When you think about it, living in a theocracy wouldn't be so bad

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > When you think about it, living in a theocracy wouldn't be so bad

rudatron: May 31, 2011; by Fluffdaddy

Look man, I like your gumption, but christian theocracy is old hat: been there, done that. We need something new, something to really bring religious dictatorship into the new century. We need something aimed directly at the youth demographic, yet acceptable to their parents. Stylistic, yet functional. Proactive, yet passive. I say, go back the roman gods, but spice them up a bit: give mercury a vespa, minerva a macintosh, etc. Retro-wave is a big thing these days, I feel a dressed-up sequel to the roman paganism can really tap into that.

rudatron fucked around with this message at 09:00 on Jul 9, 2014

# ¿ Jul 9, 2014 08:57

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 22, 2024 11:07

rudatron: May 31, 2011; by Fluffdaddy

I can't help but feel that some unironic supporters of theocracy are mixed in with the ironic.

# ¿ Jul 10, 2014 01:52

rudatron: May 31, 2011; by Fluffdaddy

Democracy will never die, religious law is never coming back, nuke the vatican and hail satan.

# ¿ Jul 10, 2014 03:56

rudatron: May 31, 2011; by Fluffdaddy

buttcoin smuggler posted:

The United States is currently governed by corrupt sociopaths beholden to multinational corporations and other monied special interest groups. You're insane if you think this is preferable to a government run by men of God with a lifetime of moral and spiritual training.

The past few pages have been nothing but knee-jerk anti-religious bloviating. If the best objection you can muster is that a Catholic theocracy would no longer allow you to murder unborn children, then maybe you should reconsider your position.

'Corrupt Sociopaths' neatly describes religious leaders. Except Catholic religious leaders, they tend to be corrupt sociopathic pedophiles.

# ¿ Jul 10, 2014 08:52

rudatron: May 31, 2011; by Fluffdaddy

Good, I'm happy we both agree.

# ¿ Jul 10, 2014 09:15

rudatron: May 31, 2011; by Fluffdaddy

VitalSigns posted:

This thread is so great. It's like, y'all start with a good case about how American democracy is bought-and-paid for by soulless evil avaricious fiends and go on about how a Christian theocracy would care for the poor and downtrodden and I'm all like "Hell yeah that sounds great" and then you just go off the rails into "Oh but women should totally be property, and infidels of course are second-class citizens, and well I don't want to say we're gonna stone the gays but we all know they've got it coming ".

Like, can't we do the full Christian communism stuff, but skip out on the oppression like Christ wanted us to do anyway, or is persecution just too much fun?

Word to the wise: unaccountable authority figures always end up being corrupt. The idea that if you could only get the good guys in power, and keep the bad guys out, is historical fantasy. What makes this doubly disgusting is that it claims that religious figures are more moral than other people, which as we've seen with the church abuse scandals, is not true.

You cannot base a system of government on only putting the 'right' people in, because there are no 'right' people. Everything else that follows from that is nothing but empty loving promises. The sad part is that, while this thread started as a joke, there are legitimately people dumb enough to believe that old elitist plato's fable (that has been categorically disproven by history): Ethics is not and has never been a techne (a skill that we can say some people have and others do not).

If you want to see where theocracy gets you, look no further than ISIS.

rudatron fucked around with this message at 16:58 on Jul 10, 2014

# ¿ Jul 10, 2014 16:53

rudatron: May 31, 2011; by Fluffdaddy

Kyrie eleison posted:

I could not disagree more strongly with this. Some people are more ethical than others, which is to say, they are more proficient in ethics than others. The ideal system of government is going to have good people in power, and not bad people. I'm sure whatever system of government you prefer ultimately rests on this as well. The only real dispute is how you identify and select the good people.

That is because you are gullible. You are someone who is easily fooled by empty rhetoric and vague promises, which is what delivers every single authoritarian shithole into existence. It's a recurring theme of history and it's still happening, right now, all over the world. Islamic theocrats promise to be really good too! Honest! You can trust them! Right? But to you, they're muslims and therefore bad, if only you could put good, christian people in. Ahh, but we already had that poo poo, and the people overthrew them in the French Revolution.

