Ahhh cellulose, you burn so bright and so fast
Guitar picks produce a similar accelerated combustion sensation when ignited.
Very nice crucible and as always, no ashes.

Until all that dark shit you have been suppressing finally overwhelms your armour of contempt and you either:

A. Have such a cripplingly dark and nihilistic episode of backed up depression you finally kill yourself.

B. Break all the way through to a state of catatonic schizophrenia and need to to institutionalised.

or

C. Snap the other way and go on a self righteous violent rampage (think "Falling down" on a smaller scale)

"He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster. And when you gaze long into an abyss the abyss also gazes into you." -Friedrich Nietzsche


"The abyss" (of the futility at the core of the human condition) will never be your friend. Embracing it will only blind you to the entropy you are now helping to facilitate.


I'm a student of Epistemology (philosophy) and I'm absolutely no stranger to nihilism. It's a crucible anyone that wants to understand "reality/truth" has to go through. But its only 50% of the equation and offers only futility and darkness.

The other side is simple: if there is no God or ultimate truth then we ourselves are as Gods because we can choose our own purpose and reality (to a point mind!). Life can be virtually anything you want it to be.


Now on some level what you have quoted/suggested there would fall into this category, you would be making a positive choice to define your own reality. However the reality you are defining is a mirror to the abyss you are trying to escape, it is akin to trying to fight a monster. You will surely become/have become the monster you are fighting.

How do you think the monsters that make one feel so depressed in the 1st place come into being? They were staring into "the abyss" too!



Do you just want the depression to go away for a while? Or do you want to replace it with something beautiful instead? (or was this whole thing a Joke that I missed?)


Philosophy/pshychobabble aside what you are describing there basically = shunting all your negativity onto others around you. "If I take out all my shit on other people I don't feel so bad".

This seems like a less than ideal solution and is basically what one of my best friends does when he feels down. When he does so it makes me and others that know him seriously question why we put up with him.

I have nothing but sympathy for people that feel that "special darkness", but taking it out on others is not something I'm willing to tolerate from people I know. It's the main reason half of us are in this mess in the 1st place. People who don't give a fuck how the things they say and do will affect those around them, are pretty hard to keep giving a fuck about . "An eye for an eye will blind the world"

This idea of "a wall of seperation" of church and state came from a letter that Jefferson wrote to a baptist association while he was in France. It has been misinterpreted in recent times as a principle of exclusion of religion from government, but is this really what Jefferson intended? If he did, you might want to ask yourself why Jefferson attended church every sunday..in the house of representitives. You might want to ask why Jefferson closed presidential documents with "In the year of our Lord Jesus Christ", or why he negotiated treaties that used federal funding to pay for Christian missionaries to evangelize the indians. You also might want to ask why public education was teaching the scripture in schools, and why nearly every state had its own church..and why many states wouldn't allow non-christians to be elected to public office.

This idea of "freedom from religion" has no basis in history, or in the intentions of our founders. The secular community apparently feels that they can move in to this house that Christianity built and evict the ones who built it. It would be a bit like you inviting me to stay at your house and then I tell you that I am going to redecorate it the way I please and would you please stay in your room and never come out again.

Consider the words of William Rehnquist in a supreme court ruling about this issue:

It is impossible to build sound constitutional doctrine upon a mistaken understanding of constitutional history, but unfortunately the Establishment Clause has been expressly freighted with Jefferson's misleading metaphor for nearly 40 years. Thomas Jefferson was of course in France at the time the constitutional Amendments known as the Bill of Rights were passed by Congress and ratified by the States. His letter to the Danbury Baptist Association was a short note of courtesy, written 14 years after the Amendments were passed by Congress. He would seem to any detached observer as a less than ideal source of contemporary history as to the meaning of the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment.

But the greatest injury of the "wall" notion is its mischievous diversion of judges from the actual intentions of the drafters of the Bill of Rights. The "crucible of litigation," ante, at 2487, is well adapted to adjudicating factual disputes on the basis of testimony presented in court, but no amount of repetition of historical errors in judicial opinions can make the errors true. The "wall of separation between church and State" is a metaphor based on bad history, a metaphor which has proved useless as a guide to judging. It should be frankly and explicitly abandoned.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/971381/posts


>> ^jonny:
>> ^quantumushroom:
There is no legal anything found anywhere guaranteeing "freedom from religion". The State is not allowed to establish a religion or promote one religion above others. That's it.
The statements are plainly contradictory. The 1st amendment guarantees freedom from a government religion or any promotion of religion by the government. Also, as Boise_Lib notes above, it's impossible to have true freedom of religion without also having freedom from any other religion being imposed upon you. Intelligent people may disagree over whether certains actions constitute imposition of religious principles or doctrine, but the idea that the Constitution does not guarantee a level of freedom from religion is patently false.

