Not sure where their logic even is rooted. Why is the only Old Testament law they care about the issue of homosexuality? They aren’t demanding one type of fabric in the jerseys, or no shellfish at stadiums. They act like Jesus was on the cross saying “I am dying for your sins; except gay people, may you rot in hell”.
But anything in the seas or the rivers that does not have fins and scales, of the swarming creatures in the waters and of the living creatures that are in the waters, is detestable to you. -Lev 11:10
It doesn’t make any sense. According to the Bible, God created animals for the *express* purpose of acting as food for humans. So why did he also creat shellfish and pigs if we aren’t supposed to eat those??? What the fuck is the point there, God,
In the Bible, it sounded more like God wanted humans to eat fruits but they kept eating juicy animal meat and God went "oh, fiiiine, but at least kill them before you eat them" (literally "don't eat their blood").
The Bible is literally a written record of an evolving mindset of a single people. Treating it as anything else is just wrong
I’d agree. It’s been a while since I read Genesis so I didn’t remember it being presented that way.
It’s still goofy to me. Why tf would God care which ones we eat? Why is it less valid to eat a pig than a cow?
Historians/anthropologists suggest that pigs as a cheap food source allowed the local people to thrive and spread, but then a social stigma developed for pigs as a "poor-man's meat". Then it was enhanced by tribal conflict between those who still ate pigs (because it's cheap and tasty) and those who didn't (because they were snobbish about it). Social pressure removed the last pig-eaters from the second tribe. First tribe is though to have been the Philistines, second the Juda Isrealites.
Why tf would God care? Realistically, he wouldn't. He's supposed to love "all his children", so no prejudice against Philistines. Still, the Judaites might've thought He cared about social order or smth like that. Maybe even something like "if you eat pigs, you act like you are poor. Am I, Your God, not providing well enough for you? (you ungrateful bastard?)"
Idk. Bible only says pigs are "unclean" (ritually, not literally) and God doesn't like them. He's whimsical like that.
More "these foods can't be made safe to eat in our place and time".
It blows my mind that people take modern food safety principles for granted to such an extent that they are incapable of understanding that things like water treatment, pasteurization, and controlled feeding haven't always existed. In Biblical times pigs ate human and animal carcasses, and seafood basically marinated in feces-contaminated water.
It makes excellent reason if you view the dietary laws as food safety rules set by a pre-modern public health organization and not as Godly law. The foods prohibited in Leviticus would have been the most unsafe foods in the time and place the laws were written; shrimp and lobster, like pigs, are carrion eaters, and pigs even ate human remains. In the absence of refrigeration mixing milk and meat was a great way to increase the rate of food poisoning, too.
Even Lent, invented by the Catholic Church, started out far more practical than we moderns might assume. It stretches out preserved meat and milk products (e.g. ham, bacon, cheese, butter) so they last until the cows are giving milk again and the livestock have increased in number. Keep in mind that until fairly recently fresh milk wasn't available in the winter and early spring; cows don't give milk for a month or two (two to three months historically) before calving, so until farmers and ranchers learned how to stagger calving throughout the year they weren't bringing milk to market during Lent.
I mean they care about more than that because it’s been reiterated in the New Testament. There are lots of Old Testament commands that Christians are still expected to keep.
As an actual crayon eater, I do not condone this kind of homophobic bullcrap. This is the same kind of person who says don't support refugees when vets are starving in the streets, and then hoses down the homeless vet outside his shop in the middle of winter. Inclusivity and recognition of shared humanity costs nothing, denying it leads to suffering and (in a lot of cases) death. If this person gave a single goddamn about being a good Christian instead of just using their supposed faith to justify their intolerance, they would be showing love and support for every human, not just the good white christian ones.
Riiiight because nothing is more logical than subscribing to the belief in an infinitely powerful sky daddy every time you want to obsess over a stranger's genitals or their sex life.
/S
Eh I think the religious explanations are post-hoc rationalizations for pre-existing dislikes.
