Spineyguy In reply to bale-storm [2011-10-12 10:27:53 +0000 UTC]

Danke.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

bale-storm In reply to Spineyguy [2011-10-12 19:24:15 +0000 UTC]

heh, I should try getting you a present sometime, I must owe you a lot

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Spineyguy In reply to bale-storm [2011-10-12 19:28:27 +0000 UTC]

If you were in debt to me you wouldn't still be alive, trust me.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

bale-storm In reply to Spineyguy [2011-10-12 21:30:15 +0000 UTC]

I thought it was my job to be scary

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Spineyguy In reply to bale-storm [2011-10-15 21:27:29 +0000 UTC]

No, it's your job to be a bit weird and cripplingly self-conscious, sinister is my thing. You should be glad, you will get a lot more attention for your traits.

I am trusted with a muzzle and enfranchised with a clog. Therefore I have decreed not to sing in my cage. If I had my mouth I would bite; if I had my liberty I would do my liking. In the meantime, let me be that I am and seek not to alter me. I cannot be said to be a flattering honest man, it must not be denied but I am a plain-dealing villain.

Cookie for reference.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

bale-storm In reply to Spineyguy [2011-10-16 19:40:49 +0000 UTC]

sounds like Shakespeare to me, though I don't know many quotes and plays by him =/

And fine be sinister... though if you ask me I've seen lolcats more threatening.

And awkward is always noticeable but hardly ever suspected. And I'll admit attention can be good, but not when you say something stupid, which given this is me is once every 7.5 seconds on average.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Spineyguy In reply to bale-storm [2011-10-16 22:10:48 +0000 UTC]

Duh, I'm on an English BA, of course it's Shakespeare.

Mind you, I could always quote you some Chaucer, then look on in delight as your skull ruptures under the strain of bad puns and sexist jokes in old English.

Also, I object to your scorn for lolcats. [link]

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

bale-storm In reply to Spineyguy [2011-10-18 01:33:41 +0000 UTC]

It was a lucky guess. I'm an uncultured wretch that knows hardly any famous literature.

And it wasn't so much scorn, in fact I see them as something that raise my spirits and cheer me up. Saying they're sinister seems more insaulting

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Spineyguy In reply to bale-storm [2011-10-18 08:28:28 +0000 UTC]

depends on whether you mean sinister as an insult or not. I tend to assume it's a compliment, as having the will to make necessary sacrifices for the cause of one's choice is, in my mind, a most noble quality and one that I wish more people boasted.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

bale-storm In reply to Spineyguy [2011-10-19 16:55:16 +0000 UTC]

It can be either really and sometimes sacrifices should pick themselves. I'd rather not be the one who dies for someone who has the arrogance to think their greater good is any better than mine and so condemning me when the truly noble sacrifice themselves at any time for anyone even if no one would know.

That's why to me the truest heroes are willing to be hated, exiled and cast away from mainstream society so others do not have to do the things they have done or resort to extreme measures.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Spineyguy In reply to bale-storm [2011-10-20 09:19:01 +0000 UTC]

Have you been watching Batman? Because you've just summed up the philosophy put forward in the second film.

"He's the true Hero of Gotham. Not the one it wanted, but the one it deserved." (Jim Gordon.)

That's why I have a real problem with calling soldiers 'heroes'. Because they're not heroes, they are career men who have made a monumentally bad choice; deciding to enter a vocation where they have no freedom, abysmal living conditions and a high risk of death or mutilation. There is not really anyone in the world today who can really be called a hero, because the criteria are such that one would require a level of commitment and conviction that is just not found in humans.

If anything, people like Adolf Hitler are the true heroes, willing to sacrifice not just their own lives, but the lives of countless other people in order to bring about real change. It's a shame that the causes these people pledge themselves to are almost always terrible, but that is what separates a hero from a villain. If an Adolf Hitler came along who decided that rather than genocide, he was quite a big fan of curing cancer then we'd be rid of it in a generation. It's not how you do things that makes you great, it's the results you get. And what people often term 'sinister' is really just the willingness to make big sacrifices in order to obtain results.

Okay, Philosophy lesson over.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

bale-storm In reply to Spineyguy [2011-10-20 11:49:58 +0000 UTC]

True but in my idea, they sacrifice themselves and are not without mercy either. I admit you have to be willing to accept that those few who follow you may die and carry on without them but you still should avoid their deaths as much as possible.