It's not about good vs. bad people, that is for children to argue over. It's about incentives, power structures, systems. But that's not for you is it? You'd rather make pointless judgments about characters, that are always retrospective and that can predict nothing. A scientific view of human beings and the society they live in must be based on observed human behavior, not imagined properties which we allocated according to how much we like the person. We can observe how people preference those they associate with over those they don't. We can observe how people tend to act in their self-interest, and then justify it later. To argue that some people could ignore their human nature and act in an atypical fashion is nothing but an act of blind faith: the substitution of reality with fantasy, the replacement of a real solution with moralistic bullshit.

rudatron fucked around with this message at 18:11 on Jul 10, 2014

# ¿ Jul 10, 2014 17:54

rudatron: May 31, 2011; by Fluffdaddy

Kyrie eleison posted:

Did you ever think that maybe, just maybe, there was a reason for all the anti-clerical stuff in the French Revolution? That it wasn't an impromptu event, but the inevitable explosion of hatred against a system of oppression, which the Church was an integral part of? The reign of terror as retribution against a regime of terror? No, of course not, it's just this ~bad thing~ that sprung up out of nowhere. Geez guys, why is this such an important part of Western History, it only redefined the relationship between the state and its people, ~what's the big deal~.

I tell you now: real progress involves acknowledging how people actually act, and then moving on from there. Taking that into account, then mitigating it if necessary. A system where you get into power if you *pretty please promise to be good* is not a system of government that's ever going to realize it's on-paper design. You know what does work though? Changing the structures of power so it doesn't matter what kind of person is in power. That's that democracy does, that's what secularism does, and that's what future social orders must do: Change the tendencies and incentives of power to serve the interests of the people. That poo poo has worked wonders, why the gently caress would we abandon it for something that did not loving work when it was the only game in town?

rudatron fucked around with this message at 18:47 on Jul 10, 2014

# ¿ Jul 10, 2014 18:40

rudatron: May 31, 2011; by Fluffdaddy

StashAugustine posted:

Funnily enough a lot of the hardcore anti-gay pro-monarchy Catholics I know are basically socialists in belief if not name.

They're probably not socialist, but I do understand what you mean here. That's not actually anything special: It's not hard to be charitable to people who are supposed to be in your in-group. It's much harder to retain that for all human beings, which is where these things always fall flat. Whites of the deep south are all for universal healthcare...but just for whites.

Real social justice can never come from these ideas, it must come from an internationalism.

rudatron fucked around with this message at 19:25 on Jul 10, 2014

# ¿ Jul 10, 2014 19:19

rudatron: May 31, 2011; by Fluffdaddy

buttcoin smuggler posted:

The bundle of cells doesn't have as many rights as a full grown adult. It can't drink or smoke or own property or whatever. But as a human it has a right not to be killed.

And social welfare funding isn't a zero-sum game. My utopian theocracy would fully fund both healthcare and any necessary orphanages and maternity wards.

Wait, wait, wait just a second here: exactly what percentage of rights does a zero-consciousness bundle of cells have? Why? How can you logically justify that if you believe 'life begins at conception'? Do you realize how dumb this sounds, stating that a bundle of cells is simultaneously a person and not a person?

# ¿ Jul 12, 2014 03:04

rudatron: May 31, 2011; by Fluffdaddy

But you're literally granting something without any kind of agency, let alone moral agency, some unspecified percentage of rights. Do you believe they should have the same percentage of rights as a child? Or less? Where's the boundary, and why is the boundary there? Answer the question and stop deflecting.

# ¿ Jul 12, 2014 03:16

rudatron: May 31, 2011; by Fluffdaddy

Newborn children actually do have agency: they have a capacity to act, given a mental state. A cell does not. I'm using the philosophical term here, not the legal one. Given that, why should a right to life extend to something that is clearly a non-person? They don't have the same capacities (and in your opinion, therefore rights) as even an infant, on what basis are you granting them personhood?

# ¿ Jul 12, 2014 03:36

rudatron: May 31, 2011; by Fluffdaddy

buttcoin smuggler posted:

Animals also have the capacity to act given some mental state. Clearly there's an extra moral dimension here, or we would give animals and infants the same rights. What do you think that extra dimension is?

I'm asking the questions here. Besides, I'm not going to speculate on your dumbass beliefs.

# ¿ Jul 12, 2014 03:40

rudatron: May 31, 2011; by Fluffdaddy

buttcoin smuggler posted:

Come on. This isn't Cops. If I'm going to put my beliefs on display for criticism, it's only sporting that you offer alternatives to the ones you find lacking.

