is she actually an evil dictator or is it something that Cinemaphile overblows like usual? I haven't seen AT in a long time but I also know Cinemaphile tends to freak out over nothing
 Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
 Tip Your Landlord Shirt $21.68 |
Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
She was actually an evil dictator in no ambiguous terms and the show itself played into that heavily.
At first I believe that she made her candy people stupid on purpose, then I remembered the times when she tried to make one of her creations smarter than the others, like Lemongrab or the sphinx made of candy, both of those things don't go as planned
So she remains as their forced guardian, like a mother for a moronic bunch of childrens.
And I find some kind of sense on all of that.
Didn't she get voted out as Queen for awhile.
Yeah, and then the replacement was overthrown by Crunchy because he was such a shit.
She's not supposed to be evil.
The problem is that nobody here has a sense of humor. Princesses in fairy tale settings are totalitarian and authoritarian by definition, you can't vote out monarchs or get rid of them. But having a happy little fantasy king, prince, queen, or princess is normal for happy little fantasy cartoons.
PB is just a joke about what a constant fantasy trope having a totalitarian absolute monarchy is in kids' fantasy but nobody usually bats an eye. It's satire. She's not a villain, it's comedy.
This is also a heavy Comedic Sociopathy show. All of the characters do shit that would be "evil" if taken seriously or literally. It treats a lot of things very lightly. So you have to consider the tone of the show.
AT itself took itself too seriously after season 3 which is exactly where the show started to lean into her being evil. The argument that it was just supposed to be funny is lost when the show tries to take itself as seriously as later AT did.
AT still joked around plenty, cynical anon.
It's rich you'd call me cynical when the show itself became insanely cynical. Yeah there were jokes but they were pretty obvious compared to the stuff the writers wanted you to take seriously. PB being a morally grey character at best was one of those elements.
I'm the anon you replied to. I don't think it got that bad that the comedy was completely lost, but I will give you that that's the time that AT started to suck in my opinion, and go straight up its own ass. They forgot AT's crazy comedy is what made it go viral in the first place.
Oh yeah don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting the show just totally dropped humor. I just don't think PB going full evil was part of that remaining humor, it felt like one of those things the show got up its ass about.
>you're taking it too seriously anon xD
Maybe if the show didn't try (and miserably failed) to take itself seriously people wouldn't rightfully shit on her, frick it, I would even go as far that even when series was just comedic PB was never good. The princess rescuing eps were always the weakest ones, so much so that they dropped this concept after season 2, and the ship between her and the MC that the writers tried to push early on is creepy at best and grooming at worst.
t. feminist
That's moronic as so are you. The shit she does in universe is worse then some ofnthe villains. A normal monarch wouldn't even consider some of the fricked shit she does.
History is jammed packed with evil monarchs, anon. Even the "better" ones were usually willing to throw away their subjects' lives in vast amounts without their consent to increase their own personal power and holdings. Imagine being sent to die to settle someone's personal grudge with another monarch and you have absolutely no choice.
Fair, but I would argue that absolute monarchy can be even worse than totalitarianism because it's just one (hereditary) dictator while some totalitarian governments do have many people sharing power that could provide some check. In any case, the only real difference is that one is hereditary while the other isn't, and totalitarianism will turn hereditary when it can (see North Korea) - basically, monarchies start that way.
>Even the "better" ones were usually willing to throw away their subjects' lives in vast amounts without their consent to increase their own personal power and holdings. Imagine being sent to die to settle someone's personal grudge with another monarch and you have absolutely no choice.
I think thats a pretty reductive view of it anon, those subjects always benefited from the king being victorious in a war, he'd have to share loot and grant land to those who supported him or else theyd turn on him. Monarchies like the one that lead to revolutionary france are quite hard to achieve, usually because it was hard for the king to wield that much power without being challenged by other political players
As someone that hasn't watched this show since like 2014, what did she do?
told people to not vote trump
>Princesses in fairy tale settings are totalitarian and authoritarian by definition
Authoritarian yes, but not totalitarian
>Authoritarian yes, but not totalitarian
She has a camera network to spy on all of the citizens of Ooo. The banana guards are too scared to criticize her. Marceline sang about how she treats her like a person and that was the reason why they weren't friends anymore because PB couldn't control her. IIRC she was the one who told the fire king to keep flame princess locked away and tried to impede on the fire kingdom. She also creates life to conduct experiments on them. After creating Lemongrab and realizing he's too much of a sperg to deal with excommunicated him with a clone of himself to rule over abominations that the two create. She was a dictator well on her path to becoming a totalitarian.
I was talking about princesses in fairy tale settings, youre right that PB is totalitarian, but Rapunzel or Cinderella are not
This is exactly my point, though. Rapunzel and Cinderella ARE authoritarian because they're absolute monarchs (or will be, or their husband's will be). Whether or not you argue they're "the goods ones," their subjects have zero say no matter what they do. Sure, a rival monarch or rival dictator might take them out, but that's your own hope if they turn out to be terrible leaders or cruel to their subjects.
Comedic Princess Bubblegum is just a gentle ribbing on the fact that absolute monarchs are creepy because there's no way for the average person to do anything about their absolute unchecked power. In a magical Disney world, everything is wonderful. This is a post-apocalyptic fantasy parody, so Princess Bubblegum is edgier. But she's par for the course for this world.
I also think you're seeing absolute monarchy with rose colored glasses. There's a reason it's so rare now despite needing so much bloodshed to achieve that. People weren't happy.
No, anon Im agreeing with you that monarchs are authoritarian but I disagree that theyre totalitarian. PB is totalitarian, she has cameras in everybodys bedrooms and shit like that. But Cinderella and Rapunzel dont have inquisitions or hit squads or shit. They dont really intrude into the private lives of their subjects to the degree that PB does
I think the point is just that in Disney and other little kid show fantasy monarchs can be squeaky clean like that because it's happy fiction. Real absolute monarchies always need repressive rules and enforcement by violence once they get any bigger than someone and a few of their buddies. At best, they use the threat of outside violence and offering protection in exchange for freedom, but the outside threat isn't there 24/7 so systems to maintain control have to exist.
Some of the Bubblegum stuff is just an exaggerated joke about how real monarchs have a dirty underbelly that comes with maintaining absolute power and conquering new lands by force, so they show her doing some shady shit. It pops up in the same way in some other fantasy parodies.
Whether they're actually meaningfully exploring this beyond the general joke, I don't think so. Yes, the later writing shit the bed, though. I think it's a common problem when something wants to be a wacky comedy but look now it's a very serious piece of important art that says Big Things. It often doesn't land.
happy fiction? As far as I remember there were thieves, zombies, curses, songs that took life, betrayals, killer rocks, more betrayals, monsters, criminals, even more betrayals.
Not all Disney movies, but a lot of them have fairly predictable happy endings. The villain dies without the hero having to dirty his hands, all the good guys live happily ever after, etc. That's what I meant. Compare to even the original Grimm's Fairy Tale stories, but you especially don't usually expect a Hamlet ending where everybody dies.
>Rapunzel and Cinderella ARE authoritarian because they're absolute monarchs (or will be
but they are good rulers, they legitimately care about their people and are willing to listen to their people, none of them do extremist and strange things like PB, she literally almost eliminated the kingdom of fire just in case.
>b-but they wanted to attack the candy kingdom.
only because she was secretly making them sick to death.
True, because they live in Disney movies. AT is a bit meta in that some gritty tropes make their way in the happy fantasy land, like the "magical land" being the result of nuclear war. It satirizes fantasy tropes. It might be trying to be a deconstruction sometimes.
A Disney Princess deconstruction might point out that empire building through warfare/conquest and forced labor from people who were unfree and sometimes considered property (serfs) would logically be a part of how they maintain their positions, but not in a Disney movie. In an edgy parody, though.
On the flipside: Bubblegum can actually be voted out, and abides by that. Generally not true for fantasy princesses that she parodies. As for her actions: they're often not meant to be taken seriously, even as a point of satire, though. They are more silly.
Exaggerated for comedic purposes.
Yes, this. A lot of the characters' actions are exaggerated and over the top for the sake of comedy.
I'm not sure why more people don't understand this.
I feel like it's a kind of extreme media illiteracy. It's pretty standard in sitcoms, cartoons, and other comedies that the characters would all be psychopaths if their actions were literally occurring. Hence the "Comedic Sociopathy" trope, and the argument that all fictional comedy has some of this. However, joking aside, shows like Family Ties, Taxi, Cheers, etc. aren't actually meant to be about all homicidal psychopaths. You suspend disbelief for the sake of jokes. Otherwise, those same shows don't work for you the way the authors intended, since they also have heartwarming plots.
Yeah even as a kid I understood that "they make it wacky so it's funny" and I'm talking like at 13yrs.
Yeah I think it's fair if it doesn't work for you, or you're saying this or that joke was over the line or not funny. But I've seen a huge uptick on people calling this "bad writing" across the board instead of a centuries' old comedy convention that many writers and viewers just take as a given. It leads to some very strange takes when people don't seem to realize this is a common approach to comedy.
So i recently watched The Vault episode, and this occour to me. Why didn't Pb talk about her true age?
Women get cagey about their age.
Asking a lady their age or weight is generally a no go
What so important about that amulet?
>amulet?
>*Omelette
Nothing lol, it kinda ended up being a forgotten plot point.
What a total waste of an episode tbh.But still Shoko was cute though
She was honestly the best part in that episode. Shame we don't have more full episode about her.
man shoko was hot
Because it was an obvious retcon
Never ask a man his salary or a woman her age.
?t=712
Monarchs are inherently authoritarian when they aren't checked by constitutional restrictions and a parliamentary system yes. Authoritarianism is not inherently dictatorship and historically the distinction between the two was used as a justification to remove monarchs from power if they became too tyrannical. PB is also very overtly made out in several scenes to be committing outright evil acts and deeds that she's aware are unethical but continues through with them anyway. I'm inherently opposed to monarchism and see it as a system that's inherently flawed because of how easily it can allow tyranny to seep in, I have no rose-colored glasses whatsoever. Even if PB is being played as a joke, which the later episodes really don't make it out to be, she's still extremely tyrannical and that would be the joke.
Again, Springtime for Hitler isn't played straight, it's a ridiculous comedy, but it's still a comedy about Nazis. If PB is meant as a joke, that joke is about her being a tyrant.
>The problem is that nobody here has a sense of humor
This.
You can’t use that cop out when the show tries so hard to be “le serious and meaningful”
>It's satire. She's not a villain, it's comedy.
It being comedic satire doesn't make her no evil, these things are not mutually exclusive. In point of fact, it's a more effective satire if she IS evil.
This, it's like suggesting that Springtime for Hitler doesn't have any Nazis because it's clearly a comedic satire. It IS a comedic satire... of Nazis.
There are a bunch of Kings and Princesses in Adventure Time and none of them did even remotely the kind of shit PB did.
The closest one was Ice King and dude had literally madness imposed.
That would be a fair point if the show didn’t go from whacky adventure hijinks to melodrama. They tried to make everything serious and by doing so the quirky princess that rules with an iron fist becomes fricked up.
Marceline literally calls her a dictator in Obsidian during a flashback scene. The writers knew what she was doing was evil
and we don't care
You specifically don't care. A lot of anons in this thread seem to pretty clearly understand that PB is meant to be a dictator.
Yeah and that's funny.
It's funny that people understand the intent of the show?
Their jokes are funny.
