Messages

I'm not sure there's any point to spell it out. You'll find out on your own in time anyway.

For that.

We are talking about this.

http://www.adventuregamestudio.co.uk/yabb/index.php?topic=25516.msg321563#msg321563

So yes, I think you are a lucky bastard for the moment. I recommend you do some dirty things with her quickly (experience points count!) and then break up with her. Not meanly, just... tell her you've decided the age gap is too difficult to handle and you want to save further heartbreak for the both of you later.

I desire your demise for this.

Keep taking me literally all the way to when I set your house on fire.

hehe I really Matt's (not you, Old Man Bend Down Matt) entry a lot, strangely! Keep them coming, people! I know you want to!

This is however the first argumentative internet discussion I have participated in that hasn't become like that special olympics picture, and I am enjoying it.

I agree and also I enjoy how a discussion (although granted, between people who aren't you know, exactly locked in fierce opposition, here) can go fine like this on the interenet because we've been as usual, hearing a lot of 'nobody listens to anybody on the internet! Nobody changes their mind! These discussions are useless, lol!'. As soon as you touch sexuality, politics and religion there's a lot of people that just give up on the conversation having any meaning, and I understand why, more or less. But they adopt a superior cynical stance, and it's irritating. Nice to prove them wrong once in a while.

Which doesn't go to say that we've unearthed any grand truth about anything here, or in fact that any of our claims are valid or more valid than anyone else's. But that we are not trying to metaphorically club each other to death as soon as the penis is brought up is good.

We had a dog that tore our garbage bags and ran away with the contents around the house. It kept doing it, although it was fed and it was scolded about it. The advantages must have outweighed the drawbacks in both cases.

Although that animal might have been malfunctioning, yes, I do understand what you're saying. Apparently the call for the bags was irresistable.

I liked the last lines of the paragraph best. I agree that simple/primal things give the greatest joy in life, as does security which can come from belief or the people surrounding oneself.

A human being will never feel fully secure though, because unlike an animal for which security means as far as eyeshot and earshot goes, things being calm, human beings understand the world in abstracted terms and there's the theoretical everything else ouside of our immediate surroundings, constantly scaring us. This I believe has been the biggest call for constant technological progress, the abstractified need for security and control. That's I think, the urge that pushes us onward and outward, in our nietzcheian course to feed on everything, to crush with our weight all other life. Even the metaphysical understanding of the world can be viewed from the spectrum. A philosopher-man that codifies, maps and categorizes reality neatly so it's more safe and controlled. So that he may feel rewarded for his effort biochemically, and sleep better at night.

I think these rationalizations of reality, as useful as they are (we're partaking in one right now) are however inherently dualistic and incapable of portraying a full picture of the world. We're looking at little bits, neglecting the whole constantly. And since everything influences everything, our understanding of the whole reality model is always doomed to be hilariously simplified and incomplete.

But all this is fun to do!

I don't have anything to say about morality. It's an invented thing that I possess like anyone else but with which I don't feel I have much to do. It is as it is and regardless of HUGE WORDS about how things should be, or miniscule mutterings about how things should be, in the end I'll do what I'll do, as I was taught to do and as I've rationalized I should do. The 'system' in 'morality system' is a lie. We just do as we do, and constantly mutate ethically to meet our needs.

fallen really ill and will probably die.

Oh. I thought you might wanna fuck, but ok.

Kinoko, but! Will you not allow your cats to you know, mess around sexually with a few males, then discard them? Experience points count, lol! Nothing serious, you know, just toying with somebody else's emotions and then expunging any weakling but incandescent flame that might have been kindled in a real, alive, and feeling feline's little heart? Just a sickening, sweeping broad stroke of carelessness that paints one as the truly irresponsible and negligent egotistical being they are. Your cats need that XP, dude, come on. They need to level up.

Evolution has lead to us finding these tools, so it is always present.

Yes.

Keeping this relatively on topic however seems like a lost cause.

Why? We two at least seem to be understanding our points of view and noticing where they converge. That's all we can ask from such a discussion, really. Don't expect us to uncover the secrets of the universe here.

