Eviora

You know, I try not to be resentful toward people who got luckier than I did at birth. I tell myself that they chose to be born as they were no more than I did. But posts like that last one make it rather difficult. From your perspective, I imagine it all seems quite simple. Work to make a better world for everyone! Have nice, positive conversations even with people you disagree with! It would be nice if things were that easy. You know, I would also prefer it if demographics didn't have to play such a large role in politics. Sadly, there are people who would rather keep them in, and I don't think many of them are the ones you think they are. The ones who single out certain groups are malicious people like Trump and Pence themselves. They thrive on hate, use it to blind their voters. It is they who act as if equality for all and good economic policies are mutually exclusive. Remember when the Supreme Court struck down laws banning same-sex marriage and so many lives were ruined? Neither do I; such things just don't affect people who are not involved. Nonetheless, some politicians do target certain groups for inferior treatment. When that happens, what do you expect those of us who are members of such groups to do? Roll over and take it for the imagined "greater good"? That's easy for you to say because you are unaffected. Unfortunately, I and many others in similar situations will not accept such bigotry with a smile. If you vote to hurt us, don't expect to receive an understanding pat on the back. That said, I would understand (though I would still resent it) if your candidate was actually likely to help you. But your candidate was Donald Trump. Did you ever think he would address the problem of student loans? Did you think he'd fight the rich on the behalf of the little guy? If you ever believed any of that, you were duping yourself. Trump filled his cabinet with the rich and dotes on Wall Street. He hasn't particularly done anything to improve the job market or reduce unemployment; those statistics have been moving in the right direction for years, and Trump just happens to be president while they continue to move that way. If anything, Trump is likely to make your problems worse in the name of the "free market." If he can, he'll cut key health programs for the sake of "winning". That picture in the dog in a burning house saying "haha take that liberals" is all too accurate. Many Trump voters have just hurt themselves for the sake of spiting their perceived enemies. And if that isn't reason to be ashamed, I can't imagine what is.

@FairFamily If voters aren't smart enough to make good choices then maybe we should reconsider how we make decisions. Democracy doesn't seem to be working out for us these days. @Odybld It's sounds like you're basically happy with Trump because he hasn't yet gotten your country involved in a war. It's pretty easy to ignore his more dubious domestic decisions when they don't apply to you, I suppose. Unfortunately, there do exist people to whom they apply, and not all of us are so pleased.

One cannot learn from one's mistakes until one acknowledges their existence. So I will point to all the warning signs, again and again, until Trump voters can accept that it is, at least in part, their fault. Or until I get really sick of it. Even I can't continue this spiel for an eternity. I put myself at risk of harming someone? I can only assume you mean dealing damage to fragile egos. If that's the case... good. Those egos need challenging. Those who cannot own their actions are bound to repeat them - and, in doing so, perhaps cause actual, physical harm to others. Respect is a two way street. You think those who usher in malignant scum like Trump deserve to be shielded from scolding? No, those who act so carelessly or maliciously should be rebuked. Of course, some people will cling to their pride. They will only grow more obstinate when confronted with their mistakes. Those cannot be helped. Not until Trump personally burns them enough times. You say I "could care less" (Implying my level of caring is nonzero? Pet peeve; that expression sucks.) about solving the problems, but how exactly do you expect me to do that? By posting lukewarm criticisms on a video game forum Trump will never look at? That solves exactly nothing. The best way to solve this problem is to sever its roots. Destroy the streams of support that put Trump where he is today so that in 2020 he won't end up there again. That said, it's likely that only a few members are even bothering to read this topic, so my efforts are probably in vain. =p

Apparently not? Do you think people voted for Trump over his volatile policies? if that were the truth you'd have ended up with someone half decent like Rubio or Kasich. If you look closely, I think you'll find most people vote based off of emotion, and that negative emotions are easily harnessed. I mean, this topic has changed from you ranting against Trump to you defending him and the people he conned. The shift began when I dared mention Hillary. Policy has little to do with it. They made smearing her the theme of the election, and America bought that image. You are literally fooling yourself the way Trump voters did as we watch. Anything I say is redundant in the face of the way this conversation is unfolding.

That definition of winning is short-sighted to the point of irresponsibility. If our small "victory" today *cough* Paris Accord *cough* ends up fucking us over in two decades, it really wasn't much of a victory, was it? Not seeing a blatant fraud for what he is (or, worse, seeing and supporting him anyway) sounds more like it would make someone a "bad voter" going by any meaningful definition of the term. Of course, we could argue semantics for hours. However, having legitimate concerns does not justify doing really stupid or malicious stuff in a half-blind attempt to address those concerns. Trump hasn't really done anything too surprising so far, for those who were paying attention to his character. I'm all out of hilarious images. Sorry, everyone.