Also I think you're greatly exaggerating Hitlers role in Nazi Germany, he may have lead it but he never actually did much more than give speeches, have crazy ideas that his underlings took too far and ham up their war effort. I mean we should count ourselves lucky that he was a useless tactician but a influential one at that.

Soldiers I wouldn't see as heroes as such, but anyone willing to fight and die in the knowledge that weakling whelps like me can be free to bemoan my own relatively happy life at least warrants my respect. It seems disrespectful to go under the assumption they're just doing a job like anyone else, I mean I am more willing to buy a war veteran a drink than some arrogant toss pot working in a high pay job.

And the dedication for being a hero is present in all of us, we're just content to abide guilt so that we don't loose what we have. I think some times we should just remember with simplistic logic that the reason we should do the right thing is because it's right. It's when you start wanting to harm people that get in your way that you have to be willing to accept you could be wrong and take a moment to be sure before acting further.

Also you should be a Vorlon Inquisitor, your mindset is suitably cynical

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Spineyguy In reply to bale-storm [2011-10-20 17:28:19 +0000 UTC]

Human life is the most expendable thing in the world, the only reason humanity has convinced itself otherwise is because of Judaism. In seventy years, the chances are we'll both be dead and the world will not have stopped moving, it is testament to the arrogance of mankind that we see life as sacred, or worth protecting. The vast majority of human life counts for nothing, even within the narrow concept of civilisation as we know it, if you take a wider view, as in one that encapsulates existence as a whole, we are worth even less.

Hitler needed nothing more than to be influential and inspirational, if he had stopped pursuing his goal then the whole Nazi movement would have collapsed, fragmenting into warring factions and turning a relatively brief war into a middle-east-style state of perpetual chaos. By maintaining his position to the last and murdering millions of Jews, he ensured that the allies could maintain a common foe and the axis had someone to blame it all on when they inevitably lost. If it weren't for Adolf Hitler's leadership, the war in Europe may still have been going to this day.

Soldiers ARE just doing a job, but they are doing a job which makes for an incredibly bad career choice. Which is exactly why the majority of people don't go in for it. Anyone who is willing to put their lives on the line at all has not thought out their life properly. If you fight for money, you're thick, because there are much better ways of getting it. If you fight for you country, you're an idiot, because the instant you have outlived your usefulness you will be chucked in a bin and left to rot. If you fight for your God, you deserve everything you get, which will be nothing. The only thing worth fighting for in this world is your own survival, and avoiding combat if at all necessary is the best way to protect yourself.

Also, saying that 'the potential for heroic acts resides in us all, but is held in check by our materialistic nature' is exactly the same as saying that 'humans are far too selfish to be great', which is my point, so I'm not sure what you're trying to argue there.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

bale-storm In reply to Spineyguy [2011-10-22 01:00:32 +0000 UTC]

¬_¬

You seem very ungrateful to be alive, assuming that our lives are totally worthless makes it seem more like we should get sterilized and so commit mass euthanasia for our species. Truly I'm blessed to live my lie of an existence in blissful ignorance laughing when I should weep.

It's not a better argument if you put a word in capitals for emphasis. I was expressing my own naive opinion, not decrying yours. Also it's a bit of a contradiction to say all human life is worthless but that a soldier should chose a better job to stay alive. It is still worth remembering that no matter the intent, we are still protected by them and should not judge their worth from our proverbial ivory towers.

Hitler is best remembered in ridicule as a pathetic shouty man who got an ear from a desperate people. He was merely a stain on the past, to be noted as a warning for us against our own fears. There is no point raising the man into anything more than he was.

And what I'm trying to argue is that we are not all heartless and greedy, that when we understand that some things are worth more than the next breath and slip free from the binds we put over ourselves maybe we can start to flourish or at least fail less. But that's me with my dreamy idealism that'll never be realized because all the fools are greedy, the wise are all cynics and the dreamers are a joke the universe shares with no one.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Spineyguy In reply to bale-storm [2011-10-22 11:32:48 +0000 UTC]

I find your abundance of faith... disturbing.

But thinking that human life is worthless is by no means a reason for mass suicide, it doesn't mean I don't want to live, or I don't want other people to live. People may do as they please with their own lives, as long as they don't try and tell me what to do with mine. You should've seen the looks I got in my Philosophy class when informed everyone that they didn't matter, naturally they were all arrogant Sherrif-lads who had been told since the age of twelve that they were the 'crème de la crème' of humanity, so they were all incredibly shocked that anyone could think so little of them.

