Talk:Go God Go XII

Name

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

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

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

Shouldn't that bit of info be added then?

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

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

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

Name of otter atheists

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

Well every mention of the otters in the second episode said Allied Atheist Alliance, including the part when the "Great Question" was being debated. There could be a note that the name was changed but it seems that sometime during the production of the second episode, they settled for them being an alliance rather than an allegiance. Gdo01 03:25, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So it seems that Matt and Trey did make a mistake at the end of Go God Go, when they mentioned the Allied Atheist Allegiance instead of Alliance. I just hope they correct the mistake they had made for the AAA at the end of Part I. --Angeldeb82 03:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They are called Allied Athiest Allegiance. The reason is because when the UAL is attacked by the UAA in the first episode, Cartman asks who they are and the UAL calls them the Alliance Athiests. If the otters were also called the Alliance Athiests then there would be no way to distinguish the two factions. I'd say it was a mistake in the second episode, not the first. - Deep Shadow 09:22, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3 Parter

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

At this point, it's all entirely speculation, but it's equally likely that they will finish off the season with a random episode, rather than a 3-parter. Who knows? We'll see. -- Ubergenius 17:18, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It could very likely be a 3-parter and I think so because they named the first one Part II (in the beginning). SimonWhiteley 21:00, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Or, it could be another "Terrance and Phillip Special" thing.Chocolate Panda 23:30, 8 November 2006 (UTC) Edit: Or not....[reply]

I do not think there will be a part 3 (which would be part 1 as somoene stated). The story looks to be finished, and I don't think it will have another part to it.

The "Part II" and "Part XII" are probably spoofs on Star Wars / sci fi naming conventions.

Plot Synopsis

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

Indeed. Also very poorly written. I added the cleanup tag and will check back. If no improvement I'll do my best. Mount Molehill 05:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, trimmed it down a bit. Left cleanup tag in place so that others can decide if this is worthy or sufficient. Mount Molehill 05:05, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

References?

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

criticism section

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

==Criticism==

Neither atheism nor secular humanism promote the positivist maxim that beliefs founded on unobservables are inherently meaningless. Thus, the subtext of this episode -- that atheism somehow negates, ipso facto, meaning unfounded on scientific principles -- is missconstructed and misleading.
The idea that simply believing in something makes it "real" (as proffered by the wise otter) is a naïve type of philosophical idealism or subjectivism. Dogmatic belief has long been considered a root cause of sociopolitical upheaval and is not newly attributed to Dawkins, e.g., "believing" that WMD were in Iraq, in the absence of significant empirical evidence, was arguably the basis of a war.
While the "flying spaghetti monster" may sound like a strawman attack on religiosity, there is a well-developed principle behind this argument by metaphor, namely, Sir Karl Popper's principle of falsifiability.

This section violates WP:OR since you are interpreting the meaning of the episode and trying to refute it. Anyway, almost every criticism section of an article has citations from credible sources. Yours is not an exception. Gdo01 12:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Given the nature and timing of this medium -- no publications exist referring to this episode, as yet -- I must produce my own research in the form of verifiable criticisms referring directly to content in the episode, which is allowed by wikipedia policy. I use credible citations in the form of links to arguments that directly contradict what I believe are inherently mistaken assumptions in this episode. If I need to be more explicit and remove certain insinuating phrases, I can do this easily and still maintain the primary criticism. Also, please refrain from reductio ad absurdum as your basis for criticizing my proposed addition. If we were to take your position as categorically binding, Wikipedia would lose much valuable content. As an example, we would have to remove the Cultural References section since it has no published material supporting its claims, however verifiable they may be. I would not delete a "support" section for this episode on the same grounds.

Since no publications exist yet referring to the episode, why not publish your own outside of Wikipedia and then link to it? Or, wait until an article is posted that refutes points made in the episode and refer to that. As it stands now, this list clearly violates WP:NPOV, and I have removed it from the main page. 67.183.67.29 13:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How does the list "clearly" violate NPOV? I'm asking in a neutral tone, btw :) Pfhyde 22:27, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is written in such a way that the article itself takes a side in the debate, in fact it looks as though the section itself criticizes the episode, rather than relating the criticism of others. Calling a philosophy naïve is not a matter of fact but of opinion, no matter how you choose to dress it up. 67.183.67.29 03:25, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I agree that this has no place in Wikipedia. All your points are commentaries on your interpretation of the episode and belong on a discussion forum rather than Wikipedia. While I agree that, for example, the Cultural references section does not conform 100% to Wikipedia's standards, there is a big difference between this section and your proposed section. I would imagine there to be widespread consensus with regards to the parallels between the episode and each cultural reference, I can't imagine people seeing the same level of relevance in your points. To go down the (probably slippery) debating road, let's take your point #3. The FSM was not even mentioned in this episode, rather its appearance was in the previous one Go God Go. The relevant line in that episode was, "What if I told you there was a Flying Spaghetti Monster? Would you believe it because it can't be disproven?", which certainly does not warrant a critisism. Are you suggesting that the entire FSM argument needs to be spelled out for the viewers, to avoid being critisised on Wikipedia? Also, this was the opinion (or statement) of a character in an episode, not necessarily that of the writers of the episode. Are you suggesting that all debatable opinions of characters in works of fiction should be refuted in Wikipedia? Finally, please sign your comments with four tildas (~). NumberJunkie 14:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

