A girls' basketball team forfeited the championship to a team that allowed a male (trans-identified) play on the team, for the safety of the real girls. Refusing to play is the only way forward.

submitted by iamonlyoneman from archive.is

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]VulptexVoluntaryist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (15 children)

I don't know if Hitler was an atheist, but he certainly wasn't fond of Christianity. He may have been a Christian at one time, but he also had a positive opinion of Jews at one time. He was very clear that he detested Christian ethics. He apparently believed religion (excluding Judaism and Christianity obviously) was very valuable to society; but he seems to have viewed it in a utilitarian sense rather than actually believing it himself.

Anyway, all the descriptions you gave of Christians sound exactly like the Pharisees, who were Jesus's most vicious enemies and played a major role in having him executed in the most gruesome way (though the Romans had plenty of blood on their hands too). And you're using that to define Christianity. This doesn't make any sense.

[–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (14 children)

I don't know if Hitler was an atheist, but he certainly wasn't fond of Christianity.

He started as a christian, and appealed to Christianity to achieve power. He was certainly less fond of atheism than he was of Christianity.

He was very clear that he detested Christian ethics. He apparently believed religion (excluding Judaism and Christianity obviously) was very valuable to society; but he seems to have viewed it in a utilitarian sense rather than actually believing it himself.

He was a lot like Trump, in these respects, wasn't he?

Anyway, all the descriptions you gave of Christians sound exactly like the Pharisees, who were Jesus's most vicious enemies and played a major role in having him executed in the most gruesome way

Very little is known about Jesus's life. Most scholars believe that he existed, but the evidence of that is equivocal. "[T]he Pharisees, who were Jesus's most vicious enemies and played a major role in having him executed in the most gruesome way" is highly speculative.

And you're using that to define Christianity.

Nope. Just people who consider themselves to be Christian is my definition of Christians.

[–]VulptexVoluntaryist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Like Trump? Really? Trump isn't one for religion at all. He acts religious to appeal to his largely-religious voterbase, but in practice he thinks he is God. The only similarities I can see between Hitler and Trump are their foreign policy and strong military, and being "tough on crime". In every other respect Donald Trump is nothing like Hitler. I have no reason to believe he wants to genocide anyone. In fact he's a big supporter of Israel.

[–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Like Trump? Really? Trump isn't one for religion at all. He acts religious to appeal to his largely-religious voterbase, but in practice he thinks he is God.

Yep.

In every other respect Donald Trump is nothing like Hitler.

They weren't ones for religion at all. They acted religious to appeal to their largely-religious voterbase, but in practice leveraged it to (try to) achieve total despotism.

In fact he's a big supporter of Israel.

A necessity in American politics. He manages to combine it with overt antisemetism.

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/12/07/electoral-logic-behind-trumps-antisemitism-00072661

https://www.newyorker.com/news/q-and-a/a-right-wing-zionist-digests-trumps-anti-semite-dinner-party

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trumps-comments-american-jews-were-anti-semitic-white-house-2022-10-17/

[–]VulptexVoluntaryist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Yes. But Hitler still saw religion as good for society, whereas Trump does not care one way or the other.

[–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Both of them benefited by actively appealing to the christian voter.

[–]VulptexVoluntaryist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

And so have nearly all western leaders. You're making false analogies. Hitler breathed air. We all breathe air too, therefore everyone must be just like Hitler!

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

And so have nearly all western leaders.

Who do you think are western leaders?

Olaf Scholz doesn't hide that he left the Church, nor that he holds secular views.

Rishi Sunak is a practising Hindu.

Élisabeth Borne is jewish.

Emmanuel Macron is agnositc.

You're talking about Justin Trudeau and Anthony Albanese? Neither of them have conservative platforms that would appeal to the christian masses.

You're making false analogies. Hitler breathed air. We all breathe air too, therefore everyone must be just like Hitler!

Trump and Hitler specifically appealed to the christian voter, and both had goals of leveraging that to remain in power indefinitely.

