|
Mornacale posted:I think the real #1 on that list is Atheists. And I'd probably put Women above Russians. I don't think conservatives hate women, really. They just believe that a woman's rightful place is as a subordinate baby and dinner factory.
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2014 01:18
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 19, 2024 06:59 |
|
|
Mr.Unique-Name posted:I absolutely refuse to believe those are not trolls. I don't think even Conservapedia would flat out say "women are not equal to men" that bluntly. Anne Colter has seriously, honestly, and vehemently argued that women should never have been given the right to vote. Let that sink in.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2014 21:05
|
|
|
cafel posted:I don't think that Ann Coulter is actually all that serious or honest. She'll say whatever outrageous thing she can to make a buck. The crowd she's riling up to buy her book certainly exists and shouldn't be dismissed, but Ann herself probably doesn't believe a lot of the things she's said over the years. Oh I know but the problem is that there are enough people that agree with her that her show is popular.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2014 21:46
|
|
|
Tatum Girlparts posted:By god, Obama rewarded political allies with jobs and favors? It's only wrong when a Democrat does it, by the way. When a Republican does it it's a time-honored American tradition that must not bee questioned.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2014 03:44
|
|
|
Mind Loving Owl posted:The rest of the article is your standard "Occultist brainwashing" bullshit but this other criticism is so telling. These people want all their entertainment to be about reinforcing their authoritarian urges, fiction as fun just escapes their comprehension. And I get why they wouldn't like magical people being portrayed as normal, but don't they themselves believe that Satantic witches are in every stratum of society? I remember when Harry Potter came out there was yet another Satanist panic (though not nearly as strong as the ones in the 80's). People were demanding that the book be banned because it encouraged the practice of witchcraft and Harry was summoning demons and what have you. This was also when there was a pretty big upswing in the number of people practicing contemporary pagan religions. There is a rather strong belief among the far right that any portrayal of fantasy or magic must be eliminated because it encourages people to practice witchcraft, worship Satan, do drugs, spray paint trains, and what have you. Anything that encourages deviation from following Jesus is the influence of Satan attempting to lead people astray. They believe they're doing good but removing Satan's influence from the world. Actually sit down and read the stuff Jerry Falwell was writing in the 80's as well as Chick Tracts. They're actually very educational on what the world view of these people is. They seriously thought that Dungeons and Dragons and Magic: The Gathering were created by Satan to lure people away from Christianity.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2014 14:54
|
|
|
Guilty Spork posted:In practice parents might not be happy with where the books lead their kids, but that's more in terms of slashfics and such than witchcraft. It can be kind of a regional thing. It has been continually dying down through my life slowly but I'm from a region where people that would leave Chick Tracts and religious pamphlets instead of tips pretty regularly. Sorry bro, but eternal salvation and "the true wealth that is gained through Christ" don't pay my rent or buy me potatoes. Really the best thing to do with the anti-Harry Potter people is to just walk away. You can't convince them. They view themselves as defenders of the faith and sacred holy warriors that are defending The Truth against Satan. No. Seriously. This is what they actually believe and why so many of them are such outspoken opponents of so many things. Satan's influence is in basically everything they don't like and if you can find some reason or another to say "yup, the devil's influence" they'll speak out against it, demand it be banned, and so forth. Which is why all of this talk about freedom is kind of hilarious. This is the same group of people that were demanding that Rock'n'Roll be banned and censored.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2014 16:55
|
|
|
Helsing posted:People have seriously left chick tracts instead of tip for you? On multiple occasions? I live in rural Pennsylvania in a place where I, just last week, heard somebody praising the Westboro Baptist Church as "some of the truest Christians there are" and asking why nobody had canonized Jerry Falwell yet. Trust me, there are places where the stereotypes of conservatives are actually tame compared to the reality. Case in point, one of the places I worked some guy went absolutely apeshit when he found out that his server was gay. He was really causing a scene, demanding that the guy be fired, that he get his food for free, and everything that was "tainted by that dirty human being" be immediately thrown out and burned. We had...I don't know, a total of like 7 gay people working for us at the time and let me tell you, this guy was not happy about gay people touching anything that he might consume. We threw him out and threatened to call the police but some other customers rallied to his defense and a total of eight people walked out with him (mind you, none of them paid for their food but the police wouldn't do much about it even though that's, you know, illegal) while some others were muttering about that gay that caused a scene. Apparently the guy managed to convince a total of 100 people to permanently boycott the restaurant and threatened to picket it. He never did but yes, there are places where people like this are not only common but perfectly normal within the social fabric. I don't live in that town anymore and would be very happy if I never even saw it again.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2014 20:24
|
|
|
twistedmentat posted:A bunch of 3rd world, developing countries are really having the strongest military to ever exist on this planet quaking in their boots. But then Obama has weakened the US military to a level that could get beaten by a Cuba. Everything is whatever the conservatives need it to be. The enemy is both unfathomably powerful and if anybody in the country makes the slightest misstep it's over, the terrorists one. On the other hand that same enemy is so blisteringly incompetent that they can never defeat us. Hell they're stupid for fighting us in the first place. Stay in line citizen and help us out, we'll win any day now. Aaaaaaany day...
