Lets say that all alicorns except Twilight vanishes because their time has come and they're left with mane 6 ruling the country. Twilight decides to implement democracy to make sure Equestria's social and economic problems gets solved so all nations across could live in peace.
If the mane 6 gets split up in different political parties. What would be their stance between the far left and far right division?
Would any other citizen's rise to be a better candidate? If so, then who and for what causes?
From my perspective. Dash would probably be more middle right winged. She would aim for protecting the citizens of Equestria at all cost and help Gryphonstone back on their paws/claws by financially spend as many bits needed to get them work in Cloudsdale.
They'd probably have to immigrate since it's so far off from Griffinstone though, but they will use the money to restore their home to their former glory, right?
As for Fluttershy I think she would not want to be politically involved directly.
I don't know why, but for me she strikes me as some kind of greenpeace feminist SJW who would rather hold measly protests to prevent the murder of forests and animals than to do any real leadership.
I'm probably going off as biased, but that is further encouraged thanks to Treehugger.
Applejack strikes me as someone who is far right winged. She has experience in the work field so I think she is more into communism than any of the other characters.
The reason I say this is because she is more caring about the people surrounding her than she does about wealth or power.
If Equestria would be unbalanced with the poor outweighing the rich by a large margin then I think AJ would definitely become an elected leader.
Bump. I want to hear more opinions besides my own.
Bump. Come on. There's got to be more civilized people who think this is more interesting than IWTCIRD and general threads.
>>26799000
i respect your attempt to make a worthwhile thread, as well as your trips.
>>>/pol/
>>26799021
But this thread is MLP related if you took your time to read the thread.
>>26799000
History will repeat itself, so no.
>>26798865
>Center-right
I dunno, I'm basically Dash with an intellectual streak, and I'm pretty solidly left. (Somewhere between Bernie and Clinton) I'm fairly confident that Dash would have similar views. Dash would likely join book horse's liberal party.
>>26798942
>far right winged
>communism
I don't think you know what either of those things mean.
>>26798942
>communism
>far right
U wot? The far right state control ideology is fascism. I know that due to the horseshoe effect fascism and communism do look very similar, but fascists and commies don't get along. At all. Anyways, I think Appul would be a compassionate conservative.
>>26798811
>Democracy
Twilight isn't a crazy pony, OP
>>26799982
I've always had the impression that communism was a right winged thing to do while socialism and liberalism is left.
Someone correct me on this.
Let's fucking do this. Full Throttle. No brakes.
First, the approach is important. I'm just going to assume that "royalism" is off the ballot here, because if it was I would bet that every single one of them would go for it.
Pinkie Pie: Probably a fucking hippie loser who doesn't understand why everyone can't just get along. Ignores the material reality of the world, and the inequalities that it's used to perpetuate, in favor of a childish dream of togetherness.
Rarity: Probably just a classical liberal. Down with aristocratic power, accepting of a democratic system as long as the old ways are still a part of it.
Dash: Nationalist. Would probably join up with uber-moderate conservatives. Wouldn't really care about any specific issues facing Equestria, mostly just interested in keeping things stable (read: maintaining the status quo).
Applejack: Propertarian scum. I would say libertarian, but that comes with too much baggage that wouldn't apply. She'd probably have a populist leaning economically, but no interest in social issues if not outright sympathetic to the right wing.
Think Nathaniel Bacon, if I understand him correctly.
Fluttershy: Probably liberal. I'm inclined to think that she would join up in a drum circle with Pinkie, but I feel like Shy understands the necessity for moderate political action in certain situations.
Twilight probably wouldn't participate, would probably just tell everyone they were doing a great job until someone wanted to do something she didn't account for.
>>26800187
Let's get some definitions down.
Capitalism is an economic system in which the means of production (the tools that you work with to make things, like tractors for food, conveyor belts for machines, or computers for digital shit) are owned by private interests. That means there is a boss or organization claiming control over a certain means that they will then get other people to work for them.
Socialism is an economic system in which the means of productions are owned collectively. It's very important to note that "collective" does not mean public. What most people think of as socialism is what amounts to public ownership over the means of production, where a state (as in nation-state, state department, etc.) replaces the boss.
That's not socialism, in that kind of system the MoP are still privatized, but are only subsidized by the government.
