Fuck frameworks

Welcome to our forum. This is a place for people to debate and rant about stuff. Enjoy!

Click here to register.

If you're already a member, you can log in here:

Fuck frameworks; dedicated to Taelôk
Topic Started: 8 Aug 2012, 10:47 AM (469 Views)
Nemesis	8 Aug 2012, 10:47 AM Post #1
Internet Zombie Posts: 7,791 Group: God Member #653 Joined: 28-Jul 2011	I saw this argument here a lot (not only from the owl): "they are correct, in their point of view". Taelôk 7 Aug 2012, 07:45 AM if Homer and Bart were baptized into the church in its plot, then they would be catholic as far as the church is concerned. The sacrament of baptism is irrevocable. My problem with this is: I don't give a fuck. There is such a thing as objective reality and such a thing as the best aproximation of an objective reality that we currently have (we'll call this: "reality", because it's easier). If someone self-defines as a Catholic and respects the dogma to a sufficient extend, then that someone is a Catholic. You must have certain lines and shit, you can't just consider every viewpoint/framework as valid, because then you couldn't have stuff like trials. According to Catholicism, there is also a God, we are sinners, etc. If you say "according to them Homer is a Catholic", you also say "according to them, there is a God". You give them some sort of credit. In reality, there is no reason to believe that there is a God and the Christian God is clearly non-existent and Homer isn't a Catholic. Reality is the only thing that matters. Their framework/viewpoint/ideology is irrelevant in this case. This doesn't mean that they are always irrelevant. They are essential in understanding Catholicism, the Vatican and shit like that. This is very important for understanding Al Qaida: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaeda#Strategy but no objective-enough expert thinks that 9/11 is the beginning of the fall of the Western World and the Islamic conquest of the entire World. Al Qaida is fucking retarded and so is that Vatican cunt.



Blargazaur	8 Aug 2012, 01:42 PM Post #2
Cephalopodan of Zion Posts: 619 Group: Common Jews Member #681 Joined: 31-Jul 2011	I just tend to think "they are correct, in their point of view" is there to validate some consistency within their framework, and not to validate the action in particular or the framework as a whole. I don't think I ever saw it being used differently.



Nemesis	8 Aug 2012, 02:35 PM Post #3
Internet Zombie Posts: 7,791 Group: God Member #653 Joined: 28-Jul 2011	And if the framework is retarded, why does it matter?



Blargazaur	8 Aug 2012, 02:44 PM Post #4
Cephalopodan of Zion Posts: 619 Group: Common Jews Member #681 Joined: 31-Jul 2011	Nemesis 8 Aug 2012, 02:35 PM And if the framework is retarded, why does it matter? To point out the link between the action and the framework, the reasoning. For example you hear about some guy blowing up the world trade center, seems retarded and totally unreasonable in reality, but if you want to see why he did it, under what circumstances he reached this decision, you can look at his framework, in our case, some Muslim nutjob who affiliates himself with Al-Qaeda.



