![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Though For The Day
Jan. 13th, 2020 03:53 pmThere is only one kind of cheating in art: it's called plagiarism. Everything else is not cheating.
Both Liking And Liking
Nov. 8th, 2019 08:44 pmPrompted by a comment in this post: Which characters do you fall for who you think you would like to meet in life and be comfortable with?
(Note that I'm treating this (and, indeed, the previous post) as "fall for" in a completely platonic way. So's we're clear, yeah?)
- I want the 12th Doctor to be my personal university tutor. Problem is, I'd probably get dragged off on adventures and get killed. But before that, it would be awesome.
- Faramir. Wise, faithful, overlooked, a bit of an intellectual (at least in comparison to his brother). I don't think we'd have anything in common that we could talk about, too much of a culture gap, but still...
- Daniel Jackson. Brilliant, loyal, dead wife angst, determined, compassionate, thoughtful, totally geeky. What's not to like? We could talk about the difference between Cuneiform and Hieratic. And other stuff.
- Cazaril (The Curse of Chalion). Intelligent, and by golly, talk about faithful! Even more, faithful suffering. That gets me right there.
I think I'll stop there. Looks like my most important criteria are intelligence, angst, and faithfulness. Which probably means that Rory Williams should get an honourable mention.
What a fascinating exersize. So what would your answer to that question be?
Such Superheroes
Sep. 30th, 2019 02:13 pmSuperhero origin stories are the most interesting, because they are the only ones where there is any character development. All the rest are Boys Own Adventure and Soap Opera.
Why do I say that?
Origins:( Read more... )
Adventures:( Read more... )
Soap Opera:( Read more... )
Things Can Be Better in Fanfic:
I've been reading a lot of Marvel Cinematic Universe stories lately, even though I haven't actually seen very many of the movies. It's one of the few universes where I don't mind spoilers because I don't really intend to watch all the movies -- there are too many of them to catch up on, anyway. And I've been reading mostly Alternate Universe stories, which means it doesn't matter that much if I don't know all the details. So... I've been reading a bunch of Tony-Stark-centric and Loki-centric stories, and I have a few recommendations. ( Read more... )
So, any recs for more Tony-centric or Loki-centric character-full stories (that are NOT SLASH)?
Random Thought For The Day
Sep. 12th, 2019 09:34 pmThe trouble with Cybermen is not their lack of emotions, it's their lack of freedom.
Discuss.
Also, emotions do not make one's head explode.
Discuss.
Also, emotions do not make one's head explode.
As Long As It Gives You Comfort
Apr. 2nd, 2019 02:59 pmWhenever I hear the above phrase, I'm not sure whether I should roll my eyes or grind my teeth.
"As long as it gives you comfort" is a phrase used by non-Christians towards Christians in order to demonstrate their tolerance and enlightenment. What it really demonstrates is patronising smugness. "Let those silly little Christians cling to their harmless delusions, their crutches, because they aren't brave or strong enough to face reality."
Bollocks. Bullshit. Rubbish. Three hundred times NO.
( Read more... )
I wonder what would happen if I said "As long as it gives you comfort" to a non-Christian? I think I'd have to be pretty annoyed to do so, because I'd be saying it sarcastically. There's no way I'd say it straight.
"As long as it gives you comfort" is a phrase used by non-Christians towards Christians in order to demonstrate their tolerance and enlightenment. What it really demonstrates is patronising smugness. "Let those silly little Christians cling to their harmless delusions, their crutches, because they aren't brave or strong enough to face reality."
Bollocks. Bullshit. Rubbish. Three hundred times NO.
( Read more... )
I wonder what would happen if I said "As long as it gives you comfort" to a non-Christian? I think I'd have to be pretty annoyed to do so, because I'd be saying it sarcastically. There's no way I'd say it straight.
Thought For The Day
Mar. 23rd, 2018 02:31 pmA pattern I've noticed with conservatives of all stripes, is that they slap a label of "leftist" on (political) things people say that they disagree with - which is fair enough, it could hardly be other than leftist - but THEN, weirdly, think that that makes the argument go away. As if "leftist" is a magical talisman which makes their opponents disappear in a puff of smoke. Even if "leftist" is conservative shorthand for "you're an idiot", that is hardly a cogent argument; it is merely childish name-calling. And rather ineffective name-calling too, since leftists don't realise it's supposed to be an insult.
