At least for me, it seems that the assumption that there is no absolute source of morality besides religion is correct. Human morality has changed a lot throughout history, and lots of people have tried to dictate morality across borders and across time. The only ones who have succeeded in the slightest are religious leaders.

The argument is generally that one specific religion provides a source of absolute morality. The existence of conflicting religions does not invalidate that. It provides one source of absolute morality, not necessarily the only source of absolute morality. Anyone can claim something is a source of absolute morality. I can claim a magic 8-ball is a source of absolute morality. It does not mean that people will accept it, but I can claim it.

This is a common “gotcha” argument that floats around the Internet. Essentially, it posits that under the teachings of a given religion (typically Christianity), there is a source of morality which is absolute. That might be the religion’s holy text, deity, or the religious authorities of that religion. In either case, there is one authoritative source which dictates what is morally correct and not correct for the entire universe from now until eternity.

So, the argument goes, if one is to reject the teachings of this or all religions, as irreligious people do, it necessarily means accepting that morality is inherently relative and that there is no absolute standard for mortality that is universally applicable. Therefore, as the argument goes, since one would have to accept that morality is relative, it can be framed relative to anything or nothing, and therefore there is no act which can be immoral relative to any reference frames in a context without religion. And therefore, nothing can be said to be immoral because whether it is moral is relative.

That’s the end of the argument.

To its credit, there isn’t anything wrong with this argument. But I do believe the argument posits that conclusion to be far worse than it really is. Suppose I am an irreligious person. Why is fornication with roadkill immoral? Well, because I think it is. It makes me feel bad and the reward gained isn’t worth the risk (the embarrassment of being seen in the act or catching some disease from it). Therefore I don’t do it. Is it possible that some person could think that it is moral? Yes, absolutely. But that doesn’t matter, because even if relative to one person’s moral compass an act is moral, doesn’t mean that people in general can’t just collectively reject that perspective and condemn the act as a group. In fact, human societies imposing their views on what is and is not moral relative to their own experience describes pretty much the entirety of human history.

True, true

That’s WAY too much mustard sauce. That hot dog is ruined.

This is a zero sum graph, as market share must add to 100%. You may observe that the one large decrease in Windows market share occurs at the same time as three small increases for Mac OS, Linux, and “unknown”.

Nothing else increased. The three small increases must be equal to the Windows decrease.

Bruh people on Lemmy say the most mind-numbing things

Yes, that’s pretty much what I said in the line of text under the graph.

Looking at the included chart (below), I don’t think the growth in “unknown” is the primary factor of Window’s decline in market share. The chart does show, over the last two data points, that Mac OS and Linux have increased at the same time that Windows has decreased.

This is all but one data point anyway, so it’s not fair to draw a long-term conclusion based on that regardless.

No, I don’t think you’d follow through. I also think you knew you were going to lose that wager.

If you think you’re right, you’re more than welcome to take me up on my wager and win $20 for the charity of your choice.

You’re free to propose alternative charities. Maybe even a local food bank or some organisation. The point is: I’m happy to put my money where my mouth is, and I don’t think you are. In fact, even if you lose the bet, I don’t think you’d do it anyway. After all, I’m just some guy on the Internet.

I don’t have “faith” in the US legal system. I just know more than you about how it works and how it doesn’t.

I’ll be willing to make a wager with you. If David Hearn is sentenced to at least 12 months imprisonment in this case, I will donate $20 to an international human rights charity of your choice. If their case is dismissed, he is acquitted, or he is sentenced to less than 12 months imprisonment, you have to donate $20 or equivalent in your currency to the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights.

Do you agree?

Unlike what most people seem to think, the US criminal court system is not broken in such a manner that would allow someone to go to prison for years for this. Trump prosecutors have a reputation for poor performance in court. All the competent prosecutors have quit or were pushed out for failing to prosecute obviously loser cases or sign legally unsound court filings. All that are left are the idiot Trump loyalists whose only experience in criminal law is being arrested for drink driving.

Grand juries refuse to indict these defendants for obviously trivial crimes, and trial juries will acquit.

They tried to charge someone with assaulting a federal agent for lobbing a sandwich at a Border Patrol goon during a protest. The Trump-appointed chief prosecutor in Washington made a TikTok about how they were coming down hard on protestors. It went to trial. The jury acquitted.

I remind that juries have to be drawn from the local area (i.e. Washington, DC) and the city hates Trump’s guts. He lost by over 80 percentage points in the last election there.

Regardless of whether any beatings occurred, when someone is imprisoned in your country, they are under your care, and you are responsible for them. It doesn’t matter whether it’s malnutrition, beatings, or if he just smacked his head against the wall on his own accord really hard: it is the responsibility of the custodian to ensure the good and proper health of those in their custody. That is the position of international human rights law. It doesn’t even matter if a prisoner decides to kill themselves, a death in custody is always the responsibility of the custodian and in that case it’d still be the custodian’s fault for allowing the creation of circumstances that allows prisoners to kill themselves.

It is not usual for a person to suddenly become comatose while in custody. And even if that did happen, it was North Korea’s positive responsibility to notify consular officials and the family of that, and deliver proper medical care to them.

Perhaps this is an issue of grammar. I use the word “performative” to describe actions where more effort is paid to the publication of the process of performing the actions, rather than any effect of the actions themselves.

And, of course, I do think that being performative does not on its own make a behaviour socially useless. That’s why I distinguish between “useful performatism” and “useless performatism”, which is typically just done with the goal of generating the feeling of having done something, without actually making any significant effect.

As another example, most peaceful protests are inherently performative, but they can be usefully so if they actually provoke positive policy changes.

And of course, by “lip service”, I mean speeches and declarations which merely talk about the existence of an issue and one’s support/opposition of it without actually taking any concrete action towards achieving one’s stated goal. For example (though not Thunberg-related), I consider a city council resolution condemning Israeli atrocities in occupied Palestine to be a form of useless lip service, unless it is paired with actual actions in furtherance of that view, such as sending aid to Palestine or cutting ties with Israeli companies.

US presidents ordering flags flown at half-mast after mass shootings without offering substantial policy changes is a notorious example of useless lip service.

I am informed. I can see her activities. They range from very productive performatism to useless but mostly inert lip service.

For example her Gaza aid ship stunt I believe falls in the category of “very productive performatism”. Obviously she is a kind of international political celebrity, and by forcing Israeli authorities to either arrest her (and cause a diplomatic incident) or allow a hole in their Gaza blockade, she’s forcing the issue in a way that is both a good use of her infamy and also disproportionately impactful.

With Thunberg in particular, while I agree broadly with her on pretty much all of her policy stances, I can’t help but also think that a lot of what she does is performative and doesn’t really accomplish much on a practical level. I’m not stupid enough to think the goal is chaos but I think I understand how some people could be led to think that.

During the (biologically) short two years of the COVID-19 pandemic when everyone was inside and factories were shut down, a lot of rivers and other natural ecosystems pretty much recovered to near pre-industrial health. Even the River Ganges started clearing up if I remember correctly.

Do you have an example? I haven’t even seen the Washington Post characterise it that way. Most opponents just talk about how these policies will “destroy the competitiveness of our industry” or “raise prices for consumers”.

Genuinely who has characterised environmental policies as “just wanting chaos”? I have never heard anyone of significant note say that.