I'd very much like a Beta for a little fic I'm writing. It's not related to the PPC, by the way.
Requirements: American English SPaG knowledge
Additional welcome traits: Canon knowledge of Percy Jackson and the Olympians/Heroes of Olympus, knowledge of Graeco-Roman mythology
Rewards: Lemon Pie (eating it feels like having ze secks with your LO)
-
Contract: Beta Reqired by
on 2015-06-21 11:36:00 UTC
Link to this
-
Sure, why not? by
on 2015-06-21 14:11:00 UTC
Link to this
I like helping out my fellow writers. My email is diamondcloud@gmail.com
(I'll pass on the Lemon Pie, though, if that's all right. Too sour for me.)
-
"Ensign Sue Must Die" Trilogy by
on 2015-06-21 14:43:00 UTC
Link to this
Any of you guys know this webcomic?
BEHOLD!
Honestly, I believe this is the greatest, most hilarious thing connected to Mary Sues I have ever seen! Saying anything more than this would spoil everyone's fun so just make yourself comfortable, grab a mug of cocoa or a cup o' tea, and simply enjoy this magnificence! :D -
Amazing! by
on 2015-06-23 01:03:00 UTC
Link to this
I totally did not spend the last hour reading the whole thing. HAHAHAHA. That would be a waste of time that I don't have to waste.
-
There are sequels? by
on 2015-06-22 20:23:00 UTC
Link to this
I'd just read the first one, so it's exciting to know that there's more to the story out there. Thanks for the link!
-
One of the best I've ever read. by
on 2015-06-21 20:46:00 UTC
Link to this
The only bad part I can remember was that it wasn't finished when I started reading it, so I had to wait for updates.
-
Definitely one of my favorites. by
on 2015-06-21 16:43:00 UTC
Link to this
Like sjosten said, it has now since joined the ranks of Legendary Goodfic. Because it's Just That Awesome.
-
YES oh my God by
on 2015-06-21 14:55:00 UTC
Link to this
Best Star Trek (sort of) webcomic ever!!! :D :D :D
-
Ah, Ensign Sue by
on 2015-06-21 14:54:00 UTC
Link to this
We made it one of our Legendary Goodfics a little while back here: http://disc.yourwebapps.com/discussion.cgi?id=199610;article=270949;
-
Happy Father's Day! by
on 2015-06-21 15:25:00 UTC
Link to this
As the title says ^_^
-
Hooray! (nm) by
on 2015-06-21 20:55:00 UTC
Link to this
-
Cheers, dad. by
on 2015-06-21 18:46:00 UTC
Link to this
Here's to the big guy who was always there for me when I needed it.
Santé! -
Here's to a Maine-born South Korean! by
on 2015-06-21 17:41:00 UTC
Link to this
Thanks, Dad. We may not always get along, but you're still the best possible father I could have.
-
*cakefetti* by
on 2015-06-21 16:45:00 UTC
Link to this
My dad got me into Doctor Who, which has since become one of my biggest fandoms. He's been a solid pillar for me in my thus far pretty turbulent life.
*raises glass* Here's to you, dad. Thanks for being awesome. -
Not here, yet, but what the heck - best wishes from me! :D (nm) by
on 2015-06-21 15:30:00 UTC
Link to this
-
Hello again :) by
on 2015-06-21 19:59:00 UTC
Link to this
I'm not sure when I last posted here, I think it's been several months at least. It feels way past due for me to start hanging around here again, at any rate.
For those of you that don't know me, or have just forgotten, I read mostly fantasy and sci-fi, watch a lot of anime, and I've dabbled with writing original fiction (none of which I've ever actually finished). My writing projects in recent years, aside from the few PPC bits I've done, have mostly been for homebrew RPGs - both the setting/background and the actual game system. These have been... interesting little exercises in frustration.
I know that when I was last here I was involved in some co-write projects with some of you guys, which you won't have heard anything from me on for a looooong time, so I apologise for that. I'll try and e-mail you guys about them - despite appearances, I would be interested in finishing them.
How are you all doing? -
Hey man! by
on 2015-06-25 02:23:00 UTC
Link to this
Sorry about the super belated welcome back. I have been very busy replacing my roof.
Anyway, what have I been up to? Not much really. Not sure if you have seen it, but if the January date is correct I am going to guess not. Me and Iximaz finished our crossover mission! After, like, a year. I'm currently on mobile, so I can't link, but I'm sure you can look it up yourself.
Anyway, how have things been for you? Well, I hope. -
Hi! by
on 2015-06-25 21:24:00 UTC
Link to this
No, I haven't read your mission yet, but I am starting to work my way through all the stuff I've missed, so I'm sure I'll get to it soon.
Yeah, things have been pretty good for me. A little dull maybe, but I'm out of my slump now. -
Well, I come with very, very belated welcome back! by
on 2015-06-24 03:03:00 UTC
Link to this
You don't know who I am, because apparently I got here, when you had already disappeared (That means around January).
So anyway, welcome back, and have this replica of The One Ring, that does nothing, except when you put it in boiling water. Then it makes peach-flavored tea. -
Hello! by
on 2015-06-24 22:47:00 UTC
Link to this
Nice to meet you. Allow me to offer you an even more belated welcome to the Board.
Hmm, I still have some of these Karaoke Knights around - if you've always wanted a small toy knight that can only sing off key versions of popular songs, then this will be the perfect gift for you! -
Welcome back to the PPC! by
on 2015-06-22 22:07:00 UTC
Link to this
You need a returnbie starter and a good item, so here we go! =]
Your New Game Plus starter:
Iiiiiiiiit's Tyranitar!
And your starting item is:
Brilliant Behemoth from Risk Of Rain!
Now, the synergies here are pretty obvious if you play Doubles, because Brilliant Behemoth increases the power of moves that hit multiple Pokémon by 20%. This ALSO removes the penalty from those moves if they DO hit multiple opponents. While it actually works really well with anyone who has Parabolic Charge, it's still nice on people with STAB Earthquake, though Mega Tyranitar's still probably a better bet. =] -
*WOOOOSH!* by
on 2015-06-23 19:18:00 UTC
Link to this
That was the sound of pretty much everything you just said going right over my head. I recognised the word 'Pokémon', at least.
Still, thank you for the gifts. Now I'm going to go and poke them with a stick until I find out what they do. Don't worry, I'll be very scientific about it - I'll take notes and everything. -
Splaingrace can into splaining! =] by
on 2015-06-23 19:25:00 UTC
Link to this
Risk of Rain is a 2D shooty-platformy thing that has, along with Darkest Dungeon, The Binding of Isaac, Ascendant, Runers, and various others of the burgeoning "roguelite" genre, been taking over my life and making me its bitch like a big burly leather daddy no I'm not fantasising you can't prove it. Roguelites tend to have a lot of interesting items in them, and RoR is no exception. =]
In RoR, Brilliant Behemoth is a Tier 3 "rare" item that makes your hits explode, dealing additional splash damage. In Pokémon doubles matches, moves that hit multiple opponents do less damage. It seemed natural to make it boost the power of multi-target moves... though probably not with Tyranitar, since that means giving up on using Mega Tyranitar and no, God no, why would you even do that. =] -
A belated welcome back! by
on 2015-06-22 17:24:00 UTC
Link to this
Have one of my own shed feathers and a complimentary kit of Spikes!
-
Yay, pointy things! by
on 2015-06-23 19:55:00 UTC
Link to this
I'm sure I'll be able to find a use for those Spikes.
Your gift did conjure up a rather odd mental image - I read the first part as 'shed feathers', as in, the feathers from a garden shed. I picture this creature as a sort of cousin to the Dread Gazebo. It must have been quite a battle to get them :) -
Welcome back by
on 2015-06-22 08:53:00 UTC
Link to this
Have an animate origami frog.
-
Thank you. by
on 2015-06-23 19:41:00 UTC
Link to this
What a curious little animal. I wonder if it eats bookworms?
-
Hi! *waves* by
on 2015-06-22 04:56:00 UTC
Link to this
You don't know me; I joined a month or two ago, but it's cool to see a returnbie! Welcome back!
-
Hi *waves back* by
on 2015-06-23 19:37:00 UTC
Link to this
In that case, allow me to offer you an extremely belated welcome to the Board.
*hunts for a gift*
Here, take this Karaoke Knight. This 1 ft high figurine of a medieval knight in armour is capable of singing (badly) any song you care to name. -
Ooooh, thanks! (nm) by
on 2015-06-23 23:15:00 UTC
Link to this
-
Welcome back, sai Samurai! (nm) by
on 2015-06-22 04:11:00 UTC
Link to this
-
Thanks. It's good to be back. (nm) by
on 2015-06-23 19:29:00 UTC
Link to this
-
*Squints* by
on 2015-06-21 23:13:00 UTC
Link to this
Well, I'll be! Welcome back to the Board! Glad to see you're making a comeback.
I don't think we ever finished our little project together, right? I think it's about time we fixed that... -
*Squints back* by
on 2015-06-22 01:31:00 UTC
Link to this
Yeah, I think our co-write might be the project that I've been neglecting for the longest - a somewhat dubious honour.
I agree, we should definitely get that finished. -
Welcome back! by
on 2015-06-21 21:57:00 UTC
Link to this
I'm doing great; just finished my screenwriting class last week, and since we're not meeting during finals week, I have a chance to write/relax before my second summer class starts.
PPC-wise, I'm starting to wrap up my second mission and write my third. Both should be interesting. -
Re: Welcome back! by
on 2015-06-22 01:27:00 UTC
Link to this
Cool. I'm slightly jealous of anyone that sounds like they have lots of free time.
I really should finish my second mission. I think it got it to about 90% done, and then just never got around to giving it that final 10%. Out of interest, what continua are your missions in? -
Black Butler and Pokemon, respectively. by
on 2015-06-22 15:53:00 UTC
Link to this
They're standard(ish) Suefics. My second mission covers a fic where the protag couldn't pick one supernatural heritage and so chose three of them. (Not kidding.)
You'll be in for a treat once my third mission comes out; the target for that one has FUBAR English, a breathtakingly stupid Sue (as they usually are), and one of the most jarring format shifts I've ever seen. And just to rub salt in the wound, it takes place in Chris' home region, Johto. -
Return-bie! Oh, Frabjous Day! Callooh! Callay! by
on 2015-06-21 21:11:00 UTC
Link to this
Here, have this stuffed Leprechaun... He may or may not spill out Lucky Charms if you slice him open.
Okay, enough with the stereotypes :D... for now.
But seriously, though, welcome! Now I have someone to Beta my Irish agent :D -
A Returnbie indeed by
on 2015-06-22 01:19:00 UTC
Link to this
I don't think we've met before, have we? I don't recognise your name. Apologies if that's just my poor memory.
Thanks for your gift.
I should warn you, there has been some doubt about my exact level of Irishness before, much as there has been doubt about my exact level of Samuraishness (which is totally a real word, even if the spellchecker doesn't recognise it). Still, I'm normally up for betaing stuff. -
Why, hello there, mate! by
on 2015-06-21 20:45:00 UTC
Link to this
Here, have this cup of confused Lapsang Souchong tea as a welcome-back gift — it's not quite sure whether it smells like a campfire or not, so treat it gently, aright?
-
Re: Why, hello there, mate! by
on 2015-06-22 01:09:00 UTC
Link to this
Ooh, thank you. Hmmm, from here it smells like a campfire... but if I go over here it doesn't. Dunno if that knowledge is useful to you or not, but thank you for the gift. Tea is always good.
Congrats on getting your Permission Giver hat. -
Why, thank you. by
on 2015-06-22 18:16:00 UTC
Link to this
Apparently I know a thing or two.
*Adjusts straw Hat*
What have you been up to lately? -
Um... I'm not actualy sure, by
on 2015-06-24 23:22:00 UTC
Link to this
Off hand, I can't really think of anything notable that I've done during my absence. Which... isn't really a good thing.
Part of what triggered my returning here was the realisation a few weeks ago that my free time had basically devolved to just playing Star Wars: The Old Republic. Now, it's a fun game, and I enjoy it a lot - but I probably didn't need to be spending every waking moment playing it.
With that realisation came the thought that I used to do a lot of other fun stuff, such as hanging out here and writing, and that I should probably try for a bit more variety with my free time.
I did come up with some ideas for an original sci-fi universe. Not the first time I've thought about that - thinking about sci-fi tech is one of my favourite hobbies. But this time I've decided to learn from my past mistakes and write a series of short stories set in the universe. That way, I might actually finish something. -
Oh, wow, welcome back! by
on 2015-06-21 20:41:00 UTC
Link to this
*throws cakefetti*
Haven't seen you on in forever! Take this fresh plate of welcome-back SPaGhetti!
How's life been treating you? -
Thank you by
on 2015-06-22 01:04:00 UTC
Link to this
Mmm, SPaGhetti, sounds good.
Yeah, it's been a while since I was here. Looks like today might be my first time posting this year - I knew I had been away for a long time, but I didn't think it was quite that long!
Life's been good, if a little dull due a lack of writing and reading of silly Sues getting their comeuppance. Still, I should be able to remedy that now :)
Congrats on getting your Permission Giver hat, by the way. -
I made it fresh today! by
on 2015-06-22 02:07:00 UTC
Link to this
And wow, I can't imagine leaving this place for any length of time; I love it here! *pulls everyone in for a group hug* :D
And oh, man, I know what you mean. Writing is love, writing is life! ...or something like that? Oh, yes, "Being sick of writing is like being sick of breathing!" You can probably tell I have no life outside of writing missions. ^^;
And thank you! *shoves her Firefly hat over her ears* I was pretty surprised to get it! -
A top o' the mornin' to yeh laddie! by
on 2015-06-21 20:33:00 UTC
Link to this
My name is JacksepticyeI remember you! You wrote the mission that introduced mini-Moggets to the world! YAY KITTIES
You're still running their adoption center, right? -
T' be sure, t' be sure. by
on 2015-06-22 00:57:00 UTC
Link to this
Unfortunately I have no idea who/what Jacksepticye is, but thank you for the welcome back anyway.
Yup, that was me. I plan on writing some more interludes for the adoption agency, because kitties are awesome. -
Dude, did you just do what I think you did? by
on 2015-06-21 21:08:00 UTC
Link to this
TAKE THIS COOKIES! TAKE THIS CAKE! AND REMEMBER - NOTHING STOPS... THE SQUATCH!!!
Sorry, JackSepticEye can only by quoted in caps. -
Irish! by
on 2015-06-21 20:18:00 UTC
Link to this
Or should we call you Samurai? tIS? The Swordsman of Hibernia? Oh, whatever. Hi! Welcome back again.
(I think you had a cowritten chapter of The Ispace Wars ongoing with me, but... honestly I can't remember. I've kind of dropped the ball on that myself, though I intend to pick it back up again At Some Point.)
(Eesh, at this rate I'm going to have to suggest another UK Gathering...)
hS -
hS! by
on 2015-06-22 00:45:00 UTC
Link to this
Well, I normally shorten it to 'Irish' myself, but I have been thinking of re-branding myself as the Dark Lord 'He Who Shall Not Be Present' - that way I can justify my absences as "being in character".
Yeah, Ispace Wars is one of the many projects that I was thinking of. I think I sent my chapter to you, but that we were going to do a co-write bit as a follow up to it or something? It's been a while, I'm not sure anymore.
What's that I hear, hS? 'I'm going to have tosuggest another UK Gathering'? Sounds good to me :P
-the Dark Irish Swordsman Who Is Not To Be Present in Hibernia (and is also a Lord) -
UK Gathering, anyone? by
on 2015-06-22 11:54:00 UTC
Link to this
(Putting it in the subject to grab attention. ^_^)
Looking over the recent World of PPC thread, I think we've only got one new Briton (Baroom). Most of the rest of us are still occasionally around - Storme, Cassie, me and Kaitlyn, and Scapegrace-who-was-Wobbles.
We also have at least - wow - six Europeans: Matt Cipher (Poland), Sergio Turbo (Italy), EileenAlphabet (Denmark), Hieronymus Graubart (Germany), QuintusFabiusPictor (Netherlands), domirossi (Corsica)... and I suppose by some counts Desdendelle (Israel), though I think the Middle East is usually filed under Asia? So yeah, it's possible some of them might pop over - Ekwy and Milano did back in the day.
Or maybe some Americans will wander our way. You never know. They did last time.
hS -
I'm moving to London early next year... by
on 2015-06-25 14:55:00 UTC
Link to this
So I might make the next Gathering!
-
Whoa, you're what? by
on 2015-06-25 15:19:00 UTC
Link to this
Dare I ask why?
hS -
Yep! by
on 2015-06-26 15:12:00 UTC
Link to this
Transfer at work - London is (more of less) the head office, so a chance to go learn from some guru type people. Having work pay for an international move is also a good thing.
No date for the move yet, but Jan/Feb next year is most likely. -
Cool! by
on 2015-06-27 10:25:00 UTC
Link to this
Make sure to let us know, and we'll throw a Gathering in your honour.
(Though, ouch - moving to London in winter? Are you sure they don't have it in for you?)
hS -
Shall do! by
on 2015-06-29 11:56:00 UTC
Link to this
And yes, Brisbane in February/March (temperature 20-30°C, average humidity >90%, average days of sunshine >20) to London in February/March (temperature 4-9°C, average days of sunshine 2-3) is going to be a slight change!
-
Because I didn't actually say so earlier... by
on 2015-06-23 20:27:00 UTC
Link to this
I would certainly be up for a Gathering.
-
Looks like no-one else is, this year. by
on 2015-06-24 14:37:00 UTC
Link to this
Didn't we cancel the 2014 one for the same reason...?
hS -
Close. by
on 2015-06-24 18:49:00 UTC
Link to this
However, unless you were lying to us with this post (and I've a fairly compelling reason to believe that you weren't) then there actually was a UK Gathering in 2014.
You're thinking of 2013 - apparently odd numbered years are no good for gatherings. -
So what do you think of Canterbury? by
on 2015-06-25 09:02:00 UTC
Link to this
I'm able to get just about anywhere, but even speculative Gatherings are pointless if no-one else can get to them.
hS -
Looks OK to me. by
on 2015-06-25 20:58:00 UTC
Link to this
I should be able to get there fairly easily. I'd be up for that.
The weekends in July are filling up rapidly for me, but I currently have nothing booked for August. -
Yay! by
on 2015-06-25 21:05:00 UTC
Link to this
Either July or August is fine, but I'd have to clear time off work first by talking to my manager. Which is fairly easy, as that's, er... me. =]
-
Self-management is the best management. by
on 2015-06-25 21:11:00 UTC
Link to this
At the moment it's looking like Kaitlyn might not be able to come (she's loath to take a day off), unless I guess we ran the whole thing in the evening; that would probably be from about... 3 or later, though, so probably not.
I should probably be able to work out something in either July (though not the last... two weekends) or late August. I guess that means shoot for late August, since July is right here. Any date preferences?
Actually we should probably make a new thread, to catch anyone else who might come. Storme or Cassie may be around.
hS -
... wait, what year is it now? [Facepalm] (nm) by
on 2015-06-24 20:05:00 UTC
Link to this
-
Urm, I think it ended with a 5 this year? by
on 2015-06-24 20:08:00 UTC
Link to this
*does some mental math* Oh, good, I'll be able to make it to the 2018 one as long as it's held in the early half of the year. :D
-
We throw Gatherings... by
on 2015-06-24 20:11:00 UTC
Link to this
... when there's people to throw them at. ^_~ I tend to default to summer, because in my head I'm still at school. That isn't really necessary (though a winter Gathering might be a bit on the, well, chilly+short side!).
hS -
There were a bunch of people who wanted to... by
on 2015-06-24 17:10:00 UTC
Link to this
But couldn't, for whatever reason. I mean, by way of an example, it'd be difficult for me to haul my broke carcass out of my tiny decaying seaside town whose only monetary income is derived from the patronage and patronisation of beardy DFL hipsters, and we have nothing to offer except a pleasure park that does not, in fact, have anything pleasurable in it. And I work there. I doubt I'm the only one in that kind of situation, which is a pity, because I'd really like to meet up with y'all one of these days. =]
-
You can't leave town? by
on 2015-06-24 20:09:00 UTC
Link to this
Do... are there barricades or something? Because you've got both Canterbury and Dover down there that would be brilliant for Gatherings (actually I'm not positive about Dover, but doesn't it have a castle? Castles are good). Heck, for my part I'd be happy to go completely unorthodox and have a fossil-hunting Gathering somewhere like Folkstone, but I might be outnumbered on that one. ;)
hS -
It's more that I can't go to London easily. by
on 2015-06-24 20:37:00 UTC
Link to this
Because I was and remain broke af. =]
Canterbury'd be my pick, because there are interesting things and I know all the really good pubs, but I'm not going to drag everyone down to my neck of the woods because it's difficult (and kind of expensive) to get to. Also, if you're coming by train, you'd have to use SouthEastern, and life really is too short. =] -
We don't just do La Londres. by
on 2015-06-24 20:49:00 UTC
Link to this
Oxford, London, Bath, York, Leeds - we've moved around quite a bit. (Though I will point out that to my knowledge, only two of those have ended up in pubs...)
It occurs to me that my list of Interesting Cantwareburhian Things runs 'cathedral, fudge shop twenty years ago', so... what else is there?
hS -
I remember visiting a sweet shop there. by
on 2015-06-24 23:44:00 UTC
Link to this
My class visited Canterbury back in 2009, and I definitely got a tube of some kind of weird chewy candy
and then pawned a bunch of it off on my classmates so I could be done with it. The cathedral is pretty awesome. There were repairs or something going on at the time, though, and it would be nice to see it without all the scaffolding and whatnot. And, y'know, explore more of the city than just the little bit that was on our agenda. We also stopped at the Pilgrim's Hospital and Greyfriars Guest House, though. The latter has a beautiful garden.
(Out of curiosity, are you counting the 2009 Bath Gathering as ending up in a pub? Because technically I think we did, even though it wasn't to go drinking.)
I'd go back to York in a heartbeat, too, and I've never been to Oxford, which is just not fair.
~Neshomeh -
Oxford's only pretty in places. by
on 2015-06-25 00:14:00 UTC
Link to this
I mean, there are some lovely places that really fit in with all that "dreaming spires" bumph, but there's also a lot of Sixties slab-sided architecture that squats on the landscape like a misshapen grey toad colony. Went with my mother for a conference on medieval history, so maybe I just wasn't feeling charitable, but yeah. =]
As for Things To Do InCANTERS BLUDCanterbury, there are many pubs, the aforementioned cathedral, some decent sweet shops, interesting food places, the Rupert Bear museum stop judging me I love Rupert Bear, a branch of Waterstones with Roman ruins in the basement that you can have a look around which I think is basically Boarder crack, and So Much More! (tm).
Personal favourites on the pub front include The Foundry (great food, brew their own beer on site), The New Inn (has a library AND an accordion), and The Bottleshop (which I accept is dubious but it's in a lovely indoor farmer's market and I get a discount). In the latter you might find KURACS. They are my people. Try to ignore President Ryan's enormous Willy Wonka hat. -
But Oxford's not about the prettiness. by
on 2015-06-25 08:58:00 UTC
Link to this
It's about Tolkien being buried there. We managed to entertain ourselves back in '04, anyway (though I see my report's pictures have vanished... sigh. I'll fix that later.)
Have to say - you've sold me on Canterbury with the Waterstones. ^^ I went to South Wales for work and wasted an afternoon at <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IscaAugusta">Isca, this is me, right here.
hS -
It's even harder for those of us across the pond. by
on 2015-06-24 17:26:00 UTC
Link to this
Not to mention still dependent on their parents.
One of these days, I swear! -
Well... by
on 2015-06-22 23:15:00 UTC
Link to this
I heavily suggest keeping your schedule open for Summer 2016. I'm hoping to make a trip to the Isles sometime then.
-
I should add to this... by
on 2015-06-24 23:12:00 UTC
Link to this
August 2016 will be Phobos' and my fifth anniversary, and we've said before that we hope to go back to England for it. Mark your calendars, people. {= )
~Neshomeh -
I can already see how this will work out: by
on 2015-06-25 08:59:00 UTC
Link to this
We'll have three batches of foreigners arriving at three different times.
Not that this will stop me from throwing three separate Gatherings, but it might wear out some of our potential attendees. ^_~
hS -
Nah, not with THIS much time to plan. by
on 2015-06-25 14:57:00 UTC
Link to this
I've already narrowed it down to August. Our actual anniversary is the 6th, which luckily happens to fall on a Saturday in 2016, so we can shoot for that weekend, and we won't even have to debate about it because no one can possibly have plans already. {= )
The only thing that can throw a wrench into the works for us (short of a disaster/emergency) is not being able to afford the trip when the time comes, but that's just another good reason to plan this far in advance. There's also a chance that one of Phobos' cousins will be getting married next summer, but that may or may not actually conflict other than adding to the aforementioned affordability issue. But hey, we managed it for our honeymoon on top of the wedding itself, and that was four raises ago for Phobos.
Incidentally, speaking from experience, July is awesome at trip-planning. If she's in on it, I pretty much guarantee it'll come together in some form.
~Neshomeh -
Yeah, you say that. by
on 2015-06-25 21:07:00 UTC
Link to this
I don't technically have plans. What I do have is kids, and default-childcare-parents who go on holiday for the first half of August. So while we can probably do that weekend - we'll have to bring a 6-year-old and a 3-year-old along with us.
hS -
When a member of the military... by
on 2015-06-23 09:01:00 UTC
Link to this
... says they'll be 'making a trip' to my country... ^_~
Ahem. In good old traditional PPC style, we're always willing to throw a Gathering for visiting furriners (to show them how a proper country does things, you know. Hint: it involves tea and crumpets; also monacles and top hats). I think we once pulled it off on a week's notice, so a year is plenty of time!
... good grief, Space Year 2016 is next year. Futureshock, can'tcope.
hS OF THE FUTURE -
*monocles? by
on 2015-06-23 12:27:00 UTC
Link to this
Did hS make a spelling mistake?
The forecast for tomorrow is rains of blood, with a chance of impending armageddon. -
Nonsence! I woodn't knouw haw! (nm) by
on 2015-06-23 13:23:00 UTC
Link to this
-
Well... by
on 2015-06-23 09:05:00 UTC
Link to this
As things are shaping up, I might/might not be able to travel in summer 2016; I assume it depends on how well my studies go and what sort of job I'll get.
-
:O We're being invaded from two sides! by
on 2015-06-23 10:45:00 UTC
Link to this
Man the barricades! Prepare the cauldrons of hot tea! Draw your swordcanes and don your armor-plated bowler hats!
(The armor-plated bowler hat is the height of British military technology, almost as much so as the exquisitely-understated Lovely Weather We're Having Cannon.)
hS might be silly -
Look out, hS! You've fallen for a cunning trap! by
on 2015-06-23 13:35:00 UTC
Link to this
Your bowler hat isn't British at all - it's foreign!
No true British Gentleman would ever take to the field of battle without his authentic armour-plated bowler hat.
*dons hat*
The siege kettle divisions stand brewed and ready to advance on your orders, sir.
the Irish Samurai might also be silly -
NOOOOOO- wait, that's not a terribly British response. by
on 2015-06-23 13:40:00 UTC
Link to this
Ahem:
Oh, darn.
It appears that Gougle Chroume is out to get me.
hS -
You tease! by
on 2015-06-22 15:58:00 UTC
Link to this
Gah, in two years, just you wait.
*wanders off, grumbling to herself* -
Hey there! {= D by
on 2015-06-21 20:16:00 UTC
Link to this
Glad to see you again. I was afraid you might be gone for good. Welcome back!
... And oh god, I never did get around to that Gathering report. Between one thing and another it kinda fell through the cracks. I should, uh, maybe fish it out of there. >.>
In the last several months, my old job ended, I found a new one that isn't as good but at least gives decent hours, and I recently came out with a new interlude and mission, and Phobos added a short story to the Catastrophe Theory collection, which should interest you, IIRC. {= )
In other news, Iximaz, Desdendelle, and Poor Cynic are our newest Permission Givers, and Iximaz PPC'd the whole Rose Potter series. That was a thing.
You were looking for lots of reading material, right? That's what drew you back? ^_~
How are you? Work been keeping you busy?
~Neshomeh -
Re: Hey there! {= D by
on 2015-06-23 13:40:00 UTC
Link to this
And I've just noticed that it was hS who used the phrase 'dropped the ball', while you used 'fell through the cracks', thus making my previous response slightly less coherent than I'd intended.
I know I've been gone a while, but it honestly never occurred to be that I could get out of practice at reading a comment and then replying to it.
Still, it's good to be back :) -
Hey there! by
on 2015-06-22 00:33:00 UTC
Link to this
Not gone for good, just an extended hiatus - that is not yet gone which can eternal procrastinate... or however that saying goes.
As for the Gathering report, I think I was meant to be writing most of that, so I think I dropped a bigger ball... or dropped it from higher up, or something. I might need to do some fishing too. The Gathering report was certainly one of the unfinished projects that I was thinking of.
I'm glad you were able to find a new job, hopefully the better hours is balancing out the not-as-goodness. Yup, I have your interlude and mission open in other tabs (Happy Birthday by the way, even if I am a couple of weeks late saying it) and have already read Phobos's Catastrophe Theory piece. I'll have a review for him soon.
More reading material certainly doesn't hurt, but mostly what drew me back was remembering how cool the community was (wow, that sounded far less sappy/cheesy in my head - ah well).
I'm good, and yes, work is keeping me busy. But the good kind of busy, rather than manic busy. Manic busy was earlier in the year. Still doing quite a bit of travelling for it too, which is cool. I'm getting a lift in to work with a friend these days, so I think I've actually done more mileage in hire cars in foreign countries than I have done in my own car, which is a little weird. But now that I'm out of the manic busy stuff (fingers crossed that lasts) I should be able to start doing some writing again.
-Irish
-
Difficulty find a good betareader on fanfiction.net by
on 2015-06-22 15:27:00 UTC
Link to this
Anyone else find it hard to get a good beta there? Because I've gone through loads of pages to find the best ones suited to editing a certain story, and even if you find a good one it takes long time to get a reply for a beta request.
-
Why would you WANT to? by
on 2015-06-22 21:58:00 UTC
Link to this
It's the Pit. It's full of voles. And not the cute voles either.
I mean, if nothing else, you can always ask one of us. Not to toot our collective horn, but we're pretty good at this beta reading lark. =] -
Let's not go there, yes? by
on 2015-06-22 22:47:00 UTC
Link to this
While there are many unskilled writers on Fanfiction.net, there are also very skilled writers there as well.
Just because the entry bar only requires an email doesn't mean it's acceptable to insult everyone there. -
His got a point. by
on 2015-06-22 23:03:00 UTC
Link to this
A lot of fanfic recommendation, from the members' here to TV tropes have a lot more examples of the best being in the 'Pit'.
To be honest, fanfiction is like mainstream media. As in both suffer from Sturgeon's Law. Just look up Linkara or Bennett the Sage who show that most of the market is mediocre or decent, with a tiny few being outright awful and another tiny bit are excellent.
... besides, try looking up bad fetish fanfics or stuff that have established copyright characters in them. If you thought that ordinary bad fanfics having every bad trait ye hate, then these bad fetish fanfics will make ye grit your teeth in fury at how much more they'll break canon (though they'll never be very popular since they're a niche demographic). -
Re: Why would you WANT to? by
on 2015-06-22 22:26:00 UTC
Link to this
I have considered, and have asked one of your members they would consider beta reading if I can't find a decent or good beta readers (Unfortunately, I thought of that at the last minute when I already sent the requests (that story me and my friends are making might be breaking some canon. Not sure if it is inevitable or not).
And I know that the 'Pit' is not the best place but you find a group or someone whose quite good. For example, found this chap once https://www.fanfiction.net/u/448997/
His outlook on what fanfiction are quite similar to the PPC's and mine(I think).
-
On memorability by
on 2015-06-22 21:08:00 UTC
Link to this
So then.
I've been making Plans revolving my characters. The main reason for their existence is because I feel like the characters have to have something big in their history, or else they'll be forgotten.
However, SeaTurtle and Ix (both of whom are in-the-know about my Plans) say that's not quite the case.
And honestly, I'm confused. Most of the agents I remember have had big, attention-grabbing events in their careers and those events are how they stick in my mind. This means characters like Rina, Supernumerary, Dafydd, Suicide, Laburnum, and Cadmar.
A lot of other agents? They blend together in my mind, because they all follow the stock PPC formula. And this is exactly what I don't want to happen to my agents.
They're likable, well-written characters, but honestly? I personally feel like that doesn't matter if they don't accomplish anything, which they really haven't. Without accomplishments, they're generic PPC agents.
Without something dramatic to shake up the narrative, I don't know how I can further develop my characters, and to me the PPC is about the characters. Focusing on the badfic can lead to boring missions with talking-head syndrome. I see badfic as an opportunity to expand my characters, but if I just follow the same formula every time, there won't be much to develop.
The final problem I have is that I've been making these Plans for months. If I just scrap these ideas, I feel like all that time and effort was wasted.
All in all, I'm just confused about what to do here. My mind is telling me that drama and surprise is necessary, but my friends are saying they're not. -
After these responses... by
on 2015-06-22 22:55:00 UTC
Link to this
The plug has been pulled on my Plans. They're going to the same resurrection-proof section of the Idea Graveyard that I put Sigma.EXE.
For those not in the know, my Plans were to kill Valon, and transform him into a Victim Ghost from Silent Hill 4.
I ran the idea through five people, all of whom thought it was a great idea, or kept their reservations to themselves. The sixth PPCer to get the idea started raising all sorts of questions, that I just couldn't find good answers to. Then one of the first five admitted concerns she had, and got me to start seriously rethinking this. Another of the first five suggested I post this topic on the Board.
So, I guess you can all thank SeaTurtle, Iximaz and SkarmorySilver for knocking some sense into my skull, and saving Valon. -
I don't know much about Silent Hill... by
on 2015-06-23 06:43:00 UTC
Link to this
So I can't really comment on that. I think you should look more at your motivations for having big plans as opposed to focusing on the plans themselves.
-
My thoughts by
on 2015-06-22 22:35:00 UTC
Link to this
First off, your motivations seem a little... off to me. You seem to be mostly concerned with what other people think about your agents. While I understand that it's good to get feedback on your characters and hear positive things about them, I think you should put creating a good story over being famous within the PPC. So if you think your Plans are going to make for an interesting story and you want to write it, then go ahead. But if your only motivation is because you feel like it's required in order to get them in some kind of nebulous Hall of Fame... then maybe you shouldn't. Poorly written Sue-fics get lots of favorites and comments, but that doesn't mean that's what you should aspire for.
Secondly, I think it's better to focus on personal drama than big, HQ-rocking drama. Some things, like what happened to Rina, are likely to have wide-spread effects; other things aren't likely to ever really be heard of outside their RA. But that doesn't mean it doesn't have an impact on the people it happened to. If your characters cross a line on one of their missions and end up in trouble, it might make the news or it might not. But that doesn't matter to the people it happens to. What matters is the way that it changes things for them. Even something little that might not seem significant at all to outsiders can have a major influence on the people it happened to. Look at Derik in Neshomeh's most recent mission. Even if he and Gall never tell anyone else about what happened, it's clearly shaken him a lot.
And on a final note, I feel like you're being a little unfair to some of the other PPC writers. Just because a character doesn't stick out to you doesn't mean that they're bad or unorignal, it's just a matter of personal taste. I'm not saying all PPC stories are perfect and it's wrong to criticize them, but it kind of comes off a little as "if I don't remember them, then they're worthless." -
On Making Things Matter by
on 2015-06-22 22:30:00 UTC
Link to this
Big events? Don't accomplish anything.
Drama for the sake of drama? Is boring.
Shaking up the narrative just to say you did? Quite frankly, is trite.
For a long period of time as part of the PPC, I read every single findable and published mission. We're talking /years/ worths of spin-offs, and dozens and dozens.
The ones I can talk about in casual conversation or discussion and bring up easily with other boarders?
It isn't because they were attached to big attention-grabbing events. Quite frankly, I barely recall the whole list of agents that were volunteers for the Alumia emergency back in 2008- and that was quite a Sue!
As for the characters you listed: What do you really remember about them?
Unfortuantely I can't say anything about Rina, because I haven't read those spin-offs (My apologies!), but for the rest?
I remember Nume because Nesh's missions are clever, and she has interplay and continuing growth between Nume and Ilraen.
Dafydd? Thanks to hS' missions featuring Dafydd, I know way more than enough about Silmarillion and the Feanoreans than I would otherwise. hS builds history and background information into his missions without making it feel forced. It isn't just about the big events, it's about what leads up to it and what happens after- the causes and results.
Suicide? Let's start with the base stock- Suicide's creation and entry into being a PPC agent is truly unique, as far as any goes, and the fact he's stayed himself- rather than being adapted into acting like a modern age agent?- well worth remembering!
Laburnum? Oh, I certainly remember that spin-off, and not only because of those big attention grabing events you cite.
Cadmar? Shark teef. 'Nough said.
If you're taking the attitude that it is all about big events making waves and attention grabbing to make a character unique and not 'stock', you're dead wrong- and it's an attitude that won't serve you well as far as making your own characters develop. You don't have to focus only on the badfic; aside from that, the stock formula is stock for a reason- or are you suggesting that TOS is forgettable and generic, by these standards of yours? Besides, the main component of hS' mission based spinoffs and and Neshomeh's? Stock. It's not what happens that makes them memorable, it's the writing and care behind them. Quality, rather than quantity or explosiveness.
While my own spin-off's mostly faded into the distance with time, I still used the stock formula, and altered where I needed to do what I wanted with my own characters' personal story arcs. I mixed it up by using plenty of interludes between missions- in fact, I was one of the first to start that practice!- and by having a leadup and cooldown both before and after the mission itself in each story.
Sometimes you have to dump plans you've made for months- it's not a waste of time or effort. As a writer, your first and foremost goal is to write something that's enjoyable and works well as a whole. If you're crafting it to match some sort of formula for expected success, you might find it, but you'll not enjoy it as much as you will otherwise.
There's nothing wrong with stock, if you know what to do with it. It's just the broth. What you do with it and what you put into it results in an actual soup. -
I am going to slightly disagree with part of your premise by
on 2015-06-24 20:26:00 UTC
Link to this
Namely this: As a writer, your first and foremost goal is to write something that's enjoyable and works well as a whole.
I think first and foremost as a writer your goal is to write something that you enjoy writing. If other people find it enjoyable, then I consider that gravy. If Voyd wants to write some big event that does not impact the PPC canon as a whole, I say give it a shot. Now if the reason for doing it is to be memorable, then I am inclined to agree with you. Because again, as I said, I firmly believe that one should write for themselves. If others remember it, fantastic, if not, so be it. Same with whether or not others enjoy it.
Now turning to the original concerns Voyd voiced, here is what I have to say. Do you like what plans you have made up to this point? Do you think that it needs some drama or surprise? Then write it out. Draft it. Then see how you feel about it. You should not bind yourself to what other people want, unless it is something technical (Sues, spelling, grammar, etc).
As far as plot is concerned your first and, in my opinion, only real concern is Do You Like It? Now that is my general opinion on writing. With something like the PPC, just like other forms of Fanfiction, there are conventions you have to follow, i.e., not disrupting canon. The only caveat goes to being part of a shared universe, it could theoretically be outvoted by the community at large, but I say write it, see if you like, and then submit it to the community and go from there. -
Please read again. by
on 2015-06-24 22:03:00 UTC
Link to this
That's what I said.
"As a writer, your first and foremost goal is to write something that's enjoyable and works well as a whole. If you're crafting it to match some sort of formula for expected success, you might find it, but you'll not enjoy it as much as you will otherwise." -
The way I was reading, by
on 2015-06-24 22:15:00 UTC
Link to this
It seemed to me that it was more about making it enjoyable for the reader. For me, it is the process itself that should be enjoyable. If I misunderstood your words, then forgive me.
I was mostly trying to get at the point, that you should write what you want first and foremost. If you want Drama, go for it. If you want a sappy love story, make it so. If you want to put your characters through a living hell, that is your right. So, what I am really trying to say is if Voyd has some long term arc planned, I say go for it, so long as it fits the medium. Fanfiction obviously has different rules than original fiction. -
You're still doing it. by
on 2015-06-25 20:49:00 UTC
Link to this
"If you're taking the attitude that it is all about big events making waves and attention grabbing to make a character unique and not 'stock', you're dead wrong- and it's an attitude that won't serve you well as far as making your own characters develop."
"It's not what happens that makes them memorable, it's the writing and care behind them. Quality, rather than quantity or explosiveness."
That was my point. -
Apology accepted. XD (nm) by
on 2015-06-22 22:41:00 UTC
Link to this
-
Alack. by
on 2015-06-22 22:44:00 UTC
Link to this
I had stopped keeping up with missions and new spin-offs so much around right when you got here, unfortunately.
...So I have a few years of spin-offs to catch up on, if I ever do.
(Ohhh dear.) -
Well, I've got... by
on 2015-06-22 22:53:00 UTC
Link to this
...um, thirty missions plus various interludes? So I totally understand if you've got better things to do. ^^;
-
Aha. by
on 2015-06-22 23:00:00 UTC
Link to this
Congratulations on breaking the TOS number- very few people actually manage that one. Despite the fact that there are really, well and truly hundreds and hundreds of spinoffs by now, the number that have surpassed TOS in number of missions is... I would say there are between 30 and 50? Highballing, really. Nesh, you got any more accurate estimates, there?
Also, you would be surprised at what I've got time for (at least if the pace is decently maintained and your missions are not actually novellas in and of themselves).
(Just not right,due to the fact that in the middle of the ocean is not the best of times to be trying to read a spin-off right off the computer.) -
Length varies. by
on 2015-06-22 23:23:00 UTC
Link to this
My shortest (and most recent, actually) is at eight pages; the longest (collectively) is the Rose Potter missions, and that condensed is 201 pages all together. So... yeah. ^^;
And I thought there were more like five or six people who have broken the TOS number? -
Now, see.. by
on 2015-06-22 23:32:00 UTC
Link to this
Spreading the whole of Rose Potter out over 201 pages isn't all that bad, actually.
As for the number who've broken TOS, I'm fairly sure that last I recalled it was in the high teens or low twenties- I'm estimating that by now it might have broken past 30. -
Going by the wiki... by
on 2015-06-23 00:01:00 UTC
Link to this
The people who broke TOS's 26 mission count are:
-Trojie and Pads (49)
-Allison and Tasmin (51) — I didn't even know about this spinoff; I must investigate!
-Tawaki et al (38)
-Rina Dives et al — only broke TOS's count if you count in-progress missions or count Rose Potter as more than one mission. Otherwise, she stands at 24 missions.
That's... not a lot. There are more people who broke the 10-mission mark:
-Cadmar, Sienna and Maria (20)
-July and Library (17)
-Anneli, Cindi and Xanathus (12)
-Cavan Shenn and Rilwen Shadowflame (12)
-Florestan and Eusabius (14)
-Nume and Ilraen (11)
-Cali and Miah (21)
-Foxglove and Laburnum (18)
-Eledhwen and Christianne (14)
-Ian Nahinu and Lee Keaton (13)
-Orken and Thomas (20)
-Emma Julia and Tasmin Haynes (17)
-Laura Dukes et al (12)
-Marah and Isaiah (19)
Things I might have missed:
-Multiple teams by the same author (like me — I've written 11 missions, not including interludes, but you'd have to dig a bit deeper than going through the page to figure that out)
-Interludes that get counted as missions (ie, some of those might have lower mission counts than what I have here; it's for the same reason of the above item)
-Stuff that wasn't updated in the page. -
Y'know... by
on 2015-06-23 17:13:00 UTC
Link to this
It really doesn't feel like I have that many.
And I could've sworn there were far more who've broken either number. -
As I've said... by
on 2015-06-24 15:35:00 UTC
Link to this
My methodology is far from perfect. I probably missed some.
-
Well... by
on 2015-06-24 17:01:00 UTC
Link to this
I was also hoping that in the intervening years more would have reached that number. I was far too optimistic.
-
Only seven, actually. by
on 2015-06-23 15:31:00 UTC
Link to this
Eight if you count the mission six diptych as two, though it's constructed as one story. The others are three interludes and Ilraen's intro story.
If you add in Derik's four missions and the one Agent Neshomeh went on, though, I've written or co-written twelve (or thirteen). Plus an additional two interludes, one FicPsych story, one Ten Years Hence story, and two AHAIRQL stories for a total of 22/23. Oh, and eight Fill the Plotholes, so 30/31.
I think that's everything. I'm not counting RPs.
~Neshomeh, averaging a truly stunning 2.5 stories per year since joining. Sheesh. -
Well, clearly I'm no good at math. by
on 2015-06-23 16:48:00 UTC
Link to this
That's not a bad number, though I'm sure it would possibly go up if you allowed yourself to not count years where you did not write things?
(Also, would you be interested in doing a mission cowrite with me? We can both add it to our individual list of things that will take years to finish.) -
Not so much, really. by
on 2015-06-23 17:34:00 UTC
Link to this
I think I started writing FtPs in 2004, so that brings the average up to about 2.75 per year.
OTOH, I started writing my DIC spin-off in 2006 (though nothing actually got published until 2007). If we leave off the FtPs and just count the other stuff... we're right back to about 2.5/year. That number looks pretty solid. {= )
And, yes, that would be awesome! I have no idea when we'll find the time, but I guess we can keep our eyes open for promising badfics? ... You're into comics and superhero stuff, right? I'd like to do something in Marvel- or DC-verse for Gall, but I'm at the very most shallow end of the fandom, having only really gotten on board with the recent films and TV series. Most of what I know otherwise I learned from watching Atop the Fourth Wall. ^_^;
~Neshomeh -
Yes, besides the standard fare for here. by
on 2015-06-23 21:22:00 UTC
Link to this
I don't even want to think what my average is, at this point in time.
And being on the very shallow end of the fandom isn't necessarily a bad thing; comics tend to be all-consuming. Most people tend to either focus more on either Marvel or DC, and even then they pick and choose which corners of said sides to even focus on, since otherwise is a complete pain. (I try very much to stick my fingers in my ears and look away from the X-Men corner of the Marvel universe, for example, because that is Just Too Much.)
Perhaps we should move this conversation to e-mail, to avoid giving too much away and to begin planning and such? -
Correction: by
on 2015-06-23 00:07:00 UTC
Link to this
Rina Dives has 23 missions with Rose Potter counting as a single mission; however, I'm inclined to think that each 'fic in the series counts as its own mission, and therefore she has 28 missions under her belt.
-
I also managed to miss... by
on 2015-06-23 00:10:00 UTC
Link to this
Dafydd and Selene; the page lists them as the veterans of 18 missions.
Aright, looks like counting isn't my thing after all. -
Haha, that's a complete lie. by
on 2015-06-23 08:55:00 UTC
Link to this
Dafydd and Selene have all of six recorded missions together (ie, the same number as Kaitlyn and Selene). Dafydd officially partnered with Selene has 18 stories, of which five are non-missions (the other seven are three each with Vemi and Constance, and one with Neshomeh and Alec).
The total count of missions written by me, including the two Intelligence reports, seems to be... 37? Maybe? Even that number is pretty uncertain; do we count the two DIO missions? What about the exorcisms performed by Sandra and Freckles? How about the one in Generic Surface? I've gone with 'missions in which an actual pre-existing fic is entered', since that's a nice, quantifiable number.
(And of course I'm not counting several ongoing missions... this is harder than I thought!)
hS -
Make that 38. ^_^ (nm) by
on 2015-06-23 15:28:00 UTC
Link to this
-
Actually, Rina's got 28 missions. by
on 2015-06-23 00:04:00 UTC
Link to this
32 if you count the in-progress ones (one is unlisted because that's the next on the list).
-
Well, so much of it was plagiarized... by
on 2015-06-22 23:50:00 UTC
Link to this
I got to skip over chunks and chunks where it was basically copy/pasted from canon, albeit with the occasional weird typo (the wated comes to mind). So although it looked like a lot to spork, there was a lot that got left out thanks to the rampant plagiarism.
