Exactly, Catholicism has already shown us throughout history those types of atrocious tactics don't work.
A Request Directed to Sciforums' "Atheists"
- Thread starter Tiassa
- Start date
- Status
Exactly, Catholicism has already shown us throughout history those types of atrocious tactics don't work.
wellwisher strikes me as a most unusual troll, one who persists by this slow steady chipping away at anything that appeals to reason. Although I have him on Ignore I do occasionally find one of his posts exposed (as after a login timeout) only to arrive at the exact same sentiments you just posted. Glad to see I found common ground with one more member since the ones I have been slipping against seem to be slowly mounting. Who are these people? :bugeye:
I included their predecessors--the fundies who launched the Scopes Monkey Trial--in that group, plus any of the Orthodox religions which oppose a subset of their agenda, such as the Catholic opposition to contraception and abortion.
But I think you misunderstood me. The purpose of this thread is to bash atheists on this site--atheists like me, who are quick to criticize the Religious Right. My rebuttal is: doing so is to defend the Religious Right, which is to show lack of empathy for their victims.
I haven't noticed Yazata or Tiassa characterizing your remarks but I presume "Redneck Retards" earns you the title of militant atheist, once you add the "Religious" qualifier. BTW Archie Bunker comes to mind, yet he was clearly what the predominantly Southern rednecks would have called a "damn Yankee". Nevertheless nothing better epitomizes the Archie Bunkers of the world than "Redneck Retard". I have sometimes tried to use more innocuous language, usually calling them "mean, stupid people". Same-same. As a somewhat updated version of what we are both referring to, I would defer also to the following. For some reason Tiassa and Yazata don't seem to think these people exist, although admittedly here it's cast as a personality type with only a hint of religiosity.
[video=youtube;UrgpZ0fUixs]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=UrgpZ0fUixs[/video]
Who exactly is lampooning who in this thread? And perish the thought that there are undercover assholes masquerading as intellectuals on this site.
Tell me it ain't so! 
Aqueous Id, is there any difference between atheist activism and the USSR anti-religious campaigns? Is there a difference between criticizing someone and persecuting them?
"Christians are right and atheists are wrong, therefore it's OK for Christians to do things that atheists would be castigated for doing. Christians, being right, are entitled to behave in ways that they tell others is rude, intolerant, and uncivil for them to imitate."
Myth: Atheists Are Becoming More Rude by Criticizing Religious Believers
What kind of reaction would there be if Obama used his weekly address to send an atheist message?
"Christians are right and atheists are wrong, therefore it's OK for Christians to do things that atheists would be castigated for doing. Christians, being right, are entitled to behave in ways that they tell others is rude, intolerant, and uncivil for them to imitate."
Myth: Atheists Are Becoming More Rude by Criticizing Religious Believers
What kind of reaction would there be if Obama used his weekly address to send an atheist message?
Bells
Staff member
Your ridiculous sarcasm is noted..
"Just in the last couple of days, notices were sent to Jews in one city indicating that they have to identify themselves as Jews," he said Thursday. "In the year 2014, after all of the miles traveled and all of the journey of history, this is not just intolerable -- it's grotesque. It is beyond unacceptable."
Kerry said if anyone engages in these kinds of activities on either side, "there is no place for that."
The notices reportedly were sent to areas where pro-Russian activists have declared the region as a "people's republic" in defiance of the central Ukrainian government.
Ynet reported the fliers said that because Jewish community leaders supported a Ukrainian nationalist movement and "oppose the pro-Slavic People's Republic of Donetsk," the interim government has decided: "that all citizens of Jewish descent, over 16 years of age and residing within the republic's territory are required to report to the Commissioner for Nationalities in the Donetsk Regional Administration building and register."
The notices reportedly demand Jews pay a $50 registration fee.
Kerry said if anyone engages in these kinds of activities on either side, "there is no place for that."
