RE: God's Gays (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

HatesParisHilton -> RE: God's Gays (10/8/2009 1:47:47 AM)

one at a time.

"at this point, I'm having trouble parsing your statements as relevant to this segment of the discussion. I think there might be a values dissonance at work, here.

The only way I can read your statements in a sensible manner is to assume that you're trying for some sort of one-upmanship, which doesn't jive with the sort of person you've been portraying yourself as. What am I missing? "

you're missing the fact that playing nadless nancy ala semantics doesn't cover the fact I asked you direct questions and you didn't answer them. And how you read or parse statements as relevant to this discussion means shit all unless you wanna speak about doing things in a PRAGMATIC manner RE God's Gays.  You clearly wanna play duck and cover so fine, so be it.  I'll offer you pari passu pr bank draft payment to DO something about presenting the equity of Queerfolk, for use on youtube and in film festivals when you've bitched about not having a job, and that IS part of what this thread touches upon.  If you wanna geek out forgoe that, forgoe both a gig to back up what you talk about, and also back up whatever you might say here and later RE your concepts of equity between Queer folk and hets, then pussy out by claiming "you don't understand" fine.  It's not like anyone is gonna buy that.

as for Nihilus, hey, you're the end user. You don't create as much as you siphon off.  So you can call me anything you like since you probably added to my last royalty check anyway or tried to bed a person who did. But if you wanna call me anything and not be a velvet worm?  how about you tell, in your own voice, about the last time YOU LOST TEETH doing anything for any queer person ANYWHERE and stick it on youtube.  since I'll match you on that. I mean moment for moment, second for second, what you came from, how the culture you came from would make it oh so more difficult to stand against 4 or more of your own seeking to get away with a gay bashing, even challenging your own place in your own religion for doing so.

Then have the balls, geel boy, to ask Pahunk who he'd rather have at his back if some "Haters" showed up.

drop the geek shit and talk turkry, Ni.



Ialdabaoth -> RE: God's Gays (10/8/2009 1:52:19 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: HatesParisHilton
if you go in good faith (and good faith IS what this thread ends up being about, long or short) to a job interview, are you telling me you would consider it name dropping if the potential employer stated whom they'd emplyed and/or made money for beforehand?

would someone failing to ask for such be a "sucker"  during an interview?


This may also be illustrative of a difference in core values or world-views.
I generally far prefer to provide work samples to references. To me, the quality of my work is paramount, not who might have already judged my work as worthy. I don't trust big-name references very much; I've seen too much nepotism and mutual back-scratching to believe that they're an actual measure of merit - or at least, to want to use them as a measure of my merit. I mean, there's plenty of people just as good as me, that simply never got some of the chances I have to meet the Movers and Shakers - what makes me more special than them, you know?

So, instead of using some odd "star talent" to compete, I'd rather just show off what I've actually *done*, and let people decide based on that whether I'm worthy of their time and attention. It might take a little longer, but I believe that eventually, quality will out.



Ialdabaoth -> RE: God's Gays (10/8/2009 1:59:29 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: HatesParisHilton
I'll offer you pari passu pr bank draft payment to DO something about presenting the equity of Queerfolk, for use on youtube and in film festivals when you've bitched about not having a job, and that IS part of what this thread touches upon.  If you wanna geek out forgoe that, forgoe both a gig to back up what you talk about, and also back up whatever you might say here and later RE your concepts of equity between Queer folk and hets, then pussy out by claiming "you don't understand" fine.  It's not like anyone is gonna buy that.


Woah woah woah, wait. Back up a second. I think what we're running into here, is a fundamental aspect of my cluelessness.

Have you been trying to offer me a job?

I mean, you, as commissioner of work, me, as contractee? Because if so, please send me a cmail, and I will gladly negotiate terms with you (and I may not require pay, if it's a cause I believe in) - and I apologize for my cluelessness.

quote:

as for Nihilus, hey, you're the end user. You don't create as much as you siphon off.  So you can call me anything you like since you probably added to my last royalty check anyway or tried to bed a person who did. But if you wanna call me anything and not be a velvet worm?  how about you tell, in your own voice, about the last time YOU LOST TEETH doing anything for any queer person ANYWHERE and stick it on youtube.  since I'll match you on that. I mean moment for moment, second for second, what you came from, how the culture you came from would make it oh so more difficult to stand against 4 or more of your own seeking to get away with a gay bashing, even challenging your own place in your own religion for doing so.


