|
Post by Zyppora on Jan 20, 2005 4:46:12 GMT -5
I wouldn't say all of it is BS. . . there is quite a bit of fluff that's not BS. A lot of good things to be had in other places as well. Would you mind elaborating on that a bit? I'm not exactly familiar with the bible, merely with few lines and the general idea. But if you don't mind, I'd like you to give me some examples (hopefully for me to debate on again ) of what else is supposed to be helpful.
|
|
|
Post by darkmercury on Jan 20, 2005 15:55:42 GMT -5
@ Zyppora: Very true, have the same probs ;D ;D ;D
|
|
|
Post by Creshosk on Jan 21, 2005 4:42:41 GMT -5
Would you mind elaborating on that a bit? I'm not exactly familiar with the bible, merely with few lines and the general idea. But if you don't mind, I'd like you to give me some examples (hopefully for me to debate on again ) of what else is supposed to be helpful. Well some of Jesus's teachings that are often overlooked by his followers. Such as turning the other cheek when someone wrongs you and generally things like that. There are also some interesting stories in there that I'm not sure if they really mean anything, other than being faithful to your beleifs or as specifically I think the whole loyality to god thing that can be overlooked. Like one of the interesting stories is Joseph which has been popularized into a play and then a broadway musical that there is a dvd of. That is called "Joseph and the amazing technicolor dream coat." One of the religous books had a very interesting thing that was basically the creator deity saying basically "I gave you a brain, so use it." of course it was in the old english script format. but that was the gist of it. I for one am not above denying good advice even if I don't agree with the source. Another thing that cracks me up about the religous followers is the concept of free will, and god saying that he will not meddle in our free will. . . and then his followers try to force their morals and opinions on other people.
|
|
|
Post by Creshosk on Jan 21, 2005 4:50:35 GMT -5
The five golden rules, and the only true guidelines to life: Exodus 20:13 - Exodus 20:17 The rest of it is BSExodus 20:17 is debatealbe. since to "covet" means to "want." And Capitalism is strongly based on wanting stuff. So I'm not so certain of that. Understandable is the part of coveting thy neighbors wife however. As you really shouldn't do that.
|
|
|
Post by Zyppora on Jan 21, 2005 5:07:36 GMT -5
Well, I'm glad pplz are beginning to see 'the light', if I may. Of course it's never good to deny good advice, whether it comes from a fictional book that was said to have been written by God himself, or the Ikea catalog, but pplz are starting to decide for themselves whether or not religion is a good thing to turn to, and when. Back in the days it was the priests that decided for you how to live your life, but it seems there's less and less of that. And that's actually a good thing.
However, this form of corruption still exists, and I know many of the target group that I'm going to name below will disagree, however, sometimes it takes a distance to see a problem. Islam followers are either too ignorant or too dumb to read their sacred scrolls (the Koran), or are priests that read the Koran to the followers, but with 'slight' alterations. I'm not saying all Islam priests are like that, however the majority is. The slight alterations I speak of include provoking hatred towards the western world, religions other than themselves or non-followers of their (particular cluster-cult of their) religion. The result is a death count that keeps rising, especially amongst their own group.
It might be a bit farfetched, but I see this as an example: follow something or someone and dedicate your life to him/her/it makes you very vulnerable to influences, both good and bad. I quote some dude who's name I used to know but forgot over time: 'Man is by nature evil'. It is quite easy for someone who is praised for their knowledge by others who match the above description, can very easily manipulate this follower into doing something that doesn't abide the law or even the moral rules (Exodus 20:13 - Exodus 20:17). In addition, being autonomous, a non-follower, makes you less vulnerable, perhaps even cautious, but keeps you out of said kind of serious trouble.
A counter-argument to this can be the 'kill or be killed' rule, but still, that's something you, being autonomous as you are, should decide for yourself.
|
|
|
Post by Creshosk on Jan 21, 2005 5:20:36 GMT -5
I'm not really sure if dedicating your life to something really opens you up to outside influence. I'm not sure which part of human nature it is, but a person that has been doing something for like 40 years is not likely going to be happy to be told he's wrong.
Killing is a whole other kettle of fish which depends on the situation. As you cannot blanket statment say that "killing is bad" in reality outside of what would truly be ideal where killing would never be needed. There are certain cases where in retrospect it might have been better to kill someone off. But alas hindsight is 20/20.
