Remove ads

Cliches you can't stand

Based Bean said:
Even if I grant the base premise, I'm not sure how your conclusion logically follows. Faith is in many senses fundamentally an irrational thing. I have faith that people are, in some sense, inherently good. Many people would consider that irrational, including many people on SV, I'm sure. Does that mean that fanaticism is the ultimate expression of that belief? If so, why? If not, why is religion different?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Well, to begin with, I don't think your faith is irrational. This statement can be verified by analyzing the facts derived from observation - even if you are wrong, it can be verified. Religion appeals to that which is impossible to prove, and requires obedience to scripture or priests.
 
Comrade Future said:
However, the truth is that fanaticism is always the ultimate expression of religion
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

By your logic, blowing yourself up in the name of Allah is the ultimate expression of Islam but a Muslim choosing to serve their community isn't?

Yes, the Taliban sure are ultimate expressing their faith by oppressing everyone, but Muslims who are kind, just and righteous, who choose to love their neighbours, aren't.
 
Eeeh, not all religion has scriptures or priesthood.

There's also non religious philosophies and causes that get no less fanaticism- nationalism in many lands, most obviously.
 
Hell, I would argue that the stance of fanaticism being the only endpoint of religion is, in and of itself, a form of fanaticism.
 
Hykal94 said:
By your logic, blowing yourself up in the name of Allah is the ultimate expression of Islam but a Muslim choosing to serve their community isn't?

Yes, the Taliban sure are ultimate expressing their faith by oppressing everyone, but Muslims who are kind, just and righteous, who choose to love their neighbours, aren't.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
An unfortunate example - that the orthodox observance of Sharia criminalizes "apostasy", atheism and free sex life.
 
Islam has existed for a long time and for a good chunk of its history muslim countries were *the* place you wanted to go if you wanted religious tolerance.

This feels like it's getting into knee jerk religion bashing.
 
Comrade Future said:
An unfortunate example - that the orthodox observance of Sharia criminalizes "apostasy", atheism and free sex life.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Careful "enlightened one". You do understand that religion is not a monolithic entity? Islamophobia is spawned by the exact sentiments you are speaking, and most who have spoken such around here have been removed for their bigotry.
 
Stop: Stop this
  • Staff Post
    • stop this

    @Comrade Future, there is a lot of nuance in the discussion of religion that you seem to be missing in the posts below. Instead, you are expressing these opinions in a highly hateful manner. Islamophobia in your most recent post, along with declaring fanaticism as the most pure form of religion.

    I'm going to be issuing you an infraction under Rule 2. As you have had similar posts in the past, and you did not back off any of these points when called out on the religion bashing, it will be a 50 point infraction, coupled with a three day threadban.


    Comrade Future said:
    Sorry - but so often they try to separate fundamentalists from "moderates", but it doesn't work. First, they can be accused of distorting doctrine and selective citation, but the same applies to non-fundamentalists. For example, the Chalcedonians can be reproached for being neo-Platonists in disguise, Protestants for denying sacred tradition, and so on. It is also possible to accuse a fanatic of violating "non-resistance to evil," but the fanatic can quote passages that condemn homosexuality. But not one of them is authentic - the sacred texts were written at different stages of the slave society. Religion is always trying to adapt to new conditions, and over 2000 years they have changed steadily several times.
    However, the truth is that fanaticism is always the ultimate expression of religion. Absolutely any religion has the potential for fundamentalism - after all, by the fact that it rests on an irrational faith. Whether it's Christianity, Hinduism, or Judaism.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...


    Comrade Future said:
    An unfortunate example - that the orthodox observance of Sharia criminalizes "apostasy", atheism and free sex life.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
     
  • Staff Post
    • Avernus said:
    It seems to be a common pattern that the more fanatic and coercive people are about pushing their religion, the more likely they are to be ignorant of what it actually says. I expect because if they actually knew, it would get in the way of pushing their personal prejudices.

    I recall a comment by a Christian missionary held as a hostage by ISIS for a time; he mentioned how he discovered in conversation that he actually knew much more about Islam than the allegedly Islamic people holding him prisoner did.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...

    That may be part of it.

    I think part of it is also that people who feel insecure in their own place in society are the most likely to go on the offensive against other societies.
     
    Hykal94 said:
    I've been watching Batman TAS and in the early episodes, Batman had trouble fighting three or four goons. The longer it went, the more competent he and his villains became. Poison Ivy was just a botanist that used science and now she's basically a fantasy druid on steroids.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...

    It's been forever since I watched TAS but I forget, did the villains in the earliest episodes generally have somewhat more reduced goals and threat levels?

    Because it definitely ratchets up later with Batman fighting Man-Bat who is literally a terrifying bat monster with superhuman abilities.
     
    Konradleijon said:
    To be fair early Roman writers thought they where, and some early Christians considered themselves Jewish too. It's real messy when they cut off.