And huh, if that's the case, then the Wiki page needs to be updated, because that's definitely not even ten people listed. -
Er, what's Nume done that's so big, exactly? by
on 2015-06-22 21:54:00 UTC
Link to this
Or Suicide, or Cadmar?
If you're thinking of "Subjugation," I must point out that the mission never actually got done, and Nume wasn't even originally supposed to be involved—he and Cameo were retconned in after Shae and Jo's author dropped out of the project. He's not even mentioned in the little bit that did get written. Furthermore, if it's such a big deal, why don't you name Rez, Flip, Gunny, and Wayne, who were actually involved from the beginning and also have fine and distinguished careers otherwise?
And Suicide doesn't have any other big events to his name, really. Unless you're counting Sakhmet or something, but her badfic isn't even Legendary, so you couldn't possibly be considering that...
As for Cadmar, unless I missed something (which is quite possible, since I can't read everything), the biggest thing to happen to him was that he got turned into a her and stuck with it. It was a big deal for Cadmar, sure, but genderbenders do happen occasionally. It's not precisely earth-shattering, y'know?
Perhaps you actually remember the things that happen to these characters for other reasons that might be worth noting?
~Neshomeh -
Nume's big events... by
on 2015-06-22 22:12:00 UTC
Link to this
To me, those are Blood Raining Night and Ring Child.
-
Interesting. by
on 2015-06-23 15:41:00 UTC
Link to this
I happen to agree with you there. {= ) The question I'd pose to you, though, is why they stand out from the rest of the spin-off. BRN has the advantage of being a pretty well-known badfic (though my mission has yet to attract anyone to the PPC on that basis that I'm aware of, le sigh), but "Ring Child" doesn't, so let's look at that one to avoid distraction. More specifically, what choices did Tungsten and I make as writers that made that mission more than just your standard broth with the usual chicken, noodles, and maybe a few vegetables, to borrow July's analogy? What choices could we have made instead that would've made it just another mission?
~Neshomeh -
Factors of greatness by
on 2015-06-23 18:31:00 UTC
Link to this
First: The interactions between Suicide and Supernumerary. Seeing them bounce off of each other was an absolute riot.
Second: The consequences of some of Archir's actions, like putting on the One Ring to no effect (...and the canon be all like, "f**k this, I'm out").
Third: The completely awesome spelling errors. The Wall of Mazarbaaargh and the unspeakable acts in Moria. Methinks this speaks for itself.
Fourth and final: The introduction of the ficubus. Aside from the fact that I'm a fan of person-shaped cosmic horrors and the Fair Folk, that was generally a very cool scene and introduced a new idea to the PPC lore: the ficubus.
This is all my opinion, though, and I don't doubt that there are people who disagree with me. -
Okay, let's examine these. by
on 2015-06-24 15:00:00 UTC
Link to this
- Character interaction. I'd say this is a staple of all good PPC missions. So what made these interactions stand out? How can you apply those principles to your own writing?
2 and 3. Putting these together because I think they're both examples of the same thing, which is the mission writer(s) choosing which bits of badfic to mention and then making something of them. I'll give you this one for free: It's not enough just to point at the mistakes and go "Oh, that's so bad!" That's how you get talking heads. Instead, take what the badfic is doing wrong and then really rack your brain for the best way to show it. Always push the envelope a little farther.
4. Heh. You know why we did that? 'Cause we didn't want to write our agents killing a child-shaped thing. We had to make it monstrous so we wouldn't feel like monsters. After the fact, it made sense—and we went back and highlighted a clue here and there—but that's the whole reason for it. The assassination of something that looked like a three-year-old was simply not the story we wanted to write. So what does that tell you?
~Neshomeh
- Character interaction. I'd say this is a staple of all good PPC missions. So what made these interactions stand out? How can you apply those principles to your own writing?
-
You only remember Dafydd for the big events? by
on 2015-06-22 21:29:00 UTC
Link to this
Well that's kind of depressing. Oh, well.
hS -
I liked Dafydd's snark. by
on 2015-06-23 21:41:00 UTC
Link to this
Plus, you know, being all-around cool. ;)
And for the record, Aster and Lore are also some of my favorite agents and they never did anything groundbreaking. I just loved their dynamic and characters. -
Lemme bring you an example. by
on 2015-06-22 21:16:00 UTC
Link to this
Take the Notary. She's the Time Lord everybody loves to hate. In fact, she's one of the more memorable agents I've seen (and I've seen quite the amount in the four or so years I've been around). Did she do anything notable? No. She was in a WhatThe mission, a couple Chilli Con Council interludes, and that's about it.
-
[[[UNPARSABLE SUBJECT LINE]]] by
on 2015-06-22 21:55:00 UTC
Link to this
-
Does anyone feel like that Maleficent felt like a fanfic? by
on 2015-06-23 10:12:00 UTC
Link to this
Because to me, it felt like it had all the hallmarks of a mediocre or bad fanfic. From whitewashing Maleficent to demonising and bastardising the King and fairies. The movie felt like it could've been a great morally grey movie (where both sides had their flaws and understandable reasons) if it chose to stay away from the black and white routine (by just switching the roles).
-
I agree. It was unsatisfactory. by
on 2015-06-25 13:58:00 UTC
Link to this
She didn't even turn into a dragon in the end! *cries*
-
Perosonally, I think Hollywood is running out of ideas. (nm) by
on 2015-06-24 00:45:00 UTC
Link to this
-
Yes...but... by
on 2015-06-24 21:51:00 UTC
Link to this
Remember Hollywood is a business, so it might be that their focus testing has determined that the public do not really want new ideas, and would prefer to see the same things. Take for example this:
Ex Machina a very good, new, experimental film dealing with artificial intelligence, and what makes a human, human. It took about $ 36 Million world wide. Now lets compare this to Jurassic World, which is a sequel to Jurassic Park. Not a bad film, but no where near as good as the original. It has been out less than two weeks and has grossed over $1 billion dollars. Lets also look at the other top grossing films this year. Furious 7 and Age of Ultron. Both sequels. It seems that that is currently what the people want. -
And to further illustrate the point by
on 2015-06-24 22:09:00 UTC
Link to this
A list of top grossing films not adjusted for inflation
Looking at the top 100, there are 63 sequels and 13 stories based on well known tales. Or, put another way, 76 of the highest grossing films are derivative, in some way, shape, or form. 76%. It seems to me that the majority of what people want is the seemingly unoriginal stories. It might be the consumers, not Hollywood then. -
Yeah... by
on 2015-06-23 14:12:00 UTC
Link to this
I hadn't thought of it before, but yeah, it does have an awful lot in common with a certain subset of bad fanfics.
I didn't think it was a very good movie. I got a sense of what it was trying to do and it was very admirable, but I thought it was very poorly executed. Good ideas killed by sloppy and messy writing. -
This I agree. by
on 2015-06-23 12:16:00 UTC
Link to this
But I think Maleficent has more to do with the recent obsession with retelling the villains to be more sympathetic. I guess it's due to value dissonance between what was collected back in 19th century and how Disney wants to portray all characters as rich in detail and have every reason for their evil.
-
Makes sense. by
on 2015-06-23 12:45:00 UTC
Link to this
Some of the best villains ever were complex characters which you can despise for their actions but understand why the way they are.
I guess it all depends on how the tools of writing are used. The movie's attempt at humanising Maleficent isn't the worst, it's just that it came at the expenses of other characters' personalities.
But there's nothing wrong with villains who have no sympathetic reasons for their actions. Joker and Disney's version of Claude Frollo are examples of such. The first has such a mysterious background it is hard to tell if he a poor guy who went insane one day or a monster who only got worse one day while the second is frighteningly realistic like Huns from Frozen and Mother Gothel and there's hardly any reasons that excuse his actions.
Ands I hope the trend doesn't go like the 80's and 90's obsession with anti-heroes, and darker and edgier in comics (most tried pulling off Watchmen without understanding that the darkness and edginess was the by product of a compelling and well thought out story, and not that dark and edgy made the story work). -
Do we have a Frozen mini yet? by
on 2015-06-23 15:29:00 UTC
Link to this
*hesitantly scoops up Huns the for-now-mini-Olaf*
-
No, as far as I know... by
on 2015-06-23 16:30:00 UTC
Link to this
But I like more the idea of mini-snowmen, the ones from Frozen Fever.
-
What about those ice golem kajiggers? (nm) by
on 2015-06-23 18:55:00 UTC
Link to this
-
Well, mini-Marshmallow is another option too... (nm) by
on 2015-06-23 20:55:00 UTC
Link to this
-
'Whitewashing Maleficent'? (Spoilers, obvs) by
on 2015-06-23 10:42:00 UTC
Link to this
Isn't this the woman who condemns an infant to death and then stalks her for the rest of her life? Sure, she starts out and ends up 'good' (though she's still pretty violent about it at the end), but she goes through one heck of a dark patch in between. Nor were the fairies 'demonised', from what I remember - they were dim-witted, certainly, but not evil.
I thought it was a brilliant film, myself - a fantastic look at an old story from the other side, as it were. Yes, it changed things around some - but I don't think it's as black-and-white as you read it as.
hS -
Re: 'Whitewashing Maleficent'? (Spoilers, obvs) by
on 2015-06-23 11:03:00 UTC
Link to this
I believe she condemn the girl to go into a coma. The original was the one that had her condemn to death until one of the fairies changed it.
I made an error in the last post in that I should have said that the King was demonised while the fairies were bastardised... still doesn't stop them from being irresponsible, unfunny and annoying characters that somehow can't pay attention enough to notice when a child takes tumble off a cliff because they're slapping each other.
Still feels like a fanfic that had a good idea but only pulled it off decently at best and missed the mark by a yard at worst, at least to me. Then again, talking about the movie is like bringing up the Hobbit movies for both book and movie fans, the new Mass Effect for fans or Metroid: Other M for Metroid fans; lot's and lot's of debating and arguing ensues. -
Are you talking about... by
on 2015-06-24 20:04:00 UTC
Link to this
Mass Effect Andromeda or Mass Effect 3? From what I have seen Mass Effect Andromeda seems to have pretty solid expectations all around, ME3 was polarizing for a lot of people, but really only for the last 30 minutes or so. That's what people argue over, well usually, or if you are me then you argue over Vega. But from comments I have seen since its release, most people really have issue only with the last bit, now for some it ruined the entire game, others not so much.
Then again I am also not including the whole DLC Ending/Regular Ending. And I also forgot the day one DLC.
-
OT: Quick French assistance? by
on 2015-06-23 12:55:00 UTC
Link to this
I'm translating a technical document into French, and while most of it is standard phrases with built-in translation, and most of the rest is simple things like 'Mining chemicals' which I can handle, I've got one massive paragraph I'd prefer to have an actual French speaker translate.
So if anyone's around quite quickly, can I get a translation of this:
Sodium Silicate Solution is manufactured by dissolving silica sand in sodium hydroxide solution. This gives a strongly caustic product, with varying stochiometry, according to the Na2O:SiO2 ratio in the formulation. These solutions therefore posess nominal formulations of Na2SiO3, Na2Si2O5, and Na2Si3O7, which have Na2O:SiO2 rations of 1:1, 1:2 and 1:3 respectively, in water. Products from ICL contain 9-18% Na2O by weight, according to grade and application. This information refers to sodium silicate solution with Na2O:SiO2 ratios below about 1:1.65.
hS
(PS: So how long's it been since you've seen an Off-Topic: tag on the Board? There's not much that's OT for the PPC Board!) -
Maudit francophone, reporting for duty. by
on 2015-06-23 14:20:00 UTC
Link to this
This is the best I can come up with:
"La solution de silicate de sodium est manufacturée en faisant dissoudre du dioxyde de silicium dans une solution d'hydroxyde de sodium. Le résultat est un produit extrêmement caustique avec une stoechiométrie qui varie en fonction du rapport Na2O : SiO2 du composé. Par conséquent, ces solutions possèdent des formulations nominales de Na2SiO3, Na2Si2O5 et de Na2Si3O7 qui ont des rapports Na2O : SiO2 de 1:1, 1:2 et 1:3 respectivement dans l'eau. Les produits du ICL contiennent de 9 à 18% de Na2O par masse selon leur type et leur application. Cette information fait référence à la solution de silicate de sodium avec un rapport Na2O : SiO2 d'à peu près 1:1,65."
One thing: I'm feeling iffy about the translation of "by weight, according to grade and application". I translated "weight" into "masse" (as in by mass unit whatevers) and "grade" into "type" (I would use "quality" as an alternate translation but I'm missing a little context so I played it safe). Any additional information would help me polish up this passage.
Otherwise, I feel 95% sure this is correct. I'm not a really super-technical writer (yet) so I'd advise you trying to seek a professional in your field to double-check this thing because this looks important. -
You're awesome. by
on 2015-06-23 15:01:00 UTC
Link to this
'Type' is probably better than 'quality', since it's talking about a wide range of things - the ratio under discussion, strength, possibly even method of manufacture. 'Mass' is pretty much correct.
...this looks important.
I only wish. ^_^ 'This' is required documentation for selling sodium silicate solution (obviously) to France. It's pretty unlikely anyone will bother to read it, and nearly certain that they won't care about this paragraph, which on looking at it contains no safety information at all. It's basically an excuse for not trying to put a precise formula in where there should be one.
So thank you very much! Did I say you're awesome yet? Because you're awesome.
hS -
À votre service, monsieur. (nm) by
on 2015-06-23 16:37:00 UTC
Link to this
-
♫~I don't know about you...~♫ by
on 2015-06-23 14:26:00 UTC
Link to this
♫~...but I'm feelin' twenty-twooooo...~♫
That's right, as of today, I'm officially twenty-two years old, and I'm happy to celebrate my first birthday as a PPCer! Thank you all for your support, feedback, concrit, etc. throughout all these months!
Now, where'd I put my party hat?... -
Happy Birthday! by
on 2015-06-25 13:55:00 UTC
Link to this
Have some Minecraft Cake! It will restore your health!
-
(Belated) birthday wishes by
on 2015-06-24 10:03:00 UTC
Link to this
Have a flock of exceedingly small origami cranes.
-
Happy Birthday! by
on 2015-06-24 07:40:00 UTC
Link to this
Twenty two. You know, according to some people*, the years that are double (11 22, 33, ext.) are lucky years for you. So, clearly we need to start off this lucky year with a little celebration! Yes kids, it's that time again! I give you a Fanon Pinkie Pie Party!(tm)
What is a Fanon Pinkie Pie Party you may ask? What makes it any different from a regular Pinkie Pie Party? Well, I'll tell you!
As you probably know, the My Little Pony brand is made primarily for little girls. Unfortunately, this means Hasbro forces canon to mostly restrict Pinkie's parties to those suitable for a five year old little girl. (Although it seems we are getting through to them somewhat!) While this is all well and good for said five year olds, those much older then that can only find so much enjoyment from them that is not based on pure nostalgia.
Enter the Fanon Package, where we use a dash of Fanon and a drop of OOC to break the shackles enforced by corporate onto our favorite Party Pony. Now she can be the Super Duper Party Pony she was meant to be, and throw you the BEST PARTY EVER! Music, drinks, lights, snacks, party games, and quite simply the most delicious cake you will ever taste!
BUT WAIT, there's more! Pinkie Pie uses a mixture of her fourth-wall breaking abilities and a Remote Activator we managed to acquire to bring in ANY CANONS YOU WANT! Just choose your prefered location, provide a list of your favorite fandoms, and we provide the rest! Party with Pokemon, tango with a T-Rex, even get to hug without consequence!
By the end of the party, specially programed robots with Neuralyzers will sort out all of the canon mess left behind, so don't worry your little head over any damage to the continua. They will even neuralyze you, making the party seem like it never happened and that all you were doing was reading about this fantastic party!** The robots even have time travel abilities, due to being based off of the T-1000, so you won't even notice the time difference! This is quite simply the best party you will never remember!
The next time you have a special event to celebrate, just remember: There Ain't No Party Like a Pinkie Pie Party!
*Me, mostly.
**Should you have memories of said party, even vague ones, we recommend writing down, in detail, what you remember. Perhaps in story format. This will help in the healing process from the neuralisation. -
Happy Birthday! by
on 2015-06-24 03:44:00 UTC
Link to this
From one Pokémon fan to another, have your choice of Gen IV Trainer-issue bags of holding!
-
Drat. Should be VI, not IV. (nm) by
on 2015-06-24 03:45:00 UTC
Link to this
-
*tosses you a spare party hat* by
on 2015-06-23 23:17:00 UTC
Link to this
Happy Birthday! I stole some of Bilbo's birthday cake: here you go!
-
Happy birthday! by
on 2015-06-23 20:51:00 UTC
Link to this
[Song redacted due to copyright infringement]
Anyway, have this psychic pet rock! It broadcasts its thoughts to everyone in a radius of around 3 feet, but since this is a rock, it can't think, so, no one notices. Hey, it could be useful. Maybe.
There's also this blue tiger plush. Be careful, though, the instructions manual says there's a... Drowning risk? Huh. -
Happy Birthday! (nm) by
on 2015-06-23 18:57:00 UTC
Link to this
-
Happy Birthday! :D *Optional!Hugs* (nm) by
on 2015-06-23 18:43:00 UTC
Link to this
-
GRAB THE CHAIR, BOYS, WE'VE GOT ANOTHER BUCKET KICKER!!! by
on 2015-06-23 17:45:00 UTC
Link to this
HAPPY BIRTHDAY MY OLDE FRIEND~♫
The cake is on the table,
And it is awfully bright,
'Cause there's so many candles on top.
But you are so decrepit,
Your chest so tight,
When you blow them out your lungs are gonna pop. -
*cakefetti* by
on 2015-06-23 17:29:00 UTC
Link to this
As per tradition, the Iximaz Birthday Song!
HAPPY HAPPY BIRTHDAY TO YOU
MAY ALL YOUR WISHES COME TRUE
HOPE NOBODY MAKES YOU BLUE
AND YOUR CAKE DOESN'T EXPLODE IN GOO!
*blows noisemakers* -
Happy Birthday! Have a Lava Cookie! (nm) by
on 2015-06-23 16:39:00 UTC
Link to this
-
Happy birthday! by
on 2015-06-23 15:57:00 UTC
Link to this
Not to kill the moment, but here's a fundraising drive to help save Syria's threatened cultural treasures. I can't give too much at the moment, but I consider sharing it with everyone reading this a partial victory.
On a less serious note, here's a Boo's Sheet from the Paper Mario-verse (makes you invisible) and a nifty wireless mouse! -
A very merry birthday to you! by
on 2015-06-23 14:29:00 UTC
Link to this
Have a shovel enchanted with Moon Saber! When you deal damage with it, you heal by the same amount.
-
Anyone here a fan of Disturbed? by
on 2015-06-23 14:58:00 UTC
Link to this
They're back.
Spread the sickness. -
Spread the sickness, eh? by
on 2015-06-23 19:02:00 UTC
Link to this
Allow me to respond with a song that expresses my thoughts on that:-
Get Better.
=]
-
Department of Intelligence report: The Games of Gods by
on 2015-06-23 15:19:00 UTC
Link to this
Rustic94 and friends, this one's for you. Everyone else, it's also for you: an Intelligence report in the Architeuthis style isn't just a summary of the fic, it's the story of how that summary came to be written.
PPC: Headstrong - The Games of Gods
This makes the third Intelligence Report fic I've written, which means I should probably give them a slot on my website. Kyaris will be so pleased.
(I think this is the first time the Division of Applied-and-theoretical Multiversal Physics has been mentioned in a story, rather than in technical documents; I'm sure they'll be delighted too.)
hS -
Interesting report. by
on 2015-06-24 04:34:00 UTC
Link to this
And when did Kyaris get the extra head? According to her entry in the PPC Wiki, she had seven heads, but here, she has eight.
So far, it's well written. One tiny error slipped through, though:
We already invoked the Ispace Accords with Jurisfiction; OFUU was the logical next step.
Shouldn't that be "OFUDisc"? -
T'ain't an error. ^_^ by
on 2015-06-24 07:45:00 UTC
Link to this
OFUU has only appeared in the chapter titles for The Ispace Wars so far; it stands (or stood) for OFUs Underground, and is the defensive setup organised by the OFUs during the Wars.
Kyaris' extra head is deliberate too. It's been, what, nine years since Crashing Down? Much like our Time Lords, she's bad at self-preservation. (And why not? Let them get a hit in, and it makes you a better fighter!) There's no particular story behind it, though.
Thank you!
hS -
Oh, Thanks for clearing that up. (nm) by
on 2015-06-25 03:26:00 UTC
Link to this
-
Thank you by
on 2015-06-23 17:25:00 UTC
Link to this
I've to admit, writing Richard's, Alice's, Thumper's and Granite's scenes as I've okay enough knowledge of the setting.
I'll take your suggestions and advice to heart and start re-editing my parts to improve upon the story as much as possible. -
Thanks by
on 2015-06-23 16:19:00 UTC
Link to this
Cheers for taking the time to give the Prologue a look over. I'll be sure to pass on the parts you suggested we work on and we are currently looking for a beta, awaiting responses from any we've contacted already.
The intelligence report was a fun read as well.
If you choose to read on, I hope you enjoy the story.
As I've stated previously, we have got plans for this fic, right now, it's just a matter of getting all of us online at the same time with spare time to write in. -
That was a good read. by
on 2015-06-23 16:00:00 UTC
Link to this
ANd I also like how you put it - it's the PPC, expect the unexpected to mess up poor agents' lives.
That bit of calling in canons to help was interesting, too.
-
Anyone else ever have this problem? by
on 2015-06-24 04:15:00 UTC
Link to this
I've been trying to write a series of short fics that take place in Star Trek. My issue is with the technobabble. Some pieces of it are used consistently enough that it'd be canon defilement to get it wrong. And I'm not just talking about things like the Warp Core. Stuff like that is obvious.
And now, on to the problem, which is to say, I can't remember the stuff like: Tetryon particles! These things are used all the time, but not regularly enough that I can remember them very well. And I don't want to re-watch the whole franchise just to get one piece of technobabble right.
My knowledge of engineering is also getting in the way, as I'm finding myself using real and theoretical tech in these fics, because I just cannot come up with technobabble! It doesn't just sound like gibberish to me, because I know the Terminology, so it sounds wrong instead. Nucleogenic particles do not cause rain. The closest thing I've heard of to Theta Radiation is Cherenkov Radiation, which is not a byproduct of antimatter/matter reactions. Explosions are, though. Star Trek was correct there, at least some of the time.
I don't dislike technobabble, I dislike using it, for the above reasons. I would just skip the technobabble, and design the starship as I went, but the most advanced spacecraft I could come up with is just a Space Shuttle, which Starfleet doesn't use.
Does anyone else have these issues, or a way to fix them? Even something like a technobabble generator would work, as long as the fans don't rip me limb from limb for using "Quantum" when I should have used "Ionic" or something else. If the fans aren't as rabid as I remember, I might be fine, I just want to avoid accidentally making badfic due to misused terminology. -
One thing about matter/antimatter annihilation: by
on 2015-06-24 10:13:00 UTC
Link to this
It's not compulsory. No, really. You can store it via a weak measurement thing that allows you to monitor it safely without causing it to annihilate matter. How do I know this? Because World One scientists at the University of Toronto managed it a few years back and I wouldn't hesitate to say that Trek's future science has improved the technology drastically. =]
-
That was mostly a jab at "threshold..." by
on 2015-06-25 05:55:00 UTC
Link to this
The only Trek episode I deem unworthy of even being capitalized. I know it is possible to store antimatter and study it, but in threshold, they used antimatter injections to (spoiler alert) cure Tom Paris's and captain Janeway's sever case of amphibiosis. That's my nickname for what happens to you when you go beyond warp ten. It also has the dubious honour of being the only Trek episode not considered canon. Coincidence? You decide!
-
Funny thing: by
on 2015-06-25 09:33:00 UTC
Link to this
Antimatter, it has been postulated by certain theoretical physicists, is basically time-reversed matter. Maybe that's what they were thinking of when they prescribed a few molecules of boom juice. =]
-
I believe I have the source, for those interested. by
on 2015-06-24 14:10:00 UTC
Link to this
Read about it here! Though I must point out that it was an effort led by CERN and Canadian scientists from TRIUMF (Tri-University Meson Facility), not U of T specifically.
-
I, too, am bad at technobabble by
on 2015-06-24 04:40:00 UTC
Link to this
I just have a hard time coming up with the basics of it, I guess? I don't know where to start.
You're probably aware of this already, but there's always Memory Alpha if you need to look up the definition of a term or find references to it. For example, here's their page on tetryon particles. -
I agree by
on 2015-06-24 19:59:00 UTC
Link to this
Memory Alpha is probably going to be your best bet, or if you do not want to re-watch the entire series, you could maybe do a film or two. Less time, still get a large portion. the TNG films have a good deal of that kind of stuff and how it works from what I recall. If I recall, First Contact might be a good place to start. I think they cover most of the common technobable.
Though I might be wrong, and am just recommending it to be watch. It is probably my favorite Trek Film.
-
What are the fandoms with the worst reputations for fanfics? by
on 2015-06-24 14:08:00 UTC
Link to this
I know that the Jurassic Park section on Fanfiction.net has a nasty common trend that involves bestiality and raptor. Also know that the Harry Potter section is infamous for demonising characters and whitewashing (enough to make two tropes named after two common ones (seriously, how didn't the two have a name before?) and that the LOTR fanfics being a wee bit too obsessed with Legolas and Aragorn (Tolkien's stuff I wouldn't even dare touch out of respect for the fact his work revolutionise the fantasy genre. Terry's work I was very reluctant at first to go near until my friends convinced me to do a collaboration of a crossover fanfic).
-
Hoo boy... by
on 2015-06-25 04:23:00 UTC
Link to this
Well, the Black Butler section is overrun with Sebastian/Ciel fics, anyone/OC (or anyone/reader!) fics, Modern Girl Transplant fics (often falling under "anyone/OC"), modern AUs to enable Sebaciel...ugh. It's just bizarre how they treat the characters. Someone really should set up an OFU (I think a possible one was alluded to way back in IAHF Year One).
-
Kingdom Hearts. by
on 2015-06-25 01:17:00 UTC
Link to this
I don't know if it's the crossover-heavy nature of the canon, the bonkers hard-to-follow plot, all the "cute" guys, or some combination of the three plus anything else I forgot to mention, but Kingdom Hearts is rife with badfic. From Sues and Stus to bad slash to ill-constructed crossovers, it's a canon with a little something for everyone.
-
Sonic. by
on 2015-06-24 16:02:00 UTC
Link to this
Does that fandom have any goodfic? I don't think it does. One of the most infamous fandoms for bad fanfic ever.
Also, from personal experience, Percy Jackson. All Sues, all the time. You want somthing to spork, just go to FF.net, click the first Percy Jackson fic you see, and start ripping it to shreds. -
As to the question of Sonic having goodfic? by
on 2015-06-24 16:46:00 UTC
Link to this
I think it does have quite a bit
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/FanficRecs/SonicTheHedgehog
Some of the recommends might be subjective but I think the Sonic fanbase's problem when it comes to fanfics is that the good ones are outnumbered by the bad ones. That and it is heavily divided fandom... that and lack of creativity like the Metroid fandom when it comes to making fanart. -
I dont think that is the problem. by
on 2015-06-24 22:51:00 UTC
Link to this
Most fandoms have badfic outweigh the good. Look at MLP, my personal #1 fandom. It has a lot of garbage fic out there. Like, a lot, a lot of garbage. Like. Dang. Still, it is known as having some of the best fanfic writers out there. Why? Because we have a lot of really good ones. Dangerous Buisness, Past Sins, Fallout: Equestria, and on and on. We have more badfic, yes, but there is so much exceptional goodfic and plenty of general good or ok fic, it balances out.
Sonic, on the other hand, has no exceptional fic. Nothing that makes you say, "Wow. This was professional quality writing. I might even pay some money for this!" The best Sonic fanfic is just good. Nothing that really stands out. Just, OK. And that is why it has such a bad reputation; because without the brilliant, the horrid stands out all the more. -
Maybe (Possibly not NSFW post) by
on 2015-06-25 03:07:00 UTC
Link to this
Sonic as a franchise isn't exactly the easiest to make a really great story out of but I think the divided fanbase arguing over which canon is best makes it worse.
Seems like it can go to two extremes; some so dead serious about canon that deviating from it slightly or choosing the wrong one at the wrong place and time might get your head bitten off verbally, and others are so loose that ya can't even tell what canon it belongs to or if it is a Sonic story at all.
Though I think the Metroid fanbase has the weirdest ideas for shipping. Like Samus x Ridley or Adam x Samus. No, just no because the former is so wrong on so many levels and the latter is just frank since she see the guy as a father figure and he is an asshole. -
Oh, Percy Jackson for sure. by
on 2015-06-24 16:04:00 UTC
Link to this
I have yet to find goodfic for that fandom. *sigh* I'd write some myself, but I'm busy with missions. Oh, well...
-
I have been thinking about a fic myself. by
on 2015-06-24 23:08:00 UTC
Link to this
Well, two, but the other one has almost nothing, just the description.
One fic idea was following a kid who has never been chosen by their divine parent, watching as all these others get quests and gifts, and mostly, a sense of belonging. Then, one day, they are called before the Oracle. They have a quest to embark on. And yet, still no parentage. This is a journey not only across America, but of self discovery.
Neat, but, that is all I have.
As for the other... well, one day Scapegrace mentioned a Fallout crossover. And that got me thinking. How would Fallout go, where the Greek gods still around? I wrote up a war never changes thing for it, but I'm on mobile, so I can't get it. I'll post it when I get the chance. Suffice to say, I think it works out terrifyingly well. -
Percy Jackson by
on 2015-06-24 16:49:00 UTC
Link to this
Might be some here if you're interested.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/FanficRecs/PercyJacksonAndTheOlympians
I'd say you could make the best out of this series if you've good knowledge and understanding of Greek mythology and stories. -
Oh yes. by
on 2015-06-24 14:52:00 UTC
Link to this
Everything you just said, plus the Skulduggery Pleasant fandom. I have only found about 10 decent fics there. And don't even get me started on Fairy Tail. I love the series to death, but would it kill the fanfic writers to at least make something halfway decent?
Reccomendations for both fandoms would be appreciated. -
Here's some fanfic reccomendations. by
on 2015-06-24 15:17:00 UTC
Link to this
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/FanficRecs/FairyTail
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/FanficRecs/SkulduggeryPleasant
Not sure of the reccomendations fit your taste since everyone has different standards and tastes and that one Metroid fanfic recommend had a second opinion:
"Second opinion; cannot recommend. There's "explicit" and then there's "Samus Aran gives a blowjob to a nerdy but buff dude at a gaming convention despite finding him a little pathetic, and he can't even handle it to the point where he blurts out 'Fraggle Rock' instead of '....'" To say I am not hooked by this opening is an understatement, but my mouse cursor is crawling its way to the close button as though time has slowed to a near-stop and I will experience the few seconds it takes to get out of this window as several decades."
It has an interesting idea to what the planned premise but... seriously?! A sex scene with Fraggle rock as a organism shout is your introduction to a serious story! That and the fanfic blatantly ignores the fact that Samus lived on a high gravity world so she would not be light at all (especially since estimated that she can carry a 46 tonnes object on earth with no suit). I'm pretty sure that she'd accidently kill a sex partner by her own strength alone. -
Please label your posts if they are NSFW, thanks. (nm) by
on 2015-06-24 15:25:00 UTC
Link to this
-
Sorry. by
on 2015-06-24 15:29:00 UTC
Link to this
So used to posting on other forum that I forgot the rules are different here and more enforced.
-
It's also very hard to find good Doctor Who fics. by
on 2015-06-24 14:22:00 UTC
Link to this
The majority of them seem to be 'OC tags along as a companion and is either a) the Doctor's long-lost daughter, b) secretly the last Time Lady, c) a Whovian sucked into his world, or d) just a "normal human" (probably with some hacking or fighting skills to make up for their otherwise normality)'. If they are options b, c, and d, expect romance.
-
Really? by
on 2015-06-24 15:05:00 UTC
Link to this
I'm starting to understand why asexuals and aromantics think that some romance tropes are overrated but really? Is there any time that Doctor Who fanfics don't have ocs trying to get into the Doctor's trousers?
-
Well, like I said, Doctor's daughter fics. by
on 2015-06-24 15:15:00 UTC
Link to this
And there was also that really weird DW/HP crossover where Harry became the Dalek Emperor...
-
What... by
on 2015-06-24 15:21:00 UTC
Link to this
How is that possible... please don't tell me that it was the same way a human dalek was made.
-
Not entirely sure, to be honest. by
on 2015-06-24 15:26:00 UTC
Link to this
The fic was very unclear.
Here is the mission, if you're curious. -
The mission shall be fun to read. by
on 2015-06-24 15:32:00 UTC
Link to this
And quite possibly painful as I don't see how Harry can be Emperor of the daleks.
-
I helped spork it and I still have no idea. by
on 2015-06-24 15:34:00 UTC
Link to this
*offers brain bleach* You're going to want this.
-
WTH?! by
on 2015-06-24 15:48:00 UTC
Link to this
*Takes the offer of brain bleach* What the hell is this fanfic?! Where's the explanation to Harry or anything breaking canon? I know I broke some canon for Terry's Discworld for a crossover fanfic, most it was due to misreading information, spotty memory and not providing a good enough explanation for the breaks but I stay away from canon characters.
This fanfic looks like it doesn't even bother or regret that it has broken easily understandable canon and characters, and doesn't try to explain why it is happening.
Also, I love the mission BTW. Very well put together.
-
Calling for betas! by
on 2015-06-24 15:53:00 UTC
Link to this
Our cowrite (An EragonxLord of the Rings crossover) is at last complete, and we'd like another beta or two! We've got canon knowledge pretty much covered between the two of us, so SPaG and general flow are what we'd like.
Just leave your email in a reply and we'll send you the link! -
Sure! :) (nm) by
on 2015-06-24 19:05:00 UTC
Link to this
-
Sent. Alright, thanks everyone, that is all! (nm) by
on 2015-06-24 19:17:00 UTC
Link to this
-
You know I'm always up for that. =] (nm) by
on 2015-06-24 17:11:00 UTC
Link to this
-
Shared. (nm) by
on 2015-06-24 17:34:00 UTC
Link to this
-
Yee. by
on 2015-06-24 16:42:00 UTC
Link to this
I'll see if I can find some time to have a look at it tonight or tomorrow! :)
-
Sent. (nm) by
on 2015-06-24 18:54:00 UTC
Link to this
-
OT: Hebrew Help? by
on 2015-06-24 16:22:00 UTC
Link to this
So I'm trying to name characters for a game of Demon: the Descent. Part of the premise is that the characters were once servants of the God Machine, known as angels, who have rebelled and Fallen, becoming demons. They possess both a fake human identity to fit into the world and an angelic identity that is their true form. Most of them have "angelic" names in Hebrew that end in "-iel."
My character's human name is Reiko Kamino, which is Japanese for "zero child of God." (I know that usually Rei doesn't mean zero when it's used as a name, but Reiko specifically spells it that way.) She also has an NPC "brother" named Ichirou Kamino ("first son of God"), who is still an angel. I'd like their angelic names to have the same meaning as their human names. Unfortunately, I don't know any Hebrew, and none of the online translators give pronunciation guides for the Hebrew script. I.e., Google Translate says zero is "אפס" in Hebrew, but I don't know how to pronounce it.
Sorry if this is a strange request. I'd really appreciate it if someone could give me hand with this. -
Fortunately... by
on 2015-06-24 16:51:00 UTC
Link to this
You have two Hebrew speakers on Board! DawnFire and me, to be precise.
Anyway, on to your request: the 'x-iel' suffix actually means 'my x is god'; for example, 'malkiel' - 'malki' my king + el = my king is god (I won't bother you with the exact grammar here).
Onwards. אפס is pronounced 'EH-phes' and it indeed means 'zero'. So if you want to use that as a basis, you get Ephesiel, which roughly means 'my zero is god'. If you want the literal meaning, you get something very unlike an angel's name or, indeed, a name at all.
'Firstborn' is בכור bkhor, so that's a tad easier - בכורהאל Bkhor'ha'el is literally 'God's Firstborn'. -
Hmm... by
on 2015-06-24 17:02:00 UTC
Link to this
Thanks for your help! Maybe I'll just use Ephes as her name? Demons sometimes drop the reference to God after they Fall... (In-game, I could probably get away with Ephesiel, but it bugs me that the meaning is a little off.)
Would Ephesa'el be "zero of God"? I'm okay dropping the "child" part. -
Actually... by
on 2015-06-24 17:10:00 UTC
Link to this
Ephes'ha'el is what gives you, literally and kind of amusingly, 'the zero of God'. You need the 'h' sound there, even though it would probably get a bit slurred in speech, because otherwise all you've really done is... Well, made 'ephes' feminine, in a weird way that shouldn't apply to the word (as far as I know, it has no feminine form, because it doesn't generally need it. To that end, calling your character Ephes works fine).
Also, on another note, Ephesiel is just about the funniest thing I've seen today.
~DF -
Not exactly. by
on 2015-06-24 17:05:00 UTC
Link to this
Ephes'ha'el (notice the h-sound, it's important - it's the Hebrew equivalent of 'the') is 'Zero the God'. You probably want 'Aphsoshel'ha'el', roughly, 'the zero of God', though it's a bit of a mouthful.
-
Okay, thanks for your help! (nm) by
on 2015-06-24 17:06:00 UTC
Link to this
-
...on second thought, listen to the fellow who... by
on 2015-06-24 17:14:00 UTC
Link to this
...speaks the language every day, since, as you can see, I sometimes miss things like 'epheshael' meaning something more like 'God is zero'. Sorry about that.
~DF
-
Anyone up for a PPC agent LARP role-play? by
on 2015-06-24 20:35:00 UTC
Link to this
Before I start a thread on the Other Board, I'm curious to know how many would be interested in participating. There wouldn't be any limit to what your agents could LARP as; sic-fi, fantasy, steampunk, pirates,
blue Russian space goats, horror— basically, if you can think of it, your agents can play it.
Anyone interested? (And if anyone can think of who'd organize this in-universe, that'd be great. :P ) -
I'm up for it. But how do you get to the Other Board? (nm) by
on 2015-06-25 13:57:00 UTC
Link to this
- You'll find your answer... by on 2015-06-25 16:32:00 UTC Link to this
-
I'd be ecstatic to do this... by
on 2015-06-25 11:13:00 UTC
Link to this
...but I haven't got Permission yet. Do the usual rules apply for this sort of thing?
But I've had interesting ideas for a real-life LARP involving Gallifreyan politics. So that could work...
I think agent!Kitty would have a lot of fun hamming it up as the Lady President or something, considering that I occasionally yell at my brother in what he's deemed my 'haughty Time Lady voice'. And then I promptly switch to Leela mode. :D -
The rule of thumb is... by
on 2015-06-25 16:30:00 UTC
Link to this
That unless the person who starts/proposes/whatnot the RP says otherwise, they are only as canon as the people writing the spinoffs the agents of which appear in the RP say it is, and therefore you do not need Permission.
(You know you could have found the same answer in the wiki, right? Generally it's a good idea to look around before asking.) -
'Kay, thanks! (nm) by
on 2015-06-25 23:53:00 UTC
Link to this
-
Oh gosh. Yes, please. by
on 2015-06-25 05:33:00 UTC
Link to this
Who could organize...hm. The Troupe, maybe? Another acting group? Bored agents?
The Time Lords?
...I'll think a bit more :)
~DF -
I'm game! (nm) by
on 2015-06-25 01:47:00 UTC
Link to this
-
I'd be up for that. (nm) by
on 2015-06-25 00:24:00 UTC
Link to this
-
That sounds quite neat! :) (nm) by
on 2015-06-24 23:42:00 UTC
Link to this
-
[sic]-fi. =] (nm) by
on 2015-06-24 20:39:00 UTC
Link to this
-
What's the worst game you have ever played? by
on 2015-06-24 23:52:00 UTC
Link to this
Or, alternately, what's the worst game you have ever seen someone else play?
Mine is...
AIR CONTROL!/u>
It really is quite bad. I wonder if it's actually possible to make a worse game. -
Well... by
on 2015-06-26 14:54:00 UTC
Link to this
I think the worst games I've played/seen are
1. Superman 64
2. Sonic '06
3. Metroid Prime Hunters
I really wonder how people could get interested in Metroid Prime Hunters... I couldn't even figure out what was happening. Sounds like a wonky basis, but it really wasn't good. At all. -
I've got one for you by
on 2015-06-25 18:15:00 UTC
Link to this
Going back to my childhood and the NES.
I give you: Bible Adventures
It consists of three absolutely terrible games, not because of the subject matter, but because the gameplay is just boring, repetitive, and stupid. Seriously, in the David and Goliath game, you start by herding sheep. Noah's Ark is one giant fetch quest where you carry around a stack of animals above your head. Terrible.
On the other hand, the same company produced a game called Exodus which was actually pretty all right. It had a level of complexity and difficulty that was nice.
-Phobos -
... above your head? by
on 2015-06-26 08:58:00 UTC
Link to this
I know Noah lived a long time; I didn't realise he was actually Superman. ^_^
Also, I see from the front cover that Goliath was a Roman legionary. And also that he was about the same size as Moses. New headcanon: Goliath wasn't tall, it's just that David was a pixie. 'Sling' is a typo for 'wings'.
hS -
Amusing... but impossible. by
on 2015-06-26 17:56:00 UTC
Link to this
The Hebrew word for sling is 'קלע' (Kela'). The Hebrew word for wings is 'כנפיים' (Knafayim). It simply... doesn't work.
-
Durned Hebrones, ruinin' mah puns. (nm) by
on 2015-06-26 19:00:00 UTC
Link to this
-
Don't be silly. by
on 2015-06-26 19:03:00 UTC
Link to this
We have lotsa puns, they're just different puns. Like puns on having mercy and lettuce (because those two words sound very similar).
Here's an unrelated pun for you as compensation: Tea-ology, the theology of tea. -
Presumably in the same edition of the King James... by
on 2015-06-26 09:12:00 UTC
Link to this
Where one of the Ten Commandments was "Thou shalt commit adultery".
There's always time for a reprint, lads. =] -
Bible/Strange&Norrell crossover, anyone? by
on 2015-06-26 09:28:00 UTC
Link to this
The plot is nice and clear, at any rate:
The magician Saul (well, he does summon the dead...!) bargains with David, taking him on as his fairy servant. David defeats Saul's enemies for him and secures his place as king - but Saul should've known better than to trust a fairy. Before too many more years have passed, David has befriended Saul's favourite son - and managed to get himself declared Saul's heir. When Saul and his sons all die in the same battle (which isn't suspicious at all), the fairy servant becomes king over Israel.
Which probably explains why, a few generations later, most of the country schisms away... would you want to live on under a fairy dynasty?
(All in silly fun, I hope.)
hS -
It's funny you mention that... by
on 2015-06-26 10:03:00 UTC
Link to this
Because in the book, it's mentioned that a few people were actually magicians before the time of the Aureates (the Golden Age of English magic, during the first reign of the Raven King). One of them was Joseph of Arimathea, who in the books had a chat with the Glastonbury Thorn in addition to planting it. =]
And since fairies in JS&MN generally look to humans to figure out what to do (the show makes the Gentleman with Thistle-Down Hair a lot more overtly villainous than he is in the book), humans tend to remain in charge even in fairy brughs - which is probably where the Raven King got so much of his power from. Most, if not all, of the Aureate magicians had at least a few fairy-servants. Some had more. Lots more. Fairies are just better at magic than humans are, because they can talk to the landscape properly while humans don't think it's really possible.
Now, another interesting crossover would be JS&MN/Harry Potter. I'd be interested to see how well English magic can fare against Death Eaters, considering its long and storied history. But then, would the Raven King not have tried to squash Tom Riddle flat the moment he started trying to kill his subjects? Remember that during the Aureate period (roughly 1066-14XX) the north of England was basically a separate country with the Raven King's capital at Newcastle...
Hm. This needs further thought. =] -
DOn't actually remember the worst one... by
on 2015-06-25 14:36:00 UTC
Link to this
But about my main genre, car racing games, I guess it is the critically acclaimed Need For Speed Shift (and its sequel).
I wonder if the "racing drivers" who reviewd the game as being a realistic simulation have ever driven a car in their life.
Long story short, handling is terrible. A full race-spec car on slick tyres handles like a brick on soap wheels. Steering is incredibly inconsistent too - cars will either refuse to steer or go on a full four-wheel drift. No mid way in between. I initally thought it was due to me using a keyboard, but after hooking up my steering wheel to the PC results were the same.
Tuning is pretty inconsistent either - I can swap a fully tuned 800 horsepower Toyota Supra engine on a "works" (full race tuned) Toyota Corolla GT-S (basically a Super GT GT300 class car), and yet I can't set the top speed any higher than the non-swapped Trueno's 264 kph... meaning that the engine is stuck with the wrong gearing and the car is actually SLOWER.
A stock-bodied (so basically no aerodinamics aside a small optional spoiler with... 20 kilograms or so of downforce) Toyota Sprinter Trueno (Japanese Domestic Market equivalent of the Corolla GT-S) tuned to 240 horsepower in Gran Turismo will consistently set faster lap times on the Nurburgring Nordshleife than the GT300 wide bodied, full aero, 350 horsepower full-on race car Shift offers.
This:
Is faster than this:
That's all. -
According to my friends... by
on 2015-06-25 10:02:00 UTC
Link to this
...it's Sonic '06. I haven't actually played it, but from what I can tell, it's horribly cliched and involves a Canon Sue.
-
Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban for the PC. by
on 2015-06-25 04:59:00 UTC
Link to this
They do an even worse job of retelling the book, and don't even get me started on the ridiculous Shrieking Shack level with the charmed skeletons.
"We've got an injured boy who has to drag himself into and out of this place every month! Let's litter it with pitfalls and monsters that try to attack everything they see! That's a good idea, right? RIGHT?"
Maybe I'm being nitpick compared to everyone else, but Rowling, I loathed that game.
On the flip side, I love the LEGO Harry Potter games. The LEGO games are always awesome. -
Wait, no. The Oregon Trail. by
on 2015-06-25 18:26:00 UTC
Link to this
Has anyone ever made it to Oregon without their entire party dying horribly? Because that game traumatized me as a child when I made the mistake of naming everyone after my family.
Then I caught on that I'd never beat the thing and started naming people after various bullies and deliberately making poor decisions. Fun times. -
I did! Once. by
on 2015-06-25 19:06:00 UTC
Link to this
I should note that I played the fancy "new" version, where you just recruited a bunch of people to join your wagon and there were actual graphics. I have a feeling the difficulty may not have been as high. That said, I would start a new game if anything too bad happened to my party, and I went through a lot of games...
-
Oregon Trail on cocaine and my worst game by
on 2015-06-26 01:25:00 UTC
Link to this
If you liked Oregon Trail, there's this game on Steam that's basically Oregon Trail as a side scrolling game with a plot written by a hyper imaginative 8-year-old. (Which actually works surprisingly well)
While I don't really have one in particular, my two worst games have got to be Guise of the Wolf and Zoo Race. The first has shitty graphics, horrible scenery coding, a crappy attempt at a jumpscare, sound effects that actually loop over each other, and a stupidly difficult first freaking level that includes several instant-death traps right behind a surprisingly difficult maneuvering puzzle that's made even harder by clumsy controls and hitboxes for obstacles that don't even work properly. But that's not the worst thing about this 'game,' oh no. The worst thing is that the developers of the game actually *threatened to sue a critic who gave it a bad review, essentially trying to quell dissenters, dictator-style.* Given that the critic in question, TotalBiscuit, not only has access to that lawyers of Polaris, a company owned by mother...ing Disney, but has a degree in law. That's basically like trying to fight a battleship with nothing but a slingshot and a claim that you're invincible.
