|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Tue Oct 06, 2009 1:33 pm
 |
|
|
 |
TeaDidikai Aino Ailill Is the religion itself entirely about the rape of little kids? That and nothing else? Pretty much. See, since it's pretty much Standing Stone + Child Molestation, you can cut away the child rape and review Standing Stone alone. Quote: Even if it is, not demonizing sex could be considered a 'point of merit,' though that should not, in any way, be taken as condoning their abuse. Since there are sex positive religious positions independent of raping children, I'd say that we can skip that shoehorned sense of merit and apply it where it belongs.
The claim wasn't that the religions offered a unique point of merit, only that no religion was, entirely, wrong. So, if it is the Standing Stone Tradition + Revolting Practice, and the Standing Stone Tradition is not entirely wrong, then neither are the Frosts, even though what they are not wrong in is something not unique to them and, in fact, taken from another. |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 06, 2009 1:34 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 06, 2009 1:58 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 06, 2009 4:36 pm
|
|
|
|
Aino Ailill So, on a broad spectrum, it would be correct to define a demon as a race which largely performs acts that are detrimental to humans (be it physically harmful or promoting falsehood), malice is optional?
Demon is, largely, a word broadly applied to a number of different things in poor translation (I can't say if it's only an English word though). Quite honestly, it doesn't seem wise to apply the word demon except for the things that literally require that label as per their etymology (original meaning of demon compared to meaning of other word).
Lacking such a connection, it's better to just use the culture's word. I had this same argument with DF (although much less civilly because she seriously stepped over some lines) on whether every magic practice in the world should be called witchcraft. It's pretty culturocentric to try to apply that word to every magic practice and frankly a serious problem in terms of cultural erasure.
bondage bunnie Recursive Paradox bondage bunnie There is no single world view or religion that can be all correct I find it distinctly amusing that you make an assertion as per your world view that immediately negates itself logically. It's like the people who make objective reality claims about how all of reality is subjective. The irony. It poisons me with hilarity. Ok so you kind of understand what im saying then, but then completely missed the point.
Your point, in and of itself is self contradicting. You basically put forth no content of worth.
Quote: And yes I think religion is Nihilistic.
Do you actually know what Nihilism is?
Quote: Doesn't stop me from having one.
I wouldn't see how it would until I know exactly what definition you apply to Nihilism.
Quote: On a philosophical level "There is no world view that can be completely correct." the thesis fail its initial idea for it is a defeatist statement.
No, it is a logically self contradictory statement. "No world view" is an absolute statement regarding world views, an absolute statement by the way that is a part of your world view (so you are making this statement about yours as well). "That can be completely correct" is the applied state to all world views, including yours. Which means there is a distinct possibility that the part of your world view that is incorrect (as per your claim) is the part in which you make an absolute statement that no world views are able to be completely correct.
Self negation. It isn't defeatist, it's just the most easily defined form of epic wrong philosophy has to offer.
Quote: All i have to say is when someone comes up to me and says "I have all the answers", I respond with "Credible sources required."
This is irrelevant to your self negating statement. |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 06, 2009 4:43 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 06, 2009 4:46 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 06, 2009 5:34 pm
|
|
|
|
Recursive Paradox Aino Ailill So, on a broad spectrum, it would be correct to define a demon as a race which largely performs acts that are detrimental to humans (be it physically harmful or promoting falsehood), malice is optional? Demon is, largely, a word broadly applied to a number of different things in poor translation (I can't say if it's only an English word though). Quite honestly, it doesn't seem wise to apply the word demon except for the things that literally require that label as per their etymology (original meaning of demon compared to meaning of other word). Lacking such a connection, it's better to just use the culture's word. I had this same argument with DF (although much less civilly because she seriously stepped over some lines) on whether every magic practice in the world should be called witchcraft. It's pretty culturocentric to try to apply that word to every magic practice and frankly a serious problem in terms of cultural erasure.
Am I supposed to know this 'DF?'