Actually, having seen some of his work, I wouldn't necessarily say that Nihilus siphons off more than he creates - I certainly wouldn't say that he siphons off more than he's capable of creating, given a proper direction.

I think there might be an issue of tone, here. We're all capable of actually producing something of value if we stop trying to fight each other and show off how big our balls are. I'll try my best to drop my ego first, as a show of good faith.

What do you have in mind, sir?



NihilusZero -> RE: God's Gays (10/8/2009 2:00:37 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ialdabaoth

any universe sufficiently complex to encode for sapience, necessarily includes the possibility of unmitigatable suffering, as well as countless stranger occurrences.

Something a presumably omniscient creative sentient force would have known.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ialdabaoth

Well, from God's perspective, this is more of an omelet/eggs thing - "If I'm going to create beings interesting enough to not bore Me to tears, I have to be prepared that they might do some fucked-up shit to each other."

That, at least, accounts for the ethical ineptitude of the current world. The secondary important factor is that (depending on your mythology), the theistic deity does let out each individual life play out but has pre-devised a 'afterlife' metaphysical entrance exam based on what he has just witnessed. One, we're to believe, does not get adjusted on a case-by-case basis. We still come back to a creature making beings with the potential for failure and then punishing them for being as they are. Granted, we could say the afterlife is him separating the wheat from the chaff for what might be just another experiment with the machines that worked out...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ialdabaoth

Not if Ecco isn't in the game, no - but he does have to worry about Sonic spontaneously turning into Doctor Eggman mid-test, which is the point of testing. You run through a few thousand possible scenarios, to make sure that certain paths are unlikely to occur. Also realize that Sonic the Hedgehog, no matter how complex, is not sapient. Sonic is incapable of higher-order processing - all it can do is respond to your joystick inputs.

So the underlying question would be if a non-sapient/sentient creature can be created with the self-illusion of sapience/sentience...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ialdabaoth

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Ohhhh wow. Ohhhhhhhh wow. You've never written a computer program before, have you?

Guilty.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ialdabaoth

Ohhhhh MAN. Please, please understand; I'm not laughing at you.

Surely. Lest I wipe clean your NZ point balance on the eve of leaking out the Point Chart for redeeming points! [:D]

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ialdabaoth

I'm... wow. Okay. Umm... the thought process you are describing simply doesn't work, because of the aforementioned Church-Turing Thesis (which itself is a result of Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem). Suffice it to say, this is ultimately why Microsoft Windows crashes all the time. And not even God can get around that.

Well, that's part of the crux, isn't it? A system of inescapable laws that render a supposedly omniscient and omnipotent creature as neither really.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ialdabaoth

quote:

So...at best, we have a hypothetical god that does not know if a person's coin will land heads or tails, but has still created that person with the potential for failure (rather than two heads-sides). This leaves us at the god of the dice.


YES! Precisely.

I rotated through at least 3 gambling jokes and none ended up sounding good. I'll just nod here now.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ialdabaoth

Yes. It has also created WHAAARGHARBL. That's the thing - the only way to escape the "God can't predict human behavior" logic-trap is to ditch logic; and the moment you ditch logic, God is multiple conflicting things all at once, and you've got WHAAARGHARBL.

Isn't it already mutiple conflicting things long before the WHAAARGHARBL?



HatesParisHilton -> RE: God's Gays (10/8/2009 2:06:56 AM)

"This may also be illustrative of a difference in core values or world-views.
I generally far prefer to provide work samples to references."

and in regard to me paying you a basic wage to do something NOBLE RE Gods/Gays, effectively you HAVE.  You have provided better that a headshot (assuming the user pic is "you")  and you have illustrated that you would have no problem challenging someone on what you feel is improperly explained, illogical, untoward, or unfair.

by what you have posted to ME.  [;)]

unless you don't stand by your fine work-samples here...?



Ialdabaoth -> RE: God's Gays (10/8/2009 2:11:02 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: NihilusZero

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ialdabaoth

any universe sufficiently complex to encode for sapience, necessarily includes the possibility of unmitigatable suffering, as well as countless stranger occurrences.