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2014 04:41
|
|
|
Mornacale posted:Typically the Christian arguments for "gently caress the planet" come in three flavors: The fourth argument that I've heard is that environmentalists are trying to save the earth. This means that they'll try to save the earth from God when He shows up. Therefore, environmentalists are anti-God and working for Satan. No, it isn't logical.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2014 16:35
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:I forget who it was, but I've seen someone on this site who has a chronic illness mention how he's been told more than once by fundamentalists that his seeking medical treatment is against god's plan and if he wants to do the right thing he should stop sinning and allow himself to die. The same people also argue that psychology and psychiatric treatment (all of them) are terrible, evil things. Faith in Jesus is all you need to think right and people with mental illness choose to have them/are faking it/are choosing to not get better by not willing it away. They believe that psychology should be banned immediately and all information on psychological study systematically destroyed. Jesus and priests will fix your mental issues and if you disagree with that you are an agent of Satan. No. Seriously. THERE ARE PEOPLE THAT ACTUALLY BELIEVE THIS.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2014 21:30
|
|
|
RagnarokAngel posted:Naw Sikh's are "the good ones" for the rare conservative who can tell the difference. I doubt most American conservatives even know what a Sikh is. Or care. Muslims make a good enemy because there's over a billion of them.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2014 18:58
|
|
|
Dr. Killjoy posted:Hold up, the California UC system was once tuition-free? And they're not anymore principally thanks to Reagan? That son of a bitch. Republicans loving hate education and think that access to information is a privilege you should have to pay for. Free education, libraries, and books are stuff you have to earn the access to by being born to parents wealthy enough to afford them or working full time to take evening classes. You know, earning your right to develop a skill by enriching somebody else.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2014 14:37
|
|
|
Parahexavoctal posted:... wait, why is "Quiverfull" in the abstinence category? The religious right advocates abstinence until marriage and then loving all day, ever day and popping out as many babies as possible because the Bible commands it. Which it actually, you know, does. A person getting horny and wanting to gently caress is evidence that God wants them to make babies. I think this is also part of where all of this "legitimate rape" and "spousal rape is OK" crap comes up. The view is that God commands people to get married as young as possible and have as many babies as possible. No exceptions. Marry before you're 20 and start making babies.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2014 22:48
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:That puts Hades more in line with the Grim Reaper than it does the devil. That's probably the best way to put it. Hades was the god of "the underworld," which was basically where dead people go. Greek views on death were also different than contemporary or Christian ones, generally. Comparing him to Satan is kind of ludicrous. Hades was mostly a god with a job that just did that job and mostly tried to stay out of other peoples' business. Satan is actively trying to tempt people into sin (well, not always, but that's a view I've commonly heard). The motivation varies but the most common one is that it's part of the judgement of who gets to go to heaven and who does not. People who stay faithful and live virtuously go to heaven, those that don't go to hell. Satan only runs one of them while Hades ran the entire afterlife. The whole underworld was his domain. In the case of Hades he believed in justice and did his best to make fair decisions but could be a massive dickbag if he needed to be. He also, being associated with death, didn't feel pity. Everything died and eventually ended up in the underworld. It was only a matter of time and no, you didn't get to leave except under very special circumstances.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2014 02:34
|
|
|
