<3 Well, to me it does, but I'm a mushy mushy love cookie. Well, again, we're talking about polyamory. The standing issue with polygamy is that it is recognized as legally dubious. Yes, but you said it yourself, there's no love involved there. I imagine such a relationship would take a decidedly different form, were genuine love involved. If we know of no such cases, that doesn't mean it can't work; it just means we can't judge either way. Ooh, now you're getting presumptuous. Why not? In this day and age, when sexuality and romantic openness are being explored, peculiarities embraced, new quirks surfacing and old ones coming to the public eye, why is it so unlikely we may find genuine, functional polyamory? What has stopped us before? Was it in our nature? Who's to say we can't overcome it? What's so sacred about loving only one person in one way, anyway? I consider it a form of conceit or elitism to suggest that one person is more worthy of love than any other. Mind you, it's a form of elitism in which I gladly partake, but I acknowledge it as such regardless. Oh man that's right there's another term for that! I felt like I was forgetting something. What a bro, thanks bro. :L >believes that they are and do >mfw
Face to palm
...But then... If you know that, then what's the point of... fggfdgdsg There's "avoiding complacency" and then there's "being too hard on yourself," y'know IT IS LESS BAD THAN AVERAGE AND INDICATIVE OF A PROMISING FUTURE there how's that
1) Not arguing, debating 2) Not debating that at all 3) No it's not stupid because you could, by extension of that logic, make all possible forms of discourse stupid. Try me. Also I think I'd be in the ballpark to say that I believe they are both valid and Makaze believes neither is valid. You're making a shitton of assumptions about faith there. In fact, that sounds exclusively like blind faith to me. There are arenas where there is no reasoning to the contrary and we're all just taking shots in the dark; what then? Faith is not guaranteed to bring conceit or self-righteousness. It does so in the hands of the lazy. It can be fine-tuned; to discard it altogether, in my opinion, is a form of conceit. It is saying essentially that a person has the ability to understand every possible idea, entity, what have you, and that any instance of faith, no matter how temporary, how self-aware, or how measured, indicates a lower intelligence. You're twisting my words. What I'm arguing is that organized religion is not the evil you're after, and it will do no good to be rid of it. Evil comes from people; it is recognized by people, defined by people, exclusive to people. Evil, badness, unsavory behaviors, lack of empathy or understanding, and yes, even religion: These are all things we created. They cannot be blamed for our failings or we risk severe weakness. Any worldview can be pushed to the point that it yields a productive, tolerant individual; and it can be twisted to the point that it yields a cancerous individual. As I said, all of the above is not characteristic of all religions, nor even all mainstream religions. In fact, ones which do not hold themselves above reason or above one's own existence have persisted longer than ones which do so. So clearly the issue is not religion, it is blind faith. Blind faith takes many forms: patriotism, racism, sexism... It is a mental recreation of images and sensations perceived in waking. I fail to see how that harms my point at all. It's another form of experience, and subject to the same scrutiny. Ooh, you chose your words poorly there. Making use of a concept? All of philosophy is conceptual, religion included. They are concepts we use to exercise our metacognition, explore the way we think, the glitches in our language, why we exist, where we came from. It supposes what we cannot know. It also intertwines with more concrete practices in the form of ethics and philosophical analysis. No measure of faith is incompatible with the concrete; it is meant to enhance it, not dominate it. It is a tool to be used to better our grasp of the abstract and maintain our hold on the "real." A man who had his hand in front of his face and couldn't know for certain that his hand was in front of his face would likely go mad; yet, at some point, he'll reach a question branching from "How do I know my hand is in front of my face?" that he can't answer. I consider it a matter of pragmatism in that case. Yeah well, your view makes zero sense to me, since I am clearly not you. The problem with solipsism is that, by nature, it is not universal... unless all things and people are aspects of yourself. And in that case, you are equal. You're as real as anything. Do you believe you're not real? Not what I was getting at. To know with certainty what we would need to know to be rid of faith, we would have to be different sorts of creatures. We perceive time; we can only live in the now. We are born and die; we know and experience only what happens in that period. We exist in a limited space; we can only see, smell, hear, feel, and taste so far. The rest requires at the very least .1% of guesswork. No, what happened is one balloon puffed up really big, and another one puffed up and tried to bump the other one out of the way, and in the end either they'll get smart and quit or they'll burst. That's my analogy for the people themselves; what I was addressing with the fire-fighting analogy was the concept of self-righteousness being used to destroy self-righteousness. All right, let's try a different analogy to marry the people and the concepts. It's one person swinging a torch around recklessly, and another swinging a torch at the first to get him to stop. All they can accomplish is to set each other on fire, and possibly burn down a village. Wouldn't it be better for them to just put out the flames? Fire only has one purpose, indeed. And so does self-righteousness. It cannot be justified. Blue fire burns as hot, if not hotter, and fire behind a mask only ignites the mask in time. The belief was, ultimately, given form by a limited number of persons. Its interpretation