3,623 Forum Posts by "Ravariel"
At 2/21/08 04:06 PM, Nylo wrote: And the NY Times thought, coincidentally, that now would a perfectly ethical time to release that story.
Better now than during the General...
I've never found the "pleasure" of the slosh to be worth the pain of hangovers. COmbined with the general yuck of the taste of alcohol, I've pretty much just given up on it.
At 2/20/08 12:38 AM, carbanonzo wrote: After all it is the only time where we can really effect our society is it not? However the first problem is contained within that very sentence it is the only time we can effect any manner of change.
See, right here is where you go wrong. Unfortunately, it's your thesis statement. Voting is only ONE of the ways you can effect change.
... you just have to be not-lazy to effect it in other ways.
At 2/19/08 01:05 PM, stafffighter wrote: The fuck?
God help us all...
At 2/18/08 05:08 PM, Tri-Nitro-Toluene wrote: Bastards are releasing a best of album of one of my favourite bands but only making it availiable in the US and Canada. Which means I'll have to fucking pay shipping from America for the fucking thing and I can't afford to do that = (
You do realize that because it's a "Best Of..." album, that it'll be full of the shit you probably already have, right?
At 2/17/08 07:47 PM, SevenSeize wrote: My dreams are very vivid, very graphic, tons of details and emotions, and almost lucid.
Mine are completely lucid. 9 times out of 10 I know I'm dreaming and have nearly complete control of them... can be both fun and boring, though. I used to be able to rewind dreams to re-do parts I didn't like. It's been since I was still in the single digits when the last time a nightmare got away from me. Usually, the dream will try to freak me out, but I'll be too aware of it for it to succeed. And if it ever goes in a direction that's "too much" I can almost always force myself awake if I can't change it.
That said, my nightmares usually consist of me not being able to get somewhewre I know I should be able to find (armchair phsychiatry GO!)... like I'll be driving home and the road never crosses my house... as though the 2 miles of road directly before and after my house are no longer there. Or walking through a swamp and suddenly being stuck where I can go no further, turning around and there being no way back. That sort of thing. Though I did once have a dream that the bottom floor of the house where I grew up turned into a croc-infested swamp... and for some reason the ladder to the loft where my bedroom was didn't go all the way up to the loft so I was trapped... that one freaked me right the fuck out.
So I guess my greatest fear is the unknown... situations where I don't know what's coming, what to do, what's going on... where the expected is suddenly not true anymore... any situation over which I have no control.
At 2/17/08 08:41 PM, Proteas wrote: I know some of those among us are not particularly big fans of Linkin Park, but, Josh Groban's performance of "My December" is cooler than penguin turds, I don't care what any of you say.
Blah... his tone/intonation is amazing, but far too much vibrato... or rather, the vibrato was too fast. Also, his diction is so precise and perfect as to be almost distracting.
At 2/17/08 11:24 PM, SkunkyFluffy wrote: Lots of requests for poses like this. I just like the picture because my ass looks amazing.
Agreed 1000%... yum.
At 2/18/08 01:06 AM, Empanado wrote: Speaking of Batman -- I'm afraid that this might be terribly awesome. Even though the Japanese totally gayed Bruce Wayne up by the look of it.
<comicbookandanimegeek>Should be awesome. See: Animatrix (talk about completely making the second and third movies look like shit), Batman: Child of Dreams (Graphic novel by Kia Asamiya author of Nadesico, Silent Mobius and Steam Detectives... absolutely amazing, near-Long Halloween good). I'm looking forward to it almost more than Dark Knight. </comicbookandanimegeek>
The only thing I really want to happen is for the Electoral College to be assigned to the candidates proportionally by state, as the entirety of the Delegates in the Dem primary are now. This could put every single state into play in the general election, and not allow the Dems to run away with New York and Cali and the Reps to automatically get all of Texas.
Would solve nearly every complaint of the delegate/EC systems imo. More fair towards the popular vote, would make third-party candidates more viable as well as keeping the candidates on their toes in every area of the country. Reps would no longer simply ignore the "liberal" states and Dems couldn't ignore the "south".
At 2/15/08 02:03 AM, Empanado wrote: Just get a Blogger account like the rest of us mortals.
Well, I am already planning a website to hock my music, so a blog addon wouldn't exactly be hard... I'm just thinking it might be a better idea to keep the two separate... especially since I plan to do the music under my real name (for ease of real-world commissions and stuff) and blog under my handle.