I can see the wisdom in your argument. Thanks. heart
Edited. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 06, 2009 5:43 pm
|
|
|
|
Aino Ailill demisara Aino Ailill demisara CuAnnan I don't know that you can do that. Each religion would define demons, or their analogs, differently and attempting to fit them under one definition would create a word who's meaning is so vague that it undermines the word itself. Also, I'm not sure 'race' is the word you really want to use there. It implies a common origin of all these beings, as well as a separation from all other spiritual beings. Speciation, as it were. Unless you want to go with the ethnic definition of race, which would also be difficult to apply. My use of 'race' was not to imply that all demons were of a single common ancestry but all demons belonged to a common ancestry (or related group, as they may not reproduce), of which there may be many. Say, cats, mice, and gerbils are demons. They are not related to each other (well, they're mammals but meh) but they might each be called 'demon' in that they are, as a species, inclined to bring Man to harm. So, yes, speciation. So, what is the issue with this? No issue, I was just trying to clarify your meaning. I don't have much experience with this sort of being, so I can't comment. Quote: Quote: Also there's no such thing as race. kthnxbye Proof, pl0x. So yeah, it's culturally constructed, and you can't make generalizations (biological or cultural) based on it. Skin tone can tell you nothing about a person. Ethnicity, now that's a whole other matter. Ah, I didn't mean 'race' as in 'Caucasian' but as in 'the Race of Man.' OED: 3. Any of the major divisions into which living creatures may be separated. (Chiefly not in technical use.) Cf. KIND n. 10. a. A class, kind, or species of beings other than humans or animals. b. The class of humans; mankind. Formerly freq. with the. c. The kind or class to which similar animals or plants belong. In the OED, there are eight separate entries for 'race' as a noun and twelve when including the adjectives (2) and verbs (4)!
Race: It's a big a** word. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 06, 2009 5:49 pm
|
|
|
|
Recursive Paradox demisara Also there's no such thing as race. kthnxbye *facepalm* Socially constructed things still exist. They are still real. If they did not exist, if they were not real then they would have no measurable effect. Socially constructed just means they lack a biological basis and aren't inherent. Stop using metaphysics wrong. Please. People doing this drives me up the wall.
You're right, I'm just used to explaining anthropology to Arkansans. We're ranked 49th public education system in the states, you know. Try using the phrase "culturally constructed" on the street in lower Arkansas. Just try. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 06, 2009 7:12 pm
|
|
|
|
Aino Ailill Recursive Paradox Aino Ailill So, on a broad spectrum, it would be correct to define a demon as a race which largely performs acts that are detrimental to humans (be it physically harmful or promoting falsehood), malice is optional? Demon is, largely, a word broadly applied to a number of different things in poor translation (I can't say if it's only an English word though). Quite honestly, it doesn't seem wise to apply the word demon except for the things that literally require that label as per their etymology (original meaning of demon compared to meaning of other word). Lacking such a connection, it's better to just use the culture's word. I had this same argument with DF (although much less civilly because she seriously stepped over some lines) on whether every magic practice in the world should be called witchcraft. It's pretty culturocentric to try to apply that word to every magic practice and frankly a serious problem in terms of cultural erasure. Am I supposed to know this 'DF?'
Nah. Just me ranting about her being a colossal culturocentric a*****e.
Quote: I can see the wisdom in not your argument. Thanks. heart
"In not" my argument? o_O
demisara You're right, I'm just used to explaining anthropology to Arkansans. We're ranked 49th public education system in the states, you know. Try using the phrase "culturally constructed" on the street in lower Arkansas. Just try.
...I do not envy you. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 06, 2009 7:18 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 06, 2009 8:05 pm
|
|
|
|
Aino Ailill Recursive Paradox Aino Ailill I can see the wisdom in not your argument. Thanks. heart "In not" my argument? o_O Erm...yeah. I'ma edit that now.
I was very confused. XD
I was like, "wait, is she being sarcastic? Typo? ....wuuuuuaaaaaahhhh?" |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 06, 2009 8:09 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 06, 2009 11:36 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 08, 2009 3:39 pm
|
|
|
|
bondage bunnie Nihilistic the subject's status is without objective meaning, purpose, or intrinsic value.
Okay.
Quote: I use it in the sense it doesn't matter what you believe the value isn't the religion itself its the belief in something.
This application of the word Nihilistic (as you defined it) to religion assumes the following:
1) That the value of simply having a belief overcomes the lowering of value that a false, delusional or damaging belief has or the lowering of value that a damaging, marginalizing or delusion inducing religion has.
2) That the actual beliefs of a religion can't possess value.
3) That the functionality of a religion can't possess value
Assumptions 1-3 have not been established as true, which negates the accuracy of your statement.
Quote: I guess further explanation is warranted.
It certainly was. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
