SPOOFE, since you’ve expressed interest in illustrating a tract, my vote would be for the evolution one. It’s half scripted already, and it would be easy enough for me to polish it up into a full script. (If we did, for example, the science-fiction religious freedom one, I’d have to spend a lot more time on it, and right now I’m too busy working on a tract called “I never knew HE was an unbeliever!”)
** Lekatt** spewed,
Then he spewed,
So which is it? you said we all have a right to beleve what we want, then you say you want that right revoked?
Hmph.
Actually, SPOOFE, the guy who wrote “Kissing Hank’s Ass” said that there’s perennial interest in making it into a comic tract, but none of the people who spoke to him about it actually got around to it. Would you be interested?
Nonfiction comics: a terrific idea.
Ben might want to refer to Understanding Comics by Scott McCloud, and his sequel Reinventing Comics.
(One Tip: Cross hatching works well in print, but is lousy on screen.)
There are actually a large number of self-published comics, but they tend to be autobiographical or fiction.
I’ve read a number of politically inspired lefty comics, and they tend to be preachy. (Chick, OTOH, has a more effective manic edge to him.) OTOH (again) Joe Sacco has done some terrific political stuff.
Oh my G*d, Life in Our Anti-Christian America looks promising. Hm. You could do a Tag-team effort with it. I suspect that you could find a large number of alternative cartoonists that would be willing to contribute a single panel. (It’s been done before: Narrative Corpse contained the work of 69 artists). But I’m probably being overly ambitious.
We all do have a right to believe what we want. That doesn’t mean we can hate and then act out that hate in the form of ridicule. That is called bigotry.
Were you never taught morals, do you not believe in the rights of others. My personal opinion is this kind of attitude is the result of our schools teaching evolution as if it were truth. It leaves the student with no meaning or purpose in life and thinking that if they can get away with it, it’s okay. Not taking personal responsibility for their words and deeds.
Another thing is the current generation never really faced hard times or war, but that may be about to change. I think it’s regretable for you to think it’s okay to belittle others. Certainly a very childish attitute. I lost some good friends who died fighting for the freedoms we enjoy here in America. Perhaps as you grow, you will understand.
Incidentally, the theory of evolution is still just a theory, and there are a lot of theories about how man came into being. It might help if schools would teach the truth, along with several different theories of creation.
Love
Leroy
If they belittle others beliefs, yes.
Why would you need to bash others, can’t you just present an honest, truthful tract if you have something to say.
Love
Leroy
Whoa so much good stuff here, lekatt. Perhaps you will start a new thread and not derail this one with your views on evolution? Set aside a few hours of free time every day to respond to the debate you will invoke…
Nah, I think Chick’s own still have a bit of a lead on them. He’s got a lot more experience with the whole “irrational hate” thing, after all.
I agree with edwino; You should start a new thread on this topic. “Just a theory” is wrong BTW. There is no other scientifically valid theory, other than evolution.
No weaselling, lekatt. No “I accuse you- IF…” If I did it, then show me. If not, then quit your whining.
Who said it had to be scientifically valid, scientists?
Religionists say it has to be Bible valid.
Wiser heads just say it happened, and wait for more evidence, which may never come. Did it ever occur to you that it is not necessary to have an opinion or judgement on everything?
Love
Leroy
You said:
In which I responded that it’s the only scientific theory. I would say that scientists operate on reason, logic, and it’s ilk to make decision. I suppose we could all be nihilistic and say that all human knowledge is false and we could just sit back and remain ignorant, or we could try to figure out our surroundings.
No, actually it didn’t.
Reason, logic and it’s ilk are not infallible.
There are other ways to collect data, such as feelings, intuition, personal experience, and it’s ilk. Science thinks these are unreliable and only the methods of science are good. But then science is only guessing such as its evolution theory.
There are religions – Nostics, spiritualists, and their ilk who do think these methods are more reliable than logic. They have a right to believe so without being attacked.
This thread says something about anti-ignorance, but first we need to define what we mean by ignorance, and if it comes out to be anyone who doesn’t think like the starter of this thread, well,
we may have found the problem, now let’s look for the solution.
Love
Leroy
Excellent point. Reason and logic are limited. However, how do you tell when one of these has failed?
I’d like to make a very large wager that my feelings, intuition and personal experience differ immensely from yours. I’d also like to wager that mine are immensely more valid than yours. (Validity will be judged on the basis of my feelings, intuition and personal experience.)
I believe that this is an example of what is called the pathetic fallacy- ascribing human traits, (“Science thinks”), to things. Science is not an entity.
Where did you learn about science and scientific method?
There are parts of the process in addition to forming a hypothesis/ guessing.
1) The observation of phenomena
2) The formulation of a hypothesis concerning the phenomena
3) Experimentation to demonstrate the truth or falseness of the hypothesis
4) And generating a conclusion that validates or modifies the hypothesis.
Science is an attempt to reconcile the differences in feelings, intuition, personal experience, and their ilk as they relate to the nature of the world that occur among people. If you have some better way than experimentation of resolving differences of opinion about what is and is not please share it.
As to evolution, click here.
First off, I think the spelling is Gnostic, (from gnosis). I’d like to see a cite demonstrating that any form of Gnosticism promotes the idea that feelings, intuition, personal experience, and it’s ilk are more reliable that reason and logic.
Second of all just because there are people who believe something as a part of their religion doesn’t make that something true. There are people I’ve met who believe that you are doomed to spend eternity in Hell because you tinker with the “spirit-world” and psychic phenomena.
WHAT OF IT?
What of it?
Excellent point.
What if it doen’t come out to mean that?
Lekatt, I’m open to criticism of the tract ideas I presented. If you have a problem with them, then be specific, and we can all debate whether they need to be changed. But like I said, I’m not going to tolerate vague, wishy-washy accusations that you don’t back up with specifics, because there’s really no way for me to respond in good faith to a non-constructive criticism.
If you want to debate the relative virtues of reason vs. non-reason, then I suggest you start a thread on that topic.
If you want to debate creation vs. evolution, there’s already a thread on that topic, and I eagerly await your explanation of retrogenes.
If you continue to hijack this thread with a CvE debate, then two things are going to happen. First of all, I’m going to ask the moderators if it’s appropriate for them to take some action. And secondly, I’m going to assume that creationism is such an utterly ludicrous crock that you can’t even begin to back it up with the facts, and so you’ve been reduced to vague comments about reason vs. faith- not to mention grumblings about how there oughta be a law against people pointing out what a ludicrous crock creationism is.
That’s called anecdotal evidence and it is highly suspect.
I strongly suggest you open a new thread about evolution, we can debate there if you wish. I think you misunderstand the scientific method, and the TOE. I’m not going to elaborate further, but if you are interested please open a new thread about it (in the GD).
Philosophy is one thing, science is another. Anyone is free to believe what they want, however I feel a duty to inform them when they are wrong (or at least open discussion and find out where I might be wrong).
sorry to have participated in the hijak. I was reading along enjoying the thread. I’d help distribute.
no problem, SimonX. Do you by any chance have a webpage? It would be nice to have more than one person host these things- I’m worried about going over my website’s limit.
in theory somewhere. Not an active one. I’ll check into it.
no. sorry, I don’t.