HA! (12-12-01)

Khan Jackal Moreau · Post by **Khan Jackal Moreau** » Thu Dec 13, 2001 9:36 am

*smacks himself in the face*Excuse me while I abandon my Guth advocacy, and shoot my mouth off.Premise: We live in a world of Infinite Possibilities.Restatement: We live in a world where anything can be proper, given the proper circumstances.Logical Conclusion: We can rape, kill, slaughter, burn, murder, oppress, and beat people given the proper circumstances.Therefore.I disagree with your premise. Take care when wishing to "open people's minds". Every hate/racial group in histoy has done just that.Uh. And oh yeah. Guth rules.

Matrygg · Post by **Matrygg** » Thu Dec 13, 2001 9:43 am

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by T Campbell:
For what it's worth, while I try not to treat threesome, foursome, and moresome arrangements as "evil" (they are, at their most ideal, forms of love, and it seems we could do with a bit MORE love in the world, rather than less)......what I've witnessed in my own life suggests that they're not very FUNCTIONAL over here. Neglect and jealousy, two of the more potent enemies of ANY relationship, seem to get stronger in exponential proportion to the number of partners involved... at least in OUR culture, and it's much harder than you might think to leave behind the assumptions of the culture in which you're born and raised.But that's just me...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I have to say that I tend to agree with T here. Personally, I've never been in a polyamorus relationship (I know myself well enough to know that I tend to fall too deeply to be comfortable sharing) but everyone I've seen who have walked that road have ended up in a morass of hurt feelings and broken hearts. Part of that, I think, is that a lot of people fool themselves into thinking they can pull off that open understanding, when really they can't. And sometimes one partner does it because they love the other, even when they don't really want to. That, I think, is where the true trouble lies. If both partners are into it, and honest, and accepting, then it can probably work. But that's got to be a rare breed. If you can't achieve that, you can destroy an entire group of friends. I've seen it happen.Interesting subpoint -- the friends I have who were/are polyamorous based their polyamory to some degree on Stranger in a Strange Land . And apparently there's also a church based on this book, as well. Do you think polyamory, where it works, works better with or without a philosophical basis?Another subpoint -- polyamory is the biological setup for people, actually. It's my opinion that sentience and society trumps biology, which is why it works so rarely.--Matt

T Campbell · Post by **T Campbell** » Thu Dec 13, 2001 11:07 am

For what it's worth, while I try not to treat threesome, foursome, and moresome arrangements as "evil" (they are, at their most ideal, forms of love, and it seems we could do with a bit MORE love in the world, rather than less)......what I've witnessed in my own life suggests that they're not very FUNCTIONAL over here. Neglect and jealousy, two of the more potent enemies of ANY relationship, seem to get stronger in exponential proportion to the number of partners involved... at least in OUR culture, and it's much harder than you might think to leave behind the assumptions of the culture in which you're born and raised.But that's just me...

Khavren · Post by **Khavren** » Thu Dec 13, 2001 12:26 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Khan Jackal Moreau:
[B
Premise: We live in a world of Infinite Possibilities.Restatement: We live in a world where anything can be proper, given the proper circumstances.Logical Conclusion: We can rape, kill, slaughter, burn, murder, oppress, and beat people given the proper circumstances.Therefore.I disagree with your premise. Take care when wishing to "open people's minds". Every hate/racial group in histoy has done just that.Uh. And oh yeah. Guth rules.[/B]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I disagree with your inital premise, I feel we live in a world of finite but large possibilites, limited only by human imagination and will. Therefore since we are limited in possibilities, there must be some things that are never appropiate to do. Of course, the more open minds are the lower the limits on our potentional, but also the more chance that normally inappropiate behavior will be not only acceptable but mandatory. It all comes down to how much of a limit on human growth is worth stopping behavior you disapprove of.Oh, and Guth rocks the house!

Judy · Post by **Judy** » Fri Dec 14, 2001 1:54 am

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Lucy the Destroyer:
I couldn't agree more. If we want shooting deaths to stop, we should just make it illegal to shoot people. It's simple, it's to the point, and most importantly, it would work.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I admit to lacking education on most gun issues, but under what circumstances, other than military action and self-defense, is it currently _legal_ to shoot people?Judy

