Talk:Go God Go XII

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Go God Go XII is part of WikiProject South Park, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia articles related to South Park. If you wish to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Hey, someone scrwed up and put a link to Avatar the Last airbender in the trivia about the Covenanat High Prophets.--198.105.45.201 18:04, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] paradox

Is this necessary?

The whole world has decided to get rid of of "-isms," because they say though "-isms" are good for people who are rational, in the minds of irrational people they always cause violence. This is a paradox, however, because irrational people aren't rational anyway; it could be said that excessive violence is the cause of irrationality, thus a rational person cannot be violent.

There's no paradox! No more than saying that in the hands of rational people guns are safe but in the hands of irrational people they cause violence. It may be slightly paradoxical in that these beliefs are rational, implying that if you get rid of such things for this reason then you didn't need to in the first place. But being rational about one matter isn't the same as always being rational. The character was basically saying, "Since we don't always behave rationally, we no longer use this thing which turns irrational people violent"

Even if it's paradoxical we probably don't need to be explaining the humor behind every minor joke made in the episode. I would have made the correction myself but maybe I'm missing something. Also I'm a relative newbie at this wiki thing. Also, pleeeeease don't turn this into a gun control arguement. I am not saying we should get rid of guns (or -isms), I just needed an example. :) -- singe@ix.netcom.com 22:28, 10 November 2006 (PST)

Removed. That section is for plot summaries not for philosophical discussion. Gdo01 06:43, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What?

Is this really verifiable:

In the scene with the close-up of the Crank Prank Timephone box the phrase "Mike Hunt" can be seen on the box. This is a pun on the phrase "My Cunt"

I would imagine this is just a guess at best. -- Ubergenius 15:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, "Mike Hunt" was actually on the box, and it's a fairly old joke that is already mentioned on the Mike Hunt page. --Dachannien 21:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Name

It should be included in the article that the name is a parody on the naming issue of Go, God. Go!.

The XII is a reference to Final Fantasy XII. It has nothing to do with anything else. FF XII was the corporate sponsor of the first episode. Tdewey 23:14, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Where is your source? Is it verifiable? 60.242.25.74 05:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't that bit of info be added then?

When I saw the title of this episode on my Tivo I thought the same thing (after having played the game all day (-: ). But I wonder if there is a connection. Would someone please find out and post the results? The only FFXII similarity I noticed in the episode was the bird riding. Of course the birds were ostriches instead of chocobos, but could there exist an abstract connection? Probably not (-:

Might the XII have something to do with the fact that there seemed to be a lot of episodes skipped over? The last episode ended with Cartman with the UAA, then to start this episode, he is with the sea otters travelling to get the Wii. If you watch the parodied theme introduction, you see lots of scenes not in either episode.

Its named XII becuase of how many diffrent plots happen in the episode.Pacman 18:25, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

it is named XII so people would endlessly debate why it was named that, until there is some kind of source keep the debates to the discussion page and not in the article KarlJohannes 06:36, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, everyone's saying "it's named because of blah blah blah" while none of you have any verification, until someone actually coughs up something we should hold off on the name debate.

Roman numerals were used long before the Final Fantasy series. Just because the game had the same numerals doesn't mean there is a definite connection. Maybe later you guys will be saying it's also linked to the Rocky movies because it also used Roman numerals. Or the Star Wars films. My theory is (and it's only a thought, I'm not saying it with any certainty) maybe it is a play on the name Wii. The letter X is after the letter W, and because the episode is set in the future, maybe that's grounds for it. - Deep Shadow 04:41, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the name is a reference to Star Wars, i.e. when George Lucas made 'Star Was Episode IV' he chose to make one of the middle Episodes first, even knowing that there may never be another one made just to make it more interesting. There are XII different "episodes" to the Go God Go story, and they only show parts one and XII. Like another user stated previously there are many references that would lead you to believe that there were many adventures between the two episodes. I could go into detail and list them, but only if necessary. That seems to me to be by far the most likely reasoning behind the title. Ytdb 04:22, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Name of otter atheists