Let me clarify what I mean by worthless. I don't mean 'you can't quantify its worth in terms of a currency', though that is true, nor do I mean 'there's no point in the continued existence of mankind', what I mean is that in the grand scheme of things, nobody cares whether or not you die. That's not to say that people won't be sad if you die, because that is part of the survival instinct which has made us the dominant species. I mean that no-one who thinks about it properly would ever be willing to die for the sake of another, it's not a practical way of running a civilisation. When push comes to shove, these 'good, honest, caring' human beings will EAT EACHOTHER to survive. What sickens me is that no-one can see it.

That's what I'm loving about Uni, there are no limits on what you can say (except the obvious 'black people are disgusting' sort of thing), so now I can start expressing some REALLY fucked up opinions.

And that is why my next essay will be entitled 'Roland Barthes is the Messiah of logical thought'. *maniacal laughter*

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

bale-storm In reply to Spineyguy [2011-10-24 01:13:26 +0000 UTC]

being remembered after we die is not truly that important when you believe in reincarnation. I mean so long as you can remember who YOU are it doesn't matter what others believe save for those you truly care about.

Atheism may be logical but it is no better than religion. Wars start over philosophy and greed, and I see an absurd zeal in their desire to 'enlighten' everyone out of their beliefs while smugly assuming that they are so much more intelligent than the heathens for all their barbaric and foolish notions.

And we are a race that lives with a veneer of civilized life when we at heart are just as bad as any other animal, arguably worse considering cereal killers and rapists. All our intellect has done is given us new levels of malice and kindness in equal measure. We may be uniquely capable of analyzing the universe and manipulating it in unimaginable ways be we still understand so little of ourselves and live without ever trying to transcend our innate flaws or at least reduce their impact.

Perfection is obviously unattainable make no mistake however, that does not mean we cannot become better than what we were.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Spineyguy In reply to bale-storm [2011-10-24 08:38:37 +0000 UTC]

Richard Dawkains has a theory which states that the memories we leave behind in the minds of those we knew during life is the only way in which we exist post-mortem. So those of us who are remembered fondly, or as great leaders or artists will continue to be so long after they are dead. Some truly great people will continue to affect the way the world is run by providing inspiration and, in effect, 'guidance' to artisans and creators long after they themselves die. Life after death is possible, but it's not attained through prayer or worship, it is possible only through great achievement and fame. (In which case, think of all the amazing people who have been totally forgotten.)

It seems as though you've been talking to the wrong kind of atheist. Among our sensible creed there are those, just like every other faith or belief-set in the world, who ruin it by taking things too seriously. The only people I know who actually treat all religions equally are atheists, every faith has some sort of bias and that should not be the case. It is not a good way to run a society, but until someone in a high place decides to discard the shackles of a God it's the only one we've got. The assumption is not that atheists are better, the assumption is that the religious are idiots who can't think things through for themselves which, sadly, in the vast majority of cases, is true.

Nature is not bad, there is no cruelty in the killer-whales who play catch with a half-dead baby seal before eating it, nature, and everything that springs from it, is callously indifferent to suffering. There is no malice or evil in the animal kingdom and, as you so rightly pointed out, there is very little to separate us from the apes in the trees. Humanity isn't bad, I have never even suggested that, mankind is simply a product of its history, and history dictates that the strong survive and the weak starve to death. If we have both kindness and malice in equal measure, neither one counts for anything.

Eudaimonia, which is the Ancient Greek word for 'human flourishing', is the ultimate goal of everything we do, from the bloodiest war to the most beneficent provision of food to the motherless child, all things allow us to become better. That is not to say that we will one day transcend violence, or become all-loving creatures of kindness and joy, but we will get stronger. The war is fought so that the stronger side can exert their control, the starving child is fed so that the aid-worker can act as an example to others, everything points to Eudaimonia, and the next big step along that path will come when we realise that actively trying to be good is a futile task.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

bale-storm In reply to Spineyguy [2011-10-27 13:48:58 +0000 UTC]

Don't get me started on that windbag. Dawkins can say famous people are immortal, but to me it just goes to show hubris. It's like saying 'Well I'm sorry YOU are going to be buried, rot and forgotten but at least I will live on in memory.'. It smacks of a very elitist concept and that just doesn't sit right with me.

