Layke1123

The Nazis had metaphysical beliefs. Do you think they were persecuted? What about children who have no choice in what beliefs are hoisted upon them?

As for religion and beliefs, is it possible to have beliefs without religion, or religion without beliefs? Can you ban one and not the other?

And banning for intolerance of a belief is exactly what happened to parler and Trump in the US. Are you against that as well even though it directly lead to an assault at the capitol?

Do you think religion or beliefs can have negative impacts on a life?

> Why does it bother you so, that others aren't bothered by the same things (or similar) and to the same degree (or similar) and that they do not react in the same (or similar) way?

It bothers me because they is a single truth in the world. There is only one reality, not your view of it. Nor my view of it. In fact, the only reason we can talk and communicate effectively is because we fundamentally agree that there is an underlying truth of any situation, and only our lack of knowledge separates us from understanding each others perspective. It really does make me wonder how I can sit here and not be comfortable knowing that others lack a basic human right like Healthcare, while some say it is not a human right and you either work for it, or get lucky and happen to be born into. It's a matter of injustice from my perspective, and I can't understand why it's not for yours.

> Why is what you see "the one right way"?

Because as far as I can tell I'm earnestly seeking the truest sense of reality and what we want reality to be like. I ask questions and seek answers continually rather than just say, "whelp, that's all I need to know. My thirst for knowledge is satiated."

And thats not a knock to say you can't find what makes you happy in life and be satisfied with that. But it also doesn't mean you can't be shown a better way that still allows you to have what you want while others are taken care of even better.

> I can not answer endless questions on this medium as it doesn't seem to take us forward.

I beg to differ. I learn much from every single question I ask and I better understand what makes humans tick. It's invaluable in a way you don't have to even understand how.

A big part of why crypto doesn't work in my opinion is that it's hard to trust software and hardware with your money when you don't own the hardware or software or can't modify it freely. Nation-states take great care to ensure that you don't have exclusive rights to the things and therefore your entire life savings could vanish in the blink of an eye without so much as any guarantee of getting your value back. State backed fiat currency is by far still more valuable than crypto and the proof is self evident at this point.

Yet you use a word to label people's belief like religion as somehow protected. I'm not the one giving it a label. You are. I'm simply asking you to explain what you mean by the label you use which is the label of religion.

And harm isn't necessary in the DSM 5. Where are you pulling that idea from? Which part of the wording specifically? I'm referring to delusion disorder.

So how do you decide which issues bother you and which don't? How do you decide personally which suffering you can tolerate and which suffering you cannot? What compels to you help others and what doesn't?

I guess in the end, if you can go to bed in peace, does that mean nothing bothers you? Is there nothing in the world which keeps you up or night or makes you wish you could change for the better? Or are you perfectly happy with the way things are?

Arrested or committed are a very thing line apart. More so when you realize that what is defined to be a delusion versus a religious belief is arbitrary in nature. I think you realize this since you dodge the issue of defining exactly what religion is in the first place as "not relevant".

As for the DSM 4 versus DSM 5, please, if the distinction of which document we are using to define delusion has changed, do you mind explain your rational for why the DSM 4 has an explicit exception for religion concerning delusion when compared to how the DSM redefines it?

There is a very clear difference i think in suffering when you make someone aware of others suffering versus those people living through suffering. The idea isn't that one must suffer in order to live. The idea is that once aware of said suffering, are you not compelled to help? I elect leaders who support ending human suffering through aid.

What I dont do is pretend it is an issue that I need not take any part in resolving. Nor do I advocate a monastic lifestyle. I simply say there is a middle that is ideal, and if so, why are we not compelled to take that position less we be hypocrites?

Beliefs can lead to harmful actions though, that is why people can be locked up for "delusions" or "beliefs that can lead to harmful actions" in the first place. Your definition doesn't really address the idea that ideas can be harmful and that we do actually disallow certain beliefs in society.

As for your definition of religion, I think it is entirely relevant, as you suggest my ideas on redefining Christianity to include a gay Jesus is offensive to religion. Well, if you are going to claim that, I would challenge why this religious belief is less sacred than the traditional view of Jesus according to Christianity. How do you define religion is definitely relevant.

As for the last comment of it being DSM-V, what does that matter when referring to it as DSM-5? As far as I can tell, it is not a meaningful distinction. Do you disagree with the idea that religion has a specific exception in the current DSM when concerning religion?

Ahh, so transaction fees fund the infrastructure. Makes sense. I guess what do we do with any excess generated by those fees? Reinvest into the infrastructure? Have it in a safety box for a day when the fees can't cover the cost in the short term? Interesting things to consider I think, but that does flesh that idea out more. I wonder, do they also offer state run accounts instead of private banks holding cash?

