Total posts: 3,556
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Supreme Justice Alito claimed that "the Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States." He explained that the "right to keep and bear arms for self-defense...is 'deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition,'" and that this right is "fundamental to our scheme of ordered liberty."Justice Alito wrote that "the individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense in the home...is central to the Second Amendment and its interpretation under Heller." ...."the handgun ban amounts to a prohibition of an entire class of 'arms' that is overwhelmingly chosen by American society for that lawful purpose," and that the ban "amounts to a prohibition on an entire category of 'arms' that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense."Justice Alito's opinion made clear that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual's right to keep and bear arms for self-defense, and that this right is applicable to the states as well as the federal government. His opinion also emphasized the importance of the right to self-defense in the home and the need to strike a balance between this right and the government's interest in regulating firearms. While you can spend years trying to eliminate rifles, handgun deaths, like the poor, will always be with us.
Self defense huh, you mean like defending yourself from a black kid ringing your doorbell.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Created:
Posted in:
Societal change is gradual.He's only 16, and he thinks transgenderism was invented when he found out about it, obviously it freaked the poor kid out.
I guess YouFound_Lxam is woke now :)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Societal change is gradual.
He's only 16, and he thinks transgenderism was invented when he found out about it, obviously it freaked the poor kid out.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Just another ideology centred around the innate necessity of sexual reproduction.Big part of it sure, but I don't think that is how this ideology is effecting out society.
What exactly is the "ideology".
Sexual reproduction is being torn apart by things like hookup culture, pornography etc. Maybe it is doing it a little bit, but not a whole lot.Just more over thinking about penises and vaginas and the endocrinal itch.Well if someone is going to try and change society, I ought to know the reasoning and logic behind it. Don't I deserve at least that?
Diversity has always been a part of society, if you want to eliminate diversity, you are the one that wants to change society, Please tell us "the reasoning and logic behind it". We "deserve at least that".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Well there are many reasons I find it concerning.The idea of transgenderism is that a man can become a woman, and vice versa. This idea in of by itself breaks down social norms.
Do you think transgenderism was recently invented kid, is that the peoblem here? Yes, we have always had societal norms and transgenderism has always existed, not the norm, but the whole idea of the term norm is that there is a distribution around the norm. The fact that there have always been diversity around the norm is the norm. Why does this particular variation upset you so much?
Now I don't know about you l, but I like society the way it is.
Obviously not, because the existence of transgender people is the way society is, and you are always crying about it like a little bitch.
We have been thriving with our social norms for a while now and it has been good.
OK, and for that entire time transgender people were part of society.
If someone is to suddenly present something like transgenderism which would break social norms, then I want at least an explanation as to why it will benefit society better and why we need it. If no explanation is provided then I am going to assume using human nature as evidence that it is simply for self pleasure and desires, which is not always good and I am obviously going to question that.
Oh, so that's it, you think transgenderism was just invented LOL. Hey you're young, maybe you just found out about it, maybe it was "suddenly present" to your mind, maybe it was a shock to your system, but it's always been a thing, society isn't going to die because "those people" just invented transgenderism
You can relax, take deep breaths, try to stop obsessing, breathe, relax, breathe, no need to panic, breathe, try counting to ten, breathe.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
I would usually make a debate in order to win an argument, but I like to go into deep conversation about these topics instead.
Why?
The world is a freak show, there's everything imaginable out there, from people screwing dinkeys to sociopathic cannibals and everything in between, why is transgenderism such an obsession for you, how does transgenderism affect you?
In a gun thread you said "Find me one civilization where lives haven't been ruined and people haven't died.", so 37,000 gun deaths a year are OK because, lives are ruined and people die in every civilization....but there are people with gender dysphoria, that you freak out over.
Lives ruined and death....meh, so what
Transgender people exist...oh no, the sky is falling, save me save me.
What makes the existence of transgender people so much more incredibly important to you than death and ruined lives.
So, I would like to challenge anyone or multiple people to argue in defense of this ideology.
