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

Magnifica Humanitas

vatican.va

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

611–620 of 1001 posts

Re: Magnifica Humanitas

#611

Post by ThrowawayR2 »

gymbeaux wrote: post #460
opsnooperfax wrote: post #419

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Professional liability and licensure would create assurances with some teeth, but there are some major drawbacks.

Enlighten us to these drawbacks. On the surface I am inclined to say the pros would outweigh the cons. Compared to other professions, software engineering seems to struggle the most with H-1B/Green Card abuse and interview processes. Job interviews are absurdly different (easier) for doctors, lawyers, et al. than for software engineers, and that I believe is because of the licensure. I do think licensure adds overhea…

> "Job interviews are absurdly different (easier) for doctors, ..."

The job interview for doctors is a 5-7 year residency under tight supervision of an attending physician: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Residency_(medicine) . People do flunk or drop out as well, meaning they can never become a physician. There's nothing easier about that.

Re: Magnifica Humanitas

#612

Post by jimbokun »

switchbak wrote: post #468
applfanboysbgon wrote: post #340

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it wrong? Individuals were absolutely getting dehumanized in Kafka's time, but also since then are becoming ever increasingly more so, so it makes sense to speak of it continuing to happen and get worse. It is not binary.

"Individuals were absolutely getting dehumanized ... since then are becoming ever increasingly more so" - do you mind backing this up? I and everyone I know has it a whole lot easier than a couple generations prior. I don't know a single person working the fields, doing dangerous work in a factory, working a coal mine, etc. Of course, I am fortunate enough to be in this position. Power is continuing to squeeze people…

Being better off materially yet more “dehumanized” are not mutually exclusive.

Social bonds and connections are integral to human flourishing yet are rapidly degrading and being replaced by digital pacifiers.

Re: Magnifica Humanitas

#614

Post by jimbokun »

mmplxx wrote: post #386
jdw64 wrote: post #248

>“technology is never neutral, because it takes on the characteristics of those who devise, finance, regulate, and use it,” If critical decisions affecting human life—such as hiring, lending, crime prediction, and welfare—are processed in an opaque black box, people will lose their fundamental right to explain their context or appeal against the machine's algorithmic verdicts

Substitute technology for religion and he's probably one of the least authorized persons to question this.

His words on this topic make a hell of a lot more sense than any of the people running technology companies. And many politicians, too.

Re: Magnifica Humanitas

#615

Post by Amezarak »

lobocinza wrote: post #521
Amezarak wrote: post #416

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not aware of any Protestants that see the Pope as important except in a very negative way - that's practically the defining feature of Protestantism and one of the few things all the Protestant denominations have in common, whether "low church" or "high church". Heck, it's a struggle to convince many of them that Catholics are Christian at all, and "the Pope is the antichrist" used to be a normal, mainstream comm…

Any serious Protestant (mainline and knowledgeable) listen and give weight when the Pope speaks. They would certainly refuse the Pope authority and inerrancy ex Cathedra but not necessarily disagree with him. Theologically there's much less division between Protestants and Catholics today than in XVI. A large share of disagreeements are due to residual historical animosity.

Every mainline Protestant denomination was basically founded on the idea that they shouldn’t have to listen to the Pope at all. And that was before Papal infallibility was enshrined, which actually didn’t take place until the late 1800s.

In America, anti-Catholic sentiment was extremely strong until relatively recently, and then only because religiosity (and thus the reason for it) has declined. All the theological division still exists, it’s just less striking in a world that’s much more irreligious and in countries where vastly different religions (Muslim or Hindu) are present now in real numbers.

Practically all the pro-Pope sentiment I’ve seen in my lifetime has been from various flavors of atheists, agnostics, and other areligious types. Catholics themselves generally hold more respect for the office than the person, and Protestants are almost uniformly negative on both.