And to make it explicit, on my view, the extra moral dimension that elevates infants above animals is the fact that they're human.

No no no, you are the one that started this, you should follow it through. No deflections, no tangents, no dismissals. I want you to say what you believe, in your own words, as clearly as possible. I will not try and divine the particularities of what you believe. A circular argument isn't acceptable either, "they're human because they're human" is useless.

# ¿ Jul 12, 2014 04:16

rudatron: May 31, 2011; by Fluffdaddy

So, you're a trolling account. Congratulations.

# ¿ Jul 12, 2014 04:24

rudatron: May 31, 2011; by Fluffdaddy

Smoking Crow posted:

You never answered my question. I am a bundle of cells without consciousness, explain why i shouldn't have rights

I don't think you are, to be honest.

# ¿ Jul 12, 2014 04:27

rudatron: May 31, 2011; by Fluffdaddy

Smoking Crow posted:

How do you know? You've never met me.

A little bit of high philosophy for you: I think, therefore I post. Pretty insightful stuff, really gets those mental cogs turning.

# ¿ Jul 12, 2014 04:36

rudatron: May 31, 2011; by Fluffdaddy

Miltank posted:

An atheist can act morally but try cannot be moral because an atheist doesn't believe in morality.

Ah ha ha ha, oh drat. This is unreal.

The (hypothetical) existence of God doesn't prove or provide substance to any kind of morality, because you can't get from an is to an ought. That is a pretty basic result of philosophical inquiry and you are really wrong here.

# ¿ Jul 13, 2014 05:32

rudatron: May 31, 2011; by Fluffdaddy

buttcoin smuggler posted:

There are good objections to Divine Command Theory but this isn't one of them. Here's what a popular theologian has to say on the matter.

He may be a popular theologian (I'll take your word on that), but he is not clever. He hasn't solved the problem, he's simply moved it behind the word 'duty'. Why should an authority figure be respected? Why the gently caress should we care about authority at all, legitimate or not? That itself is a prescriptive statement. It's actually really transparent, there's no way you'd fall for it unless you really wanted to. Which is basically what the function of these kind of pieces are, they suppress rational thought through obfuscation.

Christian apologetics as a whole tend to be worthless garbage for similar reasons: they have as a goal the sustainment of a particular set of beliefs, rather than a real desire to inquire. They have the trappings and language of philosophical treatise, without any of the content.

# ¿ Jul 13, 2014 06:02

rudatron: May 31, 2011; by Fluffdaddy

Duty is perscriptive, and the point is that people smarter then you or I have tried and failed. Until someone actually succeeds, it's basically on a similar status to energy conservation: It's up to you to prove otherwise. It absolutely can act as a generic objection until a 'slam-dunk' example against it is provided: Simply drive-by-shitposting ala Miltank shouldn't be treated with respect.

# ¿ Jul 13, 2014 06:17

rudatron: May 31, 2011; by Fluffdaddy

Kyrie eleison posted:

But this position suggests that a philosophical argument is only valid if it's critical. Apologetics are certainly a valid form of philosophy. They are a necessary half of the debate, you need both sides of the story. If you only read critiques of an ideology you aren't going to be educated enough on the issue to make a decision on it.

Okay sure, there's good reason for a debate format to exist and there's a lot of well deserved faith in that kind of setup, where you have two sides who each 'expose' each other or whatever. But that's not how this kind of writing functions out in the real world, or even on the internet. They exist in isolation and serve a similar kind of function as chain-emails do, a writing that is passed around and consumed, by which the reader is able to obtain validation. But the purpose of inquiry isn't validation, it isn't to feel comfortable, its a search for truth.

Like I understand your objection: Criticism needs a foil in order to sustain a dialogue, but lacking criticism you end up with pointless garbage apologetics, like what was just posted. It's really obvious what he's done, its a very transparent trick. There's no way that would have survived a debate without been completely torn up; but without being in that that environment, its able to survive and get spread around.

rudatron fucked around with this message at 06:32 on Jul 13, 2014

# ¿ Jul 13, 2014 06:30

rudatron: May 31, 2011; by Fluffdaddy

Miltank posted:

You should give Bonhoeffer's Ethics a read. Everyone should read everything by Bonhoeffer he is awesome.