You always talk about the ideology but you never answer the question, what exactly do you think the ideology is? The LGBTQ community is about as diverse as any community, yet you think they are all unanimous in support of this secret ideology you know about, please rxplain this "ideology" that terrifies you so much.
Fill in the blanks - The transgender ideology is ______________________________________________________ and it upsets me because ______________________________________.
Explain to my how it works, and why it would benefit society. I will ask questions and I expect them to be answered with clear and consistent answers that don't contradict each other.
Explain how intolerance works, and why it would benefit society?
Especially explain why death and ruined lives are tolerated and good for society and the existence of transgenderism are not tolerated and are bad for society....because that ideology seems more freakish than your secret transgenderism ideology.
Now if you are the type of person that tells me in order to argue I need to argue from the other perspective of Transgenderism then you can leave, because the perspective of transgenderism goes against science and biology, and I will stick to the side of biology.
What is the "perspective of transgenderism", is that another name for the "ideology", I know what transgenderism is, not sure what the "perspective" is, please explain.
There needs to be a starting ground for arguments that we can agree on so if you wish to argue, base it in truth or at least try to base it in truth.
I agree, and the starting point for an argument should be defining the terms, I don't see how we can argue about an "ideology" if you won't tell us what the ideology is.
Created:
Posted in:
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Now that's what I call a strong philosophical argument for more guns, more guns, more guns.You guys are good LOLEvery mass shooting has been stopped with a gun.Either by suicide, cops, or held at gunpoint.
More guns, more guns, more guns.
Guns don't kill people, guns kill mass shooters.
More guns, more guns, more guns.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Well you must have rejected an assload, because you haven't noticed a single lie from your party.
I don'have a party.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Find me one civilization where lives haven't been ruined and people haven't died.
Now that's what I call a strong philosophical argument for more guns, more guns, more guns.
You guys are good LOL
Created:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
Yep just googled it. - PREZ-HILTON, 04.17.2023 07:22PM
I don't trust Google. I will Yandex it though. - PREZ-HILTON, 04.17.2023 08:45PM
Created:
-->
@oromagi
- One can't authentically claim to be a Republican anymore unless you can show that you're willing to believe some lies irregardless of fact.
"What you're seeing and what you're reading is not what's happening" - Donald Trump, 2018
“The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.” - George Orwell, 1984
Created:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
Here is a video about what has occurred https://youtu.be/dXEypZqhFTY
Prez, just because a picture is on the screen for a while, that doesn't make it a video, usually, when it's a video, the picture has movement in it.
If you don't believe me, Google it.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
lives starting in Africa...Who is your favorite current African Warlord? You know, the guy you send money to when the fake charity scams run on late TV?
Fake charity scams...oh, oh, I know, I know...that guy's name is Donald Trump.
Created:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
working on my soon to be 10th WIFE
Sure you are troll.
Incels sure do have an active imagination.
Created:
Posted in:
I just saw it this week too, and yes, great movie, and a same thing, I recall some news stories about it but didn't know the story at all.
Pretty outragious what we did to him. I do remember when the scandalous interrogation techniques hit the news, the movie didn't tell what happened to the people responsible, I hope they were all prosecuted and went to prison. Doubt it though.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
I read through more threads and I've come up with a solution for you.
Stand next to Stephen as much as possible, it will make you look normal.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
I was watching a history documentary of a late 1800 ship sinking where 1/3 of the men decided to rape the women before the ship went down.
Was it one of your XXX rated "history documentaries"?
Created:
Posted in:
When I read a thread like this I think, this isn't real, I'm having an acid flashback.
Then I think, but wait, I never did acid.
Then maybe I will take acid some day and it's a flashforward. (Field of Dreams)
Maybe I'm trapped in a Felini movie.
Created:
I really didn't think it was possible for you two to get any crazier, but every time I think that, wham, I'm wrong again.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Set phasers to stun :)
Sure, phasers for the men maybe, but for the ladies, a better approach to conflict resolution would be jello wrestling.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Officially, the state thinks I am an African American. I am covered.
I'm sure you're on the list of people that aren't allowed to buy fertilizer and kerosine at Home Depot
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@b9_ntt
Yeah, if and when.Have you heard the expression, "When you have always been privileged, equality feels like oppression"?
