popular things you hate

[Cheshire_Cat]

I'm unclear as to what your issue with Caitlyn Jenner is Crucial BBQ. It's the fact that she's using her platform to raise awareness? Is it that she didn't do it sooner (I mean how dare she not go through her personal journey at a faster rate?)?  that it's been a major news story for a few months? 

 

BTW- please use correct pronouns and call her by her name, which is Caitlyn. Also, it's not transgendered. It's not a verb. Use trans or transgender to show respect. 

 

Bringing awareness isn’t particularly heroic.  There are celebrities everywhere who stand up for good causes and bring awareness to them.  It doesn’t really cost her anything.   She is doing what she thinks is best for her, and getting praised and fawned over for it. 

 

“Wear purple for fibromyalgia awareness.  Wear pink for breast cancer…”  we bring awareness to things every day.  Does that make us heroes?  But how many people would put on the cameo of the military knowing that doing so meant they may be blown to bits?  Knowing that coming back means suffering from PTSD and flashbacks.  There are some things that deserve more praise than “bringing awareness” to anything.

[Cheshire_Cat]

To put it another way, remember when Angelina Jolie had a mastectomy?  I would consider that brave and she brought awareness to breast cancer.  But she wasn't heroic.  She didn't put her life on the line to save others with no thought of herself.   Having it saved her life, and the awareness may have saved someone else, but that was in indirect result of her actions, not the motivation behind her actions.

[psycgrad37]

But it cost her a lot. It put her under a lot of scrutiny and she risked her image as this "male hero" to now be viewed as a trans person who many see as outcasts. Saying she is heroic doesnt negate that there are other heroes. Noe one is saying military members aren't heroes. I don't know what one has to do with the other. Two or many forms of heroism can exist without invalidating the other. I think that's a pretty simple concept to grasp. 

[Cheshire_Cat]

But it cost her a lot. It put her under a lot of scrutiny and she risked her image as this "male hero" to now be viewed as a trans person who many see as outcasts. Saying she is heroic doesnt negate that there are other heroes. Noe one is saying military members aren't heroes. I don't know what one has to do with the other. Two or many forms of heroism can exist without invalidating the other. I think that's a pretty simple concept to grasp. 

Public scrutiny and image vs. life and limb.  It wasn't a competition until they decided to give the award to the most heroic, and it went to her instead of someone who literally almost died for this country.   That is why it matters.

[psycgrad37]

We've diverted from the point of this topic, so this is the last I'll say about it. If this is about the stupid ESPY, which is what I'm gathering is what you're arguing about, that is pretty ridiculous. As I said, they're both heroes and there's no point in comparing the two or trying to put one down over another. I hope the soldier gets the recognition he deserves outside of an ESPN awards show. I also hope that thanks to Jenner our entire country is more compassionate towards the trans community. 

[Cheshire_Cat]

We've diverted from the point of this topic, so this is the last I'll say about it. If this is about the stupid ESPY, which is what I'm gathering is what you're arguing about, that is pretty ridiculous. As I said, they're both heroes and there's no point in comparing the two or trying to put one down over another. I hope the soldier gets the recognition he deserves outside of an ESPN awards show. I also hope that thanks to Jenner our entire country is more compassionate towards the trans community. 

 

The ESPY was pretty much what my original post was about.  Other people turned it into an argument about more.

[ron_swanson]

The ESPY was pretty much what my original post was about.  Other people turned it into an argument about more.

That's the internet.

[lrlrlrlrlr]

I am a foodie. I enjoy cooking and trying all different kinds of foods, and one of my biggest pet peeves is diets that are not based on logic and reason but are based on religion (kosher, halal, no meat on fridays etc). I understand someone not wanting to eat something because of animal welfare, not enjoying the taste, or an allergy..but never eating something because some book says "no"? Come on.

[scarvesandcardigans]

Have minions been mentioned yet? 

[Cheshire_Cat]

I am a foodie. I enjoy cooking and trying all different kinds of foods, and one of my biggest pet peeves is diets that are not based on logic and reason but are based on religion (kosher, halal, no meat on fridays etc). I understand someone not wanting to eat something because of animal welfare, not enjoying the taste, or an allergy..but never eating something because some book says "no"? Come on.

 

If you believe in a god, and that he created the world and that your holy book is inspired by him, then it makes perfect logical sense to follow what he says about eating.  Kind of like following what your car manual says about what kind of gas to use.  If you don't believe in a god, or that he created the world, or that he inspired a specific holy book, then obviously it isn't going to make sense to you.  But logically, if you agree with the presuppositions, then the conclusion is sound.