Yumitori · Post by **Yumitori** » Fri Dec 14, 2001 6:12 am

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by matrygg:
 I have to say that I tend to agree with T here. Personally, I've never been in a polyamorus relationship (I know myself well enough to know that I tend to fall too deeply to be comfortable sharing) but everyone I've seen who have walked that road have ended up in a morass of hurt feelings and broken hearts. Part of that, I think, is that a lot of people fool themselves into thinking they can pull off that open understanding, when really they can't. And sometimes one partner does it because they love the other, even when they don't really want to. That, I think, is where the true trouble lies. If both partners are into it, and honest, and accepting, then it can probably work. But that's got to be a rare breed. If you can't achieve that, you can destroy an entire group of friends. I've seen it happen.
--Matt<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I would submit that many relationships, regardless of form, fail because all those involved are not equally committed to it. With more than two people, you introduce more chances for such an occurrence.Heinlein's group marriages make more sense from the angle of stability - rather than three or four people, you have a larger number, who together can maintain the relationship even if one or two people decide they want out. With three, it seems too easy for one member to be frozen out, and with four, unless the effort is made to 'share' affection equally, you get two couples who happen to share a roof.I see no good reason why such marriages can't work, but I can see lots of reasons why they don't.Yumitori (who's taken quite a while to find one person willing to put up with him.

Khan Jackal Moreau · Post by **Khan Jackal Moreau** » Fri Dec 14, 2001 7:12 am

I advocate our presence in Afghanistan. We aren't technologically sophisticated enough to win a war based on our societal superiority alone.I don't advocate the dropping of bombs on civilians, but I do understand that it does happen occasionally, accidentally.I am anti-death. Don't kill anybody. I'm pro gulag for the really bad folks, I'm pro ankle-tracker/close-parole officer for the not so bad.I don't advocate banning guns. I advocate banning shooting people.I don't advocate saying you can't burn flags. Unless it's not your flag, or you're on somebody elses land.Rodney King? Stun guns are widely underused in police actions, based on the fact most people are more comfortable with 5 guys beating on a coked out maniac than one cop hitting him with a stunner and knocking him unconcious. Something about "cop beat downs" being more palatable than "cold technological justice". You make the call.What I do strongly advocate is a system that keeps people from doing stupid things. Rodney King should have never been HIGH enough so he resisted arrest for the crime that he was guilty of. Somebody should have worked out a viral agent that proofed people against that particular chemical imbalance.Technology has the capacity to solve all the worlds problems. Drugs won't sell if U.S. city water contains agents which harden your system against their effects. People still wanting the high can use government distrubuted drugs which contain paralytics, keeping you from harming those around you.What bugs me is when people say things like, "I have to be true to myself".No man is an island. All things can affect others around you. Everyone who has ever done something evil, and was true to themselves, was still evil. They are as sincere, well-meaning, and honest as anyone could ever be. They're still evil. Insert your personal heinous crime of choice.In time we as a people will increase the pecentages to a point where only a slim percentage of the population need work at all, to maintain our society. The rest of us, the hordes of excess, some will create great works of art. The more lounging about, the more art. I however will be joining the far larger group in indulging in the fruits of our forbears.However, people who continue to promote ways of life, be they fascist or anarchist, which gets in the way of my theoretical maximum nap time must be stopped.If everyone saw the logical conclusion to their battles, their relationships, and their fruitless efforts to gain power over each other, they would see how cooperation in the confines of sane society is the only logical choice. Sane, of course, being that which results in the maximum research done with the minimum effort, which excludes most fringe culture as the trouble it causes to the outsiders far outweights the benefits to those included. This isn't oppression, as those INSIDE the fringe are in fact oppressing the outside by reducing their ability to operate smootly.One sholdn't give up smoking in order to save those around him from the smoggy annoyance, rather, he should give it up to avoid creating rifts in the group dynamic.*looks around*Oh yeah. Last final yesterday. Frontal lobes aching ever since.*looks around*Yeah. *cough* Let's get some more Guth in the house, aight?------------------
Escapism is rampant in Western Culture. It must be very difficult to escape Western Culture.

Lucy the Destroyer · Post by **Lucy the Destroyer** » Fri Dec 14, 2001 9:37 am

I couldn't agree more. If we want shooting deaths to stop, we should just make it illegal to shoot people. It's simple, it's to the point, and most importantly, it would work.

Lucy the Destroyer · Post by **Lucy the Destroyer** » Fri Dec 14, 2001 9:43 am

That was my point.

DDave · Post by **DDave** » Fri Dec 14, 2001 10:28 am

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by matrygg:
but everyone I've seen who have walked that road have ended up in a morass of hurt feelings and broken hearts.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>One upon a time, I got to hang briefly with what was probably the most famous polyamory groups around - the Kerista commune - who had some forty members or so. By the time I came back from living in Japan, it had broken up and splintered. Most of the main folks have gone and entered into monongomous relationships, although it seems some smaller Kerista groups (3-4 people) did survive. It seems that what kept it together was the drive of one visionary leader. When he was out of the scene, then everything started to fall apart. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>
Interesting subpoint -- the friends I have who were/are polyamorous based their polyamory to some degree on Stranger in a Strange Land . Do you think polyamory, where it works, works better with or without a philosophical basis?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Kerista was hugely influenced by Heinlein. The way the Keristans approached things was somewhat of a "benevolent cult". They were aware of the communication issues, so they mandated group talk sessions where issues were outed and worked on. They constructed an elaborated system of 88 tenants that defined what they believed in. Those rules did keel the group together, but many felt they had to subordinate themselves to the group. That might be what you need to do for such a large group, but I personally suspect polyamory becomes unwieldy beyond 3-4 people, when intimacy becomes threatened by logistics. The Keristans, for example, had a sleeping partner rotation chart.[Quote]
Another subpoint -- polyamory is the biological setup for people, actually.
[QUOTE]I disagree here. My observations/studies lead me to believe that most folks are geared to setting up pair bonds (possibly, but not usually long term - witness our culture's habit of serial polygamy (many wives/hubands but only one at a time)). I also think that the adultery factor is biological. Being in a pair bond is no immunity to being attracted to another mate, usually on the condition that having another mate does not upset the social stability of mate #1.I certain wish the polyamorists luck - they have a hard row to hoe. Best,Dave
------------------
-----------
dDave
<A HREF="http://pander.keenspace.com" TARGET=_blank>Pander. A webcomic.</A>

Stig Hemmer · Post by **Stig Hemmer** » Sat Dec 15, 2001 3:39 am

Removing military action as an excuse for murder would be a good step forward.------------------
Stig Hemmer, at your disservice.

Ebijin · Post by **Ebijin** » Sat Dec 15, 2001 8:50 am

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Khan Jackal Moreau:
*smacks himself in the face*Excuse me while I abandon my Guth advocacy, and shoot my mouth off.Premise: We live in a world of Infinite Possibilities.Restatement: We live in a world where anything can be proper, given the proper circumstances.Logical Conclusion: We can rape, kill, slaughter, burn, murder, oppress, and beat people given the proper circumstances.Therefore.I disagree with your premise. Take care when wishing to "open people's minds". Every hate/racial group in histoy has done just that.Uh. And oh yeah. Guth rules.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Heck, you could pare it down even further than that. What defines proper circumstances? Just say:Logical Conclusion: We can rape, kill, slaughter, burn, murder, oppress, and beat people.For more on this, read anything by de Sade, the ultimate individual, and, sadly, one of the most evil men ever to have lived.His advocacy for government sanctioned and mandated rape is particularly charming.I can't fault his logic, however. And I kind of admire a man willing to stick to his reasonable guns until the bitter -- and consigned to an asylum -- end.~f------------------
There's a t.v. in my pocket
There's a lint ball in the corner
There's a cornflake in my brain pan
And a pie named Jimmy Horner

Pennyangelos · Post by **Pennyangelos** » Sat Dec 15, 2001 11:23 am

Ah, save us; we hath plunged into the Chasm of Sar!

RebLaw · Post by **RebLaw** » Sun Dec 16, 2001 7:42 am

commie dude, communism never has worked before, and it never will, humans aren't all evil, but most desire freedom. I'd fight to my death before I be put in some place where some people work to support others who just lounge around all day.. I'd rather work for myself, and not have to support more than is necessary (namely, the poor and abandoned)RebLaw------------------
visit <A HREF="http://alcyone.dyndns.org" TARGET=_blank>My imaginary world </A> down for now anyway

Maccabee · Post by **Maccabee** » Sun Dec 16, 2001 10:27 am

*TWEET*We have a logical fallacy on the field!Slippery slope fallacy -- ten yard penalty, loss of down!Maccabee------------------
Risus est telum ultimum contra tyrranem. Nullus dictator exercitibus allibus ridiculem vulgi longe resistare potest.

Stig Hemmer · Post by **Stig Hemmer** » Mon Dec 17, 2001 3:18 am

Words are funny things... Today most people will say that "communism" is what the Sovjets did and what the Chinese do. So it has become a bad word, few people want to get associated with it."Socialism" is a better word, but that too has become dirty since the "United Socialist Sovjet Republic". Most Americans think that "Communism" and "Socialism" are synonyms anyway.These days, "social democratism" the word for what many Europeans believe, especially in Scandinavia. I'm myself one of them.Still, come election time, I vote for the "Workers Communist Party" (not to be confused with the "Norwegian Communist Party") because they have the politics I find the most agreeable among the existing alternatives.It is hard to explain to most Americans how somebody who is strongly against any form of dictatorship and strongly in favor of democracy can vote for a party that calls itself a Communist Party. I'll just say that things aren't always as they seem.------------------
Stig Hemmer, at your disservice.

Random Nerd · Post by **Random Nerd** » Mon Dec 17, 2001 4:03 am

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>People still wanting the high can use government distrubuted drugs which contain paralytics, keeping you from harming those around you.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Out of curiosity, have you been reading C. S. Friedman's Coldfire books, or just some of the same sources she's read?

T Campbell · Post by **T Campbell** » Mon Dec 17, 2001 6:15 am

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by RebLaw:
commie dude, communism never has worked before, and it never will, humans aren't all evil, but most desire freedom. I'd fight to my death before I be put in some place where some people work to support others who just lounge around all day.. I'd rather work for myself, and not have to support more than is necessary (namely, the poor and abandoned)RebLaw<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>RebLaw, I don't think anyone on the thread so far has actually been advocating communism.Incidentally, it's a shame when good ideas go bad. The original ideas that gave rise to communism were, in fact, largely COMPLAINTS about "working to support others who just lounged around all day." Unfortunately, concept did not match execution.Welcome to the boards! We have two rules here: don't disrespect other posters and stay on topic with fandom, science fiction, or the FANS comic. And as you can see, even the second rule is flexible... this discussion's grown out of Alisin's unusual mores...

Jarnor23 · Post by **Jarnor23** » Mon Dec 17, 2001 8:48 am

To buck the trend, I'll actively advocate Communism. Not as it has been implimented so far, as a dictatorship with a thin veneer of communist philosophy over it, but as it's actually supposed to work. I think the "American Way" of either working as a slave to your creditors or screwing everyone else over as hard as possible so you can be rich is inherrently flawed. With enough people actually caring, we could feed the world, and still have time for art, science, spiritual growth, recreation, and the things that make life WORTH living. Look at Star Trek. They're as communist as it gets. Noone is forced to work, people just do what they are best at, and the society thrives due to people doing their calling rather than mindless labor for the positions that are currently popular in the job market. They don't even use money on Earth.Of course, I realize that this may be hard, or impossible to achieve on this Earth, which is where it breaks down. But if it COULD be made to work, I will be the first person to say that it's a wonderful idea, and a lot better than, "them that work hard eat, those who won't or can't starve in the streets." I'm personally disgusted by those who would enjoy seeing children die of exposure and starvation in the streets because their parents were "lazy bums." Do you know how hard it is in major cities to make the astronomical rent that your precious capitalism has created? I suppose this comes from me following a philosophy that teaches one to work for the good of mankind, and the subjugation of selfish wants to a greater good, but it's where I stand. I personally think the world would be better off if others thought so as well, instead of the me-first mentality that has poisoned our culture so thoroughly.Jarnor23[This message has been edited by Jarnor23 (edited 12-17-2001).]

