|
Kyrie eleison posted:Dude, this is D&D. People here hate Catholicism and Christianity. I knew this going in. I didn't expect a warm or even-handed response, and it's no surprise that people ended up attacking me. This is entirely what I expected. Have you considered turning the other cheek rather than lashing out? I know I've already cited this quote twice, but I really want to reiterate it. Before I say anything else. Timothy 2:24 posted:And the Lord's servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil. That isn't the 'hippie-dippie' approach, that is the approach recommended in the bible, and it is also by far going to be the most effective for anyone trying to make converts. I agree you weren't going to get a warm or even-handed response coming to preach to the heathens here, but you have actively done yourself more harm than good because, surprise no one likes to be called a sociopath. I mean, even this post is actually far more reasonable and apt to provoke an action discussion than flippantly replying that someone is going to hell, or that they are an idiot, or the countless other ways you've lashed out at people. At least it is until you go on your rant about how lovely atheists are and how pathetic anyone other than your own brand of Truth is. If you want a helpful tip for what to do in the future, start by not being a huge rear end in a top hat. This isn't even a tip about arguing for the bible incidentally, its about arguing with anyone. If you take a confrontational attitude, and lets be clear you did that from Post #1, people are going to shutter up and stop listening to you more or less instantly. As to your view on Christ not being 'hippie dippie'... good luck with that. The single most resonating message about Christ isn't your fear based garbage about how we're all going to hell if we don't fall on our knees and become worshiping slaves of god, it is the message about love and forgiveness, about kindness and peace. People have left the Catholic faith in part because science has left so many of your claims in the dust and lifted people out of ignorance, but also because you fail to live up to that message. As I mentioned above, Pope Francis is by far the most welcome addition to the Catholic church in years because he actually practices what he preaches. The hypocrisy and Warriors of God attitude of people like you is part of what turned me off to the very concept of religion in my adolescence, and it isn't going to do you any favors now. Sharkie posted:This is, at least partially, one of those things where crazy people get obsessed about somethingawful mods, isn't it? I suspect it is a persecution fantasy. Somehow the group that makes up roughly 1/7 people on the planet is the loving underdog. Caros fucked around with this message at 06:01 on Dec 8, 2014 |
# ? Dec 8, 2014 05:59 |
|
|
# ? Jun 5, 2024 07:12 |
|
Kyrie eleison posted:The sheer lack of self-awareness necessary to post this at somebody else to condemn them. A favorite tactic by your lot, who reject the man's moral authority in the first place. The sheer lack of self-awareness to use a passage decrying hypocrisy as a meaningless parting shot at the group of people that have been pointing out the veritable log cabin you have in your face. That's why I posted that for context. Because, clearly, either you lack context or you just don't care. I'm thinking it's the latter. I think he would be angry with someone using his name to judge other people. Then again, it's a natural reaction to having your name and message co-opted by a shithead to talk down to people on the internet. Then again, sanctimonious prick using scripture to advocate anti-semitism. You're a gold mine for the forums, man. Like a boxer who stands up, only to get hit.
|
# ? Dec 8, 2014 06:08 |
|
Let me remind the thread now, in case anyone missed it earlier, that a lot of Kyrie's lashing out and vitriol come from a freely, and deeply, admitted sense of self-loathing. He is a man at war with himself, and having found in (his own strict, and at times bizarre interpretation of) Catholicism a weapon with which to wage that war it's hardly surprising he chastises us as viciously as he apparently does himself. That's not to excuse it, of course, nor legitimize what (presuming this isn't a very long troll) has frankly led many others in similar circumstances down a self-destructive road. In case you're all thinking I'm making this up, or exaggerating just how deep goes this particular rabbit hole, let me quote the man himself: Kyrie eleison posted:I apologize in advance for this post. Emphasis mine.