The second is another Bible game centered around Noah's Ark, but you actually don't even get to see the ark. No, no, no: you play as one of four people transformed into badly textured animals by God himself to reenact animal races that Noah had in Biblical times. Note: the game never actually tells you this. I had to figure that out myself from the terribly animated and voice-acted cutscene. I found a review for it online by Jontron, which goes over this piece of shit's problems far better than I can: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m2av978FgLI -
Wow, I just watched that, quite recently. (nm) by
on 2015-06-27 01:39:00 UTC
Link to this
-
Watch the language. (nm) by
on 2015-06-26 01:57:00 UTC
Link to this
- Sonic Boom. by on 2015-06-25 03:30:00 UTC Link to this
-
FTFY. by
on 2015-06-25 00:17:00 UTC
Link to this
As for worse games, well, Stuart Ashens has a series about them, but the worst game I've ever played was probably Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone for the PS1. It was very definitely Not Very Good, and it's based on my least favourite of the Harry Potter novels.
And that horrible bloody segment with the cat can DIE IN ALL THE FIRES- -
Wait, I'm not the only Ashens fan here? by
on 2015-06-25 01:22:00 UTC
Link to this
Really, Stu should do more Terrible Old Games You've Probably Never Heard Of.
-
Paging Huinesoron by
on 2015-06-25 01:13:00 UTC
Link to this
So, I found a fic. It's very much NSFW.
So, basically: Haldir becomes one of the Ms in an MMF Elf three-way. I can hear all the "wats" in the audience.
Now, the thing claims that Haldir is bi, to which I ask: Would Tolkien ever have made non-hetero characters?
See, he was a Christian in the early 20th century, and those guys weren't the most tolerant bunch. I don't think a God-fearing British guy would have allowed anyone in his universe, especially Elves, to be bisexual or homosexual. -
No. by
on 2015-06-25 08:53:00 UTC
Link to this
Tolkien would never have written men-who-sleep-with-men or women-who-sleep-with-women. He was a Victorian-minded Catholic, of course he wouldn't! The Tolkienian friendships that people tend to project homosexuality onto - Frodo and Sam, Maedhros and Fingon, etc - are reflecting a very different dynamic. As Alleb said, the Laws and Customs of the Eldar text specifically negates homosexuality in Elves.
But that doesn't mean they don't fit into his world. Tolkien would never have written about Minas Tirith's sewage arrangements, either, but it must have had them!
As Alleb also said, I've written a story about this very subject. I have another one in the works building a whole theory on the subject. Remember, the Laws and Customs is an in-universe document - it can be wrong, or limited in scope, or simply concealing information.
So no, Tolkien wouldn't have written it, but no, that doesn't mean they can't be well-done and canon-friendly.
hS, 'do not go to the elves for counsel, for they will say both no and yes...' -
Not hS, obviously... by
on 2015-06-25 04:22:00 UTC
Link to this
But I'll throw in my two cents.
No, I don't think he would, or did. In fact, in Morgoth's Ring (if I'm remembering correctly) he makes it pretty clear that Elves are never homosexual. Huinesoron will definitely be able to answer this better; actually, I think he made a fic about it. He goes by his Boarder name on the Pit, so you can find it there. I'll leave him to give a more in-depth answer. -
...doesn't mean good slash doesn't exist in his 'verse, tho. by
on 2015-06-25 03:04:00 UTC
Link to this
But...yeah. I'll let hS take this one.
May I ask, though--are you saying this is badfic? If so, could you tell me why you think it's badfic? I'm curious (and don't feel like reading it to find out).
~DF
-
New Mission! by
on 2015-06-25 03:03:00 UTC
Link to this
Rina and the Reader have a chance encounter in the hallways, and find out that their teams have been paired up to tackle a bad Eragon/Lord of the Ringscrossover. Dramedy ensues.
-
That does it! by
on 2015-06-26 06:19:00 UTC
Link to this
DawnFire...
...
...
...
...
...
You have a new fan! Really, Kozar has become my favorite Agent from now on! -
As great as always. by
on 2015-06-26 04:29:00 UTC
Link to this
Nice to see the wated again, too! ^_^
-
Good job! by
on 2015-06-25 12:53:00 UTC
Link to this
I had fun reading the mission. It was interesting to see Rina interact with a Time Lord that didn't hate her her on sight.
Hmm... given that in ten years, Rina Four has aged four hundred, I'm wondering if maybe it's a little more than bad luck that she looks like Arin... -
Thank you! by
on 2015-06-25 19:38:00 UTC
Link to this
Heh, expect to see more Rina/Reader interaction (NO NOT LIKE THAT) in the future.
And just remember, Ten Years Hence stories aren't always considered canon.
-
Haven't you guys considered different types of missions? by
on 2015-06-25 03:40:00 UTC
Link to this
I know this might sound like whining but I'm curious as to why ye don't do Mission in which ye show how a good fanfic can be done or how a bad fanfic can be turned around into a good one.
After all, bashing a bad stories is fun to read, it doesn't exactly help to know what makes a good fanfic since ye are only demonstrating how to bash bad ones instead of trying to make a demonstration of how to make them good or better. Unless ye've tried that before and I may have missed it.
Kind of seems to be the better idea to me if your goal is to make fanfiction as a whole better since the bashing might discourage any from getting better at all. Just my thoughts, don't have to listen or consider them if ye don't wish to. -
That's not our goal. by
on 2015-06-25 06:33:00 UTC
Link to this
I think there's something somewhere that says something to the effect of "by writing missions, we're creating more goodfic and thus increasing the average quality of fanfic," but that's not really why we do it. We do it because it's fun and makes us feel better about the existence of badfic. Those of us who actually want to help a particular fic or author improve give concrit. (And no, it doesn't often work.)
Also, "bash" is a strong word. These days we strictly do not bash the authors or even talk about them at all if we can avoid it, and as DawnFire said, we do try to use our missions as a form of critique to point out what doesn't work in a particular story and explain why, though again, the success of this varies. And you're mistaken if you think it's for the badfic author's education. We actually prefer that the authors never find out we sporked their stories. However, we learn from each other, and other people who read PPC missions can learn things from them, too. So that's another way we indirectly improve the quality of fanfiction, and fiction in general.
Have we mentioned that several PPCers have gone on to be published authors, and one that I know of is a professional editor? I recently did some freelance proofreading work myself, as a matter of fact. Dunno if the book will be published yet, but I'd like to think it stands a better chance now. The PPC helped me learn to see what's actually on the page rather than what I expect to be there.
~Neshomeh -
What do you think the Intelligence reports are for? ;) by
on 2015-06-25 04:04:00 UTC
Link to this
That is our means for providing constructive criticism, and how we show how some fanfics did it right. Well, that and offer up badfic for the killing by another group, but tbe that as it may.
I also think that a mission, when done right, should be a humorous dissection into what made a particular fic not work. It's not just poking fun, it is pulling apart the worst of the worst bit by bit to show exactly what the shortcomings were, and possibly how to fix them. Now, not everybody shares this same goal, and that's fine. But when you see one of my missions (you know, some time next year) know that is what I am trying to do. -
Erm... by
on 2015-06-25 06:47:00 UTC
Link to this
I'm pretty sure hS is the only person who's actually written an Intelligence report for the purpose of concrit to the author, and that was done as a special request. We... don't actually use those as a form of critique on a regular basis. Or ever, barring recent events. It's
a bita lot disingenuous to claim we do. {= /
OTOH, if you plan to start, I could get behind that. It IS true that one of Architeuthis' Intelligence reports was on a goodfic, or at least an only-slightly-flawed fic. It'd be cool to see more of that.
~Neshomeh -
That's me, mucking with expectations. by
on 2015-06-25 11:06:00 UTC
Link to this
I'm curious - do people think Intelligence reports are worth doing at all? I have three, but the odds of anyone actually writing full missions into those stories seems... low. So they clearly don't fulfil their purported in-universe purpose.
Could we use them as 'missions-lite'? Or, indeed, as concrit (for ourselves or for the authors)?
hS -
I've considered some missions on intelligence reports. by
on 2015-06-25 17:50:00 UTC
Link to this
Not yours, specifically, as I don't know the canons well enough (though I may work up the courage to try a Tolkien mission someday). But I really want to do a mission for the one Keily Shinra made a report on (just slightly NSFW). Oh . . . but the original story is deleted now . . . :(
Anyway, I like the idea of doing missions after other folks' intelligence reports; there just aren't many extant ones in fandoms I'm comfortable with. -
I like Intelligence reports! by
on 2015-06-25 13:06:00 UTC
Link to this
They're a good way to dissect a badfic you've found that you're not sure about doing a mission to.
As for people writing full missions into stories that have Intelligence reports, there's always Thunder Run/Lightning Strikes. And I actually might do a mission to the first badfic you've linked. -
A brief addition. by
on 2015-06-25 05:32:00 UTC
Link to this
hS' Driftwood, which I think you've been linked to before, Rustic, includes a section at the end of each mission called 'Agent Kaitlyn's'...bother. Critique, or Comments, or something. As you might have guessed from the title, that's where one of the agents writes about what was good and what was bad, and how it could have gone better--that sort of thing. And also, yes, generally speaking missions are supposed to also be a form of concrit--though to what degree they succeed depends rather on the writer and on the mission. It's also less clearly laid out, obviously.
~DF
-
Double silly PLUG: Middle-earth and Plort. by
on 2015-06-25 09:40:00 UTC
Link to this
First up: A New Perspective on Middle-earth. Yes, it's based on the thread last week (at least, the ideas are - the participants are NOT!). Fantasy linguists may recognise some of the posters in the discussions. ^~
Secondly, I am pleased to present a play which will be performed at the forthcoming Games of Batveg:
The Eagle's Shadows is a... let's say satirical look at the recent election of four barons. Unlike most other Plort documents I've written, it's emphatically not written by Baron Huinesoron (who tried to have it banned, until Kaitlyn talked him out of it ^^). It's also not in any way an accurate account of what happened - or of anything much at all!
I would apologise for the people (mis)represented by the anonymous playwright, buuuut I'm not gonna because it was too much fun. ^_^ I hope you enjoy it as much as I did.
hS -
I'd love to see what became of that thread... by
on 2015-06-25 21:47:00 UTC
Link to this
But unfortunately I get a Connection Reset error every time I try to access your site.
-
Huh. No idea why. by
on 2015-06-26 08:55:00 UTC
Link to this
If you still can't get onto it, the linked page is basically just a holder for three Google Doc links:
Where was Edoras, capital of Rohan? (RG Model only, please!)
Having trouble with Valinor.
Visuals at the Pelennor?
hS -
It's really weird. by
on 2015-06-26 16:35:00 UTC
Link to this
Because I only get it from your site; all other sites I try to access function normally.
-
I think I found the problem. by
on 2015-06-26 17:37:00 UTC
Link to this
It's the ISP, so I talked to their tech support.
That said - did you know that your site does not reply to ping requests? -
No, I did not. by
on 2015-06-29 16:03:00 UTC
Link to this
Is that a Webs thing, or a huinesoron.webs thing? Because I don't know how I would've caused that.
hS -
... Nevermind that. by
on 2015-06-29 21:04:00 UTC
Link to this
I can ping huinesoron.webs.com now. Thing is, neither I nor my dad nor our tech support could ping huinesoron.webs.com before; since the problem was at the ISP's level, it probably affected us all. Now that it's solved, though, well... it's solved and I can read the Continuity Council stuff again.
-
Ohhh, by
on 2015-06-25 16:52:00 UTC
Link to this
Well, I was certainly warned, so there's that.
And it was certainly a representation. (A July, actively present, seemingly ignoring. Or is she?) -
Well, I giggled a lot... (nm) by
on 2015-06-25 22:47:00 UTC
Link to this
-
I should state for the record... by
on 2015-06-26 01:00:00 UTC
Link to this
That I was indeed giggling like a maniac throughout reading it, too.
My initial reply was more a general response because hS had also given me a kind of 'forewarning' that representation was going to occur. -
Well... by
on 2015-06-25 16:58:00 UTC
Link to this
... why wouldn't you ignore yet another of his interminable rants about how terrible everything is? You could probably play Baron Huinesoron Bingo. 'Oh, he's at it again; how long until he says 'Golden Age'?' ^_^
hS will forever imagine Barons July and Kaitlyn in the corner of the Council Hall, playing cards and MSTing the meetings -
Alternately... by
on 2015-06-25 17:04:00 UTC
Link to this
She may well just decide to attempt to overthrow him for kicks and giggles.
Even were it to lose her a partner in playing cards. :P -
Both are hilarious by
on 2015-06-25 15:12:00 UTC
Link to this
I can't quite comment on the content of the first one; I know even less about prehistoric Mesoamerica than I do Lord of the Rings. But at the very least, you've done an excellent job of reflecting the type of forum discussion you see some places. It's so funny precisely because it's so true. The play was also very funny, though I was slightly disappointed that Thanasius didn't get a chance to do any Shakespearian snarking.
-
Thanks. ^_^ by
on 2015-06-25 15:21:00 UTC
Link to this
Yeah, the anonymous author decided to play up the 'crow' aspects rather than the 'snark' aspects of Thanasius. I'm sure that, since political satire in play-form is apparently a Thing in Plort, there'll be loads of shows at the Games with snarky Thanasius...
hS -
Brb, roflmao. by
on 2015-06-25 14:23:00 UTC
Link to this
*wipes her eyes* The Plort play had me in stitches, especially every instance of caw. Dear lord what is wrong with me.
I would say poor Neshomeh and Phobos, but it looked to me like they were having a fun time in the play.
Lady Iximaz would get a kick out of this... But probably because the playwright didn't grossly misrepresent her. XD
...
Caw.
*wanders off giggling like a lunatic* -
^_^ by
on 2015-06-25 14:48:00 UTC
Link to this
Honestly, the only person accurately represented is I think July - and maybe Iximaz. I'd temporarily forgotten how scheming she was in advance of the elections - 'if the baronial council wants a war' etc.
Though I'm pretty sure she didn't giggle when she was elected.
hS
Caw. -
Oi, I thought we retconned that! by
on 2015-06-25 15:16:00 UTC
Link to this
How many times— ah, forget it.
By the way, reading it again? Made it even funnier. What is this I don't even.
hS, you are my Shakespeare. *bows* -
I love Prehistoric Mesoamericarda. So, so much. by
on 2015-06-25 13:52:00 UTC
Link to this
Just out of interest, what would Scapegrace be in Quenya, Sindarin, &c? I can trade for Tau... sort of. =]
I love how involved this setting has become, and I'm really glad to have been a (small, weird, slightly irritating) part of it. I also love the ideas presented, though my personal headcanon is that the fields of the Pelennor were actually chinampa - the famous Aztec floating gardens, whose construction was rediscovered by 6th-age empires along the lakes left after the Anduin had its course forcibly changed by the medium of Anatolian meteorite.
Also, and I realise this is ever so slightly contentious: Numenor's positioning on Hawai'i is an almost exact match for where the lost continent of Mu/Lemuria/Similar-Pseudoscientific-Claptrap, at least according to my Umberto Eco. If we accept the Sundering of Numenor as analogous to the mysterious disappearance of Mu, then it makes sense to have the Hawaiian islands as Numenorean.
Also also, where do the Pacific Islanders and Melanesians fit into all this? Are they also Maiar? Were they the original Shipbuilders? CAN YOU TELL I LOVE THIS SETTING WAY WAY WAY TOO MUCH YET? =]
Finally, onto Plort: I may possibly have to dredge up some of the Early Modern Drama group I was part of a while back. It should be fun. What for I'm sure that you can guess. =] -
very silly question about Mesoamericarda by
on 2015-07-01 00:04:00 UTC
Link to this
There's one big problem with the theory. The only place where we've found actual hobbit remains is in Flores, Indonesia, which puts the Shire in the Undying Lands. That can't be right, can it...?
-
Language! by
on 2015-06-25 14:45:00 UTC
Link to this
Sneakily, you've got a name which can be translated twice - by literal meaning, and by idiomatic meaning (yes, I did have to look it up).
'Scape-grace', 'one who escapes from grace', can be rendered directly into Quenya as Usilissë, 'escaping (sweetness >) grace' (or more technically Usilissello, to get the 'from' in there, but that's way too long). It's probably dual-meaning - both 'escaping from grace' and 'grace escapes from'. ;)
Sindarin doesn't have words directly glossed 'escape' or 'grace'. I went with 'bliss', which cross-references to 'fortune == final bliss'. So you end up as Drevanadh, 'flees from fate'. Sounds like a name for Turin. ^^
Adunaic I've decided to go with a less-literal translation, simply because of how poetic it is: Ayaddazûlada, 'went eastward' (ie, away from Numenor and Aman). Seriously, say that a few times out loud - a-YAD-da-zu-LAD-da.
As for the Black Speech: Sauron loves to switch things around. So instead of escaping from grace, you would instead run to the Shadow: Uburzum, 'to darkness'.
(Because I'm always willing to trade for more languages. ^^)
The theory/setting/whatnot is entirely up for interpretation: the only fact asserted in it is 'Middle-earth was in the Americas'. I carefully wrote two sensible-sounding viewpoints in the 'threads', so people wouldn't read Word-Of-God into it.
The fact that Numenor was the mythical sunken continent is pretty inevitable - it was also Atlantis (just look at the words!), but its location was misunderstood by the elf zombies of Greece.
Pacific Islanders I'd have to look into the timelines. I know Hawai'i/the Meneltarma was resettled about AD 1, but I think the others are fairly archaic? That would imply that they're either lost Numenorean colonies, or elves - possibly from the Twilit Isles. It's all up for interpretation. ^_^
hS -
And the less literal versions: by
on 2015-06-25 15:43:00 UTC
Link to this
The best word I can come up with for 'rascal' in Quenya is Yaiwë, 'mockery' or 'scorn'. It works okay as a standalone name. It also has a direct Sindarin cognate, Iaew, but I don't think that works as a name. Hêniaew or Iaewchen (both 'scorn-child') would kind of work, though they don't taste terribly nice. It might be best to concede to cliche and take Iaewen, 'scorn-maiden'.
For Adunaic, you can have a nice short one: 'Nûph' simply means 'fool'. In the Black Speech, I know what name others would call a scape-grace: Skai is simply an unglossed insult.
And I forgot Valarin! :O That's unforgivable. The literal translation is Akašândušamanûðân, 'the Law marred'. The colloquial... hmm, how about Rušurulu, 'fire-water', implying a contradiction? Or you could have Urušebeth/Igašebeth, 'fire/heat-air' - which is to say, someone who speaks a lot of it!
(Valarin is always the hardest one, simply because the corpus is so tiny. Though actually, I can come up with at least three ways to call someone an idiot in Valarin, so maybe not...)
hS -
And by way of response, gue'la: by
on 2015-06-25 15:43:00 UTC
Link to this
Tau is... awkward, as far as conlangs go. There aren't that many words, and because GW is and continues to be GW, the construction and even vocabulary are somewhat inconsistent. That said, I was able to make a stab at it. Now, Tau naming conventions work thus: you get your caste, your planet of origin, and then a personal name. The closest I could find to a bird of any description is y'eldi, a nickname given to skilled pilots that means "winged one", and Shaserra is a personal name translating to Shadowsun, so I went with the longer part of the name as the bit meaning shadow. May I now present:
Gue'por'vre Fio'gue Y'eldiserra
(Human-Magister of Earth Shadow-of-winged-ones)
Now, because you did so many:
In the tongue of the Eldar, which has a bit more flesh on its (wraith)bones, I can cobble together a descriptor which you might care to use as a name. It is this:
Fhaisorr Amon
(Shadow-eagle, which sounds like it could well be an Aspect of Khaine)
And that's... pretty much it. Sorry I can't do more. =] -
So how would you address a Tau? by
on 2015-06-25 15:58:00 UTC
Link to this
I'm guessing the whole name wouldn't be used every time! Would people use the personal name, or just the caste until they (bother to) get to know you, or what?
Fhaisorr Amon is... pretty cool, actually. It sounds like the sort of name you put a bit of a hiss into. Definitely a wicked incarnation of me.
~
To throw another language into the mix: what about Grelvish? Following their grammar rules, Halyaenthoron ('shade of eagle') is my name; Scapegrace would literally be Rimatuulo'vanim ('runs from beauty'), or more figuratively Amadahin ('foolish child').
But I highly recommend not using Grelvish. They'll probably execute you for getting it wrong.
hS -
That's actually pretty easy. by
on 2015-06-25 16:03:00 UTC
Link to this
For Tau you don't know, you use either the caste name (if they're from your caste), or Tau'fann if they're from a different one. More familiar Tau use their personal names. Think of one's caste as like the family name. =]
-
[Head-tilt] by
on 2015-06-25 16:06:00 UTC
Link to this
So they use the caste-name only when they share it? You say it's like a family name, but I don't know any families who refer to each other entirely by surname.
It seems like it would cause a lot of confusion when a group of them get together. 'Oh, yeah, I was talking to Smith about how Smith and Smith were picking on Smith... isn't that right, Smith?'
hS -
GW is GW. by
on 2015-06-25 16:11:00 UTC
Link to this
Their approach to language is weird and contradictory. I'm just going off what's in the various novels and lexicons online. =]
-
Different Mission Formats... by
on 2015-06-25 11:17:00 UTC
Link to this
The thread below sparked my interest, but when I clicked on it, it was about something else entirely to what I had thought it was.
So!
Have you guys considered doing missions in something different to just prose?
If someone's good at drawing, PPC comics could be a thing. And I briefly toyed with the idea of doing a radio play thing with my brother before he shot that down. Taking that a step further, animated missions (or even videos) could be a thing...
I'm basically just throwing down ideas here. An epic PPC ballad detailing the tracking down and killing of a Sue! An interactive choose-your-own-adventure type thing!
Possibly a mission that's written in reverse chronological order because of a time-travel accident at the end (or beginning, depending on your point of view).
Thoughts? -
Well... by
on 2015-06-25 17:09:00 UTC
Link to this
They weren't missions, but:
There are recorded Radio Plays of two of the three play scripts that hS wrote ages back. He may well still have them on a computer, or one of the people who went to one of the UK Gatherings after around that time will as well. I also in theory have the files recorded by the others for the third one, I think. Not so sure anymore, since that's several computers ago.
I even made a Choose Your Own Adventure set in HQ that's ages old at this point (that I really need to find someway to get published again) that was eventually supposed to have a sequel indeed put in during a mission.
However, said CYOA was written and published way back in 2008 so it may well be some time before that ever happens, if it does...
-July, apparently as bad as hS -
I have Scriptes 1 & 2. by
on 2015-06-27 11:25:00 UTC
Link to this
In fact, I'm ahead of myself: they're already on Box.net.
The First Radio Play
The Second Radio Play
I haven't checked those files, so no promises they even work...
I don't believe I have anything for the third, though.
hS -
Aha! by
on 2015-06-27 17:28:00 UTC
Link to this
So they are. The wiki perhaps should be updated posthaste by someone with internet faster than dial-up (as in, not me.)
And as for the third, I thiiiink I have very old recordings from both you and Sara still on my portable hard drive. I think. -
Probably wasn't making my point clear on the last thread by
on 2015-06-25 12:55:00 UTC
Link to this
I was just curious as why ye don't seem to experiment around with doing missions or something.
Like have an agent try to educate a Mary Sue (not sure which types of sues would fit the idea, probably the ocs) on how to fit better into canon and get annoyed at the sue's failures at doing so until they get it right or are so stubborn that they stop trying. It could plenty of heart-warming moments with a dash of comedy, and the Mary Sue can be punished like those in those University pieces ye are connected with for getting things badly wrong.
As I said, it is just a suggestion. The whole idea can still run on the rule of fun and funny. I'd just like to see ye think outside the box and try experimenting with what you usually do around here. -
I...hmm. by
on 2015-06-25 14:16:00 UTC
Link to this
You're making me think I should dust off a particular story I started (in response to what I have no idea anymore, but it was probably either a Permission prompt or something hS said. The later is especially likely). I won't say what it's about, not really, but it does sort of touch on some of what you've said here.
...yeah, I should dust that off. It's a fun one, IMO. Thanks for the reminder.
~DF -
You're welcome :) by
on 2015-06-25 19:38:00 UTC
Link to this
I like to see how much writers or any in a creative profession can experiment. As the Nostalgia Critic's version of Tim Burton put, and I paraphrase here, some risky ideas work, some don't, what counts is that you keep trying (which disappointing when I look at Sakamoto's case, in which he decided to give up on Metroid instead doing a reboot/remake of Other M or figuring out someway to fix the mistakes he made in its story) and folks will remember the better stuff than the worse stuff.
... unless you get really unlucky like M. Night, George Locus, Frank Miller and pretty everyone on this page:
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/DarthWiki/FallenCreator
Some you'd feel sorry for, others... not so much. -
There's a comic! by
on 2015-06-25 11:47:00 UTC
Link to this
Breathing Space was the second storyline in the only PPC webcomic that's actually been created yet, Generic Surface. Yes, it is a full-length mission.
There's also a Shakespearean play of an AU!PPC mission being, er... we'll say 'written'. ;)
(However: generally no, people don't, because prose is a lot quicker than any of those things. I will note that even first-person mission reports were pretty darn innovative back in the day...)
hS
-
Twilight fanfics? by
on 2015-06-25 13:11:00 UTC
Link to this
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/FanficRecs/Twilight
What do ye do with fanfics that change the characterizations of poor made canon character into something well... something actually good? -
Enjoy them? by
on 2015-06-25 13:18:00 UTC
Link to this
Good writing is good writing, and most of the time, if we actually enjoy reading something, we're not going to do a mission to it.
-
Even if they techically break canon? (nm) by
on 2015-06-25 13:22:00 UTC
Link to this
-
It depends by
on 2015-06-25 14:25:00 UTC
Link to this
First, we don't write missions to every single badfic in existence. That would be impossible. Typically, people only choose badfic that makes for a good mission. Maybe it makes them laugh, maybe it makes them angry, maybe it gives them an idea for a good plot point. But it should be one that inspires you to write something good in some way.
Second, and this is more a matter of opinion than Official PPC Policy (TM), but typically I only consider something to be badfic if it does whatever it's trying to do poorly. It's why we have the Department of Bad Slash, not just the Department of Slash. Even the DMS could theoretically be re-titled the Department of Bad OCs. So if something breaks canon but does it in an interesting, well-written way, it's not necessarily badfic.
Third, most of the well-written fanfics that bend canon acknowledge that that's what they're doing and label it an AU (or a re-write, or an alternate interpretation, or a what-if scenario, or so on). While that's not a magical "Get-Out-of-Criticism-Free" button, it also means that you need to accept the premise they're starting from.
And finally, Twilight isn't exactly a very well-liked continuum, which is why there aren't a lot of missions to it despite its massive popularity, and the vast majority of them are crossovers. So not a lot of people are necessarily going to be interested in doing a mission to a Twific in the first place. -
We pursuit bad writing, not canon breaches. by
on 2015-06-25 14:06:00 UTC
Link to this
If someone manages to make a good story out of the... uninmpressing book series that Twilight is, canon breaches are definitely unimportant as long as it remains a good read.
Canon breaches alone don't make a fanfiction bad, especially if said canon breaches are things like (staying with the Twilight example) giving Bella a working brain or de-glittering Edward for good.
... Is it even possible to de-glitter him? He sparkles. -
And I messed up HTML again. (nm) by
on 2015-06-25 14:07:00 UTC
Link to this
-
We're not that picky. by
on 2015-06-25 14:02:00 UTC
Link to this
Or at least, I'm not. But our sole province in terms of missions is badfic; what would be the point of trying to kill off goodfic for minor canon violations? It's not doing any harm, and if anything, it's helping to counterbalance the badfic influence everywhere. The PPC wants to protect the Plot Continuum, not shove it in a museum so nobody can touch it ever.
A few inaccuracies here and there in the service of an interesting, well-told story are completely acceptable. Since this original thread concerned Twilight, look at Luminosity by Alicorn. It's a much more intriguing look at Bella's inner workings than we got from her canonical self, who was (and let's be charitable) a total drip. It makes the canonical powers of the Volturi both more interesting and more threatening, always handy when writing villains. And lastly, what OCs are introduced are well-written and engaging with rounded, interesting characters and flaws that are actual flaws. It's a good time. But Bella is rather different in approach and sentiments to her canonical self, the Volturi are equally OOC even if their motivations are similar, and OCs generate plot holes when they pop up. So why hasn't anyone missioned it?
Because Luminosity is good. And that, in the end, is what we care about. =] -
My thoughts ... by
on 2015-06-25 14:00:00 UTC
Link to this
Since the PPC is not a hivemind. (Nope. Not at all. Why are you even asking? Move along. Nothing to see here.)
Fics that don't just flesh out underdeveloped characters or add background, but actively change the characters, are guilty of breaking canon and, what's more, they do it knowingly in an attempt to "fix" the canon, which is disrespectful to the creator of the original work. Yes, even if said work is universally acknowledged to be bad, it is still the vision of its author and anyway, if people think it is so awful that it need "fixing" why are they reading it and writing about it in the first place? (Humorous parodies and/or reviews being the exception.) The "fan" in "fanfic" is there for a reason.
Okay, rant over.
However, if what comes out of it actually is a good story, we do not mission it. Why should we? For every fanfic that goes against canon and ends up being good, there are a boatload of others that do the same and end up atrocious. Since the PPC has limited resources both in-universe and IRL, they can't police everything and their time is much better spent killing fics that are both canon-breaking and awful.
-
Mission Two Complete! by
on 2015-06-25 16:55:00 UTC
Link to this
In which the agents visit Victorian London. Thanks to SkarmorySilver and Desdendelle for beta reading despite not being familiar with Black Butler.
Questions? Comments? Concerns? All are and will forever be welcome here.
*scuttles off to write more of Mission Three and/or Interlude 1* -
Earl-y warning by
on 2015-06-29 20:31:00 UTC
Link to this
Great mission. I've never heard of Black Butler before. But if it's got Inspector Abbeline in it, I'll have to check it out.
One small nitpicking point... When the CAD said "Earl Ciel Phantomhive", that was wrong. The correct name for an Earl would be "Earl of Phantomhive", "Lord of Phantomhive", or just "Lord Phantomhive". That's assuming Phantomhive is the name of his Earldom. If it's his personal surname, you can call him something like "Ciel, Earl Phantomhive of [wherever]" but that's a bit of a mouthful so don't bother!
Anwyay, the important thing is, never get the name of his Earldom mixed up with his personal names.
But apart from that, it was a brilliant story. Loved the cats, and the idea the POVs are minis. And you made the setting clear enough that I could follow everything without knowing anything about the canon. -
Thanks, I'll keep that in mind. by
on 2015-06-29 22:57:00 UTC
Link to this
(Better fix the Wiki page to reflect that, too ^_^;)
-
This was a fun read by
on 2015-06-27 11:42:00 UTC
Link to this
... although I don’t know anything about "Black Butler".
Alas, I found one typo:
Seriously, my home fic had better transitions that that!
Should be "better transitions than that".
I liked how you handled the minis.
HG -
Fixed. Thanks much. ^^ (nm) by
on 2015-06-27 19:52:00 UTC
Link to this
-
Congrats on the mission! =] by
on 2015-06-25 22:27:00 UTC
Link to this
Some thoughts:
---
"Do you know how many non-working-class Black people lived in London back then?"
Yes. Not many. However, there were a LOT of black servants around, generally freed slaves or their descendants. Which means Miguel could quite easily be wearing a suit, if a slightly lower-quality one. Makes him look like the help for Vi and Chris.
---
"Also, the royal palace looked off, probably because the Sue had called it a castle."
I assume that's Buck House you're talking about? Because there's quite a lot of royal palaces in London, and none of them look like castles. Indeed, there's a perfectly serviceable fortress in there. It's got a big ol' tower in it and it's in London. Hm. If only I could remember the blasted name... =]
(EDIT: Yes it is.)
---
Hayato POV
POVs are about half as big again as their lowercase counterpart, the pov. Instead of going "snrf?" they go "Grnf." Additionally, rather than using the pov's method of scuttling up a character's back to perch on their head, the POV inflates itself with a lighter-than-air gas, presumably helium, and floats onto the character's head. Its frequent squeaky Grnfs are as a result of the gas leaking out, and its scuttly bits flail wildly in order to steer it in mid-air.
I am not a biologist.
I don't care.
Gimme the POV.
---
"The cat—Ciel POV—looked Chris in the eye and swished his tail once."
So POVs are just minis?
---
"She got her eye replaced! That’s definitely something I’d want to look at right away!"
For one thing, you're not supposed to keep glass eyes in at night.
---
"A fourth Continuity Cat, this one with a scar over its right eye and shorter fur, appeared and ran from Ciel’s side to investigate/play with the other cats."
Violet Greenfield: crazy Continuity Cat lady. =]
---
"The Words took her literally, and the Sue suddenly looked like a human-shaped blob of opaque reddish jelly in a dress."
Would you like a jelly baby?
---
"Did they know about heart attacks in Victorian England?"
Yes. Yes they did.
---
On the whole, I rather enjoyed that despite not being at all familiar with the canon.
But no POVs for Scapegrace.
0/1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000. -
Some answers. by
on 2015-06-26 02:17:00 UTC
Link to this
Miguel wearing a less fancy suit than Chris' was my original idea, yeah. But I talked it over with someone I trust and decided it'd be less conspicuous to go with the poor sailor disguise. Maybe next time I'll and specify that my agents pack a DORKS, huh?
Yes, I was talking about Buck House. (Or whatever the Victorian equivalent to it was. Bloody beige-prose fanfiction.)
Sorry I denied you a POV. Would your agents like to adopt Ciel POV as compensation? I have this weird sense that either Wobbles or the Notary is a cat person. (Probably the Notary, and she'll probably punch me for saying such a thing. *braces self*)
...I feel like the glass eye comment was supposed to be in response to another line that got eaten. Is it?
Yeah, my RC's getting a little overrun with minis and/or cats XD
Thank you for the mental image. -
"Notary's not a cat person. She's barely a person." (nm) by
on 2015-06-26 02:31:00 UTC
Link to this
-
Can I please adopy Mey Rin? Please, please, pleeease~! (nm) by
on 2015-06-25 20:47:00 UTC
Link to this
-
Yes, of course. by
on 2015-06-25 22:00:00 UTC
Link to this
Remind me: who are your agents again?
-
Sorry, mate, not yet available to write. by
on 2015-06-25 22:34:00 UTC
Link to this
I'm just going for a pre-order :D
-
It says I don't have permission to access it? (nm) by
on 2015-06-25 17:02:00 UTC
Link to this
-
Oh, oops. by
on 2015-06-25 17:14:00 UTC
Link to this
Here is the shareable link. Sorry about that!
-
Commentary by
on 2015-06-25 17:57:00 UTC
Link to this
First off, I'm not familiar with Black Butler, so no commentary on that aspect of the story. You did a good job explaining it to someone who only read a few chapters of it.
Typically mini-Sues are, like mini-Agents, tiny versions of the Sues. I'm not sure if I'm in favor of them being glittery versions of normal minis; while I like the idea of a Sue'd mini-Aragog or mini-Balrog, I'm not entirely comfortable with the idea of hurting or killing glittery cats. I am a little oversensitive about violence towards cute animals, especially cats, but that bothered me a bit.
I found this exchange kind of confusing:
“Wait, what? He was in character before!” Violet said in surprise. “Why the sudden spike?”
“For one thing, the plot said so,” Chris replied. “For another, Sues generally know the rules exist, but think they’re stupid-ass rules and elect to ignore them. As you should know.”
I think, after looking it over, that you meant Violet to be asking "Why did the story have him act out of character?" which is the question Chris is answering. However, at first I thought she meant "What did he do that made him suddenly become so OOC?" making Chris's response kind of a non-sequitur.
I don't know the characters, so maybe I'm not in a position to comment, but I think Ciel and Sebastian's responses to the agents killing Hayato seemed a little blasé. I think most people would at least consider the possibility that the people attacking their ally were also a threat to them.
Other than those things, it was a good mission, and lots of fun to read. -
RE: Commentary by
on 2015-06-26 04:03:00 UTC
Link to this
Thanks for your opinion! I went with the "pink, glittery mini" route for Hayato POV and Hayato Ansastu because the Sue never really described herself (or anything else, really) anywhere that I saw. (I have a real talent for finding beige-prose fics, don't I?)
Yeah, I guess Ciel and Sebastian would've been a little more suspicious. That was what I was going for with his not-a-question about whether Miguel was fully human. (Honestly, to them, violence is a fact of life. My agents weren't angry with the nobility in general, either.) I'll keep your point in mind the next time something like this comes up on a mission.
-
UK Canterbury Gathering signups! by
on 2015-06-25 22:34:00 UTC
Link to this
This is where you express interest in coming to Canterbury to meet PPCers. Canterbury is a smallish city in south-east England whose population is made up almost entirely of day-tripping French schoolchildren. There are Many Things To Do in Canterbury, all of them fun, some of them alcoholic.
To get to Canterbury from London, you want the trains out of Platform 11-13 at St Pancras International. Select the blue trains (High Speed 1) if you wish to get there in time for this year's Gathering; select the white trains if you wish to get there in time for next year's Gathering. There will be fun and frolics and Roman underfloor heating and possibly a museum dedicated to Rupert Bear if I can remember where the blasted thing is. Also a big stone shed full of Jeebus.
That's basically what a cathedral is, right? -
Depends when by
on 2015-06-26 11:14:00 UTC
Link to this
As I am at the mercy of the school terms, some point in August would be easier for me.
-
Checking in and dates. by
on 2015-06-26 09:13:00 UTC
Link to this
I-or-we should be able to make it, though which it is depends on the date.
So, in no particular order:
-What are Sunday opening hours like in Canterbury? Sunday would make it easier for me to drag Kaitlyn along.
-If we're doing August, the last two weekends would be our best options: I can get my parents to look after the children. That actually applies to September, too - I guess there's nothing that says all Gatherings have to be during the school holidays!
-To throw in an early-date wildcard... what about July 11th? That's the Saturday two weeks from tomorrow. Kaitlyn might/should be free (at least for the afternoon), and the lack of school holidays might even make it possible to breathe in Canterbury.
Obviously in the last case, we'd need to move quickly on the planning. Where are you proposing we meet initially? If people are coming in by train (we're driving), near the station is probably a good bet...
hS -
July 11th suits me. =] by
on 2015-06-26 09:54:00 UTC
Link to this
But then it would, living locally. =]
Where I planned to have everyone gather for the Gathering is at Canterbury West station. Specifically, the Goods Shed right next to it, which is an indoor market and general Aladdin's cave for middle-class people. It also has pretty good car parking facilities and an interesting wine shop, which might make your parents a bit more amenable to future childcare. I used to babysit for my dad's friend's children. I drink now. =]
Saturdays are definitely better than Sundays around here, in that we might be able to go to things. And stuff. And possibly things and stuff, if we're lucky. =]
As for August, I... well, I'm not sure how feasible it'll be to take time off on any weekend. Part of the problem I have is that weekends are the busiest times for me because of all the little darlings running around kicking lumps out of my vintage arcades and having tantrums because they're not very good at it and trying to pull the machines over in groups of ten burn them burn them BURN THEM ALL, so yeah. August is probably going to be completely nuts for me. September less so, because back at school and theme parks are seasonal, but still.
Hopefully that's reasonably comprehensive. =] -
The 11th should work for me too. by
on 2015-06-26 11:08:00 UTC
Link to this
I've just confirmed my other plans for that weekend, and they are for the 12th, so yeah, the Saturday works for me.
Given the distance involved I'll probably take the train. And that will take a few hours, so I could easily get there for midday, maybe a bit before. Much earlier than that I could still do, but you might have to put up with me being half-asleep at first.
- Irish -
Midday is probably a good time. by
on 2015-06-26 11:23:00 UTC
Link to this
Kaitlyn has A Thing in the morning, which we currently don't have a timeline for, so I think noon is probably the earliest we can make it.
Given that Scapegrace is pseudo-hosting this one, and her difficulties with August, it's looking like July 11th is probably our best bet: we can't hold the Canterbury Gathering without the local! If Baroom's really interested in attending one, I suppose we could consider a second Gathering in late August? A few hours on a Sunday in London should be doable (and Sunday is fine in London, because you don't go into places anyway!)... Irish?
hS -
Yeah, that works for me. by
on 2015-06-27 07:50:00 UTC
Link to this
Midday on the 11th, assuming that's good for Scapegrace too (as you pointed out, it would be somewhat unfair of us to start without her!).
I could easily make it in to London in August. And yeah, if we can't all Gather at one time, then why not have two?
-Irish -
This is where I make things worse. by
on 2015-06-27 11:23:00 UTC
Link to this
While I can do the 11th for definite, the problem is that I have to take the morning'/afternoon shift to make the times work. Which basically means I can't get there until 3, which is... slightly irritating.
-
Minor addendum: by
on 2015-06-28 09:41:00 UTC
Link to this
I can now definitely get there by half-past two. Which is... marginally more acceptable. =]
-
Marrrginally. by
on 2015-06-28 16:24:00 UTC
Link to this
We're still not sure what time Kaitlyn'll be available, but it's looking like... hrm.
Well. We're an hour's drive from Canterbury, so she'd have to be here at one. Which is actually about right.
So: Irish? 2-2:30 start okay for you? Or should I concoct a secondary plan to cover the earlier afternoon?
hS -
Marrrrrrrrrrginally by
on 2015-06-30 08:34:00 UTC
Link to this
Sorry about the late reply - I've been in foreign places for the last few days with unreliable wi-fi.
Anyway, I've just checked the train times I have, and around that time I could get to Canterbury West for either 14:08 or 14:50. In fact the 8 minutes past or the 10 minutes to seems to be my only options for each hour.
So that time works for me. I'll aim for one of the earlier ones and just bring a book with me, because it's quite a delay if I end up missing one of my connections.
- Irish -
Let's call it 'about two' then. by
on 2015-06-30 09:06:00 UTC
Link to this
With the understanding that all four of us will basically get there when we can. Meeting point is still Canterbury West station; I'll be wearing the t-shirt as usual. (I propose we force Scapegrace to bring a sign... ^_^)
Unless Scapegrace has a better idea, my plan is to drive in and park at the Park & Ride west of the city centre; apparently it's only £3 for parking and travel, which is pretty good. The description says:
Park and Ride costs £3 per day for a car and up to six people. This allows you to travel across the city on all three Park and Ride routes.
That seems to imply I can take five others on the bus with me, so maybe we can all get free passage around town? I'm not certain of that, though.
hS -
About the Park and Ride service... by
on 2015-06-30 12:26:00 UTC
Link to this
((Also in that photo you look about fifteen what is even the hell))
I've never used the Park and Ride much. Canterbury - the interesting bits, anyway - is largely pedestrianised, so it's mostly getting to and from your car that presents an issue. I don't recall what time the last service for that is, but I'm sure you can look it up on the day.
Of course, this is predicated on you not minding a bit of a walk, so, yeah. =] -
Thanks, I think? by
on 2015-06-30 12:33:00 UTC
Link to this
That was Bath '09, so I was 23...
The Wincheap Road P&R has buses running until half seven or so, which given that we'll be leaving before seven to get back for the kids, is absolutely fine. And I never mind walking - though if we keep getting weather like today's, I might mind walking outside.
Since we're starting in the afternoon, should I assume everyone will have eaten before we get there?
hS -
Breakfast, second breakfast, elevenses, lunch... by
on 2015-06-30 12:45:00 UTC
Link to this
That's a safe assumption to make about me.
It's going to take me about 3 hours total to get there, so if we're aiming for a 2ish start I'll have an early lunch before I head out, or maybe take something with me for on the train.
Might have to find somewhere to stop for afternoon tea during the gathering though :)
- Irish -
Canterbury's pretty well-served for that. by
on 2015-06-30 14:09:00 UTC
Link to this
If you'll pardon the pun. =]
-
Yeah, probably. by
on 2015-06-30 12:43:00 UTC
Link to this
It's actually been really lovely and sunny down my way all week, so you might be in luck. British summer seems to have got itself confused with actual summer. =]
Also, regardless of what you actually look like, my mental image of you is of a Gandalf-lookin' cove with a beard you could lose a small island nation in, and I'm not completely certain why.
Also also, there was an article of wonderful serendipity concerning the noble institution which you intend to patronise. Slightly NSFW content, but, well... if you're going to do it anywhere... -
Terrible joke time! by
on 2015-06-28 19:38:00 UTC
Link to this
Where did Long John Silver write his notes?
In the marrrgin, lad. -
"I have discovered the location of Cap'n Kidd's treasure..." by
on 2015-06-29 09:04:00 UTC
Link to this
"... but this marrrrrgin is too small to contain it, me hearties!"
hS -
Be that Fermat's Last Doubloon? =] (nm) by
on 2015-06-29 09:44:00 UTC
Link to this
-
Cap'n Pascal's wager: by
on 2015-06-29 09:57:00 UTC
Link to this
If there be treasure on the beach, and I ignores it, I loses vaaaaast heaps o' treasure. If there be no treasure on the beach, and I digs anyway, all I loses is some time. So get yer shovels, lads!
(That works alarmingly well.)
(Also, Dodgy West Country Pirates are the best pirates.)
hS -
But Cap'n Pascal! by
on 2015-06-29 11:37:00 UTC
Link to this
What if, instead o' treasure, yer shovel do hit a sea mine or the unmentionables of a terrifyin' sandbeast twice the size o' a threedecker? How fare we then?
((Translation from Pirate: the problem with Pascal's wager can be summed up as "what if you back the wrong horse?".))
((Also: Yes. Yes they do. "Cap'n, oi do believe we be on the radio!" "What program be that, bo'sun?" "The ARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRCHERS!")) -
Nay, matey! by
on 2015-06-29 11:45:00 UTC
Link to this
For I has a map, and I do trust my map, for it ha'the very name o' Cap'n Kidd writ upon it! And I know 'tis Kidd's true signature, for Kidd would not lie!
((The 'solution' to the problem: but this religion is the one to back because it says it is. Yeah, Pascal's Wager is flawed.))
(Arrr! Then this be, be, sea radio!)
hS
-
Requesting for betas! by
on 2015-06-25 22:35:00 UTC
Link to this
As the title says, we’re currently looking for betas for our co-write (and Edhelistar’s first mission). Continua are Batman and The Incredibles, but canon knowledge is not required. Mostly just SPaG and story flow revision.
If you want to beta this Mission leave a message with your e-mail and we’ll send the link to you shortly. -
I'll take a look by
on 2015-06-26 00:45:00 UTC
Link to this
Count me in if you still need people.
-
We still do! by
on 2015-06-26 01:09:00 UTC
Link to this
Could you please tell me your e-mail, so I can send the link to you.
-
Oops, sorry by
on 2015-06-26 05:14:00 UTC
Link to this
My username should be clickable now.
-
Invite sent! (nm) by
on 2015-06-26 05:51:00 UTC
Link to this
-
*cracks neck and knuckles* by
on 2015-06-25 22:55:00 UTC
Link to this
Deal me in.
-
Invite sent! (nm) by
on 2015-06-25 23:03:00 UTC
Link to this
-
Disney's Official Fanfiction Academy Sign Up! by
on 2015-06-26 01:02:00 UTC
Link to this
For those who don't know, I'm writing DOFA, Disney's Official Fanfiction Academy. I could really use some fanwriter names, so if you feel like signing up, please do so! I'd like a brief snippet on the personality of your fanwriter alter-ego, if ya don't mind, with pertinent info such as your Disney LO and your favorite Prince, Princess, and Villain. In fact, even if you don't want to sign up, I would love a quick poll of favorite characters in the Disneyverse. Thanks!
-MissTai'sharAlleb -
Oh fun! by
on 2015-06-27 05:40:00 UTC
Link to this
Hmm, are these meant to be badfic writers or alter-egos of ourselves?
Well, if it's meant to be potential students, then here:
Name: Helen Ortega
Snippet: Helen is one of the fans who is very much interested with crossovers and melding all of the recent Disney (and some not-Disney) movies into one canon. The Hiccup-Merida-Jack Frost-Elsa-Rapunzel all at Hogwarts, kind of thing. She's well meaning, but has a tendency to sucker onto an idea, write a bit of it, and then drop it for a new variation. As such, she rarely sticks with a project long enough to learn from it.
Appearance: Short, somewhat curly red-brown hair, grey eyes, and fair skin. She's also rather a beanpole in terms of body type.