Never heard that one before but damn, that is spot on, it explains a lot.
I think that's the situation now among a certain number of white males. They like to break things when they don't get their way.
There is a lot of aggression masquerading as victimhood.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Try to stay anonymous and try not to get in the crossfire.
This is you trying to be anonymous?
Egads man, I'd hate to see what your on line presence would be if you were trying to get noticed.
Just what you already typed here should get you your picture hanging in the post office.
Created:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
That just might be the dumbest Holocaust denial I've ever seen, you take the Klan's short bus to meetings, right?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
Conversion kits that allows rednecks to put a flashlight on their guns or Mopar shit are harmless
Guns don't kill people, flashlights kill people.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
I think the real problem is Republicans oppose that whole democracy thing, don't really care that the people elected Liz Harris, crapping on the electorate is just what they do now.
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Trump supporters are the ultimate suckers
...and so EASY, Bannon took em on building the wall Mexico was supposed to pay for.
I kinda feel like I should get in on the "Fleece Trump Supporters" gravy train too, what do you think, World War Three insurance maybe, or how about anti-Woke tonic?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
I will take you up on your bet.
If they ever come up with The Conspiracy Whack Job Game Show, I'm all in on you winning.
Created:
-->
@oromagi
If you ever get on Jeapardy, please let me know, I'm gonna bet my house that you win.
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Uh oh, more trouble for Trump and his idiot followers.
Oh no, not again...at least this time he fleeced his supporters, last time he robbed charities .
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
It's only final for stolen valor larpers.
Created:
-->
@ludofl3x
We're not going to get anywhere because you're either a complete numbskull or just not an honest participant.
Let's see, this month he's a gun advocate, last month a Christian, and before that a pedophile....I think we can safely go with "not an honest participant".
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Democrat woke culture killed more people in USA than any mass shooter.So we ban the woke culture, and restore traditional values which are: marriage and functional families.
Guns don't kill people, woke culture kills people LOL
Gun people are hilarious.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Montana has the third lowest population density, you can expect a low murder rate if the closest person is 40 miles away.Population density kills people.
Yes, pretty much everything kills people except guns, right?
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Do you know what is a molotov cocktail? Its a weapon used by some militaries. Can be easily made by anyone, and can kill lots of people.
Used by some militaries in the movies, I'm pretty sure we are talking about the real world here.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Montana has more guns, yet much less murder rate.
Montana has the third lowest population density, you can expect a low murder rate if the closest person is 40 miles away.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Just like nobody watches the past 50 years of broken promises from DC.
Just like nobody voted for Trump in 2016.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
The right wing audience has truly become the Republican Party's Frankenstein. Turns out that when you lie to them every day they start to believe you, and with every lie you entrench yourself deeper and deeper into an alternate reality you created which you are now forced by your audience to live in. Who knew?What really amuses me is the fact that everytime I find myself arguing with a right winger and pointing out that Fox News is objectively a propaganda outlet they all claim they don't watch it. Funny how no one on the right gets their news from what is easily the largest distributor of right wing "news".
Interesting that Fox is the largest news network in the US and nobody watches it.
Created:
-->
@FLRW
After a British gunman killed 16 people in 1987, the country banned semiautomatic weapons like those he had used. It did the same with most handguns after a 1996 school shooting. It now has one of the lowest gun-related death rates in the developed world.In Australia, a 1996 massacre prompted mandatory gun buybacks that saw, according to some estimates, as many as one million firearms melted into slag. The rate of mass shootings plummeted from once every 18 months to, so far, only one in the 26 years since.Canada also tightened gun laws after a 1989 mass shooting. So did Germany in 2002, New Zealand in 2019 and Norway in 2021.
Oh no, not facts, gun people hate facts.
It's also very suspicious that you didn't include the chainsaw numbers, what are you hiding?
Created:
-->
@TWS1405_2
I see. And what is the going death rate for murder by pistols?Exactly.And what is the going death rate for murder by hands, fists and feet compared to rifles of any kind?