by others places the blame squarely on their shoulders for any misdoings, but the original idea remains. There is no one Christianity; there is one for every Christian. There is no one Buddhism; there is one for every Buddhist. There is an idea from which each one takes, and there is one that is unique to them, inside their head, built from what they've taken. They may bear great similarity, but in practice may turn out completely different. So yes, the person is connected to the religion, but the religion as practiced is not universally connected in the same fashion. People talk about religion like it's a big lumbering creature with thousands of people in its jaws; it's more like a species, of which everyone of a select group gets a pet. It's like that pit bull situation a while back, where lots of people were wanting to just euthanize pit bulls all over because a lot of them were causing people serious harm. Well yeah, but that's because a lot of people don't know how to take care of their goddamn dog. Even lions can be domesticated, if you know how to train them and you stick with it. I guess we could put a warning on some religions: "susceptible to corruption, may cause intolerant dickweeds," but that seems silly when we could just accuse the dickweeds of what is their fault. I don't believe it's nearly that simple. First off, you know what I think about this: that you'll never truly be free of it. There will always be intolerance. If the only form it takes in you personally is not to tolerate the intolerant, then so be it; but you will not stop anyone else's intolerance in so doing. You're going to make them think that it works, that they need it. They will meet your intolerance with more of their own, whether you think you're settling the score or not. Indifference. Understanding that, with you at your very best, intolerance cannot touch you. That is the only way. Hell, you should've learned this with schoolyard bullies; you don't hit back, that just makes it worse. You can tell a teacher, and that's what everyone recommends, but even that doesn't help sometimes. The most reliable thing is to stand your ground and be immovable. If your genes don't even have a place for the virus to infect, it'll whittle away and die.
GOOD ANIME, BEST ENDING. Freakin' love this. Watched it in both languages, immensely fulfilling experience either way. It's a prime example of Earn Your Happy Ending, at times heart-warming and at others heart-breaking. It was a tad slow to start, but not discouragingly so, and Renton actually tended to surprise me as he grew and as we learned more about him. Easily one of my top five, maybe top three. It's interesting as a mecha series, because it sort of straddles the line between real robot and super robot genres, but without seeming forced or incongruous. And then it throws in almost faerie-like creatures without batting an eyelash. In general, it creates and maintains a cohesive world nestled comfortably (perhaps impossibly) between far-out fantasy and near-future realism, so I've got to give it props there; I love my fantasy and my sci-fi, but most of all I love getting my fantasy in my sci-fi and my sci-fi in my fantasy. Love the movie too, thought the whole mythos swap dealie was an excellent idea. Trying to tell a different story in the same world sometimes serves only to make viewers nostalgic and harsh on the new tale; but taking the beloved characters and reinventing them in new conditions makes it feel shiny and new. The new story still felt decidedly Eureka Seven, which is a feat in itself. I heard about the continuation, and I'm excited. Despite what I said before, I think there's a ton of potential to continue Renton and Eureka's story, or to skip ahead and bring in a new cast. Which is the riskier move, I couldn't say, but for once I'm not dreading a coming sequel. BONES knows what they're doing. [/shameless BONES fanboy] Also, Kari Wahlgren. Kari Wahlgren 4-f#%kin-eva. PINK-HAIRED MANIACS R US
F.Y.I., the formal title for such a relationship before marriage is "polyamory." There's nothing wrong with it, but it's a delicate balancing act. A one-on-one relationship is tough enough; you have to consider your compatibility with your partner, the pace of the relationship, what your plans are together, how much time you spend with your partner, how much and how often and in what ways you each express your love, how much you should do for each other... I could go on. Now imagine that a third person is added to the equation. Suddenly everyone involved is doing double-time; all of the above considerations and more have to be balanced evenly between two people, without either one feeling as if they're receiving less love than they ought to be. If sex and marriage are factored in, the trick only gets trickier. The single greatest piece of advice I can give you is to SET GROUND RULES. Everyone needs to know the score; what they can expect from the relationship, who spends time with whom, who does what with whom. If you and your partners' needs are fulfilled by polyamory, then there's nothing wrong with it. But if someone starts to get jealous, it's gonna rock the boat crazy quick. As important as communication is in an ordinary relationship, it is exponentially more important in one like this, where the same sensitive connection is stretched ever thinner. If you're in it just for the sex, it can potentially be easier or harder to sustain. It largely depends on the same factors, but different questions. Are you and your partner able to fully disconnect sex from romance? If not, you may find it puts a strain on your relationship in the long term. Consider instead how you can excite each other; experiment a little. Again, if you can pull it off, there's no harm in it, but it's no small feat, and not for the faint of heart. There are simpler ways that may take more effort, but they are just as fulfilling. ...That's... No offense, but that's an overtly clinical and limited break-down. What if one person genuinely loves two people, and they consent to enter into a relationship at the same time without fuss?
