Because religion evolved to thrive in us.

It’s like a parasite, and our mind is the host. It competes with other mind-parasites like other religions, or even scientific ideas. They compete for explanatory niches, for feeling relevant and important, and maybe most of all for attention.

Religions evolved traits which support their survival. Because all the other variants which didn’t have these beneficial traits went extinct.

Like religions who have the idea of being super-important, and that it’s necessary to spread your belief to others, are ‘somehow’ more spread out than religions who don’t convey that need.

This thread is a nice collection of traits and techniques which religions have collected to support their survival.

This perspective is based on what Dawkins called memetics. It’s funny that this idea is reciprocally just another mind-parasite, which attempted to replicate in this comment.

If it has the information, why not?

Naive altruistic reply: To prevent harm.

Cynic reply: To prevent liabilities.

If the restaurant refuses to put your fries into your coffee, because that’s not on the menu, then that’s their call. Can be for many reasons, but it’s literally their business, not yours.

If we replace fries with fuse, and coffee with gun powder, I hope there are more regulations in place. What they sell and to whom and in which form affects more people than just buyer and seller.

Although I find it pretty surprising corporations self-regulate faster than lawmakers can say ‘AI’ in this case. That’s odd.

Vegans have more to do with morals than vegetarians. Vegans may refrain from using animal based products like leather, which can be completely unrelated to health. A vegetarian diet is just that, a diet without meat. Can be for health or moral reasons, unspecified.

Many things are tasty, many of which don’t have the detrimental implications of animal products, especially meat.

It’s not some struggling hospital in a poor country, but an award-winning, Xbox-equipped premium institution in Michigan. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C.S._Mott_Children’s_Hospital

They obviously do good work and probably could use more money and, sure, I want sick children to have an Xbox, but I’d still feel misled by calling that ‘charity’.

Lemmy development is partially funded by the NLnet Foundation:

financially supporting organizations and people that contribute to an open information society. It funds those with ideas to fix the internet.

https://join-lemmy.org/news/2020-06-23_-_NLnet_funding,_and_Lemmy_v0.7.0_with_new_image_hosting!

Seems appropriate for a generous pizza. You developers love pizza, right?

Stop suing! They don’t care they can make more money through lying. Start jailing them!

They only care about money. That’s why hurting their profits is an effective method to change what they do.

Imagine renewable electricity was 10 times more profitable than generating it from fossil fuels. Of course they would want to be clean energy barons. Lawsuits can make a business less profitable, can make investments more risky. So this is good! I agree jailing would be a much stronger incentive.

But to put someone into jail, you also have to sue them first, don’t you? At least that’s what my translator suggests.

Me in tech support.

Customer calls: “Internet is not working!!”

Me: “Router lights status?”

Customer: “Can’t tell.”

Me: “Why?”

Customer: “Router still in box.”

Me: “…?”

Me (pretends it was just an error of communication): “Can you please describe the lights on your router?”

Customer: “I can’t. It’s still in the packaging. The box is on my table.”

Me: “…??? … You … need at least electricity to power this device.”

Customer spirals into rage and madness: “I ordered wireless internet!! I won’t plug any cables in! I did not want any wires!!!”

The mega corps took the internet from us, changed it from a million small sites that people created because they had big ideas, or were passionate about small ones, and turned it into a few enormous sites with no new ideas, no passion, just an insatiable desire for money.

I read it as: ‘They embraced, extended and extinguished what you held dear’.

Others gave good reasons against, but I’d like to find a way through. Without knowing much about your project.

What if you classify it as art, whatever it is? Others are free to use, change and copy it, as long as they themselves allow the same with theirs.

It’s not the device whis is made obsolete (objectively). It’s a very specific group of users who perceives it as obsolete (subjectively), since they want to always have the newest thing. Other people are different, and will be happy to pick up one of those “obsolete” phones at a discount and use it until they physically fall apart.

For example, I’m just switching phones after having used a 2nd hand phone for 8 years. Screen was broken for years, battery is struggling more and more, freezes are getting too frequent to ignore. Another reason for the switch is, there’s more and more apps I cannot install because my phone is too old.

