Sin is an imaginary disease made up to sell an imaginary cure. Now was he an asshole? Oh, hells yeah. Y'know how we can never have to put up with assholes like him again? Get off fossil fuels. You'd think even climate deniers could get on board for that. But they don't. Because it's not about "skepticism" it's about maintaining the status quo for their corporate masters.
Nah. Again, the 'more than one thing true' moments. The fact we've not factored into the environmental burden of carbon into our use of fossil fuels is amazingly unwise and leading to catastrophic effects. It's also hard to see the massive explosion of life expectancy, food transportation, and ultimately the knowledge that the rising standard of living and free time it provided for generations without it. And the first warnings of climate change came almost immediately, just a scant two decades after widespread adoption. But we are still lying about it more than a hundred years after those warnings. Self-deception may be the original sin. It certainly is prevalent in virtually all the evils of the world today.
Somebody once told me, "In Christianity, the original sin is knowledge. In Buddhism, it is ignorance." He was Buddhist, of course, though not particularly religious.
As an aside I was scrolling through some pre me threads earlier to get a feel for the dynamics around members who exist now as WF lore rather than being active posters. One thing that struck me was a 2007 thread wherein diesel was being discussed as the environmentally responsible fuel of choice. About that time we had reduced road tax for diesel vehicles based in exactly that rationale which I've often wondered about in retrospect. Did the available science ever really seem to support that course of action or was there a vested interest at play somewhere?
I’ll have to find the podcast but while he had multiple wives he went to great lengths to make sure he treated all equally. Also his oldest wife had a PhD and was his closest advisor. They would have extensive debates. Let me go look…
The historical tendency to equate promiscuity with poor morals has never truly left us. The idea that multiple sexual partners reflects some degree of duplicity or disrespect is so deeply ingrained we barely notice how it influences our thinking (No disrespect @Bickendan). I'm sure you of all people are well aware of this, but it is an interesting observation that even where someone is as evil as OBL people still focus on his promiscuity as a fault, even when it actually represents a rare defensible aspect of his behaviour.
Here it is: https://www.lawfareblog.com/lawfare-podcast-peter-bergen-reassessing-osama-bin-laden Really good listen.
Yes. At the time, diesel was considered less polluting. Particulates weren't considered. Oh, and I'm a WF legend. Ask me anything.
Considering a chunk of his rationale for the 9/11 attack was our indefensible morals, in particular in regards to women, I feel like it is in play.
Considering multiple wives is permitted in Islam, his promuscuity isn't an issue for me. Even if it weren't permitted in Islam, so long as his wives weren't in the relationship under duress, ie, it were consensual (and that could be a point of debate, but a cursory glance at @Ancalagon's post hints otherwise), makes OBL's marriage(s) a non-issue... even if our society at large would balk at it.
