Messages

With Stang, the barstool is only good for one thing.

for everyone else, the OP applies.

you're missing the point.

my intention is not to create a constitution that's ever going to be used or enacted or even obeyed by the people who create it. it's to spur some good debate on the nature of society and how, theoretically, humans might create processes and forces to shape society into something better than it is.

don't forget, without science we could all eat buffalo since billions of them could fit in the average petting zoo.

we hold a constitutional convention!

write a Discordian constitution.. and produce a final document that would under more perfect circumstances be the legally binding contract between a government and its citizens.

this process could bring new discussions regarding human behaviors, etc. like the BIP. and it could also result in the generation of new propaganda.

format: whatever. words, probably, will be involved. but unlike the tired formats of the 18th century i propose pictures also. finding a way to make a picture legally binding could be fun.

feel free to ignore/insult this idea since it's just something i posted without thinking too much about.

If war is inevitable, then isn't it automatically justified because it is unavoidable, morally reprehensible or not?

If two mutually-exclusive logic sets are clashing, and you tend toward one or the other, is it not justifiable to give your 'side' your blessing?  In the West, the counter-establishment tends to piss and moan about the actions of the Establishment, while in general behaving pretty much the same as the "pro-establishment" people behave.

If globalization has resulted in globalized war as well as globalized commerce and communication; and the war is at its root about societies that are so heavily invested in globalization that they will fail if it doesn't continue versus conflicting societies that oppose globalization; is it not, regardless of high-minded morality, in the best interest of citizens of globalist societies to defend the course of globalization?

Obviously, ugly shit happens in war and always has.  In your opinion is there a difference between societies that see war as a 'necessary evil' and societies that make war a way of life?  Do you believe that any such distinction even exists, except in political rhetoric?

I don't believe that the drive for Empire in the case of America is in fact a drive for political or social domination, but a drive for economic expansion ahead of a perceived threat to an economy that is based on expansion, as all Western economies are to one degree or another.

I understand the arguments against this war, and believe me I'm not in favor of it, I'm just investigating the other side's point of view.

What would Iraqi society be like if (although it's probably impossible) every insurgent in Iraq laid down his weapons and the whole country just decided to go along with the American plan, tomorrow?

I think in the case of the OP in this case it stands for Too Lame; Didn't Read.

IMO long posts are easy to read if the person writing them knows how to make them flow, and I've had enough caffeine.

Semantics is never missing the point.

Its never justified.

Interestingly enough, Al-Qaeda seem to have shifted their aims re: the Middle East, quite considerably in what they wish to see happen.

Think anarchism, Islamic style.

Which in my opinion makes them qualitively different from the religious ideologues in America, or even in the Middle East (like Iran).

It doesn't make them any less retarded, but it sure as hell requires a major change in perspective re: black globalization, transnational crime and terrorism.

In a war between increasingly oppressive nation-states and increasingly retarded actors who want to destroy the Westphalian system (and replace it with something similar to Lyotard's small community anarchism), is any side in fact worth defending/condemning more?

Or should those who want to thrive somehow manouveur themselves inbetween the warring parties of the next century, to their own profit and gain?

Justification is a tricky subject.

Is your way of life and standard of living worth defending?  And if it is, what does defending it mean?

Making life shit for people is presumably a 'bad' thing to do; but we're humans, and that's our specialty.

If you are in a position where it's either your life or somebody else's life that goes to shit, or both, are you 'justified' in making sure that it isn't your life that goes to shit?

We are, as a race, a bunch of aggressive primates. It's in our nature to dominate, to establish our postition in the pecking order.

We want to know where we stand.

This is nature.

Nature has had it's day - time to move on.

Control your nature or your nature will control you.

That's all well and good, but people don't.

Humans are a disturbing race of violent creatures.  War, etc.

If the government in Washington fell tomorrow and the USA was disbanded overnight.

As trade routes broke up and starvation set in, as you watched your neighbors succumb to the kind of mutilation that happens in other parts of the world, as you faced down death-squads of ex-citizen vigilantes (or joined them); would you be happy that at least there was no more bickering in Congress?

On the seedier side of the Internets, across the street from all the wrong kinds of porno, in the dark alley servers where you find the shit AlQaida put online; where kids scream, not because their internet is too slow, but because they're tied to a chair watching their parents getting raped and dismembered in front of their eyes.

There is a part of the counter-establishment establishment that clings to an ideology of "freedom" as if it is the defacto state of Humanity, without tyrants.

But Humanity cannot exist without tyrants because humanity is a race of tyrants.

Is this current war for the Empire, however badly managed it is, even a little bit justified, at least in its intentions?

The Barstool, designed to combat the evils of solipsism and enforce the laws of reality on a brain numbed almost to death by masturbatory neurons, is also useful as a weapon against the violent overthrow of philosophy by armies of ignorant fucks wielding barstools.

Lest the mystery of the barstool become lopsided, let's not forget that it has a flat end and a pointy end.  Its legs make nice handles, but they also make decent legs.  Its seat can inflict damage, but sometimes, a barstool is also worth sitting on.

Don't miss the disconnect between actions and thought.  Besides, penetrating a person's brain with the sharp edge of a barstool will usually only increase their belief in solipsism, even if you switch their train from the "My mind is all that exists" to "Your barstool is all that exists."

This is undeveloped.

The way I read the OP, it had nothing to do with the evolution-vs-creation debate.

It had to do with getting your grid so fixed that it becomes more important than the reality you're supposed to be seeing through it.

Saying that "maybe" is a good thing doesn't mean you should accept blatantly false information as possibly accurate.  It means that "blatantly true" is usually an illusion.  Including "maybe" leaves you some room to adjust to new evidence.  Good science is based on "maybe," and rarely gets any more concrete than "probably."

who cares where we came from?

history will have no flavor until there is a single civilization that has lasted at least 50,000 years. and there needs to be space travel.

everything before hyperdrive is foreplay.

it's a societal class thing. the rich have no idea whats going on all the way down to the poor knowing theyre going to die and having a good time while they can. and ask for a new seat if yours isnt in the plane.

That's totally the wrong interpretation, you fucking heretic.

TOO MANY POSSIBLE INTERPRETATIONS. Srsly, Discordians prefer to have it all spelled out for them.

people are superstitious and do superstitious things, and a prophet embodies what superstitions tell people to fear

or

if you're trying to get a moron's attention, you might as well light yourself on fire and strap yourself to the wing of a jet.

or

Everyone is too busy obsessing about forgetting what they already know about their own mortality, to have a chance in hell of it ever leaving their conscious mind.

or

Some people don't watch enough William Shatner movies.