Where do you stand politically?

Where do you stand politically?

  • Far left

  • Left

  • Center Left

  • Center

  • Center Right

  • Right

  • Far Right

  • I dont know

  • I dont talk about politics ever, and dont care to ever

  • Rather not say


Results are only viewable after voting.
Status
Not open for further replies.

ZetaSonic

Est. Contributor
Messages
185
Role
Diaper Lover
I am sure a lot of people understand you somewhere on the deep right, maybe even alt right given by your postings, and your pic even reflects it, as my interpretation of it is some kind of conservative views on religious freedom/empowerment.
You are correct that I am sympathetic to the right side of the political spectrum. Personally, I wouldn't give an alt-righter (if by alt-right you mean the 14/88 crowd) the time of day and see them as what the Left would be like if they didn't have so many fronts and allies.

Indeed I am vocal on empowerment of the international Church: it's so easy to depict the Christian faith as a whole as something evil and oppressive despite the benefits it gave the world.
 
Last edited:

KimbaWolfNagihiko

Pokemon Trainer in, err, Training... Pants
Est. Contributor
Messages
3,635
Role
Adult Baby, Diaper Lover, Babyfur
I'm liberal in most situations so I voted left.
 

SgtOddball

Est. Contributor
Messages
587
Role
Diaper Lover, Diaperfur, Little
Indeed I am vocal on empowerment of the international Church: it's so easy to depict the Christian faith as a whole as something evil and oppressive despite the benefits it gave the world.
I'd say that Religion as a whole has negatively affected the planet. We've had the Islamic Jihad, the European Crusades in response to the former, and now we have the Jihad back on our front gardens. So you can't really say that Christianity has had benefits when it, along with the many other religions, is primarily responsible for the many wars, and the murder of innocent people (remember the fiasco with the witches or the Spanish inquisition?) around the world.
 

Sapphyre

Est. Contributor
Messages
1,275
Role
Diaper Lover, Diaperfur, Incontinent
I have begun to wonder whether the left / right classification system is terribly useful anymore. I would describe myself as being in the "be nice and mind your own business" party. I side with the self-described "right" in favoring minimal centralized government, which in my experience tends to produce a plethora of regulations that get in their own way more often than not. I side with the self-described "left" in opposing religious bigotry, which I will define precisely as "using one's declared religion to justify bullying or other antisocial behavior." ( I do not even recognize such people as being sincerely religious, they are mere troublemakers with nothing better to do with their time. )

So in different contexts, I sympathize with "opposite sides" of the political spectrum for exactly the same reason: I do not like people interfering with how others live their lives, provided no harm is being done.
 

Daddy Niles

Est. Contributor
Messages
62
Role
Carer
I'd say that Religion as a whole has negatively affected the planet. We've had the Islamic Jihad, the European Crusades in response to the former, and now we have the Jihad back on our front gardens. So you can't really say that Christianity has had benefits when it, along with the many other religions, is primarily responsible for the many wars, and the murder of innocent people (remember the fiasco with the witches or the Spanish inquisition?) around the world.
Don't forget that religion--but Christianity in particular--has inspired the most profound, beautiful, and enduring works of art and architecture ever produced. It takes a lot to motivate societies to expend the resources to make awe-inspiring and magnificent things and religion is about the only thing that can do it. It definitely does wonders for artistic quality standards.
 

SgtOddball

Est. Contributor
Messages
587
Role
Diaper Lover, Diaperfur, Little
Don't forget that religion--but Christianity in particular--has inspired the most profound, beautiful, and enduring works of art and architecture ever produced. It takes a lot to motivate societies to expend the resources to make awe-inspiring and magnificent things and religion is about the only thing that can do it. It definitely does wonders for artistic quality standards.
Although Religion inspired such structures, like the many Cathedrals that dot the planet, Religion itself isn't a prerequisite to creating pieces of art or structural architecture.
 

Daddy Niles

Est. Contributor
Messages
62
Role
Carer
Although Religion inspired such structures, like the many Cathedrals that dot the planet, Religion itself isn't a prerequisite to creating pieces of art or structural architecture.
I didn't say religion is a prerequisite to making buildings or to scribble on a piece of paper. I said that it's difficult to motivate societies to make awe-inspiring things and that religion is one of the only things that can do it. There's a substantial difference.
 

SgtOddball

Est. Contributor
Messages
587
Role
Diaper Lover, Diaperfur, Little
I didn't say religion is a prerequisite to making buildings or to scribble on a piece of paper. I said that it's difficult to motivate societies to make awe-inspiring things and that religion is one of the only things that can do it. There's a substantial difference.
No Religion is not one of the only things, like I said it is not a prerequisite.
 