Guns don't kill people, hands and feet kill people LOL.
Isn't this where you tell us what color the murdering hands and feet are?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Math_Enthusiast
Part 2: Why?One could reasonably ask how on earth I would come to such a conclusion. As such, I don't just want to go straight to explaining the ramifications of such a belief system, but rather want to begin by explaining how I came to believe what I do. I have always wanted to understand the deeper truth about the universe, and having a mathematical/logical background I realized that to conclude anything, I would need at least one assumption. My goal, however, was to minimize assumptions. In the end, I settled on one and only one assumption, but it soon became clear just how vast the implications were. I present, the truth premise:The truth premise: There is a valid and complete notion of truth.
It isn’tvalid to just declare truth, especially when your declaration of truth is self-referential,and particularly when there is a valid “proof” that explicitly refutes it.
Despite how short it is, there is a lot to unpack. First of all, there is an issue here: The truth premise asserts itself as true, before any sort of notion of truth has been established. My resolution to this: Ignore it.
Whenyou have truth by proclamation, and you simply ignore contradiction, it isn’t alogical argument anymore.
Performing some sort of bootstrap here is entirely necessary. We effectively just accept the truth premise as if it has already been established as true within the valid and complete notion of truth that it assures the existence of. Now let's break down what the truth premise really means. There are two key words: Valid and complete.
Thatisn’t what any sort of bootstrap means.
Valid: Consistent and sound.Complete: Capable of assigning every objective and meaningful statement a truth value of true or false.Consistent: Containing no contradiction. No statement is both true and false.
Godel’sincompleteness theorem proves that no axiomatic system can be both consistentand complete.
You may have noticed that I have omitted the definition of soundness. In logic, the soundness of a set of axioms means that they imply only true results. The issue here is that we are trying to obtain a notion of truth in the first place. Soundness as it is used here is to say that if there is any sort of underlying truth structure within the universe, this notion of truth is consistent not only with itself, but with this underlying truth structure.
The universe isn't true or false, it just is. Truth is a matter of propositional language, perhaps the propositions can be about the universe, but the universe itself does not have a "truth structure".
It is not clear what such a structure would be, but nonetheless it is an important precaution. Now, why should we accept the truth premise? Put simply: We need it. Without the truth premise, it is impossible to conclude anything.
It is impossible to reach concusions without making up truth and ignoring contradictions? That isn't how logic works.
Let's suppose we put together some other set of assumptions that did not include the truth premise. Without the truth premise, an assertion of their truth wouldn't even be meaningful. We need a meaningful notion of truth as described in the truth premise. If someone wants to see it, I will explain why each assumption on the notion of truth is necessary for meaningful deductions to be made, but for now I will omit the specifics.
If you are going to completely redefine logic and truth, maybe it would be best if you do include the specifics, minimally you should tell us what universe this logic comes from.
Now, reasonably, we should be able to define binary functions (such as and, or, not, etc.) and have a meaningful notion of certain statements about them being true. Let's define f to be the or operation for an example. Then f(0,0) = 0, f(0, 1) = 1, f(1, 0) = 1, and f(1, 1) = 1. Reasonably, these should all by definition be true statements. This could be considered to fall under the soundness condition, where, for an example, f(0, 0) = 0 must be considered to be true, because the value of f(0, 0) is by definition 0. Replacing 0 and 1 with the truth values T and F we can rewrite these values as f(F, F) = F, f(F, T) = T, f(T, F) = T, f(T, T) = T. We now get propositional logic. We can show, for example, that P implies P or Q. (I can't type logical connectives, so I'll just use words.) We create a truth table:P = F, Q = F: P or Q = F or F = F, P implies P or Q = F implies F = T.P = T, Q = F: P or Q = T or F = T, P implies P or Q = T implies T = T.P = F, Q = T: P or Q = F or T = T, P implies P or Q = F implies T = T.P = T, Q = T: P or Q = T or T = T, P implies P or Q = T implies T = T.So in all cases P implies P or Q is true. At this point, we have seen that any notion of truth as in the truth premise should include propositional logic, and thus that we can consider the axioms of propositional logic can be considered a part of our definition of truth. It is possible that this notion of truth, to satisfy completeness, needs to include other axioms. Recall that completeness requires that our notion of truth assigns true or false to every "meaningful and objective" statement. To uncover what this means for our notion of truth, let's take a quick detour to another belief. Some people hold the belief that they are imagining the entire universe, and that it is all within their head. While this doesn't seem particularly reasonable, we can't prove them wrong with empirical evidence.
