Messages

I love these spam terrorism countermeasures. I usually when I get telemarketers start doing a feint panting while the seller talks, and up the volume as I go. Sometimes they ask 'sir, are you okay?' to which I reply in a small voice "Y-yes... keep going... you have a... nice voice".

They don't call again.

When they call and ask for the 'woman of the house' I tell them only men live in this house (which is true) and that 'we like it that way' (not exactly true).

But that's important because when both have nukes, they STILL want to mess with each other and just take it to a 'cold' War. They take it to other countries, they take it to espionage and attrition. It doesn't make anyone safer or anyone more civilized.

When both me and my neighbours have guns then I start killing his pets, not him. To piss him off.

Trivialize history? My ego? What? Uh


I'm a bit dazed

Nothing happened during the Cold War? ?!

?!?!!11?!!?!?!!?!?

Oh my

If they come close to being raped one time in their life, just pulling a gun on the perp makes it all the while worth it. 

Holy shit, what about a tazer? Pepper spray? Going through some self-defense course?

[I would like this girl to be 'the one', but it DOES NOT mean that I necessarily believe she will be.]

However, let me reiterate once more: I would like this girl to be 'the one', but it DOES NOT mean that I necessarily believe she will be.

I think most people enter a relationship hoping for good things. That they'll match and enjoy their time together, and that time will not be very brief. The 'one' talk generally one learns from being slapped enough times by life to simply not bring up before a few years have passed. If you bring it up early you're just being clingy, weird, creepy and obsessive.

I'm obsessive by nature.

Have you tried to seek some psychological counselling on this? By someone who isn't your priest? Would you entertain that notion?

I'd shrug the dramatics off if you weren't 20. Most people have outgrown this mood after their teens. But it could be a case of late development and you'll be alright once you get laid a few times.

If it persists, seek help. Having mental problems is no joke.

I will obsess over it for days, possibly even weeks, asking myself how I could have been so stupid.

I am sorry to hear that Monkey. Under this light, has our conversation brought you much distress? If so, I'm doubly sorry, I didn't mean to metaphorically poke your psyche around. I don't think you're stupid and reports of your paedophilliac streak have been... wildly exaggerated. Probably your fault for wording it as you did but in light of this condition I won't beat you over the head with it. So you like a 14 year old lots and you're waiting for her to grow up.

I've sure we've all had similar thoughts. I was with a girl and her younger sister was totally so much more pretty than her and deep inside I was thinking 'gosh, if I should break up with my current I should do my best to remain friends because that one is growing up soon, wooo!' because we're somewhat of a bastard inside.

I broke up violently.

I know my obsessive behaviour could be seen as "creepy" but it's really just a part of who I am.

Just be prepared if you stick with 'who you are' all the way that 'who you are' might be a very lonely guy.

Ahhh...so you have gotten me figured out then. You and your telepathy....

Oh man.

About mormonism I just echo erlwood in that it's strange to me that you're willing to kill your libido and spend two years 'saving' people when you don't know exactly what you're saving them from and if you're really saving them and if you're saving yourself.

Your religious identity isn't just 'yourself'. You get to choose. You get to inspect what other people tell you about salvation and make a reasonable call.

I'm not here to try and convert everyone. In fact, I've tried to stay out of most religious threads on these forums altogether. The reason being that I don't know loads of things about my own religion. I've never read The Book of Mormon in its entirety. I've never even read the Bible cover to cover. But due to my own religious convictions I believe them both to be true.

That does not parse. Due to your own religious convictions you believe something you haven't read to be true? That's... a bit risky there, man.

And you're not converting anyone in this forum, but you're willing to go on a mission two years abroad to convert people there? Of something you're not sure what it is?

For a lot of people that's hardly conclusive evidence, which is why I've tried to steer clear of religious debates.

You might be messing up your life over words you believe but you haven't read. That's a big issue for YOU not for any religious debate on this forum.

(due to my addiction to pornography)

I don't know. I just don't know.

I've mentioned my pornography addiction because I don't want to seem a hypocrite.

That's brave of you.

I have had problems with it in the past, and it's something I'm currently dealing with.

What constitutes an addiction? Give me some numbers. I'm in a relationship and I still peruse stuff that can be considered pornographic once in a while as I don't see my girlfriend every day. So how much is too much for you, what's your situation?