Being a blogger pretty much makes oneself a social pariah,
Meh, I'm pretty comfortable with my current social status, both online and off, so it don't scurr me. Just gotta get the determination to set myself a concrete schedule, and enough html knowhow to make the site not suck.
Also, keep in mind that if you get more than three visits a day, it's mathematically impossible not to attract a crazy obsessive stalker girl via AIM, MSN or e-mail within a two-month period, max.
I'm not scared... I'm like the anti-drama. Bullshit drama just kind of melts around me... and there aren't any REAL girls on the internets anyway.
Just some blogger-on-blogger advice.
Appreciated. Maybe I'll get a Locke to my Demosthenes as well... that might make things a little more interesting...
Eh, it's all still in the brainstorm phase... probably be more than a year before it actually happens... if it does at all.
Hrm...
I was contemplating starting a blog. It would be a combination of music, science, religion, and politics... basically my interests. However, I don't know if I should get myself a domain just for that, or if I should just use the one I was going to use for my own music. I haven't bought the domain name yet, but I already know what it's going to be and that it is available (no, I won't say it just in case someone here gets the bright idea to nab it from me).
Then again, that might be interesting... to be able to write music FOR my own blog... Something tells me that'd be rather novel on the 'sphere.
At 3/3/07 07:48 AM, PingBad wrote:At 2/28/07 04:28 AM, SkyCube wrote: According to the article, the guy was sentenced for having child porn, not molesting kids.To produce such porn, the subject of it would likely have been molested/abused in the process... so the collector is implicitly endorsing further molestation/abuse of children - so I reckon the possessors of C.P are just as guilty as the creators
I wouldn't say he is worse than a murderer.
Okay, here's where I play devil's advocate a bit. It's been a while, and this is easily one of my favorite topics on which to do it... because of all the interesting things I learn about people.
Let's assign this logic to a similar topic and see if it works, okay? We call this Reductio ad Absurdum. If a person who posesses child pornography is equally guilty as the one who made it, then also must the person who has a video or photography of any other crime be equally as guilty as the criminal on the tape. So am I a terrorist and a Murderer if I have the video of Nick Berg's execution on my HD? Should I go to jail for assault because I have a vid of some drunk guy beating the shit out of his buddy/gf?
Can you give me one reason that's not an appeal to emotion for why the standards should be different here?
And what about an underage nude drawing or painting?
What if the painting/drawing isn''t made for the purpose of arousal (even though it may still arouse)?
Where does the mens rea come in? Where does intent to harm come in? Do we care?
cue 30+ posts of "omg ur defending molesters! Burn in hell pedo!!"
At 2/9/08 11:36 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote:At 2/9/08 11:26 PM, BeFell wrote: Oh of all the things it is time for a monthly of I was hoping you would say a kick in the ass. You know because you could use one... regularly.You've broken rule 3.
I'm not sure he has. I think it's fair to say we ALL need a kick in the ass on a regular basis. Keeps us on our toes.
The truly fucked up part about this election is that it may come down to a SECOND primary (or, rather, caucus) in Florida and Michigan to appoint our delegates and choose a democratic nominee.
That should turn things into a real fuckeroo for the Dems.
At 1/31/08 11:54 PM, LordJaric wrote: Do really need to know this?
I think that question is the entire point...
the obvious answer, of course, being: no.
At 1/31/08 07:47 PM, Brick-top wrote: "Do you consider the idea of there being extra terrestrial life somewhere in out galaxy if not the universe a plausible idea?"
Absolutely. Seems an awful waste of space if we're the only intelligent life. Now whether or not we've been visited by them... I'll say with a large amount of confidence: no. Because if all they want to do is fulfill some dudes' closeted sexual fantasies and turn some cows inside out... well that doesn't smack of intelligence to me.
More like some frat-boy pranks.
At 1/30/08 04:56 PM, poxpower wrote: "Tomorrow's lottery numbers will be 4, 25, 63, 12, 54, and 21".
nonono, silly. They're 4 8 15 16 23 42. Duh.
Ugh... I seem to have come down with teh flu... or at least I think it's the flu. I only have 2 symprtoms:
A chest so congested it feels like there's a spike in it... and my skin hurts.
... I mean wtf?
I'm only pro-stem cell research as a side-effect of being pro-dead babies.
At 1/29/08 12:12 PM, TheMason wrote: So how is JFK better than Lincoln, Jefferson, Washington?
