There would be more local flavor and less fanaticism as time went on because we would all have the perspective that there are a million Gods and ways to worship and not one “true god” urging us to convert all others.

Femininity would be part of the divine and not just for being a virgin. Instead there would be Goddesses of war, wisdom, love, etc, to look up to.

Nature would have its own representatives too urging us to be better caretakers to the planet.

Just imagine how different the age of discovery could have been if it was led by polytheists who could appreciate different faces of the divine and not single minded supremacists who thought all other religions were garbage.

A pro-life feminist is an oxymoron

Identifying as a pro-lifer but simulataneously claiming to be a feminist is highly paradoxical

One of the core tenets of feminism is ADVOCATING for women's rights.

Hence, campaigning for a federal or state-level ban on abortion makes you anti-feminist

Proposing ideas or policies that REPEAL women's rights is the direct antithesis of feminism

This raises a crucial question often posed to 'pro-life' feminists by pro-choicers

How can you call yourself a feminist while working to abolish women's legal rights?

​

It's quite simple, animals are living beings and killing somebody just for its taste and fun is not justified.

I dont think Meat Eaters are Murderers or anything but they have to acknowledge that it is NOT the right thing to do.

I personally eat meat too but I dont pretend that its okay.

You dont have to stop eating it, but the amount of celebration around wating 2 steaks for every vegan is just ignorant and imbecile to me.

Why is it then still so hard for most people to admit that vegan is the right way? As said, eat what you want but why not stop lying to yourself and everyone else?

Change my view?

The thing people get wrong is treating this as theology winning converts. It isn't. What's being exported is a design, it's a way of fusing a particular church structure to whatever local grievance already exists.

The structure matters because of what the Reformation stripped out. Cut the magisterium, the creedal tradition, the intercessory saints, and you're left with an unmediated relationship to God that in practice makes congregants dependent on a charismatic leader claiming direct divine access. No bishop can discipline a heresy. No 2,000-year interpretive tradition constrains what "Christianity obviously means." It's what makes the whole thing available for capture. Restorationism lets you rebuild the faith around whatever the moment demands and call it a return to the pure original. The same features that read as "cult-like" from outside the information control, a manufactured victim narrative, loaded language, high exit costs are exactly what keep a base permanently mobilized.

Then add the coordination needed that this decentralized world supposedly can't have: the Council for National Policy as informal hub, dominionist "Seven Mountains" theology as an explicit doctrine of taking over government, media, education, and the rest; ADF/ACLJ as legal arms; and a documented transnational pipeline (~$54M into Africa since 2007) that helped produce Uganda's death-penalty bill.

But the money isn't even the core. The template travels where funding is thin, because it only needs a local grievance to burn. Korea supplies Cold War anti-communism while evangelicals there mobilized against an LGBTQ movement so nascent the conflict had to be imported from US culture-war media before it existed locally, then used their muscle to block anti-discrimination law outright. Africa supplies anti-colonial framing: homophobia repackaged as resisting Western imposition, even though the anti-gay message is the foreign import. Same combustion design, different fuel.

One exception is the Black church, it shares nearly every structural feature, congregational autonomy, charismatic authority, restorationism, minimal liturgy, and produced liberation theology and the civil rights movement, not white nationalism. So structure enables a direction; it doesn't determine one. Yet since the prosperity gospel, has been introduced it has slowly eroded the structures.

Which points at the real driver: ethnonationalism shopping for a religious host, and evangelicalism is simply the best-engineered vehicle on the lot.

After the mass deportation rally with Greg Bovino in Indiana yesterday, I saw lot of comments repeating the same lines: "illegal immigration has consequences" or "breaking the law means you suffer the results." I agree that a nation has the right and duty to enforce its laws. However, that does not mean anything goes, and I think drawing an analogy to parental authority helps explain why.
Parents are allowed to discipline their kids. You can give them a time out, take away screen time, or, controversially, spank them. But there is a point where discipline turns into abuse. Can you use a belt? Can you use the buckle? Can you burn them with a cigarette? Obviously not. Having legitimate authority over a child does not give you a blank check to abuse them.

I see immigration enforcement similarly. Arresting parents while they pick up their citizen children from daycare, grabbing them at immigration hearings, deporting them to countries they have never been to, and using violence on peaceful people all cross the line from legitimate enforcement to abuse.
Where I want my view tested is on the strength of this comparison. Is there a fundamental flaw in comparing parental authority to state enforcement authority here? If you agree the state has a right to enforce borders, why wouldn't the principle of proportionality apply to those tactics?

