Wednesday, March 31, 2004
I'll cut this cancer out of my heart, before realising the hole is all that's left.
*snip*
...and about fucking time, too.
*snip*
...and about fucking time, too.
Tuesday, March 30, 2004
I can blow this all open: rekindle the ashes of my love as loathing dashed with hatred's ire. Once all ties are severed, through my own undoing, I am vindicated.
Well, broaden my spectacles and call me 'emo' if that wasn't a pretentious pile of congealed sputum fresh out of the original SARS epidemic. Seriously though: word up.
Well, broaden my spectacles and call me 'emo' if that wasn't a pretentious pile of congealed sputum fresh out of the original SARS epidemic. Seriously though: word up.
Monday, March 29, 2004
Quote of the Day:
"If your brow were any lower, I'd trip over it." - Moi
"If your brow were any lower, I'd trip over it." - Moi
Ryan: Nice try. But I still don't regret a single word.
So, you've never been rude to me? Oh well, in that case...
[cough]BOLLOCKS[/cough]
Given that the "words" in question constituted the single most zealous tirade of puerile, offensive, hypocritical, vindictive and entirely below-the-belt garbage I have ever witnessed beyond the boundaries of my own psyche, then more fool you: you evidently would not be capable of debating in a detached, rational and objective fashion if your life depended on it - and god forbid that anyone else should venture so far as to challenge your beliefs, let alone incite you to attempt a valid justification of them (other than the peremptory, "But he's just a Year 7, for fuck's sake!" of course), lest they be similarly shouted down and their views condemned by default. Philosophy lessons must be a veritable cavalcade of fun and frolics with you at the helm... no, sorry, ignore that; I'm being facetious.
Still, fuck it. I cannot but fail to see how it could be oh-so simple for me to engage in calm and reasoned discourse with virtually anybody else, and on any one of a number of issues; other, equally intelligent and similarly opinionated acquaintances of mine seem perfectly capable of disengaging themselves emotionally from the subject matter at hand in order to dissect the issue from a more detached and clinical standpoint, so did I presume you to be any the less capable? Of course not. Little wonder you took it all so personally; if I were in your position, and equally opinionated (not to mention sentimental, irrational, deluded, fickle, judgmental, vindictive, etcetera - oops, what a prodigious bout of hypocrisy that was), then I surmise I'd be wont to react in exactly the same, over-exaggerated manner. As it happens, I'm a short-tempered, petty, egotistical, anally-retentive non-conformist who cannot help but to raise controversial points of discussion and deliberately advocate the most adversarial stance on the matter, purely for the sake of argument. Being the obviously lacklustre judge of character that I am, I assumed that surely you, of all my friends, would be equally capable of this; I was wrong, and your unexpectedly exaggerated and irrational response prompted a similarly arrogant, equally exaggerated and wholly unnecessary diatribe on my part which I shall perhaps live to regret, but certainly never to retract: for if you knew me, then you would have deduced that it was, in fact, an outlet; a form of catharsis (to utilise a term of which you appear oh-so fond - it's my blog, remember? Why the fuck else do you suppose I might require one?); a means of indirectly venting my frustration at your apparent obstinacy, in order that our friendship might proceed unabated by my inherently anal mindset, albeit negating the necessity for a direct confrontation. Note my use of the word "indirectly": contrary to your allegations, I did not once purport to address any one person in particular; I merely felt the need to address one of my more personal bugbears: namely, the innate frustration I feel towards those who are so governed by their emotions that they cannot separate themselves from the issue, and will consequently see any attempt at rebuttal as a direct attack upon their person. On the other hand, you did then proceed with what was ostensibly little more than a flame e-mail, largely consisting of smug amateur psycho-analysis and slanderous defamation of character in equal portions. Ergo, in this regard, it would seem that I am the chalk, and you are the proverbial cheese.
Love and hate sure do make awkward bedfellows.
