Mr. Satan

Ok, if taken as medical term (which happens way too often with these words) it can be seen as derogatory and making fun of a psychological disorder.

But I’d argue that no average person thinks of the word that way. I don’t think narcissism is ever seen as disorder in popular culture. From outside perspective it looks more like a choice, especially when compared to autism, schizophrenia or mental deficiency. None of those look like choices (autism being the most debatable out of the examples).

In a colloquial sense narcissist is just a selfish asshole. When talking about horror story narcissist, sociopath and / or psychopath depictions, I’m hard pressed to feel empathy for these characters. I’m not saying they are not sick, but having a disorder doesn’t automatically make actions and motivations any more justifiable.

What are you talking about? Maybe I have something blocked, but I see nothing close to that in this thread.

It’s a wordplay, it’s true. It’s the necessary precondition for a discussion: to use the same definition for words.

It only becomes necessary when it’s all you have. Taking ones words, understanding what one meant and then arguing that actually there’s a slight difference in semantics is a misdirection and I’d like to ignore it going forward.

Is the ability to make a squared circle necessary for a God to be worthy of worship?

That’s a strawman.
I don’t need a squared circle. I want children that don’t die of cancer. I want leaders that don’t bomb countries for personal gain and ambition. I want women not being raped at night. I want brown people treated with the same respect I get. I want a planet that is not on fire.

A god that tolerates suffering is all too human and I reject it.

Let me ask you this way: in a world where evil is caused and solved by people, what is the role of a god? Why should I want a god if I still have to solve these problems myself?

I just read the Wikipedia article not the myth itself so take it for what it is.

Getting all bent out of shape because of someone using a word that, since ancient times, meant some form toxic self love is silly at best.

Skimming through the wiki article I see more than one interpretation of the myth. An Ovids contemporary gives an interpretation of an asshole who rudely reject everyone and for being an asshole Narcissus is punished.

Yes, Ovid might have depicted the guy differently; no, I don’t know the texts myself.
But the colloquial meaning of the word is a self absorbed asshole. No matter gender or sexuality.

At the end of the day we are talking about a myth that was interpreted and reinterpreted through time by many people and even became term by itself no longer attached to the myth at all. The myth is nothing more than a fun fact and should not be treated as adding extra meaning to every usage of the word.

I would consider your comment wordplay. Mainly because your arguing semantics while semantics were never the point of the argument.

If a god said to be all powerful but allows for evil to exist it’s either not all powerful or evil itself, or both. In any case, why would I want or need such a god?

I know I’m exaggerating myself, but it doesn’t affect the argument.