Lisa at times outta character

i have been trying to think of all of the times they put Lisa out of character. Like the episode where Apu's mother comes to town to meet Apu's "wife" and she has to stay with the Simpsons and Lisa asks about "the dot on her head" and what it means. Lisa comes out with some stuff that most people with a college degree dont know and she doesnt know that basic Hindu staple? Anyone think of any other times she is outta character?

I'm still trying to pin down the moment where she went from "Bart, I don't know who or what God is; all I know is that he's a force bigger than Mom and Dad put together and you owe Him BIG"

to "I just think it's a fantasy, if you believe in angels, then why not unicorns, sea-monsters and leprechauns!" and "I need a child-- someone with faith--" "NO."

Not believing in faith healing and angel skeletons doesn't necessarily mean Lisa is an atheist. I think the majority of ordinary christians would agree w/ her...

I know what you mean. For all those people who like the later season, take note: this is what you like. Caricatures of humans, instead of multi-dimensional characters.

Lisa used to be profound, and innocent at the same time. She wasn't a no-it-all, but one who would admit her lack of knowledge on a subject and research (remember "My Father, My Clown"?). Homer was a loudmouth, not too bright, and a jerk on occassion, but he had a good heart, and that came through. Marge didn't only nag, but had her own burdens. And Bart actually cared on occasion about what others thought of him, rather than simply wanting to be simply the center of attention.

I know there is the trend to yearn for the "good old days." But pointing out the change in Lisa does show that the "good old days" were indeed different. And, IMHO, much better.

"Katijaikat" wrote in message news:[email]...

Apu's

on

Hindu

know

Dad put

with

On Sun, Oct 14, 2001, 10:01pm (EDT+4), [email] (moj) wrote:

Seems like everything the Simpsons used to be had been shreaded in half and much of what is portrayed is a fascimile of their characteristics to the extreme.

Perhaps that why I felt good about buying the first season DVD set a few days ago I just seem to relate better to the older episodes than the recent ones. Always enjoyed watching "Moaning Lisa" personally, it was one of those ones that helped me though junior high.

Domo Arigatoo to Sayonara!

"Katijaikat" wrote in message news:[email]...

know

Dad put

with

This is from Bart Gets An F, 7F03, after Bart prayed to God for a blizzard and he got it.

David McCormick

I understand where the quote is from. My problem is to when she went from being curious and accepting of a higher force to totally rejecting organized religion at every chance and as loudly as she can.

On 16 Oct 2001 00:10:32 GMT, [email] (Katijaikat) wrote:

Well, it's probably about the same point as when she stopped being a whiny brat along the same lines as Bart albeit smarter and more prone to gloating about her accomplishments to becoming more of a voice of reason and intelligence on the show. The religious attitude thusly follows her from being a deist to being an atheist (not knocking deists, but the attitude works better for the character IMO).

Mark

"Belgand" wrote in message news:[email]...

higher force

she can.

I don't agree with that at all. I think, if anything, she's more of a whiny brat now -- [5F05] being an apt example. And I SURELY don't agree that:

anti-religious = reasonable & intelligent

Not to get into that whole debate there-- but science, by definition, is a voyage of discovery. It is a quest for knowledge, not a trumpeting of current theory. The questions are what made the greatest scientists what they were. By allowing the possibility of a higher power, therefore, the "original" Lisa could be said to be more scientific than the one we saw in "Lisa the Skeptic".

Rejecting something simply because one has no physical evidence of it is simply unscientific. Ironically, it was faith in his unified theory (for which he had made no discovery) that kept Einstein driven until his death. Lisa without faith, IMO therefore, is a less-intelligent Lisa.

atheist (not

IMO, the above points proscribe the opposite.

Well, curious and accepting of a higher force would not necessarily entail believing every detail of religiously derived tradition unquestioningly. IIRC Lisa was reading "Junior Skeptic Magazine" even at the early point, and she did say "I don't know who or what God is", which does seem to indicate that she had reservations about what she was taught at church and in Sunday school. And even from the POV of a believing Christian I think it quite possible to have doubts about the alleged skeleton of an angel (which, if I am not mistaken, conformed neither to the way angels are described in the Bible nor to the ways they are traditionally depicted in Christian (or indeed Jewish and Muslim) art.[1] Would you believe that an angel could die? Or leave a skeleton behind? Would you naturally assume that it was the skeleton of a good angel and not the remnants of an evil one (one of Lucifer's minions, slain in the fall)? Some schools of thoughts would say that God is above positive proof, and wouldn't the skeleton of an angel come too close to such proof and possibly the conclusion that God might not be above this world, but within it, and one day you might as well find His skeleton?

Tilman

[1] Because it had no arms and hands, just wings.

"If Persia was a three-sided square like America, we could easily survey it." Professor Johann Georg August Galletti (1750-1828)

True enough, but Lisa used to be content in her own agnosticism without trying to convert everybody to her way of thinking, or for that matter, mocking the beliefs or value systems of others-- especially her own mother! (Don't feel sorry for me, Mom- I feel sorry for YOU.)

I also can see a noticeable switch from a sweet, precocious voice to a smarmy (and often whiny) voice somewhere in the 7th or 8th seasons. An example of Lisa's more typical voice from an earlier season:

"Bart, having never received any words of encouragement myself, I'm not sure how they're supposed to sound. But here goes: I believe in you."

--7F08, "Dead Putting Society," said softly and without bitterness about the "never having recieved part," just matter-of-fact.

And from "Lisa the Skeptic":

"Pull over so we can complain, Dad. Come on! Who wants to complain with me?... Fine, I'll come back later. Who wants to come back with me?... Fine."

