|
|
Post by Aj_June on Sept 23, 2018 22:19:11 GMT
In economics, an externality is the cost or benefit that affects a party who did not choose to incur that cost or benefit. Externalities can be positive or negative. For example, a factory that pollutes the surrounding environment may cause negative externality. 50 years back there weren't many regulations and so society had to bear the cost of externalities even if they weren't consuming any item directly. Things have changed since corporate social responsibility became an important factor and since governments started regulating industries.
If you treat religion as another service and consumption item then there may be negative and positive externalities caused by consumption of religion. For example, in another thread I and rachelcarson1953 were discussing how the infertile women had been treated throughout the human history. There is no doubt that religions played a great role in making the situation of infertile women worse off. In fact there is no doubt that religions made the situation of women in general as worse off. But the question is that unlike now when industries pay environmental taxes and incur other costs to minimize externalities, do religious people hold any accountability for the unintended negative consequences of their religious beliefs? Religion is not a thing that is limited to individuals. When people form groups and behave in groups then others are also involved in their actions. Religious beliefs of certain groups may cause adverse effects for people who have nothing do with religions.
|
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Sept 23, 2018 22:28:40 GMT
How about an example of how you envision such religious accountability would be applied?
(Another thought: Religions are not the only examples of group action.) |
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Sept 23, 2018 22:54:52 GMT
How about an example of how you envision such religious accountability would be applied?
(Another thought: Religions are not the only examples of group action.) I haven't envisioned how accountability is to be applied or thought about that. I first need an answer from religious people whether they accept that religions may create negative externalities or not. Last time when I had talked about religions causing the situation of infertile women to be worse off I wasn't met with an acceptance. Once I get a reply from a religious person then we can proceed to the next round.
Sure.
|
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Sept 23, 2018 23:30:30 GMT
In economics, an externality is the cost or benefit that affects a party who did not choose to incur that cost or benefit. Externalities can be positive or negative. For example, a factory that pollutes the surrounding environment may cause negative externality. 50 years back there weren't many regulations and so society had to bear the cost of externalities even if they weren't consuming any item directly. Things have changed since corporate social responsibility became an important factor and since governments started regulating industries.
If you treat religion as another service and consumption item then there may be negative and positive externalities caused by consumption of religion. For example, in another thread I and rachelcarson1953 were discussing how the infertile women had been treated throughout the human history. There is no doubt that religions played a great role in making the situation of infertile women worse off. In fact there is no doubt that religions made the situation of women in general as worse off. But the question is that unlike now when industries pay environmental taxes and incur other costs to minimize externalities, do religious people hold any accountability for the unintended negative consequences of their religious beliefs? Religion is not a thing that is limited to individuals. When people form groups and behave in groups then others are also involved in their actions. Religious beliefs of certain groups may cause adverse effects for people who have nothing do with religions.
You can't treat religion as a commodity and thus this statement is wholly false. |
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Sept 23, 2018 23:34:54 GMT
In economics, an externality is the cost or benefit that affects a party who did not choose to incur that cost or benefit. Externalities can be positive or negative. For example, a factory that pollutes the surrounding environment may cause negative externality. 50 years back there weren't many regulations and so society had to bear the cost of externalities even if they weren't consuming any item directly. Things have changed since corporate social responsibility became an important factor and since governments started regulating industries.
If you treat religion as another service and consumption item then there may be negative and positive externalities caused by consumption of religion. For example, in another thread I and rachelcarson1953 were discussing how the infertile women had been treated throughout the human history. There is no doubt that religions played a great role in making the situation of infertile women worse off. In fact there is no doubt that religions made the situation of women in general as worse off. But the question is that unlike now when industries pay environmental taxes and incur other costs to minimize externalities, do religious people hold any accountability for the unintended negative consequences of their religious beliefs? Religion is not a thing that is limited to individuals. When people form groups and behave in groups then others are also involved in their actions. Religious beliefs of certain groups may cause adverse effects for people who have nothing do with religions.
You can't treat religion as a commodity and thus this statement is wholly false. Why not? Religious profiteers like Pat Robertson and Ray Comfort certainly treat it as one. |
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Sept 23, 2018 23:35:23 GMT
In economics, an externality is the cost or benefit that affects a party who did not choose to incur that cost or benefit. Externalities can be positive or negative. For example, a factory that pollutes the surrounding environment may cause negative externality. 50 years back there weren't many regulations and so society had to bear the cost of externalities even if they weren't consuming any item directly. Things have changed since corporate social responsibility became an important factor and since governments started regulating industries.
If you treat religion as another service and consumption item then there may be negative and positive externalities caused by consumption of religion. For example, in another thread I and rachelcarson1953 were discussing how the infertile women had been treated throughout the human history. There is no doubt that religions played a great role in making the situation of infertile women worse off. In fact there is no doubt that religions made the situation of women in general as worse off. But the question is that unlike now when industries pay environmental taxes and incur other costs to minimize externalities, do religious people hold any accountability for the unintended negative consequences of their religious beliefs? Religion is not a thing that is limited to individuals. When people form groups and behave in groups then others are also involved in their actions. Religious beliefs of certain groups may cause adverse effects for people who have nothing do with religions.
