Evil Evil News...
Lumina Dragon
feeling very down right now and feel the need to talk some...
Last night, our dog got in a rowdier-than-usual mood and was snapping at
us and, in two cases, bit. As this is not the first instance in which
she has acted up, my mom and aunt made the incredibly hard decision that
enough was enough, and we had her euthanized today. And while I
originally wasn't too fond of the dog, she really grew on me over the
time -- nigh six years -- we've had her, and I was not terribly happy at
what had to be done. My aunt was hardest hit, though, as she and the dog
were close, and further, she was the one who made the decision, and that
has really got her down. So this day kinda really sucks when put into
perspective.
Now, I've always been a cat person, and never cared for dogs, but this
one grew on me, and over time became one of the family. It really hurt
to have to do this, and so I'm not in any sort of mood that can be
construed as good.
Sparky was a Dalmatian, and I'm told that they are prone to aggressive
behavior, and that if they start biting habits they won't stop, and it
will only worsen, but she's only six, and it just doesn't feel fair. But
my aunt said that if we let things get worse, then the bad memories
would outnumber the good, and besides, we couldn't take the chance that
she'd seriously hurt someone. Still.... doesn't comfort me any to know
how necessary it was.
It's so sad.... she always was a handful, but I'm going to miss her. The
house won't be the same without her here. And all I'll have left are
reminders.... although right now reminders are only going to hurt.
Anyway, I'm sorry if this gets your spirits down as well, but I felt the
need to vent. I'm not big on expressing emotions, and I tend to
internalize things, so it happens to be here, online, that I give vent
to it all.
-Lumina Dragon
P.S. I took some pictures of her today, to remember her the way I want
to, and when I finish this roll and develop them I'll see to scanning
one in and uploading it. I just don't know when it will be.
BubbaDragon
I share your grief, Lumina. In 1992 my family had to put down our cat, but
it was a good thing to do because she had lived her life (about 20 years I
think.), and deserved a humane way out. Frisky, my Wire-terrier/poodle mix,
was also put to sleep more recently, and that loss is still being felt
today.
--
B2D, sharing the grief with Lumina.
Ashikaga
> Normally, I'm not one for sharing life events with you guys, but I'm
> feeling very down right now and feel the need to talk some...
Yeah, I feel for you. I really don't like dogs, but if I were you, I would
feel for it too. After all, it's a lost of a family member. I don't know
if I'll ever have to put my cat to sleep when he gets old and is having
problems. I don't think I can, actually.... He is the best thing happens
to me in my life at this point actually. He is my natural anti-depressant
in this turbulent time of my life.
Anywayz, I'll be looking forward to see her pictures, and maybe we all can
help you get over with a past event. It's not easy, but we need to move
forward.... (*hug*)
> -Lumina Dragon
>
> P.S. I took some pictures of her today, to remember her the way I want
> to, and when I finish this roll and develop them I'll see to scanning
> one in and uploading it. I just don't know when it will be.
Ashikaga
Dalboz Dragon
<kewh...@hotmail.com> earned a wedgie by saying:
<snip>
I really feel for you, Lumina. Several years ago, we had to put
Amber, our golden retriever, to sleep after she developed cancer. It
was very difficult, so much so to the point where both my dad and I
couldn't go into the vets office with her because it would have been
too difficult for us. Even our cat was affected by her passing. Even
now, C.B. is very lonely and every night after dinner she sits at the
window and meowing for someone to spend time with her (when Amber was
around, the two of them would curl up together every night after
dinner and Amber would clean C.B.).
I won't lie. It does hurt, especially because you are losing a member
of the family. Even now, I still miss Amber. But it does get better.
You will remember the good times much more, and you will feel that
your life has been richer for having had this dog. And you've given
this dog a good happy life, never wanting for anything. That helps to
remember that when I think about Amber. She was always happy and
never wanted for anything.
Time will heal all wounds. It may seem a bit trite, but it is true.
:)
--
Dalboz Dragon -=(UDIC and Grass Growth Analyst of dANIP)=-
AIM: BeerStud362
ICQ: 14285834
Dispenser of the Holy *SMACK!* (Not to be confused with *SLAP*)
--------------
d+++ e+ N+ T+ Om+ U1!2!47'S'9!K!L u- uC+ uF- uG++ uLB+ uA+
nC++ nH nP+ nI++ nPT nS+ nT o oA+++ y+++ a23
--------------
"I would rather die than forsake any one of them."
- Tenchi Muyo!
Lumina Dragon
BubbaDragon wrote:
>
> <Snip>
>
> I share your grief, Lumina. In 1992 my family had to put down our cat, but
> it was a good thing to do because she had lived her life (about 20 years I
> think.), and deserved a humane way out. Frisky, my Wire-terrier/poodle mix,
> was also put to sleep more recently, and that loss is still being felt
> today.
I know, but she was still so young (seven, according to the vet's
records, not six as we had thought), and it just didn't seem fair to do
this.
I'm feeling better today; spending all yesterday venting has really
helped. I understand that had things gotten worse, it would only be
worse off for everyone involved. We didn't want to remember her as a dog
who had seriously hurt anyone, and my aunt said that a coworker of hers
had a dog that started biting and after putting it to sleep, it was
learned the dog was sick. So it's possible that if we had let this go
on, the dog's behavior wouldn't only get worse, but its health as well
would suffer.
I'm still not completely over this, but I understand why it was done,
and I'm beginning to cope with it. I was jsut very distraught yesterday
and needed to vent my feelings. Thank you all; it helped me a lot.
> B2D, sharing the grief with Lumina.
Thanks.
-Lumina Dragon
Lumina Dragon
Ashikaga wrote:
>
> "Lumina Dragon" wrote...
> > Normally, I'm not one for sharing life events with you guys, but I'm
> > feeling very down right now and feel the need to talk some...
> <snipped the emotional bits, maybe we can all ignore that part...>
>
> Yeah, I feel for you. I really don't like dogs, but if I were you, I would
> feel for it too. After all, it's a lost of a family member. I don't know
> if I'll ever have to put my cat to sleep when he gets old and is having
> problems. I don't think I can, actually.... He is the best thing happens
> to me in my life at this point actually. He is my natural anti-depressant
> in this turbulent time of my life.
Ohh, I don't even want to think about having to go through this with the
cats. It's too soon for me, still.
I know that three of the cats are getting up in age, but I believe they
still have a few years left in them. And the fourth is about a decade
younger, besides.
At least... at least it will be easier (although probably not much) to
have the consolation that the cats had lived full lives. Sparky didn't,
and that's what makes it all so hard to bear.
> Anywayz, I'll be looking forward to see her pictures, and maybe we all can
> help you get over with a past event. It's not easy, but we need to move
> forward.... (*hug*)
Thanks. And once I finish the roll and get it developed, I'll scan a
picture in for you guys.
-Lumina Dragon
Lumina Dragon
Dalboz Dragon wrote:
>
> On Wed, 20 Feb 2002 18:49:58 -0600, Lumina Dragon
> <kewh...@hotmail.com> earned a wedgie by saying:
>
> <snip>
>
> I really feel for you, Lumina. Several years ago, we had to put
> Amber, our golden retriever, to sleep after she developed cancer. It
> was very difficult, so much so to the point where both my dad and I
> couldn't go into the vets office with her because it would have been
> too difficult for us.
I understand. I was the same.... I went along for the ride to the vet's,
because I didn't want to be alone and I didn't want my aunt to face it
alone, but I couldn't bring myself to go in there.... I wanted to
remember Sparky the way she was that morning. I didn't want to remember
her as she was put to sleep.
My aunt stayed with her. They were close, and it was probably a comfort
to the dog to have Rose with her. But I just couldn't.
> Even our cat was affected by her passing. Even
> now, C.B. is very lonely and every night after dinner she sits at the
> window and meowing for someone to spend time with her (when Amber was
> around, the two of them would curl up together every night after
> dinner and Amber would clean C.B.).
It's jsut that everything keeps reminding us of her. How we had to keep
barrier gates up so that the cats had a safe place from her... how we
had to tiptoe around lest she start barking and wake my aunt (who works
night shifts) up.... how the dog would always watch out the front room
window as the car pulled in, and run up to greet Rose as she came home
every morning.
Everything reminds us of her... but the memries hurt right now. It's too
soon. I want to be able to remember without becoming miserable.
> I won't lie. It does hurt, especially because you are losing a member
> of the family. Even now, I still miss Amber. But it does get better.
> You will remember the good times much more, and you will feel that
> your life has been richer for having had this dog. And you've given
> this dog a good happy life, never wanting for anything. That helps to
> remember that when I think about Amber. She was always happy and
> never wanted for anything.
>
> Time will heal all wounds. It may seem a bit trite, but it is true.
I know. I understand what you're saying... but it hasn't been time
enough, yet.
-Lumina Dragon
Ashikaga
> Ashikaga wrote:
> > "Lumina Dragon" wrote...
> > > Normally, I'm not one for sharing life events with you guys, but I'm
> > > feeling very down right now and feel the need to talk some...
> > <snipped the emotional bits, maybe we can all ignore that part...>
> >
> > Yeah, I feel for you. I really don't like dogs, but if I were you, I
would
> > feel for it too. After all, it's a lost of a family member. I don't
know
> > if I'll ever have to put my cat to sleep when he gets old and is having
> > problems. I don't think I can, actually.... He is the best thing
happens
> > to me in my life at this point actually. He is my natural
anti-depressant
> > in this turbulent time of my life.
>
> Ohh, I don't even want to think about having to go through this with the
> cats. It's too soon for me, still.
Yes. My cat bites me regularly though.
> I know that three of the cats are getting up in age, but I believe they
> still have a few years left in them. And the fourth is about a decade
> younger, besides.
D*mn, you have tons of cats.
> At least... at least it will be easier (although probably not much) to
> have the consolation that the cats had lived full lives. Sparky didn't,
> and that's what makes it all so hard to bear.
.... Sorry again.
> > Anywayz, I'll be looking forward to see her pictures, and maybe we all
can
> > help you get over with a past event. It's not easy, but we need to move
> > forward.... (*hug*)
>
> Thanks. And once I finish the roll and get it developed, I'll scan a
> picture in for you guys.
:-)
> -Lumina Dragon
Ashikaga
Whreky
>> think.), and deserved a humane way out. Frisky, my Wire-terrier/poodle mix,
>> was also put to sleep more recently, and that loss is still being felt
>> today.
>
>I know, but she was still so young (seven, according to the vet's
>records, not six as we had thought), and it just didn't seem fair to do
>this.
I know how you feel, Lumina. Awhile back we had adopted a tabby that had been
left in the neighborhood when the tenants moved out. We named him Bubbychucks.
He was really a loveable lug, weighing over 18 lbs at his fattest, but he just
would not use the litter box, even though we had him neutered when we got
him(about 6 month old). Our cats stay inside all the time. After he had ruined
the carpet in every room in the house, we had all the carpet removed only to
find that the oak floors underneath were also ruined and had to be sanded and
revarnished. All this time with no carpet, he used the litter box. After a
year, we got new carpet and he immediately went to pissing cupfuls on the
carpet, so we made tha hard choice to have him euthanised. It still is painful
occasionally. I still miss Eowyn and Galadriel, our first cats, though they
lived to 17 years, and have been dead for over 10 years, still there are days
when I just miss them soooo much!
~~O^O~~
Optician Dragon
-==UDIC==-
You who are rich and whose troubles are few
May come around to see my point of view.
What price the crown of a king on his throne
When you're chained in the dark all alone?
Great Siberian Dragon
news:3C744436...@hotmail.com...
> Normally, I'm not one for sharing life events with you guys, but I'm
> feeling very down right now and feel the need to talk some...
>
> Last night, our dog got in a rowdier-than-usual mood and was snapping at
> us and, in two cases, bit. As this is not the first instance in which
> she has acted up, my mom and aunt made the incredibly hard decision that
> enough was enough, and we had her euthanized today. And while I
> originally wasn't too fond of the dog, she really grew on me over the
> time -- nigh six years -- we've had her, and I was not terribly happy at
> what had to be done. My aunt was hardest hit, though, as she and the dog
> were close, and further, she was the one who made the decision, and that
> has really got her down. So this day kinda really sucks when put into
> perspective.
:(
I'm really sorry for your loss...
- GSD
Silvan
> Normally, I'm not one for sharing life events with you guys, but I'm
> feeling very down right now and feel the need to talk some...
It would take a court order and a shitload of guns to get me to murder one
of my dogs.
I'm afraid I can't say anything further without launching into a scathing
tirade that you really don't need to hear right now.
I'm trying not to cry.
--
Michael McIntyre zone 6b in SW VA
Silvan Pagan Dragon -=[UDIC]=-
rm -Rf /mnt/windows/windows
www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/5407/index.html
Lumina Dragon
Silvan wrote:
>
> Lumina Dragon wrote:
>
> > Normally, I'm not one for sharing life events with you guys, but I'm
> > feeling very down right now and feel the need to talk some...
>
> It would take a court order and a shitload of guns to get me to murder one
> of my dogs.
>
> I'm afraid I can't say anything further without launching into a scathing
> tirade that you really don't need to hear right now.
I know how you feel -- I was trying to persuade my aunt to give the dog
another chance -- but that dog was not going to get better. In my head,
I knew it. The dog was too old to be trained, and.... I gave the reasons
above. I don't want to repeat them here.
I knew it wouldn't get better, but... I just didn't want to believe it.
It's just one of those things where there is no right answer.
-Lumina Dragon
P.S. Don't even blame my aunt -- she does enough of that herself. That
dog was her little girl, and it hurt her more than anything to have to
do this.
Acid Queen
dragons.org says...
> Lumina Dragon wrote:
>
> > Normally, I'm not one for sharing life events with you guys, but I'm
> > feeling very down right now and feel the need to talk some...
>
> It would take a court order and a shitload of guns to get me to murder one
> of my dogs.
>
> I'm afraid I can't say anything further without launching into a scathing
> tirade that you really don't need to hear right now.
That's good, because that will save me an equally scathing tirade about
irresponsible, emotional pet owners.
AQ
Acid Queen
says...
> P.S. Don't even blame my aunt -- she does enough of that herself. That
> dog was her little girl, and it hurt her more than anything to have to
> do this.
Whether someone wants to put her, or you, on a guilt trip doesn't
matter a whole lot in the Great Scheme of Things - that she had the
intestinal fortitude to do the right thing is what counts. Many pet
owners put their emotions before the welfare of their pets, and pets in
general. I hope she was able to go to the vets and be with the dog?
The thing to think about is the fact the dog had a long and happy
existence in a caring environment, and that when that was no longer
possible, she was dealt with quickly and painlessly.
You are correct about Dalmations, and I've seen the alternative all too
often - the animal confined in a cage outside the house, either not
walked or muzzled and so on. I know it is no consolation, but 7 years
is up there for a Dalmation - 8 years is about their lifespan.
Kudos to your aunt for her decision, and my empathy and sympathy to
you.
AQ, who more in anger than sorrow, prefers animals to humans.
Ashikaga
> silvan-pagan says...
> > Lumina Dragon wrote:
> >
> > > Normally, I'm not one for sharing life events with you guys, but I'm
> > > feeling very down right now and feel the need to talk some...
> >
> > It would take a court order and a shitload of guns to get me to murder
one
> > of my dogs.
> >
> > I'm afraid I can't say anything further without launching into a
scathing
> > tirade that you really don't need to hear right now.
>
> That's good, because that will save me an equally scathing tirade about
> irresponsible, emotional pet owners.
You are totally erimessian in this regard. I am not sure if this is the
best instance to say such harsh words to people who were severed from their
family members. My cat bites me all the time, so by not putting him to
death made me an irresponsible pet owner? Go threaten your kids of putting
them to death when they go out and be the bully of the yard.
> AQ
Ashikaga
Acid Queen
ashi...@worldnet.att.net says...
> "Acid Queen" wrote...
> > silvan-pagan says...
> > > Lumina Dragon wrote:
> > >
> > > > Normally, I'm not one for sharing life events with you guys, but I'm
> > > > feeling very down right now and feel the need to talk some...
> > >
> > > It would take a court order and a shitload of guns to get me to murder
> one
> > > of my dogs.
> > >
> > > I'm afraid I can't say anything further without launching into a
> scathing
> > > tirade that you really don't need to hear right now.
> >
> > That's good, because that will save me an equally scathing tirade about
> > irresponsible, emotional pet owners.
>
> You are totally erimessian in this regard.
Dammit - get off comparing me to Erimess! She and I disagreed quite
strongly on this very issue a little while back.
> I am not sure if this is the
> best instance to say such harsh words to people who were severed from their
> family members.
I've changed the headers, so that way we can separate the issues, and
hopefully have a productive exchange.
> My cat bites me all the time, so by not putting him to
> death made me an irresponsible pet owner?
If your cat's bite was capable of killing someone, then yes, that would
be true. If your cat were tiger sized, for example.
When you choose, for your own amusement or emotional needs or whatever,
to enslave an animal and force it to live by an unnatural set of
circumstances/rules, you take upon yourself the responsibility for
ensuring that it doesn't harm other humans. That puts you into the
position of either permanently caging it, or putting it to sleep.
It then becomes a matter of which you consider to be the lesser of two
evils - painless euthanasia, or caging an animal. The best alternative
is not to enslave creatures for your own amusement in the first place.
If you can't avoid that, select only those already enslaved (shelter
critters or strays) and ones that you can provide the optimum freedom.
> Go threaten your kids of putting
> them to death when they go out and be the bully of the yard.
If you want a serious discussion, don't raise ridiculous comparisons.
AQ
Ashikaga
> In ashikaga says...
> > "Acid Queen" wrote...
> > > silvan-pagan says...
> > > > I'm afraid I can't say anything further without launching into a
> > scathing
> > > > tirade that you really don't need to hear right now.
> > >
> > > That's good, because that will save me an equally scathing tirade
about
> > > irresponsible, emotional pet owners.
> >
> > You are totally erimessian in this regard.
>
> Dammit - get off comparing me to Erimess! She and I disagreed quite
> strongly on this very issue a little while back.
Sorry. I know there are quite a few differences between you two, but this
one is too similar to go by without mentioning it. Maybe you don't think
so, but don't take the animal issue literally, what I mean is how you two
deal with (or dismiss) other people's feelings. You two meant it the good
way, but that's not how most people take your words. I know erimess does
that all the time to me and I am used to it so I don't get angry at her, and
I think that's what you mean when you said those harsh sounding words, and I
think that's your way to tell people "forget about the stuff already."
> > I am not sure if this is the
> > best instance to say such harsh words to people who were severed from
their
> > family members.
>
> I've changed the headers, so that way we can separate the issues, and
> hopefully have a productive exchange.
We've always have this kind of exchange of thoughts. I hope the above
paragraph I wrote is one of those.
> > My cat bites me all the time, so by not putting him to
> > death made me an irresponsible pet owner?
>
> If your cat's bite was capable of killing someone, then yes, that would
> be true. If your cat were tiger sized, for example.
No, but my cat hurt me badly. Mostly because I love him too much, and he
got annoyed so he bites me and left me a scar before (it's gone now). It's
possibly fatal, if you think of it. If he brought home some disease, and he
bit me, I could potentially be dead. Even that's the condition, I would not
put my cat to sleep. But that's just me and totally beside the point.
> When you choose, for your own amusement or emotional needs or whatever,
> to enslave an animal and force it to live by an unnatural set of
> circumstances/rules, you take upon yourself the responsibility for
> ensuring that it doesn't harm other humans. That puts you into the
> position of either permanently caging it, or putting it to sleep.
That's comparing apples and oranges with what I told you. I am not going to
argue that's the case. No one else but Lumina's family member got bitten I
think, and certainly nobody trained her to do so. Besides, it's the
trainer's fault. The dog who bit people to death, if it had been trained to
do that, in my opinion, is only an accessory, not the main criminal. The
trainer should be responsible for the death. I hope that's what you were
suggesting.
> It then becomes a matter of which you consider to be the lesser of two
> evils - painless euthanasia, or caging an animal. The best alternative
> is not to enslave creatures for your own amusement in the first place.
> If you can't avoid that, select only those already enslaved (shelter
> critters or strays) and ones that you can provide the optimum freedom.
I have no idea how this is relevant to Lumina's dog.
> > Go threaten your kids of putting
> > them to death when they go out and be the bully of the yard.
>
> If you want a serious discussion, don't raise ridiculous comparisons.
I think our beloved pets are just as important as our kids. I don't have a
kid, so my cat IS my kid. Do you think I'll put my cat to death just
because it goes out and bit somebody for some reason? No! I'll teach my
cat not to, like Lumina tried. But just like a kid, do you think I'll kill
my kid if s/he ever go out and bully someone? No! I think it's a totally
relevant argument, YMMV. You see, it doesn't matter what my kid did, s/he
is still my kid, same thing applies to my cat. It doesn't matter what my
cat did, he is still my cat. Lumina's aunt chose to euthenize the dog,
whereas I would opt not to. That's the point.
My cat blinded my neighbor's cat before, did you know that? My neighbor
never asked about it, but if they asked, I will feel sorry for their cat. I
think about that poor cat also when I was trying to get help for my own cat
from the vet. The very last time I saw it, it was blinded, but after that I
have never seen that black cat of my neighbor's again, but don't bet that
I'll kill my cat over it, not unless they ordered it from the court. Maybe
you don't see pets and kids as equivalent, but some of us do. (I never like
kids anywayz)
> AQ
Ashikaga
Acid Queen
> "Acid Queen" wrote...
> > Dammit - get off comparing me to Erimess! She and I disagreed quite
> > strongly on this very issue a little while back.
>
> Sorry. I know there are quite a few differences between you two, but this
> one is too similar to go by without mentioning it. Maybe you don't think
> so, but don't take the animal issue literally, what I mean is how you two
> deal with (or dismiss) other people's feelings.
I intended my words to be harsh. I take animal issues very seriously -
I am a supporter, and one time activist, of a well-known and much
maligned animal rights group. Silvan Pagan basically chose to try to
put Lumina, who had no control over what happened, on a guilt trip with
words like "murder".
> You two meant it the good
> way, but that's not how most people take your words. I know erimess does
> that all the time to me and I am used to it so I don't get angry at her, and
> I think that's what you mean when you said those harsh sounding words, and I
> think that's your way to tell people "forget about the stuff already."
9 times out of 10 I am very aware of the effect of my words. The tenth
time I wind up grovelling.