About animals having sex although it hurts:
For example, I think of kids who eat so much candy they throw up or get sick. It might be partly a lack of experience and the sudden sensation of sickness comes so soon that it overwhelmes them. Many animals have a short memory (goldfish as an extreme), and I guess dogs are mostly driven by their instincts like you say. They can be conditioned (pavlov) to not do things, maybe there is a lack of experience/conditioning also, before instincts can be fought.

It is interesting to submit, as I understand you're doing, that sex is pleasurable because human beings have longer-lasting memory and therefore might need more incentive than the pure atavistic drive to mate (namely that if feels good). Theoretically, a long-memory human that has had sex, although he really was pumped up for it, if it hurt like hell he might not come back for more no matter how pumped up he gets again, whereas a dog might simply forget... Two problems: Not sure if it's you know, even needed because there's the negative drive in that when you do not mate your biochemistry battles you and you're constantly in variable states of depression and loneliness. Second: memory in even short-memory animals isn't like it is on humans. There's genetic memory that's very long-lasting. If you hit a dog today, it will remember and avoid you for probably many months. But the same dog will forget you in a second if you make no impression it. So sex hurting like hell, it'll probably remember, and still it goes back. The big difference here is self-examination and self-awareness, which the dog is not capable of, and we are. As such, we might paint the memory-stemmed picture in very drastic and stark terms and therefore arrive at some standstill where we will not allow ourselves to have sex again. Humans are great at rationalizing from little information to HUGE, LIVE-DEFINING DECISIONS and so I guess extra care is naturalistically taken to make the prime directives very pleasurable for human beings. So being strong, the leader, mating whenever we like, and in control of our environment are still the best rushes a human being ever will hope to feel.

Not to mention that pain can become pleasure/addiction for at least humans.

Let's not examine the pathological flipside of this.

It seems quite logical, seeing how similar different genders of fetuses look at early stages of develpment. Maybe it was the simplest way for evolution, and since it proved to be no harm, it stayed.

I really don't know. Let's say ok on this and end with this aspect of the conversation.


Free will reply (morales of choices):

I wasn't trying to focus on the morality of choices, merely the notion that there are alternatives.

Theoretical. In the real time-line, we do what we do and that's all we did. It is in retrospect that we inject the free will illusion to our life. Of course we all think about what we did wrong, or what we could do better. We strive to be the most capable, after all...

Morales are individual, and the right thing differs from person to person. There are some commonly accepted morales however, which have lead us to this state of society, some which I see as good grounds and some not as good.

I love how you make meta-ethical perscriptive moral judgements on morality itself.  "some commonly accepted morals, I find good, some others not". Excellent. And useless.

Gay fag:
yes.

So uh, what are you doing this saturday night?

It is for a lot of humans too...

I'm sorry about that, OSquinky. I can't be sure, but I hope there's people out there for you with whom you'll be able to have sex with minimum discomfort. Or at least with as much discomfort as you'd enjoy.

biothlebop, thank you for the insightful reply. Here are some thoughts on your points.

Animal intercourse is violent and nasty to let the best (in strength) individuals reproduce. A strong enough male can force itself on many females (as far as I know, in the most species the males are dominant) and it resembles rape in many cases which can physically hurt humans as well.

The rape thing is irrelevant. I am talking about the biochemically triggered sensations of orgasm being pleasurable, not the way the intercourse went about and if there was forcing or pain involved. So that's out of the way. And also, the 'only the strongest mate' is irrelevant because they do not die from the physical discomfort of mating. The stronger survive against the dangers of nature itself, or from fighting each other to establish an order with the alpha male on top. That's all besides the point. The point was: for a lot of animals, reproducing itself, hurts like a bitch. And they still do it, they're still biochemically driven to do it. Keeping that in mind, the why human beings enjoy sex question is a very interesting one. Why do women have the ability to orgasm? Is it an evolutionary left-over (remember, humans are comparatively a young species that still evolves) from the copying of the male biological structure? Why does the stimulation of the nerve endings in the anus produce a pleasurable result for both genders? There's a lot of food for thought there if you like tossing salads.