Collective ownership is more radical. It means that the workers, the people who are on the factory floor, in the fields, or at the office desk, have primary control of the MoP. There is no boss dictating what the workers do, everyone with hands on the tools work together democratically to direct the organization. Next would be getting into why socialists think that would be better, but that's a whole other posts worth of explanation.
Communism is a social system characterized by stateless, classless organization where everyone has free access to final goods (like an iphone, specifically not the individual parts of an iphone on an assembly line). A communist society would be socialist, but collective ownership can exist without communism.
Liberals, at least in the American sense, are almost all capitalists. While people like Bernie Sanders might be getting traction calling themselves socialists, their policy mostly falls under that public ownership deal mentioned before (though Bernie was probably an actual socialist in the past, he's dropped most of his old beliefs to be electable to the American left).
>>26800187
>>26800689
Left and Right basically goes like this:
Leftists believe that equality, whether it be social, economic, or political, is possible and desirable. Sometimes conservatives, most of the time liberals, and all socialists and communists hold these kinds of beliefs.
Rightists believe that some forms of inequality are inevitable or desirable. Sometimes liberals, most of the time conservatives, and all fascists and authoritarians fall within this line of thought.
Those inequalities might be capitalism, individual leadership, racism, sexism, etc.
The far left generally believes that all inequalities can be equalized and should be, the far right generally believes they can't or shouldn't be.
Liberals might think that capitalism is inevitable, but sexism or racism can be stopped. Conservatives might think that government control can be minimized, but that sexism, racism, and capitalism are all inherent or necessary to humanity.
That's it. The basics.
Welcome to the world of contemporary politics, now you can surf the dankest of political memes.
>>26798942
communism isn't right wing
>>26800255
You're assuming things about Equestria we can't assume. Communism could be perfectly plausible in that world. I mean, we have an absolute monarchy (diarchy) and so far we haven't seen any negative effects. The power of the Royal Sisters is quite clear with the fact that they control the day and night. They control all of Equus. They could kill all living beings by starving them to death. If this radical authoritarianism works, why not a stateless society?
>>26800689
>A communist society would be socialist, but collective ownership can exist without communism.
That's not true though. How could a stateless society be a socialist society? A truly communist society is literally an anarchist society.
>>26800708
>Conservatives might think that government control can be minimized, but that sexism, racism, and capitalism are all inherent or necessary to humanity.
I think your post is almost spot on aside from this part. You'll find that in Republican, and most right-wing parties, that racism doesn't exist in the same way the left views racism. Republicans don't subscribe to identity politics and don't treat others differently based on race, only upbringing and culture. A black man who robs gas stations and lives on the poverty line, and a black man who has a PhD in medicine and makes 6 figures, are not in the same class by any means; whereas a democratic politician would tell you that both of these people are part of the same group because of their skin colour. Culture and values outweigh race any day.
>>26800788
Seconded. If everyone owns everything, no state is necessary to protect private ownership.
Keep in mind this doesn't apply to personal ownership. Perhaps a 'nightwatchmen state' could exist, but is that powerful enough to qualify as a state? A state must have n absolute monopoly on the use of violence.
>>26800797
I would argue against that, but lets try to keep things /mlp/ instead of /pol/
I think all of the main six would be liberal, as in communist. However, they'll believe in some sort of far-off 'friendship is magic' fantasy of communism. A centrist or right-wing might make them swallow the red pill.
You may argue that the Cutie Map showed us they are not communist, but they never argued against equality. They argued that Glimmer's town was not representative of equality.
Marx and Engels stole the idea of communism from a Russian who extended communalism, then Marx added a central state element. That's why it can't work. It will never work. Not with anything that isn't ants.
Monarchy communism are mutually exclusive. Ants treat their "queens" as nothing better than broodmares.
Welcome to /mlpol, anons.
Today we're talking about ponies.
And politics.
>>26800846
>pol
?
>>26800797
That's a nice thought, but ultimately it's not true. Traditionalists, which are inherently right wing, pick and choose on more than just upbringing and culture. Race, religion, sexual orientation and gender are things they, to put it bluntly, discriminate against.
Now, explicit racism and sexism are practically gone in the American Republican party, but measurements of values based of religion and sexual orientation are still obviously present, and more subtle forms of sexism and racism do peep through if you look at many of the individual republican members.