I find him somewhat smug and insufferable, with parts of me wondering if he sees himself as some kind of great rationalizer or a prophet of the word of logic. I get this aggressive to anyone who tries to tell me what I should or shouldn't believe in.
If anything is sacred it's what brings us comfort and power over ourselves, so long as you follow the big rule of doing no harm to those who do not seek to harm you.

Animals are ethically neutral but I think humans, being intelligent enough to give themselves rules need to at least follow them in letter. We in general no longer need to hunt and kill things or defend ourselves from superior predators, the innate aggression that we used then is no longer able to find vent as easily and we like to imagine that we could do no harm to another living thing. Part of the reason I like the idea of martial arts and video games is that it offers a cathartic outlet for these forces as well as potential benefits that can be gained from regular exorcise, discipline, improving co-ordination and memory and so on. We need to learn a balance between our biological needs and our intellectual ones, finding some way to live in a less complected and destructive fashion.

And Eudaimonia is a pretty word for a somewhat obvious concept. Everything we do is more or less to make things better for ourselves, other people or both. I'd like to see how many examples that can be given for people doing things of their own volition to hurt themselves and everyone else aside from maybe suicidal types and the occasional sociopath. Though I don't see being good as futile.

If anything I see that as one of the only real reasons I should have any right to exist. To be kind and be helpful and supportive to those who need it. I don't see any reason not to live like that aside from the obvious issue of people trying to take advantage. To me it seems only right to do whatever I can to make this world a little less cold and miserable. Though I'll admit that my partner has ultimate priority to me, no one and nothing is more deserving than he for my attention. I see no benefit in isolating the one I care most about like that if I'm trying to help everyone.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Spineyguy In reply to bale-storm [2011-10-27 17:19:28 +0000 UTC]

Dawkins isn't quite as selfish or bigoted as people tend to think he is. if you read 'The God Delusion' you will find some well considered and firmly wrought opinions put across with effective and clever language. However, the way in which he speaks in public, coupled with the fact that he is an ageing, white, upper-middle-class, English male makes everyone instantly take a dislike to him, especially the religious and the spiritual. As an Atheist I can sympathize, I have also been involved in a discussion where two Christians, a Muslim and a Jew all decided to set aside their differences for once and tear at my arguments like a pack of wild animals. Dawkins has a remarkable talent for saying exactly the wrong thing (however true) at exactly the wrong time to exactly the wrong people, which is why he often appears as a militant old man with a set of prejudices that would make John McCririck blush. In my opinion he misrepresents both himself and atheists in general whenever he goes on TV.

Humans do just as much evil through its laws and the imposition of moral principles on a naturally neutral population as any other creature. The mere fact we make rules that are supposed to stop us from killing each-other, doesn't mean that Killing is bad. As a species, humans have never enjoyed a time of peace longer than a few decades. We crave violence, we cannot bare to be without it because that is how humans define themselves. It is impossible to say what would happen if we didn't make war with one-another because the direct consequence of peace is war. Peace means steadily increasing affluence, affluence is only ever born of exploitation, and this either leads to revolution or conflict for resources, but once a winner has been decided, peace can resume, until the process starts again.

Catharsis is like Methadone, it is a poor substitute for what we really crave. Martial arts put constraints on violence in order to manage it and make it controllable, which defeats the point of violence in the first place. Video games get around this by removing some of the rules and instead putting the violence in a virtual environment, but satisfaction in this is significantly decreased, which is why some gamers decide to go on rampages at school and others decide to take out their frustration on the other people playing.

This is going to sound awfully patronising, but that is the wrong kind of exercise, yet is strangely apt in this situation. Only through periodically exorcising the elements of our nature that are violent can we truly improve ourselves, and this is currently only done by harming another human being. Some people do this with violence, some with slander, some with financial attacks, but the vast majority of us do it through social comparison and competition. Competition for a job, for money, for sex, for the intellectual high-ground, for the title of the best, the fastest, the most astute, the strongest and the bravest. once such a title is claimed, we move onto the next element, the next competition.

