Messages

THIS.

Discordianism would be a lot more useful if we didn't keep attracting adults that believe in magic and fairies and shit.

why?

Also, the barstool doesn't argue against magic, I already said I believe in barstools, and the two people clobbered by one in the parable are using scientific discoveries to mentally wank each other into believing the barstool doesn't exist.  A good example of science not working.

Whether you believe in fairies or not, santa claus or not, God or not, quantum physics or not, or whatever, the barstool to your head is going to hurt.  The explanation as to exactly why it hurts the amount that it does, whether that has to do with force mass and acceleration, the chi flow in your nose, or magical pain aliens from the nth dimension is completely irrelevent in that particular instance.

If your beliefs are solid, and Gods, fairies, and magic aren't possibilities I think you are denying yourself all sorts of possibilities.  Sure, I could choose to live in your world, where the experiences I have had are a product of mental derangement on my part, but it looks like way less fun than the world that I live in.  If choosing to live in the world you are going to enjoy most isn't part of being Discordian then I suppose I must be badly misunderstanding it and am apparently doing it wrong.

I'm not saying that believing in a different paradigm solves all my problems, I have problems, but they tend to be ones that are in some way entertaining for me, and the solutions i find to them are also usually entertaining.

RE: Cram

I would say that science is the basis of consensus reality in our modern society, casting it aside entirely would be as foolish as completely casting aside Catholicism in the middle ages.  dismissing it is never going to be easy, and shouldn't be done regularly, but it can still be very useful, on occasion.  Plus a date with Isis would be awesome.

Wait...

So if I clobber you with a barstool after you've immanentized the eschaton and gotten rid of science as a dominant creator of consensus reality, the force with which it hits you won't equal the mass of the barstool times the acceleration with which I propel it towards your face?

Nope, it'll be equal to the totality of the chi which you have invested into barstool, multiplied by the wooden essence of the barstool itself.

Plus Enki and the guy with the squid vatar said what I meant better than I did.

Magic does work, if you believe in it.

Thats interesting, since science works even if you don't believe in it.

No it doesn't.  Technology works, science doesn't "work" even if you do believe in it.  Technology meanwhile works under a pretty wide set of belief systems, but not under all of them, and under ones that contradict the intent of the technology (for instance, this computer is actually housing a demon, that makes it go, and if I interact with the demon it will eat my soul) it doesn't work.  The set of belief systems under which magic works may be a bit more restricted than the ones for technology, but there's also the fact that, for me, a world with fairies, witches, wizards, gods, and goddesses in it is way more fun and exciting than one in which those are either delusions of mine or people who are deluded.

Look, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and presume a singular definition of the work "work" in this case.

I'll even open a door for you, and mention that one of the goals of science is to explain the universe in objective terms, while one of the goals of magic is to explain the universe in subjective terms.



F=ma, whether you want it to or not. 

The fact that angels pull things towards the ground faster and faster depending on the distance is up for debate.

Science is a very useful explanation of the world.  However that is all that it is.  F=MA only works if it is useful to you for it to work.  Accepting a precept like that as true can lead to all sorts of fun applications, however, if you don't approach it in the right mindset (the scientific method, as well as a certain rigourous approach to your technological development) it doesn't do you any more good than "God doesn't like it when you are a slut"

F=MA is a definition anyways, rather than a law of nature, it defines what force is.  It's not equivalent to Angels pulling you toward the ground, it's more equivalent to "A Nephilim is a half angel half human"

I agree however about the subjective and objective plans as far as science and magic are concerned, and I greatly prefer a subjectively defined universe.  Although I'll take advatnage of all the technology and scientific study that has been done. 



RE: Cram

I would say that science is the basis of consensus reality in our modern society, casting it aside entirely would be as foolish as completely casting aside Catholicism in the middle ages.  dismissing it is never going to be easy, and shouldn't be done regularly, but it can still be very useful, on occasion.  Plus a date with Isis would be awesome.

Magic does work, if you believe in it.

Thats interesting, since science works even if you don't believe in it.

No it doesn't.  Technology works, science doesn't "work" even if you do believe in it.  Technology meanwhile works under a pretty wide set of belief systems, but not under all of them, and under ones that contradict the intent of the technology (for instance, this computer is actually housing a demon, that makes it go, and if I interact with the demon it will eat my soul) it doesn't work.  The set of belief systems under which magic works may be a bit more restricted than the ones for technology, but there's also the fact that, for me, a world with fairies, witches, wizards, gods, and goddesses in it is way more fun and exciting than one in which those are either delusions of mine or people who are deluded.

Oh, I also believe in fairies, both in my garden and out in the woods.  For pretty much the same reasons I believe in deities, and barstools.

ok, first off, I'm a pagan,  a polytheist to be specific which is why I picked Eris as well as other deities.  I'm specifically neopagan because I am not a reconstructionist trying to live some ancient pagan religion but instead I follow a fairly cobbled together faith that draws on ancient ones.