So now that I'm enlightened by what is left and right then lets challenge the party of six with something difficult.
Flim and Flam have gotten economic monopoly over Equestria as poverty is on the rise. They've bought most of the lands and raised the prizes so only the few rich can actually purchase the lands while the poor have to live with depth from rents and loans.
Which of the manes parties would be able to fix this issue and what would they do to bring balance to Equestria?
>>26800788
>>26800814
I'm kind of confused on what you mean.
If you're asking about the first part of the sentence, then I'd say that socialism is an economic system and not a social one. There is nothing inherent to socialism that necessitates a state.
Marxists will argue that in the transition away from capitalism, a state would be necessary to protect socialist interests, but once communism is achieved a state becomes unnecessary.
Now, a government is different than a state. If that's the issue than I can wrap my head around this a bit more. A government can exist without a state, a communist society would still have governance. One form of this would be the democratic worker's councils, ie the socialist organizations that replace the capitalist boss-worker hierarchy. If none of that is right, you're going to need to clarify for my shitty brain.
>>26800930
Applejack's
She'd murder the motherfuckers and make sausage from their entrails, which she then feeds to Wiona.
She takes control of the company and dissolves it, leaving the infrastructure for new companies to compete for.
Guess what party this is.
>>26800937
Agreed, a communist society would have government, but not a state. You said that collective ownership could exist with a state.
>>26800971
Oh yeah. I just meant in the Marxist sense of an inter-revolutionary socialism.
>>26800989
Oh no. Personally, I'm an anarchist.
But let's not talk politics let's talk ponies.
>>26801001
Okay. I need some recommendations. I'm starved for anything even slightly anti-authoritarian within this fandom. Do you know of any fan work that questions the super gross power relations in the show?
>>26801020
A Colt Classic, Best damn animation ever.
Most greentexts feature at least some sort of questioning of the absolute rule of Celestia.
Lunar Republic stories, like
<http://www.fimfiction.net/story/230951/the-republic>
Anarchist stories like
<http://www.fimfiction.net/story/238349/1/freedom/free-will>
More of a social thing, but still
I was a teenage anarchist by AGAINST! ME
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6IS5CYIrWQk>
Good luck anarchokiddie
>>26800846
I think they'd be liberal in general, but not communist. Equestria is very clearly a market economy, and they're very clearly very happy with that. They'd probably be american New Left style radicals, but I doubt they'd go so far as to suggest eliminating markets.
>>26801076
Side note, none of these are really anti-authoritarian i the sense of actually protesting the idea of authoritarianism.
And you know, Teenage Anarchist is kinda a red pill song against the non-learned type anarchists
>>26801077
True, true. Whatcha think of the red pill? Will liberalism flourish or die in Equestria?
>>26800955
The terror party?
>>26801076
>>26801098
That's fine, even some indirect stuff is a nice break from the things I usually see. Thanks.
>>26801121
Yes.
ALL HAIL APPLEJACK!!
>>26801118
I don't think liberalism will ever flourish in Equestria if changelings could use that to their advantage.
>>26801188
Like how?
>>26801188
Whoa, whoa whoa.
What's wrong with that? We don't know much about changelings. We know that one specific group led by one specific changeling tried to take over Equestria.
Maybe changelings need liberalism, to free them from the xenophobic pony tradition (assuming that exists)
>>26801214
>>26801257
Are you guys saying we should tolerate changelings after what happened in the Canterlot wedding?
It would be literally be how muslim extremists are invading first world countries right now and leeches off of the government.
>>26801302
Oh shit, you're going all the way.
Some of us are not down with discriminating against people based on things out of their control.
>>26801302
Again, you're assuming that Chrysalis represents all changelings.
We don't know if this is true or not.
>>26801334
>>26801331
>Not all changelings
And which party would you think would agree to being so liberal that all of the mane 6 would accept changelings with open hooves after what happened in Canterlot?
Not to mention. Canterlots citizens would vote against the idea.
>>26801302
Don't worry man. Just a few hundred years ago, Christians used to be bunch of witch-burning lunatics. They were pacified with time, and Muslims will be as well soon enough.
>>26801118
Flourish for sure. They don't appear to see as many of the market failures we do over here, so they can have effective institutions to curb said failures without spending a fortune. And I'd argue that from a New Left perspective Equestria is already a utopia when it comes to social issues, so they only really have to focus on creating stable long-run macroeconomic growth, while minimizing short run fluctuations.