N.B. Kindly refrain from posting commentary of any kind: I do not desire a further doseage of vitriolic denigration on your part. As you can see, I am exercising my prerogative to bow out from confrontation, as you yourself often do when third-parties post logical arguments on your blog which contravene your philosophy and belief system; not that you aren't wholly entitled to do so, but if you expect people to continue to respect that, then I would expect a similar courtesy from you. And if you take offense, well, as you already saw fit to inform me: "You're an arsehole, and [at least] four people agree".
So, you've never been rude to me? Oh well, in that case...
[cough]BOLLOCKS[/cough]
Given that the "words" in question constituted the single most zealous tirade of puerile, offensive, hypocritical, vindictive and entirely below-the-belt garbage I have ever witnessed beyond the boundaries of my own psyche, then more fool you: you evidently would not be capable of debating in a detached, rational and objective fashion if your life depended on it - and god forbid that anyone else should venture so far as to challenge your beliefs, let alone incite you to attempt a valid justification of them (other than the peremptory, "But he's just a Year 7, for fuck's sake!" of course), lest they be similarly shouted down and their views condemned by default. Philosophy lessons must be a veritable cavalcade of fun and frolics with you at the helm... no, sorry, ignore that; I'm being facetious.
Still, fuck it. I cannot but fail to see how it could be oh-so simple for me to engage in calm and reasoned discourse with virtually anybody else, and on any one of a number of issues; other, equally intelligent and similarly opinionated acquaintances of mine seem perfectly capable of disengaging themselves emotionally from the subject matter at hand in order to dissect the issue from a more detached and clinical standpoint, so did I presume you to be any the less capable? Of course not. Little wonder you took it all so personally; if I were in your position, and equally opinionated (not to mention sentimental, irrational, deluded, fickle, judgmental, vindictive, etcetera - oops, what a prodigious bout of hypocrisy that was), then I surmise I'd be wont to react in exactly the same, over-exaggerated manner. As it happens, I'm a short-tempered, petty, egotistical, anally-retentive non-conformist who cannot help but to raise controversial points of discussion and deliberately advocate the most adversarial stance on the matter, purely for the sake of argument. Being the obviously lacklustre judge of character that I am, I assumed that surely you, of all my friends, would be equally capable of this; I was wrong, and your unexpectedly exaggerated and irrational response prompted a similarly arrogant, equally exaggerated and wholly unnecessary diatribe on my part which I shall perhaps live to regret, but certainly never to retract: for if you knew me, then you would have deduced that it was, in fact, an outlet; a form of catharsis (to utilise a term of which you appear oh-so fond - it's my blog, remember? Why the fuck else do you suppose I might require one?); a means of indirectly venting my frustration at your apparent obstinacy, in order that our friendship might proceed unabated by my inherently anal mindset, albeit negating the necessity for a direct confrontation. Note my use of the word "indirectly": contrary to your allegations, I did not once purport to address any one person in particular; I merely felt the need to address one of my more personal bugbears: namely, the innate frustration I feel towards those who are so governed by their emotions that they cannot separate themselves from the issue, and will consequently see any attempt at rebuttal as a direct attack upon their person. On the other hand, you did then proceed with what was ostensibly little more than a flame e-mail, largely consisting of smug amateur psycho-analysis and slanderous defamation of character in equal portions. Ergo, in this regard, it would seem that I am the chalk, and you are the proverbial cheese.
Love and hate sure do make awkward bedfellows.
N.B. Kindly refrain from posting commentary of any kind: I do not desire a further doseage of vitriolic denigration on your part. As you can see, I am exercising my prerogative to bow out from confrontation, as you yourself often do when third-parties post logical arguments on your blog which contravene your philosophy and belief system; not that you aren't wholly entitled to do so, but if you expect people to continue to respect that, then I would expect a similar courtesy from you. And if you take offense, well, as you already saw fit to inform me: "You're an arsehole, and [at least] four people agree".
