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 - The Johnny

Pages: 1 ... 150 151 152 [153] 154 155 156 ... 216
2281
Techmology and Scientism / Re: dwarf fortress.
« on: January 20, 2010, 04:04:23 pm »

Can i say, nethack at a macro level?

2282
RPG Ghetto / Re: WEREWOLF - Players Only
« on: January 20, 2010, 07:42:26 am »

PSYCHIC ! KYFMS for 5 rounds and then snitch !

2283
Think for Yourself, Schmuck! / Re: Innapropriate Topic Title
« on: January 18, 2010, 10:29:32 pm »

Deadlines for current propaganda topic themes ?????

2284

Hey! Lets argue about theism vs. atheism so we get this to 100 pages !11!!

2285
That was a fucking brilliant accounting of the accident, but I am still pissed.

Me, too.  Fucking coyote.

 :spittake:

2286
Techmology and Scientism / Re: If you're running Microsoft Windoze
« on: January 18, 2010, 06:56:26 pm »
Per the recent vulnerability announcement from Microsoft (here's some symptoms to help id it if you have a problem).

Evidence of Remote Code Execution (the specific vulnerability called out in the advisory):

         Account lockout policies are being tripped.

         Automatic Updates, Background Intelligent Transfer Service (BITS), Windows Defender, and Error Reporting Services are disabled.

         Domain controllers respond slowly to client requests.

         The network is congested.

         Various security-related Web sites cannot be accessed.

         Various security-related tools will not run.

         In some cases, you may see svchost.exe crashes in module netapi32.dll.  This will only occur if the attack fails, however.



Not a joke or Snopes, this is just your run of the mill new virus bullshit. Thought it might be useful for the IT geeks among us.

 :walken: :fishhook: :zombie: :crankey: :crankey: :nuke: :cramstipated:

THATS WHAT I HAD ALL THRU LAST MONTH GODDAMIT AND NWO THE SECURITY COMMUNITY FIGURES IT OUT !!!!???? FUCK THEM IN THE BUTT !!!!!!!!!!!! I ALREADY HAD TO FORMAT TWO COMPUTERS

2287
The situationist movement's retarded utopia was much closer to "THINK FOR YOURSELF" than the alternative. I remember reading this document on how to join the movement -- they had the person praise two documents in one essay and then brutally tear apart the same two documents in a second essay, explaining that anyone who is afraid of criticizing the SI (or unable to) shouldn't be allowed in.

Well, im just reporting back on my hermetic reading and what i think.

I sure hope its got more to do with what you say it does, otherwise its gonna be a loooong read.

2288
Or Kill Me / Re: A Rant.
« on: January 18, 2010, 05:28:33 am »
I dunno man. The most positive male influence I had was a lesbian.

Gender is lot more fluid and permeable in it's expression than sex. A lot of the roles amd characteristics we place on one gender over another are based on assumptions and social constructs. Some of that is good, some bad. It's hard to draw a clear line.

Gender is indeed a social construct, while sex you dont have a choice.

In other words, you dont have a choice to have a dick or a pussy, but you sure have a choice on how you want to act, instead of following relative/cultural gender norms.

2289
Or Kill Me / Re: A Rant.
« on: January 18, 2010, 05:24:31 am »
Johny - just a question

Using a scenario of a gay couple,  it would be good to have one who plays the role of the Mum and one who plays the role of the dad - other wise, if you have 2 who play the role of the dad; would the child inherittly follow the same archetype or would they be more feminine to balance it out?

Sorry for the sucky wording :(

This is a huge mess of a thing, so lets see, Im gonna transcribe you what the three stages of the Oedipus Complex according to Lacan...

1st stage: The triangle is formed by the child, the mother and the "phallus"; the phallus is something the mother desires and that the child attempts to become; the mother's desire is the law.

2nd stage: The father intervenes, by setting up the castration, by denying the child the mother; the father vs. the child, competing for the mother's affection.

3rd stage: The father shows he owns the phallus, castrating the child; the child realizes he cannot be the phallus and is relieved of that angst of trying to become it. This is at the same time the prohibition of incest, but also the promise, thru identification with the father, to someday get a woman of his own.

Is it wrong that I can't take any of the Oedipus Complex seriously?



Depends on your reasons why; this is a theory i need to argue for or against for my essay, but with reasons, not just ideological liking or not.

I personally have no problem with homosexual couples taking care of babies.