Eugene Debs Hartke	8 Aug 2012, 10:33 PM Post #5
So it goes. Posts: 2,289 Group: Pin tan's Loveslaves Member #2,490 Joined: 18-Feb 2012	Nemesis 8 Aug 2012, 10:47 AM I saw this argument here a lot (not only from the owl): "they are correct, in their point of view". Taelôk 7 Aug 2012, 07:45 AM if Homer and Bart were baptized into the church in its plot, then they would be catholic as far as the church is concerned. The sacrament of baptism is irrevocable. My problem with this is: I don't give a fuck. There is such a thing as objective reality and such a thing as the best aproximation of an objective reality that we currently have (we'll call this: "reality", because it's easier). If someone self-defines as a Catholic and respects the dogma to a sufficient extend, then that someone is a Catholic. You must have certain lines and shit, you can't just consider every viewpoint/framework as valid, because then you couldn't have stuff like trials. According to Catholicism, there is also a God, we are sinners, etc. If you say "according to them Homer is a Catholic", you also say "according to them, there is a God". You give them some sort of credit. In reality, there is no reason to believe that there is a God and the Christian God is clearly non-existent and Homer isn't a Catholic. Reality is the only thing that matters. Their framework/viewpoint/ideology is irrelevant in this case. This doesn't mean that they are always irrelevant. They are essential in understanding Catholicism, the Vatican and shit like that. This is very important for understanding Al Qaida: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaeda#Strategy but no objective-enough expert thinks that 9/11 is the beginning of the fall of the Western World and the Islamic conquest of the entire World. Al Qaida is fucking retarded and so is that Vatican cunt. Agreed. The relativity of opinion and belief is paid far too much heed, especially where these stupid fucking worldviews are concerned. Edited by Eugene Debs Hartke, 8 Aug 2012, 10:33 PM.
	Ask me shit: http://forum.thatfatatheist.com/topic/9751575/6/#new Buy me shit: http://amzn.com/w/1FW69YSRY4V3T “Because today we live in a society in which spurious realities are manufactured by the media, by governments, by big corporations, by religious groups, political groups... So I ask, in my writing, What is real? Because unceasingly we are bombarded with pseudo-realities manufactured by very sophisticated people using very sophisticated electronic mechanisms. I do not distrust their motives; I distrust their power. They have a lot of it. And it is an astonishing power: that of creating whole universes, universes of the mind. I ought to know. I do the same thing.” - Philip K. Dick "Existence well what does it matter? I exist on the best terms I can. The past is now part of my future, The present is well out of hand." - Ian Curtis "Hitler wasn't all bad. He did kill Hitler, after all." - Anonymous. Spoiler: click to toggle Awesomeness: Spoiler: click to toggle Spoiler: click to toggle Spoiler: click to toggle Spoiler: click to toggle Z?


Taelôk	8 Aug 2012, 11:59 PM Post #6
Chess Noob Posts: 1,477 Group: Coffee addict Member #1,587 Joined: 2-Oct 2011	Nemesis I saw this argument here a lot (not only from the owl): "they are correct, in their point of view". No. I am saying they are correct insofar as to what it means to be considered a 'catholic' when the conversation we are having is concerned about what it means to be considered such by the church Nemesis If someone self-defines as a Catholic and respects the dogma to a sufficient extend, then that someone is a Catholic. Yes, although I'll point out rather superfluously that to be a 'catholic' requires the formal recognition of your catholicism by baptism into the church. This may seem like an obvious and trivial point; but I make it to establish to you that being a catholic is being a member of a club (the church) it is not actually tied up in and of itself in any positions and beliefs that the actual person in question actually holds. To reject any articles of faith may result in excommunication, but even then the church still considers you catholic. (even if you don't consider youself as such, which is what is actually important.) Nemesis must have certain lines and shit, you can't just consider every viewpoint/framework as valid I don't. I never made any mention of the validity of the church's viewpoints; because that was not what we were talking about. I was talking about the catholic theological framework as it is; and as far as it goes, Bart and Homer are catholic. (That does not mean that Bart and Homer recognise it, nor have I said they are under any obligation to) Nemesis According to Catholicism, there is also a God, we are sinners, etc. If you say "according to them Homer is a Catholic", you also say "according to them, there is a God". Wait. Are you saying that if I mention within the church's framework that they are right on a trival technicality; I am therefore inadvertently granting that their dogmas and beliefs have bearing in actual reality? That is a rather strange line of reasoning you have there. I suspect you are reading a little too far in what I am actually talking about. Nemesis In reality, there is no reason to believe that there is a God and the Christian God is clearly non-existent and Homer isn't a Catholic. Reality is the only thing that matters. Their framework/viewpoint/ideology is irrelevant in this case. This is irrelevant. We were discussing how a particular simpsons episode pertains to catholic theology, not wheather or not such theology has any baring in the real world (in which I agree it has none) Nemesis This doesn't mean that they are always irrelevant. They are essential in understanding Catholicism, the Vatican and shit like that. Yes, precisely. we were discussing catholic church theology. I was simply stating, here is what the church believes; and why it believes such. If you want to dicuss the validity of said positions, than that's a whole new topic. Nemesis This is very important for understanding Al Qaida: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaeda#Strategy but no objective-enough expert thinks that 9/11 is the beginning of the fall of the Western World and the Islamic conquest of the entire World. Al Qaida is fucking retarded and so is that Vatican cunt. Ok... Edited by Taelôk, 9 Aug 2012, 12:06 AM.
	People who are unable to motivate themselves must be content with mediocrity, no matter how impressive their other talents. Andrew Carnegie My blog, dare ye click? Online meanderings and web-thought


