That “rape aside” is doing a lot of heavy lifitng there and conveniently sweeps away the need to actually address anything that isn’t the “had sex, your fault” narrative you seem to be espousing here.

Especially given that there is little to no effort being given to exemptions of any kind.

Nobody is denying that sex is how babies are (usually) made, i mean apart from the “this book is the literal truth” christians i suppose.

or you’re trolling, in which case, congratulations…i guess.

TL;DR;

The rules might be considered a list of “immoral things” but in my experience it was treated more as a list of “distracting things”, YMMV.

Then why is it on the list of horrible things?

You mean the list specifically titled “precepts” ?

It does indicate that it’s a list based on what is considered “moral conduct” so i suppose it could be considered a list of “Immoral” things.

I personally read it as “Rules and Guidelines to prevent distraction during the process”.

While i don’t personally prescribe to that kind of moral absolutism i was willing to adhere to the guidelines for a short period to experience the process in it’s intended form.

Attendance isn’t mandatory so people will have to make that call for themselves if they are considering going.

The list doesn’t mention communication, and in fact specifically prohibits lying. That suggests that speacking truly is permitted,

The section titled “Noble Silence” 4 paragraphs down, specifically goes in to the details of the non-communication i was referencing.

and this is a list of bad things

Not sure what you mean here, but hopefully i’ve covered it above.

That’s a list someone makes when they don’t approve of sex (or intoxicants, but that’s another conversation).

Very possibly and i’d guess it comes from the Buddhist origins.

I will state that my experience is that it wasn’t preachy at all, the video recordings do reference some Buddhist stories/teachings but only really to use them as examples for teaching the meditation process.

Given that you aren’t supposed to be communicating in general there is very little leeway in which preaching could occur.

It’s not considered bad , but it is a distraction, there’s supposed to be no communication between attendees.

It’s supposed to be full introspection, afaict.

Don’t know if its the same in all places but men and women were completely separate in the one I went to.

Even if you went with your wife you’d not really be there with her, you’d be two people in the same place at the same time, not communicating.

It’s not really a relaxing holiday kind of place.

I genuinely have no idea if it’s an option for you or if it’d even help but for 10/11 days of relative isolation you could try vipassana

Not sure what the northern US wait times are like, but you generally need to book ahead.

It’s free, it works on a volunteer basis, no idea how if it works for people with no fixed abode but proof of residence was not required where i am.

Do check if it’s suitable for you though, there are rules (albeit not many), they seem reasonable to me but might not be for you.

Isolation wise, there is no communication between attendees, but there are group meditation sessions (though they are also non-talking).

The three aspects that weren’t silent :

• the meditation instruction, it was a one hour-ish video playback per day explaining the process.
• the final day, discussion is allowed.
• optional question time with an instructor.

There are officially recognised tests that potentially lead to officially recognised diagnoses. For ADHD specifically that can lead to access to medication you wouldn’t have without the official diagnosis.

The book is great as well, there is also a prequel book “The Boy On The Bridge”

Brazil (1985)

Damn, all but 2.

Nearly had me a bingo, oh well.

TL;DR;

Probably a troll, possibly just confused, either way uninteresting

See the end of the post for a reply bingo card.

Nope. The onus is not on me to prove that God exists as I’m not the one using God to substantiate claims. I hope this is not difficult to understand.

The difficult to understand part is where you are referencing things that didn’t happen.

Perhaps i’m misunderstanding though, so if you point out where i was using god as justification that should clear it up nicely.

No, you claimed that religion is, as social constructs go, somehow less real than all the other social constructs that are equally observable around us - do you need me to remind you?

Again, point at where this happened, if you keep referencing things without related references it’s going to seem like you are making things up.

At least here you provided a quote, though unrelated. it’s a step in the right direction.

Just in case you meant to use that quote, nothing in the “Just to pre-empt…” quote mentions relative "real"ness.

Atheists are always the first to purport themselves as (pardon the pun) God’s gift to “rational thinking”… yet their (supposed) “rational thinking” falls apart rather quickly under investigation.

No claim to more rationality than you, no claim to atheism either, citation please.

Not big on history, are you?

Vague and fallacious. especially given i was responding to this passage of yours :

Howzabout the Inquisition? Or Saudi Arabia’s “religious police?” Or the vast riches the Catholic Church has stolen over the centuries? I’d say no - they are pretty darn “physical.

You really are obsessed with God’s existence (or lack thereoff), aren’t you? I guess I had a hard time following because it’s not something I care about in any way whatsoever. It seems that this differentiates me from atheists, doesn’t it?

Again, no assertion of atheism on my part, feel free to quote the part where i did.

The only reference to the existence/non existence of a god is in relation to the original post i responded to , it’s not a point i added to the conversation.

But i suspect you know this.

This is my reply bingo card ( if you so choose to make one )

• Bad faith arguments
• References to things that didn’t happen, with either no actual reference or one that doesn’t relate to the “argument” being made
• Fallacies in place of actual points
• Personal attacks
• Claims of my devout atheism, again with no references or proof
• Complaints that i’m pointing out any of the above, but without substantive refutations
• Equivalent of “I’m not arguing with someone who clearly doesn’t understand <Pseudo-point with no coherent supporting argument>”
• lol
• lmao

They could just be deeply confused about how a conversation generally works?

Nope. I’d declare said statement propandistic shite unless they can prove they are privy to what God does or does not allow.

