I think the Sunni and the Shia might want to have a word with you with whether or not Islam can be interpreted in different ways.

That being said, when we see strict interpretations of religions, it’s usually in particular sects or denominations (unless it’s a very new religion, such as scientology - which is a cult and a religion, of sorts). The Amish and the Shakers might be examples of particularly strict sects within Christianity.

And in the case of the article, I think the situation is impacted strongly by governmental corruption and lawlessness. The way children are treated in Jordan and the way children are treated in Iraq are very different, even if they might both be majority-Islam countries.

By limiting ourselves in only thinking what cultures are “good” or “bad”, we will severely hamper our abilities to protect children and uphold justice. This is how we end up with people thinking banning niqabs or burkas in France will somehow prevent child marriage.

I think there are cultural differences that we ought to tolerate and be mindful of our biases on (how you prepare food, the clothes you wear, difference in manners, accents, language, etc.) and there are things which are universal evils (murdering children for not marrying).

It is unfair to ascribe the latter to all people belonging to a particular culture (the “you people” comment), since “universal” evil goes both ways - all people should consider it evil, but it is not unique to a particular people. A strange duality. Reminds me of the dad who “accidentally” shot and killed his daughter in Texas after an argument about Trump and was never investigated.

Probably falls under same case law with Sony’s VCRs being able to record cable TV way back when https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Corp._of_America_v._Universal_City_Studios,_Inc. Though this predates use of internet for streaming/piracy/etc, supresupreme court could interpret differently now

Doesn’t bombing civilians just make it more likely that the survivors will take up extremist stances, though? From a long term standpoint, attacking civilians is always a bad move if your goal is peace/stability. I feel like the last hundred years has been a lesson in this

Maybe I’m missing context, though, since the comment you replied to was removed by mod.

Yes, it’s disingenuous for him to bring up all the time used for humans to evolve as well. If we’re going to go that far, we also ought to include the energy/time used by the engineers who created ChatGPT, and all the energy used by plants/animals in the evolution leading to those engineers. Not to mention all the time/energy/training of all the people who created the training data over the past few centuries.

Frankly, at that point, any human artist is more “efficient” than AI - they’re able to master their field in mere decades.

I think if he meant it that way he would have said that, instead of talking about the energy that humans use and particularly talking about food.

Exactly. I can understand being glad the mafia boss is dead, but it’s a “change in management” not liberation

I think that’s a fair perspective - though I am certainly concerned about Trump starting wars without going through congress, as well as the precedent this sets for invading other countries without cause. (Granted, historically, the US has done both, but that doesn’t make it right). Additionally, this could just mean Venezuela swaps out this dictator for a US-friendly dictator.

That’s true of many rules/razors… I wonder if there’s a rule/razor about not putting too much faith in things like murphys law and occams razor.

I’d quibble that the average medieval peasant faced a lot less surveillance than the average citizen of any country today (Though perhaps that’s just a change in methods).

But you are right - and, in fact, I think it’s the case that countries/people in worse circumstances tend to have more kids (probably some weird evolutionary thing but I don’t want to speculate). As tough as times may seem in “developed” countries, most people don’t need to worry about where their next meal is coming from.

(This isn’t to say that circumstances are “fine” or that we shouldn’t improve things - simply pointing out some biological factors). It’s also worth noting that folks in worse economic circumstances tend to having a higher number of people in their “support network” (friends and family - ie, 3 generations living under one roof). Though perhaps this is not the case in the US since it’s culturally looked down upon to rely on family like that.

It’s an interesting phenomenon that can’t be boiled down to 1 or 2 simple factors like government type. Maybe this was too much text and I should’ve just said “I agree with you DeathByBigSad”

Ah, but they were wearing a bright yellow vest! Be honest - would you think twice if you saw someone wearing a safety yellow vest and carrying a drill? Apparently there was construction going on nearby as well, so the basket lift didn’t really stand out.

I suppose you could do it a la “The Dispossesed” where you spend one day/week doing community service

Has the concept of UBI been around long enough to fulfill your requirements? A 20-year study across a large population would of course be superior, but shorter-length studies with less people are necessary to prove/disprove whether those large scale studies should be funded. Not to mention the ethical implications of forcing someone into a large scale study like that before any results have been shown at all.

I think it’s fine to be skeptical of anyone considering UBI to be “case closed”, but small studies being done before large studies is standard practice. You can’t give that kind of grand scale funding to every hypothesis that pops into someone’s head, so it’s a reasonable way of determining what shows promise and should be looked into more.

It is a good point, though I suppose the argument would be that it’s easier for a bridge builder to find paying work than an artist

Well, there are plenty of famous artists who only became famous after they died. Contemporary popularity doesn’t guarantee historic/cultural impact.

I’m not aware of the specific requirements of this program, but Iteland also has a case for cultural preservation, particularly with works in the Irish language, which may not have the international appeal necessary to make a good profit but are important for intrinsic reasons to Ireland.

There’s also the case to be made that in order to become a great artist, you must first be a bad artist - and there aren’t that many jobs for internships/apprenticeships in the arts, especially as some of the more “basic” jobs (cheap graphic arts, copywriters, muzak, etc.) are snapped up by AI.

I think there is an interesting discussion to be had about what an artist must have in order to qualify for something like this. I would also be concerned with “antiestablishment” works possibly being excluded.