Lightdm

joined 2 years ago
[–] Lightdm@feddit.de 6 points 2 years ago

The 1949 geneva conventions have been rattified by (afaik exclusively): all UN members, palestine, the holy see and the cook islands. The singning binds the signee to uphold these rules for themselves. How then could the UN, who as you said is "just an extension of its member states", not follow the morals you yourself held as the absolute standard?

[–] Lightdm@feddit.de 2 points 2 years ago

"Elementary, my dear watson" is a sherlock holmes "quote", which is sometimes used to roughly say "it is actually quite simple". Take away the "my dear" and the post roughly sounds like the "quote".

[–] Lightdm@feddit.de 2 points 2 years ago

If you agree that humans alone can't claim what is universally right and wrong, then that is a first step towards religion, but I will leave that aside.
It seems like you agree that you have no basis on which to claim, with a degree of authority, that someone has to adjust their actions in your vicinity. If you don't contest this then I will leave this discussion, as you have confirmed, that you can't just forbid others from dressing in a certain way.
If you do not agree then I would like to understand how you can say that "morality is an entirely human inventes concept, no one has any foundation for it..." and then go on to say that somehow you can in fact impose your morality on others, as I understood it because their "made up stories are just way stupider than others"? According to which scale? One that does suddenly pop out of nowhere and is absolute for all humans?

[–] Lightdm@feddit.de 0 points 2 years ago (3 children)

Most governments indoctrinate their people with lies. Christianity and islam and strongly against xenophobia (I don't have much knowledge about judaism, so can't speak for or against it). Same goes for rape. Slavery is legal to this day in the USA for example.
I hope you can see my point, that standing on the moral basis of the modern western societies can make it seem like people, who live their lifes following different rules, may be "backwards" or "morally inferior" but you are lacking the logical foundation to claim something like that.

[–] Lightdm@feddit.de 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Ah where did this debate take place with ehich people? AFAIK all 4 sunni schools are unanimous in their intepretation, that people have to cover their bodies.
It is also very much telling men what and what not to wear. The specific body parts that have to be covered differ from school to school, for women and for men, but every muslim scholar says that every human has to cover certain parts of their body from the gaze of other people.

[–] Lightdm@feddit.de 1 points 2 years ago (5 children)

What means dangerous in this case? And what makes the major religions dangerous?

[–] Lightdm@feddit.de 4 points 2 years ago

I am interested, what exactly constitutes a "religious symbol" for you?

[–] Lightdm@feddit.de 7 points 2 years ago (3 children)

I mean yes there is the command to cover yourself in the quran, [24:31] for example ("... And tell the believing women to lower their gaze and guard their chastity, and not to reveal their adornments except what normally appears. Let them draw their veils over their chests, and not reveal their ˹hidden˺ adornment...").
Still, the idea of women generally being forced to wear it by their family/social circle is wrong.

[–] Lightdm@feddit.de 34 points 2 years ago (8 children)

There is a "y" in "my" so maybe "Sphinx" would complete the sentence?

[–] Lightdm@feddit.de 5 points 2 years ago

I think your estimations are reasonable, but some further information: it is not just a normal screen (with normal picel density) at a bigger size, but the pixels are rather far apart. So I would assume that this reduces the cost.

[–] Lightdm@feddit.de 2 points 2 years ago

Ah wow, I didn't know that, thanks!

view more: ‹ prev next ›