1,397 Forum Posts by "AxTekk"
Check that first I'd-really-rather-you-didn't breh, r'Amen
At 10/29/13 08:28 PM, AxTekk wrote:At 10/29/13 06:48 PM, Lemonardo wrote: "Bitches ain't shit but hoes and tricks."
Also, that song isn't about women, it's about immasculate, gutless people. Hence, why Jewell drops a 16 on that shit. Learn2hiphop breh (unless you're being dopely ironic, in which case that shit dope).
At 10/29/13 06:48 PM, Lemonardo wrote: "Bitches ain't shit but hoes and tricks."
~DMX
Isn't that Dr. Dre?
Guys, NME is a rock publication. I'm surprised that they featured as many non-rock albums as they did.
However, WTF is up with putting The Marshall Mathers LP above The Chronic. I'm pretty sure even Eminem would call bullshit.
At 10/28/13 06:48 PM, Entice wrote: http://www.newgrounds.com/audio/listen/465801
Good to see people still appreciating my spoken word capabilities like two years on!
At 10/29/13 05:45 AM, TheStyx wrote: Oh wait of course not because autists don't understand irony.
I think this is a hilarious post, but I gotta say the word "autist" is starting to get on my nerves hella bad. Baaaaare overused
Jimi Hendrix once said: "knowledge speaks, wisdom listens". I don't think LSD ever produced truer, more concise words.
At 10/27/13 11:11 AM, JayTheWiz wrote: My question is why would you want multiple wives? One wife already grants you enough nagging to last a lifetime; Why would I want enough to last me 5? Then there is the question of why I would want to share my wife (since, to be fair, this has to go both ways) with that douchebag jock who stuffed me in lockers when I was in high school?
This. This all the goddamn way. Everyone's life is sooooo much better if we all agree to play nice and be monogamous. I honestly don't think anyone would disagree.
At 10/27/13 10:33 AM, Insanctuary wrote: When you say instinct, we are referring to the positive, negative and neutral properties of the universe, yes?
Not reeeeally. I mean, your approach to this stuff seems analogous to the Hindu idea of gunas whereby all good, passionate and bad stems from the very fractal structure of the universe in which case both the instinctive and the rational would be the "positive, negative and neutral properties of the universe" as they are all equally bound to the same fractal pattern.
I just mean actions driven by our raw neurology and hormones. Human nature, I suppose.
That being said, I am enjoying you ripping ghandi a new one. Your argumentative prowess is surely admirable, AxTekk.
Oh Lord, no no no no no no no haha, I'm not trying to make anyone feel shitty or inferior or anything. In a lot of arguments I think Super Ghandi and me would agree, and if I've got the facts wrong and ghandi can show me that, what the hey, I've just learnt something, right? No, all I'm trying to do is say the facts how I see them in the clearest way possible.
At 10/27/13 09:58 AM, supergandhi64 wrote: [...] you wouldn't second guess"thou shalt not steal" or "thou shalt not kill" because it doesn't specify in what way you shouldn't steal or kill. you'll have to come up with a better rationalization than that
[...] matthew 19:3-9 "he answered 'have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male & female & said therefore a man shall leave his father & his mother & hold fast to his wife & the two shall become one flesh? so they are no longer two but one flesh. what therefore god has joined together let not man separate' "
Okay, so first of all you want a clearer refutation of the Deuteronomy quote.
I guess the first thing I got reading your reply was that you missed the significance of the quote itself: It isn't an ideological law like the ten commandments where each act listed is a mortal sin, it's a pragmatic law that serves to help enforce an ideological law. The ideological law in question? Looking after Israel ("lest thou heart turn away"). This isn't me forcing an interpretation either, here is a quote from a mainstream, widely used theology website giving their historical interpretation of the quote: 17:17 "He shall not multiply wives" This refers to (1) lustful use of power or more probably (2) political and religious alliances. This was the ancient Near Eastern way to form "non-aggression" pacts.
