Active member
- Joined
- May 16, 2019
- Messages
- 374
@wowfucktron
So basically, Christianity is a staple of American culture.
So basically, Christianity is a staple of American culture.
The Politics Megathread
- Thread starter Zephyrus
- Start date
- Status
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2019
- Messages
- 10,564
@wowfucktron
It’s fine. Half the time the Founding Fathers didn’t agree with one another, hence the bitterness between Federalists and Anti Federalists. It’s just that it’s important to keep the spirit of the law alive and consider what their values were and how that influenced legislation. It’s more keeping true to their visions and ideals in order to keep those who seek to bastardize or misrepresent their values to their own ends. Sure the framers fucked up a lot or misjudged somethings but it’s best to heed their wishes regardless.
For the record I lean more towards Washington, Franklin and Paine than most of the others, though. And I have mixed feelings about both the antifederalists and the federalists.
It’s fine. Half the time the Founding Fathers didn’t agree with one another, hence the bitterness between Federalists and Anti Federalists. It’s just that it’s important to keep the spirit of the law alive and consider what their values were and how that influenced legislation. It’s more keeping true to their visions and ideals in order to keep those who seek to bastardize or misrepresent their values to their own ends. Sure the framers fucked up a lot or misjudged somethings but it’s best to heed their wishes regardless.
For the record I lean more towards Washington, Franklin and Paine than most of the others, though. And I have mixed feelings about both the antifederalists and the federalists.
Active member
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2019
- Messages
- 940
@eotfofyl
Here's your unwanted Judaism chart:
Three sects:
Orthodox (subhumans) are a cancer on the religion.
Conservative are a mix of the above and below.
Reform (basically suburban Jews) fixate on charity and social nonsense.
Then you have the ethnic differences among the three big diasporas:
basically you can guess via skin color.
Ashkenazi: Western, Eastern and Northern European and Canada + The US (white).
Sephardic: Southern European and South American (tan/brown).
Mizrahi: Middle Eastern, Asian (China, Korea, Japan and Singapore have really small groups) and African (Kenya, Ethiopia, South Africa and Morocco have disputed claims of some ethnic groups being Jewish) (brown, yellow, black).
Politics:
The Conservative and Reform hate the Orthodox due to the stupid stunts the Orthodox pull.
The Orthodox view themselves as superhumans and hate anyone who isn't an Orthodox Jew.
The Conservative have annoyingly large egos.
The Reform are the biggest whiners on the planet.
The Reform and Conservative barely tolerate each other outside of scholarly stuff.
Ethnic info:
The Ashkenazi are all paranoid due to our history in Europe.
The Sephardic incorporate aspects of Catholicism into their interpretations of the religion due to their history in Spain and Italy.
The Mizrahi are all [redacted] who need to be [redacted] and [redacted] x5.
Here's your unwanted Judaism chart:
Three sects:
Orthodox (subhumans) are a cancer on the religion.
Conservative are a mix of the above and below.
Reform (basically suburban Jews) fixate on charity and social nonsense.
Then you have the ethnic differences among the three big diasporas:
basically you can guess via skin color.
Ashkenazi: Western, Eastern and Northern European and Canada + The US (white).
Sephardic: Southern European and South American (tan/brown).
Mizrahi: Middle Eastern, Asian (China, Korea, Japan and Singapore have really small groups) and African (Kenya, Ethiopia, South Africa and Morocco have disputed claims of some ethnic groups being Jewish) (brown, yellow, black).
Politics:
The Conservative and Reform hate the Orthodox due to the stupid stunts the Orthodox pull.
The Orthodox view themselves as superhumans and hate anyone who isn't an Orthodox Jew.
The Conservative have annoyingly large egos.
The Reform are the biggest whiners on the planet.
The Reform and Conservative barely tolerate each other outside of scholarly stuff.
Ethnic info:
The Ashkenazi are all paranoid due to our history in Europe.