>
> > When you choose, for your own amusement or emotional needs or whatever,
> > to enslave an animal and force it to live by an unnatural set of
> > circumstances/rules, you take upon yourself the responsibility for
> > ensuring that it doesn't harm other humans. That puts you into the
> > position of either permanently caging it, or putting it to sleep.
>
> That's comparing apples and oranges with what I told you. I am not going to
> argue that's the case. No one else but Lumina's family member got bitten I
> think, and certainly nobody trained her to do so. Besides, it's the
> trainer's fault.
More than likely, it is ill health, mental or physical, of the dog. I'm
talking about responsible pet ownership, not Lumina's dog - although
his aunt exercised it.
> The dog who bit people to death,
Some dogs, especially when they get in packs, do that. Some dogs are
bred for that. All such training is intolerable, in my book.
> if it had been trained to
> do that, in my opinion, is only an accessory, not the main criminal. The
> trainer should be responsible for the death. I hope that's what you were
> suggesting.
I was saying that I think that a vicious or dangerous animal has to be
caged or put to sleep. The fact it is in those circumstances is the
responsibility of humans. It may or may not be the fault of people that
it is dangerous.
>
> > It then becomes a matter of which you consider to be the lesser of two
> > evils - painless euthanasia, or caging an animal. The best alternative
> > is not to enslave creatures for your own amusement in the first place.
> > If you can't avoid that, select only those already enslaved (shelter
> > critters or strays) and ones that you can provide the optimum freedom.
>
> I have no idea how this is relevant to Lumina's dog.
It isn't. That is why I changed the header.
>
> > > Go threaten your kids of putting
> > > them to death when they go out and be the bully of the yard.
> >
> > If you want a serious discussion, don't raise ridiculous comparisons.
>
> I think our beloved pets are just as important as our kids.
If you can't tell the difference between a sentient being and an
animal, then there isn't much point in the discussion. Animals don't
make intelligent choices and can't be held to standards as can humans,
and human children.
AQ
Ashikaga
>Acid Queen wrote:
>
> >maligned animal rights group. Silvan Pagan basically chose to try to
> >put Lumina, who had no control over what happened, on a guilt trip with
> >words like "murder".
>
> thing two of my neighbors had some tasty dogs. Well after washing out
> the offal they were tasty. I only regret the pregnant cat got away.
> I like a nice dessert of "kitten surprise", you know.
(*beat the hell out of Polychromic*)
> --
> The Polychromic Dragon (Michael Cecil) of the -=={UDIC}==-
> http://home.attbi.com/~macecil/ mac...@attbi.com
> UDIC d++ e++ N++ T Om+ U12!3!4!5!6!A!WML!7'!S'!8!9! u+++ uC++ uF uG++
> nC++ nR---- nH++ nP++ uLB++ uA+ nI++ nPT nS+ nT+ wM- wC y+S a37
> Yet Another RGCUD Photo Gallery: http://home.attbi.com/~rgcud/
Ashikaga
Ashikaga
> ashikaga says...
> > "Acid Queen" wrote...
>
> > > Dammit - get off comparing me to Erimess! She and I disagreed quite
> > > strongly on this very issue a little while back.
> >
> > Sorry. I know there are quite a few differences between you two, but
this
> > one is too similar to go by without mentioning it. Maybe you don't
think
> > so, but don't take the animal issue literally, what I mean is how you
two
> > deal with (or dismiss) other people's feelings.
>
> I intended my words to be harsh. I take animal issues very seriously -
> I am a supporter, and one time activist, of a well-known and much
> maligned animal rights group. Silvan Pagan basically chose to try to
> put Lumina, who had no control over what happened, on a guilt trip with
> words like "murder".
You don't know the meaning of Silvan Pagan's words. I don't see them that
way as you describe. He was trying to comfort him but he doesn't want to
get all disgusting.
I don't believe you are a real animal right activist, and here is my
argument: you have absolutely no love for animals. If you do that to
distinguish yourself from erimess, then I guess you have some success, but
otherwise, what you've been supposedly doing is not an honorable effort to
animals or human beings, but that's just my opinion from little I've known
you from reading this post.
> > You two meant it the good
> > way, but that's not how most people take your words. I know erimess
does
> > that all the time to me and I am used to it so I don't get angry at her,
and
> > I think that's what you mean when you said those harsh sounding words,
and I
> > think that's your way to tell people "forget about the stuff already."
>
> 9 times out of 10 I am very aware of the effect of my words. The tenth
> time I wind up grovelling.
Then you should be more careful. Because you might hurt somebody more than
you expected in one of those nine chances. I don't like grovelling, but
giving unnecessary emotional distress to others is no better. It's not
either/or by the way. I am pretty sure there are other things you can do
beside grovelling or hurt somebody.
<snip>
> > if it had been trained to
> > do that, in my opinion, is only an accessory, not the main criminal.
The
> > trainer should be responsible for the death. I hope that's what you
were
> > suggesting.
>
> I was saying that I think that a vicious or dangerous animal has to be
> caged or put to sleep. The fact it is in those circumstances is the
> responsibility of humans. It may or may not be the fault of people that
> it is dangerous.
What's the point of this one you just said? Tautology (or whatever that
term is) is good only if you play politics, but it's not a valid argument.
> > > It then becomes a matter of which you consider to be the lesser of two
> > > evils - painless euthanasia, or caging an animal. The best alternative
> > > is not to enslave creatures for your own amusement in the first place.
> > > If you can't avoid that, select only those already enslaved (shelter
> > > critters or strays) and ones that you can provide the optimum freedom.
> >
> > I have no idea how this is relevant to Lumina's dog.
>
> It isn't. That is why I changed the header.
Then there is no point for this argument. The whole point is about the
emotional consequence for Lumina after his dog got put to sleep, as well as
whether the animal lives should be valued somewhat higher than that. I
personally think a soul is a soul, whether the soul is embodied on a human,
an animal, a plant or other organisms. But you may find that idea radical
and a little difficult to accept. Perhaps that's the effect of that thing
called Old Testament, that men are put here on earth to dominate the animals
and plants, which is a totally ridiculous theory, if not sinful.
This entire argument I've seen thus far makes me believe you are not capable
of having any emotional involvement, especially to animals. Not everything
is totally logical. There are parts of our lives where you should stop
analyzing it with logics. While making decisions one should never have too
much emotional involvement to alter the result, something like love is never
logical, and logics doesn't apply. Apply logics on things like love is just
ridiculous. Do you actually do a cost/return analysis on how much love
you'll get from your love interest if you choose to send a red rose instead
of a fancy dinner? I think this is ridiculous if you do so, and in fact,
only tells me you have become an android, and can't love like a human
anymore.
Are you familiar with a movie called Blade Runner? Or the book which the
movie is based on? Which is called "Do Android Dream of Electric Sheeps?"
Anywayz, androids do dream about electric sheeps, but those dream are
implanted, because in the setting of the story, human technology is advance
enough to make these replicants and they are every bit human, except one
thing: they are incapable to empathize.
I see lots of real human beings lack of empathy, and I don't think the human
tech is that advanced that the ones I see are actually andorids. But do you
think this is the result of the so called advancement in human technology
and civilization? If that's so, then it's very sad. Human beings have
become nothing but bunch of droids.
> > > > Go threaten your kids of putting
> > > > them to death when they go out and be the bully of the yard.
> > >
> > > If you want a serious discussion, don't raise ridiculous comparisons.
> >
> > I think our beloved pets are just as important as our kids.
>
> If you can't tell the difference between a sentient being and an
> animal, then there isn't much point in the discussion. Animals don't
> make intelligent choices and can't be held to standards as can humans,
> and human children.
It's not whether they are sentient beings or not, it's about whether you
love them or not. Obviously you don't. Besides, your argument works
against yourself. Human makes choice, which holds them responsible for
their doings. You know the difference between first degree murder and
manslaughter right? One is pre-planned with a conscious effort, the other
one is involuntary.
> AQ
Ashikaga
Ashikaga
> "Ashikaga" wrote:
> >"Polychromic" wrote...
> >>Acid Queen wrote:
> >>
> >> >maligned animal rights group. Silvan Pagan basically chose to try to
> >> >put Lumina, who had no control over what happened, on a guilt trip
with
> >> >words like "murder".
> >>
> >> Hmmm. All he succeeded in doing for me was to make me hungry. Good
> >> thing two of my neighbors had some tasty dogs. Well after washing out
> >> the offal they were tasty. I only regret the pregnant cat got away.
> >> I like a nice dessert of "kitten surprise", you know.
> >
> >(*beat the hell out of Polychromic*)
>
>
> Thanks, that hairball has been stuck in there for ages.
(*furious*) ARGH!!! I knew you are the one who ate Mr. Furball. (*cast
"Puke Inducing Feeling Because of Hairball Indigestion" Divine Spell Level
3 - Permenant Effect on Polychromic*)
Helgraf Dragon
>
> "Acid Queen" wrote...
> > In ashikaga says...
> > > "Acid Queen" wrote...
> > > > silvan-pagan says...
> <snip>
> > > > > I'm afraid I can't say anything further without launching into a
> > > scathing
> > > > > tirade that you really don't need to hear right now.
> > > >
> > > > That's good, because that will save me an equally scathing tirade
> about
> > > > irresponsible, emotional pet owners.
> > >
> > > You are totally erimessian in this regard.
> >
> > Dammit - get off comparing me to Erimess! She and I disagreed quite
> > strongly on this very issue a little while back.
>
> Sorry. I know there are quite a few differences between you two, but this
> one is too similar to go by without mentioning it. Maybe you don't think
> so, but don't take the animal issue literally, what I mean is how you two
> deal with (or dismiss) other people's feelings. You two meant it the good
> way, but that's not how most people take your words.
Well thank you for deciding how I take AQ's words...
--
Helgraf Dragon, NSA Dragon, Echelon Liason, Fossil
Chronicler of the Circle of Dragons, King of Sloth
__ The Exodus of the *Other Side*; Psychological torch
/__\ d++ e++ N T-- Om+ U1!23!4!5!6!7'!S'!8!KA!L!
/|__|\ u+++ uC++ uF uG++ uLB+ uA++ nC+ nH+ nP+ nI+ nPT nS++
|----| nT+ y++ a27;a1728 Mao Count : 5, Plonk Count : 5
|_||_| When your home is a torus, expect curves.
Helgraf Dragon
Here's something to keep in mind before you continue in slapping people
with labels for your own comfort. It is quite possible to love animals
and still consider that when their actions cross a certain line that
they need to be put to sleep - or when they've deteriorated to the point
where they're in regular pain, for instance.
This seems to be a point you don't want to accept even can exist;
instead you pick the part of the argument you disagree with and on at
least two occasions have laid accusatory/inflammatory/insulting labels
against the arguer instead.
> > > You two meant it the good
> > > way, but that's not how most people take your words. I know erimess
> does
> > > that all the time to me and I am used to it so I don't get angry at her,
> and
> > > I think that's what you mean when you said those harsh sounding words,
> and I
> > > think that's your way to tell people "forget about the stuff already."
> >
> > 9 times out of 10 I am very aware of the effect of my words. The tenth
> > time I wind up grovelling.
>
> Then you should be more careful. Because you might hurt somebody more than
> you expected in one of those nine chances. I don't like grovelling, but
> giving unnecessary emotional distress to others is no better. It's not
> either/or by the way. I am pretty sure there are other things you can do
> beside grovelling or hurt somebody.
>
Mmmm, has it occured to you that there is a point beyond which your
being careful means you're the one who gets walked on?
Additionally, considering the number of people I've dealt with in my
life, I'd have to say AQ is considerably more careful (and considerate)
than quite a few people who have stepped up to the plate "against" her.
Frankly, I find her more agreeable than you.
> <snip>
> > > if it had been trained to
> > > do that, in my opinion, is only an accessory, not the main criminal.
> The
> > > trainer should be responsible for the death. I hope that's what you
> were
> > > suggesting.
> >
> > I was saying that I think that a vicious or dangerous animal has to be
> > caged or put to sleep. The fact it is in those circumstances is the
> > responsibility of humans. It may or may not be the fault of people that
> > it is dangerous.
>
> What's the point of this one you just said? Tautology (or whatever that
> term is) is good only if you play politics, but it's not a valid argument.
Actually, what she said is
A) I think that a vicious or dangerous animal has to be caged or put to
sleep
B) The circumstances which led to the animal becoming vicious or
dangerous is the responsibility of the humans who "domesticated" the
animal to keep as a pet.
C) An animal can be inherently dangerous; this is not the fault of
people, but keeping a dangerous animal as a pet is.
So I'm not seeing your tautology argument.
If I'm wrong, AQ, feel free to step in and correct me.
> > > > It then becomes a matter of which you consider to be the lesser of two
> > > > evils - painless euthanasia, or caging an animal. The best alternative
> > > > is not to enslave creatures for your own amusement in the first place.
> > > > If you can't avoid that, select only those already enslaved (shelter
> > > > critters or strays) and ones that you can provide the optimum freedom.
> > >
> > > I have no idea how this is relevant to Lumina's dog.
> >
> > It isn't. That is why I changed the header.
>
> Then there is no point for this argument. The whole point is about the
> emotional consequence for Lumina after his dog got put to sleep, as well as
> whether the animal lives should be valued somewhat higher than that.
WHOA! Stop the horse right there.
First you say there's no point for the argument because it's all about
"the emotional consequence for Lumina after his dog got put to sleep."
That's fine - but then you go on to say "as well as ...." at which
point, you've just defeated your own statement by proving there's a
second point : Whether animal lives should be valued higher than that -
which, in fact _does_ relate to the argument you and AQ are having.
Don't confuse the facts.
>I
> personally think a soul is a soul, whether the soul is embodied on a human,
> an animal, a plant or other organisms. But you may find that idea radical
> and a little difficult to accept. Perhaps that's the effect of that thing
> called Old Testament, that men are put here on earth to dominate the animals
> and plants, which is a totally ridiculous theory, if not sinful.
Mmmmm, if you're assuming AQ is engrained in judeo or christian beliefs,
you might as well stop here and now.
By the way, I'm well aware of the OT, and I still maintain that man's
dominion is a stewardship which is an entirely different animal.
Furthermore, if you read AQ's statements again, you'll note a certain
undercurrent of distaste for people domesticating animals; especially
when they then refuse to take the responsibility for the actions of the
animal they have "dominated/domesticated".
Do _try_ and keep your statements clear of personal attacks.
> This entire argument I've seen thus far makes me believe you are not capable
> of having any emotional involvement, especially to animals. Not everything
> is totally logical. There are parts of our lives where you should stop
> analyzing it with logics. While making decisions one should never have too
> much emotional involvement to alter the result, something like love is never
> logical, and logics doesn't apply. Apply logics on things like love is just
> ridiculous. Do you actually do a cost/return analysis on how much love
> you'll get from your love interest if you choose to send a red rose instead
> of a fancy dinner? I think this is ridiculous if you do so, and in fact,
> only tells me you have become an android, and can't love like a human
> anymore.
Oh god - I'm not even going near this one with a ten foot pole. :puts
on his asbestos suit: I'm getting angrier and angrier with your
"debate" style the further I get into this post. It's insulting,
demeaning, and getting downright trollish.
> Are you familiar with a movie called Blade Runner? Or the book which the
> movie is based on? Which is called "Do Android Dream of Electric Sheeps?"
> Anywayz, androids do dream about electric sheeps, but those dream are
> implanted, because in the setting of the story, human technology is advance
> enough to make these replicants and they are every bit human, except one
> thing: they are incapable to empathize.
I'm quite familiar with the work. Do you remember the scene at the very
end, where (Rutger Hauer?) the male replicant saves Harrison Ford's
character?
> I see lots of real human beings lack of empathy, and I don't think the human
> tech is that advanced that the ones I see are actually andorids. But do you
> think this is the result of the so called advancement in human technology
> and civilization? If that's so, then it's very sad. Human beings have
> become nothing but bunch of droids.
:shakes his head: It's easy to condemn in black and white, isn't it?
> > > > > Go threaten your kids of putting
> > > > > them to death when they go out and be the bully of the yard.
> > > >
> > > > If you want a serious discussion, don't raise ridiculous comparisons.
TESTIFY!
> > > I think our beloved pets are just as important as our kids.
> >
> > If you can't tell the difference between a sentient being and an
> > animal, then there isn't much point in the discussion. Animals don't
> > make intelligent choices and can't be held to standards as can humans,
> > and human children.
>
> It's not whether they are sentient beings or not, it's about whether you
> love them or not. Obviously you don't.
Does your brain permit you any variance of choices between A and
Opposite of A?
> Besides, your argument works
> against yourself. Human makes choice, which holds them responsible for
> their doings. You know the difference between first degree murder and
> manslaughter right? One is pre-planned with a conscious effort, the other
> one is involuntary.
And how does what you just said invalidate what she said?
> > AQ
> Ashikaga
Ashikaga
> On Mon, 25 Feb 2002 06:09:28 GMT, "Ashikaga"
> <ashi...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> >"Polychromic" wrote...
>
> >> Thanks, that hairball has been stuck in there for ages.
> >
> >(*furious*) ARGH!!! I knew you are the one who ate Mr. Furball. (*cast
> >"Puke Inducing Feeling Because of Hairball Indigestion" Divine Spell
Level
> >3 - Permenant Effect on Polychromic*)
>
> that furball in his stomach* Good thing it's not there anymore.
(*cast "Permenent Hairball in Throat" Divine Spell Level 2*)
> Yummm. These kitty skulls are nice and crunchy. I like the gooey
> center.
(*repeat the beating*)
Ashikaga
> Ashikaga wrote:
<snip>
> > Sorry. I know there are quite a few differences between you two, but
this
> > one is too similar to go by without mentioning it. Maybe you don't
think
> > so, but don't take the animal issue literally, what I mean is how you
two
> > deal with (or dismiss) other people's feelings. You two meant it the
good
> > way, but that's not how most people take your words.
>
> Well thank you for deciding how I take AQ's words...
I didn't.
> --
> Helgraf Dragon, NSA Dragon, Echelon Liason, Fossil
> Chronicler of the Circle of Dragons, King of Sloth
> __ The Exodus of the *Other Side*; Psychological torch
> /__\ d++ e++ N T-- Om+ U1!23!4!5!6!7'!S'!8!KA!L!
> /|__|\ u+++ uC++ uF uG++ uLB+ uA++ nC+ nH+ nP+ nI+ nPT nS++
> |----| nT+ y++ a27;a1728 Mao Count : 5, Plonk Count : 5
> |_||_| When your home is a torus, expect curves.
Ashikaga
Ashikaga
> Ashikaga wrote:
> > "Acid Queen" wrote...
> > > ashikaga says...
> > > > "Acid Queen" wrote...
> > You don't know the meaning of Silvan Pagan's words. I don't see them
that
> > way as you describe. He was trying to comfort him but he doesn't want
to
> > get all disgusting.
> >
> > I don't believe you are a real animal right activist, and here is my
> > argument: you have absolutely no love for animals. If you do that to
> > distinguish yourself from erimess, then I guess you have some success,
but
> > otherwise, what you've been supposedly doing is not an honorable effort
to
> > animals or human beings, but that's just my opinion from little I've
known
> > you from reading this post.
>
> Here's something to keep in mind before you continue in slapping people
> with labels for your own comfort. It is quite possible to love animals
> and still consider that when their actions cross a certain line that
> they need to be put to sleep - or when they've deteriorated to the point
> where they're in regular pain, for instance.
What labels and what comfort? We are exemplying the arguments. Please read
the last sentence of my paragraph, I didn't say I actually know her. I did
before, and she protested. I am now trying to avoid that, and somehow you
got angry at me, so what should I do to keep you happy? BTW, I don't need
to keep you happy.
And your argument is no argument. If there is a need that the animal is so
sickly then it'll be better off to end their life, but that's not what we
were arguing. Please stop telling AQ and others that I am personally
attacking her.
> This seems to be a point you don't want to accept even can exist;
> instead you pick the part of the argument you disagree with and on at
> least two occasions have laid accusatory/inflammatory/insulting labels
> against the arguer instead.
I reread my post and I think you are right. I did get angry and was losing
it. That's something AQ can do better than me. BTW, I am not required to
point out every single good argument she made, which is plenty. It's nice
to say "Yes, you are right." That's a nice gesture for politeness reason,
but not required.
> > > > You two meant it the good
> > > > way, but that's not how most people take your words. I know erimess
> > does
> > > > that all the time to me and I am used to it so I don't get angry at
her,
> > and
> > > > I think that's what you mean when you said those harsh sounding
words,
> > and I
> > > > think that's your way to tell people "forget about the stuff
already."
> > >
> > > 9 times out of 10 I am very aware of the effect of my words. The tenth
> > > time I wind up grovelling.
> >
> > Then you should be more careful. Because you might hurt somebody more
than
> > you expected in one of those nine chances. I don't like grovelling, but
> > giving unnecessary emotional distress to others is no better. It's not
> > either/or by the way. I am pretty sure there are other things you can
do
> > beside grovelling or hurt somebody.
>
> Mmmm, has it occured to you that there is a point beyond which your
> being careful means you're the one who gets walked on?
I guess I must be dumb then. May I ask how is it so? Or is it that you
intentionally trying to make this debate into personal fights.
> Additionally, considering the number of people I've dealt with in my
> life, I'd have to say AQ is considerably more careful (and considerate)
> than quite a few people who have stepped up to the plate "against" her.
>
> Frankly, I find her more agreeable than you.
I do like her arguments too under most instance, if you have read my
previous debates with her. This one is an exception though. And if you try
to understand what I was trying to tell AQ about, then you won't get so
angry.
It seems to me you like AQ over me, so you did scrutinizing her words and
found the intended underlying purposes (which I also find) in her messages
but you didn't do the same for mine. Yes, I am capable of doing that. I
guess I should try to sound more academic next time, instead of being a
joker, which I thought people would find me more amiable (of course you
can't find that in this post, because I didn't use it here most of the
time), but I guess I should be more serious next time, so people would stop
finding my argument crude.
She was repeating my argument. That's what I was saying.
> > > > > It then becomes a matter of which you consider to be the lesser of
two
> > > > > evils - painless euthanasia, or caging an animal. The best
alternative
> > > > > is not to enslave creatures for your own amusement in the first
place.
> > > > > If you can't avoid that, select only those already enslaved
(shelter
> > > > > critters or strays) and ones that you can provide the optimum
freedom.
> > > >
> > > > I have no idea how this is relevant to Lumina's dog.