Also, I think a Lincoln comparison is more fitting in Obama's case. Junior senator from Illinois, somewhat unknown before the race... charismatic and anti-establishment. This isn't to say that Obama will be as good as Lincoln... only that the comparisons are there.
At 1/23/08 09:37 PM, Brick-top wrote: Do you guys think I should have this thread blocked because we've now got an offical thread?
Absolutely not.
Fuck that thread. it's unnecessary and overbroad. And as a frequent discusser of things religious and a-religious you'll never see me posting in there.
I find it the lazy mod's way of cleaning up the boards. No longer do they actually have to read the thread to determine the merit... they may simply check the title or skim the OP and know whether or not to lock it. I'll bump SvR till the day they ban me before I'll discuss anything in that (also horribly-named) thread.
At 1/22/08 09:12 PM, TheMason wrote: 1)...
2)...
'twere but hyperbole for the sake of humor.
At 1/21/08 08:02 PM, Grammer wrote:Do you disagree with that? Thats one of the main reasons a man or woman will turn to religionThen I guess you don't know much about religion
Not to derail this thread any farther but do you actually deny that our mortality is one of the driving factors behind our desire to believe in religion?
At 1/21/08 07:20 PM, VGmasters wrote: But we can make it like the National Guard, put it under the DHS, and call it the "Home Guard".
Excellent! Yet another bloated military budget at which to throw money we already don't have for a unit to do a job we not only don't need done, but that can be done by several forces already employed within our country.
Brilliant idea!
At 1/21/08 07:40 PM, Brick-top wrote: But have you ever questioned your beliefs and wanted to accept that there is an afterlife (biblical or not) so you can feel emotionally better?
Of course. Noone wants to cease existing, or to believe that loved ones have done so. I would LOVE to be able to believe in an afterlife. But, to steal from Lewis Black, I have thoughts. And that kinds screws with the whole "faith" thing.
At 1/21/08 03:19 AM, WolvenBear wrote: Artistically, it's tacky. Rape scenes are pornographic in nature. They bring absolutely nothing to the table. You can show that rape is happening without having to focus 5 or 6 minutes on it. The same way that sex can be shown without nudity (two kissing people walking in a room and a shirt flying out the door), rape can be implied without being graphic.
Yes and no. They can be tacky... and often are, because they're hard to pull off. It's difficult to show a sexual act without allowing it to become sexually arousing... or that if it does, it does in a very uncomfortable way. But look at movies like Requiem for a Dream and Irreversible. Would either of those films been as powerful without their rape scenes (ignoring for the moment that RfaD's one was sorta consensual)? Irreversible's scene was starkly disturbing... not at all arousing. RfaD's scene(s) were tainted with drugs and a sense of spiralling out of control.
Other movies, that hit a little closer to the topic of children in sexual scenes, like Kids, Bully and Ken Park all (with of-age actors, though an underage theme) have depictions of underage sex... some of it is pornographic (Ken Park)... some is horrifying (Kids). Reasonable people can disagree on the merits of any of those movies, and the scenes therein... but I doubt the stories would be as complete if all of the sexual scenes were only implied. There can be artistic merit in graphic depicted sex... it's just hard to do convincingly.
At 1/19/08 02:32 AM, stafffighter wrote:At 1/19/08 02:00 AM, RydiaLockheart wrote: When I got mad, I threw my shoes at her. No, I don't know why either.Who throws a shoe? Really?
Well, when you want to make a point, but don't actually want to injure someone...
Actually, ignoring for the moment the dubious claims in the OPs post, it's his vehement resistance to Nuclear energy and his insistence on mandatory Pre-school in his education policy that are the deal-breakers for me.
He's a spoiler right now... ifhe wasn't in the race, it's probably swing in Obama's favor. His unionist bent, and lower/middle-class message resonates with the african-american community which will naturally give more support to Obama.
At 1/19/08 12:59 AM, Grammer wrote:At 1/19/08 12:53 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: I still don't understand how ETERNAL TORTURE is somehow fair by god's standards.Then you don't understand God
If eternal suffering is fair to your god, then I want nothing to do with him.
"I love you, but you deserve to suffer forever! Can't you feel my love!?"
At 1/18/08 06:37 AM, CaptainPoncho wrote: This image, the work of an EVOLUTIONIST, shows a monkey TURNING INTO A MAN while taking just a few steps.
Har har. Ya got me.
Now what was the point of all this, again?