Now, given that I am sure a bunch of you already want to beat up the fluffy Wiccan, I'm really not, I generally don't enjoy Wiccan forums much, which is why i am on a discordian one instead, but I suppose my worldview is not all that different from theirs.  If you look at the Wiccan spell cookbooks most of them do have the basic idea right, although I find it to be much more clearly explained in Peter Carroll's works on chaos magick.  Why they choose to share all the spells they made up when they usually give you the basics on making your own I don't know.  Maybe so you can learn by example, but their examples tend to be a big pain in the ass.

Magic does work, if you believe in it.  The form is unimportant, as in any form will work, but the form is also very important because we tend to find it much easier to believe in something that is explained in a rigid way and we tend to have a much easier time getting into a magical headspace if we have set up rather rigid rules about how magic works.

Whether or not the deities are really really real is as irrelevant as whether or not the barstool is real.  Treating them as real works better for me than treating them as not real as far as living my life goes.  I get results from my theism and so, although I may be an agnostic deep down, I act as if the deities are real, which is, I think the important part of it all.

You may now commence with the witch burning.

link doesn't work.

Yeah, if you actually want a phone that can do all those things with a decent proficiency, specifically camera, book and gameboy, you have to increase the size of the phone somewhat, and I wouldn't want a kindle sized cell phone.

As for mp3 player, I got my cell phone 4 years ago, and I use it as an mp3 player, which it does an alright job, it's out dated now, but 4 Gig of music is alright for me.

you don't need a bigger phone, you need a phone with projection capacity, which they are now working on.  They have prototypes that can project a screen roughly the size and resolution of a laptop monitor on any flat surface.

Wired had a pair of good articles about different tech gadgets that have been rendered obsolete by fast-moving cellphone industry:

http://blog.wired.com/gadgets/2008/11/five-gadget-whi.html?npu=1&mbid=yhp
http://blog.wired.com/gadgets/2008/11/seven-more-gadg.html

If you are lazy and don't want to click, here's the list:

1. PDA
2. Camera
3. Ultra Mobile PC
4. Landline telephones
5. MP3 player
6. Pager
7. Wristwatch
8. Pocket Calculator
9. Alarm clock
10. SatNav
11. book
12. Handheld Console

I disagree with the inclusion of the MP3 players, books, and handheld consoles. The rest of the list is pretty dead on though.  I don't know anyone under the age of 40 that still has a landline. Pagers died a very swift death about 10 years ago. Wristwatches are used only as jewelry anymore.  It's much easier to just take your phone out of your pocket or just look at the time on your computer.  I still have an old digital alarm clock, but I always use the cellphone when I'm not at home.

It's looking more and more like that people will be completely useless without their cell phones in the future.

It's only a matter of time as far as mp3 players are concerned.  I am 31 and have a landline though.

read a few more of em James.  Minus can be pretty malicious at times.

wait are they Roma or Romanian *confused*

I'm pretty sure there are more Roma (Gypsies) in Northern Ireland than there are Romanians.  Most of the Irish Gypsies are Tinkers though rather than Rom. Gypsy is actually an innacurate label for them, since their culture is quite different from Rom, but the fact that both groups are nomadic and known for a very different relationship with property than most means people get them confused.

I'm going to tell every "Irish American" I meet about this if they start pining for the old island.

unionists are the enemies of the IRA, who are the ones that Irish Americans generally support. 

I always saw more in common with zen than tao, but then, I know zen a little better than I know tao.

Hate crimes are not the same as hate speech laws though.

Hate crimes are where you commit (usually violent) crimes against people due to them being part of a racial, political, religious or sexual orientation grouping.  Hate crimes are more damaging than normal variations of the same crime, and there is English common law precedence concerning intent as well.

If you don't want to be found guilty of a hate crime, then its very simple: don't go beating up blacks, Jews, socialists and gays because they are black, Jewish, socialists or gay.

doesn't this become a bit of a catch 22? if i get in a bar fight with a gay black Jew etc over unrelated reasons (including self defence) and stomp him sucsessfuly, i become a commiter of hate crimes and may be imprisoned, in a situation where if i did the exact same thing to a white  chritian redneck i would be set free and maybe even be given a slap on the back for defending myself..

Intent has to be proven beyond reasonable doubt.

If you stomped a gay black Jew while saying "take that you fucking faggot nigger kike" repeatedly, then you'd probably be charged.  If you did it dressed in a KKK uniform with a Confederate flag over your back, and then posted the vid to Youtube, then you'd probably be charged.  If you said "what the fuck is your problem?" and stomp him, chances are you wouldn't be.

It would be up to the prosecution to prove that the attack was motivated by those features and not by any other factor.  Will some people try to abuse the system?  Probably.  But without evidence, it would seem to be tricky.  Plus every colour, religion and orientation is protected, so you could easily counter-claim that their preoccupation with using their defining features betrays a certain mindset, which might explain the fight.

Why is it worse to beat someone up for being black, Jewish, gay, or whatever than it is to beat them up becuase you are a violent person or because you want to take their money?

But the problem is people DO get put in jail in Canada for Hate Speech, and people are also denied entrance to Canada for it.  Hell, there's a group trying to get George W. Bush barred from entering Canada at the moment.

I don't have time to look right now, but I will get the citations tonight about that.

However, concerning hate crimes, I totally agree.  I won't stomach violence of any sort.

barring W from entering Canada may have more to do with war crimes than hate speech.