So you're defining "win" in such a way that reinstituting segregation laws would count as winning if the voters were depraved enough to want that. Not a terribly useful definition, I think. Trump would be proud, though. By the way, yes, people are 100% responsible for being duped and for ignoring the obvious outcomes of their vote because Hillary.

I'm having a hard time taking you seriously right now.

No, this is not just the result of Comey's investigation of Hillary and Russian interference with the election. It's the result of the pure idiocy of a large percentage of American voters. Trump's been an erratic narcissist for the entirety of the campaign. The whole way he's just acted out for attention, changed his stances at the drop of a hat, ignored the issues in favor of the drama. And "we the people" voted for that. Now entertainment is cheaper than ever before; every news channel runs reality TV. What else was anyone expecting? Intelligent leadership? Trump's only brilliance is in his ability to keep people looking at him. Compromise? We're talking about a man who made rude nicknames for his competitors then replaced the attacks with praise for their integrity the moment they dropped out of the race. Everything is "win or lose" to Trump. Honesty? If you were expecting that, you can't have been paying enough attention. Willingness to attack anyone and everyone does not imply personal integrity. Trump is a sham. He was always a sham. When he announced his candidacy, just about everyone knew that. But then his opponents were eliminated one by one, and rather than admit to being manipulated, the people of this "great nation" decided to put their pride first. The country voted for outrageous, and now we have it. If anything, Trump has been tamer than we had any right to expect. But as his administration crumbles around him, in large part by his own hand, I wonder whether he won't show the world who exactly we elevated to the highest office in our nation. At any rate, I imagine it will be entertaining.

Happy birthday Ame! And also Harry Potter. =p

Oh, this looks like a fun thread. I would play, except I haven't touched any of the FE games except Fates and Shadows of Valentia in years, and I haven't beaten the latter yet. Also, I forget most of the smaller characters in the games after Blazing Sword because I didn't play through them that many times. =p I really ought to replay the FE games, but alas, my backlog is enormous. xD I feel like I should say something relating to the topic, though, so I'll just bring up that, from what I recall, Sephiran from FE9 and 10 definitely stood out - especially if you played on ultra-secret-backstory mode.

1. I'm just going to ignore the part where, after telling me logic was about being reasonable, you proceeded to tell me reasonableness was about being logical. We spin around and around and around... Te stability is all well and good, but how are you going to do that without consistency? If the tests are just random, what happened last time has no bearing on what will occur next time. it is because of consistency that we are able to test. 2. I think the probability of Jesus and C'thulhu simultaneously manifesting in front of me is higher than that of me no longer calling myself names, and I say that as a believer of neither. Especially if the name in question is "crazy" - that one is not-so-secretly a self compliment. Of course, many of the other names I use really are malicious toward myself. But Evi cannot help those. They are part of what make her Evi. 3. In Cool Girl's thread I was offering a hypothetical where your deity of choice appears before you, but yes, my last response was aimed at the Christian god, as our previous conversations have led me to believe you view him. Basically, my point was that if God wants a relationship with me, he should stop trolling me already and get to the point. I'm glad to hear you'd sooner renounce your god than kill for him. 4. I'm sure there are cultural reasons for the examples I brought up, but the existence of a subjective context in which they can be understood in no way diminishes their arbitrariness as rules of choice for a so-called perfect deity.

@Chase 1. Sorry, but saying logic is about being reasonable is a total cop out. xD Logic and reason are synonyms! You just beg the question: What does it mean to be reasonable? In my view, it is, again, about consistency. About using what you know to figure out more. That doesn't work when things can be simultaneously true and false. 2. Well, I try to pick apart or discredit an experience you value so much - I'm not quite that mean - but, of course, your personal experiences cannot constitute proof for me. And I will note that the you described in the beginning of the account sounds like he lacked a certain something I believe your present self has - direction. It's no surprise that we find our lives more meaningful and therefore more worthwhile when we feel what we're doing has value. It's entirely possible that, voice or not, simply feeling like you belonged was helpful to you. Of course, I'm just some crazy girl. All of that is just hypothesis! In any case, I appreciate your candor. 3. What is the difference between a ritual and a relationship made with someone who is effectively holding a gun to your head? If God is looking for a relationship, he's going about it like a sociopath. Talk to me or else. You can try to rephrase the situation however you like, but if we're talking about an omnipotent, all that boils down to semantic nonsense. If we are broken creatures, then we are only so because he made us that way. When one party has all power, they also accrue all responsibility. 4. Functionally incorrect? That's also a circular way of phrasing things. Functions are subjective. A broken console can make a good paperweight. In the end, it would just boil down to his insistence that the thing in question be used to play games instead of for some other purpose. I see nothing about the scenario to suggest there is some objective "correct" way to use that device. In reality, while you're correct that the Bible says nothing like "Thou mayest enjoy your XBox One, but any man who touches a PS4 shall be stoned to death", it does take some positions on several topics that seem oddly trivial. The "no wearing clothes containing both wool and linen" (or whatever it was) is an example of that. Other preferences seem less arbitrary only because we live in a culture that has been largely shaped by Abrahamic religions. For instance, the ban on polygamy.

