Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Please don't post about US Politics. If you need to do this, try [email protected]
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either [email protected] or [email protected].
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email [email protected]. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
Would you agree that a great deal of opposition to LGBTQ+, feminists, and minorities is similarly a reaction to a vocal minority from each of those groups that adopts a militant, hostile tone towards mainstream society and/or religion? If we accept that the existence of a vocal minority with problematic positions and behavior justifies treating all members of that group with a lack of respect, then we are doomed. We cannot allow the traumatized and incoherent members of society to modulate the interactions between different social factions.
This is completely incorrect and reductive of the infinite variety of religions that exist. Even limited to just Christianity, most Christians would disagree with your assertion that people "deserve to be tortured eternally". This is an example of you taking the opinions of certain mentally disturbed individuals who happen to identify as religious, and extrapolating them to apply to all religious people. Allowing the crazy people to dictate the terms of the conversation.
Practically nobody keeps to the basic rules of evidence, religious or otherwise.
Buddhists and Daoists are much less relevant and known to Western civilization, so they are rarely even mentioned, let alone critiqued. I have no doubt there are plenty of Indian atheists who could absolutely dissect Buddhism and how it's actually problematic at times, but they're simply not on Reddit or Lemmy.
No. That's victim blaming and disgusting. Women, lgbtq+, and other minorities actually get persecuted in modern times, not just offended while they clutch pearls. If you remain ignorant of that, it's willful and you need to be a better person.
No, my dude, I went to Catholic school for many years, attended Baptist services for many years, and most Christians don't go around saying, "Maybe God got that whole hell thing wrong."
As do religious people. The world is much larger than America and Western Europe my friend, people all around the world are literally killed for their religion on a daily basis.
Then you should be familiar with the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which states
Nothing in there about torture. And that's just the most mainstream Christian branch, there are innumerable alternative interpretations, some of which deny the existence of hell entirely. Such as annihilationism which is most commonly associated with Seventh Day Adventists and Jehovahs Witnesses today, but has been present in varying forms throughout Christian history.
Yeah, I hear hell isn't that bad /s. Catholics also say "Happy are the persecuted" so stfu. I can quote just as much BS as you can. And being persecuted isn't carte blanche to be a dick to others.
That's precisely my point. When I called out the hostile and dickish behavior of some feminists, LGBTQ+, and minorities, your response was:
You can't have it both ways. Is it okay to act like a dick to other human beings if you belong to a "persecuted" group? If not, then why is it disgusting of me to point out such behavior?
What I see from the lgbtq+ community is: "Leave us alone," when their rights and existence are threatened and I think it's ok to defend those things.
What I see from the religious community is: "Let's threaten the rights and existence of the lgbtq+ community," though they never use such neutral language. I don't think it's ok to commit violence, directly or otherwise, against people because they have a different sexual orientation, gender, race, or creed. It's not a defensive reaction, it's an offensive preemptive attack.
So it's not equivalent. Stop pretending it is.
You're not here in good faith. You're not clever. You haven't set up a brilliant rhetorical trap; you've just shown how ignorant you willingly remain.
You're not worth any more of my time, so you're blocked. Don't expect anything further.
What you see is entirely subjective, and the fact that you don't seem to realize that your impression is subject to bias is concerning. It's not necessary for me to set up any kind of rhetorical trap because your position is inherently flawed.
I support LGBTQ people to defend their rights and existence, but that doesn't mean they get carte blanche to do whatever they want.