The Sephardic incorporate aspects of Catholicism into their interpretations of the religion due to their history in Spain and Italy.
The Mizrahi are all [redacted] who need to be [redacted] and [redacted] x5.
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2019
- Messages
- 9,819
Pretty fond of Christianity myself. I was never raised in a religious household, but it was mainly when I became aware of the bashing they receive in the ongoing endeavor to ostracize anything inconvenient to the wokesquad.
http://verdantlabs.com/politics_of_professions/
Idk if anyone here's seen this before, but it's moderately epic. Might not work or show fully on mobile (and if you're on mobile, do you really even deserve for it to work correctly?).
http://verdantlabs.com/politics_of_professions/
Idk if anyone here's seen this before, but it's moderately epic. Might not work or show fully on mobile (and if you're on mobile, do you really even deserve for it to work correctly?).
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2020
- Messages
- 3,252
You know I own two different bibles.
1. new world translation
2. New international version
The first gifted in an attempt to convert me the second from the time I was sent to religious weekend camp. Ironically enough reading these two books are the reason I remain an atheist.
1. new world translation
2. New international version
The first gifted in an attempt to convert me the second from the time I was sent to religious weekend camp. Ironically enough reading these two books are the reason I remain an atheist.
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2021
- Messages
- 368
i think the fall of religion in the modern age is the main reason for the rise of the leftist cult. what happens when you take people who feel an inherent need for religion and raise them in a culture that insists that religious precepts are stupid as are the people who follow them? you get a person that religious about somthing that isnt religion such as politics and culture which they have merged into one.
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2020
- Messages
- 3,252
@readingsit are you telling me it’s ethical for children to be killed making fun of a bald man? Because god certainly thinks so.
Active member
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2019
- Messages
- 940
You guys realize most of the unethical stuff in religious texts were just early attempts at government, right?
Most of those health/morality things were also attempts to tell people not to do something due to risk to self.
Telling men not to stick it in another person’s ass via fear of divine punishment was an early form of sex ed, believe it or not.
You risk infections and lacerations/tears when you role play as Rin Tohsaka.
Masturbation bad?
How many porn/coom addicts do we have in society nowadays? More addictive than meth.
No sex?
Child birth is dangerous and only became somewhat safer around the late 1800s.
It was an enormous risk (death) for a woman to give birth, it was just easier to try to tell people to keep their pants on.
People still fucked like rabbits back then even during the Victorian era, don’t let anyone tell you otherwise.
Isolating women during their periods?
Have you ever been around a woman on her period? It’s wonderful advice to just avoid her/leave her alone for your own sanity.
Circumcision was an attempt at toning down men’s libidos.
Barbaric? Yes.
Noble cause? In a way yes as rape perpetrated by men was quite common back then.
Less health issues from phimosis, tearing, STIs/STDs and smegma are nice but it should be a personal choice to do it.
Purging heathens?
We still do this, now it’s just with politics.
Dietary restrictions?
Pork was actually a really risky food to eat way back when. Pigs wallowed in their own shit and weren’t cleaned off before slaughter. Trichinosis (worms) was quite common.
Shellfish/seafood from the Mediterranean and the Middle East are hard to prepare (poisons and warm environment) so telling people to not eat it was just easier than explaining why food needs to be prepared carefully.
You need an undisputed authority to control people with fear, if you use a supernatural threat as an authority head, the average person in that time period would have listened.
The average person is an idiot, most people are superstitious even in this day and age.
The ethical stuff I was talking about mainly comes from the stories written in each religion’s respective books.
A lot of it is quite interesting, the morals and lessons are decent life advice.
Most of those health/morality things were also attempts to tell people not to do something due to risk to self.
Telling men not to stick it in another person’s ass via fear of divine punishment was an early form of sex ed, believe it or not.
You risk infections and lacerations/tears when you role play as Rin Tohsaka.
Masturbation bad?
How many porn/coom addicts do we have in society nowadays? More addictive than meth.
No sex?
