Recent posts by Ungeziefer on Kongregate

Topic: Serious Discussion / Educated or Informed?

have you any idea what kind of names liberals get? pussies, traitors, scum, leaches, baby-killers, perverts, lunatics, even terrorists…

Never really though of myself as a party liberal, but pervert scum lunatic terrorist baby killin traitor has a certain ring to it. I mean, if the she fits. Since when did we get so squeamish? Is that really the worst they can call my stance?

Maybe because you aren’t a conservative and don’t encounter liberal vitriol on a regular basis, but the hate is pretty equal on both sides. When you try to claim the left does it less often or isn’t as nasty is when you lose credibility with your argument.

What about when black people call each other “nigga” in jest and get a free pass? Is this racist, or just uncomfortable?

Old horse, but I maintain a word is just a word. Intent is the really only relevant factor.

Not to quibble, and I’m not exactly knee deep in the culture. But the whole “America love it or leave” angle I can really only say I’ve seen exclusively toted by reps of the right.

I don’t especially care if it’s some other policy that provoked it, if you’re going to come out and call a black person an Uncle Tom, you’re racist.

Now, is that because of the specific words? Or the idea behind it? I mean an Uncle Tom generally being one who has garnered personal rewards at the expense of his races welfare by ‘switching sides’, as it were. Seems, ultimately a relevant concept still.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Apathy concerning the current string of scandals?

Hmm, interesting. But was it not pretty clear almost from the beginning even when the video explanation was spammed, that there were actual radical extreme islamists involved and not just everyday Muslims.

Well, how clear is clear? There was a pretty strong suggestion of that by the ferocity and well armed nature of the attack. Libya and Syria were also both suggesting an organized attack. But they were fighting tooth and nail to not even acknowledge such notions and just smother the whole thing in that video.

Though i can at least now see a possible (if from my standpoint totally stupid) Motive both for the Administration to control at least a bit how the information arrived in public and how this imaginable Motive could off-set republicans.

I see more of a long term motive in coloring the public with fears of incitement and demonizing grey countries as emotional reactionaries. Also pinning blame to free e media. While not acknowledging any sort of government awareness of the attack.

Creates the general message of media control by a trustworthy government trying to protect you from bad sub humans.

Issen,

The first argument is that the Administration never sent backup help when it was requested. The standard counter is that it wouldn’t have made a difference, and in hindsight, that’s correct. But, at the time, there was no possible way of knowing how long the attack would go on for. If it was a prolonged encounter of 12-15 hours, then there would have been ample time to send in reinforcements.

I could dig around for sources, but there is a lot to suggest that the government was tipped off before the attack occurred. So either they did not consider the information credible, which is a failing of intelligence/safety. Or they allowed the attack to occur for propaganda purposes. Neither of which paint them in very good light.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Apathy concerning the current string of scandals?

The Youtube video also invoked some interesting associations. ‘It is our fault for being mean’ there was a whole lot of ‘respect other religions or reap the whirlwind’ rhetoric flying about as they spammed the video explanation. But that was also predicated upon ‘Muslims are emotional, childish, and require us to control them’ mentality.
It also isolated incitement away from government actions instead to rouge media personnel and the internet.
p

Topic: Serious Discussion / Does God exists? and why?

Further, Johnny, I’m sure you could explain your experiences. That you’re not throwing up some sort of impossible impassable bridge that ‘no one else could possibly understand’ to defend the integrity of those experiences beyond what you felt and into the realm of what you decided. There is a dialogue, accepting that other people may have had similar experiences and made different conclusions. As opposed to just putting it up on an ivory tower of god himself coming down from his mountain and saying ‘hey whats up’.

I think many people, especially those looking for them, end up with some form of transcendental experience or another.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Does God exists? and why?

Well things are sure moving fast,

You require this vision of righteousness is to be free from your sin and free under God’s faithful control.

I rather enjoy my sins and seek so respite from them. Nor do I find the idea of ‘freedom’ under someone else’s dictates that appealing of a notion.

