Split (1)

train · 5.86k rows

text stringlengths 0 9.69k

I mean, I just told you why it's not going to be apolitical, so that doesn't really engage with the analysis that I just gave you, but also Hewlett is going to be less accessible, which means that that message won't even get out there. So I think that you don't get that benefit. Anyways,
On inclusion, we get three different back business from the OP government team as to why this hurts the safe space that pride is discouraging people from attending and building the community. Claim, number one, that the presence of police officers is incredibly damaging for many people who choose to come to these marches. I want to point out that their side doesn't act to make many marches safer, because in lots of rural areas like the southern United States, you have safety and numbers in the police. But the problem is not internal violence. That was not a sophisticated claim coming out from opposition, but rather hate crimes or other external acts of violence that might accrue to these people to feel comfortable to go to go to this march in the very first place in Texas requires that you have a sufficient mass of people, which means that the visibility and level of scale is important, but also that you have police officers who protect you. And in those cases, these people are excluded.
The second thing that we get is that they're going to be significant right wing parties who attend these marches without any analysis. Again, the argumentation is that mostly parties. Don't want to be right wing as we get from closing I want to go to these marches as we get from closing government. Then that's probably untrue. And if it's a case that they do go, which is more true, they'll likely try to advocate for gay votes, which means that they won't be oppositional and they'll actually be trying to cater towards them. No, thanks.
The last thing we get is on alcohol, and that there's lots of alcohol at these parties, so lots of people don't feel comfortable, sure, but I think lots of people actually enjoy the alcohol environment. They actually draw some people in, presumably too. If you shift some of these people to who live, that means that that environment, no thank you also changes and presumably becomes more about the celebration, as many of these people who go to pride about that celebration and no thank you, the shift over will keep that kind of character.
But what did we tell you? No, thank you. First of all, I told you that you're less likely to create a relatable community, because the loss of internationalization means that you don't see people from halfway across the world who are also gay but have friends and are able to live day to day. You don't actually include people like, for instance, gay police officers or gay politicians. So on that metric, they fail.
The final claim that we get is from closing government. And I think they give a very simple claim. They say that this is going to polarize the right this is going to polarize moderates, because this is seen as extreme or will be endorsed by right wing parties, as Dorothy points out, is it rebutted? This is symmetric, because it's unlikely that a right wing voter would want to go to an extremely controversial rally, which is the press. Have some OG’s case, because they say these need to be extreme policy changes, and therefore it's not clear why they ever prove anything on the comparative so that means that right winners and moderates are unlikely to go but probably on our side the house, we're more likely to bring it in moderates, because we normalize the messaging of pride and normalize these things. We bring it to the mainstream, we make it more likely that people view things like gay marches as part of the mainstream, as dressing plant wine as Okay, as you see from TV shows like Paul's great race.
At the end of this debate, we give you the clearest path forward. We provide hope for vulnerable youth, and we also make sure that we have political change that is plausible and likely very proud to oppose. Thank you.
</ow>
Motion: This House, as religious individual would prefer to be a part of a religious community that proselytizes over the one that does
not.
<pm>
PM Speech Transcript:
This is a debate about what the good life looks like for someone who's already religious. It is not a debate about the general elements of religion, organized or otherwise that are not specific or unique to the fact that a community has an intention and a doctrine, a support mechanism to proselytize. Moving forward, we want to talk about three big claims in the speech. First, as to why religion, in terms of playing a role in shaping the way look at the world, has a far worse effect than you are, less of the house than us. It's been ambiguous. But we'll see why in a second. It's more a Methodical claim at this point. Second of all, why your belief in the faith that you currently hold, regardless of what faith it is we going to make this argument as general as possible so they can apply to a large number of belief systems, is going to be significantly stronger when you have to sell it ties and challenge those faiths and find answers to those challenges. And last of all, why this induces you to be charitable, to reap the benefits of that charity, but crucially, in a way that is distinct as compared to a more secular approach or a non religious approach.
So first argument on the metaphysics bit, I think there are two possible reasons why a religious community might decide not to attempt facilitation of a large scale. One is a deeper doctrinal belief, as some religions hold, that you simply cannot be saved, and making any attempt to try and save you by telling you about the presence of a religion or to convert you is not going to change that outcome, that salvation is intrinsic, as opposed to something to do with the choices that you make. The reason, I think this is a far worse belief to hold about the people around you is that very often, most people don't live entirely in the civil religious communities. What that means is that you interact with individuals like family members, friends or colleagues who are not at the point from the beginning, members of that community and the way they're doing these individuals, they're incredibly helpless. They can't be safe, and you know, they do to damnation. But it also means that in the worst cases, no, you view them as sinful. You view them as less than you i think one of these might be worse than other, but either way, it shapes your relationships with them, which is why this is important. It is important because you, over time, can't help but see their lives as less than yours in some way, wasted in some way or worse. And I think that it's damaging to the fact of trying to hold a positive conversation with them, to trust them, to confide a secret to them, or what not.
More importantly, it also becomes hard to build those relationships over time, because you you just struggle with the fact that on some level, they're doomed. There's nothing you can do about it that makes you feel incredibly helpless as well. But the second conceivable explanation for this is that you think they can be safe. The religious community chooses on focus those efforts on certain individuals, for instance, by choosing to focus those resources inward. The reason that's even worse in some cases because the agency you know you could have saved them if you tried to tell them about it, perhaps not all of them, but you could, at the very least, if you have a fighting chance to stay what is likely to be an infinity in hell, or what that hell looks like. Means that, again, in your interactions with them, you feel incredibly complicit with the fact that they're going on their daily lives, not realizing, because of an effort you could have made, that their lives made dead lives and their outlive significantly better. So I think either way on outside of the house, a world in which you're trying to sell ties, it's a world in which you, whether or not it's truth, consistently believe you are doing your best to make the people around you better. In essence, it means they are worth saving, and that is a far more aspirational, positive view of the people around you. That's a good thing, and the way we build relationships
Second your belief in faith is struggling. Why is this? When you proselytize, you have to answer and respond to challenges to that faith and how it fits the modern world, because you are so many individuals who, by definition, don't already buy into the belief system who are trying to get them to buy into why is it good? Because in the process of hearing those challenges and answering those responses by doing things like seeking advice from religious leaders, or in interpreting religious doctrine in a way that allows you to be consistent with your current behavior, whether or not you actually end up changing your views of a lot of these things, you become a lot more grounded and understand why you hold those views, or how those views are consistent with other parts of the belief system where you are in the process of proselytizing and answering those challenges. No this argument has nothing to do with whether actually successfully proselytize someone. It is the process of perpetually trying to proselytize a broad range of society that need to answer a broad range of views.
Why is this important? Three reasons. One, because a lot of religions involve surviving temptation, either to switch to an alternate religion or to just become secular. The easiest way for you as a religious individual, as the motion stipulates to fight that is to have a strong, grounded belief in the talents of that system, which are renewed over time, it will see an argument about free speech and its applied to religious context. Second, it is easy as well to feel dominated or insecure in a rational rationality slash scientifically dominated world, which is yet another reason to think that if you, over time, can find ways of explaining your faith that are consistent, even if they're not believed by everyone that. Makes you much more likely to believe that amidst the challenges that other people will be levying you, last of all, to the extent that most religions give you some sort of a moral dictum, it is easier to follow that moral code when you believe the underlying doctrine or system. So the benefits of a religion telling you to do a good thing are amplified by the fact that you are not likely to question whether that religion is practically correct, and as a result, whether the stuff it tells you to be a good person is correct as well. I'll take at that point.