Ah, So That's Why
Sep. 9th, 2017 10:43 pmOne thing that has baffled me quite a bit in these angry arguments about things like abortion and gay marriage, is the protest "religions shouldn't impose their morals on other people". To me, that has sounded completely unfair, because it's like declaring that anyone who follows a religion shouldn't have a say in a democracy, because obviously their opinions and their votes are going to be informed by their morals, their conscience, their beliefs.
I had an "aha!" moment recently, during a discussion on Twitter. (yes, very unwise to try to discuss anything on Twitter, but it was initially a cordial and respectful discussion, I think.) There are two classes of moral rules: those that apply to everybody, and those that only apply to some people. I think we can agree that things like "don't murder" and "don't steal" apply to everybody. The usual rule of thumb is "if it harms someone else, it applies to everybody". The ones that only apply to some people (I think?) are in the form of a promise made by a person to do or not to do something. Like promising to be faithful to your spouse; doesn't apply to those who don't have a spouse. My "aha" moment was the realisation that non-believers in (Judeo-Christian Abrahamic) religions think that ALL of the religious moral rules ONLY ever apply to followers of that religion; because they're in the form of a promise to obey those rules when they follow that religion, and if you didn't promise to, you don't have to. Whereas followers of Judeo-Christian Abrahamic religions believe that since God/Yahweh/Allah is the ruler/owner of the entire universe, there are some rules that He has laid down which apply to everybody, believer and non-believer alike, and that these rules are self-evident.
( Read more... )
The basis of any cordial discussion of differences is the assumption of good will on the part of the participants. Without it, there is no discussion, just an acrimonious argument.
I'm leaving comments on for the moment, because I am interested in what you think, but the moment someone starts engaging in verbal fisticuffs, I will turn commenting off; I can't deal with the stress.
I had an "aha!" moment recently, during a discussion on Twitter. (yes, very unwise to try to discuss anything on Twitter, but it was initially a cordial and respectful discussion, I think.) There are two classes of moral rules: those that apply to everybody, and those that only apply to some people. I think we can agree that things like "don't murder" and "don't steal" apply to everybody. The usual rule of thumb is "if it harms someone else, it applies to everybody". The ones that only apply to some people (I think?) are in the form of a promise made by a person to do or not to do something. Like promising to be faithful to your spouse; doesn't apply to those who don't have a spouse. My "aha" moment was the realisation that non-believers in (
( Read more... )
The basis of any cordial discussion of differences is the assumption of good will on the part of the participants. Without it, there is no discussion, just an acrimonious argument.
I'm leaving comments on for the moment, because I am interested in what you think, but the moment someone starts engaging in verbal fisticuffs, I will turn commenting off; I can't deal with the stress.
Encouraging Songs
May. 6th, 2017 01:15 amI was going to say "happy songs" but they aren't just happy, they are songs which try to be encouraging. I'm pondering the nature of encouraging songs, and the different approaches they take. Some of them mean well, but end up being DIScouraging instead.
There are a whole pile of "encouraging" songs that I'm not going to list here, which I find more irritating than anything. They're the ones which declare that "you are special" and that all you have to do is just go for it and believe in yourself and everything will work out. No. To "believe in yourself" may be a necessary condition, but it is not sufficient. These songs can be downright discouraging, because they imply that success is as easy as snapping your fingers to summon the right attitude, and that after that, there won't be any problems. Far too naive and simplistic for me. Almost bordering on blame-the-victim, too; that if you don't succeed, there is something wrong with you because you weren't optimistic enough.
( Read more... )
There are a whole pile of "encouraging" songs that I'm not going to list here, which I find more irritating than anything. They're the ones which declare that "you are special" and that all you have to do is just go for it and believe in yourself and everything will work out. No. To "believe in yourself" may be a necessary condition, but it is not sufficient. These songs can be downright discouraging, because they imply that success is as easy as snapping your fingers to summon the right attitude, and that after that, there won't be any problems. Far too naive and simplistic for me. Almost bordering on blame-the-victim, too; that if you don't succeed, there is something wrong with you because you weren't optimistic enough.
( Read more... )
Cultural Appropriation?
Apr. 3rd, 2017 12:07 pmSaw this on twitter this morning:
Of course, everyone is mocking the original tweet, but it did get me thinking. Because, as a Christian, it has annoyed me for a long time that I can no longer use a rainbow as a symbol of God's love. Because the symbol is more commonly recognised in these times, as belonging to another group, symbolising something completely different. And that makes it feel like it has been stolen. Is that cultural appropriation? I'm not sure that it is; after all, the rainbow is up there in the sky, and people have used it before the LGBTQ movement to symbolise other things, such as ending racial discrimination. So why do I feel as if it has been stolen? Partly, I expect, because the LGBTQ symbol represents something completely anathema to God's teachings. Other uses of the rainbow haven't been for something hostile to Christianity. Does that hostility make it cultural appropriation? I don't know. It is something, but I'm not sure whether "cultural appropriation" is the right term for it.
