The ones based on religion aren't legitimate either.
this post was submitted on 07 Jul 2024
150 points (94.1% liked)
Gay: News, Memes and Discussion
1884 readers
396 users here now
Welcome to /c/Gay - Your LGBTQ+ Haven
We're more than just a community; we're your haven for celebrating LGBTQ+ culture and connecting with like-minded individuals.
Community Rules:
~ 1. No bigotry. Hating someone off of their race, culture, creed, sexuality, or identity is not remotely acceptable. Mistakes can happen but do your best to respect others.
~ 2. Keep it civil. Disagreements will happen. That's okay! Just don't let it make you forget that the person you are talking to is also a person.
~ 4. Keep it LGBTQ+ related. This one is kind of a gimme but keep as on topic as possible.
~ 5. Keep posts to a limit. We all love posts but 3-4 in an hour is plenty enough.
~ 6. Try to not repost. Mistakes happen, we get it! But try to not repost anything from within the past 1-2 months.
~ 7. No General AI Art. Posts of simple AI art do not 'inspire jamaharon' and fuck over our artist friends.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I hate homosapiens, they're bad for the planet.
Then you should support gay people, they’re less likely to procreate.
If its backed up by science then it wouldn’t be religious, mutual exclusivity there
Not eating pork or shellfish with food preservation techniques available 6,000 years ago is definitely backed by science
Yeah, but outdated science doesn't count. That's just how science works.
Also, you don't have to be a scientist to avoid clearly spoiled seafood. Especially in the desert.
No, that's the thing. It IS still relevant and fully correct for what it meant to do. Just because someone invented better preservation techniques doesn't magically make shellfish or pork less FBI prone than other food. That is and will always be true.
That's not science, though.
They didn't arrive at "don't eat spoiled seafood" or "because the bacteria will make you sick".
They arrived at "don't eat any seafood, ever" and "because magic sky daddy says so and will punish you if you disobey"
You yourself called it "outdated science", so please do not play the semantics game.
You are completely waxing over that EVERYTHING in religion gets boiled down to, "skydaddy says so". That does not and will never mean that is the actual etymology of the rule...
You yourself called it "outdated science"
My mistake. My second pass at it was much more accurate.
You are completely waxing over that EVERYTHING in religion gefs boiled down to, "skydaddy says so"
Nope, I'm deliberately alluding to that fact and how it makes religion inherently unscientific. Sorry for being too subtle.
That does not and will never mean that is the actual etymology of the rule
We don't have any proof that scientific experiments were conducted and thoroughly studied to reach the conclusion either. Science is as much about the methods as the result.
Nobody disagrees that religion is not up to modern scientific standards.
That wasn't the point. At all. The point is that modern science still says they were on to something. The premise is right answer, wrong reason, so if religion isn't science ... you're simply agreeing with the whole reason those rules were mentioned in this discussion: (sortof) right answer, wrong reasons.
I'm positive it wasn't simply, "god says so", but probably because everyone noticed people who ate them got sick more often, and attributed ills befalling them as a message from God. It happens all the time in religion. It still stems from something real, just misattributed to God, as usual.
In either case, the rules are still valid examples of, "something modern science (sort of) agrees with".
The premise is right answer, wrong reason
Not even that, no. Rotten seafood ≠ all seafood.
The point is that modern science still says they were on to something
Nope. Modern science explains things that they didn't know.
They arrived at something that wasn't completely incorrect in the same way as they arrived at "that burning bush talking must be sky daddy rather than my imagination".
That's not "being on to something". That's "blind hen can also find corn" territory.
Hi! I think your misunderstanding comes from the fact that religion, is not a mechanism for creating new knowledge, it is a collection of shared beliefs between people.
A better comparison would be faith VS science, or religion VS scientific understanding.
While most religious beliefs are faith based at their core, it's easy to speculate that certain religious and cultural stigma arose after repeated observation of the natural world (Alice ate shrimp, Alice falls ill -> eating shrimp is against the will of God). Not as efficient as controlled scientific testing, but it ultimately lands you on the true statement "Eating shrimp is unwise and likely to get you sick".
What is the perspective here? Did they discover a reason or does it not exist?
it doesnt exist
It's an empirical, scientific fact that I am a homophobe. Take that! /s
Some people don't trust others who like bitter stuff. I don't trust others who are into men. Even when they're women.