Your position on 'being good' is very cutesy and indicative of someone whose faith in humanity remains intact. As far as I can see the only reason to act within the law is to avoid punishment, and the only reason to be good is to impress the right people, potential employers, prospective romantic partners, their parents, one's own parents, etc. Thus I am what can commonly be described as a villain I serve others to serve my turn upon them, and I delight in the weaving of schemes for sport and profit. To succeed is to be better than others, and the best way to do that is sabotage coupled with self-improvement. When I meet my fated love I will change in one of two ways; I may become good, I may start helping people, doing the honourable thing, or I might become worse than ever. Only time will tell.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

bale-storm In reply to Spineyguy [2011-10-27 23:51:48 +0000 UTC]

I still find the general smugness of atheists something of an irritation,I'm sorry but just because you think religion is nonsense and all that follow it must be just too stupid to know any better doesn't make it true. I mean what you think you see, feel and remember are actually fabricated even if the effect is slight, because your brain has had to process it based on sensory input.

The rules we made to work together still make sense in other social animals, you won't see wolf pack members kill each other without much reason. I mean to exist as a community some things have to be taboo like rape, murder and incest. They damage the social binds we make and only those who are isolated enough would see them as pointless because they would turn inwards.

violence may be inherent to our species but no good can ever come from harming another for selfish reasons. If anything my more vindictive side would want to set about harming those who harm others but I'd become just what I wanted to destroy and in turn have to end myself. In truth harm doesn't have to be inflicted in order to better ourselves, in understanding our own motives lies more of a hope. Hurting people you dislike may be because they remind you of yourself and so the healthy thing would be to come to terms with that. Aggression is a necessity not an excuse.

'Who are you?' is a much more tricky question to answer than 'what do you want?' in our twisted nets of ambitions we forget who we are or never even learn it, becoming something without form as a shifting mask drifting along to simply be better than all else but at the same time being nothing.

I may be cutesy and naive but I'm not going to pity or get self righteous to you. You are a great friend and can really make me laugh, even if our view points skew and differ. Time will certainly tell and I hope you look back on now with a smile of mirth of how you could ever be like that. I have little or no faith in humanity, but I have faith in myself and those I care about and that is enough for me. I know that concepts such as politeness and humility are forgotten in most, but if I can still hold them alive then maybe other people can too and someday we'll all be nice and sip tea under the rainbow of equality.... until then there's just me and my bf which is all I really need.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Spineyguy In reply to bale-storm [2011-10-28 14:10:48 +0000 UTC]

Like I said, you've been speaking to the wrong kind of atheist, namely me. the vast majority of Atheists believe that there is no God, but the message spread by many religions are quite good. Messages about obeying the law, helping people, stuff like that. Where Atheists run up against religion is in the elements of elitism, prejudice, unfair dismissal of political groups, maltreatment of women and the sheer refusal by some faiths to develop along with the rest of society. Like I said before, the only people who can ever treat all religions equally are atheists, whether that treatment is acceptance and tolerance, or a baffled sort of denial. Atheists are just as misrepresented by the media and other fields as, for example, Muslims or Buddhists.

In the wild, mothers abandon their lame offspring, sons murder their fathers for the succession of the patriarchal position, the stupid are eaten, the weak are sacrificed and the slow are left behind. Packs of wolves will kill and cannibalise an injured or infirm colleague for meat and the refinement of the hunting practice. Killer Whales will play catch with a baby seal as it screams in agony and its mother looks on. But these examples are not of cruelty, these are survival at its most basic level, and the sooner humanity gets off it's high horse and joins in, the better. We cannot maintain this level of population growth without some negative consequences, and it is better that a cure is self-administered than have it happen naturally, the former will result in a smarter, healthier species, the other will bring our extinction.

So you would prefer to act because of who you are rather than what you want. Admirable viewpoint, and well considered but does 'what you want' and 'what you get' not ultimately define 'who you are'. In my experience, the 'who' is entirely dependant on the 'what', and the 'where' and the 'when' and, to a lesser extent, the 'why'.

I'll see your rainbow of acceptance and *shudder* equality, and raise you my black smog-cloud of industry and exploitation (and just a hint of vanilla).

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

bale-storm In reply to Spineyguy [2011-10-29 23:08:16 +0000 UTC]

That's true, that sort of atheist I can support. I don't like being belittled and treated like an idiot by anyone religious or otherwise. I'm not sure if anyone does and quite a lot of things like elitism and such can be quite easily seen in other systems than religion. Though I will say this, either politics should be totally separate from religion or ALL religions should be equally represented in it. I see no good reason for having bishops in the house of lords but not one monk, rabbi or high druid[of all you'd think they had the MOST right to be there].

