Welcome to Gaia! ::

Ah, thank you for this V For V. I wanted to do something to generate discussion but I could think of nothing interesting to discuss. Your list of questions will help, I believe.

One of them that I liked, especially because I have been thinking about this frequently in the last few weeks, is the question of coincidence versus fate. I don't believe in fate, but lately I have been overwhelmed by a swarm of odd coincidences. I wonder, is V right? Is there only an illusion of coincidence? If there is indeed a fate, or if we each have a fate, I cannot say what I think it would be. I believe in coincidence still. But things change; my philosophy has changed a few times in the past. I would not be surprised if I agree with V sometime in the near future.

Maybe that will stimulate discussion. If not, then V For V offered plenty of other things to talk about. biggrin

Ah, well I was not referring to Fate, I was referring to fate, the difference being (in my opinion--I do not profess to be an expert) that the Fates are the Greek mythological beings, and fate is simply the idea that things are somehow planned out for us, or that things are somehow "meant to be." I only capitalize when I am referring to Fate as a person in myth. No need to get into this very deeply, I am simply feeling talkative this morning and I wanted to clarify what I meant. Ignoring this paragraph is probably a good idea.

I think that perhaps the reason I am now noticing these coincidences so much is because of what V said. I remind myself that there are many possibilities for coincidence that never come to be. The ones that do come to be stand out because the subject is on my mind. If I had no reason to think about this, then I might not notice all these strange things happening.

Eh, just a thought.

Anyway, V For V, you said that it varies... did you mean that your beliefs vary, or that you believe that it varies whether or not events are ordained by fate/Fate or are simply coincidences?

I am like that actually; I was raised to believe in God and then I met atheists in high school and discovered that I really didn't believe what I thought I did. Now I am one of the most steadfast (as well as defensive and argumentative despite the fact that I am fascinated with others' ideas) atheists that I know. That is why I say that my beliefs have changed before, and could again.

I like that idea, the life-is-like-a-CYOA-novel idea. I remember enjoying those as well. I read them incorrectly on purpose, however, because I could not bear to put down a book without having read every page in it and I had not the patience to go through and figure out every possible adventure. But I digress...

Hm, I wonder, does it seem that the story, either that of the comic or that of the movie, is attempting to illustrate a certain belief about fate/Fate? V makes it clear that he does not believe in coincidence, but then he actually sets up the entire plot himself, does he not? So of course there are no coincidences in it. He was Fate for the events that occurred. Or are there coincidences, things he did not expect, things that change the way he planned it? Well, that would require that we know his plans, which we do not.

Just some food for thought--if anyone cares to wade through it.

Costumes are good. I'd base mine on the American flag. Remember: The flag still stands for "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;" it has just been tarnished by oppressive governments. To not use a symbol of freedom during a protest (or even a revolution) would be devastating and probably not win over public support for one's cause.




I would be more satisfied if the dominant political party wasn't very conservative. I guess the main problem is that those who value conservatism believe that a human being does not posess ownership over his/her body (nowadays, this ownership is constantly being argued to be in the hands of either the governing body or God). That just puts too much restriction on those who do not believe the government should interfere in their personal lives or do not believe in the same religious theology as the governing body.



I can never come up with a definite conclusion of my own. Belief in fate seems to make life meaningless and worthless because no matter what happens the course of life is already set in stone, but at the same time, I cannot accept that life is just a random series of events.



Very good question. I guess I'm more of a "right or wrong" person; to me, the person who only believes in what is "convenient or inconvenient" is someone who is only interested in making life better for himself, rather than society as a whole.



Yes, but I can't "stand up and fight" for what I believe in until I announce to enough people what my opinion is. Changing the world is a lot like a three-act play. First, there's the introduction of characters and their motives (what I'm working on now). After that comes the initial conflict between opposing sides (the fighting). Finally, there is the conclusion where one side (preferably mine) emerges victorious and reforms society in their own vision.



I'm certainly not in this guild for the novelty, but my philosophies don't quite resemble V's. Now, I'm a libertarian (not to be confused with "liberal"), and I believe in Henry David Thoreau's basic idea that the government that governs best governs least; basically, there should only be a small police body that only works to protect a citizen's basic freedoms of life, property, and privacy and a small, impartial judicial body to hear cases when someone acuses another of violating those basic rights.