You can't treat religion as a commodity and thus this statement is wholly false. I said "If" you treat religion as another service and consumption item then there may be negative and positive externalities caused by consumption of religion.
As for the statement in question. Let's first break it down.
There is no doubt that religious people played a great role in making the situation of infertile women worse off.
Do you agree with this new statement?
|
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Sept 23, 2018 23:40:44 GMT
You can't treat religion as a commodity and thus this statement is wholly false. I said "If" you treat religion as another service and consumption item then there may be negative and positive externalities caused by consumption of religion.
As for the statement in question. Let's first break it down.
There is no doubt that religious people played a great role in making the situation of infertile women worse off.
Do you agree with this new statement?
Well, you're statement was an absolute based on religion in general without the hypotheitical. That's what I'm saying you are wrong in. Religions are far too diverse to put such a ridiculous blanket statement. I actually dfin't bold enough and meant to iunclude this: That is a preposterous statement not backed up by anything other then men being routinely horrible without regard to religion ( Not this guy of course, I'm awesome...). I haven't gone to the thread about how much suffering infertile women acquire from religious entities, but I imagine the proof must be fascinating lol. |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Sept 23, 2018 23:42:43 GMT
You can't treat religion as a commodity and thus this statement is wholly false. Why not? Religious profiteers like Pat Robertson and Ray Comfort certainly treat it as one. This may come as a shock on the board but most Christians do not follow either of these folks advice and I know for a fact Robertson doesn;t since he condemns just about any of them that don;t share his view. To this day, I have no idea who Ray Comfort is. |
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Sept 23, 2018 23:48:36 GMT
Why not? Religious profiteers like Pat Robertson and Ray Comfort certainly treat it as one. This may come as a shock on the board but most Christians do not follow either of these folks advice and I know for a fact Robertson doesn;t since he condemns just about any of them that don;t share his view. To this day, I have no idea who Ray Comfort is. "This may come as a shock on the board but most Christians do not follow either of these folks advice"
That doesn't really refute what I actually said. You said "You can't treat religion as a commodity" (which basically means making money off of religion), I pointed out there's already plenty of people, particularly televangelists, that do just that, so I don't see why it can't be treated as a commodity of sorts.
|
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Sept 23, 2018 23:52:05 GMT
This may come as a shock on the board but most Christians do not follow either of these folks advice and I know for a fact Robertson doesn;t since he condemns just about any of them that don;t share his view. To this day, I have no idea who Ray Comfort is. "This may come as a shock on the board but most Christians do not follow either of these folks advice"
That doesn't really refute what I actually said. You said "You can't treat religion as a commodity" (which basically means making money off of religion), I pointed out there's already plenty of people, particularly televangelists, that do just that.
I'm saying that 1. They don't given one of the examples you gave...Again, I don't know Ray Comfort. 2. It wouldn't matter since them saying it doesn't make it any more of an accurate statement. 3. Which goes back to what I said to the point most Christians don't follow theses guys advice anyway At least one of those is refuting you, but based on your statement it looks like all 3 to me. |
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Sept 24, 2018 0:00:00 GMT
"This may come as a shock on the board but most Christians do not follow either of these folks advice"
That doesn't really refute what I actually said. You said "You can't treat religion as a commodity" (which basically means making money off of religion), I pointed out there's already plenty of people, particularly televangelists, that do just that.
I'm saying that 1. They don't given one of the examples you gave...Again, I don't know Ray Comfort. 2. It wouldn't matter since them saying it doesn't make it any more of an accurate statement. 3. Which goes back to what I said to the point most Christians don't follow theses guys advice anyway At least one of those is refuting you, but based on your statement it looks like all 3 to me. 1. They don't given one of the examples you gave...Again, I don't know Ray Comfort.
They both make off money of religion, they both essentially "sell" religion to people. That's pretty much what a comodity is. Ray Comfort was that infamous "bannana" creationist guy in the media a while ago that sold a bunch of religious/creationist books.
2. It wouldn't matter since them saying it doesn't make it any more of an accurate statement.
That has nothing to do with whether or not something is a commodity
3. Which goes back to what I said to the point most Christians don't follow theses guys advice anyway
Again that has nothing to do with what constitutes a "commodity". Most people think New Age medicine is a bunch of nonsense, but there's certainly a market for that.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Sept 24, 2018 0:33:24 GMT
Actually there is no doubt that many people do not believe everyone should have children. Some people do not agree that people with birth defects should have children. Some people would put infertile women in that category. Some disagree that people should be cloned, although twins happen naturally enough. I know its upsetting to a lot of people, but some people don't think all sorts of people should have children. I realize that is very sad, but it has nothing to do with religion.
Much of it (except the part about the all sorts) has to do with the law. None of it has anything to do with religion. Law is based on two main things, legislation by (usually these days elected) legislators and "case law" or the decisions made in court cases by (usually not elected) judges (see "stare decisis"). Judges are not supposed to add anything to legislation by their decisions but it often happens that the legislation did not address some issues and the judges have to do that. Those decisions stand until more exacting efforts are made to address the tangent issues.