Something a presumably omniscient creative sentient force would have known.


(Inigo Voice) "You keep using that word... I do not think it means what you think it means." (/Inigo Voice)

quote:

The secondary important factor is that (depending on your mythology), the theistic deity does let out each individual life play out but has pre-devised a 'afterlife' metaphysical entrance exam based on what he has just witnessed. One, we're to believe, does not get adjusted on a case-by-case basis. We still come back to a creature making beings with the potential for failure and then punishing them for being as they are. Granted, we could say the afterlife is him separating the wheat from the chaff for what might be just another experiment with the machines that worked out...


Which honestly, makes the most sense. It could also be that He separates the wheat from the chaff, and that Hell is just the next run for those that don't work out - as much as stupid preachers preach an "eternity of infinite torment", it could very well be that Hell is simply a repeat of the same processes that we go through on Earth, and that you just keep looping through until you get it right - and it's only "infinite" torment for those that somehow never get the lesson (the lesson being, "quit being an ass to other people and play nice for a change").

quote:

So the underlying question would be if a non-sapient/sentient creature can be created with the self-illusion of sapience/sentience...


Definitionally no. You said "self-illusion". In order to have a self-illusion, it must have a self. In order to have a self, it must be sapient/sentient. Cogito, ergo sum and all that.

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ialdabaoth

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Ohhhh wow. Ohhhhhhhh wow. You've never written a computer program before, have you?

Guilty.


I WHOLEHEARTEDLY recommend you try. Teach yourself Flash, and make a Flash game sometime. A real Flash game, with actual moving bits and responses to the user and such. Something at least as complex as the original Pac Man.

The enlightenment will be staggering.

quote:

Well, that's part of the crux, isn't it? A system of inescapable laws that render a supposedly omniscient and omnipotent creature as neither really.


Yes. When I first realized this, I fell to my knees cackling. I couldn't stop laughing for like, twenty minutes. My friends came to ask me what was up, and I walked them through the logic.

They all looked at me and said, "so...?"

I said: "Not only do the Fundamentalist Christians have to deny evolution, geology and physics to keep their view of God intact, they have to ignore formal logic."

... I was, unfortunately, the only one who got the joke.

quote:

Isn't it already mutiple conflicting things long before the WHAAARGHARBL?


Multiple conflicting things *IS* WHAAARGHARBL. That's the wonderful thing about it. Formal logic is the only thing keeping God from being Cthulhu.



NihilusZero -> RE: God's Gays (10/8/2009 2:14:03 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: HatesParisHilton

as for Nihilus, hey, you're the end user. You don't create as much as you siphon off.  So you can call me anything you like since you probably added to my last royalty check anyway or tried to bed a person who did. But if you wanna call me anything and not be a velvet worm?  how about you tell, in your own voice, about the last time YOU LOST TEETH doing anything for any queer person ANYWHERE and stick it on youtube.  since I'll match you on that. I mean moment for moment, second for second, what you came from, how the culture you came from would make it oh so more difficult to stand against 4 or more of your own seeking to get away with a gay bashing, even challenging your own place in your own religion for doing so.

Putting aside the illogical suggestion that having performed more physical acts necessarily lends credibility to points made in a metaphysical discussion (and the fact that it strays even further from any hint of what the original topic was):

You realize picking on an existential nihilist to comparatively fluff the tangible accomplishments you've reaped in life is like picking on a midget to feel comparatively tall, yes?



HatesParisHilton -> RE: God's Gays (10/8/2009 2:22:46 AM)

"Woah woah woah, wait. Back up a second. I think what we're running into here, is a fundamental aspect of my cluelessness.

Have you been trying to offer me a job? "

yes, but in the same way as I have been offered ones before, which sometimes are not what they essentially seem on the surface.

I take this thread VERY seriously, very personally.  the personal IS the political, so sometimes,  we need to see where someone's heart is at or if the person has a heart, at all.

"Actually, having seen some of his work, I wouldn't necessarily say that Nihilus siphons off more than he creates - I certainly wouldn't say that he siphons off more than he's capable of creating, given a proper direction.

I think there might be an issue of tone, here. We're all capable of actually producing something of value if we stop trying to fight each other and show off how big our balls are. I'll try my best to drop my ego first, as a show of good faith.

