Sounds like a classic cursed artifact, read this and you will learn great knowledge, but die slowly…

No no no, it’s pronounced goatse!

Could be, could be! That would make some sense. Like “sooo, anything to say about that?”. Good shout, didn’t think of it like that!

Okayyy, I have absolutely no idea how you come to that conclusion. I have only shared thoughts, beliefs or opinions, which I have tried to clarify, not justify. I have not made any outright claims.

Not one person has asked me single question either about myself or what exactly I mean. I have been presented with cherry picking of words I’ve used, assumptions about myself, filling in of blanks etc to level wild accusations at me despite none knowing me in the slightest.

If you think I’m wrong with my belief that what I saw was sexist - that’s fine.

If you think I have been overzealous in how I’ve spoken - fine also (But that’s a reflection of my frustration, not attention seeking activity that I’ve been accused of).

But the rest…absolute fantasy land stuff!

Not one person has tried to discuss the interpretations you refer to (or anything else) so I haven’t really had anything to work with.

I’ve already stated I’m not outraged. Fed up, frustrated, sure. But anything else is putting words in my mouth, and there’s been plenty of that.

Oh the hypocrisy of accusing me of being full of shit! Anyway, happy to say goodbye too.

Well I gave to completely disagree and I think that’s through a misunderstanding of what my actual point is trying to be.

That is: the choice of image is at odds with the text. Yes I made an exaggerated projection to aide my point that I see this as being sexist ( e.g. would such an image be used if it were a man?). But that doesn’t mean that I am trying to be sanctimonious or looking for an argument.

I simply saw something I didnt’t like the look of and spoke up about it.

My use of ‘for once’ was meant to refer to my belief that women can be all too often sexualised - tying in with my belief that sexism played a part in the choice of the image.

I don’t care for praise here, I only saught to raise an issue that I perceived. I feel no ‘white knighting’ about this, and if you were to meet me irl you’d soon enough learn that feeding my ego is one of the very rare things that I do, but I get your point that it can be easy to fall into such states of kind. I’m not perfect but I don’t think I’m being an ass here. Clumsy maybe, don’t express things like most people maybe leading to misunderstanding maybe. But not any of the rest.

Should I just be quiet about sexism then? Yes, this isn’t a major part of the wider issue of sexism, but sometimes it is important to discuss the smaller, more subtle parts too.

Again, see my other comment for more detail. No offence was felt per se, I just had a moment of intolerance and wanted to say something for once. I think there’s been a misunderstanding of why I said what I said. Please note that I said the image wasn’t sexualised (even if much of her public/promotional imagery is), in fact I was making a point of the lack of it! Plenty of grass touching at my end, but thanks for the thought.

Ok so yes I was projecting onto the article creator. You are correct about that. However I stand by my point that was the writing and the choice of image are jaringly at odds. I.e.

“Here’s person A, look at this serious question they asked about a serious topic, oh and he’s a non serious gif of them at the end” it subtly underminds the validity of what that person said. It is quite subtle, but that’s also part of my point. Prejudices can be very subtle, and I was calling that out.

As a standalone image, I am with you in that description. However, my description is me accentuating my point, not a subconscious outpouring, let alone a reading of that image.

I’m not enraged, but I also wasn’t in the mood to just scroll on by that time. If you read anything into that then all I can say is that you’re mistaken. I get it, there’s a lot of unhinged people out there (such as for the reason you described) but I am confident in my beliefs being overall soundly grounded (if not perfect).

No, very much not. Rather a fed-upness of seeimg woman (and other social groups) belittled in mainstream media). See my other reply re being a little ott, but that’s a reflection of not being in the mood to tollerate more bs like that. Just treat people with some level respect and consistency regardless of who they are. If that was a man, there would’nt be a pic of them slurping a soft drink at the end.

Ok, a little ott in my comment maybe, but it is a jarring contradiction with the otherwise seriousness of the article, which I believe stems from stronger, deeper or ingrained misogyny. E.g. “we can’t have an article about a woman without portraying her in a cute (but at least not obviously sexualised in this case) way”.

I’m sorry, is that gif at the bottom ms Grande? If so, that is misogyny at it’s worse. “Look at all the serious thing she said and did, and now a cutsie pick of her sipping fizzy pop like a vacuous airhead!”

We’ll never make any progress whilst mainstream media continues like this.

Haha I missed that clear horrendously nonsense statement! F-ing social media doom-scroll-disease! After all, what respectable vertebrate would lack any bones?!