The writers are very aware of the way Lisa acts nowadays, as can be seen in Simpson Safari [CABF13]:

"Rhinos don't hatch from eggs!" "What did you just SEE, Lisa?" "But--" "WHAT did you JUST see?"

I like that she changed to standing up for herself more as the series went on, i.e. "Lisa on Ice," "Summer of Four Foot Two," but IMO there is a big difference between that and militant activism or holier-than-thou complaints that makes her a much less likeable character.

Well, I put that down to the increasingly hostile atmosphere in that episode -- Lisa versus the herd mentality of everybody else. The pressure of the believing masses against Lisa was palpable. And the kind of isolation Lisa experienced here is not that different from the one in "Moanin' Lisa". I do find it hard to fault Lisa for standing up for her skepticism, especially as it was soundly vindicated in the end.

Dunno if that was her typical voice. How about: "I got a bratty brother he bugs me every day and this morning my own mother she gave my last cupcake away my dad acts like he belongs in a zoo I'm the saddest kid in grade number two." (7G06 "Moaning Lisa" -- 1st season)

Thankfully Lisa never was too perfect, and the way I saw it, she was always more ready to complain than Marge, who in some episodes is a little too ready to swallow anything.

Tilman

"If Persia was a three-sided square like America, we could easily survey it." Professor Johann Georg August Galletti (1750-1828)

"Menshevik" wrote in message news:[email]...

the

feel

That was a contrived circumstance of the plot. I just made comments on that episode in a reply post to TheAbman. They load up a bunch of idiots on one side, and Lisa on the other. Hell, it's fiction. They can claim that the sky is green, if they want to. My point is that the situation in the episode, IMO, wasn't very realistic.

The pressure against her beliefs. We rise out of the conflict when we ask ourselves "what about science vs. religion?", not when we take Lisa's side--or the mob's side, for that matter. IMO it was impossible to take the mob's side in this episode, because it was so heavy handed and characterized nearly everyone as an idiot.

I think it was. Lisa's refusal to believe, even before she had obtained evidence, was very bad characterization -- and very irritating in light of the somewhat questioning nature she once had. The old Lisa wouldn't have had the blind faith of the group, but she would have reserved judgement until discovering the truth.

By a fictional plot. They could have plotted it so that it was a real angel skeleton, if they wanted to. That doesn't even answer the question of whether angels, even in religious teachings, are corporeal or not. I definitely wouldn't term her close-mindedness as "skepticism", because skepticism implies a willingness to look at all sides of an argument. But, there she was from the beginning, "strainin' to do some explainin'".

A song is different than a bitter complaint to someone's face. Lisa being depressed and Lisa refusing to keep an open mind are two very different things. I think a deeper analysis of "Lisa the Skeptic" will show that both sides were very close-minded. Close-minded toward the angel, and close-minded against the angel. The questioning mind never made an appearance.

Not one of the characters is perfect... (maybe God :) That's what makes them three-dimensional, and likeable.

who in

I would have to see some real examples of that in episodes before Season 7. [7F19], possibly, when she complains that Homer is a baboon? I'd just call that family conflict. Whereas Bart at times disrespected his parents by mischeif, Lisa sometimes did it through her precociousness.

But not without precedent. It was very much like "Lisa the Iconoclast", (season 7) only there she go support from Homer, while here all she gets is pity, so it's understandable that she lashes out back. Maybe she even felt betrayed by Marge, who knows?

But Lisa gets blamed for not being an idiot. I also do not think we would rise above the conflict by asking "what about science v. religion?" and I believe that the conclusion that Lisa was an agnostic or an atheist, let alone a proselytizing one, are just plain wrong. I think that if someone claimed to have found the skeleton of an angel e.g. the Catholic church would treat it as a fake until proven otherwise. Forgery in the field of holy relics and in that of paleontology (just think of the Piltdown Man) are not exactly unknown phenomenons, so to believe that the fossilized angel would likely be a fake would be no more unreasonable than assuming that Krusty the Klown was innocent in spite of the overwhelming evidence.

Well, she was not totally close-minded, she did allow for different explanations. But under normal circumstances Lisa would not have been pressurized to accept the blind faith (stress on "blind") of the group, and under those circumstances she had to push back, because otherwise she'd have simply been wishy-washy.

Well, I'd call it a serious crisis in the relationship between a father and his daughter (at least as serious as the thing between Marge and Lisa in "Lisa the Skeptic", where Lisa's skepticism is near the end partly negated in the end when she too half-believes the end of days has come).

Also, the "having never received any words of encouragement" quote from "Dead Putting Society" is actually a terrible thing to say (and, even given the lax nature of inter-episode continuity in the Simpsons, not just hyperbole, but wrong). Also, when it comes to criticising her parents, what about the way Lisa does it in 7F13 not just in private, but in front of the crowd of his guests)?

Tilman

"If Persia was a three-sided square like America, we could easily survey it." Professor Johann Georg August Galletti (1750-1828)

"Menshevik" wrote in message news:[email]...

realistic.

I think 3F13 was well done, because she was just as willing to accept Jebediah Springfield as a true patriot as everyone else in the beginning. Her discoveries led her to believe otherwise. It was good iconoclasm because although her discoveries were fictional (because the story is fictional), they were made about another fictional character. I was right with Lisa throughout 3F13.

The difference I see in [5F05] Lisa the Skeptic is that right from the beginning, she decides the bones can't be an angel, "because angels don't exist". What proof did she have that they didn't exist? There was no example of the scientific model in her thinking, at all. She had full faith that the "skeleton" would be proven a fake, even after digging it out of the ground. She becomes irritating, as Katijaikat points out, when she derides the faith of others--especially her mother.

the

characterized

Still, within that fictional situation. What is the point of the situation? To pit science vs. religion. It's a contrived situation, and the other characters are just as contrivedly idiotic as Lisa is stubbornly pedantic.