|
# ? Dec 8, 2014 06:13 |
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:Let me remind the thread now, in case anyone missed it earlier, that a lot of Kyrie's lashing out and vitriol come from a freely, and deeply, admitted sense of self-loathing. He is a man at war with himself, and having found in (his own strict, and at times bizarre interpretation of) Catholicism a weapon with which to wage that war it's hardly surprising he chastises us as viciously as he apparently does himself. That's not to excuse it, of course, nor legitimize what (presuming this isn't a very long troll) has frankly led many others in similar circumstances down a self-destructive road. Aww... well that is just straight up loving sad.
|
# ? Dec 8, 2014 06:23 |
|
Caros posted:Aww... well that is just straight up loving sad. I don't disagree at all.
|
# ? Dec 8, 2014 06:24 |
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:I don't disagree at all. That is really the part I don't get. God has created you, and everything he creates is good, but those desires you have are fundamentally flawed and must be utterly surpressed you you will end up suffering for eternity because you didn't obey some very vaguely worded or contradictory passages in a book written two millenia before your birth. This is why I like the local united church. All of the loving, forgiveness and grace, none of the Eternal Hellfire or endless guilt over impulses that exist from birth.
|
# ? Dec 8, 2014 06:26 |
|
Kyrie eleison posted:From claims of proof of the existence of the deity, yes. Reason is upheld strongly by the Church. (You can't say the same about post-modern philosophy, by the way). And it is also said that having faith is "rational". But reason is not the way to prove the existence of God. That God exists is taken for granted by those who feel His presence. That you think this response is germane demonstrates that you are incapable of mounting a good defense. That you think you've been able to make anyone else but yourself look the fool is laughable. You're not doing a great job defending Christianity here, mate. rudatron fucked around with this message at 06:30 on Dec 8, 2014 |
# ? Dec 8, 2014 06:28 |
|
Caros posted:That is really the part I don't get. God has created you, and everything he creates is good, but those desires you have are fundamentally flawed and must be utterly surpressed you you will end up suffering for eternity because you didn't obey some very vaguely worded or contradictory passages in a book written two millenia before your birth. I can't explain it either, since I thankfully don't live in such a diametrically opposed headspace. It'd be nice, though, if he could find a way to accept himself, if only so he'd stop calling everyone else who has done so a sociopathic monster.
|
# ? Dec 8, 2014 06:33 |
|
Kyrie, please quote which of your arguments here are 'competent' defense of of your own beliefs, so that they can be exposed as the bullshit non-sequiturs you usually resort to.
|
# ? Dec 8, 2014 06:33 |
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:I can't explain it either, since I thankfully don't live in such a diametrically opposed headspace. It'd be nice, though, if he could find a way to accept himself, if only so he'd stop calling everyone else who has done so a sociopathic monster. Yeah.
|
# ? Dec 8, 2014 06:35 |
|
Being told I'm doing a bad job defending Christianity by anti-Christian people is not convincing. Of course you are going to say that. I don't expect to change your mind. Your heart is hardened to the idea. But what I can do is expose your ignorance of Christian teachings, and your shady debate techniques such as hypocrisy, or intentionally misconstruing me. And that is satisfactory enough for me, because the goal in debate is not to convince your opponent, but rather to convince yourself, and others like you. Now I have to go take care of an errand.
|
# ? Dec 8, 2014 06:37 |
|
Kyrie eleison posted:Being told I'm doing a bad job defending Christianity by anti-Christian people is not convincing. Of course you are going to say that. I don't expect to change your mind. Your heart is hardened to the idea. But what I can do is expose your ignorance of Christian teachings, and your shady debate techniques such as hypocrisy, or intentionally misconstruing me. And that is satisfactory enough for me, because the goal in debate is not to convince your opponent, but rather to convince yourself, and others like you. Would like a sincere answer to my post on the previous page when you have five minutes, OP. Cheers.
|
# ? Dec 8, 2014 06:41 |
Kyrie eleison posted:Who says I am not speaking out of love?
|
|
# ? Dec 8, 2014 06:42 |
|
Caros posted:Aww... well that is just straight up loving sad. Yeah now this thread isn't even funny it's just depressing.