Manticoraus · Post by **Manticoraus** » Tue Dec 18, 2001 2:27 am

*groan*I am quite aware of Sandman, Books of Magic,
and American Gods. The script of Princess Monoke. That book with Terry Prachett. Mr. Punch. The plethora of Sandfans. Vertigo something of a godchild of his. I am also aware that once one gets Gaiman, Moore or Miller status it seems just as likely to be too hip for the room. Faans was a kickin' comic but if I averaged it with everything else comics still are in the realm of not where they're not supposed to be. That's okay TV and movies are NOT where they are supposed to be. Comics is still something of a cripple of entertainment. Too outrageous and shocking for what is was nowhere mature or accessible to others. And endings isn't the problem. Continuing stories can work. But the consequences in anything but a limited run can usually be summed up to a net of zero. For instances in motion the latest Joker crossover and Our Worlds At War which is made that much worse by real life events of war and terrorism casting both story/events in a light that I can only graspingly classify (with my admittedly bad vocab)as comic booky. Its a style and affect that if I find anywhere else I connect it to that.comic books can be good. Underdogs and mainstreams. Avant gardes and uhm global guardians.
There are good comic books.
Comic books in general need improving.
They are improving.
But they need more and have been soooo overdue for even more than that it is SAD.
You need to be in a certain mindset for comic books (generally) and put up with a lot of crap. And the fact comic books and their makers assume to gain out of hand suspension of disbelief and appreciation required for what they are. It can hurt to have that sometimes. for me it can impede on my sense of reality.Not to mention Television is cheaper and while capable of just as bad more often I can figure that out without plopping out 6-10 bucks (an honest assesment of comic book you need a decent slice of the story which by my call is 3 issues or a tpb) to read the equivalent of Buffy Season 4 or Voyager: a Kes gets mindwarped episode. you can't return the thing after the first act and pick up the other comic you might actually stand (usually cause a single issue IS an act, second I don't know a store that will do that after you've read/opened and payed for it) lively and on an average for individual enjoyment *better.*Dexter's Lab vs. Barry Ween or Akiko Okay one may be literarily better but which is generally less per month with cable MODEM option and a wide range of stories that don't take up alot of space or effort.I do not HATE comics. I just have no illusions about their bad and sorry state on average and in general. I am not incredibly ignorant about comics.
RANT MODE ON
I am up to my ankles in paper cuts from my collection on the floor which I must pack for my move. I am a proud owner of the gosh darn FAANS/KODT crossover. I've bought almost every Super Manga Blast post dated Jan 01. I actually read Watchmen. I started collecting comics again after getting hooked on Books of Magic TPB. I would trade it all in for a date with Abel of the Dreaming if he promised to dump Goldie the Gargoyle so she could get it on with Gregory in the House of Mystery. I root for Brian and Sara. Tim Mitts is one of my idols. I know Harry Potter IS NOT a rip off of Tim Hunter. The Static Shock Milestone revival and failure made me sad. I still managed to snag some Blood Syndicate and Shadow Cabinet. Not to mention Hardware. I didn't like how Preacher ended(or middled or started or existed). I hope men who's last name starts with E and write comics get other jobs. I've avoided Spawn like the plague. And bought three or so Image comics despite my better judgement. And out of sheer perversion have way more of Malibu's Prime series (first and second) than good taste justifies. I have a sketch from an unknown named Gene Yang which I treasure like a fetish...not really its buried underneath the mag format Loyala Chin and mail ordered "Gordon Yamamoto and the King of the Geeks" he wrote. His co-project with Dereck Kirk, who's name I will never spell correctly even if the universe's fate existed on it, Duncan's Kingdom touched me deeper than Heroes AND Pedro and Me (not combined though). I actually know there is a Xeric Award Grant or do I have the words mixed up. I know why Wednesday is a very important day. I have been in mid to apocalyptic pain since the Fraim Bros. got their hands on Knights Illustrated and dared to besmirck the Travellers. I know what an inker is and that despite what it sounds like in definition its a pretty important job, for instance it keeps the Fraim Bros from actual pencilling. I know why I should hate some balding dead guy with glasses and put a swastika next to the comics code. Mr. McCloud seems to have a cute style. Brian Dawson could draw people crapping on the can and I swear I'd go nuts with glee he's THAT GOOD. Forget Batman and Robin the most subtextual male couple of comics was Archer and Armstrong even if the Acclaim relaunch had no pacing. Doesn't matter Apollo and Midnighter are the openly premier gay couple.
Kurt Busiek is polish for Comic Gawd. Alan Moore is English for atrocious egomaniac. Ennis/Ellis is arabic for "if we had the vulagarity editted out of or works they'd mainly consist of large white pages with intermittent pictures of heads with word balloons of sparse amounts of articles and prepositions" Mano Vega is Wisconian for Art Monkey. Tony DiGleramo is italiano for "needs more strong females" but his writing actually makes me still wanna buy post Dawson (NOT THE CREEK LORD NO NEVER THE JAMES VANDERBEEK CURSE-SED CREEK) Travellers. Again this can't be repeated enough the Fraim Bros. are true fan service for the masochists out there. NEVER has seeing a picture regardless of its content caused me the physical sensation that I believe is the slow oxidation of my nervous system. An experience singular attributed (outside of tax forms) to the text of Mage 2nd edition. It brings tears... tears when they come on. But I can't comment too much I couldn't draw a ghost eating vanilla ice cream by his sheet-hands in a snowstorm. Still get Fix issue four just for the true miracle of salvation from Fraim art to Dawson art it will make a believer out of you.
RANT MODE OFFI realise I've taken this a bit personal but as someone who's openly used the more than just superheroes argument to ask people to try Travellers or KODT or FAANS (which is also FREE FREE FREE). And loves wasting his youth and paychecks on Hackmasters of Everknight and the necessary annotations and who knows true love is found in the bargain bin and can't stop think about how inhumanly cute Sideshow is. I found this just rubbed me wrong. Also I am just not in a pleasent mood because of my having to move and the holidays and money trouble (some from comic collectin' habits). I know about Gaiman okay... I know there are serious soul searching and amazing comics (did someone miss my review on Pedro and Me) that aren't a blight on creative writing. However ya wanna find somewhere said blight is most together and in strong force. I'd have to honestly say head to a comic book shop.