What do you have in mind, sir? "

okay, first, the via CMAIL bit: I can do that, but I have to make my own version of good faith, of transparency first, which has been done amply done here.  I can write to you privately but at least now, here, by this method, you have some measure of what I'm about without my having to be too direct.

I had to have a bit of a go here first because in my experience people are leery of backing off what they say in public.  especially on "pushbutton" issues.

whatever I offer you will be on a free-lance work-for-hire basis, and by the definitions of some tat is not a "job".

then again, neither was working for most of the people I worked for.  A "gig"?  a job? 

I want to pay you do what you are good at and hopefully using your visage and voice filtered appropriatedly to retain a sufficient amount of anonymity for you.  with wage equal to effort.  for the right for good people who pay equal taxes and break less laws to have equal right to enjoy a "marriage".

must eat now, and do more work (festival deadlines loom).

you're a good egg, Iald, and so is Ni.






Ialdabaoth -> RE: God's Gays (10/8/2009 2:35:13 AM)

Well, assuming we can get past a few communication and trust barriers, I'm always up for doing useful things - although to be honest, I'm far more proud of my skills as a sketch-artist than anything else I could contribute to {X cause} right now.



thornhappy -> RE: God's Gays (10/8/2009 7:51:11 AM)

Jeez, fellas.  Get a room.



tazzygirl -> RE: God's Gays (10/8/2009 8:23:23 AM)

LOL

get out of my head, thorn!



blacksword404 -> RE: God's Gays (10/8/2009 11:02:21 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: NihilusZero

quote:

ORIGINAL: blacksword404

Knowing peoples decisions does not take away their choice.

Of course it does. This deity (if we can avoid sidetracks into polytheistic discussions) created the variables in each individual that will yield every single result of every decision they will make.

According to this monotheistic mythology, we are just desperate mice in individual labyrinths, each with only one exit. If you want to suggest that our ignorance of what lies aghead somehow makes us autonomous, then I'll chuckle a bit wondering if next time I play a video game, some character might vary off script and start talking to me directly! [:D]



You know you just fucked up the criminal justice system right?

The mouse decides if it wants to walk forward or go back. Or it might decide to walk 8 steps and stop there and wait to die. Or it might go on ahead and look for the exit. Just because I know which action it will take doesn't make the mouse a robot unless I use this knowledge to forcibly change it's actions.



HatesParisHilton -> RE: God's Gays (10/8/2009 11:54:58 PM)

sigh.

okay, pari passu (but not in the way te term is ABUSED in legal parlance as per contracts for creative work for any "art" that can be considered "pop culture" or "mass media") means I must answer Nihilus first (for may reasons):

the topic is "God's Gays"

the moment we through the word "God" into ANYTHING, we are dealing with mass media, we are basically treading the boards of the first studio of te first great movie back when a wog (like my relatives; for you, in the USA, A "WOP") caused irreparible damage to his spine by painting the Sistine Chapel.  This was in many ways the first "movie" or "comic" or "teleplay".  a lot of what makes people choose one way or the other RE parity betwixt men like Pahunk and myself, and women like (choose your fave queer chick on this site) and - say, Tammystarm - comes from what people are willing to do in media to make people "see things differently".

and for the most part, talking as we do here, and enjoying this debate as you and I and Iald have done is SOMEWHAT helpful, BUT, whether I like it or not, even a SHORT film entered into a DECENT festival (which costs a fair chunk, mind you, since most Festival pricks are still demanding betacam tapes which are BITCH to make/mail/send)...  will make more of a mark in the effort towards parity.

we can talk about comics and related media, but MAKING a comic or animated toon that SUPPORTS the right for GREAT artists such as P. Craig Russel (one of the first ever comics guys to "come out" AND one of the top 12 comix artists EVAHHHHHHHH) or Craig Hamilton ( a fellow Sandman alumnus) means MORE.

That's "physical", and it matters.Just like work you, yourself, might do in Maya or Swift 3D for an entry into contests that Hollywood PAYS ATTENTION TOO, such as the Dubrovnik festival.

More for Iald later, the personally fried chicki mcNuggets are ready and must be eaten while hot...






GotSteel -> RE: God's Gays (10/9/2009 5:02:22 AM)

Somehow that had even less to do with the thread, you should probably get your own.