Daddy Niles

Est. Contributor
Messages
62
Role
Carer
No Religion is not one of the only things, like I said it is not a prerequisite.
Then I suppose it's awfully peculiar that artistic standards have fallen to the absolute lows they could possibly be and contemporary architecture is forgettable and beneath contempt.

Religion pushed artists to make things worthy of divinity--which is an incredibly high standard to meet that drove artistic innovation, competency, and laborious attention to detail.
 

PapaBear001

Come say hello to Papa Bear!
Est. Contributor
Messages
333
Age
44
Role
Adult Baby, Diaper Lover
When did they lower the voting age? Hahaha.... 😁
 

SgtOddball

Est. Contributor
Messages
587
Role
Diaper Lover, Diaperfur, Little
Then I suppose it's awfully peculiar that artistic standards have fallen to the absolute lows they could possibly be and contemporary architecture is forgettable and beneath contempt.

Religion pushed artists to make things worthy of divinity--which is an incredibly high standard to meet that drove artistic innovation, competency, and laborious attention to detail.
Obviously you are looking at some and not all of modern architecture, there are buildings in the modern age, not related to religion, that are as beautiful and stunning as the Taj Mahal.

No religion didn't push artists, what pushes those artists was more cultural rather than religious, however religion and mythos inspired those artists, something which is completely different.
 
Last edited:

Daddy Niles

Est. Contributor
Messages
62
Role
Carer
Obviously you are looking at some and not all of modern architecture, there are buildings in the modern age, not related to religion, that are as beautiful and stunning as the Taj Mahal.

No religion didn't push artists, what pushes those artists was more cultural rather than religious, however religion and mythos inspired those artists, something which is completely different.
No, I'm looking at all of contemporary architecture. Le Corbusier's abominations and Zaha Hadid's grotesqueries don't drive tourism. Meanwhile, people from all over the world will travel to see places like St. Peter's Basilica and Notre Dame. The only contemporary structure that people go out of their way to see is the Burj Khalifa, but not because it's a striking beauty, only because it's 'the biggest' building in the world--a regularly shifting goalpost to be sure.

You've also made a distinction without a difference about religion not pushing artists to create, but inspiring them to create. That and trying to separate religion from culture in the pre-war eras. I'm not sure what you were going for with all that.

My point, again, is that religion is one of the only forces out there that can inspire a society to build magnificent things. Something like St. Peter's Basilica would never have been created without the cultural zeitgeist of Christianity in its era inspiring its creation. There's a reason why buildings and other objects with religious purposes or connotations are the most intricate and grand of scale, which is consistent throughout history. The only things which compare are things built at the behest of powerful people in eras where power is highly concentrated (such as a monarchy), usually as a display of power or, in some cases, to maintain it more easily. Just as something like St. Peter's Basilica would never be created today, neither would the palace of Versailles.
 

SgtOddball

Est. Contributor
Messages
587
Role
Diaper Lover, Diaperfur, Little
No, I'm looking at all of contemporary architecture. Le Corbusier's abominations and Zaha Hadid's grotesqueries don't drive tourism. Meanwhile, people from all over the world will travel to see places like St. Peter's Basilica and Notre Dame. The only contemporary structure that people go out of their way to see is the Burj Khalifa, but not because it's a striking beauty, only because it's 'the biggest' building in the world--a regularly shifting goalpost to be sure.

You've also made a distinction without a difference about religion not pushing artists to create, but inspiring them to create. That and trying to separate religion from culture in the pre-war eras. I'm not sure what you were going for with all that.

My point, again, is that religion is one of the only forces out there that can inspire a society to build magnificent things. Something like St. Peter's Basilica would never have been created without the cultural zeitgeist of Christianity in its era inspiring its creation. There's a reason why buildings and other objects with religious purposes or connotations are the most intricate and grand of scale, which is consistent throughout history. The only things which compare are things built at the behest of powerful people in eras where power is highly concentrated (such as a monarchy), usually as a display of power or, in some cases, to maintain it more easily. Just as something like St. Peter's Basilica would never be created today, neither would the palace of Versailles.
Like I said you are not looking at all buildings. There are buildings in the modern era that also strike the tick box for high tourism, and no I'm not talking about casinos.

