[flagged]
It's weird watching folks either engaging in "blaming the victim" or "laughing at the disabled" around this guy.
He appears to be astoundingly, cripplingly stupid. Core dev, huh? Yeah. Cool.
Is that an issue? His contributions are peer reviewed, just like with everyone else's contributions (anyone can submit PRs). Or do you work at place that would fire well performing team members if it was found out they believed in something that was "astoundingly, cripplingly stupid"?
Yes, someone who appears to get things right by accident would eventually be removed in almost every place I’ve worked, except when that person was in charge.
Don't think it matters though; theft is still theft even if the victim is a nutjob, and it's still theft if he didn't protect his keys well enough.
But today a crime is okay if you don't like someone. Hmkay.
Either way, I'm not especially interested in discussing his views in great detail; I was mostly replying to "I don't like this person, so I'm okay with him being a victim", which I take exception to.
Like if someone spread their money all over their lawn to show off; when it gets stolen, I'm not supporting the theft, but I can definitely laugh at the "victim" who did it to themselves. There is room for personal responsibility here...
Besides, it's not like he strewn all his money on the lawn; stealing the wallet + GPG key still took some significant effort. More like leaving a lot of money in the house with a shabby door and lock: not a smart idea, but you'd still have to break through the front door – crappy as it may be – to get at it. It wasn't a "crime of opportunity".
https://www.reddit.com/r/Buttcoin/comments/4936kw/lukejr_is_...
Yes it does. Just because crazy ideas are spread by an old religious organization does not make them any less crazy. There is no provable god. Any of their beliefs are just that, beliefs. Nothing they "teach" can be verified or measured. It is all made up nonsense and you might as well call it crazy. People do not raise from the dead. We die, that's it.
When it comes to marriage, the church believes that relations between men and women that can result in the generation of a child are worthy of special privileges. Relations between impotent men or women who cannot have sex are similarly not considered marriage. If you can find two men or two women who produced a child, the church would change its beliefs, but no one has been able to do so. Note that there's no dependence on their being a god for this one. The fact that heterosexual couplings produce children is an observation. That this relationship should come with societal privilege is a statement one can come to through reason.
Is this indeed so?
I agree with this, for provably wrong, generally accepted as wrong, or blatantly contradictory statements. But from a secular perspective, believing in god(s) is just an approximation or heuristic. Some people need or want that. For my own thinking I've judged it as an questionable axiom that creates a logic hole large enough to drive a bulldozer through, but to each their own. What actually matters is the conclusions and behaviors a person builds on top of it.
Apart from this, religions were created as means of society control. Some people need religion, some can find spirituality without it, some don't have such needs. This guy appears to be a person who would set someone on fire to make sure that they're not a witch.
That's a debate that belongs to the Bible not the Catechism. The Catechism is updated all the time and published in an authorized modern English version.
No more crazy than some people in the middle east. They are not crazy but you can say they are religious fanatics or as the people in the U.S prefer to say Right-Wing
It's no crazier than any other religious belief if you're going to imagine some omnipotent deity just makes up whatever rules they want and they're beyond human reasoning.
I have no idea what the circumstances are in which the Church condones slavery, but it's not like the guy is arguing that we should reinstate plantations or that Epstein was a good guy who did nothing wrong or anything.
Good article that explains it: https://www.catholic.com/qa/the-changing-circumstances-of-sl...
I'd also encourage you to reexamine if "slavery is okay sometimes" is really equivalently "crazy" to other religious ideas (like say, "love thy neighbor"), I think that is pretty uncharitable to religious people.
He might not address Epstein, but he does argue that "heretics can be executed as long as there's due process." That is some low key religious fascism ("it's okay to execute heretics as long as we control the government first"). Most Catholics I know oppose the death penalty (they successfully lobbied to make it illegal where I live, because they felt it was incompatible with their religious convictions).
You might look more into "Traditionalist Catholicism" if you are interested. I enjoyed this short (45m) documentary. https://youtu.be/icwDF8wRgF4
I think taking someone's words out of context and twisting it into "this guy is pro-slavery" so you can gloat about them being robbed is just a shitty thing to do.
Gloating about them being robbed is shitty though.
It reads much more like a pedantic nerd who wants to argue the technicalities of the rules rather than someone who's just itchin' to own some slaves.
> It reads much more like a pedantic nerd who wants to argue the technicalities of the rules rather than someone who's just itchin' to own some slaves.
I think if you understood the context better you may feel differently.
Plenty of dumb things to chose from that they allegedly said.
That being said, I know Luke well from various online fora (di not know he was a BTC dev til today, but it makes so much sense), and he's a bit of an A*hole