|
# ? Dec 8, 2014 06:44 |
|
Kyrie eleison posted:Listen: I have read the entire thing. I said this in the OP. You've admitted to me in the past that you skimmed the begats just like everyone else, liar.
|
# ? Dec 8, 2014 07:38 |
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:Let me remind the thread now, in case anyone missed it earlier, that a lot of Kyrie's lashing out and vitriol come from a freely, and deeply, admitted sense of self-loathing. He is a man at war with himself, and having found in (his own strict, and at times bizarre interpretation of) Catholicism a weapon with which to wage that war it's hardly surprising he chastises us as viciously as he apparently does himself. That's not to excuse it, of course, nor legitimize what (presuming this isn't a very long troll) has frankly led many others in similar circumstances down a self-destructive road. Oh no. It just got all sad in here. . Should we just leave him alone before he hurts himself? On a slightly different note why do threads like this keep popping up in D&D? I'm fairly new to the subforum, but I've seen other treads like this where someone posts a controversial opinion, ignores all the evidence presented against them, then claims they've won. What gives? Travic fucked around with this message at 08:08 on Dec 8, 2014 |
# ? Dec 8, 2014 07:45 |
|
Kyrie, I'm interested in your perspective on something. I am agnostic, because I believe that the answer to the whole set of questions about religion is ultimately far less important than the process of trying to find them. I would find less than no comfort in having the right answers (let's assume, for the sake of this argument, they're your particular breed of Catholicism) handed to me on a silver platter, rather, I would find it flat-out insulting. I would be perfectly happy to spend the rest of my years coming to the slow realization that you were completely, totally, and perfectly correct the entire time. I believe you would argue that, if I was honest in my pursuit, I would come to the only correct answer eventually. Given that I would actually be pissed off if you handed me a book containing what was somehow proved to be the ultimate answer to the ultimate question of life, the universe, and everything, and that I will inevitably join your beliefs anyway: Do you attempt to aggressively convert me? I'm going to establish one bound on here: let's assume that I will not die prematurely. Therefore, it's not correct to convert me on the off-chance that I get hit by a bus two seconds before my epiphany. Thoughts?
|
# ? Dec 8, 2014 08:17 |
|
CharlestheHammer posted:If you had a spiritual need, why become an Atheist in the first place? Well, you can still be spiritual. The only thing atheism is is the denial of deities.
|
# ? Dec 8, 2014 08:40 |
|
Kyrie eleison posted:Being told I'm doing a bad job defending Christianity by anti-Christian people is not convincing. Of course you are going to say that. I don't expect to change your mind. Your heart is hardened to the idea. But what I can do is expose your ignorance of Christian teachings, and your shady debate techniques such as hypocrisy, or intentionally misconstruing me. And that is satisfactory enough for me, because the goal in debate is not to convince your opponent, but rather to convince yourself, and others like you. So what the gently caress is the point of this thread? You're not actually debating anything, you're not even pretending that you think you might convert someone. Has this seriously been nothing more than 84 pages of pseudointellectual Onanism?
|
# ? Dec 8, 2014 08:46 |
|
quote:But my rational mind, which is in tune with truth, which is God, tells me that I should prefer a wife, and to try to have children. If I choose not to procreate, and universalize that principle, then I spell the separation of the sexes and the death of the species. If there is a cultural shift in which good people evade procreation, I believe the results will be nothing less than catastrophic. I can't endorse that. In short, I view it as an obligation to humanity itself, to the future, to harmony with the female sex, and to my family, to keep it going. It is a responsibility. What huh? Why would you universalize this principle? Just because you decide to live a gay life, that doesn't mean everyone will. I promise, no one cares whether you're gay and will decide to be gay because of you. Plenty of people don't have children. Are they a threat to the Race? Are nuns a threat to humanity by their example? Was Catholic Asexual Ice Queen of Heaven Mary a threat to humanity?
