Fish Shall Not Be Eaten

[Camelza]

Only if you brainwash them to believe a deity. If you brainwash them into believing any form of religion is backwards deluded bullshit it's ETHICAL. *nod*

tbf there's no need to swing the other direction either. A simple 'some people cannot cope with complete existential loneliness and need an adult imaginary friend, sweetie' would suffice.

Why is it such a big deal if parents want to teach their children about the religion they believe in?

[Nirvash Type TheEND]

'And others are into self deceit and extreme emotional masochism. You can usually spot them from a mile off via the horned rimmed glasses and chinese characters for 'monkey ass' tattooed on their arm'

No, not really. It would seem you've successfully deceived yourself into a false sense of moral/worldview superiority, which would explain the inappropriate smugness about your jarring ignorance about everything that isn't or doesn't conform to your worldview.

Actually, I don't believe I have any sort of moral superiority. I don't think there's a moral highground to begin with. I'm just a pompous asshole. ┐(ﾟ～ﾟ)┌

[Krjder]

Thing with religion is that it takes time and realisation. You have to find it yourself. Whilst I think for the same of passing it on, families that are religious should pass it on to their children, but not impose it.

I was born into a Protestant family, it wasn't shoved down my throat but I it was a bit imposed. So I became a bit agnostic at around the age of 12, then, having been at a catholic school, being with catholic friends and actually going through hard times at home, I found my way back into the church, the Roman Catholic Church for that matter, and my faith is stronger because I found the faith myself.

[Dazchan]

Unless fish contains some necessary nutrient that cannot be obtained from another source, the parents are not denying their child anything and there is no problem.

[Jute]

No, not really. It would seem you've successfully deceived yourself into a false sense of moral/worldview superiority, which would explain the inappropriate smugness about your jarring ignorance about everything that isn't or doesn't conform to your worldview.

Actually, I don't believe I have any sort of moral superiority. I don't think there's a moral highground to begin with. I'm just a pompous asshole. ┐(ﾟ～ﾟ)┌

So the rest of my post was confirmed by you.

[Nirvash Type TheEND]

tbf there's no need to swing the other direction either. A simple 'some people cannot cope with complete existential loneliness and need an adult imaginary friend, sweetie' would suffice.

Why is it such a big deal if parents want to teach their children about the religion they believe in?

Because there is no reason for a young girl to be shot in the face for demanding access to a higher education.

[Gauthier]

Why is it such a big deal if parents want to teach their children about the religion they believe in?

Because there is no reason for a young girl to be shot in the face for demanding access to a higher education.

Remember, the Pakistani Taliban represent every single Muslim in the world!

[Nirvash Type TheEND]

Because there is no reason for a young girl to be shot in the face for demanding access to a higher education.

Remember, the Pakistani Taliban represent every single Muslim in the world!

I'm not saying don't try to bait me. All I ask is the courtesy of a little effort.

[Jute]

Why is it such a big deal if parents want to teach their children about the religion they believe in?

Because there is no reason for a young girl to be shot in the face for demanding access to a higher education.

But because there is a reason to believe that this has anything to do with that? Because this totally doesn't happen in less religious places based on things like "race", ethnicity, immigrant status, social class etc.?

[Gauthier]

Remember, the Pakistani Taliban represent every single Muslim in the world!

I'm not saying don't try to bait me. All I ask is the courtesy of a little effort.

Bullshit. "Because there is no reason for a young girl to be shot in the face for demanding access to a higher education" in a thread about a hypothetical religion forbidding the eating of fish is clearly meant to imply that it's standard Islamic practice to shoot girls who want higher education like Malala Yousafzai in the face.

[Nirvash Type TheEND]

I'm not saying don't try to bait me. All I ask is the courtesy of a little effort.

Bullshit. "Because there is no reason for a young girl to be shot in the face for demanding access to a higher education" in a thread about a hypothetical religion forbidding the eating of fish is clearly meant to imply that it's standard Islamic practice to shoot girls who want higher education like Malala Yousafzai in the face.

That's merely your misbegotten extrapolation.

My point is that religion can too easily be abused.

[Diopolis]

There are however a handful of cultural groups that have a strong taboo on fish. A member of the somali diaspora, for example, might enforce that particular taboo(which would be harmless, considering it's perfectly possible to have a balanced diet without fish).

A culture is NOT a religion

I know, but cultural rights might be considered equivalent in this sense, and it is a conceivable way this scenario could happen.

[Palakistan]

What was the punishment?

that is up to your imagination

if you answers varies based on the extent of the punishment, you can elaborate contextually

IF the punishment was beating I would say no no no no no.

IF it was just saying "Don't do it again please," I'm fine with that. Many parents would do the same to their children for eating candy when they weren't supposed to, or eat GMO's when they are strictly non-gmo, or eat meat when they are a vegan family. Parents have a right to how they feed their children.

[Eastern Equestria]

Bullshit. "Because there is no reason for a young girl to be shot in the face for demanding access to a higher education" in a thread about a hypothetical religion forbidding the eating of fish is clearly meant to imply that it's standard Islamic practice to shoot girls who want higher education like Malala Yousafzai in the face.

That's merely your misbegotten extrapolation.

My point is that religion can too easily be abused.

That's not a good reason to condemn something.