Also social Darwinism is a poor argument to me, the product of a great many mutations that are considered undesirable. Every one has a purpose and restriction of our gene pool will make mankind more inbred and less diverse and therefore less genetically stable. Overpopulation is an issue don't get me wrong but there are countermeasures like contraception and even homosexuality, in fact it's theorized that's a genetic source of it. And if not there's plague, flood, famine, war and so on to take away huge swathes of mankind. Nature itself will probably balance the books when the net climate shift happens.

Who follows the function of what, not precedes it. Who I am defines what I do. I don't really see why I should care about what I don't have when I already have so much. Ambition just leads people to suffer, whether it's the person themselves or those they victimize.

No deal, while I can still dream. Even if it is futile to hope.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Spineyguy In reply to bale-storm [2011-10-30 01:42:43 +0000 UTC]

Pagans are a much more chipper bunch than most of the other religions, may have something to do with not having a concept of hell. For a Pagan, what you do in life really doesn't matter, as long as you don't badmouth Woden and stay in the hovel while Þunaraz's having his fun you're set. Why must the monotheists be quite so attached to their arse-rods?

Anyway, what I'm suggesting is nothing like social Darwinism, that'd be too slow and unreliable. I propose a regime of ethnic cleansing, followed by a few holocausts and light smattering of mass-murder to top it off. The population will be halved in a century and all those starving children will be dealt with. Fool-proof.

Or we could hope that the Catholics sit down and have a good think about their favourite book and what it says (or rather, what it doesn't say) about rubber.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

bale-storm In reply to Spineyguy [2011-10-30 17:53:11 +0000 UTC]

Well when it comes to stuff like that I'm not wholly sure what gods I should worship or at least pay some small degree of homage to. It's one of the things I'll look into as I go along, for now I can whole heartedly disagree with Christianity, respect elements of Buddhist and Celtic pagan belief [Avalon is not heaven, more a rest stop between reincarnations to them, also the brain is where the soul resides to them). Monotheists tend to seem a little jealous that polytheists can put any degree of suffering or problems down to gods arguing, being immature or using us in a huge game. All the monotheists can say about god is that he moves in mysterious ways, which to me is more like 'He's sort of Schizophrenic, just deal with it'.

I can't help thinking that's worse and if we were to do that a lot of what makes us human beings would be lost. I'd rather have our species die out honorably and nobly than linger on as blood drenched cowards. The ends don't justify those means, not by a long shot. What is the point in existing at all if by doing so we loose sight of who we are? That said for someone who believes in an afterlife it's all easy for me to say that. If as you believe we simply stop the notion of allowing all of mankind to die with dignity seems indescribably foolish.

And yes we could hope the Pope dies by thunder-strike [given the iconographic and random nature of such a death it'd seem like a clear message of displeasure from their supposed lord] and thus give catholics reason to embrace at least out of necessity the truth that contraception is actually not that bad when we're facing an imminent tide of people facing lives of starvation and suffering...

Or we COULD have the Pope and his cronies rounded up and imprisoned and all the stuff that corrupt church has nicked from every culture brought back to their rightful owners and all the vandalism they've committed set right

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Spineyguy In reply to bale-storm [2011-10-30 19:38:08 +0000 UTC]

If there is a God, which in a universe as vast and infinitely variable as this is entirely possible, then it is certainly nothing like what the Christians worship.

On an unrelated note, I quite like Billy Connoly's theory of infinite progression, which states that the universe acts in the same way as an atom. Basically, the same pattern of existence is seen in atoms, planetary systems, galaxies and the universe, so it is probably safe to assume that the universe is part of a greater whole, as is that greater whole, and the following, and the following. Eventually you get to the stage where our universe can be considered in equal terms to a single atom in a single molecule, in what eventually makes up something very mundane, like, for example, a table leg or a tea pot. And so the scale keeps increasing in an infinite progression of universes, each vastly bigger than the last. Not an awfully serious theory, but coming from the mind of a comedian does not make it any less valid than the theories posed by scientists or theologists.

This, of course, begs the question of what exactly the point of it all is (Education, logic, mathematics, quantum physics, everything.), when a former steel-worker from Glasgow can come up with a theory just as plausible as Stephen Hawkin.

And if you think that culling half the world's population would rob us of humanity then you have clearly not been paying attention to anything I've said on human nature throughout this conversation. Humanity is a social construct, and has no place in my new world order.

Leaving the death of the Pope up to an act of God is foolish. A ruthless and sadistic part of me wonders what sort of fame could be accorded to the latest man to assassinate a Pope, it could either be wondrous or terrible depending on how many pies that particular Pope had his fingers in. Given that the current Pope is a former-member of the Nazi movement, I think that anyone with half a brain cell would leave him alone, but we'll see who succeeds him. Imprisonment is also stupid, they'd be out within a week.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

bale-storm In reply to Spineyguy [2011-11-01 12:24:34 +0000 UTC]

I sometimes see philosophers as a snooty bunch, proclaiming they know some deeper path to the riddle in life when anyone can do what they do, mostly comedians and actors. I mean everyone can say what they think about the world, I don't see why they deserve special privileges to do that and not much else.

I'd sooner die a man of honour than live a wretch under any murderous new world order. To be honest I'm sure I'd be on the kill-list anyway for my inferior genetics, and low contribution to GDP, so it's not like I'd have much choice.

And I was merely remarking on the irony that'd cause. Also getting hit by lightning is not an act of god, if it was winning the lottery would mean the same thing and thus rekindle the fucking stupid notion of divine right.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Spineyguy In reply to bale-storm [2011-11-01 13:47:14 +0000 UTC]

Philosopher is a retroactive term that we apply to history, no-one goes to University to 'become a philosopher', mainly because there is no money to be made in it. Plato was not a philosopher, Plato was the equivalent of a professor, he was a tutor to the children of Senators and rich Athenians. 'The Republic' was a book designed to educate young people about the correct application of logic to the running of a society, hence the name. Immanuel Kant was not a philosopher, he was a theologian and an ethicist, but only became known as a philosopher at about the turn of the 20th century.

So the people we now call Philosophers cannot ever be grouped as such; they are Authors, Clergymen, Teachers, Physicians, all general scholars who published great works of logic and reason and became known as philosophers. Let it never be said that 'Philosophers' are bad because they are elitist, self-righteous bastards with a God fetish and a horribly decorative way of writing, because they are not all like that.

Plato: [On being named the wisest man in Athens and 'knower of all truths'] "This man, on one hand, believes that he knows something, while not knowing [anything]. On the other hand, I – equally ignorant – do not believe [that I know anything]."

Where is the arrogance? I don't see it. Judge the work, not the man. Plato came up with some truly inspired theories about existence that are disturbingly underrated these days.

Eugenics are sooooooo last century man. The premise of my regime is that you are judged by your potential over your body or genes. The people being murdered will be all the starving masses in Africa, the self-destructive religious fanatics and the unemployable degenerates. People without potential are nothing more that drains on our resources. You, on the other hand, are a reasonably intelligent person who lives with the intention to contribute what they can to society. You don't expect free housing, you don't bite the hand, you don't beg for aid and you don't want to exterminate any religions. You are, if anything, a prime example of what it is to be a new-worlder.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

bale-storm In reply to Spineyguy [2011-11-04 14:59:54 +0000 UTC]

Maybe so, but it seems just a bit arrogant to assume that only a select few can share their ideas or are worth listening too. They tend to be people who have enough wealth and time to influence everyone else, it's hardly worth anything to have good ideas anyway, most of them where thought up before us and were likely forgotten.

Also it's not humble to say 'well that guy may be an arrogant fool who thinks he knows everything but I clearly don't, Oh how much wiser I am' which is the mood I got from the quote, the irony of it makes me laugh a little. I mean to me it sounds just as arrogant to say you're perfectly flawed as it is to say your flawlessly perfect.


I don't know whether what your last statement was a compliment or not but I'm now confused as to whether I should be flattered or about ready to get a lobotomy out of spite and shame. Some Unemployable 'degenerates' happen to be my friends, as for people living in starvation and suffering, I don't think they got much choice. People I expect free health care and a strong public sector. If anyone or anything threatened me, my friends or my moral code I would have something worth dieing to stop, though I would try to survive, my bf is worth living for

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Spineyguy In reply to bale-storm [2011-11-04 17:09:33 +0000 UTC]

No-one creates in a vacuum, that's basically a summary of all the works of Barthes (who I mentioned earlier).