> > >
> > > It isn't. That is why I changed the header.
> >
> > Then there is no point for this argument. The whole point is about the
> > emotional consequence for Lumina after his dog got put to sleep, as well
as
> > whether the animal lives should be valued somewhat higher than that.
>
> WHOA! Stop the horse right there.
>
> First you say there's no point for the argument because it's all about
> "the emotional consequence for Lumina after his dog got put to sleep."
>
> That's fine - but then you go on to say "as well as ...." at which
> point, you've just defeated your own statement by proving there's a
> second point : Whether animal lives should be valued higher than that -
> which, in fact _does_ relate to the argument you and AQ are having.
>
> Don't confuse the facts.
How is providing a second point defeat my argument. This is a complex
matter. Yes, that second point does relate to the argument I and AQ are
having, because I was trying to reroute her back to the main point we were
arguing in a polite manner.
So what's your point? You are so rash minded, you are not reading my words
correctly, so please read it again from The top of this argument, which
starts with "It becomes a matter of...." Don't you see through the trick
she was pulling? All you see are the tricks I was pulling. Which is sign
that you already had picked a side before you tried to analyze my argument
(so don't say my accusation isn't valid). I was merely pointing out she was
bringing a totally new point which I agree with but I couldn't care less
about just because she knows I will agree with it. I think in your
predetermined brain, AQ's arguments are all beautiful and mine are all ugly
and retarded, which is totally beside the point we were making and somehow
you find this to be a big deal you must attack me with.
> >I
> > personally think a soul is a soul, whether the soul is embodied on a
human,
> > an animal, a plant or other organisms. But you may find that idea
radical
> > and a little difficult to accept. Perhaps that's the effect of that
thing
> > called Old Testament, that men are put here on earth to dominate the
animals
> > and plants, which is a totally ridiculous theory, if not sinful.
>
> Mmmmm, if you're assuming AQ is engrained in judeo or christian beliefs,
> you might as well stop here and now.
It doesn't matter which religion she believes, if that has ever occurred to
you? All I was saying is some of us ARE very much influenced by that
fundamental belief that it is the way we do things even some call them by
other relgious name or simly atheists, but they are still convinced by that
men are sent by god to control animals' lives.
I wasn't a Christian, and never is. Not until I came to the U.S. I realized
that human are suppose to control animals' lives. It's a very
Christian-centric belief that predominates people in the U.S..
> By the way, I'm well aware of the OT, and I still maintain that man's
> dominion is a stewardship which is an entirely different animal.
Men are no different than other animals except our logic pattern is
different. Pay some attention to your cats or dogs and you'll realize they
make limited decisions too. My cat sometimes chooses to ignore me on
purpose; he saw me, he knew I wanted to hug him, he hates that when I hug
him when he wasn't in the mood, so he turned his head away and scolded at
me. That is not what you guys call an primative intuition.
They do make limited decisions, but it is my believe that animal didn't
choose to fight against their sense of nature, but homo sapiens chose to
developed that decision making part of the brain, and that's the way we are
today, fighting with each other with words.
> Furthermore, if you read AQ's statements again, you'll note a certain
> undercurrent of distaste for people domesticating animals; especially
> when they then refuse to take the responsibility for the actions of the
> animal they have "dominated/domesticated".
>
> Do _try_ and keep your statements clear of personal attacks.
I will. But please point out where AQ finds people domesticating animals
distasteful to me. All I see is AQ saying people shouldn't domesticate
animals to conduct violence for their own sake, which I agree, but it's the
derivative of that we disagree with each other.
> > This entire argument I've seen thus far makes me believe you are not
capable
> > of having any emotional involvement, especially to animals. Not
everything
> > is totally logical. There are parts of our lives where you should stop
> > analyzing it with logics. While making decisions one should never have
too
> > much emotional involvement to alter the result, something like love is
never
> > logical, and logics doesn't apply. Apply logics on things like love is
just
> > ridiculous. Do you actually do a cost/return analysis on how much love
> > you'll get from your love interest if you choose to send a red rose
instead
> > of a fancy dinner? I think this is ridiculous if you do so, and in
fact,
> > only tells me you have become an android, and can't love like a human
> > anymore.
>
> Oh god - I'm not even going near this one with a ten foot pole. :puts
> on his asbestos suit: I'm getting angrier and angrier with your
> "debate" style the further I get into this post. It's insulting,
> demeaning, and getting downright trollish.
You find it insulting because you are so predetermined I was trying to
insult her. My argument is not insulting at all. I was merely saying if
she has forgot her emotional side, which I think it's part of the humanity.
I am making her to review her life this far if she feels regretful the
direction she is heading (she doesn't have to). I am bringing the matter to
the conscious level, but I was assuming she was unaware of it (a dangerous
assumption). We are friends, and friends are supposedly to be mirrors.
Again, it's a misunderstanding.
> > Are you familiar with a movie called Blade Runner? Or the book which
the
> > movie is based on? Which is called "Do Android Dream of Electric
Sheeps?"
> > Anywayz, androids do dream about electric sheeps, but those dream are
> > implanted, because in the setting of the story, human technology is
advance
> > enough to make these replicants and they are every bit human, except one
> > thing: they are incapable to empathize.
>
> I'm quite familiar with the work. Do you remember the scene at the very
> end, where (Rutger Hauer?) the male replicant saves Harrison Ford's
> character?
I knew that scene very well, and I agree with you that Ridley Scott decided
that replicants are capable of having emotion. But how does that counter my
argument? That part of the movie is a criticism of how human beings are now
even less empathetic than replicants (see how human being in that movie were
so unempathetic that they must kill all the replicants without question
themselves of their own actions).
> > I see lots of real human beings lack of empathy, and I don't think the
human
> > tech is that advanced that the ones I see are actually andorids. But do
you
> > think this is the result of the so called advancement in human
technology
> > and civilization? If that's so, then it's very sad. Human beings have
> > become nothing but bunch of droids.
Please read above paragraph again, now think if the reflection I gave to AQ
is so insufferable.
> :shakes his head: It's easy to condemn in black and white, isn't it?
It's just a misinterpretation of my words. I know I should polish my
language skill some more.
> > > > > > Go threaten your kids of putting
> > > > > > them to death when they go out and be the bully of the yard.
> > > > >
> > > > > If you want a serious discussion, don't raise ridiculous
comparisons.
>
> TESTIFY!
? You want to testify or you want AQ to testify?
> > > > I think our beloved pets are just as important as our kids.
> > >
> > > If you can't tell the difference between a sentient being and an
> > > animal, then there isn't much point in the discussion. Animals don't
> > > make intelligent choices and can't be held to standards as can humans,
> > > and human children.
> >
> > It's not whether they are sentient beings or not, it's about whether you
> > love them or not. Obviously you don't.
>
> Does your brain permit you any variance of choices between A and
> Opposite of A?
I hope you understand what you are saying.
> > Besides, your argument works
> > against yourself. Human makes choice, which holds them responsible for
> > their doings. You know the difference between first degree murder and
> > manslaughter right? One is pre-planned with a conscious effort, the
other
> > one is involuntary.
>
> And how does what you just said invalidate what she said?
I think she'll understand my argument. I don't usually put a line (or a
curve, if you so prefer) between two dots (and you forced me to put many
lines in this posts). I let people put the line so they actually think
about things, the way that is beneficial to them. People interepret things
differently, you know. And my exact interpretation isn't always good for
you.
> AQ
> --
> Helgraf Dragon, NSA Dragon, Echelon Liason, Fossil
> Chronicler of the Circle of Dragons, King of Sloth
> __ The Exodus of the *Other Side*; Psychological torch
> /__\ d++ e++ N T-- Om+ U1!23!4!5!6!7'!S'!8!KA!L!
> /|__|\ u+++ uC++ uF uG++ uLB+ uA++ nC+ nH+ nP+ nI+ nPT nS++
> |----| nT+ y++ a27;a1728 Mao Count : 5, Plonk Count : 5
> |_||_| When your home is a torus, expect curves.
Ashikaga
Ashikaga
> "Ashikaga" wrote:
>
> >"Polychromic" wrote...
> >> that furball in his stomach* Good thing it's not there anymore.
> >
> >(*cast "Permenent Hairball in Throat" Divine Spell Level 2*)
>
> Immunity is nice little, harmless, cute fluffy white bunnies, right?
>
> *Holds one up so it can squeak plaintively and kick haplessly with
> it's hind legs.*
>
> Oh, look at those nice pink eyes. How cute.
>
> *the poor bunny begins to bleat in fear as if it can sense what might
> be coming*
>
> I don't want to use this but...
You leave me no choice.... (*the Patron Saint of Feline tried to contain
his anger but failed, he then brings out his long unused cow whip and cast
"Giant Growth" on himself. The Saint then finds a piece of garment to cover
himself in the important area.*) You animal abuser! (*WHIP! the saint
whips with anger. The animal abuser starts to leak blood from everywhere.
WHIP! the saint whips with deep abhorence until Polychromic becomes an
unrecognizable piece of blob and squash him and bake him like a meatloaf*)
> --
> The Polychromic Dragon (Michael Cecil) of the -=={UDIC}==-
> http://home.attbi.com/~macecil/ mac...@attbi.com
> UDIC d++ e++ N++ T Om+ U12!3!4!5!6!A!WML!7'!S'!8!9! u+++ uC++ uF uG++
> nC++ nR---- nH++ nP++ uLB++ uA+ nI++ nPT nS+ nT+ wM- wC y+S a37
> Yet Another RGCUD Photo Gallery: http://home.attbi.com/~rgcud/
Ashikaga (feel the wrath of a saint)
Acid Queen
mac...@attbi.com says...
> Thanks, that hairball has been stuck in there for ages.
Well what do you expect if you don't blend them first?
AQ
Acid Queen
ashi...@worldnet.att.net says...
> > I intended my words to be harsh. I take animal issues very seriously -
> > I am a supporter, and one time activist, of a well-known and much
> > maligned animal rights group. Silvan Pagan basically chose to try to
> > put Lumina, who had no control over what happened, on a guilt trip with
> > words like "murder".
>
> You don't know the meaning of Silvan Pagan's words. I don't see them that
> way as you describe. He was trying to comfort him but he doesn't want to
> get all disgusting.
Somehow, I don't see being told you've murdered your dog as being
comforting. But I could be wrong - SP can correct me if so.
> I don't believe you are a real animal right activist,
I'm not, currently. I was. You need to check out the views of said
activists. They don't hold with keeping "pets".
> and here is my
> argument: you have absolutely no love for animals.
Just to be bitchy, you don't have to love something to fight for its
rights. I love people - the fact I don't own any, or put them in cages
doesn't mean I don't love them.
I respect animals; I don't view them as toys there at my pleasure and
convenience - to be caged or held to a set of human standards. My right
to love animals ends with their right to enjoy their freedom.
> If you do that to
> distinguish yourself from erimess, then I guess you have some success, but
> otherwise, what you've been supposedly doing is not an honorable effort to
> animals or human beings, but that's just my opinion from little I've known
> you from reading this post.
If you are saying she's a nicer person, you are probably correct. I
choose to be the way I am. My perception of truth is more important to
me than what people think of me, and I am willing to make statements
that can hurt feelings if I think it necessary. I seldom go out of my
way to hurt anyone, though.
> Then you should be more careful. Because you might hurt somebody more than
> you expected in one of those nine chances. I don't like grovelling, but
> giving unnecessary emotional distress to others is no better.
People are responsible for their emotional distress - providing there
is no deliberate attempt to harass or hurt. This is usenet - a place
where people post their thoughts and feelings, expecting response. That
response isn't always going to be to the posters liking.
> > I was saying that I think that a vicious or dangerous animal has to be
> > caged or put to sleep. The fact it is in those circumstances is the
> > responsibility of humans. It may or may not be the fault of people that
> > it is dangerous.
>
> What's the point of this one you just said?
Helgraf has very eloquently covered that. The point is that humans
don't have the right to take away the freedom of animals - if (when)
they do, then there are consequences unpleasant for both animal and
human.
> > > I have no idea how this is relevant to Lumina's dog.
> >
> > It isn't. That is why I changed the header.
>
> Then there is no point for this argument.
Then why are you responding?
> The whole point is about the
> emotional consequence for Lumina after his dog got put to sleep, as well as
> whether the animal lives should be valued somewhat higher than that. I
> personally think a soul is a soul, whether the soul is embodied on a human,
> an animal, a plant or other organisms. But you may find that idea radical
> and a little difficult to accept.
The being has to be sentient for a soul, or a mind for that matter to
exist, even accepting there are such things.
> This entire argument I've seen thus far makes me believe you are not capable
> of having any emotional involvement, especially to animals.
Are you saying that because I respect the freedom of something to be
itself that somehow I'm incapable of caring about it?
> Not everything
> is totally logical.
But my reaction to animals is based very much on the fact I like them -
as they are, not as bloody play toys, or as a means to *my* emotional
fulfillment. Logic doesn't preclude emotion, BTW. When it comes to the
well being of living, feeling things it is better sometimes to apply a
combination of emotion and logic.
> There are parts of our lives where you should stop
> analyzing it with logics. While making decisions one should never have too
> much emotional involvement to alter the result, something like love is never
> logical, and logics doesn't apply. Apply logics on things like love is just
> ridiculous. Do you actually do a cost/return analysis on how much love
> you'll get from your love interest if you choose to send a red rose instead
> of a fancy dinner? I think this is ridiculous if you do so, and in fact,
> only tells me you have become an android, and can't love like a human
> anymore.
There is a whole lot more to love than fulfilling ones own emotional
needs. Before you deliver me lectures on that subject, I suggest a
leeetle more fieldwork on your part. So far, and I could be wrong here,
what I see you define as love is having *your* emotional needs met.
> > If you can't tell the difference between a sentient being and an
> > animal, then there isn't much point in the discussion. Animals don't
> > make intelligent choices and can't be held to standards as can humans,
> > and human children.
>
> It's not whether they are sentient beings or not, it's about whether you
> love them or not.
If you love them, you treat them with respect FOR WHAT THEY ARE.
Children are capable of learning human behaviour, and being held to
human standards. Animals are not. It is very doubtful that animals have
emotions - they certainly don't equate to human ones.
> Obviously you don't.
<shrugs> Then I guess all that work in animal shelters cleaning out
their stinking cages and trying to undo all the damage loving pet
owners had done before abandoning them in bags on highways was a sort
of self abuse on my part.
Besides terrorising your cat in an effort to force your affections on
him, what things have you done that make you such an expert on loving
animals? (Sounds like a lot of my recent spam... Barnyard Love)
AQ
Acid Queen
mac...@attbi.com says...
You don't like pussy smoothie?
AQ
Lumina Dragon
Ashikaga wrote:
>
> That's comparing apples and oranges with what I told you. I am not going to
> argue that's the case. No one else but Lumina's family member got bitten I
> think, and certainly nobody trained her to do so. Besides, it's the
> trainer's fault. The dog who bit people to death, if it had been trained to
> do that, in my opinion, is only an accessory, not the main criminal. The
> trainer should be responsible for the death. I hope that's what you were
> suggesting.
The dog was becoming more and more aggressive. We had already been
giving her second chances time and again.
It had gotten to the point where only Rose herself could put food out
for the dog without the dog trying to bite her hand off, and if you
disturb anything within lunging range of that dog, you're risking a bite
right there. My mom was afraid to take her meals in the dining room
because the dog was prone to jumping up to snatch things off the table,
and on the occasions where we leave aside a portion for the dog, there's
the chance she'll snap before we can get the plate down.
And on the day before we had to euthanize the dog, she had bitten my
aunt -- something she never did and rarely tried -- as she was setting
food out, and later tried to bite me as I was taking out a bag of
garbage (If I had not run so fast, the bite could have been bad; as it
is, she tore through my jeans and nicked my skin.)
We knew we could not go on any further. We had been told that once
biting habits are started, they don't stop. We were also told, as AQ
mentioned, that sometimes a dog lashes out in agression as a symptom of
mental or physical health. As hard as it hurt, what we did was truly
necessary. If things had escalated further, serious injury might have
occurred.... or if she decided to go after the cats... she could kill
them if she got them with a good bite.
Things had gone too far. As hard as the decision was, and despite any
hopes we had that things could have gotten better, we knew what we had
to do. Once she had starrted biting even Rose, who she was closest to,
things had gone terribly wrong.
Lastly, and I apologize if this comes off as blunt, but with all due
respect, anyone else's opinions of our actions is irrelevant. We never
wanted to put Sparky to sleep, but it had become a necessity. We feel
bad enough about it without the reproach of others.
-Lumina Dragon
Lumina Dragon
Acid Queen wrote:
>
> In article <3C79489F...@hotmail.com>, kewh...@hotmail.com
> says...
>
> > P.S. Don't even blame my aunt -- she does enough of that herself. That
> > dog was her little girl, and it hurt her more than anything to have to
> > do this.
>
> Whether someone wants to put her, or you, on a guilt trip doesn't
> matter a whole lot in the Great Scheme of Things - that she had the
> intestinal fortitude to do the right thing is what counts. Many pet
> owners put their emotions before the welfare of their pets, and pets in
> general. I hope she was able to go to the vets and be with the dog?
Yes, she was with Sparky until the end. I accompanied them to the vet,
but couldn't bring myself to go in. As I said in an earlier post...
that's not how I wanted my last memory of Sparky to be.
> The thing to think about is the fact the dog had a long and happy
> existence in a caring environment, and that when that was no longer
> possible, she was dealt with quickly and painlessly.
>
> You are correct about Dalmations, and I've seen the alternative all too
> often - the animal confined in a cage outside the house, either not
> walked or muzzled and so on. I know it is no consolation, but 7 years
> is up there for a Dalmation - 8 years is about their lifespan.
We had no cage that could hold her, and leaving her in the fenced-in
backyard would never work -- I live in Northwest Indiana, and this time
of year it's mighty cold. A muzzle? We had to keep her in one the night
after she bit Rose and nicked me, as a precaustion. That's no way to
keep a dog, though.
> Kudos to your aunt for her decision, and my empathy and sympathy to
> you.
Thanks. I'm feeling better now; I tend to bounce back quick... but
things will never be the same, and that quite sucks.
-Lumina Dragon
Whreky
>If you are saying she's a nicer person, you are probably correct. I
>choose to be the way I am. My perception of truth is more important to
>me than what people think of me, and I am willing to make statements
>that can hurt feelings if I think it necessary. I seldom go out of my
>way to hurt anyone, though.
>
Most of us respect that. You know I disagree with you on several things, but
the catch is, we'll agree on at least as many things as we don't. Just because
you don't have the same opinions does not mean anyone else's opinions don't
hold true for them (Of course, if they don't agree with me, then they are
obviously wrong! ;-) )
>
>People are responsible for their emotional distress - providing there
>is no deliberate attempt to harass or hurt. This is usenet - a place
>where people post their thoughts and feelings, expecting response. That
>response isn't always going to be to the posters liking.
>
Amen
>
>Helgraf has very eloquently covered that. The point is that humans
>don't have the right to take away the freedom of animals - if (when)
>they do, then there are consequences unpleasant for both animal and
>human.
>
One point we disagree on , but what the hell.
>It is very doubtful that animals have
>emotions - they certainly don't equate to human ones.
Another point I disagree with. Some dogs and cats DO love, even if some call it
a conditioned response, and you will never convince me that some cats (after
all there is a wide diversity in intelligence amongst species), do not
experience emotions like depression, grieving, or friendship. Our first two
cats lived to the ripe age of 17. Galadriel was, well not too smart, while
Eowyn was a feline Einstein. When their little kidneys started failing ( a year
apart) they had two different reactions. Gal knew the end was near, and true to
her nature, you could tell she feared the end. Eowyn knew the end and was
peacefully serene. We have a picture of Eowyn sitting on my lap in what turned
out to be her last night alive, and to this day I cannot look at the picture.
Her eyes.
will continue later <sob>
Ashikaga
> Ashikaga wrote:
<snip>
> Lastly, and I apologize if this comes off as blunt, but with all due
> respect, anyone else's opinions of our actions is irrelevant. We never
> wanted to put Sparky to sleep, but it had become a necessity. We feel
> bad enough about it without the reproach of others.
Well, now I know more about the whole situation. Let's just try to forget
about the whole thing and not mentioning it after today. Do you know what's
causing her to become aggressive? Is it possible the condition can be
changed if she was sent to a trainer?
> -Lumina Dragon
Ashikaga
Ashikaga
> "Ashikaga" wrote:
>
> >You leave me no choice.... (*the Patron Saint of Felines tried to
contain
>
> You care only for cats? Poor bunny. I thought Ashi had more
> compassion for hapless creatures. *Gulp* Urp! Ugh, whole bunnies
> from pharmaceutical laboratories taste too minty - like cheap candy
> canes but less crunchy. Oh well, I'm absolutely immune to all
> detrimental effects now, at least.
I've been holding that title for a long time, unless another person gives me
another duty, I'll stay as the Patron Saint of Felines only, so bunnies are
out of my jurisdiction, but you should know I like bunnies just the same.
BTW, those are not bunnies you found in the lab. Those are giant
radioactive mutant lab rats....
> >his anger but failed, he then brings out his long unused cow whip and
cast
> >"Giant Growth" on himself.
>
> *The women gathered around laugh in amusement.*
I thought women don't care about the size. :-p
> Whatever are you doing casting that Viagra spell on yourself? I'm
> sorry you need that spell though. Perhaps you should refer to the
> "innie" comment I made in another thread? Anyhow, Dragons usually
> just *EAT* cows, we don't flog them into sexual submission.
Didn't pay attention to your thread..., and probably won't either. CAT
KILLER!
> You sure have exhibit some strange behavior.
Swinging left, turning right,
shifting my grove thing to a side.
Spinning around, croutching down,
that's the way to make one high.
Now, THAT'S a strange behavior. :-D
> >The Saint then finds a piece of garment to cover
> >himself in the important area.*) You animal abuser!
>
> *Polychromic winces as Ashi talks to and whips his magically enhanced
> but still rather small genitals.*
>
> Ouch, even in a battle I wouldn't do THAT.
You do WHAT?
> > (*WHIP! the saint
> >whips with anger. The animal abuser starts to leak blood from
everywhere.
>
> Now, now, cow-abuser, quit hitting yourself with that whip. You're
> going to bobbitize yourself with that whip, if you don't stop soon.
> At least, you'll have a career in cheap porn flicks after this...