Sunday, March 28, 2004
Wednesday, March 17, 2004
How does having the image of a particular event force-fed to you via television in any way assist you in coping with said event when you yourself are among those concerned? Watching some anonymous cardboard cut-out in a soap opera pass away into the ether can no better equip you to deal with the ensuing grief than attending the funeral of your neighbour's grandad from two doors' down; no more so than televised obesity could prepare you for the immense physiological burden of being that much overweight, or witnessing a televised rape could prepare you to deal with the physical and emotional implications of being a victim of such exploitation yourself - and even then, such depictions are often distorted and inaccurate in nature, geared towards audience-grabbing sensationalism as opposed to educating people of the hard facts. Television may encourage sympathy, but to conjure empathy is, indubitably, beyond its capabilities.
Tuesday, March 16, 2004
Does Poppy flirt with everyone, or is it just me? I could give myself the benefit of the doubt... but then, of course, I know better. Probably. Hah :P
Monday, March 15, 2004
"You've completed the transaction. You've dealt your hand. The only person I've ever known whose companionship and respect were of any real value was yours; you gave me an incentive to remain, because your appreciation; your companionship, was the reward, but if this has all been some pathetic charade enacted out of pity for my situation, then at least I know the truth. Thanks for making things perfectly clear; I won't bother you again."
And with that final keystroke - so like the stroke of an executioner’s axe - his hands slid from the keyboard; tears were blinked away; emotions categorised, compartmentalised and filed away for future misuse. For the boy was shaken - his brain jarred against the upsurge - but the lid was hefted on and swiftly bolted shut. He needed it now, more than ever.
A bold flame of tapered steel flickered, upwards, searing and scorching the sable mist; narrow blade, enclosed ‘twixt ashen fingers, sheathed in belly fire. His heart wails; its screams, bathed in the mortal cataclysm, subsumed in itself, drowned. Vacant maw, grasping air; pain in rivulets: coursing, converging, ending, falling. Broken against the door.
He dies.
And with that final keystroke - so like the stroke of an executioner’s axe - his hands slid from the keyboard; tears were blinked away; emotions categorised, compartmentalised and filed away for future misuse. For the boy was shaken - his brain jarred against the upsurge - but the lid was hefted on and swiftly bolted shut. He needed it now, more than ever.
A bold flame of tapered steel flickered, upwards, searing and scorching the sable mist; narrow blade, enclosed ‘twixt ashen fingers, sheathed in belly fire. His heart wails; its screams, bathed in the mortal cataclysm, subsumed in itself, drowned. Vacant maw, grasping air; pain in rivulets: coursing, converging, ending, falling. Broken against the door.
He dies.
Thursday, March 11, 2004
"Yes i'm a natural blue!!!" says:
lol, he aint the best banana in the bunch look wise, but he has nice insides...
"Yes i'm a natural blue!!!" says:
hehehe
Profesh - Funkin.blogspot.com (Being ginger constitutes a social deficiency in all but the squarest of circles) says:
I do not resemble a banana in any regard, but it doesn't appear to have helped me
"Yes i'm a natural blue!!!" says:
hehehehehehehehe
Profesh - Funkin.blogspot.com (Being ginger constitutes a social deficiency in all but the squarest of circles) says:
apparently, women like bananas... they are like monkies... perhaps if I stopped telling them that, they'd like me o.O
lol, he aint the best banana in the bunch look wise, but he has nice insides...
"Yes i'm a natural blue!!!" says:
hehehe
Profesh - Funkin.blogspot.com (Being ginger constitutes a social deficiency in all but the squarest of circles) says:
I do not resemble a banana in any regard, but it doesn't appear to have helped me
"Yes i'm a natural blue!!!" says:
hehehehehehehehe
Profesh - Funkin.blogspot.com (Being ginger constitutes a social deficiency in all but the squarest of circles) says:
apparently, women like bananas... they are like monkies... perhaps if I stopped telling them that, they'd like me o.O
Tuesday, March 09, 2004
It is widely accepted that, as a race, human beings are inherently perturbed by that which we do not understand; it is thus that we may invent these convenient rationales as a "comfort blanket" to guard against a lack of actual knowledge. Since the advent of such concepts as "scientific proof", this has become less of a cultural necessity; however, spiritual faith has grown to permeate so many aspects of certain people's day-to-day lives, that it may be deemed worthwhile that they should remain stalwart in the face of scientific argument due to the all-encompassing nature of their faith, the issue of "miracles" constituting merely a single facet of a wide-ranging belief. If anything, those miracles which cannot be explained by conventional science serve to strengthen one's faith - if one has faith from the outset. However, I like your point that "we are increasingly under the apprehension that everything can - and will one day - be explained by science", as it corresponds with my view: that the scientifically-minded among us will consider 'miracles' to be nothing more than "unfactorable variables", no different to an unsolved mathematical equation, in our own conflicting belief that one day, science will provide the solution to all such variables. To cite "coincidence" as the rationalisation does not constitute an explanation by, or in itself; rather, it is an excuse for not providing an explanation.