I never said it did inspire them to create, but rather inspired them in the design. A lot of Cathedrals for instance have extremely Gothic architecture, this isn't something that has been pushed by a religion, the Bible didn't turn around and say that all the houses of God need to look Gothic. And they certainly weren't inspire by the Bible to create these structures.

And again no, your point is moot, Religion is not one of the only forces, and arguably it never was the driving force.
 

Daddy Niles

Est. Contributor
Messages
62
Role
Carer
Like I said you are not looking at all buildings. There are buildings in the modern era that also strike the tick box for high tourism, and no I'm not talking about casinos.

I never said it did inspire them to create, but rather inspired them in the design. A lot of Cathedrals for instance have extremely Gothic architecture, this isn't something that has been pushed by a religion, the Bible didn't turn around and say that all the houses of God need to look Gothic. And they certainly weren't inspire by the Bible to create these structures.

And again no, your point is moot, Religion is not one of the only forces, and arguably it never was the driving force.
Again, yes, I am looking at all contemporary buildings. Yes, the Burj Khalifa gets tourism solely because it's 'the biggest' building in the world, but I'd like you to name a contemporary building that drives tourism to a similar degree as Notre Dame where people are mostly just going there to admire its architecture.

I never said that the bible told artists specifically what aesthetic to use--that's well beyond an absurd strawman. Do you not know how inspiration works? Do you know what artistic standards are and that a theoretically infinite number of works and styles can be made from the same set of standards?

My point is not moot and your proof by assertion fallacy doesn't make it so.
 

SgtOddball

Est. Contributor
Messages
587
Role
Diaper Lover, Diaperfur, Little
Again, yes, I am looking at all contemporary buildings. Yes, the Burj Khalifa gets tourism solely because it's 'the biggest' building in the world, but I'd like you to name a contemporary building that drives tourism to a similar degree as Notre Dame where people are mostly just going there to admire its architecture.

I never said that the bible told artists specifically what aesthetic to use--that's well beyond an absurd strawman. Do you not know how inspiration works? Do you know what artistic standards are and that a theoretically infinite number of works and styles can be made from the same set of standards?

My point is not moot and your proof by assertion fallacy doesn't make it so.
Right, so you want me to name a modern building that has more visitors per year than the most visited building in the world? Apart from this being pathetic and stupid, to the point of being absurd, it is really a dumb way to try and prove a point. Going by Architectural designs is not about Tourism to begin with, the Sydney Opera house for instance is more striking than the Notre Dame.

It wasn't at all a strawman, like your "name a building with more tourists than the Notre Dame", you said, specifically, that Religion drove those people to build the church in that style, a statement which is completely untrue.

Your point is moot and no what I said is not at all a fallacy, please try again.
 

WABX

Est. Contributor
Messages
713
Age
67
Role
Diaper Lover
Far right. Dems don't want to have nothing to do with the American people just illegals. They want to give them everything and give the working man the bill.
 

Daddy Niles

Est. Contributor
Messages
62
Role
Carer
Right, so you want me to name a modern building that has more visitors per year than the most visited building in the world? Apart from this being pathetic and stupid, to the point of being absurd, it is really a dumb way to try and prove a point. Going by Architectural designs is not about Tourism to begin with, the Sydney Opera house for instance is more striking than the Notre Dame.

It wasn't at all a strawman, like your "name a building with more tourists than the Notre Dame", you said, specifically, that Religion drove those people to build the church in that style, a statement which is completely untrue.

Your point is moot and no what I said is not at all a fallacy, please try again.
Did you consider that older religious buildings overwhelmingly top the list of architectural/scenic tourist attractions? Is it because they're swarmed by the devout looking to worship? No, not at all. People go there to take in the majesty of what was built and the extreme care taken to make it as majestic as it is. Surely if contemporary architecture was "just as beautiful and stunning" as those, they could bring in similar levels of tourism--if even just a reasonable fraction.

Simply ask why the architects and artists built those cathedrals in the style they did and spent copious amounts of extra resources to do so. Why that style instead of something considerably easier and lower effort?

Repeating that "religion is not one of the only forces [for people creating splendid art and architecture]" ad nauseam without any supporting evidence or reasoning is a logical fallacy.
 
Last edited:

SgtOddball

Est. Contributor
Messages
587
Role
Diaper Lover, Diaperfur, Little
Did you consider that older religious buildings overwhelmingly top the list of tourist attractions? Is it because they're swarmed by the devout looking to worship? No, not at all. People go there to take in the majesty of what was built and the extreme care taken to make it as majestic as it is. Surely if contemporary architecture was "just as beautiful and stunning" as those, they could bring in similar levels of tourism--if even just a reasonable fraction.

