In a Nutshell

In a Nutshell | SO, YOU THINK ME TELLING YOU NOT TO KILL ANIMALS MAKES ME THE SELF-RIGHTEOUS ONE? I GUESS YOU MUST THINK GANDHI WAS A REAL PRICK, AND THE CR | image tagged in memes,creepy condescending wonka | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
share
595 views, 2 upvotes, Made by Orcoaba 4 years ago memescreepy condescending wonka
Creepy Condescending Wonka memeCaption this Meme
Add Meme
Post Comment
Best first
31 Comments
reply
0 ups, 4y
Facepalm | >TFW READING THE COMMENTS | image tagged in facepalm | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
reply
1 up, 4y,
2 replies
If you don't quite "get it," it's because Gandhi advocated peace with no singular religious allegiance, while the crusaders were the ones who killed over their beliefs. That's the comparison I'm drawing here. P.S. I'm using "crusaders" as a blanket term for both sides.
reply
[deleted]
2 ups, 4y,
1 reply
Matrix Morpheus Meme | WHAT IF I TOLD YOU THAT MY KILLING AN ANIMAL HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH RELIGION AND EVERYTHING TO DO WITH WANTING SOMETHING DELICIOUS TO EAT. | image tagged in memes,matrix morpheus | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
reply
1 up, 4y,
1 reply
Matrix Morpheus Meme | WHAT IF I TOLD YOU THAT YOU MISSED THE ENTIRE POINT OF THE ANALOGY? | image tagged in memes,matrix morpheus | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
reply
[deleted]
2 ups, 4y,
1 reply
Picard Wtf Meme | YOU ARE TRYING TO COMPARE YOURSELF TO GHANDI AND HUNTERS TO THE CRUSADERS | image tagged in memes,picard wtf | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
reply
1 up, 4y,
1 reply
Not just hunters, any consumer of meat.
The likeness I'm drawing is those who don't kill out of ideology vs. those who do.

The same reason Gandhi would not be seen as self-righteous compared to the crusaders is that he did not kill out of his beliefs.

So, to call someone self-righteous when you're in the wrong, well... ever hear the phrase "...the cat that called the kettle black"?
reply
[deleted]
3 ups, 4y,
1 reply
The more correct phrase is "the pot calling the kettle black".

However, when you think you are a better person than those who eat meat, that is the very definition of being self-righteous.
reply
1 up, 4y,
1 reply
It's not "the more correct phrase;" it's "the more common phrase". The cat version is merely the rarer use; that doesn't automatically make it less correct.
It's not as if I said, "for all intensive purposes," instead of, "for all intents and purposes."

So, the people who thought they were better than people who owned slaves were self-righteous, the people who think they're better than people who steal are self-righteous, the people who think they're better than people who r/p3 are self-righteous, and for essentially all moral arguments where people take the moral high ground, it is the moral people who are in the wrong if they assert any certainty that their beliefs are correct? You have a very interesting concept of self-righteousness. Self-righteousness only carries a negative connotation if the person accused of it is either in the wrong, assuming a minor moral argument, or trying to moralize an arbitrary preference when paired with an intolerance of others' opinions. Otherwise, an intolerance of dissent is completely justifiable, and the term "self-righteous" would not be very fitting.

Whether or not you insult someone is a minor moral argument.
The illegality of drugs is a moralized arbitrary argument.
But, to take lives when you have the option not to--- that's a major moral argument, and the only way to dismiss it is to trivialize those lives- which yes, is morally reprehensible. Try to prove it's not.
reply
3 ups, 4y,
1 reply
I agree with your definition that self-righteousness can involve "trying to moralize an arbitrary preference when paired with an intolerance of others' opinions."

I believe you are self-righteous, according to this definition. Your assumption that animal life needs the same protection as human life is what I would identify as the arbitrary preference in this case.
reply
1 up, 4y,
6 replies
And I posit that the idea that human life is worth more than animal life is what is arbitrary.

Look at the far shot/big picture, at all the things that went on through millennia, and were considered arbitrary for their time.

Slavery comes to mind... Marital **pe... Religious government's inhumane acts toward fornicators...

What makes your argument any better than mine? Because it seems to me that any quality you can find that separates the qualitative values of a human and animal to argue why the animal is worth less, you can also apply between two human beings to argue one of the human beings being worth less.

