Dakryn's Batshit Theory of the Week

V.V.V.V.V. said:
I agree Dakryn, flavor enhancers including monosodium glutamate, disodium guanylate and sodium inosinate are in pretty much anything with salt nowadays, but there haven't been any controlled studies that demonstrate any long term effects, good or bad, on human beings, so until there are I don't think I really give too much of a shit. I understand people being leery about what they put into their bodies, and I have no doubt that in 50+ years (i.e. in my lifetime), they will discover many ingredients practices that the FDA glossed over or allowed negligently due to tunnelvision, but I don't really give too much of a shit overall, as previously mentioned. Also, all of these things are naturally occurring; they are not synthesized. MSG, for instance, is the salt form of glutamic acid, which used to be derived from wheat gluten. This practice, however, was changed to the Celiac friendly bacterial fermentation method.

HFCS most definitely could be argued as a factor contributing to higher blood glucose levels, and eventually diabetes by extension, but again, lack of controlled studies (from actual credible scientific sources, not your conspiratorial hootenanny) keeps me cynical.

Also, preservatives aren't just put into processed/packaged food for absolutely no reason; they allow the food to be preserved for when it is actually eaten, allowing its shelf life to be extended far beyond what it used to be. Of course, it could be (and will be, by you) argued that this is mainly done to reduce cost overheads by manufacturers who are either unaware or uncaring about the negligence and possible health risks this could cause long term, but I'm just making sure you're aware of the actual reason preservatives exist; it's not just to make food worse for you, as there is an actual reason they put them in.
Click to expand...

It is kind of worrisome that you'd just "not care" until it is proven. Shit, I'd be more weary of these things because its NOT proven. Why would I be putting something into my body when I don't know what it is going to do to me - good or bad?

Not that I particularly pay much attention to what I eat, I make halfhearted efforts every so often but my economic state doesn't exactly lend itself to 'healthy eating.'
 
On the repeal of DADT, I forgot about this little detail.

Article 125 of the UCMJ:

Sodomy

I believe the original intent of DADT was a workaround this article. Unless the UCMJ is changed to go along with the repeal of DADT, then any homosexual is going to be pretty much wide open to be charged with 125 at the discretion of their leadership.
 
A holiday celebrating the birth of Jesus Christ is stolen from pagans. You learn something new every day.
 
Easter is actually stolen from pagans as well.

Edit: Neither the winter solstice nor the spring fertility celebration that turned into easter have anything to do with a Jewish carpenter.
 
In this case, origins have little relevance. An archeological argument whereby we try to deduce what historical culture has a legitimate claim to a specific holiday is fallacious because it suggests a normative claim that only people who practice the religion of said culture can celebrate that holiday.

If we agree that what makes people who they are is religion, then it follows that a person should (can) have only one religion, and can't choose to alter his views (i.e. religion exists external to a person, and thus is constitutive of the person, rather than the other way around). But we know this happens all the time. People aren't drawn to religion because they're convinced by some form of logical argument that it's correct. They're drawn to it because they already believe in the ideals and values that their religion espouses, and fancy themselves "converted" when they actually believe in what their religion said all along.

So, if there is no "correct" religion, then there are no "correct" religious holidays.
 
Einherjar86 said:
In this case, origins have little relevance. An archeological argument whereby we try to deduce what historical culture has a legitimate claim to a specific holiday is fallacious because it suggests a normative claim that only people who practice the religion of said culture can celebrate that holiday.
Click to expand...

This is a bad point. Originally, December 25th was a celebration of the Winter Solstice, called Yule, for many European Pagans; when Christians began crusading and changing the Pagan ways of the indigenous peoples of Europe, they convinced the Pagans that their holiday, Christmas, was equivalent to Yule and, probably at least somewhat violently, changed the culture to Christianity over time, replacing many instances of Yule with Christmas. The Yule log and many other Yuletime traditions live on as "Christian" traditions; the Christmas tree is the "Christian" Yule log. Yule singing is called caroling now, as we also know.

My point is that your "normative claim" shit is irrelevant here because the Pagans in Europe had this holiday first. Now, granted, the blood that was shed has been shed and we can't take that back anymore, but it really was not originally a Christian holiday that we celebrate in December. Jesus was probably not even born on December 25th.

Einherjar86 said:
If we agree that what makes people who they are is religion
Click to expand...

You're not going to get me, nor many others, to agree on this one, so you may want to amend your argument to something less specious. Also, the rest of your argument has little-to-nothing to do with the holiday argument/discussion that arose, so I'm struggling to figure out what the fuck you're even talking about here. The point is that, historically, Pagans celebrated "Christmas" before Christians, though it was called something else and changed (probably violently, as Christians in the middle ages were wont to resort to violence, ironically) over time following years, probably decades or centuries, of religious syncretism.

