• uenticx@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    4 days ago

    If you have to self-police like that, your followers don’t believe in the morals you preach.

    • thallamabond@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      4 days ago

      Reminds me of being asked how I keep from murdering and raping people, since I do not believe in an eternal damnation.

      • reksas@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        4 days ago

        scary people, if religion is only thing that keeps them from doing that, which that question implies.

        • Steve@startrek.website
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          4 days ago

          How do you hold back the nonstop compulsion to commit horrible crimes which we all feel constantly??

          • reksas@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            3 days ago

            I do only the crimes that my dear friend Mr fibbles the sockpuppet has approved.

    • socsa@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 days ago

      Which is precisely why this will fail. Christians don’t actually believe anything they preach. They just want to be seen as pious, and a phone carrier doesn’t give them a visible virtue signal.

    • kylie_kraft@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 days ago

      I think this network will primarily be used by parents to keep their kids from being tempted into sin or discovering that queer people exist

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 days ago

      Freud would give you a long diatribe about the distinction between Id, Ego, and Superego.

      You can believe a thing is wrong and still do it. Ask any smoker. You can do a thing and wrestle with the psychological consequences afterwards. Ask anyone who has ever felt guilty. You can plan to behave a certain way and become derailed by impulses or anxiety. Ask anyone who has ever succumbed to fear or pain.

      Self-policing is a logical response to an illogical/immoral impulse. Tossing cookies out of the cabinet and ice cream out of the fridge is the first step towards dieting. Cancelling your credit card is a technique to curb impulsive spending. How is this any different?

      • TheTechnician27@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 days ago

        Freud would

        Can we please not. I don’t bring up hylomorphism when I talk about physics, so can you please give psychology a similar dignity by treating it like an actual science?

        • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          4 days ago

          I don’t bring up hylomorphism when I talk about physics

          Psychology isn’t a question of physics. The complex machine that is the human brain isn’t some single-action lever with a discrete well-defined input/output relationship. Neither is the human brain some binary circuit governed by logic gates and trivially deterministic sequences.

          At some point, you have to approach psychology experimentally. You can’t just wave your hands and assume you know how the black box of the mind is going to work. And you can’t dismiss the accumulated experimental data because you don’t like the person who spearheaded its compilation.

          • TheTechnician27@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            4 days ago

            And you can’t dismiss the accumulated experimental data

            I don’t. I actually read psychology meta-analyses about accumulated experimental data, and relatively few individual papers are using terms like “superego” (and I can find two meta-analyses, one of which is just describing psychoanalysis). Even then, it’s within a modern framework of psychoanalysis which has evolved over 100 years, not regurgitating what they think “Freud would say”. You’re citing Freud specifically by literally saying “here’s what Freud would say”, so don’t strawman me by pretending I’m anti-experimental data or whatever the fuck.

            Psychology isn’t a question of physics.

            I’m not saying it is; it’s an emergent phenomenon in a chain thereof. I’m saying it is a science that deserves to actually be taken seriously, not mired in “here’s what someone who barely understood the field as we understand it today would’ve said” like that holds literally any weight about why people behave the way they do.