In response to a recent post on Skin; the quest for intellectual debate continues :P
In response to a recent post on Skin; the quest for intellectual debate continues :P
Monday, March 08, 2004
Regan @ 10:53PM | 2004-03-03| permalink
Deep down, we are either nice or nasty. The problem is that life holds too many uncertainties. Whenever good people make bad choices or fail to realise what they're doing until too late people see that as a sign of their character. Only one person can tell if a person is inherently good or bad; that person.
email | website
sarah @ 11:46PM | 2004-03-04| permalink
no regan you are wrong. people who are not bad may think they are inherently bad, and be wrong. if you say that you will make them worse. I reckon everyone is inherently good and other things screw them up. i may be wrong though..
email | website
R @ 1:05AM | 2004-03-05| permalink
What's all this twaddle about "good" and "bad"? Deep, deep down, underneath all the culture, decency and social etiquette, lies our innate human selfishness. Whatever you do in life, it can be traced back to a selfish desire - even if that motive, upon revelation, would be considered ostensibly "selfless". Our brains function in order to sustain our bodies; it is not so much that we are not permitted to think in a completely and utterly altruistic fashion, but that it is illogical for our brains to consider any course of action which denies our basic instinct for self-preservation. Think about it; even suicide is a selfish act.
email | website
The Author @ 1:19PM | 2004-03-05| permalink
Factor in religion, however, and some of that becomes more doubtful. If your belief is that suicide is a sin, and that by committing it you are ensuring a shortcut to Hell, it cannot be a selfish act.
Similarly, the uncertainty of going to Heaven makes the act of giving one's life for another selfless. If one could be certain of going to Heaven then, yes, it would be a selfish act. However, when one does not know whether one's soul is saved or not, one is really no better off than the atheist who believes in nothing after death, since the average of the two possiblities - a perfect Heaven and an unbearable Hell - is equal to the 'nothing' which some believe in. 'Believe' may be the wrong verb there.
email | website
Jon Roskilly @ 12:25AM | 2004-03-08| permalink
Sorry to post on an old one, but after reading your last comment, Dave, I felt I had to say something.
Suicide isn't selfless if you know you're going to hell; indeed, it's the ultimate misjudgement, the ultimate selfish act. What you feel is that hell would, somehow, be better than how you live. Which makes no sense, in religious terms. Which means it cannot be selfless, rather it is stupid. If you are commiting suicide for someone... that'd be weird, but I guess that's selfless in all but it'll make them think better of you, which is your intention.
email | website
R @ 10:40PM | 2004-03-08| permalink
Precisely. The sole irony lies in the fact that there do exist those who would willingly relinquish their lives for the sake of a memory, sacrificing mortality in the hope of gaining immortality; if nothing else, a selfish act.
email | website
R @ 10:48PM | 2004-03-08| permalink
If one is certain of the inevitability of eternal damnation, and nevertheless proceeds to commit suicide with this in mind, then one does so under the pretext that Hell cannot be worse than life on this Earth; otherwise, one would not have the incentive to commit suicide. It should be taken into account that human beings are often illogical, irrational and insensible in this regard; they know not what they do want, so much as what they do not want. You commit suicide not because you want to die, but because you can no longer bear to live.
email | website
R @ 10:55PM | 2004-03-08| permalink
Religious factors are irrelevant; he who commits suicide has acknowledged a complete and concurrent loss of faith in God. Any rational individual who maintains faith in God does not see suicide as an option; to commit suicide is to renounce one's faith.
email | website
R @ 10:56PM | 2004-03-08| permalink
And is thus an act devoid of religious considerations.
email | website
Transcribed from Cynicism Lives; abridged, post-script, courtesy of moi. So, what are everyone else's views on this matter?