LO: Esmerelda (not technically a Princess, but still!)
Favorite Prince: Hans - he's not a hero, but at least he has a character and is kind of a fun villain
Favorite Princess: Merida or Elsa
Favorite Villain: Maleficent, especially after the new adaptation.
(As for me, I am having some trouble thinking of an LO in the Disney canon, my favorite princess might be Mulan, I can't really think of a prince because they are rather dull, and Ursula is just so very fun as a villain.) -
Thank you! by
on 2015-06-28 02:03:00 UTC
Link to this
They can be either; I'm not picky.
-
Wait by
on 2015-06-27 05:44:00 UTC
Link to this
I think my favorite villain might have to be Frollo? Just because he is such a complex villain compared to, say, Jafar, and Hellfire is just an incredible song.
-
I'll switch it! by
on 2015-06-28 02:09:00 UTC
Link to this
Frollo is a really interesting character. He won't be at the OFU, unfortunately, as Esmeralda isn't an official Princess.
-
Count Me In! by
on 2015-06-27 03:26:00 UTC
Link to this
Sara Damin. She's bookish, sarcastic, loves pointing out all the mistakes and potholes in movies and books, daydreamy, and can switch from quiet to angry in a snap. Favorite Prince is Li Shaang, favorite Princess is Meg, and favorite Villain is Scar. (Because he actually achieved his goal of becoming king! If he hadn't slipped with telling the truth about his crime, he would have won all the way!)
Let me think about the favorite characters for a bit... -
Thanks! by
on 2015-06-28 02:05:00 UTC
Link to this
Sara has been recorded!
-
YAY! Why not sign up. by
on 2015-06-27 01:55:00 UTC
Link to this
Name: Nathanial Gibbots Apperance: Brown hair and brown eyes. Personality: Thinks he is the best thing since sliced bread. Has incredible struggles with ADHD, Up to Eleven. Usually has self-insert Gary Stus hook up with a princess.
LO: "MERIDA MERIDA MERIDA SHES BADASS"
Favorite prince: "what kind of question is this their all giiiiiirly eww.
Favorite princess: "MERIDA MERIDA MERIDA WHY ARE YOU ASKING TWICE!?" -
Thanks very much! by
on 2015-06-28 02:07:00 UTC
Link to this
Nathanial is recorded, and Tai'shar will set him straight. Thanks again!
-
Is this only princesses? by
on 2015-06-27 20:31:00 UTC
Link to this
Because I just watched Big Hero 6, and it was AMAZING.
-
Only Princesses, yes. (nm) by
on 2015-06-28 02:08:00 UTC
Link to this
-
Just for the poll: by
on 2015-06-26 15:03:00 UTC
Link to this
Favorite Prince: Eh. Um. Hm. I'll come back to this.
Favorite Princess: Probably Belle, just because she's a book nerd, like me.
Favorite Prince: Ummmmmmmmm. Well.
Favorite Villain: Hands down, Maleficent. She is just so amazing and powerful and scary in every way, and I love Eleanor Audley's delivery of every line in the original movie. (Haven't seen the movie Maleficent.)
Favorite Prince: HURRRRRRRR Most of them do so little, it's hard to even think of a good one. I didn't want to repeat a movie I already said, but the Beast is probably the prince with the most character. And even when he is still in beast mode, he still has some redeeming qualities. -
Thanks! by
on 2015-06-26 17:47:00 UTC
Link to this
I haven't seen Maleficent either, but Eleanor Audley is awesome! What really cracks me up is that she was the bank manager's mother in Beverly Hillbillies, so I always think of that when I hear her voice. Anyway, thank you muchly!
-
Not really a self-insert... by
on 2015-06-26 06:09:00 UTC
Link to this
But a potential fanbrat character that you can use if you want to.
Name: Nicole "Nick" Wong
Age: 14
Favorite Princess: Mulan
Favorite Prince: Aladdin
Favorite Villain: Ursula
Lust Object: Aladdin
Appearance: A petite, boyish-looking Asian girl, with very short black hair, brown eyes, and sharp features.
Personality: Nick writes Disney stories not because she likes Disney movies, but because she hates them... or so she claims. The truth is that she's still a huge fan, but she feels like she's supposed to be too old for them. She complains that the stories as-are are "boring" and "dumb," and the female characters "suck" because they don't do any fighting. She also has an unfortunate tendency to act superior and ignore anyone who corrects her. Nick's stories are technically fine and feature decent action scenes, but generally take the form of thinly-veiled diatribes about how the movies would be so much better if they went exactly the way she wanted them to.
Also, if you're just doing Disney Princesses, you might want to indicate that somewhere in the title of your OFU? -
I like her; thanks! by
on 2015-06-26 17:44:00 UTC
Link to this
Nick is recorded!
Hmm, that's a good point. I'll start thinking up some alternate titles, to avoid confusion. Thanks! -
Fanbrat!TheShyIon by
on 2015-06-26 04:53:00 UTC
Link to this
Fanbrat!TheShyIon:
Name: Ion
Age: 15
Appearance: Beanpole, pale, with dirty blonde hair (constantly tangling) down to her bottom. Light gray eyes.
Common Mannerisms: Bites nails, occasional hand-flapping.
Lust Object: (This is a hard one. Elsa or New!Maleficent?) Let's go with Elsa.
Favorite Princess: Does a queen count? If so, Elsa. If not, Anna.
Favorite Prince: Hans. (She dislikes the 'nice' princes.)
Favorite Villain: Maleficent.
Personality: Cracks under pressure easily -- probably one of the first to break down crying and apologizing. Embarrasses easily. Very friendly. Finds it extremely hard to lie. Probably would see this as an opportunity if she wasn't so horribly embarrassed about having to attend. Drools all over the female villains (though not quite as much as with Elsa, of course.) Over-explains.
Likely Crimes Against Canon: Has a decent grasp of grammar, surprisingly -- the crimes would probably be heinously OOC femslash villain-shipping and having self-inserts go after Elsa. Probably after Villain!Elsa. Terrible at description. Shoving bizarre headcanons where they don't fit.
(Yes, I used to be a fanbrat. No, this isn't exactly how I was -- more a mix of how I was then and how I am now, with all the writing-improvement removed. I was *always* a fangirl for villains, though. Still am. This got too long, drat it. Sorry.) -
Not too long! by
on 2015-06-26 17:40:00 UTC
Link to this
I have a very nice grasp on her character! Thank you!
-
Count me in! by
on 2015-06-26 03:06:00 UTC
Link to this
Name: Adam Johnson. Alias, Jetstream.
Personality: Attention seeking, full stop. Wants the spotlight and will go out of his way to get credit. He's not without at least a smidge of honor, though, and will back down if people call him out on his actions.
LOs: Ariel. Just... ARIEL. Also Eric. Yes, he's bi.
Fave princess and prince: See above. I'd throw in Peter Pan and Hiro Hamada, but you did say this was princesses only, so...
Fave villain: Dr. Falicier. He's such a badass and his Villain Song is the best of the lot, period. -
Adam is recorded! by
on 2015-06-26 03:14:00 UTC
Link to this
Thank you very much!
-
Signing up! by
on 2015-06-26 02:00:00 UTC
Link to this
Name: Ellie Scotswood
Favourite Princess: Oh, but it is so hard to pick just one...
Favourite Prince: Pick one at random. They are nothing but haircuts nailed to cardboard.
Favourite Villain: Villains are bad. Why be bad when you can be a good girl? I, I am a good girl. Am I not?
LO: ... no... no, i do not have one and never will... you cannot prove it... please do not tell my parents...
Snip:-
It was wish fulfillment of the highest order.
Ellie knew it, not in a deep down sort of way but consciously. It was a choice she was making to write what she wanted, because she wanted to write it. And what was wrong with it? Why shouldn't she wear a pretty dress and go to the ball? Why shouldn't she dance the night away? Why shouldn't she lean in and kiss --
And there was her answer, staring her down like she was a whole hour late home. There was exactly why she shouldn't. It was simply down to who she wanted, and who she knew she wanted. She'd filled a notebook with stories of her ballroom, and, well, Ellie hated them. Not as much as she hated herself for writing them, though, but that wasn't the issue. She hated her old stories, because she knew how shameful they were. Oh yes. That had been made quite clear.
But she couldn't get the pictures of those nights of dancing out of her head, however hard she tried to squash them flat. Every dream was a ballroom, different but the same, dancing and dancing until dress touched dress and-
-And that was why she wanted to squash them. It was nothing but idle wish fulfillment, nothing more. Typing them up helped, and while sometimes she published them on fanfiction.net - through the necessary five or so proxies - most of them she just printed out and burned in the back garden.
Ellie was typing now, and while she typed, words came unbidden into her head:
"A dream is a wish your heart makes..." -
Thanks! by
on 2015-06-26 02:07:00 UTC
Link to this
Ellie has been recorded in the Great Book of Fanwriters!
-
Should probably mention, if it wasn't obvious: by
on 2015-06-26 10:09:00 UTC
Link to this
I envisage Ellie's primary character arc to be her coming to terms with her sexuality, which she's been trying to beat out of her for some considerable time. In her words:-
---
"I do not believe this. I refuse to believe this! All of you, you prettified, simpering shop-window dummies, you have it so ridiculously easy, and you sit there, bold as brass, and you tell me to be true to my heart? How? How can I be true to my heart when what's in there is WRONG?"
---
The phrase "so deep in the closet we're gonna need heavy-duty mining equipment to get her out" springs to mind. =] -
Got it. by
on 2015-06-26 17:36:00 UTC
Link to this
Thank you! By the way, I love your writing.
-
A minor addendum, if you'll permit it: by
on 2015-06-27 11:33:00 UTC
Link to this
Ellie really doesn't like using contractions and abbreviations, and they only come out in times of extreme stress. She's... not exactly snobbish, per se? But she's very self-conscious, and the way she combats it is through speaking in a rather stilted, overly-literal manner, which can easily be confused for snobbery. She's very much a self-insert writer, with very little regard for canon - but the difference is, again, that it's deliberate. They're wish-fulfillment stories that allow her to cope with her "demons", they only exist to carry out that one particular purpose, so frankly what could it possibly matter if they details aren't exactly right? It defeats the object of the exercise as she sees it.
I used to be like that. I kid myself into thinking I'm better now. =]
Also, given that Elsa is one of the bloody X-Men, I think that she'd probably find work as campus security or its analogue. Same with Leia, funnily enough; I envisage them as having something of a rivalry in terms of skill at arms and so on. Perhaps something to consider when you're using the uncrowned mob. =] -
Added! by
on 2015-06-28 02:00:00 UTC
Link to this
Thanks! I like that idea with Elsa, but I think I'll leave Leia out of it. I'm only using the Frozen crew because I know they're going to be inducted. The idea of Leia as a Disney Princess is rather fun though. XD
-
While I don't write fanfic myself... by
on 2015-06-26 01:45:00 UTC
Link to this
I could see an avatar version of myself applying for the hell of it and seeing what he can learn that he didn't know before.
I'll go ahead and use Dylan Read, AKA both my Plort name and the name of the OFU coordinator I have floating in my head. It's the closest you're getting to my real name, without being a close friend anyway.
In-universe name: Dylan Read
Disney LO: Elsa, though he's unlikely to admit to it. Dylan feels that feeling lust for a fictional character is kinda pointless. He thinks that Elsa is gorgeous, but also feels that he doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell with her.
Favorite Prince: Uh... pass? The princes are all the same to me, so Dylan would probably feel the same.
Princess:Vanellope von SchweetzAnna. An interesting and complex character, and I love how Frozen handled the genre.
Villain: Hans. Very dark, very disturbing, very surprising. Best plot twist ever.
... yeah, can you tell what my favorite Disney movie is?
Personality: He'd probably apply for DOFA voluntarily, just to see what he could learn that he didn't already know. He's hungry for knowledge, too cynical to think that the canons would like him (it's an OFU, he has a point), and would openly disapprove of anyone who admits to making darkfics (like say, self-harming heroes).
... okay, he's me, so he's going to sing and he's got a damn good voice.IHe tends to sing the first song to pop intomyhis head. Nobody has a problem with how it sounds... the problem is that he sings at the absolute worst possible times, and tends to interrupt other people's thoughts and actiARE YOU REEEEAAAAAADY!? -
Thank you! by
on 2015-06-26 01:57:00 UTC
Link to this
YouHeareis penciled in, and thanks again! -
Neglected to mention. by
on 2015-06-26 02:50:00 UTC
Link to this
Dylan wouldn't be much for actually writing fanfic; he wrote one once for a different universe (coughmdnightgreengahack), and after it turned out really bad, he kinda swore off of it.
It'd probably take some effort to convince him that he could conceivably write goodfic. -
*nods* Noted. by
on 2015-06-26 02:52:00 UTC
Link to this
DOFA as a whole is going to be fairly supportive of its fanwriters, since Disney is such a friendly continuum, so he should have plently of encouragement.
-
Bit more, if that's not a problem by
on 2015-06-26 11:35:00 UTC
Link to this
Dylan is still me, just like Valon. He's got empathy up to his ears, and doesn't like pain (in others or himself). He's also very open-minded, not being particularly judgmental based on personality or appearance.
And if he's anything like Valon, he adores whatever minis are here. -
No problem! by
on 2015-06-26 17:34:00 UTC
Link to this
Added!
-
One more thing by
on 2015-06-28 15:02:00 UTC
Link to this
Yeah... based on what happened yesterday? Dylan probably gets really vitriolic toward people who discriminate or insinuate that bad things... aren't.
Those mental walls that keep him polite? Poof, gone. There'd be so much venom that you could probably make a case for the literary world interpreting that literally, and actually having, say, rattlesnake venom drip from his mouth. -
I would love to sign up! by
on 2015-06-26 01:12:00 UTC
Link to this
I just need to know all of the pertinent information you need, so I can start working on it right away!
-
Here goes! by
on 2015-06-26 05:45:00 UTC
Link to this
Name: Sato (Or so he claims, despite clearly not being Asian)
Lust Objects: Queen Elsa of Arendelle, and Fa Mulan (if available).
Favorites: Lumiere, Kristoff Björgman, Princess Anna of Arendelle, Maleficent (might be slightly off on his ideas here, because of Kingdom Hearts), Gaston, Marshmallow, and Mushu (if available).
He has grey eyes and black hair, and is pale, short and lanky from an undeterminate ethnicity, of age around 17 years old. He's a hyperactive motormouth that never stops talking about stuff he likes, specially if it's about robots or other technological stuff, which annoys mostly everyone. He never stays put, even when sleeping, in fact he moves a lot in his sleep and occasionally sleepwalks. He seems to believe that magic is real, and claims to have seen it in work, though that might be due to his hiperactive imagination. He's also quite unfamiliar with social cues and social interaction, he says it's because he rarely got out of home when he was youger and never liked to socialize with kids at school. Nobody really knows why he's in the DOFA, it's said he arrived here when one of the stories he wrote, had a plothole too much... -
Thank you! by
on 2015-06-26 17:33:00 UTC
Link to this
Sato has been inducted, and I also got the added stuff.
-
Addendum. by
on 2015-06-26 16:26:00 UTC
Link to this
Could you add to his favorites, The Genie, Rapunzel and Pascal the Chameleon?
-
All I need is by
on 2015-06-26 01:21:00 UTC
Link to this
a list of your favorite Princes, Princesses, and Villains; your Disney LO; and a brief description of your fanwriter's personality. Thank you!
-
I hope doesn't bother you... by
on 2015-06-26 02:37:00 UTC
Link to this
But I still have more questions.
Can be a completely fictional character the fanwriter?
Can I name secondary characters from the Princess Franchise as favorites? -
No bother at all! by
on 2015-06-26 02:41:00 UTC
Link to this
Yes to both! My fanwriter PoV character is completely fictionalized, after all. And secondary characters are just fine! Some of them even teach classes.
-
Side note. by
on 2015-06-26 01:06:00 UTC
Link to this
This is a Princess-exclusive 'verse: no Peter Pan, Robin Hood, or Alice in Wonderland. Mickey himself is only referenced, never seen. Thought that was worth mentioning.
-
How strict is that definition? by
on 2015-06-26 08:50:00 UTC
Link to this
Because I note that Elsa isn't a Disney Princess; do you intend to make use of her?
(The wicked side of me also wonders whether Disney's Leia Organa will make it onto the list... though that would provoke jurisdictional conflicts with the :O it's gone Star Wars OFU; if you want to explore that, Doctor Huinesoron of OFUs Underground/United will be available to present the SWFFA case.)
Other notable princesses who aren't Princesses: Sofia (apparently), Giselle...
hS -
Well... by
on 2015-06-26 17:29:00 UTC
Link to this
There is actually an official "crowning" of Princesses, and you're right, the Frozen crew hasn't been inducted. However, they most certainly will be, so they will be hanging around DOFA but will not teach any classes. It would be awesome to have Leia around, but I think that'd stretch the limits a little.
-
The issue with Leia by
on 2015-06-27 02:42:00 UTC
Link to this
Is that while LucasFilm is owned by Disney, it like Marvel is still its own semi-independent company. That I agree with you, it does stretch it too far.
-
And Yen-Sid? (nm) by
on 2015-06-26 03:06:00 UTC
Link to this
-
I've never heard of that. (nm) by
on 2015-06-26 03:10:00 UTC
Link to this
-
Is the official name of the Sorcerer from Fantasia. by
on 2015-06-26 03:25:00 UTC
Link to this
You know from the segment The Sorcerer's Apprentice. It is said that he represents Walt Disney himself.
-
Huh, interesting! by
on 2015-06-26 03:29:00 UTC
Link to this
Well... Mini-brooms are the current Mini, but officially Fantasia characters wouldn't be involved because there are no Princesses in the original work. Disney is the headmaster, of course. I would say Yen-Sid would not be included in this OFU.
-
Question for Trek fans about the Borg... by
on 2015-06-26 06:40:00 UTC
Link to this
I noticed that the Borg have armour plating on their bodies, that, according to Memory Alpha, allows them to survive in space. Is it supposed to protect them from vacuum, however? I can't imagine it does, because in First Contact we see several drones on the outside of the Enterprise, without EVA suits. However, their eyes were completely intact! They weren't even wearing helmets.
I know this must seem trivial, but it's important to the backstory of a character in one of my fanfics, and I don't have time to do proper research. -
Eyeballs don't pop under vacuum. ;) by
on 2015-06-26 09:02:00 UTC
Link to this
What they tend to do is freeze, which I imagine would be quite uncomfortable.
But... this is Star Trek. Don't they have forcefields, like, everywhere? I'd just assume a forcefield 'spacesuit' until told otherwise.
For that matter, do the Borg still have biological eyes which are covered in fluid? Do they have respiratory systems any more?
hS -
Well there is also the Borg Adaptation by
on 2015-06-26 19:40:00 UTC
Link to this
It can prevent phaser fire from being effective, so why could it not prevent the effects of vacuum?
-
I assumed the Borg can't adapt to physical harm. by
on 2015-06-27 02:12:00 UTC
Link to this
Which is to say, mass pushing against mass. After all, Picard guns down two of them in a holodeck with the safeties off. And I mean they had about a hundred rounds pumped into them, not just one or two shots, so they would have had plenty of time to adapt. I'll probably just attribute it to nanoprobes, like they did with all of Seven's stuff. Since the character I need to know this for has more implants than Seven, I could probably get away with it.
-
If I remember... by
on 2015-06-27 02:39:00 UTC
Link to this
Then again I have not seen First Contact in a long time, but I thought Engineering had created a way to nullify the adaptation for temporary periods of time.
But also nano-probes work. They always work. -
You are correct, on the second count. by
on 2015-06-27 06:05:00 UTC
Link to this
And not completely incorrect on the first one. It was Worf who had a couple of phaser rifle augmentations, but the first one was good for only twelve shots(Likely distributed throughout the team), and the second was good for a whopping-single shot. On that note, do you think it would be a good idea to use various sharp and blunt objects against the Borg, like batons or machetes? Again, this is for the fic I'm writing, and it's good to have a Trek fan who can take things seriously. (You should see the people I normally ask stuff like this. You'd be appalled at their responses.)
-
I am only a casual fan by
on 2015-06-27 07:39:00 UTC
Link to this
But I see no reason why non-energy weapons would not work. Because if I remember correctly the Enterprise was able to destroy the Borg by ramming the Cube. So I imagine that would also apply to smaller scale weapons. But I am not certain.
-
Borg and non-energy weapons by
on 2015-06-28 11:17:00 UTC
Link to this
Generally I would say sharp over blunt - Worf's mek'leth was effective in First Contact, and I'd imagine a blunt item would simply bounce off the exoplating unless the wielder was very strong indeed.
Also, in Star Trek Online, anything that deals physical or kinetic damage they cannot adapt to. The only problem is if you choose to use a sword or similar melee weapon against the Borg... you're in melee range of the Borg, which means assimilation range.
Now if one used something like a crossbow or longbow, that might be very effective. -
Welcome back! by
on 2015-06-29 16:44:00 UTC
Link to this
I haven't seen you in ages! How have you been?
As a welcome-back gift, have this cup of confused Lapsang Souchong tea — it is not quite certain whether it smells like a campfire or not, so please be gentle with it, OK? -
*Sips gently* by
on 2015-06-30 16:13:00 UTC
Link to this
Mmmmm, delicious, thanks!
Actually, I do still check the Board regularly - I'm just prone to periods of lurking. Things are going fairly well at the moment - how are you? -
Well... by
on 2015-06-30 17:53:00 UTC
Link to this
My term of service is nearly over; I'm slowly checking job openings and what not and worrying myself silly about the change from a soldier to a Law student. Other than that, life's pretty good, I guess.
-
Seems logical to me by
on 2015-06-29 04:47:00 UTC
Link to this
I cannot really remember First Contact, but seems reasonable.
-
Left Behind fixfic - Tripocalypse by
on 2015-06-26 11:26:00 UTC
Link to this
So, this one is about the Left Behind series of "Christian" fiction (I use quotes because the LB god is literally worse than satan). Basically it's a chronicle of the Rapture and Tribulation written by and for people who believe that it will actually happen Any Day Now.
As you probably know, Fred Clark from Slacktivist has been doing a sporking of the series for more than 10 years. It can be found at http://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2011/08/07/left-behind-index-i-posts-1-50/
As you may not know, Mouse has been sporking the companion kids' series s well, which you may found at http://mousehole-mouse.blogspot.com/
What I decided to do in a fit of insanity was take the Left Behind setting, and try to figure out if, using the books as Rules As Written, it was possible to defeat TurboJesus. This has, among other things, caused me to read the New Testament front to back... in Latin.
Turns out that yes, there are loopholes. The result of my efforts have been turned into a RPG setting, rather than a linear story, and may be found at http://emlia.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php?n=Tripocalypse.Tripocalypse
There are a few games in progress, which I'd be happy to narrate.
Please let me know if I did it right! -
I've never seen apocalyptic fiction done right. by
on 2015-06-26 17:56:00 UTC
Link to this
Which saddens me, because I love dystopian stuff in general and I'm a Christian, so it would be right up my alley... But I've read plenty and I've never seen it done right.
You'd think it would be really easy. It's certainly tempting. Revelation has the plot right there for you--good guys, bad guys, monsters, natural disasters, and even a relatively happy ending. But that's also part of the problem. Depending on how literally you take it, now you have to try to tell a story that's already been written, in ancient poetic language, but tell it in the modern or future era in realistic writing.
The result seems to be a narrative completely overrun by plot holes as the authors assume that just because it fits into the Revelation narrative, they can declare that it happens in the modern world and they don't have to justify its causes or effects. Everything becomes one gigantic deus ex machina, and in the conversion God becomes so inconsistent, capricious, and downright insane that you could mistake him for a three-year-old stomping on a sand castle. People become statistics, the heroes become incorruptible and the villains irredeemable. It's generally a huge mess.
The best apocalyptic fiction I've seen haven't been sweeping whole-world narratives; they've been short stories, snapshots of what a world in such turmoil might look like, focused in on individual people just trying to survive and do the right thing in the middle of an apocalypse that's as much human-caused as anything else.
But those are few and far between. I've given up on it, mostly. People seem to think that just because something's religious, you don't have to write well. -
Re: I've never seen apocalyptic fiction done right. by
on 2015-06-27 01:05:00 UTC
Link to this
Yeah, that's really a problem with a lot of Christian work... people think that just because it's got a Jesus fish on it, it has a market, so quality is not necessary. Just look at Christian videogames!
As for my RPG setting, I'm trying to make it clear that the Christian Remnant are not the bad guys; arguably TurboJesus is the bad guy, in that he wanted to destroy the earth, but he's been contained so that's not a problem -- what I wanted to do was generate a post-apocalyptic setting that is, at least tentatively, on the way to recovery; it's intended to be an optimistic setting that leaves room for players to do all sort of things (help with the reconstruction, go monster hunting, carve their own little city-state out of the ruins, go sailing and fight Kaiju, et cetera).
Could you give me a hand in making sure it's understood that Christian Remannt are just another group, and not evil? -
Simply don't have them act like bad guys. by
on 2015-06-27 04:11:00 UTC
Link to this
The whole "Left Behind" series has Christians acting in a very unrealistically callous way toward suffering people. Seems to me that the Remnant would, like any other group of human beings, want to help each other. Some of them might even start to compare TurboJesus to the actual Jesus of the Bible and see the very real differences between the two.
Sooner or later, someone will conclude that they're not the same person, and there'll probably be a schism. People will start saying; "He can't be God; he's obviously not omnipotent if they can trap him!", and, "This is not the same person who preached the Sermon on the Mount". Amidst all that, there'll be decent, everyday Christians going on with their lives, following love-your-neighbor as a guiding principle because that was part of what attracted them to Christianity to begin with. And now they have to deal with the reality of a world that can be changed basically by thinking hard enough at it... -
I actually read the Left Behind series by
on 2015-06-27 16:42:00 UTC
Link to this
(admittedly, it was a few years ago), and I do not remember the Remnant being "callous" at all towards the rest of the world. Could you please refresh my memory a bit?
-
When the judgments happen... by
on 2015-06-27 16:51:00 UTC
Link to this
They just kind of sit around and support each other, instead of helping the suffering people. There's no effort to do anything but proselytize. Like, they just kind of treat the chaos and horribleness as an obstacle they have to survive. And I mean they're walking right past suffering, dying people at some points and the author just completely trivializes it.
-
Re: When the judgments happen... by
on 2015-06-28 20:34:00 UTC
Link to this
Yeah, that's the impression I also got... the "good guys" are sociopathic, and the "bad guys" are ineffective.
Things like Buck worrying about getting back to his home office instead of using the fact that he's healthy and in good shape to help move people to safety, stuff like that.
Maybe it's an American thing, but I hope not. I am an Italian living in California, always stop for people stalled on the highway, and some people look at me funny. -
It's a "bad writing" thing. by
on 2015-06-29 04:33:00 UTC
Link to this
Here in Ohio, most people will do things like help each other dig their cars out of snowbanks, because that's just what you *do*; the snow is a common enemy when everyone is trying to get somewhere.
And when there's a disaster, that tendency is magnified. When threatened, people want to help each other so instinctively that it feels completely natural to help a perfect stranger. The more obvious the problem is, the more you feel responsible for helping (especially if you are the only one there), and the more easily you can think of a way to help, the more likely you are to do something useful.
If Buck were a real person rather than a badly-written character, he absolutely would help out. Depending on his training, he could help administer first aid, commandeer a baggage cart as an ad hoc ambulance for those too hurt to walk, or simply grab the nearest struggling individual and help them to the terminal. And it would make for a great story afterwards, too.
When a crisis is huge and right in your face, people don't generally just walk away. They might not act at first; if they don't know what to do, they may stand there staring indecisively until someone figures things out and starts doing something or giving orders. At worst, they get confused and do stupid things trying to help, sometimes adding to the casualties. At best, they work together as though they'd been practicing for years. But they don't just walk away. -
That's my problem :) by
on 2015-06-29 07:04:00 UTC
Link to this
I am from the Italian Alps... we may not be famous for our hospitality - if anything we are a lot like Tolkien dwarfs, very gruff - but I guarantee you that in the winter all the homeless people find at least a hallway door that someone "forgot" to lock.
The thing is, TurboJesus and TurboGod and their supposed allies (who barely do anything) in Left Behind are objectively horrible people; but since they use the names of the Christian deities, I want to make sure that my writing doesn't come across as anti Christian. For every Creflo Dollar there are 100 Billie Byers after all. -
Re: When the judgments happen... by
on 2015-06-28 20:35:00 UTC
Link to this
At the same time, I'm going to go with that only the "Trib Force" folk are sociopathic -- Rayford Steele makes a good villain, especially if his narrative causality makes NPCs automatically think he's as handsome, smart, etc. as he thinks he is -- but my experience with evangelical Christians is that they may believe strange things about biology or astronomy, but they're good people, by and large.
-
They are, mostly. by
on 2015-06-29 04:41:00 UTC
Link to this
It's an odd culture, to be sure; I didn't realize exactly how odd until I had left it. They still believe things like dinosaurs dying in Noah's flood or being able to dig straight down and hit Hell. They're more likely to be dogmatic and rigid in their beliefs. But as far as their basic humanity goes, you may expect them to be just as decent as any other group of people. They often struggle with guilt and feel persecuted, and can be quite out of touch with the culture around them. Some are fundamentalists because it is so reassuring to them to have every question answered and everything in black and white. All of that is just plain human nature, however unusually it's expressed.
-
Re: Simply don't have them act like bad guys. by
on 2015-06-27 04:30:00 UTC
Link to this
Thanks, do you mind if I use some of your stuff? (Or if you like the setting, just hit the edit button!)
http://emlia.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php?n=Tripocalypse.Religions -
Sure, go ahead. (nm) by
on 2015-06-27 04:38:00 UTC
Link to this
-
thanks! (nm) I'll update today or tomorrow. (nm) by
on 2015-06-27 04:57:00 UTC
Link to this
-
On a somewhat related note... by
on 2015-06-27 00:04:00 UTC
Link to this
... I've once read a MLP:FiM apocalyptic fanfiction. Yes, that was the Christian apocalypse, on Earth. Well, except for the fact that the Christian God was replaced by dragon gods straight out of the author's own UPG pantheon. Oh, and Discord is the Antichrist, and the Mane 6 get to Earth, and the author's self-insert character (well, based on his "spirit animal") is a shaman coyote who has spent 21 years on Earth unnoticed (and gets an eyepatch later due to a raptor attack)...
... It was actually somewhat less bad than you'd expect. I think. I read it a while ago, and I found it awesome, but I had terrible taste in fanfic and I don't really have the time to read it again now.
Here's a link, but it's in French. -
Re: On a somewhat related note... by
on 2015-06-27 01:07:00 UTC
Link to this
That looks delightfully random... and I can actually see Discord as the Antichrist, if you depict the Antichrist as someone who is trying to derail prophecy (and thus save the world).
Derailing prophecy is exactly the right job for the embodiment of chaos. -
Actually, I don't really remember his motivations... by
on 2015-06-27 01:19:00 UTC
Link to this
... But IIRC, he basically got turned into a generic supervillain. I honestly didn't see how anything he did in the fic was chaos-related.
-
Re: Actually, I don't really remember his motivations... by
on 2015-06-27 02:27:00 UTC
Link to this
Aw, that's too bad. Discord is such an interesting character concept, it's sad to see him misused.
-
I'm back! by
on 2015-06-26 13:56:00 UTC
Link to this
Not sure if anyone remembers me on here, but I'm glad I found my way back. I started dealing with school and forgot this place existed.
-
Belated welcome back! by
on 2015-06-30 12:57:00 UTC
Link to this
I'm a recent returnbie myself, and it's good to see you back. I'm pretty sure I remember your name from before.
How have you been? -
Re: Belated welcome back! by
on 2015-06-30 13:00:00 UTC
Link to this
Quite well, actually! I'm in school over the summer and learning JavaScript, so I'm having fun
-
Welcome back by
on 2015-06-26 17:33:00 UTC
Link to this
Have an animate origami frog.
-
Returnbie! *glomp* *poke* (Dangit, Kitty!) by
on 2015-06-26 16:59:00 UTC
Link to this
Welcome back! Have this plate of freshly-made SPaGhetti!
Lessee, the major events around here you missed were another Plort RP, PG elections of myself, Desdendelle, and PoorCynic, and the sporting of the Rose Potter series.
Unless I missed something, anyone?
Anyway, nice to see you again! -
Welcome (back) to Creation, here's your shovel. by
on 2015-06-26 16:49:00 UTC
Link to this
This one's made of Super Hardened Steel, so it can hurt Titans!
-
Thanks! by
on 2015-06-27 01:47:00 UTC
Link to this
*accepts it and puts it in his inventory for later use* Yay!
-
*glomps* *pokes* by
on 2015-06-26 14:41:00 UTC
Link to this
I don't actually remember you- sorry 'bout that- but this is as good a time as any to start! Who are you, exactly? What are your fandoms? Would you like this slice of genuine Evelyn Smythe chocolate cake I'm offering as a returnbie gift? Do you even like chocolate cake? If not, are you insane?
-
Meep! by
on 2015-06-27 02:04:00 UTC
Link to this
My 'sona is a G4 unicorn. My favorite fandom is MLP, and I love to see how I can get it mesh together with other fandoms like Metroid and Halo in a way that's natural and pleasing to the eye. And I love chocolate cake! *noms*
-
How does one create a decent non-Sue character? by
on 2015-06-26 15:11:00 UTC
Link to this
I have numerous different characters and I'm really hoping that I haven't made a Sue or Stu out of any of them.
Any suggestions on how to make a decent character are accepted.
... I have way too many characters -
Give them a personality. by
on 2015-06-30 22:25:00 UTC
Link to this
It sounds simple, but it still gets overlooked.
The classic 'tenth walker'-style Sue will join up with the canon characters and go through their adventures, because that's what the plot of the canon was. And the canon characters will allow them to do this because that's what the fanfic plot requires. Regardless of whether allowing a stranger to tag along is a good idea, and sometime even with the stranger having no real motivation to join up with them. Motivation is an important part of characterisation.
Sues have previously been described here as 'unintentionally flat' characters. I.e. characters with no depth beyond a bare minimum. Some Sues have a tendency to be nothing more than physical descriptions with a collection of powers/abilities. Flat characters aren't necessarily a Bad Thing - they can be useful in certain contexts: the faceless masses in the background, the NPCs populating game towns so that they don't look deserted, etc.
If your characters are in a bar, and they mention the barman, that's probably enough detail and characterisation for him (as long as he exists just to serve the other characters their drinks). A physical description could add a bit of flavour to the scene, but isn't always necessary. You can get away introducing background characters just with the role they are playing in the story - you can't get away with introducing someone as 'the/a protagonist' and expecting your readers to take your word for it.
They need a reason for what they do, and they need to react believably to the things that happen to them, and the people they encounter. Also, the people that they encounter should react believably to them (when they don't, PPC agents start talking about people being thrown out of character).
It's hard to have a decent character without having characterisation. Think about their likes and dislikes, their hope and fears. And think about why they do what they do.
If their reactions to story events are dictated by the requirements of the future plot (or in the case of tenth walker style stories, the requirements of someone else's future plot), then those characters are pretty weak (in narrative terms, nothing to do with physical strength). If, on the other hand, their reactions are dictated by their personality - they do those actions / make those choices because that is what they would do, then you've got yourself much better characters.
Exactly what makes a Sue is a very complex topic, so avoiding Sues is a fairly complex task. And there are plenty of other things to consider outside of the stuff that I've just talked about, but giving a character a proper personality is a damn good starting point for ensuring they don't end up a Sue.
- Irish -
There's no single way to avoid it. by
on 2015-06-26 15:39:00 UTC
Link to this
Honestly, this is the kind of question that doesn't have a single answer. While extremely obvious Sues are fairly easy to avoid - don't make your character the best swordsman ever or so beautiful it's a curse - these are in the end the symptoms, not the cause.
A few random tips:- Let your characters be hurt by their flaws. Frequently Sues will have flaws that make them appear "cool," such as a bad temper or a tendency to mouth off, but they'll never get unjustifiably angry or insult the wrong person.
- Don't be afraid to let bad things happen to your characters or have them make mistakes. Coddling can easily turn a well-written character into a Sue.
- Try not to take any criticism of your character personally. This can be especially hard if your character tends towards self-insertion, as it can sometimes feel like a personal slam. But getting indignant on your character's behalf will only hurt your ability to develop them.
- Let your characters be hurt by their flaws. Frequently Sues will have flaws that make them appear "cool," such as a bad temper or a tendency to mouth off, but they'll never get unjustifiably angry or insult the wrong person.
-
I agree on the flaws part. by
on 2015-06-26 17:56:00 UTC
Link to this
Let me just use Valon as an example. He's acrophobic, impulsive, has Chronic Hero Syndrome, and has a mild case of Black and White Insanity.
I'm always looking for excuses to torment Valon with these. His acrophobia shows up in Of Stus Gone By, and he's completely incapacitated until he's both on solid ground and has taken Bleeprin.
With his impulsivity, look no further than Of Slashy Stus. He fails to think through the fact that a dragon might, just might, be immune to fire.
As for his CHS, well, my Plans originally involved it getting him killed. Now it's set to get him into trouble with the Flowers after certain spoiler events, in conjunction with his B&WI.
-
Have you guys heard?! by
on 2015-06-26 15:44:00 UTC
Link to this
The Supreme Court ruled, 5-4, to legalize gay marriage nationwide! About tine! *throws cakefetti*
-
Fantastic news. by
on 2015-06-28 09:34:00 UTC
Link to this
Now, we can start to move on from this topic. I mean, we have a few years, but son we can start to move on to actually important things, like how we are going to encourage manufacturing here in America, or how we are going to handle the intelligence gathering we have been doing, rather than if two consenting adults want to live together and be recognised for it!
I know it seems like I am dismissing how important this is for many people. I am not. I am thrilled for my homosexual brothers and sisters. I just thought the answer was so obvious, we would have been able to move on by now.
Now, as for the discussion we are having below... I'll get to that later on. - The song this all makes me think of by on 2015-06-28 07:03:00 UTC Link to this
- And the conversation it sparked? by on 2015-06-28 09:28:00 UTC Link to this
-
Now that I have finally read the decision... by
on 2015-06-28 01:21:00 UTC
Link to this
I'll chip in my two cents on the issue. I think it was the right result and I also think that the legal reasoning is adequate. I am a little disappointed that Chief Justice Roberts did not join the majority. As a 5-4 decision, they are always subject to attack, a 6-3 would have been more authoritative. I am also disappointed that it took this long. A few years ago the Court faced the same issue in Windsor, but they kept their holding narrow. The fact is that all of the law that Justice Kennedy cited existed at the time of Windsor and had not changed.
I will say though, that from a jurisprudential standpoint, the dissent was not wrong at least with regard to that this decision was taken out of the hands of the public. Scalia was not wrong when he said that this decision had the Court acting as a Super-Legislature. Though I do not think the situation is as dire as the dissent makes out. The Court has acted in that way since its inception, so I think it is over stating the risk.
Then last comment on this, I am disappointed in Chief Justice Roberts' dissent. The first problem was he cited to the Dred Scott case. Which was superseded by Constitutional Amendment, namely the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments. You do yourself no favors when you cite to the case that found slavery constitutional. And then he brought up the slippery-slope argument. These are just bad legal arguments to make. Because it means that neither the facts, nor the law is on your side. -
Sorry to be harsh, but can we stop arguing? by
on 2015-06-28 00:52:00 UTC
Link to this
This is breaking the rules left and right. We're not allowed to argue about religion, according to the PPC Board Rules. So, I suggest we stop and leave our views with ourselves.
-
I've been pleasantly surprised. by
on 2015-06-28 01:36:00 UTC
Link to this
When I first came around here, ten years ago, we had debates like this with some frequency - they got heated from time to time, but things were pretty respectful on all sides. Then, maybe five years or so back, we had a lot of arguments where people got really ticked really quickly and things got out of hand - those put a dent on everyone's desire to talk.
But this has been well within rules and respect, and I'm really psyched to see everyone being so ...good to each other, for lack of a better phrase. -
Um, no it's not against the rules. by
on 2015-06-28 01:04:00 UTC
Link to this
Section 1, Article 4: "We encourage respectful, friendly debates here. Someone disagreeing your opinion is generally not an attack on you, and should not be taken personally. Should a debate escalate into personal attacks, flaming, or any form of disrespectful conduct for any reason, everyone involved should step back and clam down before continuing. If this cannot be done, it may be best to abandon the conversation entirely."
Since this debate has not escalated into any of these things, we're allowed to continue debating. -
UmmÂ… How to say this? by
on 2015-06-27 14:59:00 UTC
Link to this
Unlike everyone else, I'm not thrilled. To be honest, I'm horrified that this happened. But I'll leave it at that.
-
*noms on popcorn* (nm) by
on 2015-06-27 23:08:00 UTC
Link to this
-
C'est un peu impoli, cette remarque... by
on 2015-06-27 23:22:00 UTC
Link to this
...mais passez-moi ce maïs soufflé, s'il-vous-plaît.
-
Pas de problème, de toute façon, il m'en reste encore plein. (nm by
on 2015-06-27 23:33:00 UTC
Link to this
-
חבר'ה... by
on 2015-06-28 02:16:00 UTC
Link to this
זה באמת לא מנומס במיוחד.
-
Ouais, c'est vrai. 'Scusez moi. by
on 2015-06-28 02:28:00 UTC
Link to this
J'vais me la fermer maintenant.
-
Yall stop speakin in fancy and let me have some popcorn! (nm) by
on 2015-06-28 09:36:00 UTC
Link to this
-
Demandez-nous poliment et vous en aurez. (nm) by
on 2015-06-28 14:13:00 UTC
Link to this
-
Okay, we can stop the GTranslate farce now. (nm) by
on 2015-06-28 02:52:00 UTC
Link to this
-
What GTranslate farce? I understand all of this perfectly-- by
on 2015-06-28 04:51:00 UTC
Link to this
/is yanked offstage by the Shepherd's Crook of Too Many Languages, which was probably stolen from Iximaz/
-
Ha. by
on 2015-06-28 05:45:00 UTC
Link to this
Esh, you're the exception rather than the rule. I don't know French and — as far as I'm aware — neither SeaTurtle nor domirossi know Hebrew.
-
Ah, but do any of you know Yiddish? by
on 2015-06-28 15:33:00 UTC
Link to this
No, don't answer that, I know for a fact that two of you don't. ...actually, wait, now I'm curious. domirossi, do you by some chance know any Yiddish? Because that would be pretty interesting.
Actually, I should probably make a post about 'how many and which languages do you speak (and what's the story behind that)'; it'd be pretty interesting. Or have we had that already? Even if we have, though, there've been a lot of newbies lately...
But yes, I know I'm the exception. That would be why I got yanked offstage, no? :)
~DF -
What's your angle, cob? by
on 2015-06-27 22:23:00 UTC
Link to this
I'm genuinely curious.
If your objections are politically motivated, and your concern is that federal government doing what federal government is supposed to do, then I can't help you. Small-government, corporatist conservatism is anathema to my own beliefs, and anything I say on the subject is biased in favour of those beliefs. I will say, however, that the economics of scarcity that fuel right-wing capitalist ideology are by their very nature finite; these economic structures, and by extension the corporations whose existence they prop up, will eventually go away - and with them will go a lot of the impetus behind social conservatism, because there simply will not be the same level of vested interest in maintaining an unequal status quo.
If it's religious, I'm rather more sanguine about things. The old order of churches is, as far as I'm concerned, just getting in the way at this point. While I of course respect the rights of the religious to practice their faith however they choose, I do draw the line at them getting to dictate secular government policy. Not everyone shares your Christian faith. Hell, not all Christians share your Christian faith. I daresay if you met a Leveller or Cathar you'd find their beliefs and politics entirely antithetical to your own, and don't get me started on the spat between mono- and diphysitism. Equality means people being equal, and that means the queer community getting the same rights and privileges as the religious one. That means marriage. That means legislation against discrimination. That means, in short, treating all the citizens of the world as equal.
Let me make something absolutely clear: LGBT* marriage equality is a start. Social progressivism doesn't win until we stop talking about white men who shoot up black churches as "troubled loners" who had "lots of black friends" in high school, until the suicide rates among teens is equal regardless of trans status, until there are no more martyrs. That's what this is a part of. No more people dying for things they cannot avoid.
Except gingers. Man, screw gingers. =] -
I will do my best to explain. by
on 2015-06-27 22:41:00 UTC
Link to this
Yes, it is for religious reasons, and yes, I understand that there is divisions among Christians on this issue. But I view same-sex marriage as wrong, believing that marriage should be between man and woman only as Biblically ordained. I'm not saying I'm going to hate and despise homosexuals. I will still love them as Jesus commands, just not agree with them.
-
Well, basically... by
on 2015-06-28 02:50:00 UTC
Link to this
To put this succinctly without saying what I think is wrong with religion (because a) that's a can of worms I don't want to open, b) it'll take a lot of time and c) nothing good will come out of it), you've a right to believe whatever you want. You don't have a right to force that belief on others any more than others have a right to force their beliefs on you. Therefore, you can think it's wrong if that's what you believe, you can hate gays if that's what gives you your kicks, but you cannot prevent them from marrying. Think about it this way: what would you do if the boot was on the other foot, so to speak, and it was religious marriage that the SCOTUS ruled to legalise after years of discrimination, and someone would have said they're horrified?
-
I'm not trying to force it on anyone. by
on 2015-06-30 03:11:00 UTC
Link to this
I promise. I'm just stating my view and defending it. You have nothing to worry about.
-
Yes, but... by
on 2015-06-30 04:52:00 UTC
Link to this
Would you also defend an inverted position (like I've described in my previous post)?
-If you don't, you imply that discriminating against gays is OK, but discriminating against religious people isn't, and that's a) selfish, b) hypocritical and c) silly, because it basically says "discrimination is OK as long as it is not against me or my group".
-If you do, there's little reason for you to be horrified specifically by gay marriage; rather, it means you're horrified by discriminated groups being a bit less discriminated against, and that's... I don't even know what to call that. -
It's not worth bothering with, Des. by
on 2015-06-30 11:17:00 UTC
Link to this
You said it yourself - arguing about social progressivism with the religious right is like arguing about quantum physics with a yak. The other party doesn't understand it and will simply wander off to do exactly what it did before.
-
I think you miss the point, Scape. by
on 2015-06-30 17:48:00 UTC
Link to this
I'm not trying to argue progressivism, social or otherwise, with anybody. That's your cup of tea, not mine. What I'm trying to do is to fathom some of Silenthunder's thought processes via the prism of hard questions.
-
Okay, rant time. by
on 2015-06-28 00:28:00 UTC
Link to this
This is probably uncharacteristically hostile for me, but this is a subject that really gets me going.
So. Let me guess: Your logic is that one line from Leviticus, right? About how it's an abomination for a man to lie with another man?
Let me just say this right now.
The book of Leviticus is almost completely outdated in today's society.
See, there were a lot of laws laid down for the Jewish people back then that would frankly be horrible today.
You're a girl, right? According to Leviticus, you're nothing but a slave for making babies, to be broken and thrown away at leisure. You have a house? Get rid of it; women aren't supposed to own land. Helping your husband fight off a home invader? Better learn to cook one-handed; you're getting a hand cut off. Have sex before marriage, even if you were freaking raped!? It's your fault and you're being put to death.
Isn't that horrifying? That's all from the Book of Leviticus. God was telling people to do this.
He obviously mellowed out by the New Testament; Jesus taught us to love everyone, women got their own rights, and everyone agreed that the victim shouldn't be punished for rape.
And yet people still think that homosexuality is an abomination.
You can't pick and choose here. Either you follow all of Leviticus' strictures, or you follow none of them.
There's a reason I left the church.
I'm sorry if this seems unnecessarily angry and hostile, but this is a subject that just really gets me going. -
You're fine. by
on 2015-06-28 00:54:00 UTC
Link to this
A lot of things get me going, and I rant with a vengeance.
However, the Bible also talks about homosexuality in the New Testament. Romans One and Corinthians Six. I would recommend using a newer translation for the latter, though, because the word in the KJV is "effeminate." Newer translations have a different wording to avoid confusion.
