I think we all know this is how it is going to play out.

I, for one, welcome our new Elder God masters. That way I'll be eaten first.

But Cthulhu was not depicted to scale...

Serratiger said:
But Cthulhu was not depicted to scale...

Not that you can really represent it in 2D regardless.

mosh_grizzly said:
I, for one, welcome our new Elder God masters. That way I'll be eaten first.

Cthulhu is not an 'Elder God' - nor is he even a Great Old One. Cthulhu is but a priest, to the Great Old Ones.

Wasn't Cthulhu the inspiration for all them tentacle hentai?

Rattrap6 said:
Wasn't Cthulhu the inspiration for all them tentacle hentai?

HISTORY TIEM!
In fact, the inspiration comes from a "The Dream of the Fisherman's Wife", a shunga ukiyo-e wood block carving made in 1814. Interestingly enough, 1814 marked the year in which the first photograph was taken and developed. So yeah, tentacle porn has been around since before pornography (in the photographic sense) was ever even invented
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dream_of_the_Fisherman%27s_Wife

Dialog from "Dream of the Fisherman's Wife"

MAIDEN: You hateful octopus! Your sucking at the mouth of my womb makes me gasp for breath! Aah! yes... it's... There.!!! With the sucker, the sucker!! Inside, squiggle, squiggle, Oooh! Oooh, good, Oooh good! There, there! Theeeeere! Goood! Whew! Aah! Good, good, Aaaaaaaaaah! Not yet! Until now it was I whom men called an octopus! An octopus! Ooh! Whew! How are you able...!? Ooh! "yoyoyooh, Saa... Hicha hicha gucha gucha, yuchyuuchyu guzu guzu suu suuu...."[3]

So it's almost 200 years later, and this actually makes MORE sense than most modern Japanese porn.

MardukRising said:
Cthulhu is not an 'Elder God' - nor is he even a Great Old One. Cthulhu is but a priest, to the Great Old Ones.

If the priest rises, then it stands to reason that the rest of the church will follow.

Serratiger said:
But Cthulhu was not depicted to scale...

He's the priest ordained (and I use that term loosely) by beings that define pretty much all of mankind's accumulated knowledge. Your argument is invalid.

toradrow777 said:
He's the priest ordained (and I use that term loosely) by beings that define pretty much all of mankind's accumulated knowledge. Your argument is invalid.

... no it isn't.

MardukRising said:
Cthulhu is not an 'Elder God' - nor is he even a Great Old One. Cthulhu is but a priest, to the Great Old Ones.

Cthulhu is the Shepherd of the Great Old Ones. HE is the god OF the Elder Gods. Learn your shit, man.

Go Hastur!

how is this english text?

MardukRising said:
Cthulhu is not an 'Elder God' - nor is he even a Great Old One. Cthulhu is but a priest, to the Great Old Ones.

Awesome!

So if we convert to their worship, we'll become cosmic beings?

So... how does this work, do I need a blood sacrifice or what?

toradrow777 said:
He's the priest ordained (and I use that term loosely) by beings that define pretty much all of mankind's accumulated knowledge. Your argument is invalid.

Serratiger said:
... no it isn't.

Technically, it's just a statement, not an argument, so validity does not apply. However, toradrow, what you said is an argument. It takes the form of "A is not-B, A is C, therefore A is not-D". Plugged in, this gives us "Cthulhu is not an Elder God. Cthulhu is but a priest to the Great Old Ones. Therefore, Cthulhu is, in this picture, depicted to scale." This is not a valid argument form, therefore your argument is invalid.

And if you're thinking "Well, your argument couldn't possibly be valid either", then allow me to prove its validity. We have the following entities as statements:

A: Your argument
B: The form of "A is not-B, A is C, therefore A is not-D"
C: Logical invalidity

The argument is as follows:

A is B
B is C
Therefore, A is C

Or plugged in:

Your argument is in the form of "A is not-B, A is C, therefore A is not-D"
The form of "A is not-B, A is C, therefore A is not-D" is logically invalid
Therefore, your argument is logically invalid

And if you haven't noticed, the argument form "A is B, B is C, therefore A is C" is logically valid. Thus, is the premises are true (and they are), the conclusion must be true (which it is).

DSJesterXII said:
Cthulhu is the Shepherd of the Great Old Ones. HE is the god OF the Elder Gods. Learn your shit, man.

