dandelion

I have a friend who hates calzones and finds them offensive. I don't particularly love calzones, but I'll send a photo whenever I eat one just to keep the hate alive.

yeah, destroying marketing materials seems reasonable; destroying food because you know hungry people will eat it is evil.

That's great (re the citywide composting)! Companies cite fear of a lawsuit as an excuse not to donate food. Of course the reality is that they're just protecting profits, no one has ever been sued from donating food as far as I know, and as you mention there is a law specifically prohibiting doing so.

I've heard of many places where it's illegal to give food out to people.

Where I live there is no composting, the city barely recycles even.

The southeastern U.S.

That would be great, here they use trash compactors to destroy the food to prevent hungry people from going through the trash and filling their bellies.

EDIT: Whole Foods in particular does this, and I think I've seen Walmart doing it as well. Also, I worked at a grocery store where I was instructed to destroy the food when I threw it into the dumpsters to prevent people from being able to eat it, though they were too cheap to actually buy and operate a trash compactor.

Depends on the person, I benefited immensely during COVID when interactions mostly went online. Not everyone interacts the same way, or has the same capacities or preferences. What you're saying may be true for the majority, though.

I don't agree that it will cause social unrest or that it tears apart the social fabric of our society. I don't see a reason to discount interactions of people on the internet, or why internet communities are any less real than in-person communities (even if they have some differences).

You might be interested in this book, Bowling Alone, about the decline of participation in in-person social groups.

oh interesting, TIL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_John#Historical_reliability

Thanks! I'll have to read the book of Mark and see how it compares (esp. I wonder if the events depicted in John 6 occur in the book of Mark).

not sure what you mean

Maybe I'm losing the context, when are you using this term? If you wanted a simple term to get the idea across you could just say you're a "Christian atheist", no? Most people probably don't care tbh, so it's unclear when you need to be making these distinctions. I only say this because "atheism" doesn't exclude Christ's secular / moral teachings, and the concern with Christ not being mentioned in a term like atheism makes me wonder why that's relevant.

Right, I'm not trying to indirectly make a point about Christ not being likely to have existed or anything, just making a point about the language: Christ's existence hasn't been scientifically proven, it's just that historians agree that it's a reasonable guess based on the texts that were left behind and mentioned him.

Archaeologists might use scientific methodologies, e.g. carbon dating, to estimate how old a text is, for example, but I wouldn't consider this scientific proof that someone existed.

yeah, at least not according to him; but his moral teachings got a lot of people in the door and interested in following him, and the whole "faith without works is dead" thing (book of James is pretty lit tbh)