Also, the line about rape is not valid, as far as I know. One of King David's sons raped his half-sister, which started a war, but as far as I know the only thing that happened to the poor girl was that she wore different clothes. The war was actually one of David's consequences for his polygamy, if I'm remembering correctly. -
Um, yeah, but Absolom was still seen as being wrong. by
on 2015-06-28 01:39:00 UTC
Link to this
Ie., the son of David who thought the rape of his sister was wrong was punished, not the one who committed it.
-
The brother who committed the crime by
on 2015-06-28 01:45:00 UTC
Link to this
was killed too. Absalom was punished because he tried to usurp the throne of God's chosen king. That isn't to say that his complaints weren't valid-- another of David's sins was that he didn't control or discipline his children as he should have. If David had followed God's commandments in the first place, the entire tragedy wouldn't have occurred.
-
Well, Paul DID talk about that stuff in the NT. Maybe. by
on 2015-06-28 00:50:00 UTC
Link to this
Most current translations have him repeatedly talk about homosexuality as a sin, but some argue that it might have been about paedophilia or more generic sexual perversion.
I'm personally not convinced, and think he was indeed talking about homosexuality in at least some parts of his writing. But then again, I also think he was a con artist who ruined Christianity. I mean, everyone has their own opinions.
Meanwhile, some argue that, according to the Gospels, Jesus approved a homosexual relationship. -
My Greek is essentially non-existent... by
on 2015-06-28 01:59:00 UTC
Link to this
... so I'm relying on others scholarship here rather than my own, but if I recall correctly, the particular words that Paul uses in his various lists of sins are used nowhere else in the Bible and are not the 'usual' words used at the time to describe men having sex with men. (I deliberately don't use the term 'homosexuality' because it's really a modern-ish concept of orientation as opposed to behaviour).
One possible interpretation of them is as a catch-all reference to all same-sex behavior, however it's also possible that the reference is to more specific situations. Because of the unusual choice of language and lack of context elsewhere, it's hard to say what he intended. -
That was fir the Jews. Not for Christians. (nm) by
on 2015-06-28 00:41:00 UTC
Link to this
-
Because they're so utterly dissimilar. by
on 2015-06-28 09:38:00 UTC
Link to this
I mean, people must only use "Judaeo-Christian" to refer to the two belief systems to annoy you, right? They're like chalk and cheese, if cheese was made of a slightly different colour of chalk.
-
They are dissimilar. by
on 2015-06-28 18:16:00 UTC
Link to this
"Judeo-Christian" is a term used mainly by Christians. It's a common idea in modern (and American) Christian society that Jews are basically... uh... Christians without the whole "Jesus" bit. That Jews are just sitting around waiting for a Messiah, because they don't realize he already came. That's actually not even remotely how it is, though, and it's a pretty insulting view of the Judaic religion and culture.
The Christian idea of what Judaism is is radically different from what Judaism actually is - as Desdendelle (or Maslab, if he was still around), I'm sure, could tell you far better than I could. I highly recommend you do some research of your own by talking to actual rabbis, rather than taking Christians' word for what another religion is all about. -
Well... by
on 2015-06-28 09:55:00 UTC
Link to this
A lot of people from both religions would have you believe that they have nothing to do with each other.
-
Regardless by
on 2015-06-28 00:46:00 UTC
Link to this
Christians today still use Leviticus to decry homosexuality, while ignoring the other laws written there.
What is your religious basis for homophobia?
And remember: Jesus wanted us to love everyone, no matter who they were.
I don't mean any offense to you personally, but people using religion as an excuse to be outright hateful... that's one of my real-life berserk buttons.
*deep breaths*
I... I think I need to calm down a bit... -
I. Am. Not. Saying. I. Hate. Them. (nm) by
on 2015-06-28 15:45:00 UTC
Link to this
-
Another thing. by
on 2015-06-28 18:54:00 UTC
Link to this
So. You obviously don't subscribe to it yourself, but a lot of Christians think that gay people should be exterminated.
While that's horrible on a general level, I can understand it a bit more deeply, because people like me were sometimes treated similarly not two hundred years ago.
I'm autistic. I have multiple mental disorders that all interfere with my social development (Asperger's, ADHD, depression, maybe more). In today's society, people help folks like me, because God knows we need it.
19th century and before? We were murdered, or locked up for life, because people thought that we were possessed by demons.
Hardline, fanatical "Christians" (and I use that term very loosely) will always find fault with anything that's not their definition of "normal." A few hundred years ago, if you weren't a wealthy, heterosexual, neurotypical, white man, then you were second-class at best, property if you were lucky, or demonspawn at worst.
Now, historical developments have led to people accepting more. The poor and homeless receive aid, autistic people get the help they so desperately need, and women and people of other races have rights.
Take a gay person, and take me, and transport both of us to the 19th century. We would both be despised and shunned, if not murdered, for not being normal. The people of that age would see no difference between a man who loves other men and a person who thinks in ways that ordinary people don't understand.
What is so wrong with homosexuality that isn't wrong with me? By the way, I have several arguments ready. You've already heard my argument against religious reasons. -
*waves hands* by
on 2015-06-30 23:46:00 UTC
Link to this
As someone who's both, I can say that nope, they're both just my neurology! My brain doesn't understand what people see in guys at all (no, not yuck, just... meh) any more than it can decide not to have sensory problems.
So, hi, fellow autist! :D -
Hey, I have Aspergers Syndrome. by
on 2015-06-30 03:21:00 UTC
Link to this
So I understand completely. I went through the Holocaust Museum in Washington, DC. I would have died in WW2 as well, since I was born early = disabled. Also, look to my argument where God teaches people in stages. It takes a long time for people to change traditions, and God is patient enough, knowing we're His stubborn kids. Just because I'm a Christian does not mean I'm using the "holier-than-thou" standing. We sin even after becoming Christians, and it's better to acknowledge that and learn from the past.
-
Whoa. by
on 2015-06-28 19:40:00 UTC
Link to this
Pretty sure a small minority of Christians - and I mean very small - think LGBTQ people should be exterminated.
Most subscribe to conversion therapy instead. Which, y'know, degrees of terrible, but that IS a distinction that must be made. -
I would even disagree with that by
on 2015-06-28 20:29:00 UTC
Link to this
Most Christians I know take a live and let live approach.
-
True - I was unclear. by
on 2015-06-28 21:13:00 UTC
Link to this
I should say, "most Christians who believe non-heterosexual sex is a sin" go for conversion therapy, not extermination. But not even they are in the majority.
Also, "Christian" and "queer person" are hardly mutually exclusive terms. -
Exactly. (nm) by
on 2015-06-28 21:17:00 UTC
Link to this
-
I know about that. by
on 2015-06-28 19:52:00 UTC
Link to this
I also know that it involves rape as an attempt to "cure" them, which is just as bad.
Christian-established institutions that use one of the most horrifying things one human can do to another, and they think it's the right thing to do.
THAT is why I hate people who treat homosexuals as aberrations. They often become monsters themselves. -
Also your statement is insanely overbroad by
on 2015-06-28 20:33:00 UTC
Link to this
Yes, a rigorous academic regime, an accepting community, a desire to help others, and raising millions of dollars to help find a cure for diseases like Cystic Fibrosis is horrifying.
-
You can also disregard my previous comment by
on 2015-06-28 21:09:00 UTC
Link to this
I misread your statement. I thought you were referring to Christian Institutions as a whole. Not the specific ones.
-
I've still confused this...Let me restart by
on 2015-06-28 21:19:00 UTC
Link to this
I thought you were saying that Christian institutions were one of the most horrifying things. When I first read your comment I did not see the "that use" section of it.
-
Dude. Hold up, okay? by
on 2015-06-28 20:28:00 UTC
Link to this
In some places, it does. Look, I'm an androgynous genderfluid bisexual, and a historian: I am well aware of the atrocities regularly visited on LGBTQ people. I know that evangelical ministries go to other countries and offer financial support for necessary services in exchange for laws criminalizing queer people and "behavior". I know about "corrective rape."
But that is a tiny minority of Christians. Please bear that in mind - I highly doubt that anyone on this 'Board is advocating for these kinds of things. We've only ever had... one or two people who even fell into that camp remotely, and they're long gone. Relax, please.
(Also, my god, chill with the using "homosexuals" as a noun, dude. It's a very straight thing to do, refer to a large and diverse group by a scientific name for one subset of the population. :P LGBTQ is usually pretty acceptable, or QUILTBAG, or MOSAIC, etc.) -
Alright, I'm sorry... by
on 2015-06-28 20:32:00 UTC
Link to this
I just... like I've said, prejudice REALLY makes me angry. Just the knowledge that there are people that downright monstrous just completely ticks me off.
I really do need to learn when to shut off the valve when it comes to my emotions... -
You still didn't answer my question. by
on 2015-06-28 16:02:00 UTC
Link to this
Why do you specifically disapprove?
-
Fair Enough by
on 2015-06-27 23:06:00 UTC
Link to this
If you do not mind, I would like to pose a question to you. It is similar to one that was posed to me a few years back, at a time when I thought similarly.
So you obviously see marriage as fundamentally religious then. But why? Look at it from a historical perspective marriage was primarily (and in some places still is) arranged and made for political or personal gain. Daughters were little more than tools. So is it really religious in nature?
Now to take is a step further, marriage itself, is essentially a government benefit. It is economic in nature. It provides tax breaks, certain support rights, and other gains provided by the government or by operation of law. So again I ask is it really religious? Or is it an institution created by governments?
You do not have to answer if you do not want to, and I certainly am not trying to change your mind. It is just something to think about. -
I'll take a stab at that. by
on 2015-06-30 04:09:00 UTC
Link to this
Granted, the motivations for marriage may have differed over the centuries (e.g., for love, for political gain, etc), however, the nature of marriage has not: one man joining one woman and creating a new family unit that is distinct (albeit not totally separate) from the ones that the spouses came from.
That said, the question of whether marriage is religious or secular takes on a whole new meaning.
We social conservatives (among whom are conservative Christians) view marriage thus: it is an institution that predates even the concept of the State. The state did not create the institution of marriage, its functions vis-à-vis marriage are in recognition of the institution: it recognizes marriages and helps enforce its concomitant rights and responsibilities. (This explains, for example, why the State historically required grounds for divorce.) As marriage predates the State, and was not created by it, the State has no power to redefine what a marriage is.
However, since social liberals (among whom are not a few atheists) see the State as the be-all and end-all, it only makes sense that they believe that marriage is a creation of the state. From that foundation, of course the State can redefine marriage if "progress" so requires! -
Er... no. No, that's completely incorrect. by
on 2015-06-30 22:13:00 UTC
Link to this
In many pre-Roman cultures in the Western world, (including several mythic figures mentioned in the Old Testament), one man married to multiple wives was pretty much the standard.
The American Indian* concept of marriage varies from culture group to culture group, but I can't recall a single group that saw marriage the way you're defining it here. Many groups (especially those with a strong agricultural tradition) had the concept of matrilineal descent - in marriages that were heterosexual, the children did not go to the father's clan, but to the mother's - they were raised mainly by their mother's family, brothers, sisters, and grandparents. Gender was not seen as a binary, mutually exclusive concept; there are several cases of women who were warriors and hunters taking wives.
What's really frustrating about the idea that marriage hasn't changed in centuries is that historically, it hasn't even stayed the same in America. The 17th and 18th century were notorious for marriage being a fairly fluid concept (as in, lots of divorce and moving in/out, lots of different marriages was kind of the norm), and in some of the communes that came out of the First and Second Great Awakenings, marriage was a community sort of affair - or abolished outright. Marriage has changed over and over and over again in the course of human history - even a cursory look at history will demonstrate that.
You are correct that marriage predates the American state. We see it as a religious institution that is recognized by the state. Therefore, the state absolutely gets to decide what kind of marriage to recognize. Just like churches get to decide what kind of marriages to recognize. -
Fair enough, but to which I pose a counter question by
on 2015-06-30 04:23:00 UTC
Link to this
Was there such thing as marriage before the Christian Church? I would say that it clearly was. Lets look at Rome or Japan or any other civilization before Christianity. There was still marriage, again predominately for political, economic, and other very secular means.
Or put another way, is a non-Christian Marriage a marriage? And if it is, why should the religious (mind you a Christian Definition) apply? What makes it any more valid than say the Hopi Definition or any other Native Group? Or over say the Hindi Definition or some other definition from any other Non-Christian Group? -
Counterquestion answered. by
on 2015-06-30 04:41:00 UTC
Link to this
Was there such thing as marriage before the Christian Church? I would say that it clearly was. Lets look at Rome or Japan or any other civilization before Christianity. There was still marriage, again predominately for political, economic, and other very secular means.
Maybe you misunderstood what I said. Nowhere in my post did I say that the Christian God created marriage (though that is what I, as a Christian, believe): I said that marriage predates the state. And though the concept is easier to believe if you are religious, one does not specifically have to be a Christian to believe it.
In fact, your very own words help to lend credence to me: one could go to Japan or Rome, and even though the words or the motivations may be different, the concepts of "husband" and "wife" were universal. How could it be that this institution could be so universally understood unless its roots went deeper than even the divisions between ethnic groups? So it does not matter whether you believe that the first married couple was Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden or some couple of cavepeople that hit the hay one day and decided to live together thenceforth (à la modern-day "common-law marriage").
Unless I am missing some context, I believe that I just answered your first paragraph and voided the second. -
Except that's not true by
on 2015-06-30 06:34:00 UTC
Link to this
Let me get specifically at this universal definition. There has been in several indigenous cultures this concept of a "Twin Soul", I think it was it loosely translates to, where it was a recognized same-sex union. Not to mention in Greece, how it was specifically encouraged (particularly among the Spartans). There really has not been one universal definition. Marriage was not marriage until the State gave some credence for it. It was the legal definitions that conveyed certain benefits, and made it marriage.
Prehistory it was no different than how other animals view relationships, or in other words it was not a relationship. It was a means to an end. It was the rise of civilization that created this thing marriage as an institution. It was the State deciding this union had some value, namely inheritance is easier, child legitimacy is easier to determine, better tax revenues, etc. The only reason it was really defined by the State originally as Man-Woman was because of very rigidly designed and defined gender roles. Remember for many of these cultures women were there to basically do housework and pump out babies. Further if you look to more women dominated cultures, for many of them there was no real marriage as it is understood by contemporaries. -
I can see the writing on the wall by
on 2015-07-03 02:35:00 UTC
Link to this
This thread will be dropping off of the front page soon, but you raise an interesting argument that I don't want to leave as the last word. If you don't mind giving me your e-mail address, I'll gladly continue this conversation by e-mail. Also, could you please point me to some of the cultures that you are talking about in your post?
As for my email address, it's sonofheaven176ATgmailDOTcom (of course, substituting the words with the appropriate punctuation marks). -
This is the last I am saying on this by
on 2015-07-03 09:03:00 UTC
Link to this
Because frankly, I am tired of discussing it. Maya, Aztec, Olmec, Inca, and Illiniwek, all have some variation of it. I am also certain the Iroquois and Cherokee nations had some similar belief, though I am not certain. Of course, orientation is more of a Western Construct anyways. But as I said, this is the last I am saying about this.
-
Yes. by
on 2015-07-03 15:51:00 UTC
Link to this
The Colville (and Okanogan, Yakama, Nez Perce, Klickitat), Sioux, Yurok, Hupa, Wampanoag, Mohawk, Anishinabe (aka Iroquois), Algonquin, Cherokee (including when they numbered in the millions and built cities across the East), Seminole, Chickasaw, Choctaw, Creek, Cree, Hopi, Pueblo, Dinè, Apache (my god did the Apache - their women warriors were famous, and often took wives), and probably more I'm forgetting.
It's also a concept - or was - in most of pre-colonial Africa, and Thailand, and pre-colonial Korea, and pre-Meiji Japan. Also in the very early medieval period there's some evidence same-sex marriages were sanctioned by the church for a brief period before the Council of Nicea (I've a friend trying to find sources for this as his senior thesis). -
Oh, well, that's perfectly fine, then. by
on 2015-06-27 22:50:00 UTC
Link to this
The fact that multiple Biblical figures had upwards of a dozen spouses and concubines is, of course, completely immaterial.
-
No, that was wrong. by
on 2015-06-28 00:14:00 UTC
Link to this
When something is wrong, it takes God a long time to teach people different. So He taught in stages. King Solomon having many wives was a bad idea. God told him so. That's in the Bible, the book of Second Samuel specifically. but I'd suggest asking a more experienced person.
Hey, should we stop now? No religious wars, remember. -
Here's a better explanation. by
on 2015-06-28 00:40:00 UTC
Link to this
It is important to distinguish between incestuous relationships prior to God commanding against them (Leviticus 18:6-18) and incest that occurred after God’s commands had been revealed. Until God commanded against it, it was not incest. It was just marrying a close relative. It is undeniable that God allowed incest in the early centuries of humanity. If Adam and Eve were indeed the only two human beings God created, their sons and daughters would have had no other choice but to marry and reproduce with their siblings and close relatives. The second generation would have had to marry their cousins, just as after the flood the grandchildren of Noah would have had to intermarry amongst their cousins. The reason incest is so strongly discouraged in the world today is the understanding that reproduction between closely related individuals has a much higher risk of causing genetic abnormalities. In the early days of humanity, though, this was not a risk due to the fact that the human genetic code was relatively free of defects.
Read more: http://www.gotquestions.org/incest-in-the-Bible.html#ixzz3eJDTziIu -
"Lack of defects" by
on 2015-06-28 02:19:00 UTC
Link to this
You, uh... you do know that blips in our DNA is what drives evolution forward, right? That's how we managed to go from the early humans (say, homo erectus) to modern-day humans (homo sapiens).
If the genetic code was "error free", then that would kill the evolutionary process. -
Well... yeah. by
on 2015-06-28 02:25:00 UTC
Link to this
If God created the world and the things on it (as I believe, and Silenthunder, as far as I know) then evolution is false.
-
I do, Alleb. Thanks. (nm) by
on 2015-06-28 15:46:00 UTC
Link to this
-
You do know that they are not inconsistent right? by
on 2015-06-28 02:32:00 UTC
Link to this
Take this for example. About half way down the page. Pope Francis says the creation and evolution are not mutually exclusive.
-
As did Pope Pius XII, Pope John Paul II, and Pope Benedict. by
on 2015-06-28 09:59:00 UTC
Link to this
XVI, to be specific. In 1950, 1996, and 2006, respectively.
The Catholic church believes in Evolution as much as the rest of us. Sure, they have God give the spark of life, which may be scientifically inaccurate, but science does not have an answer for the absolute origin of life yet, so we can let that slide. For some reason, it is protestant churches who force Creationism as a theory. That and orthodox Judaism, but we are currently being America-centric.
Now, who am I to say you cannot believe what you want to? It is your life, your choices. I will not begrudge you in the least for believing in something I do not. However, I would suggest for any creationists to actually read what Evolutionary Science has to say, not what fellow creationists have to say. To start, read this book.. It is a wonderful introduction to evolutionary science, that explains concepts in a clear, easy to access format.
Once you have done that, feel free to research more on your own. Or not! You do not have to believe in Evolution. That is your right. I just want you to be truly informed before making those decisions, rather then let others make those decisions for you. -
"You do not have to believe in Evolution." by
on 2015-06-28 17:24:00 UTC
Link to this
"Eppur si muove." ~ (probably not) Galileo Galilei
hS -
Thanks! by
on 2015-06-28 15:49:00 UTC
Link to this
I think I will. I want to study the topic as a whole.
I don't think I'll say much more about it on here; I'm not well-versed enough in the proper defenses to be... much of anything, really. However, I will say that I am not a Catholic. The Pope can claim whatever he likes, but I don't have to believe him.
And thanks, again. I'm planning on doing quite a bit of reading in the future. -
You can also go back even further to Thomas Aquinas by
on 2015-06-28 10:09:00 UTC
Link to this
And his causal theory. Which can actually go back even further to Aristotle's Unmoved Mover.
-
He can say that, by
on 2015-06-28 02:44:00 UTC
Link to this
but I don't think it's true. I mean, I could argue evolution until the cows come home, honestly. But Genesis tells what God did, and (with the exception of Revelations) it's fairly clear when the Bible is being literal and when it's using figurative language. The Genesis account is meant to be literal, to the extent of my knowledge, and the knowledge of many heads much wiser than mine.
-
Correct me if I'm wrong, but by
on 2015-06-28 03:28:00 UTC
Link to this
Doesn't Genesis contain two separate creation accounts? Both are at least partially inconsistent? Also keep in mind, from a religious standpoint, Pope Francis is the head of Roman Catholic Church.
But then going on to the actual science part of it, as SeaTurtle below points out, there is a huge amount of scientific evidence that supports evolution. -
But that is ignoring the evidence from an army of biologists by
on 2015-06-28 03:07:00 UTC
Link to this
There is overwhelming proof of the mechanism behind evolution and it's prominently featured in natural history museums all over the world. Scientists have rigouroulsly fact-checked each other's work and made sure that they're publishing the most accurate information possible. Why is only one 2000+ year old book all the evidence you need to discredit volumes upon volumes of data collected using the cutting edge of technology?
Speaking of which, who peer reviewed the Bible? -
Might I suggest... by
on 2015-06-28 03:28:00 UTC
Link to this
Stopping now? I've been in a lot of similar debates, and they never get anywhere. The religious person basically says, "God wrote the Bible and He cannot err, therefore what the Bible says is fact", and arguing with such an argument is pointless; it's a disagreement about postulates, not anything you can apply logic and/or reason to.
-
Yeah, I like that suggestion. by
on 2015-06-28 03:35:00 UTC
Link to this
Like I said, till the cows come home. I think logic can be applied, but at the end of the day, you can't scientifically prove either position. Scientists can't recreate evolution any more than they can recreate creation.
- "Scientists can't recreate evolution"? by on 2015-06-28 09:49:00 UTC Link to this
-
I learned a thing! by
on 2015-06-28 18:47:00 UTC
Link to this
Oh man, that is fascinating! I see that article is from 2008. I'mma go find more information about what's happened since. Starting on Wikipedia, apparently.
~Neshomeh -
Some recommended further reading. by
on 2015-06-28 19:03:00 UTC
Link to this
Richard Lenski is an incredibly intelligent man.
Andrew Schlafly, founder of Conservapedia.net (with the tagline "The Trusworthy Encyclopedia" [sic]) and general God-botherer, is not.
Let's watch what happens when the latter accuses the former of fraud.
It. Is. GLORIOUS. -
You were right, that was a fun read. by
on 2015-06-29 01:58:00 UTC
Link to this
*wipes away tears* When will people learn the fastest way to get attention to something is to raise a big stink over it?
-
Iunno. Ask Barbara Streisand. =] (nm) by
on 2015-06-29 09:32:00 UTC
Link to this
-
I'll let ST do the scientific explanation... by
on 2015-06-28 03:51:00 UTC
Link to this
Since he can do that better than me. What I will do is say a couple things about the Bible itself:
The Bible is in no way coherent. There are two Creation stories, two accounts of the Ten Commandments, and that's just for starters. That's about as coherent as saying "I love you" while stabbing someone's face.
It also doesn't meet criteria for reliable historical documents like cross-referencing — bits and pieces of it do, but other parts, not so much.
Also, as an aside, whatever English translation you're bound to be using is going to be choke-full of mistranslations and other goofs. Let's take your own ASV and look at Isaiah 7:14. It reads, "Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel."
That's blarney. The Hebrew text says,לָכֵן יִתֵּן אֲדֹנָי הוּא, לָכֶם--אוֹת: הִנֵּה הָעַלְמָה, הָרָה וְיֹלֶדֶת בֵּן, וְקָרָאת שְׁמוֹ, עִמָּנוּ אֵל.
One important difference: הָעַלְמָה means 'young woman', not virgin.
Therefore, saying that the Bible — especially the Bible you're going by — is a "completely sound" book is false.
Now I'll shut up and go hit my head on the wall because debating religion with religious people is a stupid idea. -
Oh dear, no, Des, don't hurt yourself! by
on 2015-06-28 03:57:00 UTC
Link to this
I mean, it is true. I'm not gonna give in.
And, um, I've read the Bible, and I haven't noticed two of anything. With the rest, it has been proven to be sound. Translation, yeah, it can get a little rough, but we can thank dynamic equivalence for that. Sorta. Like I said, I'm no Bible scholar. -
You haven't noticed two of anything? by
on 2015-06-28 04:09:00 UTC
Link to this
Seriously? You haven't read the Bible as closely as you think.
The first Creation story can be found in Genesis 1-2:1-3. The second comes immediately afterwards, from Genesis 2:4 till, roughly, Genesis 2:23.
The first account of the Ten Commandments can be found in Exodus 20:8-14. The second account can be found in Deuteronomy 5:6-18.
Those accounts aren't even identical!
As to translation issues, if the Bible was just another book, they wouldn't have been such a big deal, but since it's purportedly the Word of God, you cannot dismiss them as "dynamic equivalence", especially when plainly wrong translations are involved.
Last but not least: saying that "it's true and I know so" means that arguing with you is a waste of time; it means you won't change your opinion, no matter what; you're blind to whatever's out there.
Oh, also: I don't actually hurt myself, no more than a person who goes to punch his pillow does. -
Yes, I know, Des. by
on 2015-06-28 04:26:00 UTC
Link to this
I was trying to make a joke.
Yeah, just looked at a Bible, you were right. Two accounts, you were right. It's been a while since I read Genesis. In addition, why do we have four Gospels? Each shows a different perspective.
Again, you're right. That was a very not-good idea of mine to say that. There are different translations, and they differ. However, most Bibles are fairly accurate, and more than accurate enough to bring a person to Christ.
And yes, that's why I'm saying I don't want to do it. I'm not going to change my view, you're probably not going to change yours, so we'd just be hurling our ideas back and forth. -
Well... by
on 2015-06-28 04:39:00 UTC
Link to this
You're right about one thing and wrong about the other.
I might change my views — they're far from rigid; through my life I was a deist, a militant Dawkinsist atheist and, finally a weak agnostic atheist (which means, roughly, that I don't know whether god(s) exist, tend to default to the 'doesn't exist' position and think it's possible to know the answer to that question) — when presented with sufficient philosophical evidence, which, so far, I have not seen.
You, by your own admission, won't change your views no matter what. Therefore, arguing religion with you is pointless and a waste of time. -
Yeah, basically. by
on 2015-06-28 04:54:00 UTC
Link to this
That's why I said so. That's why I didn't want to do this in the first place. I shouldn't have kept commenting-- I should have stopped. I don't have enough restraint.
-
Me neither, apparently. by
on 2015-06-28 05:04:00 UTC
Link to this
The 'arguing religion with religious people is a waste of time' conclusion is nothing new to me but I still continue to do so. Oh, well. Everybody has their faults, I'd guess.
PS: — gives you a —. -
Ooh, that's handy. by
on 2015-06-28 05:05:00 UTC
Link to this
Thankee. Hey, we're still friends though, right?
-
Well... by
on 2015-06-28 05:22:00 UTC
Link to this
I must admit that I am more than slightly pissed off right now — religion is one of my Buttons — but that'll pass in due time and I'm not the sort of person to keep grudges, so yeah, I guess so.
-
I really am sorry. by
on 2015-06-28 15:54:00 UTC
Link to this
I get flustered when things like this come up, because as I showed I don't know my defenses well enough, and I'm not terribly good at debating to begin with. Then I become defensive in a bad way, and that's a recipe for Not Good. I'm sorry I made you mad, I really am.
-
I can explain the Gospels. by
on 2015-06-28 04:35:00 UTC
Link to this
They're different accounts that show different aspects of what made Jesus both God and man.
Matthew: Represented by a lion, Matthew's story portrays Jesus as King. If memory serves, he's a lot more authoritative in this one.
Mark: Represented by a bull, this is supposed to be Jesus as Servant. This one tells more of the things that he did for other people.
Luke: Represented by a worshipper, Luke's account is Jesus as Man. Luke was a doctor, and he naturally wanted a full account of Jesus' human life.
John: Represented by an eagle, John's tale is Jesus as God. This is the most spiritual of the four Gospels, telling of how Jesus existed even before he was born into our world, as a part of God.
How do I know all this? I used to be a Christian, though I've drifted toward deism. -
Yep! by
on 2015-06-28 04:48:00 UTC
Link to this
I thought that was really neat when I was first told about it. They also all had different goals.
Matthew wrote to the Jews.
Mark wrote to the Romans.
Luke wrote to the Greeks.
John wrote to everyone. -
Missing links. by
on 2015-06-28 03:23:00 UTC
Link to this
If evolution were true, there would be overwhelming proof in the fossil record. Even Darwin was getting discouraged by the lack of evidence.
Hundreds of Bible scholars and secular historians. It meets the criteria for a reliable historical document, is completely sound, and when the current text was checked with our oldest surviving manuscripts they were practically identical. Not to mention the sheer wonder of a book, written by forty different people across hundreds of years, being so coherent. -
But there is... by
on 2015-06-28 03:45:00 UTC
Link to this
There is a unique trait in dental orientation, exclusive to mammals (if I am not mistaken, thought it might be primates), that can first be found in the Therapsid Reptiles. Anthropologists have been able to trace this dental orientation. After that, someone with far more knowledge in the field can fill in.
I am a bit clearer when tracing back. The proper classification of humans is (at this point I believe) is Homo sapiens sapiens. Now I am sure you are familiar with Neanderthals. These hominid species is properly classified as Homo sapiens neaderthalensis They were a very closely related species, in fact humans were capable of interbreeding with them. That means they shared genetic traits, otherwise interbreeding would not have worked. This means there needed to be a common ancestor. This was Homo heidelbergensis. Its fossils were first discovered in 1907 (after Darwin had died). The fossil record also supports that H. heidelbergensis came from H. ergaster and H. erectus. Both were discovered after Darwin's death. Those were predated by H. habilis (also post Darwin) then there is also the Australipithicines. The later part of human evolution is well documented. -
But what about everything else? by
on 2015-06-28 03:52:00 UTC
Link to this
The fact that you can't just show me a crazy amount of evidence is telling. Really, though, Des is right. I extended an invitation of off-Board discussion to SeaTurtle on the subject of the Bible, but I don't think a debate on evolution alone will do much.
I will say, however, that evolution was disproved in a court of law by William Jennings Bryan. I'm sure there's transcripts of it floating around somewhere on the web; you might find them interesting. I haven't looked at them personally. -
'A crazy amount of evidence'. by
on 2015-06-28 09:31:00 UTC
Link to this
Dolphins
Horse
Birds (check out that tail!)
Elephants
Cats
Armoured dinosaurs
Every single animal I typed 'xxxx evolution' in for gave me, somewhere on the front page of Google Images, a diagram of that kind.
Please note that none of these are claimed to be direct chains - Mesohippus is not (as far as I know) proposed to be the direct ancestor of the modern horse. What it is is another branch, from an earlier time, which preserves features of the common ancestor.
As for "missing links" - once you've found it, it's not missing, is it? So Mesohippus is a formerly-missing link between Hyracotherium and Eqqus - until it was found.
The fact that I can show you a crazy amount of evidence, really easily - is that also telling?
hS -
How about one of the big ones? Fish to amphibian. by
on 2015-06-28 10:45:00 UTC
Link to this
Ladies and gentlemen, I give you: Tikaalik.
You may not know it, but you are looking at one of paleontology's greatest achievements. Over years of digging up bones and fossils, we have become very good at discerning what evolutionary stage is supposed to be at each rock layer. So good in fact, a team of researchers said that in a very specific rock layer, we would find the first "walking fish." One trip to Canada later, and what did they find in that exact rock layer but this beauty. Do you want to know what it would have looked like alive? Here you are!
See those fins? He used them to push himself unto land and walk around. Kinda like mudskippers, but for longer periods of time. Don't know what a mudskipper is? Here you are again!
And this one is still alive! Here, I'll prove it! Have a video!
See, there are plenty of "missing links" if you go looking for them. Nature is fascinating, is it not? -
Mudskippers are ADORABLE! =oD (nm) by
on 2015-06-28 11:38:00 UTC
Link to this
-
Arent they just? by
on 2015-06-28 11:47:00 UTC
Link to this
Want to see a funny video involving Muskippers? Yes, yes you do. Here you are:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ljv1fO4qrIw -
See, when I saw that, I didn't imagine screaming. by
on 2015-06-28 11:52:00 UTC
Link to this
I imagined opera.
I am now imagining the two mudskippers performing the Pearl Fishers' duet.
It is pleasant. -
I would pay good money to see that! (nm) by
on 2015-06-29 11:44:00 UTC
Link to this
-
*dies laughing* by
on 2015-06-28 03:57:00 UTC
Link to this
Saying that evolution was disproved in a court of law, specifically an American one, is a) Americanocentric and b) completely irrelevant, because whether evolution is right or not is not a legal question. It's a scientific or philosophical one.
-
It is also false by
on 2015-06-28 04:11:00 UTC
Link to this
You are referring to the Scopes trial. The result of the that trial was that the Court found Scopes violated the Tennessee Statute which stated that teaching evolution was a crime. The trial ended because Scopes was no longer employed by the State and thus no longer subject to the law at issue. So the court dismissed as moot.
Now, subsequently there was a case Epperson v. Arkansas. There the Court specifically held that a statute to ban the teaching of evolution was unconstitutional. And later in Edwards v. Aguillard the Court effectively said that evolution is the appropriate theory, any use of creation theory in public schools violates the establishment clause. But at no point did any court actually say the theory was disproved. The closest they ever came was in the Aguillard dissent, where the stated that Evolution was a theory, just like creation and as such requiring both theories did not violate the establishment clause -
Re. "It's just a theory" by
on 2015-06-28 17:22:00 UTC
Link to this
This is one of the anti-evolution arguments that annoys me the most, so I'd just like to take a moment to set something straight:
The scientific definition of a "theory" is not the same as the colloquial meaning of the term.
What most people mean when they say they have a theory is more like a scientific hypothesis, which is basically an educated guess. Once enough experiments have been conducted that back up the hypothesis—or more accurately don't disprove it, because the point of a proper scientific experiment is actually to disprove its hypothesis—then it may graduate into a scientific theory, which means it is recognized by scientific consensus as fact. Unless, of course, something comes along to disprove it. It's always possible. But once an idea is recognized as a scientific theory, that means the vast majority of evidence supports it, so it's really not very likely to be disproved.
Note that a scientific theory is not a step below a scientific law. They can both be referred to as scientific fact—they just describe different things. Gravity is a good example of scientific law: if you jump off a bridge into an abyss, you will fall due to the effects of gravity. It is what happens, and you can't disprove that. Now, how gravity works, that's covered by scientific theory, which can be modified or even disproved with enough evidence. Laws are what happens, theories are how they happen. Evolution, therefore, is both a law (changes to a species happen due to various factors over time) and a theory (adaptation, natural selection, genetic mutations, etc.).
So please, if you must argue against science, whatever you do, at least don't make THAT mistake. It's annoying, and it makes you look stupid.
(Not YOU, [Evil AI], just in case that needed saying. I know you were just stating what the argument said. I just wanted to explain why it's a bad argument. {= ) )
~Neshomeh -
I know by
on 2015-06-28 19:47:00 UTC
Link to this
Interesting fact, I actually used to think that way about 10-15 years ago. I had a "science teacher", though I use that term very, very loosely, seeing as said teach argued against evolution, and turned a discussion on the Scopes Trial into a mock trial were we (the students) found that creation was the appropriate theory and that evolution was wrong. Of course a year or two later I was confronted with evidence to the contrary, and I realized that my former position was untenable at best.
-
Sorry. by
on 2015-06-28 04:33:00 UTC
Link to this
I'd been told differently. I apologize. Really, though, I don't want to debate evolution. I don't. It won't get anyone anywhere.
-
No Harm No Foul by
on 2015-06-28 04:57:00 UTC
Link to this
The Scopes Trial was just a mess. It was specifically designed to challenge the law, in the trial court it was just spectacle, no real law was going on. When it finally found its way to the State Supreme Court, they found out that there was a small error in the process, they overruled the lower court, dismissed the case and basically said never speak of this again.
-
What really annoys me, by
on 2015-06-28 05:06:00 UTC
Link to this
is that the source I got it from ought to have been reliable, and was not. Anyway, thanks for setting the record straight. We're still friends, right?
-
Your source probably thinks they are reliable. by
on 2015-06-28 09:31:00 UTC
Link to this
Which is why you can't rely on stuff that's just been handed to you. If you want to be smarter, you have to check these things for yourself. You can't just go on what other people tell you, whether they lived now or several thousand years ago. This is why science is structured in the way that it is; it's based on being able to check everything that someone claims so that we can be sure it's actually happening and not just something someone made up for whatever reason.
Rationalism and piety can and do coexist; there's no reason why one should disavow the other. You can believe in whatever you wish, and you should, if you're of the opinion it helps you do the least harm (there's that phrase again!), but treating the Bible as the only source of truth is like treating the writings of Pliny the Elder as the only source of which animals exist in the world. -
It will take a lot more than that to get me going by
on 2015-06-28 05:24:00 UTC
Link to this
And I used to think that the Scopes Trial said the same, then I finally decided to read it. The best explanation is this:
"The Court is informed that the plaintiff in error is no longer in the service of the State. We see nothing to be gained by prolonging the life of this bizarre case. On the contrary, we think the peace and dignity of the State, which all criminal prosecutions are brought to redress, will be better conserved by the entry of a nolle prosequi herein. Such a course is suggested to the Attorney-General" Tennessee's Chief Justice Green and his order.
The whole thing was a bad example of US Law. I think at one point the defense ended up calling the prosecutor as a witness, the whole thing was a mess.
And that is an easy misconception to make. The law which forbade the teaching of evolution was upheld. Though it was on a technicality, and the State never brought an action under that law again. The even repealed it before the US Supreme Court struck any such law down.
And yes, it generally takes a lot more to upset me. Especially if I have the lawyer hat on. -
There's a lesson to be learned, here. by
on 2015-06-28 04:47:00 UTC
Link to this
Don't blindly believe everything people tell you; check it.
-
Seconding that. by
on 2015-06-28 07:46:00 UTC
Link to this
I was homeschooled by very conservative Christian parents, and given only creationist textbooks for most of my education. The claims in those books all held together really well until I encountered evidence-based science and discovered that the creationist textbooks had lied to me and misrepresented the scientific position about . . . yeah, pretty much everything. It was a hard lesson to learn, but it has taught me to check and check and check. So maybe the experience wasn't wasted? Hopefully not, anyway.
-
Hooray for scientific inquiry! by
on 2015-06-28 09:16:00 UTC
Link to this
Personally, I think the reason the religious have such a problem with science is that religion is, by it's very nature, unscientific. It isn't overly concerned with finding out new things - indeed, down that path lies heresy and setting fire to people, and it's a pain to get the burn marks out of the carpet. Instead, it is concerned with one single, massive book, which is True, made up of smaller books, which are also True. Everything in the Book is True, and by extension everything in the smaller books is True, except the bits that Aren't True that over the years have been discarded. Science's constant peer-review process and refining the knowledge, to the extremely religious, is therefore akin to writing more of the Bible and must subsequently be viewed with at best confusion and at worst outright vitriol.
At least, that's my take on it from experiences with my own local God addicts. They scare me and repeatedly tell me that I'm going to spend eternity in torment for something I can't help, so, er, yeah, my conversations with them tend to be a little on the brief side. -
Yep. (nm) by
on 2015-06-28 04:54:00 UTC
Link to this
-
That also does not get into the fact that by
on 2015-06-28 04:18:00 UTC
Link to this
The entire Scopes Trial was basically a sham. And also by the end of it the Tennessee State Supreme Court basically said, "Let us never speak of this again". Epperson remains the actual law on the issue.
-
I thought that [EvilAI]UBEROverlord might be interested, by
on 2015-06-28 04:00:00 UTC
Link to this
'cause, you know, he's in law. Um, also, I have proven myself to have very little restraint, but really, I'd prefer to not debate evolution.
-
See my above comment (nm) by
on 2015-06-28 04:13:00 UTC
Link to this
-
Correction by
on 2015-06-28 03:50:00 UTC
Link to this
On Neanderthal there is some dispute over if they are properly classified as H. neanderthalensis or H. sapiens neaderthalensis. I stated the minority position. The majority position is that they were a closely related hominid to humans, that shared a recent common ancestor.
-
These so-called missing links are not missing links. by
on 2015-06-28 03:37:00 UTC
Link to this
When a child undergoes puberty, do they go to sleep one night and emerge as a teenager the next morning? Of course not-- the process is far too subtle for that. But if we were to track the aging process by means of a photograph taken every year on that child's birthday, we would see a definite gradual change from 13 to 25 years old. If we were to say "aha! Missing link!" at any point in the process... Well, no. It doesn't work that way. It's a continuous process, like driving up a slope. It is not like climbing rungs of a ladder.
The Bible is undeniably a historical document, yes. It is categorically not a scientific text, however. As such, we cannot base our understanding of the origins of life on this text. Besides, there are plenty of other modern religious texts that flat-out contradict the Bible's version of the creation of the world. What makes them less valid than the Christian verion of events? What about all of the old religions? Did they have a valid point anywhere in their teachings? Did they have the correct interpretation of events? Why not? -
You have my email address. by
on 2015-06-28 03:47:00 UTC
Link to this
If you really want to debate the reliability of the Scriptures, I'd like to do it off of the Board.
-
I'm currently on vacation... by
on 2015-06-28 14:03:00 UTC
Link to this
...until Canada Day, so my access to the Internet is a little spotty at the moment.
On the other hand, I do want to discuss this a little further. This is very interesting! Please feel free to tag me via email or something when you're ready. -
Why? by
on 2015-06-27 19:37:00 UTC
Link to this
Please help me understand your position. What makes you say that?
-
I'm not sure what's to be horrified about. by
on 2015-06-27 19:22:00 UTC
Link to this
I am heterosexual. The only way homosexuality would bother me is if I was the target, and I would make it very clear that I'm both straight and uncomfortable.
Oh, and my best friend? Pansexual. And he knows I'm straight, knows I'd be uncomfortable with that kind of attention, and he always respected it.
If you're worried about people of the same sex trying to put the moves on you, just let them know that you're not interested. They'll back off. And if they don't, it's not indicative of homosexuals as a whole; that's common even in heterosexual individuals. It just means that person's an asshole or a creeper.
And also, the unwanted attention thing goes both ways. I've talked online with a lesbian who once had a creepy stalker who thought he was in a budding relationship with her. RoahmMythril has more to say about this incident.
Bottom line: There's nothing to be scared of that wasn't already there. -
I do not think you are looking at fully by
on 2015-06-27 19:50:00 UTC
Link to this
While it may be a gut reaction to homosexuality, there is another possible reaction. This is a really heavy handed decision by the Court. There are I think legitimate concerns about the Federal-State relationship. Marriage rights had traditionally been governed under State Law, but between Windsor and the recent decision, it is forcing a Federal Standard on the States. So this is arguably a violation of the 10th Amendment, of course these arguments were made during the desegregation era and they failed, but that still has a basis for concern.
Further there is also a Federal Separation of Powers issue as well. This is essentially the Court Legislating, which is beyond their power. Then of course there is, what I am certain is the Scalia/Thomas argument, that this is basically the Court amending the Constitution without actually going through the Amendment process. Of course that has never stopped the Court before mind you, but it does add another precedent for them to reach a bit further. It could theoretically get to the point where the Court decides that they have enough precedents where they can wholesale amend the Constitution at will.
And that is something that could horrify people. Because it gives far too much power to one branch of the Government. Of course I do not think this decision has that effect. Frankly I think this should have been decided quite some time ago. After Loving v. Virginia in the 50s the Court found a fundamental right to marriage. And it is virtually indistinguishable. Really the only difference was in Loving it was interracial marriages rather than same-sex marriages. -
To add another side of things... by
on 2015-06-27 21:47:00 UTC
Link to this
A few years back, the act that forcibly disallowed military benefits to be given to anything but a heterosexual couple was removed. As was Don't Ask, Don't Tell and the general set up where homosexuals in military service would be discharged upon their status being discovered.
In further support of service members who wished to marry, shortly after both of these items were taken care of, the US military allowed its service members to take an amount of 'free' (as in, not counted against them) leave so that they could go to states where same-sex marriage was legal to be able to marry.
The military is, of course, a federal level institution. -
Personally... by
on 2015-06-27 22:39:00 UTC
Link to this
I do not see this decision as upsetting either the balance between Congress and the Court or between States and the Federal Government, but I do see that as an argument that can be made. And it was an argument that was made before the Court, and though I have not read the opinion yet, I suspect that Justices Scalia and Thomas both accepted that argument.
But to the argument I was making, there is no Federalism issue with regards to the military, because (as you said) it is a Federal Institution, though the military does complicate things because it has its own law. But the Uniform Code of Military Justice is sort of corollary to main Federal Law, not unlike the Federal Rules of Evidence or Civil Procedure.
But again there is still an argument to be made that it violates principles of Federalism or Separation of Powers. But if it is not clear, I do not think any of those arguments are going to be successful. And the Court did not think they were either. -
If I were to go to hell for loving another woman... by
on 2015-06-27 18:08:00 UTC
Link to this
Then a heaven where that love is forbidden is not for me.
-
You know... by
on 2015-06-27 19:14:00 UTC
Link to this
Someone can still be opposed to the decision without it being because of religious reasons or homophobia. For example they could be opposed on Federalism Grounds. Which is a fair stance to have. One could also have trouble with this decision on Separation of Powers Grounds as well. It is essentially the Court Legislating, which they are not supposed to do (though they've been doing it since 1791).
But one can still be opposed to the decision without it being for hateful reasons. -
Mm. by
on 2015-06-27 19:51:00 UTC
Link to this
But that wouldn't really be a case for saying point blank that you're 'horrified'. That implies that you not only think the decision was badly-made (legality-wise), but also that you think the outcome is a negative. Otherwise you'd say something like 'I'm really pleased at this outcome, but come on, Supreme Court! That's not your job. For the Constitution's sake, I hope this gets overturned and then settled in a completely different way.'
If you get given a box of chocolates because someone thinks it's your birthday, you don't say you're horrified at the chocolates. ^_^
hS -
Not necessarily by
on 2015-06-27 19:58:00 UTC
Link to this
At least not in my perspective. I have seen cases where I have liked the result, but he legal reasoning was so bad, that I would have rather the Court come out the other way. Would I use "horrified" to describe it, probably not, but others might.
Though now that I think about it, I agree with a lot of the Court's Establishment Clause Decisions, but I am horrified by the legal reasoning behind it. So...actually it could be, it depends on how bad one thinks the reasoning is. -
You are, of course, permitted your expression of opinion. by
on 2015-06-27 18:05:00 UTC
Link to this
Kindly remember that for many of us, we're excited because we can, at long last, marry the people we love. Or see people we love, together for decades, married. For some of us, it's just one more step towards acceptance.
Son of Heaven seemed to have trouble with this concept when last we spoke privately, but I'm very out about it these days: I am neither male nor female. I cannot marry someone of the "opposite" gender or sex, because no "opposite" to my gender or sex exists. I've known since I was about four years old that my gender was not female or male. I have dated both men and women, and have been seen as a straight and gay couple, depending on where and what we both happened/happen to be wearing.
For me, this says that I won't have to pretend to be a person I'm not in order to marry someone. I won't have to spend the rest of my life pretending to be a man, or pretending to be a woman.
I understand if you disapprove of my… um… existence, I guess? But I fail to see how anyone can be horrified by a decision that will never directly effect them - this decision really only applies to people who want to get married and couldn't before. So you don't have to be all that unhappy - just ignore it, if it bothers you so much. Maybe you'll get used to it. -
Three points by
on 2015-06-27 22:06:00 UTC
Link to this
1) Kindly remember that for many of us, we're excited because we can, at long last, marry the people we love.
Of course, I cannot speak for Silenthunder, but I doubt that he will diasgree with me on this:
I am not saying "you don't have the right to celerate the ruling"; it's just that I personally do not see the ruling as something to celebrate. So we're just putting it out there: not everyone is in accord that Obergefell v. Hodges is the greatest thing since sliced bread.
