You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments
-52 points
Removed by mod
permalink
report
reply
24 points

the fuck’s wrong with you?

she doesn’t care about the Bible but people forcing religion and their religious rules on everyone else is why she’s out there with that sign; she’s fighting for her freedom from religion and her personal rights.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-37 points
Removed by mod
permalink
report
parent
reply
13 points

The nuclear family is bad, all the fuckin radiation has to be bad for you.

permalink
report
parent
reply
12 points

Any credible sources for any of those ludicrous claims?

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

she’s also promoting the decline of the nuclear family, because sexual freedom also means relationship instability.

“We find little evidence that having non-marital sexual relationships with multiple partners signals a disruption […in] marriage, or signals the future disinclination of singles to marry eventually” (1)

A woman that is sexually free also means that fatherhood with such a woman isn’t asured because a man can’t tell if the kids are his or not.

Wanting sexual freedom outside marriage is in no way similar to infidelity within existing relationships.

Men are substantially more likely to cheat than women. (2)

This also means that kids are more prone to be fatherless, lack proper guidance and get into crimes and delinquency.

This would only be affected by the initial personal freedom argument if the prior statements were true, which they are not.

Yes, the Bible and religions are restrictive, but they are somewhat useful and served purposes.

Certain individuals may find its restrictions useful to them.

Others may find them stifling.

You are arguing for morals based entirely on the writings of humans who witnessed unprovable events to be applied to all in society regardless of their current faith or beliefs.

If you find the Bible’s restrictions to be useful, then that’s perfectly fine for you, but don’t attempt to say they should apply for everyone, because of your faith.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points
*

Purpose - control large groups of idiots whom can’t be bothered to think for themselves

Please elaborate on nuclear family then how nuclear fits into the bible as it was harnessed 1943 years after the death of your so called Messiah

permalink
report
parent
reply
16 points

Why are you being so weird?

permalink
report
parent
reply
15 points

I really love having the tag feature. It’ll help me remember in the future when I’ve met someone that slut shames people to defend Christianity

permalink
report
parent
reply
12 points
*

Right?

Like maybe she wants to be able to dress comfortably without the rules of some goat herder’s book of fairytale and moral values.

Or the right to speak without a man to speak for her.

Or to open a bank account without her husband or father being on the account too.

Or one of the other thousands of things women have had to deal with, outside of fucking sexual freedom, or still deal with thanks to this holy book.

Also, she should be able to have sex freely with other consenting adults without shame too.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-21 points
Removed by mod
permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

What I don’t get is why you automatically assume that just because she doesn’t agree with what’s in the Bible that she’s promiscuous. Where does she mention sexuality?

Everything you ranted about was predicated on your assumption that she’s a slut and it all falls apart when you realize that your assumption is could be wrong.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points
Removed by mod
permalink
report
parent
reply
14 points

God is made up and the bible was written by dillusional human. Who are you to shame promiscuity when priests around the world fuck little boys.

You can fuck off with you high and mighty beliefs

When you die you rot in the ground that’s it

permalink
report
parent
reply
-12 points
Removed by mod
permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

Everybody is prone to sins and misconducts, me, you and priests too.

Should the people actively preaching against sin, supposedly following religious best practices, actively steeling themselves against sin not be substantially less likely to ever engage in such misconduct?

You’re not actually making a point here, you’re putting the very real threat of abuse by religious officials using their power in religious institutions as a means to groom children on the same level as the average person.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

The answer is: because she doesn’t benefit from it.

What does this imply about those who agree with it?

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

Just for the sake of an open response to this, in the case you’re not actually trolling. Do you really believe this woman does care about the contents of the bible? Or can you see the imo more logical point that she cares about certain political movements not agreeing to the seperation of church and state, leading to actual policy based on a religious book you don’t believe in or agree with?

In that case, where is the need to actually believe in the bible or it’s teachings just to put in the effort of making a sign and protesting? At that point you’re protesting the consequences of a select group of people pushing their religious dogmas on everyone under the veil of politics. Which unfortunately still seems to happen in current times imo.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-10 points
Removed by mod
permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points
*

I agree that religious beliefa are generally on the decline, but that’s not objectively a good or bad thing.

The word virtue unfortunately has too many meanings in this context:

However virtue, if defined as moral excellence, simply does not exist in a fully objective sense. The best definition I can try to personally approximate is to “choose your own actions in such a way as to minimize negative and maximize positive effects on the people they affect”. If I use that definition to reason about the virtuousness of being sexually liberal, I cannot see it as anything other than a virtue, other than hurting others by e.g. being promiscuos within a relationship.

On a more general note, monogamy was not always the norm. Historically a lot of cultures have thrived under polygamy or similar systems. The most well-known one (assuming you’re from North America) are the Mormons, which accept and encourage polygyny.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Maybe it is because there is no hard proof for it, and its adherents are using their unproven bible to tell her what to do?

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Actually no. People read a book and then behave the irrational ways, all of which is okay, but the problem is that their actions make our lives worse. We have a problem with their actions. We care about their actions. We don’t care about the book they read.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Nice mansplain.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-13 points
Removed by mod
permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points

So do you see that your religion is bullshit? Or do you believe in all of it? Or do you just pick and choose what you want to believe that fits your narrative to make you feel good at night?

Just curious.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points
*

I’d say the same thing in a memes community since this showed up in my “Everything” feed.

Your response came off very mansplainy and misogynist by overlooking a ton of shit and at the end went to, “lol, she wants to have sex!”.

permalink
report
parent
reply

Community stats

  • 444

    Monthly active users

  • 222

    Posts

  • 1.1K

    Comments