Nemesis	9 Aug 2012, 04:28 AM Post #7
Internet Zombie Posts: 7,791 Group: God Member #653 Joined: 28-Jul 2011	Taelôk 8 Aug 2012, 11:59 PM No. I am saying they are correct insofar as to what it means to be considered a 'catholic' when the conversation we are having is concerned about what it means to be considered such by the church The conversation was actually about how stupid it is for the Vatican to consider the Simpsons Catholics. Taelôk 8 Aug 2012, 11:59 PM Yes, although I'll point out rather superfluously that to be a 'catholic' requires the formal recognition of your catholicism by baptism into the church. This may seem like an obvious and trivial point; but I make it to establish to you that being a catholic is being a member of a club (the church) it is not actually tied up in and of itself in any positions and beliefs that the actual person in question actually holds. To reject any articles of faith may result in excommunication, but even then the church still considers you catholic. (even if you don't consider youself as such, which is what is actually important.) And that wasn't even mentioned in that article. Taelôk 8 Aug 2012, 11:59 PM Bart and Homer are catholic Homer, as an adult, gets baptized by Ned. Bart doesn't. The fact that this isn't mentioned in the article (and they say "the Simpsons", not "Homer"), but you mention it, is what made me make this thread. Basically, I was saying "lol, what a retard" and you kinda (it looked like that) defended him with "yeah, but he is logically consistent with ideology X, if he did Y" and my reply is "yeah... still a retard". This was the article: http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/10/19/us-simpsons-idUSTRE69H54K20101019 Taelôk 8 Aug 2012, 11:59 PM Wait. Are you saying that if I mention within the church's framework that they are right on a trival technicality; I am therefore inadvertently granting that their dogmas and beliefs have bearing in actual reality? That is a rather strange line of reasoning you have there. I suspect you are reading a little too far in what I am actually talking about. No, ffs. I was saying that if you do a "hey, according to Catholicism, if you were baptized once, you are forever a Catholic, so, it's logically consistent to their ideology", then you should also do "hey, you should hate yourself for sinning, even if its fucking human nature", "God is watching you fap" and a huge number of retarded shit that is consistent with their ideology. I'm not saying that it must be true for reality. My point is: if the ideology is as retarded as Catholicism, being logically consistent in that certain framework is quite irrelevant, in general terms. The fact that the Vatican can prove that the Simpsons are Catholics (they can't, imo) adds nothing to how retarded they are for even trying. As far as I know, if John Smith gets baptized, he can legally convert to any religion his dick wants and the Church can't do anything about it, because reality doesn't give a fuck When I linked that article, I was talking about reality, not Catholicism's framework. Now, about Catholicism's framework: why care about it? Why care if someone is consistent in that ideology, if the ideology itself isn't and can't be consistent, because the Bible contradicts itself. 2 other posts I made about this subject: http://forum.thatfatatheist.com/single/?p=8240654&t=9612888 http://forum.thatfatatheist.com/single/?p=8238486&t=9586642 The Catholic "dogma" is almost a propaganda about the Bible, not a seriotus attempt at understanding it, imho. In this case: http://forum.thatfatatheist.com/single/?p=8231251&t=9524560 I agree that looking at Christianity's framework is important, because that was the topic. Just woke up, so, here's a dumb analogy: A: "in 1938, when WW2 started, the protectors of mankind tried to exterminate the evil Reptilians" B: "In 1939, when WW2 started, the protectors of mankind tried to exterminate the evil Reptilians" You care that B is right about the start of WW2, I don't. You think it's important that he is right, I don't. Edited by Nemesis, 9 Aug 2012, 05:04 AM.