The scene was unrealistic, so whatever conflict that took place in that environment doesn't ring true at all either.

Why not? It's the scientific method--a question.

Nobody here said that.

That's true. We haven't even discussed the idea that many Christian/Jewish religions believe angels are spirits, and some believe that if angels have bodies--they are immortal (they can't die and leave skeletons).

Not to mention religious documents. That's my point entirely, really. No thinking person would react like Lisa OR the crowd.

She could believe it was a fake, but until proven a fake, she would have (at least the "real" Lisa) gotten some proof. She tried to do so, and the proof wasn't forthcoming. Stephen Gould didn't do the tests. The point is, she was so dead-set against the possibility of an angel skeleton, that she completely abandoned the scientific method.

of

had

I didn't see that happen. She goes to the museum of natural history to get the proof, but doesn't ever get it. She remains dead-set against any angel possibility. That is unscientific.

accept the

I've already said that the group and Lisa were badly characterized here, and the plotting was very poor. Any conflict between these two sides is highly suspect, and not realistic.

she'd have

Those circumstances being highly contrived, not very realistic at all.

call

But it was realistic. Nobody got killed, so I think we can say this is the "safe" kind of "serious crisis" in a family. It's part of what made the plot interesting. Those types of conflicts separated "The Simpsons" from "The Huxtables" and "The Cleavers" since the show began.

We can't even discuss [5F05]'s plot's merits, because I think there's a problem with the episode's set-up. It doesn't progress naturally because of the poor characterization, so any plot resolution is a flat out stab in the dark, as far as I'm concerned.

Just satirical about family life. It happens.

I don't want to discuss the concept of "lax nature of inter-episode continuity", because The Simpsons was never intended to be a continuous, time-line based show. That from David Silverman, who said episodes should be viewable in any order. This rule was broken many times since he said that, and that's why we have Ned Flanders at 60 years old, and two different Seymour Skinners. This show doesn't need inter-episode continuity; the characters aren't meant to age. It works best as a slice-of-life, reflecting our own present.

Criticism is different than abandoning the scientific method. Criticizing a person is different than criticizing a belief. Lisa criticizes her parents because she wishes them to change, not because she's unwilling to believe that they will change. I still say Lisa's close-mindedness in [5F05] was way out of character, and irritating.

Remember when she called Homer a baboon? That was a relatively earlier episode. But I suspect that came out of suppressed embarassment rather than arrogance. I'm sure everybody has called their mom or dad some name as a kid.

Yeah, she should have said "We shouldn't draw any conclusions" or "We don't know what it is yet."

This is one reason I just can't stand this episode. It's very grating and the entire episode depends on the audience not knowing the outcome beforehand. ________________________________________________________________

The Indian DVD Resource: http://www.fly.to/indiadvd

What happens when you delete the Recycle Bin?

"Gay" is not a synonym for "bad."

Remove "bination" to reply.

"Sydney Assbasket " wrote in message news:[email]...

than

kid.

I don't disagree.

don't

That's reasonable, no?

ground.

faith

the

I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic there, but I was just making a comment about Lisa's characterization. It wasn't like Lisa at all, to be so close-minded (even if it _was_ in the "factual" direction). True intelligence and science comes from keeping a mind open to all possibilities; even those involving a higher power. It's what today is popularly termed "thinking outside the box". Establishing beliefs as "fact", that hinder the investigation of anything is counter-productive and against good science.

I'm not debating the quality of the jokes in the episode, or the fact that it's a Lisa episode (which gets some folks jeans all creamy). IMO the characterization goes way wrong, however, which makes the plot very manipulative and forced. A plot based on unsound characters isn't going to follow a realistic course, IMO.

The Rack wrote:

Man, I come back to ATS for two seconds, and I'm greeted with the most disgusting mental image ever.

I think I'm going to leave again.

*-----------------------------------*

|------------------------------------------------------------------*

*------------------------------------------------------------------*

"Michael Nusair" wrote in message news:[email]...

that

Don't you hate pants?

On Thu, 18 Oct 2001 07:16:06 -0400, "James Gennero" wrote:

Yes.

In fact, I led a group of first year university students (frosh) on a protest downtown against pants last month... it was a good protest.

We had signs like "Pants are of the devil" on one side. The other side said "Jesus didn't wear pants."

An elderly lady with a heavy accent pointed to my sign and said "dis-res-pect."

I explained to her that I wasn't implying nudity, "Jesus wore a robe... a *robe*"

I also pointed out to her she was wearing a skirt, which was perfectly acceptable to us.

Other slogans included "Make love, not pants," and "Drop your pants."

TTYL

"Michael Nusair" wrote in message news:[email]...

that

This creamed corn tastes like creamed crap.

Don't go, Michael. I believe in you!

In article , "The Rack" wrote:

Watch the potty mouth, junior.

David Z Houston TX

I can't believe I saw that imagery TWICE in threads today!!

Notwithstanding, I think this is a great, pithy thread that ought to be archived.

On 18 Oct 2001, Sydney Assbasket wrote:

And when even *I* could figure out, the first time I saw it, that the skeleton was a shameless plug for the mall right away, that's just it. Lights out.

/ Kristian

+-------------------------------------------------------+
|Kristian Ronge                                         |
|[email]    [email]             |
|(civil)                (skola)                         |

|d99, datateknik, KTH (Kungliga Tekniska H�gskolan)     |
|d99, Computer Science, Royal Institute of Technology   |
+-------------------------------------------------------+

Sorry, busy for a while, but I'm back now...

