Jump to content

Maryuoh

Members
  • Content count

    40
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

1 Follower

About Maryuoh

  • Rank
    Half Dark
  1. What is Gothic?

    Although increasingly confused with totally opposing philosophies of nihilism or existentialism, I would try to define the actual heart of the gothic genre, aesthetic and philosophy as the struggle of hope against despair, imagination against fatigue and stagnation, of raw, unbridled passion against jaded cynicism. But, unlike similarly minded aesthetics, Gothicism doesn't portray such struggles as moral conflicts, but as a natural part of life and existence. Although one struggles against time and death and weakness, these are not villified as forces of evil but recognized as a necessary and wholly natural part of the cycle of life- rather than detracting from the beauty of existence, the knowledge of death's inevitability heightens it. Romanticism is named for the Roman empire and means, originally, a desire to return to it's days of glory. Gothicism is named after the Goths whose struggles with that empire helped bring about it's downfall. Whereas Romanticism means a return to the past, Gothicism means the struggle for survival, the celebration of both life and death, the idea that life is beautiful because it ends, people are beautiful because of their flaws, and that dreams are beautiful despite never quite being realized.
  2. Lovecraft's most horrifying writing.

    Funnily enough, in a region with only a couple million people, over a hundred Jews were being murdered a week before the state of Israel even formed. I'm tired of the myths that are swallowed whole about Israel's founding. A bunch of Jews didn't appear in a tiny 1/8 fragment of a fragment of the former Ottoman region of Greater Syria overnight and start killing Palestinians. Anyone actually wanting to view the issue objectively should brush up on some history. Or, and this is just a theory, maybe the countless innocent deaths were the result of constant suicide attacks, military attacks, and the culture of death that preached and still preaches that it's a good and holy thing to die killing as many Israeli citizens as possible. That might put a damper on peace talks. The Nazis ruthless and quickly killed any Jews they found, even though none were ever really guilty of any crime against Germany. Israel continually tries to find a way to satisfy Palestinian and Arab demands, despite the fermentation of cults and militias that have no goal in life besides the killing of Jews. I think you're going to have to stretch a little harder to compare the Jewish founders of Israel with the Nazis. That's a rather loose definition of "prisoners of war", but regardless, I agree with you that Israel's attack against Lebanon was totally reprehensible and immoral. The only argument I can offer is that perhaps, since Israelis have tried repeatedly to create peace with their neighbors these past sixty years, and the response has been a small (but not too small) section of those neighbors dedicating themselves to annihilating Israel, and the rest either shrugging, condoning, or outright praising such actions, that perhaps their morality has been a little skewed. When every suicide bomber that kills dozens of children in a crowded Israeli ice cream store is celebrated with fireworks and huzzahs and banners and adulations in neighboring Arab countries, it probably becomes a little difficult over time to continually keep an open mind and not hold a grudge. If Arabs want Israeli aggression checked, maybe they could make the first baseline offer of actually condemning those that seek to murder as many innocent Israelis as possible. Actually doing something to curtail such actions in their backyard would be another good step, but let's not rush things. Israel's actions against Lebanon were evil, but then trying to be good neighbors hasn't exactly worked for them either. It's funny because both countries are, in this case, very advanced by humanitarian standards except for their total disregard for each other's citizenry and right to exist. But whereas Israel is routinely condemned in the West, no one ever really calls out Arabs on their blatant disregard for the violent anti-semitism rife in a huge percentage, if not a greater majority, of their population.
  3. Lovecraft's most horrifying writing.

    Why is Ghandi's racism just a source of comedy, but Lovecraft, who lived earlier when such views were even more prevalent, and who had less social impact, is to be condemned and his work shunned for the same? It's a rhetorical question. In truth, any non-white gets a free pass on their racism in the Western world. It's because of the lingering racial prejudice whereby Westerners think of people from other races as still being inferior. Erego, they are held to a lesser standard. Malaysia can treat Indian and Chinese-ethnicity citizens as inferiors, and the West just shrugs and accepts it, but if someone in Europe points out that a hugely disproportionate amount of it's crime comes from young Muslim immigrants, well, that's racism, and there's a huge hue and cry over it. Because Malays, after all, just don't know any better, being of inferior stock and all. Funny how hard it is to actually escape racism.
  4. Lovecraft's most horrifying writing.