Err..., you see, a cow whip is not really invented for cows, so don't call
me names. And I don't do cheap porns, so get that thought out of your brain
now. You won't see my DVDs in your local XXX store, I assure you.
> >WHIP! the saint whips with deep abhorence until
>
> *Polychromic grabs the whip from the poor sod. It is just too much
> watching a fellow Dragon abuse his own cow-loving, but very small
> genitals with a whip. Daintily holding the soaking whip, he breathes
> a small flame and incinerates the whip utterly.*
>
> *Polychromic looks sadly on as Ashi manically pokes his ruined
> genitals while continuing to talk to them*
>
> Ashi: "my Precious! I loves it I does. I takes the unrecognizable
> piece of blob and squash him and bake him like a meatloaf".
Hey! What did you do to my hot wing?
> ---
>
> Eeiiiuuuu. Poor Ashi. All his machinations came to naught and his
> genitals as well. Let this be a lesson for any who come between a
> Dragon and his supper.
WHAT? What did you eat last night? :-?
> *Poly spits out some bunny feet*
D*MN, you ate Mr. Hopalot, too!
> Anyone want a bowl of lucky charms?
Silly, Trix is for kids! (Oh, please, you know the difference between a
bunny and a leprechaun, right? ;-) :-/ *blush* :-D)
Ashikaga
> ashikaga says...
>
> > > I intended my words to be harsh. I take animal issues very
seriously -
> > > I am a supporter, and one time activist, of a well-known and much
> > > maligned animal rights group. Silvan Pagan basically chose to try to
> > > put Lumina, who had no control over what happened, on a guilt trip
with
> > > words like "murder".
> >
> > You don't know the meaning of Silvan Pagan's words. I don't see them
that
> > way as you describe. He was trying to comfort him but he doesn't want
to
> > get all disgusting.
>
> Somehow, I don't see being told you've murdered your dog as being
> comforting. But I could be wrong - SP can correct me if so.
I really should read his words again. Last time I read it, he meant it
would require him a court order to kill his own dog. Obviously that means
he would never kill his dog unless something drastic is imposed on him.
Which means he feels for Lumina. Why aren't those comforting words?
> > I don't believe you are a real animal right activist,
>
> I'm not, currently. I was. You need to check out the views of said
> activists. They don't hold with keeping "pets".
>
> > and here is my
> > argument: you have absolutely no love for animals.
>
> Just to be bitchy, you don't have to love something to fight for its
> rights. I love people - the fact I don't own any, or put them in cages
> doesn't mean I don't love them.
Usually the person with some passion would do more research on the subject,
and therefore, knowing the issue more thoroughly. If the person has the
first hand experience, who would see things in different light, which may or
may not be good. In other words, the circus trainer would see an issue
differently than the clown's boyfriend when the owner decided to abandon the
animals behind.
> I respect animals; I don't view them as toys there at my pleasure and
> convenience - to be caged or held to a set of human standards. My right
> to love animals ends with their right to enjoy their freedom.
My argument is in fact, one step further than what you are trying to aim,
which not all people would agree. That's why I said you may find me
radical. I really do love my cat, and you wouldn't understand why my cat is
important to me, because to you, a pet is not a family member. My cat is in
fact a savior of my life. To kill my cat is like killing me, so you can
take it literally when I say "over my dead body" if you try to put him to
sleep.
> > If you do that to
> > distinguish yourself from erimess, then I guess you have some success,
but
> > otherwise, what you've been supposedly doing is not an honorable effort
to
> > animals or human beings, but that's just my opinion from little I've
known
> > you from reading this post.
>
> If you are saying she's a nicer person, you are probably correct. I
> choose to be the way I am. My perception of truth is more important to
> me than what people think of me, and I am willing to make statements
> that can hurt feelings if I think it necessary. I seldom go out of my
> way to hurt anyone, though.
I can't say I am a nice person either, and I do agree with you on that one.
You have the right to choose the way you are. To live as a do no wrong
person is painful, and I don't see anyone who is committed to do that. My
words didn't suggest she is nicer or not, which is difficult to judge even
if I were. You two are definitely different, but there are stuff you two
share the exact identical thinking pattern..., which is weird, IMHO. What
my words did suggest though is she loves animals more than you do.
> > Then you should be more careful. Because you might hurt somebody more
than
> > you expected in one of those nine chances. I don't like grovelling, but
> > giving unnecessary emotional distress to others is no better.
>
> People are responsible for their emotional distress - providing there
> is no deliberate attempt to harass or hurt. This is usenet - a place
> where people post their thoughts and feelings, expecting response. That
> response isn't always going to be to the posters liking.
Read that first sentence of yours again.
This is where we don't agree on. You don't think you are deliberately
hurting people, whereas I see it otherwise. Maybe it's because you are not
attached to the dog because you are not the owner, but I don't know what
made you think the way you do. I am not a dog person, and probably never
will be, but I don't go out dismiss other's feeling with their pets just
because I don't have the same love for them.
> > > I was saying that I think that a vicious or dangerous animal has to be
> > > caged or put to sleep. The fact it is in those circumstances is the
> > > responsibility of humans. It may or may not be the fault of people
that
> > > it is dangerous.
> >
> > What's the point of this one you just said?
>
> Helgraf has very eloquently covered that. The point is that humans
> don't have the right to take away the freedom of animals - if (when)
> they do, then there are consequences unpleasant for both animal and
> human.
I really don't like the way you argue. You always snip the message the way
that'll make your argument favorable without put the little <snip> or
<munch> or whatever to indicate that a truncation is exercised.
And Helgraf, please don't jump in and saying I am doing ad hominem. This is
not part of the argument anymore, since I agree with AQ on this one. And
you know why, it's because it's a tautology. Please don't even try to pull
this kind of trick, AQ, and you know very well it doesn't work on me.
Please play fair and play nice. I would fail miserably as a lawyer, but at
least I know I don't do things that I would feel ashamed of myself. If you
don't want to be truthful to others, at least be truthful to yourself. If
you don't want to, I won't preach further.
> > > > I have no idea how this is relevant to Lumina's dog.
> > >
> > > It isn't. That is why I changed the header.
> >
> > Then there is no point for this argument.
>
> Then why are you responding?
That particular argument which I can't find it above anymore, not the entire
post. Please read my response to Helgraf's instead.
> > The whole point is about the
> > emotional consequence for Lumina after his dog got put to sleep, as well
as
> > whether the animal lives should be valued somewhat higher than that. I
> > personally think a soul is a soul, whether the soul is embodied on a
human,
> > an animal, a plant or other organisms. But you may find that idea
radical
> > and a little difficult to accept.
>
> The being has to be sentient for a soul, or a mind for that matter to
> exist, even accepting there are such things.
Your mind is your soul. The very life itself is a soul. The soul, life
source, ethereal, or whatever you want to call it, is the thing that keeps
you alive. Without a soul, an organism is dead. You don't need to have a
sentience to exist. I think what you were trying to say is consciousness,
which is not what I call a soul. There is no point of arguing on this
definition thing further. It doesn't help anyone either.
> > This entire argument I've seen thus far makes me believe you are not
capable
> > of having any emotional involvement, especially to animals.
>
> Are you saying that because I respect the freedom of something to be
> itself that somehow I'm incapable of caring about it?
No. I was saying you've tried to be so logical on everything, I "think" you
forget about the emotional side of humanity. What happened to my Blade
Runner analogy? Read my response to Helgraf on that topic. I think that's
a good example of what I was trying to say.
> > Not everything is totally logical.
>
> But my reaction to animals is based very much on the fact I like them -
> as they are, not as bloody play toys, or as a means to *my* emotional
> fulfillment. Logic doesn't preclude emotion, BTW. When it comes to the
> well being of living, feeling things it is better sometimes to apply a
> combination of emotion and logic.
I don't know..., somehow I just don't feel those words of yours comes
naturally. I guess my mind plays me again. I do agree with your argument
right above though..., if you really mean it.
> > There are parts of our lives where you should stop
> > analyzing it with logics. While making decisions one should never have
too
> > much emotional involvement to alter the result, something like love is
never
> > logical, and logics doesn't apply. Apply logics on things like love is
just
> > ridiculous. Do you actually do a cost/return analysis on how much love
> > you'll get from your love interest if you choose to send a red rose
instead
> > of a fancy dinner? I think this is ridiculous if you do so, and in
fact,
> > only tells me you have become an android, and can't love like a human
> > anymore.
>
> There is a whole lot more to love than fulfilling ones own emotional
> needs. Before you deliver me lectures on that subject, I suggest a
> leeetle more fieldwork on your part. So far, and I could be wrong here,
> what I see you define as love is having *your* emotional needs met.
Your assumption there is wrong about me, but that's because of my
inarticulation to explain what love is. If you know me a year ago, you'll
realize how much differently I define love now. Love is not logical, so if
you can describe what love is then you are already being too logical. All I
can say here is caring for each other is actually a derivative of that
love..., the rest is unexplanable. I often find the characteristics of
people I fantasize about are very different from what I actually love.
Don't want to sound stereotypical, but maybe it's because I am a man, so
affection and love are totally seperate issues for me.
> > > If you can't tell the difference between a sentient being and an
> > > animal, then there isn't much point in the discussion. Animals don't
> > > make intelligent choices and can't be held to standards as can humans,
> > > and human children.
> >
> > It's not whether they are sentient beings or not, it's about whether you
> > love them or not.
>
> If you love them, you treat them with respect FOR WHAT THEY ARE.
> Children are capable of learning human behaviour, and being held to
> human standards. Animals are not. It is very doubtful that animals have
> emotions - they certainly don't equate to human ones.
My cat is very expressive and I know exactly what he needs and what he
wants. Research shows they do have the intelligence of a three-year old.
Animals feels for things too. Dogs' loyalty to their owners is an example
of their emotional attachment. Cats' jealousy is another emotion. Snakes'
timidity when people are around is also an emotion. Though fish has a very
limited set of emotion, when you compares it with cat's and dogs, but it
swims happily after it got fed. Maybe they are "primative," but emotions
nonetheless. I just can't see how can you dismiss those...? But then you
dismiss human's emotions as well.
From what you said, it makes me believe you think animals are lesser beings.
I know that's not so, because I realized I may have overanalyze something.
Let's just assume it's so to support my argument that animals are equal
beings. My opinion here is much more radical, of course, but I actually
don't care about some human being I don't even know died somewhere, because
there are too many of us on earth we are like some plauge that destroys
everything on sight. How is something practically like a germ be more
precious than a cat that provides unconditional love without any question
asked? Don't you know my cat never bites me when I am depressed? If you
want to dismiss that as a primative intuition, then I guess I value that
much more than some conscious effort to destruct.
Evn love is sort of like an intuition, if you ask me. All those "because's"
are just justifications for one's feeling.
> > Obviously you don't.
>
> <shrugs> Then I guess all that work in animal shelters cleaning out
> their stinking cages and trying to undo all the damage loving pet
> owners had done before abandoning them in bags on highways was a sort
> of self abuse on my part.
Do you feel that way? I've never complained that my cat is too noisy or too
dominating that he "trains" me to do things for him. I got some scars
before, but I never feel that's some self-abuse on my part.
> Besides terrorising your cat in an effort to force your affections on
> him, what things have you done that make you such an expert on loving
> animals? (Sounds like a lot of my recent spam... Barnyard Love)
I walk with my cat. He is very demanding btw, and since we don't have a pet
door for him, so I constantly have to listen for him when he called that he
want to get out, or get in, which he does for at least a dozen times a day.
My mom can't hear him very well, so most of the time it's me who do the
repetative open door/close door thing. And I have to check if his water is
dried up outside.
My cat enjoys walking with me in the backyard. He doesn't need a leash btw.
He just follows where I go, and occassionally circling around my legs. He
also likes me to pet him. I usually don't stop until he is satisfied, even
though sometime my arms do get sore after a while.
I guess if it were some other people who got this cat, they'll think they
got a lemon, and may even euthenize him, but he is the most treasured thing
in my life. No human being can provide such comfort for me than him,
especially when you consider the reliability factor. I have a deep problem
internally, and if he weren't with me, I would have committed suicide
already.
I saved my cat once too. He fell into the swimming pool we used to have,
but somehow maybe it's a sixth-sense or something, I went to the backyard to
find him, and he was there..., tried to get out of the water, and I had to
pull him out. If I didn't go outside, I doubt he can make it. Ranmao is
long haired, and his fur absorb water efficiently and gets extremely heavy.
He never loved me except when he needs something during his kitten years.
He hates me in fact. He bit me very often, he treated me like his slave,
and turned his head away when I call his name (if he is not hungry). I
asked my parents why he doesn't love me, but my parents think I am very
silly (which I guess I am). But I love him just the same, until one day he
finally starts to pay attention to me, but that's like some six years later.
I also have been telling my cat he is the prettiest cat at least once every
single day ever since I got him (but in reality I suspect it's more like
three times a day), because I believe being loved can actually make one
become prettier. Nobody has ever had that commitment to say that to me and
genuinely believed what they said, because I am never loved.
I am not sure if that's enough examples for you.
As for wild animals, I guess I just treat them like what you do, leave them
the way they are. But if this animal is your pet, I really think there has
to be some attachment involved.
> AQ
Ashikaga
Matt Harvey
> Lastly, and I apologize if this comes off as blunt, but with all due
> respect, anyone else's opinions of our actions is irrelevant. We never
> wanted to put Sparky to sleep, but it had become a necessity. We feel
> bad enough about it without the reproach of others.
>
> -Lumina Dragon
Kenneth, ignore this thread. Killfile it, ignore it, mark it as
read or just delete it on sight, whatever your newsreader supports, but
don't bother reading it. I may not have been on this newsgroup for a very
long time, but in my three years I've never once seen anyone stop an
argumentative thread just to respect the wishes of someone it's upsetting.
Just forget it. Go and read something fun.
--
Graceless Dragon
-=UDIC=- Mao-Enlightened
http://listen.to/sear/
http://users.ox.ac.uk/~sjoh0927/sear/
Helgraf Dragon
>
> On Mon, 25 Feb 2002 15:53:03 -0600, Acid Queen
> <acidq...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <ul9l7u8dnfrbdij3k...@4ax.com>,
> >mac...@attbi.com says...
> >> On Mon, 25 Feb 2002 14:45:25 -0600, Acid Queen
> >> <acidq...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >In article <4igj7u0nau2vf0koh...@4ax.com>,
> >> >mac...@attbi.com says...
> >> >
> >> >> Thanks, that hairball has been stuck in there for ages.
> >> >
> >> >Well what do you expect if you don't blend them first?
> >> >
> >> >AQ
> >>
> >> But that kills the texture!
> >
> >You don't like pussy smoothie?
>
She didn't ask if you liked _her_ pussy smoothie. Fess up.
Helgraf Dragon
>
> "Helgraf Dragon" wrote...
> > Ashikaga wrote:
> <snip>
> > > Sorry. I know there are quite a few differences between you two, but
> this
> > > one is too similar to go by without mentioning it. Maybe you don't
> think
> > > so, but don't take the animal issue literally, what I mean is how you
> two
> > > deal with (or dismiss) other people's feelings. You two meant it the
> good
> > > way, but that's not how most people take your words.
> >
> > Well thank you for deciding how I take AQ's words...
>
> I didn't.
>
"... but that's not how most people take your words."
Generally speaking, I, as a person, will fall into the subset of most
people. I deliberately said what I did to make it clear I did not, in
fact, fall into that supposed majority subset.
Ashikaga
> Helgraf Dragon wrote:
> >Polychromic wrote:
> >>
> >> On Mon, 25 Feb 2002 15:53:03 -0600, Acid Queen
> >> <acidq...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >You don't like pussy smoothie?
> >>
> >> I refuse to answer that on the grounds that Fortran will hit me.
> >
> >She didn't ask if you liked _her_ pussy smoothie. Fess up.
>
> "The wise Dragon knows when and when not to speak"
And when to shut up, just add extra force.
Acid Queen
whr...@aol.comeonnow says...
> >
> >If you are saying she's a nicer person, you are probably correct. I
> >choose to be the way I am. My perception of truth is more important to
> >me than what people think of me, and I am willing to make statements
> >that can hurt feelings if I think it necessary. I seldom go out of my
> >way to hurt anyone, though.
> >
>
> Most of us respect that. You know I disagree with you on several things, but
> the catch is, we'll agree on at least as many things as we don't. Just because
> you don't have the same opinions does not mean anyone else's opinions don't
> hold true for them
This is crucial - the awareness that the other person is as strongly
convinced as you that his opinion is the right one. That gets very
difficult where things like right to life or even animal rights go -
because it involves life and death and pain and suffering issues.
I'll seldom argue moral or ethical issues, especially ethical, because
they are so subjective - but it's amazing how few people really grasp
this.
> >Helgraf has very eloquently covered that. The point is that humans
> >don't have the right to take away the freedom of animals - if (when)
> >they do, then there are consequences unpleasant for both animal and
> >human.
> >
>
> One point we disagree on , but what the hell.
I know - and given what you say below, this doesn't make sense! If you
think animals do have comparable emotions to humans, how can you be
cool with then being tortured in laboratories? I view animals as
somewhere at the level of retarded adults or young children
emotionally, so the concept of caging them, breeding them or even
eating them tends to be very bothersome for me. Having been raised
eating them means I can understand why people don't share my feelings
across the board.
> >It is very doubtful that animals have
> >emotions - they certainly don't equate to human ones.
>
> Another point I disagree with.
Me too, actually - if I believe the evidence of my eyes. But I was
trying to take the scientific viewpoint, with which I am unable to
argue. If I didn't think they were capable of emotion, I wouldn't ever
have got involved in animal rights stuff. I don't believe their
emotions are the same as ours, but I believe they exist. So then I see
keeping them as pets, making them dependent and breeding them to show
etc akin to doing it to a specific race of humans.
Having said that, my failure as a vegetarian bothers me no end ;(
> Some dogs and cats DO love, even if some call it
> a conditioned response, and you will never convince me that some cats (after
> all there is a wide diversity in intelligence amongst species), do not
> experience emotions like depression, grieving, or friendship. Our first two
> cats lived to the ripe age of 17. Galadriel was, well not too smart, while
> Eowyn was a feline Einstein. When their little kidneys started failing ( a year
> apart) they had two different reactions. Gal knew the end was near, and true to
> her nature, you could tell she feared the end. Eowyn knew the end and was
> peacefully serene. We have a picture of Eowyn sitting on my lap in what turned
> out to be her last night alive, and to this day I cannot look at the picture.
> Her eyes.
> will continue later <sob>
Now you've got ME sobbing!
Remember though - many such pets wind up in laboratories - or simply
abandoned to die slowly and agonizingly because they are no longer
convenient, or fun for the kids. Fortunately for me, as there is such a
dearth of discarded animals, I am able to fulfill my need for pets
without doing all the stuff I'm opposed to.
AQ
Ashikaga
>whreky says...
<snip>
> > Most of us respect that. You know I disagree with you on several things,
but
> > the catch is, we'll agree on at least as many things as we don't. Just
because
> > you don't have the same opinions does not mean anyone else's opinions
don't
> > hold true for them
>
> This is crucial - the awareness that the other person is as strongly
> convinced as you that his opinion is the right one. That gets very
> difficult where things like right to life or even animal rights go -
> because it involves life and death and pain and suffering issues.
<snip>
I am kind of furious of what you are doing, but whatever, you are going to
call on the judge to overrule me anyways. If you are to criticize me, talk
to me directly. Stop playing politics.
If I were asked to pick the biggest mistake I made in my argument, it'll be
the one which I thought you are similar to erimess. Anyways, I really
should give you more credit, at least you aren't gossipping about me through
emails.
> AQ
Ashikaga
Acid Queen
> would require him a court order to kill his own dog. Obviously that means
> he would never kill his dog unless something drastic is imposed on him.
> Which means he feels for Lumina. Why aren't those comforting words?
The deliberate selection of the word murder indicated that he
considered the act to be one of violence and cruelty, and not one of
necessity or euthanasia. I perceive his comments to be designed to make
Lumina feel bad about what had happened, not to comfort him.
In SP's shoes, if I felt the same, I would do the same, so my criticism
is of what he said, not the way he said it. In short, I think my "harsh
words" hit about the same note as his.
> > If you are saying she's a nicer person, you are probably correct. I
> > choose to be the way I am. My perception of truth is more important to
> > me than what people think of me, and I am willing to make statements
> > that can hurt feelings if I think it necessary. I seldom go out of my
> > way to hurt anyone, though.
>
> I can't say I am a nice person either, and I do agree with you on that one.
> You have the right to choose the way you are. To live as a do no wrong
> person is painful, and I don't see anyone who is committed to do that. My
> words didn't suggest she is nicer or not, which is difficult to judge even
> if I were. You two are definitely different, but there are stuff you two
> share the exact identical thinking pattern..., which is weird, IMHO. What
> my words did suggest though is she loves animals more than you do.
Which, considering you have no idea even about how I define love, never
mind you skills at ascertaining the depths thereof, is irritating in
the extreme. You are saying that because my standards differ from
yours, I don't love.
>
> > > Then you should be more careful. Because you might hurt somebody more
> than
> > > you expected in one of those nine chances. I don't like grovelling, but
> > > giving unnecessary emotional distress to others is no better.
> >
> > People are responsible for their emotional distress - providing there
> > is no deliberate attempt to harass or hurt. This is usenet - a place
> > where people post their thoughts and feelings, expecting response. That
> > response isn't always going to be to the posters liking.
>
> Read that first sentence of yours again.
>
> This is where we don't agree on. You don't think you are deliberately
> hurting people,
That wasn't what I meant. I acknowledged that my words might cause
pain; are on occasion designed to do that. But only in response to
something that has been said. I meant that I almost never go after
someone for no reason, to harass or embarrass or troll. If they have
posted something controversial, then they need to be prepared to be
upset - or responsible for their emotional reaction.
> Maybe it's because you are not
> attached to the dog because you are not the owner, but I don't know what
> made you think the way you do. I am not a dog person, and probably never
> will be, but I don't go out dismiss other's feeling with their pets just
> because I don't have the same love for them.
Would you be so kind as to point out where I dismissed anyone's
feelings for their pets?
>
> > > > I was saying that I think that a vicious or dangerous animal has to be
> > > > caged or put to sleep. The fact it is in those circumstances is the
> > > > responsibility of humans. It may or may not be the fault of people
> that
> > > > it is dangerous.
> > >
> > > What's the point of this one you just said?