Child birth is dangerous and only became somewhat safer around the late 1800s.
It was an enormous risk (death) for a woman to give birth, it was just easier to try to tell people to keep their pants on.
People still fucked like rabbits back then even during the Victorian era, don’t let anyone tell you otherwise.
Isolating women during their periods?
Have you ever been around a woman on her period? It’s wonderful advice to just avoid her/leave her alone for your own sanity.
Circumcision was an attempt at toning down men’s libidos.
Barbaric? Yes.
Noble cause? In a way yes as rape perpetrated by men was quite common back then.
Less health issues from phimosis, tearing, STIs/STDs and smegma are nice but it should be a personal choice to do it.
Purging heathens?
We still do this, now it’s just with politics.
Dietary restrictions?
Pork was actually a really risky food to eat way back when. Pigs wallowed in their own shit and weren’t cleaned off before slaughter. Trichinosis (worms) was quite common.
Shellfish/seafood from the Mediterranean and the Middle East are hard to prepare (poisons and warm environment) so telling people to not eat it was just easier than explaining why food needs to be prepared carefully.
You need an undisputed authority to control people with fear, if you use a supernatural threat as an authority head, the average person in that time period would have listened.
The average person is an idiot, most people are superstitious even in this day and age.
The ethical stuff I was talking about mainly comes from the stories written in each religion’s respective books.
A lot of it is quite interesting, the morals and lessons are decent life advice.
But don’t take my word for it, us Jews don’t have a concept of hell or any equivalent.
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2019
- Messages
- 10,564
My biggest issue with the Abrahamic Religions is the conflation of empirical claims with other philosophical issues like ethics, metaphysics, and political philosophy, which it wraps up in this strange system which doesn't make much logical sense.
Granted, each of the Abrahamic faiths has several primary virtues, such as Judaism valuing the strength of familial ties and hospitality, Christianity promoting forgiveness, tolerance and Islam valuing charity and tolerance of other ethnic groups and peoples of the book. I believe that we can divorce these values and ideals without having to tie these ideas to some strange framework involving an omnipotent deity.
The reason I like a lot of Eastern religions is because their crux is less reliant on epistemological claims and more values and principles, which can be divorced from any religious teachings, such as secular Buddhism or Taoism which can be more or less extracted without sacrificing the general principles which define them.
Granted, each of the Abrahamic faiths has several primary virtues, such as Judaism valuing the strength of familial ties and hospitality, Christianity promoting forgiveness, tolerance and Islam valuing charity and tolerance of other ethnic groups and peoples of the book. I believe that we can divorce these values and ideals without having to tie these ideas to some strange framework involving an omnipotent deity.
The reason I like a lot of Eastern religions is because their crux is less reliant on epistemological claims and more values and principles, which can be divorced from any religious teachings, such as secular Buddhism or Taoism which can be more or less extracted without sacrificing the general principles which define them.
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2021
- Messages
- 368
"old man screams at children, one cries" can describe a teacher teaching and one of the kids has a fit. im going to need some context here not just your framing
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2019
- Messages
- 10,564
@readingsit
Or it can describe the situation in Elisha and the Two Bears, in which one kid makes fun of him for being bald.
I don't think that is dishonest framing, my dude.
Or it can describe the situation in Elisha and the Two Bears, in which one kid makes fun of him for being bald.
I don't think that is dishonest framing, my dude.
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2021
- Messages
- 368
i didnt say it was. i was saying it could be since i didnt know what he was referring too so i want the context so i can look it up myself. which im going to now
Active member
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2019
- Messages
- 940
@tamerlane
Muslims value family as much as Catholics/Native Americans/Asians do (a lot) and their hospitality when I lived in the Middle East was almost oppressive in levels of kindness (reminded me of Mormons...).
Jews live and die by charity* and tolerance of, well, really anyone. One of the few religions that do not believe in evangelizing others actively or passively.
Both value all of the above but there is larger emphasis for them in some areas.