Cemetry Gator posted:Part of the thing too with Greek mythology was that their gods were not perfect beings, so there's not really too much need for a perfectly evil being either. They all had serious characters flaws that make them different from Yahweh. Actually a poo poo load of it apocryphal or just flat out made up later on. Some of the strongest-held beliefs of contemporary western Christianity are extremely modern. One perfect example is the basis of young Earth creationism. The Bible doesn't say a single drat thing about how old the Earth is but people read Genesis and calculated how many generations back the thing goes and said "the Earth is this old based on that." Which is kind of absurd, as the Bible doesn't say anything about nothing existing before that or even when God created the Earth in relation to when Genesis starts. The Bible also lacks any sort of description of the devil other than a basic idea of who he is and what sorts of poo poo he gets up to. If memory serves "satan" was kind of a generic term that didn't apply to one particular being but rather to a concept. drat near everything that's attributed to "the devil" is actually a medieval creation. The other thing that has absolutely no Biblical basis whatsoever is the concept of the immaculate conception, as we know it. Mary has always been revered as holy, at the very least, and is assumed to be without sin, unlike the rest of us, the dogma of the immaculate conception came about in the 19th century. The concept was kind of floating around but didn't enter the canon. If memory serves there are also things in the King James Bible that were either mistranslations or things that translated poorly into English that were ultimately not in the original scriptures. There are a few things here and there that either crept in earlier or were added when the King James translation took place that were put in deliberately to justify some particular person's beliefs.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2014 05:51
|
|
|
Little Blackfly posted:All this is sort of true (the King James bible in particular doesn't have mistranslations per say, so much as it worded things specifically in ways to help justify ideas like the divine right of kings), but I think it's pretty reductive to take the bible as the only root of "true" Christianity. Christianity evolved a lot as it spread throughout the world, and it worked in a lot of ideas from local cultures to form the worldview it has now. Like, Milton's understanding of Satan is pretty drat influential, and I find it hard to characterize it as any more illegitimate a piece of Christianity as anything else, given how much it informs people's worldview. I'm not saying it's illegitimate or that should be removed but rather people point to many things and say "because the Bible says so" without it being in the Bible at all or being from some particular interpretation of the Bible. A lot of it has gotten so twisted and mangled to suit particular beliefs over the years that I feel like the original meaning, whatever it was, got lost centuries ago.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2014 06:12
|
|
|
Mecca-Benghazi posted:I'm not all that familiar with Christianity and this is an interesting derail, so: why/how was Mary born without sin? One of the ideas of Christianity (this varies by sect so I'll focus on the Catholic variety of it) is that everybody is a sinner and is born with sin. Part of it goes back to Adam and Eve loving up and unleashing sin upon the world by eating the fruit of knowledge (this is also why people that don't know any better, like children and the severely retarded, are given a free pass) but the other part of it is that sex is a sin. The first sin is lust, after all, and the best way to avoid that sin is to be completely celibate (note: chastity and celibacy are not the same thing). Now, people that are capable of total celibacy are pretty rare so even the Bible says "yes sex is a sin but we get that people can't not gently caress so go ahead and get married and have sex...it's still a sin but God won't punish you so long as you don't have sex outside of marriage." That's also part of why there is argument over whether Mary had other children or what have you. If she only had sex with her husband she could be considered chaste and would be pure if she didn't break any other rule, so if she was also kind, patient, charitable, temperate, and such she was OK. So, anyway, everybody is born stained with sin because you can't get people without sex and we all came from Adam and Eve, who were also stained with sin because they hosed up. It takes effort to cleans yourself of sin. You don't need to be completely pure to get into heaven but if you aren't even trying then you don't get in no matter how pure you are. God likes to see effort. Problem is, the idea is that Jesus was pure his whole life. He started as pure as one could possibly be so his effort was put into making other people pure. As he was the Son of God he was more or less required to be pure so people were arguing that God would have to choose a completely pure woman for the birth to happen. So, either God made Mary pure because magic or Mary was pure to begin with. Or he just cleansed her of sin at birth. Who even knows really, nobody can seem to agree on it. Or if it even rally matters.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2014 21:16
