[ SECRET POST #2236 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2236 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.
[Inda series]


__________________________________________________



02.
[Les Miserables and Discworld]

__________________________________________________



03.
[Three Kingdoms 2010, Legend of Chu and Han]


__________________________________________________



04.



__________________________________________________



05.
[DBSK]


__________________________________________________



06.
[The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion (Shivering Isles)]


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________














[ ----- SPOILERY SECRETS AHEAD ----- ]













09. [SPOILERS for ]

[Umineko no Naku Koro Ni]


__________________________________________________



10. [SPOILERS for Supernatural]



__________________________________________________














[ ----- TRIGGERY SECRETS AHEAD ----- ]














11. [WARNING for rape]



__________________________________________________



12. [possible warning for sexual assault (as I'm sure the thread will contain discussion of it)]



__________________________________________________



13. [WARNING for abuse]



__________________________________________________



14. [WARNING for rape, abuse, etc]



__________________________________________________



15. [WARNING for suicide]



__________________________________________________



16. [WARNING for eating disorders]



__________________________________________________


17. [WARNING for rape/non-con]

[Homestuck]


__________________________________________________















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 00 pages, 000 secrets from Secret Submission Post #319.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 1 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

What? Unless you're arguing that because someone or even the majority believes in God religious material should be given the same weight as scientific evidence when making medical and legal decisions for entire countries you are in the wrong thread.

Science is a trump card when it comes to disagreements and issues that affect more than the individual holding the belief.

Yes there are scientists who do have a firmer grasp on what is and isn't supernatural than bumfuck farmer. There are bumfuck farmers who think weather is biblical omens and insane clown rappers who think we can't explain genetics or magnets. Just because you can't disprove a concept entirely you can determine its likeliness. You can't absolutely prove unicorns don't exist. You can prove it's so damn unlikely no one should be legally required to buy unicorn insurance.

[saku]

legalities are decided by ethics and governmental strategy, not science. roe vs wade wasn't won by science. as the states gradually open to gay marriage, they don't have science to thank.

had you said your argument was about religious people taking hold of your life in unwelcome ways, i'd have no quarrel with you. instead you made the choice to call these people stupid and without right to their opinions. i'm not arguing they have a right to your body, your life, et cetera. but they aren't "stupid" simply because their views don't align with your warped view of what purpose science serves.

we know weather and magnets aren't supernatural. but supernatural suppositions - spirits, an afterlife, god, what have you, things that have no scientific explanation - have nothing to do with science.

[(Anonymous)]

I think you're stuck on a misunderstanding. I think people who know nothing about evolution are not entitled to being given equal consideration to a scientist or really anyone who spent any time reading the definition of natural selection. The stupidity isn't that they have a fanciful view of the world. The stupidity is when they think their feelings have any bearing on real life or other people. Allow me to take my turn in saying personal view =/= fact.

My point is that even when it comes to the supernatural science should be given more consideration than the average person. Even if just because that's the only way to determine what is supernatural.

[saku]

science deals with natural law. it has no place whatsoever in supernatural theory. its absence in it doesn't mean it should be given additional consideration.

but looking at other comments i think maybe i misunderstood the intent of your rant, even if i think you made it rather easy to misinterpret.

DA

[(Anonymous)]

you made it rather easy to misinterpret

I'm responding to this from flat comments so I have no idea the context of this, which might make it funnier, but goddamn. LOL

[(Anonymous)]

What? Just... what?

[(Anonymous)]

NA

even if i think you made it rather easy to misinterpret.

OP really didn't. OP explicitly stated that they were talking about "beliefs that contradict education and science. To me, that says young-earth creationism, the anti-vax stance, "gay is a choice" homophobia, moon-landing hoax beliefs, and the like. You're the one who decided it meant "anyone who believes in religion or anything supernatural is DUMB." That came from you, not anything OP said or implied.

[saku]

that depends entirely on what people think contradicts science. a lot of people think any religious or theistic thought is inherently against some sort of establish scientific rule, though it's really not. that op didn't correct me led me to believe i had been right.

nayrt

[(Anonymous)]

o.o

[(Anonymous)]

What part of the OP talking about people insisting on beliefs that defy basic reasoning skills = time to discuss the delicate relationship between science and religion?

[saku]

the second she brought up science, which was in her first post.

[(Anonymous)]

She? brought up scientific data. And education. And basic reasoning skills. And never explicitly mentioned religion. I think you either got really excited to post something smart or just really wanted some wank.

[saku]

and where exactly is the bringing up of science being lost to you? how is "scientific data" not referencing science? i only said that people who believe in supernatural things don't do so in spite of science, or against it. science has nothing to do with their beliefs at all, even in contrast. so i was unhappy to see what looked like the op claiming that beliefs in supernatural things are uneducated. they're not connected.

[(Anonymous)]

Honestly curious. If OP had used the word "facts" or "cold hard numbers" or something instead to make it clear they were dealing in absolutes would this have caught your attention or would you be arguing that people don't agree on what facts are or something?

[saku]

if we're still talking about religion, it would still be implying that theistic thoughts or concepts can be disproven with data and methods that are inherently inaccurate when they are used in this manner. absolutes are not absolute when you are talking about concepts that transcend natural law, which describes absolutes to begin with.

[(Anonymous)]

Ok. I give up. How could OP have made it clear to you they were speaking only about the application of religious ideas to non-supernatural, scientifically verified concepts?

[saku]

by saying at the very start that they were talking about people using their religion to control her life, which i said in like, my second comment.

[(Anonymous)]

1. Why would you assume OP thinks science=/=religion? At the very least you could have asked the OP to clarify what they meant by beliefs that conflict with data.
2. OP's first response to you cleared up what they were talking about.
3. This comment is not an invitation for you to find another way to blame OP for your tl;dr ot.

[saku]

1. because it was implied in her first comment.
2. yes, i know. my other comments have been in response to other people continuing the chain of derailment.
3. if less than 6 lines of text is too long for you then f!s is not a good community for you to be in

[(Anonymous)]

No it wasn't.

[saku]

i meant that it was to me, hence why i replied in the first place. how is this not obvious to you

[(Anonymous)]

Wait. You just got pissy at me for misinterpreting you and blaming it on you when that is what you've been doing to OP all night. Even though "it was implied" sounds a hell of a lot more like you were placing blame on OP again and not "I misunderstood OP's intent".

[saku]

i'm not pissy, i only asked you a question. i already conceded upthread that i misinterpreted the op. you're arguing over nothing

[(Anonymous)]

Where? All I saw was you implying and outright stating the OP misled you.

[saku]

here. i still think she should have been more clear - she was being intentionally vague - but i still admitted i was wrong.