Messages

apogee sent you content through the internet back in the 90s? wow.

I don't know... as with Zarathustra and much Nietzsche I find it difficult to keep up with text that is aware of it's own contradictions, indeed, thrives on them. I think I feel what he's saying much more than I understand it, which isn't a bad thing if you're reading poetry, but philosophy?

However this, amongst other things in this text:

Every morality is a part of tyranny against "nature," also against "reason": that is, however, not yet an objection to it. To object, we would have to decree from, once again, some morality or other, that all forms of tyranny and irrationality are not permitted. The essential and invaluable part of every morality is that it is a lengthy compulsion: to understand stoicism or Port Royal or Puritanism people should remember the compulsion under which every language so far has achieved strength and freedomâ€"the metrical compulsion, the tyranny of rhyme and rhythm.

Resonates deeply in me.

It sounded a lot like rotar from tri, but it turns out it's not. It's a total Autechre standin, though, and given elsewhere's taste in music, I thought autechre were it. Might still be, I don't have the full autechre discography, but if it's by them, it's from the first 3 or 4 albums, because after that, there's NOTHING with such a steady beat on the rest of their discography.

Yeah I'm sorry, you're right, you didn't call them terrible. Autechre might be an aquired taste but I do suggest you check them out proper. Download the double album version of Tri Repetae perhaps.

Yeah, that's pretty awesome breaking. The music's autechre and you should probably listen to them again on their own and not encoded into a video clip before calling them terrible, nikolas.

and esper: you beat up a lot of people, huh?

Thanks, I'm covered, Inquisitive Stranger.

You had to have been there, Helm.

I'd love to have been there when you and your wife were having sex.

Ah. Finally, someone replied.

Don't get your hopes up, I don't fully qualify as a sentient being.

"Look, just because you have to tolerate something doesn't mean you have to approve of it! If you had to like it, it'd be called the Museum of Acceptance! 'Tolerate' means you're just putting up with it! You tolerate a crying child sitting next to you on the airplane or, or you tolerate a bad cold. It can still piss you off! Jesus Tapdancing Christ!"
- Mr. Garrison, South Park

wow, I have to say I've never discussed moral relativism and south park quotes in the same breath. The distinction I see now is one of the right to be Pissed Off (tm) about something. On all other practical levels you haven't mentioned anything else going different between the two states. On that bare pissed off level, I'll try go with acceptance over tolerance since I don't see how being pissed off is productive really. Of course I fail, I get pissed off a lot of times, but I just don't  figure this into a defense based on tolerance versus acceptance. If I have to have the right to be pissed off, I don't wanna. Me getting pissed off kinda transcends that type of discussion, which is sort of the point? I just find the concept of 'I have the right to tolerate, but be pissed off at what you're doing' kinda silly.

Why is tolerance "passive" and acceptance "active"? Both seem equally passive to me; acceptance being even more so. Acceptance, to me, seems to be more of a "whatever, do what you want" thing, whereas tolerance is more of a Voltaire thing. ("I may not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.")

Acceptance can be practically as passive as tolerance. On the moral level though, it's active because it requires a person to actively decide that he accepts what's going on, whereas to tolerate something can just mean that you're viewing it as a burden, delaying choice until it's over.

Doesn't a relativist view of morality undermine the need for morality altogether?

Yes, of course.

The Three Muskateers is a good example. Noone liked D'Artagnon. Is it because he's a little pussy? No! It's because he ruins the three.

hah

also: enjoy how Terran now disappears from the forums for another month or two,

I'm impressed by how consistently not funny big brother was on his post above.

Do I HAVE to accept it? Can't I just tolerate it?

You've made an effort twice in this thread to present this distinction, whereas I see it, I'm not sure it's all that important. Acceptance does imply a degree of agreement, but it can be an agreement to the basic fact that humans are different and do a startling range of things. In that sense, agreement with this observation can lead to the acceptance of practices you might find personally immoral, without the danger of hypocrisy, but at the expence of the 'objective' quality of your chosen morality. If it is and I hope it is that you think your morality is subjective, then no loss.

