1684: Rainbow

This forum is for the individual discussion thread that goes with each new comic.

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

User avatar
Kalium_Puceon
Posts: 66
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 12:44 pm UTC
Location: Cape Town, South Africa
Contact:

1684: Rainbow

Postby Kalium_Puceon » Mon May 23, 2016 11:29 am UTC

Image

http://xkcd.com/1684/

Title Text: "Listen, in a few thousand years you'll invent a game called 'SimCity' which has a 'disaster' button, and then you'll understand."



Apologising to your Sims is just setting them up for disappointment when you do it again.
"You never get over the desire to do stupid things. You simply have to overrule your stupid urges with an acquired sense of fear."

-Dr. Richard Weisiger

User avatar
HES
Posts: 4857
Joined: Fri May 10, 2013 7:13 pm UTC
Location: England

Re: 1684: Rainbow

Postby HES » Mon May 23, 2016 11:48 am UTC

So God forgot to make a save file before destroying everything?
He/Him/His Image

Hiferator
Posts: 76
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2013 8:23 am UTC

Re: 1684: Rainbow

Postby Hiferator » Mon May 23, 2016 11:49 am UTC

For this comic the hover text was the real punchline to me. The comic itself was just ok.

rmsgrey
Posts: 3354
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:35 pm UTC

Re: 1684: Rainbow

Postby rmsgrey » Mon May 23, 2016 12:59 pm UTC

And here I thought the rainbows were a sign that God had brought his pre-teen daughter to work...

FOARP
Posts: 77
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 7:36 am UTC

Re: 1684: Rainbow

Postby FOARP » Mon May 23, 2016 1:19 pm UTC

Ah . . . happy days of repeatedly clicking on "air crash", "Godzilla attack" and slowly reducing a city to rubble, then rebuilding it.

Only ever played the original, could you do this in the sequels?

User avatar
cellocgw
Posts: 1883
Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2008 7:40 pm UTC

Re: 1684: Rainbow

Postby cellocgw » Mon May 23, 2016 2:10 pm UTC

rmsgrey wrote:And here I thought the rainbows were a sign that God had brought his pre-teen daughter to work...


I almost hesitate to proffer an alternative explanation: God's joining the Gay Pride Parade.

:oops:
https://app.box.com/witthoftresume
Former OTTer
Vote cellocgw for President 2020. #ScienceintheWhiteHouse http://cellocgw.wordpress.com
"The Planck length is 3.81779e-33 picas." -- keithl
" Earth weighs almost exactly π milliJupiters" -- what-if #146, note 7

benboy
Posts: 1
Joined: Mon May 27, 2013 7:08 am UTC

Baldwin

Postby benboy » Mon May 23, 2016 2:40 pm UTC

"God gave Noah the rainbow sign, no more water but fire next time

Is this a reference to Baldwin, I wonder? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fire_Next_Time
Our maybe the spiritual on which the title is based (though I don't remember a raccoon verse) ...
Last edited by benboy on Mon May 23, 2016 5:33 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Locoluis
Posts: 98
Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2006 7:30 pm UTC
Location: Santiago, Chile
Contact:

Re: 1684: Rainbow

Postby Locoluis » Mon May 23, 2016 2:48 pm UTC

I never understood why some people are so arrogant as to think that God owes them an apology.

Also, it irks me how people have historically been wont to usurping natural objects and phenomena and using them as symbols for their flags and coats of arms, as symbols to promote their debatable/controversial/absurd concepts and ideals, to pledge alliegance to them and wage wars in their name. :?
Sueños del Sur - A webcomic about four siblings, their family, friends, adventures and dreams.
http://sds.lgm.cl/

User avatar
orthogon
Posts: 2876
Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 7:52 am UTC
Location: The Airy 1830 ellipsoid

Re: 1684: Rainbow

Postby orthogon » Mon May 23, 2016 2:56 pm UTC

cellocgw wrote:
rmsgrey wrote:And here I thought the rainbows were a sign that God had brought his pre-teen daughter to work...


I almost hesitate to proffer an alternative explanation: God's joining the Gay Pride Parade.