>>26801361
Fluttershy probably would.
>>26801377
I don't think that works in a culture who claims they're a religion of peace, but you could be punished for leaving Islam.
>>26801377
You NEVER read any history, did you? While true SOME cases were when some got falsely accused, treason in religious institutions or the possession and or distribution of extremely dubious texts were more than reasons enough to, morally justified, burn down gnostics and proto-progressives.
>>26801399
>complains about a religion's violence
>post a meme supporting a mass murdering nazi
okay
>>26801399
Being an anti-theist, I think no religion is a 'religion of peace'
Modern day Islam is another example of why religion should be stamped from this Earth.
I think the mane 6 would agree. Equestria appears to have no religion of any kind.
>>26801433
Ooooo, a real Inquisition apologist. I thought they were just legends, but now I see one with my own eyes.
>>26801399
I don't think you could say any different for Christianity. The crusades happened, for one. Also, for a very long time Christians killed atheists if they were discovered in their midst. Look up legislation from colonial America. And don't even get me started on Christian treatment of Jews.
Don't get me wrong. Muslims are still some of the most violent, morally stunted lunatics in the entire world right now. But they weren't always, and I don't think they're beyond pacification and integration.
>>26801480
>apologism
History needs no apologism in the face of truth. You believe Galileo was burned too, right?
And on the topic of the inquisition: it was founded to root out the traitors who opened the gates during the Andalusian conquest - some of which were in high ranking positions!
Historically illiterate faggot.
>>26801497
>crusades
>bad
Choose one, faggot.
The crusades were the ANSWER to the Muslim conquest during the 17th century after nearly 200 years of nigh inaction. North Africa and the Middle East used to be completely Christian and of indo-european ethnicitythis means whiteuntil the successor of a pedophile thought they should start killing everyone who didn't revere their god, which by comparative theology, is actually a moon goddess.
>>26801497
I still believe Christianity is a far more peaceful religion compared to Islam no matter what year it was.
In the religion of Islam you can marry a girl of any age. Even a one year old if you wanted to and if you have daughters you could choose to destroy their vags by cutting them and sealing their vags tight so that it will only be opened once your daughter is married. I don't think any other religion has ever been as fucked up as Islam.
>>26801451
good luck stamping out a core human instinct
communism indoctrinated over three generations the Russians of the evils of religion. right after the fall of soviet Russia? russian went straight back into their churches, and do so until now.
>>26801526
I'm no technophilic scum, just an anti-authoritarian that isn't down with quasi-state mass murders.
>>26801578
I choose bad, because they exported that mass murder to other places.
>>26801608
And you call other people historically illiterate?
>>26801604
try Dawkins, the "prophet" of atheism, he redacted all the things he said about Christianity and finished by calling it a bullwark against everything that isn't civilized
funny, because atheists only attack Christendom, are strangely silent about the muslim invasion of first world countries, and the fact that a communist wrote about destroying Christian spiritualism will undermine the society and its nation because communism can't work if not forced
>>26801578
I'm sure the crusades were great. It allowed for the exchange of ideas from cultures that otherwise wouldn't have much to do with each other, and also did whatever it is you're on about. But it still shows that Christianity at one point had the same militant attitudes that Muslims have today.
>>26801433
See, your problem comes from
>morally justified
in conjunction with
>burn down gnostics and proto-progressives.
The history is not the problem here. The issue is the mental gymnastics you had to do to morally justify something that is completely unjustifiable.
>>26801617
According to your logic he right of self-defense and by extension the defense of others as well as death penalty are "bad" things? Are you emotionally retarded?
>>26801639
How is death penalty to traitors and dealers of potentially lethal knowledge unjustifiable?
And yes, self-defense including lethal violence is a given natural right.
>>26801636
>Darwin was the prophet of atheism
?
>>26801648
Self-defense has nothing to do with defending others, that like the opposite of what "self" means. And while I'll acknowledge the right of the individual to defend themselves, that doesn't excuse atrocities in the name of protecting a political status quo.
>>26801526
Ok, so it's clear so far that you learned history from /pol/. To correct their lies, you'll need to spend some time studying what actually happened. Go post that drivel on >>>/his/, they'll educate you.