Addressing the image specifically, that is definitely protected as artistic nudity. No doubt about it. The production value, make-up, lighting effects, etc. tell me that it was clearly meant as a work of art, not just pure fetish fuel, and as I recall the regulations are far looser on genuinely artistic work. So the image has been mislabeled from the get-go. I feel as if jumping straight to "We're afraid of women" is extreme. Exposing one's body, regardless of sex, is considered a matter of utmost intimacy. Only highly confident men and women, or those who seek to disconnect sex from nudity, comfortably expose themselves in public. As for the issue of censorship, yes, there is no question of lingering sexism in the different standards, but is it a matter of fear? Perhaps women's bodies are simply held in higher regard. Indecency is a matter not of fearing the offender, but of distaste for something uncouth or inappropriate; this is historically given greater stress in the woman's case. If it is fear, I would posit that it springs not from intimidation, but from an instinctive desire to "cover her shame." That said, the whole mess is rather silly. Either sex can distract or draw people's attention by exposing themselves. Either sex can be groped or otherwise made to feel uncomfortable by exposing themselves, chest or elsewhere. So I would think that censorship would be even across the board. No more of one than the mouth. The breasts are a sensitive organ, true, but far from a sensual one; their only biological purpose is breast-feeding, unless I've missed something vital that all my lady friends are hiding from me. In fact, on the same grounds, many foreign countries do not censor female breasts at all; for example, note that Japanese pornography requires the censoring of the penis and vagina, but not the breasts. True, it goes in cycles. But the censorship portion of each cycle seems to be biased regardless. False. A man's chest can leave a woman's heart aflutter as easily as the reverse, and many men's nipples are sensitive and susceptible to stimulation during sex acts. Not very manly, so you don't hear about it often.
Adding the ones I know most intimately. [/my excuse for almost all of these being about me] Most of these are meant to be funny. Not like I made them up or anything, but if this is for a serious project, feel free to omit needless entries. 2009 Nouveau Nova joins the forum. Noteworthy characteristics: Kind of shy (at first), decent English skills, actually makes Kingdom Hearts jokes. Nouveau Nova joins the Gentlemen. 2010 Sprothe is born, through the work of Nouveau Nova, Absol, and bigkingdomheartsfan2. Nouveau Nova and What? combine their powers to create "I've done it." Keyblade Spirit abuses Sprothe to death. Nouveau Nova sorely regrets creating it. With membership thinning and enthusiasm dwindling, the Gentlemen informally disband. Nouveau Nova has his name changed to Sforzato. KH-V Christmas! First annual Castle Oblivion challenge. 2011 Voxli becomes a thing.* Voxli briefly stops being a thing. Tinychat takes its place. Dalk and Harriet make brief return appearances to take part in tinynanigans. Voxli once again becomes a thing. P takes over as dedicated host, but is never around. Sforzato and Reptar confuse a great deal of the forum as to their genders. Sforzato keeps up the ruse, laughing all the way. Makaze crimps on Sforzato's style. Firekeyblade is not amused. Amidst arguments, Laurence_Fox claims seniority with regards to gendernanigans. KH-V discovers Homestuck. People either love it or hate it, or they think it's ok. KH-Voxli's regular games of Truth or Dare spread to the forum, first as threads fulfilling dares, then as a full-blown Truth or Dare thread. Sforzato, Jayn, and Makaze dominate. After the twentieth love confession in a row, Sforzato formally swears off dares. A suspected Heinlein alt sparks a brief but intense battle in the shadows, which ultimately involves the staff, old and new members, and even some who've left the site. In the end, the day is won and the offender ousted; new bonds are formed, old ones reforged, and existing ones strengthened. Sumi returns! Sforzato is reunited with his first KH-V friend. Second annual Castle Oblivion challenge, again a Christmas event. This time, a scavenger hunt is incorporated. The staff wish KH-V a merry Christmas via video recording. Claw hides his face. A host of Premium members compose their own merry-Christmas video. Sumi kicks KH-V's already-formidable shipping instinct into overdrive. Nearly everyone is paired off, except Sforzato of course. 2012 Sforzato's photo revealed! It turns out he's as ugly as he says, and he tries not to publicize the reveal too much. Still no word on Clawtooth's photo. I can probably get more precise dates on a few of these. *May be late 2010.