|
|
|
Peanut3141 posted:Whoa, sex is inherently sinful? That's news to me, and I grew up in a rather extreme hellfire & damnation Christian family. How does one square that with god's command to be fruitful and multiply? What variety of Christianity was it? Some of them only think lust, excessive sex, recreational sex, or extra-marital sex is sinful and there's a ton of variety in the beliefs. But yeah, short of it is, the Bible says loving is a sin but there are other passages where you get a free pass on having sex while married because God said "go forth and multiply" and an apostle said "yeah, celibacy is preferred but most people can't do that." In some denominations it's "gently caress your spouse but nobody else and you're fine" while others teach that sex is OK only if you don't enjoy it that much, only use the missionary position, and only do it to make babies. Like was said, the Bible contradicts itself on sex all over the place so there's just no way to get all of Christianity to agree on it. edit: This is also why some of the more chill denominations still think gay sex is a sin, incidentally. Gay sex is incapable of producing children so it's purely recreational and God hates that poo poo. ToxicSlurpee fucked around with this message at 23:22 on Apr 13, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2014 23:19
|
|
|
Cemetry Gator posted:What are these passages that say that sex is sinful? Now that I google around a bit I can't find a passage in particular. That's just what I was taught growing up; that having sex was a sin but God tolerated it if you got married and had sex only to make children. There's a lot of vagueness on what "sexual immorality" means from what I looked at so I'm going to assume this is one of those things that people make up their own definition and stick with it. Probably why the views on it vary so much.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2014 23:34
|
|
|
Peanut3141 posted:Yet I never heard that sex within marriage was a sin. Hearing something that is crazier than my childhood experience is pretty rare. When I was a child multiple people told me that I should never go to the local YMCA and should stay at least a block away from it at all times because it was one of the devil's organizations on Earth because The Village People, who were gay, wrote a song about the YMCA. Gay people hung out and recruited at the YMCA so I should avoid it if I didn't want to be gay because gay people burn in a special part of Hell. I wish I was making that up.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2014 07:02
|
|
|
Somfin posted:Because they think that if they 'prove' their side is right, a bunch of sceptics and scientists will immediately accept Jesus as their saviour and convert. Young Earth Creationism is tied pretty heavily to Evangelical Christianity, which, and I may be wrong here, takes how many people you've converted into account when it's tallying up your good deeds and bad deeds for the ol' heaven/hell afterlife dichotomy. This or they believe that Christianity is The One True Path and that they are helping people by converting them. After all, everybody that isn't Christian just plain goes to Hell, even if they've never heard of Jesus, which makes sense because reasons. Some denominations and sects believe that witnessing is bonus heaven points. Others believe that Christians must save people from themselves by converting them and getting rid of every other religion in existence.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2014 07:14
|
|
|
goddamnedtwisto posted:(FWIW many Christian sects *do* recognise Muslims as worshipping the same God, just doing it in a different (I consciously avoid the use of the word "wrong" here) way) And on the other end of the spectrum are people that believe that Allah is literally Satan in disguise and Muhammad was sent here by the devil to tempt people away from Christianity. Christianity is a massive religion with over a billion followers. Some of them view Muslims as "basically Christian, just misguided" while others view them as over a billion soldiers in Satan's army that must be fought at every turn. They're both Abrahamic religions with similar origins to be sure but the beliefs from one Christian to the next can be dramatically different. Some people just want everybody to be bros and get along; others want to literally exterminate followers of the other religion.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 16, 2014 16:51
|
|
|
