Blog Comments

Don't tempt the plotbunnies into my mind garden, homie.

as parents have the responsibility to pass on their experience to their children so do the children themselves as they grow and improve on that heritage

the same goes for bl

frosty

you have done the right thing my son

That's deep, man.

Like balls deep.

A Day In The Life is the most weirdly overassigned book of all time besides anything Shakespeare

I like your style.

When's the next post.

Sometimes I think what if instead of Miura dying before Berserk ends, what if I die before Berserk ends?

Not sure if drunk

I'm sorry, what?

Jesus.

Originally Posted by Frostyvale

Though, ignoring the semantics, I don't see how this contradicts the idea that repentance is generally demanded in payment for a fundamental guilt, be it original sin, or simply the continuous veneration of the greater ideal (God) and the minimization of the individual.

Was more trying to make the point that the whole repentance thing (mentioned to be needed for the acceptance of the "lesser" people of the collective) didn't necessarily result in the demeaning of the the individual.

In terms of repentance "demanded in payment for a fundamental guilt" I wouldn't say that's necessarily a bad thing; if someone's done something wrong, rejecting and feeling regret over it is one of the steps to repairing any damage it may have done to others and subsequent self improvement. On the other hand there are many organisations, social and religious who use shame and telling people to repent to control people and demean the individual (Tumbler SJWs being an excellent example).

Originally Posted by Cremela

Would dispute this. Speaking re. Christianity definitely depends on the denomination. Think same goes for Islam.

Suffering itself isn't the virtue it's being able to persist though the inevitable suffering of this world. Repeated repentance is def something the Catholic Church emphasises, as it's nigh inevitable people mess up, but part of that repentance is supposed to be the resolve to not do it again (self improvement). Many denominations (eg. Lutheran ones) emphasise you either being saved or not through Faith, Scripture or God's Grace alone (Sola Gratia, Sola Fide, Sola Scriptura). Interestingly I think they have something about "sinners" as opposed to the saved being capable of good deeds, but they are done for selfish reasons.

That's valid, perhaps. I trust your knowledge on this subject. Though, ignoring the semantics, I don't see how this contradicts the idea that repentance is generally demanded in payment for a fundamental guilt, be it original sin, or simply the continuous veneration of the greater ideal (God) and the minimization of the individual.

Haven't read The Fountainhead, but in contrast to the literal interpretation of hell being a literal place of fire and brimstone used in Western Christianity, Eastern Orthodox Churches have an idea of Hell being you isolating yourself from God (and the communion of Saints too I think). It's like the reverse of Hell being other people. Imagine being locked in a room with everything you would ever need, but no-one to talk to. Not even over the internet; just you to remember everything you've ever done...

Every separate flavor of Christianity comes with its own little bits of fun. I like Calvinism because it emphasizes the futility of human agency in order to inspire an even more fervent expression of faith.

Originally Posted by Ratman

An amazing way to connect SJW themes with the FSN themes. I am taken aback. Shame you had to involve Ayn Rand.

Is it a proof of concept, will you continue doing so? Some people might not want to see it on a forum on principle.

Rand's writing is questionable in a lot of cases, but I just thought that the comparison might be interesting to make.

Originally Posted by Wongdong Modernart

In any case, regarding what we have come to call the 'social justice' movement, I think that you've missed the point, or at least declined to mention it. Doing something productive in the present, and righting the ills of the distant past are one and the same, in this understanding, because it's impossible to talk about why problems in the present exist absent a past. Can you truly come up with coherent picture of African-American poverty in 2015 without the legacy of slavery and Jim Crow? Not really, and so on for the other things. The method, I agree, is very questionable and tends to misidentify their most important objectives, but what can you do.

Well this is kind of the problem.

Historically, these issues are very relevant and understanding them is necessary to understand the impact of social divisions. At the same time, it's incredibly emotional rhetoric which distorts the problems people actually face today, and also conflates the problems in the modern world with those of the 19th and 20th centuries. Not just by indicating the chain of causation between atrocities and modern injustice, but by adding such a substantial emotional charge that an otherwise innocuous issue can immediately become divisive.

