Comment by mulmen
4 years ago
Puritans.
We “banned” alcohol for 13 years.
America’s greatest battle is with our dark religious past. We claim to be secular but really it’s an aspiration.
4 years ago
Puritans.
We “banned” alcohol for 13 years.
America’s greatest battle is with our dark religious past. We claim to be secular but really it’s an aspiration.
I'm an atheist, and I intensely disagree with the sexualisation of everything in our society dressed as a new sexual revolution, and see it as a direct effect of capitalism.
What say you
Still puritanism. Being an atheist doesn't mean you can't form bad beliefs.
We are talking an adults private photos, not a billboard on the freeway.
I think you'll have to expand a bit on that.
1)Government makes companies liable for hosted third party content
2)Companies set up workflows to detect said content
3)???
4)Blame capitalism
1. People like sexy things 2. Companies make or facilitate sexy things 3. Blame capitalism.
1 reply →
You can be an atheist and still be a prude. Having one supposed non-religious orientation or belief doesn't mean you are emancipated in other views.
The other day I read something about how society must “prevent the oversexualization of children” and that got me thinking, who will protect the oversexualization of society itself? The answer was obvious to me.
eh, I feel like alcohol bans were fashionable in the past. USSR did it, Finland did it...
Alcohol ban makes a lot of sense.... alcohol has been proven scientifically to adversely harm humans in any amount.
Yep, Islam banned it over 1400 years ago.
You say that as if there is no other reason to ban alcohol than religious belief, and not like alcohol being one of the most negative societal influences in the areas of human health, crime, public safety, and poverty. Just because humans are so cripplingly addicted to alcohol that banning was untenable doesn’t mean it was a bad idea.
Everytime you need to use any type of force (e.g., a ban) to impose your idea, you should really think if this is really a good idea.
there are many reasons to reduce harm.
there are absolutely no reason to ban it, because that only causes more harm.
somehow many people on Earth have a remarkable resistance to nuance.
Prohibition didn’t work. Everyone who wanted to kept drinking. Religious guilt is an ineffective motivator of change.
Source: human history.
It’s time to move on.
>Religious guilt is an ineffective motivator of change.
>Source: human history.
The alcohol consumption statistics of certain ME states strongly disprove your thesis.
7 replies →
Let the human decide? If you're religious, God created everything - enjoy it all, or not...as you wish! Just don't force your ideas on others.
You are blaming alcohol for people's actions. That's disgusting and horrifying. I wonder what makes you say that. Religious?
As much as the evangelicals of America screw with the rest of the world in their quest for purity, the better answer seems to be:
How do you know those nudes are taken consensually? And what's your liability for developing ("reproducing") them?
Why would you assume a crime by default? The presumption of innocence is only a slogan in the US, just like the above mentioned secularity. Look what happened with the guy in this post. You can't even take a photo of your own kid.
The discussion was around prints of naked adults and why stores might have policies to not develop those. I offered an alternative reason based on the legal landscape rather than a cultural one.
> You can't even take a photo of your own kid.
You missed the part where we're discussing a sub-topic off that story, someone's experience working in a photo store, and the policies in place there.
> Why would you assume a crime by default?
I assume you mean "you" as in a photo store that finds such negatives in a job order, and not me directly?
Because as I said, your liability or even reputation if this isn't from something legal, is not worth the profit made.
> America’s greatest battle is with our dark religious past.
Apparently you’ve never been to Baltimore. There is no dark religious past haunting that city, just corrupt politicians.
Is it your claim that one medium sized city somehow has a bigger problem than the nation it exists within?
Baltimore has 10,000,000 people. The United States is larger by a factor of thirty three.
I thought for a second I was crazy not knowing that Baltimore was the largest city in the US
Baltimore has a population of 600k not 10m, you're off by a factor of 13
1 reply →
I’d live with corruption if they were at least competent at delivering essential services.
I expect most only complain about corruption because the basics aren’t being delivered, not out of a sense of civic responsibility.
> I’d live with corruption if they were at least competent at delivering essential services.
This has so many holes in it you’re making Swiss cheese look rational.
> I expect most only complain about corruption because the basics aren’t being delivered, not out of a sense of civic responsibility.
I expect you have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about.
Why don't you petition the government for a redress of grievances and oust them? It's an unlimited right guaranteed by the First Amendment that can remove tyrants without causing harm.
So, according to the first amendment I can just taze the supreme court, and roll back citizens united, and reinstate roe v wade?
That's as batshit crazy as recent assertions that nothing the courts rule can be sexist; after all, women would just run for seats on the supreme court if they cared; they're a majority of the population, after all.
Since the nonsense in the last paragraph actually came from a recent supreme court majority opinion, I'm wondering if you can point to a supreme court ruling backing up your statement.
1 reply →