Sorry, I don't get it. The story of the "angel skeleton" was no less fictional than that of Jebediah Springfield. To the best of my knowledge there no angel has left a genuine skeleton in the real world.

Does Lisa in fact deride the faith of others, in particular Marge's? No. I don't think the word "deride" is applicable here, that what Lisa does here is express her irritation (you could say intolerantly) with other people's stupidity, gullibility, conformism, superstition. She is angry at Marge for uncritically accepting an explanation that rejects all attempts at rational explanation out of hand, she does not mock Marge's faith. Skeletons of angels are not an integral part of the faith of Marge, of other Springfielders, or of Jews, Christians and Muslims[1] in general. Indeed everybody would probably be more comfortable in their faith if angel skeletons aren't found (because a skeleton would indicate that angels belong to the realm of the natural, not the supernatural) and the revelation that the skeleton was a fake should not cause their faith any trouble.

What strikes me as contrived about the situation is that Lisa is forced to fight with one arm behind her back -- she is not really allowed to explain why she does not believe the skeleton is an angel, which would not really be too hard to do, except it would make the conflict too one-sided.

For instance, even if the skeleton had been real, the remnant of the body of what appears to have been a human with wings, what reason is there to believe that that was an angel and not a bird-man a la Flash Gordon? Also, by the look of the skeleton, it would have been a flightless bird-man (too heavy bones (also a lot of useless bones in the wings), center of gravity all wrong, the ribcage too much like that of a normal human, indicating that the muscles that power the upper arms in a human would here have to make do for arms *and* wings, and they would not be enough for just wings).

It is rather reminiscent of some of the earlier explanations of fossile bones as remains of the sinners and animals who perished in the Flood (in "antediluvian" times), of dragons or indeed unicorns (Lisa may have been thinking of a historic precedent :). And of course in the real world we have people who seriously propose that fossiles are fakes planted by Satan...

Oh yes they did.

[SNIP]

The way I see it, she rigorously applied Occam's Razor. If you don't need the supernatural to explain the skeleton's existence, then you don't assume a supernatural explanation (angels are by definition supernatural). If you want, you can believe that it was the skeleton of an angel anyway, but with equal justification you could continue to believe that it was even after the mall people revealed it was a fake. You'd just have to believe that the mall people were minions of the devil (impossible to prove either way) and everything is all right again. It is not so much a question of science versus religion as one of reason versus irrationality.

The question was not whether or not a rational and scientific explanation for the skeleton could be found, but which one of several possible explanations was the true one. (Apart from the two mentioned in the ep -- an accidental placing of bones and outright forgery -- there can be others, e.g. a freak mutation (would the skeleton of the Elephant Man be taken as proof of the existence of goblins?) or a burial rite (attaching wings to a corpse so the deceased could fly into the beyond)).

Another point: It has been pointed out how highly contrived the situation in this episode was. Can this episode then be used as indicative of a fundamental change in Lisa's character (such as a shift from deism to atheism?).

[snip]

call

??? Did I claim someone had? Or did someone get killed in "Lisa the Skeptic"? ;-)

[snip]

Yes, but it was more serious than it was made out to be when it was brought up in this thread.

All I meant was that there are plenty of episodes where Lisa receives support and encouragement, so it would be a bit far-fetched that all of them happened after these words were uttered.

Tilman

[1] I am not sure what other religions have angels vaguely resembling winged humans.

"If Persia was a three-sided square like America, we could easily survey it." Professor Johann Georg August Galletti (1750-1828)

"Menshevik" wrote in message news:[email]...

I hope you won't mind me waiting to respond too, then :)

beginning.

because

fictional),

fictional

angel

I can't remember the exact context of my above paragraph (the prudent thing would be to go back and read the original but... eh? What are you gonna do? :) But, I believe I was talking about the issues raised by 5F05 Lisa the Skeptic. They are raised in an unbelieveable way, meaning the conflict is manufactured and not believeable at all. I think that the idea of an angel skeleton actually proves that. I'd have to think at least some of the town folk would have dismissed the skeleton as a fake, simply because their faith taught that angels are either spirits, or immortals. This has nothing to do with the fundamental unbelief in angels that Lisa has, and it dismisses the angel as a fake, too.

The plot's conflict becomes Lisa vs. idiots, and who will win that every time? The points raised about science vs. religion, therefore, are manufactured from a shoddy premise. Lisa would outsmart a gang of idiots every time. Why not pick one of your favorite opinions, assign it to a character, and put idiots on the other side of the issue? It would seem that your opinion is upheld as truth (through the plot), because only idiots oppose your idea. It's the same thing in 5F05. No intelligent counterpoints to Lisa's were made.

don't

example

the

ground.

faith

What makes you say that? She says "Mom, I feel sorry for _you_" in a very condescending way, giggling. "To speak of with contemptuous mirth". That is the definition of "deride", and it is exactly what Lisa does.

here is

stupidity,

Again, we come back to the overall suitability of the plot. She's against the stupidity, gullability, conformism, and superstition -- all of which are DISPROPORTIONATE to reality. It's not a realistic situation. The mob is not a realistic mob. They are made to be stupid to serve the plot, and very irrationally characterized. That is why I say the plot has no merit. You'd have to believe there would be some characters (with faith in angels) that found a dead angel as suspicious. I guess The Pope qualifies when he says "keep an eye on it", without getting too interested.

Lisa will win the argument against stupidity every time. So, why not have her and an unrealistic, stupid mob on opposite sides of any issue? Pick anything you want. The plot would seem to establish Lisa's ideas, without any real thought or counter-points.

rejects

Marge's

I think she did.