|
# ? Dec 8, 2014 09:42 |
|
So, in my heart I am really a healing-type. And although I can do battle, it does weary me. I know that I have put myself in this situation. And I am wearing this relatively serious avatar compared to my prior silly one. (I might change it back for all of our sakes.) Here is the thing about debate that I have realized (long ago): debate is not constructive. Debate is destructive. Debate is about taking your opponent down. Two sides take opposing positions and try to destroy one another, and ultimately leave more convinced of their views. Debate is a political act, a warlike act, a battle. The goal is to impose your policy on your opponent. I don't like debate, although I am willing to participate in it. It seems almost violent to me. The alternative, which philosophers call "dialectic", but could also simply be called a conversation, or a discussion, rather than an argument, has one basic rule: both sides have to be working towards a common goal. I am interested in pursing this kind of conversation instead of the divisive, ideological approach. I think it is better for everyone and can help us to understand one another better. Now, to answer some posts. OwlFancier posted:So, how come God is fussy about whether you believe in him or not? It is important to realize that God is sovereign over everything. He has total control over all of us. The Muslims and the Jews both recognize this, as does Christianity. Islam literally means submission. Basically, it is important to recognize that although God's ways may be mysterious to us, we ultimately have to accept them, even though they seem brutal or strange at times. I have said before, I think this is actually the hardest pill to swallow when it comes to religion, moreso than issues of the provability of God. The morality of God is the real issue that keeps people away from Him. A believer has faith that God is ultimately acting for a good purpose (as was proven to be the case in Abraham), and a doubter questions everything God does. Karia posted:Kyrie, I'm interested in your perspective on something. This is definitely a unique question, so thanks for that. Basically you like the idea of progressively coming to realizations. Perhaps you like the (excuse the word, but it's a good word and deserves better) euphoric feeling that comes from discovering some new reality. And you want to discover new realizations about things throughout your life so that you can enjoy that process. Well I have good news for you: Life does that automatically, just via experience. Throughout your life, you will look back and see things as they really were. Well, it might require some active self-criticism. I consider myself on a similar track as you. Although I presently stand strongly by Catholic doctrine, I am still an individual with my own thoughts. It's my anchor, though, which I find illuminating in the sort of slow/steady way that I used to find extreme, Christopher Hitchens-style atheism. I'm a bit more of an ideological tourist than I should probably admit; however, I think Christianity will be with me for life. Technogeek posted:So what the gently caress is the point of this thread? You're not actually debating anything, you're not even pretending that you think you might convert someone. Has this seriously been nothing more than 84 pages of pseudointellectual Onanism? That's a very good question. When I originally made this thread I did it largely for my own purposes, to keep me on track. I did it to force myself back into a religious context. I was swayed by an event in my life that made me think I needed to enforce a stricter religious observation upon myself. For me personally, this thread represents a personal decision I made. I gave myself an obligation to upkeep which I thought would have a constructive influence on me. Everything else has merely been following through on that.
|
# ? Dec 8, 2014 09:43 |
|
Kyrie eleison posted:Who says I am not speaking out of love? What am I doing here? Aren't you the people who say, "if you really believed in Hell you would try to save everyone?" And here I am, trying to save D&D. Are you comparing yourself to God?
|
# ? Dec 8, 2014 09:56 |
|
Tonight while doing my errand I was hanging out with my local weirdos at a nearby bar. I had a good conversation and we all played a dice game for money and did shots together. Here is a song about convincing girls to smoke weed. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=psMz53_G9M8
|
# ? Dec 8, 2014 10:37 |
|
Kyrie eleison posted:Atheists love to make fools of themselves, just give them the rope. Says the guy who stated that all tragedies that befall the Jews are deserved punishments from God that they brought upon themselves.
