How can people figure out email, but lemmy is just too complicated?

No, because Facebook is not explicitly designed for the sole purpose of illegal transactions. Very clear difference.

I think its slightly dishonest to frame this as him simply “creating a website”. He created a marketplace to sell drugs on, I just don’t understand the sympathy. I feel bad for low level drug dealers in jail, this guy not so much.

I would agree it could’ve been handled differently, same with every other aspect of the war on drugs. But celebrating this guy is a step too far for me.

Why are people in support of this guy?

I don’t have a strongly held belief regarding the existence of any gods.

The strongly held belief I’m referring to isn’t a belief in a god or lack thereof, its a belief that religion is a net negative for society.

I’m surprised you’re not aware of this.

To say I’m not aware of this is again to argue in bad faith. I have mentioned myself that religious indoctrination of course still exists, and is a problem.

As for the assessment of benefits, there’s a great deal of research into what people do with their lives and why.

Yes there is research into how religion affects society, but it isn’t very useful for this purpose for multiple reasons. There is no instance of a society without religion, so the difference between a religious and non-religious society can’t be studied. There can be no consensus on what is beneficial and what isn’t, as morality itself isn’t objective.

There is not and there never will be definitive evidence as to whether or not religion is beneficial for society.

There is nothing to suggest we need religion for any of the benefits that religious people say they obtain from it,

There is also nothing to suggest the opposite, because this can’t really be determined. You would have to so create a set of all the benefits religious people claim to get, which in and of itself would be a monumental task. Then, you would have to demonstrate that nonreligious people can achieve all of the exact same benefits.

This is why I’ve come to the conclusion that this argument is pointless, and neither of us know anything beyond our personal experience.

I stand by what I said and painting it as absolutes is arguing in bad faith.

This I agree with. Looking back, you were more careful than I thought you were to specify you were not talking in absolutes.

I will however double down that you are still making a fundamental assumption that your option is the correct one, and you make it more clear by arguing that all benefits of religion are possible without religion. If all benefits of religion can be attained without risking the detriment, then religion is the worse option by far.

However, thinking of this made me realize I’m just making the opposite assumption. Just like you, I’ve constructed a strongly held belief about religion based on my life experiences, which are entirely anecdotal and effectively meaningless.

How would you even get evidence that most people are manipulated into becoming religious? How would you get evidence that most people don’t? How would you get evidence that religion does or doesn’t benefit people? How would you even define benefit in the first place?

This argument is meaningless.

That makes more sense to me. Although, I would contend that people in real life can also just put on a role to varying degrees of success depending on the exact circumstances. Presumably when you said “personally” though, you meant people you already knew well enough to verify their claims to some extent.

Maybe you’re right, that sounds possible. I would think if that’s their intention they wouldn’t have written that “everyone” is everything, and would instead say “someone” or something to that effect. At that point I’m probably just overanalyzing though.

They are drawing that distinction for a reason. They literally said everyone is everything on the internet. I don’t how else you could possibly read that.

What about the internet makes this easier to lie about? I could tell you the same thing to your face and you still couldn’t fact check it.

Your understanding of their reasoning comes from a fundamental assumption that your choice is the correct choice for every person. They willingly made the wrong decision, therefore they must have been manipulated into doing so.

Many people do just become religious without outside influence. On a large scale, every society will create its own version of religion without fail. Clearly, they have something to gain psychologically by doing so.

While religious indoctrination obviously exists and obviously is a problem, it doesn’t discount the actual benefits that religion seems to have, and by extension the reasoning with which some people become religious.

We all do.

When I said “start”, it was in reference to the process of changing your religious identity, not your life as a whole.

Never personally met an atheist that had found religion or heard about one

Well congratulations, now you have. It isn’t quite as rare as you might think.

The fact that some people start as atheists and later become religious demonstrates there has to be more reasons than just that.

I’m not sure why they use a subscription model instead of simply asking for donations.

I really wouldn’t describe a few years as astronomical. And that’s how long it takes to actually learn a language. You might delete the app a few months into it and switch to other methods if you were actually progressing quickly. The longer you stay on the app, the better chance they have of tricking you into spending money on it. I’m definitely not the first person to notice this. People have been talking about it for years.

I would also recommend getting a textbook and using a flash card program like anki to memorize words. Apps like that have an incentive to keep you from ever getting good enough at the language that you might stop using the app. They can be a good tool but they won’t get you where you want to be on their own, especially not in a time efficient manner.

They got you talking about Duolingo. That’s why they changed it.

So my point isn’t that there is some great threat from Republicans.

That’s the argument you seemed to be making, or at least that’s how it seemed to me.

Yes, this is a population effect. This doesn’t mean we should single out Republicans for discrimination, just that they need to stop treating people who dress funny as an inherent threat.

I completely agree, but you were saying previously there needs to be a specific effort to prevent Republicans from committing sex crimes. That seems to fit the discrimination you are now saying you don’t support.

That’s why I corrected you and said the effort should not be specifically geared towards republicans.

However, on a given day, a random child is much more likely to encounter a Republican child predator than a drag queen child predator.

That’s true but again, only because there are more republicans than drag queens. If they aren’t more likely to be a child predator than others, they don’t require different treatment than others.

Now add in the overwhelming statistics that show child predators are usually known to and trusted by the child’s parents, and the emphasis that conservatives place in trusting those placed in authority above them, and you have a recipe for disaster.

I do not find this very convincing. I don’t see how republican ideals would result in more predatory behavior. Again, if you have evidence of this that isn’t anecdotal I would love to see it.

No, a larger effort should be made to protect children from child predators in general. I haven’t seen any evidence that republicans are more likely than the average person to be a child predator, nor have I seen any that suggest the same for drag queens. If you have that evidence, I would like to see it.