So the first thing to say is that marrying ridiculous numbers of women isn't even deemed immoral in itself. It's just seen as politically unwise.
Second thing to say is that you make the hidden assumption that "thou shall not multiply wives" means simply "have one wife". The distinction between "shall not multiply" and "shall keep only one" has been recognised in every translation of the verse I can find: not a single bible quotes the verse as saying that it is wrong to have multiple wives. In fact, historically the verse was simply taken to mean that a King shouldn't keep more than EIGHTEEN wives.
So the second thing to say is that the quote doesn't even condemn polygamy, just excesses of polygamy.
The Matthew quote is more interesting, but it's still a million miles away from explicitly condemning polygamy. Anyone vaguely familiar with Matthew recognising it for what it is: a quote against divorce. The man and wife becoming one flesh has absolutely nothing to do with who a man can marry and has everything to do with him being required under Christian law to love and cherish whoever he marries.
Shortly put, the quote has nothing to do with polygamy. Don't you think it's telling that you're having to bring up anti-divorce quotes and pretend like they're anti-polygamy quotes?
At 10/27/13 10:00 AM, Insanctuary wrote: We can create morbid poetry, too. And what we think is "beautiful" is not only relative, but irrelevant to the physicality of the world.
Well, you get my point. The good and bad things we do all come from instinct, it shouldn't sully or glorify them.
Also, "beauty" is not an urge. What you are alluding to is "peace", and "comfort" or "sense". We are systematically programmed to do things as right as the universe, but have the conscious to do everything wrong at the same time. Wittgenstein also explains this in his Tractatus. Instead of a "moral" compass, we also have a "factual" compass, thus reason> thus philosophy > thus science
That's a very, erm, interesting reading of tractatus... I'm sorry, I think I missed the point you were making about monogamy here...
At 10/27/13 09:35 AM, Insanctuary wrote: So is killing... I understand where you are coming from, but I also understand you are not realizing that killing is also in the same boat as the drive to procreate expansively.
As is the urge to create beautiful poetry and to think philosophically. All these things are natural human desires. In terms of human nature, there is no good and bad, only right and wrong.
At 10/27/13 09:20 AM, supergandhi64 wrote: if you want to be pedantic about it i can recite some more verses & see how many you want to play word association with since it isn't like there's a lack of bible verses condemning polygamy . . . for instance deuteronomy 17:17 "he shall not acquire many wives for himself lest his heart turn away nor shall he acquire for himself excessive silver and gold"
--supergandhi64
You're taking that quote heavily out of context, the verse is not saying that men must be monogamous. What it is saying is that Kings (the quote is from a chunk giving advice to Biblical Kings) should not acquire many earthly possessions as it might distract them from their duties to the Lord.
So this quote in context is actually saying: "If you're going to be in charge of Israel, don't go marrying loads of women or hoarding jewels". Also note that it doesn't even specify that the King should only have one wife, just that he shouldn't have many.
At 10/27/13 09:17 AM, Insanctuary wrote: This sounds interesting in theory, but it's crap in practice. It's 100% established that those actions women partake in are entirely psychical and avoidable with proper loyalty and respect for their current mates.
Well, I'm hardly advocating it as some kind of sexual utopia. As well as many other downsides, you get high rates of infanticide as beta males kill their mate's illegitimate offspring when they suspect infidelity (you can partially thank polygeny for the grotesque levels of child abuse in humans, especially in cases of step parents). It's just worth bearing in mind that our instincts are built for such a system, and maybe we shouldn't be so quick to judge those who act on human nature.
At 10/27/13 09:10 AM, supergandhi64 wrote: bull sh*t . . . 1 corinthians 7:2 "but because of the temptation to sexual immorality each man should have his own wife & each woman her own husband" is that your idea of "unrefuted"? maybe you figured you should make up a bunch of nonsense & then hoped you'd get away with it
All that quote says is that men and women must have wives and husbands to keep sex within marriage. The quote doesn't specify whether or not a man may have multiple wives, which is the reason polygamy is still a debate in African churches.
