Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
The Hazards of Belief
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
I was listening to the No Dumb Questions podcast today. It was a compilation of discussions with people who are going out of their way to help during C19.
All great stuff. But the first one in the list struck me as odd. I was only half listening to it. It was a woman who was using charity donations to get food to people who need it - including front line medical workers. So it sounded great.
Something was off and I wasn't sure what. So I listened again and I got it.
The public and local restaurants were sending over free food at their own costs to workers who were turning their nose up at it because it was not "kosher".
So now this woman is setting up this additional charity to get them the food they will deign to eat.
Fair enough I guess people can and will eat what they will eat. Who am I to judge? But the odd effect of religion hits me all the same. There are people genuinely struggling to eat who need the support of charity. And a charity is being set up to pander to picky eaters who absolutely can afford to eat but their personal hobby makes them uppity about food and to turn up their nose at what is given to them. Food that others in the world would die for. Almost literally.
Worse it sounds from this woman that due to the complications and certifications around Kosher food, that its more expensive. Which probably means that every charity dollar sent to feed these picky eaters could probably feed two normal eaters.
She has a go fund me. I won't be using it
But it is still nice to see small communities like that supporting their own I guess. 0 -
-
Advertisement
-
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »I was listening to the No Dumb Questions podcast today. It was a compilation of discussions with people who are going out of their way to help during C19.
All great stuff. But the first one in the list struck me as odd. I was only half listening to it. It was a woman who was using charity donations to get food to people who need it - including front line medical workers. So it sounded great.
Something was off and I wasn't sure what. So I listened again and I got it.
The public and local restaurants were sending over free food at their own costs to workers who were turning their nose up at it because it was not "kosher".
So now this woman is setting up this additional charity to get them the food they will deign to eat.
Fair enough I guess people can and will eat what they will eat. Who am I to judge? But the odd effect of religion hits me all the same. There are people genuinely struggling to eat who need the support of charity. And a charity is being set up to pander to picky eaters who absolutely can afford to eat but their personal hobby makes them uppity about food and to turn up their nose at what is given to them. Food that others in the world would die for. Almost literally.
Worse it sounds from this woman that due to the complications and certifications around Kosher food, that its more expensive. Which probably means that every charity dollar sent to feed these picky eaters could probably feed two normal eaters.
She has a go fund me. I won't be using it But it is still nice to see small communities like that supporting their own I guess.
to use words like "personal hobby", "picky eaters" is particularly condescending. i thought you were better than that. you ask "Who am I to judge?" but then proceed to do just that0 -
-
-
-
ohnonotgmail wrote: »most likely they would. not like they would start chomping down on steak and kidney pies. they're just picky eaters really.
So if you refuse to eat anything that might stave off starvation you're de-facto picky? A rather extreme case, but I remember reading accounts of the siege of Peking during the boxer rebellion where the besieged had nothing to eat but dogs. Problem is the dogs had nothing to eat but human remains and a number of people died of starvation rather than eat these particular dogs. Picky or what?
0 -
Advertisement
-
So if you refuse to eat anything that might stave off starvation you're de-facto picky? A rather extreme case, but I remember reading accounts of the siege of Peking during the boxer rebellion where the besieged had nothing to eat but dogs. Problem is the dogs had nothing to eat but human remains and a number of people died of starvation rather than eat these particular dogs. Picky or what?
that seems to be the opinion of some. Not a phrase i would use myself. there are exceptions to kosher rules in matters of life and death so i doubt the people involved were starving to death.0 -
-
ohnonotgmail wrote: »most likely they would. not like they would start chomping down on steak and kidney pies. they're just picky eaters really.
They are. And there is NOTHING wrong with that. They are being picky about what they eat for often personal reasons. You appear to think it condescending to point that out. I do not agree, clearly. Nor am I seeing a reason why I might. It is absolutely perfectly fine to be picky and choosy about what you eat.
And in fact contrary to your post I suspect many of them WOULD start chomping down on them because many realise that their perfectly ok dietry choices are choices of privilege. And that there are times when it might make sense for the good of others to put those choices on hold temporarily. Your ideal might be that your family eat no meat. Thats great! But if you are starving and struggling to feed your children at all, it might be time to suspend your ideals for a time.
And many wouldn't make that choice, such is the diversity of our species. Each individual could go either way. Maybe they hold their ideals strongly enough that they are willing to die for them. That's fine too so long as they are not ensuring someone else, like their own kids, pay that price for their personal ideals too.