[ballwera]

I am a foodie. I enjoy cooking and trying all different kinds of foods, and one of my biggest pet peeves is diets that are not based on logic and reason but are based on religion (kosher, halal, no meat on fridays etc). I understand someone not wanting to eat something because of animal welfare, not enjoying the taste, or an allergy..but never eating something because some book says "no"? Come on.

 

Yea that didn't go where I thought it was going... Thought for sure you were going down the gluten free, anti-gmo, organic route...but seriously wow...

[lrlrlrlrlr]

If you believe in a god, and that he created the world and that your holy book is inspired by him, then it makes perfect logical sense to follow what he says about eating.  Kind of like following what your car manual says about what kind of gas to use.  If you don't believe in a god, or that he created the world, or that he inspired a specific holy book, then obviously it isn't going to make sense to you.  But logically, if you agree with the presuppositions, then the conclusion is sound.

I don't think the car is a suitable comparative base. Cars are made by humans, and experimental work has been done to determine the kinds of fuels that are best for different cars. We know how cars work, we know they are real and humans are real. This doesn't translate when it comes to the existence of a god. Organized religion is potentially dangerous because it has the power to enslave the people with its propaganda by telling them what they are supposed to believe, and uses dietary laws as one of the tools to achieve this goal. What baffles me is that the masses are so quick to criticize diets when GMOs or gluten are involved yet it seems nobody says a thing to criticize diets when religion is involved.

[knp]

Is a dietary code that much stranger than any other way to practice a religion? As an atheist, I find religious dietary restrictions and the act of prayer about equally unintuitive, but am not surprised that others find meaning in either.

[dr. t]

And this is why I don't call myself an atheist in public.

[Cheshire_Cat]

I don't think the car is a suitable comparative base. Cars are made by humans, and experimental work has been done to determine the kinds of fuels that are best for different cars. We know how cars work, we know they are real and humans are real. This doesn't translate when it comes to the existence of a god. Organized religion is potentially dangerous because it has the power to enslave the people with its propaganda by telling them what they are supposed to believe, and uses dietary laws as one of the tools to achieve this goal. What baffles me is that the masses are so quick to criticize diets when GMOs or gluten are involved yet it seems nobody says a thing to criticize diets when religion is involved.

You're arguing presuppositions, namely the existence of God.  However, if you were to read up on the matter, you'll find that study has been done on some religious diets, and for it's time and culture, the Kosher diet makes a lot of sense scientifically to keep people healthy and decrease the risk of disease.  It's pretty remarkable, really.  Even now, many Jews who have rejected all notions of there being a god still follow the dietary guidelines in the Torah.  Why? Probably because they are decent guidelines.  I'm not Jewish and do not follow kosher, halal, or any other religious diets, but they have their backing.  

This isn't a thread to discus religion (though it's been used  to discuss pretty much anything) so I'm going to leave it at that.  But one popular thing I hate is the idea that because something is religious, it has no basis in reality and isn't a rational option.  There are some religions, and sects of religions that are that way, but there are also some incredibly intelligent people who are religious and have very well thought out beliefs on the matter.  Organized religion is a tool, and like a lot of tools, it can be used to bash someones skull in, or feed millions.  I've seen it used both ways.

[Crucial BBQ]

Interesting that this thread picked back up on the day of the ESPY Awards.

 

As for Religious-based dietary restrictions; who cares.  Such diets hurt no one and I must say this is the first time I have ever heard of it used as a reason to denounce Religion.  

 

I have a question though; do those who "believe" in the Flying Spaghetti Monster abstain from pasta?  I'm asking in jest of course, and I know what the answer will be but thought I'd throw it out there, mainly because I am currently boiling spaghetti...

[lrlrlrlrlr]

I'm pretty sure if I had initially mentioned organic, gluten-free or paleo diets, your responses would have been quite different. This stems from the idea that our society as a whole is under the impression that we not allowed to criticize religion, that doing so is taboo, that it is perfectly fine for it to be inaccessible to scrutiny from thinking folks. As I've made it obvious, I don't think this is right. In fact, as a society, i think we need to be criticizing it much more than it is currently being done, just like we need to pay attention and be critical of our governments, politicians, domestic policies and foreign relations. It doesn't matter if a religious diet is healthy overall, there are nonreligious diets that are healthy too, what matters is that there is always a differential between the two regarding how often they are criticized and the types of responses to said criticisms, and I'll leave it at that.

Edited July 19, 2015 by lrlrlrlrlr

[ashiepoo72]

It seems silly to dislike something that doesn't hurt the people who subscribe to it and doesn't affect you or your quality of life in any way. However, since many people do this, I guess it qualifies as a popular thing I hate.