HatesParisHilton -> RE: God's Gays (10/9/2009 9:19:01 PM)

Uh, no, since if you read the thread, it has to do with God and Gays, and most  of the bad shit that happens to Gays happens from "non gays" using God as an excuse, such God-excuses come from MEDIA ABUSES of Old and New Testament, since any bible you like or pretend you eschew IS media, is the very DEFINITION OF MASS MEDIA,  SO maybe YOU should bother LEARNING about how media affects fucking religion, boyo, then affects in turn culture which in turn creates sites like these which allow for posts like the one you made above, and realize that ANYTHING in ANY post that has "God" included with "Gays" in Either the title of the post or the jist of the post means MEDIA and understanding ofhow media DEFINES public opinon rules the day.

Like it ruled how you most likely bought spineless clothing design crap popular with Colorado or Marin County cockless fucksticks to get you laid on occasion. 

when yer offa that there rockface yer climbing on, instead of making a sideswipe, take a moment to bother to read a few bits about what Mr. Mik had to go through RE mass media and how important it was before talking bullshit, wannabe Burning Man Bullshit Boy.

all religion and religious based bigotry comes from the mass media aspect of religion, and if you are too lazy to "get that", maybe YOU should start a new thread asking someone to EXPLAIN it to you.

Or just climb another cliff face and have some bimbo fellate you for it.  Either way, the universe doesn't care.



Elipsis -> RE: God's Gays (10/10/2009 2:32:22 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: blacksword404

quote:

ORIGINAL: NihilusZero

quote:

ORIGINAL: blacksword404

(Because without free will you would be a robot incapable of choosing to listen to him. And incapable of changing. You can't always protect children from themselves. No lesson is learned if no mistake is allowed to take place.)

Technically, a deity being omniscient means we are robots and that we were only given denial and delusion by this deity to wallow in ignorance about the fact that this deity knowingly creates creatures that will suffer; and suffer not only via the hardships of an imperfect world he has gifted (presumably because a peaceful one wouldn't be 'tough love' enough), but via eternal torment for not metaphysically masturbating said deity to it's desired degree (a result which was known and installed by the very same deity).





Knowing peoples decisions does not take away their choice.


Ack... whether or not free will can truly exist in the face of a deterministic universe is almost a whole 'nother thread.



tazzygirl -> RE: God's Gays (10/10/2009 4:28:07 AM)

If one comment from someone can produce that much anger from you.... ummm... god isnt your problem.



HatesParisHilton -> RE: God's Gays (10/10/2009 11:57:11 PM)

"If one comment from someone can produce that much anger from you.... ummm... god isnt your problem. "

MEANWHILE, up in heaven, Harvey Milk is laughing at that comment...

I mean, god is never the problem.

people making casual use of topics like these and unwilling to so anything that actually does anything more than increase the amount of posts on a thread is the problem.



tazzygirl -> RE: God's Gays (10/11/2009 7:01:46 AM)

so then why did you post?



Thadius -> RE: God's Gays (10/11/2009 7:31:13 AM)

Morning Term,

I haven't read every post in the thread, but wanted to put my quick 2 bits into the mix.

First, we must remember that religions are political bodies and in some cases businesses. They make rules, and opinions based on what they personally believe is in the best interest of controlling their "patrons" (i.e. controlling the growth, health, etc...). I am not going to single out any one particular religion, just know that in general, they all do it.

For many years, I had simply accepted that homosexuality was a sin. I hadn't thought about the subject, and simply took what the clergy was saying as fact. Part of that acceptance on my part was me also believing that homosexuality was a choice. This is obviously not the case, at least it is obvious to me now. I personally believe that our individual sexualities are hardwired into each and every one of us; and while some may or may not choose to accept who and what they are, the choosing to fight that inner wiring (for appearances or other illusory purposes) cause much of the stresses in life.

Personally being able to accept the above mentioned truth (that sexuality is hardwired) makes this a completely non-issue when it comes to spirituality. One must simply, based on that truth, believe that whatever higher power (diety or nature) has a purpose for such wiring. Those purposes could range from population control, gene pool management, or even as simple as anomalies in the genome. From that viewpoint, it even eliminates the judgemental arguments over a given sexuality.

I wish you well,
The pragmatic Rev. Thadius



Page: <<   < prev  3 4 5 6 [7]

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875