But it was only very recently that wealth started to influence how much publicity one could get. The copyright laws which are largely responsible for that sort of corruption were only passed in the 1730s. Before that, anyone could send a book to print and it was then just a case of asking shop-owners if they'd stock your work. Look at Shakespeare, he was lower-middle class and really quite poor until he wrote 'The Taming of The Shrew'. With some good thought and a bit of luck, even the lowliest of paupers can rise to fame.

You misinterpret the point of what Plato was saying, it is not an Ad Hominem argument, he's illustrating an example of a man who believes that he knows something, not arguing against one. This translates as 'All I know is that I know nothing.' Everything sounds more condescending in Ancient Greek anyway.

And if you honestly believe that friendship is worth dying for, you've been watching too much anime.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

bale-storm In reply to Spineyguy [2011-11-09 23:29:13 +0000 UTC]

meh I like putting a cynical slant on some things. And some things are more important than the next breath. Not everyone sacrifices themselves to be remembered, only the wrong type of people do. And you are right, dying for friends is not worth it dying for the one you love on the other hand is. Even though they'll either move on or kill themselves, the action of making a sacrifice is an act of love and compassion that is hard to rival.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Spineyguy In reply to bale-storm [2011-11-10 08:32:08 +0000 UTC]

Then you see a far more clear distinction between friendship and love than I do. This could be down to the fact that I've never really experienced true love. Like I have said, one day I will meet someone for whom I hold real affection, and that will either be the making of me, or make me worse than ever.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

bale-storm In reply to Spineyguy [2011-11-12 03:38:58 +0000 UTC]

I would be more sympathetic but the whole 'You'd really fit in nicely in a new world order' thing still has me showering with peroxide

I'm sure you'll find some nice woman, man or intersex to spend the rest of your life with chances are Uni is one of the best places to find someone like-minded

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Spineyguy In reply to uroboros2 [2011-05-26 06:56:14 +0000 UTC]

Not particularly, it was kind of a Wall-o-text though, so I only scanned it. If I missed anything offensive then I can't say I really care.
The whole point of the internet is that you can insult people and no-one cares.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

uroboros2 In reply to Spineyguy [2011-05-28 18:29:09 +0000 UTC]

No insults were made in the Wall of text.
Some times being a noob is being a dueche bag.
And not doing some thing that you rant about also seems to make one appear to be a dueche bag.
Not going to be able to send you the first chapter of the FanFic.
Ammon and Russ are characters of political power, power over people. Thats power I don't know how to right about. Or of Complex stragety.
Russ conqures commorragh Before he Wages war with the Imperium of Man.
So I made another story I can write.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Spineyguy In reply to bale-storm [2010-10-11 21:03:16 +0000 UTC]

Nah mate, nah, nah. It's cool blad innit, dis aiteenf fing ain't naffin' to me, I been drinkin since I woz laiek four an ting.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

bale-storm In reply to Spineyguy [2010-10-11 21:44:47 +0000 UTC]

Please stop that...

It's scaring me.

You know it's now NOT a lie

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Spineyguy In reply to bale-storm [2010-10-12 06:58:51 +0000 UTC]

If you finished the game, you'd know it wasn't a lie all along.

Blad.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

bale-storm In reply to Spineyguy [2010-10-12 19:50:36 +0000 UTC]

I did finish the game...

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Spineyguy In reply to bale-storm [2010-10-13 07:10:58 +0000 UTC]

Lulz, you lost the game.

The bit I'm talking about happens after the credits, so some people haven't seen it.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

bale-storm In reply to Spineyguy [2010-10-13 19:02:14 +0000 UTC]

when GLaDOS returns and the robotic arm snuffs out the candle on the cake?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Spineyguy In reply to bale-storm [2010-10-13 20:53:52 +0000 UTC]

Yeah, thus proving that the cake was never a lie.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

bale-storm In reply to Spineyguy [2010-10-16 09:25:01 +0000 UTC]

heh I guess so...

maybe they'll give the recipe to make one in Portal 2

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Spineyguy In reply to bale-storm [2010-10-16 18:07:41 +0000 UTC]

[link]

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

bale-storm In reply to Spineyguy [2010-10-17 14:16:25 +0000 UTC]

I'd not eat a cake made to those specifications...

Or it'd be the last thing I did before collapsing from poisoning.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Spineyguy In reply to bale-storm [2010-10-17 19:06:37 +0000 UTC]

That's the joke.jpg

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

bale-storm In reply to Spineyguy [2010-10-20 20:59:22 +0000 UTC]

fair enough...

👍: 0 ⏩: 0