2) Son of Heaven seemed to have trouble with this concept when last we spoke privately, but I'm very out about it these days: I am neither male nor female. I cannot marry someone of the "opposite" gender or sex, because no "opposite" to my gender or sex exists.
Mini-Boarder aside, this paragraph makes as little sense as when we first spoke. I've asked you to please explain clearly how you could be neither male nor female. I understand from our e-mail exchange that your perception of yourself may change from day to day. However, unless you are hermaphroditic, then biologically you are either one or the other.
However, I am risking being insensitive with those last two clauses, so for respect's sake, I will refrain from pushing the topic any further, and I apologize if I have offended you, VM.
3) I fail to see how anyone can be horrified by a decision that will never directly effect them - this decision really only applies to people who want to get married and couldn't before.
And anyone at the front lines of this knows that the assertion "It won't affect you" is false. Even you hint at the real issue in your first paragraph: "it's just one more step towards acceptance." That's the core issue here: whether we, as a society, are going to say that homosexuality is as equally valid, morally, as heterosexuality.
And when placed in those terms, the reason we Christian conservatives are fighting tooth and nail is as clear as crystal. And I am not speaking in hypotheticals here, it is clear from Europe and even here in the United States as well that wherever gay marriage goes, forced acceptance thereof follows. We are all but told the words of the Borg: "Resistance is futile." Either assent to the prevailing orthodoxy, or the will of the state will force you to, religion be damned. -
Re: Three points by
on 2015-06-30 08:50:00 UTC
Link to this
That's the core issue here: whether we, as a society, are going to say that homosexuality is as equally valid, morally, as heterosexuality. >>
"whether"? "going to"? Society as a whole already does think that homosexuality is as equally valid, morally, as heterosexuality, and that's why gay marriage is being legalised, to reflect this. That's a fact, and if you say it isn't then you're just plain wrong.
See here for proof, and make sure you hover the mouse over the picture to read the alt-text.
And when placed in those terms, the reason we Christian conservatives are fighting tooth and nail is as clear as crystal. >>
You mean, because everyone's out of step except you...? That was already clear.
And I am not speaking in hypotheticals here, it is clear from Europe and even here in the United States as well that wherever gay marriage goes, forced acceptance thereof follows. >>
Ah, now I see the reason for your confusion. You think that time runs in that direction. For the rest of us, it's the other way round. First society accepted homosexuality, then the politicians were forced to legalise gay marriage as a result.
Once again, see here. -
Ok, I may as well clear this up. by
on 2015-06-27 22:15:00 UTC
Link to this
I've asked you to please explain clearly how you could be neither male nor female. I understand from our e-mail exchange that your perception of yourself may change from day to day. However, unless you are hermaphroditic, then biologically you are either one or the other.
We went in circles a few times with this, and as far as I can tell, the only way you would accept that I am neither male nor female was if I could say that I was biologically intersex (that's the right term, btw. Hermaphroditic is indeed rather offensive.). I explained that it didn't matter what my biological sex was, my gender was fluid/neither.
I don't understand - I truly don't - how it is that you said, multiple times, "unless you are hermaphroditic" or someusch, yet never made the connection that there was a definite reason I didn't want to talk about my sex with a stranger. I am intersex. It's not something I talk about publicly, since my body is my business and nobody else's, but I really am.
Thing is, who cares? I'm not going to drop trow and prove it for every person who wants to demand proof that I'm "allowed" to be neither male nor female. This is the thing our society doesn't seem to be able to accept about sex/gender. Sex is just as fluid and non-binary as gender. It's not like, sexually we have men and women and that's it, so all these genders are just made up. Sexually we have men, women, and many many many people who occupy spaces in between, or are neither, or both. Gender-wise we have men, women, and many many many people who either occupy spaces in between, or are neither, or both. -
Not to be rude, by
on 2015-06-30 03:44:00 UTC
Link to this
but I made three points, and you've only replied to one. I would like to know what your thoughts are on the other two.
-
Wow. Wow, okay, then. by
on 2015-06-30 22:42:00 UTC
Link to this
To be honest, I thought my response was fairly clear in... well, literally everything I've said in this thread. But sure, let's talk.
I'm going to skip over first to your apology.
I honestly did not know that it was a sore spot: I thought that you were just being unclear in some kind of an attempt to put the spotlight on homosexuality without any reference to the person that I am talking to. I acted in ignorance, and I apologize.
I'm truly not trying to be ungracious, but I feel uncomfortable accepting this. The fact is, you start off "Finally, a clear answer," to which my response is: I gave you a clear answer from the very start. I'm not going to go hunt down the emails we exchanged, but "I don't want to answer that," or "I'm neither male nor female" WAS a clear answer. It was a clear, definite answer that you refused to accept.
Second - God, I hate to do this, as it undermines the assumption of trust we tend to make in this community, but my point stands. "My gender is neither" is an adequate answer, and the fact is, you still have no idea if I'm telling the truth or not. I am, as it happens, but again, what does that actually mean? No one I meet in person knows what my biological sex is unless I tell them, either. My sex - and literally everyone's sex - is their own business and nobody else's. So in that respect, I WAS trying to make a point. Not a point about homosexuality, but a point about gender. The point was "My sex doesn't matter, any more for me than anybody, lay off." I could've told you right away, and again, in a way I did, but really, my point stands: it's none of your business whether anyone's sex matches their gender.
I'm aware this is going to sound rude, but let me be perfectly clear: is it any more rude than a politely-worded request for someone to inform you what their genitals look like? It doesn't matter that I'm intersex: if I'd come out and said I was biologically male or female, or trans and didn't want to disclose, it would still be none of your business.
Now. Your other two points.
I am not saying "you don't have the right to celerate the ruling"; it's just that I personally do not see the ruling as something to celebrate. So we're just putting it out there: not everyone is in accord that Obergefell v. Hodges is the greatest thing since sliced bread.
See, I might really dislike one of the faculty in my department, right? I'm still not going to show up to their retirement or tenure party and remind them that I'm not happy about the celebration. When the College Republicans on campus are having a party to celebrate something that went their way, I don't show up and tell them I disagree; I choose a time and place that's appropriate, rather than walking in and telling them "Hey, I'm just putting it out there, but I really wish the open-carry law hadn't passed."
I think Huinesoron answered your other point very well, but I'll throw in my two cents as well.
And anyone at the front lines of this knows that the assertion "It won't affect you" is false. Even you hint at the real issue in your first paragraph: "it's just one more step towards acceptance." That's the core issue here: whether we, as a society, are going to say that homosexuality is as equally valid, morally, as heterosexuality.
And... again, how does that affect you? Yes. We are one more step towards full acceptance. I'll say it again: how does this affect you? You are presumably not gay. You are perfectly welcome to continue being not gay, and attending a church, and voting for politicians, who agree with you. You can wear a shirt every day that says "Love the sinner, hate the sin," or "I'm Straight and the rest of you are going to hell," or whatever you like. You can go to non-gay bars. You can stand in front of gay bars with signs that say "I wish this place didn't exist" or, again, whatever you please. Yes, you're going to have to deal with the fact that the majority of society disagrees with you. So? The majority of society disagrees with me on a lot of issues; for example, the fact that non-gender-binary people exist. As a general rule, I sort of continue existing, and it does not effect me in the slightest*. Another example: my religious beliefs fall into a sort of weird place between religions. I disagree with the majority of society about things like the nature of God, etc. It doesn't effect me.
And when placed in those terms, the reason we Christian conservatives are fighting tooth and nail is as clear as crystal. And I am not speaking in hypotheticals here, it is clear from Europe and even here in the United States as well that wherever gay marriage goes, forced acceptance thereof follows. We are all but told the words of the Borg: "Resistance is futile." Either assent to the prevailing orthodoxy, or the will of the state will force you to, religion be damned.
No. It really isn't clear as crystal. What are you fighting? That people who aren't you and don't agree with your beliefs will... uh, continue to not be you and not agree with your beliefs? You're fighting for the laws and moral codes of your specific sect of your specific religion to apply to everyone. Including, I might add, the people who lived here for tens of thousands of years before any Christian set foot on these shores - gender and marriage and sex and sexuality are seen from a completely different worldview by the Plains, Coast Salish, Plateau, Basin, Southwest, Southeast, and Northeast tribes. (The Arctic are the only place I know where marriage... kinda sorta resembles European tradition.)
"Either assent to the prevailing orthodoxy, or the will of the state will force you to,"
I'll say it again - force you to WHAT? Not throw people who are gay in jail? Not stone women who get divorces? Not stone men who lie with men as with women? What are you worried about being forced to do? The majority of the population still identifies as straight, dude. Nobody's going to force you to do a single thing.
*that's actually a blatant lie - it effing sucks, getting a dirty look no matter what bathroom you use, having to explain to people every other day when they ask what you are, like, biologically, though, getting passed up by the bus because the driver didn't like what he saw, wondering whether that guy who's been giving you dirty looks in the bar all night is going to follow you out and go after you, etc. -
Have many hugs, if you like hugs. by
on 2015-07-01 05:50:00 UTC
Link to this
Because that was so out of line of SOH that it's not even marching band anymore, it's just playing a tuba on the moon.
*offers Bleepolate* -
*gives you all the hugs in the multiverse* (nm) by
on 2015-07-01 00:54:00 UTC
Link to this
-
LGBT lesson for the day by
on 2015-06-30 15:13:00 UTC
Link to this
"Gender" is mental, "sex" is physical.
People can have a biological sex that doesn't match their mental gender identity. That's what a transgender person is: Someone who is physically one sex, but mentally another gender.
I don't make claims to understand it all fully. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but, for instance, I think genderfluid means someone who can mentally identify as male or female at different times, or as neither. -
This conversation makes me wonder... by
on 2015-06-30 17:52:00 UTC
Link to this
What is it, exactly, to be "male"? I mean, I know I identify as a cisgender heterosexual male, but while the first two words in that descriptor are pretty clear to me, the last isn't. Does it mean that I desire girls? If so, lesbians and bisexuals are males, too, and I don't that is the case. Does it mean I do male-ish things? What are those? What does that say about tomboy-ish girls?
So, yeah, now I'm confused. -
Exactly! by
on 2015-06-30 22:50:00 UTC
Link to this
It's actually a really exciting subject to get into! When you think about it, every single society and culture has expressed gender completely differently from one another, so our concept of what is "masculine" and what is "feminine" are completely formed by our culture, and that changes so quickly. That's one of my favorite things about studying history - you see things change so much, so quickly. There's this book I read a while back - Hunting and the American Imagination that explores JUST the concept of hunting in American history. We think of it as a masculine part of history that goes all the way back, but was it really? It's so much more complicated than we realize!
Colonial (ie, pre-revolution) history especially you see it in - there are so many primary source documents from missionaries who are agonizing over the gender expression of the tribes they're trying to convert! Often their concern seems to be FIRST to "fix" their gender roles, then the rest - religion, etc. - will follow. So the big one I remember is the Wampanoag, Algonquin, Mohican, Pequot, etc. in the Northeast. Women owned land, rather then men; men had rights to the hunting grounds (it's notable that by "women" and "men" I mean those who identified as women and men - it was tied to gender, not sex, for them). This drove the early Pilgrims up the wall, because when men were in camp, they didn't farm - because to them, it was unmanly to do so! But the Pilgrims saw it as a lacking work ethic, and were horrified that the women didn't sit around cleaning, but worked in the fields. Yet this is how they'd been doing it for years - they saw it as the Pilgrims having weird, messed-up gender roles.
Another one I learned about very recently was the history of Tokyo before the Meiji Restoration - the idea of "Edo Manners," or business manners. Historically, homosexuality and bisexuality were completely accepted in the city of Edo - and because the city was centered on business ideals, that's where the gender roles were centered, too: women were seen as "naturally" better at management, while men were seen as likewise "naturally" better at sales.
The more you study history, the more you realize that what gender means is completely relative to the culture, and it's not even remotely inherent. -
I've been thinking about this, too. by
on 2015-06-30 19:34:00 UTC
Link to this
Specifically, I've been wondering where in the Bible God actually says that men have to wear pants and go to work and women have to wear skirts and stay home and cook or whatever. I went so far as to read Genesis up until Adam and Eve get kicked out of Eden, and I noticed something interesting:
He doesn't. Not until after the Fall, anyway.
Before the Fall, all it says is that Woman was to be Man's complement and helper. Nowhere does it say that Man has a penis and Woman has boobs, and anyway, Adam was made in God's image, and I can't see God having much use for mammalian genitalia. AFTER the Fall, though, that's when God curses Man to painful labor in the field and Woman to painful labor in childbirth and makes "long garments" for them, whatever that means, and THEN they have sex. Oh, and body shame was only a thing after eating the fruit from the tree of knowledge. So basically, as far as I'm concerned, gender roles were tacked on after the fact as a punishment for Adam's sin of disobedience. Adam and Eve were supposedly perfect before the Fall, so it seems to me that if we're striving for a more perfect society, we ought to strive to do away with strict gender roles.
As for "male and female He created them," that's plainly overlooking all the species that reproduce asexually or are self-fertilizing or use parthenogenesis or change sex for one reason or another or have the males bear/rear the young or are otherwise incredibly much more diverse and fascinating than most people realize. It's clear to me that the humans who penned the Bible only had their own experience to go on, whether they were divinely inspired or not; they couldn't have written "male and female and etc." if they didn't know about the etc. But maybe they would have if they did.
Oh, and BTW, biologically speaking, "female" is the default setting for humans. Maleness is an optional add-on.
~Neshomeh
PS. Okay, sex-determination is more complicated than that, but it's basically true, and it was nice and pithy. {; P -
*applause* (nm) by
on 2015-06-30 19:48:00 UTC
Link to this
-
There's a saying I have. by
on 2015-06-30 18:02:00 UTC
Link to this
Gender is hard.
Gender isn't binary, and gender doesn't conform to stereotypes, and gender is... basically what you make of it. Binary genders are necessarily reductive, and are assigned at birth. I think, at heart, it's something you have to figure out for yourself.
I can't tell you how to be you; I can only tell you how I'm me. =] -
Oh, no, really? by
on 2015-06-30 06:56:00 UTC
Link to this
"I realise I really upset you when I bullied you into revealing something deeply personal, but you haven't responded to the other things I said!" That's... really what you're going with?
Anyway, if you really want a response: I think this is an appalling statement.
And anyone at the front lines of this knows that the assertion "It won't affect you" is false. Even you hint at the real issue in your first paragraph: "it's just one more step towards acceptance." That's the core issue here: whether we, as a society, are going to say that homosexuality is as equally valid, morally, as heterosexuality.
'Anyone at the front lines'? What, like... the people who were fighting 'tooth and nail' to be allowed to marry the people they love? No? You mean the people who were fighting to control other people's lives?
As to the rest of your premise: yes, that's the core issue. Whether you can accept that an attribute or stance you don't share is just as valid as your own, or whether you will continue to claim that 'anything I don't do is inherently evil'. And you are on the wrong side of that.
And I am not speaking in hypotheticals here, it is clear from Europe and even here in the United States as well that wherever gay marriage goes, forced acceptance thereof follows.
Hi! I live in Europe! I have never been forced to go to a gay wedding; I have never been forced to have gay sex; I have never been forced to observe gay sex; I have never been forced to write articles in favour of gay people; I have never been forced to do literally anything except for not try to impose my own view of the world on people who don't share it.
In my view, you are dangerously close, if you haven't already done so, to violating Article One of the PPC Constitution, which states:
The PPC community will not tolerate any individual or group who intentionally discriminates against, abuses, persecutes, or otherwise attacks others in any way, shape, or form, for any reason. This includes, but is not limited to discrimination on the basis of sex, race, ability, national origin, sexual orientation, gender identity, and religion.
You are not only saying that gay people should be legally discriminated against - you are also saying that they are morally inferior to you. That's an attack, in my book.
hS -
First off, please pardon the lateness of this reply. by
on 2015-07-04 04:08:00 UTC
Link to this
That said, please allow me to address the last thing first, as I dare not take an invocation of the PPC Constitution lightly.
I admit that I can be very blunt in the way I word things. In VixenMage's specific case, I see that I have been offensive. However, I honestly do not think that I have been attacking anyone in this thread. All I have been doing since the second I entered into this conversation is respond to opinions and give my stance, unpopular though it may be. If I have attacked anyone, please make it clear and I will unqualifiedly apologize.
That said, please allow me to contradict something in your post:
"I realise I really upset you when I bullied you into revealing something deeply personal,"
I must object to your characterization of what I did. I specifically said in my post: "However, I am risking being insensitive with those last two clauses, so for respect's sake, I will refrain from pushing the topic any further, and I apologize if I have offended you, VM."
Granted, in hindsight, I could have been clearer, but I had intended to mean that I was not pushing VM to answer and that I was not expecting VM to answer. And when VM did and revealed that it was a sore topic, I apologized for the hurt I caused.
Granted, in hindsight I should have just given an apology with nothing else. Therefore, I apologize again: I'm sorry, VixenMage.
Those things said, please allow me to counter your arguments, hS. I'll work backwards:
Hi! I live in Europe! I have never been forced to go to a gay wedding; I have never been forced to have gay sex; I have never been forced to observe gay sex; I have never been forced to write articles in favour of gay people; I have never been forced to do literally anything except for not try to impose my own view of the world on people who don't share it.
I am not arguing that anyone would be forced to do any of the things that you mentioned, nor am I (or any conservative, as far as I know) trying to argue that all those things are or will be the case. But I still believe that my original point still stands: my right to believe as my faith dictates, live according to that belief, and share that belief with others (without trying to impose it on anyone or shove it down anyone's throat, of course) stands in stark contradistinction with what has now been declared a federal right. Would a Catholic charity, for example, be forced to allow adoptions to gay couples? Litigation is on the horizon, and I fear what it may portend...
'Anyone at the front lines'? What, like... the people who were fighting 'tooth and nail' to be allowed to marry the people they love? No?
I will not belabor the point, as I have already stated my thoughts elsewhere on this thread, but to summarize: You see it as "being allowed to marry the people you love," I see it as "redefining marriage, and foisting that redefinition upon a divided populace by judicial fiat." But since both [EvilAI]UBEROverlord and VixenMage bring up possible counterarguments to my "redefinition" argument, I do not want to speak any further on that point until I know a bit more about it. Perhaps I am indeed wrong. But I do not want to say anything further here without looking further into the matter.
You mean the people who were fighting to control other people's lives?
I honestly do not know what you are getting at here. No one is trying to control any homosexual's life. No one is trying to make the government force gay people back "into the closet," so to speak. No one is trying to persecute them by force of law.
Before the ruling, conservatives and liberals theoretically stood on equal footing, competing for acceptance in the marketplace of ideas. But now one worldview has taken the fore, not because their cause has gained ascendancy in popular opinion, but because it has gained ascendancy in the minds of five out of a panel of nine judges.
That said, as I mentioned to [EvilAI]UBEROverlord, if you want to continue this conversation, please feel free to e-mail me. I would not want to further lengthen this thread, especially since it will drop off the front page before long.
Of course, please reply if you have anything further to say regarding the PPC Constitution or my alleged bullying. I like being a part of the PPC community, and I want to continue being a respectful, productive member of this Board. I certainly do not want to do anything to endanger that. -
I think Scape already said it...? by
on 2015-06-30 05:02:00 UTC
Link to this
But the right not to be discriminated against is much more important than your right to discriminate against someone on a religious basis.
In all such matters you must ask yourself "what would I do if the boot was on the other foot?" which, in this case, means "would I be horrified if SCOTUS decided to finally legalise religious marriage after years of discrimination against religious people?"
Because, frankly, if you don't want to be discriminated against when you're the minority, you mustn't discriminate against other groups that are now minorities; otherwise, you're a selfish hypocrite and no more. -
I did indeed. by
on 2015-06-30 11:06:00 UTC
Link to this
I'm also kind of amazed that SOH considers legal protection from discrimination to be "forced acceptance" like Christian demagogues in Europe and the US haven't been forcing everyone to accept their own religious beliefs under threat of hellfire and damnation.
-
Thank you, and I apologize. by
on 2015-06-27 22:32:00 UTC
Link to this
First off: Thank you. Finally, a clear answer. I did not know that "intersex" was the proper term, or that the issue was so personal to you. Which leads to the second part:
I'm sorry that I've hit at such a sore spot.
I honestly did not know that it was a sore spot: I thought that you were just being unclear in some kind of an attempt to put the spotlight on homosexuality without any reference to the person that I am talking to. I acted in ignorance, and I apologize. -
Silentthunder, you are not alone. by
on 2015-06-27 17:04:00 UTC
Link to this
The ShyIon: I cannot pretend to think that I know Silentthunder's motivation, except perhaps to say that not everyone in the PPC is thrilled at the decision. And I, at least, applaud that: the PPC is not here to force anyone else to subscribe to a particular political agenda, so even though it is apparent that the majority of us are politically liberal, the fact still remains that conservatives exist in the PPC, and that should be acknowledged, even if the law as currently extant says that we are on the wrong side of history.
"Today, however, the Court takes the extraordinary step
of ordering every State to license and recognize same-sex
marriage. Many people will rejoice at this decision, and I
begrudge none their celebration. But for those who believe
in a government of laws, not of men, the majority’s approach is deeply disheartening.... Five lawyers have
closed the debate and enacted their own vision of marriage
as a matter of constitutional law.
"Celebrate the achievement of a desired goal. Celebrate the opportunity for a new expression of commitment to a partner. Celebrate the availability of new benefits. But do not celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it."
Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. ___ (2015) (Roberts, J., dissenting) -
*grabs Silentthunder the mini-Boarder* Got one for you. (nm) by
on 2015-06-27 19:48:00 UTC
Link to this
-
You are, of course, entitled to your beliefs... by
on 2015-06-27 19:25:00 UTC
Link to this
But I have no idea why you desire to advertise to the Board that you desire to dictate whether two consenting, non-related adults can get married based only on their genitals. You are free to feel that way, but it's rather not the time. I *do* wonder how y'all think you're going to get a Constitutional amendment through? No one is gonna force you to get married to someone of the same sex. No one is going to hold you down and paint rainbows on you.
My girlfriend (who I hope to pull into the PPC someday, mwa-ha-ha) and I will just be over here, being all rainbow-y ourselves, I guess? Not that we're planning on getting married any time soon, of course, but it's nice to know we'd be *able* to, ya know? Being acknowledged as a person with the same rights as other people is nice. :P
Our vision of marriage is the same vision of marriage. Only the wrappings are different. The love is the same. -
Nicely said. by
on 2015-06-27 18:02:00 UTC
Link to this
I think it's fairly clear to anyone reading my entries on this thread, but I'll go ahead and put this here.
-
As a statement... by
on 2015-06-27 17:27:00 UTC
Link to this
I consider myself politically conservative (gasp!).
Which means that I support the ability for people to marry others of the same sex. (I'm sure at this point there are many people going 'wait, what?)
See, to begin with, Roberts (and Scalia as well) have made statements and have written dissents in the past that indicate that while they hide themsides behind Originality (which, as AIUO has stated, is taking the view of following the original intent of the Constitution's writers and then ignoring all changes in social and modern structure since then) is indicative that they're using their own prejudices against such. They've done this in the past, and will do so in the future.
You are confusing political conservatism with moral (namely: religious) conservatism.
There is nothing wrong with moral conservatism- orthodoxy serves well as having some kind of baseline- but morals should never be confused and mixed up with ethics. Is it religiously moral for members of the same sex to enter sexual relationships with each other? According to several religions, no, it is not, no more than it is for two members of the opposite sex to have sexual relationships outside of marriage.
Is it ethical to prevent two, consenting persons from entering what is in this day and age largely a civil contract of law, through which many benefits are obtained, in the name of moral conservation? No, it is not.
Additionally, the United States of America was- and still is, despite the attempts by many- founded on the basis of Freedom Of And From Religion and the Separation of State From Religion. Religious views should not impact on the governance and laws of the state.
This decision does not force churches to marry same sex couples against the will of the priests.
It does not force anyone, against their will, to enter a same sex (civil) marriage.
Real political conservatism is when the state does its best to limit its impact and intrusion upon the rights of the people. Real political conservatism is not when the state's laws are used to oppress and otherwise limit the rights of people. Passing laws against gay marriage and claiming it in the name of political conservatism is (quite frankly) a farce.
While I can appreciate that you're personally uncomfortable with the thought of gays marrying legally in our United States of America, please don't confuse it with being actually politically conservative. Just admit it for what it is: moral conservitude or quiet homophobia. -
You seem to be saying by
on 2015-06-27 18:08:00 UTC
Link to this
that there's something wrong with religion being connected to state. Why would you say that?
-
Well... by
on 2015-06-27 22:05:00 UTC
Link to this
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
-
Though to be entirely fair... by
on 2015-06-27 22:44:00 UTC
Link to this
The interpretation of those words has been a mess. Particularly with establishment and free exercise, the Court has been inconsistent with what they mean.
Lemon is the test, but when it gets applied you get things like, prayer at the start of a public school day violates the establishment clause, but prayer before a legislative session does not. -
Fair 'nough. (nm) by
on 2015-06-27 22:31:00 UTC
Link to this
-
Depends. by
on 2015-06-27 19:59:00 UTC
Link to this
If six years from now the President decrees that everyone should worship only him on pain of death by lions, how would you feel about that?
How about if he demanded that you perform sacrificed to Jupiter in your church every Sunday? The threat of that happening in Jerusalem sparked off one of the Jewish revolts against Rome.
Or maybe you'd prefer Judaism, and be forbidden from preparing food (plus sundry other things) on Saturday?
Oh! Or Ramadan! You could be required to fast for thirty days each year. Up for it?
'Religion being connected to state' tends to only be popular when it's your religion. When it's one you disagree with? Nooooot so much.
hS -
Actually, by
on 2015-06-27 20:22:00 UTC
Link to this
it's interesting you bring that up. As long as what they ask doesn't directly contradict Scripture, then I'm to obey. I'd go to the lion's den. Whatever the penalty was for not performing the sacrifice, I'd suffer it. No law in the Bible says I can't not prepare food on Saturday. As for the last one, they'd probably just kill me, or force me to pay extortion money.
But, in regards to America, the Founding Fathers were all either Christian or had a deep respect for Christianity, and intended America to be a Christian nation. Free enterprise and Christianity together makes a rich, happy, and giving society. As long as the Christians are doing what they should, that is. -
THANK YOU! (nm) by
on 2015-06-28 00:48:00 UTC
Link to this
-
Actually, their correspondence shows they were mostly deists (nm by
on 2015-06-27 20:40:00 UTC
Link to this
-
But they did have a great respect for Christianity. by
on 2015-06-27 21:19:00 UTC
Link to this
I apologize for my mistake, though. Thank you!
-
Actually, quite a bit of the Constitution is based on... by
on 2015-06-28 00:32:00 UTC
Link to this
... the Quran.
Yep, the Founding Fathers were fans of Islam. -
Fun fact: by
on 2015-06-28 09:39:00 UTC
Link to this
Look up the Treaty of Tripoli when you've got a spare minute. That puts a little of the modern panic about Those Scary Muslims into perspective. =]
-
This is a very important quote. by
on 2015-06-28 11:42:00 UTC
Link to this
I think you'll like it. Written by President Adams (who was one of the founding fathers, mind you) he said: "The Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion."
Now, trust me, I have a very large rant on this topic coming soon. I just need to build up my sources first. But, suffice to say, I agree wholeheartedly with Adams here. AI (Can I call you AI?) if you want to build up sources for what the Founding Fathers were or were not, feel free. I might need some more solid sources. -
If you are talking about me, then that's fine by
on 2015-06-28 20:54:00 UTC
Link to this
And yeah, that was a sentiment that was widely echoed by the other founders. Off the top of my head, there is Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists, which created the separation of church and state language. Another one is Madison's Letter to William Bradford Jr. 1774, Madison's Letter to James Monroe, 1785. Parts of Madison's Journal of the Constitutional Convention also talk heavily about it.
Frankly though, ultimately it does not matter if the founders were Deist, Christian, Agnostic, or whatever, the Constitution itself was a document of the Enlightenment. It was heavily grounded in reason. It was heavily inspired by John Locke's Social Contract (in fact some parts are copied directly from it). Religion was only there in the background as a right they wanted to protect. They specifically were opposed to any kind of establishment, their writings make that clear. I think that leads to the interesting question of how secular the government must be. And that is were I diverge from the Court. Personally I think they overused the Establishment Clause and underused the Free Exercise Clause. But that is a discussion for another time perhaps.
-
I am not an American political thinker. by
on 2015-06-29 09:38:00 UTC
Link to this
I am not even an American. But there isn't a question of how secular a government must be, because the answer, whatever the state, is "completely". We live in a multicultural age, and all cultures - and therefore all religions - must be treated equally in the eyes of the law if you are to claim the status of civilised society. Picking one religion over another? That naturally engenders a system that benefits one set of people to the detriment of another, which is not what a government should do.
At least, in my opinion. But I'm a socialist, and I'm not an American, so my opinion on American politics is something most Americans immediately discard. =] -
I agree with the the way US Courts have decided the issue... by
on 2015-06-29 10:26:00 UTC
Link to this
I just do not like the reasoning. I fully believe in Separation of Church and State, but in my view the Court overused the Establishment Clause and created a highly subjective test that leads to wildly inconsistent results. Like prayer before starting a school day violates the Constitution, but prayer before a city council meeting does not. Or how a non-denominational invocation by a rabbi at a graduation ceremony violates the Constitution, but a prayer at the start of legislative session does not.
I think the better approach would have been to use the free exercise clause. I think most of the same results would have been achieved with less inconsistency. I agree that government should be secular, but I think the problem is, the way the US Courts have used the Establishment Clause, it has been insanely over-broad and has led to inconsistent, and even dangerous results. A good example comes from a few years back. There was a site, that was on Federal Land, and the government wanted to build a highway through it. It would have destroyed the land. That site had been a holy site for several Native American Tribes for centuries, and only came into the possession of the Federal Government during, well not one of our finest moments (forced migration of Native Americans). But even after the Government took control, it was still used by these tribes, and had been for years.
The Court held, that the government could pave the holy site over, basically committing cultural genocide. Congress stepped in and made it a national park, preventing any development on it, so it worked out, but it almost did not. If the Court over the years had been using Free Exercise rather than Establishment, that case would have had a different result, one that I think is the right result. That is why I do not like the way the Court has used the Establishment Clause.
That's why I imply there might be a sliding scale of secularism. Congress should never have had to intervene in that case. But the Court too often forgets the rights of Free Exercise. -
Translation: by
on 2015-06-29 10:32:00 UTC
Link to this
"I am using the concept of judicial overreach to cover for my own prejudices and trying to reframe the conversation from one about the dismantling of the engines of systematic hate to one about rather dry legal quibbles."
If you seriously have a problem with the most powerful branch of the judiciary having and using power, I can't bloody help you. =] -
That's not at all what I was saying. by
on 2015-06-29 18:52:00 UTC
Link to this
There were two clauses that were supposed to work together to protect religious freedom in the United States. For a time they did, but around the start of the 20th Century the Court changed, and started to broadly interpret the Establishment Clause, but it lead to two effects, that I have some issue with. The first is a highly subjective test that can lead to inconsistent results. Again school prayer being a violation, but legislative (you know an actual governmental function) prayer being proper. I do not know about you, but I do not think that makes a whole lot of sense. The second result, was because of how broadly the Court interpreted the Establishment Clause, they basically abandoned the Free Exercise Clause. And ultimately it came to a single case, that I think was a wrong result.
Which was of course, the Native American Case I mentioned above. It was land that the Government illegally acquired when they forced the Native Americans off of it. It was an incredibly holy site for several Native Americans that they had used long before the US even existed. They continued to use it even after the government took it, such that if a party could take ownership through Adverse Possession against the government they would have. The government decided to destroy that site by building a road through it. The Court let them do it. I do find that as a problem. I think that is a flagrant violation of the Free Exercise Clause. Congress intervened, however, made the land a national park and prevented any development, thus preserving the site. So the right result managed to be reached, but by the wrong methods.
What I am saying is that through all of the decisions the Court has made on the topic, had they used the Free Exercise Clause in concert with the Establishment Clause, they would have reached the same results, but on better legal grounds. The Free Exercise Clause was supposed to be the main tool when dealing with questions regarding Freedom of Religion, and the Establishment Clause was supposed to be a fine scalpel designed for surgical excisions to cover the gaps Free Exercise did not. Instead the Court turned it into a meat clever to hack away blindly, which led to the inconsistent results.
Or with another metaphor, imagine a religious freedom question as being a dead leaf on a tree. Prior to recent developments the Establishment Clause would be used as a pair garden sheers to cut off that single dead leaf. But the Court has broadened it to such a point were it is now a chainsaw. So now you cut down the entire tree. Yeah, it gets you the same/right result (getting rid of the dead leaf), but is it really the best way to do it? -
I think that's a mistranslation. by
on 2015-06-29 15:47:00 UTC
Link to this
I think what EAUO means is "the same result could have been achieved in a better way, one that is more consistent".
-
That's exactly what I am saying by
on 2015-06-29 18:17:00 UTC
Link to this
I am for Separation of Church and State, I think using the Free Exercise Clause as the starting point (it would have required a broadening of it, but not as much as they had to broaden the Establishment Clause) would have lead to the same results in most cases. The ones it would not have, would then be able to be reached with a narrower Establishment Clause. Instead we have a highly subjective test that is ultimately decided by what five attorneys think an "excessive entanglement with religion" is. It leads to inconsistent and bizarre results.
As I said, a prayer in a public school violates it (which I agree with), but a prayer before an actual governmental function (legislating) does not. Frankly I think that is a nonsensical result. I mean seriously, if you ban it for the lesser (School) you should ban it for the greater (legislation). -
'treated equally'. by
on 2015-06-29 09:55:00 UTC
Link to this
Isn't that where this thread started? ^_^
hS -
Yeah, just a bit. =] by
on 2015-06-29 10:33:00 UTC
Link to this
Which is why I said it wasn't even a question. =]
-
Actually by
on 2015-06-28 00:50:00 UTC
Link to this
The main basis of the Constitution was not religious at all. What the framers did not create from on their own was influenced by Locke, Hobbes, Edward Coke, William Blackstone, and Montesquieu.
-
One more. by
on 2015-07-02 02:09:00 UTC
Link to this
The Oneida. They based the Constitution heavily on pre-existing Indian federations' governments.
-
Another Answer by
on 2015-06-27 19:07:00 UTC
Link to this
If one were to look at some of the correspondences between the founders, particularly Madison and Jefferson, you will see that they believed that they way Great Britain was operating, with the Church of England, was problematic. They saw religion as a vessel that could act as an oppressive force, where a majority could destroy the rights of a minority (of course a bit hypocritical if you look at some other provisions). But this idea of protecting minority rights was firmly ingrained in the minds of the founders.
Basically what I am saying here, is that the founders, Madison and Jefferson in particular, saw religion as something that could oppress the minorities. That is why the Establishment Clause was created. They also so the risk of interfering with individual practice rights, hence the Free Exercise Clause. Madison was more concerned with actual establishment, his writings specifically talk about the risks of the Church of England, but Jefferson took it a step further. Jefferson in a famous letter brought up the idea of a "Wall of separation between Church and State".
As history has shown, the Court has adopted Jefferson's understanding. But really the bottom line is if religion is connected to the State then you run the risk of an easy vessel for the oppression of minority rights. I am not saying that it would, but the risk is there. -
You seem to be taking the position, by
on 2015-06-27 20:06:00 UTC
Link to this
That oppression is morally wrong. What would lead you to say that?
-
Okay, what? by
on 2015-06-27 21:21:00 UTC
Link to this
Oppression of any sort is wrong. I don't believe in not hurting people because some divine being says it's wrong. I don't hurt them because you don't hurt people.
-
Yes, of course it's wrong. by
on 2015-06-27 21:28:00 UTC
Link to this
But why is it wrong? It's not just wrong because it's wrong; there has to be a reason. That's what I'm trying to get at it.
-
Are you high? by
on 2015-06-27 22:47:00 UTC
Link to this
No, wait, you're trying to assert your own moral superiority. Forgot you'd already said that. Let me break my opinion on this business down, then:-
Suffering is anathema to human existence. It is not enough to do good; morality involves doing the least harm. And while hurting someone is actively harmful, the denial of rights to people and their treatment as second-class citizens for whatever reason is passively harmful. It doesn't matter whether or not you go out to shoot black people or firebomb abortion clinics or any other form of active harm; you are not opposing a system that treats these crimes in an unequal way, and you are therefore not doing the least harm. You passively benefit from an unequal system, whether or not you directly engage with it to keep it going; that is not doing the least harm.
If it is to call itself such, an enlightened, civilised society must be compassionate and egalitarian, and that does not mean according special privileges to straight, cisgender white people who believe in a particular holy book. It means actual equality of gender and race and sexuality and gender identity. It means that the fundamental dignity of all human beings is protected, and not just the dignity of of straight cismale WASPs. Only then can society be equal. Only then can society move forward.
And frankly, if I may say so, your right to be discriminatory is lesser than my right to not be discriminated against. Much, much lesser. So show a little Christian charity and forgive my lack of tolerance for those who do me active harm. As for those who only contrive to hurt me passively, though, well... I'd like to quote from your book, if I may:
"Lord, forgive them, for they know not what they do." -
I'm sorry if I've hurt your feelings. by
on 2015-06-27 22:58:00 UTC
Link to this
I truly am. So I forgive you for your opening comment, and I ask for you to forgive me too.
-
I forgive you. by
on 2015-06-27 23:09:00 UTC
Link to this
And while I stand by the thought process behind my opening assault, it could and should have been worded better. I apologise.
-
Thank you :) by
on 2015-06-27 23:22:00 UTC
Link to this
You're 100% forgiven. I don't think I've conducted myself as well as I should have in this thread, and I'm trying to remedy that. Oh, um, sort of on the subject that this thread was started about, would you mind answering a question for me? It's sort of involved. I keep hearing a lot of terms get thrown around about the topic of gender identity, and most of them confuse me. I have the barest basics— gay, lesbian, transsexual, and bisexual. But then I hear all of these OTHER words get tossed out and I have absolutely no idea what anyone is talking about, like, from your own post, "cisgender." I can guess at what it means, but I don't know. Would you mind giving me a rundown? I'm thinking that I could coverse a lot better about the topic, and with less chance of hurting someone's feelings, if I had my terms straight.
-
Sure thing. =] by
on 2015-06-28 00:59:00 UTC
Link to this
First off, "transsexual"? It's not a word that's really used any more. The proper term is "transgender" because nonbinary people exist. Nonbinary, for reference, is a catchall term refers to people outside of the conventional gender binary; there are subdivisions like agender and genderfluid, but I primarily want to cover the basics.
Transgender people identify as a different gender (not necessarily the opposite gender - there's that nonbinary thing again) to the one they were born as. Cisgender people identify purely as the gender they were born as.
Basically, people are generally raised to believe that gender is like a light switch. This is not the case. It's more like a dimmer switch. You've got to find the right light for you.
I hope this gives you a little insight. -
It does! by
on 2015-06-28 01:05:00 UTC
Link to this
"Nonbinary," especially. I had a sort of dim idea as to what several of the terms used were, but I wasn't certain at all.
-
Glad to be of help. by
on 2015-06-28 01:14:00 UTC
Link to this
This sort of thing is part of what I mean when I'm talking about doing the least harm. Now that you have a bit more of an idea of what goes on in the world of what I like to call the queer alphabet soup, you're less likely to say something offensive by accident. There's probably going to be people who take offence anyway, we're a bit hair-trigger in that regard (chalk it up to being constantly under threat of exposure, I suppose), but yeah.
Mind you, this IS only the most basic overview I can give. You're best off looking at this in more detail - Wikipedia's gender portal is a good place to start. After that, well, Google, prolly. Just keep learning. Learning makes you smarter, and smarter people have more and better fun. =] -
Thanks! by
on 2015-06-28 01:32:00 UTC
Link to this
Yeah, I'm still working on not offending people. The surly conservative within me who likes to jump on nearby objects and scream "FREE SPEEEEECH!!" just 'cause she can doesn't help matters. I'll check out that gender portal thing-- knowledge is power, after all. Power corrupts. Study hard, be evil. >:) Mwahaha.
-
Oi! by
on 2015-06-27 22:51:00 UTC
Link to this
Tone it down, please.
*indicates PPC Constitution* -
Er... by
on 2015-06-27 23:02:00 UTC
Link to this
Did you actually read my post? There's nothing to tone down, aside from my attacking the concept of societal inequality. Unless you mean the title, which was derogatory, but only because Alleb's use of rhetoric struck me as a bit on the specious side.
-
Yes, I did. by
on 2015-06-28 00:09:00 UTC
Link to this
And of all the responses being given to Alleb, with or without the title, yours was indeed the most heated for little reason- you jumped in where you had not been prior with wording and phrasing that is intended to smack down.
We don't need to actively turn this into a pile-on. -
Wanna know why I wasn't in this discussion from the off? by
on 2015-06-28 01:08:00 UTC
Link to this
I wasn't here for it. I was in an arcade trying to stop screeching children and the dot-eyed incompetents that spawned them from smashing irreplaceable glassware for the entire afternoon and evening. I know it's not quite military service, but nobody expects you mob to smile while you shoot people.
-
...Beg pardon? by
on 2015-06-28 11:33:00 UTC
Link to this
For one: You can always, always start off from the start. Your time zone gives you some advantage in that sense, and there are others who fell in to pursue this debate after you as well.
For two: My work has absolutely no bearing on this, thank you very much, and I would rather you keep out of my business- my business being my military service- if you insist to use it to hoist up how miserable you are and to implicate things about what I'm doing when it has no bearing whatsoever on the topic at hand. -
WRT Point 1: by
on 2015-06-28 11:51:00 UTC
Link to this
That's exactly what I did. I read things on this board. I was under the impression that that's what the board was for. Nobody had given quite the answer that I would have given, which covered multiple salient points about my personal morality from a socialist perspective. Which is why I posted it. My opening remarks were overly derogatory, I admit (you'll note I apologised for my vehemence elsewhere), but I stand by the spirit in which they were made; Alleb's use of an appeal to morality was something I held to be disingenuous and I felt obliged to respond with a clear, full description of my personal morality in the context of her original question - which, lest we forget, was "Is oppression actually wrong, though?".
As for point two, that was a preemptive defence of my position against people accusing me of first-world problems. This probably backfired. While I personally hold extreme pacifist views, I accept at times there really is no other resort and I have the deepest respect for the sacrifices of service personnel. I did not express this clearly and apologise for causing you offence; it was not my intent to slander your profession. -
Because I've been hurt a lot in the past. by
on 2015-06-27 21:37:00 UTC
Link to this
And just so you know? The people who were my tormentors were Christian. So I don't believe religion is any kind of morality chain.
But basically, I don't ever want another person to hurt the way I was hurt. That is why I try to be kind. That is why I try to do the right thing. Because nobody deserves that kind of pain. -
How to start? by
on 2015-06-27 21:19:00 UTC
Link to this
First it is important to note that morals and law are not the same. The law does not regulate morals and morals do not inform the law. At least that is how it is supposed to be, how successful that is, is up for debate. I am not, nor have I been making a moral argument. I have, however, been making a contextual historical legal argument, based upon the history of the law in question, namely the Constitution.
It is clear from the writings of the founders, from the minutes of the record, and from the Federalist Papers, that one of the biggest issues that concerned the founders was oppression. Keep in mind they had just fought a costly war because they felt they were being oppressed, and they were concerned about it happening again. That is why the Articles of Confederation were born. They were worried that they were substituting, (to borrow from The Patriot) "One tyrant 3000 miles away for 3000 tyrants one mile away".
When the Articles began to fail, the founders decided they needed the current system we have now, but they were well aware that there could be risks, and that people might not want to support such a strong Federal Government. That is why all the checks and balances were put in place. It was to ensure no one branch had sufficient power to oppress the people.
This idea continued well after the Constitution as well. It is seen again clearly with the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments. Their purpose was to both prevent the States from oppressing the rights of the citizens, and to attempt to reenfranchise an entire class of people. Of course those Amendments had no teeth at the time and so it was difficult for any enforcement to occur, but the intent was there. It was seen again with the 19th Amendment, to prevent further oppression of a group.
There is also the 22nd Amendment, which was a response to FDR's incredibly long tenure as president, the concern was that it had become an abuse of power.
Now there is also the entire Civil Rights Movement, brought because the people felt that they were being oppressed by their governments. And perhaps more importantly the Civil Rights Act, which finally gave teeth to the Reconstruction Amendments. That really solidified a new approach, which was to find more protected rights. That eventually gave rise to the decisions like Loving (fundamental right to marriage), Griswold (fundamental right to privacy), Batson (prevent race-based juries), Miranda (required warnings to all criminal suspects), Widsor (grant same-sex couples same tax benefits) and now yesterday's decision.
The fact of the matter is, under US Law, oppression is wrong.
As to your question. Yes I do believe oppression is morally wrong, but as I said I am not making a moral argument. If you want me to, I suppose I could, but morality is too squishy. -
Nicely stated! by
on 2015-06-27 21:26:00 UTC
Link to this
It's kind of funny that you'd make that last remark, though, because it always feels like the opposite to me. That's probably just because I need to learn more about law though.
Anyway, I don't know if you saw (I should have placed it here, rather than in my response to hS) I rescinded my question. Your response, however, is frankly awesome. Thank you. -
In the interest of full disclosure by
on 2015-06-27 21:35:00 UTC
Link to this
The law can be incredibly squishy too depending on the field.
-
I saw it after I posted (nm) by
on 2015-06-27 21:29:00 UTC
Link to this
-
...uh. by
on 2015-06-27 20:42:00 UTC
Link to this
Because... it's morally wrong to harm people, and oppression does so? Bwah?
...if a moral system does not see oppression as morally wrong, I do not see how it could be called moral. -
A better phrasing... by
on 2015-06-27 20:47:00 UTC
Link to this
Who says it's morally wrong to hurt people? I believe it is wrong because God says so.
Since you asked before I posted my answer to hS, I think it'll be okay to reply to this... -
...see, I feel like it's wrong because people *get hurt.* by
on 2015-06-27 20:53:00 UTC
Link to this
And it's kinda *really creepy* when someone tells me that they only find hurting people wrong because an ethereal being says so. Uh, good to know, I guess? O_o
-
Well, by
on 2015-06-27 21:14:00 UTC
Link to this
I can't change your mind on that, and I won't try. However, I will say that the "ethereal being" isn't ethereal at all. Ethereal means "Too delicate and light in a way that seems too perfect for this world." God is perfect, but He is anything but delicate. I will also say that, yeah, I have a conscience, and it tells me that it's wrong when people get hurt. Conscience comes from God; that's the law written on the heart.
-
Dude, *stop.* by
on 2015-06-27 22:31:00 UTC
Link to this
I have already told you it is disrespectful (and kinda creepy) to evangelize at me. Do you want a detailed run-down of *my* spiritual beliefs? How about I talk about the ghost cats in my house! I could do that too! >:(
-
If the ghost cat thing wasn't a joke, by
on 2015-06-28 04:00:00 UTC
Link to this
I would super love to hear that story!
-
Email me? by
on 2015-06-28 05:02:00 UTC
Link to this
My email is iomccoy(at)me.com .
-
Um, I'm not. by
on 2015-06-27 22:37:00 UTC
Link to this
I honestly apologize, I really wasn't trying to. Evangelize means to try and convert you, and I wasn't. So, um... I'm sorry.
-
I know perfectly well what the word means... by
on 2015-06-27 22:46:00 UTC
Link to this
And when someone starts talking about their God as if their interpretation of Xir is the only reasonable one and insisting on God-as-morality, I don't see what else that can be. Sorry if I'm a bit snappish, but... I can't really discuss this if you insist that there is no secular morality. :/
-
No, you're fine. by
on 2015-06-27 23:03:00 UTC
Link to this
We all get snappish, and I haven't been at my best in the whole of this thread, so will you forgive me?