E: Atheists believe in morality as "currently acceptable social behavior" while Christians view morality as a literal force.

You think you know more then you actually know, my friend. You're wrong on both counts, you have no understanding of atheists, and christians aren't exactly in agreement on what morality is.

rudatron fucked around with this message at 08:05 on Jul 13, 2014

# ¿ Jul 13, 2014 08:03

rudatron: May 31, 2011; by Fluffdaddy

BrandorKP posted:

Yes they are protective but not of the set of beliefs, they're protective of the core substance of the religion. Any they definitely have a context. The context is church history. And they are also expressions of the reality of actual life in the church as a Christian.

And if you live and have experiences, then think about those experiences, and then talk about them with others, well that's the same process.

Okay, sure, they're not created insincerely. But because of their limited audience and nature they tend to function similarly to agitprop, regardless of intent. Functionally, they help people reaffirm already entrenched beliefs and ignore criticism. They act as a vanguard against the 'intellectual' assault (whether those intellectual criticism are legitimate or not). Their political nature is not an inherent feature of Christian apologetics, or religious apologetics more generally, or of apologetics as a kind of writing. It's a result of use and environment.

Let's take that quote of Bonhoeffer from Miltank. His framing of a increasing secularization is in utterly apocalyptic terms. It's not the logical culmination of western thought (which it is), it is a literal fall from grace - the loss of godliness being a-priori bad. Here we have the kind of environment that these apologetics circulate in. It's an ideological battle with material political goals; not achieving those goals is a catastrophe. So you have the implied 'counter-offensive', the set of actions to prevent that perceived catastrophe. Part of that is giving these kinds of beliefs intellectual currency (because the intellectual does have a kind of authority, which you can use).

The problem is that western thought didn't arrive where it did because it necessarily wanted to be there, it arrived there as a conclusion to a long (and continuing) collective chain of thought. So they end up having to trying to 'roll it back'. The problem there is what you're rolling back has a long history and strong arguments behind it. So they end up with obvious errors, so they're not taken seriously.

I'm not doubting that these are just shared thoughts that just kind of 'catch on' in that community. The problem is that community has explicit goals it wants to achieve, as a result of an unjustifiably paranoid perspective. It's natural that would latch onto something they could use, regardless of how truthful it may be. That's just human behavior.

I don't even think the majority of christians really share these concerns, or engage in these kinds of writings: most public debate about morality is rooted in secular systems, and people seem to support that. It's only a small minority that has any real interest in apologetics.

rudatron fucked around with this message at 19:51 on Jul 13, 2014

# ¿ Jul 13, 2014 18:40

rudatron: May 31, 2011; by Fluffdaddy

Smoking Crow posted:

Let's take a moment out of our discussion to agree on one thing. is the worst smilie on these forums and everyone would appreciate it if you didn't use it.

(sorry)

# ¿ Jul 14, 2014 06:01

rudatron: May 31, 2011; by Fluffdaddy

BrandorKP posted:

What? No I disagree with you there, I don't agree that apologetics must necessarily be political, I don't really think a defense of an intellectual position necessarily has political overtones. It often does, of course, and christian apologetics often do, but (for me at least) it honestly seems to depends more on form and on what they decide is valid. If it has a good logical flow to it then I don't necessarily think it's political, it's just following through on argument. Your obvious counter here is that their motivation (or true motivation) must necessarily be political, but to me that's almost impossible to resolve. And it kind of spreads 'politics' as the primary motivator for all human behavior, if you're not careful. Is that a useful result? How would you even prove it? I just take a functional view, much easier imo.

Your use of apocalypse here is also strange. If any great ideological shift is necessarily an apocalypse, then doesn't that kind of devalue what an actual apocalypse is? Or even a catastrope? Perhaps from inside any given ideology, a shift away from that ideology must necessarily be a terrible thing. But you think that something with that kind of language, would be based a society-wide understanding of catastrophe? These writings are meant to be read by others outside that community, right? If he's engaging in what you say he is, then I think that's actually much worse then if he was doing what I say he was!

quote:

And the same can be said about religious thought. And these chains of thought really overlap.