I’m noteven sure what this gobbledegook is supposed to be, it is masquerading as a deductiveargument, but that is not what it is by any stretch of the imagination.
The key thing to realize is that in different contexts, there are different reasonable/useful assumptions. Another example would be mathematics, in which we (at least in most areas of math) assume the nine axioms of ZFC.
Wedon’t just “assume” axioms, they must be established, accepted, orself-evidently true.
In conclusion, the notion of truth described in the truth premise can be thought of as all possible extensions of propositional logic, where we must specify the context (which extension it is in reference to) of any non-tautological truth.
Regarding this entire argument, all Ican do is quote Wolfgang Pauli, “it isn’t even wrong”.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Math_Enthusiast
As a math enthusiast, you know that Godel put a bullet right between the eyes of Logicism, it fell to the self-referential paradox, even after Russell’s do over with the Principia, the attempt to reduce mathematics to logic clearly failed.Gödel proved that it is logically and scientifically impossible to devise a set of axioms from which all the phenomena of the external world can be deduced.I do know of Gödel's incompleteness theorem. It is commonly misunderstood. It says nothing about the external world. I suggest this website.
You don't need to explain Godel to me, the incompleteness theorem speaks directly to "logicism" and your so called "truth premise", hence it explicitly applies as used.
It only "says nothing about the external world" if you accept that logicism says nothing about the real world, you are refuting your own argument.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Math_Enthusiast
Spiritual logicism is my term for my philosophy of the universe. I hope to be able to get into some interesting discussions about it and the nature of reality generally here. There is a lot to unpack, so I suggest reading this a little bit at a time, and feel free to comment and specific parts of it without having read the whole thing. I don't want to bore you!
Going to do just that, my response toPart 1 follows, then I'm off to Helen Georgia for an Easter nature day in the mountains. Looking forward to coming back to this post later for that all too rare interesting discussion on this board.
Spiritual logicismPart 1: The basic idea.Logicism is a pre-existing philosophy of mathematics. (We'll get back to reality in general momentarily.) I'm not going to define it here, but instead recommend reading this webpage for more information. The reason I omit the definition is that I would instead like to present my own version of logicism somewhat strengthened from even strong logicism: All of mathematics is an extension of logic. Not just certain fields, and not just mathematical truth, all of mathematics.
But who shaves the barber?
As a math enthusiast, you know that Godel put a bullet right between the eyes of Logicism, it fell to the self-referential paradox, even after Russell’s do over with the Principia, the attempt to reduce mathematics to logic clearly failed.
Gödel proved that it is logically and scientifically impossible to devise a set of axioms from which all the phenomena of the external world can be deduced.
This still isn't too radical of an idea, but spiritual logicism is, in my experience, basically unheard of. Here is my definition:Spiritual logicism: The belief that spiritual truths about the universe can be understood as, and fundamentally are, an extension of abstract logic. An extension of logicism to the nature of reality.
While Godel proved that you cannot extend logic to the nature of reality completely and consistently, but in doing so, he also provided a proof that stands logically in support of faith in a transcendent reality.
Kurt Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem is analytically perfect and rigidly deductive and therefore it is conclusive as far as logic and science are concerned. The incompleteness theorem states categorically that no axiomatic system is, or can be, complete without reference to a higher system in which that system must be embedded. Therefore, the presumed ideal of science is impossible, it is logically and scientifically impossible to devise a set of axioms from which all the phenomena of the external world can be deduced.
Since any representation of logic and science as somehow complete systems, or statements that contend that logic and/or science constitute comprehensive representations of reality have been proven to be logically and scientifically incorrect. As far as Science and Logic are concerned then, faith in a transcendent reality is more true to reality than logic and science can be.
