Horseshoe theory at its best
Every day that passes it gets harder to differenciate the far religious right from the far social justice left. They seem to look for the exact same thing, with the exact same rethoric, and the same problems, they just change the topic. More than a decade ago, when i did my hentai drawings, i had to worry about religious people calling them “immoral” or talking about how they would hurt the children. Now, i don’t hear the religious people complaining anymore, and instead is the social justice crowd the ones who call me “immoral” or talk about how my drawings can hurt the womenz. Both sides are esentially dogmatic. They have a set of beliefs for which they have no proof, and they require Faith to think they are true; in one case is God; in the other is social theories, like patriarchy or the existance of dozens of genders. Both sides think they are moraly superior; ones because they are doing what God commands and will go to heaven; the other ones because they are “on the right side of history”, doing social justice (though most of the time is just virtue signal). Both sides deny science; ones claiming that the earth is only a few thousand years old and evolution doesn’t exist; the other ones denying any biological differences between men and women, or claiming that someone can be a third sex or even a dog or a dragon.
I think i have never seen horseshoe theory as strongly evident as it is today. We have reached a point where, being someone with more left ideas than right ones, i have more fear for far left leaders than far right ones, because they can commit the same horrors, while thinking they are doing the right thing because they are on the left. I’m more worried about left wingers coming to my site than right wingers, because the left ones are the ones who cause problems; they are the ones who try to take me down for doing sexy drawings or having the wrong opinions; they are the ones sending messages to my ad services so they stop giving me service; they are the ones sending messages to the conventions where i go, telling them lies so they don’t give me a platform; they are ones writing articles about me, acusing me of shit that’s only on their minds and can end someones career; they are the ones trying to get big companies to sue me because of fanarts. Nothing of that has ever being done to me by the religious right, the ones who are suposedly the puritans against sexual representations, or the intolerant ones.
So, i think that “religious left” is a term that fits this people as well, if not more, than regressive left.
Support me on patreon for exclusive content and rewards http://patreon.com/kukuruyo
Read my other webcomics at https://www.kukuruyo.com/comics/
Check my gamergate t-shirts http://kukuruyo.spreadshirt.com/
I’m also open for commissions http://kukuruyoart.deviantart.com/journal/Commission-Rates-482916233
twitter: http://twitter.com/kukuruyo
facebook: http://facebook.com/kukuruyo
Nationalisation is not a way of helping the workers but a way for the political class to rob the working and middle classes. This has been going on since the Communist Manifesto was published in 1848. Incompetent rulers may make the workers poor but the money and luxuries going to the new rulers can only happen deliberately.
Examples of nationalisation being used against the workers include Russia after 1918, Argentina in the 1950s and post independence Africa. Greedy left wingers appear to be trying this in the West, again.
Since they want to steal the money and land without being lynched the politicians have to lie and say the looting is to help the poor. A glamorous actress of working class origins, like Evita, may even be believed.
Do you have any idea what “Puritan” actually means? lol
Anyway;
1) The Church doesn’t necessarely deny the theory of evolution. They preach that people shouldn’t believe dogmatically in it like many do for political/societal reasons. No, the theory of evolution ain’t science fact. I’m not an expert, but I can understand it’s in fact full of holes. As for the biblical Earth age thing I don’t know what their stance is today, but given has Isaac Newton strongly believed in it maybe it’s not so stupid as you might think (And not, that’s not an “appeal to autorithy fallacy”, for it to qualify as such I woud have to have stated that he believing so proved it right).
2) I have never really seem a catholic priest talk smack about video games. Since you drew an caricature of an catholic priest and all. The whole “Video games are the work of the devil” thing, if even real (I never actually heard such claims being stated without irony) certainly comes from protestants.
There’s no real catholic stance on videogames. Priests are concerned with more serious shit. Many priests seem to view playing video games with negativity on the grounds that a “virtual reality” would be an attempt to escape reality and that they think kids could be doing better things with their time and energy, but no real priest would go as far as to call it “the devil’s work” when It’s quite obviously just the work of companies looking for profit. And also they’ll only really comment on such topics if specifically asked about it.
