1058
this post was submitted on 04 Oct 2023
1058 points (96.9% liked)
World News
39390 readers
3143 users here now
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News [email protected]
Politics [email protected]
World Politics [email protected]
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Distributed across many countries, limiting the impact of their vote outside of countries that are state- or majority -catholic.
There are lots of countries with significant catholic population or even majority.
There are significantly more that don't.
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. If you were to ask me, "are there a lot of Catholics in the world?” my answer would be: yes. Because there are. About 15% of the population of the planet is technically* Catholic. That's a lot of the population of the earth comparative to almost anything that isn't a birth-given attribute.
However, in the biggest countries in the world, and for the majority of countries in the world, they are not a majority. Even less so for countries that play a significant part on the world stage in a political way.
I'm happy to ask the same question again as I'm awaiting an answer and, as a scientist, I will change my view in line with the evidence that is presented: in the last 30 years, outside of Vatican City, and in states where Catholicism is not the state or most widely recognized religion or denomination, what meaningful and significant political decisions or stances has the pope influenced?
* The methodology of this is questionable but I'm happy to take it on face value for the purposes of this discussion.
E: it's easier to accuse someone of trying to impersonate you than it is to actually win an argument, see below for a demo.
E2: Oh so they always resort to childish ad hominems, how embarrassing for them! https://lemmy.world/modlog?page=1&userId=3261234
Is Latin America not important enough? How about Poland or Italy? There are even 20% of catholics in the USA. According to Wiki, there is 1.3 billion baptized Catholics worldwide - that's important enough to me. Do you really think major religions play no role on the political stage?
15% of the world's population is ~1.3b people. You don't need to quote the same stats back at me.
Where did I say anything about SA not being important? Equally, why fixate on SA if the pope has influenced so much politically in the rest of the world?
Also we're talking about Catholicism and the Pope, not other major religions. Stop moving the goalposts.
I'm still waiting for the answer to my question.
You say as they address your issue and name several Catholic majority countries where the opinions of the pope sway politics far more than you're accepting.
You're the one moving goalposts on them lol
Evidenced examples of that sway?
I'm still waiting.
Ok, abortion ban in Poland. Also the fight against lgbt in Poland - which is one reason why this news is really interesting. It can cause a divide among catholics, which can be desirable.
I appreciate you coming back with an answer, thank you.
I don't understand how the Pope directly influenced the abortion ban though - what actions did he take to influence it directly?
I'm not saying he influences politics directly, I'm saying he influences the way the vast population of worldwide catholics think. So the influence is indirect but major.
In case of Poland, I think the government feels like it's safe to go with such a radical policy because they know most of the population obliges the will of the church, which is anti-choice. The same goes for the lgbt discrimination. I think now that the pope started speaking a bit lgbt friendlier, the public opinion might start to be more divided, which will hopefully mean the topic will be less of a safe bet for populists.
Let me add that I too appreciate you discussing with me peacefully, I'm actually having quite a nice time, which is a rare experience when it comes to online politics.
I think we kind of agree and disagree. I think it's good that he can add influence where there is pliability in Catholics, as in Poland.
I still don't see his reach or influence being as big as say affecting meaningful and wide reaching political decisions in USA or Chinese politics though.
Yes, I agree with you that he doesn't have much influence on Chinese and USA politics, and I can see now that we both recognize there are many other places in the world that can be influenced by him significantly. We've actually reached a meaningful conclusion. This is what I imagine a civilised discussion between two reasonable people to be like. Thank you for this positive experience.
Politicians fight dirty over smaller voting demographics, Im pretty sure its a big enough percent to make a difference
E: the user I responded to attempted to impersonate me after losing this argument.
"pretty sure" is a very weak stance, especially with the continuing absence of evidence to support this conjecture
The IP of this account matches https://lemmy.myserv.one/u/[email protected] and will be banned. (Both accounts).
Oh, my bad, I was trying to be polite. Ill rephrase.
You are wrong. The professional demographics manipulators know better than you do. Which is why you are asking a question you know cannot be answered in the way you posed it without a 5 year study on catholic peoples opinions on a broad range of topics before and after a public vatican statement involving those topics.