Faith is essentially belief in a higher system, it postulates a transcendent reality in which we live and move and have our being. Kurt Gödel provided a proof that the act of having faith in a greater reality in which the normal world of logic and science is embedded is a more logical and scientifically, a more true representation of reality.
Werner Heisenberg confirmed that uncertainty is a feature of reality with his own proof in the physical sciences. Each and every unified theory, which is to say every scientific attempt at unifying and completing physical theory, postulates other dimensions in which this reality is embedded, every one of them, as and perhaps because, Kurt Gödel logically proved that they must.
It follows that the common assertion of our spiritual detractors, that you can’t believe in a non-physical existence or a transcendent reality without proof has been “proven” by Kurt Gödel to be illogical and unscientific, it’s OK to do it, but it should be recognized as a faith-based assertion rather than a logical, rational, or scientific premise. When our spiritual detractors typically speak with certainty that faith is illogical and unscientific, that is more of a faith based religious belief than anything resembling a logical or scientific premise.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
The zygote has human DNA, and is alive, therefore it is a human life by definition.
A sperm has human DNA, and is alive, therefore it is a human life by your definition.
So every time you jack off you are murdering over a hundred million human beings?
You seem to think making it sound worse with the clever use of terminology, so let's call masturbation genocide.
You are a monster.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
Yes, and you're saying that you don't think morality is objective.Or am I?I'm open to morality being objective. What I object to is objective morality needing a divine authority. The absence of a divine basis doesn't necessarily make morality subjective. If that's what you believe, we can address that.
Thosewho claim objective morality must come from the mind of God, either don't know what "objective" means, or they are using the word objective to actually mean "absolute". "Objective" is opposed to "subjective", where "subjective" entails dependence on asubject, the view that morality depends on the will of God is justsubjectivism on a cosmic scale, it isn't objectivism.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
One of the greatest unresolved philosophical debates is the nature of mathematical truth, on the one hand we understand mathematics to be created by the mind, but on the other side of this, you have Eugene Wigner writing “The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences” which tells us that there’s got to be more to mathematics than that.
Nevertheless, mathematics is a formal system of deductive logic, with axioms, formal procedures, and proofs, comprising a system that by definition, entails objectively verifiable mathematical truth.
But I want to add that the distinction you are making between “objective” and “could not exist without a mind” is a false dichotomy in this context. Morality is about human conduct, it’s a matter of what we “ought to do”, to look for a definition of objective morality as a morality that is outside of, or independent of, the existence of human beings is meaningless, you can’t speak of what we “ought to do” without including humanity in the definition of objective.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
He hasn't done any drugs,
Great.
Still delusional of a number of his past experiences and some current,Some odd beliefs, doesn't understand society as a normal person would.
That takes time, may never go away completely, but you will get him back if he stays clean.
Still, he's much better than where and how he was.Say's he's going to leave in July, as there is something he thinks he has to do back in our hometown,
That's a terrible idea if that's where his triggers are.
I hope he doesn't leave yet,There's still a lot that he needs, like talking to a counselor, therapy, which he has refused thus far.
That's not good, but when he's done brooding I'll bet he'll engage with the help available. Is he going to meetings?
I'm sure one of the reasons he hasn't done drugs here, is he hasn't been around 'certain 'friends and connections.
Absolutely, and it's critical that he stays away. That's what makes it so hard, he can't go back to the people from the road he went down, and he can't be alone, that's why he should be going to meetings, everybody needs a community, he can't really beat it without one. Are these friends and connections back in your hometown? I certainly hope not,
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bella3sp
We are talking about fictional characters, right? It's not like thier feeling get hurt or they are offended. If it's the originating artist that makes the changes, then it's his representation that he's changing, I don't see how anybody is taking anything away from anybody.But we're not talking about their feelings? We're talking about what the artists are doing to change their representation, not what if they're sad, hurt or upset about it.