As to secular morality, it clearly exists. I'm not saying that it's impossible to do a right thing or a good thing if you're not a Christian— that would just be absurd. Honestly, I promise that I wasn't being intentionally evangelical. It came across that way, though, and you asked me to stop. I'll try to be more conscientious, but will you tell me if I'm slipping up? -
Thank you. :) by
on 2015-06-28 00:04:00 UTC
Link to this
It's fine, religion makes everyone touchy. ^_^
-
Yeah, definitely. by
on 2015-06-28 00:40:00 UTC
Link to this
Debating in general also makes me very stressed, and when I'm stressed, I don't think about others.
-
... um, Alleb. by
on 2015-06-27 20:34:00 UTC
Link to this
That's the sort of question which really feels like you're trolling. If you are, I'd really advise you to stop. If you're not, then explaining your position rather than just throwing questions like that at people is a good idea.
In other words: are you taking the position that oppression is not morally wrong? What would lead you to say that?
hS -
I apologize. by
on 2015-06-27 20:43:00 UTC
Link to this
No, I promise you that I am not trolling. I'm genuinely curious as to what his base is, because all morality must have a base.
Oppression is wrong, and it is wrong because God said so in his Word. I am to treat others as I would like to be treated.
Again, I apologize. In hindsight, yeah, that could easily be seen as trolling, but I promise you, on pain of being banned, that I am not intending to be a troll. I'm trying to use a certain debating strategy-- go for the moral. A person's argument is only as strong as his base. I'll try to be more conscious of my own words; thank you Huinesoron.
Also, [EvilAI]UBEROverlord, I rescind my question. -
That's all well and good... by
on 2015-06-27 21:22:00 UTC
Link to this
But my base is on law not morality. As I say above, morality is too squishy.
-
The base of any system of morality... by
on 2015-06-27 20:50:00 UTC
Link to this
...is seeing people as people, basically entitled to the same freedoms as you have unless they show they would use them to remove the agency of others.
Religion does that, in some ways. But we *do not want* you to evangelize at us. It's disrespectful in many ways. Please don't. -
That is untrue. by
on 2015-06-27 21:17:00 UTC
Link to this
The basis of the Christian morality is God, the basis of the Muslim morality is Allah, or the Old Testament God.
-
...I do not think you are understanding what I am saying. by
on 2015-06-27 22:39:00 UTC
Link to this
I'm saying that whatever you believe gives people morality, the core of it is the personness of others. I'm not saying that "oh no, there is no God to give morality" but that it's always empathy, no matter what. One cannot be a moral person while denying that others are as person as you are, and that doesn't change with belief or deity.
-
Ah. by
on 2015-06-27 23:09:00 UTC
Link to this
Yeah, you're right, I didn't get it. I apologize! I see what you mean now, and, honestly, I agree. At the center of my morality is love, and that's its whole cause and end. And you worded it very well.
-
Sorry about all the confusion! ^_^ (nm) by
on 2015-06-28 00:10:00 UTC
Link to this
-
Depends on who you ask, really. by
on 2015-06-27 21:33:00 UTC
Link to this
Many Christians don't really agree on what "God" means, and I strongly suspect the same is true of every other religion, including Islam.
The last church I attended, the priest talked often about how God was not essentially a "being," or a definable person, but a Presence in all living things, impossible to define. This lines up with several other religions' take - for example, teachers of many spiritual traditions within Native American religion (guardian spirit, medewin, etc.) will often say the same, that not only can a "God" not be defined or pinned down, but that it's sacrilegious to even try.
So to say that [the Christian] God, rather than conscience, is the basis of morality - when not everyone is a Christian, and those who are don't even agree with one another on the definition of God or conscience, is kind of a tough argument to make. -
Well, let's see... by
on 2015-06-27 21:46:00 UTC
Link to this
For the sake of clarity, let's define "Christian" as someone who believes that everything the Bible says is true, and doesn't gloss over anything the Bible says.
The basis of Christian morality is God's Word, the name for both Jesus and the Bible.
I didn't say that God was the basis of all moralities, just the Christian one. I can't speak for other religions, or for Christians who differ drastically from the Bible: only for myself. Which isn't to say that I'm the only one who doesn't differ from the Bible, or that I'm always 100% Biblical in everything. I just don't want to assume to speak for any and all Christians. Pff, that sounds like one of those disclaimers at the end of commercials. -
Whoa, whoa, whoa. by
on 2015-06-27 21:56:00 UTC
Link to this
For the sake of clarity, let's define "Christian" as someone who believes that everything the Bible says is true, and doesn't gloss over anything the Bible says.
1) You're leaving out the vast majority of Christians if you do that. Most Christians are not literalists. Catholics aren't, Anglicans aren't, most Methodists aren't, etc. Most Lutherans aren't, and even many Baptists.
2) Are we including Song of Solomon? The Wisdom literature? The poetry? The parts that contradict each other? The many, many Judaic laws that aren't specifically rescinded in Peter's vision of Acts but are still ignored by modern society? Because if so, I argue that you will not find a single "real" Christian alive today, or at any point in history.
3) This is just a general response. You say that we can't just say "Because hurting people is wrong" without giving a moral base, but I would say that when you say "It's wrong because [according to...] God says so," it sounds exactly the same to most of us. "Because it's wrong to hurt people," or the Granny Weatherwax morality, strikes me as a much firmer argument than "Because [according to this interpretation] God said so." -
Hm... by
on 2015-06-27 22:26:00 UTC
Link to this
I used that definition to avoid contention, and in doing so I walked right into it.
It's rather hard to pin down how far one can get from the Bible before you aren't really a Christian anymore, just using the name. I think the bare bones of it is that you believe that God came down as man, died on the cross for our sins, and rose again three days later. That's the most important part. A lot of people might disagree on the particulars, though, so that's basically a personal opinion.
Grab a ASV, and that's what we'll use. The Judaic laws aren't essential-- Paul talks about new believers not having to be taught the old traditions. Whatever is mentioned again in the New Testament as binding is, well, binding. The parts that contradict each other can all be explained, but I really don't think we want to go through all that, because it's not central to the discussion and might take a while. And, to be totally honest, I don't think I could face absolutely every detail. A Bible scholar could, I'm sure, but I'm not one of those.
Well, I see where you're coming from, but at the same time, I don't. I grew up reading the Bible, and I've always had that as a base for what I'm doing. The thought of not having a firmly defined foundation from a power greater than human feeling troubles me, and it's hard for me to imagine not being troubled by it.
That being said, the Granny Weatherwax morality seems sort of shaky to me. Is it always wrong to hurt people, no matter what, ever? What if I get caught down a dark alley with a man who, shall we say, doesn't have my best interests at heart? I'm fighting him with all I've got. And what about people with addictions? It'll hurt to get them off of those drugs, but it's necessary. -
Re: Hm... by
on 2015-06-27 22:34:00 UTC
Link to this
Grab a ASV, and that's what we'll use. The Judaic laws aren't essential-- Paul talks about new believers not having to be taught the old traditions.
Paul says the Judaic law isn't binding? Why are we to believe Paul, a mortal man who says himself that he doesn't speak for God, over the laws that were, according to the Bible, handed down to Moses from God directly?
Whatever is mentioned again in the New Testament as binding is, well, binding.
In which case, there are two commandments. All other law hangs on those. To love God, and to love one another.
That's it. Period. End of sentence. There may not be much for me in Christianity anymore, but if there's one thing I believe in, it's love. It's worth noting that immediately prior to that commandment is Christ asking Peter repeatedly, "Do you love me?" and telling him, when he says yes, "Feed my sheep."
There is one commandment. Love. I don't particularly care for anything anyone has to say that doesn't follow that. -
We are to believe Paul by
on 2015-06-27 22:42:00 UTC
Link to this
because he was divinely inspired. But that is a can of worms that's caused a lot of argument, and I'd really like to leave it untouched.
Well, yeah. That's it, really; love God with everything you have, and love people because you love God. I believe the Ten Commandments are also binding, but they follow logically. Why steal from someone when you're supposed to be loving them? -
Church and State by
on 2015-06-27 18:23:00 UTC
Link to this
First off, before anything else can be said, you need to define your terms. What exactly do you mean by "religion being connected to state"?
If what you mean is that the church should be able to set policy merely by virtue of being the church, i.e., a country run as a theocracy, then the problem is obvious: anyone not of the religion in power is in danger of persecution.
If what you mean is that policy may be influenced by the ethical and religious beliefs of the policymaker, there is generally nothing amiss with that. A lot of codified laws have parallels to, if not roots in, religious beliefs. The prototypical example: We have laws against murder, which parallel the ancient command "Thou shalt not kill."
When an American says "separation of church and state," both a conservative and a liberal will agree that the phrase covers the first definition. We do not want Congress setting up a national religion, nor do we want institutionalized persecution.
Where JulyFlame and I might disagree, however, is in the second definition: To what extent should moral, ethical, and religious considerations factor into what the positive law should be? That, of course, is a debate that any democratic society should have.
My personal worry (and that of many a religious conservative) is that a social liberal may misuse "separation of church and state" as a means to silence any opinion that may have a religious basis--a position that is clearly untenable. Though something should not be a law simply because some religious figure said "Thus saith the Lord/Allah/Buddha/whoever," that does not mean that his voice should automatically be silenced either. -
I agree with you substantially. by
on 2015-06-27 20:12:00 UTC
Link to this
On the whole, I think you and I are in accord. *shrugs* That was why I asked what July thought.
-
Allow me to answer that one. by
on 2015-06-27 18:11:00 UTC
Link to this
Since it will be quite long, I ask patience while I type up the reply.
-
Um, by
on 2015-06-27 18:19:00 UTC
Link to this
okay, but I really wanted to know why July thought that. But it's fine.
-
I'm sure she'll reply as well. by
on 2015-06-27 18:27:00 UTC
Link to this
Essentially, my guess is because we don't live in a theocracy - and so every person of religious minority should be guaranteed certain rights, regardless of how other religions (even majorities) feel about it. I mentioned this below, in the other thread, but it's been an ongoing debate for 300+ years. Should we allow sale and consumption of alcohol, when the majority of America were Protestants who (at that time) had a sort-of thing against drinking? Should we allow integration of transit and communities, when the majority of Americans (at that time) believed interracial marriage was a sin? Should we allow people to work on Sunday, when the majority of Americans believe it's a sin?
Every single one of these was hotly debated at the time. But not allowing people to marry in the civil courts because one's religion forbids it is a decision befitting a theocracy, not a free and secular government. -
Um... okay? by
on 2015-06-27 16:49:00 UTC
Link to this
It's your prejudice to have, I guess, but don't expect everyone else not to cheer for progress.
Unless you mean that it'll encourage bad slash? ;) -
Well done Supreme Court. by
on 2015-06-27 11:35:00 UTC
Link to this
Continue your work to drag the United States kicking and screaming into the present. =]
Now sort out your bloody healthcare system so it isn't predicated on letting poor people die slow and horrible deaths. -
Conga rats to you guys over the pond! by
on 2015-06-27 08:09:00 UTC
Link to this
May it be that we will have something like that here - not to mention secular marriage.
-
Hell, it's about time! by
on 2015-06-27 06:08:00 UTC
Link to this
Finally, they managed to agree on something. Has anyone spotted the flying pigs yet? I'm pretty sure I saw one earlier.
-
Well... by
on 2015-06-27 19:17:00 UTC
Link to this
It was a 5-4 decision, so the Court did not fully agree. A slim majority won out, like most of the other large decisions recently. I am concerned that it was not a 6-3 decision. 5-4 makes it very easy to attack. I see no reason why it would be overturned, but it may well be very similar to Roe v. Wade, highly unlikely to be overturned, but far from immune from attack.
-
Still a long way to go... by
on 2015-06-27 04:51:00 UTC
Link to this
...but we've come so, so far. Drop the Bleepka -- this is a day to *remember.*
-
Hurrah! by
on 2015-06-27 03:20:00 UTC
Link to this
One big step forward for equality. I hope that other countries around the world follow suit.
-
Overjoyed! by
on 2015-06-27 02:56:00 UTC
Link to this
It was the first news story I saw when I woke up today. I think I might have teared up a little when I read Anthony Kennedy's decision. The wording was definitely not your typical legal fare.
I'm glad to know that my future will not be unduly restricted based on my partner's gender or sexual identity. It's by no means the end of the road regarding LGBT equality, to be sure, but it's a much-needed step.
PC -
Awesome work, USA! by
on 2015-06-27 02:36:00 UTC
Link to this
Now for Australia to stop dragging our sorry butts and achieve marriage equality here.
Elcalion, wishing his country wasn't so darned backwards sometimes -
Aw yes! by
on 2015-06-27 02:16:00 UTC
Link to this
*punches the air* About time!
-
I had not, actually. by
on 2015-06-26 22:07:00 UTC
Link to this
Hopefully I'll be able to read a real article about it soon.
That said, this is fantastic news. -
I'm very glad for them! (nm) by
on 2015-06-26 21:59:00 UTC
Link to this
-
I heard about it on NPR this morning! Congrats! by
on 2015-06-26 19:59:00 UTC
Link to this
What scares me a little, though, is that the vote was SO CLOSE to a draw... I mean, it was 5-4. Just one vote's difference from a country which would handle LBGT rights a little, uh... okay, a LOT worse.
As it is, though, this is an amazing step forward! Great job, America! :D -
Yaaay~ by
on 2015-06-26 18:55:00 UTC
Link to this
I'm very happy for you people, and I hope the anti-gay marriage crowd won't get as huge/bad as it did in France. (Well, I kinda doubt it, but hey, one can hope.)
-
I know right? I can't stop smiling. by
on 2015-06-26 17:43:00 UTC
Link to this
There are going to be weddings. Weddings everywhere. You won't be able to swing a cat without hitting giddy newlyweds!
-
Yep, heard about it. Good job, America :) by
on 2015-06-26 17:23:00 UTC
Link to this
Although it does not apply to me, I'm happy for you guys out there (or here, doesn't matter).
Also - SUCK IT, TEXAS! :D -
Would someone remove this thread, please? by
on 2015-06-26 22:08:00 UTC
Link to this
I don't feel comfortable seeing one of the dumbest moments of my life here on the Board still present. Is there a way for this to disappear?
-
Not a thing we do. by
on 2015-06-27 10:22:00 UTC
Link to this
If it makes you feel better, at the rate the Board's moving, it'll be off the front page in two days or so.
hS -
Ah.... huh. by
on 2015-06-26 21:55:00 UTC
Link to this
I guess this is where I ought to point out that in my hometown of El Paso, which is located in Texas, there were rulings on the books that were purposefully set up to allow for same sex partners (since they couldn't get married) to share their significant other's benefits if they were an employee of the city, and when they tried to remove said rulings, the explicit reasoning used wasn't to exclude said same sex partners, but there was a great deal of activism by local LGBT groups to try and prevent it from being removed?
Or that Texas in general does have a great degree of activism and proponents for LGBT rights in general, contrary to general stereotype, which is largely found in the older generations, like nearly everywhere else?
And that many of the larger cities in Texas do in fact have thriving LGBT groups and even events and areas?
And that the state in question is not in fact made up largely of hicks who are actively for the oppression and misery of others, even as a nominally 'Republican' state?
And that perhaps you need to fact check better, prior to making such roundabout derogatory insults? -
I already apologized, but I will do it again. by
on 2015-06-26 22:01:00 UTC
Link to this
I'm sorry. Honestly. To be fair, I have no idea why Texas was the first thing that popped into my mind.
I admit, it was a stereotypical and wrong way of thinking, and (as with many things in the past) I typed something, without thinking. -
That's a bit uncalled for by
on 2015-06-26 19:38:00 UTC
Link to this
No need to insult a State, especially considering (regardless of your opinions on some/all of its policies) it is one of the most important States in the US. Seeing as it is the 14 Largest Economy World Wide with GDP. As of 2012 it was comparable to Spain's entire National Economy.
-
Agreed. by
on 2015-06-26 19:44:00 UTC
Link to this
OTOH, I don't think economic importance is a valid reason not to insult something. I'm sure people more up on their history than I am can easily trot out a dozen examples of bodies with a huge economic impact that definitely deserve to be insulted.
Say rather that there are plenty of Texans who DO support civil rights, such as our most excellent JulyFlame, and there's no call to tar them all with one brush.
~Neshomeh -
True Enough by
on 2015-06-26 19:54:00 UTC
Link to this
My point was that it was deserving of some degree of respect. It was also the first thing that came to mind.
-
Not to mention about all of my mom's family. by
on 2015-06-26 19:46:00 UTC
Link to this
So roughly half of my relatives, all of whom are celebrating the new ruling.
-
Ouch... thanks, guys... by
on 2015-06-26 19:55:00 UTC
Link to this
Made me hurt myself double with my own joke... I guess, when it comes to the Board, I need to reduce my humour borders immensly.
Anyway, let's pretend my comment never was posted. Moving on! -
YAAAAY! *bells* by
on 2015-06-26 17:13:00 UTC
Link to this
We're one step closer to being a civilized nation!
Rainbow wedding cake for everyone!! -
Awesome news is awesome! by
on 2015-06-26 16:23:00 UTC
Link to this
Several friends who've recently gotten married in my state have been cheerfully celebrating the fact they are now legal in the rest of the country as well. I'm pretty psyched. :D
-
Excellent! by
on 2015-06-26 16:12:00 UTC
Link to this
I was heartened when I heard they ruled to uphold Obamacare subsidies, and I'm pleased not to be disappointed. Yay for civil rights!
~Neshomeh -
Congrates. by
on 2015-06-26 16:02:00 UTC
Link to this
Though I'm surprised it isn't by popular vote, like how Ireland did it but I guess things work differently in America.
-
Yeah, the legal system here is odd. by
on 2015-06-26 16:28:00 UTC
Link to this
We don't really have nationwide referendums, only local ones, for reasons that are complicated but have a lot to do with this specific subject. It goes back to the days of Prohibition (and sabbath laws, prohibiting work on Sunday) when there was a lot of debate over whether the majority could or should decide laws that mainly impacted a minority of any size (Catholics and liquor-store owners, since the majority Protestants at that point were forbidden to drink) and those who believed the sabbath was a Saturday (Jews, Seventh-Day Adventists). Local referendums can only do so much in America - the biggest question is usually who they get elected, who then gets to decide policies (and appoint Supreme Court justices, at the presidential level).
…
/gets off historian soapbox -
Well! by
on 2015-06-26 16:01:00 UTC
Link to this
(I'm sorry, I couldn't resist that one. ^^)
Best part of the Wiki page on the decision has to be this, from the dissent to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals decision (to enforce the ban):
Dissenting, Judge Martha Craig Daughtrey wrote: "Because the correct result is so obvious, one is tempted to speculate that the majority has purposefully taken the contrary position to create the circuit split regarding the legality of same-sex marriage that could prompt a grant of certiorari by the Supreme Court and an end to the uncertainty of status and the interstate chaos that the current discrepancy in state laws threatens."
That would sound weirdly plausible were it not for, y'know, the fact that therearewere multiple laws banning same-sex marriage, so clearly the result wasn't 'obvious'.
Anyway: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sexmarriageintheUnitedKingdom">ha ha, beat you to it.
hS -
And yet another reason why I'm moving to England. by
on 2015-06-26 16:07:00 UTC
Link to this
Anyway, now to sit back and observe the religious fanatics get all up in arms about it.
-
For the record... by
on 2015-06-26 17:44:00 UTC
Link to this
I am plenty religious, and many of us religious types are just as happy about it as the non-religious people are. Just saying. :)
-
Well, I said fanatics. by
on 2015-06-26 17:56:00 UTC
Link to this
Perhaps I should have added in the 'crazy' as well. Sorry if I offended you.
-
My two cents by
on 2015-06-26 19:30:00 UTC
Link to this
Provided this does not require churches to officiate same-sex marriage ceremonies, which if it does then there is a real big First Amendment Issue, I think the only real opposition this is going to get is going to be from groups like the Westboro Baptist Church.
Most religious people I know are going to be fine with this ruling provided it does not force them to officiate the marriages. And even then a fair few would not really care. -
I'll throw in mine too. by
on 2015-06-26 20:46:00 UTC
Link to this
I think some (perhaps many) will be against the ruling, but I don't know if anyone will actually do anything. Eventually, it's quite probable that such officiatons will be forced upon them, following in the footsteps of private businesses. In fact, some churches that host weddings have already been forced to either accommodate same-sex weddings or stop offering their building to the public. All of this, of course, is unconstitutional-- we do not have a right to goods and services.
-
I don't think I'd want a preacher like that doing my wedding by
on 2015-06-26 22:46:00 UTC
Link to this
If I were marrying another girl, I wouldn't want a homophobic pastor marrying us. It would just spoil things to force somebody to do it who didn't think our being married was legit. That would be as bad as inviting your high school bully to your graduation party and asking them to give a speech.
So... I don't think it's going to be a huge issue. There will probably be test cases and it'll be decided one way or another; but there's no reason pastors should have to officiate at a wedding if they don't want to, since people can get married by a judge and have a ceremony outside a church, or say their vows to each other, or find a church that's gay-friendly, or not have a wedding at all.
But yeah, I think that if a pastor seriously doesn't want to marry a gay couple, then there probably aren't too many gay couples who'd want that pastor at their wedding. -
About that... by
on 2015-06-26 22:55:00 UTC
Link to this
This is of course a very different track, but...
My mother, when my parents married, wanted a Catholic wedding, officiated by a Catholic priest, since marriage is a sacrament.
My father is a Protestant.
The priest was very much against marrying the two, because he didn't want to marry a Protestant to a Catholic- he didn't think the marriage was a proper one for that reason.
My granddad- my dad's father- was Irish Catholic.
He was not best pleased by the priest's assertion and threatened the man into marrying my parents.
In the end, my mother and father were married by said priest. -
...oh. by
on 2015-06-26 23:03:00 UTC
Link to this
Right. I didn't think about that angle. :(
In some faiths, finding someone willing to conduct a wedding might take some looking.
Maybe the Pope will make a statement and encourage people not to exclude same-sex couples from the sacrament of marriage... is that asking too much? It would be awfully nice if he did. -
Extremely unlikely. by
on 2015-06-27 01:36:00 UTC
Link to this
With Catholicism, the sacrament of marriage is still defined as being between one man and one woman. It's very unlikely that that will change any time in the near (or not so near) future, especially since we don't yet have any women priests and even that is unlikely to change anytime soon.
-
That's actually not entirely true by
on 2015-06-26 21:12:00 UTC
Link to this
Really the bigger issue is going to be if the government forces Churches to preside over the weddings, then it is a severe violate of Freedom of Religion.
I do not think they will, because under Lemon v. Kurtzman in order to avoid running afoul of the Establishment Clause, there cannot be "excessive entanglements with Religion". And forcing churches to do something would be an excessive entanglement. Of course, the Establishment Clause is never used in that way, and Lemon is an Establishment Clause case...
But even so, forcing a church to to officiate same-sex marriage, does pose an even greater risk with regards to the Free Exercise Clause. Though it is tough to say what the Court would rule, its Establishment and Free Exercise Jurisprudence have been all over the place over the years.
As to no right to goods and services, your statement is over-broad. By holding the Affordable Care Act as Constitutional the Court is basically saying there is a right to the healthcare provided under it. Then there is also the Right to have an abortion (Roe v. Wade). Further Police and Fire services are also services that there is an absolute right to. Further you have the Brown v. Boar of Ed. which required total desegregation. As a result, schools, private businesses, etc. had to integrate.
Further things like Power and Water are also something people have a right to. Between the Federal Power Commission and all the State Regulatory Organizations, anyone is allowed access to the power grid, if they do not have it. Then there is also distributive power, which says that there is a right to have a private power company buy excess power that you produce.
A more correct statement would be, there is no right for Person A to get product B from supplier C, but even then there are limits to that, (see desegregation, distributive power). That also reminds me of the entire doctrine of Specific Performance which can force a seller to sell a certain object to a buyer. (Of Course it is usually only Real Estate). -
That has never, ever, ever been proposed. by
on 2015-06-26 22:45:00 UTC
Link to this
It has, in fact, been the opposite. Even churches who do allow same-sex marriages have not been able to perform them in states where they are not legally recognized.
-
I was just approaching it analytically by
on 2015-06-26 23:02:00 UTC
Link to this
I know it has not been proposed, but I do know that that is probably going to be one of the arguments made in the coming months. So from an analytical stand point, if either a State or the Federal Government were to require that, then there would be a very large fight. Very similar to the fights that occurred during desegregation. Though the main difference between the two is which part of the First Amendment at issue.
During desegregation it was generally the right to association at issue. This would, and has been, largely be about Free Exercise and Establishment. And the Court's Jurisprudence on those topics is a complete mess, riddled with inconsistencies.
The more interesting question will not be forcing a minister from church A to preside over the ceremony, but whether the actual structure itself could be used. That will be a more interesting question. That I think under what trend the jurisprudence has developed, that it might be a case of, if you let different sex marriages in the building then you should let same-sex. But nothing is certain, because as I said, this field is a mess. -
I hope you're right, by
on 2015-06-26 22:32:00 UTC
Link to this
but I wouldn't say it's an impossibility. I certainly hope it won't happen, though.
On my statement, you're right, I was over-board. I think of things in strict construction, and, come to think of it, I really need to do some research on rights and how they've been expanded or limited.
I was mostly thinking of the infamous wedding cake affair-thingy-deal. Forcing a bakery to pay a fine because they won't bake a cake is, to the extent of my knowledge, unconstitutional. -
Noooot exactly. by
on 2015-06-26 22:49:00 UTC
Link to this
Constitutional law is not always black-and-white, but you'll recall that in the 1960s, many restaurants wouldn't serve black customers. One of the protests was "sit-in"s, and, for the record "miscegenation," or "race-mixing" was cited as a religious concern for some churches who were honestly arguing that it was against Biblical standards to allow interracial marriage (or integration, period), and that therefore it was their constitutional right to refuse service to black customers. (This is called "the children of Ham" argument, if you care to research further.)
Of course, now it is illegal, regardless of one's religious belief about race mixing, to deny service to a customer based on their race. And that is not seen as unconstitutional. -
What I meant was, by
on 2015-06-26 23:50:00 UTC
Link to this
at the moment, it is unconstitutional to force a bakery to make a cake for a same-sex wedding.
-
That's not necessarily true by
on 2015-06-27 00:08:00 UTC
Link to this
It varies by jurisdiction, but in some States, depending on the circumstances, a Court could require it.
Take this for an example, A orders a Cake from Boudin Bakers, their designs are unique, everyone in the State of Freemont knows it. They are the greatest bakers in the state. Chef Bob has started work on A's wedding cake, and has nearly completed it, he just needs to put a few finishing touches on the cake when he realizes that this wedding cake is for the wedding of Adam and Jim. Chef Bob realizes that this is for a same-sex marriage. He is vigorously opposed to it, and he refuses to finish the cake. A brings a suit, seeking specific performance, or in other words an order from the Court requiring Chef Bob to finish the Cake.
In this situation, some States might allow A specific performance. This is not an Unconstitutional Remedy. Now the general common law would probably not allow this, but general common law highly disfavors specific performance. But some States do allow this. Also if it was Unconstitutional, then the RFRA like statutes at issue in Kentucky and Arkansas (among others) would not have been needed. It is though an unsettled area, what the effects will be is still unclear. -
Ah. by
on 2015-06-27 00:26:00 UTC
Link to this
Yeah, I really need to hone my knowledge on this... What I should have said is, "I think that forcing someone to bake a cake should be unconstitutional." I'd attempt an argument for strict construction, but as I have (more than thoroughly) shown, government is not my forte. *sheepishly rubs neck* Thanks for setting me straight.
-
It's not "forcing someone to bake a cake." by
on 2015-06-27 13:43:00 UTC
Link to this
It's placing legal penalties on someone who agreed to provide services to the public, and who decided not to do so due to discriminatory beliefs on their part.
No one is pointing a gun at their back and saying "BAKE!" But if they discriminate, they should have a penalty for breaking the laws governing their business. It's like how health inspections don't force people to keep a clean shop... but you're not gonna pass if your store's a rat-filled mess.
A business *doesn't* have the same rights as a person. A person can, personally, tell gay people nasty things all they want as long as it doesn't cross into criminality. (Stalking, harassment, hate speech, that sort of thing.) But businesses are public entities, and they either serve the public or have legal problems to deal with.
In the interests of full disclosure, I am not a lawyer. Nor am I a health inspector. ;) -
Let's say... by
on 2015-06-27 17:46:00 UTC
Link to this
We have a baker. This baker worked hard and saved money for years, and built his own bakery. He's now baking his own cakes, selling them, and making a profit. Let's say our baker is a Christian, and he makes a decision not to sell wedding cakes for same-sex couples. It is nothing short of tyranny for the government to come in and tell him that because he is selling his cakes to some people, he must sell them to all.
We're suppose to have Freedom of Association, after all. -
That's for people, not businesses. by
on 2015-06-27 18:14:00 UTC
Link to this
Let me point out, again, where the precedent for this comes from.
We have a baker. This baker worked hard and saved money for years, and built his own bakery. He's now baking his own cakes, selling them, and making a profit. Let's say our baker is aChristianwhite supremacist, and he makes a decision not to sell wedding cakes forsame-sexinterracial couples. It is nothing short of tyranny for the government to come in and tell him that because he is selling his cakes to some people, he must sell them to all.
Freedom of Association does not apply to for-profit businesses. No one can tell a church who they may or may not accept. No one may tell that church's fundraising non-profit bakery on the side who to bake cakes for. That church, and its hard-working bakers, can tell anyone they please to take a hike. But when they leave those doors, they are in public, secular society, and discrimination of goods and services is a much trickier thing, for reasons stated above. -
Who are you to say by
on 2015-06-27 18:34:00 UTC
Link to this
that Freedom of Association doesn't apply to businesses? If I work hard, save money, and build myself a shop, why do I suddenly lose my rights?
-
You don't lose rights. by
on 2015-06-27 18:45:00 UTC
Link to this
Our hypothetical baker is perfectly free, as a personal citizen, to tell that gay, lesbian, bi, interracial, or atheist couple that he does not believe they should be allowed to get married. He is free to shout it at them from the rooftops and wear shirts that say "I believe in traditional marriage the way it was from 1850-1950 in America," and drive a car that flies banners saying as much.
But the baker's business, for-profit establishment, is not a citizen or a person and does not have rights. -
Not quite by
on 2015-06-27 19:34:00 UTC
Link to this
To say a corporation (whether it is for-profit or not) does have rights. They are not the same as a natural person, but they do have them. One need look no further than Citizens United v. FEC. Court held that corporations have the right to engage in political speech. There was also Dartmouth College v. Woodward an 1819 case that extended the Contracts Clause to Juridical Persons (corporations). There are a host of others, though the citations escape me at the moment that extend varying levels of speech protection for a corporation. Corporations are also able to own property.
In short, corporations do have rights. They are not in the same bundle of rights that a natural person owns, but they still have rights.
Now on to the original question about Free Association, this argument has been made during desegregation. And it lost. Court specifically required private organizations and businesses to desegregate.
Of course this does not get into the issue of a Sole-Proprietorship. Under the law those do not exist independently of the owner, so there could theoretically be a better argument there, but it would still likely fail. -
Oh, I know. by
on 2015-06-27 19:39:00 UTC
Link to this
It's not a clear-cut and simple matter - of course, it never is. Personally, I'm hoping Citizen's United gets turned over eventually, I found that case to be horrifying for many reasons.
So - out of curiosity, are you a constitutional lawyer, or a legal historian? -
Neither by
on 2015-06-27 19:53:00 UTC
Link to this
I am a recent Law School Graduate in the process of getting licensed. Though Constitutional Law was one of the most interesting topics I took in Law School.
-
But again, look at the context. by
on 2015-06-27 00:37:00 UTC
Link to this
If it's unconstitutional to "force" someone to bake a cake, Chef Bob, above, could also look at the design and realize the couple is:
-Catholic
-Interracial
-Muslim
-Japanese
-Chinese
-Jewish
-Irish
-etc, etc.
Aaaaand say "It is against my beliefs for these people to marry." There is a historical precedent for every single one of the above groups to be refused services. If it's unconstitutional to enforce anti-discrimination laws, as in Illinois recently, that opens the door right back up for Jim Crow laws. -
Exactly by
on 2015-06-27 01:08:00 UTC
Link to this
I just don't have the cites off the top of my head. Because same-sex couples are considered a suspect class (i.e., meaning that they are a group whose rights have been violated in the past), there will need to be some non-discriminatory reason to prevent service. Like not wearing shoes when the entered the premises with a clearly identifiable "No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service" Sign.
That being said, it seems that Alleb is saying that in their opinion it should be Unconstitutional to force Chef Bob to bake that cake, then that is a bit different. And you are right, under the strict construction interpretive scheme, you are not wrong. But the Court has abandoned textualism over the years, and those arguments rarely succeed. I cannot remember a recent case were Constitutional Textualism (strict construction) actually succeeded.
But now because I'm on this topic, I'll go ahead and toss this in. Historically there have been really three main kinds of Constitutional Interpretation.
1) Textualism: Which is about strict construction, plain meaning, and the like. This is not real common now, but before the 20th Century this was in many cases the main approach.
2) Originalism: This is a dying interpretation. Basically it means you look back at the founder's intent. Justices Scalia and Thomas are best known for using this. In most cases this is usually going fail.
3) Living Constitution: This is the main one that the Court tends to use at this point. It is all about bringing the Constitution into the current age. This is by far the most commonly used scheme by the Court.
4) Federal Common Law: I am including this one, because it is occasionally used. Generally when the Court mentions Federal Common Law, it means they are about to make something up. It is not used often, but when it is, it is usually entertaining. -
That's what I was saying by
on 2015-06-26 23:10:00 UTC
Link to this
There might be a law in the future that would require churches to host same-sex marriages, and the argument that will be made is that it violates First Amendment Religious Protections. I think with regards to the building, it will probably be a loosing argument. The minister on the other hand will be a much more complicated issue. That will depend on which of two main tests the Court uses. If the Court applies Lemon then it probably is also a loosing argument.
If the Court instead applies a modified Reynolds (which focuses on whether belief is actually sincere or not, and if it is actually a religion) then it could go either way. -
Also, by
on 2015-06-26 22:34:00 UTC
Link to this
your knowledge of the government, laws, and how they work is awesome. I really need to increase my own understanding of it.
-
Thanks by
on 2015-06-26 22:48:00 UTC
Link to this
Though to be fair, I did just get two law degrees, so I should hope that I have a good understanding of the law.
As for the fine, the answer is really unsettled. It depends on how the law is actually written, it also depends on what the State Constitution says. It would really though come down to whether the law is sufficiently narrowly tailored. Without the law at issue in front of me I cannot be certain, but often times with something like this, the Supreme Court will look at it as
1) Is there a substantial government interest?
2) Does the law serve that interest?
3) Is this the least restrictive means?
Though to be fair that analysis is usually reserved for Dormant Commerce Clause issues. What I would really need to do, is look to the jurisprudence that enforced desegregation, that is where the most similarities will be. -
There's an interesting question. by
on 2015-06-26 21:01:00 UTC
Link to this
[W]e do not have a right to goods and services.
I read that, and my knee-jerk response is "We don't? But surely we have the right to food, clothing, medical care, sitting where we like on the bus, etc., and what about 'Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness'?" I mean, I wouldn't say everyone has the right to drive a Ferrari, but I WOULD say everyone has the right to buy one if they want to, and refusing to sell is just bad business.
But then, I agree that churches/officiants shouldn't be forced to marry anyone outside their religion, because, y'know, religious freedom. You get to practice your religion in your way, I get to practice my religion in my way, just as long as we're not infringing upon each other's other basic rights. And UU churches and ministers, at least, will happily take all the gay marriage business if y'all don't want it. {= )
Maybe [EAI]UO can tell us what the law actually says about this? I'm curious now.
~Neshomeh -
My post above has a more complete answer by
on 2015-06-26 22:01:00 UTC
Link to this
But you are essentially correct. You have the ability to have those things, but the government is not required to provide it. And the general rule is that most retailers can chose to not serve certain individuals (assuming said retailer/provider is a private individual), however there are restrictions. After Brown and its progeny even private individuals are not allowed to segregate.
So using your Ferrari example a better statement would be, I have the right to own a Ferrari, provided I can afford it. I also have a right to drive it, provided I meet the requirements (driver's license, insurance, and the vehicle itself is street legal). But I do not have a default right to the Red 2011 Ferrari Enzo from Bob's Imports. Bob can choose to decline to sell to me, but as I indicated there are restrictions. This can change in certain circumstances. In my post above I mention Specific Performance.
I also realize I did not really explain it well, so here it is. If something is unique, or one party to a contract (the buyer here) has made it clear that they are only interested in that particular object (the 2011 Ferrari Enzo sold by Bob). If Bob and I agree that I will purchase that 2011 Ferrari Enzo, and if Bob does not deliver the Ferrari after I have paid the price, then that creates a right to that particular Ferrari. And I can go to a Court and in most States (not all) the Court would order Bob to sell that Ferrari.
Now taking it out of the abstract and putting it into the practical, practically you are also correct, a merchant will not refuse to sell a good if you can afford it and have tendered payment.
Now on to the other part of this, which I did not address above, but it warrants some discussion, on the practice of religion, the law is a bit more complicated. As I mention above, the Court's Jurisprudence with regard to religion is...murky at best.
A big issue involved here is from Employment Division v. Smith This was a case from 1990. Oregon had a law criminalizing the use of Peyote, two individuals were members of the Native American Religion (that's how it was identified), and as part of their practice they used Peyote for certain rituals. They were arrested and discharged from their jobs. They brought suit alleging a violation of their right to Free Exercise of Religion. The Court held here that because the law applied generally it was valid, and as such the law criminalizing Peyote use even as applied to Smith was Constitutional. This generally applicability is a key rule that we will see show up again in the coming months, and this is why individuals might still be obligated to provide certain services for same-sex marriages.
The next key development was that immediately after Smith Congress passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). It stated that among other things, interests in religious freedom were to be protected. In 1997 the Supreme Court held in City of Boerne v. Flores that the law was Unconstitutional with regards to the States. It could not force states to add more protection for religious freedom. The issue here is there have been several laws recently that are very similar to the RFRA. The one that comes to mind is Arkansas, where the law basically states that a business can choose not to sell to same-sex couple on the basis of religious belief or obligation. In other words, its is basically RFRA with a slightly different goal. The problem is the Court has already found RFRA Unconstitutional, but that was from the Federal side. As of now it is unsettled, but I am certain that these provisions will be invalided on a similar basis that segregation was disallowed.
I hope that answers your question. -
It's cool. by
on 2015-06-26 17:59:00 UTC
Link to this
No offense taken. It was really more of a pre-emptive statement; making sure to note that the allies in the religious community are, well, still allies. :)
-
Speaking of that: by
on 2015-06-26 16:09:00 UTC
Link to this
Since I know it's going to come up over there: how overturnable is this? Presumably the Supreme Court is allowed to overrule itself (though I'd assume that won't happen until they get a change of membership), but is anyone else able to do that?
hS, legally curious (and hoping for a 'no') -
It can be done--but it's hard. by
on 2015-06-26 17:45:00 UTC
Link to this
I think it takes a constitutional amendment or something like that--like with civil rights, where when we declared that black people were equal with white people it overturned a bunch of court rulings.
The point is to make sure that the Supreme Court can't have the last word, to balance the power between legislative, executive, and judicial branches. They can all override each other. But it would take an override at the highest level. -
The Answer by
on 2015-06-26 19:25:00 UTC
Link to this
There are only two ways that it could be overturned at this point. The Court could indeed overrule itself, but that is unlikely to happen, even with a change in the Court. The Court, though they often claim otherwise, still follows public opinion and the overwhelming majority of Americans support this result. And one of things that I noticed, close to about 1/2 of Conservatives also support this result. In other words, popular opinion will prevent future Courts from changing its decision.
Now without having read the decision yet, there is one other guaranteed way that it could be overturned. And it is as Calista rightly stated, a Constitutional Amendment. And they are very difficult to get passed. And an Amendment that would prevent same-sex marriage would never have the popular support to survive.
However, if the Court did not actually say that the Constitution required the recognition of the right, then Congress could legislate it, but from what I have read it was a Constitutional Decision, and the Court is the final say on the Constitution. And the only way to change that is either the Court overruling a previous decision, see Brown v. Board of Ed. (holding that Plessy v. Ferguson's Separate, But Equal Doctrine was Unconstitutional) or it would need to superseded by Constitutional Amendment, see Chisholm v. Georgia (holding States did not have Sovereign Immunity), which was immediately superseded by the 11th Amendment.
And for clarification, when it comes to Constitutional Issues, the Supreme Court actually does have the last word, see Marbury v. Madison ("It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that
rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each." Or perhaps more simply Marbury establishes Judicial Review) Which for those that do no know what Judicial Review is, it is one of the most important duties of the Supreme Court of the United States. It means that they have the right to declare a law Unconstitutional, which if that is done then the law must be stricken and is unenforceable. The only way that this can be changed is either through Amendment or a subsequent Judicial Opinion overruling the previous one. Both are very rare.
Brown was basically the exception. If any if any length of time passes it becomes very hard for the Court to overrule itself, because lower courts rely on the decisions, and especially something like this, where not only lower courts, but State Governments will have relied upon it. The reason Brown came out the way it did, was frankly, that's how the wind was blowing. And that's the same thing here. This decision will not be overruled.
So the only way for the decision to no longer stand, again assuming it is based on Constitutional Grounds (which I am certain it is, seeing as several of the laws that were invalidated were State Constitutions, generally the only way a provision in a State Constitution can be invalidated is if the Court finds a Fundamental Constitutional Right (under the Federal Constitution)), then the only way to supersede it is to pass an Amendment. But, in order to do that you need popular support and it will not exist for an Amendment that allows States to ban same-sex marriage. Though I suspect someone will probably have already introduced such an Amendment, it will never pass.
The TL;DR version: It is possible, but so unlikely that for all intents and purposes, this decision cannot be overruled.
-
!!! by
on 2015-06-26 16:00:00 UTC
Link to this
Happy with that.
:)
-
Some more PPCvian silliness. by
on 2015-06-26 15:49:00 UTC
Link to this
So, hands up who remembers the Myths of the PPC?
They fell through time from a thousand years in the future, and seem to be a mythicised account of the creation of the Protectors of the Plot Continuum. Precisely what sort of culture wrote them is unclear...
... but perhaps about to be more so. Another document has been uncovered from the timeslip! And after minutes of painstaking translation work, I am ready to share it with you all.
The Continuous Council is one of the best kind of myths - the sort where everything goes horribly wrong, and there are long stretches of magical description. ^_~
I know it's all terribly silly - but I hope someone enjoys it anyway.
hS -
Well, my reaction was... by
on 2015-06-26 16:12:00 UTC
Link to this
What on earth did I just read and why was it funny.
Also, apparently the Reader becomes corrupted (or, as Ix said, 'eeevil'). Hmmm... :D
Lovely silliness. I like the language, the various implications, the way the jewels were made, and the fact that I spent the whole thing going 'what am I reading?'
~DF -
^_^ by
on 2015-06-26 16:17:00 UTC
Link to this
Bear in mind, this is seen from a thousand years in the future. They could just be looking at the colours, or at the fact that the Reader 'lets people into the circle' as the Onyx Monitor (eg, Rina)... or maybe a future Theorist/Monitor did go evil. No-one says the roles will belong to these people forever, after all (and - gak! - Morgan's leaving in nine years, so there'll be a new Tigereye Castellan for sure!).
I'm glad you enjoyed it! ^_^
hS -
What? Morgan, nooo! by
on 2015-06-26 16:24:00 UTC
Link to this
I have not seen this yet and now I am the sad. :(
-
She may of course... by
on 2015-06-26 16:37:00 UTC
Link to this
... not stay gone.
At the time that was written, a) she was a minor character, and b) that was sixteen years in the future! Things have changed, though... I intend to keep the fact in place, but she may well show up again.
Or, hey, maybe in nine years she'll be a non-entity again. That is longer than she's existed as a character, after all!
hS -
Well, that was a lovely read. :) by
on 2015-06-26 16:01:00 UTC
Link to this
I do love these 'thousand years hence' myths you come up with. S'fun.
-
Well, my fellow Potterheads, this month is good for us. by
on 2015-06-26 20:55:00 UTC
Link to this
Today is a special day, dear brethren. It was on this day, June 26th, eighteen years ago Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone hit the British bookshelves. But... do you know why this day is special in 2015, aside from the obvious anniversary?
THIS is the title of a theatre play inspired by Her Majesty Rowling's stories AND in cooperation with her. Originally, when it was speculated in 2013, it was supposed to be a story following Harry's life before Hogwarts.
But today, J.K. Rowling revealed, the play will portray the world BEFORE Voldemort killing Lily and James Potter. I'm not sure if we'll get to see infant Harry, but it will still be nice to see. Also, this is NOT a prequel to the series. -
THAT LOOKS AWESOME! by
on 2015-06-27 15:00:00 UTC
Link to this
*dances while laughing crazily* AT LAAAST!
-
WMGrace can into WMG! by
on 2015-06-27 11:38:00 UTC
Link to this
With a title like that and it having been stated that this isn't a direct prequel, I think it'll focus more on the politics of the Order of the Phoenix during or soon after the Prophecy is told. It just seems to fit, is all. =]
-
Shiny! :D (nm) by
on 2015-06-27 04:12:00 UTC
Link to this
-
*flails happily* by
on 2015-06-27 02:18:00 UTC
Link to this
My life is now complete!
-
*does a silly dance* by
on 2015-06-27 02:08:00 UTC
Link to this
But how can it not be a prequel?
-
I AM AMAZED. by
on 2015-06-27 01:33:00 UTC
Link to this
Now we have a theatre play. Awesome!
-
Another new mission! by
on 2015-06-26 22:21:00 UTC
Link to this
Heading into Pirates of the Caribbean this time! Enjoy!
-
Nice. by
on 2015-06-27 21:22:00 UTC
Link to this
I enjoyed it and both the agents seem to have got into the swing of things nicely.
Also Narnia reference get! -
Thank you! by
on 2015-06-27 21:28:00 UTC
Link to this
Though, um, considering they've been on 30 missions, it's probably safe to say that yes, they've gotten into the swing of things.
And yep, Narnia reference! :D -
Yay, pirates! by
on 2015-06-27 19:47:00 UTC
Link to this
The first movie's great! Dunno about the sequels, though; I heard Dead Man's Chest was neat if a bit much.
Yay, Rina points out all the history fails that would've bothered me, too! History nerds unite! :D *fistbumps*
Couple little things:
"...flinching at the sound of cannonfire in the distance."
Cannon fire.
"'I’ll bet you ten Poké.'"
Hilarious, but keep in mind that Poké is equivalent to the yen, meaning ten Poké barely amounts to anything. Two hundred Poké might be closer to five bucks, depending on the current yen/dollar exchange rate.
...I'm such a nerd. :P
"'Ho-oh's feathers, it's hot out here.'"
*wrangles Ho-oh the mini-Missingno* (It's properly spelled Ho-Oh, btw. Capitalization is important.)
The ending feels kind of abrupt. No closure for what's-her-face the secondary Sue? No neuralyzation scene?
...But that's just me. Great work otherwise, and here's hoping Rina starts recovering her sanity. -
Fixed, and thank you! (nm) by
on 2015-06-28 01:12:00 UTC
Link to this
-
Ah, a PPC classic. by
on 2015-06-27 14:43:00 UTC
Link to this
Pirates of the Caribbean is one of those continua that everyone has to go into at least once. What really struck me about this one was the casual mixing of modern and old-time mores, actions, and speech. It's as though the writer hadn't a clue that back then women didn't become pirates (well, usually), nor did gentlemen address young ladies by their first names, nor did young ladies call on each other in their bedrooms rather than their parlors.
If you are going to write a period piece, doesn't it behoove you to actually read about the time period in question?
Ah... fanbrats.
Nice job, dear. Entertaining as always. -
Yeah, the modern slang was giving me a headache. by
on 2015-06-27 19:06:00 UTC
Link to this
Not to mention all the other fails. Fanbrats, you so silly.
