Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Europe is in a muddle over ritual slaughter

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 104 posts

Re: Europe is in a muddle over ritual slaughter

#71

Post by FredPret »

lordwarnut wrote: post #52
FredPret wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you serious? I’m no social conservative, but labelling that as Nazism just degrades your own political capital. People are allowed to expect immigrants to fit in.

Well the homogenisation of society is a common aspect of fascist ideologies.

That would be like me calling every lefty a Marxist. It doesn't help.

At the core of every ideology - left and right - are some valid ideas - that is how it got adherents in the first place. A certain degree of social homogeneity is needed because it represents a shared basic idea about how civilization is to proceed.

Now, the Nazis enforced their extreme vision of absolute social homogeneity by means of death chambers... nobody in this thread suggested anything even hinting at that.

Re: Europe is in a muddle over ritual slaughter

#72

Post by WithinReason »

FDSGSG wrote: post #67
WithinReason wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It completely ignores the fact that it's possible to have deep religious beliefs about something.

It doesn't. It simply makes the argument that deep religious beliefs are not different from other deep beliefs. At it's face, this appears to be a pretty reasonable take. Why would religious beliefs be special?

The OP used the expression "because I really really want it", which doesn't describe religious belief. You might do something that your religion tells you to do even if you don't want to do it.

Re: Europe is in a muddle over ritual slaughter

#73

Post by danbruc »

WithinReason wrote: post #72
FDSGSG wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't. It simply makes the argument that deep religious beliefs are not different from other deep beliefs. At it's face, this appears to be a pretty reasonable take. Why would religious beliefs be special?

The OP used the expression "because I really really want it", which doesn't describe religious belief. You might do something that your religion tells you to do even if you don't want to do it.

I don't think this is a valid argument. If you have a conflict between what your religions says and what you conclude by other means and you decide - for whatever reasons - to follow the religion, then you still want this thing. It might not be a case of I really, really want this but it is still a case of I just want this.

Re: Europe is in a muddle over ritual slaughter

#74

Post by mantas »

dx034 wrote: post #31
FredPret wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you serious? I’m no social conservative, but labelling that as Nazism just degrades your own political capital. People are allowed to expect immigrants to fit in.

But it's not just about immigrants. You also forbid people born in your country to develop other habits or change religion.

If a bunch of locals decide to bring back old slaughtering methods (or dealing with spouses or skipping judicial system to settle issues and so on), I'm pretty use that'd be banned in no time.

Re: Europe is in a muddle over ritual slaughter

#76

Post by WithinReason »

danbruc wrote: post #73
WithinReason wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The OP used the expression "because I really really want it", which doesn't describe religious belief. You might do something that your religion tells you to do even if you don't want to do it.

I don't think this is a valid argument. If you have a conflict between what your religions says and what you conclude by other means and you decide - for whatever reasons - to follow the religion, then you still want this thing. It might not be a case of I really, really want this but it is still a case of I just want this.

Case in point: "Really really wanting" to make an animal suffer is only possible for people with a certain level of cruelty. Religious prescription makes it possible for otherwise not cruel people to make animals suffer. Blurring the distinction is not helpful or smart in any way.

Re: Europe is in a muddle over ritual slaughter

#77

Post by gpderetta »

NikolaNovak wrote: post #54
FDSGSG wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why does this get downvoted? Does there exist a reasonable counterargument to this? I'd really like to hear it.

Because it sounds antagonistic, it's counter indicated by modern culture, plus large proportion of any given audience IS religious and firmly believes they are entitled to special treatment, which is indeed enshrined in laws of most countries. I've been atheist all my life and it took Me 30 years to get beyond my own cultural conditioning and allow myself to To think "religion is not special belief above all others".…

I'm not religious either, that's why I recognize that protected features are not some immutable law of nature but a social construct.

As a society we have long come to the conclusion that, for good or bad, limiting religious expression leads do disastrous consequences.

That doesn't mean that religion should have free reign (we have for example long decided that church and state should be separate), but any change of the status quo needs to go largely through general social agreement, not mandated from first principles.

Re: Europe is in a muddle over ritual slaughter

#78

Post by koheripbal »

magicalhippo wrote: post #29
wongarsu wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, if you strife for integration you have long discussions in your society how to weigh opposing interests. I'm not sure what reasonable alternatives exist.

I mean, we've just had two male priests lose their job because they refused to work with female priests[1][2], citing the bible as reason. Pretty sure that would have been considered quite radical a hundred years ago. [1]: https://www.nrk.no/vestland/etter-avtale-med-biskopen_-mikae... [2]: https://www.nrk.no/mr/omstridd-prest-i-orskog-gar-av_-ville-...

They lost their salary and legal employment, but the thing about religion is that you are not beholden to any authority other than the one you choose, so they can continue to practice being priests.

Re: Europe is in a muddle over ritual slaughter

#79

Post by sofixa »

ardit33 wrote: post #38
rjtavares wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honest question: has any empire (or powerful nation) ever been homogenous without genocide?

Japan? Their natives were few in numbers (less than 2%), so it can be considered a Homogenous nation.

Is Japan considered an Empire (on the power/clout level, not how they nominally call their head of state) before expanding to Korea and Formosa? I don't think it is.

Re: Europe is in a muddle over ritual slaughter

#80

Post by sofixa »

chuckee wrote: post #63
Joeri wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apartheid has been tried before. Like communism it doesn’t work out in practice the way the theory predicts.

You have it backwards: ethnic violence is more prevalent in diverse countries without boundaries separating different groups: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal... Look at ex-Yugoslavia. Is it not working out? Are the people worse off in their separate countries, than when they were genociding each-other under a common flag? "Good fences make good neighbors" wasn't invented out of thin air.

People in Yugoslavia weren't genociding each other in regular times (outside of WW2 and the Yugoslav wars), there was just ethnic tension. Furthermore, present post-Yugoslav countries aren't homogenous, and there's still ethnic tensions there ( in Bosnia, or Serbia and Kosovo). I'm not sure "working out" is how I'd put it.
Post reply on HN