Grand Declaration Of War Concept..

Status
Not open for further replies.
This thread is awesome!

Kudos to taking a potentially trashed thread and saving it!

@J-P, yeah, I got the opinions memo. But sometimes, opinions are really shoved down throats and given that crappy imitation "fact" flavoring. That's when I pull out the IMO's.

@VVVVV...sorry man, but Dodens is right about the Golden Rule.

@Dodens, maybe it's the Judeo-christian ideology in me, but the Golden Rule should work in theory. It almost always has for me. Almost. But that's enough. *hugs world*

@Cryptkeeper, I'm up for some pussy. Just wash yours this time. I had to brush my teeth for like twenty minutes after that shit you pulled last time, dawg.

@opethmaniac or thread stater...GDOW is an album I like, but I couldn't care less about the overblown in-your-face, ostentatious/pretentious, concept behind the album. You picked the wrong forum to ask.

...


IMO
 
The lyrical concept behind The Grand Declaration... consists of a bunch of Nietzsche quotes ripped from their context and pasted amidst a bunch of pseudo-philosophical babble. I don't take that album seriously at all. Some of the music on there is rather technical (yes it is indeed Jean-Pierre, care to argue with an educated musician who's been playing and studying for 11 years?). Some of the music, however, is not technical and is in fact quite gay.
 
I listen to it music as entertainment and art, and I hold both equally.

The album falls in the former category.
 
I'd also like to mention how much I can't stand Maniac's butchering of the English language.
 
Ok, here's a question for the masses... which is more fuckin ridiculous, Maniac's "talking" vocals or Attila's "singing" vocals?

anonymousnick2001 said:
I actually like him better than Attila. When he's screaming.

You mean the normal gurgley vocals he does now or you mean his real screaming vocals on 'Deathcrush'? Cause I'd agree with that.
 
V.V.V.V.V. said:
But you just pulled out the Christian fucking golden rule on us.

That rule is inherently flawed. By its logic, revenge is Christian, because, by it, if you burn someone's house down, you obviously want them to burn your house down, thereby entitling them to revenge (which is commonly thought of as anti-Christian, since Christianity supposedly supports passivity, althought you wouldn't know that with all the wars it's started).
Just goes to show you how good of a christian I am, because I always thought that SILENCE was golden. :grin:
 
anonymousnick2001 said:
@Cryptkeeper, I'm up for some pussy. Just wash yours this time. I had to brush my teeth for like twenty minutes after that shit you pulled last time, dawg.
Hahahaha You have no idea how much I laughed when I read that. Well, maybe now you do.
 
V.V.V.V.V. said:
That rule is inherently flawed. By its logic, revenge is Christian, because, by it, if you burn someone's house down, you obviously want them to burn your house down, thereby entitling them to revenge

Wouldn't that fit under the "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth" rule?
 
There's many definitions of a Christian. If you had the definition that a Christian, in any and all situations, ALWAYS follows the Golden Rule, then I would say that there are no Christians in the world. "Give up. :rolleyes:"

;)
 
Ummm the album's cool, the concept works (lord whatever expalined it well already), the spoken parts are awesome, the "golden rule" is something chooses to follow not something that is inherent (even Christain loonies don't think it's inherent), and yeah I'm tired...
 
crimsonfloyd said:
Ummm the album's cool, the concept works (lord whatever expalined it well already), the spoken parts are awesome, the "golden rule" is something chooses to follow not something that is inherent (even Christain loonies think it's inherent), and yeah I'm tired...
Fixed.
 
Actually they don't. If they thought it was inhernet they would think that every action one does is beause they wanted it to be done to them. Ie if I stab someone I automatically confess that I want to be stabbed. Thats not what they believe. Rather they believe that people should choose to follow a rule in which they only do on to others as they would want done unto them...
 
crimsonfloyd said:
Actually they don't. If they thought it was inhernet they would think that every action one does is beause they wanted it to be done to them. Ie if I stab someone I automatically confess that I want to be stabbed. Thats not what they believe. Rather they believe that people should choose to follow a rule in which they only do on to others as they would want done unto them...
Well again, I think that's more along the lines of "eye for an eye".

"Do unto others..." is more like Karma than that.
 
Edgecrusher said:
Well again, I think that's more along the lines of "eye for an eye".
Nah. "Eye for an Eye" means if someone does X to me, I can do X back to them.

"Do Unto Others" means I shouldn't do X to someone unless I would like them to do X to me.
 
Cryptkeeper said:
Your mistaken me for sombody else. If you gave me oral, you would probally choke, due to the size of my dinosauric cock.
You're absolutely right. ;)

I would gag from laughter and die of suffocation at the mere sight of that scaly little thing, wondering how the hell it ever crawled out of the prehistoric ooze. :p

Then I would remember that it's your oversized clitoris and laugh at you from the great beyond. :tickled: :tickled: :tickled:

Please no religion flames. :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.