Folks were willing to believe it, though. Too willing. That's what I mean by the mob being characterized unrealistically.

angel skeletons

realm

was

That's the whole premise of the plot, though. An angel skeleton WAS found. My point is that it's unrealistic that so many people would believe it was the genuine article, just providing a slam-dunk for Lisa's ideas of science vs. religion.

situation?

pedantic.

why

too

I don't think it was even her intention. Her whole quest became about being right, and stuffing the facts in the mob's face. There were never any "facts", until the end. Her irritation at the mob became about disproving their faith without any facts on her side. The real Lisa would have withheld judgement, until the facts came.

She'd be cutting her nose to spite her face, there. How much more believeable is some bird-man vs. a dead angel?

bird-man

gravity

that

do

All of which, in consideration, makes the mob especially stupid. Unrealistically stupid. That's why the plot isn't any good. There is no reasonable conflict, since there's no way the audience could take a side. Their only choice seems to be Lisa's; however, there are intelligent folks who believe in angels (certainly not dead ones). The conclusion the intelligent audience members are to come to is that angels don't exist (as proven by a ridiculous plot), and if you still believe it-- you're as stupid as the Springfield mob. THAT's exacly why the plot doesn't work. It doesn't give the intelligent viewer who believes in angels any room in the plot's conflict.

bones

"antediluvian"

historic

propose

Which has nothing to do with the plot, which wasn't very good.

Well, I never said that. I don't think it has anything to do with the discussion.

(at

proof

was

assume

Meaning what, exactly? How did she explain the skeleton's existence, before it was revealed a fake? How did she apply anything, successfully? Why was it decided that she didn't need a supernatural explaination? She never proved anything.

but with

the mall people

were

That was never part of the episode. The point is Lisa never proved anything, and a dead angel never made sense in the first place. Lisa set about to prove it was a fake "because angels don't exist", not because she had faith in immortal angels and rejected the idea of a dead angel.

versus i

It was never a question of science vs. religion in the first place. It unfairly characterizes religion as a group of idiots who ignore science, even when science has no facts. There is no reason vs. irrationality either, because Lisa has absolutely NO proof that angels don't exist anyway. It doesn't work on any level, anyway, because of the points I made earlier. There's two sides of the issue only: the idiots', and Lisa's. There's no place for any intelligent belief in angels, because there is an apparent dead angel skeleton. When the skeleton is borne out to be a fake, NO point is made for science vs. religion, because the premise is unreal anyway.

for the

was

placing of

(would the

goblins?) or a burial

beyond)).

The plot fails and can't go anywhere because of the set up. There is no further resolution that can be made, because the set up is bogus. No explanation is acceptable, therefore.

was. Can

character

I think so. Her statement "because angels don't exist" is pretty clear.

call

You used the words "serious crisis". Serious crises are common in families across America.

brought up

That doesn't make it bad.

support and

after

This goes astray of the original topic a bit; but I believe Lisa's precociousness will always have her feeling like the underdog, being an "overlooked middle child". She's just 8 years old. Her parents aren't perfect, but they try to raise her well. It just may not be enough for her, from her 8-year-old perspective. When she grows up, she'll appreciate her folks (even Homer) a lot more. She probably doesn't recognize just how much support she gets from her folks. We all felt that way as kids at some time or another.

I'll have my thoughts. And what are you gonna do? ;-)

Because of course the citizens of Springfield normally don't behave like a herd of idiots... ;-) And I'm not as convinced of Lisa's fundamental unbelief as you are.

On the other hand, Lisa was not allowed to propound her point of view as well as she could have done and in the end it is in part negated by her half-believing in the end of the world, so it is not as cut and dried as you make it out to be. Indeed, the way you interpret the story it is not one of science vs. religion, but between two kinds of belief -- belief in the existence of (mortal) angels and belief in their non-existence. While Lisa may not come over as a complete idiot, she is portrayed as uncharactaristically stupid in this episode.

The fact that Lisa's target is not Marge's faith, but something else (as I already explained).

I got your interpretation the first time.

I think you're wrong.

Do you think you're going to convince me by endlessly repeating your point?

So you say, but I think you are totally wrong.

What I was asking here was: what cause is there to believe it is an angel as opposed to something else? Not that Lisa is seriously proposing it is a bird-man, but that explanation has as much to say for it (you might even say more) as the angel hypothesis.

Change the record, will you?

It has to do with the plot, which wasn't very good for slightly different reasons than the ones you keep harping on. I'm a bit surprised that Gould took part in the episode.

It seems to me you have a rather interesting view of what has to do with this discussion.

Because there were several rational explanations, one of which turned out to be true. When a mysterious crime happens, you look for a rational explanation, you do not wait to prove who actually did it before excluding supernatural explanations.

Gee, have you made this point before?

Meaning no explanation is acceptable by you?

Um, does this mean that you're now actually subscribing to this view which you first claimed nobody expressed and then that you didn't say it?

In any case, as I said in my last point, as this episode was so badly written, it should be treated as a fluke and not indicative of a fundamental change in Lisa's character until you support this view with evidence from other later episodes.

???? Did I claim that they were exceptional occurrences?

I'm really beginning to wonder what point you are trying to make here. Mine was that the difference between the early and later Lisa has been exaggerated quite a bit in this thread.

Tilman

"If Persia was a three-sided square like America, we could easily survey it." Professor Johann Georg August Galletti (1750-1828)

"Menshevik" wrote in message news:[email]...

thing

do?