Deep down, we are either nice or nasty. The problem is that life holds too many uncertainties. Whenever good people make bad choices or fail to realise what they're doing until too late people see that as a sign of their character. Only one person can tell if a person is inherently good or bad; that person.
email | website
sarah @ 11:46PM | 2004-03-04| permalink
no regan you are wrong. people who are not bad may think they are inherently bad, and be wrong. if you say that you will make them worse. I reckon everyone is inherently good and other things screw them up. i may be wrong though..
email | website
R @ 1:05AM | 2004-03-05| permalink
What's all this twaddle about "good" and "bad"? Deep, deep down, underneath all the culture, decency and social etiquette, lies our innate human selfishness. Whatever you do in life, it can be traced back to a selfish desire - even if that motive, upon revelation, would be considered ostensibly "selfless". Our brains function in order to sustain our bodies; it is not so much that we are not permitted to think in a completely and utterly altruistic fashion, but that it is illogical for our brains to consider any course of action which denies our basic instinct for self-preservation. Think about it; even suicide is a selfish act.
email | website
The Author @ 1:19PM | 2004-03-05| permalink
Factor in religion, however, and some of that becomes more doubtful. If your belief is that suicide is a sin, and that by committing it you are ensuring a shortcut to Hell, it cannot be a selfish act.
Similarly, the uncertainty of going to Heaven makes the act of giving one's life for another selfless. If one could be certain of going to Heaven then, yes, it would be a selfish act. However, when one does not know whether one's soul is saved or not, one is really no better off than the atheist who believes in nothing after death, since the average of the two possiblities - a perfect Heaven and an unbearable Hell - is equal to the 'nothing' which some believe in. 'Believe' may be the wrong verb there.
email | website
Jon Roskilly @ 12:25AM | 2004-03-08| permalink
Sorry to post on an old one, but after reading your last comment, Dave, I felt I had to say something.
Suicide isn't selfless if you know you're going to hell; indeed, it's the ultimate misjudgement, the ultimate selfish act. What you feel is that hell would, somehow, be better than how you live. Which makes no sense, in religious terms. Which means it cannot be selfless, rather it is stupid. If you are commiting suicide for someone... that'd be weird, but I guess that's selfless in all but it'll make them think better of you, which is your intention.
email | website
R @ 10:40PM | 2004-03-08| permalink
Precisely. The sole irony lies in the fact that there do exist those who would willingly relinquish their lives for the sake of a memory, sacrificing mortality in the hope of gaining immortality; if nothing else, a selfish act.
email | website
R @ 10:48PM | 2004-03-08| permalink
If one is certain of the inevitability of eternal damnation, and nevertheless proceeds to commit suicide with this in mind, then one does so under the pretext that Hell cannot be worse than life on this Earth; otherwise, one would not have the incentive to commit suicide. It should be taken into account that human beings are often illogical, irrational and insensible in this regard; they know not what they do want, so much as what they do not want. You commit suicide not because you want to die, but because you can no longer bear to live.
email | website
R @ 10:55PM | 2004-03-08| permalink
Religious factors are irrelevant; he who commits suicide has acknowledged a complete and concurrent loss of faith in God. Any rational individual who maintains faith in God does not see suicide as an option; to commit suicide is to renounce one's faith.
email | website
R @ 10:56PM | 2004-03-08| permalink
And is thus an act devoid of religious considerations.
email | website
Transcribed from Cynicism Lives; abridged, post-script, courtesy of moi. So, what are everyone else's views on this matter?