[Queen of Kale]

Unrelated (I think) to any above religious debate - I hate toilet seat covers. As in, the paper disposable toilet seat covers in public bathrooms.  Clearly they only exist by some sort of popular demand but let's be real here - they're paper.  What are they really gonna do to protect you?  And why does it always seem that the same people who are afraid of cooties enough to use them also leave them on the toilet seat half the time for the next used to deal with? It's a punk move to be a germaphobe who forces someone to touch your strange rump paper. </end rant>

[1Q84]

But my God is Dr. Atkins...

Edited July 28, 2015 by 1Q84

[Pitangus]

Unrelated (I think) to any above religious debate - I hate toilet seat covers. As in, the paper disposable toilet seat covers in public bathrooms.  Clearly they only exist by some sort of popular demand but let's be real here - they're paper.  What are they really gonna do to protect you?  And why does it always seem that the same people who are afraid of cooties enough to use them also leave them on the toilet seat half the time for the next used to deal with? It's a punk move to be a germaphobe who forces someone to touch your strange rump paper. </end rant>

 

In the same vein: people who hover over the toilet seat in public bathrooms and end up being the ones making a mess. Just sit down. You aren't going to catch any diseases through the skin of your thighs, and unless you are at a particularly seedy rest stop somewhere, that toilet seat gets cleaned more often than the one at your house.

[shadowclaw]

Speaking of religion, I really dislike when people cherry pick parts of their religion to follow or support their opinions while completely ignoring other aspects. I have nothing against any religions (well, I admit I have some hard feelings for Baptists) and I think it's great for people to have faith.

But I just can't stand when someone says something like "I'm against homosexuality because the Bible says it's wrong," but at the same time are completely accepting of divorce. The Bible says not to do a lot of things, but people do them anyway. If anyone does any real study of the Bible, they realize that any sin, no matter how small or how big, makes you unworthy of God and Heaven. Basically, one person's sin isn't more or less evil/wrong/whatever than anyone else's. Sin is sin, and it can only be forgiven through Christ. There's only one unforgivable sin, and homosexuality isn't it. So stop acting like you are free of sin and better than your fellow sinners. Better yet, stop acting like you are God, because only God can judge you and your sins! Read your holy book and start learning about what it actually says!

Ok, so I'm coming down hard on Christians, but I don't know enough about other religions to know if someone is cherry picking. But it really does bug me when someone tries to justify their personal beliefs with random snippets of religion. You don't like gay people? That's fine. You don't like them because you believe it's wrong or immoral? That's fine, too, but don't you dare tell me it's because of the Bible unless you also hate everyone else on earth (including yourself) for their sins.

[PoliticalOrder]

Speaking of religion, I really dislike when people cherry pick parts of their religion to follow or support their opinions while completely ignoring other aspects. I have nothing against any religions (well, I admit I have some hard feelings for Baptists) and I think it's great for people to have faith.

 

This is contradictory. You can't be for religions if you don't agree that there shouldn't be different interpretations of the bible. Every religion is comprised of hundreds of different churches and sects which all have differing beliefs on how to interpret the bible or any other religious text. 

[ashiepoo72]

Ummmmm I HAVE to say, as someone who was raised Catholic and speaking solely from that experience and that religion, different Catholic churches may have different flavors (the "hip" priest, or the one that goes to parishioners' family parties, or the grumpy one, or whatever) but they don't interpret the bible differently. It's not like a business franchise with limited involvement from the upper echelons of the hierarchy. Go into any Catholic church and you'll note that the changes made to communal prayers and rituals recently implemented by the Pope are all being observed by churches across the U.S. (haven't been to any international churches recently, but I reckon they are also following the new "party line" so to speak).

[PoliticalOrder]

Ummmmm I HAVE to say, as someone who was raised Catholic and speaking solely from that experience and that religion, different Catholic churches may have different flavors (the "hip" priest, or the one that goes to parishioners' family parties, or the grumpy one, or whatever) but they don't interpret the bible differently. It's not like a business franchise with limited involvement from the upper echelons of the hierarchy. Go into any Catholic church and you'll note that the changes made to communal prayers and rituals recently implemented by the Pope are all being observed by churches across the U.S. (haven't been to any international churches recently, but I reckon they are also following the new "party line" so to speak).

 

Have you ever heard of the Community of the Lady of All Nations? It's a Catholic Church that believes in the reincarnation of the Virgin Mary. 

 

What about the schisms with churches such as Palmarian Catholic Church and the Philipine Independent Church.

 

What about the very progressive Brazilian Catholic Church that does not condemn divorce or birth control, and practices open communion?

 

Hell, the Roman Catholic Church is exists because of a schism with the Orthodox Church in part due to major theological disagreements. 

 

Churches aren't monolithic structures, they are comprised of hundreds and hundreds of different sects and groups based on different practices, organization, and beliefs.