[002]
TweedlyDee
Current Version
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
Um... Dinosaurs. Dinosaurs should not exist. Anyone ever heard of Big Al? (No, not that one...) He was an Allosaurus who survived loads of injurys beyond just tripping and aside from his apparent clumsiness, he lived a healthy life. Yet scientists say King Kong couldn\'t exist because of the Square-Cube law. Apes a lot stronger than archosaurs. And King Kong is close to Big Al\'s size. How is it NOT possible?
to:
Um... Dinosaurs. Dinosaurs should not exist. Anyone ever heard of Big Al? (No, not that one...) He was an Allosaurus who survived loads of injuries beyond just tripping and aside from his apparent clumsiness, he lived a healthy life. Yet scientists say King Kong couldn\\\'t exist because of the Square-Cube law. Apes are a lot stronger than archosaurs. And King Kong is close to Big Al\\\'s size. How is it NOT possible?
Changed line(s) 3 from:
n
* The Bible reference above is technically a subversion. In Biblical times, \
to:
* The Bible reference above is technically a subversion. In Biblical times, \\\"turning the other cheek\\\" was basically telling the guy who hit you he didn\\\'t have the guts to do it again. While it was not responding with anger, it was basically telling him he wasn\\\'t worth your time.
** Some other examples set up a humiliation or punishment from the perpetrator\\\'s boss, such as giving thy pants too or walking another mile with the soldier.
** Also, it\\\'s worth remembering that [[ValuesDissonance in Biblical times, it was considered normal to be right-handed and someone left-handed was always specially noted as such.]] Bearing that in mind, if a \\\"normal\\\" person were to strike you on the right cheek with his dominant hand, it would be a backhand slap: an insult, not an assault. This changes the meaning from \\\"do not resist violence against you\\\" to \\\"do not allow others to provoke you.\\\"
** Except none of these interpretations make any sense. Allow me the full quote and the immediate next passages: \\\'But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.\\\' You might try to interpret the (abbreviated) passage as something else, if presented without context, but when it says \\\'\\\'do not resist an evil person\\\'\\\', \\\'\\\'let him have your cloak as well\\\'\\\' or \\\'\\\'go with him two miles\\\'\\\', and it\\\'s difficult to see how to interpret it any other way...
*** Actually that\\\'s exactly what they mean as well. First century Jewish law forbade taking the shirt off a debtor\\\'s back, so by volunteering it you\\\'d embarrass someone trying to harm you economically; walking a second mile with a soldier was a form of passive resistance because Roman military regulations only allowed soldiers to requisition locals\\\' help with carrying baggage for one mile so as not to be seen as oppressing the populace. Both cases are likely to make the other person look bad while simultaneously not doing anything to them directly.
I\\\'m one the people debating here and I think it\\\'s quite fair that the first point of view be presented, but to avoid unnecessary {{Natter}} I\\\'d like to change the text to the following:
* With a heavy dose of YourMilageMayVary, as different people <will> interpret this passage differently, it\\\'s possible to see the Bible passage as technically a subversion. In Biblical times, \\\"turning the other cheek\\\" was basically telling the guy who hit you he didn\\\'t have the guts to do it again. While it was not responding with anger, it was basically telling him he wasn\\\'t worth your time. Or that instead of \\\"do not resist violence against you\\\", instead \\\"do not allow others to provoke you.\\\"
What does everyone think?
** Some other examples set up a humiliation or punishment from the perpetrator\\\'s boss, such as giving thy pants too or walking another mile with the soldier.
** Also, it\\\'s worth remembering that [[ValuesDissonance in Biblical times, it was considered normal to be right-handed and someone left-handed was always specially noted as such.]] Bearing that in mind, if a \\\"normal\\\" person were to strike you on the right cheek with his dominant hand, it would be a backhand slap: an insult, not an assault. This changes the meaning from \\\"do not resist violence against you\\\" to \\\"do not allow others to provoke you.\\\"
** Except none of these interpretations make any sense. Allow me the full quote and the immediate next passages: \\\'But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.\\\' You might try to interpret the (abbreviated) passage as something else, if presented without context, but when it says \\\'\\\'do not resist an evil person\\\'\\\', \\\'\\\'let him have your cloak as well\\\'\\\' or \\\'\\\'go with him two miles\\\'\\\', and it\\\'s difficult to see how to interpret it any other way...
*** Actually that\\\'s exactly what they mean as well. First century Jewish law forbade taking the shirt off a debtor\\\'s back, so by volunteering it you\\\'d embarrass someone trying to harm you economically; walking a second mile with a soldier was a form of passive resistance because Roman military regulations only allowed soldiers to requisition locals\\\' help with carrying baggage for one mile so as not to be seen as oppressing the populace. Both cases are likely to make the other person look bad while simultaneously not doing anything to them directly.
I\\\'m one the people debating here and I think it\\\'s quite fair that the first point of view be presented, but to avoid unnecessary {{Natter}} I\\\'d like to change the text to the following:
* With a heavy dose of YourMilageMayVary, as different people <will> interpret this passage differently, it\\\'s possible to see the Bible passage as technically a subversion. In Biblical times, \\\"turning the other cheek\\\" was basically telling the guy who hit you he didn\\\'t have the guts to do it again. While it was not responding with anger, it was basically telling him he wasn\\\'t worth your time. Or that instead of \\\"do not resist violence against you\\\", instead \\\"do not allow others to provoke you.\\\"
What does everyone think?
