Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

NotW?

I wish I was fat.

Just because I want to die at low altitude from a powerful explosion, and I'll rain down upon the streets...

EDIT: I need a deffkopta

Anyone seen The Thin Blue Line? I watched it last night, it's pretty revealing.

Ahtman wrote:NotW?

Not of this World - sometimes they spell it out.

I see this as a sticker on a lot of cars. The O is like a halo, and the T is a cross.

It's definitely X-ian because of the imagery and correlation with Jesus fishes, but beyond that, I can't say.

I definitely like the Darwin animals though. They warm my heart.

Wow that is lame.

JohnHwangDD wrote:I definitely like the Darwin animals though. They warm my heart.

Yeah, nothing says heartwarming like ripping off a religious symbol and modifying it to mock the religion's followers. It shows so much class, too.


Someone should open a heartwarming little store where they can sell those Darwin fish with legs along with dildo crosses and pictures of Muhammad. There's probably one somewhere already.

When a religion consistently goes "full slow", they deserve what they get.

That is, if religion doesn't prevent their followers from acting like 'tards, then they should be treated like the 'tards they demonstrate themselves to be.

JohnHwangDD wrote:When a religion consistently goes "full slow", they deserve what they get.

That is, if religion doesn't prevent their followers from acting like 'tards, then they should be treated like the 'tards they demonstrate themselves to be.

Um, what? That is absolutely equivalent to saying "Because a black man shot my father all black men are evil." That type of thinking is exactly the reason fundamentalists are gaining more power in the world. The failure to understand and compromise simply serves to generate greater polarization of perspectives; people take sides and stop settling issues with words, and start settling them with bullets.

Right, that's what I meant.

We should kill all the Christians. :S

You should really learn to speak more precisely. Because it very much sounds as though you are trying to hold all members of a given religion accountable for the actions of a small segment of their population.

Stereotypes are never a good way to determine the type of treatement which any specific group deserves (which is itself a logically deficient concept), as they inevitably reflect only the most vocal elements of that group.

Also, at no point did I suppose that you meant to advocate the extermination of Christians. Rather, I meant to critique your assumption that the members of a given faith are somehow responsible for the actions of one another. You seem to have ignored this point. I'm curious as to why?

Becasue he's a Jackass who's flame-baiting anyone who is a Christian. On behalf of all of us...feth you, John.

@Nurgleboy: Why don't you go "feth" yourself, first. Whatever "feth" means... But anyhow, much thanks for proving my point about X-ian 'tards.

@dogma: At least you know that isn't what I meant. Transliterating to race, I'm making the Cosby argument: "if the black community chooses to support, enable, and/or celebrate black men who shoot people, take drugs, and father children out of wedlock, then they lower themselves in respectability." I'll let you transliterate the Cosby argument back to religion, and see if my original statement still makes any sense.

But in the case of your example, I guess you wanted me to respond with the OJ card, as a living example?

So really, who's baiting whom?

Feth
The Tree god of tanith in the warhammer 40k universe made famous by the Tanith first and only.

officially anyway, although they also seem to use it as a general replacement word for.. err.... "coitus" .

It's a bit rich to claim that the darwin animal symbols are a rip off when the Christian cross itself is swiped from older pagan symbols .

In fact most ofthe early translations of the bible didn't have Jesus hanging on a cross at all, at the time of Jesus' life most Roman deaths in this manner were in fact on a plain uncrossed stake.

If you go to early copies of the Bible they make reference to Jesus in fact having been cruxified on a tree :

Acts 5:30 : King James Bible
"The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree."

As does 1 Peter 2:24 ;

King James Bible
"Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed."

The cross was used at all by the early Christian church, it didn't really come into widespread usage until the reign of Constantine and his enthusiastic drive to try and unify the disparate factions of his empire. So really the cross itself is stolen.

Who knew?

Next, you'll be telling us that Easter and Christmas were ripped off Roman celebrations like Saturnalia and so forth...

Oh, congratulations for pointing that out! It's true that many religious symbols are borrowed from older religions and traditions. However, this isn't some groundbreaking discovery that Christians and other religious people have been kept in the dark about for the past 2,000 years.

My point was that the Darwin animals were ripped off for the sole purpose of ridiculing a Christian symbol. It doesn't really matter whether or not the symbol was used as a pagan symbol in the past, or even if it still is. It's clearly identifiable in the mainstream as a Christian symbol, and that's what the Darwin animals are referencing and trying to ridicule.

Or are you just claiming that the Darwin fish animals aren't a rip off of the Jesus fish?

JohnHwangDD wrote:When a religion consistently goes "full slow", they deserve what they get.

That is, if religion doesn't prevent their followers from acting like 'tards, then they should be treated like the 'tards they demonstrate themselves to be.

So what about when a religion "goes full violent"? From your logic, we should round up all the Muslims and blow them up because a few radicals are conducting suicide bombings.

Your comment above is reactionary, ill-informed, and reflects very, very poorly on you. Religions don't DO anything. It's the followers, or so-called followers, of a religion that take action, and they often use religion as an excuse to act crappy to each other (that's right, I quoted David Lister). Each person is to be held responsible for their actions, not the belief system that they follow (and it's likely not the only belief system that they follow).

Also, religion cannot "prevent" anyone from doing anything. They can advocate one way or another, but they do not control their members (yes, I know some cults brainwash people, but that's the exception to the norm). Once again, each individual is responsible for their own actions.

Which brings us to you, JohnHwangDD. Your action in this thread is a broad, bigoted attack on an entire religious group. I guess Canada wasn't a big enough target for you, so you have earned yourself a week's vacation with your hate speech.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

@dogma: At least you know that isn't what I meant.

No, that's not true at all. You very likely meant exactly what I inferred from your statement. I simply gave you the benefit of the doubt as directly confronting the ignorance of your elucidated perspective would have been unproductive.

JohnHwangDD wrote:
Transliterating to race, I'm making the Cosby argument: "if the black community chooses to support, enable, and/or celebrate black men who shoot people, take drugs, and father children out of wedlock, then they lower themselves in respectability." I'll let you transliterate the Cosby argument back to religion, and see if my original statement still makes any sense.

But in the case of your example, I guess you wanted me to respond with the OJ card, as a living example?

So really, who's baiting whom?

When was this ever a question of baiting? I'm trying to have a discussion about a comment which I believe was ill-concieved. You seem either unwilling, or unable, to do so for your insistance on arguing from a deliberately obfuscate position.

In any case, that is not a valid argument. It hinges on the existence of a tangible 'black community' which can be held responsible for the actions of its members. Such a community can only exist when one attempts to reason inductively in order to create a general 'truth' of blackness (or religiosity). As inductive reasoning is never capable of generating proof the argument is devoid of logical weight.

Hordini wrote:Oh, congratulations for pointing that out! It's true that many religious symbols are borrowed from older religions and traditions. However, this isn't some groundbreaking discovery that Christians and other religious people have been kept in the dark about for the past 2,000 years.

My point was that the Darwin animals were ripped off for the sole purpose of ridiculing a Christian symbol. It doesn't really matter whether or not the symbol was used as a pagan symbol in the past, or even if it still is. It's clearly identifiable in the mainstream as a Christian symbol, and that's what the Darwin animals are referencing and trying to ridicule.

Or are you just claiming that the Darwin fish animals aren't a rip off of the Jesus fish?

What irks me about it is that Darwin fish, while cute, don't really make any sense.

If anyone who is actually a scientist has one of these they're just trying to irk people or just aren't thinking very hard about it.

Biological evolution is not something you "believe" in, or have "faith" in. It is scientific theory backed up by observation, nothing less, nothing more. You can no more "believe" in evolution than you can "believe" in gravity, thermodynamics, or quantum theory. It has nothing to do with religion. Believing in it is like believing in the bowling ball sitting in my closet.

Yeah, the folk with the Darwin fish bumper stickers are having a bit of a go at Christianity. Yes, they're using someone else's symbol but that's what satire does. And they've used the symbol in some very light satire, relative to crucifix dildoes and the like it really is on the minor end of the scale. It’s harmless and if anyone finds it to be anywhere near the worst thing their faith suffers, then they should be very grateful they’re not part of any faith that really does cop it.

edit-closing this thread now. Its been fun but has reached its useful life.