m0darn
@m0darn@lemmy.ca
- Comment on Why doesn't the reflecting pool just use an automated strainer on it, that would run about every six hours, like a mechanical pool cleaner? Instead of paying 15 mil just for a bunch to clean? 5 hours ago:
Lincoln tricked racist northerners into dying in a war against the most heinous form of slavery the world has ever seen, and he still doesn’t pass your purity test. Fucking wild.
- Comment on Why doesn't the reflecting pool just use an automated strainer on it, that would run about every six hours, like a mechanical pool cleaner? Instead of paying 15 mil just for a bunch to clean? 7 hours ago:
Lincoln himself did not personally own slaves, but he was absolutely complicit as a President in maintaining the institution of slavery.
This is maybe the most absolutely deranged thing I have ever read.
- Comment on High Risk, High Reward 1 week ago:
Power switch
- Comment on Nice 1 week ago:
Yeah I would probably say what OP meant was a distance between controlled by Jews vs the Jews.
- Comment on Anon does some genealogy 1 week ago:
The Bible isn’t a legal document, this was regarding a law …
This is very confusing, I didn’t call it a legal document, I cited a law within it.
… for an ancient nation that doesn’t exist anymore that was built on compromises with people who have hard hearts.
This is not a compelling rationalization, like at all. It doesn’t land. The bible says lots of things are unacceptable, and enslaving people is not one of those things. It just isn’t.
Christianity saw slavery for 1500 years and said “meh”
You have a misconception here that Christianity was popular for the first 1500 years.
No I don’t. I mean Christianity didn’t seem to have a problem with slavery.
The abolitionist movement was primarily driven by Christians.
… And primarily opposed by Christians. Yes Christianity piety was important to abolitionists, but slave owners received communion. Slave owners justified slavery’s continuation by arguing that they were a saving the souls of the slaves, and they taught their slaves Christianity. Confederate general Stonewall Jackson was profoundly religious.
In the USA, slavery was essentially ended by the Great Awakening which was a time marked by mass conversion to Christianity among the peasantry.
It was ended (in America) by the American civil war. The civil war was caused by slavery, or more specifically southern fears of abolition due to shifting balance of demographics and economic power.
- Comment on Anon does some genealogy 2 weeks ago:
When the bible said it’s okay to beat your slaves so severely that they die, as long as you they survive a few days before they die, it was wrong for me to characterise that as murder, I was hasty. But the bible clearly says that slavery is legitimate when the enslaved weren’t treated the same as the free by the law. The fact that they’re both made in God’s image was clearly not relevant.
No, because any moral guide can be misused if you randomly take verses out of context.
I don’t think I’m taking these verses out of context, the context was that slavery was common and Christianity didn’t really have a problem with that, you’re the one applying a modern morality and reading into the text things that the author didn’t mean. Your position is “it wouldn’t matter if the bible was more clearly opposed to slavery” and I think that’s delusional.
if you had a scholar say “Christianity help ended slavery and here’s why”, wouldn’t you just accuse them of trying to defend the reputation of Christianity?
No I wouldn’t, I would consider their argument. I’m not dogmatically committed to believing Christianity is bad. Are you dogmatically committed to believing Christianity is good?
Christianity did help end slavery, but it also defended it. Christianity saw slavery for 1500 years and said “meh”, and then for almost 400 years Christians argued with each other about whether it was okay or not, and now you say Christianity was against slavery the whole time, and you’re wrong.
- Comment on Anon does some genealogy 2 weeks ago:
Enough for what? Enough for it to take 1500 years for Christians to realize that beating people to death for insolence is wrong
No. I’m only referring to enslavement here.
Yeah I thought it was obvious I was referring to a subset of the behaviours of enslavers.
Exodus 20:13
You shall not murder.
The bible is pretty clear that it isn’t murder to kill your own slave
You can misuse anything in the Bible to advocate for anything.
Doesn’t that strike you as an argument against the utility of the bible as a moral guide? Don’t you think it would be better if it was harder to use the bible to defend slave ownership? Like if it took a clearer stance against slavery. If instead of saying “treat your slaves justly and fairly” if it said “the truly righteous free their slaves and trust in the lord to provide, those that hold slaves will not inherit the kingdom of heaven” wouldn’t that have hastened the end of slavery within Christendom?
“Impartial scholars” there is no such thing.
Sure, but there are ways that scholars can try to diminish their bias, and it isn’t through legally binding faith commitments.
- Comment on Evolution Factsberg 2 weeks ago:
every and all living organisms [that we know of]
- Comment on Anon does some genealogy 2 weeks ago:
Society was okay with slavery at the time.
Yes and the bible reflects that.
the mention of the Law of Moses being written due to the hardness of hearts is enough
Enough for what? Enough for it to take 1500 years for Christians to realize that beating people to death for insolence is wrong
It was the Christians who abolished slavery and started questioning it
Sure, but didn’t the advocates of perpetuating slavery use the bible to justify themselves, because the bible doesn’t take a clear position against slavery?