I believe there is a mistake here! AAA is not Allied Atheist Alliance, but Allied Atheist Allegiance, as it is metioned at the end of Go God Go! It seems Matt and Trey are confusing the names of the AAA! Can't somebody fix it, for once?! --Angeldeb82 03:21, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Well every mention of the otters in the second episode said Allied Atheist Alliance, including the part when the "Great Question" was being debated. There could be a note that the name was changed but it seems that sometime during the production of the second episode, they settled for them being an alliance rather than an allegiance. Gdo01 03:25, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
So it seems that Matt and Trey did make a mistake at the end of Go God Go, when they mentioned the Allied Atheist Allegiance instead of Alliance. I just hope they correct the mistake they had made for the AAA at the end of Part I. --Angeldeb82 03:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
They are called Allied Atheist Allegiance. The reason is because when the UAL is attacked by the UAA in the first episode, Cartman asks who they are and the UAL calls them the Alliance Atheists. If the otters were also called the Alliance Atheists then there would be no way to distinguish the two factions. I'd say it was a mistake in the second episode, not the first. - Deep Shadow 09:22, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Despite this, they are still consistently called Allied Atheist Alliance in this episode. This episode might have made a mistake but it was consistent with the mistake. Gdo01 09:28, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

So we shall leave it as it is until we get official word of the mistake? - Deep Shadow 09:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm okay with adding a note or something in the text though the fact that it is a mistake might not be notable. Gdo01 09:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps this "mistake" isn't a mistake at all, it may be attributed to the fact that the timeline in the episode changed once Cartman started calling the past, so maybe their name changed slightly with other minor differences.

after reviewing the episode, they refer to them as the alliance before the timeline changes therefore i highly recommend adding it as a goof, as there appears to be no reason besides a mistake on the part of the producers for the name change KarlJohannes 22:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, if there is supposed to be a time "continuium" between the two episodes then the name of the group could have changed. More likely it was a goof, but there is always that possibility.

[edit] Shvek and the UAL suddenly back from the dead?!

I have a question. In "Go God Go" Shvek and the other UAL members were killed by the UAA at the end. In "Go God Go XII", Shvek and the others are suddenly back again at the beginning of the episode! How come? --Angeldeb82 01:17, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Oops! Never mind. It's just that Shvek Jr. was still alive along with the other half of the UAL when his father Shvek Sr. was killed along with the first half of the UAL when Cartman was taken captive. My bad! --Angeldeb82 03:03, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3 Parter

Is it likely that this series of episodes is a 3-parter? Since seasons go for 14 eps and this is the 13th, it would very well be a 3 parter/

At this point, it's all entirely speculation, but it's equally likely that they will finish off the season with a random episode, rather than a 3-parter. Who knows? We'll see. -- Ubergenius 17:18, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
It could very likely be a 3-parter and I think so because they named the first one Part II (in the beginning). SimonWhiteley 21:00, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Or, it could be another "Terrance and Phillip Special" thing.Chocolate Panda 23:30, 8 November 2006 (UTC) Edit: Or not....
I do not think there will be a part 3 (which would be part 1 as somoene stated). The story looks to be finished, and I don't think it will have another part to it.
The "Part II" and "Part XII" are probably spoofs on Star Wars / sci fi naming conventions.

[edit] Plot Synopsis

way too long. IT NEEDS TO BE summarized andd NOT STATE everything that exactly happend.

Indeed. Also very poorly written. I added the cleanup tag and will check back. If no improvement I'll do my best. Mount Molehill 05:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
OK, trimmed it down a bit. Left cleanup tag in place so that others can decide if this is worthy or sufficient. Mount Molehill 05:05, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] References?

There are some references to other shows that aren't captured. For instance, the Star Trek type video conference. There are many I don't understand- like riding the ostriches. Tedder 06:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

it seems a lot of the references people are making are just general future references like the otters battle rifle, i dont think parker and stone were tryiing to hybridize aliens and halo but rahter were just giving them a generic battle rifle. New new hampshire is your standard ruined city of the past that so many different future shows have, i dont think this episode is a carbon copy of individual shows but rather a commentary on the entire genre of futurism. Of course there are some clear references mostly buck rogers, but i really think the whole reference section is too long and too filled with peoples own pet hobbies and interests and not reflective of the intent of the show's creators. KarlJohannes 06:13, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

the ostriches remind me of the gungans riding kaadu in the star wars movie: http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Kaadu and the search for the wii in the old museum is like the cowboy bebop episode 'speak like a child'

New New Hampshire is probably a reference to the New New York of "Futurama". If no one has a problem, I'll add it.