<poi>
What explains why you be happy when you're proselytizing. What happens when you're not?
</poi>


Cool, we’ll get to that. Well I mean look we're not proselytizing, you will be reaping the benefits of the proselytization to be much more secure in most belief. That's the way this argument, by the way, applies.
The last thing I want to say here is that it is also put conversely easier to persuade religious leaders to accept moderate changes to the depth and time on the premise that this is beneficial to a proselytizing end. This argument does or this appeal does not exist in religions who do not actively seek to proselytize for the reason that there is no need to cater to a for example, a younger generation, as a Catholic church is doing across the government world, because there simply isn't a need to expand the number of people by actively persuading them. Instead, what you then care about is preserving fidelity to the movement as it is. Ideally, if you as individuals are dissatisfied, it is easier to persuade if other people share this view as statistically likely. I guess it is easy to make persuasions to change or change interpretation of the Doctrine if you are in a community where the avenue of personalization is a good political, political, quote, unquote, justification for this.
Last of all, this allows you to be charitable the way that is unique. The first thing I want to deal with, very briefly, is that at some point this part might say it is better to channel resources internally, as opposed to persuade people outside. And this is 100% true for the reason that there is a balance to be struck, and white people will strike that balance. The reason for this is to proselytize individuals who do not already believe in the doctrinal system. They don't see like they don't see someone living in tough lives, a member of this community, and go, Oh, but that toughness is justified because of murder religious dictator might be they're not buying from that system yet.
In other words, the way you proselytize is partly about explaining the validity of your system, but it's also about showing that members of your community are thriving, that they are leading good life, and the needs are taken care of, both soulfully and spiritually as well as materially, which is why there will be a good balance to our pre resource that's allocated and doing facilitating as well as helping the community remain broadly impact and helping each other out. But the the positive thing we want to forward here is that proselytizing to the form of charity is a good thing for individuals for simple reason that it helps them create meaning their life and feel like they're making a difference.
The reason it is superior to the secular version of it is one on the secular end of things, there is this whole media justification for why you were doing this, which means that it either happens a lot less frequently, or even when it does happen, it feels a lot more like a chore, as opposed to something you are happy to do because of some divine promise in the afterlife, or because it is something you genuinely believe in as part of the larger system, all these reasons we oppose.
</pm>