>>26801665
Darwin? You mean the man who professed to God in his last breath after *some* years of depression? Whose idea of God having created evolution is being tought in Europe?
>>26801636
I argue against all religions. Many people say moderate Muslims have nothing in common with extremists. Did you know they slaughter animals by the hundreds to celebrate Abraham sacrificing (not) Issac.
And we all know the connection between animal abuse and serial killers
>>26801636
>Darwin the prophet of atheism
Kent Hovind please leave.
>>26801662
Given by whom? You imply I need to subject myself to some authority other than myself.
>>26801702
The church silly.
They did a lot of soul searching, at least an hour's worth, then decided that it was morally justifiable to kill people they didn't need to because of political differences.
>>26801670
>Self-defense has nothing to do with defending others
You will never become a good lawyer if you can't grasp the idea of self-defense coexisting as one thing with the defense of others. In some nations it's even a legal obligation. "Oh, yeah, he defended his daughter. But she should've defended herself from the rapist."
Bullshit.
If I get to choose between "getting killed beause I don't want to convert to a religion of barbarous invaders nor tolerate them as my oppressor" and """political status quo""", I choose freedom.
>>26801683
the bible forbids the sacrifice of animals
>>26801737
Muslims you idiot. They read the Quran
>>26801702
"is a given" is a completely normal English expression meaning something self-evidently natural and basic, foreigner.
>>26801662
Because religious treason is not worth the death penalty. If you can justify Christian witch-burning as a punishment for religious treason, you can justify what the Muslims are doing right now, because it's basically the same thing.
>>26801749
I understand English just fine. He said "is a given right"
Given by whom? I agree that the right to self-defense is a given, but not a given right
>>26801725
Oh, so you're a libertarian? I get it. All about freedom, then. You must hate both sides of the theocratic coin then, because neither side was really down for any sort of liberatory politics.
>>26801748
The quran contradicts mosaic law, as does the talmud, the shariah, and the halacha. In the words of the pentateuch, they're devil worshippers.
>>26801767
That has nothing to do with my point. My point is Muslims, all Muslims, are bad.
Religion in general is bad.
>>26801751
>distributing the mental equivalent of hard drugs
>sacrificing children to a deity that the Romans sought to eradicate in Qart-hadasht, now known as Carthago
>"""religious treason"""
Have you EVER taken up ONE book about history?
>>26801681
Darwin gave basis to atheists. It inspired a popularity surge in atheism and various "intelligent design" philosophies. Before Darwin, atheists had even less credibility than Christians.
>>26801800
He gave basis to evolution (and he was wrong, by the way. DNA is what causes evolution)
>>26801765
>I don't want to be subjugated by someone I don't like
>this makes him a Libertarian
self-defense is political?
>>26801796
Yes. And I can't really imagine what "the mental equivalent of hard drugs" is supposed to mean, so I can only assume that you're just talking out of your ass on that point. Also, if you're trying to tell me that witch-burning at any point in history was reserved specifically for followers Carthago, you can just fuck right off.
>>26801800
Giving basis to something you could never have come up with is being attributed to historical people now? Another example: Luther gave basis to protestantism.
He loathed the division between catholicism and protestantism, as he loathed the division between catholic and orthodox christianity.
>>26801808
Yeah, but that's not why he's a libertarian.
He explicitly said he refused both political stagnation in the Christian world and the xenophobic threat of the Muslim world in favor of a politics of freedom.
"A politics of freedom" is literally the definition of libertarianism.
>>26801807
He gave basis to both, really. Even if the science turned out to not be entirely correct, it still allowed atheists an ability to argue with Christians with some validity. Remember, beforehand Christians had the superior position. Science couldn't explain the symmetry and math found in nature, but religion could.
>>26801855
>Christians had a superior position
based on????
>>26801866
I already explained that
>Science couldn't explain the symmetry and math found in nature, but religion could.
>>26801827
The Carthagians were (nearly) exterminated (thank goodness), but some of their ideas persisted. The sacrifice of children by either fucking them, torturing them to death, or both, was a common practice in Baal or Molech cults in the former Phoenician territories. But some of their ideas survived. Combined with then known methods of what we call now hypnosis and psychological suggestion, these literatures of gnosticism and other ills could undermine the humanity in which humans are creaturs with morales.