She was only softened by fans and showmakers because she's le gay.
Good posts. Cinemaphile tends to interpret things extremely literally.
Except this isn't a Cinemaphile only thing, go outside this taiwanese paper-mache imageboard and you'll also see a lot criticism towards PB, only contrarians and PB simps still defend her, in fact if anything Cinemaphile was the first place to notice how much of an c**t butthole PB actually is and it wasn't until recently that people outside here catch up to what Cinemaphile has been saying for a long time.
Makes sense, there's a lot of media illiteracy on the internet. Cinemaphile is particularly bad, because it's a manchild board. Everyone knows that PB has done a lot of shady shit, the show hardly shies away from it. The difference is that most people understand it's supposed to be interpreted in the context of a fantasy cartoon and not taken uber literally.
Yeah this.
The fact that some other places like plebbit also tend to be overly literal just means they're bad at it, too.
Most charitably I think it probably has to do with a lot of fandom types being on the Spectrum and not quite getting a lot of humor, but that's not really a criticism of neurodivergents, just where I think a genuine disconnect with the intention is coming from.
Except the problem isn't that PB does shady, the problem is that PB does shady and yet the simp writers behind the show expect to you to treat her as one of the good guys when obviously she's not, if anything the bad writing only makes people more even willing to find flaws on her character just to spite the writers.
>The difference is that most people understand it's supposed to be interpreted in the context of a fantasy cartoon and not taken uber literally.
You're not even saying anything with this cope, it being a fantasy cartoon doesn't change they made things uber serious. It's not media illiteracy to point out what's happening in the show.
>. Princesses in fairy tale settings are totalitarian and authoritarian by definition
I love it when history illiterate imbeciles pull bullshit out their ass and managing to fail basic european/asian history
Really it really gets my rocks off knowing someone as stupid as you exists
The sheer irony where you believe its others being moronic is just icing on the cake
Yeah the historical illiteracy is demoralizing.
How is an absolute monarchy not authoritarian? Not necessarily totalitarian, sure.
>princess in fairy tale settings
Because the princess has absolute power and just magically bypasses her Father and Mother of course.
The HRE from which most fairy tales are based isnt even Absolute it was decentralized and the electors voted in the next Emperor
Asia had the same affair where some cultures elected their kings.
You have such basic b***h understanding and yet you're so confident when you spout your bullcrap.
And worse you have no excuse. None at all for why you didn't know the Holy Roman Empire and the mongols elected their leaders.
She's an evil mad scientist, and yes, it is hilarious.
Yeah, Finn is a murderhobo with a body count in the thousands and is still considered a sweet baby boy by everyone, PB has bad moments but I think very few of them are related to the "crazy totalitarian ruler" image she has on Cinemaphile
Though most of that body count was by PB ordering Finn to do her bidding.
The Cooler is a good episode, give it a watch
FPBP
no she wasnt you fat homosexuals. fpwp
I'm sorry but she can never frick you.
And neither will you ever be a woman, troony. Cope.
Obsessed.
>calls everyone a finncel
How did they frick up the simple AT style this bad?
It's just the eyes, that's it
I kind of like the big eyes
eh that's fine
Art style degradation
Faces too big and eyes too big and too far apart
I like the big eyes
Looking back I grew outta the tiny dot eyes
I'd be dilated too if I had just recovered from being turned into a crazed yandere.
Is it really that bad?
They genuinely joked about her being a fascist who doesn't think much of her creations. That's Lemongrab's whole backstory.
Why do people keep using fascism and authoritarian completely interchangeably?
Burger education?
I mean PB happens to be both so there's no contradiction here.
She filled out her Autocracy ideological tree?
Happens here in bongland too. Partly media conditioning, but also because Mussolini liked to be loose with the word himself, on several occasions implying that they were interchangeable, despite all the writing he did with Gentile.
>inb4 accusations of fascism
Politicians bad
seems like you already know the answer, if these stupid fricks thought about it for more than five minutes they'd realize they're actually talking about authoritarianism not "fascism", every govt and political philosophy except anarchy has an element to authoritarianism to it, fascism is more a philosophy of life just like communism that may or may not lead to authoritarianism, its not something inherent in it
i hate americans
It's one of those things that depended on the writer. People like Rebecca Sugar wrote PB in a very unsympathetic light and the more she did stuff the more the facade of her being a good person cracked. On the flip side later writers, especially once the whole lesbian thing became the obsession of the crew, want to writer her as a owo cute soft girl, so they just ignore all the evil shit she did and write about how quirky she is.
>Rebecca Sugar wrote her unapologetic
>When she started the uwu, she's just a sad little woobiegurl without Marcy to flick her bubblebean.
Anon, you don't have to Sugarshill that hard. Sugar even tries to pull thr "she's not evil, just "complex" card after gushing about their lesbo love in her SU Book.
Sugar is many things but someone who'd actually say her true opinions on things is not one of them. Of course she tries to play it off because now they're the a popular gay couple and she doesn't want to be labeled as a bigot, but if you look at how she actually wrote PB and the fact that one of the last episodes she wrote was a subtly about Finnceline kinda paints a different picture.
Sugar was never Finnceline amd shills only say that to save face. She's been tge formost proponent for Bubbline and trying to play apologencia to PBs actions through "muh sadgirl lesbians" via her Nightosphere eps and her shitty songs in Stakes & Obsidian.
Bad Little Boy is literally about Marcaline writing a slash fic about a gender bent version of herself and Finn having immense amount of sexual tension anon. The subtext is obvious to anyone who payed attention.
Thank frick someone mentions this, it's one of my favorite episodes because of how much it fuels Finnceline as something that could have been real if the show didn't go all in on 'modern sensibilities.' So wasted.
uh
i never noticed that
yeah now that i think about it its sad it never went anywhere
>Sugar even tries to pull thr "she's not evil, just "complex" card after gushing about their lesbo love in her SU Book
Post the excerpt, please. I wanna see.
shes sort of like president Obama then?
How bad is Obama as a president?
Created inanimate insanity
His worst crime, kickstarting the Object Show genre
We’ve had worse and we’ve had better if he wasn’t black he’d be another forgotten president. Obamacare was a joke.
Obama care is probably the last big break through in healthcare with increasing age you can claim dependents and the removal of preconditions
It's the fact he is black and above people try to forget he had osama die at his command. Meanwhile we still keep hearing about Trump and the Iran general
Obamacare would also punish you if you didn’t have health insurance. It wasn’t free for everyone.
He was honestly just really mediocre and too afraid to push things further than he did likely because he was afraid of tarnishing his reputation as being the first black president in case things really did blow up. He did some pretty smart things and mind-bogglingly stupid things, I'd put him a little below the middle overall. America's had far worse presidents.
Pretty much this.
I always here about him killing some American kid with a drone
Oh there’s a lot of cases like that, my favorite is people blaming trump for kids in cages but who built the cages?
he was exactly the same as bush and clinton
mid to at best above average
What's a mid?
short for middling
mid is gas to me
Mid on these nuts!
Dogshit due to pushing the government to propagandize against citizens alone
Parroting your own memes about your bad presidency bad.
Yesish. It's partly overblown but she also did a lot of insane shit. Between the fanon interpretations of her that are evil dictator and cutsy lesbian is a middle ground that's more like what she actually is.
This specific version of her doesn't have much to go on.
Dictators don't get democratically voted out
>B-But she is le ebillllll!!!!!!
Sure, then call her an evil ruler, evil princess, evil queen, but she isn't a fricking dictator, learn what words fricking mean you bunch of moronic buffoons
>Dictators don't get democratically voted out
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_dictator
"A dictator was still controlled and accountable during his term in office: the Senate still exercised some oversight authority and the rights of plebeian tribunes to veto his actions or of the people to appeal them were retained. The extent of a dictator's mandate strictly controlled the ends to which his powers could be directed. Dictators were also liable to prosecution after their terms completed."
>she isn't a fricking dictator, learn what words fricking mean
A tyrant is a more fitting term, yes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pisistratus#Periods_of_power/three_attempts_at_tyranny
That just sounds like some other shit that just so happens to be called a dictator. You know that when people are calling PB one they don't mean a Roman Dictator but shit like North Korea.
nta but thats where the english term dictator comes from, roman dictators are the original and modern day ones are the knockoffs. Also Tyrant in the ancient greek sense would be a pretty good way to describe PB
This isn't Ancient Greece and this isn't the Roman Empire or whatever else and when little anti-PB anon makes post number 17492917 about how PB is le ebil dictator they don't use old definitions that don't apply anymore, they use the modern definitions that 99% of the rest of the world uses like any normal fricking person
I understand that, Im just saying that greek tyrant would be a good way to describe her because the Candy Kingdom is a City-State like all the greek city-states, and they have a weird fusion of democracy and monarchy, since PB allows elections and gets voted out. Thats how most greek tyrants operated
>Roman """democracy"""
If the other elite buddies of the dictator are the ones exercising this "democracy" then might as well call it an oligarchy, PB wasn't kicked out by a senate, the people voted her off.
She is not an evil dictator, her people are biologically moronic she was running a heavily controled police state if you wanna say so.
Remember that she created them to be moronic and every time she tried to create intelligent life it got out of control because she created them in her image and likeness, it is entirely her fault.
She's morally ambiguous. She doesn't necessarily rule with an iron fist and she gives her citizens reasonable freedom, but of course she created them to be a bit stupid and docile, and for most of her reign spied on them constantly. She even experiments on them sometimes. I don't know if she's evil, but I don't think she has a moral limit to what she will do for the sake of protecting her people. Of all the morally questionable things she's shown doing, though, the most evil is taxes. The image of PB in Finn and Jake's treehouse helping herself to their treasure is burned into my mind even more than that time she was snipping the legs off of little candy people.
>The image of PB in Finn and Jake's treehouse helping herself to their treasure is burned into my mind even more than that time she was snipping the legs off of little candy people.
Taxation is not theft.
Frick off commie scum
Pretty sure you dont go breaking into someone's house at night when they arent homr to do it. Also isnt The Grasslands technically its own thing that the Candy Kingdom doesnt have actual dominion over?
She collecting the taxes from there implies that at least that part of The Grasslands is under her territory, which makes sense, the Candy Kingdom proper is just the capital city, closer to how it works irl.
Were there ever any other candy locations shown?
Finn and Jake don't get any benefit from the Candy Kingdom out in the grasslands. PB's authority outside her city-state is tenuous at best, and she's not sending any troops out to fight monsters threatening the treehouse. It's a pretty one-sided relationship, with Finn having to protect both his home and the Candy Kingdom and getting his treasure garnished for the trouble.
Finn and Jake shouldve united the peoples of the Grasslands and gone full Ghengis Khan
If she is collecting taxes then we can presume they are getting the usual benefits any person who owns a house gets, ie, running water and electricity, garbage disposal system, sewerage, and probably other stuff that wasn't shown because not even the craziest writer would write "the benefits of owning a house in the CK territory".
>If she is collecting taxes then we can presume they are getting the usual benefits any person who owns a house gets
They're shown to have their own generator and well. They're completely off the grid. PB just comes and swipes some gold and really doesn't offer anything in return.
Even houses that do get electricity can still have a generator so I don't think that is proof of anything, her collecting taxes also is proof enough that the Tree House isn't off-the-grid, at this point you guys are just bending over backwards to justify your weird headcanons.
I'm just going by what's shown. You're the one making assumptions.