Re: Magnifica Humanitas

#616

Post by weakfish »

oersted wrote: post #484
achierius wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While this is certainly the more interesting question, the unfortunate reality is that the ideological complex of capital (even if weakening, and no longer effectively reproducing itself) is still strong enough that most in the West can't even imagine a better world (other than "less bad capitalism"), much less think about how to get there. Consequently messages like the above are of great value in moving more people…

> the West can't even imagine a better world That's an important point. It's so hard to think of a better system, if you take the task seriously and actually think through all the consequences of each option. As a result, as usual, the loud people that ignore all the details end up capturing everyone's imagination with a good story, and we stumble upon yet another century of nightmares. Do you truly have a answer for…

I don't have the mental power at this moment to write out my full thoughts on the subject so forgive my rambling thoughts that follow (an aside- withdrawing from SSRIs is an _unpleasant experience_)

I think the problem I find with arguments that Capitalism is the best/least bad system tend to be that they start from a false premise, in my opinion. I have a friend who makes the joke all the time that any system of government works if people were just nice to each other, but he has a point. I often hear that "oh, communism doesn't work because humans are inherently selfish." That's true, if you believe that humans are inherently selfish, but my counter-point to that is asking how much of it is innate vs. how much of it is trained by our culture and reflects back in those communist attempts because the sudden change in social architecture didn't give enough time to 'train it out of' the culture.

Back to the thing my friend says - if you believe that communism doesn't work because humans are inherently selfish/greedy/etc, I'd say to you also that capitalism is currently not working _because humans are being selfish and greedy_ in a system _that explicitly rewards that_. Which, maybe is worse. Not as in the outcomes are worse immediately than Soviet Russia etc. but for the long-term trajectory of human society.

I don't pretend I have an answer for how we can get from point A (capitalist system) to point B (future space communism) in a way that slowly shifts human thinking towards mutual aid and collective action, but I think it's short-sighted to assume that the way humans act in a system that rewards greed/selfishness is innate.

Re: Magnifica Humanitas

#618

Post by adamtaylor_13 »

nicholsonpk wrote: post #401
adamtaylor_13 wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have to somehow separate the horrible evils that have been inflicted on the world by Communism before you can get people to consider words closely associated with it. Being anti-communism is good not only for the individual's health but for their society as a whole.

The problem, generally, with this view point is that it attributes all of a societies ills to Communism and none of (or few of) societies ills to Capitalism. For example, do you believe the Capitalist system has nothing to do with the eagerness of the United States to drop bombs throughout the world for the past 100 years? Personally I see these actions as unnecessary and evil but pushed to continue by the people who…

I did not excuse capitalism from critique. I'm not sure how you arrived there from my comment.

Re: Magnifica Humanitas

#619

Post by michahell »

Talk about making things hard to read. Also, Holy See? Whoever thought that was aptly named? The Holy StumbleUpon would be better as they always stumble things after everyone realized before them 5-100 years ago. Nonetheless good that religion also offers some of their infinite wisdom regarding AI to steer those who take any value in most of their gibberish

Re: Magnifica Humanitas

#620

Post by tinfoilhatter »

nathan_compton wrote: post #501
tinfoilhatter wrote: post #408

> In this regard, Saint John Paul II stated that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, proclaimed by the United Nations on 10 December 1948, remains one of the highest expressions of the human conscience of our time. Interesting, considering that the U.N. has its roots established in the ideology of Luciferians. [1][2][3] Surely the Pope and the Vatican are both aware of this fact. [1] https://archive.is/D27Jr […

Who cares? It isn't like bad people can't have good ideas and vice versa. From where I'm sitting Luciferians, Theosophists, etc are just as suspect as Catholics because they believe in imaginary stuff.

Yeah, who cares that there's a group with the goal of establishing a new world order featuring a totalitarian one-world government and a one-world religion that enforces Noahide law. Sounds lovely! /s

This logic is absolutely ridiculous in my opinion. Should we have cared about Hitler? Maybe he was just a bad guy with good ideas - after all, he helped to create the Autobahn.

If you haven't read about what Alice Bailey believed in or other theosophists and you're just saying who cares because you hold the impression that the United Nations is some benefactor to humanity, okay. I don't hold that viewpoint regarding the UN and I find the fact that it is actively advised by a group of Luciferians that espouse the kind of crap Alice Bailey did, quite troubling. Nor do I consider the Vatican a benefactor to humanity, just to set the record straight.

Post reply on HN