By my own convictions I have decided to put an end to the masturbation. By my own convictions I've decided to stop looking at pornography. By my own convictions I've decided to abstain from premarital sex.⁴

I don't condemn you all to Hell if you have chosen to live your lives differently.

Do you know that on your mission when you expose people to the mormon faith if they turn it down, they're effectively condemned to hell? They were okay as long as they didn't know, but once they know and turn away from jesus, they are condemned to suffer in all eternity.

Do you really need this crap in your life?

but would it be too much to ask for you not to judge me?

I won't judge you.

I don't think the state of our media is appreciably worse than the rest of the world.

I am no expert, but don't you have sensationalist entertainers-cum-political commentators like Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter on prime-time TV and Radio with a large percentage of listeners? The state of greek televised media isn't much better (in the horrid controlled media/entertainment type), but at least a few people here read newspapers still. What's the status of newspapers in america?

The idea that Americans are fearful, easily-manipulated sheep is just not true â€" or at least, it's no more true than it is anywhere else.

I contest that on grounds of other actual americans disagreeing with you, and they live there just as well as you do. But I'm not going to quote them on the subject, if they want, they can make that case. I think that even in this thread having americans explain how a gun is going to save them when they and their family are under attack tells me there's an issue with fear. And that fear I believe, is useful and cultivated to be used.

American's ideas about guns have existed long before the ratings-based, entertainment-driven, sensationalist, prime-time news we have today.

True. That doesn't mean the current situation doesn't profit from this american tradition.

I'd probably agree with you along the lines of “guns make crime more violent” rather than “guns make more crime,” especially with evidence presented in this thread suggesting that guns may actually reduce crime.

I think simply by having around, being trained to use and generally making the means available to own firearms (which are weapons, not tools) one is inviting the concept of violence to have a more prominent position in the collective psyche and therefore culture, of a people.

This isn't a wild claim that aliens are mind-controlling the goverment or anything. It's a very simple line of thinking.

Instead of calling for the government to unilaterally outlaw guns

For the record I never said this would be a full-solution, for one. I talked about social programs, long-term investment in culture and gradual draw-backs on arms availability. Obviously I don't think the goverment's job is to protect you from what-if's mainly. But it is to suggest positive social change through benign and gradual change. A goverment's job, as elected by the people is not only to serve the people's desires (we call that 'mob rules'), it is to serve the people's best interest. At least in greece, hey, perhaps it's different in America.

proponents of gun control in this country should be trying to reeducate people and change their opinions, so that the population will want to make guns illegal.

I agree.

[qute]Of course, this method is much harder, longer, and may never result in success, but at least it doesn't mean usurping the will of the people.[/quote]

I agree.

But I like how this seems to suggest that the current situation in america is the result of no dimagogical control of 'the will of the people'. Consider the concept of other-side propaganda on the subject, and who benefit. Obviously, there are far more malicious intentions that fuel the trade and circulation of guns to the population at large than there are in those that oppose such a thing...

Unless you want to talk about a communist conspiracy aiming at the disarmament of the US population before the coup d'etat is attempted, like most of the pro-gun nuts do.

If you cultivate a culture of violence you'll reap violence. Then you say 'we need the guns against the violence'.

I am sorry, where is the issue with this argument? I don't see me making anything easier to attack here. You might be taking what I am saying the wrong way, but I do not fall into any fallacies of that kind.

Otherwise I'm being taught a method of precise and clean murder, oh, if the need ever arises or something. That's a culture of violence.

Same here. I think you misunderstand the concept, again. You might not like my opinions, but they're not based on a cheap easier-to-attack version of anyone's point.

And in many other places. Quite simply, no.

Wow, if you see it that way, then what can I say. Quite simply, no? Well then. I guess that seals that part of the conversation, now that you have decreed finally on it.

Like when the idea of owning a gun is dismissed because it presupposes a culture of violence?

Jesus! Yes one of many compelling arguments against owning a gun is that having them around is dangerous and leads to a mentality where fatal danger is part and parcel of every-day-life. This is no strawman, this is a simple argument.

Assertion: “I think people should be allowed to have guns in order to protect themselves.”
Response: “I think your culture has a problem with violence.”

The concept of a culture of violence is not a mere degradation of the otherwise-oh-so-noble desire of the saintly US population to have their guns just in case they ever have to defend themselves. It wallows in a never-draining pool of blood, and permiates almost every facet of their society. It is an altogether bigger issue than mere gun control, and as such I did not introduce it to narrow your argument as to shoot it down more easily, but to widen the scope of this discussion.