@Chase 1. Well, what I was trying to figure out was how you would decide whether a theoretical supernatural being who approached you claiming godhood was, in fact, god or not. Alternatively, I was looking for a definition of god that could act as the starting point of discussion about whether such a being exists. Instead, I got this: " I believe God is an interpersonal being who isn't constrained by concepts such as time, space, and logic, and also is all-knowing, all-present, and all-good. " That's a lot of special properties we haven't accounted for, and one of them - not being bound by logic - is particularly problematic and quite possibly the sort of property you might get called a cultist for mentioning. Surely you realize that I can claim <Insert any being here> exists and is not constrained by logic, and that literally nothing could ever dissuade me if I sincerely believed that premise. In fact, in offering that property, you make me wonder what you think logic is. In my mind, logic is just about consistency. Are you saying your god is inconsistent? If you want to convince others - and, perhaps, yourself - that you truly seek the truth, you're going to have to come to some conclusion regarding what truth is. Without logic, each statement can be simultaneously true and false. 2. So you feel that your god spoke to you? That leaves me curious about the details surrounding that situation, but obviously, those are yours to disclose or otherwise as you wish. 3. I'm not sure the answer you gave me here was a response to the question I intended to ask. You're simultaneously telling me that your god, as creator of the universe, is essentially right about everything, but also that if he asked you to kill people you wouldn't. Why not? If your god commands you to kill, by your own logic that makes it righteous. I'm not asking you to reconcile the harmful things that occur in the Bible and Jesus as you conceptualize him. I'm asking why you, Hunter, would, in that hypothetical scenario, defy a god who you define as perfect. 4. In my understanding of reality, there are some things that are just opinions, neither inherently true nor false. Take the sentence "pizza is yummy" as an example. In other words, subjective things. If God said "XBox One is the best current-gen system, PS4 is trash", but you liked the PS4 more than the XBox One, would that make you somehow "wrong"? After all, God (indirectly) created both systems.

Oh, we are going to have so much fun. So, for starters, I have a few questions~ 1. What do you think it takes to differentiate a god from another supernatural entity? 2. Why do you, personally, believe in god? In one of our previous discussions, your were offering me a lot of canned arguments I often see from theists, and said that your reason for belief was not one of those arguments, but something else. I'm a lot more interested in that "something else" than in some silly argument I can effortlessly destroy. 3. In Cool Girl's recent thread, I offered you a hypothetical situation where god appeared, performed miracles, then told you to kill a bunch of people, and asked whether you would. You said 'No', and ended up adding this little quote: " I wouldn't want to follow Jesus if Jesus was a tyrannical figure. " How do you reconcile that with your alleged objectivism? I was under the impression that you believe that your god's orders were automatically righteous. 4. Suppose there is a unique god who created the universe. Why would that god's stance on matters count as "objectively correct" rather than just one opinion out of many?

Discussion of religious imperatives and how far one should go to follow them seems very relevant here, as it is quite likely that, thanks to religious beliefs, many of the terrorists who are part of ISIS legitimately believe they are doing the right thing. Within the context of their particularly harmful brands of Islam, their actions probably seem quite necessary. Sad to say, but indoctrination is more than capable of making well-intentioned people do monstrous things. Can you provide me with the verse where Jesus says this? I'm quite interested to read it in context. Of course, that's assuming that this surprisingly modern quote really is in the Bible and not just a crude paraphrasing of Christian apologetics. In turn, let me offer a Biblical quote of my own. One that really is said by Jesus, according to the text. http://biblehub.com/matthew/5-18.htm

To simplify what I said to "Islam is unjustified" is to miss the point. Every religion I've ever heard of advocates for something I'd deem "bad". The question is whether the believer prioritizes the well being of others over religious imperatives when such situations arise. I know a lot of religious people who are decent enough to find an excuse to dismiss at least the absolute worst parts of their holy texts. By the way, revelation proves less than you'd think. A being capable of making you believe in the supernatural is very likely to also be capable of deceiving you. If I were a demon I'd tell people I was a god.

ISIS, conversion therapy, Scientology, and a thousand other evils - they are all heads of the same hydra. The body is unjustified supernatural beliefs combined with a willingness to follow them all the way to their logical conclusion, no matter where that leads. Those beliefs are all it takes to turn the devoted into monsters. If you believe in a supernatural entity, and that entity appeared before you, performed a bunch of miracles to "prove" they were who they said they were, then told you to go kill people, what would you do? Obey or defy? Does conviction justify hurting people?