> >
> > Helgraf has very eloquently covered that. The point is that humans
> > don't have the right to take away the freedom of animals - if (when)
> > they do, then there are consequences unpleasant for both animal and
> > human.
>
> I really don't like the way you argue.
Being forced to deal with the issue upsets some people. The issue is
"responsible pet ownership" - not love, or Lumina's dog, or souls etc.
> You always snip the message the way
> that'll make your argument favorable without put the little <snip> or
> <munch> or whatever to indicate that a truncation is exercised.
I'm only addressing that point. Helgraf already dealt with the
tautology issue - I said I agreed with him. I reiterated my point,
because it still seemed to be eluding you.
>
> And Helgraf, please don't jump in and saying I am doing ad hominem. This is
> not part of the argument anymore, since I agree with AQ on this one. And
> you know why, it's because it's a tautology. Please don't even try to pull
> this kind of trick, AQ,
I'm not pulling any trick, period. If you think so, don't argue with
me.
> and you know very well it doesn't work on me.
> Please play fair and play nice. I would fail miserably as a lawyer, but at
> least I know I don't do things that I would feel ashamed of myself. If you
> don't want to be truthful to others, at least be truthful to yourself. If
> you don't want to, I won't preach further.
Now you are really getting up my nose. Unless you have any points to
make about pet ownership, I think it is time to terminate this
discussion.
> > > The whole point is about the
> > > emotional consequence for Lumina after his dog got put to sleep, as well
> as
> > > whether the animal lives should be valued somewhat higher than that. I
> > > personally think a soul is a soul, whether the soul is embodied on a
> human,
> > > an animal, a plant or other organisms. But you may find that idea
> radical
> > > and a little difficult to accept.
> >
> > The being has to be sentient for a soul, or a mind for that matter to
> > exist, even accepting there are such things.
>
> Your mind is your soul.
Both mind and soul are abstractions, and quite subjective things. I
perceive both as repositories - the mind for the product of the brain,
the soul for the product of emotions. All stem from a central nervous
system, and require a communicative language system to exist. Plants
and animals don't qualify in one or both criteria, thus have neither.
> The very life itself is a soul. The soul, life
> source, ethereal, or whatever you want to call it, is the thing that keeps
> you alive. Without a soul, an organism is dead. You don't need to have a
> sentience to exist. I think what you were trying to say is consciousness,
> which is not what I call a soul. There is no point of arguing on this
> definition thing further. It doesn't help anyone either.
In short, your mind is closed both to new ideas or differing
viewpoints.
>
> > > This entire argument I've seen thus far makes me believe you are not
> capable
> > > of having any emotional involvement, especially to animals.
> >
> > Are you saying that because I respect the freedom of something to be
> > itself that somehow I'm incapable of caring about it?
>
> No. I was saying you've tried to be so logical on everything, I "think" you
> forget about the emotional side of humanity.
I'm not being logical at all. If I were, I'd agree with scientists who
says animals are not sentient and have no rights at all.
> What happened to my Blade
> Runner analogy?
AFAIAC, it is so far from any bearing on the topic I felt it more
polite to cut it than say so.
> > > Not everything is totally logical.
> >
> > But my reaction to animals is based very much on the fact I like them -
> > as they are, not as bloody play toys, or as a means to *my* emotional
> > fulfillment. Logic doesn't preclude emotion, BTW. When it comes to the
> > well being of living, feeling things it is better sometimes to apply a
> > combination of emotion and logic.
>
> I don't know..., somehow I just don't feel those words of yours comes
> naturally. I guess my mind plays me again. I do agree with your argument
> right above though..., if you really mean it.
I strive for honesty - I find lies a waste of time. I mean what I say -
which isn't to say my mind is closed to new ways of thinking. The
point in a genuine discussion for me is to learn something - I could
not care less about being right, or winning. But if you find me
dishonest, I suggest strongly that you don't argue with me.
Having said that, if someone is stupid enough to bait me, I'm more than
happy to oblige in kind.
>
> > > There are parts of our lives where you should stop
> > > analyzing it with logics. While making decisions one should never have
> too
> > > much emotional involvement to alter the result, something like love is
> never
> > > logical, and logics doesn't apply. Apply logics on things like love is
> just
> > > ridiculous. Do you actually do a cost/return analysis on how much love
> > > you'll get from your love interest if you choose to send a red rose
> instead
> > > of a fancy dinner? I think this is ridiculous if you do so, and in
> fact,
> > > only tells me you have become an android, and can't love like a human
> > > anymore.
> >
> > There is a whole lot more to love than fulfilling ones own emotional
> > needs. Before you deliver me lectures on that subject, I suggest a
> > leeetle more fieldwork on your part. So far, and I could be wrong here,
> > what I see you define as love is having *your* emotional needs met.
>
> Your assumption there is wrong about me, but that's because of my
> inarticulation to explain what love is.
That I understand. Again, love is subjective anyway. It is different
things to different people. I simply don't view it as a one way street,
or obeying one set of rules, as you seem to be implying. For example,
you are telling me I don't love because my actions don't fit your
definition of love.
From what you've said, I don't think you have a very broad range of
experiences in affaires of the heart.
> If you know me a year ago, you'll
> realize how much differently I define love now. Love is not logical, so if
> you can describe what love is then you are already being too logical.
So being able to describe things renders them illogical? If you think
about that for a minute, you may see a problem or two. I can describe
logic, or math thus they must not be logical....
All I
> can say here is caring for each other is actually a derivative of that
> love..., the rest is unexplanable. I often find the characteristics of
> people I fantasize about are very different from what I actually love.
You mean, you love them even though they have characteristics that you
don't love? That's normal - and healthy. Its when you attribute them
desirable characteristics that they don't have when a lot of the
trouble starts....
> Don't want to sound stereotypical, but maybe it's because I am a man, so
> affection and love are totally seperate issues for me.
I'd say they were for most people. I feel affection for my friends; I
love a very limited number of individuals.
>
> > > > If you can't tell the difference between a sentient being and an
> > > > animal, then there isn't much point in the discussion. Animals don't
> > > > make intelligent choices and can't be held to standards as can humans,
> > > > and human children.
> > >
> > > It's not whether they are sentient beings or not, it's about whether you
> > > love them or not.
> >
> > If you love them, you treat them with respect FOR WHAT THEY ARE.
> > Children are capable of learning human behaviour, and being held to
> > human standards. Animals are not. It is very doubtful that animals have
> > emotions - they certainly don't equate to human ones.
>
> My cat is very expressive and I know exactly what he needs and what he
> wants. Research shows they do have the intelligence of a three-year old.
> Animals feels for things too. Dogs' loyalty to their owners is an example
> of their emotional attachment. Cats' jealousy is another emotion. Snakes'
> timidity when people are around is also an emotion. Though fish has a very
> limited set of emotion, when you compares it with cat's and dogs, but it
> swims happily after it got fed. Maybe they are "primative," but emotions
> nonetheless. I just can't see how can you dismiss those...?
Personally, I don't. I do reject anthropomorphism (applying human
standards to other life forms). I'd rather not get into this issue, but
basically human emotional development depends upon communication and
high order language capabilities that animals don't have, which is why
I say animal emotions are not comparable to human.
> But then you
> dismiss human's emotions as well.
I'm getting tired of this. Quote me.
> From what you said, it makes me believe you think animals are lesser beings.
Shit - I accept they have rights. I fight for those rights - how much
further can one go? I think animals are different. I believe in letting
them live their lives unmolested and free. I believe that owning them
is the same as owning people.
> I know that's not so, because I realized I may have overanalyze something.
> Let's just assume it's so to support my argument that animals are equal
> beings.
When you make a friend, do you take him home and put him in a cage and
feed him and love him when you feel like it?
> My opinion here is much more radical, of course, but I actually
> don't care about some human being I don't even know died somewhere, because
> there are too many of us on earth we are like some plauge that destroys
> everything on sight. How is something practically like a germ be more
> precious than a cat that provides unconditional love without any question
> asked? Don't you know my cat never bites me when I am depressed? If you
> want to dismiss that as a primative intuition, then I guess I value that
> much more than some conscious effort to destruct.
>
> Evn love is sort of like an intuition, if you ask me. All those "because's"
> are just justifications for one's feeling.
>
> > > Obviously you don't.
> >
> > <shrugs> Then I guess all that work in animal shelters cleaning out
> > their stinking cages and trying to undo all the damage loving pet
> > owners had done before abandoning them in bags on highways was a sort
> > of self abuse on my part.
>
> Do you feel that way?
No. I was being sarcastic. More to the point, why do *you* think I do
it?
> I've never complained that my cat is too noisy or too
> dominating that he "trains" me to do things for him. I got some scars
> before, but I never feel that's some self-abuse on my part.
>
> > Besides terrorising your cat in an effort to force your affections on
> > him, what things have you done that make you such an expert on loving
> > animals? (Sounds like a lot of my recent spam... Barnyard Love)
>
> I walk with my cat. He is very demanding btw, and since we don't have a pet
> door for him, so I constantly have to listen for him when he called that he
> want to get out, or get in, which he does for at least a dozen times a day.
> My mom can't hear him very well, so most of the time it's me who do the
> repetative open door/close door thing. And I have to check if his water is
> dried up outside.
>
> My cat enjoys walking with me in the backyard. He doesn't need a leash btw.
> He just follows where I go, and occassionally circling around my legs. He
> also likes me to pet him. I usually don't stop until he is satisfied, even
> though sometime my arms do get sore after a while.
>
> I guess if it were some other people who got this cat, they'll think they
> got a lemon, and may even euthenize him, but he is the most treasured thing
> in my life. No human being can provide such comfort for me than him,
> especially when you consider the reliability factor. I have a deep problem
> internally, and if he weren't with me, I would have committed suicide
> already.
You are autistic, right?
> I saved my cat once too. He fell into the swimming pool we used to have,
> but somehow maybe it's a sixth-sense or something, I went to the backyard to
> find him, and he was there..., tried to get out of the water, and I had to
> pull him out. If I didn't go outside, I doubt he can make it. Ranmao is
> long haired, and his fur absorb water efficiently and gets extremely heavy.
>
> He never loved me except when he needs something during his kitten years.
> He hates me in fact. He bit me very often, he treated me like his slave,
> and turned his head away when I call his name (if he is not hungry). I
> asked my parents why he doesn't love me, but my parents think I am very
> silly (which I guess I am). But I love him just the same, until one day he
> finally starts to pay attention to me, but that's like some six years later.
>
> I also have been telling my cat he is the prettiest cat at least once every
> single day ever since I got him (but in reality I suspect it's more like
> three times a day), because I believe being loved can actually make one
> become prettier. Nobody has ever had that commitment to say that to me and
> genuinely believed what they said, because I am never loved.
>
> I am not sure if that's enough examples for you.
>
> As for wild animals, I guess I just treat them like what you do, leave them
> the way they are. But if this animal is your pet, I really think there has
> to be some attachment involved.
I hear what you are saying. You are expecting your cat to show his love
for you in human ways, and when he doesn't, you assume he doesn't love
you. You also seem to think that because you love him, he should love
you. Is that fair?
AQ
Samurai
[munch]
>I am kind of furious of what you are doing, but whatever, you are going
>to call on the judge to overrule me anyways. If you are to criticize
>me, talk to me directly. Stop playing politics.
AQ has held such views long before you appeared on the scene, Ashikaga.
You're perhaps giving yourself too much credit if you think she's airing
them purely for your benefit. >:)
--
___________________________________________________________
\^\^//
,^ ( ..) Samurai Dragon -==UDIC Sig Code==-
| \ \ -==(UDIC)==- d++e+N T--Om+U146MA7'! L8u uC++
\ `^--^ \\\\//// uF-uG++uLB+uA+nC++uR nH+nP+++
\ \ \ (2 Attentive Points) nI--nPT nS+++nT--wM-wC y+ a26
ksj ^--^ ___________________________________________________________
Acid Queen
ashi...@worldnet.att.net says...
How do you know I'm not? ;)
AQ, wondering if you how to spell "paranoid"
Ashikaga
> ashikaga says...
Okay, since I think you are getting a little angry at me, I am going to do
some heavy snippage of the topics that are irrelevant and arguing for the
argument's sake that sort of the stuff. Some of your idea I don't agree and
will never agree because I see now that there are some fundamental belief
difference. For those which matter not how we do it, but define the
person's individuality, I'll just skip it. Is that fair?
<snipped the attempts to interpret of Silvan Pagan's word>
I'll let Mr. Silvan Pagan explain that one. Your interpretation is so
negative, which I refuse to believe he means that way.
<snip>
> > I can't say I am a nice person either, and I do agree with you on that
one.
> > You have the right to choose the way you are. To live as a do no wrong
> > person is painful, and I don't see anyone who is committed to do that.
My
> > words didn't suggest she is nicer or not, which is difficult to judge
even
> > if I were. You two are definitely different, but there are stuff you
two
> > share the exact identical thinking pattern..., which is weird, IMHO.
What
> > my words did suggest though is she loves animals more than you do.
>
> Which, considering you have no idea even about how I define love, never
> mind you skills at ascertaining the depths thereof, is irritating in
> the extreme. You are saying that because my standards differ from
> yours, I don't love.
Actually that's not true. Please don't twist my words until you know what I
mean. I respect individuality, because I am on that end of the spectrum as
well.
I don't think you love not because your standard is different from mine, but
you've been paying too much attention to logics, you forget how to love.
Don't take that offensively. Most people forget, and it's not just you.
Some people never know what is love in their lifetime, but copy accepted
social behaviors and say they are in love when what they experience is not
what "I" would call love. It's not an uncommon thing, really. Especially
if you think about how busy people are nowadays, and most of the time we are
involving in academic or vocational activities, who has time for a little
philosophy? (yes, I think love is a developed philosophical view about
someone).
I wanted to say lack of love is a social illness of modern days, but then I
don't think it can be defined as an illness, consider love isn't a vital
part of a person's life. Human only need to have sex (for reproduction
purpose), but less so for love.
I don't know how you define love, but I would like to know what you think
about it. Maybe I can finally know what you were talking about.
<snip>
> > > People are responsible for their emotional distress - providing there
> > > is no deliberate attempt to harass or hurt. This is usenet - a place
> > > where people post their thoughts and feelings, expecting response.
That
> > > response isn't always going to be to the posters liking.
> >
> > Read that first sentence of yours again.
> >
> > This is where we don't agree on. You don't think you are deliberately
> > hurting people,
>
> That wasn't what I meant. I acknowledged that my words might cause
> pain; are on occasion designed to do that. But only in response to
> something that has been said. I meant that I almost never go after
> someone for no reason, to harass or embarrass or troll. If they have
> posted something controversial, then they need to be prepared to be
> upset - or responsible for their emotional reaction.
You don't go out and inflict pain on people and tell them they are
responsible for their own pain. That's saddism. I guess harsh words to
wake somebody is necessary in some instances. Are you a liberal? I think
liberals tend to be more liberal with using pain as a wake up call. I am
not saying it's wrong (it's just an ideology issue), but I personally don't
agree with that kind of usage.
In case you are wondering, I don't get pain from posting a controversial
topic because being attacked is expected. There are far more painful things
to feel depair about than disagreeing views.
May I be a lawyer for a second? Do you acknowledge you have been
deliberately inflicting pain on Lumina for the loss of his dog for whatever
the given reason? I want to know the reason behind your behavior. Why do
you think rub his pain in is in any manner beneficial to anybody? What
lesson would anybody learn from Lumina's pain?
I'll let you answer that those ones before I jump to the conclusion which
you hate so much. Which is my fault, btw, I admit it. Erimess has been
warning me about my tendency to jump to the conclusion too hastily (not on
this issue, which she stayed out for her own good). I really shouldn't make
assumptions before I know what you really think. I am all ears now.
> > Maybe it's because you are not
> > attached to the dog because you are not the owner, but I don't know what
> > made you think the way you do. I am not a dog person, and probably
never
> > will be, but I don't go out dismiss other's feeling with their pets just
> > because I don't have the same love for them.
>
> Would you be so kind as to point out where I dismissed anyone's
> feelings for their pets?
Obviously Lumina loves his dog very much, and the loss is quite painful.
You didn't respect his feeling and used this to air your own opinion that
animals are sub-human beings.
To my ear, you were saying, "Having children is nothing but trouble," to a
pregnant woman who just got a miscarriage.... Don't you feel that's a sick
joke? I don't care if your opinion is right or wrong, but under a
distressing moment, right or wrong is NOT important. Normal loving people
would be compassionate enough to seal their mouths even if they agree.
> > > > > I was saying that I think that a vicious or dangerous animal has
to be
> > > > > caged or put to sleep. The fact it is in those circumstances is
the
> > > > > responsibility of humans. It may or may not be the fault of people
> > that
> > > > > it is dangerous.
> > > >
> > > > What's the point of this one you just said?
> > >
> > > Helgraf has very eloquently covered that. The point is that humans
> > > don't have the right to take away the freedom of animals - if (when)
> > > they do, then there are consequences unpleasant for both animal and
> > > human.
> >
> > I really don't like the way you argue.
>
> Being forced to deal with the issue upsets some people. The issue is
> "responsible pet ownership" - not love, or Lumina's dog, or souls etc.
You changed it to that topic. What I care is Lumina's loss. What is so
important about responsible pet ownership when he lost his dog? I think we
are all very responsible pet owners, and I certainly don't need your lecture
on when to put our pets to sleep. Termination of any life form is a hard
decision. It's not like "When this happens, kill the critter."
I still feel badly when I accidentally kill the cherry tree in my front
yard. Please don't tell me trees don't feel. Yes, trees don't have
feelings, but it's a life, and I have an emotional attachment to it.
BTW, that sentence "I really don't like the way you argue," by itself
doesn't stand as a whole argument. Please don't split my argument up, into
bits. I believe I have done a good job on paragraph organization, so each
paragraph contains only one single idea. Occasionally if the paragraph is
too long, I split it into two, but I don't combine two short paragraphs into
one unless they are tightly interrelated ideas. That is, they cannot be
split without losing its original intention. Maybe that's why you
misinterprets my arguments all the time.
Was it you that I have told that please read my entire post through once
before you even start to respond to its parts? That's what I always do when
I respond to any post, btw, so not only I can understand the argument better
as a whole, but it gives me some time to cool my temper off if I had any.
> > You always snip the message the way
> > that'll make your argument favorable without put the little <snip> or
> > <munch> or whatever to indicate that a truncation is exercised.
>
> I'm only addressing that point. Helgraf already dealt with the
> tautology issue - I said I agreed with him. I reiterated my point,
> because it still seemed to be eluding you.
But could you please agree to use any signal to indicate any snippage? I am
very unsatisfied with tautology issue by the way, because you seems to
evading my point. I've already overturned Helgraf's argument because it's a
misunderstanding of our parts and I even explained to you once more, but you
have never give me a direct response. Why is that?
> > And Helgraf, please don't jump in and saying I am doing ad hominem.
This is
> > not part of the argument anymore, since I agree with AQ on this one.
And
> > you know why, it's because it's a tautology. Please don't even try to
pull
> > this kind of trick, AQ,
>
> I'm not pulling any trick, period. If you think so, don't argue with me.
I am not stupid, Ms Queen. I won't walk out either because that'll be very
narrow-minded of me. We are here to express our points and explain to other
party what we really mean. If I walked out, that suggests this has become
personal, which it's not.
Which reminds me something. Now I finally get what did you mean by "I hope
this will be a constructive argument" or something like that. You thought I
was getting personally last time. I don't even remember what we were
arguing about. Please, if I did you wrong last time, you should have forgot
about it already. I don't and I don't want to remember any unpleasant event
in the past. They are pretty useless, if you ask me.
Don't tell me you are not pulling any trick. I've never seen anybody pull
so many tricks in just one post. Didn't I just uncover several already
above?
Giving opponent bad names, evading the main inquisition, changing subjects,
using unadjustified testimony, downplaying a valid argument, twisting
opponent's words in favor of yours, pleading innocence, playing ignorance,
threatening opponent, concession then pounce, oversimplification. Do I need
to publically embarrass you by pointing it out which trick goes with which
paragraph in this very post? Playing do-no-wrong, eh? Ms Queen, you are
not a princess anymore.
> > and you know very well it doesn't work on me.
> > Please play fair and play nice. I would fail miserably as a lawyer, but
at
> > least I know I don't do things that I would feel ashamed of myself. If
you
> > don't want to be truthful to others, at least be truthful to yourself.
If
> > you don't want to, I won't preach further.
>
> Now you are really getting up my nose. Unless you have any points to
> make about pet ownership, I think it is time to terminate this
> discussion.
Please don't threaten your opponent by acquittal. BTW, hate to nitpick, but
the subject line says responsible pet ownership, not about pet ownership.
Very different. And we are arguing about the consequence of Lumina's loss
of his beloved pet, and why is the issue important and what it suggests
about people's entitled right to animals' lives.
<snipped about the soul issue>
> > The very life itself is a soul. The soul, life
> > source, ethereal, or whatever you want to call it, is the thing that
keeps
> > you alive. Without a soul, an organism is dead. You don't need to have
a
> > sentience to exist. I think what you were trying to say is
consciousness,
> > which is not what I call a soul. There is no point of arguing on this
> > definition thing further. It doesn't help anyone either.
>
> In short, your mind is closed both to new ideas or differing
> viewpoints.
Oversimplification, wrongful accusation, and ad hominem.
If you haven't realized, I am still listening to your words (sometimes read
them several times to avoid misinterpreating of your intention) and
countering your arguments with relevant information.
And please, I was yielding so we both can step down with grace. Chasing the
yielding party is not what I call a honorable behavior.
<snip>
> > No. I was saying you've tried to be so logical on everything, I "think"
you
> > forget about the emotional side of humanity.
>
> I'm not being logical at all. If I were, I'd agree with scientists who
> says animals are not sentient and have no rights at all.
I think you are losing it. If you are not being logical at all, then I
guess you are being irrational? Please, I know you are fairly angry at this
moment, but please cool down a bit. It's just an argument on a POV.
> > What happened to my Blade
> > Runner analogy?
>
> AFAIAC, it is so far from any bearing on the topic I felt it more
> polite to cut it than say so.
Okay. But I did say why I put it up there, didn't I? and what happened to
that explanation? Did you even read it? Let me repeat it one more time.