That's about as clear an example of a straw man as I could ever come up with.

Again, please return to your philosophical lexicon then.

If this isn't what you're saying, then please, by all means, do clarify your position.

a little horsey runs free in the fields

I don't see it. The first society requires more government interference in the lives of its people to impose a certain way of life, while the second is more permissive of letting people live their lives as they wish within the confines of law and order.

That's one way to look at it. I have no hippy sunshine belief that there will be a time when people will not need to be deterred against petty crime by the goverment law and order. As such, if they're to be deterred by something by default, I find it more civilized that they are deterred by a fair but fim law set by the state rather than by the somewhat whimpsy and prone to moodswings trigger finger of some redneck in his trailer.

Each to his own on this one.

The first society punishes behavior that might signify intent to commit violence, while the second punishes only violent behavior itself.

Out of this equation you're leaving the severity of punishment, the fairness of the trial haha and well.. civilization on the whole. But as I said, you make a compelling argument, if you're trying to convince yourself.

It's common for people to make trade-offs like this, and I don't see what makes one scenario necessarily more or less civilized.

It is very probable then that your grasp of what civilization is is very weak. One of the main reasons we like democracy is because it insures (well.. it tries, but let's not bring the failures of democracy into this, you already think you know quite more than you do) equal and fair treatment to all in the judicial system. But what am I telling you?

I appreciate your answer. If this is what the drafters of your constitution had in mind, and your people are aware of this and agree with it, then good. Our founding fathers probably had a different idea in mind when they drafted our constitution.

That may very well be the case. They probably didn't think guns would become so efficient, so easy to use by 10 year olds, and so on. An outmodded provision that brings now more trouble than it's worth might be a good idea to be looked into. You know... amended.

The greek constitution is one of the best in europe out of a simple virtue: it's one of the most recent. We became a sovereign country just a couple of hundred years ago. We took bits and pieces from almost all european constitutions, and we haven't had to amend it vitally. But yours might be in in order of a bit of a clean-up.

You've made it clear that you're not interested in looking at such data, why should I waste my time?

It's right that you shouldn't because I said it could be read either way and I don't want this to become a 'read my pdf' contest. If it did come down to numbers and strict interpretations of numbers I think however that a simple look at the number of accidental gun injuries and fatalities on a yearly scale in the US is a good argument in itself to start thinking about gradual pull-back on gun availability. Make it more difficult for a man to own a gun legally, crack down on illegal gun trade. I am not saying get rid of them completely by tomorrow, I never did.

Reasonable to you?

As do I, instead of stereotyping my culture, calling me ignorant, or telling me I'm not worth having a discussion with. But I guess that's what one can expect from mild-tempered tolerance.

Again, a pathology of a culture is not a stereotype of all of it. I tried to steer away from 'but ...I love america!' talk because that's the talk of the apologist, but damn it, I enjoy so many facets of american culture, movies, books, video-games music, some of my fondest aquaintances online are real, actual americans whom I respect and admire. I am not talking about them. I am talking about an american PROBLEM. Not america AS A PROBLEM.

And yes, sadly your brain goes faster than your ability to reason, and you should take two steps back and see how much of what you say rest on anything else than empty rhetoric, because I will call you on that stuff... if I can be bothered. And I am gradually losing interest.

People who favor gun rights and people who favor gun control both have the same goal of trying to preserve human life and maintain law and order

huh? I'd think a sizable portion of the people who want their guns are interested in preserving their lives and those of the people they care about and damn the evil-doers, and pro-gun people haven't exactly done their best to dispel that notion.

Law and order simply clashes with law of the west. I cannot see how you hope to spin this otherwise. Even if 90% of the time gun-ownership and gun-use doesn't come to unreasonable use of force (fat chance) that 10% it does! How does this help law and order?

While I think that stricter gun regulations may be called for, I think it's unrealistic at this point to expect that guns be banned outright (and I'm not necessarily convinced that this should be the case).

I think stricter gun regulations might be called for as well. It is unrealistic, and I am not suggesting guns be banned outright.

Our opinions converge on this. What's your opinion on the culture of violence issue? My fever dream, doesn't exist? America has no fear in the air, no easy resort to violence there. It's all something I made up to be argumentative on the internet?