However the ratio of those who would to those who would not is likely to be skewed if the group in question believed their dietry choices were mandated by the creator of the universe. Which is the point of my posts above, given the title of the thread. Again: My post is not about judging their choices, but the influence of what they believe about the nature of the universe ON those choices. It's what the thread is about.
As I said above I can only put myself in that position and if I really needed charity I would likely not throw it back if offered, let alone for paltry reasons like my hobbies. What I personally would never do however is throw it back in favour of more expensive equivalent charity that ensures that the cost of me eating reduces the food available to others.ohnonotgmail wrote: »that seems to be the opinion of some. Not a phrase i would use myself. there are exceptions to kosher rules in matters of life and death so i doubt the people involved were starving to death.
I doubt it too. But SOME people probably are. So as I keep saying that FOR ME the idea of being picky about which charity I avail of knowing that one will reduce the charity going to others, is not a choice I could ever make. But again that might change if I believed which one to choose was mandated by my invisible all powerful "friend" in the sky.ohnonotgmail wrote: »telling it like it is. I seem to remember the supporters of a particular politician like to employ that phrase.
Sure and I have a beard and so did many horrific dictators. Youre employing a fallacy here quite often used by the occasional theist visitor. It's the old "I do not have to address or rebut what you just said if I can liken it to something someone else said or did instead" fallacy. The old "Oh you are an atheist.... well guess who else was an atheist" canard move. What was it you said above again.... oh yes.... "i thought you were better than that".
Not to mention the fact that I never actually said "telling it like it is" in the first place You imagined that. 0 -
-
ohnonotgmail wrote: »well i'm certainly no theist but describing somebodies religion as a hobby is just a deliberate attempt to antogonise. Just telling like it is.
I do not see an issue with the description. So no you are not "telling it like it is" you are in fact doing what I ACTUALLY said above before you put words in my mouth which is "telling it like you see it". The phrase I actually used.
However how I see it is that the word hobby is a word that by definition distinguishes an activity from ones necessary activities or ones career. Activities not done professionally and not for pay. It is a word defined to describe things you do in your free time. Often but not necessarily for pleasure. Often mapping on to trends in society.
The word is perfectly apt it seems to me and I am not seeing anything condescending about it's use. Rather what the choice of word is NOT doing is affording this particular hobby the elevated levels of feux respect and deference that practitioners of it often demand and which I refuse to give.
I have met people who think their chosen football team is their life. They live and breath the team and everything about it and dedicate every available moment to it and cherish it deeply. They would sing or stand to songs with their hand on their heart quicker for their team than their own country.
It's still their hobby too. It's what the word means. If the word bothers you then that is your issue, not to be projected out as some dark agenda of Antagonismus you have dreamed up on my behalf.
On a lighter note: ON the default settings of viewing the website this is the first post on page 666. Yay. At least I assume it's the default given I never changed them.0 -
-
-
ohnonotgmail wrote: »i stand by what i said. i cant see any other reason for using such a condescending phrase.
Except the ones I just gave you. But I admit some people do rather make up motivations, agendas and intentions for others even in the face of THEM saying what their own ones were.
I myself missed Psychic on my college course.I don't think it is accurate to label religion as a hobby. A hobby is something done for enjoyment in one's leisure time.
Yes. Leisure time. So that part of the definition fits. Enjoyment, I am led to believe by many theists I've talked to that fits too. "regularly" is another term in the definition in most definitions I have read. That checks out too.
Here are other aspects I find often in definitions of the word I have read:
"typically during one's leisure time" check
"not professionally and not for pay" check
"Hobbies include collecting themed items and objects" check
"engaging in creative and artistic pursuits" check
"encourages acquiring substantial skills and knowledge in that area" check
" tend to follow trends in society" check
"A hobby became an activity that is practised regularly and usually with some worthwhile purpose." check I suppose, or at least THEY like to think so.
"engaged in especially for relaxation" check for many people, admittedly not for all who get so invested in the hobby it actually becomes quite a source of angst for them.
It seems to fit a hell of a lot more attributes of the definitions I find, than ones it does not. The most arguable one is "enjoyment" and even then it really depends on the religion. I have been, and I loved every minute of it, to a "black soul mass". Absolutely enjoyable experience. But granted as the Muse in the film Dogma says "You Catholics do not celebrate your faith, you mourn it".