:oops:

There are going to be a lot of confused fundamentalists if God turns out to be gay. Mind you, it figures: he never married and chose to have a kid by some undisclosed form of Artificial Insemination. (And sure, gods can get married: the Hindu gods all had wives).
xtifr wrote:... and orthogon merely sounds undecided.

User avatar
Whizbang
The Best Reporter
Posts: 2238
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2012 7:50 pm UTC
Location: New Hampshire, USA

Re: 1684: Rainbow

Postby Whizbang » Mon May 23, 2016 3:11 pm UTC

Locoluis wrote:I never understood why some people are so arrogant as to think that God owes them an apology.


I dunno. Creating imperfect beings and then wiping them out over and over again in the most horrific, terrifying, painful ways imaginable because they are incapable of adhering to your standards is a pretty dick move that deserves an apology.

User avatar
PinkShinyRose
Posts: 832
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2012 6:54 pm UTC
Location: the Netherlands

Re: 1684: Rainbow

Postby PinkShinyRose » Mon May 23, 2016 4:50 pm UTC

Locoluis wrote:I never understood why some people are so arrogant as to think that God owes them an apology.

Based on common descriptions of the actions and properties of biblical god and observations of the surroundings, I would say god has been horrible in many ways and it wouldn't misstand for it to apologise to a lot of beings/things...

Locoluis wrote:Also, it irks me how people have historically been wont to usurping natural objects and phenomena and using them as symbols

Most people aren't really creative enough to not use external inspiration for expressing themselves.

Besides, many natural occurrences have commonly experienced associations, so it makes sense to use a symbol that gives the same feeling as what it's supposed to express, that's the point of a symbol to begin with.

User avatar
Steve the Pocket
Posts: 682
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2007 4:02 am UTC
Location: Going downtuuu in a Luleelurah!

Re: 1684: Rainbow

Postby Steve the Pocket » Mon May 23, 2016 4:53 pm UTC

STOP HITTING THE TORNADO BUTTON YOU CHUCKLEFUCK
cephalopod9 wrote:Only on Xkcd can you start a topic involving Hitler and people spend the better part of half a dozen pages arguing about the quality of Operating Systems.

Baige.

ps.02
Posts: 378
Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2013 8:02 pm UTC

Re: 1684: Rainbow

Postby ps.02 » Mon May 23, 2016 5:04 pm UTC

Locoluis wrote:Also, it irks me how people have historically been wont to usurping natural objects and phenomena and using them as symbols for their flags and coats of arms

Eh, why let it bother you? If a group is going to pick a symbol, why shouldn't it be inspired by the natural world? If any group tries to say they're laying absolute claim to such a thing, they're just being silly. I think it's perfectly OK to love rainbows and pandas without being gay or a tree hugger. Or even liking gays or tree huggers. I happen to think maple trees are awesome. But I don't remember ever being told "oh, so you must secretly be Canadian."

User avatar
chridd
Has a vermicelli title
Posts: 814
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 10:07 am UTC
Location: ...Earth, I guess?
Contact:

Re: 1684: Rainbow

Postby chridd » Mon May 23, 2016 5:09 pm UTC

Locoluis wrote:I never understood why some people are so arrogant as to think that God owes them an apology.
If a being does something bad to people, they owe an apology. I don't see why being a god should change that—especially since a god would have more capacity to do really bad things, and would be better able to find other solutions to its problems that don't hurt anyone. (E.g., a god who floods the entire earth is both doing something way worse than most mortals could do, and also should have options that don't involve killing almost everyone and therefore isn't just doing what had to be done.)
~ chri d. d. /tʃɹɪ.di.di/ (Phonotactics, schmphonotactics) · she(?)(?(?)(?))(?(?(?))(?))(?) · Forum game scores
mittfh wrote:I wish this post was very quotable...
flicky1991 wrote:In both cases the quote is "I'm being quoted too much!"

ThemePark
Posts: 450
Joined: Fri Jun 27, 2008 5:42 pm UTC
Location: Århus, Denmark

Re: 1684: Rainbow

Postby ThemePark » Mon May 23, 2016 5:37 pm UTC

rmsgrey wrote:And here I thought the rainbows were a sign that God had brought his pre-teen daughter to work...