Funny because I'm also going by what's shown and you are the one making weird assumptions.
nta but when have we ever seen the treehouse have wires connected to some power plant?
We don't even see wires in the Candy Kingdom proper what makes you think there would be visible ones going to the Tree House? It's probably all underground.
>weird assumptions
I can show you the ways Finn and Jake are self sufficient. I can show you PB taking money from them. You cannot show me anything PB gives back in return.
She probably gives Finn a handy once in a while.
Would Finn be a good KND member?
Could be they get free food shipments from the Candy Kingdom, we dont see any farms or other food production facilities in the Treehouses vicinity beyond Tree Trunks farm I think. But the Candy Kingdom has candy of course, as well as grocery stores with none candy food I believe
But the whole point of this argument is we have no reason to believe that the Grasslands are part of her jurisdiction and therefore subject to CK taxes
Why wouldn't it be? We know that CK's territory extends far beyond the Candy Kingdom proper, after all the Earldom of Lemongrab and the Dukedom of Nuts are also part of CK and we know these are quite far away from the capital, seeing how that part of The Grasslands is even closer to it than either of those two and also that despite being a bit taken aback that PB was taking taxes without them being on the house, he isn't fazed by the tax-taking or even calls her out on it, which he would do even if it's for a joke because Jake can be a dumb he would still do it.
Not to mention that when the cops are called to the Tree House the ones who appear are the Banana Guards, if that part of The Grasslands wasn't under CK territory then the cops would have been some other generic guys, but the ones who are there all the times the cops were called were the Banana Guards.
All signs point out that that part of The Grasslands is indeed under CK territory.
Finn doesn’t live in the Candy Kingdom though
I mean she won’t let them stay dead, has there teeth chipped and tried to genocide her former guards. That last one was mostly successful too. She also was seen just breaking into Finn and Jakes house and taking gold saying it was taxes. The really messed up part about the taxes is Finn and Jake don’t even live in the Candy Kingdom they live outside of it. Oh let’s see almost caused the zombie apocalypse twice and arrested her friends because they didn’t agree with her, oh was very insensitive to another groups beliefs to the point of going to jail for it and almost shining someone in pristine granted I think a Abrakadanial started the knife fight, but she did get him arrested. She’s kind of a b***h, I consider her evil for sure.
It was a late series development. She had a mean streak at first, but nothing to outright label her as evil. Then they decided she was an immortal monarch who built the candy kingdom with her own hands and made everyone moronic to keep them under control
Then they decided to pretend Bubblegum did nothing wrong so that they could put her with Marceline.
yeah, she was fine and a cool character. Also a fun subversion of a character like peach and other such princesses but by the end they made her the crew fave and made her super unlikeable.
>is she actually an evil dictator
Nope
>or is it something that Cinemaphile overblows like usual?
yes
Depends how you define "evil dictator". She was running a Big Brother style setup constantly monitoring her citizens, undermining external threats, tossing away others of her own that she deemed a potential future threat like the Rattleball units without a second thought and all that. However she generally wasnt out to conquer and destroy the world or whatever and she tried to cooperate with foreign powers.
She leaned more towards amoral sciencehomosexualry with a bit of an overbearing mother edge in regards to her stuff
Cinemaphile bullshits all the time.
That was quite literally the first impression I got when I first watched episodes centered around her
The Princess Cookie episode is all the proof you need.
>Cinemaphile has been basically calling PB the 4chins equivalent of "literally Hitler" for years now
>Gets called out on it
>"ummm actually we didn't mean it like that we meant it like the ancient archaic version of the word that nobody uses anymore all along"
You guys can be worse than Xwittard troons on how disingenuous you can get, I'm genuinely impressed
Same.
>Leads the rattleballs to a notGasChamber Garbage Compactor when they've outlived their usefulness.
>Uses her people as lab rats for notMengele experiments
>Imprisoned FB and led to her greater instability
>Same with purposefully moroning the gum people
>All while playing it as a white woman's burden
And all it took for shillarinos like you was a saccharine israelite to pull a chez lez to forget that shit. Honestly if /misc/ really wanted to win, they just need a lesbian transgender feminazi to 6Gorrillion Israel and golems like you would eat it up and beg for sloppy shoah seconds.
you know i wouldn't even be bothered if PB went all the way evil in order to achieve something she saw as good it'd make sense
Keep Lemongrab as neutral good though because he's my boy
>Leads the rattleballs to a notGasChamber Garbage Compactor when they've outlived their usefulness.
Not "usefulness" they had become too violent and dangerous and had to be stopped.
>Uses her people as lab rats for notMengele experiments
Those little ball things from that episode aren't even alive, you just think they are because you want to look at the worst possible interpretation of events.
>Imprisoned FB and led to her greater instability
She didn't imprison Phoebe, she just told the Fire King to take care of her, he was the one who decided that the best way to do that was to imprison her.
>Same with purposefully moroning the gum people
Plenty of people are born stupider than what is normal, is God or genetics dictators now? It would be one thing if they were normal but she later made them moronic, but they were from birth this way.
Let me repeat myself, dictators aren't democratically voted by the people, call her an evil b***h, an egomaniac, or whatever else, but don't fricking call her a dictator because the word doesn't fit her, you are doing the same thing twittards do when they call Drumpf a "genocidal fascist dictator worse than Hitler", but at least they are saying this about a real person, you are calling a fictional character who doesn't exist that, fricking pathetic.
>Too Violent
Just by fight training with each other and not hueting anyone else? At this point she might as well kill Finn, Jake, and Marcy since they're too violent too.
>Little Ball Things
Forgetting the two Zombie epidemics, Goliad, and her constant implants/monitoring to the point Starchy faked his death to get away from it?
>She never imprisoned FP
PB kidnapped FP, did invasive tests on her, amd made the lamp that imprisoned her.
>God made people moronic, look how Euphoric I Am
Pb isn't god and willfully made them moronic. It wasn't ny accident or by bad genetics, she forced them to be lobotomites by birth.
>TL;DR
I hppe you're just a bubbline shill because moronation like this requires years of unchecked homosexualry.
>Just by fight training with each other and not hueting anyone else?
You may say it wasn't portrayed properly, but that is what the episode tells you, they were too violent, no ifs ands or buts.
>Forgetting the two Zombie epidemics,
First one wasn't an epidemic, and it ended with her literally being able to legitimately bring candy people back to life, second one was an accident caused by CB.
>Goliad
Goliad wasn't expiremented on, she us like any other candy citizen, just much smarter.
>and her constant implants/monitoring to the point Starchy faked his death to get away from it?
Never said anything about the police state she was running, but police states don't a dictatorship make, unless you are saying the USA is a dictatorship.
>PB kidnapped FP, did invasive tests on her, amd made the lamp that imprisoned her.
She didn't, FP's dad kicked her off the Fire Kingdom when she was a baby and the first thing PB did was bring her back to him, she also wasn't even able to do any tests because she had to leave (also FP willingly volunteered to the test without any kind of pressure), and nowhere does it say she made the lamp, the episode implies the opposite even, that her dad was the ones who made the lamp, go fricking watch Earth&Water again you schizophrenic lunatic.
>Pb isn't god and willfully made them moronic. It wasn't ny accident or by bad genetics, she forced them to be lobotomites by birth.
She can create life, she has a god-like ability, if a god exists he also made people who were born stupid, it's no different.
>that is what the episode tells you
Its what PB says, a d she is not objective truth and nothing on it showed that they deserved.
Its also quite contradictory that the dudes that were willing to follow her orders 100% are somehow such uncontrolable brutes
>First one wasn't an epidemic
Excuses
>Goliad wasn't expiremented on
Literally an experiment to create an immortal monarch
>She can create life, she has a god-like ability
Anon, she can make smart candy people like her uncle Gumbals. The shows SPELLS for you that the only reason that she kepts all her people moronic is because that way they are dependable and do everything thay she says - unlike her first relatives, that had their own ambitions and goals outside of her will.
And you can't even say that it is reading too much into it, because she literally does the same actions as her uncle, and the show makes a point that they are basically the same.
>Literally an experiment to create an immortal monarch
She is no different than any of Candy Person, just because she is more powerful doesn't make her any more of an experiment than the others, all of them are artificial creations from PB.
>Anon, she can make smart candy people
Just like God can make smart people and yet continues to create many dumb people, why did God make little Timmy moronic? Obviously because God must be a dictator and literally Hitler, that must be it, surely.
>She is no different than any of Candy Person
Litereally is, PB made her different, with different DNA, with different capacities.
> just because she is more powerful doesn't make her any more of an experiment than the others
Yes, they were all experimented on. moron.
Hell, on the setting itself you have several of the moronic people she created to kiss her ass actually get tired of her bulshit.
>Just like God can make smart people
Except she is not a god. She is a little girl playing princess, and makes her pleb stupid on purpose, so they just play the way she wants.
Answer me: why she choose to make most candy people moronic, rather than fully capable individuals like her first batch?
All I see is a bizarre waifugay.
>Litereally is, PB made her different, with different DNA, with different capacities.
And? No more of an artificial creation than any of the other Candy People
>Yes, they were all experimented on. moron.
Then why call out Goliad specifically moron?
>Hell, on the setting itself you have several of the moronic people she created to kiss her ass actually get tired of her bulshit.
Stop contracting yourself and stick to a point, are they subservient to her or not?
>Except she is not a god. She is a little girl playing princess, and makes her pleb stupid on purpose, so they just play the way she wants.
God: can create life whenever he feels like it.
PB: can create life whenever she feels like it.
I see no difference.
>Answer me: why she choose to make most candy people moronic, rather than fully capable individuals like her first batch?
I don't know, why does God choose to make some people moronic rather than everyone being fully capable individuals?
>And? No more of an artificial creation than any of the other Candy People
Stop being stupid.
You, like a moron, said that she never experimented on her when she herself is an experiment. Her entire life is an experiment.
>Then why call out Goliad specifically
Not the same anon you were talking earlier, moron. Yet, you do admit that she experimented on all of them, so point to me.
>are they subservient to her or not?
How "you made these people to be moronic and dependent of you, but some - against your wishes - managed to escape your programation" contradictory?
>God: can create life when..
This is not the definition of a god. Just because she can create life it doesn't make her a god.
>PB: can create life whenever she feels like it. I see no difference.
PB creted her subjects to validate her, and play princess because they were too stupid to make their own decisions.
>I don't know,
Except the show makes it explicit what the reaosn was: the entire episode that is a flashback with Gumbald is nothing more than a montage of she and Gumbald getting mad with each other because they have different life goals. PB wants to play being a small family, Gumbald wants to create a city, both don't admit the other ruining their vision and individuality. This culminates with her surrended by the first moronic candy citizens and ordering them to dance to her, and they happily doing that.
>why does God choose to make some people moronic rather than everyone being fully capable individuals?
Not to play princess because relatives had their own ambitions.
>Stop being stupid.
>You, like a moron, said that she never experimented on her when she herself is an experiment. Her entire life is an experiment.
>Then why call out Goliad specifically
>Not the same anon you were talking earlier, moron. Yet, you do admit that she experimented on all of them, so point to me.
The point wasn't that moron, it was that calling Goliad an experiment is stupid because she is no different than any other Candy Citizen, and if any life that is create outside of literal sexual reproduction is one, then that would make us God's experiments. See how stupid that sounds?
>How "you made these people to be moronic and dependent of you, but some - against your wishes - managed to escape your programation" contradictory?