>> ^gwiz665:

I never could get into Eve. I've tried, multiple times, but no.


I've never tried it but I really like it conceptually. I like the idea that MMOs can simulate a fictional reality and that there's good and bad in that, excitement and tedium. I like when there are few rules and that those that do exist are enforced in-universe whenever possible.

But I also have no interest or willingness to pay a subscription to play a game.

>> ^Asmo:

While Westy is coming off as a half assed dimwit (how unusual), Eve really is an acquired taste with a learning curve like climbing a wall covered in razor wire, shards of glass and radioactive killer land sharks...


That actually sounds more fun than the demo of Eve I tried.

I could not get into how the ships flew around. While I understand the way they modeled it is what's needed for their netcode, it was way too simple and well, 'Just click.. then click.. then click.. and you're there!'. I even noticed ships passing through the warpgates(?) don't really care about the architecture of the gate. They'll fly right through structures.

I'm sure there's some great other aspects to the game, but I need some sense that I'm actually flying something.

Thanks, but at this juncture I doubt I could find the time for it even if I wanted to. I might hold you to it when I find some time though.

In reply to this comment by LarsaruS:
Let me know if you want to have a 60 day trial. Might be enough to get you into it. Nords unite!

In reply to this comment by gwiz665:
I never could get into Eve. I've tried, multiple times, but no.

Thank you. Excellent comment.

In reply to this comment by Fletch:
>> ^westy:

Nice trailer visually.

However tells you nothing about the actually game play which will likely be utter shite and contain all the crap players have come accustomed to with MMO games.
Maybe in 9-15 years time the technology and network infra structure will exist to actually do a space MMO that's decent and can come close to delivering game play that matches the promotional material.
The game has been out for eight fucking years, so if you actually cared to know what the game is like, you have had more than ample opportunity to find out before coming here and making ignorant statements about what it will "likely" be.



JFC westy, did someone crank down your morphine drip or something? Every other video I watch this morning has some pissy, righteous commentary from you. Note, this observation is from someone practiced in pissy, righteous commentary.

Let me know if you want to have a 60 day trial. Might be enough to get you into it. Nords unite!

In reply to this comment by gwiz665:
I never could get into Eve. I've tried, multiple times, but no.

>> ^westy:

Nice trailer visually.

However tells you nothing about the actually game play which will likely be utter shite and contain all the crap players have come accustomed to with MMO games.
Maybe in 9-15 years time the technology and network infra structure will exist to actually do a space MMO that's decent and can come close to delivering game play that matches the promotional material.
The game has been out for eight fucking years, so if you actually cared to know what the game is like, you have had more than ample opportunity to find out before coming here and making ignorant statements about what it will "likely" be.



JFC westy, did someone crank down your morphine drip or something? Every other video I watch this morning has some pissy, righteous commentary from you. Note, this observation is from someone practiced in pissy, righteous commentary.

It's not "you're racist", it's "you didn't think".

It’s actually quite the opposite. I’ve thought about this topic about 10 levels deeper than everyone else. They just don’t like it because I’m daring to bring up politically incorrect, uncomfortable truth.

You went on about how responsible home ownership says something about a person...implying it qualifies you as good.

Responsible home ownership does say good things about a person. It does not mean you are a good person, but it does generally show a person is good at managing their finances.

Taking away someone's right to vote because they did something society doesn't like is a different issue, and you're confusing the two, IMO.

No I’m not. I’m applying the idea fairly, and that disturbs some people. Is it not logical to say that the people who took out subprime loans they knew they could not afford did “something to society” far more harmful than the collective actions of U.S. mass murderers? So, why are people mentally comfortable with limiting the voting rights of murderers (who do comparatively little damage to overall society) but are uncomfortable limiting the voting rights of bad borrowers who cause far more societal damage?

IMO it's a bad idea to give government lots of powers to disqualify people from voting. It's WAY too easy for it to be abused, modified in stupid ways, etc. It's a serious slippery slope without all the normal exaggeration the phrase "slippery slope" usually comes with.