Nah, then there would've been unicorns as well.
I have traveled from 1979 to be a member of the unofficial board Council of Elders. Phear M3

User avatar
Locoluis
Posts: 98
Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2006 7:30 pm UTC
Location: Santiago, Chile
Contact:

Re: 1684: Rainbow

Postby Locoluis » Mon May 23, 2016 5:44 pm UTC

ps.02 wrote:
Locoluis wrote:Also, it irks me how people have historically been wont to usurping natural objects and phenomena and using them as symbols for their flags and coats of arms

Eh, why let it bother you? If a group is going to pick a symbol, why shouldn't it be inspired by the natural world? If any group tries to say they're laying absolute claim to such a thing, they're just being silly. I think it's perfectly OK to love rainbows and pandas without being gay or a tree hugger. Or even liking gays or tree huggers. I happen to think maple trees are awesome. But I don't remember ever being told "oh, so you must secretly be Canadian."


Completely agree. Unfortunately, that doesn't stop people from making immediate assumptions, particularly when said objects are immediately (and mistakenly) being associated with certain groups in popular culture everywhere.

orthogon wrote:There are going to be a lot of confused fundamentalists if God turns out to be gay. Mind you, it figures: he never married and chose to have a kid by some undisclosed form of Artificial Insemination. (And sure, gods can get married: the Hindu gods all had wives).


Uh... IMHO, the concept of gender and sexuality can only be applied to a divine being if there are many of them and they are sexually active between each other (e.g. the Greco-Roman pantheon). If there's only one God (and when you say "God" with a capital G, a monotheistic view is implied, and this comic is making a Biblical reference), no such trait applies.
Sueños del Sur - A webcomic about four siblings, their family, friends, adventures and dreams.
http://sds.lgm.cl/

dtilque
Posts: 130
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2008 5:53 am UTC
Location: Nogero

Re: 1684: Rainbow

Postby dtilque » Mon May 23, 2016 6:31 pm UTC

ThemePark wrote:
rmsgrey wrote:And here I thought the rainbows were a sign that God had brought his pre-teen daughter to work...

Nah, then there would've been unicorns as well.

But they got wiped out in the Flood.
Whenever visually representing the universe, it's important to include a picture of Saturn!
-- Tom the Dancing Bug

User avatar
jc
Posts: 344
Joined: Fri May 04, 2007 5:48 pm UTC
Location: Waltham, Massachusetts, USA, Earth, Solar System, Milky Way Galaxy
Contact:

Re: 1684: Rainbow

Postby jc » Mon May 23, 2016 9:20 pm UTC

dtilque wrote:
ThemePark wrote:
rmsgrey wrote:And here I thought the rainbows were a sign that God had brought his pre-teen daughter to work...

Nah, then there would've been unicorns as well.

But they got wiped out in the Flood.

My first thought was the Charles Addams cartoon on the topic.

cryptoengineer
Posts: 128
Joined: Sun Jan 31, 2010 4:58 am UTC

Re: 1684: Rainbow

Postby cryptoengineer » Mon May 23, 2016 9:41 pm UTC

Whizbang wrote:
Locoluis wrote:I never understood why some people are so arrogant as to think that God owes them an apology.


I dunno. Creating imperfect beings and then wiping them out over and over again in the most horrific, terrifying, painful ways imaginable because they are incapable of adhering to your standards is a pretty dick move that deserves an apology.


This. Since we've eaten of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, we can recognize a dick move when we see one, even by a deity.

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 3274
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: 1684: Rainbow

Postby Soupspoon » Mon May 23, 2016 10:26 pm UTC

cryptoengineer wrote:Since we've eaten of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, we can recognize a dick move when we see one, even by a deity.
But we weren't supposed to eat from that tree! And that's why He put it in a different garden/behind a fence/assigned a security guard/properly vetted all His management team/kept one omniscient eye on things at all times so as to prevent a person to whom He had not yet given wisdom, and her live-in lover, from making an unwise decision based upon an apparently rogue employee's own contract-breaking misdemeanour.

Wait, no, that's what did happen. (If we are to believe His own propaganda, no less!)