<lo>
Okay, opening opposition case is going to be very simple. We're going to talk about how this kind of communities reduce the liberty and opportunity of make chose, to choose by these people, because the community is so close and makes so clear dogmas that you're not going to be able to choose between different alternatives. Like would like is therefore going to be much before two contentions in what opening government has said.
First, they make a really weird argument about people cannot be safe and like you abandon these people if you are not making proselytism What I think is just the other way around most religions, or at least most mainstream religions in the world. What they think is not that they are abandoning the people which does not believe in the same God or in the same values. Most religions actually Islam, Catholicism. Make this, or at least moderate Islam, this very clear, is that you can save yourself, to your behavior and to the way you believe in something actually Catholics even have a dog authority. You can salvation, get salvation without believing in the Christian God. If you go through a good life and you have good actions with this while, when you are a proselytism, you're almost implanting the other way around. You mean that you have to spend a lot of time doing this, because this is really important. And this is so important is because you are acting to submit or to somehow help these people to go to the heaven or whatever. Therefore, I think that the people would think that this will not to be submitted is in their side of the Earth, and think, what impact are this? If you are doing this all the time, that you think this is so important, you are going to get extremely frustrated when this does not work. And we think that this is the most likely outcome in vast majority of cases, because people or a are already deeply religious in a different way that you are in a different community. Or B, you. Don't really care so much about religion, and you think that these people is like, like, really intense people that you don't want to chat with, I think that the percentage of success of these people transforming the opinion on the religion of the people is increasingly really low, and therefore they're going to be really frustrated, even if they are right. And mainstream religions also think that the people that don't believe in the same God is going to be to the Hell, they will be not so frustrated, because they're not putting all team efforts in this task, and therefore they're not like the entire time of their life watching how all the people which is not converting to their religion they can think, Oh, one more fail. And this person which I was not able to convert now is going to go to the hell. I think that that's much tougher.
And secondly, about the reformat and religion, I don't think, I don't really trust why it's so important to put all your effort to your intellectual effort in like reaffirmating Your religion when you can reaffirmate other things, for example, in relation with other people, which also brings happen to you. But secondly, I think that the the frustration also applied here. I think that it would be really frustrating to think that you have really good, basic religious ideas, but you are unable to put those ideas in the head of labor.
Now going to the case of the opening opposition. Our main point is that this is going to reduce vastly the freedom and the liberty of the people in this community. Why we think this community has to be really, really, really strict and they have to share really common values which are really common and very like limit the capability of trading. What three mechanisms are there? First, because you have to have a unique message to start with that to to to these people, if you want to proselytize, you have to have some kind of dogma which is really clear in order to have all the people which is doing the proselytism in the same direction. Actually, usually it's like a big head or a big boss, which is the one which direct this proselytism and say, which are the important dogmas and the important values you have to sell second, because we think that you have to migrate a lot in this kind of communities, like really, really a lot. You have to read a lot and investigate, as they say, you have to form goods to work and divide like the city for the places you want to go, door to door. And suddenly, even your success in the community depends on how good you are selling this product this religion to other people. Therefore you have to put a lot of effort into being good in this that means that this is the third part probably you will spend lots of time in community. You will have to internalize a lot the value that they have, and they will be no yet, a lot of control of those values. We think that this is incredibly bad for at least two or three months.
First, we think that we will have really little space to have a different kind of religion than a community. That means that in our world, we have, like, the possibility of reinterpret their religion and leave the religion or way. But in their case, it is much more difficult, because we are in a process of constant making a homogeneous idea of this religion. And therefore I will have less choosing to be like my own way of religion, but certainly a more practical point of view. I think that first it will be much more stigmatization for the people which go out of this life, for the sample, people which get divorced or which have some kind of a feeling of sexual liberty. This is few cases, but they they they exist many in many communities, and they will be much more stigmatized. And thirdly, I'm related with the second, it will be much high pressure over the people to follow those rules. That means that, because my entire life is focused in that community I part, I spend so much time, so many hours in my day, doing this community life with the religion, it will be much more pressure in me to follow their values. If I get divorced now, I will have no friends. They will make me feel really sad. They will be all the time pointing me with the finger. That means that I have much more pressure to follow their values. And therefore, even if I think I should not do something, probably will be somehow enforced by the social pressure.