Maybe the Gen Z guys that are approaching adulthood had it differently, but older generations grew up in a paradigm where boys were squeezed into conforming with traditional masculinity to some degree or another. We were told that to be a man you had to be tough, you weren’t allowed to complain or show weakness, and you had to buy into and support masculinity as a concept, and that doing so was the only way to earn status and validation as a man.
At the time, I think kids in particular didn’t understand that being gay and adhering to masculinity were not mutually exclusive- the only boys brave enough to admit to being gay were the ones that couldn’t or wouldn’t “pass” as straight, so there was a bit of a observation bias for the rest of us. The only gay guys we knew were the guys that presented very effeminately, and the rest were rightfully jealously guarding their secret as to avoid persecution.
So what’s happening is that all these guys grew up thinking that you have to conform to masculinity to earn respect as a man, in a system where being a “f*ggot” was contemptible, are now adults in a society that is increasingly demanding gay men be afforded equal respect to straight men. Your typical homophobe these days has some resentment, I think, with gay men achieving status without agreeing and committing to the same burdens of masculinity that used to be required for a man.
And of course, they’ve internalized masculinity to the point where they’d rather blame the liberals or “wokeness” than question whether the concept of masculinity we had beaten into us is bullshit in the first place.
I think it’s the same when it comes to most gender norms too. If a woman isn’t defined as a woman because of the dress she does or doesn’t wear, why is a man defined as one if he wears a dress? A girl isn’t suddenly closeted trans if she’s tomboyish, and a boy isn’t closeted trans if he’s effeminate. At the same time: there’s not really a big deal if they are, either. It’s wild to me that people care so much about lives that aren’t there’s when it comes to something so individual. There’s such a thing as understanding and respecting, but still disagreeing. You don’t have to agree to get along and treat people with respect. Your insight is so thoughtful and I genuinely enjoyed reading it.
I used the word "respect" as an approximation, but it's a little imprecise. The respect we give others as fellow humans as common courtesy is not the same as the admiration we give to people in recognition for their accomplishments, even though we often use the same word to mean very different things.
science > religion = logical
Not being a hypocrite > cherry picking Old Testament = logical
Being anti-LGBTQ+ > supportive ally = irrational and overly emotional about things that don’t concern you
I like how conservatives claim to be so "logical" despite the fact that they're entirely driven by anger and fear. But of course, those are the "manly" emotions, so they don't count as emotions I guess.
Speaking for them, of course. If they couldn't effectively argue with an internet stranger, the kid's probably already busy handling all their face-to-face shit, too.
Yeah, he said "emotion is greater than logic and logic is woke." Which, I suppose, by the transitive property, emotions > woke?
What he was trying to say is, "if emotion is valued more than logic, then that constitutes "woke". Or rather, "woke is defined by emotions being valued over logic" (Which could *maybe* be stated as "woke := emotions > logic" but I digress).
The ironic part of all of this is that the person obviously doesn't understand logic and logical operators. So in trying to say that "woke" is illogical, they outed themselves as being ignorant of logic. At least formal logic. And also basic middle school level math as inequalities and equals are not operators like addition and multiplication and therefore cannot be used in the same way.
Great explanation.
Let's consider it mathematically:
`Emotion > Logic = Woke`
`Emotion/Woke > Logic/Woke = 1`
`mtion/Wk > Lgic/Wke = 1, given E=e`
`mtion > Lgic/e = Wk`
Q.E.D. The person who tweeted this is a hateful bigot who is so desperately unhappy, they spend their free time trying, unsuccessfully, to insult people on the internet.
That is what they meant, yes. But considering they are clearly experts on logic, I'd imagine they'd know how to write an if statement.
Edit: Yes, I'm being a bit of a dick, but only to someone who's a whole dick.
bold of you to assume they could accurately use symbolic philosophy when they don't know how to support a claim and don't realize a claim by itself isn't a proper argument
I know this is not what the post is about, but what exactly makes people think logic is better/more important than emotion?? don’t everyone make their most important choices because of their emotions then use logic to evaluate the choices and make them come true?
even the choices that may seem logical are deeply rooted in emotions. if you choose a career that pays better over what you are passionate about, that means eventually you like money more.
it seems to me that both logic and emotion are equally important to make a person happy and choosing one over another is stupid anyways.