This is becoming a hair-splitting exercise, and no... your thoughts have not changed my mind.

skeleton as

or

I explained many times that I think the citizens were BADLY characterized, and setting up a group of idiots on one side doesn't make a point. It's my opinion, no matter how much you disagree. If Lisa said the world is shaped like a taco, and the writers put a bunch of morons against her who said it was flat, would the plot have any merit?

If Lisa's phrase "...because angels don't exist" doesn't give a hint, I don't know what would.

that

counterpoints

Who stopped her? She didn't care about that. She called the citizens idiots because of their faith. Who among them even criticized her, for that matter? After Flanders said she was "strainin' to do some explainin'", they were all too busy paying Homer for a peek at the skeleton.

half-believing in the

Another hair-split. The plot is about Lisa's irrational behavior vs. the mob's irrational behavior. Why are both behaviors irrational? BECAUSE THERE'S NO PROOF ON EITHER SIDE. There's no science, and indeed no religion.

Exactly.

Exactly again. Very close minded.

No.

Conveniently snipped is my rebuttal of your statement. Lisa *did* deride Marge. She DID talk condescendingly to Marge about her faith. All you explained is that Lisa was irritated by the mob's stupidity. She fails to notice just how irrational she is as well, though.

I wrote it again, because it was needed in my reply to your post (again).

rejects

Marge's

I can agree to disagree. That's that. "I feel sorry for _you_, Mom" as she smirks seems pretty convincing to me.

found.

was

science

You might ask yourself the same thing. If you can easily take Lisa's side in this plot, then I understand why you don't find Lisa's reasoning flawed.

being

withheld

Okay. She tells Marge how irritated she is at all those "idiots", and that she can't wait to prove them wrong. Interpret that how you will.

body

to

Okay, but why does Lisa jump to the conclusion that "it can't be an angel, because angels don't exist?" The scientific method was completely ignored there. You're saying she wouldn't rule out a bird-man, but would rationally rule out an angel? How is a disbelief in angels a rational step, when there is no scientific proof for or against angels? The writers made the plot about angels. They attempted to make it about science vs. religion, evidenced in the trial with Judge Snyder. "Religion must stay 500 yds. from Science at all times." That's a pretty plain indication of what the writers were going for.

bird-man <points snipped>

folks

(as

stupid

doesn't

What's so unbelieveable about it? It's simple enough to be understood. I brought it up another time because it fit the discussion.

bones

"antediluvian"

historic

seriously

It has nothing to do with the plot, because no one suggested that Satan planted the skeleton. You're saying that other unbelievable fossils, all proven hoaxes, were found proves that the skeleton wasn't that of an angel? It still doesn't justify Lisa's unbelief IMO.

It seems you're becoming a bit condescending. Don't worry; I'm getting extremely bored with this discussion and I'll quit very soon. There were no conclusions drawn about Lisa being an atheist or whatnot (by me, anyway). There is easy evidence, however, that she's lost her religious faith that she once had. She also abandoned the scientific method in 5F05. She is a different character in this episode.

fake? How did

a

As opposed to an actual angel, which isn't rational because as she said "angels don't exist". No proof, no scientific method, and yet it is a rational idea. Makes no sense.

do not wait

An angel skeleton is not a mysterious crime. Good science does not rule out any explanation, as Lisa did... IMMEDIATELY.

reason versus i

either,

point

Only in response to your repeated points.

explanation for the

was

Okay... now who's being repetitious?

No. That's what I said. There's no explanation for an angel skeleton. It's a bogus setup. This plot can't be about science vs. religion, because many truly religious people would scoff at the idea of a dead skeleton. It, therefore, makes a very weak point and the plot's conflict is not resolved.

episode was. Can

Lisa's character

I didn't. You're bringing that back (from responses to other posters), and I'll say I agree with the idea that she's changed in 5F05. We (you and I) were discussing 5F05's plot. Furthermore, she didn't just demonstrate her lack of religious faith; she became very irrational -- ironically mirroring the mob mentality. I don't see why one form of irrational belief is better than another.

That would be a shift from discussing angel bones and irrationality/rationality as it relates to science and religion. I agree it was a badly written episode, and as such, the plot makes no real point.

theSkeptic"?

families

I was contrasting a scene from an early Simpsons episode with 5F05 to show how Lisa criticized her family members. By refuting my example, you appeared to disagree that these conflicts were better than the one between Marge and Lisa in 5F05.

I'm surprised. You said I repeated myself a number of times.

exaggerated

Well, it became a different discussion. I'm ready to ditch it. I don't think 5F05's plot/conflict were all that clever. It used contrivance in place of reality, and conjecture about the nature of angels in place of the scientific method. There was no science in the episode. Period. If there had been, Lisa would have been quite a bit more open minded to all possibilities.

As for the question of Lisa's change in character, it may have only been in this particular episode. I'm not sure she's stayed so close-minded since 5F05, but she was certainly irrational and faithless in "Lisa, the Skeptic".

You misunderstood me. What I meant was: I have my thoughts about that, but I'm not telling what they are.

But it was hardly the first time that the good citizens of Springfield were characterized a herd of idiots (Marge vs. the Monorail, anyone?).

It's my

I disagree about the citizens being badly (let alone BADLY) characterized -- they've behaved like this very often. Whether arguing against them when they are in that state of mind proves any points is another matter, but then I did not claim it did.

If Lisa said the world is shaped

The same guys who are responsible for the "BADLY" characterized Springfieldians -- the writers.

So it clearly does not make the statement about science vs. religion you attribute to it, nor does it pursue the tactic you ascribe to it. Lisa could have said a great deal, but didn't.

Stupid, but not necessarily close-minded.

And in particularly Marge's. That's the part you conveniently chose to ignore. I see an important distinction between Marge's faith and her gullibility/conformism.