<poi>
Being a member of a community that proselytize does not imply that you are personally doing it as a full time job.
</poi>


Obviously it's not, but in the comparative with our world, it's more in the our world than in his world. I mean, probably if you don't spend so much time doing this, there will be no such a proselytized community. What we think with this argument is that obviously it's communities which do not proselytize, which are also really strict, but that's not necessary. But in the other hand, when you want to proselytize a half a unique message and this kind of community, you have to be very strong with your dogma and to try to make an homogeneous values in that community and others seek a lot of the liberty of them.
Second part of our case, we think that this will enforce a lot the relationship with third person, or persons outside this community. First, because of the characterization of these people as the people look to these people, most people think that the witnesses of rawa, all these people, are really intense people, which I don't want to have fire on in my life for real reason. First because I don't want to see anything about another religion. I already have one or another values. But second, because sometimes many people think that these values are going to somehow endorse their social environment. For example, if you are a boss, you don't want your employees being all the time, by by employing, talking about changing your religion, etc. Or, if you are a parent, you don't want your child to be all the time with child which are like so personality, all the time taking talking about new religion. We think that this is important, because most of the consequence of this is that probably you will have to to close your circle of who you are friends, the close of children, which with people which you really engage with, because you are not going to be able to break through the barriers of most people, because they think you are intense, that they are propagating values that they do, do not like, and that you are like some kind of social like intense people. Therefore this is bad, obviously, because you have less relationships, but also it's more strong the second argument, because now you will have to be even more within the circle of your point. Thank you very much.
</lo>

<dpm>
So, I think the crucial clash which is developing this debate is between two different visions of proselytism, a proselytism was about flexibility and attempted to persuade people in a reasonable way, and a proselytism, which consists of constantly repeating a single dog or in the home that someone else will adopt it, whilst hardening your own position. Obviously, both these types of proselytism have existed historically. We think structurally, ours is more likely to exist, both in general and to exist in the modern world. And therefore, overwhelmingly, that's likely the type of proselytism people are engaged in, and the type of proselytism which is affecting people's lives. We'll talk about why that is later for a characterization of proselytism, we don't think that modern proselytism tends to look like constantly shouting at people around them in public, the fact that they're going to be damned to eternal judgment unless they convert to your religion. It probably looks much more like looking for the opportunity when you'll know your friend is getting a bit lost in their life and share them with them. The thing which is important, which gives you a sense of meaning, it looks like providing services to people who know are struggling in their lives, so that when they're considering who's helped them, they'll be aware that your church is the person who helped them when they were down, and therefore they'll be potentially receptive to your ideas. Proselytism doesn't want to be done in a crude way, but it can be a deeply delicate and subtle process.
Three points in this speech before that, rebuttle to what we get kind of opening opposition. So I think the most important claim they actually make is that this is a clash between religions who see themselves as exclusively saved, and religions which say, Well, you know, if you're it doesn't really matter if you're a Catholic provider, you're a good person. I think every religion makes some form of claim of preference for its believers, that the degree of preference in accordance to them might vary, but you would generally say that your believers are in a unique relationship with God. Why? Because you have to be arguing that you are providing the moral solution, or you are not really a religion. Therefore, regardless of whether you have an emphasis on faith, people are better equipped to access divine reward if they are working through your religion and a member of it, therefore any religion is necessarily making a claim to be helping its followers, and therefore a claim that other people are worse off. We think the crucial difference is between those religions which see other people as redeemable, like the vast majority of religions which currently exist, or those religions like, for example, some of the forms of Calvinism, which have existed historically, which just says that some people aren't the elect, and therefore you should just reject those people who aren't the elect and not help them.
Secondly, in terms of frustration, we would say that if you are constantly shouting people, they are going to go to hell, and then they don't, they don't change your religion, but it's going to be a deeply frustrating experience if what you are trying to do is engage in meaningful conversations with people about something deeply important to you. We've got to be a very fulfilling experience, even if the result of that conversation is not what you'd ultimately hoped it would be. And sometimes you will convert some at which point you will feel a sense of profound elevation for having shared with some of the most important thing in your life. And sometimes you won't, but you'll still get a sense of fulfillment for having tried. We think people could be accruing a spiritual reward from engaging in proselytism even if they're not necessarily successful in doing so. So it's more likely affirming and deeply frustrating.
In terms of the analysis about why there is going to be a turn towards homogeneity and backwardness in religions which engage in proselytism, the first thing you know, just you need a message that's definitely true. What they don't make and what they don't show analytically is why that message therefore needs to be inflexible and certain. I would make a historical claim, which I think is accurate, that when religions have been trying to convert people and win people over, they do two things. The first is they incorporate elements of those other people's ideas, because turning up to someone and saying, We have a completely different worldview. Drop everything you believe in is inherently unpersuasive. By contrast, highlighting areas of synergy between your belief systems and the more persuasive way to look at things to talk to people. So for example, you can look at the incorporation of ancestor worship into Catholicism in China, or the incorporation of paganism into early Christianity. Or similar, the way that religions have syncretized over the course of history, by adapting air into each other's message. But secondly, when you are competing for followers, and you're engaged in competition, that tailors itself to have an attractive message, which generally means one which is more flexible. Because although there'll be some people who'll be attracted to constantly being told they're doomed, the majority of people are going to find it more flexible be told that even though there are some things they could do better at, they also have the option to succeed and the opportunity to entertain some sort of enlightenment. So I think there's two claims there. The first is a claim about what is persuasive to people, and the second is an economic claim that you are going to try and appeal to people more by selling them an attractive vision, and by telling people that they can be redeemed, rather than by like, telling them that they're constantly doomed and therefore having a homogenous message. Secondly, in terms of centralization, we would know this without actually decentralizing, because you require large numbers of people to engage in the focus of prosecutors, or at least to fund it. Go for it.


