Ethics & Philosophy

1. the concept of Sharia law, derived from Islamic teachings, differs significantly from Western legal systems. Sharia encompasses religious, moral, and legal guidelines, often leading to conflicts with Western legal frameworks, which prioritize secularism and the separation of religion and state. This contrast is particularly evident in areas such as women's rights, freedom of speech, and punishments like stoning or amputation, which are part of Sharia but are considered human rights violations in many Western countries.

2. Islam's stance on social issues, such as gender roles and LGBTQ+ rights, can conflict with Western values of gender equality and LGBTQ+ inclusivity. Traditional interpretations of Islam often prescribe distinct gender roles and reject LGBTQ+ identities, whereas Western societies strive for equal rights and acceptance regardless of gender or sexual orientation. This misalignment can lead to tensions between Islamic communities and Western societies, especially in multicultural contexts.

3. the notion of religious freedom, a cornerstone of Western societies, can be challenged by certain interpretations of Islam. While Islam guarantees freedom of religion for Muslims, some Islamic societies or regimes restrict the rights of religious minorities, including Christians, Jews, and atheists. This lack of religious pluralism contradicts Western ideals of tolerance and diversity.

4. the role of the state in regulating personal behavior differs between Islam and the West. Islamic principles often advocate for state intervention in matters of morality and personal conduct, whereas Western liberalism emphasizes individual autonomy and limited government intrusion into private lives. This contrast can lead to clashes over issues such as censorship, alcohol consumption, or dress codes, where Islamic norms may conflict with Western notions of personal freedom and choice.

5. depictions of Muhammad especially those deemed disrespectful or blasphemous, are viewed as highly offensive and sacrilegious. Islamic tradition, based on teachings from the Quran and Hadith (sayings and actions attributed to Muhammad), discourages visual representations of prophets, including Muhammad, to prevent idolatry and maintain the purity of faith. This stance contrasts with Western traditions that often celebrate freedom of expression, including the right to create artistic representations, even if they may be controversial or provocative.

For the last year, my girlfriend and her siblings have been dealing with squatters living in their paternal-grandparent's home. The female squatter was a nurse for her ailing grandparents. Both grandparents had alzheimers and she got them to start signing things over. (No will involved.) By the time the grandparents had passed she had moved her boyfriend in. Legal matters to take care of this are taking for...ev...er! No end in sight!

What are some ways to make leave the home....pseudo-willingly? Any and all help would be greatly appreciated!

I'm not sure how much more needs to be said, but in the context of medical insurance, prior authorization should be illegal. Full stop, period. There is absolutely no justification for it other than bastards being fucking greedy. If my doctor, who went to fucking medical school for over a decade, decides I need a prescription, it's absolutely absurd that some chump with barely a Bachelor's degree can say "no." I've heard of innumerable cases of people being injured beyond repair, getting more sick, or even fucking dying while waiting for insurance to approve prior authorization. There is no reason this should be allowed to happen AT ALL. If Prior Authorization is allowed to continue, then insurance companies should be held 100% liable for what happens to a patient's health during the waiting period. It's fucking absurd they can just ignore a doctor and let us fucking suffer and/or die to save a couple bucks.

My relative will not accept the fact that I’m an atheist and telling me I worship the devil and would tell me I’m doing antics and that my mom teaches me devil worship. And I said to them: “I thought Christian’s and Catholic’s were loving and accepting, I guess not.” Then they told me: “Christian’s would never accept atheists.”

I hate myself, I wish I could be accepted,it hurts.. The only place that is accepting is the atheist community. I feel shunned, I feel shut out.. Ik not all religious people are like that. Sorry for the formatting, I’m on a cellphone, not my computer..

I’m 21, live in a conserviative southern city, but luckily received a scholarship to attend college in a northeastern city where I realized how messed up my parents religous views are. They are god fearing Christing who believe in God, are not pro choice, loved Trump and were very happy to see R v Wad overturned. Little do they know that I have been preganant twice, received prescriptions for the abortion pill and luckily it was over vs having an abortion in a Doctors office. Of course in my state pills and abortions (unless withing 6 weeks and few women know that early) are now illegal. I am so confliced and angered by what is going on. I am not on birth control but if my parents ever see my pills while I am home for this summer they will go ape. After graduation next year I am moving out and will be away from them. I love them on some levels but on other levels they are simply oppressive and have wacko outdated views more suited for Iran and not the US.

Noticed quite a few questions in the last few days that have an underlying theist perspective.

This young boy lost his parents and his two brothers coming home from church of all things. Can someone shed some light on people in the comments asking god to protect this boy? If someone broke into your house and murdered your family would you expect them to be nice to you?