And judging by this statement, not only is your argument invalid, it's also untrue.

ShylokVakarian said:
Technically, it's just a statement, not an argument, so validity does not apply. However, toradrow, what you said is an argument. It takes the form of "A is not-B, A is C, therefore A is not-D". Plugged in, this gives us "Cthulhu is not an Elder God. Cthulhu is but a priest to the Great Old Ones. Therefore, Cthulhu is, in this picture, depicted to scale." This is not a valid argument form, therefore your argument is invalid.

And if you're thinking "Well, your argument couldn't possibly be valid either", then allow me to prove its validity. We have the following entities as statements:

A: Your argument
B: The form of "A is not-B, A is C, therefore A is not-D"
C: Logical invalidity

The argument is as follows:

A is B
B is C
Therefore, A is C

Or plugged in:

Your argument is in the form of "A is not-B, A is C, therefore A is not-D"
The form of "A is not-B, A is C, therefore A is not-D" is logically invalid
Therefore, your argument is logically invalid

And if you haven't noticed, the argument form "A is B, B is C, therefore A is C" is logically valid. Thus, is the premises are true (and they are), the conclusion must be true (which it is).

And judging by this statement, not only is your argument invalid, it's also untrue.

Quick afterthought, though, I realize my phrasing is off, but the validity checks out.

Your argument:

A implies not-B
A implies C
Therefore, A implies not-D

My argument:

A implies B
B implies C
Therefore, A implies C

I have to use implies because B isn't always A, only sometimes. It's a one-way thing.

toradrow777 said:
He's the priest ordained (and I use that term loosely) by beings that define pretty much all of mankind's accumulated knowledge. Your argument is invalid.

I now realize a month later that the premises of my argument is untrue, as I mistook you as the writer of the quote in the spoiler below.

It's still a valid argument, mind you, so with some altering to the statements, I can make it true.

A: Your argument
B: The form of "A is B, therefore C is not-D"
C: Logical invalidity

Now that my premises are now true, my argument becomes sound (valid AND true).

A implies B
B implies C
Therefore, A implies C

Your argument follows the form of "A is B, therefore C is not-D"
The form of "A is B, therefore C is not-D" is logically invalid
Therefore, your argument is logically invalid

shylokvakarian said:
Technically, it's just a statement, not an argument, so validity does not apply. However, toradrow, what you said is an argument. It takes the form of "A is not-B, A is C, therefore A is not-D". Plugged in, this gives us "Cthulhu is not an Elder God. Cthulhu is but a priest to the Great Old Ones. Therefore, Cthulhu is, in this picture, depicted to scale." This is not a valid argument form, therefore your argument is invalid.

And if you're thinking "Well, your argument couldn't possibly be valid either", then allow me to prove its validity. We have the following entities as statements:

A: Your argument
B: The form of "A is not-B, A is C, therefore A is not-D"
C: Logical invalidity

The argument is as follows:

A is B
B is C
Therefore, A is C

Or plugged in:

Your argument is in the form of "A is not-B, A is C, therefore A is not-D"
The form of "A is not-B, A is C, therefore A is not-D" is logically invalid
Therefore, your argument is logically invalid

And if you haven't noticed, the argument form "A is B, B is C, therefore A is C" is logically valid. Thus, is the premises are true (and they are), the conclusion must be true (which it is).

And judging by this statement, not only is your argument invalid, it's also untrue.

shylokvakarian said:
Quick afterthought, though, I realize my phrasing is off, but the validity checks out.

Your argument:

A implies not-B
A implies C
Therefore, A implies not-D

My argument:

A implies B
B implies C
Therefore, A implies C

I have to use implies because B isn't always A, only sometimes. It's a one-way thing.

shylokvakarian said:
I now realize a month later that the premises of my argument is untrue, as I mistook you as the writer of the quote in the spoiler below.

Cthulhu is not an 'Elder God' - nor is he even a Great Old One. Cthulhu is but a priest, to the Great Old Ones.

It's still a valid argument, mind you, so with some altering to the statements, I can make it true.

A: Your argument
B: The form of "A is B, therefore C is not-D"
C: Logical invalidity

Now that my premises are now true, my argument becomes sound (valid AND true).

A implies B
B implies C
Therefore, A implies C

Your argument follows the form of "A is B, therefore C is not-D"
The form of "A is B, therefore C is not-D" is logically invalid
Therefore, your argument is logically invalid

Chill, nerd