<poi>
Do you think most people join a religion after a long, confounding theological debate?
</poi>


No, we think most people join a religion because their parents give them that religion. However, when people change their religion, then they generally do think about it at least quite carefully, like closing opposition might object to the level of certainty or thought people put into it, they probably put a greater level of certainty and thought into it than they would almost anything else. It's just that people aren't that good at thinking. They still think about it like at least quite a lot compared to other things,
In terms of centralization, that we think it makes it less centralized, because you're dependent upon your followers. And even if you are centralized, it's the more pragmatic people who end up in the center, because they have to be those who are constantly engaging with other people, as described by tech way, and which was never really rebutted. Thirdly, in terms of putting in lots of time and effort, they claim we put in lots of effort, and they jump to it being unenjoyable. We have all put infinite amounts of effort into debating. We still find it like, at least reasonably enjoyable. People could put a lot of effort into it and find it a deeply fulfilling aspect of the life. But also, people could choose to what extent they they pursue this like people aren't dogmatic when they pursue their religion. They could build it around their life in the way they want to, finally in terms of stigma and how you put pudding off others, I think you are going to be more flexible in your implementation of your rules, because you've got to keep your followers on side and keep them enthusiastic. And if you tell them they're going to go to hell, then they won't go out and proselytize.
But moreover, you're not going to for the previously explained reasons about crudeness and proselytizing the intelligent way. You're not going to tell people to constantly get their children to talk to everyone at school, because that would be actively counterproductive for exactly the reason to describe by opening opposition. And therefore, therefore you wouldn't do that. So in terms of two brief further thoughts, firstly, that you have to be uniquely responsive to people when you are required to go out and proselytize, and therefore you're going to depend on them, and you're dependent upon large numbers people. But it also gives people a unique empowerment when they are the philosophical agent of transformation. Are you as the individual believer? Is the person who is charged with saving your fellow human and giving them the most important gift in your life? We think that gives people a great sense of elevation, but secondly, a claim on the good life, we think fundamental life is frustrating and meaningless, and people find it really difficult to get things which cut through and make it feel like life is worth living, feeling you have the ability to spread the most beautiful thing in your life and beyond the ability to help your fellow people by giving them something which is genuinely meaningful, and get the opportunity to engage in meaningful conversations about that gives you immense power and dignity, which gives you great, great confidence as a believer, and great enjoyment of your life. Very proud to pause.
</dpm>

<dlo>
I am going to do two things. First, I'm going to tell you what most of the benefits they claim are not unique to religions and strong communities and rather achievable by other means. Secondly, we tell you where do you get better relations? And thirdly, reduce individuality is harmful or not when it happens.
First, on OG, basically they clearly there are a lot of benefits of joining a strong community. I have two things to say here. First, most of the families, they claim are perfectly achievable by really easy alternatives. So most of the things that Raffy tell you are not unique. For example, the satisfaction of life and elevation. It is true that you get when you spread the word you believe it's good, but it's also true when you get it by charity or by doing people, or making people like wouldn't have survived in other ways. So you go to like any other charity, and you make people feel better. You make people that they’re gonna survive. You make people they're going to change their minds in other ways. Or you make them eat when they couldn't, or you make them have a shelter when they didn't. Probably the amount of satisfaction is almost equal.
Second Consistency with your life, probably not, very importantly, not that religious, and most importantly, strong support from the community. It is true that you can get strong support from your community if you are religious. It is also true that you can get that symmetrically from your friends if you spend time with them. So the point is that most of the things they say and you can check your notes are probably symmetric to very easy alternatives. What they don't tell you is that the most important benefits of religions are achievable in our sight. So the most important parts of religion are true. For first, you have a moral code of conduct which is good, because easy to adjudicate whether something is good or bad. And secondly, you have the spiritual spiritual salvation that you know that there's good and bad after death. Those two things are perfectly achievable in our role. You can stick with those and still not engage in such a strong community, nothing. So the point here is, most of things they say are perfectly not unique. Secondly, where do you get better relationships? Harvey told you, but Raffy told you something very interesting, which is, look, probably you'll look to them either biased or complacent due to the release. However, you're telling that look, even when that's okay, you don't have the moral duty always to convert them, because you can believe that even if they behave well as they are, they can go to heaven. What Raffy rebuttals is look, but you have preference for them because they are part of your community, not that by the same logic they gave you when you failed proselytizing, you look them even worse. You look at them and tell them, Oh, but I did achieve. I did not achieve, even if I was trying to save them, even if I was trying to do them good, even if I did my best efforts, I didn't make them. so the same analysis they gave you when your relations get biased, they get even more biased when you don't convince them. And here's very important, the POI that Rafa conceded. He says, Look, many times you will fail. Why? Because many times that religion came from birth, your parents grew up in the sense so many, many, few times they achieved what they want. So what I'm telling you with this is that the most times you achieve this, like you won't achieve this. And hence the logic that they give you, or why they stigmatize them and you don't believe they're good, and the bias and the complicit, it will be even harder. In that point when the relations and how it works? we tell you one important thing, which is that it is much more difficult to engage in meaningful relations with others when you belong to strong communities such as this one. Why is this true? Because you are always going to disagree on core and fundamental things in your daily lives. You're gonna disagree whether x is good or bad. And the most important thing, you're never gonna Clarivate on that fact, because it's part of yourself on the comparative inner world. You are religious. But if you get to talk about, like, I don't know, pre marital relations or abortion whatsoever. If it's not that core to you, you can concede some things. Whether you are as strong as a community, you need to dependent community in each single time because you're part of a proselytizing community. Probably you won't be able to conceive. Probably you won't be able to engage in meaningful relationships with no one there not your relations, because you won't be able to engage in anything that is important to you, which they don't agree. That is frustrating in relationship. When you tell your friends you always want, when you tell your friends that probably abortion is shared, even if they think otherwise. We think that the worst is your relationship, much more than when they say or buy some unconfident lasting on reducing individual liberty. So having told you that actual proselytizing plan having a strong message and opportunity cost of your time, Raffy battle is two form. First, he says that modern proselytism doesn't imply that hard proselytism, it is true to a certain extent. It doesn't need you full time doing it, but it's also true that as also later, it implies a strong need to maintain the message. What I tell you with this is there's a demand to be consistent with your regards to your feelings, to your thoughts, etc. If you're proselytizing, if you're part of the James community, I don't know in New York, if you're part in Williamsburg, you cannot go out of the moral standards of your religion because it's part of what you do, your community defines itself by propagating that idea. Hence, that's the reason why you need to be consistent. Because if you're not consistent, it is very difficult to you to keep propagating that ideas. That is the precise logic. What gives you that the community presses you a lot. It presses you not to go outside, to do different things. So yes, it doesn't apply proselytizing at every moment of your life, but implies in every moment of your life is probably fine, like the fact that you're part of that community, a community that some of you, not every time, but most of your time, are saying that it's good to be part of the community. How does that deal with you having an abortion or with you having priority of relationship? Third thing is that they have a lot of oppression due to this point. That's why it's so important. That's why they are high demanding. That's why it's about closing.


