Who’s to says pre-historic humans never did?
This is not a shitpost, merely a shit post.
Yeah they have, I did it last week ffs.
Stalin and Mao would like to have a chat with your if you think this is true.
Tanked to dead, sent to concentration camps without due process… Sure.
But not stoned!
Low effort, provocative, sorta correct but kinda not: the perfect formula to get some real low-level, unproductive flame wars going. Excellent shitpost.
TIL: you can only kill someone by throwing a rock if you are religious. Do not attempt otherwise, it will not work.
also: there has never been a single person in history who followed the crowd even though they secretly didn’t believe in a god.
I’m an atheist, and there are plenty of people I would stone to death if given the chance.
So if the number really is zero, it’s probably due to a lack of opportunity.
stoning is a particular method of public execution, so most rock-related deaths don’t count
Because they use other weapons?
That’s not true. Lots of drugs can kill you. Don’t know if they all count as ‘stoned’ though
Where can I? Asking for a friend
Just walk around downtown asking for drugs. If you dont find any and the drugs don’t kill you, someone probably will eventually.
I feel like this is one of those things where, even though there is a likelihood that you are right, you don’t actually know that you are correct.
People are weird.
People are occasionally evil, especially towards weird people.
There’s an entire possibility that atheists have stoned somebody to death, and since you’re the one making the claim, I feel like you should be the one to scour every single instance of death in all of human history to verify your claim.
This isn’t even a good shitpost
It’s not even true. Like not even close. The Chinese liberation army forcing Tibetan children to murder their parents to “liberate” them from “religious oppression” is one example.
Where did you hear that had happened
forcing Tibetan children to murder their parents
Gonna need a source on that one, chief.
I think they are referring to the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution. Kids publicly denounced, criticised and some even harmed their parents but we are not sure if they killed them. This was done to achieve several things. Destroying religious practices was a part of it.
Recommended book: The cultural revolution: a people’s history, 1962-1976 - Frank Dikötter
It’s really ambiguous what they’re talking about or what they even mean. Here are two things that could both be described as, “Forcing Tibetan children to kill their parents.”
-
A Tibetan soldier volunteers to join a war, and through sheer chance, they learn that their parents are fighting on the other side of the battlefield. They ask to leave the front and their CO refuses - technically, they’ve been forced to kill their parents.
-
A communist agent abducts a family in the dead of night and hands the child a gun while putting a knife to their sister’s throat and telling them if they don’t kill their parents, they’ll be killed, along with their siblings. This happens systematically across Tibet, and only Tibet.
They could be referencing the Cultural Revolution. A lot of shit happened during this period, including what you described. But to my knowledge, the struggle sessions and such were more the actions of the Red Guards, who were student led paramilitary groups, not the same as the People’s Liberation Army that went into Tibet.
So like, what they said was, “the liberation army forced Tibetan children to murder their parents,” but, what actually happened (so far as it’s possible to connect that claim to anything in reality) was that the PLA failed to maintain control (although they did eventually succeeded in suppressing them) against young radicals denouncing their parents and subjecting them to public humiliation (the Red Guards also committed all sorts of atrocities during this time, I wouldn’t be surprised if there were cases of children killing parents but I’m unaware of any specific cases). Which happened decades after the PLA went into Taiwan, which wasn’t (to my knowledge) really a main area involved in the chaos.
And that’s why I asked for a source.
-
Fairly common knowledge. Even portrayed in movies like Kuru and Seven Years in Tibet. Unfortunately the whole thing has been wrapped up in lots of misinformation. The Tibetans have both accused China of atrocities and claimed that they didn’t happen. Outsiders looking in on this could argue that they were trying to appease the Chinese to maintain the paltry religious autonomy granted by the Seventeen Point Agreement. Here is a link to a PDF from the Tibetan Bureau in Geneva listing their atrocities. It is worth noting that even these claims are impossible to verify. The Chinese government has worked tirelessly to scrub the world knowledge base, and most search companies are more than willing to cooperate with such large governments with huge resources. Additionally, sensationalism is equally attractive, meaning it is easy and tempting to over report and exaggerate war crimes.
But the simple fact remains that May Zedong openly opposed religion and claimed that his annexation of Tibet was a “liberation” from what he called “religious oppression.”
Fairly common knowledge. Even portrayed in movies like Kuru and Seven Years in Tibet.
Oh, well if it’s portrayed in movies it must be true.
Here is a link to a PDF
That document lists 100 atrocities, which of them are you referencing with “forcing children to murder their parents?”
It is worth noting that even these claims are impossible to verify.
Mhm.
But the simple fact remains that May Zedong openly opposed religion and claimed that his annexation of Tibet was a “liberation” from what he called “religious oppression.”
Yes, because Tibet was subject to religious oppression. They had an aristocratic system of serfdom with extreme poverty (while the religious rulers lived in luxury), and an average life expectancy in the 30s. It was a cruel, oppressive theocracy, and used religion to justify a caste system similar to India’s history of discrimination towards “untouchables.” After the aristocrats and theocrats were thrown out, the Tibetan people experienced the same massive increases in life expectancy and improvements in material conditions that the rest of China experienced during this period, including doubling of life expectancy.
Tibet emerged along with countless other warlord states following the collapse of the Qing, it was always considered part of China by the KMT and it was never recognized as an independent state by the international community (iirc, it was only ever recognized by like Mongolia). The communists and nationalists fought side-by-side against most of these warlord states with a common understanding that the nation needed to be unified, however, Tibet wasn’t a priority because of it’s remoteness. Had the KMT won they’d have brought it back into the fold eventually too, as evidenced by the fact that Taiwan still maintains a territorial claim over all of Tibet.
I don’t know about that dude, I’ve been given some pretty strong shit before. Definitely felt like I was dying.
A fact check of this claim would be interesting.
Nah we just don’t write fun stories about it when it happens.
Humans climbed to the top of the food chain by throwing rocks and that was before gods. Everything was stoned to death by atheists in the day.
Just needs a slight tweak to be a little less historically inaccurate: Nobody has ever been “hunted for sport” by a Zoroastrian.
Nah Persia got wild sometimes.
The guys you want are the Jains. They’re supposedly the origin of the pacifist and global brotherhood messaging in Christianity, which is clearly at odds with just about everything else in the history of the religion.
Oh, you believe that Jesus went to India when he was young? Jainism is so far removed, what mental gymnastics leads you to this conclusion?
No, I think the Middle East had cultural contact with India and this has always been the case, including the interplay of religious beliefs being a historical fact, you dumbass.
I mean christianity has a lot of obvious influence from zoroastrianism which makes sense geographically and it adopted some motives. But sure, Jainism is the only peaceful religion ever so it has to come from there. Or are there other commonalities as you would expect when you assume contact?