Hey, thoughtful people, what do you think?
Of course, everyone is mocking the original tweet, but it did get me thinking. Because, as a Christian, it has annoyed me for a long time that I can no longer use a rainbow as a symbol of God's love. Because the symbol is more commonly recognised in these times, as belonging to another group, symbolising something completely different. And that makes it feel like it has been stolen. Is that cultural appropriation? I'm not sure that it is; after all, the rainbow is up there in the sky, and people have used it before the LGBTQ movement to symbolise other things, such as ending racial discrimination. So why do I feel as if it has been stolen? Partly, I expect, because the LGBTQ symbol represents something completely anathema to God's teachings. Other uses of the rainbow haven't been for something hostile to Christianity. Does that hostility make it cultural appropriation? I don't know. It is something, but I'm not sure whether "cultural appropriation" is the right term for it.
Hey, thoughtful people, what do you think?
Thought For the Day
Feb. 7th, 2017 03:36 pmThose who are suffering greatly may win through to a kind of serenity, not because things have gotten better, but because their survival depends on it. They must consciously reject the voice of despair, because the destruction that Despair will wreak is more than they can recover from. On the left, a precipice. On the right, a fog. There are no other choices left.
I do do not do don't do stuff
Dec. 16th, 2016 12:06 pmPondering on this:
---- Romans 7:15-20 (NIV)
Thing is... it isn't as if I don't want to do the things that I do, or I wouldn't do them. I want to do them at that moment. But... the problem seems to me, that I have contradictory wants that are incompatible with each other. I don't mean "the battle between good and evil in my soul". It isn't that straightforward. If it were, it would be easier to choose between them.
Take this example: I want to go to bed at a reasonable time, so I get adequate rest. I also want to keep working on the project I am working on. It's not like one of these is evil, but they are incompatible with each other when it's after 11PM at night. Why is it that I keep working on the project when I also know that working on the project will prevent me from sleeping?
Want #1: keep working
Want #2: stop working
I can't do both.
I'm wondering if this is a combination of inertia (keep doing what you are currently doing) and inability to grasp delayed gratification -- that is, the project is here now in front of me, the good sleep is more ephemeral, because it isn't like I will fall asleep as soon as I want to. The Superego knows that I ought to stop, while the Id just wants to keep working.
And in the meantime, I get tired.
"I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. For I know that good itself does not dwell in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. For I do not do the good I want to do, but the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing. Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it."
---- Romans 7:15-20 (NIV)
Thing is... it isn't as if I don't want to do the things that I do, or I wouldn't do them. I want to do them at that moment. But... the problem seems to me, that I have contradictory wants that are incompatible with each other. I don't mean "the battle between good and evil in my soul". It isn't that straightforward. If it were, it would be easier to choose between them.
Take this example: I want to go to bed at a reasonable time, so I get adequate rest. I also want to keep working on the project I am working on. It's not like one of these is evil, but they are incompatible with each other when it's after 11PM at night. Why is it that I keep working on the project when I also know that working on the project will prevent me from sleeping?
Want #1: keep working
Want #2: stop working
I can't do both.
I'm wondering if this is a combination of inertia (keep doing what you are currently doing) and inability to grasp delayed gratification -- that is, the project is here now in front of me, the good sleep is more ephemeral, because it isn't like I will fall asleep as soon as I want to. The Superego knows that I ought to stop, while the Id just wants to keep working.
And in the meantime, I get tired.
The Text, the Whole Text, and the Context
Dec. 2nd, 2016 06:47 amI was pondering bible-studies I had participated in, and I realised something. Many Christians just sit around in bible-studies and wait to be told what to think. How totally bizarre! What do they think bible-studies are for? A place where someone in authority (the leader) spoon-feeds them pre-digested doctrine, and then they have a cup of tea and a gossip?
Don't they want to find out for themselves? Do they think themselves incapable of finding out for themselves? Or not qualified? Or not authorised? Or is it just like too much hard work? It's a text. Read it. Think about what it says. Figure out what it means. Like we did in English at school.
What do they teach them at these schools?
Yeah, I know. They teach them to hate learning.