[edit] See Also

Why are the see also links so abstract? I think some over-zealous philosophy student created these (-: Perhaps more relevant links would be appropriate.

I appreciate your concern, but if you follow the links, you'll see they're not "abstract" -- actually, it's quite ironic that you make the suggestion, since if you were to follow the links you would learn something about "abstract" belief versus belief based on empirical evidence. And no, I'm not a philosophy student :) Also, I'm a fan of South Park, if anyone's wondering. I'm just not a fan of some of the logical implications of their episodes.
I guess pretentious would have been a better word than over-zealous. I understand why you believe that these links are relevant; I don't see how most people would see them as relevant. I should also mention that a belief/idea not based on empirical evidence is a norm, a category under which the ideas about which you refer to as "abstract belief" do not fall.

I am not here to start a debate about trivial philosophy. I am here to discuss with other Wikipedia users their oppinions of the presence of the following links in the "See Also" section: "Anti-Intellectualism," "Humanism," "Rationalism," "Irrationality," "Logical fallacy," "Cognitive bias," and "Anti-science." I believe that they are only vaguely relative to the topic, pretentious, and not in the best interest of the Wikipedia users. An appropriate link for this section would be something undeniably relative and relevant; something like "South Park," "Cartman," or "Matt Stone."

To whom it may concern, I did not add any "See Also" entries to this page. Pfhyde 22:25, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


It was me who added it, not the person above - I did so because the episode specifically dealt with rationality and atheism, to which I provided many examples of both irrationality and rationality. I don't see why this is a problem, but as it seems to be so I added some more links that are more general in an attempt to appease the people upset with this issue. Logic is not merely science, and is a fairly complex subject, so it demands elaboration; one link to "logic" would not suffice.

this is not the place for a discussion about any of those topics, this is an article about an episode on a television show, if you are going to add those links then you might as well add one for sea otters or buck rogers in the 25th century, or go back to every other south park and put in a link that colaterally relates to the subject matter of the episode, wikipedia is not a soapbox, this is far too argumentative and unrelated to have a place here, this is not a discussion forum on logic or rationality KarlJohannes 22:06, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

A logical fallacy is a logical fallacy. When a show directly confronts such a rudimentary system as logic as a satire, inclusion of issues related to it is expected. This may not be convention for South Park episodes, but this is commonplace on Wikipedia. The very nature of this episode is argumentative, many other South Park episodes are not. If I had absolutely nothing better to do and was immortal, I would probably comply with your suggestion to go back and put links which relate to the subject matter, but my concern is of this particular episode.

i agree, i dont know who keeps putting that in there, but they seem to forget this is a comedic television show with talking otters KarlJohannes 06:29, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

You have forgotten the nature of satire. It being comedic or not is irrelevant, since arguments can still be made in the context of comedy. The very nature of this episode is immensely argumentative, much like the Scientology episode. In entries where the nature is argumentative, there are other links where persons can receive information from either side. Logic is not an issue specific to philosophy; it encompasses many fields of study, and the links are included specifically to educate persons such as yourselves who are obliviously ignorant to the issue. While I understand that a show such as this one could possibly command that sort of ignorance, it is not surprising when issues like this come up when a show that commands ignorance attempts to satire a scholarly issue.

this is not about arguments, its about the rules and precedent. i love a good philosophical discussion as much as the next guy but i also know that wikipedia is not a place for me to throw links onto a page to flaunt my knowledge about a particular topic with the intent to advocate a particular argument, its got to go and i hope someone can back me up on this KarlJohannes 07:08, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