I think it is a hobby. It fits every definition of the word I know. The problem is that we have been somewhat conditioned to elevate it to something more than a mere hobby, to afford it some kind of respect or deference. To the point that you're not MEANT to use accurate and descriptive words for it. Much like theists get uppity on occasion when you call humans "animals". We ARE animals. But they do not like that word because many of them want us to be something more than that. So even though the term fits perfectly, they do not like it. Even some atheists don't. They have been conditioned to think of us humans as "more" or "other" too and the word "animal" does not sit well with them.
I suspect that the response to the term "hobby", strong enough as it was to become more of a focus than the actual point I was making while using it, has a similar reaction for similar reasons. Even those of us who have no religion or belief in gods STILL have this residual deference to it that makes perfectly accurate words seem more insidious than the are, or were ever intended to be when used.Can't think of many Irish kids looking forward to a good old Mass of a Sunday morning for example.
I am not sure your children not enjoying YOUR hobby being forced on THEM negates the definition in any context though? No definition of Hobby I have ever seen in fact suggests that it is no longer a hobby if your kids do not like it when they are forced to do it too.
Watching Manchester United play live in Old Trafford is a hobby, even if you drag your kids along and they are miserable every minute of it If your kids hates building model trains, then model train building is still a hobby even if you force your kids to do it with you and they do not "look forward to a good old Build of a Sunday morning" for example. 0 -
Had some fun looking into the etymology of the word. I miss posting on boards and how it sends me down rabbit holes I would not have gone done on my own.
It seems the current usage of the word Hobby came into our language probably around 1816. It was a contraction of the word "hobbyhorse" and came to mean "a favorite pursuit, object, or topic". Again I think Religion fits here. The first and more so the third of those three things.
What gave me a giggle in the context of religion is that the etymology website suggested that this usage had a connected notion that it was an "activity that doesn't go anywhere." Do I need to say "check" again? 0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Realistically, people from certain backgrounds have been - for want of a better word - brainwashed from a very young age about certain foods. The result is not people being "picky", but of revulsion as to what they deem unclean.
Absolutely. I would still call it picky eating to a degree, but not while losing empathy for why they are that way.
I myself have a life long visceral and powerful revulsion to Baked Beans in sauce, and porridge. It is not just that I can not eat them. Right now I can not even be in the room with people eating them, nor can I sit near a plate containing them. My negative response to them is quite powerful. Physical and Emotional. I just have to get out of there.
I actually have no idea where this response comes from to be honest. Probably some buried childhood things. It makes no sense as most of the constituents I adore in other contexts. I use the same "Haferflocken" that herself makes porridge for the kids with over here for many things I love. I eat many types of beans in many other forms in many other dishes. And I use Tomato Sauces a lot.
Speaking for myself though, which invariably is the lens through which the story I first posted yesterday was viewed, if a time of crisis came such that feeding myself and my family relied on charity.... if they sent over beans and porridge I would be eating it. No doubt in my mind. Feeding my family, and keeping myself fed so I can be the carer of my family, is everything. Especially if I knew that refusing it meant a less efficient charity would be sent my way that meant my eating meant not one, but >1 other people would be without. If I refused the food, I would absolutely take the label "Picky Eater" on the chin without reservation.
The thread is about nothing more than "Hazards of belief" and if belief in a certain god/religion is causing people to make the opposite choice as a matter of course, for no actual good reason.... then I think with or without judgement it qualifies for the thread. Which is all that my post was originally intended for.
If and when a C19 vaccine comes to pass in all this, anti vaxers and religionists who turn away medical interventions and needles are going to be a problem. The question will be raised of course whether their unsubstantiated personal beliefs should give them a right to refuse vaccination and still consider themselves members of our society. I am not looking forward to that debate 0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
I think you're way off the mark there, Nozz. The Wikipedia article for example describes the various categories of hobby and religion doesn't fit in any of them.
I listed quite a lot from the article it did fit. In post #9979. Renumeration and pay was only one small thing mentioned in some sources. Not all. It does not appear to be a complete prerequisite at all. As peregrinus pointed out, you can actually make money while doing your hobby. I think the pay distinction is more that a "hobby" is not meant to be your main source of income / occupation.
That all said however..... it's wiki. Not a dictionary. It's a useful resource but it is not gospel (heh). It is a collection of community opinions and a useful source to cite as part of a package of citation, but not in isolation and not in lieu of actual dictionary and etymology sources.For example is voluntary charitable work a hobby?
Good example and I would say yes. I for example work with refugees in a project called "Refugees on Rails" in which I work with them, entirely for free, to train them "full stack" programming skills. I very much see it as one of my hobbies. I do it in my free time, for pleasure and relaxation and well being, and it requires I take on knowledge I otherwise did not have/need.
