• Announcements

    • Robin

      Welcome!   03/05/2016

      Welcome, everyone, to the new 910CMX Community Forums. I'm still working on getting them running, so things may change.  If you're a 910 Comic creator and need your forum recreated, let me know and I'll get on it right away.  I'll do my best to make this new place as fun as the last one!
Sign in to follow this  
hkmaly

Story Monday, Nov 18, 2019 [Party-089]

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, hkmaly said:

You need to follow the thread. Nazi were committing genocide and I approved use of nuclear weapons against them (although that didn't actually happened, but nuclear weapons WERE used against Japan in World War II ... obviously). You said that other groups are also committing genocide, but use softer weapons. I replied that it's not the same and that in this case I would NOT consider nuclear weapons adequate.

Oops. My bad. :icon_eek:

I absolutely agree. If you are dealing with TERFs pushing a bathroom law... taking off and then nuking the site from orbit seems just a leetle bit excessive. :icon_eek:

4 hours ago, hkmaly said:

Michael Jackson tried to prove you can.

Yeah. Do you feel he succeeded? Did he manage to transcend the hatred of his skin? Do you feel the method he employed was healthy, not to mention in financial reach of every Black person? Is it really fair to place that expectation on them even granting that they themselves loathed their skin colour that much?

4 hours ago, hkmaly said:

I still think that there are too many claims that something is a slur just because it's used by hate group to label oppressed minority.

Er... that is quite literally the definition of hate speech.

4 hours ago, hkmaly said:

But it's true that the difference you mentioned exists.

It is an important difference. The hate group seeks to harm or destroy an oppressed minority that has done nothing to deserve it. It has chosen its course of action, placed itself beyond the pale of civilised discourse, and so forfeited any claim of being courteously treated itself.

4 hours ago, hkmaly said:

You are lucky you have moderate parties like this, however ... doesn't "moderate" mean that it's closer to center and not an extreme?

Yes, but it is only one of four Socialist parties in the Danish government. The other three all lie further to the left. My own party, Socialistisk Folkeparti, has a larger proportion of socialism to capitalism. In fact, I used to be a Social Democrat until they moved so far right that I felt their capitalism had started to loom too large. But the point is that no matter just how socialist they are, they all believe in democracy and the rule of law. (Mind you, we have had parties that did not believe in democracy, but inexplicably these have tended to not make it into Parliament. One of these did manage to enter Parliament on an intended platform of desiring to achieve a majority and through this majority democratically achieve the Revolution. But eventually it calmed down and joined the mainstream and eventually splintered off into two or three other parties in the ever-changing Danish political landscape.)

4 hours ago, hkmaly said:

That effectively meant that there were two parties, but multiple sides. Ergo I don't see it as counterpoint to what I said.

Yes, but even with only two mutually accepting and coexisting parties it does not achieve your target of "Only Us." For all their squabbles, Republicans and Democrats managed to compromise and coexist on mutually beneficial terms through most of the Twentieth Century.

4 hours ago, hkmaly said:

Mewtwo is not supposed to be evil. Sure, in the first movie he started to oppose humans, but that was due to his experience with some of them.

Pardon me -- humour failure on my part. I was referring to the fact that Evangelical Christians entirely deny the existence of evolution whereas all Pokemon 'evolve' -- and therefore must be of Satan, following Evangelical non-logic.

4 hours ago, hkmaly said:

Also, Pokemon and evolution, well ... Pokemon evolve little differently than normal animals. And by little I mean completely.

Indeed. In fact, they don't evolve at all. They might be said to mutate which is not at ALL the same thing. :icon_eek:

4 hours ago, hkmaly said:

... specifically Evangelical? ... I should probably refresh my knowledge of how Christians are divided. Last I looked, it was Catholics, Protestants and Eastern ...

Yeah, you probably should. They all subdivide into a complete chaos I find it hard to make sense of myself. There's Episcopalians (who are sort of Catholic only very British about it and they also permit female priests and Bishops), Evangelicals (who are Christian only very fundamentalistic and they consider Catholics to be the spawn of Satan, as well as all atheists, and Hitler was CLEARLY an atheist in spite of being brought up devout Catholic, so all atheists are Hitler, well, I don't really understand them), there's Danish Reform Protestants who are kinda like other Protestants only they are being excessively Danish about it...

You know what, I am only scratching the surface of this. In Denmark alone we have at least half a dozen or more major and minor variants of Christianity ranging from highly fundamentalistic to casual-secular. I can't do this justice, I haven't really studied this very closely.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the "either extreme can be Very Bad" thing, well, extreme cold can kill you just as bad as extreme heat. Being completely opposite to one Bad Thing is not always the same as a Good Thing--it could be a different Bad Thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

22 hours ago, The Old Hack said:

Yeah, you probably should. They all subdivide into a complete chaos I find it hard to make sense of myself. There's Episcopalians (who are sort of Catholic only very British about it and they also permit female priests and Bishops), Evangelicals (who are Christian only very fundamentalistic and they consider Catholics to be the spawn of Satan, as well as all atheists, and Hitler was CLEARLY an atheist in spite of being brought up devout Catholic, so all atheists are Hitler, well, I don't really understand them), there's Danish Reform Protestants who are kinda like other Protestants only they are being excessively Danish about it...