Blade Runner has a social criticizing message that human beings are losing
their ability to empathize. The slogan for Tyrell Corporation, the maker of
replicants, is "more human than human." Rachael, the most advanced
replicant was able to understand the meaning of love and feel for animals,
and that makes her very difficult to be identified by the empathy testing
machine which distinguish a human from an android.
> > > > Not everything is totally logical.
> > >
> > > But my reaction to animals is based very much on the fact I like
them -
> > > as they are, not as bloody play toys, or as a means to *my* emotional
> > > fulfillment. Logic doesn't preclude emotion, BTW. When it comes to
the
> > > well being of living, feeling things it is better sometimes to apply a
> > > combination of emotion and logic.
> >
> > I don't know..., somehow I just don't feel those words of yours comes
> > naturally. I guess my mind plays me again. I do agree with your
argument
> > right above though..., if you really mean it.
>
> I strive for honesty - I find lies a waste of time. I mean what I say -
> which isn't to say my mind is closed to new ways of thinking. The
> point in a genuine discussion for me is to learn something - I could
> not care less about being right, or winning. But if you find me
> dishonest, I suggest strongly that you don't argue with me.
Do you believe in psychoanalysis? But then, I really shouldn't strike you
when you are agitated.
> Having said that, if someone is stupid enough to bait me, I'm more than
> happy to oblige in kind.
If I were given the choice to be either stupid, or narrow-minded, I'll
always choose the prior.
I guess you might be right on this one. Maybe that's my fault to define the
wonderful thing I experienced to be love. I've been preaching people who
thought who had religious experience, but I guess love is also a religious
experience like thingy, and I thought I were spreading the gospel.
> From what you've said, I don't think you have a very broad range of
> experiences in affaires of the heart.
Maybe that's true as well, since my life has been in pain most of the time.
I am younger than most people here as well, and I believe wisdom does come
with age and cannot be skipped ahead. I know a lot of things, but even with
that, I can't achieve many things I already know, just because I haven't
lived on this world for too long. I am still too young to allow myself to
let go feelings.
> > If you know me a year ago, you'll
> > realize how much differently I define love now. Love is not logical, so
if
> > you can describe what love is then you are already being too logical.
>
> So being able to describe things renders them illogical? If you think
> about that for a minute, you may see a problem or two. I can describe
> logic, or math thus they must not be logical....
Read the paragraph again. I think you are losing your ability to read as
well. I said the very opposite thing you just said.
> All I
> > can say here is caring for each other is actually a derivative of that
> > love..., the rest is unexplanable. I often find the characteristics of
> > people I fantasize about are very different from what I actually love.
>
> You mean, you love them even though they have characteristics that you
> don't love? That's normal - and healthy. Its when you attribute them
> desirable characteristics that they don't have when a lot of the
> trouble starts....
I agree with what you said, but that's not what I mean. This one is due to
my ambiguity of words though. It's easier to describe this one using an
example.
I mean one may fantasize making love with someone physically attractive, but
in reality, one actually may find a shabby looking person to be a more
loveable companion because of the personality. I know a lot of people won't
believe me on this one. Yes, physical traits do catch people's attention,
but love comes with time spent most of the time, and the effect of physical
traits actually diminishes over period. That's my personal experience
anyways.
> > Don't want to sound stereotypical, but maybe it's because I am a man, so
> > affection and love are totally seperate issues for me.
>
> I'd say they were for most people. I feel affection for my friends; I
> love a very limited number of individuals.
That's very normal, at least it is so for both of us.
This is a very helpful information for me to understand where you are coming
from. This is the fundamental difference I mentioned before. My counter
argument though is that my cat does make some very complicated emotional
response, and sometimes I was suspecting maybe in his previous life, he was
a human.
I am not sure if you are a pet owner, but please pay some attention to some
animals and see if I am right, they do make some very very complicated
emotions comparable to what a kid can make.
My cat used to ignore me, and it's just not a simple turn of head, but when
I called his name while he was lying down, he intuitively raised his head
and look at my direction, but this was the time when he was a kitten and he
was very mean and ignores me on purpose, remember? After he raised his
head, he felt embarrased and in a split of a second, he turned his head
away, like a human would do. Haven't you done something like that before?
When someone you don't like called you, you would overrule your subconscious
effort by doing a conflicting command from your conscious brain. This is as
complicated as a conscious brain can possibly do, the overriding of the
subconscious command, I mean.
Today, my cat did yet another thing that surprised me. My cat is a coward.
Yes, he fights, but he is just like a snake, they bite because they are so
timid. Anywayz, when I walked near him, he didn't realize I was near him,
so he jumped, but then realized it was only me, so he overrided his natural
reaction to run away, and instead, he slowly walked with me to the bedroom,
like when I am going to feed him.
My cat is very smart, but he does look somewhat dumb.... Anywayz, I often
feel cats sleep so much because they are so depressed about their lives,
they couldn't do anything but sleep their lives away. They do look very
depressed sometimes. Sometimes I think my cat was crying. I am very keen
on people's emotions. If you pay special attention to people, you can tell
if they are somber or not, even when they try to cover it up. If you are
keen enough, you can observe the same from cats (or other more advanced
animals, but I only have a cat).
> > But then you
> > dismiss human's emotions as well.
>
> I'm getting tired of this. Quote me.
I explained this above already.
> > From what you said, it makes me believe you think animals are lesser
beings.
>
> Shit - I accept they have rights. I fight for those rights - how much
> further can one go? I think animals are different. I believe in letting
> them live their lives unmolested and free. I believe that owning them
> is the same as owning people.
That's why I see them (especially ones that live with us for a long time) as
equals. I think people's opinions do vary. I don't think many people
actually think servants are equal as their masters (maybe for PC reason
they'll say they are all human being, but in reality...), but I do feel even
if I have servants, I'll treat them as equals. This is similar to my role
and my cat's. It's just more difficult for you to accept, but to me it's
very natural that my cat is just as good as a life form as me. Our roles
are different, but we are pretty equal, and I do try to understand my cat's
need.
> > I know that's not so, because I realized I may have overanalyze
something.
> > Let's just assume it's so to support my argument that animals are equal
> > beings.
>
> When you make a friend, do you take him home and put him in a cage and
> feed him and love him when you feel like it?
No. Are you trying to mock me by making a ridiculous comparison? :-D j/k.
My cat is not in a cage, unless you consider my house as one giant cage, and
I certainly don't treat my cat like a toy, and doing whatever I please at
the expense of his happiness (yes, my cat doesn't like me when I force him
to cuddle with me..., but at least I know that and let him go after a while.
I do this to human beings too anywayz...). My father on the other hand....
And it is because he believes that animals are lesser beings.
<snip>
> > Even love is sort of like an intuition, if you ask me. All those
"because's"
> > are just justifications for one's feeling.
> >
> > > > Obviously you don't.
> > >
> > > <shrugs> Then I guess all that work in animal shelters cleaning out
> > > their stinking cages and trying to undo all the damage loving pet
> > > owners had done before abandoning them in bags on highways was a sort
> > > of self abuse on my part.
> >
> > Do you feel that way?
>
> No. I was being sarcastic. More to the point, why do *you* think I do
> it?
I think because it makes you feel good. I forget which theory is this.
It's a very skeptical theory which states people do goods for the good
feeling that entails, so there is no real good people because they are all
selfish. I don't agree with it, btw, but I guess it does come cross my
mind.
<snipped my cat and I>
> > I guess if it were some other people who got this cat, they'll think
they
> > got a lemon, and may even euthenize him, but he is the most treasured
thing
> > in my life. No human being can provide such comfort for me than him,
> > especially when you consider the reliability factor. I have a deep
problem
> > internally, and if he weren't with me, I would have committed suicide
> > already.
>
> You are autistic, right?
Autism is not a strong enough feeling to make me feel suicidal. You just
reminded me of looking for Rupert.... Where is he now? I hate this.... It
seems I have this constant worry of which one of my friends is going to
commit suicide again.... It's depressing. This is one of the reason why I
always want to keep a constant communication with my friends, or I'll
beginning to have some stupid thoughts about whether they are dead or
something.
That's not my main source of depression either. My problem is very deep and
private, which I often call it a curse.
I am not total anti-social either. I used to be, but I am more opened up
and I am even the group leader in some instances, even though underneath the
surface, I am still the reserve boy I've always been, and I enjoy being
that. But my future career path forces me to open up. I did choose
business as my college major on purpose. One is to improve my English
skill, another is to help me to get rid of my anti-social tendency, and I
have some degree of success in both.
AQ, we are both very strong willed people. I think you know that by now.
Though there is one thing happened in our past that might cause our
difference in thinking pattern, I am just guessing this by the way, you have
never really faced a life shattering failure before which made you changing
the way you think about life completely.
BTW, if I were to aim for winning the argument, I could just walk out, and
let other people criticize you instead of risking myself being called a
nasty hag. Winning isn't always important. What I care is truth and
honesty. I don't particularly enjoying lying to myself, but my entire life
is a lie anyways.
<snipped my cat and I>
> > As for wild animals, I guess I just treat them like what you do, leave
them
> > the way they are. But if this animal is your pet, I really think there
has
> > to be some attachment involved.
>
> I hear what you are saying. You are expecting your cat to show his love
> for you in human ways, and when he doesn't, you assume he doesn't love
> you. You also seem to think that because you love him, he should love
> you. Is that fair?
I would like to agree with you on this one, but it's not exactly that. I
never expect my cat to be exactly a human being, though I do think they
possess some human qualities. Yes, I said I treat them as equals, but a cat
is a cat, and cats do feline things, not human things (I also hate it when
people want to dress their pets up like kids, though sometimes I do want to
do that..., but it's very "de-animalizing" for them). All I have been
arguing this far is that human has no right to play g*d on animals, and
terminate their lives at will. I am not saying Lumina's aunt's decision
isn't right, especially after I heard his explanation, but in general, human
beings have been treating animals like they are supposed to be at our
disposal. Which saddens me very very much.
What you said actually is what I would expect from my lover, if I have
any.... I think erimess understands me more on this part, even though she
doesn't even want to hear any more of my personal problems. :-D Yes, I am
very demanding as a lover....
> AQ
Ashikaga
Ashikaga
<snip>
> How do you know I'm not? ;)
(*groan*) I would rather hear you say "I am a frayed knot." :-D
> AQ, wondering if you how to spell "paranoid"
P * A * R * A * N * O * Y (*buzz*) D*mn! (*strike arm*)
Ashikaga
Ashikaga
way too much rambling and revealing stuff.
Ashikaga
Whreky
>> If I were asked to pick the biggest mistake I made in my argument, it'll be
>> the one which I thought you are similar to erimess. Anyways, I really
>> should give you more credit, at least you aren't gossipping about me
>through
>> emails.
>
> How do you know I'm not? ;)
>
>AQ, wondering if you how to spell "paranoid"
Yeah, he doesn't need to be paranoid just because everyone's out to get him.
Whreky
>
>Now you've got ME sobbing!
>
Damn, it's been ten years, but how I still miss that cat.Maybe I'll scan a
picture of her and put on my site.
>
>Remember though - many such pets wind up in laboratories - or simply
>abandoned to die slowly and agonizingly because they are no longer
>convenient, or fun for the kids. Fortunately for me, as there is such a
>dearth of discarded animals, I am able to fulfill my need for pets
>without doing all the stuff I'm opposed to.
I agree.Over the last 27 years, we've taken in three strays,one farm cat, Eowyn
summonned me at a pet store,two sisters from a farm in Indiana, and one from a
shelter that I had seen on the local noon news and had been called by her on
the show so I went down the next morning and adopted her.
Ashikaga
<snip>
> >AQ, wondering if you how to spell "paranoid"
>
> Yeah, he doesn't need to be paranoid just because everyone's out to get
him.
Are you? (*par annoyed*)
> ~~O^O~~
> Optician Dragon
> -==UDIC==-
> You who are rich and whose troubles are few
> May come around to see my point of view.
> What price the crown of a king on his throne
> When you're chained in the dark all alone?
Ashikaga ;-)
Acid Queen
> "Acid Queen" wrote...
> > Which, considering you have no idea even about how I define love, never
> > mind you skills at ascertaining the depths thereof, is irritating in
> > the extreme. You are saying that because my standards differ from
> > yours, I don't love.
>
> Actually that's not true. Please don't twist my words until you know what I
> mean. I respect individuality, because I am on that end of the spectrum as
> well.
I'm not twisting your words - I may be coming to a conclusion based on
them that is incorrect. You seem to be reaching the conclusion that I
don't love animals because I am doing things that don't fit your
criteria of love.
>
> I don't think you love not because your standard is different from mine, but
> you've been paying too much attention to logics, you forget how to love.
See what I mean? Apparently you think that love and logic can't coexist
- so you are deciding that because I am being logical, I don't love. T
> I don't know how you define love, but I would like to know what you think
> about it. Maybe I can finally know what you were talking about.
When I love something or someone, their happiness is more important
than mine. But to get this into context, this doesn't mean I am going
to do everything they want, nor allow them to do wrong things. Example
- I love my child. This does not mean that I am going to give him
everything he wants, or allow him to do anything he chooses. And should
he do something harmful to someone else, I'd take action that would be
painful to stop him.
>
> <snip>
> > > > People are responsible for their emotional distress - providing there
> > > > is no deliberate attempt to harass or hurt. This is usenet - a place
> > > > where people post their thoughts and feelings, expecting response.
> That
> > > > response isn't always going to be to the posters liking.
> > >
> > > Read that first sentence of yours again.
> > >
> > > This is where we don't agree on. You don't think you are deliberately
> > > hurting people,
> >
> > That wasn't what I meant. I acknowledged that my words might cause
> > pain; are on occasion designed to do that. But only in response to
> > something that has been said. I meant that I almost never go after
> > someone for no reason, to harass or embarrass or troll. If they have
> > posted something controversial, then they need to be prepared to be
> > upset - or responsible for their emotional reaction.
>
> You don't go out and inflict pain on people and tell them they are
> responsible for their own pain.
Correct. That is what I'm saying I don't do.
> That's saddism.
No it isn't. Sadism is deriving pleasure from inflicting pain.
> In case you are wondering, I don't get pain from posting a controversial
> topic because being attacked is expected.
Precisely - that is what I meant; that is what I said. That is taking
responsibility for your emotions.
> May I be a lawyer for a second? Do you acknowledge you have been
> deliberately inflicting pain on Lumina for the loss of his dog for whatever
> the given reason?
Absolutely not! I sympathised, empathised and said he and his aunt had
done the right thing.
> I want to know the reason behind your behavior.
SP was making comments designed to make Lumina feel bad. Moreover, he
(SP) was inferring that there was a lot of things he had to say that,
to me, constitute irresponsible pet ownership.
>
> > > Maybe it's because you are not
> > > attached to the dog because you are not the owner, but I don't know what
> > > made you think the way you do. I am not a dog person, and probably
> never
> > > will be, but I don't go out dismiss other's feeling with their pets just
> > > because I don't have the same love for them.
> >
> > Would you be so kind as to point out where I dismissed anyone's
> > feelings for their pets?
>
> Obviously Lumina loves his dog very much, and the loss is quite painful.
> You didn't respect his feeling and used this to air your own opinion that
> animals are sub-human beings.
I'll try one last time. Lumina did the right thing, morally, ethically,
and in spite of loving the animal. My heart went out to him. I said so.
End of topic.
> > Being forced to deal with the issue upsets some people. The issue is
> > "responsible pet ownership" - not love, or Lumina's dog, or souls etc.
>
> You changed it to that topic.
Bingo.
> What I care is Lumina's loss.
Then post in the appropriate thread. "Evil, evil day". This is a
different one.
> I still feel badly when I accidentally kill the cherry tree in my front
> yard. Please don't tell me trees don't feel. Yes, trees don't have
> feelings, but it's a life, and I have an emotional attachment to it.
Well, hopefully one day you will realise that life and events don't
evolve around your emotional attachment to them.
>
> BTW, that sentence "I really don't like the way you argue," by itself
> doesn't stand as a whole argument. Please don't split my argument up, into
> bits.
Can't help it. If I want to respond to only one part, that is what I
do.
> Was it you that I have told that please read my entire post through once
> before you even start to respond to its parts?
I do. Context is important, but when my response is not relevant to the
context, I cut it. I do that in order to focus on the discussion and
not to get sidetracked into irrelevant areas, (strawman) which your
android thing was. I'm not saying you did it deliberately - I simply am
not interested in pursuing it.
That's what I always do when
> I respond to any post, btw, so not only I can understand the argument better
> as a whole, but it gives me some time to cool my temper off if I had any.
>
> > > You always snip the message the way
> > > that'll make your argument favorable without put the little <snip> or
> > > <munch> or whatever to indicate that a truncation is exercised.
> >
> > I'm only addressing that point. Helgraf already dealt with the
> > tautology issue - I said I agreed with him. I reiterated my point,
> > because it still seemed to be eluding you.
>
> But could you please agree to use any signal to indicate any snippage?
No. You know what you said.
I am
> very unsatisfied with tautology issue by the way, because you seems to
> evading my point. I've already overturned Helgraf's argument because it's a
> misunderstanding of our parts and I even explained to you once more, but you
> have never give me a direct response. Why is that?
Because I thought it was nonsense, untrue and irrelevant.
>
> > > And Helgraf, please don't jump in and saying I am doing ad hominem.
> This is
> > > not part of the argument anymore, since I agree with AQ on this one.
> And
> > > you know why, it's because it's a tautology. Please don't even try to
> pull
> > > this kind of trick, AQ,
> >
> > I'm not pulling any trick, period. If you think so, don't argue with me.
>
> I am not stupid, Ms Queen.
Again, I didn't say, think or infer you were. You are the one throwing
the accusations around. And you do seem very confused.
> Which reminds me something. Now I finally get what did you mean by "I hope
> this will be a constructive argument" or something like that.
Nope. I said I argued to learn things. And I'd add because I like
arguing.
> Don't tell me you are not pulling any trick. I've never seen anybody pull
> so many tricks in just one post. Didn't I just uncover several already
> above?
I don't think I've EVER gone to such lengths to explain myself
patiently to anyone before. And I fear my patience has come to an end.
> Giving opponent bad names, evading the main inquisition, changing subjects,
> using unadjustified testimony, downplaying a valid argument, twisting
> opponent's words in favor of yours, pleading innocence, playing ignorance,
> threatening opponent, concession then pounce, oversimplification. Do I need
> to publically embarrass you by pointing it out which trick goes with which
> paragraph in this very post?
Yes, you do. I've asked you repeatedly to do just that. I really want
you to do that, point by point.
> Playing do-no-wrong, eh? Ms Queen, you are
> not a princess anymore.
Mmm. Did anyone, ever, say I was?
<Huge snippage - I have not got time to respond at the moment.>
> > You are autistic, right?
>
> Autism is not a strong enough feeling to make me feel suicidal.
Autism isn't a feeling - it is a condition or state of being usually
bought about by messed up brain chemistry. More often than not
seratonin imbalance. This causes all kinds of things - panic attacks,
confusion etc. Suicidal thoughts and feelings are very common with it.
My autistic person just this past weekend had a terrible bout of that.
And we had a terrible bout of police, vice chancellors of students,
doctors et al.
> You just
> reminded me of looking for Rupert.... Where is he now? I hate this.... It
> seems I have this constant worry of which one of my friends is going to
> commit suicide again....
Umm - you usually only get to commit suicide once... ;)
> It's depressing. This is one of the reason why I
> always want to keep a constant communication with my friends, or I'll
> beginning to have some stupid thoughts about whether they are dead or
> something.
>
> That's not my main source of depression either. My problem is very deep and
> private, which I often call it a curse.
You keep referring to it, which is why I asked. Do you take any
medication for it?
>
> I am not total anti-social either. I used to be, but I am more opened up
> and I am even the group leader in some instances, even though underneath the
> surface, I am still the reserve boy I've always been, and I enjoy being
> that. But my future career path forces me to open up. I did choose
> business as my college major on purpose. One is to improve my English
> skill, another is to help me to get rid of my anti-social tendency, and I
> have some degree of success in both.
And you are very persistent, which is good.
> AQ, we are both very strong willed people. I think you know that by now.
> Though there is one thing happened in our past that might cause our
> difference in thinking pattern, I am just guessing this by the way, you have
> never really faced a life shattering failure before which made you changing
> the way you think about life completely.
Whoo boy! Trust me when I say I have.
>
> BTW, if I were to aim for winning the argument, I could just walk out, and
> let other people criticize you instead of risking myself being called a
> nasty hag.
As you are not even addressing the argument (Responsible pet
ownership), I don't see that happening.
AQ
Lumina Dragon
Ashikaga wrote:
>
> I am kind of furious of what you are doing, but whatever, you are going to
> call on the judge to overrule me anyways. If you are to criticize me, talk
> to me directly. Stop playing politics.
>
> If I were asked to pick the biggest mistake I made in my argument, it'll be
> the one which I thought you are similar to erimess. Anyways, I really
> should give you more credit, at least you aren't gossipping about me through
> emails.
Dang, but I hate flamewars. More so when they arose from a thread I
started because I needed to vent my emotions.
However, I am constrained to tell you, Ashikaga, that this is rapidly
becoming an argument of opinion, and there ARE no winners in those. You
will not back down from your views, and neither will she. At this point
I would like to request that you cut back trying to change her mind
(note that she is not trying to change yours, only telling you her
views), that this whole argument may drop.
Of course AQ is dealing with you directly and forthrightly (izzat a
word?) -- she always has argued this way. I may not know her well, but I
know that she is a woman of strong views who will not back down when
arguing about them.
-Lumina Dragon
Lumina Dragon
At her age, a trainer would not have done any good. If we had the
foresight to do something like that when she was still young, this might
have been averted. I can come up with so many things we could have done
differently, had it occurred to us to do so. However, we had not owned a
dog before this, and so we made do with what learning about the process
we could come by.
I'd like to think we did fair enough, overall, since the dog did lead a
good life with us. I regret that it had to end this way, though...
-Lumina Dragon
Ashikaga
> Ashikaga wrote:
> >
> > I am kind of furious of what you are doing, but whatever, you are going
to
> > call on the judge to overrule me anyways. If you are to criticize me,
talk
> > to me directly. Stop playing politics.
> >
> > If I were asked to pick the biggest mistake I made in my argument, it'll
be
> > the one which I thought you are similar to erimess. Anyways, I really
> > should give you more credit, at least you aren't gossipping about me
through
> > emails.
>
> Dang, but I hate flamewars. More so when they arose from a thread I
> started because I needed to vent my emotions.