<poi>
When you're trying to sell your ideas and trying to recruit more people, you're much more likely to actually adapt in trying to actually move according to?
</poi>

That’s not very new, that's about the that Raffy gave also to this one, we say that there's competition, and this is false to a large extent. So yes, there is competition between religions with a because of the fact that they told you the men take it though you don't sweep religions. When you're 30 and you're Christian, then you're like Muslim. That doesn't happen. Vast majority of the case, it doesn't happen. So first that competition is not as real as they present. This is not a perfect market. With a I choose to go to another option. If my option is bad, probably it's not true, but will be. And more importantly, that competition needs to engage with the fact that each conceit that you make in order to be more attractive, it's also criticizing us to the community belong to. So if the Catholic Church suddenly say, Look, we're fine with conjunction, probably that is bad for them too, because more of the most of their stigmas, of their like, of the dogmas, are being related to God. So they cannot do just cherry picking in their volition without being inconsistent. They have a need for consistency. They have a need to spread a word that is unique in order to have their message spread, even if there's competition. We believe that that strong power they have come to have you out of the way, makes you qualitative, a lot of individual limiting at the end of the debate, the comprises most of the things they say are achievable in other ways, whether the claim that you lost part of your life and part of your relationship is unique to our world. Hence, within the brief.
</dlo>