If a wiki entry was entitled "the tendency of objects to fall towards the ground" and someone added "gravity" as an external link, would you call him or her a smartass for doing so? and if you didn't know what gravity was, would this not be the reflexive response? -Unsigned (please sign your comments)

the show is comedic and satirical but anyone who has been watching it for the past 5 years knows it has political undertones. trey and matt tried to dip their heads into philosophy and made themselves look like idiots doing so. even if they made themselves look smart in this episode, i'd expect someone to still put links to ANY of the concepts discussed in the episode. anything that is relevant is fair game to be included. atheism, irrationality, falsifiability, and philosophical idealism would be fine. something like existentialism or causal determinism would not. some of you guys are making too big an issue out of this. --Ubiq 14:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

you stated in your original post (assuming that you are the same person who doesnt sign the posts) that your reasons for putting the links in the page was that you do not agree with the logical implications of the shows creators. they are subjects that are only colaterally associated with the topic of the show, and illustrate more your criticism and point of view instead of the intent of the creators, that is my argument against them and you have placed them in the article to advocate a particular biased argument and as such they do not belong in a page describing a television show, if you insist on continuing this argument then explain to me please how anti-intellectualism, logical fallacy and cognitive bias are relevant in any way aside from espousing your criticism on the point of view of the show. i agree with your criticism and believe that these articles are interesting and informative, i do not agree with your use of this page as a soapbox for your critique of the episodes content. also please do not make assumptions about my education or my understanding of a subject, unlike you i do not come here to show off my intellect but to make sure that this site is maintained properly and that the sites do not become overblown and remain concise, this article is no different and should conform to the relatively sparse precedent set by all other descriptions of a south park episode none of which (aside from the scientology, cartoon wars and other shows which recieved a large amount of published criticism from the outside press) contain links to articles on subjects which the show does not directly addressKarlJohannes 04:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

The current links to "related" topics are excessive and unnecessary. The only ones that are required are Wii, Richard Dawkins and Atheism. Given that these are all linked in the main article, it is not necessary for even these to be there. The relevance of the other links is tenuous at best, and merely serves to show that the person responsible for insisting that these edits remain in place (who has no proper wikipedia account, and refuses to sign his/her comments) cannot accept the views of the general Wikipedian consensus. No Wikipedia page should proffer (however subtly) a point of view about a topic which it describes. KarlJohannes is correct in his insistence on these links being removed, due to lack of relevance, and I will support his stance to the end. Your opinion (and it is merely opinion, not fact) on the philosophical accuracy of the ideas presented in this episode must remain elsewhere. Please do not carry on tainting this page with your bias. --El Pollo Diablo (Talk) 14:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
An inclination to remain objective to logic is not a bias, you seem to have failed to acknowledge that. One cannot have a bias towards logic as logic is not opinion; a bias towards logic would be inverse - a bias towards nonopinion. It is not a "point of view", it is a method to obtain a point of view, as the canon of philosophy has demonstrated. Hopefully you can care to explain how this is opinion, other than asserting that it is so. The people leaving the pages unsigned are not the same person. Logical fallacies and cognitive biases are relevant because they directly correlate with logic, and logic is a focal point of the episode. Anti-science is debatable, as it is clearly an implied subject in the episode, and anti-intellectualism is displayed when the show says that "isms" harm society. I will add the links again, but remove ones that are not directly correlated with dawkins, wii, logic and atheism. Hopefully this will settle the issue.
My point is this: you are prohibited from placing any original research on Wikipedia pages. An attempt was made (not necessarily by Mr No-Signy Man) to do this a few days ago, and it was removed. This was then replaced with unexplained links to elements of logic, such as Cognitive bias and Logical fallacy. I accept that there is a case on the internet for an explanation of the logical fallacies of this particular South Park episode, and I would welcome it and would be interested to read it. However, blind links to these pages without any explanation would be confusing to the average visitor and would seem irrelevant. I realise that you want to highlight the logical pitfalls that have been made in this episode, but this is not the place to do it. If Richard Dawkins, for example, was to highlight on his website or in an interview his rebuttals of the ideas proffered in this episode in exactly the same way as others here have attempted to, that could then be reported objectively on this page. Similarly, if you were to write a well-written and referenced blog again highlighting these issues, I would support the inclusion of a link to it and brief one-line summary of the link in this page. This blog could then re-link back to the areas such as logical fallacy and cognitive bias in Wikipedia. However, the unexplained presence of these links in the "See Also" section does not seem obviously and directly applicable to the episode, which is what is being discussed. --El Pollo Diablo (Talk) 00:57, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
I am not the one adding unsigned entries above, so I believe you're not addressing me, but just to chime in on the subject, I'll say that some -- not all -- of the links added to the "See also" section are directly related. From my vantage and anyone familiar with the content of those links, such terms as "secular humanism" and "naïve realism" would apply to the episode under discussion. There is much more behind this episode than Wii, atheism, and Richard Dawkins. That said, I would not add "rationalism" simply because it's too vague and all-encompassing a subject. Instead, I would consider adding something about a particular topic under the heading of rationalism versus irrationalism, such as "subjectivism," which does in fact exist in textbook form within the dialog of this episode. Furthermore, if you look at existing pages, such as the Stanford Prison Experiment, you'll see that not only are there "see also" links of a theoretical nature but also a sparsely cited criticism section. But these are just my comments, since I'm not trying to add content to the "See also" section. Pfhyde 02:42, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