Unquestionably this is historically true, but that's not really the case now. Honestly I look at these kinds of writings, and they're not engaging with current thought. They just kind of fester in their own little forts, sometimes (but only rarely) spilling out like in conversations like this one. Maybe I'm being too harsh here, but that's just the way I see it.

quote:

I would say they want a different foundational idea. And they are engaging in (and I like your phrasing of this) "an ideological battle with material political goals" and if we miss the nature of what they are doing, the conversation becomes about specific details of the systematics being correct or not. If you write them off because the system is poo poo (and it usually is) you can miss what is going on. One systematic has been taken hollowed out and another foundation has been jammed in. It is a mistake to not take that seriously.

See, I wouldn't agree that it's been 'jammed in', but perhaps that is just an ideological difference. But I also don't think that taking them seriously really provides much insight into what you're talking about. It wasn't those beliefs that created that change in the first place. gently caress, I don't even think you can really answer questions of causes of social change with opinion surveys at all. Everyone 'in the moment' already has a kind of lens which they must necessarily filter everything through, simply asking them what they think happened is pointless. The flip side also works, of course, the people who were doing it wouldn't really have a clue what was going on anyway; they know not what they do, yet they do it. At best these kind of writings provide an insight into the ideas of the community they were written in. But historical forces? No, no way, it's too unreliable.

rudatron fucked around with this message at 06:46 on Jul 14, 2014

# ¿ Jul 14, 2014 06:42

rudatron: May 31, 2011; by Fluffdaddy

Miltank posted:

The quote was from Ethics, which is a compilation of Bonhoeffer's writings that were spared the gestapo. Nothing in Ethics or Letters from Prison was meant to be published as far as I know.

Also, As I pointed out earlier, the context of the void is the disunity of Christendom via nationalism and total war.

But that doesn't even help your argument here: to argue that the world wars are a result of the decreasing importance of religion is incredibly asinine. Is this what fundamentalist christians actually believe, that versailles + economics are totally unimportant as causal agents and, really, it's because people they weren't 'christian' enough? That warfare was less common in a highly religious environment (an extremely dubious assertion)? What kind of historian would take that argument seriously? Because that's exactly what he's doing: framing the crisis as a simple loss or religiosity. The context doesn't actually help your quote here, it is very clear what he is blaming.

rudatron fucked around with this message at 10:10 on Jul 14, 2014

# ¿ Jul 14, 2014 09:57

rudatron: May 31, 2011; by Fluffdaddy

Actually, even in theory, granting special privileges to one ethnic-religious group is a dumbass idea, with predictable outcomes.

# ¿ Jul 16, 2014 18:47

rudatron: May 31, 2011; by Fluffdaddy

Peta posted:

The campaign against him was based on fabricated evidence. The people advocating invasion essentially used the US army as their own personal tool to reshape the middle east. They made some wrong assumptions, and we now have an Iraq that is basically destroying itself. This in spite of the billions spent and hundreds of thousands of iraqi deaths. It is the greatest foreign policy failure of the US government since Vietnam. That someone in 2014 can see the Iraq Invasion as anything other than a joke speaks to the human capacity for self-deception.

Incidentally, can you guess why Iraq is fracturing? It may have had something to do with Maliki stuffing shia muslims into all levels of government, thereby creating tension with the sunni and kurds! Granting power to one ethnic group over all others leads to terrible results, who knew? This might be relevant to theocratic governments!

BrandorKP posted:

It's not a special privilege. I'm just saying be care to how you go after the theocracy advocates lest you rule out possibility of progress.

Nah, you were right on the money with the idea of progress, I was going after peta.

rudatron fucked around with this message at 19:16 on Jul 16, 2014

# ¿ Jul 16, 2014 19:12

rudatron: May 31, 2011; by Fluffdaddy

Part of the 'just war' is that you can actually make the world a better place through war: The current situation in Iraq is actually much worse than under Saddam. But okay, you're pleading a special exception. On what grounds are you making this special exception? In reality, 2014 Iraq is actually the inevitable result of trying to create a nation-state without there existing a real nationality. There is nothing the US could have done or spent money on, in any realistic scenario, that would have resulted in a successful outcome. It was not a 'botched' operation, it was doomed to fail from the start.