Some people who live deserve death, other people who die deserve life.
And even then some people who deserve death are better off not being killed. It really is too complicated a subject to just divied up into two categories.
Ted Bundy should have been killed when they had him in colorado. This would have prevented his esacape and murderous escapades in Florida.
Meanwhile someone like Osama bin ladin while deserving death, is very much like the dam that's holding back a torrent. While some gets through, I'd dread to see what the vaccum of his absence would do within his organization. I imagine that it would create a vaccum of power which would lead to postureing by would be succesors to try and one up each other in blatent displays of machoism and try to out do each other with acts of terrorism.
|
|
|
Post by Zyppora on Jan 21, 2005 5:43:43 GMT -5
Okay, I'm not familiar with the Ted Bundy case, but on the Bin Laden one, I'd say you're giving the right example on the wrong part of my previous post. Yes, Osama Bin Laden deserves death, and when this actually happens, the shiznit will hit the fan. But that's what the former part of my post is all about: Osama Bin Laden is praised by his followers. He whips them up but keeps them under control. When he disappears from the tree, the branches will collapse in on themselves. The followers have lost their main reason for living, and will run rampant. Smarter followers, the ones that are also praised by the more ignorant followers, will enter a race for power over the Al Quaida network (SP). The followers that stay followers, will be mad and start killing (kill or be killed) out of revenge and respect for their former leader.
|
|
|
Post by SuperSailorMercury on Mar 8, 2005 0:51:52 GMT -5
You guys are WAY off the track of the topic..but anyway.... I like reading your convos. Keep up the good work
|
|
|
Post by Zyppora on Mar 8, 2005 7:23:07 GMT -5
Heh, well, to get this thread back on track: all you hardcore dubbies 5uX0rZ, Neptune's a lesbian, 'n darn proud of it!
|
|
|
Post by SquallLionheart on Mar 8, 2005 18:51:11 GMT -5
Yes Michelle /Michiru Is a lesbian....... <---- I Proved Mine and Zyppie-chan's point!Why do you think Amara/Haruka Hold Hands andThey are Never sererated?
|
|
RinoaHeartilly
Chibi Scout
I saw you smiling at me was it real or just my fantasy
Posts: 54
|
Post by RinoaHeartilly on Mar 13, 2005 19:40:15 GMT -5
I knew that a long time ago.
|
|
|
Post by y123 on Dec 11, 2006 0:40:28 GMT -5
they are lesbian of course they is really stated in the anime it have been a lot of scenes that it is shown and also in wikipedia its said that naoko takeuchi clearly stated that they are
|
|
|
Post by yumecosmos on Dec 30, 2006 23:50:06 GMT -5
All moralizing aside... dub and original are two different canons. Lots of things are changed, and Haruka and Michiru aren't the only thing. Like it or not, Amara and Michelle are cousins and "Zoysite" is a girl and "Raye" is a raving biotch. To say that one is right and the other is wrong when they're really just different is kind of the exact attitude you're arguing against, is it not?
This was a tone-deaf argument by a clueless straight girl who has since been educated. Censoring LGBT love is not "just different," it's oppressive.
|
|
|
Post by Zyppora on Dec 31, 2006 10:50:54 GMT -5
What I question is whether or not the dub can truly be called 'canon'. It's derived (or may I say, copied) from the original anime and altered to suit the license holders' needs. They never 'created' anything. It is that why I generally don't like it when pplz talk about the dub. It feels too cheap to be worthy of the title 'anime', actually, let alone canon.
|
|
|
Post by yumecosmos on Dec 31, 2006 19:02:21 GMT -5
By that standard the anime is not canon either, since it was derived from the manga and altered to suit the director's wishes. The English adaptation has its own script, its own actors, its own interpretation of the characters, just like the anime, the Myus, PGSM, and the video games. Just because you don't like it doesn't make it unofficial. I don't see what's so glorious about the word "anime." There are plenty of Japanese shows that are cheap, fluffy, and shallow. The original Sailor Moon was not particularly deep anyway, lesbians or no lesbians.
Again, the deliberate marginalization of gay characters is not interpretation, but censorship, regardless of whether Capitalist America sanctioned the move.
|
|