this post was submitted on 24 May 2025
378 points (94.2% liked)
Not The Onion
16302 readers
1409 users here now
Welcome
We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!
The Rules
Posts must be:
- Links to news stories from...
- ...credible sources, with...
- ...their original headlines, that...
- ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”
Please also avoid duplicates.
Comments and post content must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.
And that’s basically it!
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Your apologetics is unbecoming. The article is intentionally written to promote the notion that a 40-hour work week is unbiblical, and the line you've cited is included to give plausible deniability to anyone who says otherwise.
If you take into account any "activity [that] is demanding, consistent and productive" most people are already "working" way more than 55 hours a week, especially if they're a parent. To suggest otherwise is profoundly ignorant or disingenuous. This suggests an ulterior motive: begin manufacturing consent to get rid of weekly work hour limits.
Negative. Opposite intention... It takes more than 15 hours a week to raise a child properly. I would argue this is a good stance to reduce the workload on people as far as "jobs" go.
You don't need to argue random bullshit. Take their argument, and take it to the logical extreme. Done. Now they have to admit that the 40 hour work-week for jobs is excessive.
Edit: Basically make the looney religious nuts eat their words... in case that wasn't clear.
Is your reading comprehension ok?
That's MY point
So you agree that what you wrote in your original comment is a bullshit defense of a bullshit article?
Yours clearly isn't.
You took the rage bait. You took their article to mean something when you can easily make it mean EXACTLY what your point is. You're just too into arguing with random people on the internet to realize it.
Y'all are crazy.
Hou are illiterate if you genuinely believe all this crap you've spewed... No wonder you defend "biblical" teachings... Genuinely, your reading comprehension is below an already low average, and that is relevant to the conversation.
You might want to proofread your own post before talking about literacy. Your very first word is typo'd.
And I couldn't give a shit about biblical anything. I'm atheist.
Edit: Oh and literacy is capability of reading/writing. Not about what someone believes. So you might want to check back into elementary school with that other guy too.