News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
view the rest of the comments
Weird how the USA has so much in common with countries like Saudi Arabia, yemen, Somalia
Map of places where a judge can OK a marriage. I’m not saying the USA is good, but Europe has plenty of spots wheee you can technically marry as a 16 year old (or less). Worldwide problem.
Yeah, marriage at 16 with parental consent is pretty commonly allowed throughout the world.
I'll never say no to a map
What's going on with China? Some kind of longitude dependant system?
The minimum age differs by gender. Minimum age for men is 22, minimum age for women is 20.
I was joking, but that sounds stupid.
Shows a map with places allowing to marry children 14 and younger
Marrying 16 year olds is a "worldwide problem.", concludes.
Wait, you think marrying 16 year olds is worse than allowing 14 year olds? Because if the person you are replying to thinks marrying 16 year olds is a worldwide problem, then shows a map with tons of nations allow 16 AND YOUNGER to marry, and you think they came to a bad conclusion.
This isn't complex calculus here, just simple logic. Any nation that allows 14 year olds to marry also allows 16 year olds to marry... indicating that a map showing a TON of nations allowing 14 year olds, 15 year olds, 16 year olds and all ages to marry does show evidence of a worldwide problem of allowing 16 year olds to marry.
No, the exact opposite. Obviously.
In Spain it was raised to 16 not so long ago and Committee on the Rights of the Child (part of UN) recommended it: https://www.telemadrid.es/noticias/internacional/ONU-recomienda-Espana-minima-casarse-0-1180381983--20101010044758.html (sorry, can't find good source in English). So basically it's 18 but in special cases court can allow a 16 year old to get married. And UN body responsible for protecting rights of the child thinks that ok. So for me saying that child marriage is a worldwide problem because of countries like Spain is like showing
and saying that police killings are a worldwide problem. A bit misleading.
The comment says 16 OR LESS. 16 year olds are still minors.
So, apparently, does France. France has the same exceptions to allow 16 year olds to marry adults. And Spain. And Italy. And virtually the entirety of Eastern Europe. Belgium has no minimum age as long as a judge allows it.
If you look at the map of where minors can get married to adults without parental consent, Scotland is more lenient than anywhere in the US. Scotland is actually one of a tiny tiny few countries that allow minors to marry adults without any exceptions required. Adults can just outright marry children in Scotland without issue. Only 7 countries in the world allow that. Most in Africa and the Middle East. And then Scotland.
Its not popular - hence why it's changing. Nuance is lost on the internet, but people really need to start chilling out about making blanket assumptions of huge swaths of people.
Its one of the "automatic assumptions" people have - that it IS illegal. So they wouldn't bother looking it up.
Most Americans don't have the slightest idea of what is/isn't legal. Gotta remember, before the internet, you had to get a physical copy of your state's statutes. These change frequently, and are quite large.
Legalinfo first started in 1994, and it took a much longer time before states have their own websites.
Y'all Qaeda lives
Yes, there are literalist religious people everywhere.
Imagine that you were omnipotent, omniscient, and master of the entire universe. You decided that you were going to give one -- just one -- book to humanity. It would be their moral compass, an insight into their nature and into yours, and act as a guide for how they could live rightly and walk a path that would lead their souls into an eternity with you. Obviously, the first thing you would want to put in there are some totally unscientific, archaic behavioural codes for menstruating women, and for pregnant women after they give birth. You would want to be sure to help them regulate slavery and specify how badly they were allowed to beat their slaves. And of course, you would want the book to be chock full of mythology -- a creation myth, a flood myth, a fictional exodus, and hagiographical stories about how your loyal armies killed the shit out of everyone who dared to worship the wrong gods. There is a point here about the Bible that, in any estimation, really cannot be understated: there is absolutely nothing in the Bible that could not have been simply made up by Bronze-Age human beings. Nothing at all. There are no profound scientific insights that such cultures could never have known. There is some bogus cosmology, a flat Earth, and instructions for how to slaughter animals among other profound insights. Now, some Christians are keen to point out that the Jews did apparently get some things right. They had “Imagine that you were the perfect, omnipotent, all-knowing Lord and Creator of a sanitation system... but so did ancient Egypt, the Hittites, the Elamites, and the Aegean civilization. So, big whoop. They also had some codes for cleansing themselves after handling dead bodies or people with