If anartist wants to make changes to their fictional characters, isn’t that their creativeright? Who is hurt by it? If theaudience rejects it, then they are hurting themselves, but they are free to dothat if they want. We are suboptimizingif we try to limit or suppress an artist’s creativity, I will always come downon the side of freedom for artists, anything less smacks of censorship and/or violationof 1st amendment rights.
If it's the originating artist that makes the changes,But we're not talking about the original artist. We're talking about the fandom that makes the art.
Theword “fandom” has changed dramatically in my lifetime, there were always fan clubsand the like, but the fandom you are talking about is a completely newphenomenon for me, I know about it but I’m not sure I really understand it. Nevertheless, or maybe consequently, I don’tknow what you mean by “the fandom that makes the art”. To my understanding, the artists create theart, the fans appreciate the art, where does the fans “make the art” come in?
As said, I don't think I have seen the original artist change the skin tone of a character midway through the show.
That’s what I thought we were talkingabout, now I see that we are talking about something else, that you are goingto have to explain to me. As far as I know, artistsown the character’s they create, there are copyright laws that protect theartists rights, but I’m thinking that’s not what we are talking about here. Generallyspeaking, outside of copyright infringement, if fans are making art, then the firstamendment guarantees their freedom in doing so.
I don't see skin tone as discriminary against a fictional character.When you change it, yes.
You’vegot to be kidding me, the artist’s freedom should be limited because thecharacter’s they create have rights? Really? See, thisis what I’m talking about. When peoplesay things like what got my attention, I ask them to explain, and the answer isalways “I don’t know” disguised as something else. I’m going back to my theory that the culturewar demagogues are in control people’s feelings, and the controlled don’t evenknow how to explain those feelings. Trust me, the artists should offend the fictional characters they createdoes not explainyour feelings. Perhapsyou should explore the possibility I could be right through introspection. I don’t think you can explain it to me untilyou can find a way to explain it to yourself. If you can’t do that without recognizingsomeone else’s control, then you have already lost your freedom, and you can andshould take it back.
Now you're telling me how I feel about it?No? Based on your previous response I assumed that wasn't the answer you were looking for from me. Hence I decided to extend my comment further.I'm not asking how I feel about it, I know how I feel. I'm trying to understand the phenomenon of so many who can't tell what they stand for, they can only tell what the stand against. It doesn't sound healthy to me, I wonder if it a matter of projecting internal conclict outward.I'm not saying how you feel about it? Nowhere does it say you feel or should feel a certain way. If you're basing it on my comment "In the end, if you're trying to get the reaction .." that was explaining something that could've been asked ahead of time and also my inference on how your message was sent.I'm trying to understand the phenomenon of so many who can't tell what they stand for, they can only tell what the stand against.If this is directed towards me, I already told you what I stood for I haven't told you something I don't stand against.
Irecall the first post in our discussion as mostly saying “it upsets me becauseit would upset them even more”, at least it seemed that way to me.
I stand for equal treatment with every race.
Good,me too, and I am not questioning that about you. But I do think there are others who do notstand for that, and they are controlling or influencing how a lot of peoplefeel.
It doesn't sound healthy to me, I wonder if it a matter of projecting internal conclict outward.Not sure how you're saying its unhealthy? Everyone has something they're against, whatever they say, you can easily think about it. "I don't believe in sexism" in other words, "I believe all genders should be treated equally."
I dotoo, I have no idea how many genders there are, but whatever we’re up to, I believepeople should be treated equally, and as individuals.In today's world, anything else would be too complicated.
The, older I get, the more confused I get by social issues, especially the current culture war and identity politics, just trying to understand. I'm on the outside looking in, and I just don't get it.I relate to this to an extent. I've been reading about the social issues specifically the identity politics and sometimes I don't seem to understand them to the fullest.In short, that is more confusing, not less.At this point, I don't know what to tell you anymore..Simply, I don't believe someones representation should be covered for the sake of representing another race.
Are yousure that comes 100% from you, speaking freely? I just think we all need to look behind the curtain, make sure nobody backthere is pulling our levers and strings, and if they are, collectively declareour freedom. The “them” of our us/themthinking, needs to become the ones behind the curtain, not each other.
Created: