Messages

In defense of Hedberg, I find it very rare to see comedians these days whose material is as delightfully innocent as Hedberg's. Most comedians I see deal with the same hack topics that are supposed to be "taboo" but have been talked about on and on and on that they've become shitty and stupid. Typical sex, smutty and hey i can say the word fuck a lot hack comedy. Where as Hedberg at least can think about things in an abstract way, and that I can appreciate.

Wow I thought I was the only one that felt like that. I enjoy comedy I can watch with a parent or a child. Chris Rock always talks about race which was as entertaining as Adam Sandler's screaming antics (in every single movie he's ever made). /hi5

Quote from "Kingdom of Heaven":

Saladdin: King does not kill a king.

Exactly. That says it all, seriously.

Oh and why are people asking about the "stability" of Iraq now? Its the easiest question to answer. The country is divided into 3 hostile factions. The one man that was strong enough to tell them to stfu and force them united is dead. What is there to think about? I give that country at the MOST 10 years without Sadaam before they collapse because of ethnic problems. Take a look at Yugoslavia if you really need any kind of example of what happens when a unitary leader dies (and BTW Tito killed alot more people then Sadaam in political prisons and USA loved him).

Wow that guy is good I never heard of him before.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nOnsH29qKzY

How will this affect the stability in the Middle East? Mate, this is the equivelant of Tito dying in 1980. Its pretty predictable where that multinational state is going to go. Rest in peace.

I understand your point but I just simply can't see it that way for myself.

Yes shitar... Why do you pick a specific issue and determine it' s the one to make one specie unnatural? Komodo female dragons can have babies without the pressence of the male, why don' t you pick that abbility as the one to determine that specie is unnatural? Also, bats have wings, and they are mammals... the only case in nature, are they "unnatural"?

Ornitorrincos are also special, because they are mammals and they have beack... If we use your rule of three, of course.

Any female lizard can do it due to genetics not just a komodo dragon. Its natural. The fact that we have the capability to destroy entire planets with our own "tools" is what I think is unnatural. Bats dont have wings per-se. Structural like wings yes but not in the ways a bird is, it is not unnatural and you are clearly not understanding what I was stating about "natural and unnatural". Okay? Platypus's have beaks also? Whats your point? They were born like that? Im not understanding how your points are in any way related to my thoughts.

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.

So blowing up the moon with nuclear weapons and then mars and eventually earth itself, is natural?

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)?

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

You are wise.

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

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.

edit: Seriously, stop double and triple posting!

As we can see from a series of printings and engravings of that period, the victim was hung in an inverted position in order to assure sufficient oxygenation of the brain and to slow down the general loss of blood so that he didn't lose consciousness at once, thus to inflict a longer suffering before death struck.

Sick people!

I believe humans probably act cruel like that in a natural environment. Its civilization and society that allows us to get rid of the animal side of our brain.

Oh, come on Nikolas, don't be such a wuss!

When I die, this is how I want to go. I bet you get one hell of a head rush. Bring it!!! 8)

Hell yeah!

Why is it SO hard for people to believe that we cease to exist when we die? That there is nothing left?Ã, 

Energy cannot be destroyed or created, only change form/purpose/cycle. So we could assume that if all beings carry this "energy", when they die it is "realeased" and joins a different energy cycle. Maybe something like providing nutrients to the soil, as the body is decomposed in ground, is an example of that?

I seem to be the only one that likes the idea that we came from primates and that when we die we are completely gone (so live your life accordingly).

I agree with you guys saying you would rather die a painful death then a peaceful one.

I mean think about it for a second, why do we fear pain? In a way when we experience it we relate it to death. But if you know you are going to die and your brain accepts it, what is pain? Its nothing. Its just there but it dosent mean anything because you WANT to and ARE dying. Does someone understand what Im trying to say? lol

I think a 'cool' death would be jumping out of an airplane from the highest height possible without a parachute. That would have to have an awesome "bliss" effect on your brain to be falling through the sky like that.Ã, 

edit: c'mon man, no triple posting, you should know that...

Some points worthwhile, others are not. Individualism allow the creative mind to flow. Some goals would never be achieved if individualism didn't exist. If their were no personal gain for the inventive chap who is full of bright ideas, what motivation would one have? To help humanity? Sure, there are people who dedicate their lives to helping humanity, learning everything they can about something, involve themselves in research, but still, there is always and alteria motive, being a big fat wad of cash. Think of all those researchers, trying to find a cure for cancer. True, it is a horrible condition. It kills. Almost everyone knows of someone who has been effected by this illness. But for the intelligent scientists who actually learn how to cure this, there is the biggest reward of all. Immortality, in the sense that they will be known through all of history, for their achievement, and a big fat wad of cash.

Everything is worth something.

And I didn't say we should only live for ourselves. Nothing would work if we only lived for ourselves. Why make something or do something, if people won't have a need for it. No, need is the wrong word. Want would be better. People want things. If you make something that people want, and earn a big wad of cash in the process, you are not only helping yeurself, but others as well. Even if they didn't know they wanted it before it was invented, they will when it comes out.

Like I said, we are a competative species. If we weren't, war wouldn't exist. Research wouldn't exist. We would be living in caves barely surviving, if that. We need goals, personal, team, and country. But we still want to keep up with the Jones' or even be the Jones'. Society is based on a structure, with the toffs at the top, the plebs at the bottom, and the guys in the middle trying to make as much cash as possible.

I agree with SSH, as he is older, and makes some good points. And re-read my post InCreator, as I mentioned nothing about being focused only one ourselves.

/philosophical

Worth dosent exist. Humans created "worth" concept.

I' ve studied Marx... In an universitary degree... ok?

At an... American school? How did I guess.

Helm for president-- err, Marshall? lol

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_Index

Literacy, health, GNP, associated factors. Uncontroversiallly quantifiable stuff.

What about partying? Hmmmm? You're like last, kthxbai ._.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_Index

Literacy, health, GNP, associated factors. Uncontroversiallly quantifiable stuff.

I call h4x.

All you vikings are h4x0rz.

Lol well I guess I have somewhat of an update.

We were taking notes over various ethnic groups during ancient times. We wrote about 3 sentences about the Lydians, Phoenicians, Assyrians, we were just writing quick notes. Then we got to Hebrews and I ended up having 2 entire pages filled with "quick" notes. I had everything from some kind of agreement Jews had with God, Jesus (which was like 2000 years out of the time era we were studying), the reason that that one Testament book was NOT religious text but a historical record  (   :  ), dead sea scrolls. Then she asked some questions about "history" that had nothing to do with the notes we were taking but with Biblical events and such. So I obviously failed those questions while the church kids passed no problem. I had to restrain myself very hard not to say "Is this a history class, or a theology class?" because at that point I was just pissed. Its oppressing to come to a federally funded school and have the (federal worker) teacher talk to you about Jesus in a history lesson about the ancient civilizations in Africa/Asia/Europe.

I dont know what to do about this situation, its just to the point where it feels oppressive. Any advice?

www.hornybluecups.com

Well, I haven't seen democracy or socialism ANYwhere really working.

The democratic/capitalistic system we have here in Norway works great. In fact, it has been claimed to be the best country to live in, three years in a row.

What factors is "best" based off of?