Example, although quite a fierce moral relativism one: I might not ethically condone murder under any circumstances, but I choose not to extend my moral principle to other people, and therefore I accept that there might be people who consider murder under specific circumstances (like in wartime, or in protection of property or kin) to be ok. I don't passively tolerate them for it, I accept them. The big issue of this approach though is, that such moral relativism sort of neuters much of the effect morality as a social construction, is supposed to have. That's though, a whole different discussion.



Now about the sex side of things in this topic, I have to add: I fuck goats.

This morning, I passed a kidney stone. At least, that's what the doctors told me. I personally thought it was a nanobot passed through my system to collect credit card data stored in my colon.

The world is a scary place, my friend.

you're being silly.

]Obviously I have made a name for myself when it comes to opposing immorality... this is fine by me.

No, you haven't made a name for yourself as one who opposes immorality. You've made a name for yourself as the resident fundie with an assorted collection of chips on your shoulder, always eager to condemn and criticize with a bible at hand. 

I like that everyone knows where I stand on certain issues.

See, this is the problem. Nobody asked you to pass judgement. It's one thing to present an alternate viewpoint for the sake of discussion, which is welcomed in a message-board, and completely another to get on your soapbox, preach, condemn and also rediculously claim you're 'doing it for the innocence of the kids'. Nobody asked you. You're not a moderator. It's not your job. You are not Becky's dad. Do in your own house as you desire. Here, it might be a better idea to treat dissenting opinions and lifestyles to your own with respect. We are NOT all American fundamentalists like you, nor do we all believe in your god, or adhere to your morality of choice. We may all discuss things that you therefore might find insulting or deviant if we so desire. If this leniency offends you, then leave.

You're not missing anything. I played bj5 and it's not all that.

I certainly am.

Obviously you're not a real lady.

And Terran, I really would like you to prove your power because since eric showed us randi's site, although I've been amused at the various stories there, it's become depressingly clear that there's not a lot of magic going around in the world. So since you're not a bullshit artist like you say, I need you to be my superhero.

A few points you might want to work on:

when someone discovers they have amazing mindreading powers, it would be safe to assume that they'd like to persue the experimentation with them to great degree, just so see what's up. Shit, I'd just sit there in my house and read minds all day for weeks. Your knee-jerk reaction above

You don't want to believe me, fine, don't. I won't be offended. I was just sharing with you guys.

pretty much shows a completely different mentality than that.

Also, that you were way more eager to take your girlfriend's word on your powers than do a SIMPLE write-your-answer-down test first seems to indicate you being partial to adopting comfortable superpowered explainations of what's going on, completely skipping the critical examination part of the deal. 'I can read minds because my girlfriend told me I can.' simply doesn't do it, really. Given your record of stating that you're able to put someone in a hypnotic trance 'by accident', having recieved no training whatsoever in the field, that pretty much makes me think you are just really wanting to believe shit, and that your woman is playing along. I suggest you beat some sense into her, if only by accident.

Dude eric, get outta Troy. Soon enough Brad Pitt is going to do a number on your town.

I'll let you know if I ever spend one day at a south african university campus.

Ben is incorrect. Flashback and Prince of Persia have sprite graphics, based on rotoscoped animations, extensively reworked (in the case of flashback, at least) and you would do indeed well to study them. Out of this World is vector-based, yes, as is Heart of the Alien. Blackthorne is pixelled, and not based on rotoscoped anims, by the early Blizzard. It's very good to study on grounds of BADASS alone.

Other step platformers include a strange zorro dos game, Generations Lost, a bad genesis game and the Oddworld series.

I don't know in how many ways can I plead you to not touch this unless it is to add more warped stuff in it! There are times to learn how to do art, this is not one of them. you'll never in your life make a background so potent as this!

I made two, like these?



..

I just want to say that watching this post for long times is amazingly interesting. They go out of sync with each other... then in sync... then out... a mechanical, stark automation out of a 'seduction' animation. Wonderful!