When the full public has unlimited voting rights, the eventual dynamic result is that the primary concern of the voter becomes the claiming & retention of personal benefits. The resulting loose, debt-heavy fiscal policy collapses the government. Is that not a “slippery slope” at least as alarming as the slippery slope of limiting voter rights? Which slippery slope do you choose? Regardless, the left has routinely pooh-poohed the entire ‘slippery slope’ argument. The opposition to Obama’s health care bill was based on ‘slippery slopes’ of death panels and socialism but it was mocked as ridiculous. Why is the ‘slippery slope’ so absurd when it is applied to leftist political philosophy, but so pertinent on voting rights?

Voting needs to be easier, not harder.

Easier? Sure. But more restricted too. A good start would be to require a valid U.S. birth certificate, and current photo ID at the site of voting.

This is abhorant, fascist thinking. Godwin be-damned if I can't call a spade a spade. I normally ignore your comments, but this latest set of talking points needs to be called out for the bull that it is.

I think that your hyperbolic overreaction suggests that your policy of self-recusal should be reinstated, because this entry into the crucible of debate is woefully inadequate. Clearly you are unable to control your emotions when grappling with issues, and therefore you should quit the field to spare both yourself and others from your abecedarian efforts. Or you could just go breathe into a paper bag for a bit and come back and try again. Your call.

What's different is that the left understands that we shouldn't be taking away people's civil rights because people use them in ways we disapprove of instead we think we need to do a better job of getting the facts and our point of view out to people.

When the left loses in the court of the national discourse, they do not just shrug and try to ‘get facts and a point of view out’. They demonize, attack, insult, and slander. When that fails they dictate by fiat against the will of the people. In short, they take away people’s civil rights when those people use their freedom in ways they disapprove. So your statement is patently false. The left is only interested in ‘civil rights’ insofar as it advances their pet agendas.

Liberal electoral reforms are always aimed at making it easier for people to vote, and growing the percentage of the populace who vote.

You need to correct your position, because it ignores a lot. The left always finds a way to make it easier for the people it WANTS to vote, but always seems to oppose easy voting for groups it opposes. Regardless, the whole civil rights argument is a cheap rhetorical dodge. Nations routinely monitor, restrict, and regulate voting rights. Requiring vital documents, proof of citizenship, and basic intellectual capacity is not some sort of crazy, dictatorial power grab. It happens all the time in every civilized country.

Mostly these days that's making sure there are paper trails for electronic voting machines, but it's also making sure the people working the polling places are treating everyone the same. Curiously, the right always finds a reason to oppose every one of the above.

I disagree. The left that is the routine, documented, proven opponent of a rigorous, fair voting process.

The Crucible is so damn cool, always have wanted to take classes there.

Well - first off I'd dispute it when you say "all of the comments" I make "bash Obama" or "praise FOX News". I accurately criticize Obama/Democrat policy. That isn't bashing per se, though it may be seen that way by those who disagree. As far as "praising FOX" - hardly. I criticize the MEDIA as a whole. FOX is no avatar of virtue to me. What I find odious is when people here are willing to lambaste FOX when it exhibits bias, while at the same time praising equally biased crap from MSNBC, CBS, TDS, ABC, etc...

But - to your question... My 'purpose'? You call it commotion. I call it discourse. I present the opinions of an average American who believes in fiscal conservatism, limited government, and constitutional constructionism. If you disagree with an opinion, then grapple with it in the crucible of ideas. If you find such an exercise wearisome, then withdraw yourself. I am delighted to advocate a position that I believe in, and consider the resulting discussion an educational experience. That is because I do not fear encountering other ideas, even though I may not agree with them. Sometimes I am strident, but I do not attack specific people (Sifters) as a rule of thumb (public figures all bets are off though).

to Longde... You just don't get. Freedom of Speech is the greatest gift human beings are born with. Your freedom to think and express yourself is the crucible of Free Society. If you don't feel free to express your thoughts, how can anyone say you have freedom?

Freedom is not government controlled. What you believe in is important to you... so you think government should silence you if they disagree with your thought?

You can't make exceptions, just because you feel it they should be made.

I am no liberal by any means, but once you start attempting to control thoughts... you have lost your freedom.

I read The Crucible in high school to learn of this dark time in America's history.