But it appears the judge's ruling was never conveyed to federal authorities. This allowed Cho to pass the instant background check needed to buy the weapons.[/i]

The responsible should be tried.

I am not here to be hilarious for you or anything like that. I just had a discussion with monkey in which I presented some - I believe interesting - arguments a bit humourously to not beat him over the head with them. That is all.

Also, condoms work, pretty reliably.

Good,

Good.

if anyone feels inclined, I'd like to hear what you think of (mainly psychological) maturity. Does psychological maturity equal experience?

Psychological maturity is the outcome of experience for a sensitive person. A person that is not receptive to how other people work and does not actively try to emphasize and understand will not benefit from experience in becoming more mature, but will benefit in other ways. They might become better at control situations or manipulating people, or just achieve true brick-wall-ness where nothing they hear by other people phases them.

For experience to teach one to be psychologically mature, though that's a nebulous term I hope we understand more or less what we both mean, that person must be predisposed towards a desire for understanding for its sake, a honest caring for his close people. I think people end up like these semi-randomly. In that the processes of biological makeover and upbringing are so complex we perieve the results as near-random. I've met women from loving families that never were lacking anything as they were growing up to be cold bitches with only themselves in their mind, and I've met - and I am best friends - with a person who grew up in an abusive family with idiots for parents who is very caring and understanding.

Can an inexperienced person be seen as mature if he/she takes chances and the outcome is favorable?

There are child prodigies that just understand people much faster. But I don't think you really have the capacity for true empathy until you've been delt a few strong blows in your life. When you desired something from another person and the clash of willpowers resulted in not getting what you wanted. Only then you start to treat people - because they're reflections of yourself - more humanely, if so predisposed. A good clear eye for dissecting human behaviour is not enough. Analysis is not enough. People must hurt to be kind.

Where is the line between bravery and maturity drawn (assuming there are no certain outcomes)?

I am not sure I understand this one. Perhaps you'd like to define for me what is bravery and what is maturity just a bit more before I can discuss the two in opposition because I don't see them overlapping much in my own worldview. I don't know what bravery is if not a desire to be self-consequent ethically and in action, but that's not about maturity always.

It's almost a social event on these forums these days. :p

Please don't say this. It's not.

Ugh. Be quiet Dan N Gamez. Your only contribution to this thread is this embarassing come on to Ivy and accusing ManicMatt of being an attention whore where he clearly isn't and has steered clear of this.

Fatal Fury, go tell the love of your life that you just hit on a girl you don't know, on the internet.

Tuomas... uh...

Anyway, this is a sad turn for this thread.

I'm sorry I don't understand that "joke". Want to give it another go, witch?

Aren't you much better than everybody else, then.

No, I have to go with Vict0r here.

Please keep your filthy homosexuality out of this thread. We have enough perversion anyway.

Mainly what Petter said about wet dreams. They're a waste of a good ejaculation that could have been put to better use. Otherwise harmless.

Unless you're a mormon.

Abstinence from masturbation?

Is...is that even possible?

Well you can not play with yourself, take cold showers before you go to sleep every night, sleep the maximum of 6 hours after a tiring day of manual labor, and if you do not see or think or imagine any women for the duration of the day, it's possible you won't have a nocturnal ejaculation. Do it all over next day.

I've only ever had sex with my current boyfriend, I wouldn't be sad if he was the only person I ever slept with for the rest of my life...

Is he brainwashing like that time he made you post random nonsense on the boards 'cause he thought it was 'funny', or do you really love him that much?

Yeah you're not terminally ugly, so probably abstinent by choice.

Let's talk your religious background.

Also, him posting pictures is not gonna prove anything. Ugly people date and mate just as handsome people do, considering there are as many ugly as handsome members of both sexes.

Yeah I was thinking perhaps he'd look not just moderately ugly but positively horrifying or something.

Also what's with getting all excited with the recent posts? Not to be a killjoy - and not that I can't take a compliment - but they're just posts on the internet from a person to another, if this is 'book-worthy material' for you then you must read some shit books.

In my dream I saw I cheated on my girlfriend with a very beautiful prostitute whom I paid something like 1000 EUROS. My brother woke me up just before I had sex with her. Hm I guess I didn't cheat then, just intended to. I attribute this more to that I haven't seen my gf in the last week than this thread, though. As the prostitute was of age.

I am never telling my girlfriend this, of course.

Tear me apart.