the flying spagetti monster links, as well as the others were taken out as those terms were already linked in the body of the plot summary, and to add a separate link to them would be redundant. KarlJohannes 05:53, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Cool. Makes sense. I wasn't following changes. I'll remove my ad hominem, which seems not to apply. Pfhyde 06:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] criticism section

I am not writing this from a biased standpoint, but rather a standpoint of logical difference. Please all interested in this page seriously consider adding the following section, permanently, to this page:

==Criticism==
  • Neither atheism nor secular humanism promote the positivist maxim that beliefs founded on unobservables are inherently meaningless. Thus, the subtext of this episode -- that atheism somehow negates, ipso facto, meaning unfounded on scientific principles -- is missconstructed and misleading.
  • The idea that simply believing in something makes it "real" (as proffered by the wise otter) is a naïve type of philosophical idealism or subjectivism. Dogmatic belief has long been considered a root cause of sociopolitical upheaval and is not newly attributed to Dawkins, e.g., "believing" that WMD were in Iraq, in the absence of significant empirical evidence, was arguably the basis of a war.
  • While the "flying spaghetti monster" may sound like a strawman attack on religiosity, there is a well-developed principle behind this argument by metaphor, namely, Sir Karl Popper's principle of falsifiability.
This section violates WP:OR since you are interpreting the meaning of the episode and trying to refute it. Anyway, almost every criticism section of an article has citations from credible sources. Yours is not an exception. Gdo01 12:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Given the nature and timing of this medium -- no publications exist referring to this episode, as yet -- I must produce my own research in the form of verifiable criticisms referring directly to content in the episode, which is allowed by wikipedia policy. I use credible citations in the form of links to arguments that directly contradict what I believe are inherently mistaken assumptions in this episode. If I need to be more explicit and remove certain insinuating phrases, I can do this easily and still maintain the primary criticism. Also, please refrain from reductio ad absurdum as your basis for criticizing my proposed addition. If we were to take your position as categorically binding, Wikipedia would lose much valuable content. As an example, we would have to remove the Cultural References section since it has no published material supporting its claims, however verifiable they may be. I would not delete a "support" section for this episode on the same grounds.
Since no publications exist yet referring to the episode, why not publish your own outside of Wikipedia and then link to it? Or, wait until an article is posted that refutes points made in the episode and refer to that. As it stands now, this list clearly violates WP:NPOV, and I have removed it from the main page. 67.183.67.29 13:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
How does the list "clearly" violate NPOV? I'm asking in a neutral tone, btw :) Pfhyde 22:27, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
It is written in such a way that the article itself takes a side in the debate, in fact it looks as though the section itself criticizes the episode, rather than relating the criticism of others. Calling a philosophy naïve is not a matter of fact but of opinion, no matter how you choose to dress it up. 67.183.67.29 03:25, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Again, I believe this is symptomatic of disconfirmation bias. Calling a philosophy naïve is standard practice for professional philosophic exchange, and it does not carry vernacular connotations, e.g., it is commonplace to call certain philosophies naïve, such as naïve realism for example, as well as to distinguish between "strong" and "weak" philosophies, but again, the connotations are not vernacular. Pfhyde 22:18, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I agree that this has no place in Wikipedia. All your points are commentaries on your interpretation of the episode and belong on a discussion forum rather than Wikipedia. While I agree that, for example, the Cultural references section does not conform 100% to Wikipedia's standards, there is a big difference between this section and your proposed section. I would imagine there to be widespread consensus with regards to the parallels between the episode and each cultural reference, I can't imagine people seeing the same level of relevance in your points. To go down the (probably slippery) debating road, let's take your point #3. The FSM was not even mentioned in this episode, rather its appearance was in the previous one Go God Go. The relevant line in that episode was, "What if I told you there was a Flying Spaghetti Monster? Would you believe it because it can't be disproven?", which certainly does not warrant a critisism. Are you suggesting that the entire FSM argument needs to be spelled out for the viewers, to avoid being critisised on Wikipedia? Also, this was the opinion (or statement) of a character in an episode, not necessarily that of the writers of the episode. Are you suggesting that all debatable opinions of characters in works of fiction should be refuted in Wikipedia? Finally, please sign your comments with four tildas (~). NumberJunkie 14:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