<mg>
Three things in my speech, first thing why practically it is more empowering ti individuals who are member of these groups. Why it helps them to achieve more political capital? And makes their lives much better. Second of all why moral is unacceptable to be a part of a religious community? that is not trying to spread the Earth and Thirdly characterization unique characterization of these closed religious communities and why they are very harmful? why they are more homogeneous? and why they are much more like to be underground? and really but before that two pieces of quick rebuttals first of all with regards of frustration that we heard from opening opposition I think Raffy’s point was good enough but I would like to add much more first of all if you are its even if it's difficult even if you are frustrated and you cannot reach every other person once you reach one single person the happiness you get his much higher which gives you much more motivation to continue over the course of your lifetime but even if that's not true the fact that it's much more difficult nowadays To spread the words that means there is a challenge in that religion which in incentivizes those individuals to actually question which parts of the Religion these people are challenging and not necessarily being convinced and hence creative mechanism for you to be able to change those unique parts for example, If the abortion is a very unique point than its much more likely for you to find the sub religious group that actually okay with abortion rather than not necessarily change sticking with your own views.
Second of all, they say that look you disagree with the fundamentals if you are trying to spread the words and its much more difficult for you to be a part of this religion I don't actually get this point when you look at the catholicism or Islam if you see that some parts of these religious communities are discriminated against gay people for example you can easily find your own sub community and that move Christianity that is much more accepting to LGBT ideas right. You can find so many churches nowadays that are actually performing LGBT weddings in their own church because there is a demand because they have been losing LGBT community because of those narratives and now they have an incentive to change that and create this community and even even in Islam you find so many sub groups that are actually have female imams because historically they have been disenfranchising females in power structures now because of this questionings and because of those frustration because they cannot for example call more women or LGBT People they have incentive to create the sub communities and actually improve and be more inclusive no thanks.
Let's start with why it's practically more empowering? A because if more people are believing into your religion which is similar world views to you the better, because more people understand you in a global scale. That means you're much more likely to find an appropriate community that you can actually belong and you can feel satisfied. But moreover, the fact that you are belonging to a group that is globally accepted and understood, that means that you are less likely to be discriminated because you belong to that group. That means you are not when you are walking on the street or when you want to perform your religion, you are less likely to be attacked and less likely to victimize and marginalize in comparison to their side of the world. Moreover, that means, if we are living in a Western liberal democracies, and in case, the secular tides are increasing the government and somehow oppressing the religion and the way you can exercise your religious identity now, because you belong to a bigger group, because you're trying to spread the word, you actually have higher political capital. That means you are actually in the position to be able to change and actually create checks and balances against the secular types that prevent you to be able to exercise your own religion. This is uniquely important, because only on our side of the house, this individual, this religious individual can make sure that they can exercise their religion in a way that they do, but on their side of the house, they are a fringe group. They are marginalized. They are victimized and but most, more often than not, in the media, they are portrayed. It's just couple of cuckoos who doesn't let anyone inside their group. That means, as a person, since it's an act of motion, this incentive of this religious person is uniquely important, which is something that opening government did not touch, for this person to be continued, to exercise their own religion and find that community, find that empowerment. This is crucial to actually have higher numbers and have bigger impact. But moreover, it actually creates also more structure within religion. This doesn't necessarily mean centralized or decentralized, but just the way it's organized, is much more likely to have a formal structures in the sense that you're trying to reach more people, that means you're much like to have fundraising activities, incentive to get donations. That means you're much more palatable to people, to be able to attract diverse groups of people, because you're trying to increase your sample size. And think of it as a political party, right? If you're in the center, that means you're trying to appeal to majority of the ideas, or more ideas. They have more members, rather than a fringe, far right radical party who is focusing on one idea. That means, when you have more fundraising and more donations, that means there are more schools, more hospitals, basically prone friction of services, more medicine, more shelters, etc. That brings, on average, even if you belong to this individual, as an individual, you have higher chances to get access to services on the secular world you may not have, right? That's a unique another unique benefit, the closing government is breaking due. Yes, closing


<poi>
Judaism is not initializing. Are we a bunch of cuckoos who think everybody else is going to.
</poi>

thank you very much. I'm pretty sure, like, exceptions exist on both sides of the house. And I don't think Judaism necessarily the only close community religion that is not necessarily, you know, cuckoos. And I could also say that, like, majority of this case doesn't necessarily apply to Judaism. There are many other religion religious groups that are very much close and very much cuckoo. Look at the self harming Christians, for example, right?
Second of all, why it's morally it's unacceptable to be part of a religious community, because you're basically selfishly benefiting from salvation, but you're not necessarily sharing the salvation with other people. We think morally, as a religious individual, you have a moral obligation to also save others. This is not opening governance, that because you get a benefit, it's not about the utilitarian benefit that you are getting. This is about principally, that if you're going to be safe, if you're only selfish saving yourself, actually you're not fulfilling your own religious duty to be able to make sure that other human beings are also safe. And I think that's the perspective that we are holding.
And lastly, by what kind of characterization of close religious communities we are talking about? So obviously, these people think that they are chosen, they are special people, and they are born special, which incentivize the closely, mixed, tight community. This has two implications. First of all, it is very, very difficult to get out, because only way for these communities to continue to exist is to. Make sure, because you're not recruiting to make sure that members actually stay there, that means they're much more likely to be radical, they're much more likely to be oppressing, and they're much more likely to be hard liner. That means, as an average religious individual, if you're somehow questioning or have some kind of doubts, you're actually being suppressed and oppressed much more, and you're not getting to let out. That makes it much more Cult like, and that makes it much more problematic. And second of all, it is much more homogeneous, right? Because you don't necessarily have that many of people, and you don't want to attract that many people, more often than not, these groups are not much more homogeneous. That means it's much more likely an echo chamber, and much more likely to be actually prone to radicalization, because if they want to spread the word, that means that they have to self correct mechanism. But if you don't have that duty, that means you keep believing your dogmatic views and more and more, which makes it much more problematic thing. So we have to look at what kind of religions we are talking about, and I do consider Judaism may be a good example on their side, but you still have to engage with all the other subgroups and Cult like religious groups in order to win this debate. Thank you.
</mg>