leprosy, but these rituals also included ritual animal sacrifice. Not exactly innovative. Moreover, the rituals themselves were stupid -- after handling a corpse, for example, you would be "unclean for seven days" [Numbers 19:11]. This obviously had little to do with hygiene. Then we have the New Testament. Written by anonymous authors decades after the events purportedly happened and filled with internal factual contradictions, with no trace of the original manuscripts and thousands of copies rife with errors, there is nothing about the New Testament that demands that a rational person should believe it to be divinely inspired. I challenge Christians to show that the evidence demanded that we believe the supernatural claims of the Bible are anything more than made-up. There is simply no reason whatsoever for any rational person to make such an assumption. Is the Bible really the best God could do? Is this book of myths, scientific blunders, and ambiguous or even downright demonstrably bogus historicity really what anyone really thinks the omnipotent Lord of the universe would bestow upon humanity? That this God would ignore humanity for the bulk of its 200,000+ years on the Earth, only deciding to reveal his One True Religion to a small, mostly illiterate Bronze Age tribal culture? Think of all the things the Bible could be if it were really divinely inspired. Think of all the knowledge and insight such a holy book could contain that simply could never have been made up -- profound scientific insights, timeless moral instruction, and revelation clear enough to prevent the innumerable schisms in Christian theology over fundamental issues, like how to attain salvation. Any sane, rational view of the Bible shows it to be little more than the confused scribblings of ignorant Bronze or early Iron Age tribes.
Seems more likely it's Hellenistic-Roman period literature. The bronze/iron age stuff largely marketing, dab a teabag on it & say 'ye olde booke'.
“Consider if you go the New Testament for instruction on how to live, you are told to give away all your possessions, make no plans for the future, reject your family if they disagree with you, and stay celibate if you can (see respectively Matthew 19.21, Matthew 6.25, Matthew 12.48, and 1 Corinthians 7). This is the outlook of people who sincerely believed that the Messiah was going to return next week or next month, anyway very soon. It is an unlivable ethic, and when after several centuries the Second Coming had still not materialised and hope of it had been deferred sine die, more was needed in the way of ethics. Where did it come from? From Greek philosophy – not least from the Stoics – and from the Roman Republican virtues of probity, honour, duty, restraint, respect, friendship and generosity that Cicero, Seneca, Virgil, Horace, and countless others wrote about and enjoined ceaselessly. ‘Christian values’ are largely Greek and Roman secular values. So Christianity is not even Christianity. It is more correct to say that ‘we are Greeks and Romans’ and meant that we are defined by the following words – and therefore concepts – of classical Greek and Latin origin: democracy, liberalism, values, history, morality, comedy, tragedy, literature, music, academy, alphabet, memory, politics, ethics, populace, geography, energy, exploration, hegemony, theory, mathematics, science, theatre, medicine, gymnasium, climate, clone, bureaucracy, dialect, analogy, psychology, method, nostalgia, organ, encyclopaedia, education, paradox, empiricism, polemic, rhetoric, dinosaur, telescope, system, school, trophy, type, fantasy, photography…take almost any word denoting political and social institutions, ideas, learning, science and technology, medicine, and culture, and it derives from the language – and therefore the ideas and the history of ancient Greece and Rome."
The 27 book NT has rather a lot going on, one can pull pretty much whatever they wish from it and laity reading the scriptures more a novel protestant meme that led to one hell of mess if you look at the state of bible worship in the US.
Cut your balls off for God as Matthean Jesus was preaching, or one could look to force Jezebels into bed and kill the kids to teach her a lesson, but deacons and above should only have one wife..something for all.
Lots of peeps thought the end was coming much as we have today, but I'd be wary of sugesing all the ascetic traditions were hysterical end times peeps. The same apocalyptic memes trending in the modern day via zombies or aliens or nukes or asteroids or whatever. I think around Mary Shelly is where the public seems to prefer sciencey sounding hysteria devoid of theological language but that seems more fashion vibes.
My kids seem to prefer Harry Potter as their virginal magus messiah that touched death to save the world, like temu Jesus to me written by a high grade twat but to each their own.
Not sure it's all Greek/Roman either as the western latin tradition seems keen to push. African, Syriac and many more seems rather important. Baghdad more the center of the Christian world than Rome for some time afaiu.
Then imagine modern people taking it all seriously. It is heart breaking.