It's not your fault.
> However, I am constrained to tell you, Ashikaga, that this is rapidly
> becoming an argument of opinion, and there ARE no winners in those. You
> will not back down from your views, and neither will she. At this point
> I would like to request that you cut back trying to change her mind
> (note that she is not trying to change yours, only telling you her
> views), that this whole argument may drop.
Who cares about winning? Please reread my post carefully, and you'll see
that's not my purpose, nor do I want to change her view.
> Of course AQ is dealing with you directly and forthrightly (izzat a
> word?) -- she always has argued this way. I may not know her well, but I
> know that she is a woman of strong views who will not back down when
> arguing about them.
Then I guess I'll back down for great justice. :-D There has to be a party
who yields.
> -Lumina Dragon
Ashikaga
Samurai
[munch]
>SP was making comments designed to make Lumina feel bad. Moreover, he
>(SP) was inferring that there was a lot of things he had to say that,
<ObNitPick> Implying. </ObNitPick> ;)
Acid Queen
says...
>
>
> Ashikaga wrote:
> >
> > I am kind of furious of what you are doing, but whatever, you are going to
> > call on the judge to overrule me anyways. If you are to criticize me, talk
> > to me directly. Stop playing politics.
> >
> > If I were asked to pick the biggest mistake I made in my argument, it'll be
> > the one which I thought you are similar to erimess. Anyways, I really
> > should give you more credit, at least you aren't gossipping about me through
> > emails.
>
> Dang, but I hate flamewars. More so when they arose from a thread I
> started because I needed to vent my emotions.
FWIW, I think you absolutely did the right thing; you have my deepest
sympathy and my intent was to support what you did.
I don't think I flamed anyone, but it is clear that anything that
diverges from utter adolescent trivia is taboo in these parts anymore.
It's kinda sad really.
I shall fade to black yet again. :)
AQ
Acid Queen
to.address says...
> Quoth Acid Queen <acidq...@hotmail.com>:
> [munch]
> >SP was making comments designed to make Lumina feel bad. Moreover, he
> >(SP) was inferring that there was a lot of things he had to say that,
> ^^^^
> <ObNitPick> Implying. </ObNitPick> ;)
>
agree that imply is probably better.
Now - did you ever get to post about the nuts thingy you heard in the
pub, which is what I came here for in the for in the first place?
AQ
Ashikaga
>Samurai says...
> > Quoth Acid Queen <acidq...@hotmail.com>:
> > [munch]
> > >SP was making comments designed to make Lumina feel bad. Moreover, he
> > >(SP) was inferring that there was a lot of things he had to say that,
> > ^^^^
> > <ObNitPick> Implying. </ObNitPick> ;)
> >
> The OED gave the second definition of "infer" as imply. But I have to
> agree that imply is probably better.
Infer and imply have same meaning, just like who and whom, but obviously
they have different usage.
One is the giving end, the other is the receiving end.... Take it any way
you like....
> Now - did you ever get to post about the nuts thingy you heard in the
> pub, which is what I came here for in the for in the first place?
>
> AQ
Ashikaga
Ashikaga
<snip>
> At her age, a trainer would not have done any good. If we had the
> foresight to do something like that when she was still young, this might
> have been averted. I can come up with so many things we could have done
> differently, had it occurred to us to do so. However, we had not owned a
> dog before this, and so we made do with what learning about the process
> we could come by.
Okay. I want to say something more, but I think it's better we stop about
this issue now, really.
> I'd like to think we did fair enough, overall, since the dog did lead a
> good life with us. I regret that it had to end this way, though...
I would feel very sad too if I were to do the same to my cat. If you need
some comforting, just redeem this hug coupon, here... [hug]. I printed too
many of them and it seems now my other friend probably doesn't want them
anymore.... But they are what I printed them for, comforting people, and
don't hesitate to redeem it. The first one is free. :-D
> -Lumina Dragon
Ashikaga (inventory the arms and legs he has been collecting)
Helgraf Dragon
>
>
> I shall fade to black yet again. :)
>
> AQ
Nooooooooooooooo...........
I can't go very long without a hit of your particular brand of wit.
Lumina Dragon
Acid Queen wrote:
>
> FWIW, I think you absolutely did the right thing; you have my deepest
> sympathy and my intent was to support what you did.
Thank you.
> I don't think I flamed anyone, but it is clear that anything that
> diverges from utter adolescent trivia is taboo in these parts anymore.
> It's kinda sad really.
Well, I stay out of arguments so much that I'm sometimes unable to tell
a heated debate from a flamewar.
> I shall fade to black yet again. :)
No!
You cannot do that!!
Yooouuu muuust noooooot!!!
-Lumina Dragon
Samurai
>diverges from utter adolescent trivia is taboo in these parts anymore.
>It's kinda sad really.
I don't think that's true. Perhaps I haven't noticed the shift because
I haven't been away, but everything seems much as it was when you were
last a regular poster here, really.
>I shall fade to black yet again. :)
But I haven't talked about the nuts, yet! ;)
erimess
<kewh...@hotmail.com> wrote:
As an animal lover, I feel for you. It would kill me if I had to do
that to my cat. (And it's something I think about because he's got
some health problems that we're having a hard time controlling.) It's
hard to live with.
Erimess Dragon
-==(UDIC)==-
Ambition is a Poor Excuse for
Not Having Enough Sense to be Lazy
erimess
<acidq...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> If you do that to
>> distinguish yourself from erimess, then I guess you have some success, but
>> otherwise, what you've been supposedly doing is not an honorable effort to
>> animals or human beings, but that's just my opinion from little I've known
>> you from reading this post.
>
>If you are saying she's a nicer person, you are probably correct.
Er, thanks. But I don't think that's what he meant. I could be
wrong, but I think he thinks I have more love for animals than you do.
Remember that he also equated our way of dealing (or dismissing)
people's feelings.
> I
>choose to be the way I am. My perception of truth is more important to
>me than what people think of me, and I am willing to make statements
>that can hurt feelings if I think it necessary. I seldom go out of my
>way to hurt anyone, though.
We are actually somewhat alike in this regard, though I not to your
extent. I can get pretty nasty when someone really makes me angry.
And you wouldn't believe the posts I've put in my outbox just long
enough to make me stop myself from sending them. :-) But I also
don't try to hurt anyone intentionally -- sometimes that's just the
regrettable consequences.
>
>> Obviously you don't.
>
><shrugs> Then I guess all that work in animal shelters cleaning out
>their stinking cages and trying to undo all the damage loving pet
>owners had done before abandoning them in bags on highways was a sort
>of self abuse on my part.
Oh jeez. Yes, you have quite seen the rotten side of life for
animals. I got both my cats at a shelter.
erimess
<ashi...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>"Acid Queen" wrote...
>> In ashikaga says...
>> > "Acid Queen" wrote...
>> > > silvan-pagan says...
><snip>
>> > > > I'm afraid I can't say anything further without launching into a
>> > scathing
>> > > > tirade that you really don't need to hear right now.
>> > >
>> > > That's good, because that will save me an equally scathing tirade
>about
>> > > irresponsible, emotional pet owners.
>> >
>> > You are totally erimessian in this regard.
>>
>> Dammit - get off comparing me to Erimess! She and I disagreed quite
>> strongly on this very issue a little while back.
>
>Sorry. I know there are quite a few differences between you two, but this
>one is too similar to go by without mentioning it. Maybe you don't think
>so, but don't take the animal issue literally, what I mean is how you two
>deal with (or dismiss) other people's feelings. You two meant it the good
>way, but that's not how most people take your words. I know erimess does
>that all the time to me and I am used to it so I don't get angry at her, and
>I think that's what you mean when you said those harsh sounding words, and I
>think that's your way to tell people "forget about the stuff already."
See my private email in answer to this because I don't think anyone
else needs to listen to what I have to say. Besides, they haven't
known you for two years and wouldn't know what the hell I was talking
about.
As for your cat, he bites you because you smother him to death, with
what you call "love."
erimess
<ashi...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>I am kind of furious of what you are doing, but whatever, you are going to
>call on the judge to overrule me anyways. If you are to criticize me, talk
>to me directly. Stop playing politics.
>
>If I were asked to pick the biggest mistake I made in my argument, it'll be
>the one which I thought you are similar to erimess. Anyways, I really
>should give you more credit, at least you aren't gossipping about me through
>emails.
>
"If you are to criticize me, talk to me directly."
If you are going to accuse of gossiping, talk to <insert name here>
directly.
I once attempted to define to you the difference between discussing
people and "gossiping." You didn't listen then; I won't reiterate
because I'm pretty sure you won't listen now. However, I will direct
you to your last email to me.
My tongue is overflowing with blood from biting it so hard to keep
from saying something right now.
erimess
<acidq...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>In article <Geee8.5169$FE4.3...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
>ashi...@worldnet.att.net says...
>> "Acid Queen" wrote...
>> > silvan-pagan says...
>> > > Lumina Dragon wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > Normally, I'm not one for sharing life events with you guys, but I'm
>> > > > feeling very down right now and feel the need to talk some...
>> > >
>> > > It would take a court order and a shitload of guns to get me to murder
>> one
>> > > of my dogs.
>> > >
>> > > I'm afraid I can't say anything further without launching into a
>> scathing
>> > > tirade that you really don't need to hear right now.
>> >
>> > That's good, because that will save me an equally scathing tirade about
>> > irresponsible, emotional pet owners.
>>
>> You are totally erimessian in this regard.
>
>Dammit - get off comparing me to Erimess! She and I disagreed quite
>strongly on this very issue a little while back.
Nah, we were talking about declawing. I pretty much agree with you on
this one.
erimess
<ashi...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>"Acid Queen" wrote...
>> ashikaga says...
>> > "Acid Queen" wrote...
>>
>> > > Dammit - get off comparing me to Erimess! She and I disagreed quite
>> > > strongly on this very issue a little while back.
>> >
>> > Sorry. I know there are quite a few differences between you two, but
>this
>> > one is too similar to go by without mentioning it. Maybe you don't
>think
>> > so, but don't take the animal issue literally, what I mean is how you
>two
>> > deal with (or dismiss) other people's feelings.
>>
>> I intended my words to be harsh. I take animal issues very seriously -
>> I am a supporter, and one time activist, of a well-known and much
>> maligned animal rights group. Silvan Pagan basically chose to try to
>> put Lumina, who had no control over what happened, on a guilt trip with
>> words like "murder".
>
>You don't know the meaning of Silvan Pagan's words. I don't see them that
>way as you describe. He was trying to comfort him but he doesn't want to
>get all disgusting.
Excuse me, what?
>
>I don't believe you are a real animal right activist, and here is my
>argument: you have absolutely no love for animals. If you do that to
>distinguish yourself from erimess, then I guess you have some success, but
>otherwise, what you've been supposedly doing is not an honorable effort to
>animals or human beings, but that's just my opinion from little I've known
>you from reading this post.
Your perception, as usual, is lacking. I don't distinguish myself
from AC as an animal lover and her not, at all. We disagree
(strongly) on some details but I think we agree on some basic
premises. Actually, we probably agree on a lot more than you (or she)
realizes.
I'd say more about the rest of your post but I think Helgraf did a
nice job. And besides, I have gotten SO ANGRY at this point that I
don't think I could possibly even talk rationally to you at this
moment. The more of this thread I read, the more I think you've gone
totally off your rocker and have gotten irrational. You have no clue
about Dis -- she might be opinionated and not afraid to state her
views, but she's not playing any games here. And I don't think you
could embarrass her easily.
erimess
<acidq...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> May I be a lawyer for a second? Do you acknowledge you have been
>> deliberately inflicting pain on Lumina for the loss of his dog for whatever
>> the given reason?
>
>Absolutely not! I sympathised, empathised and said he and his aunt had
>done the right thing.
Yeah, and I for one would like to know where he invented this premise
from.
>
>
>> Which reminds me something. Now I finally get what did you mean by "I hope
>> this will be a constructive argument" or something like that.
>
>Nope. I said I argued to learn things. And I'd add because I like
>arguing.
No, really? :-)
>
>> Don't tell me you are not pulling any trick. I've never seen anybody pull
>> so many tricks in just one post. Didn't I just uncover several already
>> above?
>
>I don't think I've EVER gone to such lengths to explain myself
>patiently to anyone before. And I fear my patience has come to an end.
Yours lasted longer than mine.
>
><Huge snippage - I have not got time to respond at the moment.>
>
>> > You are autistic, right?
>>
>> Autism is not a strong enough feeling to make me feel suicidal.
>
>Autism isn't a feeling - it is a condition or state of being usually
>bought about by messed up brain chemistry. More often than not
>seratonin imbalance. This causes all kinds of things - panic attacks,
>confusion etc. Suicidal thoughts and feelings are very common with it.
>My autistic person just this past weekend had a terrible bout of that.
>And we had a terrible bout of police, vice chancellors of students,
>doctors et al.
I think this describes a lot of people.
>
>
>> It's depressing. This is one of the reason why I
>> always want to keep a constant communication with my friends, or I'll
>> beginning to have some stupid thoughts about whether they are dead or
>> something.
>>
>> That's not my main source of depression either. My problem is very deep and
>> private, which I often call it a curse.
>
>You keep referring to it, which is why I asked. Do you take any
>medication for it?
He can't, but he could certainly attempt to do something about the
emotional effects it has on him.
Helgraf Dragon
> I'd say more about the rest of your post but I think Helgraf did a
> nice job. And besides, I have gotten SO ANGRY at this point that I
> don't think I could possibly even talk rationally to you at this
> moment. The more of this thread I read, the more I think you've gone
> totally off your rocker and have gotten irrational. You have no clue
> about Dis -- she might be opinionated and not afraid to state her
> views, but she's not playing any games here. And I don't think you
> could embarrass her easily.
<Appreciative>
Thank you.
</Appreciative>
Acid Queen
to.address says...
> Quoth Acid Queen <acidq...@hotmail.com>:
> [munch]
> >I don't think I flamed anyone, but it is clear that anything that
> >diverges from utter adolescent trivia is taboo in these parts anymore.
> >It's kinda sad really.
>
> I don't think that's true. Perhaps I haven't noticed the shift because
> I haven't been away, but everything seems much as it was when you were
> last a regular poster here, really.
Saying this was somewhat redundant; as it isn't likely to accomplish
anything it probably would've been better left unsaid. But having gone
halfway there, I may as well finish. I've written this several times in
an effort not to come off as critical, because I don't see it as
anyone's fault, but I'm not succeeding.
Let's say that trifle is interesting, but not as an exclusive diet. For
me, this was the place to get my intellectual kicks - like comp.sys*rpg
is currently - with the added advantages here of being able to indulge
in silliness with other Ultima "family".
As I see it, the intellectual content is gone. SP's nuts, my animal
hangups and everyone's emotional maladjustments leave much to be
desired in the way of substance. And in its present state it will die -
just as F-15 predicted it would (and I think sought to bring about) -
because those things aren't going to attract and keep interesting new
posters, where the lifeblood of NGs lies.
> But I haven't talked about the nuts, yet! ;)
I keep hoping. The lure of British pub wisdom on that subject (size,
rather than nuts, but any port in a storm) is almost overwhelming.
Dis
Acid Queen
If those effects are caused by autism, he can't - anymore than someone
who is clinically depressed can "cheer up".
What he tried to do here had more to do with the fact he couldn't make
an argument and resorted to tactics that were intended apparently to
embarrass me - a feat that only I am capable of. :)
The fact he tried it surprised me, but it isn't the first time that has
happened! I have learned that when someone warns me that they can be a
little prick, it is wise to take them at their word.
AQ
Acid Queen
I'm combining comments from several different posts here. I've finally
read the thread in it's entirety, instead of piecemeal, but don't have
time to respond to each.
In article <3c807c79...@news.newsguy.com>, erimess says...
> On Wed, 27 Feb 2002 16:57:26 -0600, Acid Queen
> <acidq...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >> May I be a lawyer for a second? Do you acknowledge you have been
> >> deliberately inflicting pain on Lumina for the loss of his dog for whatever
> >> the given reason?
> >
> >Absolutely not! I sympathised, empathised and said he and his aunt had
> >done the right thing.
>
> Yeah, and I for one would like to know where he invented this premise
> from.
In case you haven't caught on, he was attempting to do to me what he
was accusing me of doing. Twisting words etc. He either can't or won't
accept he couldn't come up with a convincing argument, so he resorted
to a barrage of the usual usenet tactics. Initially, I didn't realize
he did that stuff, so gave him the benefit of the doubt. Something he
will regret should he be silly enough to try it again. >:->
My experiences have taught me that this behaviour won't change any time
soon, because people who indulge in it refuse to accept that it is
their shortcomings as debaters that cause the problem.
(different post):
> My tongue is overflowing with blood from biting it so hard to keep
> from saying something right now.
I used to feel that way about hypocrisy - an exchange with Gerry Quinn
(you may have seen) quite altered my outlook on it. However, be aware
that people who indulge in it to a serious level have character flaws
that may bite you in time.
(different post)
> Actually, we probably agree on a lot more than you (or she)
> realizes.
I think we are peas in a pod - accepting that peas are individuals. I
even started out adult life in accountancy. Our differences lie in the
time we've been on the planet, and the fact I've experienced more than
you. You are definitely more mature than I was at your age, though.
Dis
Lumina Dragon
Acid Queen wrote:
>
> As I see it, the intellectual content is gone. SP's nuts, my animal
> hangups and everyone's emotional maladjustments leave much to be
> desired in the way of substance. And in its present state it will die -
> just as F-15 predicted it would (and I think sought to bring about) -
> because those things aren't going to attract and keep interesting new
> posters, where the lifeblood of NGs lies.
Now, now. Why does everyone claim RGCUD, UDIC, or whatever, is going to
die out?
We haven't yet!
We will never die. The fact that I saw someone post about recently
starting the Ultima series elsewhere in this NG proves we're not dead.
To quote a UDIC-related website: Dragons are Forever!
-Lumina Dragon
I'm not dead yet!
Singing Dragon
> As I see it, the intellectual content is gone. SP's nuts, my animal
> hangups and everyone's emotional maladjustments leave much to be
> desired in the way of substance. And in its present state it will die -
> just as F-15 predicted it would (and I think sought to bring about) -
> because those things aren't going to attract and keep interesting new
> posters, where the lifeblood of NGs lies.
I know what you mean... I miss our debates, but can't see anything like
that happening here these days.
By the way - I've somewhat come around to your thinking on Art. To sum
up, and probably completely oversimplify anything that you ever said, if
not just get it plain wrong, you were of the opinion that the essence of
Art was the originality, and that most musicians are not so much artists
but craftsmen (women.. whatever... does a gender-neutral term exist?)
Now, I've kinda come to the conclusion that that IS what art's basically
about. In addition, I've decided that, for the most part, it's a crock
of shit. Art is only really meaningful if the originality has a normal
idiom to compare it to, and most stuff just doesn't... the crafty stuff
without so much art in it generally is what's actually important to a
culture, it seems.
--
Singing Dragon
-- Don't forget to *enjoy* the *sauce* --
- UnSpluttable -
- 1 Boa point -
Ashikaga
It's what the culture is "interested in." May I correct?
I had a similar debate on the adventure NG. So in conclusion, I'll have to
say most people today don't care about art. This is the direction this
world is heading..., since money is what most people want and the perception
of art is somewhat subjective; therefore, it's safer for business to bet on
cliches that sell rather than something original (it's "money" that's
important to the culture). Look how many 1st person shooters or real time
strategy games we have today.
Yes, business people know clones won't make as much as an original game (or
any product really), but it doesn't matter, because risk/return ratio is
still better. They know they'll sell instead of betting on a question mark,
because it cost money to develop a question mark into a star. But clones
are cash cows (yes, those are actual marketing terms I am using: question
mark, star, cash cow and dog.... That tells you something about marketing
people, doesn't it? BTW, that's call BCG Growth/Share Matrix, please do a
search on the Internet if you don't believe me. Yes, I know... they are
pretty cheesy terms).
I have heard the similar story about writings (in general) from English
major people. Many best selling novelists/writers are probably aiming for
what people like, and that often means lots of cliches in their books.
"Teen fiction" is a prime example the guy gave.
Besides, it's easier to get a conversation started if you bought an
imitation of von Gogh than an unknown artist's masterpiece. You want to
give your guests a chance to brag how much they know about von Gogh, so
they'll like you more rather than make them feel like idiots (and in turn,
they probably will blame it on your "bad taste"). BTW, I appreciate stuff
that "I" like, what "I" consider to be a work of art, and/or important to
"me."
When it comes to fine art, I don't think I'll necessarily agree with
business people's perception, though that's what I practice (finance, not
marketing, btw, and you know how much financiers and marketeers hate each
other :-D Okay..., you have to be in business to appreciate these nerdy
jokes).
> --
> Singing Dragon
> -- Don't forget to *enjoy* the *sauce* --
> - UnSpluttable -
> - 1 Boa point -
Ashikaga
Whreky
>By the way - I've somewhat come around to your thinking on Art. To sum
>up, and probably completely oversimplify anything that you ever said, if
>not just get it plain wrong, you were of the opinion that the essence of
>Art was the originality, and that most musicians are not so much artists
>but craftsmen (women.. whatever... does a gender-neutral term exist?)
>
>Now, I've kinda come to the conclusion that that IS what art's basically
>about. In addition, I've decided that, for the most part, it's a crock
>of shit. Art is only really meaningful if the originality has a normal
>idiom to compare it to, and most stuff just doesn't... the crafty stuff
>without so much art in it generally is what's actually important to a
>culture, it seems.
I've just one question:
Who IS this guy Art, and why are there so many museums dedicated to him?
~~O^O~~
Optician Dragon
-==UDIC==-
You who are rich and whose troubles are few
May come around to see my point of view.
What price the crown of a king on his throne
When you're chained in the dark all alone?
Whreky
>Besides, it's easier to get a conversation started if you bought an
>imitation of von Gogh than an unknown artist's masterpiece. You want to
>give your guests a chance to brag how much they know about von Gogh, so
>they'll like you more rather than make them feel like idiots (and in turn,
>they probably will blame it on your "bad taste"). BTW, I appreciate stuff
>that "I" like, what "I" consider to be a work of art, and/or important to
>"me."