If you remember the discussion is about her being a dictator or not, and we know she can make them subservient to her if she really wants to, and yet she has let her citizens leave her kingdom just fine if they want to (see CB), and also let them throw her out when there was an election, great dictatorship right there, really showing how subservient they are to her.
>This is not the definition of a god. Just because she can create life it doesn't make her a god.
That ability is an ability of God, she may not have all of God's abilities but she has the one that matters for this discussion.
>PB creted her subjects to validate her, and play princess because they were too stupid to make their own decisions.
And God created humans to validate him, and when they didn't play like he wanted them to he actually genocided all of them.
>Not to play princess because relatives had their own ambitions.
Yeah, instead he condemned all of humanity because his creation didn't do what he wanted them to do and genocided everyone when it happened again, and at least PB has an excuse of just being a regular person, God is all-mighty and should know better and yet people that are born stupid and moronic still exist.
>calling Goliad an experiment is stupid because she is no different than any other Candy Citizen
They are ALL experiments
> then that would make us God's experiments. See how stupid that sounds?
...anon, God is not a "dude" that thinks "hey I will do some experiments and see what happens!" - again trying to compare fricking PB with an atemporal oniscient, onipresent being is fricking ridiculous.
>If you remember the discussion is about her being a dictator or not
She isn't one, and that never was my point - but arguing that her citizens are not conditioned from their very creation to be subservient to her is stupid. I would argue that literally creating a kingdom of morons is worse than being a dictator.
>That ability is an ability of God, she may not have all of God's abilities but she has the one that matters for this discussion.
Non sequitur. She can't have the "authority" of a god to compare herself to, because she doesn't really has His wisdom, or any other capabilities - being literally a little girl when she created life.
>Yeah, instead he condemned all of humanity bec...
At this point you gave up on trying to defend your point and is just trying to shift the conversation into reddit level argument - because again - you failed to show why PB should be judged by the same standart as God.
Is this really out of being a waifugay? PB is a fricking horrible person, and that is fun, there is no problem on that, apart from the show trying to shy away and pretend its not there.
>They are ALL experiments
>...anon, God is not a "dude" that thinks "hey I will do some experiments and see what happens!" - again trying to compare fricking PB with an atemporal oniscient, onipresent being is fricking ridiculous.
God despite all that clearly has ideals and agendas he plays at, otherwise wrongdoing wouldn't even be a thing in religious terms.
>She isn't one, and that never was my point - but arguing that her citizens are not conditioned from their very creation to be subservient to her is stupid. I would argue that literally creating a kingdom of morons is worse than being a dictator.
So God who created many and many morons is worse than dictators like Hitler, got it.
>Non sequitur. She can't have the "authority" of a god to compare herself to, because she doesn't really has His wisdom, or any other capabilities - being literally a little girl when she created life.
And what wisdom is there in creating people that are born to never ever be capable to do anything by themselves? Answer the fricking question anon, why does God create mentally stupid people when he can make capable people?
>At this point you gave up on trying to defend your point and is just trying to shift the conversation into reddit level argument - because again - you failed to show why PB should be judged by the same standart as God.
And you failed to answer why intentionally creating stupid people is evil, God does it all the time, is God evil? Answer me anon, and if you are going to pull the "God has infinity wisdom" crap then why, why, in his infinite wisdom, does he get to intentionally create stupid people every day and still be hailed as all good while PB, who did the same things, is evil? And the only "genocide" PB did for her creations not playing like she wanted them to was against the Rattleballs, meanwhile God killed 99% of all people on Earth for less when they did things he didn't like.
>despite all that clearly has
I fail to see why you keep dodging into this tangent, when its obvious that you just has no argument to justify PB doing what she does.
PB is not onipresent, oniscient or atemporal.
> otherwise wrongdoing wouldn't even be a thing in religious terms
Non sequitur.
> who created many and many morons
Anon, PB creates morons solely to fuel her ego. Her entire kingdom is of morons.
And in the end, this all just a Tu quoque "whataboutism".
>And what wisdom is there in creating
Anon, this is an Adventure Time thread. I fail to see why I should get into serious theological talk, when for me, it seems that you are just trying to dodge and shift the subject. What God's reasoning would have ANYTHING to do with PB?
>And you failed to answer why intentionally creating stupid people is evil
It is, when you do for the sole reason of making them easy for you to manipulate and lead.
> while PB, who did the same things, is evil
By simply pointing out that none of these things have anything to do with each other? PB created dumb subjects to play pretend with them. The show literally showed that - because beings that had their own agendas made her not be fully in charge.
>I fail to see why you keep dodging into this tangent, when its obvious that you just has no argument to justify PB doing what she does.
What is God's justification for moronic people? Answer me anon.
>PB is not onipresent, oniscient or atemporal.
That makes it even worse, God is all that and still keeps making moronic people, why?
>Anon, PB creates morons solely to fuel her ego. Her entire kingdom is of morons.
God did the same thing, and when they didn't play like he wanted to he cast them out of their safe-haven and killed all of them the second time.
>And in the end, this all just a Tu quoque "whataboutism".
It's "whataboutism" because you said, right, we are trying to measure objective morality here, and such a thing only exists in religious terms.
>Anon, this is an Adventure Time thread. I fail to see why I should get into serious theological talk, when for me, it seems that you are just trying to dodge and shift the subject. What God's reasoning would have ANYTHING to do with PB?
Because if God can still be good while doing the mentioned evil things PB did, then it has everything to do with this morality debate, after all the only objective measure of morality that can be discussed is the religious one, and in religion the one who dictates what is and isn't good is God.
>It is, when you do for the sole reason of making them easy for you to manipulate and lead.
And God did just that, otherwise he wouldn't have done what he did to Adam and Eve or the genocide he committed during the flood. So I guess that settles it, God is evil according to your own criteria.
>By simply pointing out that none of these things have anything to do with each other? PB created dumb subjects to play pretend with them. The show literally showed that - because beings that had their own agendas made her not be fully in charge.
God created two moronic people (Adam and Eve) and when they disobeyed he disowned them. A situation very similar to PB and the Candy People.
>It's "whataboutism" because you said
Nah, it's because I have eyes.
>we are trying to measure objective morality here
We aren't.
But that said: Do you think that there is objective morality to begin with?
>Nah, it's because I have eyes.
Whatever helps you sleep at night, redditgay.
>We aren't.
How aren't we? This whole discussion is about how objectively evil PB is and anyone who disagrees is a bunch of nonsensical buzzwords, nobody here is arguing for subjectivity.
>But that said: Do you think that there is objective morality to begin with?
My opinion on that doesn't matter, this is a discussion about objective morality.
>Nothing is similar lmao
>X creates stupid naive people who when inevitably disobey them, they are punished by their own creator.
Describes exactly what God did to Adam and Eve and what PB allegedly does to her people.
>she might have good reasons to do so
Okay then, cite those good reasons to intentionally create moronic moronic stupid people who need to be babied all the time otherwise they will probably get themselves killed.
Anon doesn't think God is evil but thinks PB is so, and until he gives a good reason why God intentionally creates stupid people then the admittance will never truly happen.
And god went out of his way to create two very naive dumb people to fuel ego, so much so when they didn't act the way he wanted them to get cast them away from their safe haven (and ignoring that he is all-knowing, so he knew this would happen, literally made them just to punish them, that is worse than anything PB did).
God has authority over morality because he created us, he is the decider jury judge and executor, PB is the same thing to the Candy people.
>redditgay
Says the fedoraposter
>How aren't we?
You are speaking for yourself.
>My opinion on that doesn't matter
Obviously it matter. What is the point of debating over a premise that you don't even believe in? What is the point of discussing if PB is evil, if you doesn't even believe that a person can be evil? So answer me anon: does evil exist? Objective evil?
>Says the fedoraposter
Says the one that has been reddit-spacing up until you have been called out on it, convenient.
>Says the one that has been reddit-spacing
>reddit-spacing
newbie.
I don't see the point you are trying to make.
>if people tried to "vote out" God if such a thing was possible, they would have been sent...
What is the point of such inane, bizarre and non sensical comment that merely exist as a conjecture on your head?
I also notice that you didn't prove anything lie I asked you.
>and none of the Candy Citizens were...
Are you ignoring that they were lobotomized from birth?
Technically the candy people weren't lobotomized. They're naturally docile beings, which is what PB focused on creating after the gum people turned on her. It's a subtle, but important distinction. Peppermint Butler is a candy person and was still affected by the dum-dum juice.
Peppermint Butler seem to have been built different to be honest. He is the only candy person that acts like a normal person.
>God has authority over morality because he created us
No, it's because his attributes include being atemporal, all loving and etc. He has morality over humans because morality comes from him to begin with. PB is not the same thing, because she is just a random person, in the same way that a parent is not the same thing with their children in any theology whatsoever. Who decided that PB should have that position to begin with?
>Describes exactly what God did to Adam and Eve
In which part Adam and Eve had their children lobotomized?
>Okay then, cite those good reasons
Alright - the fact that one atemporal and immaterial does this implies that he can see how every event and person on the world falls on the big picture and predict that in a butterfly effect it leads to a better outcome, it could be something as simple as a person becoming better by taking care of another. PB can't do that, and we actually - saw - her reasoning to do that, and its an egoistical one.
>create moronic moronic stupid people who need to be babied all the time otherwise they will probably get themselves killed.
Now its your time to explain why PB doing it to play pretend is good, mora and justified.
>In which part Adam and Eve had their children lobotomized?
The children of Adam and Eve were forced to carry the consequences of their mistakes, they were damned before they were even born and didn't do anything to deserve it.
>Alright - the fact that one atemporal and immaterial does this implies that he can see how every event and person on the world falls on the big picture and predict that in a butterfly effect it leads to a better outcome, it could be something as simple as a person becoming better by taking care of another. PB can't do that, and we actually - saw - her reasoning to do that, and its an egoistical one.
Imagine a person born moronic, they can't get a job or make friends because they are too brain-damaged to do so, which eventually leads to them to live an extremely miserable life or even worse, killing themselves, now imagine that that person was intentionally created to be this way, and the creator knew that there was no way they would be able to recover from it because of conditions outside of their control and yet still decided that it was a-okay to allow this to happen, that is exactly what God did.
>Now its your time to explain why PB doing it to play pretend is good, mora and justified.
Until you explained why she was objectively evil, I won't say a thing, burden of proof.
>The children of Adam and Eve were forced to
They weren't lobotomized, were them? So it's not equivalent.
>Imagine a person born moronic
I'm talking with one.
>they can't get a job or make friends because the...
Anon, notice that you in no moment confronted my argument? I gave you a reason - and rather than deny that as a valid reason you decided to create an imaginary scenario and not tackle my post. And you also pretends to not have read this part:
PB can't do that, and we actually - saw - her reasoning to do that, and its an egoistical one.
>Until you explained why she was objectively evil, I won't say a thing
LMAO
I knew you couldn't do it.
But you still hasn't answered: do you even believe in objective morality?
It is equivalent, it's the same thing, person was created first as a better superior being but because of their defiance they were downgraded, the Candy People are now dumb and Humanity is impure.
>Anon, notice that you in no moment confronted my argument? I gave you a reason - and rather than deny that as a valid reason you decided to create an imaginary scenario and not tackle my post.
You made an imaginary scenario first, I'm just counterpointing, and it's not imaginary because said scenario is extremely believable and probably happened to hundreds of people throughout history, how is what happened to those people a good thing under the reasons you gave?