However, V is an anarchist; he believes that the government that governs best doesn't govern at all. Basically, according to him, every man is king, and whenever he feels a crime has been committed against him by another, he should be free to take on the roles of judge and jury and execute the law in whatever fashion he personally sees fit. The problem with this is that it leaves the victim acting as a very biased judge who only recognizes his own viewpoint, and the accused has absolutely no say during his "trial." And since anarchism makes all violations a matter of perspective (infringing upon an individual's freedom of property, for instance, can be anything from "breaking and entering" to "touching a car," depending on how controlling over one's property an individual would like to be, and the punishment for such violations can be anything from "getting to touch the crimnal's own car" to "death"), there can never be any order.

If it wasn't for the revenge-killing of everyone who worked at Larkhill, I'd agree with V completely.

I would agree that this would be a pretty good comparison, but there is a lot more to the gay marriage issue.

Every single time I hear someone (politician, talking head pundit on a news program, or my father) defend the ban on gay marriage, they always mention that this new bill is necessary to preserve the sanctity (holiness) of marriage and how homosexual unions are not recognized in the eyes of God. Now, this is where things get sketchy because there are pleanty of heterosexual athiest, hindu, buddhist, muslim, jewish, etc. couples which are legally married but not in the eyes of the christian God (because they do not worship/belive in Him). The way I see it, if the government succeeds at preventing homosexuals from marrying just because the concept goes against their religion, what is to stop them from deciding that all non-Christians cannot get married? And from there, what is to stop them from discarding the US Constitution for the Bible?

And just to be fair, let me just say that I have no problem with a devout Christian believing that his or her personal marriage (or future marriage) carries spiritual value. If you believe that God plays a a significant role in your relationship, that is wonderful, and I'm not going to try to change your mind. However, when a person shows a strong desire to make his or her religious beliefs common law and ultimately force an entire society to practice and live by a single religion (to any degree), that is crossing the line.

Not to make bad analogies or anything but, if you will, think of theology as the roulette table at Las Vegas, and at some point during the course of every man and woman's life, he or she places all of his or her chips on the religion which that person believes is the one which leads to eternal salvation. Now, there are many, many of religions to choose from, just like the red and black squares on the casino table and corresponding wheel, and all of them have one thing in common: Nobody can be absolutely, positively certain which religion is the correct one (the one which leads to salvation). But everyone takes an educated guess at some point and decides which creed they feel is the right one to follow. "Feel" is the most important word in that last sentence.

Of all the talk about religion, nobody can actually vouch for God's or Jesus' existance or prove that there is indeed a Heaven, and at the same time, no one can prove that there is no God, Jesus, or Heaven; people only have feelings about the existance or non-existance of a guiding spiritual force and a spiritual kingdom. And because nobody can really claim that their religious belief is more than a feeling, a government has no authority to govern a society on the basis of religion because they may not even be practicing the right religion! All people need to come to their own, personal decision concerning spirituality; after all, if a government forces everyone to bet on red at the "theologian roulette table" (and that basically is what they're trying to do with the ban on gay marriage), and the little ball lands on black, then that means hundreds of millions of people are instantly sentenced to eternal damnation.



Forgive me if you weren't expecting such a long reply or for your question to evolve into thoughts on religion. It's what I think about when someone brings up the gay marriage issue.

With the way things are on the world stage right now, the future doesn't look very bright. The last time anyone decided to make noise, and I mean really get people's attention, was during the Vietnam era. Although there obviously is some public dissent today, it's nothing compared to what happened during the 1960's, but like the counter-culture revolution, today's political activists will most certainly fail at changing the world because they have yet to successfully communicate with others.

No matter how much anyone wants to change the world, continually chanting "******** BUSH," "BLOOD FOR OIL," or any number of ad-hominem arguments against anybody who disagrees with activists is not going to win support from the majority of the population. A revolution can never be fought if teenagers and college students constantly single-out adults who do not see eye-to-eye with them.

Hmm. I would like to think that I could easily stand by my ideals no matter what. I tend to fight my battles from the dark though. I like to help, but I don't like people knowing who it is that helped them. mrgreen