>>26801878
>My one, specific religion explains nature.
>not any of the hundreds of others
>>26801878
So could a schizophrenic, that doesn't put them in a superior position.
>>26801834
nonsense he merely stated not wanting to be conquered by barbarians>>26801866
>>26801892
Holy fuck you really jumped off the deep end, huh?
>>26801901
my bad
wanted to reply to >>26801866 that before modern times christendom dominated science, as in, hard
I think science as we know it may even be christian in nature
>>26801893
What are you even on about? I'm not trying to say that Christianity had more validity than any other religion, just that it had more validity than atheism. The same is true for every other religion at the time, and really just theism in general, if that's something that's important to you.
>>26801893
Christianity is as far as I know the only religion that doesn't state to be the only true one, that the others are merely different kinds of right.
>>26801928
Yet you said
> atheists had even less credibility than Christians.
>>26801909
>ad hominem
Typical of you, as Dawkins would say, intellectual dishonest people.
>>26801933
>christianity doesn't claim to be the only true religion
>all other religions claim to be the one true religion
Are you a troll or just especially brain dead?
>>26801937
then they had less
now they're somewhere on the line of "atheist until your plane crashes" or something
>>26801937
Because that's a fucking true statement you retard. Holy fucking shit dude. What are you even trying to argue here?
>>26801962
My argument is that theism has never had evidence. But even before Darwin, science was explaining things that the Church deemed false
>>26801943
That's not what ad hominem means. See, logical fallacies can only be attributed to arguments. The person you responded to wasn't arguing with you so much as he was implying that you were an idiot.
>>26801980
>implying that you were
I rest my case.
>>26801665
>>26801695
he wrote Dawkins
>>26802020
Then all of his arguments fall. He said that evolution gave atheists a weapon better than God
Also, atheists existed before Dawkins
>>26802061
>He said that evolution gave atheists a weapon better than God
I am not the Dawkins guy.
>>26802099
Ok. That's who I'm arguing against, not you
>>26801681
>thinking the Darwin deathbed profession is real
Nice meme, you get that from a Creationist website?
>>26801636
>Atheists only attack Christians, not Islam
Man are you ever full of shit. Look up any prominant Atheist and you'll see that its a complete lie. Trust me, we hate Islam too. Lots of atheists are accused of being "Islamophobic" for being critical of it.
I'd much prefer to be surrounded by Christians than any other religious denonimation.
>>26802061
>all of his arguments fall
?
>>26802129
He says theists had better arguments until Darwin
>>26802007
Are you trying to harp on my grammar? Really? Are you 12?
>>26802020
Well that's somehow even more retarded, so congrats to him I guess.
>>26802161
how? I don't read any of it in their posts
He gave basis to both, really. Even if the science turned out to not be entirely correct, it still allowed atheists an ability to argue with Christians with some validity. Remember, beforehand Christians had the superior position. Science couldn't explain the symmetry and math found in nature, but religion could.
>>26801971
Alright, fair enough. Regardless though atheists had a really hard time refuting religion when nature had such seemingly intentional designs. Maybe most religion was already way off base in terms of astronomy and whatever other early scientific ideas had arisen back then, but before Darwin, religion at the very least had ancient religious texts while atheists didn't have anything(again, in terms of explaining life).
>>26802115
No, I mean I am the guy who was arguing the thing that I quoted. I think you got me mixed up with the Dawkins guy.
Can we go back to socioeconomics? Religion is the fucking cesspit of political discussion.
>>26802221
>when nature had such seemingly intentional designs
It actually looks pretty chaotic and contradictory (why would God make a cheetah to catch a gazelle, and a a gazelle to out run a cheetah?)
> religion at the very least had ancient religious texts
those are....reliable?
>>26802121
The difference between me and you is that I know other places in the world teach evolution and the gospel side by side and thusly I read literature about biology and theology BOTH, and more. There's no denying atheism is anything more than a ploy to undermine society, and since a Poleyes, HAHA, "slow" people - him being the overgraduate, mind youtold me some document resurfaced in Eastern Europe about some communist called Gramshee or something describing extensively how to destroy civilization by destroying religion, how to destroy, I quote, "the Western world" by undermining Christianity, any real American will understand my allergy to communism - which is philosophically as well biologically and economically backed - infects atheism.