>It is equivalent
You insisting on your mistakes doesn't make it true anon.
>it's the same thing
Again, repeating it to yourself doesn't make your analogy correct.
>person was created first as a better superior being but
Again, not equivalent, because the equivalent would be humans being made easier to control. The equivalent would be PB releasing the future candy people in the wilderness with their mental skills intact to fend fr themselves while guiding them throuth prophets.
>the Candy People are now dumb
The Candy People were made dumb to be easier to control. Why you ignore this part?
>You made an imaginary scenario first
Anon, you asked me to create a scenario where it is justifiable. Now you are b***hing about getting the answer you wanted?
>I'm just counterpointing
But your point doesn't contradict mine.
>how is what happened to those people
You are removing any agency of the person, and the people around them, and reducing it all to a simple trait and condition. Which is why your scenario is imaginary and reductive.
Also anon, you never answered: does objective morality exist or not?
>You insisting on your mistakes doesn't make it true anon.
You insisting it's a mistake doesn't make it true anon.
>Again, repeating it to yourself doesn't make your analogy correct.
Again, repeating it to yourself doesn't make my analogy incorrect.
>Again, not equivalent, because the equivalent would be humans being made easier to control. The equivalent would be PB releasing the future candy people in the wilderness with their mental skills intact to fend fr themselves while guiding them throuth prophets.
But God didn't send Adam and Eve to the wilderness in their pre-fruit state, how would that be equivalent? They are still bearing the consequences of the forbidden fruit just like the Candy People are still bearing the consequences of the Dumdum Juice.
>The Candy People were made dumb to be easier to control. Why you ignore this part?
And humanity was made impure, doesn't matter why, God could have made people pure but he didn't, unless you argue being impure is better than being pure which defeated the point of heaven. Why would you ignore this part?
>Anon, you asked me to create a scenario where it is justifiable. Now you are b***hing about getting the answer you wanted?
That was just the beginning of an answers that was being avoided into being responded so I could counter it.
>But your point doesn't contradict mine.
It does because you are arguing God is objectively good.
>You are removing any agency of the person, and the people around them, and reducing it all to a simple trait and condition. Which is why your scenario is imaginary and reductive.
You are doing the same thing to the Candy People, we've seen many Candy People with agency and being able to function on their own, the agency of the people around them as well like how FP managed to undumbfy CB, and reducing it all into a simple trait and condition.
Answer the question anon: does objective morality exist or not?
>nsisting it's a mistake doesn't make it true anon
Prove you are not mistaken, when evidence has been provided that you are.
>doesn't make my analogy incorrect.
You failed to point out how the situations are smiliar, apart from ignoring all the context around it.
>But God didn't send Adam and Eve to the wilderness in their pre-fruit state
But they still had the same intellectual capabilities, which is what is being discussed here. You try to make them equivalanet, while ignoring that what PB did has different consequences.
>how would that be equivalent?
Because it's what actually happened on what you are comparing.
>God could have made people pure but he didn't
Creating more people wouldn't change the actions of Eva and Adam.
>unless you argue being impure is better than being pure which defeated the point of heaven.
The theological discussion is much more complex than that, many argue that some degree of hardmanship is necessary for people to be fully actualized, and that reaching Heaven is about self actualization and improvement.
>Why would you ignore this part?
You never even brought it up. Are you really just copy and pasting my posts now?
Also I notice that you avoided the fact that I brought up: PB made her people moronic, out of childish fantasy.
>That was just the beginning of an answers
Your post is still irrational and a big non sequitur.
> that was being avoided into being responded so I could counter it.
Your comment doesn't contradict it.
>It does because you are arguing God is objectively good.
Nah, my comment doesn't even need a God to work - you asked how a person being moronic could lead to something good and I pointed how. Your attempt at countering me is nothing but creating a scenario that tries to remove any agency whatsoever from the person and everyone around them. Also if you are really going to use the argument of evil, know that there has been countless refutations to it.
>Prove you are not mistaken, when evidence has been provided that you are.
What evidence "you are wrong because I said so" isn't evidence.
>You failed to point out how the situations are smiliar, apart from ignoring all the context around it.
Great goalpost moving there, really good work.
>But they still had the same intellectual capabilities, which is what is being discussed here. You try to make them equivalanet, while ignoring that what PB did has different consequences.
People being pure = better, people being smart = better, thus being impure = worse, being dumb = worse, it's not difficult anon.
>Because it's what actually happened on what you are comparing.
Not it isn't, Adam and Eve started out as pure and were sent out as impure, just like the first ever candy people were smart but were sent out as dumb.
>Creating more people wouldn't change the actions of Eva and Adam.
Why do their actions need to matter? Just delete them and start over, he is all powerful and all knowing.
>The theological discussion is much more complex than that, many argue that some degree of hardmanship is necessary for people to be fully actualized, and that reaching Heaven is about self actualization and improvement.
We are arguing pure biblical religion, stuff the average person hears, not some deep philosophical shit only some guys discuss.
>Your post is still irrational and a big non sequitur.
>Your comment doesn't contradict it.
Because you said so, sure.
>Nah, my comment doesn't even need a God to work - you asked how a person being moronic could lead to something good and I pointed how. Your attempt at countering me is nothing but creating a scenario that tries to remove any agency whatsoever from the person and everyone around them. Also if you are really going to use the argument of evil, know that there has been countless refutations to it.
There were no refutations other than a bunch of "nuh-uh!".
>What evidence
The fact that your analogy fails in almost every context, with the only thing in common being the theme of defiance.
>Great goalpost moving there
You are using words and terms that you know nothing about. "You analogy sucks because it's reductive and there are a lot of false equivalences" is not moving goalposts, specially when it's what I have been saying since the start.
>People being
I know whta you mean, the point is that being impure and being made moronic are not the same thing. Humans even after original sin could fend off for themselves while the candy people exploded when affraid. You make false equivalencies that ignore what they actually did.
>Why do their actions need to matter?
Because they would still be around.
>Just delete them and start over
A chance of redemption seems like a much better approach than that.
> he is all powerful and all knowing.
If those premises are true, then clearly that was the best approach, and the fact that you can't wrap your head around it is because you are not very knowing.
>We are arguing pure biblical religion, stuff the average person hears
I refuse to be dumbed down like the subjects of your evil moron waifu.
>There were no refutations
Anon, your examples of people "breaking out and improving" of PB are people rejecting her, then saying that God works in a similar way.
You totally lost the course of this discussion.
>The fact that your analogy fails in almost every context, with the only thing in common being the theme of defiance.
>You are using words and terms that you know nothing about. "You analogy sucks because it's reductive and there are a lot of false equivalences" is not moving goalposts, specially when it's what I have been saying since the start.
All a bunch of blah blah blah that boils down to "you are wrong because I said so".
>I know whta you mean, the point is that being impure and being made moronic are not the same thing. Humans even after original sin could fend off for themselves while the candy people exploded when affraid. You make false equivalencies that ignore what they actually did.
And humans were living in quasi-heaven before and now when they died there was no heaven and only hell, you know, eternal damnation and torture for forever and ever? Sure, he made Jesus so rectify this bullshit, but that doesn't change that for a long time this was how things were going to be, living in a nice place for eternity vs living only for a little and then being tortured is much worse than what happens to the Candy People.
>Because they would still be around.
>A chance of redemption seems like a much better approach than that.
They wouldn't need to redeem themselves if they tree wasn't there in the first place, left two babies in the same place with a bottomless pitch and when they inevitably fell you just "idk bro free will and stuff", he set them up for failure.
>If those premises are true, then clearly that was the best approach, and the fact that you can't wrap your head around it is because you are not very knowing.
Make then pure, then take way their purity even though you knew it was going to happen, and then give them back their purity through convoluted Jesus plan was the best approach, sure sure.
>"you are wrong because I said so".
If this is how you interpret things, then there is nothign else to be said. I pointed out detail by detail how the things you tried to match and paralel (like calling the Dumdum juice the fruit) were moronic when the juice was an "execution" tool.
>And humans were living in quasi-heaven before and...that doesn't change that for a long time this was how things were going to be
Anon, this is not how any Abrahamic religion tackles the events post-Eden. And again, you are comparing being impure while still being able to fend off for yourself and have free will with being made moronic and exploding while scaried.
>They wouldn't need to redeem themselves if they
moron, which part of this is an ALLEGORY - look at the mirror, there is Adam, you didn't understand? This is not even high theological conversaion hard for your brain, it's literally the view of the biggest church of the world.
>If this is how you interpret things, then there is nothign else to be said. I pointed out detail by detail how the things you tried to match and paralel (like calling the Dumdum juice the fruit) were moronic when the juice was an "execution" tool.
You didn't go over detail by detail, you made big generalizations, ignored the parts you didn't like, and made up our made on your half-baked bad-faith interpretations of what I said.
>Anon, this is not how any Abrahamic religion tackles the events post-Eden. And again, you are comparing being impure while still being able to fend off for yourself and have free will with being made moronic and exploding while scaried.
Eternal damnation, non-stop torture, forever and ever.
>Eternal damn
You are comparing giving people freedom to choose their own road, even if the road they choose leads to shit happening - while being guided for the best possible scenario - with being made incapable of survival.
>You are comparing giving people freedom to choose their own road
Not that anon, but isn't making us inherently sinful by nature (or easily tempted into sin, however you want to phrase it), then punishing us for that, kind of fricked up? We were sort of set up for failure.
You can say that salvation is a choice, but believing in something objectively isn't a choice; you have to be convinced of it. I couldn't convince myself that God is real if I wanted to. Furthermore, if God created my mind, shouldn't he know what is required to convince me of his existence? If what you say is true, then I'd be punished for things beyond my control, and God is just letting it happen. I don't think there's any way around the fact that if this is how God operates, then he is evil. even if I were Christian, I could never believe that. At the very least, PB created her people with the intention they'd live long happy lives without suffering, which is miles better than the type of God you're describing.
>Not that anon, but isn't making us inherently sinful by nature
Again, the story is allegorical, but the point is that Adam and Eve were already able to sin before eating the fruit. It's the original sin.
> then punishing us for that
The idea is literally to give you incentives to not do it.
>but believing in something objectively isn't a choice; you have to be convinced of it.
This is contentious. Belief is a complex psychological phenomenon, and philosophers have debated its nature for centuries. Some argue that belief is not solely determined by rational conviction but can also be influenced by emotional, social, and subconscious factors. There are even some philosophers that argue that we have a degree of agency in shaping our beliefs, while others contend that beliefs are largely involuntary and shaped by external factors. So its actually pretty complex.
>then I'd be punished for things beyond my control
I don't see how it would be beyond your control. People find God in numerous different ways everyday - it's not like I'm the dude that would be able to tell you how to find Him, it's something that you seek yourself.
> I don't think there's any way around the fact that if this is how God operates
Even Futurama with the Bender God episode managed to address the issue you are rasing.
> long happy lives without suffering
Yeah, and it ended with them stuck in a plastic container 1000 years on the future in stasis, to avoid any harm.
>The idea is literally to give you incentives to not do it.
Doesn't seem to work very well. I don't think believers are more (or less) moral people than non-believers. The threat of eternal damnation isn't going to work on those who don't believe in it anyway. And only doing good to avoid punishment feels like the wrong incentive. The incentive should be doing good for its own sake.
> Some argue that belief is not solely determined by rational conviction but can also be influenced by emotional, social, and subconscious factors.
