Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - MMIX

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 ... 56
Or Kill Me / Re: Burgers?
« on: Today at 12:26:23 pm »
On your first point, I totally agree but, since the whole power and control structure hinges on some kind of prehistoric version of Pokemon, surely it should have totally evaporated by now.

The church no longer has the military clout to just say "fuck you, we aint proving nuthin, believe or die" All they got is circular logic which was disproven years ago. I can see the leaders not wanting to give it up but what I don't get is the followers insisting we respect their right to get fleeced.

On the second point, it makes a lot of sense in the context of the church originally saying "Fuck yeah, lets use science - it'll prove god"

Of course what ended up happening was science proceeded to debunk most of it.

Maybe this is just a minor point but maybe not. That should probably read
"Fuck yeah, lets use science - it'll Magnify god"; like Roger said the other day proof has never been part of the equation. Just a thought.

I was just watching the news and they said it was St George's day - who knew? - so Happy nah, Merry nah, Memorable St George's day to you all

Or Kill Me / Re: Burgers?
« on: Yesterday at 12:47:06 pm »
An example:

Quote from: Twid
I don't know why I got two thumbs down. Rabbits don't chew cud. They don't. If God made them, why does he think they do? Did he forget how he designed their digestive tracts? That's something that we can directly observe and go, "Uh hey, Boss? You sure you know what you're talking about here? Did you lose the blueprints on the rabbits or something?"

Coprophagy maybe has some sort of divine equivalence  :wink: - cecotropes as cud substitutes?

I'm going to take up Haroldry, you just see if I don't

The Richard Nixon school of ballet and the arts / Re: Icons of Hate
« on: April 08, 2014, 02:38:36 pm »

  Controlling the excess of brutality in crime comic books has nothing to do with censorship. Protecting children is not censorship.

This sounds really familiar.

Yeah, I thought that was a really equivocal point too. At what point does providing age appropriate material degenerate into over-protecting children and censoring materials willy-nilly?

The Richard Nixon school of ballet and the arts / Re: Icons of Hate
« on: April 08, 2014, 02:20:56 pm »
First up, Fred Wertham:

This man single-handedly killed an entire art form, to the point where it had nothing to say for 50 years.

Though no longer a thing the comics code is still having it's wretched effect on the comics industry, even in the mindset of comic book readers. They expect certain content from their shitty superhero books and are horrified by anything outside of that.

It's a fossil, a warped sense of morality that doesn't make the least bit of sense.

In the first issue of the new catwoman series she has sex with someone she is attracted to. There is an upper torso no nudity shot but that didn't stop parents from complaining in stores or online about the damage it could do their children reading it.

In issue one of Batman which came out the same month it shows the joker graphically having his face removed with a box cutter and of course no one complained about.

I suspect Wertham would have complained about it.
My main interest is not in comic books or even mass media, but in children and young people. Over the years I have been director of large mental hygiene clinics... And I have done a great deal of work - sometimes with great difficulty - to prevent young people from being sent to reformatories where they are often very badly treated. I have also helped a number of young people so they were not sent to the electric chair.
  Seeing that so many immature people have troubles and get into trouble, I tried to find out all the sources that contributed to their difficulties. In the course of that work I came across crime comic books.
  I had nothing whatever to do directly with the comics code. Nor have I ever endorsed it. Nor do I believe in it. My scientific findings had something to do with it only because the crime comic book publishers, some of them multi-millionaires, were afraid laws or statutes would be passed against their worst productions. To guard against that the code was established.
  Controlling the excess of brutality in crime comic books has nothing to do with censorship. Protecting children is not censorship. I was the first American psychiatrist admitted in a Federal Court in a book censorship case - and I testified against  censorship.
Fredric Wertham early 70's.

The only unequivocal fact is that somehow he was unbanned, and that you told him he hadn't been unbanned deliberately, but give [posting] a shot and chances are he would be immediately banned again . . . aaaand life goes on. Anyway, thanks for clearing that up for me Faust, much appreciated

Yeah, fuck that shit. I don't know how he got unbanned but he is so the fuck not welcome here. I re-banned him, and have the willpower to keep doing so for far longer than whoever actually wants him here has to keep unbanning him.

Oh, what's that you say? NOBODY actually wants him here? Good.

He was part of the blanket unbanning from several months ago.

What he said was a little dishonest. He emailed me to ask me why he had been unbanned and if he could start posting again. I said he hadn't been unbanned deliberately, but give it a shot and chances are he would be immediately banned again.

In what way dishonest? His brief post totally fits the facts as you state them here.

Nothing new there then

I kinda feel like this should be an emote. :pd: ?

When they told him to catch the ball he really took it seriously

there's an app for that


lol Jacques Brel is revolving in his grave at 45rpm; but yanno everyone is a music critic, and in the final analysis what music you like doesn't really matter except to you [generic you, not you personally]. Just seemed to me like  maybe people round here hadn't come across Brel before, and that may, or not, be sad.

Techmology and Scientism / Re: Chemical-free
« on: March 06, 2014, 01:49:02 pm »
If only they could make chemical-free people -
          now that would be a breath of fresh air

Its called a computer?



chemical-free people would not exist, we are just a bunch of chemicals - same with chemical-free computers

note to self never try to explain a joke

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 ... 56