Glad you enjoyed! -
I definitely did! :D by
on 2015-06-26 22:32:00 UTC
Link to this
Although, I was hoping for Rina going "Drink up, me hearties, yo-ho~!"
-
Contract: Permission Beta by
on 2015-06-27 16:07:00 UTC
Link to this
Mission: Provide Beta reading and subsequent correction of errors to the Permission application of yours truly.
Requirements: Knowledge of SPaG of English language (British variant).
Needed: at least 2 volunteers.
Reward: Barrel of gummy bears. -
Willing American! by
on 2015-06-28 06:44:00 UTC
Link to this
Put me in, coach!
-
A'right, cupcake, yer in! (nm) by
on 2015-06-28 20:30:00 UTC
Link to this
-
Oh yeah, my email. by
on 2015-06-28 16:04:00 UTC
Link to this
DBooker67 at Google's mail service.
-
I'm willing to take a look at it by
on 2015-06-28 01:28:00 UTC
Link to this
Do note that I'm American, though, so you might want to take some of my grammar suggestions with a grain of salt.
-
I'm not even an English native by
on 2015-06-28 20:32:00 UTC
Link to this
so every grammar suggestion is more than welcome! :D
-
And I forgot my email... by
on 2015-06-28 08:28:00 UTC
Link to this
Should be able to click on my username now.
-
Attn: Des! by
on 2015-06-27 22:26:00 UTC
Link to this
In what is quite possibly the strangest crossing of internet and military ever to be had:
July: *browsing board*
Person nearby: Wait, I recongize that username.
July: Wait, what?
Person: Yeah! Desdendelle.
July: Whaa. *squint*
And thus this:
"This is VoidsEmpathy....hi."
VE: Yeaaaaah! -
Aha! by
on 2015-06-28 00:48:00 UTC
Link to this
So you're on the same ship or something? I know VoidsEmpathy from TvTropes — we RPed together for quite a while. Do tell him I say hi.
-
Let's just take this moment to appreciate this. by
on 2015-06-28 11:36:00 UTC
Link to this
As in, the insane unlikelihood, considering that active people on the PPC roughly tops out at around 100 any given month, the size of TvTrope's own community, and the fact that even with my own ship we're not talking huge numbers there.
Good lord. -
Oh, yes. by
on 2015-06-28 18:19:00 UTC
Link to this
The sheer unlikelihood indeed. That's quite the coincidence.
-
Makes me think of by
on 2015-06-28 19:38:00 UTC
Link to this
This
And you're welcome. - Music? by on 2015-06-29 07:15:00 UTC Link to this
-
Bad joke, maybe an American thing, or maybe just a me thing by
on 2015-06-29 07:38:00 UTC
Link to this
I find the song It's a Small World After All one of the largest ear worms
-
Any thoughts on Mayer's The Host? by
on 2015-06-28 14:20:00 UTC
Link to this
Because for me personally, I hated it and the aliens who have to be the dumbest, hypocritical and selfish parasitic aliens in sci-fi I've ever seen. And that I wished were made extinct at the end of the book.
-
*grabs mini-Sparklewolf* Anyone want this? (nm) by
on 2015-06-28 23:46:00 UTC
Link to this
-
Voyd does. =] (nm) by
on 2015-06-29 00:30:00 UTC
Link to this
-
GIMME THAT PUPPY. (nm) by
on 2015-06-29 14:42:00 UTC
Link to this
-
I think, this time, that was on purpose. by
on 2015-06-28 20:05:00 UTC
Link to this
Remember, there was that one species that committed mass suicide before allowing these guys take them over. And there were resistance groups.
The Host was not that good, but it was not really bad either. Better than Twilight, that's for sure. -
You've a good point by
on 2015-06-29 14:33:00 UTC
Link to this
But it still baffles me how a species that more than likely dealt with emotional species and are supposedly geniuses couldn't understand what they were doing wrong. That and the fact that they save the environment of the worlds they visit but steal sapient species' bodies and erase their minds from existence sounds very exploitive as they get to have the worlds all to themselves (that's my interpretation and it really doesn't match how they act, so it is more or less where the problem is for me). Everything about the Souls screams self-righteous, pretentious, stupid, greedy, sociopathic and hypocritical.
I consider them worse than the Chaos Gods and Nyarlathotep, or Joffery and Umbridge (and yes, I know what I mean when I say those characters names and claim the Souls are worse than them).
I would recommend better sci-fi from Dune, Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, Star Trek, Firefly and Star Wars over The Host any day. -
So... by
on 2015-06-29 15:12:00 UTC
Link to this
... it's kind of like eating, imprisoning, massacring, and destroying the environment of every other species that even comes close to your own level of intelligence?
Hmm, can't think of anyone who does that.
hS -
... by
on 2015-06-29 15:26:00 UTC
Link to this
... I can't tell if Meyer's actually started to get better at story writing or simply got lucky now that you pointed that out (though humanity is not a species that follows one personality, most of the time).
Have to admit the idea is good but it's sacrificed for the romance and love triangle (again).
Which is really weird and sad because some of Meyer's ideax are not bad and Dracula could stand in the sunlight in the original novel but was weakened by it. Her main problem though is that the good ideas are tossed off of the boat for the 'romantic plot tumours' which quite frankly horribly done and plain uninteresting. -
Then again. by
on 2015-06-29 15:44:00 UTC
Link to this
The ending of The Host tossed the whole value of free will that it was building up when the humans, against Wanderer's will and wish, decided to put her into a dead human girl's body.
Admittedly, it was less rage inducing than Twilight's attempt at addressing the topic of abortion or Jacob imprinting on a baby...
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/WallBangers/Twilight
I know that it sounds like bashing but didn't Meyers have at least an editor or a naysayer to help avoid sinkholes? -
[Shrugs] Steph likes happy endings. by
on 2015-06-29 15:58:00 UTC
Link to this
(Her name is Stephenie Meyer, by the way; I don't think you've gotten her name right yet.)
Anyway: Steph likes happy endings, to the extent that she'll force them onto her characters. Jacob imprints on Stupidname because it lets him get over Bella. Wanda survives because her dying would be sad. Bella is able to have babies after turning into a vampire despite the fact that vampires can't have babies because she'd be happier if she had babies.
It's bad writing, absolutely. Though she's hardly the only one to do it... writers like their characters to make sacrifices, but they really don't like them to live with the consequences. I prefer the Tolkien-Duane-Butcher method, in which sacrifices 'stick' - they don't just get magically fixed - but the characters are able to pull through the consequences and find a different happy ending. Yes, it's often bittersweet - but it beats 'nooooo how can this happen oh nevermind it's all better now'.
hS -
Fair enough I guess. by
on 2015-06-29 16:37:00 UTC
Link to this
I know how it feels to try and put a rather harsh painful consequence on characters. The problem is that you get emotionally attach to them as the readers would.
And I'd have to agree on the Tolkien-Daune-Butcher method. It gives the characters some development and it's more impressive when they get their happy ending.
Unfortunately, the recent trend of Spider-man comics starting from One More Day shows there's a difference between a fair lose and having them crawl on their hands and knees with a mountain on their back... only to find themselves having gone around in a circle. -
*nabs mini-crowned stag* by
on 2015-06-29 14:44:00 UTC
Link to this
Hi there, Joffery!
-
So I just watched Big Hero 6, by
on 2015-06-28 14:31:00 UTC
Link to this
and, me being me, I immediately went to the pit to see how bad you can screw it up! So, feast your eyes on this.
Baymax itals random words, and is able to have some sense of a conversation, so I believe it takes place after [Baymax is destroyed and rebuilt]. It involves the Big Hero 6 going and saving people from the Scary Maze Game. Or something. The wording is so choppy it's impossible to tell. -
The premise is silly, the prose is beige... by
on 2015-06-28 15:38:00 UTC
Link to this
... and nothing worth of mention actually happens. But, the fic is very short, and the grammar is not that bad. So I don't thing this fic is mission, perhaps an Intelligence Report, but definitely not a mission.
Is mediocre, yes, but not bad enough for a mission.
-
I think I'm going to take a break. by
on 2015-06-28 16:36:00 UTC
Link to this
I can't say how long I'll be gone, maybe a few days, maybe a week or two. I'm simply not ready to face the arguments you guys put up, so I'm going to study the matter. That way, if it happens again, I won't get flustered and mess up and stress myself out.
One question I'll leave you all with, but after this I'm gone and won't reply. If evolution is true, then why is murder wrong? -
And a random thing I just have to share: by
on 2015-06-29 13:07:00 UTC
Link to this
Even as we were discussing evolution and its evidence, paleontologists were publishing the discovery of an early turtle ancestor which you could definitely call a (formerly-)missing link. It's got the widened, flattened ribs which would eventually evolve into the familiar turtle-shell we know today.
And I'm unable to decide whether the image Wiki's chosen for it is cute or terrifying.
hS -
What on Earth are you talking about, hS? by
on 2015-06-29 13:39:00 UTC
Link to this
It's SO PRECIOUS!
COME HERE ROUND LIZARD FRIEND
I WILL LOVE YOU -
Bookses. by
on 2015-06-29 04:45:00 UTC
Link to this
I'm not really... back? *coughs uncomfortably* I'm compiling my list of books to study, but I don't know what to read on evolution. I've got Origin of Species, Why Evolution Is True and The Greatest Show on Earth so far. I'd like a wide range of authors, from the moderate to the zealot and everywhere in between. Suggestions would be heartily welcome.
I've read through your responses to my original post, and they've been quite interesting and insightful.
Thanks in advance for the recommendations, and I hope to be "formally" back as soon as possible. -
Ouch, you're reading The Origin? by
on 2015-06-29 09:02:00 UTC
Link to this
It's 150 years old and written by a Victorian clergyman; I'm not sure I'd dare! It's probably quite poetic in places (I know the final paragraph is a classic), but it's also probably fairly dense and rambling. And it's not like scripture - Darwin's work has been built on, corrected, turned upside down and shaken to see what falls out, all that. (For one thing, he lived before anyone had ever heard of DNA; for another, when he was writing, the word 'dinosaur' was less than twenty years old!) I wouldn't recommend it to learn about evolution, any more than I'd recommend On the Revolutions to learn about the solar system, or the Principa to learn about gravity.
As for what I would recommend: well, I already said this Wikipedia article, but other than that: do you read Terry Pratchett's Discworld? If so, the first Science of Discworld book is something of a trip through the history of life on Earth; it's well-written and informative without being overly technical. (SciDisc3 is technically the evolution volume, but it's not nearly as good).
hS -
Here's one rec. by
on 2015-06-29 06:36:00 UTC
Link to this
Not strictly about evolutionary theory, but rather about how science and religion actually need each other and should really shake hands and learn to work together to make the world a better place:
Thank God for Evolution by Michael Dowd
I bought this book after hearing the author speak at my mom's UU church in Minneapolis. The book personally moved me, and what's more, it moved me toward a view of God that works, even provides a source of inspiration, in my more or less agnostic set of beliefs. My hope, as is the author's hope, is that it can do the same thing in the opposite direction for religious people who are dubious about evolution. {= )
~Neshomeh -
For me it is a little bit different by
on 2015-06-28 19:35:00 UTC
Link to this
I do not see that act of killing another human being as inherently wrong. I do not see things in black or white, I am a moral relativist.
Take for example this hypothetical, A kills B for monetary gain. Is this wrong? I would say as a general rule as yes. But now lets change it up a bit. A kills B, but but was about to kill C. Is this wrong? I do not think so. Or taking it further. A kills B, but B is an enemy combatant during a war. Is that wrong? No.
For me the reason I see murder, which I will chose to define as the unjustified killing of another, as wrong is because of its overall effect on society. I very much subscribe to Thomas Hobbes' State of Nature theory, "during the time men live without a common power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called warre; and such a warre as is of every man against every man"
Or put another way, I believe humans really are just animals. But animals with the capacity for something greater. But I think we do need civilization to keep our baser instincts in check. Just look at what happens during times of great chaos: looting, killing, other acts of violence. In those times when civilization fails, I think we see what humans really are. So I think that murder, as I defined it above, is wrong because it harms civilization as a whole, and brings humanity closer to their natural state.
Of course, evolution and my personal religion are not inconsistent, but I do not need someone in a fancy hat to tell me the unjustified killing of another is wrong. It is because it harms society and civilization as a whole. -
I'm a bit late... by
on 2015-07-08 04:51:00 UTC
Link to this
Man, I wish I hadn't missed this thread.
EvilAI, your second case can get even more subtle: what if A didn't kill B because B was going to kill C, but for reasons unrelated? That's murder, and I think it's clearly wrong despite any happy outcome for C.
Oh, and I think this quote is relevant to the original question: 'Nature is what we were put on this earth to rise above.' Natural selection may be a principle of nature, but that doesn't mean that we, as rational, thinking beings, should submit to it. -
Of course. by
on 2015-07-09 01:27:00 UTC
Link to this
I used to see things as very absolute, but now I see it as very relative (of course I still see certain things as absolute, because I see no possible justification for it), but with something like killing, whether or not it is morally wrong, is relative. I see the need to focus on the actor and why the actor acted in such a way. As to your quote, it is a philosophical debate that has no real answer.
-
Well by
on 2015-06-28 19:35:00 UTC
Link to this
If you'll forgive taking words from another source, then this quote seems relevant:
"And that’s when I first learned about evil. It is built into the very nature of the universe. Every world spins in pain. If there is any kind of supreme being, I told myself, it is up to all of us to become his moral superior.” - Lord Vetinari, Unseen Academicals by Terry Pratchett
The world we're born into is full of pain and hardship, but just because it starts that way doesn't mean it has to end that way. We make art, we learn, and we care for other beings - not because we have to, but because in some way it makes the world better and, hopefully, makes us better. You don't need to believe in a god or superior being to see when something is wrong, and likewise it's not necessary to see doing good as some deity's will. -
No connection. by
on 2015-06-28 18:31:00 UTC
Link to this
Consider the following logical chain:
Postulate 1: I, from a selfish point of view, do not want to be murdered.
Postulate 2: Other people, from their own selfish points of view, do not want to be murdered, either.
Postulate 3: People consider fair agreements ethical.
Postulate 4: Equivalent exchange is fair.
Therefore: proposing an agreement roughly equivalent to "I won't murder you if you won't murder me" is equivalent exchange, which is fair, which is ethical.
And there you have it, morality based on some observations and a selfish agreement that serves the interests of both parties without any God (or, as I like to call it when philosophical questions are involved, System-External Problem-Solving Factor) nor any connection to evolution. This is, admittedly, a very poor version — it's not very thought-through or explained, and partially cannibalised from what Epicurus said in his Principal Doctrines — but I think it serves to illustrate my point.
PS: Apropos Epicurus, you might want to take a look at this, which is also, coincidentally, another reason why I tend to find religions not very philosophically rigorous.
PPS: If you need God to say that 'murder is wrong', it's tantamount to admitting that without God you'd be a murdering savage — you admit that you need Big Brother to be ethical. -
The morality question. by
on 2015-06-28 18:28:00 UTC
Link to this
I actually find this very interesting to think about. For a bit of context, I am a spiritual person, and my spirituality involves a great awe and wonder at all of existence. I personally find it more wondrous if it happened on its own rather than at the hand of some creator, because just think of everything that had to go right! It's amazing! It makes me so grateful to be alive and healthy, because I know there are thousands, maybe millions of ways it can all go wrong. The revelations of science are therefore a spiritual matter for me.
That's not to say science is my religion, though. My religion is Unitarian Universalism, and what makes me a UU is basically how I behave and relate in society. I try to follow the seven principles, the first of which is that every person has inherent worth and dignity (and should be treated as such). That right there makes murder wrong.
But why? Where does morality come from, if there is no supreme authority such as God (which I think is really what Alleb means here)?
Well, I think it comes from us, together. We humans are unique in that we can choose, consciously, how to behave. We are uniquely capable of introspection, self-reflection, and recognizing that what we might want to do is not always what is best to do. Somehow, when a bunch of human beings get together, all of that comes together in recognition of the fact that letting people kill people whenever they feel like it is not what is best. If nothing else, if we let the killer murder that person, what's to stop them from killing me? And further, we have empathy (once our brains finish cooking at about the age of 25-30, anyway). We recognize the suffering that a person's death causes their friends and family, and we understand that should someone kill our friend or family, we would suffer, too. We don't want to suffer because it feels bad, and we don't want others to suffer because we recognize that they would feel bad, too.
I don't know how much sense I'm making, but it's really a difficult question. I think ultimately I feel the same way about morality that I do about other aspects of existence, though: it is a far, far greater thing if we do it because we recognize the good in it for ourselves, rather than only doing it because some god tells us we have to or else.
~Neshomeh -
Oh! I was gonna tell you. by
on 2015-06-28 18:41:00 UTC
Link to this
A little while back I went to my first UU service. It was very cool and actually way exciting! My friends have been teasing me for a while about how I'm destined to wind up a pagan in the UU ranks (as is my girlfriend), but even having heard you and Phobos talk about it, I was unprepared for how... I don't know, how open it was. The reason I'd been taking a break from the Episcopal church was I'd started to feel there was really no place for me in their service. I was so unprepared for a thoroughly non-theistic-centered approach to religion! It was an awesome experience, though.
Anyway - the point is, my girlfriend is currently at the General Assembly in Portland, and has been texting me all weekend about hearing talks on Sufiism, and how getting to hear Dr. Cornel West speak has been one of the greatest experiences of her life. It's been really awesome hearing about it, and I've been meaning to tell you for a while that I have been slowly sliding into the UU community here in town. -
Oh, cool! by
on 2015-06-28 19:04:00 UTC
Link to this
Yeah, the only way to really get what we're all about is to go to a service or ten, possibly at a couple different churches/fellowships/whatever the congregation calls their building, and maybe a couple cons and/or GA or something, and of course talk to a whole bunch of us. {= )
I'm glad you're liking it! You'll find that there are plenty of pagan/other-earth-centered-traditionalist UUs, so if that is your destiny, you should be right at home. ^_~
I've never actually been to GA. I'm so jealous.
~Neshomeh -
I've been looking up stuff about UU for a while... by
on 2015-06-28 19:31:00 UTC
Link to this
... And honestly, you people seem really awesome. Too bad there are no UU congregations in Corsica (there's only one in France, and it's an English-speaking one in Paris), because I'm genuinely interested.
-
You may be interested... by
on 2015-06-28 20:08:00 UTC
Link to this
in the Church of the Larger Fellowship, which is meant to address precisely your trouble. I'm not involved with it myself, since I have a congregation, but I hope it helps you. {= )
~Neshomeh -
Thanks! (nm) by
on 2015-06-28 20:25:00 UTC
Link to this
-
Because... by
on 2015-06-28 18:24:00 UTC
Link to this
One is a process, and one morality. Survival of the fittest is "the animal best-suited to its environment is most likely to survive to pass on its genes," not "only the strong *should* survive."
There are social darwinists, but they are generally terrible, eugenics-y people who also tend to misunderstand natural selection. Note also artificial selection, which covers things like dog breeding, and sexual selection, which is based in what the other partner finds attractive. (Humans do a lot of the last, as I would argue that this also covers personality.) -
I feel for you, dude. by
on 2015-06-28 18:12:00 UTC
Link to this
I went through this, and it hurt, a lot. Questioning everything, wondering why anything means anything to you anymore, etc. I'm sorry for your stress and heartache, and I hope you come out of this okay.
Here's my answer: what you feel, and what you see in others, is what matters. How we got here as humans, how long we've been here, who came from where, none of those answers should make you feel less loved. Or less loving. The existence and/or nature of God does not change the physical world and its science, and knowing the marvels of living things that were born and died milennia before any human does not change how grateful I am for the experience of being born, living, loving, and dying.
Think very seriously about this - if you will never, ever be seen, by anyone, God or man or beast, would you kill someone you loved? Of course not. Murder is wrong because to harm others is wrong. Whether you believe that God wrote that into your conscience or not, it doesn't change the fact that it is written on your conscious.
Whatever answer you come out with, that's what is important. The fact that you or I came to be here through a series of tics in the genetic code does not change the experiences we have today. -
Answering two ways: by
on 2015-06-28 17:40:00 UTC
Link to this
1/ If 2+2 = 4, then why is murder wrong? If gravity pulls down, then why is murder wrong? If America owns Alaska, then why is murder wrong? Evolutionary science, like virtually everything in the entire world, has no bearing on morality.
2/ If you were implying 'because surely murder is an evolutionary tactic to ensure your genetic supremacy' (or words to that effect, I doubt you'd be that blunt about it), then the equivalent question is: if the germ theory of disease is correct, then why is medicine okay?
The answer is: because science isn't about making sure natural laws 'fulfil their potential' or somesuch. It's about figuring out how the world works, not what we should do about it.
The universe doesn't care if we do our level best to prevent the evolution-by-murder of humanity. Why would it? It's a universe! But we care. As all the various discussions of empathy tried to explain - people care about people. And we're willing to fight against gravity (with aeroplanes), natural resource limits (with agriculture), microbes (with medicine), and evolution (with legal systems) to protect and uplift each other.
And I for one think that's wonderful.
hS
PS: If you're still reading! I highly recommend you actually study the matter, instead of simply looking up 'the proper defences'. In this and any other discussion of verifiable (or falsifiable) facts: find out what the facts are! Find out what the evidence is! Then decide for yourself whether you agree with it, based on any collection of evidence that you choose.
You may conclude that there's strong evidence for evolutionary science. You may conclude that it's only weak. You may conclude that it agrees with the Bible, or contradicts it (and should be thrown out), or contradicts it (and the Bible must be wrong). You may conclude that the whole thing is a conspiracy - or a practical joke by God - or a well-supported field of science. I don't know what you'll conclude, but I really hope you find your own conclusions, rather than just taking someone else's.
In this as in anything: read what supporters say. Read what opponents say. See what adds up and what doesn't. And draw your own conclusions.
(Wikipedia has an article called 'Introduction to evolution'. It's apparently written to be non-technical, and does have an 'Evidence for evolution' section. If you want to actually look into the topic, rather than just compiling a list of counterarguments, that's probably a good place to start.)
hS
PPS: Why is my postscript longer than my script? hS -
Even without religion... by
on 2015-06-28 17:11:00 UTC
Link to this
It's still considered wrong to kill people. After all, if everyone was killing everyone else, then obviously the human race wouldn't last very long. Morality is partly about survival.
And to be perfectly honest? I'm not a Christian, I'm not religious.
I have a hard time accepting evolution myself.
There are people out there that believe that the "seven days" thing isn't literal; that hundreds, if not thousands, if not millions of years were put into God's creation of the earth.
And honestly, that makes sense. If you were an eternal, omnipotent artist (which I believe God is, at His most basic level), would you want to rush your work? Or would you spend time perfecting the world you so desire to create?
Even if God is omnipotent, He probably wanted to make that extra bit sure that His world was, to Him, perfect. He had forever; He took advantage of His eternal nature to ensure that the world was created right.
Now, I personally believe that once God brought humans into the picture, He decided to take a step back and let us decide our course. He'd let us, as His audience, decide what we think of His work of art. -
More explanation by
on 2015-06-28 19:30:00 UTC
Link to this
Religion and science are not mutually exclusive. I've heard someone describe it as "God is an artist; science is like the user manual for his tools. It's the discovery of God's processes."
Honestly? Science is the reason that I believe that God exists. The fact that there is so much order in the universe, and that it can be definitively proven, can only be indicative of intelligent design.
Now as for morality... as other people have mentioned, it doesn't exclusively come from God. If it did, everyone who's not Muslim, Christian or Jewish would be a psychopathic savage, when that's manifestly not the case. People that don't follow God can still be moral paragons; conversely, religious people have been known to do absolutely monstrous things. These false Christians/Muslims/Jews believe that their religion gives them a free pass to do whatever horrible things they want to people that don't follow their beliefs.
Evolution ≠ murder being okay. Science has nothing to do with morality. -
Totally Stealing That "User Manual" Line. by
on 2015-06-29 21:24:00 UTC
Link to this
Plus, it's nice to find someone whose views so closely match my own.
-
That's Darkotas' line, by the way. (nm) by
on 2015-06-29 22:10:00 UTC
Link to this
-
Good to Know. Thank You. (nm) by
on 2015-06-30 02:41:00 UTC
Link to this
-
Who Would Win? by
on 2015-06-28 17:37:00 UTC
Link to this
I have a random question for all of you:
Who do you think would win in a fight to the death between Darth Sidious and Lord Voldemort?
Please back up your arguments and keep things civil (i.e. no cursing, damnations, etc.). Oh, and have fun while doing this. -
A rather convenient arena, canon thrown aside. by
on 2015-07-03 16:28:00 UTC
Link to this
A Holy Grail War, a la Fate franchise, of course! If someone could add more to my idea, it's very welcome. I am not very sure where this is going either. Oh, and Fate/Stay Night spoilers abound.
Darth Sidious and Lord Voldemort are both capable Casters, as their attacks are based on magic. But as Lord Voldemort doesn't have the capability to employ melee weapons, Darth Sidious are to fall under another class, perhaps as Saber. Fits with him fighting with a sword.
What measures the power of Heroic Spirits, should both have the right to stay in the Throne of Heroes, are fame, as defined by their popularity amongst the people in the world, and Mystery, defined by how mysterious their skill, magic, or weapons are.
Darth Sidious is rather talented when employing the Force, and also fights very well with his lightsaber. Having high charisma allows him to employ politics to his gain, allowing to control the Republic for decades, then rule as Emperor. His unfulfilled wish is to... well I have no idea, but it will be important in determining his actions. His Fame stretches many planetary systems, and lasted for millennia, seeing that we have a movie in his dishonour. His Mystery also is great, since we humans could not grasp the concept of The Force and manipulate it to our will.
Voldemort has split his soul to eight, seven stored in vessels, and one remains in his body. He inspires fear and have managed to escape death, both physically and metaphorically by inspiring fear. However he is defeated by a hero, and his unfulfilled wish is simple vengeance and total control of the world of wizardry. His Fame is short, but not to be underestimated, despite knowledge of him and his actions are censored to the Muggles by the Minstry's efforts. His Mystery is also less, as his magic is understood by many and his campaign is known by all magicians.
Darth Sidious may be dismayed if he knows the Fuyuki Holy Grail is tainted will Angra Mainyu. Why would he want to destroy? Siths want to rule, and wish machines that interprets all wishes destructively is useless to them. But Voldemort will find it useful, since he will just ask that all who are not pureblood magicians and mages killed. Straightforward enough.
I believe Darth Sidious and Lord Voldemort will have equal footing in this arena. Darth Sidious' ability with his sword will massively increase, but so does Lord Voldemort's magecraft. It's up to their masters and their skills to carry the day.
I say canon thrown aside, as the oldest hero is Gilgamesh, no Heroic Spirits has been chosen since early 19th century, only Counter Guardians, and a host of other things that run counter to the three canons.
Thus, this is my half-cent. -
*pets Siths the mini-Rancor* (nm) by
on 2015-07-03 16:58:00 UTC
Link to this
-
"Why would he want to destroy?" by
on 2015-07-03 16:47:00 UTC
Link to this
^_^
hS -
He doesn't need to waste billions of dollars on that. by
on 2015-07-03 17:39:00 UTC
Link to this
It may already be part of his Noble Phantasm. He also wanted to destroy the rebels, thus strengthening his power. But why destroy Fuyuki, when he can rule it?
-
But what's the context? by
on 2015-06-30 15:13:00 UTC
Link to this
I can't imagine Voldy and Palpy have just been dropped into an arena together with an unbreakable compulsion to fight each other, so how do they even meet?
Someone, somewhere, referred to the most recent Star Trek movie as Star Wars: Into Darkness, claiming it was set on the planet Urth in the Star Wars galaxy. Ha ha, funny review, but let's take that and run with it. The Harry Potter series actually takes place on a planet in the Unknown Regions, shortly after the rise of the Galactic Empire.
An Imperial scout ship happens upon the planet, and by total fluke lands in England, right next to Voldemort's hideout. This is Voldemort at the height of his regained power, I guess - somewhere in Book Six? I don't know, I never read that far.
So what would Voldemort do about the human-form high-tech alien who's just landed near him? Um... short out his shuttle due to ambient magical fields, probably! Then I guess probably kill him on general principles.
But what's this? Another total fluke, and Palpatine was paying special attention to that scout (it was an envoy to contact Mitth'raw'nuruodo of the Chiss Ascendancy, since you insist on knowing), and noticed it had gone missing, and where. He sends down a probe droid, which also fails - but not before capturing long-distance footage of the grounded shuttle and Voldemort's base.
Now, this anti-technology field is something Palpatine can get behind. Imagine building a giant space station to project it onto a planet - a sort of 'Stone Age Cannon' if you will (Sidious' note to self: have to think of more awesome name). The inhabitants would be either rendered defenceless, or adequately punished for a minor transgression, at much less expense than dropping a fleet of Star Destroyers on them. So Palpy sets a high-altitude watch over Urth, and specifically over England, to see how Voldemort is making it.
The observations reveal that Voldemort is clearly employing some kind of Force technique, albeit one not mentioned in Sith records; he is also manifestly a Dark Side user, which makes him both a potential ally and a potential threat. Hmm.
Palpatine is regrettably unable to use Vader in this endeavor (technology, you know), so he instead slips one of his Hands onto Urth. Let's make it Mara Jade. She's tasked with getting close enough to Voldemort to figure out which category he falls into: ally or threat.
How does she do? That depends on a few questions I don't have the answer to:
1/ Are there magical 'wards' and alarm spells in Harry Potter? If so, Mara can't spot them (since they aren't actually based on the Force - that's just Sidious' interpretation), and gets caught when she tries to sneak in. Since she's never been noted for the strength of her Force abilities, unless she can sneak back out again she probably gets AK'd.
2/ If she succeeds in sneaking in, Mara will need to draw a conclusion about Voldemort's stability. How likely would he be to accept an alliance? Palpatine has previously 'allied' with indigenous Force users (such as the Nightsisters), and ensured they never leave their planet. But... Voldemort's never struck me as the most stable type. I think Mara would classify him as 'just wants to watch the world burn'. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
In the event that Mara either dies, or tells Sidious an alliance is impossible, Sidious probably decides to wipe the slate clean. Is there a spell to counter orbital bombardment? Mmm... probably not. Sidious wins.
If Mara proposes an alliance, she'll probably be in charge of negotiating with Voldemort (since she's already on the ground, has the defensive skills to keep her safe, and has the added help of possibly reading his mind). That alliance will consist of the Empire sending non-technological supplies to Voldemort (armour? Spice? Money?), while Voldemort sends someone up to the orbiting ship to teach Palpatine about their form of 'magic'.
No, says Sidious, I wouldn't dream of asking you to come yourself - you're much too busy in your exceptionally worthwhile war against Dumblewarts.
Which may lead to a temporary victory for Voldemort, if he sees through Palpatine's plan to keep him on Urth forever and sends, for instance, Bellatrix Lestrange. If she can act sane for long enough to reach Sidious' presence, she could probably hit him with an AK before he can react, killing him. It's a suicide mission, but it should work.
But that is a temporary victory. Let's be generous and assume that Palpy's death causes the destruction of his ship (he's a load-bearing Sith Lord), so there's no immediate retribution. But... Palpatine has clones waiting to take his spirit. Unless Voldemort can get away from Urth before the Emperor comes back, he and his entire planet are toast.
(And could he? That depends on the precise effect of magic on technology. I suppose with some delicate use of the Imperius Curse Voldy could claim an Imperial supply shuttle and its crew... but why would he bother? He doesn't know that Palpatine can come back.)
In the end, Darth Sidious wins. He either nukes Voldemort from orbit, locks him into an alliance which never lets him get off Urth, or dies, comes back, and then nukes Voldemort from orbit.
Sith Lords don't fight fair. And they don't fight hand-to-hand if they can possibly help it.
hS -
I'm writing a fanfic on this. by
on 2015-06-30 03:24:00 UTC
Link to this
IT'S BEGGING TO BE WRITTEN.
-
So far as I know, Siths still sleep. by
on 2015-06-29 13:40:00 UTC
Link to this
And Tom's not above murdering people in their beds.
So yeah, we'll go with Voldemort for that one. -
*scoops up Siths the mini-Rancor* by
on 2015-06-29 17:26:00 UTC
Link to this
The plural of Sith is Sith. You're looking for "Dark Lords of the Sith", here, since you're talking about the order and not, say, the race or some other thing.
-
Actually, I seem to recall Palpy doesn't. ^_~ by
on 2015-06-29 14:24:00 UTC
Link to this
His whole story about his master Plagueis hinges on the fact that he killed him in his sleep. Given that Palpatine was telling this story to the man he intended to take as his apprentice, I highly doubt he would do so if he still slept himself.
hS -
Even if he does... by
on 2015-06-29 18:07:00 UTC
Link to this
Which this is actually a Star Wars Question I do not know the answer to, which is actually pretty rare, that does not get around the Echani-Trained Guards that could at least hold Voldemort off long enough for Palpatine join the fray.
-
I think the question relies on one key factor: by
on 2015-06-29 19:49:00 UTC
Link to this
Is this fight 1v1, or do they have all canon resources at their disposal? Because, if so, Palpy could just Death Star the Earth.
-
True by
on 2015-06-29 19:59:00 UTC
Link to this
If anything the way I was kind of seeing it was Deadliest Warrior Style. Combatant plus four.
-
Combatant plus four? by
on 2015-06-29 20:17:00 UTC
Link to this
Hmm, Darth Sidious plus the guards versus Voldemort, Bellatrix, Dolohov, Malfoy Sr., and let's go with Barty Crouch Junior? I'd have to say Voldemort would win, in that case.
(Actually, just Voldemort and Bellatrix is a terrifying tag-team duo...) -
Combatant +4 sounds fair. by
on 2015-06-29 20:24:00 UTC
Link to this
Wait, though. Voldemort gets his named underlings with lesser, but still powerful abilities, while Sidious gets Generic Guards? I dunno. The other Sith Lords would be too powerful, but Hands like Mara Jade or lesser force users would make things fairly even. Not Vader, more like... Ventress, maybe?
-
I was thinking maybe by
on 2015-06-29 21:28:00 UTC
Link to this
Palpatine, Vader, Three Royal Guards. Problem with Ventress and Grievous is that they were more Dooku's underlings, still working for Palpatine, but not his per-se.
If we use the Galactic Civil War version of Sidious, then you would get Mechanical Vader, whose force abilities were highly restricted due to lack of living tissue. What do you think of these line ups.
1. Darth Sidious
2. The Inquisitor (See Star Wars: Rebels) or Darth Vader post Mustafar (In the suit, less force ability because of less living tissue)
3. Mara Jade
4. Lumiya
5. Arden Lyn
Or alternatively
1. Darth Sidious
2. Darth Vader (Pre-Mustafar)
3. Emperor's Royal Guard 1
4. Emperor's Royal Guard 2
5. Emperor's Royal Guard 3
And I think Iximaz's Voldemort line up is acceptable so:
1. Voldemort
2. Bellatrix
3. Dolohov
4. Lucious Malfoy
5. Barty Crouch Jr.
I think any either of those two Sidious Lineups would, flatten Voldemort.
-
For some context, might I suggest by
on 2015-06-28 20:27:00 UTC
Link to this
This (Some language issues) and Of course the latter one is Vader and Gandalf, but still.
I personally see Sidious as winning. While Voldemort would have no compunction about killing, Sidious has shown he is perfectly capable of destroying entire planets. So on killer instinct, I have to give Sidious.
Now close combat. The only evidence of Voldemort fighting in close quarters that I recall is his duel against Dumbledore in OtP. Two individuals known for spell casting going up in close combat. Sidious in Star Wars Canon was shown taking down three members of the Jedi Council in very short order. He then stalemated (or held back depending on your view) Mace Windu. The second if not best swordsman in the Jedi Order. Then we see Sidious effectively defeating Yoda (the best or second best swordsman and strongest force user in the order). So close combat ability goes to Sidious without question.
Ranged abilities. Both have lethal abilities at range, and both have been shown effectively demonstrating both of them. So I will give this one a wash. Even for both.
X-Factors:
Allied Forces: Voldemort has his Death Eaters, all are very significant, nasty individuals quite willing to kill for their master. But Sidious has at a minimum the entire Clone Army (and subsequent Imperial Military) at his disposal. Ultimately I think Sidious could just through enough soldiers at the Death Eaters to eventually overcome them. Further Sidious has his apprentices, Darth Maul, Count Dooku, Darth Vader (depending when in Sidious' rise to power this takes place). That also does not even include things like The Emperor's Hand. Sidious also has his elite Imperial Guards with Echani Training (insane fighting ability). I have to give this to Sidious as well.
Machinations: The simple issue here is Voldemort did take power in the UK. And he was able to work in the shadows for quite some time, remaining unnoticed. But at the time everyone thought he was dead, and he remained in hiding. Sidious managed to conquer the Galaxy. His true nature was never revealed until the very end. And he managed to maneuver himself into absolute power, while being an incredibly public figure. The Jedi, who were looking for him, never found out until it was too late. Sidious gets the win easy here.
Immortality: Neither is a true immortality. Voldemort might have an early edge with the Horcruxes, but if it came down to it, Sidious could have either his apprentice or entire army hunt them down and destroy them. Voldemort would need to find the clone bodies, destroy them, and fight whatever defenses were in place. He does not have the numbers that Sidious does, Sidious would be able to destroy them quicker. Edge Sidious.
So Final Count:
Killer Instinct: Edge Sidious
Close Combat: Edge Sidious
Ranged Combat: Even
Allied Forces: Edge Sidious
Machinations: Edge Sidious
Immortality: Edge Sidious
Ultimate Answer: Darth Sidious wins.
-
Blast. Forgot to close my HTML. Sorry about that. (nm) by
on 2015-06-28 20:28:00 UTC
Link to this
-
Hmm. I could see this going a few different ways. by
on 2015-06-28 19:31:00 UTC
Link to this
First off, does each combatant have their methods of immortality intact? If so, Voldemort wins the first time, and then Sidious has a better chance each time he comes back in a clone body (though his sanity will dwindle). I think it really hinges on whether the Force can be blocked by magic, or spells can be blocked by a lightsaber or the Force. Otherwise, the first AK or Lightning/Choke to hit decides the battle, assuming Voldemort avoids getting close enough to be dismembered by a lightsaber.
-
Darth Sidious by
on 2015-06-28 18:39:00 UTC
Link to this
Star Wars Legends canon, he conjured a Force Storm capable of destroy an entire space fleet, corrupted Luke Skywalker (temporarily) on their second encounter, and many other things.
Normal canon? Fought 3-on-1 against 3 Jedi Masters, killed 2 of them and stalemated the third, Mace Windu.
Fought one-on-one Master Yoda, and won.
Why are those important? That means he had superhuman speed and reflexes, telekinesis, electrokinesis (shoots lightning!), Force sense (more or less like the Spider Sense) and had a blade made of concentrated plasma.
Was a master strategist, always one step ahead of the Jedi Order, he's the one who masterminded the Clone Wars, and benefited from both sides, not to mention that he was the Supreme Commander... of both sides!
Created Darth Vader. Nuff' said.
-
I need help! by
on 2015-06-29 04:40:00 UTC
Link to this
I found a Badfic for Jeff the Killer (a creepypasta character) and I don't know what to put it under.
Should it become a new section in the Unclaimed Badfic page?
What should I do with it? -
I'd file it under "Literature" by
on 2015-06-29 05:19:00 UTC
Link to this
If it's written, then it's literature. Another option would be to make a blanket "Web Original" thing to put stuff from the internet in. But, given that I see Homestuck under "Comics," I'd just stick with the sections we already have. No need to move everything else that we've found on the web.
I'm not a wiki expert, so if someone says something different, you should probably listen to them. -
Actually... by
on 2015-06-29 18:44:00 UTC
Link to this
There is a precedent for using Web Originals as a category. See Killed Badfic and the Continua category and subcategories. I've edited accordingly.
~Neshomeh, who is having trouble accessing the Board from her computer for some reason. -
*poke the (m)* (nm) by
on 2015-06-30 06:03:00 UTC
Link to this
-
Maybe she's been eating NM&NMs... by
on 2015-06-30 10:07:00 UTC
Link to this
... and left a crumb. ^_^
(Nah, I think she puts that in to indicate she's in mobile-mode. But I prefer my story.)
hS -
Are there a lot of CreepyPasta Badfics? by
on 2015-06-29 06:50:00 UTC
Link to this
Could we not just add a CreepyPasta section then? No need to shift everything.
-
Not... really? by
on 2015-06-29 09:42:00 UTC
Link to this
I mean, there's a small army of people who want to write teenage girls who are totally not themselves doing the horizontal lambada with Jeff The Killer and Slenderman, but not nearly enough to constitute its own page. Put a Creepypasta section in the Literature page and bung the horrendous guff there. And then read some good creepypasta instead! Have an archive-full. =]
-
Seems reasonable (nm) by
on 2015-06-29 10:04:00 UTC
Link to this
-
Musical association game! by
on 2015-06-29 21:14:00 UTC
Link to this
(Because why the hell not, and I might find new stuff to listen to!)
I propose a game as follows: One person posts a piece of music, and the next person posts the piece it makes them think of. So, for example, I post Hatikva, someone might post Má Vlast Moldau (with good reason, too; listen about a minute in).
Let me start with, hm, IDF Marches, which as the name suggests is one of the IDF's not-oft-used marches. -
Not exactly on topic, but no need to take a new post by
on 2015-06-29 21:55:00 UTC
Link to this
Let it Go meets Star Wars Opinions?
-
Does a better job of communicating Anakin's feelings by
on 2015-06-30 15:19:00 UTC
Link to this
than Hayden Christensen did. Makes him feel more sympathetic, too.
-
I agree. by
on 2015-06-30 20:54:00 UTC
Link to this
Anakin seemed way more emotional in this. It was a good song, and the video clips went well with the lyrics. Very entertaining to watch.
While on the subject of Frozen musical crossovers, what do people think of Harley Quinn's version of 'Do you wannabuild a snowmankill the batman?' -
Re: I agree. by
on 2015-06-30 22:42:00 UTC
Link to this
That song does a good job, too. Gets a lot of Harley's history in there.
-
Re: Musical association game! by
on 2015-06-29 21:32:00 UTC
Link to this
It reminded me of this. I don't know why.
-
Hmm. by
on 2015-06-29 21:30:00 UTC
Link to this
It was either the Radetzski March or this. I went with the latter. =]
-
You know... by
on 2015-06-29 22:06:00 UTC
Link to this
You reminded me of this one!
-
Re: You know... by
on 2015-06-29 22:36:00 UTC
Link to this
And that reminded me of this one.
-
Heh heh. by
on 2015-06-29 23:11:00 UTC
Link to this
Reminds me of this, very much.
-
And that... by
on 2015-06-29 23:33:00 UTC
Link to this
Reminds me of this.
-
That kind of reminds me by
on 2015-06-30 01:21:00 UTC
Link to this
Of this
-
No idea why... by
on 2015-06-30 20:38:00 UTC
Link to this
But, this.
-
Call for betas! by
on 2015-06-30 11:12:00 UTC
Link to this
Right. I basically need a SPaG and flow beta for a collab with Iximaz. I'd ask for someone well-versed in Doctor Who, but frankly the fic's so short (and so mind-numbingly stupid) that it's not really necessary. However, if there's anyone around with knowledge of how Sunners operated in the field - or wrote a DBP team - that would be extremely useful.
A resilience to feels would also be handy, because this is Ix we're talking about and she likes to make her characters suffer. =] -
I would be offended, but... by
on 2015-06-30 16:38:00 UTC
Link to this
She's right. MAKE THEM SUFFER! MUAHAHAHAHA!
-
And you're doing it very well. ^^ (nm) by
on 2015-06-30 17:22:00 UTC
Link to this
-
I'm open for SPaG & flow! by
on 2015-06-30 15:52:00 UTC
Link to this
Not so much Doctor Who, though. :P
-
Coolcool! by
on 2015-06-30 16:02:00 UTC
Link to this
I just need your email. =]
-
Made my Username clickable. ^^ It should work. (nm) by
on 2015-06-30 16:06:00 UTC
Link to this
-
Mission Start! by
on 2015-06-30 17:40:00 UTC
Link to this
It's not often we see outright trollfics on the Board, it's rare that we see badfics so lazy they're literally one paragraph long, and still rarer that we see Admiral Pansy. But fear not, my friends, because Doktor Trollenfisch und Gabrielle are here to help with all these things and more! Brevity: Not Always The Soul Of Wit is available for your reading pleasure.
TW: MUTILATION
And how sad is it that this fic is about eighty words in length and STILL requires a trigger warning? =] -
Some very delayed thoughts. by
on 2015-07-12 20:35:00 UTC
Link to this
I quite liked this! Both agents are very enjoyable, with Trollenfisch being particularly notable. Their reactions to the piece were most understandable. The dramatic turn at the end, however, felt out of place. Maybe I need to go back and more closely read their other mission (which I most definitely will do now).
I will say that the actual mission part of this (as short as it was) fell prey to the issue of sounding more like a MST than an actual mission. Their responses were almost all dialogue. It would have been nice to see some actual physicality beyond the little that was shown.
There's also a sizable PPC continuity error in this piece. Admiral Pansy has been previously written with an exaggerated accent (as seen here and here), which is completely missing in this appearance. This was also stated on his wiki page, which is why it always pays to check those first before writing up one of the PPC shared characters.
So yes! Very nice! Hope to see more with these two in the future. -
PETA will be all over this one... by
on 2015-06-30 21:47:00 UTC
Link to this
Who would even think of doing that? That's cruel... Oh look there's no N on the N key on my keyboard anymore. Huh.
-
D'aaw... by
on 2015-06-30 20:11:00 UTC
Link to this
Poor Gabrielle. Who would be so mean to such a cute little Pokémon? I'm glad she has Doktor Trollenfisch to help her out. I'm also impressed with your ability to use a mission to a ridiculous trollfic to invoke such strong emotions.
-
Well, Flareon in Gen 1... by
on 2015-06-30 20:30:00 UTC
Link to this
Wasn't exactly the best. It was primarily a physical-based attacker, even though in Gen 1-3, Fire was a Special type. Couple that with a horrible movepool and a jerk trainer... yep. Cuteness doesn't win battles.
even though it totally should -
Cuteness totally should win battles! (nm) by
on 2015-06-30 20:36:00 UTC
Link to this
-
If I can field this one? by
on 2015-06-30 20:27:00 UTC
Link to this
Who'd be mean to Gabrielle? Competitive players, basically.
Flareon is, in terms of competitive play? Preeeeeeeeetty much garbage. Indeed, it is valued less than Garbodor, who is quite litterally (hahaha) a pile of discarded refuse. Flareon's cute an' all, but it doesn't have the bulk (or typing) necessary to use Guts effectively and Flash Fire's completely useless on a physical attacker. Flareon is classified as PU-tier on Showdown, which is the tier below Never Used. They're rubbish.
So a new competitive player in need of a Fire-type winds up with a Flareon... and chucks it in the box to rot as soon as they get something better, which is basically anything.
And that's how you get Gabrielle's horrifying self-esteem issues. -
Well, I don't know much about competitive battling... by
on 2015-06-30 20:38:00 UTC
Link to this
As my performance in the PPC Pokémon tournament probably demonstrated. Heck, I refused to evolve my Torchic in Ruby because I didn't like the way Blaziken looked.
At least Gabrielle is at the PPC now, where she can make some friends and start feeling better about herself. -
It's not necessarily the mons themselves, is the thing. by
on 2015-06-30 21:00:00 UTC
Link to this
It's more the trainer. If you think that you're only ever going to win if you have the Bestest Best Pokémon Ever, that says a lot more about you as a trainer than it does about your team. I got to the final with a team that's entirely Rarely Used- and Never Used-tier; you build your team around synergies and core competencies. Tempest, Gabrielle's trainer, didn't really understand that. So he waited until he got Uber Fire-types like Ho-Oh and went from there.
Simply put, Tempest is the kind of person who doesn't like lower tiers because the mons are bad and you can't brute force your way to victory. =]
((Longtime viewers may find it weird that I got 6-0d by Alex in the final. The answer is rather prosaic. Trust me. =] ))