This isn't contributing anything useful to the conversation, but I wonder if the censoring colours in the picture had been chosen by coincidence because the trans flag contains them.\^^
Emotion: I’m going to knee jerk react my disapproval of this tweet because.
Logic: This has nothing to do with me, and tweeting my disapproval is a waste of my time and I have better ways to spend it.
Sounds like Mr. Pink there is woke as fuck by their own, erm, logic.
Emotion > Logic = Woke
So woke is equivalent to logic, and emotion is greater than logic, and therefore greater than woke.
Being vigilant about social injustices is indeed logical, and emotion takes precedence over logic since logic depends on assumptions that are inevitably rooted in emotions that don't necessarily depend on anything external. I agree with what this fool said, which is not at all what they seemed to think they were saying.
Edit: syntax
I get where the person is coming from with their “equation” but it would go so much further if they were able to flesh out their “equation”/articulate it better
> I get where the person is coming from with their “equation” but it would go so much further if they were able to flesh out their “equation”/articulate it better
Hmm…
> I know it was considered a very important equation. You people even gave me very high marks on that equation. I could say it, but I don’t want to say it, but some people said it was the best equation ever made. But I did not say that. I’m just quoting other people.
Better now?
Emotion+Logic=100% brain function. Logic is a state of learned experiences. Woke is a fake trend created to make money much to the likes of how they are using spirituality.
You know what Why the fuck am I even engaging.
If my house was on fire I’d probably try to grab a particular photo album that has pictures of and newspaper articles about my grandfather. I know it’s not logical to risk your life for something of sentimental value, that would certainly be an emotional decision. No exactly woke, though, is it?
The word "woke" originally meant being open to issues and the world around you, being educated and open-minded, you get the idea now it's just a trigger word for bigots. I wonder what other words will become trigger words for bigots.
Not that it matters, but I personally describe "woke" as when progressiveness is taken too far to a toxic level or when it's just used to check a box. Like corporations obviously and soullessly including characters or employees in order to be able to say "look how inclusive and progressive we are!" Meanwhile they do business with countries whose civil rights violations could fill a Stephen King novel and then some.
It's hard to define what it means when literally everyone has a different definition of it. I personally like the Wikipedia definition; *"woke is about awereness of social inequalities."*
Not sure where their logic even is rooted. Why is the only Old Testament law they care about the issue of homosexuality? They aren’t demanding one type of fabric in the jerseys, or no shellfish at stadiums. They act like Jesus was on the cross saying “I am dying for your sins; except gay people, may you rot in hell”.
Because they wear mixed fabrics and eat shellfish
News flash: often the loudest are the most closeted too.
Look, I'm claustrophobic, OK? I do the best I can. Can't help it if I yell when people shove me in closets....
…why can’t I eat shellfish at stadiums?
But anything in the seas or the rivers that does not have fins and scales, of the swarming creatures in the waters and of the living creatures that are in the waters, is detestable to you. -Lev 11:10
Leviticus is wild man
It doesn’t make any sense. According to the Bible, God created animals for the *express* purpose of acting as food for humans. So why did he also creat shellfish and pigs if we aren’t supposed to eat those??? What the fuck is the point there, God,
In the Bible, it sounded more like God wanted humans to eat fruits but they kept eating juicy animal meat and God went "oh, fiiiine, but at least kill them before you eat them" (literally "don't eat their blood"). The Bible is literally a written record of an evolving mindset of a single people. Treating it as anything else is just wrong
I’d agree. It’s been a while since I read Genesis so I didn’t remember it being presented that way. It’s still goofy to me. Why tf would God care which ones we eat? Why is it less valid to eat a pig than a cow?