Your last post doesn't leave you open to hilarity. It just becomes a good point to discuss religious abstinence and such, as people have after it you see. I won't play the part of the goatlord anymore, it's getting old. Just straight-up advice now if you want it.

I don't see it as hurting myself to abstain from sexual relations (up to and including with my hands....).

Having done that, yes you're hurting yourself. You're upsetting your biology to a great extent, not to mention the psychological damage you're doing to yourself by not engaging in a practise that nature/God/the aliens gave us to blow off some steam. That's right. Monkeys play with their dicks to relax. Orgasms are relaxing. They take the edge of so many things in a given day that can slowly and subtly but acutely surely drive you mad. I've been close to that, I know what I'm talking about.

This is important. I have experience with abstinence, and no-masturbation abstinence too. It's a hilarious story the last one, ask me to tell it to you and I will. It explains how stupid your brain gets when totally depraved of the good things in life.

There's no real benefit to having premarital sex. Except perhaps you'll know what to expect...:o

You're leaving out the obvious benefit that it's very nice with the right partner, that it relaxes and gives you strength to face various day-to-day adversities. That there's generally nothing nicer after a full and tiring day to be able to slip into a warm bed with a person that loves you and enjoy their attentions. Pleasant orgasms and an easy death indeed.

...but it's never been something that I felt was....for me.

You're probably repressed.

Try as you might, I doubt I'll be hopping aboard the Penisland Express with you anytime soon Helm.

Whatever, man. I am not trying to make your decisions for you, I'm just trying to help.

Yes...I've never had a girlfriend before. I'm very desperate....

Poooost. A piiictuuure. Of yourseeeeeelf.

The reason I stated the bit about agreeing to go with me 'AT LEAST ONCE' is that everyone seemed to think that I was pressuring her into this relationship that she obviously didn't want. Here's how it went:

But you're neglecting all the backstory to this. Obviously there's been some obsessive behaviour if you're telling me 'she's the one' and 'you want to spend the rest of your life together with her' and you spend 100 bucks on her icecream.

Your usage of the name Paul is particularly disturbing. Quite frightening in fact. Your obsession with incest is at least comparably creepy to my apparent paedophilia (my desire to have relations in the future with an adult that is currently a minor). Of course I haven't mentioned it, but it is clear that your powers of telepathy have revealed the fact that both her father and her her brother are named Paul (Sr. and Jr. respectively).

Wait a moment, how am I to blame for making a random name up that ended up being the name of her father? I don't condone father/daughter relationships because I believe they're obviously based on the taking advantage of a minor by an adult and as such are no different - but even worse because they abuse the safety of a parental relationship - than other cases of paedophilia. But brothers, cousins, whatevers can do whatever they want, and often do.

The taboo of incest is based on the fact of flawed birth because of same blood mixed. However two people don't have to have babies because they have sex. It falls under 'adults enjoying themselves responsibly' for me and therefore is more a mild kink (like sodomy, for example) than it is a strong and mentally degrading perversion as is to have your way with children.

There's also this idea floating around that I've definitively decided that she is 'the one'. Just because I care about her doesn't mean I've decided she's 'the one'.

I am sorry monkey. You're backpedalling now. You clearly said you want to spend the rest of your life with her and love her more than life itself. If that's not being the 'one' then what is? Though I think it's good you're backpedalling, perhaps you're starting to see how impossible your dramatic demands of her and the 'future relationship' with her are.

I really think the way of life you've chosen, what with religious abstinence is one you'll regret later. Do you want to discuss your religious beliefs from the bottom up, perhaps? I'm up for it. I promise I'll keep the 'black lodge' stuff to a minimum. There's a possibility God doesn't want you to keep your penis dry, though. Can you understand how big a mistake it would be to not give this a lot of thought and then find our you've wasted your early life because some idiots passed on to you their sexual-issues-cum-religion?

Eat me alive.

Nice freudian slip. I won't be doing anything of the type, go ask a girl. Your age. Maybe someone will agree to it. Post a picture.

In that case living with someone for 3 months when they're 13 doesn't mean much.

I also enjoy the political correctness of calling me on saying 'fuckin' when I also talk about dark lords and sacrificing of virgins, but eh, it's a forum, it needs moderating.

I like the moist lips. See here I can't tell what the age is. I could get in trouble. But I'm sure in conversing with her I'd understand how old she is in 5 minutes.

Still. Moist lips. mm