[News] Post a D&D Picture

Previous incarnations of Cleveland/P&C/D&D have had an image thread, to handle political cartoons and other image-based stuff that doesn't belong in the general post-a-picture threads.

If any of them spawn an extended discussion, please spawn it off into its own thread. Replies to non-picture replies should take the form of a link pointing to a post on a different discussion thread.

And I shouldn't have to say it, but the images still need to abide by the rules.

Now those are parties I'd love to go to.

Reminded me of this.
IMAGE(https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-P1ZU_hbyW5c/V7KVzgsrCHI/AAAAAAAAWSE/4XoWFQeoejslQa3jYliv0dV7ze8bUYVVgCEw/s1600/TKSS_1618.jpg)

Beware the rich man who serves fast food on a silver platter.

DSGamer wrote:

Republican Party - 1854 - 2020

IMAGE(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dw6o0ZCV4AItV5s?format=jpg&name=large)

It's like Lincoln is sitting there thinking..."Maybe I should have just let the South leave."

Player Hater wrote:
DSGamer wrote:

Republican Party - 1854 - 2020

IMAGE(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dw6o0ZCV4AItV5s?format=jpg&name=large)

It's like Lincoln is sitting there thinking..."Maybe I should have just let the South leave."

the problem there is: Donald Trump may be a racist POS, but he's definitely not a southerner.

thrawn82 wrote:
Player Hater wrote:
DSGamer wrote:

Republican Party - 1854 - 2020

IMAGE(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dw6o0ZCV4AItV5s?format=jpg&name=large)

It's like Lincoln is sitting there thinking..."Maybe I should have just let the South leave."

the problem there is: Donald Trump may be a racist POS, but he's definitely not a southerner.

Number 1 with southerners though.

DSGamer wrote:

Republican Party - 1854 - 2020

IMAGE(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dw6o0ZCV4AItV5s?format=jpg&name=large)

is that photoshopped? His hands look kinda big.

Jonman wrote:

This just in: government shutdown means that White House chefs aren't working. Hence, Wendys.

Err, yeah, I was joking about this, but turns out that's exactly how it went down.

The guy is bare minimum a millionaire and he wants everyone to know how generous he is for spending maybe $1000 on some Wendy's and Pizza Hut. What a sh*t-sandwich of a man.

This was rather brutal I thought.

IMAGE(https://i.imgur.com/9Ttj27Z.png)

Nah, that's an appropriate level of brutality for such a stupid, self-involved, smug question.

IMAGE(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dw6o0ZCV4AItV5s?format=jpg&name=large)

After Trump tweeted out about all the "hamburders" he ordered from Burger King (among others), check out BerderKing.com.

Are we sure we couldn't reopen the government by getting Chuck & Nancy to bring him a bucket of chicken?

cheeze_pavilion wrote:

Are we sure we couldn't reopen the government by getting Chuck & Nancy to bring him a bucket of chicken?

What about one of those sandwiches with chicken instead of bread?

thrawn82 wrote:
cheeze_pavilion wrote:

Are we sure we couldn't reopen the government by getting Chuck & Nancy to bring him a bucket of chicken?

What about one of those sandwiches with chicken instead of bread?

Enough White Castles to 'build a wall' out of the cardboard boxes?

cheeze_pavilion wrote:
thrawn82 wrote:
cheeze_pavilion wrote:

Are we sure we couldn't reopen the government by getting Chuck & Nancy to bring him a bucket of chicken?

What about one of those sandwiches with chicken instead of bread?

Enough White Castles to 'build a wall' out of the cardboard boxes?

Well sure, that's gonna cost what, at most $50? Lots better than $10b

farley3k wrote:

This was rather brutal I thought.

IMAGE(https://i.imgur.com/9Ttj27Z.png)

I wasn't aware of agnostic atheism and my first thought was "isn't that just a theogolical pessimist"? I have visited the Wikipedia and learned something new. It still strikes me as a funny position but maybe I've not spent enough time wrestling with concepts of belief and proof. I've always considered myself a plain-old agnostic: no belief in either a theistic or atheistic direction...this has been a surprisingly philosophical lunch break.

thrawn82 wrote:
cheeze_pavilion wrote:

Are we sure we couldn't reopen the government by getting Chuck & Nancy to bring him a bucket of chicken?

What about one of those sandwiches with chicken instead of bread?

Trump has Doubled Down enough, thanks!

PewPewRobo wrote:

I wasn't aware of agnostic atheism and my first thought was "isn't that just a theogolical pessimist"? I have visited the Wikipedia and learned something new. It still strikes me as a funny position but maybe I've not spent enough time wrestling with concepts of belief and proof. I've always considered myself a plain-old agnostic: no belief in either a theistic or atheistic direction...this has been a surprisingly philosophical lunch break.

In my experience most people don’t seem to understand that gnostic/agnostic is a seperate axis from atheism/theism, rather than being a middle ground.

ruhk wrote:

In my experience most people don’t seem to understand that gnostic/agnostic is a seperate axis from atheism/theism, rather than being a middle ground.