Thank God for fandom, where people analyse texts in minute detail, for fun.
Don't they want to find out for themselves? Do they think themselves incapable of finding out for themselves? Or not qualified? Or not authorised? Or is it just like too much hard work? It's a text. Read it. Think about what it says. Figure out what it means. Like we did in English at school.
What do they teach them at these schools?
Yeah, I know. They teach them to hate learning.
Thank God for fandom, where people analyse texts in minute detail, for fun.
The Pursuit of Happiness
Oct. 7th, 2016 01:05 am"The secret of success is this: there is no secret of success." -- Elbert Hubbard
I'm tempted to say something similar: the secret of happiness is this: there is no secret of happiness. But that isn't quite it, though it is similarly paradoxical. Happiness is like a wild bird: if you pursue it, it will flee from you, but if you sit still, it may creep up on you while you're not looking. Why do I say that? Because pursuing happiness as a goal means you have to decide beforehand what will make you happy, and pursue that thing; if you fail to get that thing, you will be unhappy; if you succeed in getting that thing, it may still not make you happy, so you chase some other thing which may or may not make you happy - it's like chasing a mirage. If you don't predefine what will make you happy, you give life an opportunity to pleasantly surprise you.
But if you can't pursue happiness, how can you find it? It is frustrating to me when people speak in generalities like "think positive" without saying how to do so, when life is full of negatives that get you down. It's like saying "you can be happy by being happy" - circular logic is not helpful.
So I figured I'd try to be helpful by noting some things for the stealth-ninja method of allowing happiness to creep up on you.
( Read more... )
I'm tempted to say something similar: the secret of happiness is this: there is no secret of happiness. But that isn't quite it, though it is similarly paradoxical. Happiness is like a wild bird: if you pursue it, it will flee from you, but if you sit still, it may creep up on you while you're not looking. Why do I say that? Because pursuing happiness as a goal means you have to decide beforehand what will make you happy, and pursue that thing; if you fail to get that thing, you will be unhappy; if you succeed in getting that thing, it may still not make you happy, so you chase some other thing which may or may not make you happy - it's like chasing a mirage. If you don't predefine what will make you happy, you give life an opportunity to pleasantly surprise you.
But if you can't pursue happiness, how can you find it? It is frustrating to me when people speak in generalities like "think positive" without saying how to do so, when life is full of negatives that get you down. It's like saying "you can be happy by being happy" - circular logic is not helpful.
So I figured I'd try to be helpful by noting some things for the stealth-ninja method of allowing happiness to creep up on you.
( Read more... )
The Quality of...
Sep. 6th, 2016 10:12 pmThings would be a lot simpler if God were not merciful.
Justice would be swift, vengeance would be complete. People would get exactly what they deserve; instant Karma for everyone. One could use someone's status in the world to determine their status with God. All misfortunes would be judgements, and all good fortune would be an indication of merit.
This is the God that many people seem to want. Especially the self-righteous. This is the God that they have created in their own image: swift to anger, slow to forgive.
If God were not merciful, things would be simpler. They would not be better.
For one thing, humanity would have been wiped out a long time ago.
Justice would be swift, vengeance would be complete. People would get exactly what they deserve; instant Karma for everyone. One could use someone's status in the world to determine their status with God. All misfortunes would be judgements, and all good fortune would be an indication of merit.
This is the God that many people seem to want. Especially the self-righteous. This is the God that they have created in their own image: swift to anger, slow to forgive.
If God were not merciful, things would be simpler. They would not be better.
For one thing, humanity would have been wiped out a long time ago.
Thought For the Day
Jul. 28th, 2016 09:46 amYou know the saying "those who trade Liberty for Security deserve neither"?
I have another one to add to it: those who trade Privacy for Convenience deserve neither.
I have another one to add to it: those who trade Privacy for Convenience deserve neither.
Another Related Thought
Jul. 20th, 2016 11:28 amI would rather be thought of as naive and gullible, than to treat innocent people with suspicion and fear.
Thought For the Day
Jul. 20th, 2016 10:12 amOne does not truly believe in freedom of speech until one defends the right of someone else to be Wrong In Public.
It's easy to defend the rights of someone you agree with. It's not so easy to defend the rights of someone who is "mistaken at the top of their voice".
(This post brought to you courtesy of an argument I had with someone on a completely different topic.)
It's easy to defend the rights of someone you agree with. It's not so easy to defend the rights of someone who is "mistaken at the top of their voice".
(This post brought to you courtesy of an argument I had with someone on a completely different topic.)