Sure. I don't disagree, but conviction is an essential element. However you want to slice it , belief is not something you simply choose. That degree of agency we have in shaping our beliefs is ultimately going to be limited by our upbringing, environment, personality, and critical thinking skills. Do you believe that every atheist, muslim, hindu etc. who lived and died didn't seriously examine their own beliefs and determine their truth as best they could? It would be cruel to punish those who earnestly sought truth and came to the wrong conclusion because of those external factors. If God wants to make it easy to worship him, then he should do it.
> People find God in numerous different ways everyday
And plenty of good, earnest people never do, because they got born in the wrong place so frick them, I guess. Assuming your religious belief is correct, you are one morally lucky individual. It's like winning the lottery and then blaming others for not trying hard enough to win it too.
>it ended with them stuck in a plastic container 1000 years on the future in stasis, to avoid any harm.
Judging by the state of 1000+ Ooo, temporary stasis is probably a good call. I'll stop before I derail the thread any more.
>Doesn't seem to work very well.
Which are the largest religions of the world?
>I don't think believers are more (or less) moral people than non-believers.
Indeed, but being a believer is assossiated with lots of positive life outcomes, ranging from less mental ilness to building strong communities and families - according to actual data.
>And only doing good to avoid punishment feels like the wrong incentive. The incentive should be doing good for its own sake.
That is basic Christian morality tho, and the reason you believe in that is because of the heavily Christian envirement you were born.
>It would be cruel to punish those who earnestly sought truth and came to the wrong conclusion
Dude, I'm catholic. You are not sent to Hell for the slightest wrong thing. Hell, we even have Purgatory for those who are not quite ready for Heaven.
>If God wants to make it easy to worship him, then he should do it.
Honestly man, this is more a personal matter and I don’t know you enough to point anything specific. There are people that suddenly realize that it was easy all this time and it never clicked for them until it suddenly did (I know a case in my family), so guess leave your mind open.
Goddamn it. Muricans are dumb.
>we've seen many Candy People with agency and being able to function on their own, the agency of the people around them as well like how FP managed to undumbfy CB
Did that case with FP happened BECAUSE of what PB planned or DESPITE what she planned for him?
Whether it's because of PB or not doesn't matter, anon said you can't escape from the Dumdum Juice from birth and yet we see it happen.
>Whether it's because of PB or not doesn't matte
Anon, are you dumb?
Do you just answers posts by posts without taking in consideration the entire discussion?
Don't you think that admiting that most of the people that break away from her program being the people that defy her works against your point?
>anon said you can't escape from the Dumdum Juice from birth and yet we see it happen
Yet, with the case with FP we can see that this happens when you leave her - rather than what happens in the case with God where he guides you.
Alright so what I got from it was that God and PB are not comparable because God pushes people to overcome the original sin and become better people and reach Heaven, while PB wants her citizens mostly stupid and easy to control. In the analogy of that anon it would be as if God wanted people to not ever reaching Heaven. Becaise PB and God have such different approachs, they can't be compared. I still fail to see why Bubblegun should be escused to play God to begin with, just because she can doesn't mean she should.
>yet we see it happen.
Not that anon but, is it really? We see him going back to being a buffon that doesn't realize that has a spy camera on his nose in the Cooler, in fact, his competency is another inconsistent trait that's only brought up when the script says so.
In fact, I'd even play devil's advocate for PB say that CB going specifically to the FK isn't that much better because the kingdom is full of evil fire beings that want to burn you death, the kingdom is in a state of international pariah across Ooo and FP is such a naive moron that she actually thinks that a no lie policy is a good idea lol, wouldn't be surprised if she gets coup'd again and ousted out of the kingdom by her brother later on.
The truth is that good and evil doesn't exist. PB, the KKK, Hitler and serial killers are similar, and none of their actions are good or bad.
It looks more like you are trying to sperg over a religious debate than actually discuss AT.
>And god went out of his way to create two very naive dumb people to fuel ego
Prove it anon.
And again, that's an alegorical story.
> so much so when they didn't act the way he wanted
Anon, if God had acted as PB, people would have been created unnable to defy him as mere morons, which is obviously not how it went.
And many Candy People actively defy her, if people tried to "vote out" God if such a thing was possible, they would have been sent straight to hell. Meanwhile Cinnamon Bun is living a chill life with Fire Princess in the Fire Kingdom and none of the Candy Citizens were punished for voting her out.
>And many Candy People actively defy her
That is just because she is inefficient, and even the moronic subjects noticed how moronic she acted and called her evil.
Which makes her better than God because if you defy him you suffer eternal punishment.
>we are trying to measure objective morality here, and such a thing only exists in religious terms.
I would like to see which theology says that lobotomizing your sapients when you are not God is excused. PB literally doesn't have the moral - authority - for it.
>God created two moronic people (Adam and Eve) and when they disobeyed he disowned them. A situation very similar to PB and the Candy People.
Where is the part where God lobotomizes all future humans, so they don't get to make decisions outside of what he planned?
He let us continue to live with the consequences of Adam and Eve's mistake even though he could easily have restarted, but we are tainted by the corruption of the fruit and it's not much different than the Candy People being forced to be born stupid.
>Gumbald and the other two - Adam&Eve
>Dumdum Juice - Forbidden Fruit
>Candy People - All of humanity
It's the same kind of damnation, just on the opposite spectrum.
not a christian, but this is why interpreting the adam/eve story as anything but metaphor is moronic.
>the Candy People being forced to be born stupid
They aren't forced tho, they are created that way by design because PB wants to better control her subjects.
>Gumbald and the other two - Adam&Eve
Gumbald wanted to rule over PB and they conspirated against her, which is not a fitting paralel.
>Dumdum Juice - Forbidden Fruit
Anon is acting moronic. The forbidden fruit in this case would be the desire of defiance against PB rather than the juice - that was just an execution tool created by Gumbald himself to get rid of PB.
>Candy People - All of humanity
Except that God didn't use a lobotomy device created by Eve to stupidify al of humanity and prevent any other person of ever rebelling against him.
Now that I explained to you in details, will you admit that your analogy is moronic?
>They aren't forced tho, they are created that way by design because PB wants to better control her subjects.
And all of humanity is born with the consequences of Adam and Eve's mistakes.
>Gumbald wanted to rule over PB and they conspirated against her, which is not a fitting paralel.
It is, Gumball defied PB just like Adam and Eve defied God.
>Anon is acting moronic. The forbidden fruit in this case would be the desire of defiance against PB rather than the juice - that was just an execution tool created by Gumbald himself to get rid of PB.
No, the desire for defiance is equal to the innate curiosity of Adam and Eve, and just like the consequence of Gumbald's defiance was being thrown the Dumdum Juice, the consequence of Adam and Eves's curiosity was eating the Forbidden Fruit.
>Except that God didn't use a lobotomy device created by Eve to stupidify al of humanity and prevent any other person of ever rebelling against him.
He used his godly powers to permanently mark all of humanity with the consequences of Adam and Eve's mistakes, preventing them from being pure like they once were.
>Now that I explained to you in details, will you admit that your analogy is moronic?
The only admittance here is your lack of reading comprehension.
>And all of humanity is born with
That has nothing to do with making humanity easier to control
>the consequences of Adam and Eve's mistakes.
Are you working with the idea that they are literal?
>It is, Gumball defied PB just like Adam and Eve defied God.
Gumball wanted to usurp PB and nulify her - this comparasion is nothing but being reductive and ignoring the actual context of the characters.
>No, the desire for defiance is equal to the innate curiosity of Adam and Eve
Nah, the juice is a method of execution, not the "tree of knowldge" - moron.
>He used his godly powers to...
Bla bla bla lots of worlds just to say that I'm right: God didn't use a lobotomy device created by Eve to stupidify al of humanity and prevent any other person of ever rebelling against him.
Again a failed paralel.
>preventing them from being pure like they once were.
That is the interesting bit, all the humanity that came later can still have salvation, while the candy people are not getting out of dum dum juice.
>he only admittance here is your
Anon, please, you can admit that you have fricked up.
>That has nothing to do with making humanity easier to control
Is it not? Now that they are impure it's much easier to fearmonger them into following his ideals otherwise they go to hell. They became easier to punish.
>Gumball wanted to usurp PB and nulify her - this comparasion is nothing but being reductive and ignoring the actual context of the characters.
No, Gumbald's defience of PB is what lead him to create the Dumdum Juice, and Adam&Eve's defience of God's orders is what lead them to eat to fruit, both start as acts of defiance and so are equivalent.
>Nah, the juice is a method of execution, not the "tree of knowldge" - moron.
The juice is the communication of the defience before the consequences, it's is equivalent to the act of accepting the fruit.
>Bla bla bla lots of worlds just to say that I'm right: God didn't use a lobotomy device created by Eve to stupidify al of humanity and prevent any other person of ever rebelling against him.
God used his magical powers to damn humanity to bear the consequences of this mistake and to prevent any other person from ever not playing the way he wanted to, which of course just like PB doesn't work, since he genociced all of them.
>That is the interesting bit, all the humanity that came later can still have salvation, while the candy people are not getting out of dum dum juice.
Many did, we see them doing so, Cinammon Bum became decently capable, that Banana Guard was smart, and many other Candy Citizens as well, despite being born dumb they can become smarter, just like we can be saved and go to heaven.
>Anon, please, you can admit that you have fricked up.
Just because you say so doesn't make it true.
>Is it not?
No? Not in any theological literature. Are you literally just making headcanos now?
>They became easier to punish
This makes no sense, God could punish them if he desired so. God also doesn't desire to punish people, rather people follow their path towards hell by their own life choices. If punishing was the objective, or making people merely obey, why not just remove free will or do as PB and make everyone moronic? So clearly this is not the objective.
>Gumbald's defience of PB is what lead him to create the Dumdum Juice
Yes, which is why the ananlogy is stupid - Adam&Eve didn't create a fruit with the objective of enslaving any divine being.
>both start as acts of defiance
Both are very different acts, with different objectives, and involve people with different capabilities and traits. You are doing the dumbest take possible by reduncing everything to the most basic act of "defiance" while ignoring any context around it.
>used his magical powers to damn humanity to bear the consequences
Anon, this is not comparable to PB because PB doesn't give you a way out. PB is also again, not oniscicent, onipresent or atemporal, so her decisions have limited scope.
>and to prevent any other person from ever not playing the way he wanted to
But that doesn't prevent people from doing different things.
>which of course just like PB doesn't work
So you should go the most sensible route and simply admit that your premise is false.
>he genociced all of them.
Is this wrong, according to you?
>Cinammon Bum became decently capable
Because he defied PB, not because of her guindance.
>This makes no sense, God could punish them if he desired so. God also doesn't desire to punish people, rather people follow their path towards hell by their own life choices. If punishing was the objective, or making people merely obey, why not just remove free will or do as PB and make everyone moronic? So clearly this is not the objective.
Why did he make Adam and Eve pure in the first place and then remove it from all of humanity because of their mistake? He is all-knowing, so making people pure and the taking it from them is a nonsensical choice, someone all-knowing shouldn't make a mistake.
>Yes, which is why the ananlogy is stupid - Adam&Eve didn't create a fruit with the objective of enslaving any divine being.
>Both are very different acts, with different objectives, and involve people with different capabilities and traits. You are doing the dumbest take possible by reduncing everything to the most basic act of "defiance" while ignoring any context around it.
It all ends the same way, the path it took to get there having minor differences doesn't matter, the creations defied the creator by thinking they knew better and got punished by being downgraded for it.