So then the workforce in the gardening division is downsized 100% for failings that were clearly at the executive level of the company, and the severence package included a number of punative liability clauses including a statutory penalty whenever any of the sacked workers tries to expand their family business. And I thought that all the best lawyers belonged to the other guy!

User avatar
Heimhenge
Posts: 205
Joined: Thu May 01, 2014 11:35 pm UTC

Re: 1684: Rainbow

Postby Heimhenge » Mon May 23, 2016 11:09 pm UTC

Hiferator wrote:For this comic the hover text was the real punchline to me. The comic itself was just ok.


Tend to agree. Not the most amusing XKCD. The third order rainbow (which is correctly portrayed as being in the direction of the Sun) is a bit of a stretch though. I've never seen one. It's been predicted theoretically for some time, but has only recently been photographed. See:

http://www.atoptics.co.uk/rainbows/ord34.htm

The "little rainbow clouds on the side of" refers to Sun Dogs (parhelia) which are actually quite common. Here's a photo:

http://heimhenge.com/skylights/2012/01/23/sun-dogs-2/

Yes, the hover text was the best part of this comic. Did not care for the deity text. No bobcats, but would not order again.

rmsgrey
Posts: 3354
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:35 pm UTC

Re: 1684: Rainbow

Postby rmsgrey » Tue May 24, 2016 12:15 am UTC

chridd wrote:
Locoluis wrote:I never understood why some people are so arrogant as to think that God owes them an apology.
If a being does something bad to people, they owe an apology. I don't see why being a god should change that—especially since a god would have more capacity to do really bad things, and would be better able to find other solutions to its problems that don't hurt anyone. (E.g., a god who floods the entire earth is both doing something way worse than most mortals could do, and also should have options that don't involve killing almost everyone and therefore isn't just doing what had to be done.)


So does anyone who's ever played a first-person shooter owe apologies to all the virtual people they massacred?

Humans recognise different levels of moral consideration for different entities - companies boast of the ability of their product to end trillions of harmless, even beneficial lives in order to kill the occasional potentially harmful one - humanity in general regards wholesale slaughter of microbes as not only not evil, but actively good. By divine standards, are we more morally considerable than the animals we rear and slaughter for meat? Or the fictional characters we maim and torture for entertainment?

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 3274
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: 1684: Rainbow

Postby Soupspoon » Tue May 24, 2016 12:59 am UTC

rmsgrey wrote:So does anyone who's ever played a first-person shooter owe apologies to all the virtual people they massacred?
Not the player, who generally does not choose to bring the virtual people into existance, and merely have to decide how she interacts with those that do cross her virtual gunsights.

The developer must apologise, if anybody. Assumming that the developer knows that their creations are worth talking to at all.

(Noah's God seems to think that Noah is worth talking to, so probably thinks of the others as potential victims as much as he and his family are potential savees. Some different line has been drawn than an apologetic one.)

User avatar
Whizbang
The Best Reporter
Posts: 2238
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2012 7:50 pm UTC
Location: New Hampshire, USA

Re: 1684: Rainbow

Postby Whizbang » Tue May 24, 2016 1:18 am UTC

Slaughtering virtual characters is not even close to the same as g(G)od slaughtering its "creations"1. For one, there is no reason to think that virtual characters are thinking, feeling entities. That is clearly a false parallel. Second, If we're grading beings on the level of moral consideration required, the scale should slide upward the closer to omniscience and omnipotence the being is. The standard should not be less for a god, certainly not the variety described by modern Judeo-Christian-Muslim religions.

Besides, there are plenty of people that argue the immorality of raising and slaughtering animals for mass consumption. It is hard to argue against them on moral grounds.

1 - Scare quotes used to indicate that the word creation implies a creator, which is not supported by the facts in evidence and using that word poisons the well.

User avatar
Copper Bezel
Posts: 2416
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 6:35 am UTC
Location: Web exclusive!

Re: 1684: Rainbow

Postby Copper Bezel » Tue May 24, 2016 1:53 am UTC

Locoluis wrote:Uh... IMHO, the concept of gender and sexuality can only be applied to a divine being if there are many of them and they are sexually active between each other (e.g. the Greco-Roman pantheon). If there's only one God (and when you say "God" with a capital G, a monotheistic view is implied, and this comic is making a Biblical reference), no such trait applies.

A curious halfway point of apologism. The biblical character is male and in fact a father, and has physical anatomical features in a couple of places in Genesis. The idea of a genderless transcendent spirit is an idea of a God, but it's not the one actually presented by the Christian bible. Some theologians have thought so, but mostly because they secretly preferred Aristotle's version.
So much depends upon a red wheel barrow (>= XXII) but it is not going to be installed.

she / her / her

User avatar
Whizbang
The Best Reporter
Posts: 2238
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2012 7:50 pm UTC
Location: New Hampshire, USA

Re: 1684: Rainbow

Postby Whizbang » Tue May 24, 2016 2:09 am UTC

Copper Bezel wrote:
Locoluis wrote:Uh... IMHO, the concept of gender and sexuality can only be applied to a divine being if there are many of them and they are sexually active between each other (e.g. the Greco-Roman pantheon). If there's only one God (and when you say "God" with a capital G, a monotheistic view is implied, and this comic is making a Biblical reference), no such trait applies.

A curious halfway point of apologism. The biblical character is male and in fact a father, and has physical anatomical features in a couple of places in Genesis. The idea of a genderless transcendent spirit is an idea of a God, but it's not the one actually presented by the Christian bible. Some theologians have thought so, but mostly because they secretly preferred Aristotle's version.


Relevant passage:

Spoiler:
Bible: Genesis 32 wrote:32:24 And Jacob was left alone; and there wrestled a man with him until the breaking of the day.
32:25 And when he saw that he prevailed not against him, he touched the hollow of his thigh; and the hollow of Jacob's thigh was out of joint, as he wrestled with him.
32:26 And he said, Let me go, for the day breaketh. And he said, I will not let thee go, except thou bless me.
32:27 And he said unto him, What is thy name? And he said, Jacob.
32:28 And he said, Thy name shall be called no more Jacob, but Israel: for as a prince hast thou power with God and with men, and hast prevailed.
32:29 And Jacob asked him, and said, Tell me, I pray thee, thy name. And he said, Wherefore is it that thou dost ask after my name? And he blessed him there.
32:30 And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.



There are a lot of ambiguous pronouns here, but a common reading is that Jacob physically wrestled God and won by grabbing God by the groin(hollow of the thigh) and not letting go.

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 3274
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: 1684: Rainbow

Postby Soupspoon » Tue May 24, 2016 3:07 am UTC

I never read "hollow of the thigh" (which I read as being Jacob's, just there) as the hollow between the thighs... Though there's a hollow on the outside of the thigh, when you tense your muscle, which would be a prime place to be touched by a wrestler.

Difficult to tell what was really meant (translations across half a dozen languages and reinterpretations at each stage of translation or even just retelling/copying) but I always thought that it was whatever caused Jacob his subsequent limp, perhaps an injury to the hip-joint or musculature in that area.

But I leave it to scholars of the text to delve into rather muddy historic texts that are yet extant. They've never really been something I've found relevent, the books of the bible. Strange that theology has crept into such a forum as this, though...

(Also, if God manifested as a man so that he could wrestle, he probably manifested the requisite undercarriage. Just like the burning bush probably had (burning) leaves, even though He doesn't usually employ chlorophyll in His everyday governance of all things.)

User avatar
Locoluis
Posts: 98
Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2006 7:30 pm UTC
Location: Santiago, Chile
Contact:

Re: 1684: Rainbow

Postby Locoluis » Tue May 24, 2016 3:22 am UTC

Whizbang wrote:Second, If we're grading beings on the level of moral consideration required, the scale should slide upward the closer to omniscience and omnipotence the being is. The standard should not be less for a god, certainly not the variety described by modern Judeo-Christian-Muslim religions.


IMHO, such standard shouldn't be set by lesser beings like us...

Besides, I like to to think of our time in this plane of existence as a time-limited gift, not as something we're entitled to have. Slaughter is wrong because it's not our right to decide who lives and who dies, but to me it doesn't seem okay from us to to deny such right to the One who let us exist in the first place.

About Jacob wrestling that man whom he believed it was God Himself, I shall not discuss his beliefs, as I wasn't there to witness what he saw. Instead, I shall point out the fact that we, humans, are limited in what we can perceive and understand, and that there's only so much truth we can experience and put in writing. Although... to say that God assumed the form of a man or a talking burning bush or whatever, in order to give a message to humanity, is a very different thing than to say that God *is* said man or talking burning bush or whatever.
Sueños del Sur - A webcomic about four siblings, their family, friends, adventures and dreams.
http://sds.lgm.cl/

User avatar
Locoluis
Posts: 98
Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2006 7:30 pm UTC
Location: Santiago, Chile
Contact:

Re: 1684: Rainbow

Postby Locoluis » Tue May 24, 2016 3:48 am UTC

Soupspoon wrote:Strange that theology has crept into such a forum as this, though...


And an horribly bad idea, if we think twice about it. It's very easy to be passionate about it and to lose our mind in the process. :oops:

Let's better talk about, say, Simulation Games, and the horrible things that we have done there with our creations.

... Darn. I can't say I played them as much as I wished. There's a Sims neighborhood lying around in my backups somewhere. I made a lot of houses, created a lot of characters... and did very little with them. I was expecting to grow my sims up and develop relationships between each other, but never got anywhere. :cry:
Sueños del Sur - A webcomic about four siblings, their family, friends, adventures and dreams.
http://sds.lgm.cl/

RogueCynic
Posts: 379
Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 10:23 pm UTC

Re: 1684: Rainbow

Postby RogueCynic » Tue May 24, 2016 4:00 am UTC

orthogon wrote:
cellocgw wrote:
rmsgrey wrote:And here I thought the rainbows were a sign that God had brought his pre-teen daughter to work...


I almost hesitate to proffer an alternative explanation: God's joining the Gay Pride Parade.

:oops:

There are going to be a lot of confused fundamentalists if God turns out to be gay. Mind you, it figures: he never married and chose to have a kid by some undisclosed form of Artificial Insemination. (And sure, gods can get married: the Hindu gods all had wives).


The Greek gods married as well. Though they married within their own family. Do people still play SimCity?
I am Lord Titanius Englesmith, Fancyman of Cornwood.
See 1 Kings 7:23 for pi.
If you put a prune in a juicer, what would you get?

User avatar
Copper Bezel
Posts: 2416
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 6:35 am UTC
Location: Web exclusive!

Re: 1684: Rainbow

Postby Copper Bezel » Tue May 24, 2016 9:26 am UTC

Thanks, Whizbang.

Soupspoon wrote:I never read "hollow of the thigh" (which I read as being Jacob's, just there) as the hollow between the thighs... Though there's a hollow on the outside of the thigh, when you tense your muscle, which would be a prime place to be touched by a wrestler.

I knew I should have stopped and clarified, but I wasn't being euphemistic about God's penis, I literally meant that he was referred to with human anatomy, the thigh, and a face hidden from view in another passage.

(Also, if God manifested as a man so that he could wrestle, he probably manifested the requisite undercarriage. Just like the burning bush probably had (burning) leaves, even though He doesn't usually employ chlorophyll in His everyday governance of all things.)

Given enough time, everything becomes a metaphor or a dream sequence.

There are a lot of people and a lot of theologies represented in the Christian bible. New Testament authors seem to have somewhat different pictures of the nature of Christ, for example, with the Gospel of John influenced pretty directly by that Classical Greek philosophy I mentioned. But I think anachronistically reading your expectations for how a supernatural world ought to work into a text like that is just Standards. I don't think it's tenable to argue that the Christian biblical God is a sexless being. First because there is no one authoritative version, second because he's consistently sexed as male.

Locoluis wrote:And an horribly bad idea, if we think twice about it. It's very easy to be passionate about it and to lose our mind in the process.

It's not as if someone brought up linguistics.
So much depends upon a red wheel barrow (>= XXII) but it is not going to be installed.

she / her / her

teelo
Posts: 758
Joined: Thu Apr 08, 2010 11:50 pm UTC

Re: 1684: Rainbow

Postby teelo » Tue May 24, 2016 11:06 am UTC

Um... today I learned that "bow" is used as some weird slang for "rainbow".

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 3274
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: 1684: Rainbow

Postby Soupspoon » Tue May 24, 2016 11:24 am UTC

Locoluis wrote:Let's better talk about, say, Simulation Games, and the horrible things that we have done there with our creations.
In that case, I must admit that I have never deliberately killed an awkward dwarf noble, for demanding adamantine socks or whatever. I don't even like abandoning a moody dwarf to his fate. I know, I am obviously heretical!

Hang on, what about all those savegames, from forgotten versions and with seemingly insurmountable sieges just rolled up across the local horizon? Are all those beings in eternal purgatory?? Is it better for them to die despite my efforts?!? AM I A FORGETFUL AND INCONSIDERATE GOD!?!



(@Teelc: if I have used it, it was as a synonym to 'arc', not a common slang shortening. And of course still pronounced "boe", like the weapon/bow, not "bau", as with the gesture-of-abasement/bow or the limb-of-a-tree/bough.)

rmsgrey
Posts: 3354
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:35 pm UTC

Re: 1684: Rainbow

Postby rmsgrey » Tue May 24, 2016 12:28 pm UTC

Soupspoon wrote:
rmsgrey wrote:So does anyone who's ever played a first-person shooter owe apologies to all the virtual people they massacred?
Not the player, who generally does not choose to bring the virtual people into existance, and merely have to decide how she interacts with those that do cross her virtual gunsights.

The developer must apologise, if anybody. Assumming that the developer knows that their creations are worth talking to at all.

(Noah's God seems to think that Noah is worth talking to, so probably thinks of the others as potential victims as much as he and his family are potential savees. Some different line has been drawn than an apologetic one.)


The player does have a choice of whether to play or not - if a given copy of the game is never played, then the instances of enemies in that game are never "killed".

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 3274
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: 1684: Rainbow

Postby Soupspoon » Tue May 24, 2016 1:33 pm UTC

The decision is made to partake in an entertainment as provided for by another, on the understanding that it is an entertainment.

If I am handed laser-tag equipment, similarly, even now with (potentially unsuspecting, but perfectly safe if the vendor is to be believed) real-life people. If handed a working laser-gun capable of vaporising targets, I would apologise, as soon as I realise, because I'm British(!), but the true liability rests with the person who caused me to be issued with military-grade futurespec weaponry instead of the promised 'toy' (as they would if they hadn't ensured I knew I could blind someone with a paintball gun, or cause an armed response by sending me out into the Real World with real people, whilst weilding my fake-AK, rather than an actor-populated 'play area' where I and my nonoperational weapon are part of a pre-arranged (partially) scripted simulation. Foam crossbows and balsawood battleaxes, too, to get this away from the possibility of becoming that kind of thread). Their motives caused whatever it is that was caused, I might even remain unaware if sufficiently hoodwinked to believe that I am still not causing real harm, regardless of what I then witness.

Bringing us back to the other kind of thread I don't want to be in, but which suggests that if God thinks it worth apologising to one of his pre-programmed agents, then He should apologise to them all, in this scenario.

User avatar
Kalium_Puceon
Posts: 66
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 12:44 pm UTC
Location: Cape Town, South Africa
Contact:

Re: 1684: Rainbow

Postby Kalium_Puceon » Tue May 24, 2016 2:41 pm UTC

I'm pretty sure Randall got this idea while researching for the current What If because it's a pretty rainbow-heavy article, and goes pretty in-depth about how many rainbows exist.

I remember reading about the old argument that dinosaurs [amongst other extinct life] were wiped out by the flood. Presumably, that case would mean that Noah was super terrible at his job? I mean you missed a good hundred thousand species somewhere there, man.
"You never get over the desire to do stupid things. You simply have to overrule your stupid urges with an acquired sense of fear."

-Dr. Richard Weisiger

User avatar
orthogon
Posts: 2876
Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 7:52 am UTC
Location: The Airy 1830 ellipsoid

Re: 1684: Rainbow

Postby orthogon » Tue May 24, 2016 3:09 pm UTC

Soupspoon wrote:If handed a working laser-gun capable of vaporising targets, I would apologise, as soon as I realise, because I'm British(!), [...]

You mean that, despite being British, you wouldn't apologise for zapping somebody with the toy version? How terribly rude.
xtifr wrote:... and orthogon merely sounds undecided.

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 3274
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: 1684: Rainbow

Postby Soupspoon » Tue May 24, 2016 3:16 pm UTC

The argument by the one time shipmate of Charles Darwin, Robert Fitzroy (who suggested that weather could be forecast, to great ridicule at the time, until he did it) was that the dinosaurs were not saved because they were too big (and most people found this perfectly agreeable and sensible).



(No, I'd shout "you're it!" and run off laughing, because I have the mind of an eight year old. In this jar.)

User avatar
Kalium_Puceon
Posts: 66
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 12:44 pm UTC
Location: Cape Town, South Africa
Contact:

Re: 1684: Rainbow

Postby Kalium_Puceon » Tue May 24, 2016 3:35 pm UTC

Soupspoon wrote:The argument by the one time shipmate of Charles Darwin, Robert Fitzroy (who suggested that weather could be forecast, to great ridicule at the time, until he did it) was that the dinosaurs were not saved because they were too big (and most people found this perfectly agreeable and sensible).



(No, I'd shout "you're it!" and run off laughing, because I have the mind of an eight year old. In this jar.)


Wait... If you couldn't save the big dinosaurs... but birds exist.... Noah must have had hundreds of tiny raptorlings scampering around the ark, which later became birds! Small dinosaurs live on as birds once more, even if you try to put God in the mix!
"You never get over the desire to do stupid things. You simply have to overrule your stupid urges with an acquired sense of fear."

-Dr. Richard Weisiger

User avatar
PinkShinyRose
Posts: 832
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2012 6:54 pm UTC
Location: the Netherlands

Re: 1684: Rainbow

Postby PinkShinyRose » Tue May 24, 2016 4:14 pm UTC

Locoluis wrote:Uh... IMHO, the concept of gender and sexuality can only be applied to a divine being if there are many of them and they are sexually active between each other (e.g. the Greco-Roman pantheon). If there's only one God (and when you say "God" with a capital G, a monotheistic view is implied, and this comic is making a Biblical reference), no such trait applies.

Why would god need other deities for sexuality to apply? While Zeus had other deities in his native mythology, he didn't need them for sexuality. Zeus clearly preferred sexual contact with women, regardless of whether they were mortal or divine.
Locoluis wrote:Besides, I like to to think of our time in this plane of existence as a time-limited gift, not as something we're entitled to have. Slaughter is wrong because it's not our right to decide who lives and who dies, but to me it doesn't seem okay from us to to deny such right to the One who let us exist in the first place.

While I, assuming for the sake of argument that the abrahamistic religions are right, agree that life is a gift. I also think that there is a large moral difference between destroying a being and causing a being to not come into existence. I think this mostly stems from the beings awareness of its potential demise once it has come into existence. So creating a selfaware being and destroying it would be morally wrong, but not creating the being in the first place would not be.
Whizbang wrote:Slaughtering virtual characters is not even close to the same as g(G)od slaughtering its "creations"1. For one, there is no reason to think that virtual characters are thinking, feeling entities. That is clearly a false parallel. Second, If we're grading beings on the level of moral consideration required, the scale should slide upward the closer to omniscience and omnipotence the being is. The standard should not be less for a god, certainly not the variety described by modern Judeo-Christian-Muslim religions.

Besides, there are plenty of people that argue the immorality of raising and slaughtering animals for mass consumption. It is hard to argue against them on moral grounds.

1 - Scare quotes used to indicate that the word creation implies a creator, which is not supported by the facts in evidence and using that word poisons the well.

I think the thinking and feeling is key here. This also means that the "virtual" characters' well-being carries more weight as they become more complex.

I do think god makes a moral distinctions between different animals. This is probably best exemplified by the whole human/goat ritual sacrifice affair.


Return to “Individual XKCD Comic Threads”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: mscha and 18 guests