• Wahots@pawb.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    71
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

    First they came for the kinky porn, but I didn’t speak out, because I didn’t like kinky porn.

    Then they came for hentai, and I didn’t speak out, because I don’t like hentai.

    Then they came for the vanilla porn, but I didn’t speak out, because I don’t like normal porn.

    Then, all that was left was yiff. And the furry porn stayed because AI cannot recognize furry porn, and it appears even on Google and Bing Safe Search.

    And hundreds of millions of people started looking at the only porn left.

    • werefreeatlast@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      The Christian Church…no! One must not teach our kids to d d d d…raw! And burn all books with pictures or photos. Because gad fore-bid they might be porn… Catho-licks…yeah burn all the evid…books! One of them might contain a photo of a priest and a kid…we mean porn…

        • Maggoty@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          13
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          4 months ago

          No, it doesn’t Extreme Sunni sects ban the drawing of living things. For a Christian analogue that’s like saying all Christians abhor any medical procedure that requires transferring blood, cannot drink alcohol, serve in the military, socialize with non Christians, or smoke tobacco.

          Which I’m sure you know is patently ridiculous but there’s 8 million self identified Christians who follow those rules. Surely they represent all of Christianity as much as Wahhabis represent all of Islam?

          • rambling_lunatic@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            4 months ago

            If the Bible itself prohibited such things, then yes, I would be making this point and also making fun of the Christians for not following it, like how they’re not supposed to wear mixed fabric or have female teachers.

            A ban on depicting living things is documented in a fairly well-supported ahadith. While strict adherence is rare in modernity, it is indeed something present in religious texts and widely practiced historically, which merits mockery.

            • Maggoty@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              4 months ago

              A hadith is not the Bible. That’s the Quran you’re looking for. The entire point of hadiths is that they are not agreed on by all Muslims. Especially across lines of sects, ethnicity, and regions. The one you’ve chosen is only adhered to in Wahhabism. Otherwise known as the doomsday cult that spawned Al Qaeda.

              Of course it’s somewhere in history, that does not mean it’s a current practice as you depicted. If we held entire religions to the history of a sect then buckle up because Christianity and Judaism have some barnstormers that are coming back. But of course you’re willing to look past that. You understand Christianity isn’t represented by the dicks holding signs at funerals. And yet you hold all of Islam hostage to it’s worst people.

              • rambling_lunatic@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                4 months ago

                I know that hadith hold less weight than the Quran. That being said, there are several ahadith that say that painters will get screwed over by Allah that are considered canon by pretty much all Sunni Muslims. Many of them don’t follow these rules, but I personally know several Muslims that drink. This does not change the fact that the actual written rules of the religion prohibit it.

                You’re also completely missing my original point. The guy I was originally replying to was joking that following Christian fundie logic will lead to a ban on images. I then drew parallels between the Christian and Muslim extremists who are both trying to institute their respective religious laws as the laws of countries, hate each other furiously, consider themselves the exact opposites of each other, and yet seem to converge on a number of issues.

                P.S. I am pretty sure that Shi’ites have no equivalent rule regarding aniconism. I know very little about Shia Islam in general so I won’t comment on it.

                  • rambling_lunatic@sh.itjust.works
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    4 months ago

                    I mean yeah, but it’s in a text most Muslims believe in. It makes sense to say that Christianity forbids women from being teachers even though most Christians ignore the rule, no?

        • unalivejoy@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          4 months ago

          Does this mean can draw the prophet Mohammed since he is dead? Finally a loophole.