This argurament is irrevalant. The proposed critism section is purely the opinions of someone (who i don't know because he/she never signs their comments) and not actuall ctritism from a source. For example, Janet Jacksons super bowl 38 incident was critisized because over 50,000 people complained to the FCC. Noone has stirred up contaversy on this yet, so the personal opinions of users (who need to start signing comments) is useless for this article. And it probally doesn't make sense with most of wikipedia users anyway. Pacman 18:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

First, you need to understand the difference between opinion and logical analysis. My arguments are not opinions and they are quite relevant. Second, I might agree that my criticism section should be published externally and then linked to this site. Perhaps this is the Wikipedia way to go about things. I don't know. I'm new to Wikipedia policies and conventions. In response to NumberJunky, this is a two-part episode to be considered as a whole; this is why I appended the criticism section to the end of the second episode. Which makes sense, does it not? As for the spaghetti monster argumentative metaphor, it is clear that the writers of this episode (whom I often admire) are trivializing the logical import of the metaphor. The sarcastic tones used, combined with the overall subtext of the episode, taken as a whole, make it clear that the writers of this episode hold naïve views about the serious philosophical problems of this episode (this is not always the case, mind you); specifically, I'm referring to the problem of demarcating between science and metaphysics (or pseudoscience) and all of the relevant consequences therewith. If you were familiar with the work of Popper and falsifiability I believe you would understand the validity of my criticism vis-à-vis this episode. But of course I am wasting my time debating the issue -- it seems this section of Wikipedia is controlled by an ochlocracy :) And thank you for teaching me how to sign off, btw. Pfhyde 21:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
For what it's worth I understand and agree with much of your philosophical views. I consider myself both an atheist and a humanist, and I know the criteria that is needed for scientific theory and why untestable hypotheses should not be considered as such. However, I maintain that your section does not belong in this article. While your points may be fair, it is your opinion that the writers of the article directly implied an argument that differs from yours, and as such violates WP:NPOV. Indeed, I felt that Matt and Trey probably do understand the deeper implications of the FSM argument, and I welcomed the reference to it in an Intelligent Debate-related episode. But come on, the only way to avoid 'trivialising' it is to spend a few minutes explaining what this really means, which is really not expected in a 22 minute comedy show. Can you imagine if all shows had to elaborate on every single reference to an idea with deeper meanings (especially comedies!)? Also, the citation needed usually has to be from a respected journal or news source, so you can't just write something about it on your personal home page and reference that. Finally, no probs on the signature tip. Welcome to Wikipedia :) NumberJunkie 23:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
I concede that my section may not belong to this article, and I'd rather not belabor peripherally related subjects, but I would like to remind you that there is a marked difference between "opinion" and other, more substantiated forms of belief (see The Fixation of Belief, for example). Moreover, it doesn't matter what the writers of South Park believe independent of their show; this is not at issue. What matters in this case is the objectification of content in this particular episode, which maintains certain theses that are unambiguously presented and clearly implied. There is only one subtext for this episode, and it is not my opinion to point out its existence. Matt and Trey may very well understand the "deeper implications" of FSM, but I am not conjecturing anything about their beliefs. The explicit subtext (if you'll pardon a seeming oxymoron) is that this episode trivializes the significance of TSM by caricaturing its significance -- "Oh my god, it all makes sense now. God is just a FSM" (I'm paraphrasing), etc. The explicit subtext, therefore, is that Mrs. Garrison is an ignoramus for drawing such "self evidently stupid" snap judgments about TSM vis-à-vis god. Are you suggesting otherwise? All that said, and I'm afraid I've already gone beyond my intended length, I appreciate your evenhanded criticism and help with Wikipedia policy and conventions. I'll keep an eye out for a "real publication" on the subject (perhaps one by myself, who knows), but I feel that that makes little difference regarding the policy of Wikipedia. I've seen a number of pages -- the page for the daily show, for example -- that list criticism without citing any published material. So clearly this is an inconsistency and seems to vary depending on who's watching. Pfhyde 00:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