The last point is a good reason for your argument, discontinuation in support. When they stop supporting my old device, that is making it obsolete. But whatever new stuff they release in the meantime does not affect me at all.

would you as an Atheist pretend to believe in a certain religion for 4-6 hours a day

France wants people to not show their religion in school. That’s different from pretending to have another, or no religion.

Like in moments when I don’t wear my favorite sports team’s insignias, I’m not pretending to be fan of another team instead.

undress in public

That seems like a dishonest wording, suggesting they would be publicly visible while undressing.

The article talks about “change out of”. I assume this is done with the normal level of privacy: In a separate room, or a cabin.

I argue that law should be used against those who react to these burnings in an aggressive manner. Violence is already covered.

If they stop taking unnecessary offense, I assume the burnings will stop too.

Good points, but what’s the alternative? At least Ukraine has a chance to even have internal politics after the war.

twist the words of every comment you’re responding to everywhere in this thread, until people loose interest

Can confirm, this happened to me.

1. WTH has America to do with this? Thanks for spelling it out.
2. They simply ignored the concerns I raised about the vote manipulation, pretending manipulation could only occur at the event itself, not in preparation (which was my entire point).

There is no way to argue with you in good faith.

It’s still worthwhile to address bad arguments. While you might not change the mind of the person you’re directly responding to, there are likely people in the audience who are on the fence. Offering alternative perspectives and sound reasoning can help them make up their mind. Maybe it becomes clearer if we imagine the absence of counterspeech. That situation can make a far-fetched view appear as if it was without alternatives, as if it was sound and normal. Which makes it more likely to be accepted.

I’m not sure wether it matters who has the last word.

Let’s assume a peace is negotiated, in which each party assures it respects the aggreed-upon borders. Similar to the Budapest Memorandum, signed and broken by Russia. How could Ukraine trust them this time?

I’d support a UN monitored vote in the Donbass region and Crimea (and any other contested area) on whether they want to join Russia or stay with Ukraine.

That sounds good at first glance. But given Russia has the opportunity to persecute any opposition in the contested areas, and bring in loyal settlers, the results are likely skewed even if the vote itself is fair and transparent.

Fundamentally, I still don’t understand why one should negotiate with a burglar how much they get to keep.

Forcibly taking land from a group of people who did nothing wrong to give it to another group of people is not OK, full stop.

Yes, obviously.

the nation of Israel and the Jewish people are two different things.

Yes.

Anyone who claims that their religion needs its own nation is not doing so in service of the religion or it’s people, they are fighting for their own political power.

I feel that’s a bit too simplistic. ‘Jewish people’ can refer to religion, but also to culture, or descent. Neither of which have to overlap. Most importantly, it does not really matter how the individual identifies themselves to get into trouble for ‘being jewish’, but what others project onto this for their own political power.

I’d be happy to cease this point and agree there is no necessity if we have, say, 200 years of no persecution. I agree it should be possible to live in multi-cultural peace without distinct nations, but I also recognize it wasn’t the case in the past. And I’m afraid it still isn’t the case in the present in many places.

Now we’re talking.

I don’t agree with the “they don’t have a home so it’s ok that we took someone else’s and gave it to them” stance you seem to have.

Yes, me neither. Glad we could clear this up. Personally, my favorite way forward after WW2 would have been to give them Bavaria, although this would have entailed other problems. Either way, we cannot reverse history and I think it’s important for the Jews to have their own nation. No, that’s not a free pass for things like this article.

The compensation for persecution shouldn’t be allowing the victims to persecute others

Obviously agreed. I think I already made that clear. But since we had this misunderstanding, it apparently was not so clear. So thanks for bringing it up, and using a few more words on it.

In the sense that I talked about Israel and no other particular nation, yes.

Not in the sense which you probably mean though. I even said “many other peoples still don’t have that” (safe retreat), which fits Palestine. Of course Palestinians, being humans, have the same basic human rights which I mentioned.

I’m not an expert in these things. I felt it would be impossible for me to give a nuanced take on all the important sides of the conflict. So I didn’t even try, but still responded to the questions which were about Israel, likewise addressing Israel specifically.

I feel your edgy take kind of ignores the essence of my comment. I’d appreciate more balanced responses. Let’s not react to unecessary hate and violence with a comment section which does exactly that.