    I also hate shows about royals where Like the Prince or Princess of a kingdom feels angst about a arranged marriage or just their parents not spending time with them because they have a kingdom to lead. Amd im like the fuck man you have it better then 99.99% of all people in your kingdom amd msot of the world. I don't care about your angst about not marrying your true love .peasants are starving In your fucking kingdom while you bitch about day isssues. This happens in Steven Universe and I don't. Feel bad for Pink Diamond for having uncaring parents when they also commit eugenics against deformed gems! Like stop complaining bitch. And worse the ending of Steven Universe has the dimonds repent for what they did to Pink and not the eugenics/anti-misegragation shit
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...


    Well for a start an arranged marriage to an often older and more powerful man who will take you away from your home and your family to quite probably be raped by the modern definition is very much grounds to complain. And humans are fundementally built to have close attachments with each other and to feel bad when such attachments are lacking. The distance and downright abuse of royal households has been well recorded as deeply hurting all concerned.

    For another, by your logic should people in first world countries just never complain about anything since even the absolute worst off probably have it better than a good percentage of the human race?

    People's subjective life experience is subjective, you yourself are lacking the same empathy and awareness you accuse them of lacking when you criticize them for not being grateful for what they've got just because many others have it worse. Now there is absolutely nothing stopping them being portrayed negatively for lacking that awareness of other people's suffering and many stories have this as a major plot point since the same arc of rejecting the system fucking them over often involves them realizing it fucks other people over two.

    Depending on the work this can mean them promising to be a better monarch or billionaire or whatever than their parents were or it can mean them turning against the concept alltogether or a halfway house of constitutionalism and what have you. Like you can totally not find the trials of the privileged to be that interesting and prefer works with more ground level point of views and fiction has a real problem with its love affair with the rich and powerful and royal (though consumers keep avidly consuming content with all three, partly from wish fulfillment so bit of a chicken and the egg there) but if a work does have privileged characters than chances are if they are remotely realistic as a character with any depth at all they are going to have things in their life that bother them and some of their problems are going to seem pretty major to them.
     
    imagine showing little girls a faithful adaptation of The Little Mermaid. "So remember girls, you will suffer for getting ideas above your station!"
     
    Er, pretty sure that's not what the original Little Mermaid was about. It was more a metaphor for being LGBT+ in the 19th century (pretty sure Andersen was bi or gay) as well as how the upper class treats social climbers (Andersen being born into poverty), it wasn't supposed to teach children a 'lesson'.
     
    Mortis Nuntius said:
    Well for a start an arranged marriage to an often older and more powerful man who will take you away from your home and your family to quite probably be raped by the modern definition is very much grounds to complain. And humans are fundementally built to have close attachments with each other and to feel bad when such attachments are lacking. The distance and downright abuse of royal households has been well recorded as deeply hurting all concerned.

    For another, by your logic should people in first world countries just never complain about anything since even the absolute worst off probably have it better than a good percentage of the human race?
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    I know the attitude is bullshit, but it's funny when stories focus on exclusively royalty with no self awareness about the struggles of peasantry. but as a mindless scary blob.
     
    Lapin Lune said:
    Er, pretty sure that's not what the original Little Mermaid was about. It was more a metaphor for being LGBT+ in the 19th century (pretty sure Andersen was bi or gay) as well as how the upper class treats social climbers (Andersen being born into poverty), it wasn't supposed to teach children a 'lesson'.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    I mean the lesson could be "the world is a dick" which Hans would probably agree with :V
     
    Last edited:
    Konradleijon said:
    Green Infenro will stain him forever unless he apologizes to it and supporting assimilation
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    I'll give you the green inferno take as it was not one of his best movies...
    But when the heck did he support forced assimilation? You can't just make things up like that.

    And I assume you are talking about forced assimilation and not the whole drop in drop out normal assimilation where you sorta fit in with the culture
     
    Last edited:
    Wateryblue said:
    I'll give you the green inferno take as it was not one of his best movies...
    But when the heck did he support forced assimilation? You can't just make things up like that.

    And I assume you are talking about forced assimilation and not the whole drop in drop out normal assimilation where you sorta fit in with the culture
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    The indigenous "charities" he supported believe in "Mainstreaming" Amazon tribes
     
    Heavy W. Guy said:
    It's been forever since I watched TAS but I forget, did the villains in the earliest episodes generally have somewhat more reduced goals and threat levels?

    Because it definitely ratchets up later with Batman fighting Man-Bat who is literally a terrifying bat monster with superhuman abilities.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...

    Man-Bat is actually the first episode in most broadcast runs according to Wikipedia! As for villains, I'm not sure about reduced seeing as there's still violence and whatnot, but I think part of it is it's easier to animate three goons for Batman to beat up over a dozen. Like the episode with Scarecrow has Batman going against him but Scarecrow himself only has three goons with him. The actual threat is the fear gas.

    It's also funny in how in the Catwoman episode, Batman uses a hang glider instead of gliding using his cape. The cape being a glider/parachute thingy seems to be a recent invention popularised by the Arkham games.
     
    You must login or register to reply here.
    Remove ads
    Back
    Top