2290
Or Kill Me / Re: A Rant.
« on: January 18, 2010, 05:21:42 am »
Damn. I was about to ask  "What about the case with a single parent? If a parent was to act as both mum and dad."
So in that case, the child would become dependant on the parent and do what it takes to keep them happy?

But going back to your post - using that mind-set, that would mean Gay people make gay babies? (Or rather a higher chance - because the son will fight the dad/daughter fight the mum)

So - As long as personality of the parents is Dualistic (Feminine/Masculine) then the child will form the seperation?

eta : Didn't see your edit. Haha


Some cultural research ive done about Mexican culture, points to the conclusion that the lack of prescence of the father makes for a lot of "momma's boys"; they never quite differentiate completely.

Gay parents dont make gay babies, thats a whole different deal; first theres a competition for the affection of the caretaker or loved object, which later, after the child understands it cant compete, just accepts it and starts identifying with the victor.

Yes, in my opinion, one parent needs to be the caretaker, while the other helps break that fused couple.

2291
Or Kill Me / Re: A Rant.
« on: January 18, 2010, 04:55:50 am »
In other words, the main caretaker forms initially a symbiotic relationship with the child, and there needs to be a third force that separates them; if that separation does not take place, the child does not form a will of his own, and just lives to satisfy the needs of the caretaker (he become the caretakers "phallus").

I think the parents sex doesnt matter, but MAYBE their genders do matter.

I.E. Having two persons with male genitalia (male sex) but with a female personality (female gender).

2292
Or Kill Me / Re: A Rant.
« on: January 18, 2010, 04:53:30 am »
Johny - just a question

Using a scenario of a gay couple,  it would be good to have one who plays the role of the Mum and one who plays the role of the dad - other wise, if you have 2 who play the role of the dad; would the child inherittly follow the same archetype or would they be more feminine to balance it out?

Sorry for the sucky wording :(

This is a huge mess of a thing, so lets see, Im gonna transcribe you what the three stages of the Oedipus Complex according to Lacan...

1st stage: The triangle is formed by the child, the mother and the "phallus"; the phallus is something the mother desires and that the child attempts to become; the mother's desire is the law.

2nd stage: The father intervenes, by setting up the castration, by denying the child the mother; the father vs. the child, competing for the mother's affection.

3rd stage: The father shows he owns the phallus, castrating the child; the child realizes he cannot be the phallus and is relieved of that angst of trying to become it. This is at the same time the prohibition of incest, but also the promise, thru identification with the father, to someday get a woman of his own.

2293
Or Kill Me / Re: A Rant.
« on: January 18, 2010, 04:37:20 am »
:mittens: from me, also. Pussyfooting around gay rights is so.... ugh. I don't even know.

I am personally sick of hearing about "gay rights"...it is a non issue, just like saying "heterosexual rights."

As a gay person, I would like to think it just comes under the category of "human rights"...why is it such a fucking big deal who I fuck?

Because who you fuck isn't the debate, it's who you marry.

The only place I am ambivalent about granting gay's equal rights is on military service.  Proclaiming homosexuality was a good way to stay out of the draft and although I'm a bit old to get drafted a lot of my friends aren't.  I suppose it's a matter of priorities, the right to choose not to serve by pretending to be gay or the right to serve if you choose, irregardless of sexual orientation.  I just tend to error on the side of not having to serve, even if that means some unfairness for gays who want to serve.

The only aspect that differentiates it from a heterosexual marriage is gender.
We say it is not about sexuality. But I highly doubt it.
Sexuality is the only issue that differentiates a "straight" person, from a "gay" one. So I assert my argument still stands concerning human rights, and being able to marry whom you choose. Regardless of gender.


In a couple of weeks i have due an essay about homosexual couples adopting children, from a psychological perspective.

Im worried how im going to approach it, because according to psycho-analytic theory, the healthy childs development depends on a good triangulation between mother and father, as oedipus complex goes... but for now, im sticking with the idea that merely each parent can play the psychic function role regardless of their sex...

2295
Or Kill Me / Re: I'm pissed at the world.
« on: January 18, 2010, 03:35:33 am »
That was replying to the OP, though I quoted you. forgot to *thumbs up.*

Regarding this "shit storm" sounds scary, lets hope I remember how to close this thread...all hell might break loose!!!!! I might have my eyes typed out, again.

 :eek:  oh no... can't... stop... myself reading... insulting... comments... made by people... I have never met in my life...ego disintigrating

 :lulz:

You use italics as sarcasm! And seem to make vague psychology jabs too!

Thats awesome

Pages: 1 ... 150 151 152 [153] 154 155 156 ... 216