Bleh.

[Vasu]

neither. didnt want to see the nudity and sex scenes involved, so i read as much as i could about the storyline elsewhere, as i was still massively intrigued by the morality questions.

By "Morals" I meant what he was fighting for. Ozymandias sold out, in a way. He fought for peace by murdering millions.

It was all censored where I saw it. But then again, I live in the ultra-conservative environment of India.

This brings us back to that question of the genius professor and the thousand bums, in a way.

Lets not hi-jack the thread and make it another of our "Mature Discussions" debates, though...

Which you are neglecting to post in. D:<

[Jikanu]

Like what? o_o

i've kept up in most current ones, like the stalinism one and the starvation one... people just stopped bothering to post in the latter of the two... i finally just got tired of all the constant repeating of topics from both sides in the religion one...

I wish they had released a censored version here too. i would be there right away. i wanted to see it sooooo bad x.x

[Vasu]

Like what? o_o

i've kept up in most current ones, like the stalinism one and the starvation one... people just stopped bothering to post in the latter of the two... i finally just got tired of all the constant repeating of topics from both sides in the religion one...

You might want to check it again, because I don't remember you replying about God's malevolence thing, and you also did not adequately differentiate between free will and impersonal-ness. You said that he might want us to "come to him", and didn't explain what that meant. When I pointed out that even Jesus' sacrifice was unnecessary, you just trailed off.

And you also reverted to saying that you believe in God because of the moral ideas present in the Bible, which can be exercised without the help of a deity.

But then again, it's entirely your choice if you want to stop posting in a thread.


And one last thing, I don't see what your problem is with things being repeated. A debate goes like this.

A: I hold position 1.
B: I hold position 2.

A: Position 2 is wrong because of x and y.
B: But because of p and q, position 2 can be right.
A: I refute p and q because of r and s, therefore position 2 is false.

Now just because A has restated that position 2 is false again, doesn't mean the debate is getting repetitive and circular.

[Jikanu]

You might want to check it again, because I don't remember you replying about God's malevolence thing, and you also did not adequately differentiate between free will and impersonal-ness. You said that he might want us to "come to him", and didn't explain what that meant. When I pointed out that even Jesus' sacrifice was unnecessary, you just trailed off.

And you also reverted to saying that you believe in God because of the moral ideas present in the Bible, which can be exercised without the help of a deity.

But then again, it's entirely your choice if you want to stop posting in a thread.


And one last thing, I don't see what your problem is with things being repeated. A debate goes like this.

A: I hold position 1.
B: I hold position 2.

A: Position 2 is wrong because of x and y.
B: But because of p and q, position 2 can be right.
A: I refute p and q because of r and s, therefore position 2 is false.

Now just because A has restated that position 2 is false again, doesn't mean the debate is getting repetitive and circular.

1. Yes, you are correct. I didnt have an answer, and still dont, simply because i dont know how God operates. That's not something any living being can really answer, so it's kinda an unfair question :/

As for malevolence, one could assume that a being at such a higher level as to be able to create all that exists would be interested in things much higher than we, and therefore not have need for greed, hate, etc.

And once again, to the sacrifice of Christ, perhaps there are supernatural rules that God has created for himself to follow. It doesnt limit his omnipotence and omnicience, because it would be more of a choice to limit his powers than anything else.

Also, i think i've come up with something; Perhaps the absolute truth lies partially in different religions. I mean, there ARE similarities between each different religion; i believe a Taoist friend of mine told me that they believe in a god's son being sacrificed; (i dont know the accuracy of this story as i havent researched it very deeply yet); Many Native American tribes believed in a Great Spirit, therefore suggesting monothesim. Perhaps there isnt one specific religion with all the answers, but instead each holds a valuble peice of the puzzle (excluding religions created on greed, and hate, such as the manson family, of course)

2. It got circular because the arguments had no deffinite endpoint and would circle back to repeated topics. Also, you cant simplify both stances since we were debating details in them. it would go like this:

A. I hold Stance 1, 3, and 5
B. I hold stance 2, 4, and 6

A. X and Y disprove stance 2
B. But S and T maneuver around X and Y
A. But C and D Disprove X and Y
B. But stance 4 can reprove stance 2
A. But stance 4 is flawed because of such and such
B. Not if stance two is taken into account.
A. But stance two is flawed because of X and Y.

i couldnt really make a good model for the thread, but you get my basic point...

[Phantom Badger]

Well atleast you have a computer with internet. When I went to Chennai, there was no comp, no TV, and I only had one book from the WoT series which I had already read 3 times. I actually got bored enough to move my butt over to the theatre, and watched Angels and Demons, Watchmen and Start Trek. Most I've ever seen in a week. The remaining days were so boring. I couldn't even go out and have fun because everybody speaks Tamil! Damn India and it's multicultural heritage.

Watchmen was good. Lacked a villain though. :O

You went to Watch Men ?
That explains alot...

[Vasu]

1. Yes, you are correct. I didnt have an answer, and still dont, simply because i dont know how God operates. That's not something any living being can really answer, so it's kinda an unfair question :/

As for malevolence, one could assume that a being at such a higher level as to be able to create all that exists would be interested in things much higher than we, and therefore not have need for greed, hate, etc.

And once again, to the sacrifice of Christ, perhaps there are supernatural rules that God has created for himself to follow. It doesnt limit his omnipotence and omnicience, because it would be more of a choice to limit his powers than anything else.

Also, i think i've come up with something; Perhaps the absolute truth lies partially in different religions. I mean, there ARE similarities between each different religion; i believe a Taoist friend of mine told me that they believe in a god's son being sacrificed; (i dont know the accuracy of this story as i havent researched it very deeply yet); Many Native American tribes believed in a Great Spirit, therefore suggesting monothesim. Perhaps there isnt one specific religion with all the answers, but instead each holds a valuble peice of the puzzle (excluding religions created on greed, and hate, such as the manson family, of course)

2. It got circular because the arguments had no deffinite endpoint and would circle back to repeated topics. Also, you cant simplify both stances since we were debating details in them. it would go like this:

A. I hold Stance 1, 3, and 5
B. I hold stance 2, 4, and 6

A. X and Y disprove stance 2
B. But S and T maneuver around X and Y
A. But C and D Disprove X and Y
B. But stance 4 can reprove stance 2
A. But stance 4 is flawed because of such and such
B. Not if stance two is taken into account.
A. But stance two is flawed because of X and Y.

i couldnt really make a good model for the thread, but you get my basic point...

Check ze thread.

You went to Watch Men ?
That explains alot...

Har har.

[Hraesvelg]

You went to Watch Men ?
That explains alot...

http://instantrimshot.com/

Edit: Also, you should get the book. It's great reading. It also will make you less likely to say things like Rorschach was a hero. There ARE no heroes in Watchmen. That's sort of the point.

[Jikanu]

http://instantrimshot.com/

Edit: Also, you should get the book. It's great reading. It also will make you less likely to say things like Rorschach was a hero. There ARE no heroes in Watchmen. That's sort of the point.

*sigh* Once again, perhaps not a hero, but most certainly not a sellout. :/

And is there a censored version out there? please, i implore you, if there is, tell me, i want to see it extremely badly x.x

[Hraesvelg]

It's no worse than an R-rated movie. This isn't Preacher we're talking about.

[Vasu]

I saw it in the cinema theatre dude, I doubt any prints with some actual quality will be out any time soon, so you'll either have to fly out here and watch it, or wait till the DVD releases, and dl it from a torrent. XD