Taelôk	9 Aug 2012, 11:53 AM Post #8
Chess Noob Posts: 1,477 Group: Coffee addict Member #1,587 Joined: 2-Oct 2011	Nemesis The conversation was actually about how stupid it is for the Vatican to consider the Simpsons Catholics. 'And I counter that by inisting the people behind this pronouncement are very unlikely to be as serious as you want to make them out to be. The "study" was probably more concerned over the moral implications of the show. The "vatican paper" then used the opportunity to make little side joke for their circles. I mean come on, do you really think the Vatican is too concerned with the "catholicism" of American cartoon characters? Really Nem? Nemesis And that wasn't even mentioned in that article. No, it was a response to this; Nemesis If someone self-defines as a Catholic and respects the dogma to a sufficient extend, then that someone is a Catholic. That is not necessarily the case for the reasons I've pointed out. It's a membership, not a position per se. Nemesis Homer, as an adult, gets baptized by Ned You think the church recognises protestant baptism? My question is. Did Homer and Bart get baptized catholic in the episode The Father, the Son and the Holy Guest Star? if yes; then church will consider them to be catholic by dogma. I'm not saying anything more than that. Nemesis I was saying that if you do a "hey, according to Catholicism, if you were baptized once, you are forever a Catholic, so, it's logically consistent to their ideology", No. I'm saying if you are baptized into the church, the church believes you are forever a member. What is so contentious here? Nemesis hey, you should hate yourself for sinning, even if its fucking human nature", "God is watching you fap" and a huge number of retarded shit that is consistent with their ideology. I'm not saying that it must be true for reality Why if you don't accept the validity of their beliefs, would you concern yourself with them? I was baptized as an infant; so they can consider me as catholic as they like. It doesn't mean I do; nor do I care for any moral postion of church, because I do not accept the validity of their beliefs. I don't get where you trying to go with this. Nemesis My point is: if the ideology is as retarded as Catholicism, being logically consistent in that certain framework is quite irrelevant, Not when we are talking about that framework it isn't. I'm simply telling you why they think X, nothing more. Nemesis The fact that the Vatican can prove that the Simpsons are Catholics (they can't, imo) adds nothing to how retarded they are for even trying. A) To be catholic as I've established; is simply membership in the church. If they consider them members, then they are. I'm not saying Homer and Bart consider themselves members. B) Taelôk I mean come on, do you really think the Vatican is too concerned with the "catholicism" of American cartoon characters? I think they are having a little fun; nothing more. Nemesis When I linked that article, I was talking about reality, not Catholicism's framework. What the fuck do you think it means to be "catholic" in reality? There's no such thing "in reality" Being catholic is the state of being "a member" of a church, nothing more. There is no "objective reality" anout it. Nemesis Now, about Catholicism's framework: why care about it? Because we were talking about what it means to be considered a catholic, and why a vatican paper would "consider" fictional characters to be "catholic" Edited by Nemesis, 9 Aug 2012, 11:59 AM.
	People who are unable to motivate themselves must be content with mediocrity, no matter how impressive their other talents. Andrew Carnegie My blog, dare ye click? Online meanderings and web-thought


