Same team committing the violence and using it as an excuse to enforce even more authoritarian efforts on people like me, before the bodies are even cold
I disagree. That no nuance stuff does exactly what you are wanting to avoid.
Aside from that, the law must take into consideration one’s ability to reason because that is the method in which a jury finds facts.. based on reasonability. You wouldn’t convict someone who suffered from a mental handicap to a punishment that was equal to someone who did the same with full faculties, right?
And who is going to pay for it? Pharma’s going to fund pro-pharma research. Where is the money opposed to pharma at scale?
I’m probably past the point of jaded, but if there isn’t money behind it (and even more to be made), even if the results are valid, it will just be crushed by those with incentives to bury it (until, like tobacco for example, it can’t be ignored anymore).
> Seriously, given how terribly morose the Catholic church is, I really don't see it being out of the realm of possibility.
That might be how it seems from an outside perspective, but nuance and context make all the difference. We aren’t some death and doom loving group, despite what it might seem with the emphasis placed on displaying things like the crucifix. On the contrary, the vivid nature of the Cross is meant to be a stark reminder of what was accomplished through the death AND resurrection of Jesus.
Whether it is the call of morbid curiosity, or the juxtaposition, it invites you to ponder “why?”
The whole "Catholic guilt" thing is of often pointed to as some whacky vehicle of control, which is a total mischaracterization of what that perspective is meant to do.
Many religions and philosophers understand the idea that humans are not basically good people. They are generally self centered and not sacrificial. So to say that Catholicism or Christianity is strange for placing emphasis on our "fallenness" is a little unfair IMHO.
The daily struggle of a Christian is to strive to rid one's self of their sinful desires (selfish / evil) and live as Christ commands. This a continual process, and one that cannot be stopped. If one just "gets tired" of being a Christian, and lives differently, then they are in danger of losing their salvation.
I only go into this detail to illustrate that there is more to "Catholic guilt" than a flippant "critique".
> The daily struggle of a Christian is to strive to rid one's self of their sinful desires (selfish / evil) and live as Christ commands. This a continual process, and one that cannot be stopped. If one just "gets tired" of being a Christian, and lives differently, then they are in danger of losing their salvation.
How is this not a vehicle of control? It steers you in the direction of behaving the way Christianity prescribes for fear of the ultimate bad consequence which is losing your salvation.
"Be nice to each other" is preached by every other world religion, as well as being at the center of many non-religious world views. The fact that we can and should be nice to each other to make the world a better place can hardly be what the grandparent meant by "knowledge to humans that is not knowable by any other means", which was what I was really asking about.
Thanks for your perspective. You're certainly selling it better than the Catholic Church is. (You won't be surprised to hear that I'm not buying into the whole thing either way.)
No one blames fiat for the destruction of entire countries and assassinations of leaders who tried to get away from being beholden to X financial system.
Money drives people to do insane things. Governments only care about the environment insofar as to stay in power and to keep their citizens from interrupting their gravy train.
Look at the numerous examples politicians using “green” initiatives to line their own pockets.
Attacking cryptocurrency is in their best interest because they can’t control it. Full stop.
Government can almost certainly control cryptocurrency, or at least make the lives of those involved with it very difficult.
They could, for example, pass laws that mandate backdoors, which would mean any cryptocurrency developers in the country would be thrown in jail if they didn't comply. They could also ban operating P2P nodes in the cryptocurrency's network. Due to the nature of P2P it isn't possible to hide the fact that you're running a node, unless you also close the entire network off to new users. (Case study: BitTorrent filesharing lawsuits) The government would just have to run their own nodes and connect to other users to collect information on who needs to be arrested.
I don't think people on HackerNews entirely appreciate how much their ability to do cool fun hacker stuff is a function of living in an advanced democracy where there are significant limitations on the power of government upon which the government has agreed to remain, people's innocence is presumed in criminal proceedings, and private actors trying to curtail said freedoms are looked upon with skepticism, if not outright legal condemnation.
>>Governments only care about the environment insofar as to stay in power
If the people care about the environment and will vote people out of office who don't take care of the environment, that seems like a system that works. If a small number people are allowed to destroy the environment, that takes away the people's right to a livable planet.
>>Look at the numerous examples politicians using “green” initiatives to line their own pockets.
One can make money and help the environment it doesn't have to be one or the other
Section 230 protections for social media companies, municipal and state enticement packages for company additions and relocations, etc.
Companies use government regulation to gain unfair competitive advantage, raise the barrier to entry, and drive prices higher through the increased demand of government entities.
For instance, it is hard for smaller medical software companies to compete against Cerner/Leidos to provide software solutions if they are winning contracts for the entire DoD (Active and Veteran health).
If, let's say, the VA's hospital system were to be privatized, then each participating health system would have the ability to tailor their own solutions, and more companies could compete. This is a net positive in innovation for an industry that is plagued by mediocrity.
It makes it illegal in practice, just not in name.
Are you really free if you have any arbitrarily defined “large” amount of money, only to have it sorted and it become YOUR burden of proof to show the origins of the cash?
I used to work in Bioinformatics. Getting Epic and Cerner to flow into our i2b2 or REDCap was a mess.
Epic was a real disappointment in terms of their willingness to implement simple features that would have truly helped researchers analyze more specific outcomes. But I guess you gotta make money some how.