Simply ask why the architects and artists built those cathedrals in the style they did and spent copious amounts of extra resources to do so. Why that style instead of something considerably easier and lower effort?

Repeating that "religion is not one of the only forces [for people creating splendid art and architecture]" ad nauseam without any supporting evidence or reasoning is a logical fallacy.
Again, levels of tourism doesn't mean a build is beautiful and stunning. Just because it gets 12 million visitors a year does not make it the most beautiful or striking building in the world, that is just a fallacy, it would be like saying xxx religion is the best because most people follow it.

A lot of the design would be more down to politics than religion, which at the time both would be intertwined. And the more resources one has to build a structure, and the more complex the design can be. Same goes for the Pyramids, they are striking structures yes, certainly not beautiful, but does that mean they were built because it was driven by the Religion at the time? Or do you think it was built with pressure from the Porous who were able to give them the resources?

So you agree then that your statement about the Nostre Dame is a logical fallacy then?
 

Daddy Niles

Est. Contributor
Messages
62
Role
Carer
Again, levels of tourism doesn't mean a build is beautiful and stunning. Just because it gets 12 million visitors a year does not make it the most beautiful or striking building in the world, that is just a fallacy, it would be like saying xxx religion is the best because most people follow it.

A lot of the design would be more down to politics than religion, which at the time both would be intertwined. And the more resources one has to build a structure, and the more complex the design can be. Same goes for the Pyramids, they are striking structures yes, certainly not beautiful, but does that mean they were built because it was driven by the Religion at the time? Or do you think it was built with pressure from the Porous who were able to give them the resources?

So you agree then that your statement about the Nostre Dame is a logical fallacy then?
There's nothing fallacious about holding two subjective things to a common standard so you can compare and contrast, or otherwise draw some kind of conclusion. That contemporary building are "just as beautiful and stunning" as the older ones I mentioned is a normative statement that doesn't seem to have weight, as evidenced by the fact that few can be bothered to go see it, yet Notre Dame and things like it can draw people to spend thousands of dollars and travel thousands of miles to go see it. One of these things is not like the other.

Having resources to build a structure doesn't equate to resources being spent on structures. Wealthy people today overwhelming live in low-to-middlebrow styled homes that are effectively just oversized middle-class homes--you know, stucco and drywall galore mixed with standard appliances and unremarkable features, if all a bit more expensive. That's in stark contrast to old-world aristocracy. So that doesn't really answer why they would spend so much resources on a building and why the designer wouldn't just save themselves the effort and haphazardly strew about cherubs and silly ornamentation or otherwise just take a minimalist approach.
 
Last edited:

SgtOddball

Est. Contributor
Messages
587
Role
Diaper Lover, Diaperfur, Little
There's nothing fallacious about holding two subjective things to a common standard so you can compare and contrast, or otherwise draw some kind of conclusion. That contemporary building are "just as beautiful and stunning" as the older ones I mentioned is a normative statement that doesn't seem to have weight, as evidenced by the fact that few can be bothered to go see it, yet Notre Dame and things like it can draw people to spend thousands of dollars and travel thousands of miles to go see it. One of these things is not like the other.

Having resources to build a structure doesn't equate to resources being spent on structures. Wealthy people today overwhelming live in low-to-middlebrow styled homes that are effectively just oversized middle-class homes--you know, stucco and drywall galore mixed with standard appliances and unremarkable features, if all a bit more expensive. That's in stark contrast to old-world aristocracy. So that doesn't really answer why they would spend so much resources on a building and why the designer wouldn't just save themselves the effort and haphazardly strew about cherubs and silly ornamentation or otherwise just take a minimalist approach.
That doesn't mean however that the structure is beautiful or stunning, and you it was a fallacious statement to make, sorry to burst your bubble. Architecturally yes the Notre Dame is a stunning and magnificent building to look at, it is more stunning than the Lincoln Cathedral here in the United Kingdom, but the Taj Mahal is far more beautiful, it is more striking, it is all round the better building of the two. And yet I'd still put my money on the table that the Sydney Opera House is even more so than those 3 structures mentioned.

You are indeed correct, however having more resources for a structure, means a structure can be far more complex in design. That is the choice of the rich after all, and who doesn't like the average, middle class house? With spacious living rooms, bedrooms big enough to swing a cat, and bespoke kitchens that even come with an island. But you cannot compare, and remain serious, when you want to compare one to a Medieval Cathedral.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top