Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)E

Encrypt-Keeper

@ EncryptKeeper @lemmy.world

Posts
4
Comments
1080
Joined
3 yr. ago

  • Pope Leo XIV dislikes AI, won’t authorise creation of AI Pope—"If we automate the whole world and only a few people have the means with which to more than just survive"~ there’s a big problem

    Jump

  • That’s not how confession works. It’s not a “get out of jail free card”, and it doesn’t take a broad generalization to know that even somebody deluded enough to think that it is, isn’t going to tell a priest “and I’ll do it again” and still think they’re getting anything out of it. That’s just a scenario made up entirely in your head, and I wouldn’t waste too much of your energy worrying about scenarios that only exist in your head. We have enough real problems to worry about.

    Again, there are absolutely restrictions to freedom of religion

    Yes, and the seal of confession is not one of them, nor should it be.

  • Pope Leo XIV dislikes AI, won’t authorise creation of AI Pope—"If we automate the whole world and only a few people have the means with which to more than just survive"~ there’s a big problem

    Jump

  • A child rapist wouldn’t say that in confession. Confession is a sacrament where you confess your sins with regret, for the purpose of earning forgiveness. If somebody was not only not remorseful for what they’ve done, but are already determined to continue in the future… why would they be at confession? Your example makes no sense.

    Putting aside the total lack of reason and sense in your hypothetical question, you’re asking what would happen if a criminal went into a confessional booth not to engage with the sacrament of confession, but to brag to a priest about a crime that they committed and boast that they’re planning to do it again? That would not be protected by the seal of confession since it isn’t one, and the priest could report that person.

    And one of the founding principles of our nation can hardly be considered a “loophole” when it was placed there on purpose with cases exactly like this in mind.

  • Pope Leo XIV dislikes AI, won’t authorise creation of AI Pope—"If we automate the whole world and only a few people have the means with which to more than just survive"~ there’s a big problem

    Jump

  • Is your demonstration an attempt to equate listening to somebody’s regrets about committing a crime in the past, with perpetrating a crime?

    And what do the Muslims have to do with this?

  • Pope Leo XIV dislikes AI, won’t authorise creation of AI Pope—"If we automate the whole world and only a few people have the means with which to more than just survive"~ there’s a big problem

    Jump

  • The seal of confession is protected by the first amendment as it’s a core tenant of the Catholic religion, and the U.S. government doesn’t have the authority to change religious doctrine of a religion that predates the country by millennia. There are decades of legal precedent for this so outside of a landmark Supreme Court ruling, it’s protected. If you were to violate the constitutional rights of these priests, you wouldn’t catch any more child abusers, you’d just be jailing people for their faith.

    Also, the seal of confession is not “protecting people”. The church isn’t going to defend a child abuser, nor protect them. There is nothing to stop clergy from reporting child abusers to the authorities. It only protects speech shared during the sacrament of confession. If a priest were to find out that somebody is an abuser in any way other than through confession, they would report it the same as anyone else.

  • Pope Leo XIV dislikes AI, won’t authorise creation of AI Pope—"If we automate the whole world and only a few people have the means with which to more than just survive"~ there’s a big problem

    Jump

  • Great idea, let’s just disregard the first amendment entirely. And then once we’ve done that, the government would also be free to establish a state religion and force all of us to follow it.

    I think we better put that monkeys paw back where we found it.

  • Pope Leo XIV dislikes AI, won’t authorise creation of AI Pope—"If we automate the whole world and only a few people have the means with which to more than just survive"~ there’s a big problem

    Jump

  • In many states priests are mandatory reporters.

    But they can’t be forced to abandon their religious beliefs by the government by breaking the seal of confession.

  • Pope Leo XIV dislikes AI, won’t authorise creation of AI Pope—"If we automate the whole world and only a few people have the means with which to more than just survive"~ there’s a big problem

    Jump

  • That’s not a rule he can get rid of. The seal of confession is a matter of doctrine and divine law and the pope isn’t authorized to overrule god.

    Also, again, there’s no rule against turning in child rapists. There’s a rule against breaking the seal of confession. If a priest finds out about a crime in any manner besides confession, they’re free to contact authorities.

    And it’d be a dumbass idea anyway. If a criminal is coming to confession in the first place then there is some remorse for what they’ve done, which means that person might be encouraged to turn themselves in. If you started reporting them when they came to confession, it’ll work once or twice and then criminals would just stop going to confession. Which additionally, is an anonymous act. The priest doesn’t know who you are when you go to confession.

