much better than a more popularly opinioned user might. I don't really know why this is, maybe it's because people perceive themselves to have some amount of power, or maybe it's just because users are more likely to respond to, and upvote, short quips, as we've seen kind of infect reddit, and obviously those people are not worth bothering 90% of the time.
I dunno, that's the only thing that strikes me maybe about your post pattern in this thread specifically, to do a better psychic reading I'd have to look at your other posts and I'm too lazy to do that rn. Hope any of what I said helps, though.
Well I truly appreciate the conversation and the civility, thank you for that.
You know, I've been noticing more and more that lemmy has a bunch of people who just fuckin hate religion straight up, edgy 2010's reddit atheism style. I don't necessarily disagree with a lot of their criticisms, but it has gotten kind of annoying seeing people attribute these clearly complex and incentive driven behaviors to something so broad, so old, and so vague.
It seems pretty obvious to me personally that conservatives have kind of given up on contesting civil rights and gay rights as a means to differentiate themselves from the other neoliberals, since those issues remain pretty deeply unpopular to contest, and are moving to this as sort of the next thing in their playbook, the next highest profile minority that they can easily lambast on nightly news. All while they try to roll back those other issues through every possible angle they might be able to work in local, state, and federal government.
That's even a pretty big oversimplification of the issue, and the different forces involved, right, like it's not really tied into why or how specifically they're doing that, right, but it's really stupid to even have that surface level understanding, and still bump up against people insisting that it's more singularly some other driving, evil force. As though you couldn't, were you to analyze christianity, split such a thing up into another whole litany of forces, another whole network of relations, causes and effects.
It says right in the Bible that being LGBT is a sin worthy of being sent to hell and that Jesus wants his enemies killed. Do you need me to quote chapter and verse?
Hey you know what? I fully admit I am an angry atheist. That means I say mean little things sometimes. You know what I don't do? I don't beat a trans kid to death inside a school bathroom, I don't commit war crimes, and I dont descrate cultural sites.
You really want to both sides this? You really want to compare a few mean little comments to beating a child to death?
that's a pretty nice bait
Beautiful sermon, bless.