[Diopolis]

that is up to your imagination

if you answers varies based on the extent of the punishment, you can elaborate contextually

IF the punishment was beating I would say no no no no no.

IF it was just saying "Don't do it again please," I'm fine with that. Many parents would do the same to their children for eating candy when they weren't supposed to, or eat GMO's when they are strictly non-gmo, or eat meat when they are a vegan family. Parents have a right to how they feed their children.

As long as they don't deny them some vital nutrient. Of course, in this day and age in the US, it's difficult to construct a diet that does that of necessity.

[Gauthier]

Bullshit. "Because there is no reason for a young girl to be shot in the face for demanding access to a higher education" in a thread about a hypothetical religion forbidding the eating of fish is clearly meant to imply that it's standard Islamic practice to shoot girls who want higher education like Malala Yousafzai in the face.

That's merely your misbegotten extrapolation.

My point is that religion can too easily be abused.

And of course atheism was designed to be explicitly abuse-proof amirite? It's convenient you're using one instance of radical violence as proof that all religion can be abused identically.

[Camelza]

Why is it such a big deal if parents want to teach their children about the religion they believe in?

Because there is no reason for a young girl to be shot in the face for demanding access to a higher education.

I recall adding "as long as there is no child abuse" to my original post.
Besides, you should not generalise, not all religious people are violent nuts - not even the majority.

[Nirvash Type TheEND]

That's merely your misbegotten extrapolation.

My point is that religion can too easily be abused.

And of course atheism was designed to be explicitly abuse-proof amirite? It's convenient you're using one instance of radical violence as proof that all religion can be abused identically.

Well I'm not an athiest, so I can't really speak for them, but if you really want we can draw out a chart with athiesm on one side and the big 3 on the other, and jot down instances of widespread violence and human rights violations for each. My guess is that it's going to come out a bit lopsided.

[Palakistan]

IF the punishment was beating I would say no no no no no.

IF it was just saying "Don't do it again please," I'm fine with that. Many parents would do the same to their children for eating candy when they weren't supposed to, or eat GMO's when they are strictly non-gmo, or eat meat when they are a vegan family. Parents have a right to how they feed their children.

As long as they don't deny them some vital nutrient. Of course, in this day and age in the US, it's difficult to construct a diet that does that of necessity.

Haha, true.

[Prezelly]

And of course atheism was designed to be explicitly abuse-proof amirite? It's convenient you're using one instance of radical violence as proof that all religion can be abused identically.

Well I'm not an athiest, so I can't really speak for them, but if you really want we can draw out a chart with athiesm on one side and the big 3 on the other, and jot down instances of widespread violence and human rights violations for each. My guess is that it's going to come out a bit lopsided.

If its all three on one side, of course it would.
If you set it up as four sectors rather than two with believes in a deity or not and start from after atheism took some people under its wing, it'll be fairly even

[Palakistan]

And of course atheism was designed to be explicitly abuse-proof amirite? It's convenient you're using one instance of radical violence as proof that all religion can be abused identically.

Well I'm not an athiest, so I can't really speak for them, but if you really want we can draw out a chart with athiesm on one side and the big 3 on the other, and jot down instances of widespread violence and human rights violations for each. My guess is that it's going to come out a bit lopsided.

Meh, not really. Atheism hasn't been around long enough to kill more people than religion has. Atheism has undoubtedly killed tens of millions, not including all the aborted children, which is another 1.5 billion.

[Nirvash Type TheEND]

Well I'm not an athiest, so I can't really speak for them, but if you really want we can draw out a chart with athiesm on one side and the big 3 on the other, and jot down instances of widespread violence and human rights violations for each. My guess is that it's going to come out a bit lopsided.

Meh, not really. Atheism hasn't been around long enough to kill more people than religion has. Atheism has undoubtedly killed tens of millions, not including all the aborted children, which is another 1.5 billion.

metagaming

reported

[Italios]

Well I'm not an athiest, so I can't really speak for them, but if you really want we can draw out a chart with athiesm on one side and the big 3 on the other, and jot down instances of widespread violence and human rights violations for each. My guess is that it's going to come out a bit lopsided.

Meh, not really. Atheism hasn't been around long enough to kill more people than religion has. Atheism has undoubtedly killed tens of millions, not including all the aborted children, which is another 1.5 billion.

How? Source, please?

By the way, properly executed abortions are not killing. If they're preformed after a specific age, they are. But when the "child" is a fetus, it's not.

[Diopolis]

Well I'm not an athiest, so I can't really speak for them, but if you really want we can draw out a chart with athiesm on one side and the big 3 on the other, and jot down instances of widespread violence and human rights violations for each. My guess is that it's going to come out a bit lopsided.

Meh, not really. Atheism hasn't been around long enough to kill more people than religion has. Atheism has undoubtedly killed tens of millions, not including all the aborted children, which is another 1.5 billion.

I'm not sure atheism is itself to blame for the abortion holocaust.

[The Hobbesian Metaphysician]

Meh, not really. Atheism hasn't been around long enough to kill more people than religion has. Atheism has undoubtedly killed tens of millions, not including all the aborted children, which is another 1.5 billion.

I'm not sure atheism is itself to blame for the abortion holocaust.

Oh this is going to go down great I can just tell right now.