Note that if your point is that "nowadays December 25th is Christmas so you're wrong because only the present matters and we shouldn't care about history or sweeping cultural movements and/or religious and cultural injustices", not only is that fairly blind of you, but it's also beside the original point I made.

So, basically, I have no idea what the hell you're trying to say.

edit: I am proud Dakryn agrees with me on this, no matter how much it may weaken my point. Look up "syncretism" on Wikipedia for more information.
 
V.V.V.V.V. said:
This is a bad point. Originally, December 25th was a celebration of the Winter Solstice, called Yule, for many European Pagans; when Christians began crusading and changing the Pagan ways of the indigenous peoples of Europe, they convinced the Pagans that their holiday, Christmas, was equivalent to Yule and, probably at least somewhat violently, changed the culture to Christianity over time, replacing many instances of Yule with Christmas. The Yule log and many other Yuletime traditions live on as "Christian" traditions; the Christmas tree is the "Christian" Yule log. Yule singing is called caroling now, as we also know.

My point is that your "normative claim" shit is irrelevant here because the Pagans in Europe had this holiday first. Now, granted, the blood that was shed has been shed and we can't take that back anymore, but it really was not originally a Christian holiday that we celebrate in December. Jesus was probably not even born on December 25th.
Click to expand...

Your knowledge of history doesn't change the fact that religion doesn't constitute who a person is. People adopt religious views in accordance with their own personal "pre-religious" sentiments. There is no "correct" religion, and thus no "correct" holiday.

Despite the fact that pagans may have created the winter solstice holiday, it doesn't mean that they have some kind of legitimate claim to it.

V.V.V.V.V. said:
You're not going to get me, nor many others, to agree on this one, so you may want to amend your argument to something less specious. Also, the rest of your argument has little-to-nothing to do with the holiday argument/discussion that arose, so I'm struggling to figure out what the fuck you're even talking about here. The point is that, historically, Pagans celebrated "Christmas" before Christians, though it was called something else and changed (probably violently, as Christians in the middle ages were wont to resort to violence, ironically) over time following years, probably decades or centuries, of religious syncretism.

Note that if your point is that "nowadays December 25th is Christmas so you're wrong because only the present matters and we shouldn't care about history or sweeping cultural movements and/or religious and cultural injustices", not only is that fairly blind of you, but it's also beside the original point I made.

So, basically, I have no idea what the hell you're trying to say.

edit: I am proud Dakryn agrees with me on this, no matter how much it may weaken my point. Look up "syncretism" on Wikipedia for more information.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying that religion is what makes people who they are. You are, by claiming that pagans have more of a right to the holiday than Christians.

I'm saying that if someone believes that religion constitutes who a person is (hypothetically) then it stands to reason that people shouldn't change their religion and perhaps even couldn't, because their religion exists separately of them and constitutes who they are. I realize that you don't agree with that, and I would think that most people here don't; and we shouldn't because it would be irrational to (i.e. people do change their religion; we see it all the time).
 
Andy you talk as if there is some unalterable definition of what Christianity is that a holiday must satisfy in order to be considered "Christian". Religion consists of a dynamic and largely arbitrary collection of traditions, and if a tradition like Yule/Christmas becomes part of the mainstream Christian 'consciousness' then it is just as much an aspect of the religion as are churches, cathedrals, the cross symbol, sacraments etc. There's a wide variety of concepts associated with Christianity, many of them obviously plagiarised, but a religion is not defined by concepts alone -- it's also defined by the culture surrounding it.
 
Name something intrinsic to the overwhelming majority of Christmas or Easter traditions that have anything to do with anything in the Bible?

The "Nativity" has been determined to have most likely happened in the fall (and coincidently in accordance with the Torah instructed "Fall Feasts").

The Crucification/Resurrection took place on/around Passover. The holidays given in the Torah were already correctly placed in time, and with pre-ordained observance procedures.

Co-opting ancient and thoroughly pagan practices was the modus operandi of the Catholic church, to solidify control with minimal resistance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

EricT
This is why I love the police...
Replies
18
Views
886
Nevermore
Dead_Lioness
D
xfer
mia was tasered by police
Replies
4
Views
421
Kayo Dot
Draft Dodging Scarecrow
D
Journeyman14
"Daddy ate my eyes"
Replies
28
Views
2K
General Discussion
Keenan
K
Tiff
Don't Squeeze the Charmin!!
Replies
5
Views
239
Nevermore
Reminiscence
R
The Ozzman
LOL at 'Spiritual Attack'
Replies
27
Views
866
GMD Social Forum
AchrisK
A
Top Bottom
Back