Neither is not thinking about these things. If you only ever think of yourself, how is that an any more justifiable position than "over thinking" these things? I don't think feeling guilty and the victim mindset are different side of the same coin. It is much easier to feel guilty for not having suffered through something like rape than the actual victims of rape.

I'm often reminding of the saying, "All it takes for evil to flourish is for good men to do nothing."

Clearly there are two sides and somewhere in the middle is ideal. Question is, where do you feel that middle is?

How are rich families still having a significantly larger influence over our societies in the 21st Century? This is inexcusable. It's like we traded lords and nobles for politicians bought and sold by lords and nobles.

So what do you do about thoughts of others suffering while you live the good life? Do these kind of thoughts ever keep you up or torment you? Or how do you view a life of luxury while others die at a young age?

But a non-rationalist is also more likely to die. It's pretty hard to get hit by a car if you are a rational person.

So new taxes to support the infrastructure that allows feeless ACH/payments? Not saying I'm for or against, I'm just trying to understand your argument in full. It seems like the logical way that your idea would be funded.

Wow, I never thought about this. It would be interesting to do a study to see what lead to more disease, child circumcision during that time, or hygiene complications later in life, not to mention and STDs that might be spread more easily. Fascinating new way to look at it.

What if you enjoy overthinking though? What if that is your relaxation, is to be incredibly consumed in thought and solving new and intricate problems versus the dull existence of just "being"?

Why do I care if delusional people get help? For the same reason I'm in support of universal healthcare as a human right. Again, if you want to claim something like religious persecution, can you define what it means. I would love a clear and concise definition of what is and isn't a religion.

As a side note that many readers might find interesting, delusion as defined in the DSM-5, the book that defines what is and isn't a "mental illness", EXPLICTLY makes an exception for "religious beliefs" when it comes to delusions. I.E., if you believe in Zeus and Thor and claim you pray and worship them, you can can be admitted for delusion because those "religions" aren't considered socio-normal, I.E. no big groups of people actively practice them. It's kind of the idea why cults are considered delusions. Now, you take that same exact logic, but apply it to someone who claims they talk to Jesus or Allah, bam, exemption and it's perfectly normal delusions.

You still have to click on the update button for a browser, and as far as apps on your machine go, they could just check for updates next time the application is launched like current web apps/web sites do. What you are saying is not impossible for the OS to take back. It seems more like there just isn't momentum to push browser features down the stack back into the OS and I'm not sure why other than browsers already do it, so why backport it.

What if a person sincerely believes Jesus was gay, and that Muhamad was a pedophile? Were do you draw the line at sincerely held religious beliefs and what you think is not a sincere religious belief?

Because Hacker News is ultimately a private business with a vested interest in keeping the status quo.

Referring to milk changing meaning, not the fact that approximately 30 gallons of nut milk can be readily purchased in stores. Just because it happened once doesn't mean a ship has sailed for a general principle.

It's not an attempt to provoke. I'm not sure why you think that.

But you bring up a great point again. Define religion? I take it Satanism is a religion to you yes?

Evidence of one?

And that is part of the reason we need to be precise with our language. Last time I checked, we use a dead language in medicine precisely because it is not evolving, and we don't want to have to fight a battle on two fronts.

A similar thing can be observed in programming languages like Python, where it's important to know which version is used, or even in law, as legal English is entirely different than the constantly evolving language of common parlance.

To think definitions that directly relate to the product are irrelevant to a wholistic view of the article is naïve and petulant. If you have a novel insight, add it. If you want to criticize others, enjoy your downvotes.

See my response to another poster.

Ah I misread his wording. I thought he was just asking for someone's opinion on restaurants that had served any meat alternative product, not specifically lab grown meat.

So capitalism doesn't exist ANYWHERE in the world is your claim...

Even regardless if that is true or not, why downvote criticisms of it regardless? Isn't downvoting used here to encourage novel and thoughtful insights about any particular subject we find interesting, not to pass judgement on whether we like the criticisms or not? If you want to downvote someone for personally attacking someone, go for it.

If you want to downvote someone because they have an insight or question concerning the potential deficiency of a model or system, why not respond and articulate the counter point instead of just downvoting?

I tried the impossible burger at Burger King. I could not tell a difference personally from any typical fast food burger. Would buy it again to satisfy a craving.

Combining a few points into one since they are related, but plant-based meat is a misnomer. Plant-based protein, or meat-substitute are better terms and meat should not have it's definition muddied.

Lab grown meat from cultured cells, however, fair game. Trying to force companies to call it anything other than meat would be intentionally seeking to stifle innovation.

You are really about to start splitting hairs here I feel, but let's do this.

If a religion today promoted that a 50 year old can marry a 9 year old, would you ban it or not?

If a religion today claimed that the rapist of a woman who was single was forced to marry said woman, would you ban it or not?