Were you sitting on that when I said it wasn't that bad at all for your first signature? :'c
Does Rainmeter do anything other than tell time, weather, and computer specs? Wondering if I should get it, not sure what I'd use it for if I did.
One love potion, please.
TH3Y 4R3 T1NY 4DOR4BL3 HORNS FOR CUT3 L1TTL3 GRUBS >:] TER, I SWEAR TO GOG, THEY WILL NEVER FIND THE BODY. did a motherfucker say bodies? honk :o)
>Refresh the page off-and-on for half an hour >No responses; check the rest of the Spamzone >MAKAZE REPLIES AS SOON AS YOU LEAVE Behold. Why are faith and self-righteousness entwined? That rhetoric is almost entirely exclusive to mainstream religions and scarcely seen in others. So unless we can dissolve organized religion sooner than earlier than organized religions came into existence which propagate self-righteous, quasi-tolerant rhetoric, then no, we can't do that faster. In fact I think we already have definitely can't do that faster by virtue of not having any means of time travel at our disposal. Disagree. Take away religion and the same sinister folks will grab another shield. The person individually must understand why s/he discriminates; no introduction or elimination of a view will ever truly purge that on its own. Perhaps there are imaginable worlds where something less pervasive exists, but assuming there is a Makaze for every world, he would probably still call for improvement, and he'd still be barking up the wrong tree. Why am I starting to think that this is like a buzzword for you? Faithful people can be tolerant. Everything takes faith. You cannot read this sentence without some measure of faith. You need to have faith that your eyes are perceiving an image that corresponds with reality, that we are both communicating in a language that is both aesthetically and functionally similar, that you understand my meaning to some degree. Or you can reject that faith, and discontinue this conversation--rather, be incapable of recognizing that you have the opportunity to continue it, that I myself have continued it, that it ever began in the first place. To say that faith is holding us back is to say that being human is holding us back; whether you're right or wrong, to dispense with it would make us inhuman, and that would be pointless. Perhaps, if we were to reach a point where we didn't need faith, it would become vestigial and quietly fade from view; but even then, I question if we would qualify as human. Do we not implicitly identify humanity with a certain level of understanding? I daresay we'd have to transcend that at some point to be rid of faith. We needn't go that far to improve the human condition. A dog can be the very best dog there ever was, can be worth more than some humans, can get along with other dogs, and still be a dog; we at our present level of capability can oust intolerance with concerted effort within and without. We can set faith aside in order to further our understanding and relations with others. We may never be rid of it, but it needn't hold a vice grip on the lives of all those who admit to having it. How can something oppose itself? Fighting fire with fire does not actually work that well... People were never given that by a religion; they took it freely. And no, it isn't, because nearly every philosophy can be summarily translated into another and have the same effect on a given person. Christians, atheists, nihilists, Buddhists, Scientologists, artists, soldiers, pianists, Quakers, bakers, candlestick makers--We're all capable of the same spectrum of action, expression, and experience. I hold in higher regard those beliefs which reach more fully to that spectrum, and in that respect find the symbols of Christian belief lacking; however, it is ultimately the individual who chooses how deeply to engage in the human consciousness, thus it is the individual's failing to understand or to tolerate. To blame any external entity is to invite weakness. Then let's call them morons instead. People are not bacteria, and they are rarely anything but strengthened by having their actions mirrored. Not to mention, they tend to come off as villains themselves, prompting another to rise and adopt the same tactics to combat the new threat. Imagine if the antibodies became the antigens, and inspired more antibodies, who would inevitably become antigens themselves.
