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 - Cain

Pages: 1 ... 1488 1489 1490 [1491] 1492 1493 1494 ... 1949
Principia Discussion / Re: What do you REALLY believe?
« on: October 21, 2008, 03:01:10 pm »
Is there any particular reason for you being a prick today Rata?  Did Cram say something in order for you to be a continual asswipe on his thread?

Principia Discussion / Re: What do you REALLY believe?
« on: October 21, 2008, 02:52:00 pm »
while I recognize the technical truth of not ever REALLY being able to KNOW anything, there is not one single thing I can think of that I think is LESS likely than an actual deity actually existing.

Pretty much.  I can just about accept Deism (Great Architect, Unmoved Mover) as a possibility, slight though it may be, but any named religion or god is getting into the territory of impossiblity of existence.

Principia Discussion / Re: What do you REALLY believe?
« on: October 21, 2008, 02:48:10 pm »
Actually, you may want to include something along the Jung/Campbell line... "God's may not exist but they're a useful archetype..." or something like it?

I think that falls under atheism. If we make that cut, we've also gotta make a lot of cuts like, "I'm christian but I don't go to church", or "Wiccan with Discordian leanings" etc etc

Agreed.  Its either an atheistic or agnostic position.

Principia Discussion / Re: What do you REALLY believe?
« on: October 21, 2008, 02:26:58 pm »
Agnostic, verging on atheism.  I think gods don't exist, but I don't Really Really Truthfully Know (100%) if that is the case.

I also see gods as useful symbols or metaphors, depending on context and deployment.

Literate Chaotic / Re: Quantum Library
« on: October 21, 2008, 02:01:32 pm »
My books:

Sun Tzu, Art of War
Machiavelli, The Prince, and Discourses on Livy
Musashi, The Book of Five Rings
Nietzsche, The Will to Power
Chris Frith, Making up The Mind

I'll add more when I look through my bookcase later.

Literate Chaotic / Re: Unofficial What are you Reading Thread?
« on: October 21, 2008, 12:05:53 pm »

Aneristic Illusions / Re: Indecision 08 Wingnut thread
« on: October 21, 2008, 12:01:39 pm »
While I'm here, I may as well transcribe a post from The Editors, detailing right wing reactions to Powell's endorsement of Obama.

No one could have predicted, a few bad apples, etc:

(The Star of David is a nice touch.)  Wow, that’s a weird isolated incident.  I wonder where that guy got those kooky ideas?

In less camera-shy quadrants of the wingnutosphere, Rush Limbaugh, Mike Gallagher, Pat Buchanan, the Freepi, Judith Apter Isosceles Perambulate Marcalculate Klinghoffer, and many, many others determine that Colin Powell is a huge racist for endorsing Barack Obama.  Because, you see, they are both black. The Media Blog goes a half-step further, proving by induction that all black people are racist, and the only option for decent people is to repay them in kind:

So, the next time a black person throws around the charge of racism feel free to ignore it. Better yet, you might want to tell them that it is nothing more than the pot calling the kettle black.

A bold stand for equality, one which reminds me of a non-racist MLK, Jr., or a Rosa Parks who stood up for racial equality. Over at Floppy Asses they advance a slightly different theory: that it’s not so much that black people are racist for voting for Democrats, as that they are morons, duped by the Demoncrats strategy of lying to negroes. Hello? Abraham Lincoln was a Republican, durr!

Jammie-Wearing Fool goes even further, noting that both black AND white people who vote for Obama are huge racists:

Yes, because it’s OK for them to be racist, so long as they project their racism upon Republicans with their incessant cries of racism. Naturally, it’s fine if 105% of blacks (with ACORN’s help, naturally) vote for Obama. We can’t call that racist, because we’d be racist for pointing that out.

Oh, and I forgot how these racists call anyone who isn’t a racist - i.e., decent white conservatives from real pro-America America - “racists”.  In an amazing twist, white conservative republicans are History’s Secret Victims - again!  Completing the agony, Donald Douglas attempts a bit of post-racist meta-projection something-or-other which would require a team of psychotherapists and a Klein bottle full of LSD to make sense of:

Just contemplate the loaded racism in that passage: Essentially, folks see Kwame Kilpatrick as a big, black threatening “nigga” (used here non-pejoratively, in the hip-hop sense, but perhaps differently by the working-class whites identified in the Politico).

I swear, one has to be a contortionist to make sense of Democratic Party racial politics.

I mean, think about it: What’s the difference between Kwame Kilpatrick and Barack Obama?

Naturally, Prof. Douglas concludes that there is no relevent difference between these two black men, and that one would have to be a huge racist to think there was.  The next 4-8 years are going to be utterly insane.

Literate Chaotic / Re: Unofficial What are you Reading Thread?
« on: October 21, 2008, 11:43:17 am »
That sounds really neat. I never would have thought of neo-paganism as something that someone would take the time to research.

Neither do most neo-pagans.

Aneristic Illusions / Re: Indecision 08 Wingnut thread
« on: October 21, 2008, 11:23:13 am »
This is Radio Rwanda calling.