The notices reportedly were sent to areas where pro-Russian activists have declared the region as a "people's republic" in defiance of the central Ukrainian government.
Ynet reported the fliers said that because Jewish community leaders supported a Ukrainian nationalist movement and "oppose the pro-Slavic People's Republic of Donetsk," the interim government has decided: "that all citizens of Jewish descent, over 16 years of age and residing within the republic's territory are required to report to the Commissioner for Nationalities in the Donetsk Regional Administration building and register."
The notices reportedly demand Jews pay a $50 registration fee.
While some are saying they are fake and being used to provoke the other side in the conflict, the flyers themselves are real and were sent out to Jews.
But hey, no history there, is there?
It should be noted that this article talks about the LMG and how quickly it increased in membership but ultimately failed within a short time as a result of it's violent tactics and the fact that most Soviets never actually gave up their religious beliefs.
Pound if you must. This child might eat his father, although that's very, very unlikely these days. Origins are less important in this case than actions.
I also disagree strongly with the assault on the underlying concept of Communism: a man's products do correlate with his returns in any sensibly-organised system; or will you pick up your own garbage, mend your own sidewalk, raise your own cattle there, Ayn? I'm even less inclined to dismiss Communism when the alternative appears to be a modified form of feudalism. There is no relevance to the parallel of workers united in the stake of production and God 'taking up the slack'. An economy must exist to serve the worker, not the owner, if only for the simple fact that there are more of us and that we suffer, and that they would have it so.
Yes. Stalin has been gone a long time. Lenin too. Putin is more likely to arrest Pussy Riot than a priest or Rabbi. So far the most egregious atheist militancy of the modern era has been the lawsuit against the coach at a public university who baptized a student in a trough during practice. It's way funny--in a stupid, asshole kind of way--but not at all grisly.
Yes. Putting it out there that anyone who attacks Trooper is lampooned in the "I'm an Asshole" video is mere criticism. Dragging them out to a firing squad is persecution. "That's not who we are" (to quote the President).
Damn, Trooper. Excellently articulated answers which completely throws this thread on its head.
"He's an Asshole ♫ ya-da-dah ♫ yoh-dle-dee ♫ yoh-dle-doo ♫ Fuckin Asshole ♫ ya-da-dah ♫ yoh-dle-dee ♫ yoh-dle-doo"
Thank you Trooper for conducting the first no-frills interview of a person's position yet posted probably anywhere on this site. When we hear about people losing their "individuality" to "group think" we need only refer back to any of your zanier posts to re-center ourselves.
I am not worthy. And I mean that sincerely. You are definitely NOT an asshole. You are the Anti-Hole. Some kind of outy: a probiscus, or incubus or whatever, but the point is, one with a refreshing sense of humor
That's your best example? Dosvidanya rodina!
And ask Fraggle if I care how it's really spelled.
Bells
Staff member
How do you propose the stand be taken?
With violence? Threats of violence?
Or we could resort to something sane like.. ermm.. our votes? Education? Donations to the right groups? You know, legal changes and peaceful and legal protests and challenging changes in laws that attempt to pervade public spaces and education with religious dogma in the courts to prevent it..?
Which do you think is a better option for "a stand"?
And frankly, to be honest with you, I find this whole "take a stand" thing to be hysterical. In all the things that are wrong in the world, the wars, famine, pain, absolute poverty, people dying to exposure and to easily treated illnesses, etc.. Which do you think I am going to take a stand on? Which do you think should have priority? Improving people's lives and stopping the wholesale slaughter and deaths due to conflict and non-conflict reasons alike? Or take a stand because some twat wants to implement prayers in schools? This whole take a stand thing is so selfish in the grand scheme of things. Oh noes, they are putting a statue of a bible in a court house. Meanwhile, thousands of people are dying due to easily treated diseases and of hunger.. Hmmm decisions decisions.
No offense, but this battle is a 'first world problem'. It's like two privileged and entitled halves duking it out because each thinks their views are superior. Bullshit.
It is pure and utter bullshit.
I read through this thread and I think to myself, 'take your fucking heads out of your arses'..
You want to take a stand to make things better?
About 3.7 million people, close to one-third of the total population, are already at severe risk of starvation in South Sudan, a crisis now ranked by the United Nations on par with Syria’s, Mr. Lanzer said. He appealed for only the most essential needs, food, water, seeds and farming tools, to allow the South Sudanese to plant crops before the end of May, when rains bring the planting season to an end.
“If we miss the planting season, there will be a catastrophic decline in food security,” Mr. Lanzer said. “What will strike that country, and it will hit about seven million people, will be more grave than anything that continent has seen since the mid-1980s.”
His appeal echoed an alarm sounded by the heads of other United Nations humanitarian agencies, which estimate that 255,000 South Sudanese have fled to neighboring countries and that around 800,000 more have been driven from their homes by the violence that erupted in mid-December after President Salva Kiir said his former vice president, Riek Machar, had tried to overthrow the government.
In a statement released during a visit to western Ethiopia, where close to 90,000 South Sudanese have fled, Ertharin Cousin, head of the World Food Program, said, “This is a political crisis that is now evolving into a humanitarian catastrophe.”
António Guterres, head of the United Nations refugee agency, who was also visiting the area, said: “The physical and psychological condition of these people is shocking. This is a tragedy I had hoped I would not see again.”
The United Nations is seeking $1.27 billion for South Sudan for 2014, but received only $385 million in the first quarter of 2014, less even than in the equivalent period of 2013.
“It’s hard to compete with Syria and Ukraine,” Mr. Lanzer said, expressing a frustration shared by relief agency officials working in the Central African Republic, where the shortage of funding for humanitarian aid has also stoked fears of an impending disaster.
“If we miss the planting season, there will be a catastrophic decline in food security,” Mr. Lanzer said. “What will strike that country, and it will hit about seven million people, will be more grave than anything that continent has seen since the mid-1980s.”
His appeal echoed an alarm sounded by the heads of other United Nations humanitarian agencies, which estimate that 255,000 South Sudanese have fled to neighboring countries and that around 800,000 more have been driven from their homes by the violence that erupted in mid-December after President Salva Kiir said his former vice president, Riek Machar, had tried to overthrow the government.
In a statement released during a visit to western Ethiopia, where close to 90,000 South Sudanese have fled, Ertharin Cousin, head of the World Food Program, said, “This is a political crisis that is now evolving into a humanitarian catastrophe.”
António Guterres, head of the United Nations refugee agency, who was also visiting the area, said: “The physical and psychological condition of these people is shocking. This is a tragedy I had hoped I would not see again.”
The United Nations is seeking $1.27 billion for South Sudan for 2014, but received only $385 million in the first quarter of 2014, less even than in the equivalent period of 2013.
“It’s hard to compete with Syria and Ukraine,” Mr. Lanzer said, expressing a frustration shared by relief agency officials working in the Central African Republic, where the shortage of funding for humanitarian aid has also stoked fears of an impending disaster.
Then take a fucking stand.
I'm sorry, but I am sick and tired of this feeling of selfish entitlement. Rar rar rar, atheist movement, we need to take a stand! Do you honestly think it's going to make a difference in the world of millions upon millions of people who are dying of things they should not be dying of?
Frankly, y'all need to stop whining. You have it easy.
Perspective, wonderful thing.
:m:
Which means a coach (a government employee) can't baptize a player at a public university, right? So in the case Kitt mentioned, the atheists are clearly on your side.
Oh. So because there's starvation in the world, we shouldn't debate ideologies you consider irrelevant.
Like - I don't know - women's rights? Gay rights? The minority voting franchise? Or is it that we shouldn't debate anything occurring in our little corner of the world? That's a curious choice of trump.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_relative_privation
I think today the last ground will be taken in the courts. After that, I think all these matters--or most of them--will be settled. A few people will be left to grumble (in the US) that the Supreme Court usurped the Constitution--after either failing to recognize that all 9 Justices are either Catholic or Jewish and/or acknowledging it but equating those religions with "militant atheism"
That's a very serious issue which requires highly ethical people in power. That's all the more reason to adopt quinn's position, which I think show how broad-spectrum the core issue really is. How many of your fellow citizens died in a conflict launched by an American fundamentalist? Now calculate the enormity of death in the entire conflict. It's hard to say what a moderate President might have done, but it speaks to the larger scale of atrocity you mention to at least keep the dingbats out of office.
On the surface that may be the impression. But if this were the early Cold War era and women were dying from back alley abortions I think you would have wanted to march in one of the protests once it got organized. A lot of things can shock the conscience even at the smaller scale.
Here in the US we see no chance of bringing Sudan into the public conversation. The "heads in their arses" fundies have tied up the agenda with their frivolous concerns over the most trivial public policy matters. And when people stop listening they steal the mic and fabricate controversy. Very often it's done while singing "With God on Our Side"--all the more during election season.
This is why we can never dismiss the severity of harm inflicted by the religious invasion into matters of public policy. If you dismiss it, merely on the superficial appearance of harmlessness, then you miss the actual fact of the voting records of "These American Assholes" - people like the guy in the video, who managed to actually get elected. Lots of them. Enough to indirectly cause countless deaths in Sudan. Assholes don't give a damn about them, especially once they conclude that "God wills it. Let it be done. Now the next agenda item is prayer in the schools. Mr Speaker, I propose . . ."
This is a disease. You can't rule out the severity of cancer just because the lesions aren't life threatening,
Perspective will also show that the religious mindset has been in control our world for centuries, building our societies based on faith based ideals and beliefs. We have every right to blame the religious mindset for leading our world into the twenty-first century will all it's problems and conflicts and the results thereof that we now have to deal with. Yes, taking a stand against the religious mindset is indeed first and foremost if we are ever to solve the worlds problems.
And, keep religious affairs out of everything that isn't of a religious nature.
I should have been more clear about the term centrist, I was speaking of politics and policies not religion Bells. Your point is my point exactly! I do volunteer my time and energy to the low income communities here in America and I could give a rats ass about anyone's religious beliefs, theirs or yours. I was responding to Aqueous' post in regards to Yazata,(centrist) who has found a home in the cushy middle. It is much easier to argue about what needs to be done then actually doing something,eh? Yeah I do want people to take a stand (do something about their convictions) instead of talking about it. Maybe it is just my frustration as a Volunteer Coordinator where I hear a lot of talk but see little action.:shrug: The political process and policies are much, MUCH more important to me than anyone's religious beliefs.
In regards to religion, specifically Fundamentalists of any ilk, does the thought of this brand of religion spreading and gaining in numbers scare you at all Bells? What if no one acted to contain it?
Yazata
Valued Senior Member
It was an avowedly-atheist organization that was complicit in mass-murder.
Does that mean that everyone should denounce all atheism and atheists because of the crimes of these fanatics? Of course not. That would be foolish.
Religious people are no different. Some religious people are intelligent, humane and spiritual to a degree rarely seen among human beings. Others are veritable monsters. And most religious people, along with most atheists, fall somewhere in the middle. That's how it works with our species.
Atheists shouldn't try to twist history so as to create the illusion that atheists are always without sin. Atheists are human beings, with all of our frailties, and span the whole range from saintly to beastial.
And religious people and religion in general shouldn't be pictured as a distorted caricature, in which the worst atrocities committed by religious people are treated as being somehow illustrative and definitive of religion's essence and of religiosity as a whole.
I think that atheists clearly do. They are all over the map. Atheists aren't a monolithic political bloc, as Tiassa seems to picture them. They are a whole horde of individuals, whose only real identity with one another is that they don't believe in the literal existence of religious deities. (That's what justifies the application of the word 'atheist' to them.)
Other than that, atheists believe all kinds of things and behave in all kinds of ways.
If 'atheism' is defined as disbelief in the literal existence of religious deities, that would seem to be the only doctrine necessary in order to qualify as atheist.
But in real life many atheists behave as if atheism is a lot more than that. (Even if they can't all agree on what that "lot more" encompasses.) So many atheists seem to effectively be 'atheists plus', disbelievers in deities plus being believers in a whole variety of possible auxiliary assumptions.
Aqueous seems to equate atheism with adherence to the political agenda of the more leftward parts of America's Democratic party. Others imagine themselves as champions of "reason" and "science" in a never-ending battle with religious obscurantism. Others are interested in and friendly towards religion and religious people. Still others might be deeply religious people themselves who practice non-theistic religions. (That's why it's a mistake to imagine atheism as antithetical to "religion", as many of the less thoughtful atheists seemingly do.)
And most atheists are probably just profoundly secular people who give little or no thought to religion at all as they go about their daily lives.
It isn't always consistent. When they are playing defense, some atheists will stoutly insist that atheism is nothing more than disbelief in deities (so that there are as few doctrines as possible that they have to defend). But then they switch to playing offense, the very same atheists will start insisting that atheism is all about opposing the evil and/or stupid "religionists" or whatever it is, seemingly unaware that the propositions that "religionists" are evil or stupid don't follow logically from simple disbelief in deities. There are obviously additional implicit premises sneaking in there.
So in practice, it isn't always clear what an atheist's idea of 'atheism' is or what it encompasses. Sometimes I don't think that the atheists themselves are always clear on what they think. Oftentimes what 'atheism' is being taken to be is a function of which individual atheist we are talking about.
Of course, this stuff isn't unique to atheists. Where's a whole spectrum of interpretations of what 'Christian' means too, so much so that it often becomes a function of which Christians we happen to be considering. And individual Christians' beliefs are often an ongoing work-in-progress too. It's even more obvious when people start talking about religion in general. Nobody (including the scholars) is even sure what the word 'religion' encompasses or what its definition should be. It's more of a vague family-resemblance concept, like so many of our most important ideas.
The Rational Irrational, and Other Notes
No, it doesn't work. Been trying the fourth chapter of Acts for years, and the evangelical right rejects Apostolic faith. Paulism? Yes. Old Testament, yes. The Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles? No.
(1) There is an archive of over thirty thousand posts with my name on them. You have a pretty good sample to work with. Certes, you can make a logical argument that does not deliberately or accidentally misrepresent that record. No, really, Religion, Politics, EM&J ... there are thousands of posts dealing with my opinion of the evangelical religious right, monotheism, and religion in general.
(2) I cannot wait for the rational explanation of the Rubber/Glue turn. I mean, really? It only took nine days to figure out how to peform that juvenile stunt?
(3) I don't know, man, I'm coming off a quarter-century of social revolution against the Religious Right, and guess what? My team won. And what won it for us? Reality. Logic. If/then. There's a reason blind hatred lost; take the note.
The lack of consistency is problematic.
But I'll tell you a difference 'twixt Fraggle Rocker and the atheistic role in this discussion: If he goes too far and I really want to smack him for it, he won't whine, he'll stand up and throw down and not bother with pretending he's oppressed. Unlike, say, Balerion—
—he won't reject the question of history in one's assessment. I mean, look at the transformation in Balerion's argument. From one state with a pretty defining history to the whole of Middle America. I can promise you that the Blue Dots in the Red States get what's going on, even if they do occasionally object. Many of them are wrangling with the question of conceding the fight, pushing onward, or trying to figure out if they can simply move the hell out of wherever they are and find someplace less insane.
And everybody gets that "Things won't change if the rest of the country keeps dissin' us", as one Oklahoma liberal put it. Which is sort of true. But it's also true that we aren't going to make progress by refusing to call bigotry and hatred by its name.
Meanwhile, consider our neighbor, Balerion, some more. Note how personal this is to him. His disagreement isn't with what I say about Mississippi, but the fact that I am the one saying it. And in order to mount his argument, he must necessarily alter the context of what he responds to. This is certainly not rational. But, then again, as plenty have reminded, the obligation of rationality invoked by atheistic identification ends with that identification.
Effectively: Woo hoo! We just got rid of the religious people who were fucking us up with their religious irrationality! Let's fix society by invoking non-religious irrationality!
In which case it would become clear that y'all haven't learned a damn thing.
On a related note, one of the aspects I adore about the anime Darker Than Black, and especially its sequel, Gemini of the Meteor, is that the narrative finds a way to consider the notion of pure rational thinking without invoking the question of God.
The presuppositions of ultimate rationality prove to be wrong, but only in a way.
Why did Bai do what she did? Whence came Carmine's emotion that made her a Regressor? Why did Shion do what he did for the reasons he did it? What spurred Mao's sense of moral right and wrong? Berta's regret? We know why Hei acts the way he does; well, at least by the end. But that doesn't account for everyone else.
Everything the Contractors do is rational, but only according to presuppositions. Bai's seemingly irrational choice? Makes sense if she retained some vestige of her irrational human priorities before being assigned a Contract. Carmine? Apparently something about drinking the blood of children was enough to throw off the rational calculation. Shion? Check. Berta, Mao? Check, and check. What the characters refer to as "evolving" simply suggests that some Contractors' human emotions remain, and are re-emerging.
This becomes clear when Suou receives her Contract. Of course, if we want to take it to the next valence, she is also a deviant Contract.
The Contract: "Contractors. All of them should die."
Similarly, I've made the point before that Catholic doctrine can be extremely logical as long as one accepts the presuppositions.
Was Don Quixote rational?
How about rational atheism?
Rational calculation within an irrational formula is still irrational. This is a difficult psychological mess to clean up, so to what degree is it a rational decision to not bother with the mess at all?
____________________
Notes:
Benen, Steve. "Blue dot wonders: Better life somewhere else?". MSNBC. January 17, 2013. MSNBC.com. April 20, 2014. http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/blue-dot-wonders-better-life-somewhere
—————. "Blue dot, red state, and more of the story". MSNBC. February 22, 2013. MSNBC.com. April 20, 2014. http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/blue-dot-red-state-and-more-the-sto
—————. "Blue dot in Oklahoma: Y'all dissin' us does not help". MSNBC. December 24, 2012. MSNBC.com. April 20, 2014. http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/blue-dot-oklahoma-yall-dissin-us-d
Image credit: Darker Than Black: Gemini of the Meteor, episode 3, "Vanishing in a Sea of Ice ...".
Quinnsong said:
No, it doesn't work. Been trying the fourth chapter of Acts for years, and the evangelical right rejects Apostolic faith. Paulism? Yes. Old Testament, yes. The Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles? No.
• • •
Aqueous Id said:
(1) There is an archive of over thirty thousand posts with my name on them. You have a pretty good sample to work with. Certes, you can make a logical argument that does not deliberately or accidentally misrepresent that record. No, really, Religion, Politics, EM&J ... there are thousands of posts dealing with my opinion of the evangelical religious right, monotheism, and religion in general.
(1)(b) Since we're discussing a rational philosophy (e.g., atheism), it would be enlightening, or something approximately like that, to see the rational resolution of whether I'm being too hard on the religious right, or, as you would have it, too soft. I mean, since there's a rational solution describing which assessment is correct, closest to correct, or perhaps least wrong, please, show us that rational assessment.
(2) I cannot wait for the rational explanation of the Rubber/Glue turn. I mean, really? It only took nine days to figure out how to peform that juvenile stunt?
(3) I don't know, man, I'm coming off a quarter-century of social revolution against the Religious Right, and guess what? My team won. And what won it for us? Reality. Logic. If/then. There's a reason blind hatred lost; take the note.
The lack of consistency is problematic.
But I'll tell you a difference 'twixt Fraggle Rocker and the atheistic role in this discussion: If he goes too far and I really want to smack him for it, he won't whine, he'll stand up and throw down and not bother with pretending he's oppressed. Unlike, say, Balerion—
"Well aware of the record, Tiassa. My point, as you know, is that it's an irrational generalization to call the whole of middle America a wasteland based on the actions of a few of its residents. It's precisely this kind of sweeping condemnation that you would call bigotry in another context."
—he won't reject the question of history in one's assessment. I mean, look at the transformation in Balerion's argument. From one state with a pretty defining history to the whole of Middle America. I can promise you that the Blue Dots in the Red States get what's going on, even if they do occasionally object. Many of them are wrangling with the question of conceding the fight, pushing onward, or trying to figure out if they can simply move the hell out of wherever they are and find someplace less insane.
And everybody gets that "Things won't change if the rest of the country keeps dissin' us", as one Oklahoma liberal put it. Which is sort of true. But it's also true that we aren't going to make progress by refusing to call bigotry and hatred by its name.
Meanwhile, consider our neighbor, Balerion, some more. Note how personal this is to him. His disagreement isn't with what I say about Mississippi, but the fact that I am the one saying it. And in order to mount his argument, he must necessarily alter the context of what he responds to. This is certainly not rational. But, then again, as plenty have reminded, the obligation of rationality invoked by atheistic identification ends with that identification.
Effectively: Woo hoo! We just got rid of the religious people who were fucking us up with their religious irrationality! Let's fix society by invoking non-religious irrationality!
In which case it would become clear that y'all haven't learned a damn thing.
† † †
On a related note, one of the aspects I adore about the anime Darker Than Black, and especially its sequel, Gemini of the Meteor, is that the narrative finds a way to consider the notion of pure rational thinking without invoking the question of God.
The presuppositions of ultimate rationality prove to be wrong, but only in a way.
Why did Bai do what she did? Whence came Carmine's emotion that made her a Regressor? Why did Shion do what he did for the reasons he did it? What spurred Mao's sense of moral right and wrong? Berta's regret? We know why Hei acts the way he does; well, at least by the end. But that doesn't account for everyone else.
Everything the Contractors do is rational, but only according to presuppositions. Bai's seemingly irrational choice? Makes sense if she retained some vestige of her irrational human priorities before being assigned a Contract. Carmine? Apparently something about drinking the blood of children was enough to throw off the rational calculation. Shion? Check. Berta, Mao? Check, and check. What the characters refer to as "evolving" simply suggests that some Contractors' human emotions remain, and are re-emerging.
This becomes clear when Suou receives her Contract. Of course, if we want to take it to the next valence, she is also a deviant Contract.
The Contract: "Contractors. All of them should die."
Similarly, I've made the point before that Catholic doctrine can be extremely logical as long as one accepts the presuppositions.
Was Don Quixote rational?
How about rational atheism?
Rational calculation within an irrational formula is still irrational. This is a difficult psychological mess to clean up, so to what degree is it a rational decision to not bother with the mess at all?
____________________
Notes:
Benen, Steve. "Blue dot wonders: Better life somewhere else?". MSNBC. January 17, 2013. MSNBC.com. April 20, 2014. http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/blue-dot-wonders-better-life-somewhere
—————. "Blue dot, red state, and more of the story". MSNBC. February 22, 2013. MSNBC.com. April 20, 2014. http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/blue-dot-red-state-and-more-the-sto
—————. "Blue dot in Oklahoma: Y'all dissin' us does not help". MSNBC. December 24, 2012. MSNBC.com. April 20, 2014. http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/blue-dot-oklahoma-yall-dissin-us-d
Image credit: Darker Than Black: Gemini of the Meteor, episode 3, "Vanishing in a Sea of Ice ...".
Last edited:
- Status