Messages

Alynn said:

and enough money to support multiple wives

I enjoy this combination.

Wha-a-a-at?

If it is the way nature intended for us to be why would we do it any other way? Im sure antelope dont enjoy being eaten by the lion but it happens anyways. You dont see them building spears to escape their destiny.

The implication being that the history of human civilization is somehow unnatural?

It's natural for ants to dig habitats in the earth and scavenge resources from the surrounding environment. It's natural for a pride of lions to live, hunt, and otherwise coexist together as a social unit. It's natural for a hornet hive to send out some hornets to massacre honeybees hives and steal their honey. But it's not natural for humans to form and develop civilizations?

What makes you think that humans are anything other than what nature has intended them to be?

Because we are the only species of anything in the known galaxy that is capable of destroying its own planet (nukes)?

If you want to make a philosophical or ethical demand, make it. But there's no natural and self-apparent distinction between us or anything else that occurs on this earth because we've made nukes.

Should we revert to our original ways, and become animals in the wild, killing each other, and taking what we want? 

I am having trouble telling you what the human should be doing, because it's already doing the only thing it could be doing. The situation that has led to this point is massively complex, interfacing, and holistic.

I was objecting to dividing a human down the middle, here's your atavistic side, and here's your rational side. I've had a long experience trying to live that one out and it didn't lead to anything viable. If anything, the many facets of a human being are tied together and support each other to create an unfathomable, singular configuration that is beyond our moral scrutiny.

the word that creates problems is 'side'. We are animals.

We don't get 'rid' of shit. And also 'animal side'? You can't cauterize that sort of thing out.

How disappointing...

You certainly care enough to let an internet forum know how much you care. That's the extent to which any of us can testify. Otherwise, deeds, not words seal the deal. Get to it. There's a lot of causes where your eagerness to die would be welcomed.

Seriously, I was held in a cage and beaten with Bibles.  Helm, I think you had a little bit more laid back experience to understand.

Well I don't know... I've been chased by idiots for months, eventually caught and beat up for not being a good christian in school. I've been dumped for being satan's child too. What could be more substantial than physical and emotional harm to make me an extremist?

It's an odd thing for me to see people who are atheists, like me, attack organised religion and get the knee-jerk reaction of wanting to stick up for the latter. I mean, it must really say a lot about the level of argumentation 'my side' has going on if I feel the urge to mutiny.

yeah you're contradicting yourself a lot

Oh come on .. thats a personal oppinion.

Yup. Sure is. Is there any other sort of oppinion?

You can't discredit a director simply because you don't like his films.

Why is that? I'd say that's the best reason to discredit a director. What am I supposed to do, give him credit because other people like him? A lot of people buy Pussycat Dolls cds, am I supposed to see the merit in their work too?

I'm not much of a Tarantino fan, the rape in Pulp I thought was too much. But I apprechiate the guy as a good director even though I'm not a fan. I'll give you the donkey thing in Clerks 2 was over the top, but it was hillarious and had another director (say Tarantino) tried the same it would probably be more discusting then it was in Smith's movie.

You're putting Tarantino and Smith in two corners here but I find both to not be very appealing. At least Tarantino knows his cinematography, he can do good timing, inventive angles and use the relative strengths of the medium, unlike Smith, I guess. But still, it goes to show what kind of level we're talking about when there's people like Darren Aronofsky, Jean-Pierre Jeunet, Chan-wook Park making movies and we're comparing Kevin Smith and Tarantino.

I think Kevin Smith movies are really bad mostly. I enjoyed Chasing Amy to a degree. The rest - and I've seen sadly, 4 more films of his - were very bad in most respects. I wonder why he has a following.

Athiests are skins, you guys can be shirts!

Taste the man-sweat.

Nickelback is one of my favorite bands.

sorry, this is off-topic, but OUCH

Why "OUCH"?  Because you don't like Nickelback?  Well ... they must suck then.  I'm sure their millions of fans who keep them at the top of the billboard charts and selling out concerts world wide would agree.

Yeah all I ment was 'nickelback sound awful to me'. It doesn't have any bearing on this discussion, I just find them extremely bad. I am certain the millions of fans that like them think otherwise, but then again, they're mostly stupid, probably.

Nickelback is one of my favorite bands.

sorry, this is off-topic, but OUCH

The subject, though open to a lot of viewpoints, is not very confusing, Darth, and you're fast becoming incoherent.

Bad grammar, that's what I ment. Sorry.

7-13 is fine with me.

People, stop messing with the OROW concept. Just get ready for it. Nobody's going to cry if your game is two rooms or one room. Make a game! Try stuff! Have fun! Suffer the last-two-day-crunch!