|
# ? Dec 8, 2014 13:07 |
|
Literally The Worst posted:I'm 50/50 between TT levels of dedication to his gimmick without a fraction of the skill and just batshit nuts Read his posts in the gamergate thread. 100% different style, (though still toxicly right wing) and shockingly even has a pretty anti-catholic joke thrown in there. The man is an obvious troll. The only thing that actually concerns me with him is his self-loathing sexual comments. Maybe it's trolling too, but it's something that I can relate to from when I was younger, so I seriously worry for him if it's true.
|
# ? Dec 8, 2014 13:08 |
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:Let me remind the thread now, in case anyone missed it earlier, that a lot of Kyrie's lashing out and vitriol come from a freely, and deeply, admitted sense of self-loathing. He is a man at war with himself, and having found in (his own strict, and at times bizarre interpretation of) Catholicism a weapon with which to wage that war it's hardly surprising he chastises us as viciously as he apparently does himself. That's not to excuse it, of course, nor legitimize what (presuming this isn't a very long troll) has frankly led many others in similar circumstances down a self-destructive road. Not to try and further out the man, but Kyrie has also admitted in the past that when he gives into those feelings is when he feels the need to loudly reassert his faith by making threads like this. So he's not really angry at us, but at himself, even though he hasn't done a single thing wrong or to be ashamed of. And that's just extra sad.
|
# ? Dec 8, 2014 13:26 |
|
SedanChair posted:Are you comparing yourself to God? Most Christians see Christ as a model to follow - it's not conceited.
|
# ? Dec 8, 2014 13:29 |
|
Kyrie eleison posted:Dude, this is D&D. People here hate Catholicism and Christianity. I knew this going in. I didn't expect a warm or even-handed response, and it's no surprise that people ended up attacking me. This is entirely what I expected. Kyrie eleison posted:So, in my heart I am really a healing-type. And although I can do battle, it does weary me. Growing up in a country more or less devoid of overt religion, I just don't care enough about religion to invest time discussing it, except maybe as an occasional springboard into talking about uncertainty. (I admit I was tempted to convert to Khorne at one point, but ultimately remained Bayesian. In the end, there is no flow of blood so vast that it can conquer uncertainty. Hail Bayes!) Still, I've read more of the thread than I can justify, and I realize now that I found it interesting for the same reason that I found the "Everything is problematic" thread interesting: no single exchange is particularly thought-provoking, but as a whole is representative of the battle lines being drawn in the public debate along something like individualism-collectivism (close enough, maybe right-left?) and religion-science, with the undecided middle on both issues rapidly shrinking to a small proportion. On one hand, the individualism side has long dominated one issue as established dogma with collectivism now reasserting itself in the public debate (e.g., pre- vs. post-libertarian D&D), while science has long dominated the other issue as established dogma with religion now reasserting itself. I think they're really questions on how we justify knowledge of our experiences (science-religion) and to what ends we seek such knowledge (individualism-collectivism), but I'm just musing here. I want to say there are similarities between the resurgent sides' strategies, but I can't put my finger on it when I consider their opponents. The differences are clearer, because the groups implicitly self-select for similar views, and intergroup debate really does only seem to polarize these issues further. The goals of each side are taken to be, er, existentially opposed? The self-selection is more extreme online, but it happens in real life too. The prototypical example being the internet atheist demand for quantifiable evidence of God, but more reasonable expressions of disagreement are just as illustrative of how fundamental the implicit disagreement is. There have been numerous attempts to characterize Kyrie as inconsistent with Catholic doctrine and Catholic doctrine as internally inconsistent, which seem to maybe miss the point less than asking for quantifiable evidence of God, but not by much. The topic is not the issue. (Incidentally, if Kyrie isn't a troll, I think he's done a very productive job as far as generating debate goes, all things considered. If Kyrie is a troll, he's an incredible troll to have engineered this. It doesn't matter either way.)
|
# ? Dec 8, 2014 14:10 |
|
Oh dear me posted:Most Christians see Christ as a model to follow - it's not conceited. It wouldn't normally be conceited. It's Kyrie though.