There is an obvious problem with creating a human being in labs with no "natural" parents at all. There is no way to decide who should be responsible and how far should they be responsible should questions develop. Is a medical laboratory a "mother" or a "father"? When there is a clear mother and a father many issues have been settled by previous case decisions, not by legislation because it usually does not (is usually not equipped to) address such finer points.
Of course that is not the exact same thing as less dramatic medical intervention to help one mother and one father have children. However it is simply not true that "religion" at any time impeded (most of) those procedures, just people with ordinary legal unanswered questions. You should not expect to be successful when you are so wrong about your facts.
When Nadya Suleman had octuplets (eight children at one time) because of fertility treatments it became very controversial because she already had six children and lived on public assistance. It is a reasonable question, how much does the fertility clinic owe the children in child support? How much assistance she should get, or not, how much the clinic should pay or not, whether the clinic should pay punitive damages as well are all question people have whether they are religious or not. There were no answers in case law and comprehensive answers have not developed. Atheists who blame religious people for making "infertile women worse off" are obviously far too ill informed about religion and law to make anyone pay anything.
Since you obviously do not understand religion and the law regarding fertility, why would anyone think you understand that?
I'm sorry AJ, but I'm going to have to disagree with your qualifications in science and religion.
|
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Sept 24, 2018 0:42:28 GMT
Since you obviously do not understand religion and the law regarding fertility, why would anyone think you understand that? I'm sorry AJ, but I'm going to have to disagree with your qualifications in science and religion. Well, I have nothing against you calling out my religious knowledge. I am certainly not very knowledgeable about religion or religious history.
But just to clarify I have no qualifications in science. I certainly have never even pretended to have one. I have double masters in accounting and finance. That's all. They are not scientific subjects.
|
|
|
|
Post by thefleetsin on Sept 24, 2018 0:43:01 GMT
as long as enlightenment revolves around external sky fathers wielding magically powers, there will only be more ridiculous infighting and superstitious fear mongering.
|
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Sept 24, 2018 0:45:31 GMT
I said "If" you treat religion as another service and consumption item then there may be negative and positive externalities caused by consumption of religion.
As for the statement in question. Let's first break it down.
There is no doubt that religious people played a great role in making the situation of infertile women worse off.
Do you agree with this new statement?
Well, you're statement was an absolute based on religion in general without the hypotheitical. That's what I'm saying you are wrong in. Religions are far too diverse to put such a ridiculous blanket statement. I actually dfin't bold enough and meant to iunclude this: That is a preposterous statement not backed up by anything other then men being routinely horrible without regard to religion ( Not this guy of course, I'm awesome...). I haven't gone to the thread about how much suffering infertile women acquire from religious entities, but I imagine the proof must be fascinating lol. I am fine if you want to discuss whether religions and/or religious people have made position of women worse off or not. I just want to know if you want me to concentrate on Christianity or include all major religions. Because certainly all major religions have done harm to women over past 3 millenniums. But it is still up to you if you want to discuss only one religion. |
|
|
|
Post by thefleetsin on Sept 24, 2018 0:46:50 GMT
using the koran as an oscillating fan
within the kingdom of the heart
there are
massive divisions
dedicated to re-purposing
huge amounts
of wasted printed materials.
sjw 09/23/18 inspired at this very moment in time by an entire universe of recycled uses for those things over there.
from the 'benevolent series' of poems
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Sept 24, 2018 0:55:34 GMT
Since you obviously do not understand religion and the law regarding fertility, why would anyone think you understand that? I'm sorry AJ, but I'm going to have to disagree with your qualifications in science and religion. Well, I have nothing against you calling out my religious knowledge. I am certainly not very knowledgeable about religion or religious history.
But just to clarify I have no qualifications in science. I certainly have never even pretended to have one. I have double masters in accounting and finance. That's all. They are not scientific subjects.
The good news is that you do not have to comment on science or religion. Lots of intelligent people (according to my measuring) do not. Other people obviously should not. It is not a civic responsibility like voting, and even there some people choose not to vote on some things. |
|
|
|
Post by them1ghtyhumph on Sept 24, 2018 0:56:59 GMT
So basically, were talking about situations that include risks, right?
There is risk (good or not so good or bad) in the outcomes. That's just about all decisions.
Or am I misunderstanding this?
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Sept 24, 2018 1:06:17 GMT
So basically, were talking about situations that include risks, right? There is risk (good or not so good or bad) in the outcomes. That's just about all decisions. Or am I misunderstanding this? It isn't so much the risk as it is knowing who to blame and how much if things go wrong. There is a need to have standards. |
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Sept 24, 2018 1:13:35 GMT
You can't treat religion as a commodity and thus this statement is wholly false. I said "If" you treat religion as another service and consumption item then there may be negative and positive externalities caused by consumption of religion.
As for the statement in question. Let's first break it down.
There is no doubt that religious people played a great role in making the situation of infertile women worse off.
Do you agree with this new statement?
So don't treat religion as the problem when you obviously cannot. If you want to punish people for disagreeing with you it will be necessary to make more sense, even then there is that free speech thing. |
|