>>26802246
In fact yes you absolutely are mixing us up.
I said
>>26802213
Dawkins guy said
>>26801636
Not the same person, not the same argument
>>26802259
Yes, lets talk about why the Keyensian economic model is the most superior :^)
>>26802246
I apologize.
What's that? Did you say /pol?
>>26802161
>>26802188
>>26802213
my bad, must've misread
they had better stand in science, and as I've written I've found a lot of scientific facts we know now which were invented or discovered by christians
and no, muslims say all good people are muslims, so all scientists are atheists, or some nonsense like that
>>26802262
you'd be surprised
ancient australian song lines pinpoint locations of lakes and forest geo-scientists found to actually have existed
and navahos had stories about leif eriksson, or maybe some people earlier
>>26802272
why do you hurt me this way
>they got this far without the word "fedora" being uttered
Holy shit, people can have conversations without immediately resorting to "ironic" meme usage.
>>26802355
>>26802355
>>26802355
Now you said it!
>>26802262
>It actually looks pretty chaotic and contradictory
I mean, you say that now with perfect hindsight, knowing that you're right. But really that's just not true. The symmetry found in people and other animals was hard for atheists to explain. You might say that it's chaotic, but that definitely wasn't a popular opinion.
>those are....reliable?
No, but they were still better than basically
>I don't know how to explain life, but your explanation is wrong because I think it's stupid
That was pretty much the extent of what atheists had going for themselves before Darwin.
So I would just like to point out that I'm not trying to defend Christianity or anything like that. I'm also not trying to put Darwin on the pedestal. I'm just trying to point out the historical significance of a scientific theory on the development of atheism, which I think is fairly accurate considering the increased popularity of atheist and "intelligent design" philosophies after Darwin.
>>26802269
>atheism is a ploy to undermine society
Nice tinfoil hat bro.
>"Some dude said X once, therefore an entire belief (and I use that loosely) is hell bent on destorying society."
The people I worry the most about in our society are the ones who seem to derive an almost sexal satisfaction from the thought of people being tortured eternally by their meme.
>any real American
I don't even need to point out which falacy this is.
>communism is bad
Well at least we can agree on something.
Just going to remind you that your specific religion can't agree on your own beliefs (Catholicism, Protestant, Eastern Orthodox, and then Evangelical, Baptist, etc.), and if those aren't going to destory society, I don't a disbelief in God will. I'm sure contemporaries during the Reformation believed the split was a sign of the end times or social collapse.
The worst an Atheist will do to you is say, "No, you're wrong, fuck you".
And believe me, if an atheist or atheists start trying to agitate for actual violence against Christians, I'll be fighting alongside you for your right to believe in what you want, along with many others of us, as long as you are willing to back my right to disbelieve as well.
>>26802368
I agree with that, atheists are better since the discovery of evolution
This whole thing started because of comparison of changelings to Muslims
Let's get back to the ponies
>>26802514
Eh. I mean, this whole thread was basically a concealed politics thread anyway.
Right out of the gate, everyone's already talking about the definitions of different political ideologies.
>>26802381
Callng the Rotherham scandal a "conspiracy theory" was one thing akin to "tin foil", and what do we say about it now? If anyone can explain to me s I can reason with it, I'd not look down to anyone who actually KNOWS what they're believing. And I have to correct myself, his name was Gramsci, and he wrote more despicable things. As it turns out, spirituality is a necessarity for a healthy society. WHO would've thought?
About the schism thing: a damn shame. After the concil of Nicaea the papists wanted to install some quasi monarchy, even if the scripture FORBIDS titulating anyone Father with a capital F except God. So the orthodox went they're own way, and the split of West-East Rome didn't help. They, the orthodox, started praying to pictures, which is also forbidden in scripture. The Anglicans had one king who wanted to divorce, which is considered a bad thing in the books as well - by nowadays statistics marriages decline in quality after the FIRST, not kidding. And as I have said earlier, Luther loathed the distinction between "Lutheranes" and other Christians, he just wanted one good translation of the bible into his native language. Every little sect you find on then is merely another name for larpers of Evangelical faith. Let's not start about Mormons. That's freemasonry.
Religion is nothing less than codified human knowledge of many thousands of years worth. Doid you know one of the vedas describe an atomic bomb more than 2000 years BEFORE common age?
>>26802514
You don't AGREE to facts. Atheists got better, but as Dawkins fittingly said, they grew arrogant.
To the point of changelingry: my headcanon was that there are more than just Chrysalis, that she's maybe the most aggressive and the others are more covert. And no, you can't live with them since they've been equated to vampires of a sort. You can't live peacefully with vampires.Changelings are rad, though. Some compared them to imperial Russia so I'll say they got some good religion for the workers and soldiers.
Just to be clear, I am
>>26802381
And someone else is
>>26802640
Just to avoid further confusion with that
>>26802738
I thought we were shouting at everyONE here as is the cultured image board proper?
>>26802591
That Rotherham scandal is disgusting, but what your are implying though would be a conspiracy on the scale of something like the Flat-Earth conspiracy. Do you know how many people would need to be involved to push something like that, without having a single one speak out?
I bluntly disagree that spirituality is necessary for a healthy society. Many people seem to need it for structure in their lives I will agree, but I don't believe everybody needs it if they do not need it.
I am not well-versed in the Christian faith, I will admit, but the points you make about Christians clearly breaking away from the scripture is why I find it to be rather problematic, especially when they will also utilize the Bible to make their points. Another example as well is that (Matthew 23) Jesus condemns the religious leaders of the time, and it obviously has a strong similarity to what the various sects have become today.
I've heard a lot of claims of the Bible describing things that exist in the modern era (atomic weapons, theory of atoms/microbes), but the Bible oftens uses a lot of vague language that can be interpreted as one sees fit.
The main issue I have is that I feel a great fear towards the religious, because it seems to me they almost want the 'end-times' to arrive. For someone like me who believes that this is my ONLY life, and when I die there is nothing after, you could see why I would take issue with people seeming like they want this to occur.
>>26802738
Got those backwards m8.
>>26802901
Shit, whoops.
I guess just fucking nevermind then. Let's make this as confusing as possible.
>>26802901
My point was calling everything tin foil without explaining WHY it's borderline retarded is what's fallacious. And years ago I would've disagreed as well about the necessity of spiritualism, but as it turns out (!) it's a necessary part of society. I didn't choose it, but it's something I've found while reading about history: if you take away one thing, you absolutely need to replace it. Russia is an excellent example, or how the "religion of reason" during the Enlightement failed. Badly. Furthermore, decrying something because it may be misused is one of the tactics tin foils use: cars can be used to drive over people, guns kill people (that's their design, jackass), knives are dangerousEngland ants to ban them. I am not kidding.And no, Christianity isn't the depressed death cult. Buddhism is. The murderous death cult is Islam.
And yes, we Christians, as we believe that one preacher did wonders as was prophecied in some thousands of years earlier books and came out of a well guarded tomb THREE days AFTER being CRUCIFIED in the DESERT, believe in a god who essentially pinpointed exactly what we're experiencing NOW.
To the part about interpretation: the word interpretation is of Lazin origin, interpretatio, deriving from the verb interpretari. Interpretari means to understand. To say "to interpret as one sees fit" negates MILLENIAS of history on the subject of logic. You know, the "mathematics" of words?
Our Lord and Saviour condemned a very certain range of people with such intense hatred - as we know know love and hate are governed by the exactly SAME brain part, making hate a logical and absolute consequence to love - that he practically eternally OWNED the whole sect of pharisees. What did the pharisees do afterwards? What is their best known contemporary heritage?
I could go on.
>>26798811
>>26798865
>>26798902
>>26798942
>implying they all aren't highly nationalistic
>go out and defeat the enemies of the nation and the crown
>the entire nation is basically traditionalism kicked children cartoon
>in one episode we may have seen a hint of religion
I heard this place was full of disgusting people, and rape. I got politicians, so I guess I was right.
>>26803192
>hint of religion
Which one?
>>26803304
the one burial scene
look at the old pony's throat
>>26803385
Found it, "The Perfect Stallion" song from the Hearts and Hooves episode.
Old pone has a priest neck thing and has some sort of book on the stand in front of him.
>>26803465
exactly, thanks
can't have fantasy without some religion, even if it's ponies
>>26802262
Here you're asking for the motivation of an extremely powerful, uncause, necessarily existing, non-contingent, non-physical, immaterial, eternal being, who created the entire universe, and everything in it.