    If you think Lovecraft was bad, you're going to be in for a Hell of a time when you encounter some of the works of Ghandi. Yes, that Ghandi. The truth is that most people are racist. Even those handful of great figures from the past that did fight against prejudice had enormous flaws. Why even bother condemning Ghandi and Lovecraft when George Washington and Thomas Jefferson owned slaves directly? The moral of the story is to not idolize any human being. As the founding fathers, in all their flawed glory noted, there is a danger in all men. Admire what's worth admiring and condemn or ignore the rest as seems appropriate.
  5. Creation Museum Opened

    I think that much is taken too literally in scripture, particularly when it comes to the word of God. Jesus seems, to my understanding, to be quite insistent upon this in the Gospels; that the word of God is not written on ink and paper, but on the human soul. God doesn't speak to us from without through thunder and wind, but from within. I think this is what is meant when Jesus condemns the pharisees for listening to the words of men rather than the word of God. That being my understanding, I would say that, no, of course the Bible isn't internally consistent. Most of the Old Testament is rife with atrocities being committed, people being raped or murdered or slaughtered en mass, often according to the "will of God". I think the Bible ought to be read critically, seeking understanding, instead of presuming that one knows the literal truth or what, exactly, is correct. There used to exist a tradition in Judaism of reading for interpretation and complex understanding, that Christianity mutated about fifteen hundred years ago into telling people to just accept something as literal truth. I will point out that the story of Adam and Eve actually makes a lot of sense within the context of the monogenetic theory, and the presence of cro-magnon man (who also fit very well with the Nephilim). On a side ntoe.
  6. Creation Museum Opened

    "Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he hold to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion." - Augustine of Hippo
  7. Can you believe this is serious?

    ... what? That didn't even begin to make sense. And I know everyone loves irrationally hating on Christians, but I've got to question the validity of, "Okay, maybe it's a spoof, but I'm going to make fun of it as if it weren't anyway because Christians are jerks". http://www.rpglibrary.org/inspiration/darkdungeons/
  8. Can you believe this is serious?

    "Firstly, what is the nature of the Baby Jesus? Put simply: The Baby Jesus is a temporal prosopon of the Logos hypostatic branch of the Trinity and is the conduit through which the circuit of Agape is grounded in Humanity. Like all the hypostases, the Baby Jesus is a fully integrated, homoousian manifestation of the Trinity, having two natures, both Infantile and Divine -- Baby and God." And if discussing Baby Jesus as being a theologically meaningful part of the Trinity didn't convince you this was a spoof, following the phrase, "Put simply" with a paragraph of circular and nearly incomprehensible jargon surely should. Also, http://objectiveministries.org/zounds/ If the picture of the "lead singer" isn't enough, check out the tracklist- "Who Let the Praise Out", indeed. Although it's fully possible that this is a spoof website actually designed by Christians, as the jokes at Christianity's expense are fairly soft. There's nothing really mean-spirited that I saw.
  9. What Government Are You?

    You know, after playing this game for a couple weeks, the poll makes a lot more sense.
  10. Captain America is dead!?!!?

    As a sailor on the good ship Harley-Ivy, I care not. It's not that I don't like the Joker as a character. I love the Joker. But being a totally awesome character doesn't mean that in the dramatic and violent tension of a good story they should be exempt from dying. Just the opposite; it's insulting to a good character to deny them the fulfillment of the story they are in. Put it this way; if you like the character of Hamlet, are you doing him a favor by having him renounce revenge, opt out of the duel, and find a new life running a daycare facility at the end? Or is that a disservice? And the fact that Batman is ultimately such a vengeful (rather than just) character adds to the problem here. I just don't see Batman being so attached to the Joker's continued animosity that he's unwilling to finally end the conflict. Certainly when a protagonist overcomes a long-standing grudge and conflict it's natural that they should feel mingled relief and regret, but we don't expect Harry to decide at the end of book 7, "You know what, Voldy, go on. It's cool. You're going to keep your nose clean from now on, right? *wink*" A good dramatic story needs some closure.
  11. Captain America is dead!?!!?

    The problem there is the "almost". The irony is that I'm against the death penalty in real life, but when you know those fuckers can and will get out, I think it's monstrous to allow them to do so knowing how many lives it will cost.
  12. Captain America is dead!?!!?

    I for one think it would be fantastic if Batman just killed the Joker, instead of perpetually sending him back to Gotham so he can bust out again and kill another couple dozen people.
  13. Captain America is dead!?!!?

    I don't agree with this at all. Are you saying there are no currently existing great characters outside of DC/Marvel?
  14. Captain America is dead!?!!?

    The general rule of thumb is that you drop the hyphen when a word has become fully incorporated into our culture and expresses one idea that everyone gets. I think batman and spiderman should both be unhyphenated at this point, but batman certainly got there first and is definitely a bigger part of popular culture, arguably moreso than any other superhero.
  15. Elf defense for "lingerie thief"

    Damned elves, taking our underwear and destroying our lingual capacities.
×