At 10/27/13 08:59 AM, Insanctuary wrote: Most common strategy, because it's easier and less responsible.
If by "easier" you mean "more beneficial evolutionarily" then yes, but I'd argue that fits a lot of the definitions for "best strategy" as well. Sex psychology has a lot of theories, and as a field it grows daily but it's pretty much universally agreed that we are hardwired for polygeny although the mechanics of the polygenistic system are disputed.
One interesting idea is based on the fact that women tend to be more attracted to low testosterone males most of the month, but are more attracted to high testosterone males during oestrus, when they are most fertile. Here you have a natural basis for women forming stable relationships with beta males, going off to cheat with an alpha once every month when they are most likely to bear his child. Smart, because the betas will probably be the best at raising the child while the alphas will probably provide the child with the best immune system etc. from a genetic standpoint.
Monogamy is unnatural. Whether or not it's still the best system for a stable society is another matter, but it's definitely not the one our instincts are built for.
And for fuck's sake, do not tell me you are obligatory towards a bloody book!
Nah, I'm not Christian. That whole post was satirising the fundamentalist stance on homosexuality yo.
At 10/27/13 08:20 AM, Spedmallet wrote:At 10/27/13 08:13 AM, AxTekk wrote: Monogamy is an unnatural, un-Christian, modern idea that corrupts our youth into lives of sexual decadence and irresponsibility.I think u mean polygamy
Actually, although monogamy is obviously more egalitarian and stable, polygeny is the most common reproductive strategy naturally found in humans. It is championed in the old testament, unrefuted in the new and *arguably* encourages the most sexual responsibility as not all men get to mate, and those who do most provide for multiple women (not to mention the near-selfless love and devotion required from women).
Monogamy is an unnatural, un-Christian, modern idea that corrupts our youth into lives of sexual decadence and irresponsibility.
At 10/26/13 05:57 PM, lapis wrote: Why? The French didn't mind teaming up with North American natives in fights with the British.
I'm not sure if there's some sort of inherent loyalty between humans that would prevent a human-alien alliance fighting other humans.
Fuck, that's true actually. I'm not sure we'd be so loyal to our own, probably when the chips are down we'd just be out for ourselves. Depends how close the aliens are to us though I guess, if they eat their own babies alive and shit we might get a little more ideological.
At 10/26/13 05:16 PM, Insanctuary wrote: I got banned on the philosophy boards because I do not listen to PC rules, so... Fuck.
Lol I remember that. It's for the best.
At 10/26/13 05:34 PM, Little-Kinky wrote: I dunno. If there is a whole galaxy of species who are aware of each other and coexist, I think we'll have to group up as "humans" instead of "Russians, Americans, Brits" etc. That's not to say give up the idea of countries and nationalities, I just think that at some point we'd have to create a body that represents Earth, and give other species something to point their finger at if we mess up.
Imagine if an early U.S. Colony does something retarded on another planet. The other species won't blame the U.S., they'll blame humans.
I just can't see the idea of country-run colonies working in space.
I DEFINITELY agree it would be better for us to do shit as a species, and it would be a beautiful day when we might all unite under one banner. There might even be precedence for it: Pan- Africanism, Arabism, Asianism etc are all examples of movements which united previously divided peoples in the face of a technologically superior threat. I'm still cynical that our species could be that noble though.
I think I see two likely options:
- Firstly, that in the face of a intergalactic behemoth we all say "fuck it" and work together to compete with whatever species is threatening us. Human pride becomes a thing, and provided we don't defeat this species or be defeated by them we experience previously unknown unity and productivity. We finally recognise that if we're to avoid extinction we're going to have to work together.
- Alternatively, other species we find are not superior to us. Our response would probably be analogous to how the Europeans felt when colonising Africa and South America: we won't mess with each other's operations, but like hell are we going to be sharing our slices of the pie. Wars inevitably break out within and between these colonies, maybe over sovereignty but more probably over resources and taxation. I can't help but think this would render space exploration something of a bubble.