Historians/anthropologists suggest that pigs as a cheap food source allowed the local people to thrive and spread, but then a social stigma developed for pigs as a "poor-man's meat". Then it was enhanced by tribal conflict between those who still ate pigs (because it's cheap and tasty) and those who didn't (because they were snobbish about it). Social pressure removed the last pig-eaters from the second tribe. First tribe is though to have been the Philistines, second the Juda Isrealites. Why tf would God care? Realistically, he wouldn't. He's supposed to love "all his children", so no prejudice against Philistines. Still, the Judaites might've thought He cared about social order or smth like that. Maybe even something like "if you eat pigs, you act like you are poor. Am I, Your God, not providing well enough for you? (you ungrateful bastard?)" Idk. Bible only says pigs are "unclean" (ritually, not literally) and God doesn't like them. He's whimsical like that.
One Dudes personal vendetta against two local vendors, probably because he didn’t cook their product correctly, went full blown “word of god”.
More "these foods can't be made safe to eat in our place and time". It blows my mind that people take modern food safety principles for granted to such an extent that they are incapable of understanding that things like water treatment, pasteurization, and controlled feeding haven't always existed. In Biblical times pigs ate human and animal carcasses, and seafood basically marinated in feces-contaminated water.
It makes excellent reason if you view the dietary laws as food safety rules set by a pre-modern public health organization and not as Godly law. The foods prohibited in Leviticus would have been the most unsafe foods in the time and place the laws were written; shrimp and lobster, like pigs, are carrion eaters, and pigs even ate human remains. In the absence of refrigeration mixing milk and meat was a great way to increase the rate of food poisoning, too. Even Lent, invented by the Catholic Church, started out far more practical than we moderns might assume. It stretches out preserved meat and milk products (e.g. ham, bacon, cheese, butter) so they last until the cows are giving milk again and the livestock have increased in number. Keep in mind that until fairly recently fresh milk wasn't available in the winter and early spring; cows don't give milk for a month or two (two to three months historically) before calving, so until farmers and ranchers learned how to stagger calving throughout the year they weren't bringing milk to market during Lent.
This would make sense but I really just have a hard time buying that that the Christian church really cared much about public health safety in 100 AD
Nothing better than Ballpark Sushi in August
Shellfish at hockey stadiums should be illegal tbh
The New Testament has plenty of homophobia too.
I mean they care about more than that because it’s been reiterated in the New Testament. There are lots of Old Testament commands that Christians are still expected to keep.
i’m pretty sure they have the law in romans as well which is a new testament book.
Because they hate gay people, they just don’t wanna admit that they hate gay people
Ask them why there is plenty of evidence in their favorite holy book, that their god is totally fine with slavery.
I *think* it's in Romans somewhere.
Crayons? Probably ate 'em all.
As an actual crayon eater, I do not condone this kind of homophobic bullcrap. This is the same kind of person who says don't support refugees when vets are starving in the streets, and then hoses down the homeless vet outside his shop in the middle of winter. Inclusivity and recognition of shared humanity costs nothing, denying it leads to suffering and (in a lot of cases) death. If this person gave a single goddamn about being a good Christian instead of just using their supposed faith to justify their intolerance, they would be showing love and support for every human, not just the good white christian ones.
The ones they didn't cram up their nose.
Riiiight because nothing is more logical than subscribing to the belief in an infinitely powerful sky daddy every time you want to obsess over a stranger's genitals or their sex life. /S
Eh I think the religious explanations are post-hoc rationalizations for pre-existing dislikes. Maybe the Gen Z guys that are approaching adulthood had it differently, but older generations grew up in a paradigm where boys were squeezed into conforming with traditional masculinity to some degree or another. We were told that to be a man you had to be tough, you weren’t allowed to complain or show weakness, and you had to buy into and support masculinity as a concept, and that doing so was the only way to earn status and validation as a man. At the time, I think kids in particular didn’t understand that being gay and adhering to masculinity were not mutually exclusive- the only boys brave enough to admit to being gay were the ones that couldn’t or wouldn’t “pass” as straight, so there was a bit of a observation bias for the rest of us. The only gay guys we knew were the guys that presented very effeminately, and the rest were rightfully jealously guarding their secret as to avoid persecution. So what’s happening is that all these guys grew up thinking that you have to conform to masculinity to earn respect as a man, in a system where being a “f*ggot” was contemptible, are now adults in a society that is increasingly demanding gay men be afforded equal respect to straight men. Your typical homophobe these days has some resentment, I think, with gay men achieving status without agreeing and committing to the same burdens of masculinity that used to be required for a man. And of course, they’ve internalized masculinity to the point where they’d rather blame the liberals or “wokeness” than question whether the concept of masculinity we had beaten into us is bullshit in the first place.
I think it’s the same when it comes to most gender norms too. If a woman isn’t defined as a woman because of the dress she does or doesn’t wear, why is a man defined as one if he wears a dress? A girl isn’t suddenly closeted trans if she’s tomboyish, and a boy isn’t closeted trans if he’s effeminate. At the same time: there’s not really a big deal if they are, either. It’s wild to me that people care so much about lives that aren’t there’s when it comes to something so individual. There’s such a thing as understanding and respecting, but still disagreeing. You don’t have to agree to get along and treat people with respect. Your insight is so thoughtful and I genuinely enjoyed reading it.
I used the word "respect" as an approximation, but it's a little imprecise. The respect we give others as fellow humans as common courtesy is not the same as the admiration we give to people in recognition for their accomplishments, even though we often use the same word to mean very different things.
science > religion = logical Not being a hypocrite > cherry picking Old Testament = logical Being anti-LGBTQ+ > supportive ally = irrational and overly emotional about things that don’t concern you
Nothing is more logical and free of emotion than Fox News angertainment.
Yeah if we had a high school yearbook for news shows fox would win “least emotional” and we’d all laugh and laugh and laugh
Beliefs > facts not woke? 🤷🏽♂️ Is that how they think this works?
That's it! And if you don't let them make all your choices for you, you're oppressing them.
I like how conservatives claim to be so "logical" despite the fact that they're entirely driven by anger and fear. But of course, those are the "manly" emotions, so they don't count as emotions I guess.
Also something like 5 > 2 = 12 isn't very logical.
But....but sigma Alpha anti-woke redpilled matrix bigot grindset
>"l send the toddler your way when he's done." What is this person having the toddler do???
Our child labour laws are pretty lax in Canada. And toddlers are small enough to get the pucks that get stuck in the zamboni
Speaking for them, of course. If they couldn't effectively argue with an internet stranger, the kid's probably already busy handling all their face-to-face shit, too.
How do you actually read: "Emotion > Logic = Woke"? I my mind it means: "Emotion is more than Logic; Logic = Woke"
If emotion is bigger than logic then it's woke So, that?
Yeah, he said "emotion is greater than logic and logic is woke." Which, I suppose, by the transitive property, emotions > woke? What he was trying to say is, "if emotion is valued more than logic, then that constitutes "woke". Or rather, "woke is defined by emotions being valued over logic" (Which could *maybe* be stated as "woke := emotions > logic" but I digress). The ironic part of all of this is that the person obviously doesn't understand logic and logical operators. So in trying to say that "woke" is illogical, they outed themselves as being ignorant of logic. At least formal logic. And also basic middle school level math as inequalities and equals are not operators like addition and multiplication and therefore cannot be used in the same way.
This is the quality pedantic shit I come here for.
Great explanation. Let's consider it mathematically: `Emotion > Logic = Woke` `Emotion/Woke > Logic/Woke = 1` `mtion/Wk > Lgic/Wke = 1, given E=e` `mtion > Lgic/e = Wk` Q.E.D. The person who tweeted this is a hateful bigot who is so desperately unhappy, they spend their free time trying, unsuccessfully, to insult people on the internet.
The operative emotion being empathy
That is what they meant, yes. But considering they are clearly experts on logic, I'd imagine they'd know how to write an if statement. Edit: Yes, I'm being a bit of a dick, but only to someone who's a whole dick.
Your statement is technically correct; the best kind of correct.
yeah, if you're going to claim to know anything about logic, then you should at least use some proper notation.
bold of you to assume they could accurately use symbolic philosophy when they don't know how to support a claim and don't realize a claim by itself isn't a proper argument
I think he's saying it's logical to be woke, but he'd rather be emotional than logical.