Take for example the case of the University of Missouri, in which a random fellow's act of malice somehow convinced people that the university itself ought to take culpability. The actions of the protest group were severely disruptive, while also attacking an institution that they had no cause to blame.

I really ought to have expressed myself better, and I regret that I didn't, because the atrocities that the past holds don't deserve to be cheapened by being applied to this situation. In the most general sense, the moral judgement that we can make about those events should be independent of most cases of discrimination in the modern day. Including, and especially, those involving nothing more than offensive language.

To be perfectly clear, there is not a thing I will say to defend the sort of fool that feels the need to act the part of his racist ancestors. However, there is quite a lot more to be said about the sort of fool who will take this as an excuse to waste people's time to express a disproportionate amount of outrage.

I would revive beastslair.txt for this but it's over 140 characters.

An amazing way to connect SJW themes with the FSN themes. I am taken aback. Shame you had to involve Ayn Rand.

Is it a proof of concept, will you continue doing so? Some people might not want to see it on a forum on principle.

In any case, regarding what we have come to call the 'social justice' movement, I think that you've missed the point, or at least declined to mention it. Doing something productive in the present, and righting the ills of the distant past are one and the same, in this understanding, because it's impossible to talk about why problems in the present exist absent a past. Can you truly come up with coherent picture of African-American poverty in 2015 without the legacy of slavery and Jim Crow? Not really, and so on for the other things. The method, I agree, is very questionable and tends to misidentify their most important objectives, but what can you do.

And at the same time I make the concession that suffering has been propagated by systems of oppression, such as African apartheid, National Socialism, and African slavery and segregation, but just as we do not demand restitution for the innocent Frenchmen beheaded in the Reign of Terror, it would also be prudent to focus not on righting the ills of the distant past, but instead on doing something of productive value in the present.

You're behind the times.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/...ations/361631/

The fundamental tenet of the world's most prominent religions is that suffering is the central virtue of existence. It promises "salvation" in the afterlife through endless repentance.

Would dispute this. Speaking re. Christianity definitely depends on the denomination. Think same goes for Islam.

Suffering itself isn't the virtue it's being able to persist though the inevitable suffering of this world. Repeated repentance is def something the Catholic Church emphasises, as it's nigh inevitable people mess up, but part of that repentance is supposed to be the resolve to not do it again (self improvement). Many denominations (eg. Lutheran ones) emphasise you either being saved or not through Faith, Scripture or God's Grace alone (Sola Gratia, Sola Fide, Sola Scriptura). Interestingly I think they have something about "sinners" as opposed to the saved being capable of good deeds, but they are done for selfish reasons.

Compare this with the ideology of Ellsworth Toohey, who establishes a cult-like following by expounding upon the "higher satisfaction" to be gained by erasing the ego and accepting the will of a collective.

Haven't read The Fountainhead, but in contrast to the literal interpretation of hell being a literal place of fire and brimstone used in Western Christianity, Eastern Orthodox Churches have an idea of Hell being you isolating yourself from God (and the communion of Saints too I think). It's like the reverse of Hell being other people. Imagine being locked in a room with everything you would ever need, but no-one to talk to. Not even over the internet; just you to remember everything you've ever done...

That idea really speaks to me because being normally nervous in social situations around people I know I isolated myself in my room alot when not attending lectures at Uni and ended up feeling really bad compared to when I did go out, which I found really counter-intuitive.

Originally Posted by Rafflesiac

I do wonder though: If everyone focused on theirs and only theirs, only seeking their own self-improvement, would the problems of society right themselves? There has to be someone to look outward, no?

Depends what focusing on theirs and only theirs looks like. If it means you don't care about what suffering you and yours inflict on other people ala BNP, Bosnian Genocide, Nazi Party etc. probably not.

So, does this mean that Shirou's not a good model of a selfless individual because his reality is unrealistic?

Wait, I thought we should know this already.