You know what, I am only scratching the surface of this. In Denmark alone we have at least half a dozen or more major and minor variants of Christianity ranging from highly fundamentalistic to casual-secular. I can't do this justice, I haven't really studied this very closely.

There's at least three kinds of Lutheran, a few kinds of Baptist, a few kinds of Mennonite, a few kinds of Amish, Methodist (I think more than one, not sure), Anglican, which I believe is not the same as Episcopalian, "Christian Churches/Churches of Christ" in three varieties (one of which believes only a cappella music should be used in church), Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, I think there man be a few others like that, Charismatic and Pentecostal churches (many kinds), Seventh Day Adventists, and various indigenous churches that appear to date from the apostolic age, such as the Coptic church and the Indian church. Oh, and Messianic Jews. And many independent churches. That is by no means an exhaustive list. (Exhausting, maybe.)

Then there's the groups with shady pedigree, who suddenly appear from off stage, yet believe similar things; Mormons (one main group, several splinters), and Jehovah's Witnesses (they, by virtue of being very controlling and isolationist, appear to be monolithic). Where the inclusive/exclusive boundary is drawn is questionable, as you point out. A case could be made for including Islam in this grouping (Also in several flavors) which would cascade into including Baha'i. I'm not sure where Christian Scientists (the Mary Baker Eddy group) fits in. Their newspaper is decent.

The terms fundamentalist and evangelical are not specific groups, but are adjectives describing an approach or world view. Actually, so are charismatic and pentecostal. And catholic and orthodox and liturgical (that one doesn't com up so much).

The words "catholic" and "orthodox" mean "holding to the common belief". I suppose it is a way of saying, "We are a mainstream church." I believe churches that consider themselves "catholic", small "c", hold to a formal creed. Roman Catholic is just a very large "catholic" church, founded in Rome, that believe they have exclusive rights to represent Christ on earth because they believe they were founded by Peter. "Orthodox" I've heard used in a secular context, such as "He holds orthodox view of Shakespeare", meaning "Thinks Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare's plays".

Liturgical means, "Worship services are scripted and distributed across the organization well in advance, so that we can the same (well, similar) experience in our worship service."

"Evangelical" means places an emphasis on evangelizing, a.k.a. proselytizing. This is usually foundational to the sect, being the reason they splintered off, but looses fervor in a generation or two. Examples, Methodists, Salvation Army (yes, it is a kind of church).

Fundamentalism means "focusing on the fundamentals", a way of saying "back to the basics", but a simple statement does not do this justice. Fundamentalism is an (over?)reaction to a more serene, nuanced, cerebral approach that could be viewed as ineffectual waffling. The fundamentalist turns in disgust to the source material, reads it for himself, understands a little of it, and takes it from there. This is a source of all kinds of fun, as you can well imagine.

I'm not clear on the distinction between charismatic and Pentecostal. They both have to do with gifts of the Holy Spirit, the charismata, mentioned throughout the New Testament, alluded to in the Old, but given particular mention at a specific event in the early church known as the Pentecost, which Acts states was a large scale outpouring of gifts of the Spirit. The significance is that for most of the past 2000 or so years, the gifts were believed to have died out with the recipients, then in the 1900s, there was a resurgence in gifts of the Spirit, and controversy over whether the phenomenon was/is real. Charismatic seems to me to be the broader term; denominational charismatic churches might call themselves Pentecostal, independent charismatic churches call themselves charismatic, but not so much Pentecostal. It might be a regional thing.

Atheists also come in several flavors.

 

Edited by Darth Fluffy
Cut out unused quotes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, The Old Hack said:

Er... that is quite literally the definition of hate speech.

I got a good chuckle out of that.

 

11 hours ago, The Old Hack said:

Yes, but even with only two mutually accepting and coexisting parties it does not achieve your target of "Only Us." For all their squabbles, Republicans and Democrats managed to compromise and coexist on mutually beneficial terms through most of the Twentieth Century.

Well, relative to today, yes. The depression era was a mess, and there are Republicans today who still hate FDR (who died before they were born) and want to overturn his reforms.

 

11 hours ago, The Old Hack said:

... whereas all Pokemon 'evolve' ... Indeed. In fact, they don't evolve at all. They might be said to mutate which is not at ALL the same thing. :icon_eek:

I'd say metamorphosize. It's scripted, it's always the same.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Darth Fluffy said:

"catholic"

This word has for a while now brought a certain cartoon to my mind. A large banner reading "Catholic Meeting" flies over a room containing several priests, nuns and a befuddled looking gentleman with horn rimmed glasses accompanied by at least a dozen cats. The poor gentleman looks at the bemused clergy and says, "Oh, I am SO sorry! I thought this was a meeting of 'Catholics Anonymous!'

3 hours ago, Darth Fluffy said:

This is a source of all kinds of fun, as you can well imagine.

Especially if it is misread, misunderstood, misinterpreted or mistranslated. Or all three. I can think of a certain quotation that originated as 'Suffer not a poisoner to live.'

A friend of mine once said "Give me a Bible and a highlighter and I can change the interpretations so they will make your hair stand on end." I believed him.

3 hours ago, Darth Fluffy said:

Atheists also come in several flavors.

I suppose I might count as one. I am an anti-existentialist inverse solipsist. I believe that I am made up but that everything else is real.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you really want specifics about the various congregations that claim descent from the Abrahamic Covenant, (at least those with a significant presence in the United States) I would suggest The Handbook of Denominations from Abingdon Press

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handbook_of_Denominations

The fourteenth edition is available from the publisher for about $30, but can be acquired at Amazon for under $20

As I said, it is currently in the 14th edition, but previous editions are still useful if you happen to find it in the library (I have the 12th at home)
This can be found in both public libraries (although as a reference book, they might not allow it to be checked out) and in the libraries of many places of worship (membership in said congregation may be required even for in-library research)

Tactful without sacrificing accuracy, much of the information is drawn from official sources of the various denominations

It gives the historical background of the various broad stroke religious traditions and then goes into specifics about various denominations within those traditions

https://www.amazon.com/Handbook-Denominations-United-States-14th/dp/1501822519

https://www.abingdonpress.com/product/9781501822513/

For example, I'm Methodist.  When I was a child, church attendance dropped off sharply in the summer.  Attendance also dropped for the Presbyterian Church across the street.  So for several years our two congregations would share Sunday Services in July and August.  The Hymnals were different, and you had to forgive Debts instead of Trespasses.  But other than that, there wasn't much difference that the under-ten-year-old version of me could see.  It wasn't until I was quite a bit older that I began to notice the differences between the Reform and Arminian movements.  It wasn't until I was able to study The Handbook that I approached understanding.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Darth Fluffy said:

Well, relative to today, yes. The depression era was a mess, and there are Republicans today who still hate FDR (who died before they were born) and want to overturn his reforms.

FDR's reforms were mostly renamings and expansions of Hoover's reforms. Although he did make some significant changes in some of those programs - where Hoover had insisted that big job-creation projects (such as Boulder/Hoover Dam) actually make long-term economic sense, FDR officially didn't care as long as they created jobs. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Don Edwards said:

Hoover had insisted that big job-creation projects (such as Boulder/Hoover Dam)

I absolutely loved the Hoover Dam back when I spent far too many weeks of my life constantly playing Civilisation 2.

My mom told me a story of something that happened when I was four and my family lived in the US. I was standing in awe looking at the Hoover Dam while we were on a trip across the US. (I do not actually remember it, though I do faintly remember the Grand Canyon from earlier during that same trip.)

Then I asked in a hushed voice, "Mom, did they really build all that to power Hoovering machines?" ^_^

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, The Old Hack said:
On 11/25/2019 at 0:33 AM, hkmaly said:

Michael Jackson tried to prove you can.

Yeah. Do you feel he succeeded?

No.

20 hours ago, The Old Hack said:

Did he manage to transcend the hatred of his skin?

He managed to get into distasteful jokes. At least someone on this forum told me they are distasteful.

20 hours ago, The Old Hack said:
On 11/25/2019 at 0:33 AM, hkmaly said:

I still think that there are too many claims that something is a slur just because it's used by hate group to label oppressed minority.

Er... that is quite literally the definition of hate speech.

Wait what?

What if I add "also" to that sentence? (... because it's ALSO used by hate group ...)

(This is, obviously, continuation of my idea that "it's not fault of that word")

20 hours ago, The Old Hack said:

But the point is that no matter just how socialist they are, they all believe in democracy and the rule of law.

Yes, but it IS possible it's just because they are not TOO socialist.

20 hours ago, The Old Hack said:
On 11/25/2019 at 0:33 AM, hkmaly said:

... specifically Evangelical? ... I should probably refresh my knowledge of how Christians are divided. Last I looked, it was Catholics, Protestants and Eastern ...

Yeah, you probably should. They all subdivide into a complete chaos I find it hard to make sense of myself. There's Episcopalians (who are sort of Catholic only very British about it and they also permit female priests and Bishops), Evangelicals (who are Christian only very fundamentalistic and they consider Catholics to be the spawn of Satan, as well as all atheists, and Hitler was CLEARLY an atheist in spite of being brought up devout Catholic, so all atheists are Hitler, well, I don't really understand them), there's Danish Reform Protestants who are kinda like other Protestants only they are being excessively Danish about it...

You know what, I am only scratching the surface of this. In Denmark alone we have at least half a dozen or more major and minor variants of Christianity ranging from highly fundamentalistic to casual-secular. I can't do this justice, I haven't really studied this very closely.

... sooooo, when I try to refresh my knowledge, I might end up having even bigger chaos in it than I currently have? Encouraging :)

8 hours ago, Darth Fluffy said:
20 hours ago, The Old Hack said:

... whereas all Pokemon 'evolve' ... Indeed. In fact, they don't evolve at all. They might be said to mutate which is not at ALL the same thing. :icon_eek:

I'd say metamorphosize. It's scripted, it's always the same.

Yes. The way pokemon "evolve" is very similar to how butterflies do it, and I believe it's called metamorphosis for them (except, of course, pokemons doing it faster). Also, Caterpie, Metapod and Butterfree ARE one pokemon "evolution" line ...

image.pngimage.pngimage.png

5 hours ago, The Old Hack said:
8 hours ago, Darth Fluffy said:

This is a source of all kinds of fun, as you can well imagine.

Especially if it is misread, misunderstood, misinterpreted or mistranslated. Or all three. I can think of a certain quotation that originated as 'Suffer not a poisoner to live.'

A friend of mine once said "Give me a Bible and a highlighter and I can change the interpretations so they will make your hair stand on end." I believed him.

He needs highlighter?

I think you need to be VERY careful when reading Bible to not interpret it in way which makes your hair stand on end.  IF you read all of it, at least.

Of course, I never read whole Bible. I rely on comix authors doing the highlighting ... but I did checked official bible few times just to verify it's really AS bad as the comix authors claimed. It was.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Pharaoh RutinTutin said:

For example, I'm Methodist.

Err, Methodist Akhenatenite or Methodist Osirian? :icon_eek:

Wait, I may be confused. I might be mixing the Reformed Church of Akhenaten into this somehow. :doom:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, The Old Hack said:

I might be mixing the Reformed Church of Akhenaten into this somehow.

Akhenaten was either a theological fool or a swindling genius

I'm still not sure which

He might have been both

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/24/2019 at 6:33 PM, hkmaly said:

Michael Jackson tried to prove you can.

Contrary to what people tend to assume, Michael Jackson's changes in appearance were not entirely his own choice. While some of his plastic surgery may have been entirely for cosmetic reasons, he got his first nose job after breaking his nose during a dance routine, and the second one to correct breathing problems caused by the first. Meanwhile, his lightening skin was the result of a couple of skin conditions (in particular  vitiligo), and the makeup he used to hide them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/25/2019 at 5:10 PM, hkmaly said:
On 11/25/2019 at 0:01 PM, The Old Hack said:

A friend of mine once said "Give me a Bible and a highlighter and I can change the interpretations so they will make your hair stand on end." I believed him.

He needs highlighter?

I think you need to be VERY careful when reading Bible to not interpret it in way which makes your hair stand on end.  IF you read all of it, at least.

I heard about an instance where a person managed to get a biblical-literal-creationist to invoke evolution to protect that belief - and he used only one verse (Genesis 1:30) and one animal (a pet cat) to do so.

Of course, if he'd used the previous verse and a certain fruit (manchineel), he might have killed the creationist. But the odds are he didn't have any of that fruit, or any others that would do the job, on hand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, ChronosCat said:
On 11/25/2019 at 0:33 AM, hkmaly said:

Michael Jackson tried to prove you can.

Contrary to what people tend to assume, Michael Jackson's changes in appearance were not entirely his own choice. While some of his plastic surgery may have been entirely for cosmetic reasons, he got his first nose job after breaking his nose during a dance routine, and the second one to correct breathing problems caused by the first. Meanwhile, his lightening skin was the result of a couple of skin conditions (in particular  vitiligo), and the makeup he used to hide them.

Oh.

6 hours ago, Don Edwards said:
On 11/26/2019 at 1:10 AM, hkmaly said:

I think you need to be VERY careful when reading Bible to not interpret it in way which makes your hair stand on end.  IF you read all of it, at least.

I heard about an instance where a person managed to get a biblical-literal-creationist to invoke evolution to protect that belief - and he used only one verse (Genesis 1:30) and one animal (a pet cat) to do so.

Of course, if he'd used the previous verse and a certain fruit (manchineel), he might have killed the creationist. But the odds are he didn't have any of that fruit, or any others that would do the job, on hand.

I think making him invoke evolution is much more satisfying than killing him.

(Re-reading ... wait: you only specified gender for the other person, ... ok, killing them?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this