To further muddy the waters, a/gnosticism is a stance on the know-ability of the divine, a/theism is a stance on the existence of the divine.

gnostic theism: God exists and is totes understandable, yo. He gave us {insert holy book here} to explain everything.

agnostic theism: God exists, but is ineffable #shrugemoji

gnostic atheism: Of course God doesn't exist, look at this simple 9 page mathematical proof I wrote to show that God doesn't exist.

agnostic atheism: If there was a God, He would have been a helluva lot less ambiguous on a lot of topics.

Jonman wrote:
ruhk wrote:

In my experience most people don’t seem to understand that gnostic/agnostic is a seperate axis from atheism/theism, rather than being a middle ground.

To further muddy the waters, a/gnosticism is a stance on the know-ability of the divine, a/theism is a stance on the existence of the divine.

gnostic theism: God exists and is totes understandable, yo. He gave us {insert holy book here} to explain everything.

agnostic theism: God exists, but is ineffable #shrugemoji

gnostic atheism: Of course God doesn't exist, look at this simple 9 page mathematical proof I wrote to show that God doesn't exist.

agnostic atheism: If there was a God, He would have been a helluva lot less ambiguous on a lot of topics.

I am not agnostic with regard to how much I dig this community.

Spoiler:

<3

PewPewRobo wrote:
Jonman wrote:
ruhk wrote:

In my experience most people don’t seem to understand that gnostic/agnostic is a seperate axis from atheism/theism, rather than being a middle ground.

To further muddy the waters, a/gnosticism is a stance on the know-ability of the divine, a/theism is a stance on the existence of the divine.

gnostic theism: God exists and is totes understandable, yo. He gave us {insert holy book here} to explain everything.

agnostic theism: God exists, but is ineffable #shrugemoji

gnostic atheism: Of course God doesn't exist, look at this simple 9 page mathematical proof I wrote to show that God doesn't exist.

agnostic atheism: If there was a God, He would have been a helluva lot less ambiguous on a lot of topics.

I am not agnostic with regard to how much I dig this community.

Spoiler:

<3

Would you say you're a Gnostic Goodjer?

And if you want to get even more granular you can break it up by different pantheons or types of pantheons, although that would probably require a bit more vocabulary. For example we are all (I assume) gnostic atheists about the Greek pantheon, don't have quite enough documentation on Zeus flying down and transforming into Swans to screw human women. However even people that are gnostic atheists about the Abrahamic God (which is what most people in our culture mean when talking about this topic) may be open to the possibility of a clockmaker God, or that we live in a simulation, or something.

PewPewRobo wrote:
Jonman wrote:
ruhk wrote:

In my experience most people don’t seem to understand that gnostic/agnostic is a seperate axis from atheism/theism, rather than being a middle ground.

To further muddy the waters, a/gnosticism is a stance on the know-ability of the divine, a/theism is a stance on the existence of the divine.

gnostic theism: God exists and is totes understandable, yo. He gave us {insert holy book here} to explain everything.

agnostic theism: God exists, but is ineffable #shrugemoji

gnostic atheism: Of course God doesn't exist, look at this simple 9 page mathematical proof I wrote to show that God doesn't exist.

agnostic atheism: If there was a God, He would have been a helluva lot less ambiguous on a lot of topics.

I am not agnostic with regard to how much I dig this community.

Spoiler:

<3

Note, of course, that this makes no mention of your feelings on the (lack of) awesomeness here, only that you can know the appropriate scope of the awesome present.

ruhk wrote:

In my experience most people don’t seem to understand that gnostic/agnostic is a seperate axis from atheism/theism, rather than being a middle ground.

I have a pet peeve about this distinction. I understand it in principle, but in my experience basically every actual atheist is an agnostic atheist, and "gnostic atheism" isn't really a thing - except insofar as people attacking atheism find it useful to pretend that typical atheists are gnostic atheists.

I mean, presumably actual gnostic atheists exist somewhere, but I've never seen or heard of a serious one, so I think we're all better off just saying "atheist", with the meaning "agnostic atheist", and correcting anyone who tries to use it otherwise (Bertrand Russel's teapot and all that stuff).

fenomas wrote:
ruhk wrote:

In my experience most people don’t seem to understand that gnostic/agnostic is a seperate axis from atheism/theism, rather than being a middle ground.

I have a pet peeve about this distinction. I understand it in principle, but in my experience basically every actual atheist is an agnostic atheist, and "gnostic atheism" isn't really a thing - except insofar as people attacking atheism find it useful to pretend that typical atheists are gnostic atheists.

I mean, presumably actual gnostic atheists exist somewhere, but I've never seen or heard of a serious one, so I think we're all better off just saying "atheist", with the meaning "agnostic atheist", and correcting anyone who tries to use it otherwise (Bertrand Russel's teapot and all that stuff).

*raises hand* My proof is only 8 pages, but that's where I am. It's pretty clear to me that if I had any real physical evidence of God, then they would still be subject to physical laws, and not supernatural. If there is a clock maker or programmer, then they would be subject to the physical laws of their home, and our reality would depend on it, too.