The only animals whose intercourse I see as especially nasty are spiders where the female eats the male, but I guess those species that have a nasty intercourse do it less often and have more offspring to balance things out.

There's a lot of obvious other stuff. When a dog ejaculates, it's penis bloats in order to be kept inside the female dog's genitals to ensure fertilization (that's right, this is my opening line at parties when I meet new girls). This, as I've noticed, seems to cause the female great discomfort, and the male isn't exactly happy its very sensitive member is now caught in a struggling trap. Cats don't enjoy the whole deal either. There's so many examples. But then there's the masturbating gorilla or kangoroo or other mammal that gets off to relax. And then there's humans. It's complicated.

Regarding choice and free will, we are indeed in space and nothing we ever do will actually matter or last forever so all choices are redundant, pointless. Your actions might be predicted by a supercomputer in the future to 100%, but you will still do things that will only harm you, maybe even actions that you know the result of beforehand [...] Such illusion of free will is enough to me, even if it might not have been completely spontaneous. As long as you have functioning senses, you can make choices. Even if all choices were dictated beforehand, there were also realistic alternatives (that might be just illusions) that were closed off from you.

This is such a big subject to touch upon in passing. I'll just say that yes, the illusion of free will is useful and we all operate under it, whether it's 'enough for you' or 'enough for me' is irrelevant. Sorry to say irrelevant this, irrelevant that, but I'm trying to keep this relatively on topic. The topic being, yodaman's Bone game. My big issue is one with terminology, not what actually goes on. We all make our choices. My issue is with explaining to people that they're not choices, but 'choices'. This is more important that it might initially seem, because there's a lot of over-the-top moralizing that rests strictly on the presuposition that the human animal can make pure, uninhibited choices against some abstract ethical status which has nothing to do with his collected experience and genetic makeup. I believe morality is as well dictated by genetic memory and the complex factors that interface to create a human being, and that every choice, whereas there's theoretical alternatives, was the definite one because we can never go back and 'choose differently'. We entertain theoretical notions about 'what ifs...' because of regret and pain caused by a tried method of approach, and that's where this illusion of free will first manifests itself. In regret and pain. This tells me a lot about myself, I don't know about you.

A little clarification to the above: I don't mean Helm by saying you, but a general human.

No worries, I understand you. When I say you however, I mean a gay fag. Clear on that, right?

However, we have conquered evolution

I don't understand what that means. Do you mean conquered our atavistic instinctive directives? If so, HAHA If you mean that due to technological advances we may have halted our actual physiological evolutionary progress since a lot of weaklings get to survive and spread their genes, I think this is not completely incorrect, but misleading because we will evolve in other ways (mentally) to create new pecking orders, new plasmatic fields in which to excell and be the alpha male. Life feeds on life if there's anything looking at nature has taught us, and the antagonism of the shelfish gene will not be stopped because we now ride in cars instead of ineffectually trying to run away from the rhino.

Progz: I am not trying to impress you. I don't know if what I'm saying makes any sense to you, but please don't discount my point of view as fancy streams of terms ment to confuse or impress.

what is love

baby don't hurt me

whoa, who still runs 256?

I personally see absolutely no use for these icons, but if we HAVE to have them, big brother's read best and quickest of all, as is their meaning more readily apparent to one that doesn't know what he's supposed to be looking at. But they're sterile. Not a bad thing, if you consider they're content warnings, though. Not everything has to be full of ags relevant happy.

Jesus fucking Christ keep that away from me

I've read variations of this argument so many times... I don't think it's safe to say that homosexuality is 100% choice or 100% natural tendency, but from my point of view, what a choice is, is the result of the culminative effects that have shaped your character up to that point, so it's really a non-choice ("free will" is something that I don't understand) so even if someone felt that he 'chose' to be gay, I still see it as a deterministic effect. People enjoy thinking of their life as a series of uninfluenced idealistic crossroad-choices, but the truth of the matter is probably quite more complicated, and the only 'choice' you made in any situation would be the only one your distinctive mechanism, all in all, the product of such complicated procedures, would have made. You're just self-aware and along for the ride, rationalizing and going 'oh my!' all the while.