I'll quickly address your points: I disagree that the episode's subtext is as clear-cut as you make out, rather it is open to some degree of interpretation (as subtexts generally are). Your interpretation of Mrs. Garrison's misunderstanding of a small part of the FSM argument is that the episode trivialises FSM; my interpretation of this scene is that some people are just idiots. Anyway, you'll find as you use Wikipedia that there is a fair amount of material that strictly shouldn't be allowed (a lot of it appears in popular culture-related articles). Wikipedia isn't perfect, but the rules are in place to try to ensure it comes close and most Wikipedians will try to ensure that as much of the content as possible adhears to these rules. Incidentally, on checking the article for The Daily Show, I saw 8 references to external links in the 'Critisisms' section. NumberJunkie 02:21, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Of course there are references in the DS criticism section. I didn't say there WEREN'T any, just that there are assertions that have no support by external material whatever, "Many critics say . . . " (no citation). As for your interp., "there are just idiots," well -- all I can say is "wow." If it's really that simple to you, I have nothing more to say of practical value. Pfhyde 11:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Meh? Whatever, I really don't care anymore. 138.38.32.84 15:21, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

What about the horrible way in which the series treats transsexuals? I doubt the real Richard Dawkins would care if someone he was in love with is a transsexual - he doesn't share Matt and Trey's bigotry.

Some of the worst arguments against atheism ever. I'm not an atheist myself but I'm not hugely far off the mark. The problem is that we know for a fact that people who are enthralled with science don't fight over it in the same manner those enthralled with religion do. It's a very "centrist" thing, presuming both things are equal opposites.
Matt and Trey are not, I believe, implying that scientists fight just like religious people. Their point is that atheism is a religion just like any other, and so will faction and fight like any other. There is an interesting speech by Michael Crichton that, while not 100% relevant, makes a similar point. He's talking about environmentalism, and how it has become one of the new religions of atheists. It can be found at his website, http://www.michaelcrichton.com/speeches/index.html , and is called "Environmentalism as Religion." Professor Chaos 21:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree that this is another subtextual position of Matt and Trey, and here too they belie naïveté. Atheism by definition cannot be a religion, because it does not rely on unfalsifiable, dogmatic assumptions. Religion by definition is either one of three things: theism, animatism, or animism, all of which depend on metaphysical (non-scientific) propositions. Pfhyde 22:00, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
I think the point is that if one substitutes biblical texts and Church officials with scientific journals and scientists, Christianity and atheism are not entirely dissimilar in their members' faith. It is flawed to assume that currently accepted scientific beliefs (or more frequently pop science) at any given point are infallible because they are based on what, if one is a true believer in science or religion, are our primitive and incapable means by which to understand the world around us. On a personal note, the atheists I've met are much more interested in pushing their views on others than the religious.
The principle of Christianity is that God is infallible. Science does not build centers to glorify; it builds centers to educate.
Please follow WP:NPOV. --Ineffable3000 22:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Please tell me how my original proposed entry does not follow NPOV. I was mindful of this principle, in general, when writing my original entry. Or are you suggesting in the discussion section I have to also follow NPOV? :) Pfhyde 22:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
I was referring to the discussion. It appears to be very attacking and extremely non-neutral. --Ineffable3000 01:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
I believe that's what you call disconfirmation bias. Pfhyde 23:11, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