So, sorry, SJWs are not like the terrible catholics; because the terrible catholics are not like SJWs.
I would point you out that i said “far religious right”, that you have not understand the point, and that you’re making a nNo true scotsman fallacy, but i don’t really have intention to discuss with someone who suggests the earth may be only a few tousand years old and evolution is not a fact.
“I would point you out that i said “far religious right””
I was commenting about your depiction of a catholic priest’s caricature because it’s the second time I see that relating to gamergate and I think it’s unfair, especially coming from a group that’s commonly accused of things they didn’t do.
“that you have not understand the point”
How so?
“you’re making a nNo true scotsman fallacy”
Well, there is such a thing as a “true” priest. Just observe if he loses his priesthood after some controversial statement. Whatever, mark my words, priests don’t really give two shits about video games.
“i don’t really have intention to discuss with someone who suggests the earth may be only a few tousand years old and evolution is not a fact.”
Well, you’re not forced to do anything that would make you uncomfortable, buddy. LOL
…
Anyway, the puritans were a protestant group who sought to “purify” the Church of England from Roman Catholic practices, therefore it’s quite ironic that someone would draw a catholic priest using the word “puritan”. I commented on that because I think it’s evidence that you might be somewhat confused about the differences between catholics and protestants, as it’s sadly common nowadays (Though It suprised me a bit coming from you since you’re spanish and Spain is a catholic country. Comming from americans it’s more commonplace as they don’t really know anything despite protestantism).
The Church of England’s priests also wear dog collars.
And Episcopalians.
Why is it somehow worse for this sort of thing to come from a Spaniard? I’m Catholic too, and quite strongly; I’ve been accused of being the far religious right a lot (usually because I win arguments with people who aren’t left enough to automatically accuse me of racism, sexism, or homophobia, and so they have to reach for a different insult). I’ve also lived in Europe (Italy, three years, which is where I converted), and there are a lot of “Catholic countries” there, yes. However, that term only makes sense these days when you use statistics, because there are precious few countries that have an official religion of any kind. And among those (such as the UK), you still have a lot of diversity of opinion and belief. Do I think this is a bad thing? Well, I want everyone to be Catholic, sure, but I’m not going to assume they are, or chastise them for not being Catholic.
Heck, I got into a (relatively) pleasant discussion with an SJW at Balticon some years back, who was astonished that I was Catholic as a “young person” (I was 31 at the time, so I raised an eyebrow at that). Even more, she was astonished that I was articulate and thought in complete sentences (though those are my words, not hers). Of course, her unthinking bigotry was only pleasant compared to other incidents at the same convention that year, such as when my wheelchair was blocked by a spittle-spewing SJW because I dared to mention the word “Constitution.” (No, really, that’s all it took. I was actually talking about space travel, and she immediately launched into how I obviously didn’t want people to have healthcare. Balticon has asked me to speak on creative writing, and I’ve turned them down because of stuff like this.)
Anyway, I don’t take offense at the garb used by the leftist preacher here. I had a fraction of a second of disapproval, an automatic reaction which lasted only as long as it took for my eye to fall on the feminist symbols. Come on, people aren’t going to confuse Catholicism with that. This is the same sort of thing as Shoe0nHead’s feminism-exorcism video, which was HILARIOUS.
Sure, the “Puritan” comment would make more sense if the preacher were dressed in a suit, but that doesn’t carry the same visual impact. You could do 17th century English garb if you want to get REALLY accurate, but few people would appreciate that. Besides, the whole point of the joke is that their argument does not make logical sense.
And Lutherans.
Indeed a lot of Protestants in American cities wear clerical collars during services. My mother noted with amusement a Methodist minister at the door of his church on a Sunday morning in robes that in the rural crossroads town she grew up in would have gotten him a reputation for Romanist/Papist/Popish leanings.