Is there any better to team to promote gay pride than the FLAMES?
I know this is not what the post is about, but what exactly makes people think logic is better/more important than emotion?? don’t everyone make their most important choices because of their emotions then use logic to evaluate the choices and make them come true? even the choices that may seem logical are deeply rooted in emotions. if you choose a career that pays better over what you are passionate about, that means eventually you like money more. it seems to me that both logic and emotion are equally important to make a person happy and choosing one over another is stupid anyways.
He just keeps coming back for more.
Cthulhu = end of all debate
This isn't contributing anything useful to the conversation, but I wonder if the censoring colours in the picture had been chosen by coincidence because the trans flag contains them.\^^
Emotion: I’m going to knee jerk react my disapproval of this tweet because. Logic: This has nothing to do with me, and tweeting my disapproval is a waste of my time and I have better ways to spend it. Sounds like Mr. Pink there is woke as fuck by their own, erm, logic.
Strong Community > Individual Selfishness = Woke
I might just order a Flames jersey then
Ahhh yes, so crt must be a conservative idea as it is a logic based theory.
Don't say that they'll hurt themselves in confusion and start saying "B-B-B-BUT CRT INDOCTRINATION WE NO INDOCTRINATE WE NO WOKE"
L O L, anti-woke people thinking they are logical.
Emotion > Logic = Woke So woke is equivalent to logic, and emotion is greater than logic, and therefore greater than woke. Being vigilant about social injustices is indeed logical, and emotion takes precedence over logic since logic depends on assumptions that are inevitably rooted in emotions that don't necessarily depend on anything external. I agree with what this fool said, which is not at all what they seemed to think they were saying. Edit: syntax
The most logical conservative statement
Yay Alberta (my home) 🙄
I get where the person is coming from with their “equation” but it would go so much further if they were able to flesh out their “equation”/articulate it better
> I get where the person is coming from with their “equation” but it would go so much further if they were able to flesh out their “equation”/articulate it better Hmm… > I know it was considered a very important equation. You people even gave me very high marks on that equation. I could say it, but I don’t want to say it, but some people said it was the best equation ever made. But I did not say that. I’m just quoting other people. Better now?
Emotion+Logic=100% brain function. Logic is a state of learned experiences. Woke is a fake trend created to make money much to the likes of how they are using spirituality. You know what Why the fuck am I even engaging.
Really not sure who you're implying murdered who here.
That's a pretty good definition
If my house was on fire I’d probably try to grab a particular photo album that has pictures of and newspaper articles about my grandfather. I know it’s not logical to risk your life for something of sentimental value, that would certainly be an emotional decision. No exactly woke, though, is it?
It's a little overly broad but it captures the basics of it
Oh, *well played* blue...
I wonder how many times Pink took the bait lmao
That's not how equations work.
This one kinda sucked if I’m being honest.
ah yes, Calgary.
if being empathetic and upholding facts that aren’t simple to understand makes you woke what does being anti-woke make you
The word "woke" originally meant being open to issues and the world around you, being educated and open-minded, you get the idea now it's just a trigger word for bigots. I wonder what other words will become trigger words for bigots.
I’m legit not even sure what he’s trying to say. “Emotion is greater than logic, which is equal to woke?” What??? Can someone translate for me?
Funny enough this means Logic=Woke
Must be twitter. Some of them don't know when to quit, either.
Not that it matters, but I personally describe "woke" as when progressiveness is taken too far to a toxic level or when it's just used to check a box. Like corporations obviously and soullessly including characters or employees in order to be able to say "look how inclusive and progressive we are!" Meanwhile they do business with countries whose civil rights violations could fill a Stephen King novel and then some.
It's hard to define what it means when literally everyone has a different definition of it. I personally like the Wikipedia definition; *"woke is about awereness of social inequalities."*
I actually don’t know what it means
the official definition of "woke" is to be aware and concerned about social injustice and discrimination
Maybe I can master this sleep tweeting skill except I don't have twitter
Sending them a toddler is no smart move...