PfHyde, WP:NPOV is not the main issue- Wikipedia:No Original Research is. Please read that carefully. Borisblue 03:52, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with the inclusion of this piece simply because it breaks the above linked policy. Original Research isn't for wikipedia. This is CLEARLY original research and no criticism section (or "response" section for that matter) is better then one with OR. Chris M. 05:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I believe the criticism section can be added once this has been revised to follow the guidelines. I believe the criticisms have objective merit. Kralizec 23:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I will try to rewrite the section following Wikipedia guidelines. It may take some time, however, to accumulate enough verifiable citation, but it will happen, eventually. Pfhyde 23:11, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] K-10 reference removed

Come now, isn't it blindingly obvious to any speaker of English slash watcher of Western television media? K-10 is a play on K-9, which is both Canine, and an abbreviation used in quite alot of TV shows and movies. Kit-9 would be a play on K-10, where the number is misplaced (Kit-10 would be kitten).

I actually didn't realize the joke until I read that reference, so just because you recognized it doesn't mean it doesn't belong in the article. 67.183.67.29 12:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
You forgot to mention that when Cartman breaks up with Ms. Garrison and Mr. Dawkins, the Kit-9 changes into COCKA-3 along with the entire future. COCKA-3 is a play on cockatoo, with the "too" being the "2" plus 1! Get it? --Angeldeb82 01:25, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Problems

I see two problems with my article as of this moment:

  • The plot summary is still excessively long.
  • There are numerous links to articles on philosophy in "External Links"

November 2006 (UTC) --Ineffable3000 06:04, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I've now fixed one problem, and will soon fix the other. --MasterA113 13:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gratz

This article is a fantastic resource about a fantastic episode. I had no idea the cultural refernces went so deep. Keep up the good work, nerds! --216.57.222.134 21:15, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Paradox in article

"Aside from the fact that backwards time travel is impossible, Cartman travelling back to before Go God Go would cause an even larger paradox. The end of the episode implies that Cartman is going to freeze himself again. Yet if he did this and woke up in the future, he would not be able to call his past self from the future."

Can someone please explain how this is a paradox? Whoever wrote this claims that Cartman could not call his past self from the future (because the author thinks his past self will be frozen?) but, in the future with the prank call phone, Cartman could use the phone to call himself (at a time prior to him freezing himself)just by selecting how far back in time he wanted to call (a feature offered on the phone). Because of that, I don't see how he would be unable to call himself. If anyone else agrees the quote is incorrect, we should probably pull this. If anyone else agrees with the quote, please explain.

I understand the paradox the author was going for, but regardless, that paradox is OR, and should be removed for that reason alone. Chris M. 03:51, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Army of Darkness reference

"Cartman crying out that he has been sent back too far is reminiscent of the director's cut of Army of Darkness when Ash (Bruce Campbell) has been sent too far into the future (into a post-apocalyptic wasteland)."

first Ash is sent into the past, not the future and then the scene it is refering to is a very accurate copy of the beginning from Buck Rogers and the 25th century

216.113.99.43 01:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)shodan

[edit] k-10

I copied the text (slightly changed) from "Go God Go" (first part), because k-10's first appearence is in "Go God Go XII" I hope I haven't done any mistake. But if this is the case, please forgive a German student, because this is the first time I changed something in the English Wikipedia. Thank you! Big-B_36 19:05, Dec.26th 2006 (CET)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../g/o/_/Talk%7EGo_God_Go_XII_f03c.html"