All my human rights work with Atheist Ireland. AAI. Atheists Germany. FFRF and more I would see as making up parts of my hobby set too yes. So too would I list any time I spend in the gym or running 10k. Running is one of my hobbies. Though it's currently on hold as I felt my first ever twinge in my knee and I would rather seek medical advice before I run again. Difficult in the current climate of Covid alas. It would be a hobby I would be sad to lose
and I am quite angst ridden about it at this time. But I always swore I would stop at the first sign of injury / damage.Even by the standard dictionary definitions religion fails as it is often not a matter of choice or an activity people derive pleasure from. For example, being born into a strict Muslim majority society where you are forced to live your life in accordance with Sharia law isn't exactly comparable to stamp collecting now is it?
You are not comparing like with like here, and are instead talking about something where we would be much more in agreement. I would be applying the term "hobby" to pursuits one does of ones own volition. If religion, or religious practice, is being forced upon you and you have no choice in it then absolutely I would lose the term "hobby" and seek another. I would be looking for words in the direction of "Abuse" "indentured" and more to describe that.
Many of the definitions I offered for "hobby" refereed to terms like "free time" and "spare time". Time spent on activities FORCED Upon you sound neither free, nor spare, to me. If I were to be using the word "hobby" in the way you seem to be suggesting I am using it: Then Slavery could be a hobby. Thankfully I am not using it the way you seem to think.
No I think a very necessary distinction to use the word correctly is to distinguish between actions that are forced upon you against your will, and those not. No one appears to be forcing Joe Soap in Ireland to be Catholic or going to their Club House of a Sunday. Though I realise the argument that THEY think their god is forcing them to do so might be the first genuine rebuttal of my usage of the word "hobby" therefore. 0 -
Peregrinus wrote: »None of the defintitions that Nozz quotes mention money or payment, and it was his mentioning of money that first brought me into this conversation.
I see, I did not quickly realise that was the focus of your reply. I actually introduced that solely because it was mentioned on the WIKI page. WIKI is a community effort, so if you feel it is in error by all means go edit the page entry!
The exact sentence on the page was: "A hobby is a regular activity done for enjoyment, typically during one's leisure time, not professionally and not for pay."
I am actually in agreement with you 100% that there is no reason, nor should there be, that getting money for it should mean it is not a hobby. Actually for a short time recently, since I did one for myself, one of my hobbies was building high end PCs that were much better than anything DELL offered for half the price using components off various websites. I would sell these PCs then for more money than I paid to build them, and still 100s less than DELL would charge for the same power.... so my hobby made a profit.Peregrinus wrote: »If money isn't the issue, what is? I think what characterises a hobby it that it's relatively inconsequential.
As I said it brought a wry smile to my face in the context of religion when I read the etymology site on the word and found that the original meaning when "Hobby" was first used on it's own as a word separated from "Hobby Horse" was to indicate an "activity that doesn't go anywhere."Peregrinus wrote: »Charles Darwin never had a paid job as a scientist or a biologist; he never sought one; he didn't trade in botanical or zoological speciments; he mostly wasn't paid for what he published. But nobody would characterise his life's work as a "hobby", would they?
That would be the point I was making too, so we are in more agreement on most of this issue than I first thought. Our actual final differences may be minor.
Most of the definitions of the word distinguish a hobby as an activity that would be distinct from whatever would be classified as your main occupation/career paid or otherwise.Peregrinus wrote: »A few weeks back - before he fell ill - I saw an article in a UK newspaper criticising Boris Johnson for treating his position as PM as a hobby. The criticism was that he didn't take it seriously
I think that does an injustice to the word "hobby" and may be the reason people dislike my usage of it here. If people think the word "hobby" trivialises something to something you do not take seriously, then of course I am going to get push back for using the word as I do. So you have done me a service by showing me a curveball on this I had indeed missed. It does not mean I am not using the term correctly still of course, but it does go a ways to explaining why people are bothered by it.
I do not think it is correct at all to use the word "hobby" to indicate someone is not taking something seriously. Quite the contrary. People's hobby's can often be more important and serious to them than more of or even anything else in their life. I have met a person or two for whom their football team is more important to them than family or career for example. It's still a bloody hobby. My work with refugees I mentioned above has brought a lot of seriousness and meaning to my life. It is still one of my hobbies however.
Just like you would point out no dictionary outside WIKI seems to be including payment as part of the definition of the word "hobby" I would similarly point out that not one definition includes how seriously one takes the pursuit either.0 -
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement