How is the FSM any more absurd than the Christian God?
Please discuss.
How is the FSM any more absurd than the Christian God?
Please discuss.
Rather depends on why one initially considers the FSM and/or the Christian God absurd.Please discuss.
No it doesn't.lightgigantic said:Satire has a necessity to be more absurd than what it sets out to satirize
Perhaps that would make sense if satire was indistinguishable from that which it sets out to satirize.No it doesn't.
Satire is merely the holding up of human shortcomings to ridicule.
Exaggeration of the absurdity might be a tool employed by the satirist to do this, but it is not a necessity.
Just imagine Sarkus's dilemma then of not only disobeying the FSM but also the standards of satire and parodyIt's not satire, FSM is real. If you disobey, you will find yourself in the sea of hot tomato sauce for eternity.
No, it makes sense if you know what satire is.Perhaps that would make sense if satire was indistinguishable from that which it sets out to satirize.
You're conflating differing tools open to the satirist as though they are one.Of course the characterizing feature is what satire juxtaposes against in order to lend meaning to as a genre.
In all cases what it juxtaposes against is something absurd.
IF it was otherwise the FSM would be commonly understood as a pastiche as opposed to a parody
Given your assessment of necessary constituents of satire... :shrug:lightgigantic said:Just imagine Sarkus's dilemma then of not only disobeying the FSM but also the standards of satire and parody
He and I have an understanding.I'm sure Sarkus would not dare to disobey his noodley master.
too late I'm afraidI'm sure Sarkus would not dare to disobey his noodley master.
Much of satire merely holds up a mirror to the pre-existing absurdity, with no need to exaggerate it.
IF it was otherwise the FSM would be commonly understood as a pastiche as opposed to a parody
perhaps that would make sense if you could provide an example of satire that doesn't utilize juxtapositionNo, it makes sense if you know what satire is.
all satire require juxtaposition - its what distinguishes it from the object it is satirizing ... or even a pastiche for that matterYou're conflating differing tools open to the satirist as though they are one.
Juxtaposition is different to exaggeration, which is different to parody etc.
And not all juxtaposition, exaggeration or parody is satirical.
yet god can be a meat ball and hell can be tomato sauce, eh?The point therefore remains that exaggerating/increasing the absurd is not a necessity of satire - as you stated previously with "necessity to be more absurd".
correctionMuch of satire merely holds up a mirror to the pre-existing absurdity, with no need to exaggerate it.
How is the FSM any more absurd than the Christian God?
For the benefit of an innocent Christian what is the FSM? I assume the M stands for Monster.Fraggle, f you don't believe in Spaghetti Monster then don't make a ass of yourself. It is easy to offend like that. My stance on FSM is he needs to be stopped at all costs!
For the benefit of an innocent Christian what is the FSM? I assume the M stands for Monster.
Please discuss.
Because it's a knowing, willful fabrication. It's not relevant.
It is actually an argument against God. Since the evidence in favor of FSM is the same that is in favor of God, they can both be said to be equally true. It goes beyond mere parody.Well, I consider FSM a pastiche.
I do not think that hostile/militant criticism or ridicule can actually lead to wholesome and lasting change, so I see no wholesome justification for satire or parody. They may surely be entertaining to some people / sometimes, a show of one's literary prowess, but beyond that, they are have no power to change people's lives for the better.