Superman, why don't you stop sitting on the fence !

[Varient]

Yeah, we're like that to a point, but as I've said before, the people who are tasked with writing Kansans in comics have NEVER understood us. We're not just a bunch of dumb ass-backwards ardent creationist hicks who expect everyone to pull themselves up their bootstraps. After all, a lot of us still vote on farm subsidies and nothing else. That ain't nothin but a handout.

sarcastic humor noted.

 

[shapeshifter]

read red son.
you will get the idea.

 

[Varient]

Oh boy, this thread just took a turn for the classy.

No by all means keep it up with the ****ting on athiests and/or religious people, that's always an awesome use for internets.

"Wank stain" you say? Now that's what I call informed, enlightening discourse!

(smile)

All part of "stirring the pot."

It's just too much for folk to just disagree, they have to do it in a snide, rude, insulting manner so they can get others to start foaming at the mouth.


meh.

 

[Aristotle]

The only similarity about your comparisson, is that your are dealing with fictional characters

Nope, nothing unnecessary, forced, or contrived about that. No insecure atheists trying to prove how certain they are by using any random opportunity to bash God. Nope, nothing like that here. I don't know what you're talking about.

I like to think that when I was an atheist, we were a better class of people than the atheists are today, but the realist in me is pretty sure I know better.

I think you'll find that anyone who has done any philosphical ressearch of any kind isn't that dogmatic, infact they aren't sure about anything short of the ability to doubt, and that 1 + 1 = 2.

Even that basic math, you'll find, is subjective at the deepest level. But that's a level of discourse I usually find useless. Because really, except when you need to demonstrate the subjectivity of all things, it IS useless.

Scientific Atheists on the other hand are another kettle of fish. Wank stains such as R.Dawkins are as Dogmatic as they come.

Don't kid yourself, cap'n. You're no different. It was brilliantly Dawkinsy of you to just randomly insert a God-bash where it wasn't necessary.

 

[Aristotle]

sarcastic humor noted.

Mighta seemed that way, but I'm actually a very proud Kansas boy.

 

[Mladen]

When did he say he had to believe what I believed? You'll find that I said that nowhere. But I find his disdain for ethics and morality unacceptable and disgusting, and it is such sociopaths as him, who have no regard for the human community, for those around them, or for even the vaguest sense of right and wrong, that are ruining and will continue to ruin the world.

Those are all sentiments I've been in a firm believer in for all of my adult life.

Again, you'll notice that at no point in time did I even mention what my moral standards are. Not even in the vaguest sense. For all you know, I could loathe Superman's morality--but I will always trust a man who has a standard and a code that he lives by a million times more than a man who believes in nothing but himself.

ah, fair enough. Although i don't agree that individual apathy will have any lasting effect or 'ruin' the world (I'd argue that large-scale hostile imposition of ethics and morals on other cultures would do it quicker, or the 'king-superman' scenario) I'm glad we pretty much agree on the other points. sorry to jump to conclusions.

 

[Stallion9979]

did they ever collect that whole story where Superman takes over the world in TPB

 

[Zacharius]

I agree with Yahman.Of course, it will never happen in comics since publishers want to keep their Status Quo.

The prosaic reason for the lack of true change in the DCU involves publishing schedules and audience accessibility—the world the superheroes inhabit needs to be readily understandable by new readers; the imaginary world must match the real world up to a point. More importantly, a true superhero utopia would lack drama, and the imperfections of these universes makes room for the conflict that the stories require. (Admittedly, Gaiman's Miracleman issues challenge this last argument).(Quote byGabriel Mckee)

Yet this idea that normals would be "kept" is nonsense.

First normals are already TOTALLY dependent on superheroes for protecting the world.In MU they have saved the world 47 times accorting to Tony Stark and in DCU number is probably higher.

Besides, I've never really bought into the "Disenfranchise" argument in the first place. Do you feel disenfranchised because Steve Jobs and Bill Gates dominate the world of computers and you don't? How about the fact that you personally don't control the news media, or are a famous actor? Are you really feeling worthless because you aren't pope?