It’s interesting that you point to the reformation as key because Las Casas (responsible for the first law banning enslavement in colonies) was reading the Book of Sirach when he realised slavery was wrong. I mention it because it is excluded from the protestant canon.
You seem to be in denial about how okay with slavery Christianity was. Do you prefer the work of impartial scholars to that from people that think it’s important to protect the reputation of Christianity?
- Comment on Anon does some genealogy 2 weeks ago:
Jesus said divorce was bad, did he say slavery was bad? You seem to be in denial of how okay with slavery Christianity was. Christianity changed between the composition of the bible and today.
- Comment on Anon does some genealogy 2 weeks ago:
Even throughout different time periods of the Bible’s writing, slaves ranged from bondservants to ones sold through debt.
…and chattel slaves like in Exodus 21:20-21
- Comment on Anon does some genealogy 2 weeks ago:
Kinda mad that if you click on his links, he’s citing a very specific translation of the Bible, flip through them and it’s clearly talking about servants as a blessing.
Can you elaborate? He links to the NRSVUE which is the translation academics use because it focuses on eliminating modern biases.
I think the fact that other versions use “servants” is a reflection of the fact that Christians are embarrassed that the bible endorses slavery, and will tie themselves in pretzels to minimize this fact.
Is he trying to convince Christians that slave owning is okay or something
No, I think he is just being honest about what the bible is saying. Christians should know that the interpretive lens they use has a big impact on what they’ll see the bible advocating.
- Comment on 2 weeks ago:
Worse, they think all trade is capitalist
- Comment on Comic sans gang 2 weeks ago:
Cloud chambers are pretty
- Comment on How come Mark Wahlberg got a pass for being the crap out of a Vietnamese guy. But Kevin Spacey, Bill Cosby, Weinstein, do not get a pass? Beside the sexual aspect what is the difference? 3 weeks ago:
Certainly can excuse once, maybe twice
Sorry, what is it you can excuse?
- Comment on His DNA Was Taken After His Arrest at an ICE Protest. Now, He’s Suing. 1 month ago:
- Comment on The bosses are never going to just hand workers a 32 hour workweek. 1 month ago:
So I used to work in industrial automation, and I did see a factory owner buy a robot to automate a task because it was a brain meltingly simple task that was unpopular with his workers. The robot was slower, and more expensive than a human.
It was taking a small piece of metal from a stack and putting it in a machine and pushing a button (not sure if he had a two-hand-no-tie-down set up) then taking the now bent price of metal out of the machine and putting it on a stack. I think they had about 8 hours production per week of demand for the part.
He didn’t do it out of the kindness of his heart but because he got tired of paying recruiters to find people willing to do it.
- Comment on Close enough 1 month ago:
New Zealand in Narco traffic? Weird. Maybe “heaven”?
- Comment on Transform 2 months ago:
Yeah I was looking at that being like,
THAT would have been helpful!
- Comment on CONSTANTLY being one upped by Uncle Ronnie 2 months ago:
Uncles aren’t in your blood line, but maybe he knows something about your Grandpa
- Comment on It hurts. 2 months ago:
- Comment on It works better if you put it in your mouth first. 2 months ago:
I recall that Canada was working on a long-term nuclear waste storage facility. I looked it up, it’s a 26 billion dollar project.
It’s not a hypothetical issue, it’s a political issue. Political issues are real issues.
You can’t blame Grassy Narrows first nation for opposing the location of the nuclear waste facility near their territory. It’s a community that’s been decimated by industrial waste.
I support nuclear technologies where sustainable energy isn’t feasible but I think people aren’t wrong to consider a waste a problem. It’s not an absolute showstopper, but it is something that is part of the challenge of building nuclear facilities.
- Comment on It works better if you put it in your mouth first. 2 months ago:
I also don’t know a lot about the nuclear fuel life cycle, but don’t you think it might be more complicated than this?
- Comment on Will it float rule 2 months ago:
Yeah, maybe it’s because if they crane their neck upwards, their rump rises instead of their head
- Comment on Will it float rule 2 months ago:
So you see how its front legs droop so much because they’re so heavy? This means its torso is tilted far forwards and so it can’t really lift its neck much more.
- Comment on When you hear “run like a girl” or “throw like a girl,” what do you imagine? 3 months ago:
Yeah it’s really “throwing like a person that hasn’t been taught how to throw”
- Comment on spoopy figs 3 months ago:
I had a friend that didn’t eat figs for this reason.
- Comment on Forbidden Fruit 3 months ago:
Genetic incompatibility - the interspecific cross could only occur one way.
This could be human male-neanderthal female (HMNF) coupling didn’t result in fertile offspring right? Could it also be that HMNF (coupling) didn’t result in fertile female offspring, but did have fertile male offspring?
- Comment on Forbidden Fruit 3 months ago:
Human genome contains significant contribution from Neanderthals. Because of the location of the neanderthal genes in our genome it can only have come from male Neanderthals.
- Comment on I build a machine that turns you into a criminal | Rootkid 3 months ago:
He says that the data is not illegal to possess only illegal to sell, so it’s not CSAM. Also you don’t ever actually possess the data, you facilitate its sale though.
