5 ms·
There are quite a few things wrong with this post. Firstly, what is the "This" in "This is why"? "Non-religious groups of people will just die off"? "Religious
by cjslep 10y ago
There are quite a few things wrong with this post.
Firstly, what is the "This" in "This is why"? "Non-religious groups of people will just die off"? "Religious zealots are taking over Japan as non-religious inhabitants dwindle"? None of this is sane.
Secondly, modern religious interpretations do not dictate that women must stay at home and pump out babies. That bigoted stereotype is rooted in a warped view of some religions' beliefs about the role of sex in society. The stereotype is also rooted in extremist interpretations of some religions, but those extremist interpretations are not representative of what is going on in Japan[0]. Perpetuating this bigoted stereotype isn't helping any argument.
Thirdly, just because people are born into a highly devout religious family does not mean they stay religious. I submit myself as an example of a person born into a religious family but turned agnostic.
[0]Edit: It is also not fair to take the extremist minority interpretation from anywhere and apply it broadly everywhere, not just Japan. Hopefully it is self-evident why without me having to bring up other ugly examples.
- mafribe 10y agomodern religious interpretations do not dictate that I'm not sure you understand what Animats means. He's not making a normative statement that religions should place women in this/that/the other role. He's making a factual statement: those social groups that do demand that women's role is primarily in reproduction will outbreed everybody. This is an undeniable and empirically observable fact, whether you turned agnostic or not. It's playing out already in the kindergardens and primary schools in my hometown already: most children are Muslims, with burka wearing mothers. Yet less than 1/3, probably less than 1/4 of the population is Muslim, the rest is white, highly educated yuppies, GLBTQ whatever ... who all have 0 children.
- cjslep 10y ago> He's making a factual statement: those social groups that do demand that women's role is primarily in reproduction will outbreed everybody. That's not even close to what I read when I saw: > will rule the world That seems extremely normative to me. In fact, I honestly fail to see any facts presented in the one sentence I responded to. There are a lot of debatable nuanced points between the factual statement of having more kids and the conclusion of ruling the world. There are no connecting-the-dots arguments in the post I responded to. If Animats wanted to mean the fact you bring up, she/he would have just said the fact. But that is not what happened. Taking the simplest interpretation of Animats's one entirely-normative sentence, it is an extreme opinion that expresses a large contempt/disdain for organized religion. I really hope you examine your post, and evaluate how and why you took Animats' opinion and managed to somehow extract a fact from it. And that's whether I turned agnostic or not.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- Animats 10y agoRight. That's how it plays out.