Then why does she have such a hard time in this episode?

So, why not have

But it was hardly necessary to repeat the same point, what, five times? in one posting.

It is not that I find Lisa's reasoning flawless, she is arguing very much sub-par in this story. But if my position is just "easily" taking Lisa's side, should I then say that you are "easily" taking the idiots' side?

No, I'm not. She would also not believe in the bird-man (it would come in the same department as unicorns etc. for her). Here I was speaking for myself -- a bird-man could conceivable exist (it would have a radically different anatomy, of course), it would be a mortal being subject to the normal laws of nature, it could die and leave behind a fossilized skeleton.

As to what point they were trying to make, God knows. To me the episode seems to be as anti-science and anti-reason as you appeart to think it is anti-religion.

<repetion of points snipped>

The skeletons I was referring to were not hoaxes, it just turned out they were not what people thought they were. In that way, it was very much as in this episode, in that supernatural explanations of fossils were seriously attempted at first, but all of them were falsified by science.

Well, that unbelief gives support to it in that so far for every fossilized skeleton found so far there has been a natural explanation, even if it was not always immediately apparent..

No more than you have been throughout our disscussion..

Don't worry; I'm getting

Not sure about that, as I don't think she ever came out in support of the existence of angels before. Also, other later episodes (e.g. AABF14 and 5F23) would suggest otherwise.

But then neither does the idea of this episode as an exposition on "science vs. religion".

Science as a matter of course dismisses unprovable explanations all the time. And supernatural explanations are impossible to prove or disprove. In other words, if you want to not rule out supernatural explanations you can really save yourself the time and expense of looking for scientific evidence, because even if you find a rational explanation that does without divine intervention or the presence of angels, you could still not rule out the supernatural explanation.

I'll take that as a "yes".

Here I was referring to the part relating to the comparison between Lisa's "sorry for you" comment in "Lisa the Skeptic" and her "baboon" comment in "Lisa's Substitute". It was getting a bit repetitive here too in that you kept contradicting things I hadn't actually said, but that made it no easier for me to understand what you were driving at.

I'll try to clarify once more: The situations are quite comparable in that in both Lisa quite harshly (you could even say savagely) lashes out at a parent. In both situations Lisa was under a great deal of stress, in both you could say that she was being unfair to the parent in question, and in both she hurt the parent in question a great deal. So on the evidence of these two episodes her behaviour in the earlier seasons was not significantly different from that in the later ones (as was claimed earlier in this thread).

Neither did I. It is a very flawed episode.

And if you think you are getting tired of this discussion....

Tilman

"If Persia was a three-sided square like America, we could easily survey it." Professor Johann Georg August Galletti (1750-1828)

"Menshevik" wrote in message news:[email]...

characterized,

They are certainly a mob of idiots, and have been characterized that way many times. What I meant was, in this case, they were specifically set against Lisa in an apparent attempt to show that religion is irrational. It was an unfair setup.

Well, it was a point I was making anyway.

No arguments there.

religion.

The opposite. I never agreed that it makes any statement about science vs. religion; it attempts, but fails. I think the tactic ascribed (Lisa vs. idiots) is unfair, and could be used to "prove" anything.

No.

I'd have to go back and listen to Marge, but I believe she told Lisa that she *did* believe in angels, and that not all folks who believe in angels are idiots. Yet, Lisa insisted that they were -- even after expressing regret that Marge felt that way. Then, she got a bit smarmy.

It seems she was showing faith; not gullibility.

Because she has no proof that angels don't exist. Without proof, all she can do is get really upset.

It seemed to answer the points you made.

in

As I explained earlier--absolutely not. There's no place any rational person can side, because the episode is neither scientific nor religious. Niether side is rational at all.

Well, that would be better than an angel that could die--in the minds of some religious people. But then it wouldn't have given the writers what (IMO) they were going for--a science vs. religion debate.

I agree completely. It's not scientific or religious.

angel?

Interesting, but not proof. There have been many UFO sightings, many proven false. But that doesn't discount the possibility of real flying saucers.

Maybe.

I'm saying that she's lost her religious faith in this episode by itself. It's pretty clear. I haven't even considered other episodes.

I agree. We agree on something.

out

At any rate, without proof, all Lisa had was a belief. There will always be things that science can't explain. It doesn't mean they ever will have explanations.

and

Sure.

People disagree all the time. We have to arrive at an understanding somehow. Discussion is a good way to do that.

I don't know about that. People were talking about Lisa's faith, then lack of faith. She calls Homer a baboon. Maybe this happened early enough in the series that it is considered more "in character" for her than the way she was portrayed in 5F05. I don't really know or care anymore. The point for me is, she did change in 5F05... and IMO it was unpleasant.

think

It's like those of many years ago I had with Ondre. We talked past each other for a long while, then realized we only differed in opinion a little bit.

We agree the episode was poorly written. We agree Lisa's characterization was sub par. We agree that as a science vs. religion debate, the plot fails. We agree that the device of a dead angel skeleton was ineffective.

I have no qualms about science, or religion. In fact, I see no discrepancies between them. Faith has nothing to do with things proven, and yet science allows us to open our minds to all possibilities. Perhaps it was just Lisa's irrationally irritated behavior that put a bad taste in my mouth, or the fact that some f olks thought it was a good science vs. religion debate. FOX even put out the episode on VHS in one of it's collections (the THOH box set), I guess because someone is proud of that episode.

I'm through with the thread. I'll read whatever you have to say in return, but I'm done with it. It's been a challenge, to say the least. Good luck in whatever you do.