*
Eastern religions are predominately founded on the basis of "everything is out of your control, so at least try to make life pleasant for everyone." Nihilistic stoicism.
Abrahamics are founded on the basis of uplifting the poor through community and familial efforts while also teaching you to restrain yourself from primal urges. Altruistic self-flagellation.
I think you might've mixed these up.
Muslims value family as much as Catholics/Native Americans/Asians do (a lot) and their hospitality when I lived in the Middle East was almost oppressive in levels of kindness (reminded me of Mormons...).
Jews live and die by charity* and tolerance of, well, really anyone. One of the few religions that do not believe in evangelizing others actively or passively.
Both value all of the above but there is larger emphasis for them in some areas.
*
we get into pissing contests over this stuff, its so weird...
Eastern religions are predominately founded on the basis of "everything is out of your control, so at least try to make life pleasant for everyone." Nihilistic stoicism.
Abrahamics are founded on the basis of uplifting the poor through community and familial efforts while also teaching you to restrain yourself from primal urges. Altruistic self-flagellation.
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2021
- Messages
- 368
ok i looked it up, and apparently that passage is a translated mess
1. they were not children they were childish men
2. it isnt clear if they were killed
3. it wasnt light taunting they were saying roughly "Go up, thou bald head" which meant in its original language both an insult to his position as a man that had gone up to heaven to speak with god as well as telling him to 'go die'.
in conclusion Elisha had felt that had their actions gone unpunished then no one would listen to him as the man who spoke on gods behalf for they were not insulting him they were insulting god. he punished them so that all could see he was being serious about his position to save the corrupt nation, you can disagree with his decision-making but ultimately this was Elisha's decision.
1. they were not children they were childish men
2. it isnt clear if they were killed
3. it wasnt light taunting they were saying roughly "Go up, thou bald head" which meant in its original language both an insult to his position as a man that had gone up to heaven to speak with god as well as telling him to 'go die'.
in conclusion Elisha had felt that had their actions gone unpunished then no one would listen to him as the man who spoke on gods behalf for they were not insulting him they were insulting god. he punished them so that all could see he was being serious about his position to save the corrupt nation, you can disagree with his decision-making but ultimately this was Elisha's decision.
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2019
- Messages
- 10,564
@readingsit Ultimately, I'd say you're beating around the bush because being mauled by bears is not proportional.
Also, it's safe to assume they died given the lack of decent medicine in the time period so except more fatalities. And no, the word is not "childish," but "young" or youthful, so it's more like adolescents or teenagers. Also, for an all-loving and all-forgiving god, apparently he can't let this sleight go and has to summon fucking bears to maul 42 of them. The punishment does not match the crime no matter how you slice it.
Please don't tell me you just googled "Elisha and the Two Bears," and then went to a Christian Apologetics site like Answers in Genesis that hand-waves the fact God just had bears maul 42 people for saying things he didn't like.
@wowfucktron
There's a lot of overlapping values in the Abrahamic faiths, but there's also a lot of overlapping issues for the same reason. Eastern faiths vary, but Buddhism and Taoism emphasizes a more pragmatic acceptance of the way things are.
A famous parable goes that when tasting vinegar, Buddha picked an Apple and said it was "Bitter," because the world was full of suffering and pain. Confucius sipped and said it was "Sour," because the world is full of corrupt people and need strict rules and laws to prevent them from degenerating. But Laozi said it was "sweet," and that it was perfect just as it was.
I think that many people view the kind of downer tone to Taoism and Buddhism as promoting despair or futility, when in actuality, they both seek to find beauty in imperfection. In Japan, this concept is called "Wabi Sabi," and is more to relate to aesthetics and the idea that everything has problems and faults, and that's what beautiful about them. (This is not to say we shouldn't try to improve ourselves or become stagnant in our points of view, but that because nothing can be flawless, it gives things that do not have those flaws value, so we should value those flaws all the same.) Ever wonder the Japanese sand guards that require the monks work hours on end to create patterns in the sand that will blown over eventually? Yeah, that's meant to reflect Wabi-Sabi and the value of Impermanence in Buddhism, and how the fact all things will end means that the fact time is a limited resource will give it value. Taoism is about accepting the world and nature for as it is, and not trying to impose one's will over nature, but instead working in harmony with nature to achieve greater ends. Man is not to dominate over nature, but to work in conjunction with it and to respect it as it will outlive him and everything else.
I think a lot of westerners have lost sight of Eastern philosophy in their want to constantly progress or change and correct all the issues in the world, when, in truth, we have to accept that there are always going to be some injustices and bad things we can't fix, and it's not only perfectly fine, but almost necessary in some esoteric way to understand. It's very similar to absurdism in that it says that there may (or may not) be a meaning to life, but humans can never know it, and perpetually are caught trying to find meaning in a world where none apparently exists, just like Sisyphus.
So yeah, in other words, people are dumb and need to know philosophy to find contentment in their lives instead of trying to achieve a permanent state of short-lived happiness that is constantly hampered by abortive sorrows, as it seems people are doing now in their short-sightedness.
Also, it's safe to assume they died given the lack of decent medicine in the time period so except more fatalities. And no, the word is not "childish," but "young" or youthful, so it's more like adolescents or teenagers. Also, for an all-loving and all-forgiving god, apparently he can't let this sleight go and has to summon fucking bears to maul 42 of them. The punishment does not match the crime no matter how you slice it.
Please don't tell me you just googled "Elisha and the Two Bears," and then went to a Christian Apologetics site like Answers in Genesis that hand-waves the fact God just had bears maul 42 people for saying things he didn't like.
@wowfucktron
There's a lot of overlapping values in the Abrahamic faiths, but there's also a lot of overlapping issues for the same reason. Eastern faiths vary, but Buddhism and Taoism emphasizes a more pragmatic acceptance of the way things are.
A famous parable goes that when tasting vinegar, Buddha picked an Apple and said it was "Bitter," because the world was full of suffering and pain. Confucius sipped and said it was "Sour," because the world is full of corrupt people and need strict rules and laws to prevent them from degenerating. But Laozi said it was "sweet," and that it was perfect just as it was.
I think that many people view the kind of downer tone to Taoism and Buddhism as promoting despair or futility, when in actuality, they both seek to find beauty in imperfection. In Japan, this concept is called "Wabi Sabi," and is more to relate to aesthetics and the idea that everything has problems and faults, and that's what beautiful about them. (This is not to say we shouldn't try to improve ourselves or become stagnant in our points of view, but that because nothing can be flawless, it gives things that do not have those flaws value, so we should value those flaws all the same.) Ever wonder the Japanese sand guards that require the monks work hours on end to create patterns in the sand that will blown over eventually? Yeah, that's meant to reflect Wabi-Sabi and the value of Impermanence in Buddhism, and how the fact all things will end means that the fact time is a limited resource will give it value. Taoism is about accepting the world and nature for as it is, and not trying to impose one's will over nature, but instead working in harmony with nature to achieve greater ends. Man is not to dominate over nature, but to work in conjunction with it and to respect it as it will outlive him and everything else.
I think a lot of westerners have lost sight of Eastern philosophy in their want to constantly progress or change and correct all the issues in the world, when, in truth, we have to accept that there are always going to be some injustices and bad things we can't fix, and it's not only perfectly fine, but almost necessary in some esoteric way to understand. It's very similar to absurdism in that it says that there may (or may not) be a meaning to life, but humans can never know it, and perpetually are caught trying to find meaning in a world where none apparently exists, just like Sisyphus.
So yeah, in other words, people are dumb and need to know philosophy to find contentment in their lives instead of trying to achieve a permanent state of short-lived happiness that is constantly hampered by abortive sorrows, as it seems people are doing now in their short-sightedness.
- Status
Similar threads