>Anon, this is not comparable to PB because PB doesn't give you a way out. PB is also again, not oniscicent, onipresent or atemporal, so her decisions have limited scope.
She does, many Candy Citizens are smart and some even left her kingdom.
>But that doesn't prevent people from doing different things.
And neither does PB.
>Is this wrong, according to you?
I don't know anon, is genocide a good thing?
>Because he defied PB, not because of her guindance.
So he escaped the consequences of the Dumdum Juice despite you saying it's impossible? Good to know, thank you for agreeing with me.
>Why did he make Adam and Eve pure in the first place
Anon, it's a figurative alegorical story. This is the mainline view of the Catholic church, you know, the biggest chritstian church in the world.
Look at the mirror, that is Adam.
>It all ends the same way
BROOOOOOO JUST IGNORE ALL THE PARTS THAT MAKE THE ANALOGY DON'T MAKE SENSE! TEHN IT ALL MAKES SENSE!
Nice argument, reddit-anon. Might as well use your mother slapping your ass for not cleaning your room as an analogy for the original sin.
>and got punished by being downgraded for it
PB doesn't see what she did to the other citizens as punishment.
>She does
After hundred years.
After they literally forged their deaths.
After they literally betrayed her and declared that she is evil.
>And neither does PB.
Except it largely does, and the scene where they dance when she tells them to dance serves to show it. This is media illiteracy. What you think was the objective of the scene?
> is genocide a good thing?
Hummmm does good and evil exist objectively?
>he escaped the consequences of the Dumdum Juice despite you saying it's impossible
Except that your comparasion makes no sense, because she actively tries to keep them in that state, while God wants people to seek salvation.
>BROOOOOOO JUST IGNORE ALL THE PARTS THAT MAKE THE ANALOGY DON'T MAKE SENSE! TEHN IT ALL MAKES SENSE!
That is exactly what you are going, yes.
>Nice argument, reddit-anon.
Says the one reddit-spacing.
>PB doesn't see what she did to the other citizens as punishment.
Doesn't matter, it's all actions taken over the mistakes of someone.
>After hundred years.
And it took even longer until God enacted his Jesus plan so people could actually be saved.
>After they literally forged their deaths.
>After they literally betrayed her and declared that she is evil.
After God genocided them.
>Except that your comparasion makes no sense, because she actively tries to keep them in that state, while God wants people to seek salvation.
It doesn't if she does or doesn't, what matters is that it's possible despite you saying it wasn't.
>That is exactly what you are going
x2: You are using words and terms that you know nothing about.
Point where I made an analogy and ignored parts of it to make it sound fitting.
> reddit-spacing.
newbie.
>Doesn't matter
BROOOO APART FROM THE ANALOGY BEING ALL WRONG YOU HAVE TO ALSO ACCEPT THAT THE ONES INVOLVED IN THE ANALOGY HAVE TOTALLY DIFFERENT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES, JUST IGNORE THAT THE ANALOGY DOESN'T WORK IN ANY LEVEL.
And the STUPIDIEST thing is that it was YOU that said that both cases were punishments - when PB doesn't see it as punishment.
>And it took even longer until God
You know nothing of theology anon
>After God genocided them.
Anon, you not only is INCAPABLE of deciding if such action is evil or not (and is affraid of admiting) but this comment is also a non sequitur. What Starchy running away from PB has to do with that?
>It doesn't if she does or doesn't
Wut?
>what matters is that it's possible despite you saying it wasn't.
No anon, what matters is that it makes no sense to claim that she is similar to God when she doesn't have the authority, the attributes, the insight of a God AND the fact that God pushes people towards salvation rather than pressuring them to remain on the original sin - which is another way where your analogy fails.
>x2: You are using words and terms that you know nothing about.
>Point where I made an analogy and ignored parts of it to make it sound fitting.
You really can't fricking read, you are doing that to my analogy, ignoring parts of it to make it sound unfitting.
>newbie.
Keep it up I'm sure you will fit right in Redditgay.
>Doesn't matter
>BROOOO APART FROM THE ANALOGY BEING ALL WRONG YOU HAVE TO ALSO ACCEPT THAT THE ONES INVOLVED IN THE ANALOGY HAVE TOTALLY DIFFERENT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES, JUST IGNORE THAT THE ANALOGY DOESN'T WORK IN ANY LEVEL.
>And the STUPIDIEST thing is that it was YOU that said that both cases were punishments - when PB doesn't see it as punishment.
Just another "Big capslock nonsense so I don't have to properly address my opponent's arguments", and yes, seeing as how you see what PB did as objectively evil I'm using a term that makes it easier for you to understand, nothing more to it.
>You know nothing of theology anon
Unless the Bible is wrong and Jesus was created asap after Adam and Eve, then you are the one wrong here anon.
>No anon, what matters is that it makes no sense to claim that she is similar to God when she doesn't have the authority, the attributes, the insight of a God AND the fact that God pushes people towards salvation rather than pressuring them to remain on the original sin - which is another way where your analogy fails.
You said it was impossible, but it is possible, just like it's possible to become pure again, there is nothing more to be said.
>you are doing that to my analogy, ignoring parts of it to make it sound unfitting
You stupid moron.
I even pointed out the similarities that were correct, that is: the theme of defiance. BUT I pointed out that this is so VAGUE that your mother slapping you for not cleaning up your bedroom could be made into a similar analogy. This apart from me pointing out bit by bit why this fails, because you have to ignore what the characters are actually doing.
>Keep it up
I sure will, as I don't fall for a meme from 2018.
> I don't have to properly address my opponent's arguments
I'm pointing out your mistakes there. Better pay attention, I'm highlghting them in caps in the hopes that you will be able to understand.
>seeing as how you see what PB did as objectively evil I'm using a term that makes it easier
That makes no sense. The act would still be evil, she seeing it as punishment or not. Personally I think it's creepier that she thinks about it as not punishment.
>nothing more to it.
Nah, people can follow the conversation, you used the wrong term, and now is unwilling to even admit it.
>Unless the Bible is wrong and Jesus was created asap after Adam and Eve
Anon, It has been standard teaching in historic Christology that the Logos, the Son, existed before the incarnation. He is literally timeless as he exists outside of physical space.
> but it is possible
When you go against her.
>there is nothing more to be said.
How not? Your comparasion stops making sense once you take in consideration that God doesn't want people to dwell on the original sin. You treat not being moronic as salvation, and yet ignores that on the analogy PB should then be actively working to not make her people moronic.
The most absurd thing is that this entire convo is because anon wants to frick Bonnie but refuses to embrace how she being a crazy dictator is part of her appeal. I wonder if it is Scrapper, that homosexual spent several hours defending that Azula ws just a poor girl that was shitted on by everyone for the same reason.
What in "ignoring PARTS of it to make it sound unfitting" do you not understand? Do you not know what parts mean?
>I'm pointing out your mistakes there. Better pay attention, I'm highlghting them in caps in the hopes that you will be able to understand.
Pointing out =/= properly addressing.
>That makes no sense. The act would still be evil, she seeing it as punishment or not. Personally I think it's creepier that she thinks about it as not punishment.
It makes sense, when discussing it's better to use language that makes it easier for your opponent to understand.
>When you go against her.
Doesn't matter. You said it was impossible but it is possible.
There was no freedom before Jesus and his death, in-between that period it was death = hell. Jesus's death is what allowed people to go to heaven.
>What in "ignoring PARTS of it to make it sound unfitting" do you not understand?
Anon, at this point you should just let it go, admit that you made a poor analogy and move on. It's really not a big deal. You even admit that it had a bunch of holes and we know that you are not the kind of person that recognizes his mistakes easily.
>Pointing out =/= properly addressing.
What you are doing now is called whinning.
>It makes sense
You used a wrong term, because you didn't think much about what you were writing.
> when discussing it's better to use language that makes it easier for your opponent to understand
If that was the intention (and we know it wasn't), it sure failed as it just lead to the oponent thinking that you are an idiot for using the wrong term and insisting that it wasn't a mistake. Your analogy doesn't even make sense if PB doesn't see it as a punishment.
>Doesn't matter.
Obviously it matter, as the central point is you trying to compare her with God, and that proves that they are not alike - following the premises of your moronic analogy of original sin.
>There was no freedom before Jesus and his death, in-between that period it was death = hell
How old are you anon? Which denomination you grew up in before becoming a fatty edgelord on Cinemaphile? Literally not how it ever worked on mainline christianism or judaism. There are "the Bosom of Abraham" and "Limbo of the Fathers" - where the hell you think the prophets that showed up after death came from on the bible? Those that died before Jesus went to "the Bosom of Abraham" and were ascended to Heaven upon his ressurrection. Again this is basic teaching of the biggest and most popular christian religion in the world.
Anon, at which point this became less about AT, and more about you being mad at going to church at sunday?
Anon, I fail to see your point. You are throwing a fit saying that god is evil, then crying that PB is not evil by doing the same things?
Is this because you want to frick the imaginary cartoon bubblegun shaped like a woman?
I said quiet samegayging you reddit-spacing homosexual.
Schizoposting.
Is this because you want to frick the imaginary cartoon bubblegun shaped like a woman?
Anons asks:
>Why PB makes moronic people when she is show to be able to do non-moron citizens
>You, stupidily says "I DON'T KNOW!!!!"
>Anon points out that the show showed that she makes them stupid so they follow her orders and play with her
>Anon goes on a tirade about God AND doesn't even try to excuse her actions, he just says "uuuuuh according to MY opinion God did it, so it's fine that PB does!"
You lost.
Quit samegayging and stop being illiterate, the "I don't know" clearly was a segue into the question of why God continues to make stupid people.
not even that anon
but my homie, you still didn't answer why PB should be excused for creating stupid people to rule over when she can create fully capable people.
He also never pointed out why PB should be judged on the same standarts that a god that created a universe should.
God gets excused from creating stupid people when he can create fully capable people, and he is the "all-knowable" force of good, if the one who knows all and yet is still the ultimate good can and does create stupid people and still be all that, why can't PB?
Why can't she? The ability to create life is one of the first things people use the phrase "playing God" for, what good reason would God have for creating stupid people? Give me a single one, because you have been dodging this question since it was asked long ago.
>why can't PB?
Because we know that she is doing that just for validation and to play pretend. Why should we excuse her?
And God did the same thing to Adam and Eve, why should we excuse him?
>Because she has no attribute attached to God?
She can create life, a power of God.
>God has also numerous other attributes, and you can't simpy ignore them for your argument lmao. Creating life on AT is also easy as frick, considering that Ice King can easily do it.
That just means that there are many god-like people in AT.
>I could give you 30, but the point is that I don't see how that has anything to do with PB. What would that add to your argument?
Oh no you can't, and you never will, because as was established by you, creating stupid people is evil, there is not a single justification for doing so according to you.
Then I would feel satisfied that I got anon to admit something he clearly has been reluctant to answer, as he has been dodging this for a long while now.
>And God did the same thing to Adam and Eve
Nothing is similar lmao.
Also I'm catholic, and a&e are alegorical for our mainstream interpretation to begin with.
>She can create life, a power of God
Having one atribute doesn't make one god. You need to have all of them. If PB was atemporal, onipresent and etc AND did what she did, then I could argue that she might have had good reasons to do so - as she doesn't have, there is no justification for doing so.