First, you need to understand the difference between opinion and logical analysis. My arguments are not opinions and they are quite relevant. Second, I might agree that my criticism section should be published externally and then linked to this site. Perhaps this is the Wikipedia way to go about things. I don't know. I'm new to Wikipedia policies and conventions. In response to NumberJunky, this is a two-part episode to be considered as a whole; this is why I appended the criticism section to the end of the second episode. Which makes sense, does it not? As for the spaghetti monster argumentative metaphor, it is clear that the writers of this episode (whom I often admire) are trivializing the logical import of the metaphor. The sarcastic tones used, combined with the overall subtext of the episode, taken as a whole, make it clear that the writers of this episode hold naïve views about the serious philosophical problems of this episode (this is not always the case, mind you); specifically, I'm referring to the problem of demarcating between science and metaphysics (or pseudoscience) and all of the relevant consequences therewith. If you were familiar with the work of Popper and falsifiability I believe you would understand the validity of my criticism vis-à-vis this episode. But of course I am wasting my time debating the issue -- it seems this section of Wikipedia is controlled by an ochlocracy :) And thank you for teaching me how to sign off, btw. Pfhyde 21:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth I understand and agree with much of your philosophical views. I consider myself both an atheist and a humanist, and I know the criteria that is needed for scientific theory and why untestable hypotheses should not be considered as such. However, I maintain that your section does not belong in this article. While your points may be fair, it is your opinion that the writers of the article directly implied an argument that differs from yours, and as such violates WP:NPOV. Indeed, I felt that Matt and Trey probably do understand the deeper implications of the FSM argument, and I welcomed the reference to it in an Intelligent Debate-related episode. But come on, the only way to avoid 'trivialising' it is to spend a few minutes explaining what this really means, which is really not expected in a 22 minute comedy show. Can you imagine if all shows had to elaborate on every single reference to an idea with deeper meanings (especially comedies!)? Also, the citation needed usually has to be from a respected journal or news source, so you can't just write something about it on your personal home page and reference that. Finally, no probs on the signature tip. Welcome to Wikipedia :) NumberJunkie 23:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I concede that my section may not belong to this article, and I'd rather not belabor peripherally related subjects, but I would like to remind you that there is a marked difference between "opinion" and other, more substantiated forms of belief (see The Fixation of Belief, for example). Moreover, it doesn't matter what the writers of South Park believe independent of their show; this is not at issue. What matters in this case is the objectification of content in this particular episode, which maintains certain theses that are unambiguously presented and clearly implied. There is only one subtext for this episode, and it is not my opinion to point out its existence. Matt and Trey may very well understand the "deeper implications" of FSM, but I am not conjecturing anything about their beliefs. The explicit subtext (if you'll pardon a seeming oxymoron) is that this episode trivializes the significance of TSM by caricaturing its significance -- "Oh my god, it all makes sense now. God is just a FSM" (I'm paraphrasing), etc. The explicit subtext, therefore, is that Mrs. Garrison is an ignoramus for drawing such "self evidently stupid" snap judgments about TSM vis-à-vis god. Are you suggesting otherwise? All that said, and I'm afraid I've already gone beyond my intended length, I appreciate your evenhanded criticism and help with Wikipedia policy and conventions. I'll keep an eye out for a "real publication" on the subject (perhaps one by myself, who knows), but I feel that that makes little difference regarding the policy of Wikipedia. I've seen a number of pages -- the page for the daily show, for example -- that list criticism without citing any published material. So clearly this is an inconsistency and seems to vary depending on who's watching. Pfhyde 00:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll quickly address your points: I disagree that the episode's subtext is as clear-cut as you make out, rather it is open to some degree of interpretation (as subtexts generally are). Your interpretation of Mrs. Garrison's misunderstanding of a small part of the FSM argument is that the episode trivialises FSM; my interpretation of this scene is that some people are just idiots. Anyway, you'll find as you use Wikipedia that there is a fair amount of material that strictly shouldn't be allowed (a lot of it appears in popular culture-related articles). Wikipedia isn't perfect, but the rules are in place to try to ensure it comes close and most Wikipedians will try to ensure that as much of the content as possible adhears to these rules. Incidentally, on checking the article for The Daily Show, I saw 8 references to external links in the 'Critisisms' section. NumberJunkie 02:21, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Some of the worst arguments against atheism ever. I'm not an atheist myself but I'm not hugely far off the mark. The problem is that we know for a fact that people who are enthralled with science don't fight over it in the same manner those enthralled with religion do. It's a very "centrist" thing, presuming both things are equal opposites.

Matt and Trey are not, I believe, implying that scientists fight just like religious people. Their point is that atheism is a religion just like any other, and so will faction and fight like any other. There is an interesting speech by Michael Crichton that, while not 100% relevant, makes a similar point. He's talking about environmentalism, and how it has become one of the new religions of atheists. It can be found at his website, http://www.michaelcrichton.com/speeches/index.html , and is called "Environmentalism as Religion." Professor Chaos 21:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this is another subtextual position of Matt and Trey, and here too they belie naïveté. Atheism by definition cannot be a religion, because it does not rely on unfalsifiable, dogmatic assumptions. Religion by definition is either one of three things: theism, animatism, or animism, all of which depend on metaphysical (non-scientific) propositions. Pfhyde 22:00, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please follow WP:NPOV. --Ineffable3000 22:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please tell me how my original proposed entry does not follow NPOV. I was mindful of this principle, in general, when writing my original entry. Or are you suggesting in the discussion section I have to also follow NPOV? :) Pfhyde 22:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to the discussion. It appears to be very attacking and extremely non-neutral. --Ineffable3000 01:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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