  • Pope Leo XIV dislikes AI, won’t authorise creation of AI Pope—"If we automate the whole world and only a few people have the means with which to more than just survive"~ there’s a big problem

    Jump

  • If you’re referring to priests turning in child rapists via breaking the seal of confession, no. Doing so is an automatic excommunication from the Catholic Church, that’s not something he’s instituted.

    This week he did affirm his zero-tolerance policy on not only child abuse within the church, but also any attempts to cover them up. So the closest thing I can think of is the fact that’s he’s essentially threatened to defrock child abusers and anyone who covers for them.

  • Atlassian goes cloud-only, customers face integration issues

    Jump

  • Creative business accounting.

  • Removed

    12 years later, my first HDD ever is still going strong (WD Black)

    Jump

  • Yearly? Thats frankly nuts lol

  • Why I Ditched Spotify, and How I Set Up My Own Music Stack

    Jump

  • Server costs? I mean for a media serving website at this scale you need the servers, storage, people to run the servers, people to development the website, fix bugs, keep on top of security. If you had a very talented team that was very lean, and each member of which can wear multiple hats to reduce headcount, you’re talking $400-$600,000 a year just in salaries. Thats before you consider taxes, benefits, etc.

    Do you think bandcamp is run by like one guy renting bargain bin shared cpu servers from AWS?

  • Campfire (the self-hosted group chat) just became free and open source!

    Jump

  • Revolt can’t be considered viable in my mind until the mobile app stops hardcoding the official instance and lets users connect it to selfhosted instances.

  • Cory Doctorow New Book: Enshitification

    Jump

  • I thought it was pretty clear that I meant more people tended to read than listen to audio books in the 90s.

    More people tend to read than listen to audio books today. Despite that audiobooks are very popular today. They were also very popular in the 90s and 00s. So I guess I’m still wondering what exactly your point is? Having books read to you is popular today, it was popular in the 00s, it was popular in the 90s, it was popular 200 years ago, it was popular 2,000 years ago, etc.

    people read books out loud all of the fucking time, particularly before literacy became so common.

    That’s just it, it was not particularly before literacy became so common. People read books out loud all the time before literacy was common, and they did it all the time after literacy was common. They do it all the time today. It’s a thing we’ve collectively been doing for one reason for another for thousands of years so I don’t understand where you or OP are coming from when you refer to is as being something that’s normal now but not “before”. Especially with OPs tone of righteous indignation against it.

  • YouTube is now flagging accounts on Premium family plans that aren't in the same household

    Jump

  • You’re downloading videos every time you watch a video on YouTube.

  • 18% of people running Nextcloud don't know what database they are using

    Jump

  • Since Nextcloud stores your actually data on the disk, it doesn’t actually matter all that much tbh

  • Cory Doctorow New Book: Enshitification

    Jump

  • More people don’t listen to audiobooks than reading today. But there was never “A time where books were for reading [as opposed to listening to]”

    People have been listening to books for millennia. And before books they were listening to the things we now put in books. If you go back far enough more people did listen to books more than read them. And if we reach that point again, it won’t be some newfangled idea it would just be something we’ve done for thousands of years becoming very popular again.

  • Cory Doctorow New Book: Enshitification

    Jump

  • It existed in the 90s and early 00s

    I was around in the 90s and early 00s and I can assure you it very much did not. The popularity of audiobooks grew significantly in the 90s. Books on tape had been a thing for awhile already and the popularity of audiobooks on CD exploded in the early to mid 90s. You could buy or even rent them from music stores, libraries, video stores, even supermarkets. They even had little listening stations where you could hear the first chapter of popular books before buying them.

    In 1995 Audible was founded and brought about the advent of digital audiobooks downloaded from the internet which only accelerated their popularity. By the time the 00s started audiobooks were a multi billion dollar industry.

    doesn't mean that they don't remember a time when it wasn't more popular than just reading.

    Well that’s also a misunderstanding of the history of Audiobooks because I believe even today audiobooks are not more popular than reading physical books. So that time you “remember” would be… the present. So what is your point here exactly, you think OP is turning his nose up at audiobooks out of a sense of superiority due to his memories of a time where listening to books being read existed but was less popular than it is now in the future, but also in the past? Like we somehow peaked during some minuscule point in time where listening to books was at a lower point than others? Oook

  • Cory Doctorow New Book: Enshitification

    Jump

  • Well yeah, because the original commenter wasn’t referring to their memories of any period of time, because the period of time they’re referring to doesn’t exist.

  • Cory Doctorow New Book: Enshitification

    Jump

  • Not true, even highly educated Roman and Greek elites would attend book readings. It was considered a leisure activity and was appreciated as the performance it was, same as today.

    In fact today we have more reasons than ever to listen to audiobooks, the most significant of which is that it’s not legal nor advisable to read a physical book while driving a motor vehicle.