Nemesis	9 Aug 2012, 12:00 PM Post #9
Internet Zombie Posts: 7,791 Group: God Member #653 Joined: 28-Jul 2011	Quote: Edited by Nemesis, One minute ago. At the end of the post there were several blank rows, you probably deleted something, the forum sometimes does this. No text was modified, nor deleted. Taelôk 9 Aug 2012, 11:53 AM I mean come on, do you really think the Vatican is too concerned with the "catholicism" of American cartoon characters? Really Nem? I don't think that. I am certain of it. I base my complete certainty on Vatican's reactions to: Harry Potter, DaVinci's code, Passion of the Christ. Regarding the mentioning of baptism, you did that on the thread in Books. "You think the church recognises protestant baptism? My question is. Did Homer and Bart get baptized catholic in the episode The Father, the Son and the Holy Guest Star? if yes; then church will consider them to be catholic by dogma. I'm not saying anything more than that." My bad. The post was made after I woke up. Ned is (probably) an Evangelist, not a Catholic. "No. I'm saying if you are baptized into the church, the church believes you are forever a member. What is so contentious here?" It wasn't mentioned in the article. Just sayin'. Regarding the whole "being Catholic" thing: - the Church shouldn't be able to do that. As far as I know, you can ask them to stop (if we are talking about official records). The Romanian Orthodox Church no longer considers me a Romanian Orthodox. I'm officially an atheist. Romanian Orthodoxy has the same view as Catholicism regarding baptism, but they aren't legally allowed to consider me a member. - the Church can use you like they use many people in their debates and shit with "we have X members", "we represent X members" Edited by Nemesis, 9 Aug 2012, 12:10 PM.



Taelôk	9 Aug 2012, 12:15 PM Post #10
Chess Noob Posts: 1,477 Group: Coffee addict Member #1,587 Joined: 2-Oct 2011	Nemesis At the end of the post there were several blank rows, you probably deleted something, the forum sometimes does this. No text was modified, nor deleted. Noted. Nemesis I am certain of it I'll just have to disagree here. The church is ridiculous, but I think the contexts here means it was a joke. They approved of the simpsons. BTW Ned is a presbyterian. Nemesis It wasn't mentioned in the article. Just sayin' We're still discussing the article now? Anyway, I'm getting some sleep. it was fun. Nemesis the Church shouldn't be able to do that. As far as I know, you can ask them to stop (if we are talking about official records). The Romanian Orthodox Church no longer considers me a Romanian Orthodox. I'm officially an atheist. Romanian Orthodoxy has the same view as Catholicism regarding baptism, but they aren't legally allowed to consider me a member. Their dogma has no legal binding; nothing to worry about there. Also, you can't be an "official" anything in Australia. Edited by Taelôk, 9 Aug 2012, 12:19 PM.
	People who are unable to motivate themselves must be content with mediocrity, no matter how impressive their other talents. Andrew Carnegie My blog, dare ye click? Online meanderings and web-thought


Nemesis	9 Aug 2012, 12:24 PM Post #11
Internet Zombie Posts: 7,791 Group: God Member #653 Joined: 28-Jul 2011	Taelôk 9 Aug 2012, 12:15 PM BTW Ned is a presbyterian. Proof? I Googled and Evangelical seems to be the answer. Taelôk 9 Aug 2012, 12:15 PM Also, you can't be an "official" anything in Australia. Meaning: they count you as a member. Taelôk 9 Aug 2012, 12:15 PM Nemesis I am certain of it I'll just have to disagree here. The church is ridiculous, but I think the contexts here means it was a joke. They approved of the simpsons. The fuckers even had problems with master Yoda. Edited by Nemesis, 9 Aug 2012, 12:27 PM.



Taelôk	9 Aug 2012, 12:28 PM Post #12
Chess Noob Posts: 1,477 Group: Coffee addict Member #1,587 Joined: 2-Oct 2011	Nemesis Proof? I Googled and Evangelical seems to be the answer. The Western Branch of American Reform Presbylutheranism The Western Branch of American Reform Presbylutheranism (a cross between Presbyterianism and Lutheranism) is the fictional Protestant Christian denomination that Rev. Lovejoy preaches at the First Church of Springfield. The church is the town's main place of worship, which most Springfielders attend, though it is not the only church in Springfield (AME, Catholic and Episcopal churches also exist). The name is a parody of Protestant reformed churches branching off into other denominations and movements http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_The_Simpsons As far as I know Presbyterianism is a form of Evangelicalism
	People who are unable to motivate themselves must be content with mediocrity, no matter how impressive their other talents. Andrew Carnegie My blog, dare ye click? Online meanderings and web-thought