It doesn’t make you wrong, in my opinion it makes you curious. Christianity is something you grow in, and a lot of people haven’t found their seed yet.

Free will also means that you have the choice to choose Jesus.

Yet show me where Jesus dictates that man is granted free will to choose him. His own preaching is rather to the contrary. Since we’re on the topic of Matthew and seeds, consider the parable of the sower. Particularly where he explains it for his poor addled disciples.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+13&version=NIV

Personally, Christianity is something I abandoned a long time ago, all theism some time there after. Now, you told me that Righteousness is something I crave, something I need. Yet, not at all. So it seems a rather presumptuous declaration.

Why would you mock something like that? What Jesus says in red ink in the bible in the new testament isn’t literal . It’s called a parable. A parable is a metaphorical story Jesus tells his disciples that have to do with having faith and believing in God. It has nothing to do with an actual mountain.

The red ink denotes literally everything Jesus says. Unless you are suggesting he only spoke in metaphor, which, really, I’d mostly agree with.

We should follow Jesus because his way is truly and eternal better than what any of us down here on earth can do for ourselves. …We should be agreeing hand in hand on this because my point of view and your point of view both fight injustice.

Seems just to have gotten him murdered. Not sure where the draw on that is. And what if I was to suggest that universality and self degradation to others of Christ’s creed is unjust?

Topic: Serious Discussion / Does God exists? and why?

Alright, let us take this slow.

What does ‘Righteousness’ mean to you? Explain to me the core concept of righteousness.

Next, explain to me why I require this vision of righteousness? What role does it fulfill for me? In what ways might it antagonize me?

Now, if I do not find the measure of these things satisfactory, why am I incorrect, and you are correct?

-

Topic: Serious Discussion / Why are people hating on Koreans

No.

I’m not sure I agree with those lit professors dictating narrower avenues of the word. Weird. They’re enforcing this Semitic myth structure upon the word.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gun Issues

Actually, homeland security basically tried that. they are under investigation now for the large quantities of ammunition they have purchased. they have been buying almost as much as the military and the house and senate want to know why and for what purpose.

What do you think about that Jhco? I mean, that’s an eerie piece of news. The scale of it is so inordinate, it certainly raises a few eyebrows. Hence the investigation I suppose. Trying to look at things practically I can really only see reasons to stockpile ammo. One, to be prepared in shooting lots of ammo. Why would homeland security need to do that much shooting? What do they know, that we do not? Two, take advantage of a deal, price of ammo is going to go up. Not that spooky of a rationale, but this is a serious ammo drive, and what need-to-know administrative knowledge has driven them to this big buy up? Three, to remove ammo from that market and drive prices by limiting supply. Ultimately, can really only be in the short term. Although their buy up has seen some consequence, it’s nothing that can’t be met by current industrial standards.

So, weird. It’s a weird thing.

There are other ways to protect property. That’s why we have police.

The one time I experienced any significant property loss the police did nothing of any worth. Except scold me, later, for handling things myself.

If you think about it, the government is just a parental figure that wants the best for its children—us

I’m not exactly sure. Many parents are more then capable of stealing from their children. We are getting into multiple agencies within the government, but I think there is a wide swathe that is seriously devoted to turning the screw and bleeding the populace as much as possible while maintaining social order. Look at Greece, which is just openly robbing its citizenry now that social order has already collapsed.

Topic: Serious Discussion / The high divorce rate

Still, he made the website—how would he feel if he experienced the fruits of this particular labor/taste of his own medicine?

As he has been asked time and time again, his response remains that he would be devastated.

Nonetheless, a forum for cheating does not not force anyone out of happy relationships. It’s a service for providing like minded people in a similar situation. Seems fair enough

Topic: Serious Discussion / Why fixing a mistake mid sentence is bad, and makes you a slower typer.

I could care less about how fast you type. Frankly, it is bizarre how brazenly self absorbed your approach to the written word is. Have some class and polish, fix your mistakes so you don’t come across as a frenetic slob hammering away at your keyboard.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Nepotism In Western Media

I’m reminded of the adage, “The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently.”

Topic: Serious Discussion / Does God exists? and why?

No, thats sadly not true for all or even the majority of the Masochists visiting such clubs. The percentage of people who can actually enjoy the pain and humiliation they receive at such clubs is really really small even under the masochists who go there. For the majority its mostly compulsive behavior, codependency or a combination of the two.

Yeah not to derail things but seconded to Beau. In summary I’d find the majority of people are looking for altered mental states through enacting ritualized behavior, alternate social stratum, and physical states. If you’re suggesting some sort of synthaesia experience where the individual experiences pain as pleasure, I would say as an initial state that would of course be rather rare. Given enough endorphins or any conditioning, it is very easy to blur the difference. No different then what yogi’s have doing for ages.

As for a Universal Morality, justified by some sort of innate, universal, moral code ingrained into our natures. Well I’d have to see some proof of the latter before the former seems compelling at all. Further even given it, it’s no more an indication of God then some root cause to your moral effect.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Nepotism In Western Media

Draco,

Why can’t we be more coherent, more intelligent, and better at what we do? I don’t think that the novice media anchors, or writers are all that beneficial for public discourse, and a healthy, improving, society.

Do more better, lacks something as advice. Why can’t we? Cultural inertia, the keeners are a minority and are not the ones dictating media coverage. If you follow the money any warm body watching or slap down of cash will do, it’s in the business of the lowest common denominator.

If it’s any consolation, the generation of people tied to our traditional media spectrum are dying. They’ll take most of it with them.

It is ideas that will put us ahead—not silly, basic, human wants.

At heart I really only consider an idea as good as the wants it satisfies. My pleasures run different then others, but, same root.

Anyways, we need to fix the culture—fingers crossed that our kids will do better—we seem to be following what our fathers did—with only slight amendments to the status quo—instead of paving a wiser future, at least on the media and communication stage.

Nah. The media comm age has just started. Everything up until now was training wheels. You are looking at the advent of the single most revolutionary communication advance since the spoken and written word. This is the departure point. Things may not necessarily get better, but I wouldn’t count on it staying the same.

But I think you’re suffering under delusions of power distributions. Having a better idea, doesn’t manifest anything.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gun Issues

Jhco,

it wouldn’t be long before they made everything more difficult and expensive to fill their coffers with more of the taxpayers money.

Absolutely agree with you on that. Also has interesting class power associations. Would it be driven so far as to be used explicitly as a tool to cut off certain financial situations? Well, prolly not, but an interesting idea. Any sort of constant upkeep fee for licensing certainly starts to push ownership into a privilege then a right.

As I have stated before though, firearms ownership is a right and driving is a privilege. This is extremely important in this discussion.

Now, I get that in a technical sense that may be. But why is it so, in a moral sense? Why is driving not a right? What makes the justification for it being a privilege?

This is extremely important in this discussion. If we let our government break our bill of rights (give an inch), they will continue to degrade them until there was nothing left. They would dismantle our Constitution completely and the great experiment would be over. We would no longer be America the land of the free, but just another society under government rule. I have tried to get this across to the people on this forum for a long time.

I agree that monitoring, and checking, government expansion is very important. I also agree that your bill of rights was intentionally pitched with that in mind. But, I am not as convinced that an amendment would create this ‘open door’ forever and ever. One can keep things tough.

But! I would hasten to add. This is just the most superficial layer of such give and take. There are alot more threats to the concept of ‘america land of the free’ then just those coming down this pipeline. You want to talk about a government distanced from its people? Your intelligence divisions are now flagrantly disregarding government mandates stemming from the people’s authority without reprisal.

Our founding fathers didn’t trust government and made this very clear in their letters and essays. However, they recognized that we needed a representative for foreign matters and protection for the states as a whole. This is why they established our government the way they did….and why they wrote the Constitution the way they did.

I agree, and I agree that those were valid concerns. I would even suggest that their concerns have never been more valid. But, they were simply but men. Wise men, clever men, lucky men, whatever. Never trust an idol. The United States must remain vital, dynamic and focused forever upon positive change. Adhering to tradition for its own sake is a compromise. That does not mean we have to go about radically changing anything right now, but one should also be prepared to, open to the possibility.

As a conservative, we believe is a less powerful government and strict adherence to our constitution as it was written. Liberals believe that a central government should be all powerful and rule the people. They believe the constitution is invalid and should basically be discarded as no longer being the rule of law since government would perform that function.

Now now, I would venture that most liberals feel ‘the government can be safely trusted to perform group functions in matters of finance and law more effectively’. Is there a surrender of power in that? Yes, certainly. But is that the power transfer the point? No. Most people I am sure are just choosing what seems like compelling resource and social order management.

This is why this discussion on gun control has developed as it has. Two completely different views on the purpose of our government. One side has promoted a federal government with power over our rights as American citizens and the other side promotes a government that stays out of both the state and citizens lives. This disagreement will go on and on as we conservatives fight to protect our freedoms, our god given freedoms.

Pah, freedoms aren’t given, they’re taken, and there is nothing innate or god given about any one of them. Freedoms are all blood, sweat and tears. Nor are they free of consequence.

I wish the posters on this forum were more familiar with the core arguments that are a part of almost all of these different threads. I understand foreign posters having and opinion, and that is fine. But when they demand, they have gone over the line. It becomes exactly what they complain our government does with it’s military forces….interferes with a sovereign country and it’s culture.

Well, I’ve always believed good morality trumps sovereignty and group representation. Not that I’m really justifying any US military actions lately. But! I’m not sure to what degree anyone foreign has made any demands. I don’t think any of them are pulling on secret strings to influence the next election, just voicing their opinion on the world at large.

Tenco,

By what, by who? Actually, why would it?

Well by criminals and general shady types. I agree with JHCO that the widespread domestic production and distribution of guns can be right around the corner. At that point any sort of background check is only going to be done on a voluntary basis. Cat’s gonna be out of the bag.

Issen,

I don’t know the answer, but my educated guess is that the powers that be saw that for the sake of public safety, if you’re going to operate a machine as large as an automobile on public infrastructure, then the government wants to make sure you are capable. Governments spend billions of dollars annually on roads – it makes sense, to me, that the government should have some regulation on that.

Really I agree, it just seems like one of those rather large first steps. I am curious about the political climate going on, the push and the pull of opinion. I may have to do some research into that.

And it isn’t just cars that are a limit on public property. You aren’t allowed to carry open alcohol on sidewalks/public streets. You aren’t allowed to have obscene material in public is another. ‘Public safety’ is the rationale they use, and as you say:

Both of which I’d say is bullshit. Getting crushed to death by a haphazard vehicle is a real physical danger. Seeing someone drinking or gosh forbid something shocking isn’t.

On a related note, you actually don’t need a license to drive on private property (at least that’s what I was told and why my dad let me drive his truck around his property when I was 12). And on semantic level, drivers licenses are federal – just state issued. I’m nitpicky, I know : /

Yes, which is something I tried to infer, or at least my general understanding as well. It also falls a bit into that ‘if a tree falls in a forest’ branch of law. Ah, I’m a canuck myself so we have provinces of states. I tend to use The State as in the abstract government at large. Try to imagine it all scary sounding.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gun Issues

the “bought-&-paid-for” Congress failed to listen to the ppl who put them in office to represent their overwhelming support on this issue.

To be fair the opinion data I looked at was pretty evenly split.

I think it has merit in that creating limits on guns should require far more scrutiny than a limit on driving.

Issen, I was sincerely reflecting a little bit on the car comparison. Why do we require permits? I mean, how did that start? What were the stated aims? Why is an individuals use of his property in the public sphere hinged upon the approval of federal authority? Are we okay with that, why? Where is the line drawn from there?

Now because vehicles are incredibly powerful, and relatively difficult, I am okay with us licensing. But, rational as I ultimately conclude it is, it does make me cringe a bit. Ultimately we are sacrificing property freedoms of the public, within the public sphere, for public safety – accident prevention, assumption of risk.

Topic: Serious Discussion / North Korea

Kakko I highly doubt China would risk or even contemplate a war with the US, they have come too far as a nation to risk losing it just for some extra land.

Besides, with its population base and resources, it can easily acquire land through immigration and commercial ventures. Subverting regions through pouring in Chinese Nationals has long been a mainstay, as well as shady purchases of various corporate venture. As much as they need the lebensraum that would be too hostile, and they remain attached to the their historical plot.

Unless Japan / SK have missile shielding (and they dont), nothing the US could provide would help stop a nuke.

Well except missile intercepting boats. Which are pretty all over the place as it is.

Because Kim Jong Un’s sanity is uncertain. By the way, any big country can do what China did for NK, and if NK could prove it got nukes, SK and Japan would accept NK extortions no matter what, wouldn’t they? Yes, I do think NK may kick China aside once NK really has the nukes.

Not that I think they’d exactly be ‘kicked aside’ but the general status quo shift is a great reason why China will likely never allow NK to possess them. Japan’s previous administrations have also threatened unilateral action should NK became a tangible threat.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gun Issues

I’m not at all sure what ya’re driving at on this? Maybe your understanding of the quote isn’t the same as mine. I’ll attempt to “unpoetryize” it: Laws are for the sake of good ppl. They aren’t intended to keep THEM from doing wrong. But rather to keep bad ppl from doing harm to them. OR: If a person is already behaving “in a lawful manner”, a truly good law doesn’t really apply to them & basically need not exist….as far as they are concerned. The concern part comes in when these ppl are threatened by those who would exhibit bad behavior.

Pretty much on the same board regarding that. I just find the notion of ‘harm’ and ‘protecting society’ so mangled, so warped that many laws have little to do with protection and far more with preserving a cultural hegemony. Further we’ve privatized the legal and political system to such a degree that the protection of wealth is as integrally important as the protection of the good or wise.

I’m guessing I’m supposed to see some specific reason for a person desiring to murder someone essentially BECAUSE they have a gun?…that they wouldn’t have that desire if they DID NOT HAVE a gun?…that it is the “gun” that “enables” one to do murder?

Less about desire, more about means. Does the gun itself generate motive? No, no of course not. But it broadens options.

bw. But, a gun really isn’t all that necessary. I can do it in a great number of ways. I thought we had already established that a gun is merely a tool that has specific advantageous properties.
I’m constantly meeting ppl whom I believe the world would probably be a lot better off WITHOUT them in it. And, were I to see the “need” to make it so….a gun is merely an option dictated by circumstances. So, not really all the “spooky”….at least for me. I’m quite sure the same can be said for a lot of other ppl. But, thankfully, it isn’t the lack of availability to a gun that usually stops them from acting on this “urge”. LOL

No not necessary, but generally advantageous as you suggest. I would agree that in small scale matters, under premeditation of some sort of plan, it is largely superfluous. But there is also the effect upon immediate decision making too.

Common sense can easily think of hundreds of areas where ABSOLUTE freedom//right to “speak” would totally screw things up….because the right of one person doesn’t automatically trump the rights of others.

And I would suggest the rights of the majority does not automatically trump that of the minority. I am fine with obscenity, fictitious child pornography, libel, slander, perjury (which, is well, a joke), as listed by Issen. Incitement is a pretty fine line between Attempting and Conspiring, I’m willing to let that one go. Time and Place I see as non issues short of intrusion upon private property, which is really more a question of Volume as Presence.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Does God exists? and why?

No, it’s the belief where the universe and its history was created when you were, and you subconscious is God, or somesuch.
Basically, it’s selfish and naive.

Solipsism. It’s also as hard to disprove as any supreme power theory.

Really?
So something that can easily be deduced from observing how it works with other people who are younger than you and by looking at history that was recorded before your birth and had an effect on today is similar to accepting a totally baseless claim that you have no evidence for whatsoever other than faith.
Interesting.

But it’s all illusion! You only think you’re people, like the characters in my dreams, I am the only real person. History, and all that, is the genius craft of my subconscious, setting an interesting story to things.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Should we tolerate the intolerant?

tolerance on the internet. We very plainly don’t permit people to say whatever they like on a forum like this, even if they pose no apparent ‘threat’. In fact, the only ‘threat’ tends to be in the form of exaggerated slights to our norms. A perfect example is in this thread…

The internet is weird territory though. Power, presence, territory, it’s all pretty infinite. I have a far easier time controlling certain expectations when I feel there are legitimate alternatives readily available. If only we could Exile people to some other more suitable country so readily in the real world.

Although, really, for the most part we let people say a great deal. And I’m generally trying to push the boundaries a little further. The onyl thing that irks me is large pictures (interesting real life comparison, but gets into the economics of public/private space) and just literal, pointless, drivel.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gun Issues

Jhco fails to realize that just as the government has shown to have the right to impose limits on speech, so too do they have the right to impose limits on firearms.

I’m not convinced they’ve proven the right to impose limits on freedom of speech, they’ve certainly shown they have the means though. As for firearm’s I still have to agree with Jhco that, ultimately, I am uncomfortable allowing the government a monopoly on firearms. But, I’m also uncomfortable with every Tom, Dick and Harry, sporting one. (huh, reading later, Draco used that exact phrasing) My biggest problem is in reconciling the two. Ultimately, I look at it, as ‘who gets to own a gun, why them?’. I’m not against licensing and Federal Lists, licensing in the case that competency is proven. I also think we should ramp up the liability for stolen/missing firearms, and especially the criminal charges for trafficking and really crack down on the grey market of sales. As for carrying? Sheesh, I have a hard time finding a resolution I am happy with. The idea of other people carrying these weapons about on their person, I find spooky. I believe there is a wide swathe who are more then capable of doing it responsibly, but the good people are never the problem, there’s just as many ignorant, aggressive folk who make me cringe. Ultimately, I feel I’d be okay with carrying given a free (violent) criminal record and brutal sentencing.

I still feel the strongest assurance of public safety from criminal elements and government abuse remains culture, culture, culture. Far beyond any law the solution lies in how we view one another, and the state of the common man.

Karma,

This point is demonstrated by the philospher Epicurus: The laws exist FOR the sake of the wise, not that THEY may not do wrong, but that they may not suffer it.

Hooboy! A lovely notion, but do you really think that is true?

Jhco,

Of course it wouldn’t bother you to get rid of our 2nd Amendment. It wouldn’t affect you since you don’t live here. You want to tell me to grow up but I might ask the same of you if you think I am stupid enough to listen to an armchair outside do-gooder, with nothing to lose, tell me how I should live in my own country.

Come on now, this is a discussion. We’re all presenting viewpoints, opinions, ‘what-if’s’. Do you really have no opinion on other countries? And assuming you do, do you really think they are totally invalid? There’s something to be said for familiarity. But I do not think the English speaking (and beyond) world exists in total alterity to one another.

TheCartM

Guns don’t make people murderers.

Takes motive and means, guns remain a hell of a means. They empower, they enable. They allow a whole list of stupid, hostile decisions to be readily executed. They are a most capable tool, and will always bear some consideration in that regard. Skyscrapers don’t exactly self assemble, some things are only possible at the right time with the right tools.

If you had a gun, would you try and murder someone with it?

There was a time in my life when honestly yes, quite likely. Spooky huh?

Without guns, the government would be more than able to become a dictatorship.

Internal non violent resistance can topple any would be autocrats. Most cultures don’t have the nerve however.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Why are breasts considered "private" parts?

well…they do contain the milk-glands and teat. but there doesn’t seem to be any sexual attraction towards breasts in any other mammals; instead, if visual image plays a part at all, they often go for the ass (apes and old world monkeys, aar).

Actually that’s a rather good point. Our closest relatives tend to be very ass oriented for attraction and display, and other mammals that are more scent oriented tend to be as well (glands.) Could be the root of the ass as sexually attractive, ape and mammal baggage.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Why are breasts considered "private" parts?

One could argue beards are a sign of sexual maturity (puberty). What would you say to that, Ungeziefer?

Well that is an interesting thought. One, beards are a human characteristic of male sexual development. Breasts, are a mammalian one. As such I would suggest that breasts have a larger register, having been a part of our animal history for much longer and having deeper, stronger roots. Also beards are not organs of pleasure or fertility, so their relationship to the sexual act and sexual consequences is not as established. Also, they are a male trait, and I would suggest that the wide swathe of our sexual culture is male driven – so it will be centered around the female body as opposed to the male.

Being truly clean shaven is a relatively modern invention. Throughout most of the ages shaves were irregular, and the idea of being ‘clean shaven’ was more akin to the absence of a proper beard, stubble and general beard growth being the norm and virtually ever present.

Trying to think of some cultures with some pretty clear cut sexual mores around beards, I’m a little hard pressed to. Greece is a sort of inverse example. In pederasty the absence of a beard was prized. Here we have male sexual power driving the paradigm again, and no hangups with fertility. But ultimately what is being prized is the absence of sexual maturation. Why? Well, l would suggest that the greeks were not homosexualcentric, so much as without phobia. Men were educated, women were not, and some at the time suggested that a real relationship was only possible with another man. Boys were used sexually generally as recompense for training and education as well. So I’d suggest that the prepubescent was more attractive in that these were ostensibly heterosexual people attracted to the female form, and that a boys resemblance to a girl was therefor preferential.

Doing some research it seems that most of the ancient world held beards in pretty high regard, from the east to the west. Beard shaving was generally considered effeminate, and was used quite frequently as punishment, or to express mourning. Shearing ones beard appears to be have been popularized by Alexander’s empire, who is said to have made his soldiers shave for fighting reasons. Rome also maintained an absence of beards, though I am not sure from where they inherited the tradition. Nevertheless they celebrated the first shaving (generally 20’ish) as a coming of age ritual into manhood.

There’s also the association between beardlessness and youth for obvious reasons. That becomes complicated in religious iconography. Many of the Greco Roman pantheon of middle position were suspended in the perpetual bloom of youth and represented as beardless. Most notably Apollo. But, Apollo also served as bridge between two major cults which would have tremendous social impact. The Mithras Cult, being the first, which also bridged to the Christian Cult. Early images of Christ were all beardless. As these ascendant religions centered around figures that were visually represented as beardless, I imagine they carried some cultural impact as well.

Carrying on the religious weight during the Middle Ages there was an interesting cultural mix amongst the priest class and beards. Many grew their beard as an expression of humility, by not tampering with their natural state. Others shaved as an expression of celibacy, shearing themselves from symbols of male sexuality.

Despite that, most modern religious texts are emphatically pro beard. The Old Testament and those who adhere to it have some strict observances and obligations on the growing of a beard, as well as the Koran. Sikhs, Rastafars, the religious bent seems well bearded.

Biologists suggest that the beard must have some sort of evolutionary advantage, perhaps simple sexual selection, or it would not exist at all.

Huh, stuff.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Why are people hating on Koreans

You guys move fast!

Draco,

Suffering in itself pushes us to invent and advance while gaining greater control of the natural world to either create or destroy—if we choose to destroy, we should never forget not to lose the knowledge and wisdom that we gained from creation; that would be a travesty.

Firstly, I agree with your theorizing that suffering can be enriching. That suffering is a tool, a facet of the human condition. I also agree that it is suffering that has driven us at odds with the natural world. Which to me, is the real grit. I dislike the idea of enforced, or accidental, or incidental suffering. The idea of a world where we have cleansed natural suffering and pursue it soley upon our own terms, our own self indulgence; that is an intriguing notion. Power dynamics, certainly.

Janto,

I’d argue most NKers would tell you without coercion that they’re happy to be part of something greater than themselves.

The problem is that the coercion is internalized. Fear of reprisal I am sure extends beyond rational boundaries. I am not sure as a general people they are capable of a neutral state. That said, yes I think they are happy with their government. But, that happiness is one of ignorance. They do not know their government, they do not understand their government, it is not their state that they are happy with but an idealized abstraction of it. Their state is the hero, desperately struggling against a mad, villainous cruel world; of course.

Not this. Number one, they aren’t communists. They never were. They’ve used communism as a shield to get benefits from actual communist countries like USSR and China, much the same way countries like Egypt and Afghanistan use(d) the pretence of Islamic government to get perks and recognition.

Now, “communism” is going to be one of those, I forget the expression, ‘badger words’? NK has maintained a State Directed Economy, something most would be ‘communist’ governments abandoned when they realized what a disaster it was. They also really pushed simple manufacturing and agrarianism, something again, most ‘communist’ governments are working hard to escape as second and third world industries.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Why are people hating on Koreans

I don’t disagree that there is an anti NK media bias. Sure, of course there is. But I feel the suggestion that we have gone so far as to invent NK suffering is a little absurd. I don’t have television, I don’t buy newspapers, I don’t follow major media news outlets. I am not a consumer of major media news. There is no shortage of raw first hand footage in North Korea. Missionaries, Rescue Agencies, all sorts of group are forever imbedding and smuggling people and information.

I’m something of an absolutist, I have no qualms about the morality of imposing rights on foreign cultures. I am pretty self justified. So the idea that they may not want to be ‘rescued’, doesn’t really shake me. But to me the real issue is not merely State Control, but the failure of that State while in control. Could a nice little thought washed mob of happy guileless farm hands toil endlessly away in carefully ordered Eden? Sure. But I think North Korea is a long way away from that. One can propagandize suffering by suggesting agency. “Sure you’re starving, but it’s because the USA is mean.” But alleviating man’s suffering altogether through loyalty alone? That would be quite the feat.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Should we tolerate the intolerant?

My local neck of the woods did a pretty fair example of that, to their credit. There was some musing on allowing religious/cultural attire to mask the face in official provincial identification stuff. The local White Power group (mostly dumb, young, grumpy punkers, with some more old guard backers.) arranged and advertised an official protest around city hall. Ultimately, I agreed with their position in this regard, and expected a shit show, so I showed up on the sidelines to spectate. They mostly all wore balaclava’s, bandied about signs and slogans, and argued that they should therefor be allowed to wear their balaclava’s in their ID. Variously identified in the local media as “White Power”, “Neo Nazi’s” and “Racist Skinheads” holding some sort of rally there was a fair amount of other people up against their line expressing their general disapproval and opposing view. The police were on scene monitoring, and for a little while everything was relatively groovy.

Then the SHARP’s (Skinheads Against Racial Prejudice) and similar groups showed up, who were all generally young grumpy punkers too. Things got physical pretty fast. My interpretation of it, and most of those I talked to, is that the counter protestors started and perpetuated the violence. As things broke down the police rushed in, and were well received, with the counter protestors mostly just throwing things around them. They hustled the white power group into vehicles and drove off. A number of people I spoke to were pretty critical of the police ‘rescuing nazi’s’ from their just desserts.

Anywho. It was a strange bit, but ultimately I think it was a pretty good example of how smoothly things can run in even pretty troubled circumstances.