Install Windows posted:Nah, prosperity gospel at least purports to have something in it for you. Their stuff is just hate. Except, you know, "I will punish sons for the sins of the father." Sometimes no matter how righteous and diligent you are your father hosed things up too bad and now you must suffer. It's really just hate. "If you are suffering you, or one of your ancestors, did something to make you deserve it." edit: Now that I think about it it's very interesting how much the right contradicts itself. I remember hearing, while growing up in the 80's, that it was important to remember that any authority that exists was because God put it there. Leaders were decided by God so you must follow them. Cue the 90's and Clinton getting elected and suddenly it was "ungodly illegitimate authority" all damned day. A good question to ask is "if God decides who should be wealthy then how do you explain wealthy atheists?" Like honestly, Ted Turner is a billionaire but had an experience when he was young that made him go "gently caress this religion bullshit, it's stupid." ToxicSlurpee fucked around with this message at 20:16 on May 3, 2014 |
|
#
¿
May 3, 2014 19:57
|
|
|
Mr.Unique-Name posted:Do you mean the 1580's or something? I haven't heard anybody act like divine right was actually a thing in a modern context at all. Maybe I'm just not hanging out with the right people. I'm from rural Pennsylvania. Going home is like travelling back in time. Like I was seriously recruited to pass out Chick Tracts to my first grade class, told that Reagan was sent by God to lead America (the proof was that he won the election!), and informed that Desert Storm was literally the beginning of a crusade that would free the holy land. ... When I post about how insane the far right is I really, really wish I was making poo poo up. There are those that are far, far worse than you think they are. ToxicSlurpee fucked around with this message at 23:11 on May 3, 2014 |
|
#
¿
May 3, 2014 22:23
|
|
|
Orange Fluffy Sheep posted:teapartycrusaders.com was a loving godsend to Conservapedia. Over half of their citations anymore are to there. And the rest are conservativenewsandviews.com. So how long until we see a series of articles on these sites that just reference each other in a circle?
|
|
#
¿
May 5, 2014 04:59
|
|
|
markgreyam posted:Also, the whole obsession with the "if anything is ever corrected in science then the whole of science is questionable" argument is just enthralling. That really comes from people that don't understand science and look at it from the angle of religion. The entire point of science is "well we're pretty sure this is how poo poo works but we could be wrong and the theories and information are always open to further testing and development." A major difference between science and religion is that religion says "this is right, I'm right, end of story, if you disagree you go to hell." Science goes "OK here's a poo poo load of information I gathered and what I think is right, feel free to tear it apart and make sure I'm right." Generally speaking, the people that went "Stephen Hawking is a moron because he was wrong about something and openly admitted it" don't understand science. Being able to say "Well, turns out I was wrong about some stuff" actually makes Stephen Hawking a good scientist.
|
|
#
¿
May 8, 2014 20:05
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Wait were freedom fries really a thing? Anywhere? Yes. They were. So was freedom toast. Or well, replacing "French" anything with "freedom" if it was in America.
|
|
#
¿
May 11, 2014 22:51
|
|
|
idonotlikepeas posted:You're spot on. The generally-accepted interpretation of these verses is exactly what you think it is. In general, this is a theme that Jesus gets into a few times; if you want to be a genuinely virtuous person, part of the requirement for that virtue is that you not go around explaining to everyone how virtuous you are. You just go and do the right thing, whether anybody is ever going to find out about it or not. They even have a deadly sin/virtue pair for that one. Pride is so bad it's considered to be literally the foundation of all the other deadly sins. Believing you're more virtuous than everybody else and feeling the need to advertise it so you look good is not only pride but also vanity. Conversely, humility is considered a virtue. Jesus himself said "yeah I'm basically underneath all the criminals and vagrants and beggars." Pride also has a negative effect on piety in that if a person believes they've achieved the peak of virtue they'll quit trying and inevitably start sliding backwards or, in many cases, only act virtuous because they want to be perceived as virtuous (hello, TV preachers, how are you today?) and reap the worldly benefits. This, of course, often feeds into the other sins of greed, gluttony, or sometimes lust.