|
# ? Dec 8, 2014 14:15 |
|
I don't think either thread has much to do with anything else outside of D&D, let alone society as whole. Kyrie participated in the problematic thread and created this thread for basically the same reason: he's a stubborn ideologue 'waging a war'. Same with Miltank, who's basically just here to cheerlead. But 'the war' doesn't exist outside of SA, and there's no real battlefield - in spite of how thoroughly kyrie has been owned, nothing can compel him to change his closed mind. There's no 'battle' to be won in an environment where you can't force anyone to do anything. edit: like I'd be extremely suspicious of anyone arguing that society is becoming more polarized (let alone if they base it on posts on the debate and discussion subforum of a comedy website), simply because that's not really how opinions get distributed. It should follow a normal distribution, like everything else, so when it shifts the center must shift. Of course any one side is going to want to trump up the number of people who believe in it's letter or spirit. Or you may get people who follow marginal beliefs that were once popular, but which society has moved on from, making a lot of noise because they lose the validation that comes with majority support. So on whatever issue you look at, you're always going to get a perception of polarization regardless of whether or not that's the case. rudatron fucked around with this message at 14:49 on Dec 8, 2014 |
# ? Dec 8, 2014 14:36 |
|
Guys guy, this is all because Kyrie found athiesm to not be spiritual enough. Also: Apparently as soon as we step away from god we have no empathy nor moral inhibitions. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 14:51 on Dec 8, 2014 |
# ? Dec 8, 2014 14:38 |
|
rudatron posted:I don't think either thread has much to do with anything else outside of D&D, let alone society as whole. Kyrie participated in the problematic thread and created this thread for basically the same reason: he's a stubborn ideologue 'waging a war'. Same with Miltank, who's basically just here to cheerlead. But 'the war' doesn't exist outside of SA, and there's no real battlefield - in spite of how thoroughly kyrie has been owned, nothing can compel him to change his closed mind. There's no 'battle' to be won in an environment where you can't force anyone to do anything. I don't think this specific topic is a battle to Kyrie, more like a ... a flight simulator? It doesn't matter to him if he gets "owned" by your standard because the whole point is to catalog your standard and identify flaws. e: To clarify, I'm certainly not basing this on D&D (I usually don't come here enough to know more than the very broadest strokes of what's going on), I just thought that was a contrast most D&D-goers would understand. I'm also not saying that society is becoming universally more polarized, of course. I'm not becoming polarized, for example, because I don't care enough to engage that much with the topic, and I'm sure many/most people are like that. It's perfectly reasonable to be suspicious, though! I'm afraid I have no evidence for any of this, just musings and general impressions. Zodium fucked around with this message at 15:01 on Dec 8, 2014 |
# ? Dec 8, 2014 14:51 |
rkajdi posted:Read his posts in the gamergate thread. 100% different style, (though still toxicly right wing) and shockingly even has a pretty anti-catholic joke thrown in there. The man is an obvious troll. Kyrie, what does Our Lord think of Gamergate?
|
|
# ? Dec 8, 2014 18:59 |
|
Nessus posted:That's interesting. It's about ethics in Vatican journalism.
|
# ? Dec 8, 2014 19:12 |
|
Kyrie eleison posted:It is important to realize that God is sovereign over everything. He has total control over all of us. I've gotten that impression, my question is essentially why? I understand that God will punish you if you don't, and reward you if you do, but that doesn't seem like a very compelling argument. Assuming I am an ethical person, which I like to think I am, reward and punishment shouldn't really factor into my decision making. An act is good or evil based on its effects on others, not based on how it affects me. If someone gave me a lot of money to kill someone, that doesn't make killing the person right. So if I don't agree with something God tells me to do, but I do it anyway, what sort of person does that make me? I am doing something I know to be immoral out of fear of punishment or desire for a reward. The ethical choice is to not do the immoral thing and burn forever in hell. That's sort of my general take on most religions, if God isn't the sort of God who would reward someone for being truly ethical, then I wouldn't deserve paradise if I attained it by blindly following Him, if I have to spend the rest of eternity in hell for living ethically then that's unfortunate, but I don't really see a better option. That kind of makes God sound a bit unpleasant by the way, never been quite able to get past that.