Sure, supers would be able to change the world- but there are already people who have huge amounts of power and can change the world. So assuming that Supers would be something special in that regard is a pushing it a bit.(Quote by Eric Tolle)

Aside from that even in real world humanity is dependent on lots of things.
We have to eat regularly, drink, breathe,etc and most humans need to work for survival.If modern society collapsed completely, lots of people would starve to death and all life on Earth is dependent on the existence of the Sun.

There are people who inherited great wealth, yet they succumbed to alcoholism or drugs; then there are people who ended up as slaves or in death camps, yet these people could act in a mature, courageous manner.

If Superman existed, he might change the world but every one could still choose how to deal with it; with maturity or immaturity, with courage or cowardice,etc.

Problem is not Superman but with people who couldn´t accept that normal humans are not dominant lifeform anymore.

Let´s put it this way:

A man participates in a foot race; he finishes second place.He tries again in other races and other runners improve better than he does.Eventually he is told not to participate anymore; he is not good enough.

Let´s assume that man represented all mankind; when superhumans walk the Earth, mortal man is no longer competitive.

Normal people are scenery in a world swarming with metas, be it the DCU or Exalted. I'm just saying that some people might not consider that a great thing, even if the world is pretty utopian compared to our own. On the other hand, some will be just fine with it. It depends on where your values lie, and it's not (or shouldn't be) a simple question.

And that's it, in a nutshell, for me.

I was raised in a capitalist society where the national mythology says that even somebody from the lowest social caste can aspire to be the equal of the highest with enough talent, luck and hard work. It's a pleasant fiction that defines much of our national character and mindset.

But when you pit men against gods? The men will lose. And I don't like the thought of humanity being reduced to pets or serfs, no matter how benevolent the intentions of the first generation of beings to do it.(Quote by Curt)

"If a man is not competent enough to do a task nor can he improve himself enough, what should he do ?"
"He could try something else where he could be good enough"
"What if he is a total loser, never good enough ? Should he blame the reality since it does not exist to grant his desires ? Should he envy those more competent than he ?"
"No, future and happiness are not promised to anyone."

Like it or not equality is a myth even in the real world and more so in fictional settings.

So Kyle Rayner and Superman should have changed the world.If it makes normals scenery, so be it.

 

[yahman]

Oh boy, this thread just took a turn for the classy.

No by all means keep it up with the ****ting on athiests and/or religious people, that's always an awesome use for internets.

"Wank stain" you say? Now that's what I call informed, enlightening discourse!

Its been scientifically verified by various biologists that Richard Dawkins has haploid DNA. He's living disproof of evolution as he is a walking talking sperm tissue. Now you might argue that this is surely impossible according to commonsense, but the data says otherwise. And as Richard Dawkins states, we must always trust the data !

 

[Darthphere]

Richard Dawkins is a Dick. Literally and figuratively.

 

[yahman]

Nope, nothing unnecessary, forced, or contrived about that. No insecure atheists trying to prove how certain they are by using any random opportunity to bash God. Nope, nothing like that here. I don't know what you're talking about.

Im not an Atheist, im just incredibly agnostic due to the failings of most of the arguements put forward either way. I'll admit im a bit of a hypocrite when it comes to this perspective, but most comedians making racist jokes aren't actually racist.

I

like to think that when I was an atheist, we were a better class of people than the atheists are today, but the realist in me is pretty sure I know better.

Fair enough point taken !

Even that basic math, you'll find, is subjective at the deepest level. But that's a level of discourse I usually find useless. Because really, except when you need to demonstrate the subjectivity of all things, it IS useless.

So is most epistemology at its most fundamental levels, but as you said, you end becoming very nihlistic if you start being skeptical about everything. Most of the greatest philosphers of the old (not the recent existential ones) are pretty assured of the a priori proofs of maths, so there is a level of certainty surronding them. I'll admit know one can be entirely 100 % sure, but in all honnesty they only thing we can be certain of is our ability to doubt.

Don't kid yourself, cap'n. You're no different. It was brilliantly Dawkinsy of you to just randomly insert a God-bash where it wasn't necessary.

This has been answered previously, but im willing to admit im a little hipocritical, but who isn't ? Any way it wasn't a direct bash at theism in its entirety, just the God of clasical theism which the origanl post was referring to.

He used the example of God being a 'fence sitter' to highlight the similarity between others peoples arguements and mine. To make that comment have any relevancy, i presumed (and i am aware that presumption is the mother of all **** ups) that he was refferring to a benevolent God ; i.e. the God of classical Theism. Its only in this context that you can argue the absurdity of God's love and his un willingness to help.

 

[Danny No-Shame]

He's a FICTIONAL character!
If you want to see a story where he magically sorts out everyone's problems, just write one yourself. Superman has been a defender of battered wives, messiah to the poor, capatalist enforcer, and demi-god. He can be anything you want him to be. Just because you don't like his current incarnation, doesn't mean that's how it's going to be forever and ever. Get a grip, sucka!

 

[yahman]

Richard Dawkins is a Dick. Literally and figuratively.

Dick Dawkins and the 'C0ck Delusions'. Biological proofs that Evolution is true as a thinking cock supports everything prescribed by natural selection

 

[fifthfiend]

Before I get worked up bothering to respond here someone remind me - yahman is actually celldog, right?

 

[Darthphere]

Before I get worked up bothering to respond here someone remind me - yahman is actually celldog, right?

Sadly no.

 

[Danny No-Shame]

So the ghetto has access to the internet as well, i take it ? I wonder where you stole the computer from. Id be careful if i was you, i think i can see some police and they look racist.

Obviously the dumb have access to the internet as well. How on earth do you manage to string a full sentence together without drooling over your keyboard, you homunculus mongoloid?
Really, are your parents related or something? That must be the only explanation for the likes of you, pitstain, because most humans who were bred in the usual manner don't make casual knee jerk racist comments to strangers over a computer.
I hope you're very pleased with yourself, knob-end.

By the way I'm white.Not that that makes any difference to the ignorant. Die in Pain, Idiot.

 

[fifthfiend]

Sadly no.

Oh man, that really is sad. Like, finding out Fred Phelps has a twin brother, sad.

I know it's not the done thing around here but I should really send a report-post or something.

 

[fifthfiend]

Are you still crying becasue i 'bashed the Atheists and theists' ?

Hush now dear, the grown-ups are talking.

 

[yahman]

Oh man, that really issad. Like, finding out Fred Phelps has a twin brother, sad.

...I know it's not the done thing around here but I really feel obliged to send a report-post or something, here.

Grow a backbone you invetebrate, im not a racist i was just remarking how 'gankstar' Danny No-Shame was acting with his 'sucka' comment. Its done all the time on scubs house etc, yet no one tries to shut them down over racism. Of course i know he's white, even if he isn't i don't really give a ****. He was talking like an 'ASBO' and i gave him the appropriate treatment. Its no worse than suggesting that a fellow member is taking crack.

The religious bigotry was bad enough but the race-baiting now is just entirely too much.

Religious bigotory, how can you be aBigot when you mock both sides of the ideal ? Grow a backbone you filthy little cockroach !

 

[Doc Destruction]

Holy crap does this thread suck.

 

[fifthfiend]

Holy crap does this thread suck.

It really does.

I'm increasingly ashamed for having involved myself at all.

 

[yahman]

Holy crap does this thread suck.

Atleast you can take pleasure in the fact that it has something in common with your mother.

 

[Darthphere]

It really does.

I'm increasingly ashamed for having involved myself at all.

Atleast you can take pleasure in the fact that it has something in common with your mother.

 

[Doc Destruction]

And now a mother reference. Wow, the quality dropped even further. I hardly thought that was possible.

 

[fifthfiend]

Grow a backbone you invetebrate

Grow a backbone you filthy little cockroach !

Atleast you can take pleasure in the fact that it has something in common with your mother.

You really need a hug, don't you?