Idk, I might have shit twisted, but I don't think it'll work out any differently. Either we meet beings that challenge us to push our own boundaries or we enter another doomed age of shallow imperialism.
At 10/26/13 05:18 PM, Little-Kinky wrote: So, like, United Nations, except everybody? Interesting idea~ If we ever start colonizing other planets, though, that might become a problem. Will they be colonies of "Earth", or will they be colonies of the country that sent them?
Yeah I think we'll follow the UN/ WHO template. I mean, being an amateur sci-fi writer I have a vested interest in my own theories, but I think planets will be colonised by whoever funded the colonisation so you might have US colonies, Chinese colonies, colonies owned by an EU syndicate etc. etc. Seeing as how there is no precedent for extra terrestrial colonisation, I can imagine that shit just being sculpted by the free market.
At 10/26/13 05:08 PM, Insanctuary wrote: Please, tell me. What do you think of my "Mind Sentience" theory?
Dude I'm wasted, ATM I just think that I'm really surprised I could get such good weed outside of London.
At 10/26/13 04:48 PM, Little-Kinky wrote: What do you think will happen when there is a need for a planet-wide government? When the governments of entire countries will need to fall under something bigger?
I think you'll have like a light touch federal government (assuming we haven't blown ourselves up before we reach this point). A bunch of spokespeople and lawyers who are controlled by the various governments of the world rather than the other way way around who'll pass basic human rights legislation and delegate certain committees to do shit on mankind's behalf. Not a giant over-reaching octopus of a government, more a group of emissaries who'll be responsible for showcasing the best of our species.
At 10/26/13 03:45 PM, Insanctuary wrote: Again, thank you!
NP breh, although you should read Philosophical Investigations as well seeing as Wittgenstein ended up completely disregarding Tractatus anyway (it was only his degree level work). If you enjoyed Tractatus, I recommend Bertrand Russell as well, you'll probably really enjoy philosophy of language type stuff.
At 10/26/13 12:39 PM, Earfetish wrote: Fuckin' Reagan and Thatcher.
To me, this ruined what was otherwise a beautiful rant. Reagan, maybe yes, but Thatcher actually increased the amount the poor received in benefits. Idk, I'm not a fan of Thatcher and to say her political legacy has been harmful would be a huge understatement, so I think it is actually important to realise what place welfare had as part of said legacy.
To Thatcher, it was an excuse to destroy people's livelihoods, to increase unemployment and smash the working class's dignity. I think the only way to correct her legacy is to bring back jobs, especially to the North, and to give people a decent wage sufficient to live on. The Tory rhetoric against welfare claimants is destructive, defo, but as long as Labour focuses on deregulating shit and increasing welfare, people will continue to slip through the system.
At 10/26/13 12:43 PM, Sense-Offender wrote: That's what I meant. He mentioned such a widely used combination.
Ahaha, sheeit that one may have gone over my head.
interesting. I like sour cream on my baked potato.
Damnit that is some delicious goodness. All kinds of crazy things go well with baked potato though, I swear down.
At 10/26/13 12:20 PM, Slint wrote: Talk shit get hit.
At 10/26/13 12:16 PM, Sense-Offender wrote:At 10/26/13 09:40 AM, Makakaov wrote: Obligatory yearly thread.Fish and chips a weird combo....
fish and french fries
Not so over here in Limey Land. My fam used to have fish and chips every Friday night, maybe battered sausage in place of the fish sometimes.
Candied bacon is brilliant. Ice cream on toast is brilliant. Curry pies are brilliant. Cream cheese in mash potato is brilliant.
At 10/26/13 07:43 AM, mspopsie21 wrote: And also the money they will get from it. In my country (I don't know if this also have with other countries), we have this thing called "Pork Barrel" where a department of the government distributes a large amount of money (taxes) to each politicians and the purpose of it is to use it for the "welfare and services to their constituents".
Wow, seriously? Has no one called bullshit on that yet? Because that sounds corrupt as all hell.