|
# ? Dec 8, 2014 19:14 |
OwlFancier posted:I've gotten that impression, my question is essentially why? Part of what Kyrie is saying seems to be that anything God does or that God commands is, by the fact that God (who is axiomatically the author of goodness) commanded it, good. Considering that this isn't a hypothetical, "well yes if God ordered you to gas the children that would be a good act, but that's like asking what we'd call an orange if we renamed it an apple - it's an absurdity" thing, but is explicitly about the various awful things God has directly commanded here and there, it implies that what is moral and virtuous is also essentially arbitrary. God can change your mind (like Pharaoh), God can destroy your life (Job), God can do whatever he pleases, and the only acceptable outcome is to just keep praising him and accepting that any and all events are from him and therefore good. This is perhaps a way to approach life, and perhaps despite the obvious terrors of being at the mercy of a cruel and arbitrary omnipotent being, it has some success if you internalize it. But so would a heroin addiction or a frontal lobotomy.
|
|
# ? Dec 8, 2014 19:26 |
|
Kyrie eleison posted:Dude, this is D&D. People here hate Catholicism and Christianity. I knew this going in. I didn't expect a warm or even-handed response, and it's no surprise that people ended up attacking me. This is entirely what I expected. So you were lying to us then. You made the thread to try to convert people to Catholicism, but a priori decided everyone would hate you for posting about Jesus, thereby absolving you and justifying your being an rear end in a top hat? Next time try being honest with yourself and honest with us, and you'll have a much more productive discussion.
|
# ? Dec 8, 2014 19:29 |
|
rkajdi posted:Read his posts in the gamergate thread. 100% different style, (though still toxicly right wing) and shockingly even has a pretty anti-catholic joke thrown in there. The man is an obvious troll. Seriously, short of a signed confession, it's about as obvious as it gets. Kyrie eleison posted:Gamergate is the very public, very final death of the Internet left. After this, people will be ashamed to identify as leftists, and leftists will receive constant ridicule outside of their pathetic hugboxes. It is a historic moment, and it is nowhere near over; it is a permanent shift in the discussion. It has been brewing for years, and I'm exceedingly glad to witness it. You could say it was inevitable. Kyrie eleison posted:Anti-Gamergate? Instant ignore. No exceptions. Kyrie eleison posted:gamergate and sjw are not fighting for the same thing. sjw want to advance an anti-white, anti-male, anti-hetero, anti-cis agenda. gamergate stands for being reasonable and condemns everyone who wants to make that the focus. I mean I guess he didn't go as far as to say "anti-white is code for white genocide" but somehow I suspect he had that in the original draft and edited it out because it was a bit too obvious. Also lol, gamergate is so hilariously irrelevant all it did was remind everyone gamers are a bunch of man-children. E: Is Khorne is anti-gg? Because I can't really believe in a higher power that thinks gamergate is anything but a bunch of dorks sending death threats because some people said that games might have sexism/racism problems. burnishedfume fucked around with this message at 19:33 on Dec 8, 2014 |
# ? Dec 8, 2014 19:31 |
|
Nessus posted:You could probably make a theory that God does this in order to test the righteous, and the one who acts ethically is the righteous man who will be rewarded, while the one who obeys without question is the one who will be punished. Well if I were more religious and equally cynical, that would probably be my guess too, tell people to do the bad thing and see if they tell you to get bent, then you know who's a keeper. But I do wonder how religious people manage with that, because presumably that view would be a bit difficult to hold concurrently with the idea that God isn't supposed to be of the classical Greek variety.
|
# ? Dec 8, 2014 19:33 |
|
|
# ? Jun 5, 2024 07:12 |
|
CommieGIR posted:Also: Apparently as soon as we step away from god we have no empathy nor moral inhibitions.
|
# ? Dec 8, 2014 19:35 |