Rural Protestants frequently do not.
A 1950s book, How to Become a Bishop without Practically Trying recommended not wearing your clerical collar on a train (unless you are a Catholic, Epsicopalian or Lutheran) or a business traveler will try to buy you a drink and if you are from a denomination that wants — at least — its ministers to abstain, turning someone down would be an embarrassment.
I was once on an international flight with a priest, and when the drink service cane by he ordered a glass of wine. The flight attendant looked shocked. “I didn’t know Catholic priests were allowed to drink!”
Fr. Heisler just smiled. “Actually,” he said, “drinking wine is in the job description!”
“I had a fraction of a second of disapproval, an automatic reaction which lasted only as long as it took for my eye to fall on the feminist symbols.”
Unfortunately, the main reason that anti-SJWs (very often) dress feminists up as Catholic priests is because there is a LOT of anti-catholic feeling in the community and so they try to combine two things they don’t like – even though Catholics and SJWs couldn’t be more opposed.
Gabriel Santos…….Evolution is a fact.
Well actually there is a study of Near Death Experiences that found they are real and cannot happen in the brain, so it’s not true to say there is no proof of God.
AJAJAJAJAJAJA
*laughs in spanish
If you don’t like science when it disagrees with you, you are irrational.
Science he says XDDDD
Yes. Cold, hard, clinical science:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2016/03/12/first-hint-of-life-after-death-in-biggest-ever-scientific-study/
That’s not “science”, that’s a clickbait article writting a conclusion that’s never reached by the study just to gain clicks from people whose religious dogma will make them believe that the hallucinations you have when you’re near death are actually a god. People have hallucinations when they’re near death, it’s a normal process of the brain, in fact you have it every day, when you’re about to get asleep, the brain sends signals to your body so it’s inmovilized, the heart have less pulsations per minute, etc, and your brain begins the process of Rem sleep, which makes you see hallucinations in real time, as if you were dreaming. Very few people later remembers those hallucinations, the same as not many people remember they dreams (which you always have). The only thing that study does is compile the ammount of people who have hallucinations when their brain is in the same state near death. That’s your sience right there.
The rest is up to the ingenuity of religious people who want to believe the clickbait in hope of having some “scientific” proof of something that science has been debunking for centuries.
Another atheist proves they can’t read! As the actual study points out, the brain totally shuts down on the verge of death and is completely incapable of rendering any kind of image, much less the kind reported by NDEs. The fact you think that having your heart stopped is like REM sleep is absolutely baffling. Repeat: No brain activity within thirty seconds of heart stopping, and one of the participants was able to describe the people in the room where his OBE happened.
Science has never debunked God in any way shape or form, that is just the ‘ingenuity’ of atheist people who want to disbelieve! In actual fact, scientists are increasingly stunned and uncomfortable at how finely tuned the universe would have to be to support atoms, never mind life.
The ingenuity of atheist people who want to disbelief…. that must be one of the most dogmatic and retarded ilines i’ve ever read. The reason why i dislike feminism is precisely because it copies THIS kind of dogmatism.
There are so many scientificaly incorrect things in what you just said… and you’re basing it all in a clickbait article misinterpreting and study just to prey on your dogma…
You think your own words are dogmatic when I repeat them back to you and swap out ‘religious’ for ‘athiest’! That is incredibly funny. Though you thinking that a secular ideology copies religion is a close second on the humour scale. Trying to conflate two things you don’t like and say they are the same is pretty dogmatic and fallacious in my opinion.