Project 2025 terrifying for the rule of law in our country. The GOP plans to fire and replace federal government employees with people who will do their bidding (Trump even made an Executive Order towards the end of his presidency to make it easier to do this, but thankfully he didn't have enough time to use it extensively, and then Biden repealed it).

Turning the USA over to Christian extremists means they can alter anything to their liking, even the constitution. It's a very real possibility that they could make it illegal to not be Christian, among thousands of other changes they could make. Supreme Court justices can interpret the Constitution however they feel like and that becomes the rule of law. Please vote for democrats to preserve our freedoms.

I was taking the train home from work today from the Bronx & there was a street preacher in our train trying to force everyone to believe in Jesus. Then he started arguing with a muslim who said the resurrection was fake & the street preacher called Mohamed a pedophile. They kept going back and forth as I got off my stop. People need to learn to just practice their religion privately, trying to force your religion on people that just wanna go home after a stressful day of work is annoying.

I originally posted this in response to , where the town of Fontana paid a $900,000 settlement to prevent a case of extreme cruelty from going to court. The police who perpetrated the cruelty suffering no consequences in any form.

“ for police force size on crime is negative, small, and not statistically significant.”

Decades of data similarly shows that police don’t solve much serious and violent crime – the safety issues that most concern everyday people. Over the past decade, “consistently less than half of all violent crime and less than twenty-five percent of all property crime were cleared,” William Laufer and Robert Hughes wrote in a 2021 law review article. Laufer and Hughes are professors in the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania’s Legal Studies and Business Ethics Department.

Police “have never successfully solved crimes with any regularity, as arrest and clearance rates are consistently low throughout history,” and police have never solved even a bare majority of serious crimes, University of Utah college of law professor Shima Baradaran Baughman wrote in another 2021 law review article, including murder, rape, burglary and robbery.

Given that this research counted convictions, I'd wonder how many of these convictions actually came from police doing shit like the Fontana Police.

In short, the police barely do anything, and studies linked in the article "have shown that the average police officer spent about one hour per week responding to crimes in progress."

The number of police has almost no measurable effect on crime rates.

We know the police do horrendous shit to regular people and get away with it--often, their cities end up paying civil fees or settling out of court, and the cop just continues on. We also know that they don't do much to protect us. In fact, the Supreme Court (of course) determined that the police have

The police are largely ineffectual at solving crimes, rarely ever respond to actual crimes in progress, and police presence has no real effect on crime rates. In addition, the highest court in the land has determined that police have no responsibility to protect citizens. Add to that situations like this one and millions of others, where police actively, knowingly cause harm and often face no personal consequences at all. For this story,

We have to ask the question--what are the police actually for? Maybe it's more important to ask the question "who are the police for?" They're clearly not for everyday people--so why are we paying for them?

EDIT: I've awarded two Δs below. I cannot definitively say that reducing police budgets is any more likely to occur (or any more likely to make police be for regular people) than the ongoing and largely unsuccessful attempts at reform. I awarded the Δs as cutting the budgets of police will not necessarily make them any better for regular people.

Look what I found on the internet.

"Newton (1767-1837) promoted a diet of fruit, vegetables, raisins, bread, eggs, milk, and potatoes, and he drank only distilled water because of his belief that the Thames was contaminated with animal fat. Unlike his mentor William Lambe (1765-1847), Newton was not a vegan."

Isaac Newton's mentor was vegan.

PS : As pointed out, it's actually John Frank Newton's mentor, not Isaac Newton's 🥲 No problem, atleast we exchanged interesting ideas and bullied together 🙂

I know a man whose 80+ and he has a wife of a similar age. She has really bad dementia. Like final stage bad. doesnt know who anyone is, needs to be fed, wears nappies. So this man got a side chick.

This has divided a lot of people that I know. Some say its wrong, some say its right.

Whats your take??

Edit: he is paying for her care and does go to see her a few times a week.

Time to spill some tea.

Its just he showed up to his daughter’s funeral (i was there) with this side chick. Idk I just think its a bit much to bring your mistress to your daughter’s funeral. Especially when the daughter really disliked the mistress. Just seems disrespectful. In case you’re wondering. The daughter had cancer. Really Tragic.

The Earth is fine. Earth will always change from the habits of Earthlings and external forces (short an asteroid blowing it to pieces). Human habits are not harming Earth by warming the oceans, the oceans are getting warmer (faster thanks to us) which kills off certain organisms and only the fittest will survive (evolution) and a new frontier is born…again. Earth doesn’t care if the Great Barrier Reef disappears or if polar bears survive or if the United States goes under water. The entire globe could be water on its surface and the Earth will continue on. Humans are affecting the current environment of our planet, in a way that does not promote longevity of humans. The problem will solve itself in the end.