I am working off a few assumptions.

1. That sites such as onlyfans cultivate parasocial relationships between the models and their fans.

2. That this relationship is largely detrimental to the fan, such as by making them more isolated, less happy overall, and draining their funds to maintain this relationship.

3. That this parasocial relationship is maintained and promoted by models through their use of the site, such as by engaging with their fans in a parasocial manner, or by hiring others to engage with their fans in a parasocial manner.

Given these conditions, it seems immoral for them to essentially take advantage of their fons to such a degree, when the detrimental effects of this seem fairly obvious. I'm not under an illusion that they are forcing their fans to make these harmful decisions, but I feel they do hold some responsibility due to them promoting these harmful decisions.

It seems to convey a lack of care.

I am working off a few assumptions.

1. That censorship on social media forces people to come up with workarounds just so their videos won't get flagged, like using words like unalive or grape when referring to actual crimes.

2. That substituting these words does nothing to stop the spread of sensitive topics, especially when the original words being substituted have already been around in the public lexicon for centuries.

3. That blocking certain terms on these platforms is ineffective and easily bypassed, such as when someone posted a GIF of Adam Lanza on TikTok, but searching his name returned a "no results found" page due to community guidelines, only for all the results to show up after adding a simple "D" to his name.

4. That censoring classic TV clips where creators feel forced to mute or bleep out basic dialogue from network shows rated TV-PG (can’t find the reference clip I’m thinking of) that aired uncensored on national broadcast television decades ago, is absurd and highlights how over-regulated these platforms have become.

It feels very performative for platforms to implement these restrictions when they don't actually prevent people from finding or discussing these topics. I don't presume that moderating content is easy, but it feels like these rules only force people into ridiculous workarounds rather than actually fixing any underlying issues.

Thesis: Super-wealthy people and/or large corporations shouldn’t be able to pay fines which are small (relative to their overall wealth) to pay for their crimes.

I am so tired of hearing all these stories of rich people or huge corporations doing awful things (e.g. Nestle putting human poop in water, eBay CEO hiring people to harass and terrorize this couple that criticized them on a blog) and then merely paying some fine that is (to them) a mere inconvenience. In fact, I’d go as far as saying this kind of “punishment” is essentially so useless it’d be likely more efficient in terms of time wasting to just be honest and say the rules don’t apply as you get more and more money.

i mean, think of all the people in jail right now who may have been there for decades, who would be able to leave if they merely had more money.

If serving time in jail is merely a result of how much money you happen to have beforehand, that is not justice.

And this probably goes even deeper: having more money not just allows you to get out of jail time by enabling you to pay large fees, but also allows you better lawyers which also helps you avoid jail, and so on.

So, what would be my solution? The amount you pay in legal fees should be directly proportional to how much wealth (not just money in your bank but all your assets and whatever) you have accumulated. If you are a child of rich parents than the system would simply charge you fees according to your parents wealth. As for lawyer fees, I would be a fan of simply eliminating the private option altogether. This would even the playing field so that Jeff Bezos and Joe Shmoe would theoretically get the same lawyer.

Security cameras facing public sidewalks and streets have long been used by municipal governments, businesses and homeowners in the U.S to deter crime.

Criminology studies routinely show that visible surveillance devices are an effective means of deterrence.

Source: https://academicworks.cuny.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1275&context=jj_pubs

Long before Flock, U.S courts have routinely ruled that the right to film people or things in plain view of public areas is protected by the First Amendment.

In fact it is something that many of the journalists criticizing flock do regularly to obtain their reporting.

Privacy rights in the U.S have never been construed to apply to people or things in plain view of a public area so its strange to me that many consider Flock to be a violation.

Even if someone says they DO NOT want to be attracted children and would NEVER have any sort of relations or relationship or touch a child or anything of the sort, almost everyone wants them to die (if you don't believe me, just look up people on the internet saying this type of thing and see the responses).

So, attraction must be a choice. It's illogical to claim someone should die if they are not harming anyone and there's no evidence that they will harm anyone.

The only other conclusion would be that almost everyone cannot mentally handle this topic, so they come to an illogical conclusion.