The people whose jobs rely on the ability to read and understand demographics attribute weight to smaller demographics, and apply even greater weight to the catholic population. You are just openly incorrect.
The cuban vote is considered a huge swing population. Thats at 2.4 million cuban descent americans. Catholic americans top off just under 62 million. I am pretty damn sure that 18% of americans is a very relevant percent of americans. And, more importantly, every single career politician is pretty damn sure too, and this is the one topic you can be confident that a politician actually knows what they are talking about.
Do you think being snarky and running a gish gallop of nonsense assertions is useful? I thought politeness was a virtue but you've explicitly dropped yours so willingly. How revealing.
I am not wrong. I've laid my case, and you've laid a bunch of self imposed obstacles in your path to avoid answering the question. You've been disappointing but unsurprising, which I expect is rather thematic of your life given you'd rather be edgy than provide evidence to back your claims. Very sad.
I can always trust the religious to lose their cool before they back their own claims; an area of true consistency where no other lies.
E: the user I am talking with here attempted to impersonate me, and got banned.
Politeness is a courtesy, not a virtue, and one you made clear you werent interested in returning.
You havent laid a case, you posed a question you know cant be answered. "Show me proof of the popes words changing catholic opinion in 3 decades" is nebulous nonsense and you know that. Its why you asked it. You would need a depth of polling data to """prove""" that statement, which is often not public if anyone has even done that polling.
Now, you know fallacies as well as virtues, since I provided a single arguement. The professionals who know better than you know this demographic matters. I guess backing that up with the size of the demographic confused you? But the point stands firm, which is why youre blindly guessing Im religious (Im not, poor luck) instead of addressing it.
If youre really in a STEM field like you claim, you must not be great at your job. Most science professions require a better reading comprehension level than this.
Oof, you talk of fallacies and then use an ad hominem attack To defame my character? You reduce my question to only being solvable by a cherry picked method of evidence that no rational person would accept?
Your inability to reason is on display for everyone to see. You attack my question when it was not I who made the claim to begin with. Travel back up the thread and you'll see it was the person I responded to who made the claim. I responded by asking for proof which is the prerogative of a scientist and a rationalist.
You've been wrong about so much in such a short time and I am still left wanting for any real explanation as to why the claim that the pope has any outward or meaningful effect on political decisions has any veracity at all - a claim that I'll remind you again I did not make. Maybe you'd like to make the same awkward and hackneyed challenges to the person who did?
Your mocking tone and decidedly poor character have admittedly not been worth the effort I've given them. Take your ego away and bruise it elsewhere.
.... you brought up fallacies, not me. Just like how you claimed the pope, leader of the catholic church, has no influence on the members of the catholic church. You are making the claim that the leader of a group has no influence over the group, and asking for proof to the contrary. Or did you misread your own comments?
Whats your field of research? I cannot believe a real scientist got a degree with this piss poor reading comprehension. Whats your work in?
Or were you wanting to make up more guesses about me? We could do that too, youve yet to get one right.
I made no such assertions. I decline to provide you more details of my character to fallaciously attack. You cannot reason well enough to make this worthwhile. This conversation has concluded. Move on.
Ha, yeah thats what I thought. A lot easier to larp as a "scientist" than it is to actually answer questions about what a scientist is, eh? That tracks with all your other made up nonsense.
Have fun playing pretend for internet clout. Glad thats good for you.
I feel very sorry for you that you have to resort to childish ad hominem attacks when you can't muster an actual point.
As a scientist, and adult, I wish you the best in attaining the substantial personal growth you'll need to maintain a discourse without resorting to baseless attacks on character.
I thought this discussion was over?
You hid from my singular point, so Im not sure what you mean. The only point I made you couldnt even half heartedly rebuttal, just flail with personal attacks in the hopes I was catholic. Sorry, was that only okay for you to do?
Pretty hypocritical for an "adult."
Sure thing, you have a lovely day now.
Dont tuck that tail too tight, it will fall off
Hey how many times are you gonna say " its over bro" just to come right back with that tail tucked?
My buddys got $10 on 5, but I think you go past that
Look at you all red faced and chest puffed. Lil cutey.