|
|
#
¿
May 14, 2014 23:41
|
|
|
DStecks posted:I feel the need to qualify that this is a thoroughly Catholic perspective, Protestantism (especially American, right wing Protestantism) doesn't have a formulated set of "deadly sins", and generally shies away from attempts to philosophically explain why sins are bad beyond "the Bible says so". Valid point; I've been more exposed to Catholicism and particular brands of evangelical Christianity that have a lot of similarities to it than other forms of Protestantism. My mother attempted to raise me Catholic (and ultimately failed partly due to the fact that she was a really, really bad Catholic who flopped about different denominations)and I've known a lot of Baptists. Oddly enough, the Baptist churches I've come into contact with all hate each other and spent more time damning everybody else to Hell than figuring out how to get into Heaven. Needless to say, drat near all of them vote Republican and many believe that God is punishing America for being too gay. Whenever I read this thread I can't help but think "holy poo poo I grew up in a culture that not only believes all of this but many things that are actually worse." I quit being a Christian a long time ago and actively avoid the county I'm from.
|
|
#
¿
May 15, 2014 03:02
|
|
|
Little Blackfly posted:they think their interpretation is the prima facie obvious one That's the center of it, really. If it's obvious to me that this is right it should be obvious to everybody else. Alternately, the zealous want to prove themselves right by forcing their views on everybody else in an argument by majority kind of sense. Both are logical fallacies.
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2014 03:14
|
|
|
Centripetal Horse posted:What a shock, the only place the "name-a-fallacy" fallacy exists is on Conservapedia. The "citation" goes to a page where someone says, "We need a catchy name for the fallacy of being over-eager to accuse people of fallacies that you have catchy names for," because apparently you can just invent new logical fallacies and call them valid. It amuses me because these are generally people that not only have not studied logic but actively refuse to even understand the basics. A fallacy doesn't even completely, totally negate an argument it's supposed to be a sign that you should fact check it. But then these are the same people that can hear advice coming from the entire medical community and go "stupid doctors, what do they know? 12 years in medical school, what did they learn? Pfah."
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2014 14:54
|
|
|
Orange Fluffy Sheep posted:I like the word "mandated". It makes it sound like they're forcing people into gay marriages. Just rounding them up off the streets and forcing them to live lives of sodomy. This is Pennsylvania we're talking about, here. There are people out there that I guarantee are making that argument or bitching about how this is just an opening for those fags to go recruiting. I'm really, really proud of my state for pulling this one off and I'm surprised that not only did it happen but Corbett is just letting it be. However, I just known there is going to be some pretty nasty fallout over this in rural PA. There's a great deal of strongly entrenched homophobia in these parts. The liberals and gays I know are celebrating but I'm just waiting for the conservatives and Bible thumpers I know to really double down on the crazy.
|
|
#
¿
May 22, 2014 15:01
|
|
|
Adenoid Dan posted:Yes why do mass killers usually come from the states with the highest population, and less often from the smaller ones? Excellent question. Democrats, obviously. Areas with lots of people tend to lean more to the left. More violent people come from there because Democrats are the real destructive sociopaths.
|
|
#
¿
May 27, 2014 13:54
|
|
|
Sephyr posted:Hell, their point of view regarding mentally handicapped people as model faithful just lapped Warhammer 40k's "blessed is the mind too small for doubt" and "a tiny mind is easily filled by faith" axioms, and those are meant to be grotesquely over the top. A very, very good litmus test when it comes to ultra conservatives is to start quoting Warhammer 40K in front of people that don't know what it is and see how they react. Anybody that hears those quotes or "educate men without faith and you only create clever devils" is probably a complete poo poo with deplorable opinions.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 19, 2014 17:44
|
|
|
A turtle is eating some berries. You flip it on its back and move it 50 feet away from the nearest food source and demand that it get a job and earn those berries as well as a way to get there. You actively prevent it from turning itself over and prevent others from helping it while blaming the turtle for being in the situation you put it in. You tell people "it should pull itself over by the bootstraps." You are now a conservative.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 20, 2014 04:27
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:Frankly I'd be more concerned about a grown up getting all soggy eyed about a hypothetical turtle in a trick question. The mark of a semi-competent politician is that they don't let obvious bullshit fog their logical thinking ("will you please think of THE CHILDREN" being the oldest trick eg. used against sexual minorities). Just a quick question, have you read Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? Blade Runner left out some important things as to why the Voigt-Kampf test exists and how it works. Androids aren't capable of emotion, they only simulate it. Humans, however, have hard-wired responses that are measurable even if they think "I should not cry about a suffering turtle." A human will still have a noticeable biological response, if you know what to look for. In the world as it is now a suffering turtle isn't a major deal because there's a gently caress ton of turtles. In the book, however, Earth is a sparsely populated, dusty, irradiated mess that is almost devoid of life. Animals are viewed as a mix of precious things that had to be kept alive at all cost and status symbols, as living animals were ludicrously expensive. People that couldn't afford fake animals often bought robotic ones. Humans looked at animals as fellow life that must be preserved after we hosed everything up. Androids looked at animals like machines. If you haven't read it it's definitely a good one to read. Not very long either. It deals with a lot of things like what it means to be human or alive, even, and one of the themes of the test and the book in general is that the world had advanced technologically to the point where it was difficult to impossible to tell fake humans from real ones.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 22, 2014 13:21
|
|
|
Centripetal Horse posted:Except psychopaths would probably be constantly misidentified as replicants. That always bothered me a little. I wish someone would conduct a study relating political affiliations to PCL-R scores. That's actually kind of the point. The book is basically just one long existential crisis and that's what makes it so good.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 22, 2014 14:14
|
|
|
Notorious QIG posted:This is a pretty awful joke if for no other reason than the fact that it puts the blame for homophobia squarely on homosexuals, which is obviously not the case. That's not to say that violently homophobic people never turn out to be gay but it is to say that you should stop making those jokes until a given homophobe is caught doing something gay. Except that loudly anti-gay politicians are caught loving somebody of the same gender so often it isn't even news anymore.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 7, 2014 21:56
|
|
|
Not My Leg posted:Having said that, calling someone you disagree with a member of "other group" generally carries with it the implication that "other group" is bad, so it should probably be avoided unless you mean to make that implication. Also, to the extent that vocally homophobic people are actually closeted homosexuals, the proper response is not mockery, but disappointment in a society that causes such self loathing in a person that they feel the need to not only hide what they are, but to actively oppress others like them. Well, my criticism isn't that being gay is bad but being a gigantic hypocrite is bad. Which, of course, seems to be a pretty common trait among right wing politicians, especially in the light of how many of them turn out to be everything they say they hate. This sanctity of marriage bullshit is just one of the biggest ones. You always hear this ONE MAN ONE WOMAN UNBREAKABLE CONTRACT MARRIED FOREVER crap from guys that are either secretly gay/bi, have been married four times, or have mistresses, often in multiples. I, for one, just flat out don't care if people want to be gay and/or promiscuous. What I take issue with are these people that make "this is bad" a part of their political platform while doing the thing that they are saying is bad but secretly. Of course it's also hosed up and tragic in that homophobia is such a boon to a political career that gay people are perfectly willing to use it even though it hurts themselves in the process. It'd be better if we as a society just didn't care and let people be as gay as they please.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 9, 2014 00:46
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 19, 2024 06:59 |
|
|
Sephyr posted:Holy poo poo. As a brazilian, this blows my mind. Same-sex marriage is a widespread thing in Brazil, and there's actually a disturbing undercurrent of religious/reactionary bile and even violence against it. And as others said, suddenly Germany is a strong, rising world power instead of a decrepit socilaist nightmare. What I'm kind of wondering is why there is so much emphasis on the outcome of a soccer game and what it means. Germany beating Brazil doesn't mean much more than "Germany managed to put together a better soccer team." There really isn't much you can read into it.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 9, 2014 23:42
|
|