<mo>
So two points on framing, and then two things in constructive. The two things in constructive were going to be, who are the people joining those communities, and therefore, and who are the people joining those communities, and therefore, what do they look like, and how do those power dynamics play out and technically unequally of the communities to support their like people, both theologically and material and and materially and socially so before that, two points of prayer.
First, governments think being religious is very easy. They seem to think that religious people are a bunch of sheeple which are just satisfied with the Word of God and with the simplistic answers and never challenge anything and have no internal world to speak of, which is why they're like, Oh, you'll be religious, you'll be happy, you'll be giving simplistic answers to people, and then you'll be satisfied, but questioning fear and those things are nascent. Are nascent facts of our human existence, and religious people don't feel them any less than people who are not religious. The question is, when they have questioning, when they have existential dread, when they have anger, when they have difficulties in life, how are they able to cope with these and those are those things that are left unanswered by government with their flag conceptions of religion.
Secondly, which communities are we talking about? And this confusion it has to do mostly with is most of my answers to closing government. Why? Because they've just confused two axis. One axis is piety. How extreme is your religion? How like life controlling it is? The other axis is proselytizing. Those two axes are separate, orthogonal. They don't necessarily have to go together. You can have an extremely pious religion that doesn't proselytize at all. You can, sorry, you can. You can have an extremely pious religion that does proselytize, for example, Jehovah's Witnesses, for example, the Mormons. And you can have an extremely, sorry, a very loose religion that doesn't proselytize at all, for example, Reform Judaism, for example, Buddhism. So we, like, yeah, you guys wanted to exclude like, 30 million people out of this debate. Now you're going to have to exclude 300 or, I don't know, like 1 billion people out of this debate. So good luck with that. We found Buddhism, the second example for this for non personality. So those two things are separate, and the fair apples to apples comparison that you guys have to make in parallel is a non proselytizing versus the proselytizing religion, where the religious piety is similar, compare like Lubavitch Jews, which are proselytizing to just compare on a similar level. I am not cheat by doing the diagonals.
Okay, so how does the people joining those religions? And this answers pretty much everything, because everything had to do with strictness rather than anything else. So how do we how can we talk about the people joining the boom? Who are the people joining those religions? We say joining a religion is a major life event. You have to admit that you were wrong. You have to admit that you are going hell. You have to abandon your initial assumptions about life. You have to abandon your initial assumptions about the world. And you break off almost any and every social you break off a lot of social ties when you do because a lot of people are not happy with someone near to them converting their religion. In fact, almost no one is so. Therefore we say it takes an extreme situation to be willing to do that, which is why we ask them in POI, who do you think is willing to do that? Is that me, after you've sat down to me and explained to me why you. Know Jesus died for my sins, or is it more likely to be people in a moment of life crisis, people in a moment of extreme, of extreme difficulty, willing to forsake everything, to try one last moonshot, to try God's Gambit, if you will? So there, and this is why the people joining religions, and if you look at the real life examples, are people from either of two situations. One, the situation when they are in most of the time. One, a situation of extreme personal crisis, where they where they've lost, where they've lost, where they've lost some of the things that bar them. They've lost family, they've lost employment, they've lost and they've lost economically, etc. Or secondly, a situation where there's a big material power asymmetry between the converting and the converted. So this is like how all of you know, Africa was converted, mostly the people proselytizing, just significantly richer than the people not proselytizing. Give them a massive material advantage. This is why, like, they gave us the China example as well, so and so. This impacts how everything else unfolds in this debate.
The second thing that impacts it is that saving Lost Souls is always going to be a priority for the community, because it's like the, it's like the zero to 100 gamut, right? You save someone completely from the dead to be able to do that effectively. How do those things shape the services that the believer gets from the community and their life experience? We say first, we say, we say, the religion has several tools which are very important in order to help its people. The primary and perhaps the most important tool is the central sermon. You have like Sunday Mass and Christianity, you have like the Friday sermon. In Islam, you have a central event which is most which is most crucial. Why? First of all, because it's the most attended one. Second one is the it's the one in which your community can most support you, because the most people are there. Secondly, you have, you have the ability to give people specific services, to give them couples counseling, to take life counseling, to give them specific attention. Thirdly, you have the ability to get to have like theological group and let people teach. And just briefly, you have a lot of those things, and also with your social support, we think crucially, all of those things become diverted into the very low level of recruiting those people who are maybe less educated, who came into the religion, and those people become top priority. What does that mean? That means the Sunday sermon doesn't develop a long time. It stays the same because the new crop of recruits, it's always the same. They always want to hear the same simplistic messages that brought them there. You'll be better economically, God will save you. It'll be fine. Everything is going to be materially better for you. Now, unfortunately, when you're a real living, breathing religious person, you know that that's not fact, even though you are a true believer, a lot of bad stuff has happened in life, because bad stuff sometimes happens in life, but you get no theological answers, because whenever you come to your parish, what you hear is the simplistic things that drew the people in Yeah go.

Subsets and Splits

No community queries yet

The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.