>Then I would feel satisfied that I got anon to admit something he clearly has been reluctant to answer
So YOUR answer is to just admit that PB is evil if an anon said that? Okay anon, I'm saying that - Is PB then evil? Do you agree with me now that PB is evil then?
Or the entire tirade is less about PB, and more about you attempting to fedorapost in bad faith?
>because as was established by you, creating stupid people is evil
The issue with PB is not just that her citizens are stupid, is that she goes on her way to make them dumb to fulfil her ego and to play pretend.
>And God did the same thing to Adam and Eve
Who was playing pretend in this scenario? Who is seeking validation?
>Why can't she?
Because she has no attribute attached to God?
>The ability to create life is one of the first things people use the phrase "playing God"
God has also numerous other attributes, and you can't simpy ignore them for your argument lmao. Creating life on AT is also easy as frick, considering that Ice King can easily do it.
>what good reason would God have for creating stupid people?
I could give you 30, but the point is that I don't see how that has anything to do with PB. What would that add to your argument?
OH stupid ass homosexual anon. Let me make you a question: If I said "yes, it is evil if god did that, and it is why PB IS evil " - how would YOU answer that? You failed to provide any reason for why PB did that, so now you are trying to do a false equivalency with God, in the hopes that somebody can give you a reason to defend PB?
>why can't PB?
Because PB is a moron
Anon is not capable of defending PB's action without trying to point out to some authority in the hopes that people ignore it. It's never "it's okay that she did it because of X" it's "WHY ARE YOU BEING SO MEAN TO HER?? LOOK AT THAT PERSON DOING IT TOOO!"
homosexual ass behavior.
Also you were reading too much into it, because the point of that scene wasn't "omg they are the same", it was to make them stop fighting by putting them in each other's place so they could become sympathetic towards each other. It was quite literally "put yourself into the other's shoe".
> It was quite literally "put yourself into the other's shoe".
Which is not mutually exclusive to the two being similar.
What if she is kinda evil and I don't care?
She's obviously The Lich or Marceline's dad levels of evil in the show but she is meant to be a pretty suspect person in terms of ethics
See now this is what gets me. People say Marcie is too good for Bonnibel but look at the monster her father is.
Marceline isn't her dad.
Typo or stroke?
>People say Marcie is too good for Bonnibel but look at the monster her father is.
Are you sure you're not the one having a stroke? The frick does Marceline's dad have to do with whether or not Marceline is too good for PB?
Her father is literally a demon.
Ok? Is this a sins of the father thing for you because Marceline is very clearly not following in her father's footsteps at all and actively rebels against him.
And Marceline isn't her father. What a moronic fricking stance to take.
She doesnt really bother with her dad either
Marceline is good in spite of her dad but still desires some level of parental affection from him, in the show she really doesn't do anything evil.
She almost killed Jake.
Also kicked off Jake and Finn from their house and left them homeless just for a joke...
To be fair that was funny, but yeah pretty bad.
Twice in one episode.
what? Marceline hates her father and doesn't want to be like him, she always helped people, the worst thing Marceline has done was practical jokes.
She almost killed Jake twice actually.
At the start then in Red Starved.
>despite being full on "frick you dad!" Marceline ended up with someone who is just like him
Very sad, many such cases.
That's actually make their relationship kind of interesting.
I find it hilarious.
Not as hilarious as you, UwU~
Yes, and no. There is an elephant in the room. While she started as a neutral character, like all other princesses Ward wrote himself into a corner with age gap stuff. Finn's and Bubblegum's feelings were supposed to be at least partially mutual. She was supposed to be oblivious to them but only at the beginning of the story. But obviously many people didn't like it and I guess it would be seen as too controversial for the larger, casual audience. So the writers tried their damnedest to find a roundabout way around it while not directly adressing the most controversial aspect. All that shit kinda pushed Bubblegum into a role of a pragmatic, 800 year old, groomer matriarch monarch and Finn into a role of pathetic, desperate whiteknighting simp. Writers found themselves in a deeper hole and kept digging instead of just stopping. Then the lesbo shit was introduced, because it was popular and actually a very easy way of escaping the hole while letting PB stay a relatively positive character, and later a girlboss. It also let the team score some brownie points for being "progressive".
where is this image from?
From the Adventure Time pitch bible.
>But obviously many people didn't like it
Who didn't like it besides the tumblrites?
She's also used magic once or twice with glee. Another obvious retcon.
>Who didn't like it besides the tumblrites?
Most normalgays? Adventure time was allowed to be weird but not weird in that way. What do you think were the reasons behind making e-girlgum and FP. Genuine /ss/ is not something you ever see in American cartoons, even the R rated ones like Rick and Morty got some flak for it and it was used there for a joke more than anything else.
Here's another
>and Finn into a role of pathetic, desperate whiteknighting simp.
Finn only acted like that for at most a few episodes in the whole 10 seasons, anon.
>It also let the team score some brownie points for being "progressive".
At some point you'll understand the reason writers do this is because they want to.
They will never understand that.
She's not exactly 'evil' just a massive b***h
I love it.
She's evil because she didn't suck Finns dick.
Yes, that is actually the logic that Finncels have.
And theyre right.
Why didn’t she just suck his dick bro?
have a nice day troony. YWNBAW.
>evil
No, she could be manipulative and a bit of a jerk, bu everything she did was pretty distinctly for the good of not only her own people, but the world at large.
>dictator
No, but more arguable. In the end, when her people decided to kick her out she abided by it, at least until they were actively being put in danger by the leader they'd chosen.
Cinemaphile seems to forget that the future we've been shown after that includes that she abdicated and passed leadership down to someone else.
I can't tell if this from Cinemaphile post or Twitter post?
Have to admit it made me smile.
she has a conscience and lines she wont cross but also often forgets to account for others feelings, is pretty narcissiistic (thinks she always knows whats best in a situation) and has a scewed sense of morality sometimes because she isnt human and has a much different view on the world than a mortal does since a lot of things dont apply to her. but she does feel regret, just has a different compass than mortals and it comes off as frickerd up a lot of the time. Not pure evil but still made a lot of mistakes
At the start, it wasn't there. She was just a smart person in charge of many dumb people. The whole dictator thing came about with the Duke of Nuts, the Duke being a bumbling buffoon, pissed off PB so fricking much that people started calling her evil. They later made it that PB was the smartest person in the room sort of deals so she thought that she knew what was always right and forced her opinions on others. Which Grew the whole "She's a dictator" thing. But in the end, the show runners went full in on the joke. Ruining her character forever.
In other words. Frick almost everything past season 3. There's still a lot of good stuff pass Season 3 but no one gonna fault you on not watching it.
Why is Prince Gum so much more appealing than PB?
Gum x Ice Queen fics would be better than watching Adventure time now.
Because he doesn't have a whole TV show to shit on him. What little Prince Gum there is is mostly him at his best.
Gum and Ice Queen are very different people from their orginal counterparts in the adventure time cast. The writers are just too dumb to realize it.
even she knew she was evil and had to stop, remember the bullshit with the fire people
I'd say true neutral. She's not exactly bad but she doesn't really care about others
cant wait to see this guy frick a literal housecat
I wish I coud frick that housecat
Yes and it's based. It's based and I'm tired of pretending that it isn't. The cringe part is how they tried to really quickly resolve all that or sweep it under the rug so that the MarcyxPB ship could be forced into existence. She should have stayed evil, it is fricking hilarious. The show should never have started taking itself so seriously.
Stupid ass meme replies. BB was and never is evil. Just look at her people. They are happy and want for naught. She literally does it all for them
PB always inspires the most schizo threads. That's why she's the best.
Isn't PB a primordial elemental that literally makes the foundation of the universe? That is pretty godly
Each elemental has their own memories and morality. PB even seems to be the weirdest one because she dislikes magic despite being a magical creature and the other elementals being magic users.
She was pretty much a power obsessed evil dictator excusing it on a desire to protect her people, she even admits it in the episode where Finn and Jake pretend to be Banana guards when she sees how they fear her.
of course she calmed down a little over the years, but in the episode the Cooler where she orchestrated a borderline act of terrorism when by causing an environmental disaster in the fire kingdom that may have lead to the deaths of multiple civilians proves that she is still a very Machiavellian monarch.
>there are arguing bible nerds ITT
O my sides
Anon is using adventure time as an excuse to fedorapost.
You both suck
She is utterly evil and should never be believed.
Feminism and communists all come from the same source. Female hating, moral hating, dicks that see power as the only thing that matters.
In their minds a character that is happy, works to improve themselves, and make things better for all. Is antithetical to their entire world view. As they are self centered and think everybody is just as much an butthole as they are.
Bro what the frick this was supposed to be an adventure time Thread.
Its free bumps, just let the schizos fight until they get bored.
If these autists keep arguing my brains are gonna blow.
wtf
Would you stick around if she turned back into Bubblegum? Probably not if the Candy Queen is who you signed up for
I prefer the real PB.
No I want Candy Queen.
As a consequence of Winter King's "meddling":
>WK becomes functional and builds a thriving kingdom
>PB becomes a harmless yandere, only obsessed with WK. She's no longer sane enough to be a genocidal control freak.
>PBs candy people get "corrupted". Ironically, the corrupted candy people prove to be smarter, more competent and coordinated that the gaping morons PB originally made them as. You tell me if two og. banana guards could perform that musical number. Of course, now that PBs back, she'll lobotomize them again.
Winter King did nothing wrong.
You're really stretching this narrative are you?
I agree with the PB half but all was not well in the winter kingdom.
He was basically creating and controlling all his "subjects" just like PB, even having an ice young marceline(implying she left or died)
Yes.
Absolutely! She has a slave trade and everything. She is a horrible person and gave Marceline Stockholm syndrome. EVIL!!!
She’s evil in the sense that she’s the only one remotely smart and competent enough to handle serious tasks in an entire kingdom of what are essentially downies made entirely out of candy. Well meaning downies for the most part maybe, but downies nonetheless. Her sort of authoriarian surveilance state thing is almost necessary to keep them both alive and in line, since with few exceptions like Cinnamon Bun they’d get roflstomped by all the various threats in Ooo. And Lemongrab was the result of her trying to make candy people that actually had some degree of higher intellect which horrifically backfired, and while she could have just taken him out back and give him the Old Yeller special after his first freakout, and even after attempting to usurp her own kingdom from her, she instead gave him his own tiny little realm to be in, albeit with the kind of ramifications that would follow. IMO she’s less so evil and more of a really overbearing mother hen thats kind of that way out of circumstance.
Taste the bubblegum
Well that's cute I don't think I've seen this one before
She's racist
How racist though?
'bout this much
https://vocaroo.com/1k4UVyjbX8vp
Why did Finn seeing in her?
She's fricking Yawgmoth.
>Yawgmoth
Who?
yawgmouth fulla deez nuts
MTG, first proper deckbuilding card game, villian. Was pretty much the main BBEG for the entire game until he died but his works still threaten the multiverse. Oh also he was a crazy scientist that was into weird bio cyborg stuff.
Marceline deserves better
Marceline was an awful person though?
There's being a c**t and there's being Bonnie
PB makes her look like a patron saint.
>Marceline won big time.*
ftfy
Makima is Bubblegum but competently written.
>makima
>competently written
Choose one and one only.
She is both.
Gum. She is a gum
PB’s booty
she's canonically a groomer
Why didn't she just ask Finn about her actually age?
She knew he was a kid and continued to lead him on and manipulate him
She made guardians that scientifically detect the presence of evil. Why is her neuroticism interpreted as evil?