Like I'm not even arguing against Just War as a concept, but you couldn't have chosen a worse example of when making war is not necessary, and in fact is a really dumb idea.

rudatron fucked around with this message at 19:52 on Jul 16, 2014

# ¿ Jul 16, 2014 19:33

rudatron: May 31, 2011; by Fluffdaddy

If you cast Nietzsche as the ultimate other (with all the respect and special interest involved in that), then you've projected any opposition onto one dimension! To call him the ultimate 'man without God' is to both define yourself, in opposition, and man in general, as on the spectrum. When you see yourself standing up to this great other (with your spiritual fortitude and what-not), you are in the process of framing the issue as one of conflict and competing interests. That necessitates a different response then a problem about rational inconsistencies or social relations.

rudatron fucked around with this message at 11:07 on Jul 17, 2014

# ¿ Jul 17, 2014 07:12

rudatron: May 31, 2011; by Fluffdaddy

Peta posted:

Well postwar Japan has been pretty stable so I'd say the problem is more with the political/cultural/religious climate of the Arab world

But then that's a reason why the invasion, even as a theoretical idea, was a dumb one! You have just elucidated a reason why it was not simply a matter of implementation that this example of a 'just war' failed, contradicting what you were saying earlier, about it merely being an operational failure!

rudatron fucked around with this message at 15:37 on Jul 17, 2014

# ¿ Jul 17, 2014 15:35

rudatron: May 31, 2011; by Fluffdaddy

TheLovablePlutonis posted:

One argument I keep seeing here is that since theocracies like Iran and the Papal State did bad things, Theocracies are inherently bad. Yet secular governments like Pol Pot's, Mao's, Hitler's and Stalin's together killed almost a hundred million people, perhaps much more than those killed by wars of religion, yet no one says a peep about it?

'No one says a peep about it' is categorically false, you've clearly never actually read D&D threads on it. But that argument as presented is dumb. The actual arguments put forward against theocracies are subtler, but you willfully ignore that for the joy of trolling D&D.

rudatron fucked around with this message at 17:55 on Jul 18, 2014

# ¿ Jul 18, 2014 17:42

rudatron: May 31, 2011; by Fluffdaddy

Take responsibility for your own actions, my friend. The 'discourse level' starts with you!

# ¿ Jul 18, 2014 19:30

rudatron: May 31, 2011; by Fluffdaddy

BrandorKP posted:

I'm obsessed with Paul Tillich, my sentence structure could have been clearer. But I was pretty trashed. Anyway Tillich is probably the only theologian to call Nietzsche a prophet, at least he's the only one I've ever seen do it explicitly.

Tillich tried to reconcile Christianity, Stoicism, and some of what Nietzsche had to say in this book:
http://www.amazon.com/The-Courage-Be-Paul-Tillich/dp/0300084714

But many of Tillich's students eventually do go onto be be the "Death of God" theology people. But I'm not death of God theology person (even though I'll talk about it). But there is the idea of "religion against religion", or one could talk about Jesus as being anti-religion, or one could talk about God dying on the cross and what that means for organized religion. Anyway one can do all those things without being part of Death of God Theology.

Don't get me wrong I think God died on the cross. But what about God behind the cross (that whole trinity thing)? But what about the resurrection? Christians talk about the death of God all the time: "He suffered" or "He was crucified for us".

Anywho, back to the point, what it means when like someone like David Brat says "Christianity should learn from Nietzsche" combined with that he has a masters of divinity from Princeton, well, together those things imply strongly that he has probably read Tillich. Which worries me.

Could you go into this more? What exactly worries you? I'm interested in your perspective here.

# ¿ Jul 18, 2014 19:40

rudatron: May 31, 2011; by Fluffdaddy

BrandorKP posted:

And how did you think that it happened, or rather, why particularly libertarianism ended up being the kind of surrogate god you're describing? From the outset, it's kind of an odd choice, right?

# ¿ Jul 19, 2014 07:59

rudatron: May 31, 2011; by Fluffdaddy

Spatula City posted:

The great irony is that you wouldn't need any kratos among the religious, if simply being religious made you good and upright automatically (putting aside what exactly good means here). The premise undermines the point of the conclusion.

# ¿ Jul 19, 2014 08:03

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 22, 2024 11:07

rudatron: May 31, 2011; by Fluffdaddy

SedanChair posted:

And it's a dub, speaking of being abandoned by God.

Smoking Crow posted:

The dub isn't bad, watching dubs are legitimate choices in anime viewing.

It's like Lutheranism all over again, this schism is going to tear the internet apart

# ¿ Jul 20, 2014 10:01

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > When you think about it, living in a theocracy wouldn't be so bad