"We're smarter."
-So I should have the right to eat people less intelligent than myself?
"We have technology."
-So I should be able to wear the technologically impaired as a coat?
"We have societal contracts."
-Hermit murder is fine, then?

Pick your quality. It doesn't matter, it's all a pack of excuses and lies.
reply
[deleted]
3 ups, 4y,
2 replies
It is too bad that you only read snippets of the Bible instead of reading it completely and understanding it all.

Slavery- Slavery in the Bible is very much different than what was experienced in America. Just because laws and regulations were given in how slaves were to be treated, that doesn't mean they were the same type of slaves as what was experienced in America. Majority of slavery that took place, after the Israelites were freed from Egypt, was considered indentured servitude. People became slaves to pay off debts, sold family members to pay off debts, or were sold to pay for their crimes of thievery. After being held as forced slaves by Egypt, the decision to hold people as slaves in the same way was to never take place, which is why part of the Mosaic Laws were written. There were people who did abuse that, but that doesn't mean it was condoned by God or religion. Something you fail to realize is that "slavery" is a part of most cultures, as with the case of those in the Bible. The Bible doesn't just tell us how we should live our lives, but also a history of what the culture was like of the time.

Rape- Laws were written about what punishment rapist should receive for their crimes to protect the victims. Something else you fail to realize is that the culture practiced not having sex before marriage. For a woman to have sex before marriage was considered to be immoral, and that a man should marry a woman who has never been with another man. So when a woman becomes a **pe victim, she is viewed as no longer being acceptable to marry. If a woman is unable to marry, then she would have to take care of herself, which at that time was nearly impossible without becoming a prostitute or a slave. So the punishment that is given to a rapist is that he must take the woman as he would a wife, without being allowed to have her as a wife. This means that he is suppose to give her shelter, food, and protection, but not allowed to have sex with her without her giving permission. The woman does have the option to not take her rapist as a husband, but she then risks never being able to marry or have the benefits that a wife would normally have.

Just because the Bible mentions something and gives laws and punishments for something, just because those same punishments are not the same of what would be today, that doesn't mean the Bible is condoning those acts. You have to realize that the times were different back then, as well as their culture.
1 up, 4y
Oh yes, the good ol' days when slavery was just so benevolent. You gullible turd.
1 up, 4y
Yeah, **pe is so punished in the Bible--- like how you're required to have sex with a woman a certain amount if you've acquired her for sex.
It seems marital **pe is not only condoned, but required in such instances.
F**k yourselves.
reply
[deleted]
2 ups, 4y,
1 reply
Yes you are the dumbass here, f**ktard. First off, the verse doesn't command a master to beat their slaves. You are a f**king moron if you are reading it in that way.

It looks like you really need a more detailed description of what slavery was in the Bible. How about you take the time and read from this site. Only a retard unwilling to admit they are wrong will read this and still say that the bible condones beating a slave. http://www.revelation.co/2013/06/09/bible-says-its-okay-to-beat-your-slave-as-long-as-they-dont-die-exodus-2120-21/
1 up, 4y
Oh, okay. So if our law did not command child molestation- only condoned it- I guess that would be an acceptable moral standard? Freaking cultists.
reply
[deleted]
2 ups, 4y,
3 replies
"Oh, okay. So if our law did not command child molestation- only condoned it- I guess that would be an acceptable moral standard?" If our law condoned such actions, then that is something you should take up with society, not the Bible. You can't even provide a shred of evidence to support anything you say. If you had an ounce of intelligence, which it is obvious that you don't, you would be able to comprehend that the Bible does not condone anything that is harmful to people. You don't seem to be capable of understanding this because you are too f**king stupid to understand simple concepts when they are spelled out for you in plain and simple English. I am done with you. You are nothing but a worthless pile of shit that will never understand simple concepts, nor be willing to admit that you are wrong when you are proven wrong. You want to twist everything in the Bible to make it where you can do whatever you want without needing to worry about consequences. So go ahead and continue to live your life in denial of the truth. I hope you die a slow and painful death, because frankly the world would be a better place without people like you.
0 ups, 4y
>calls himself christian
>cussing everyone out and insulting them for disagreeing

so much for "love your neighbor as you love yourself", right?
0 ups, 4y
[image deleted]
reply
[deleted]
2 ups, 4y,
1 reply
"like how you're required to have sex with a woman a certain amount if you've acquired her for sex." If you are going to make a claim like this, I hope you have no problem quoting where you got this from.