I love it when you post
Well, part of the issue is I didn't find them entertaining. Caustic criticism is not my cup of tea any more than a shallow proposition that smacks of marketing. Even as far as caustic critics go, TAA is the Angry Video Game Nerd of philosophy; entertaining for about five seconds, then you wish he'd settle down a bit, maybe expand his vocabulary. I think Ben "Yahtzee" Croshaw needs to sit them both down to have a long, colorfully explicit talk. So all things aside, I find fault in the fact that neither video was very good. They do not admit to being entertainers, and are not that entertaining besides, in my opinion. Then again, my opinion is given to its own flights of self-righteousness. It's in my stars. There are progressive schools of theism that recognize the need to evolve and adapt the teachings, even those considered sacred. That self-righteousness is being eliminated. I don't believe that decent Christians, for one, are in the minority; I think certain groups are much louder than others. That trend exists in every culture. Unfortunately, even the decent ones tend to lose their head when the self-righteous begin to speak. Influence... Without it, we'd be rid of the self-righteous to begin with. They're so sure of themselves as to be infectious. The point of all this is to say that the beliefs themselves should never be held so accountable as the people who interpret them to do harm, as the former leads more often than not to the oppression of good, innocent people. I also think it's folly to posit that things like standardized sexuality, bullying, discrimination etc. would never have come about without religion. Sinister people use labels to mask their intentions, and foolish people fight those labels as if they are to blame. Prejudices arise heedless of creed. Many wicked men wear valuable armor; it is better to expose the head and strike than to break through the helmet. Thought I'd point this out: "Equal and opposite reaction." Self-righteousness is not the opposite of self-righteousness. Mah *****. Truth be told, I find the traditional conception of God shallow and lacking. Why does he look like us? Why is he a he? I prefer more naturalistic religions... ...or things like Hinduism, which basically says, "Hey here's all these gods, but actually they're just one with as many forms as there are things in the universe, and he is you, and oh yeah actually he's just in your head. Have fun." Sure. But does that mean they can't criticize? If someone's being a dick to me because I'm being a dick to him, I might point out he's a dick, but I won't call it fair unless I recognize I'm being a dick too. Everyone could do to learn this; as a rule of thumb, I find that people most often pick out shortcomings in others with which they are familiar in themselves. You're most uniquely qualified to criticize what you've experienced on your own, after all.
I could potentially break this down into like three different Discussion threads so for now I'll leave it be "Those guys antagonized us! Let's antagonize them back!" Welcome to war. We've all had different experiences. There are plenty of atheists who are highly intolerant and oppressive by their words alone. Picking on that point is an endless back-and-forth game with no real merit in the long run; a bad atheist is equal to and can arise from similar circumstances and shortcomings as a bad theist.
Get back, y'all don't know me like that I saw that post in the quotes, and I don't like it any more than either video, buster. Well it's responding to a pretty weak proposition, so while the points are valid, they're worn-out and, like I said, pointless. Hardly seems worth making a video over. Yes, it's antagonistic, but moreover it's attention-grabbing. He could've made every one of those points in the comments of the video, or to the man himself, before going straight to a video response. If he honestly believed the points could stand by themselves he wouldn't feel the need to snark endlessly, hype up every rebuttal, and moreover behave like an entitled ****** in front of thousands of people. Watching TAA's videos always gives me the impression that he, like the late Chris Hitchens, aims for entertainment first and critical discourse second; which makes a few of his points to some degree hypocritical, really.
Oh god something tells me we're going to have to use the EXAMINE prompt a lot in the future, to scan for weaknesses. "Enemy shield analyzed!"
Watched both in full. Found both annoying and pointless. Brb Thelema.
In accordance with a discussion we had over MSN about this the other night, I vote we call these sorts of things Internet Baby Pictures from now on. Also Mak's are adorable <3 I wish my first forum were still around. Or that I remembered what it was called. The only traces left of me on the intertubes are all from when I started getting a little less obnoxious. Granted, I didn't stay in that mode for long... When you're deathly afraid of embarrassing yourself, you learn what not to do right quick.