In an exclusive interview with 12 News, 58 year-old Nancy Takehara of Chicago says she was going door-to-door when she came across a disgruntled homeowner.

“The next thing I know he’s telling us we’re not his people, we’re probably with ACORN, and he started screaming and raving,” Takehara said. “He grabbed me by the back of the neck. I thought he was going to rip my hair out of my head. He was pounding on my head and screaming. The man terrified me.”


Rev Wright is back on the cards.

John McCain’s campaign manager says he is reconsidering using Barack Obama’s relationship with Reverend Jeremiah Wright as a campaign issue during the election’s closing weeks.

In an appearance on conservative Hugh Hewitt’s radio program, Davis said that circumstances had changed since John McCain initially and unilaterally took Obama’s former pastor off the table. The Arizona Republican, Davis argued, had been jilted by the remarks of Rep. John Lewis, who compared recent GOP crowds to segregationist George Wallace’s rallies. And, as such, the campaign was going to “rethink” what was in and out of political bounds.

Aneristic Illusions / Re: Indecision 08 Wingnut thread
« on: October 20, 2008, 09:27:02 pm »
Is that sticker so roving gangs of Freepers and other brownshirts know who to jump?

Principia Discussion / Re: DISCORDIANISM??
« on: October 20, 2008, 08:10:24 pm »
You want to put Mexicans in omlettes?

Cannibalistic bastard.

Aneristic Illusions / Re: Indecision 08 Wingnut thread
« on: October 20, 2008, 05:00:54 pm »

I lost all interest ITT after it was pointed out that I was compared to jamiroquai.

Someone else compared you to the Beatles, IIRC.

As for the Jamiroquai thing.... well..... Sorry, what else can I say?

I like Jamiroquai.


You're just jealous of the canned heat. In my heels. Tonight. Baby.

Or Kill Me / Guest rant: Nietzsche's honourable war
« on: October 20, 2008, 02:36:39 pm »
Taken from Why Am I So Wise, in Ecce Homo:

War is another matter. I am warlike by nature. Attacking is one of my instincts. Being able to be an enemy, being an enemy—perhaps that presupposes a strong nature; in any case, it belongs to every strong nature. It needs objects of resistance; hence it looks for what resists: the aggressive pathos belongs just as necessarily to strength as vengefulness and rancor belong to weakness. Woman, for example, is vengeful: that is due to her weakness, as much as is her susceptibility to the distress of others.

The strength of those who attack can be measured in a way by the opposition they require: every growth is indicated by the search for a mighty opponent—or problem; for a warlike philosopher challenges problems, too, to single combat. The task is not simply to master what happens to resist, but what requires us to stake all our strength, suppleness, and fighting skill—opponents that are our equals.

Equality before the enemy: the first presupposition of an honest duel.  Where one feels contempt, one cannot wage war; where one commands, where one sees something beneath oneself, one has no business waging war.

My practice of war can be summed up in four propositions.

First: I only attack causes that are victorious; I may even wait until they become victorious.

Second: I only attack causes against which I would not find allies, so that I stand alone—so that I compromise myself alone.—I have never taken a step publicly that did not compromise me: that is my criterion of doing right.

Third: I never attack persons; I merely avail myself of the person as of a strong magnifying glass that allows one to make visible a general but creeping and elusive calamity. Thus I attacked David Strauss—more precisely, the success of a senile book with the "cultured" people in Germany: I caught this culture in the act.  Thus I attacked Wagner—more precisely, the falseness, the half-couth instincts of our "culture" which mistakes the subtle for the rich, the late for the great.

Fourth: I only attack things when every personal quarrel is excluded, when any background of bad experiences is lacking. On the contrary, attack is in my case a proof of good will, sometimes even of gratitude. I honor, I distinguish by associating my name with that of a cause or a person: pro or con—that makes no difference to me at this point. When I wage war against Christianity I am entitled to this because I have never experienced misfortunes and frustrations from that quarter—the most serious Christians have always been well disposed toward me. I myself, and opponent of Christianity, in accordance with good manners, am far from blaming individuals for the calamity of millennia.

Discordian Recipes / Re: Cooking with Cain
« on: October 20, 2008, 01:40:20 pm »
Is there a cheap little produce market in the area?  We get most of ours from a little mexican place and it costs about $50 a week to feed three.

Not that I can expect a mercadito latino in your area.  But perhaps a rough equivalent?

Well, the only really independent shop around here sells fruit and veg from local farmers markets...but if the quality of their goods is an indiction of the general quality of what is grown, those farmers deserve to be shot.

I laughed until I shat myself. No troll.


:lulz: I am glad you are not eating like this any longer but here are some Recession Recipes just in case your funds start to run low. (I have this link book marked for just such an emergency.)

I have actually done local fish with something that could pass for herbs many times.

Not least because a friend of mine had a few excellent fishing rods, and I knew the timetable for river checks made to catch people fishing without a licence.

Pages: 1 ... 1488 1489 1490 [1491] 1492 1493 1494 ... 1949