If you had half a f**king brain you f**king retard, you would realize that not all slavery was condoned in the bible. But since you are a f**king dumbass, you will never f**king understand no matter how much evidence would be presented to you.
1 up, 4y
Oh YES, not all slavery was condoned in the Bible!
For INSTANCE, if you beat your slave to death, you were a jerk to God!
But if you only beat him 99% to death and he clung to life for 2 days before he died, it was all good because he was your property. Can you read something like that and REALLY believe that bullshit Catholic church propaganda? I'm not the dumbass here.
reply
2 ups, 4y,
2 replies
There is only one real objective moral standard in the universe: the moral standard revealed to humanity by God in the Bible. In the Bible, human life is given a distinct and more highly privileged status from animal life when it comes to our responsibility to protect it.

Any other moral stance is ultimately arbitrary, since it's based on subjective perceptions, values, or experience.
1 up, 4y
Rejecting the Bible just because you don't happen to like it / agree with it is an illustration of the arbitrariness of your view.
1 up, 4y
"There is only one real objective moral standard in the universe: the moral standard revealed to humanity by God in the Bible."
-The same Bible that tells you how to keep and handle your slaves--- that Bible?

Oh, yes, how silly of me not to recognize the objective morality of the Bible.
Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT
Exodus 21:2-6 NLT
Exodus 21:7-11 NLT
Exodus 21:20-21 NAB
Ephesians 6:5 NLT (This is my personal favorite load of BS)

There are few poisons greater than religion.
reply
[deleted]
1 up, 4y
"Can you read something like that and REALLY believe that bullshit Catholic church propaganda? I'm not the dumbass here." If you think all Christians are Catholic, then yes you are.

Many of the laws for "slavery" were based off of the culture at the time. If you don't understand the culture, you will never understand the laws. Also, just because there was a law regarding the beating of slaves and a punishment if they die, that doesn't mean the beating of slaves was condoned.

If you cannot realize that not all slavery in the bible is not the same as slavery in the 1700's and 1800's, that also means you are the stupid one here. The first form of slavery in the Bible was with the Egyptians and having the Hebrew slaves. After the Hebrews were freed, it was declared that no one should be treated the same way as a slave ever again. There was also a law that stated that you were not allowed to take someone from their land and sell them as a slave. In short, if you don't know what slavery in the Bible really is, then you shouldn't be wasting your time making yourself look stupid.
reply
1 up, 4y,
2 replies
>basing all of christianity off of one group of people
>arguing about it on the internet
>being this butthurt

you both are grounded, arguing won't get you anywhere
reply
[deleted]
2 ups, 4y,
1 reply
I choose not to love someone who shows as much disrespect as Orcoaba, and now you, have. If anyone wants to disrespect me, my religion, and my God, then they better expect to not receive one ounce of respect from me.
reply
1 up, 4y
Read Matthew 5:38-48

You say that you choose not to love or respect your enemies who disrespect God, yet that is exactly the basis of what Jesus died for. Jesus didn't just die for the people who love him, but he died for even the people who hated him as well.

I wasn't trying to disrespect you, I was trying to show you that arguing over stuff like this won't do any good, as it says in 2 Timothy 2:14. As a matter of fact, arguing just salts the wound, and sets a bad example of you as an ambassador for Christ. Look at the Westboro Baptist Church for example. Some people have stereotyped the Bible just by their preaching of hate.

TL;DR: loving people who disrespect you and God is true humility.

Hope this helped
reply
0 ups, 4y,
1 reply
">basing all of christianity off of one group of people"
----Uh, no, I base religious texts off of... religious texts, whose majorities are in and of themselves horrible.

Then you get these COMPLETE IMBECILES who think slavery was CONTEXTUALLY DIFFERENT when their own STUPID MANUAL makes mention of SLAVES BEING BEATEN TO DEATH WITH RODS.

So I guess by contextually different, they mean rods were commonplace over whips, eh?
reply
0 ups, 4y
oh, sorry, read the last part wrong
Flip Settings
Creepy Condescending Wonka memeCaption this Meme
Created with the Imgflip Meme Generator
IMAGE DESCRIPTION:
SO, YOU THINK ME TELLING YOU NOT TO KILL ANIMALS MAKES ME THE SELF-RIGHTEOUS ONE? I GUESS YOU MUST THINK GANDHI WAS A REAL PRICK, AND THE CR
hotkeys: D = random, W = upvote, S = downvote, A = back
Feedback