Nemesis	9 Aug 2012, 12:31 PM Post #13
Internet Zombie Posts: 7,791 Group: God Member #653 Joined: 28-Jul 2011	Rev. Lovejoy =/= Ned Flanders How dare you equate the two? BLASPHEMY! Wiki Flanders, a graduate of Oral Roberts University, is an ultra-conservative Christian We only know that. Edited by Nemesis, 9 Aug 2012, 12:33 PM.



Taelôk	9 Aug 2012, 10:14 PM Post #14
Chess Noob Posts: 1,477 Group: Coffee addict Member #1,587 Joined: 2-Oct 2011	Ned at Lovejoy's service. Note the clear familiarity of their discourse, which suggests this is a frequent thing. Alors; Lovejoy is Presbylutheranism. Ned frequently attends Lovejoy's services. Therefore; Ned is likely Presbylutheranism. I win!
	People who are unable to motivate themselves must be content with mediocrity, no matter how impressive their other talents. Andrew Carnegie My blog, dare ye click? Online meanderings and web-thought


JeffroTheMan	10 Aug 2012, 02:12 AM Post #15
Posts: 910 Group: Members Member #355 Joined: 20-Jul 2011	Quote: Lovejoy is Presbylutheranism. Ned frequently attends Lovejoy's services. Therefore; Ned is likely Presbylutheranism. I win! Only in the context of the framework in which a person who attends the services of a church is likely an adherent to the teachings of said church. Fuck that framework! trolololo
	"Should've been a soldier, I could've fought and died/ but there's no revolution, so I bought a bride." -Bought a Bride, Brand New


Taelôk	10 Aug 2012, 02:24 AM Post #16
Chess Noob Posts: 1,477 Group: Coffee addict Member #1,587 Joined: 2-Oct 2011	Nope, it's just simple induction that would lead to the conclusion that a person who regularly attends a church service would likely adhere to that particular church. Of course; I'm using a framework of inductive reasoning as my basis.
	People who are unable to motivate themselves must be content with mediocrity, no matter how impressive their other talents. Andrew Carnegie My blog, dare ye click? Online meanderings and web-thought


Nemesis	10 Aug 2012, 04:03 AM Post #17
Internet Zombie Posts: 7,791 Group: God Member #653 Joined: 28-Jul 2011	Taelôk 9 Aug 2012, 10:14 PM Ned at Lovejoy's service. I think that was rare. They are rivals. Edited by Nemesis, 10 Aug 2012, 04:32 AM.



Ardat	10 Aug 2012, 04:41 AM Post #18
Posts: 2,079 Group: Elite Members Member #491 Joined: 26-Jul 2011	They aren't.
	What's more fun than fighting crime?


Nemesis	10 Aug 2012, 05:04 AM Post #19
Internet Zombie Posts: 7,791 Group: God Member #653 Joined: 28-Jul 2011	@owl: http://simpsons.wikia.com/wiki/Ned_Flanders "Flanders has been shown to call Reverend Lovejoy for advice often, even over minuscule things, to the point that Lovejoy has stopped caring and has even suggested that Flanders try a different religion. Reverend Lovejoy used to care for Flander's problems, but over the years Lovejoy became increasingly uninterested in Flanders' problems." So, if Lovejoy asked Ned to try a different one, it means they have the same. I was wrong about Ned, but I was the one that proved I was wrong, so I win. Ardat 10 Aug 2012, 04:41 AM They aren't. True. My bad. I just saw some eps were Lovejoy kinda hated Ned. Edited by Nemesis, 10 Aug 2012, 05:29 AM.



1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)


« Previous Topic · Philosophizing · Next Topic »