Okay: It does such a bad job of making a statement about science vs. religion and Lisa's arguments are so badly made that I find it unlikely that the writers of this episode were really holding a position one way or the other. They just used the theme as an excuse to make jokes. Had they wanted to beat the audience over the head with the message you ascribe to them, they would not have gone about it in such a self-defeating way.

Then why is she put in this position? In order to make her look unsympathetic.

Then I'll thank you for not claiming I easily take Lisa's position or that I don't find her reasoning flawed.

IMO, they were going for a science vs. religion debate in that they wanted to lampoon both sides in it.

In a broad sense, we appear to be able to agree. It's just those pesky little details...

I did not claim that these fossils proved it wasn't an angel. This is a fictional story and one where, to use your other example, 'real' flying saucers make regular appearances. Had the makers of the episode wanted, they could have made it a real skeleton of an angel (it would have proven nothing either). But you can't exclude the possibility that these examples were on their mind when they wrote the episode or posit that these historic parallels are irrelevant to the episode.

Well, I was still addressing points made by others on this thread.

The problem is that in this case proof is impossible, yet you fault Lisa for not withholding judgement until the case is proven. Claiming this was an abandonment of the scientific method. But in the wider sense she is acting just like real scientists -- she is proposing a hypothesis (like evolution through natural selection or the Earth revolving around the Sun) and then submits it to scientific testing (that Gould never got around to testing the skeleton is not her fault). The tests are tests of Lisa's explanation, not tests of the angel explanation. That she does not do a very convincing job of this is another matter.

BTW, one of the problems with being too ready to admit supernatural explanations is that if you admit one you have to admit all. Those weren't really flying saucers, those were angels. That was not the skeleton of an angel, it was an alien from Alpha Centauri. Was it an angel or a demon from hell? Or, since Springfield is in America, was it in fact a Thunderbird or other Amerindian supernatural being? If it was an angel, was it a Jewish, Christian or Islamic angel? (I am treating UFOs, time-travellers etc. in the same vein as supernatural explanations because they are usually credited with not being bound by the known laws of nature).

This was a different line of argument. It was about Lisa allegedly being more disrespectful of her parents now, while painting a picture of what a sweet little girl, how respectful of her parents' feelings she is supposed to have been in the past.

So you were just contradicting me for the hell of it? :-) I find these two cases very comparable so I do not see how Lisa is supposed to have changed in this respect, and you did not do anything to make me change my mind on this. All you did was give me the (hopefully false) impression of wilfully trying to misunderstand me on this point (quibbling about words to avoid a real argument).

Well, thankfully it's over now.

Tilman

"If Persia was a three-sided square like America, we could easily survey it." Professor Johann Georg August Galletti (1750-1828)

"Katijaikat" wrote in message news:[email]...

trying

the

feel

Yes, that was pretty bad characterization.

smarmy

sure

the

me?...

in

on,

complaints

Well written.

On 10/15/01 9:58 AM "David McCormick" wrote:

Well actually I always thought that she was saying no to Reverand Faith because she was skeptical of the man, not religion per se. I mean he is holding a service in a tent and all. But it hardly seems unlikely that an intelligent person such as Lisa would be conflicted between religion and science or reason ( "Religion has no place inside of a school, just like facts have no place within organized religion") What about the inconsistency of Bart's relationship with Lisa (refusing to apologize for destroying Lisa's thanksgiving project and forgetting her birthday) to the the Bart who punch's Nelson to stick up for Lisa and her cupcakes, etc...

You know what else is inconsistent? On Alvin and the Chipmunks, how come half the time they're world famous and on tour, playing to millions of screaming fans, and the other half of the time, they're unpopular and Alvin is constantly trying to come up with a "get rich and famous" scheme that always falls through?

What the (bleep) does that inconsistency have to do with Lisa OR _The Simpsons_ as a program? There's never been a Chipmunks crossover episode AFAIK.

Ingeborg S. Norden (Holy delete keys! Remove the Batspam to reply.)

"Ingeborg S. Norden" wrote:

Is that your watch alarm?

You obviously havn't been paying attention then.

-Garry

You know how sometimes people here respond to topics with serious answers, but other times just feel the need to say something goofball that you're not supposed to take as a personal affront?

...THAT'S what.

"Jeff DuPuy" wrote in message news:B7F11120.4E3%[email]...

That comment is made up of surface wit. It is made from the standpoint of facts. Evolution is still not called a fact in schools, yet it is taught. Read the Constitution of the United States, under the line "...Congress shall make no law..." with regard to the establishment of religion. Search the document end to end, and you will not find that hallowed, yet imagined phrase, "separation of church and state." We know from history that the constitution was written with the freedom of religion in mind, not the freedom FROM religion. It was, at first, the people suffering religious persecution that fled England for the colonies.

I'm not a drum-beater for religion. I just think religion gets unfairly characterized by a few who've gone to school, and learned a few facts.

IMO that's just the brother-sister dynamic. Sometimes, you love your sister; sometimes, you don't like her very much. When it came down to it, Bart did feel bad about what he did, because he loved Lisa. It's not a character change; it's just character depth.

Jeff DuPuy wrote:

I don't see that as inconsistent at all, at least not when I compare it to my experiences growing up with my brother. We fought incessantly, but if anyone else dared to hurt or threaten the other, we were each other's staunchest allies. I see that in Bart and Lisa's relationship, and it strikes me as very sincere and authentic.

Jeff DuPuy wrote:

I don't see that as inconsistent at all, at least not when I compare it to my experiences growing up with my brother. We fought incessantly, but if anyone else dared to hurt or threaten the other, we were each other's staunchest allies. I see that in Bart and Lisa's relationship, and it strikes me as very sincere and authentic.