The question is then, if the homosexual tendency occurs early in life or if it's an encouraged and cultivated trait... Here's an approach: Why would homosexuality occur in nature? Is it an error? A cultivated error that human hospitability and the lack of evolutionary culling has allowed to spread? Could be, originally, I don't think that's only it, mainly because it seems sex for a few animals (not just us) has been enjoyable and relaxing from the get go. What reason is there for sex to be enjoyable? Most would say so we would get to mate, but that's simplistic. Sex is a very painful, even violent process for a lot of animals and they still feel the primordial biochemical urge to mate, I'm sure human beings could have been created the same. Sex is fun times, I don't know who to ask on the 'why' of it, but as a stress reliever, it is the main reason we, and other animals that masturbate, have sex that doesn't result in pregnacy or have homosexual sex aren't as easy to brand evolutionarily dead-wood. It's as much a natural byproduct of how the human mechanism works as it is the result of continuous social fortificiation of these programmed effects. For people that narrowly think homosexuality is UNNATURAL, every time you touch your peepee and semen comes out and it's not in a vagina you're being quite unnatural too, then.

We can reach down and touch our penis, though. Touching our penis feels good, though. Anal intercourse and stimulation of the prostate feels good, though. All these things are unnecessary for the procreation of the species. Why, then? Natural design by accident? I don't know, but that preposition seems kinda iffy. What I do know is that human beings will do what they find enjoyable and relaxing and no ten-ton-hammer of morality is going to change that.

That being said, I hate black people, and fags, and most of all, these cats that have no hair on them? Hate them.

word child is key. How old are you, yodaman11111?

You need more contrast, less saturation, I think. Give it a better-lit vibe. I didn't mess with anything much.

Je prefere le poule.

since we're on the 'tired internetisms' part of the thread, I'll throw this in:

You're not a misanthrope, you just need to get laid.

Hah, yes, a lot of great ones thus far!

I hope you mean something objective, not subjective.

a greek friend of mine called Miltiadis submits the following entry:

It's that time of whenever again. Here be a comic I inked just today, it's sent to the paper.



I only post my version first because I need to justify the white blanks in the centerpiece for the empty version below.



As usual, there will be no winner of anything besides extra positive karma, I will translate my version at the end, and discuss all the entries.

I believe the posibities for both hilarity and storytelling are good for this piece, but then again, last time around I thought there wasn't much room for variation and look what happened! Maybe this time the compo will suck and I will cry. We'll see.

You all know what to do.

Nik, you know in greek we say 'esthimata' for feelings, and 'sin-esthimata' for the higher type, a combination of esthimata. Lower type is usually anger or fear etc. very primal biochemical effects that we share with most mamals and generally most of the more evolved animals actually. Sinesthimata accur in relation with self-awareness or something. Think about it, I guess.

But.

I strongly urge you to not look at feelings in couples of dialectic oppositions. I suspect it doesn't work that way. This sort of dualism is antiquated and will not provide a good toolset for you to understand the world. But it might help with art because art isn't exactly about proper interpretation of the world. We feel a whole lot of things at any given time, and the coorelations are more three-dimensional and complex and everything influencing everything. We are not sims with ANGER - HAPPINESS negative to positive sliders.

That is to not to say it is difficult for a person to achieve an emotional state, if he were to have all the right resources at hand  - give me the woman I need, give me the comforts I need, give me the time I need, give me the context I need and I will be a most happy person... with the only lingering fear being the omnipresent threat of mortality, I guess. What people need is pretty simple, I find. How they come to need it, how it works internally, how desire and ambition and self-esteem and irrational fears, and existential awareness and all that relates to create the psychological makeup of a given modern human being, is very, very difficult to model.

I don't think you'll gain anything as a person from trying to codify emotion, besides arbiterate resolutions that you can use as party tricks and a friendly, certain, but also sheltered and wrong point of view of humans where you look at them and you go 'oh, he fits into my model in this and that way' where there's no risk-taking and you don't actually experience other people at all, just your preconception of them.