And then you go on to ignore what I said about fine tuning and claim that there isn’t a study behind that article! Those are some serious evasive manoeuvres you are pulling. In any case, you won’t accept that source? Fine. Here’s the same exact thing from a University:
http://www.southampton.ac.uk/news/2014/10/07-worlds-largest-near-death-experiences-study.page
In fact, forget the study. Lets focus on the fine tuning since it is extremely comprehensive and strongly suggests a universal creator. Or, to put it another way:
“The statistical probability that organic structures and the most precisely harmonized reactions that typify living organisms would be generated by accident, is zero.” – Ilya Prigogine (Chemist-Physicist) Recipient of two Nobel Prizes in chemistry. Physics Today 25, pp. 23-28
You’re really beyond help, but that’s what dogmatism does. Your doing exactly the same dogmatic things religious people have been doing for ages, claiming that everything that’s not 100% explained by science YET is a 100% act of god, until it’s explained and you jump to the next one hoping this will be the one. Now you grasp at straws like “surely, those hallucinations are in fact god!”, and “science cannot yet define at a 100% how life was born (even if they’re fairly sure how), so that means god!”.
The funny thing is that i’m not even an atheist, that’s you throwing labels at me, i don’t care if people have “faih” or not, that’s their choice, the day you find a real atheist you’ll be up for a beating, giving your “arguments”. What angers me is dogmatism, wherever it comes, and that’s what you’re showing. You’re so deep into it, that you go beyond faith, you give the existance of god for a granted fact and if someone doesn’t believe is an “ingenous atheist who wants to disbelief”. It’s the exact same attitude of feminists who believe the ridiculous and unproven feminist theories as a fact and so anyone who doesn’t believe in them is a misogynist.
Think whatever you want, i know arguing with dogmatic people leads nowhere. You are free to do all the mental gymnastics you want to lie to yourself about what i’m doing.
I’m not talking about lack of evidence. I’m talking about positive evidence. Evidence you dogmatically deny out of hand with an appeal to the idea that somehow Fine Tuning will eventually have a material explanation. Wake up call: Fine Tuning can’t be explained by materialism because the more we research the more we find out *just* how precise the Fine Tuning actually is. Your appeal to a hypothetical future where it is somehow explained is nonsense. It’s time for science to drop the outdated 19th century belief that the universe is just made of atoms and start being open minded.
‘the day you find a real atheist you’ll be up for a beating, giving your “arguments”‘
That sounds like ‘faith’ to me! Frankly, I’ve ‘beaten up’ scores of self professed atheists and don’t find them all that much of a challenge anymore. Let me tell you something: atheists are just as dogmatic as the most die-hard evangelical young-earth creationist you can find. If not more so.
‘and if someone doesn’t believe is an “ingenous atheist who wants to disbelief”’
Again! Those are YOUR OWN WORDS turned back on you! It’s incredible how little self awareness you really have.
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/ab/09/4c/ab094cedfe199b6059a3eccf0ca267f2.jpg
With everything i’ve seen, i’m quite sure you “i’ve easilly beaten atheists” is essentially a self agrandicing lie you tell yourself when people just stop talking to you when they see there’s no point. Your “arguments” are dogmatic and your attitude is the same as a kid “you more! hah!”. There’s simply no point in losing time in something like this, so they have most probably just left with a combination of resignation and laughter, like i’ll do.
That image shows exactly what you are doing. I am giving you evidence and you are putting your fingers in your ears and humming. You have made absolutely no attempt to argue against it or counter it in any way. You just keep saying ‘you’re wrong’.
Thomas Aquinas is not impressed with your logic.
My logic? in what way?
A great many of the people in the study reported back that they met divine beings, including God.
> So, i think that “religious left” is a term that fits this people as well, if not more, than regressive left.
Congratulations, but you invented a wheel. “Progressive” is an adjective. What names do you think initially stood after it?
https://www.unqualified-reservations.org/2007/06/short-history-of-ultracalvinism/
If rewriting a chapter of Mein Kampf into feminist jargon changes its nature very little, how much do you think rewriting some theology into “atheology” changes about it? Other than ability to circumvent specific wording in laws supposed to prevent theocratic coups?
“The way this women is dress is immoral. The author is obviously sexist.”
The male version: https://www.kukuruyo.com/2022/01/03/monster-boys-on-tour/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=monster-boys-on-tour