Quite possibly, I’m a devout athiest so don’t even begin to think in any religious or spiritual terms (could you tell?!)

But yes, I certainly agree with that statement without argument. Thanks for the discussion :)

Haha, I thought you’d say that! Well no, given how widspread and old religion and spiritually is that’s not possible for anyone but a child raised by wolves to say it hasn’t been an influence!

My centre point of discussion is to look back before, wayyyy before any of these ideas could be cultivated. I feel that you are starting somewhere at a point where these morals are in the process of being developed and refined, if in early days, so your arguments are somewhat self supporting (happy to be corrected, just the impression I’m getting).

You say there’s no point in discussing what cannot be proven with evidence…well that makes this whole discussion somewhat defunct then unfortunately!! I’d already written the below so I’ll leave it should you wish to discuss further despite this :)

You say it was necessary for formation of larger social groups etc but…I go back to my basic starting point of “I don’t like…” As you say there needs to be discussion, development and unity of belief for it to become a recognisable, repeatable, lasting moral system. But that just demonstrates my point that basic, individualistic morals came first then once complex language started to develop then shared likes and dislikes become more prevalent. Imagine what it was like before? Just take a look at chimpanzees.

The developement of shared beliefs, religious or otherwise, will no doubt have occurred simultaneously. Overlapping, replacing and morphing over millions of generations. Some ideas being discarded/diminished as other new ones arose - e.g. that great 1 in 1000 year volcano eruption replacing the end of the 20 year flood occurance, to use my natural disaster example again.

But “I don’t like…” is still the starting point for pretty much any discussion about morals as far as I believe.

Glad you took the time to read this. The paragraph “Religion likely evolved by building on morality, introducing supernatural agents to encourage cooperation and restrain selfishness, which enhanced group survival. Additionally, emotions like disgust play a key evolutionary role in moral judgments by helping to avoid threats to health, reproduction, and social cohesion.” Describes much of what I’ve discussed so far. Though my thoughts re disasters is omitted. I think that they are very significant if you look at e.g. Roman and Greek gods.

You say that it’s required to bring together larger populations, but plant cultivation - the beginnings of farming will be far more significant.

As a slightly sideways thought, take a look at e.g. African tribal social structures - relatively small population groups (villages) may exists with low/intermittent positive interaction (not fighting over resources), but can still share similar or near identical spiritual beliefs and moral codes. I.e. one does not automatically determine the other. They can develop side by side or independently.

I’d disagree with that as well. I believe that “why did that storm happen?” “Why did drought kill everyone?” Etc - “the spirits and gods are angry!” As an answer in the absence of the level of scientific knowledge to expain it is the starting point.

Bear in mind that these questions will have existed before complex language developed. And you can’t develop a widespread religion without consistant communication. You can’t form the concept of a spirit or god without generations of discussion.

Some came from religious teaching, but mostly I got my moral code from my peers and personal experience. I very much start with treating others as I’d be happy/like to be treated. If you follow that principal to start with then most other morals fall into place.

Not sure what you’re getting at about how far back you have to go but perhaps I can head off that discussion by saying that most morals can exist in the absence of religion and spirituality.

Re your second question. No. And I doubt anyone has, but that’s because morals form a part of religious beliefs. As I discussed, morals first then religion based morals after.

Religion or spirituality of some form or another has existed for as long as we have any detailed information on any societies. The main problem with this discussion is that spiritual, religious and plain moral beliefs long predate any written language system so we can’t refer to any solid evidence.

If you start with “I don’t like that” as a simplistic moral, then that predates any language as well and therefore spirtuality or religion.

I also disagree. All you need is to say “I don’t want/like that” and to understand that something could be lost or suffered to yourself or others, given a particular scenario. That can then be used to create a system of morality where the majority are in agreement with each aspect.

Oh and empathy. That’s pretty critical!

I’d say that spirituality and religion is then formed off the back of and alongside general or universal moral beliefs and that many aspects cannot exist without morals in the first place.

Yes I believe that’s true, at least for some species. The poop is collected for use as a fertliser hence the resulting tendancy for infection.

Iirc, the phrase “bat shit crazy” comes from the harvesting of tropical bat guano (poop) for use as a fertliser. The poop is highly toxic, or contains toxic bacteria, which makes the harvesters go a little crazy! Not all bat species have this toxic poop.

A single finger for a wooden club, beaten by rock that breaks it & a cupped hand for water, that rock sinks in (looses) and wooden club flosts on (wins). Sorted.