Put it another way. If I have kernel-level access to a computer, does that make me supernatural, or outside the laws of physics? No, I just have a set of abilities that appear to be supernatural from the limited viewpoint of a program within the system. Not a God. Who or whatever is running this show, if there is an entity out there, is just another schlub in an unforgiving multiverse of physical characteristics.

Mixolyde wrote:
fenomas wrote:
ruhk wrote:

In my experience most people don’t seem to understand that gnostic/agnostic is a seperate axis from atheism/theism, rather than being a middle ground.

I have a pet peeve about this distinction. I understand it in principle, but in my experience basically every actual atheist is an agnostic atheist, and "gnostic atheism" isn't really a thing - except insofar as people attacking atheism find it useful to pretend that typical atheists are gnostic atheists.

I mean, presumably actual gnostic atheists exist somewhere, but I've never seen or heard of a serious one, so I think we're all better off just saying "atheist", with the meaning "agnostic atheist", and correcting anyone who tries to use it otherwise (Bertrand Russel's teapot and all that stuff).

*raises hand* My proof is only 8 pages, but that's where I am. It's pretty clear to me that if I had any real physical evidence of God, then they would still be subject to physical laws, and not supernatural. If there is a clock maker or programmer, then they would be subject to the physical laws of their home, and our reality would depend on it, too.

Put it another way. If I have kernel-level access to a computer, does that make me supernatural, or outside the laws of physics? No, I just have a set of abilities that appear to be supernatural from the limited viewpoint of a program within the system. Not a God. Who or whatever is running this show, if there is an entity out there, is just another schlub in an unforgiving multiverse of physical characteristics.

Yeah, I'm with you. I've been creeping from agnostic to gnostic atheism over the last decade.

The older I get, the more absurd the claims of the divine seem. At some point, I've crossed a threshold, and I don't know there's any going back.

Mixolyde wrote:

*raises hand* My proof is only 8 pages, but that's where I am. It's pretty clear to me that if I had any real physical evidence of God, then they would still be subject to physical laws, and not supernatural. If there is a clock maker or programmer, then they would be subject to the physical laws of their home, and our reality would depend on it, too.

Put it another way. If I have kernel-level access to a computer, does that make me supernatural, or outside the laws of physics? No, I just have a set of abilities that appear to be supernatural from the limited viewpoint of a program within the system. Not a God. Who or whatever is running this show, if there is an entity out there, is just another schlub in an unforgiving multiverse of physical characteristics.

I understand what you're saying, but I think it still falls into the bucket people mean when they say agnostic atheism, which I think should just be called atheism.

See, to invoke Russel's Teapot, the thing that bugs me about the terminology is that "agnostic" can be held to imply that one is undecided or unsure about something. What I take from the teapot analogy is, one can say: "Nonsense, I'm not undecided about god, any more than I'm undecided about the space teapot, etc. Granted I have no proof of the nonexistence of either, but at the same time I have no doubts - I believe in their nonexistence just as firmly as anyone can believe anything."

Now, one could label that position "agnostic" because it makes no claim of definite knowledge, or one could say it's gnostic in that it claims to know something firmly and with no doubt. And while either seems reasonable to me, I think people who care about this stuff usually do the former. But it seems to me that the distinction is meaningless because there aren't really two separate kinds of atheist that we need to distinguish between. Everyone seems to be on the same "no proof, obviously, but no doubts either" boat, so we might as well just use one term. That's my two cents, anyway.

Mixolyde wrote:

*raises hand* My proof is only 8 pages, but that's where I am. It's pretty clear to me that if I had any real physical evidence of God, then they would still be subject to physical laws, and not supernatural. If there is a clock maker or programmer, then they would be subject to the physical laws of their home, and our reality would depend on it, too.

Put it another way. If I have kernel-level access to a computer, does that make me supernatural, or outside the laws of physics? No, I just have a set of abilities that appear to be supernatural from the limited viewpoint of a program within the system. Not a God. Who or whatever is running this show, if there is an entity out there, is just another schlub in an unforgiving multiverse of physical characteristics.

If I'm reading that right, maybe that's antignostic atheism: not just belief that the evidence for the existence of god is insufficient, but that *any* evidence for the existence of a god-level entity is by definition impossible?

cheeze_pavilion wrote:
Mixolyde wrote:

*raises hand* My proof is only 8 pages, but that's where I am. It's pretty clear to me that if I had any real physical evidence of God, then they would still be subject to physical laws, and not supernatural. If there is a clock maker or programmer, then they would be subject to the physical laws of their home, and our reality would depend on it, too.

Put it another way. If I have kernel-level access to a computer, does that make me supernatural, or outside the laws of physics? No, I just have a set of abilities that appear to be supernatural from the limited viewpoint of a program within the system. Not a God. Who or whatever is running this show, if there is an entity out there, is just another schlub in an unforgiving multiverse of physical characteristics.

If I'm reading that right, maybe that's antignostic atheism: not just belief that the evidence for the existence of god is insufficient, but that *any* evidence for the existence of a god-level entity is by definition impossible?

Sure, that's a good summary.