We didn't all do that.

[–]VulptexVoluntaryist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Nearly every politician appeals to the masses, and nearly every politician will take as much power as they can get. Really, it's something we should have figured out by now.

[–]VulptexVoluntaryist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Very little is known about Jesus's life. Most scholars believe that he existed, but the evidence of that is equivocal. "[T]he Pharisees, who were Jesus's most vicious enemies and played a major role in having him executed in the most gruesome way" is highly speculative.

That's a red herring, because Christians believe those things happened either way. And all your favorite religious fanatics and Christian nationalists you use to portray Christians as bigots are a perfect match with the Pharisees.

[–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

That's a red herring, because Christians believe those things happened either way.

I'm certainly not defining christians as pharisees.

And all your favorite religious fanatics and Christian nationalists you use to portray Christians as bigots are a perfect match with the Pharisees.

The paper I linked to about religion and parochialism used people who answered “Christianity” for the question “What is your religious affiliation?” an chose either “Yes. Both public and private.” or “Yes. Public only.” for the question “Do you participate in regular religious activities?”

[–]VulptexVoluntaryist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

And I'm sure if it had been a fair study liberal atheists would've scored just as low, seeing how they exclude and demean anyone who doesn't share their opinions exactly. But 99% of studies are biased and only test factors that trigger conservatives, and conveniently leave out the ones that trigger liberals.

[–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

And I'm sure if it had been a fair study liberal atheists would've scored just as low, seeing how they exclude and demean anyone who doesn't share their opinions exactly.

The study shows, and in my experience, the opposite is the case. Atheists experience empathy to a wider group of people whereas christians feel freer to exclude and demean anyone who doesn't share their opinions. Probably they tell themselves that they're influenced by or working for the devil, and so see them as an enemy.

Whereas atheists have more love for people because they're people.

But you're welcome to produce this fair study. I will certainly read it. Or if you can point out the bias in the study, I'll read that too.

But 99% of studies are biased and only test factors that trigger conservatives, and conveniently leave out the ones that trigger liberals.

Obviously this unsupported claim going counter to evidence and experience isn't going to carry a lot of weight.

[–]VulptexVoluntaryist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Everyone knows that academia and science are VERY left-biased. These sorts of studies will for example test attitudes towards trans people, but not white men. Then they think they have trustworthy results when liberals of course win in a study that only attacks conservatives. If the reverse happened, and only attitudes toward white men were tested, obviously liberals would lose every time. You simply can't get an objective measurement of a subjective trait. The results will always be biased toward the presumptions of the experimenters, since the whole study is built on them. And liberals should not get to have a monopoly on defining what inclusivity is.

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Everyone knows that academia and science are VERY left-biased.

Science is VERY left-biased.

Oh dear. The poor right. VERY removed from facts.

These sorts of studies will for example test attitudes towards trans people, but not white men

What? Do you mean white men compared to black men or white men compared to white women?

And you're interested in how religiosity affects that?

Then they think they have trustworthy results when liberals of course win in a study that only attacks conservatives.

They just report the findings of the study. If you interpret that as an attack, you need to sit quietly for a bit and try to grok what the study means.

If the reverse happened, and only attitudes toward white men were tested, obviously liberals would lose every time.

No one loses from knowledge. It's all good.

You simply can't get an objective measurement of a subjective trait.

You can compare how different groups respond to the same subjective test in the same environment. And then you can see how the groups differ.

The results will always be biased toward the presumptions of the experimenters, since the whole study is built on them.

That's why you have two groups doing the same thing. That removes the bias, because anything that biases one group will bias the other.

And liberals should not get to have a monopoly on defining what inclusivity is.

I guess you'll find that reality has a liberal bias. But the problem is your definition of liberal, not our knowledge of reality.

[–]VulptexVoluntaryist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

A biased study yields biased results. You cannot simply assume that because it's "science" everything is set up 1000% objectively. Otherwise why do researchers come to different conclusions?