Most communication is propaganda to some degree, you’ll need to be more specific in the particular viewpoint you have here if you want a useful response.

Prove that god exists and i’ll immediately get on to finding out what they do or do not allow.

Just so we’re clear, faith isn’t proof, in fact its definition is almost universally “belief, in the absence of proof”

Lots of people believing also doesn’t equal more factually correct, it just means more people believe.

What do you think churches, mosques and temples are? “Non-physical”? Howzabout the Inquisition? Or Saudi Arabia’s “religious police?” Or the vast riches the Catholic Church has stolen over the centuries? I’d say no - they are pretty darn “physical.”

Correct, you have accurately described physical objects, not a single one of which i have denied the existence of.

If you could point out which one of those is the physical manifestation of a being that “would or would not allow” something then we can get on to the conversation part.

Just in case there’s any confusion, i’m all aboard the " organised religion is mostly bullshit people doing horrific things on a large scale over even longer time frames" train.

Note the “organised”, it’s important.

Also the “religions are just socially acceptable cults” train.

It might seem like I’m on two trains but in reality it’s a venn diagram in the shape of a train and it’s basically a complete overlap.

See the above.

The above wasn’t addressing any of the points so I’m not sure how it relates to this one either, but feel free to let me know.

I’m not exactly sure what you are trying to say here. I don’t see how ascribing magical powers to religious people changes the fundamental idiocy of the quote you used.

I genuinely think you are misunderstanding what was being said here, intentionally or otherwise.

Just in case it’s unintentional, I’ll try again, but with more describing.

The vs statement was used as an illustration of the difference between the description of a tangible manifestation of a being vs the description of actions of a groups of people with “belief” in a being.

One of those things is a “being”/manifestation performing an action, the other is a group performing actions due to a shared belief or “construct”.

Also the first “quote i used” was from the original post, the second was a comparative example, neither of which i was stating as fact, purely as a demonstrative example.

So you’d be good with phrases such as “God would never allow any species to ever disappear or arise over time” to be considered factually incorrect, as god(s) is/are a social construct?

Just to pre-empt, yes, money and borders are also social constructs but they also have physical manifestations, national identities are similar but not quite the same and all, including classification systems, have agency/effects through people’s shared belief in them.

Shared belief in god can have effects, but those effects wouldn’t make statements about a singular manifestation having independent agency to do something a correct statement.

“God would never allow any species to ever disappear or arise over time”

vs

“Peoples belief in God would never allow any species to ever disappear or arise over time”

it’s Calvin from Calvin and Hobbes

Are you genuinely struggling to understand why people who think he’s actively saying hateful shit about trans people wouldn’t necessarily want to increase his presence in the general Zeitgeist?

Or did you just want to slip in the “stereotypical white guy” dog whistle?

If you are actually struggling, i can probably help.

imagine a person saying horrible shit about you, specifically.

Now imagine they have a platform where they say this hateful shit to lots of people, enough that you sometimes run across these people and they also say hateful shit to you, perhaps worse.

Now imagine an unrelated meme is made with this persons face on it and you see it 5,10,15 times a week.

Now imagine that the comments on most of these memes feature a whole bunch of people defending this person and agreeing with the hateful shit they said about you.

I’d imagine that’s why some people care.

Genuine question though, what would be the right thing to give the energy/importance to in this scenario?

if someone pointing out that you are saying “fact” but aren’t meeting any of the definitions of a fact seems like an attack to you i suspect you’re probably having a bad time on the internet. Again you dodge most of the actual points of the conversation, probably intentionally.

Also i’m pretty sure “Fucking lmfao.” has a redundant “Fucking” in it , but I’m not holding my breath on you caring about that given how this has gone so far.

Doesn’t seem like this is going to go anywhere interesting, so I’ll just add you to the blocklist and be happy nothing of value(to me) was lost.

Here is one example

The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, adopted during the French Revolution in 1789, specifically affirmed freedom of speech as an inalienable right.[6] Adopted in 1791, freedom of speech is a feature of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

I mean you can just find in page for “United States”

Also , not american (a good example of an actual fact) and i very specifically ruled out the typical american interpretation of freedom of speech.

The fact that i was asking you what interpretation you were using implies i recognise more than just one, so even if i were american (again, not american) the question would still stand.

I also , very specifically asked what interpretation you were using for your argument, but it seems we’ve skipped over the questions entirely and gone straight to factually incorrect personal attacks.

I’ll just assume you don’t have an answer to the actual question given no attempt was made to actually answer it, or perhaps you think your position is unassailable and an answer is beneath you.

Regardless, good luck with fact pointing i suppose.

edit: added answer to your question

Did you mean to reply to me? Or the person above?

Describe what you mean by “freedom of speech” here, I’m assuming you don’t mean the first amendment because that only applies in the US and only for protection against congress ( the US congress ofc ).

Given the above I’m not sure what line you mean here, libel/slander?

You can only point out facts that exist, well, you can technically point out whatever you like and call it “fact” i suppose, but it’s not really accurate unless it’s an actual fact.

Unless accuracy isn’t what you were going for ?

In case you were wondering : https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/fact

ah, apologies, i wasn’t implying that your ‘source’ was weak, it was clear you were stating a personal opinion so no ‘source’ needed.

I was using a slang term : https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=weak+sauce

I was implying your argument was weak, built on a shaky foundation of personal opinion stated as universal fact.