See what you art guys think of my wife's cousins' art.
http://www.lorenadams.com/
erimess
>>
>>Besides, it's easier to get a conversation started if you bought an
>>imitation of von Gogh than an unknown artist's masterpiece. You want to
>>give your guests a chance to brag how much they know about von Gogh, so
>>they'll like you more rather than make them feel like idiots (and in turn,
>>they probably will blame it on your "bad taste"). BTW, I appreciate stuff
>>that "I" like, what "I" consider to be a work of art, and/or important to
>>"me."
>
>See what you art guys think of my wife's cousins' art.
>http://www.lorenadams.com/
I'm not an "art guy" -- I just like what I like and don't like what I
don't like. Since I'm trying to keep my online time down I only
looked at the home page picture for right now. I like her style. I
like the colors. It has charm. I also like things that look like
what they are supposed to (I hate abstract stuff) but not so much that
it looks like a photograph. Don't suppose she's done lighthouses? I
love lighthouse paintings.
erimess
<acidq...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>In article <3c807c79...@news.newsguy.com>, erimess says...
>> On Wed, 27 Feb 2002 16:57:26 -0600, Acid Queen
>> <acidq...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> >You keep referring to it, which is why I asked. Do you take any
>> >medication for it?
>>
>> He can't, but he could certainly attempt to do something about the
>> emotional effects it has on him.
>
>If those effects are caused by autism, he can't - anymore than someone
>who is clinically depressed can "cheer up".
I don't know what those effects are caused by. I mean, I know what
they're caused by on the surface, but not ultimately. Something I've
never figured out. But even though I'm perceptive, I'm not a
professional. And it would take someone unbiased too.
>
>What he tried to do here had more to do with the fact he couldn't make
>an argument and resorted to tactics that were intended apparently to
>embarrass me - a feat that only I am capable of. :)
Yes, you're the queen. :-) I actually don't know that he was trying
to accomplish anything in particular -- just taking his usual
defensive mode is all, and it just sort of results in whatever it
happens to result in. If that makes sense.
>
>The fact he tried it surprised me,
Not me.
> but it isn't the first time that has
>happened! I have learned that when someone warns me that they can be a
>little prick, it is wise to take them at their word.
>
>AQ
>
>
>
Erimess Dragon
erimess
<acidq...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>As I see it, the intellectual content is gone. SP's nuts, my animal
>hangups and everyone's emotional maladjustments leave much to be
>desired in the way of substance.
So what would you *like* to argue about then? :-)
erimess
<acidq...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>I'm combining comments from several different posts here. I've finally
>read the thread in it's entirety, instead of piecemeal, but don't have
>time to respond to each.
Quite all right. Easier than answering several posts anyway.
>
>In article <3c807c79...@news.newsguy.com>, erimess says...
>> On Wed, 27 Feb 2002 16:57:26 -0600, Acid Queen
>> <acidq...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >> May I be a lawyer for a second? Do you acknowledge you have been
>> >> deliberately inflicting pain on Lumina for the loss of his dog for whatever
>> >> the given reason?
>> >
>> >Absolutely not! I sympathised, empathised and said he and his aunt had
>> >done the right thing.
>>
>> Yeah, and I for one would like to know where he invented this premise
>> from.
>
>In case you haven't caught on, he was attempting to do to me what he
>was accusing me of doing. Twisting words etc.
Knowing him as I do, I think he actually believed you had done this.
You see, he doesn't just twist the words you see him write and then
discover he meant an entirely different thing. He takes what other
people say and twists it before it gets to his receptors, and he
honestly believes that's what you said. He will never take anyone at
their word -- he will always assume there's a hidden twisted meaning
in there somewhere and then invent something out of it. So he very
well could honestly believe you were trying to inflict pain on Lumina.
Good example from elsewhere in this thread:
> > > You don't know the meaning of Silvan Pagan's words. I don't see them
that
> > > way as you describe. He was trying to comfort him but he doesn't want
to
> > > get all disgusting.
>
> > Somehow, I don't see being told you've murdered your dog as being
> > comforting. But I could be wrong - SP can correct me if so.
>I really should read his words again. Last time I read it, he meant it
>would require him a court order to kill his own dog. Obviously that means
>he would never kill his dog unless something drastic is imposed on him.
>Which means he feels for Lumina. Why aren't those comforting words?
See what I mean?
> He either can't or won't
>accept he couldn't come up with a convincing argument, so he resorted
>to a barrage of the usual usenet tactics. Initially, I didn't realize
>he did that stuff, so gave him the benefit of the doubt. Something he
>will regret should he be silly enough to try it again. >:->
This might be hard to believe, but there is a chance he honestly
believes himself. I think the answer to that lies in that possible
autism thing? Not that I'm making excuses, trust me.
>
>My experiences have taught me that this behaviour won't change any time
>soon, because people who indulge in it refuse to accept that it is
>their shortcomings as debaters that cause the problem.
And I always thought *I* was a bad debater.
>
>(different post):
>
>> My tongue is overflowing with blood from biting it so hard to keep
>> from saying something right now.
>
>I used to feel that way about hypocrisy - an exchange with Gerry Quinn
>(you may have seen) quite altered my outlook on it. However, be aware
>that people who indulge in it to a serious level have character flaws
>that may bite you in time.
Oh, I know only too well, especially when very creative excuses are
made for it.
>
>(different post)
>
>> Actually, we probably agree on a lot more than you (or she)
>> realizes.
>
>I think we are peas in a pod - accepting that peas are individuals.
Ah, so you did actually say this. Never mind...
> I
>even started out adult life in accountancy. Our differences lie in the
>time we've been on the planet, and the fact I've experienced more than
>you. You are definitely more mature than I was at your age, though.
Er, how old do you think I am? Cause one of us is older than the
other thinks we are.
Whreky
>>See what you art guys think of my wife's cousins' art.
>>http://www.lorenadams.com/
>
>I'm not an "art guy" -- I just like what I like and don't like what I
>don't like. Since I'm trying to keep my online time down I only
>looked at the home page picture for right now. I like her style. I
>like the colors. It has charm. I also like things that look like
>what they are supposed to (I hate abstract stuff) but not so much that
>it looks like a photograph. Don't suppose she's done lighthouses? I
>love lighthouse paintings.
>
Well, um, first off, he's a he.
He's been in many magazines and exhibitions, and is popularly known as "The
Master of the Translucent Wave". He does mostly West Coast shorelines, and I'm
not sure if he has done any lighthouse paintings (which we also adore), but
since he once did a nautical group there is a likeleyhood that he did. We have
a couple of his autographed prints as does the MIL.
Singing Dragon
>> Now, I've kinda come to the conclusion that that IS what art's basically
>> about. In addition, I've decided that, for the most part, it's a crock
>> of shit. Art is only really meaningful if the originality has a normal
>> idiom to compare it to, and most stuff just doesn't... the crafty stuff
>> without so much art in it generally is what's actually important to a
>> culture, it seems.
>
> It's what the culture is "interested in." May I correct?
It's hard to come to any real concensus on the matter, since so many
different opinions float around..
But I've come to associate the term "art" (and especially "artist") with
the 19th century romantic ideals - the artist expressing himself through
his music/painting/poetry, completely alone in his endeavours, ignoring
and ignored by the rest of society. The other side of things - doing
stuff because people need it done seems to be the way most art was made
in earlier times (not that a few tormented artists didn't exist, of
course).
In general I prefer, both philosophically and aesthetically, that
earlier stuff - someone does something because he's asked to do it, and
he does a damn good job at it, because he's really good at it! And of
course, that leaves room for doing stuff on your own. Rather like
software development...
> I had a similar debate on the adventure NG. So in conclusion, I'll have to
> say most people today don't care about art. This is the direction this
> world is heading..., since money is what most people want and the perception
> of art is somewhat subjective; therefore, it's safer for business to bet on
> cliches that sell rather than something original (it's "money" that's
> important to the culture). Look how many 1st person shooters or real time
> strategy games we have today.
I still stick to my first opinion: originality is overrated. It's an
important component of the great Romantic Art that I'm not so into, and
a HUGE part of the modernist silliness that has sprung from it. But
really, for the vast majority of people, having something to fit the
need that exists is far more important than having something brand new
that no one's ever heard of.
To a large extent, derivative works are not only a good thing, but
NECESSARY. So much culture of every sort (including language and
personal attitudes and habits) are very difficult to understand and be a
part of without understanding their context - I'm a bit of an expert at
this, from my experience trying to understand old music: deliberately
taking it out of its cultural context is HARD. However, when we endorse
originality above all else, we basically make art/culture without a
context. It's no surprise that most modern art is incomprehensible to
the masses, and that most people don't like it.
> When it comes to fine art, I don't think I'll necessarily agree with
> business people's perception, though that's what I practice (finance, not
> marketing, btw, and you know how much financiers and marketeers hate each
> other :-D Okay..., you have to be in business to appreciate these nerdy
> jokes).
Good thing I don't get it. :)
Ashikaga
> My, Ashikaga, what a big post you have!
> >> Now, I've kinda come to the conclusion that that IS what art's
basically
> >> about. In addition, I've decided that, for the most part, it's a crock
> >> of shit. Art is only really meaningful if the originality has a normal
> >> idiom to compare it to, and most stuff just doesn't... the crafty stuff
> >> without so much art in it generally is what's actually important to a
> >> culture, it seems.
> >
> > It's what the culture is "interested in." May I correct?
>
> It's hard to come to any real concensus on the matter, since so many
> different opinions float around..
>
> But I've come to associate the term "art" (and especially "artist") with
> the 19th century romantic ideals - the artist expressing himself through
> his music/painting/poetry, completely alone in his endeavours, ignoring
> and ignored by the rest of society. The other side of things - doing
> stuff because people need it done seems to be the way most art was made
> in earlier times (not that a few tormented artists didn't exist, of
> course).
>
> In general I prefer, both philosophically and aesthetically, that
> earlier stuff - someone does something because he's asked to do it, and
> he does a damn good job at it, because he's really good at it! And of
> course, that leaves room for doing stuff on your own. Rather like
> software development...
Yes, if you mean paintings, I know the style artists were aiming at until
Romantic/Victorian period is presentational. After that, many schools
differ in thoughts. Some chose Cubism, some chose Impressionism, or
remained true to the old school, etc..
I don't think it's not that important to which school you follow, really,
since there is a market for every taste (which one dominates the current
market is a different matter). Though, even if you prefer earlier pieces,
but in your piece I feel you are influenced by the Romantic ideal. Which
is fine in my book, because when a new idea is introduced, some probably
will find some merrit in incorporating the new style, even when one don't
necessarily want to follow that school entirely. It's just a part of
progress through time.
For example, how would one make improvasations when s/he doesn't agree
ad-libbing is considered as an art form? Spontaneity wasn't considered as a
value, and every one were supposed to have formal practices and planning
before they perform, you see.
If you haven't figured it out, yes, my perception of art is more closer to
that Romantic ideal you speak of, though I am still seeking other kind of
thoughts to explain what I like.
> > I had a similar debate on the adventure NG. So in conclusion, I'll have
to
> > say most people today don't care about art. This is the direction this
> > world is heading..., since money is what most people want and the
perception
> > of art is somewhat subjective; therefore, it's safer for business to bet
on
> > cliches that sell rather than something original (it's "money" that's
> > important to the culture). Look how many 1st person shooters or real
time
> > strategy games we have today.
>
> I still stick to my first opinion: originality is overrated. It's an
> important component of the great Romantic Art that I'm not so into, and
> a HUGE part of the modernist silliness that has sprung from it. But
> really, for the vast majority of people, having something to fit the
> need that exists is far more important than having something brand new
> that no one's ever heard of.
Yes, it is just a matter of opinion. My opinion is originality is
important, but I don't think it's either overrated or underrated.
Originality is the pushing force behind introduction of new products and
ideas that would benefit everyone as a whole, even if people didn't like it
at first.
> To a large extent, derivative works are not only a good thing, but
> NECESSARY. So much culture of every sort (including language and
> personal attitudes and habits) are very difficult to understand and be a
> part of without understanding their context - I'm a bit of an expert at
> this, from my experience trying to understand old music: deliberately
> taking it out of its cultural context is HARD. However, when we endorse
> originality above all else, we basically make art/culture without a
> context. It's no surprise that most modern art is incomprehensible to
> the masses, and that most people don't like it.
I don't disagree with your view. Derivative works are necessary, just like
everything evolutionary. Culture is a result of a further development of an
existing set of ideas.
Most of the greatest musicians are not necessarily the inventor of his/her
own genre. In fact Beethoven is the only one I can think of who started his
own genre, and I think he is overrated even.
So..., I knew you are a real musician. :-) You have scrutinized aspects of
musical ideas you study before you come the conclusion of what you said. I
don't necessarily care what answer people come up with. AFAIK, some people
without musical background may have come to the same conclusion, but it's
the explanation and the process of coming to that conclusion that I care
(whether it be art or any topic). If someone say the same thing you do, I
probably would be skeptical and refuse to accept. It's the background stuff
I care about when I judge people's validity of their argument, not whether I
agree with you or not.
I don't with you entirely, btw, since my ideal is still closer to Romantics,
but like I said, to each of our own. Just because something is
incomprehensible doesn't mean somebody must reject it. I do agree with you
if we endore stuff without any context, it's hard to relate, but that
shouldn't pull any artist (or whoever) back from achieving their ideals. If
everything must fit into the context, then there is no originality to speak
of. I know this begins to sound Catch-22. :-)
Craft and evolutionary products pegged on the contemporary culture, whereas
an original stuff goes its own way. There was upon a time everything jazz
was the pop culture, then it suddenly became the music of the status, then
it got rejected and classical came back to take the place it had always
enjoyed before jazz took it over temporarily. In the process, musicians of
different era would inevitably be more sensitive of the style the
contemporary culture is in. OTOH, original people still develop stuff in
their own ways, and not as greatly influenced by the stuff around them. So
what defines the current culture? Yet another Catch-22. Culture defines
the direction art is going, but art also defines culture....
I was in high school at the time where Haiwaiian shirt is considered as
dorky and I was even made fun of wearing one, but now some people adore
Hawaiian shirts. Things do change. What would be rejected today may not be
rejected tomorow. Strange isn't it?
BTW, I gave no original thought in this part of response immediate to your
above paragraph (except that original stuff goes their own way), but they
are all elaboration of your idea. So derivative works are necessary part of
learning, I definitely agree.
> > When it comes to fine art, I don't think I'll necessarily agree with
> > business people's perception, though that's what I practice (finance,
not
> > marketing, btw, and you know how much financiers and marketeers hate
each
> > other :-D Okay..., you have to be in business to appreciate these
nerdy
> > jokes).
>
> Good thing I don't get it. :)
It's not important to get it anywayz. It's just an added bonus to make some
people laugh. :-)
> --
> Singing Dragon
> -- Don't forget to *enjoy* the *sauce* --
> - UnSpluttable -
> - 1 Boa point -
Ashikaga
Allan Olley
> My, Ashikaga, what a big post you have!
> >> Now, I've kinda come to the conclusion that that IS what art's basically
> >> about. In addition, I've decided that, for the most part, it's a crock
> >> of shit. Art is only really meaningful if the originality has a normal
> >> idiom to compare it to, and most stuff just doesn't... the crafty stuff
> >> without so much art in it generally is what's actually important to a
> >> culture, it seems.
> > It's what the culture is "interested in." May I correct?
> It's hard to come to any real concensus on the matter, since so many
> different opinions float around..
> But I've come to associate the term "art" (and especially "artist") with
> the 19th century romantic ideals - the artist expressing himself through
> his music/painting/poetry, completely alone in his endeavours, ignoring
> and ignored by the rest of society. The other side of things - doing
> stuff because people need it done seems to be the way most art was made
> in earlier times (not that a few tormented artists didn't exist, of
> course).
> In general I prefer, both philosophically and aesthetically, that
> earlier stuff - someone does something because he's asked to do it, and
> he does a damn good job at it, because he's really good at it! And of
> course, that leaves room for doing stuff on your own. Rather like
> software development...
Most art today would still be produced along the lines of someone
doing it in order to meet somebodies need. I think building are still
built or renovated with a careful eye toward the artistic/aesthetic
considerations. Certainly the design of any monument involves a great
deal of artistic consideration. Even the various mass produced items
that are all around us may have had a small contribution from the
concern for the artistic elements. Also, mass entertainment in its
myriad of forms all has at least a smidgen of the artistic in it.
Also, even most of the art for art sakes is either done on commission,
for a grant or on spec. that someone will pay for it down the line. It
is just that we specialize, rather than buying something which
multitasks, we want an object that is dedicated to art to maximize its
artsyness. Something, beautiful, somehting horrible, something
sublime, something powerful. It makes no sense for me to get a
portrait done if all I want is a likeness of myself, a photograph will
do just as well and be significantly cheaper. Since many crafts have
been systemitized and turned scientific, the technician replaces the
craftsman. So the artistic and the utilitarian aspects of design are
pushed to extremes, things are either mostly worried about being
useful or mostly worried about artistic concerns.
Also, we have more and more people commissioning art for more and more
reasons, before (since at least the renaissance IIRC) there were
professional musicians and painters who worried about nothing more
than the production of fine art and music but they were doing it at
the behest of a small and homogenous elite.
<SNIP>
> To a large extent, derivative works are not only a good thing, but
> NECESSARY. So much culture of every sort (including language and
> personal attitudes and habits) are very difficult to understand and be a
> part of without understanding their context - I'm a bit of an expert at
> this, from my experience trying to understand old music: deliberately
> taking it out of its cultural context is HARD. However, when we endorse
> originality above all else, we basically make art/culture without a
> context. It's no surprise that most modern art is incomprehensible to
> the masses, and that most people don't like it.
The masses also seem to find classical music incomprehensible and do
not like it. Also, opera, Shakespearean plays and a whole host of
other things which have weathered the changes of culure. Heck take
cars they have a well defined culture context, but some people greatly
appreciate them (their costruction, maintence and design), while for
others they just turn the key and it goes, and that is as much as they
ever want to know, and they have a hard time understanding people who
want to know more.
Any cultural or artistic activity requires at least some effort in
order for it to be appreciated. Anything that does not require much
effort may well not be worth much anyway. That being said some stuff
is going to take more work to appreciate then any normal person is
going to want to expend, so be it, that is the way things are.
As to modern art I am not sure what to think of it, but I do know that
I do not know any better way to pursue art than what is currently
pursued. Also, art will always have some context even if it is only
the artwork itself, but I agree it can be taken to a level where
things become incomprhensible and futile, but I do not think that kind
of activity endures for very long. I would suggest though that modern
art is in fact probably a lot less exclusive than many forms of art
have been in the past, if you consider the percentage of the
population that appreciates them versus in the past where some arts
were the domain of a very small rich and educated elite.
On a broader level the homogenety of culture does seem to be lessening
and this does make it harder in some ways to communicate, however it
also holds out the hope that people can find better ways to live and
work unobstructed by the often constricting cords of culture. Also, I
think that it is quite likely that their are actually unifying forces
of culture that are emerging and that may in time provide a basis for
cross communication between far more people then have ever been able
to communicate in the past.
--
d e+ N- T- Om++ UK!1!2!3!4!56A78! u uC uF- uG+ uLB+ uA nC nR nH+ nP
nI+ nPT nS+
nT- y- a22
Captain in the Cinnaguard, Weirdo
Blue Bow [B><B]
Website: http://badger.ac.brocku.ca/~ao98ad/
-----------
Yours Truly Saint George's Dragon
Allan Olley -==UDIC==-
-----------
"The best beer in the world is the one in my hand." Charles Papazian.
Ashikaga
<snip>
> On a broader level the homogenety of culture does seem to be lessening
> and this does make it harder in some ways to communicate, however it
> also holds out the hope that people can find better ways to live and
> work unobstructed by the often constricting cords of culture. Also, I
> think that it is quite likely that their are actually unifying forces
> of culture that are emerging and that may in time provide a basis for
> cross communication between far more people then have ever been able
> to communicate in the past.
I agree with stuff you said. In fact, I think all three of our core idea
are very similar, but only slightly variations on certain nitpicking issues.
Anywayz, I quote the paragraph above it's because that's the part I do not
agree with. I find the homogeneity of culture is in fact worsening. The
culture has become so derivative, most people no longer know what to
believe, or lack of a central direction, so they pretty much follow what was
done previously and do absolutely no innovation.
I believe this because, 1) I found too many school organizations just
follow how things were done without spending time thinking about
improvement, 2) many of the TV shows are doing cliches that comforts the
people who are used to the way it was.
Let me use a rather strange example to illustrate the point that people no
longer know what's the meaning of many things. Do you go treat your friends
in McDonald because it's the best burger joint in town, or because you pay
your money there to eat an image that McDonald delivers, which most people
believe it's better than Burger King (but vice versa works too, if you go to
Burger King instead of McDonald). I used fastfood restaurant on purpose,
because we are more likely to choose a best tasting restaurants rather than
a restaurant with good reputation (maybe that's not true either).
I can understand why you believe the society is losing homogeneity, because
many people, including me, is trying to break away from this lack of
variation and individuality the modern world is becoming. People do make a
big fuss about everything happened in life, and you heard it. Though in
general we are crying for individuality just because the society is going
the very opposite, and we don't believe that direction is correct.
The homogeneity of the society would trace back to Industrial Revolution (IR
thereafter), the era that interests me the most. It's the IR that made
everything cheaper and it was intended to increase the living standard of
people a la Adam Smith, but we know things have got cheaper but people
aren't necessarily live better, neither do things become more affordable.
People who understand Adam Smith would agree cheaper /= affordable;
likewise, higher salary /= higher living standard. Can we agree with each
other so far?
Pre-revolution artisans used to craft furnitures one-by-one, and give them
distinct features. They are expensive, because they are truly works of art
by today's standard. Post-revolution, everything are mass produced, so
everything looks the same. They are more affordable, but they are not the
same even if they look similar on the exterior, because the mass-production
furniture makers (or rather, factory workers) didn't put thoughts to their
product like an artisan used to. Thoughts like "How can I make this product
more aesthetic?" or "How can I make this chair more comfortable?" are no
longer part of the equation.
I learned a little bit from a website that says Art Nouveau started as an
answer to the lack of "humanity" that is supposedly caused by IR. Art
Nouveau artist adds natural curves into furniture, architect (or whatever
the piece is) instead of using the simple geometric shapes that
characterized the post-IR mass-produced products. I find that very
fascinating. I think we can say if something is mass-produced, it cannot be
a work of art.
How many of you who bought an Art Nouveau piece because you believe in the
original spirit of Art Nouveau? Probably near zero. I wouldn't even know
what does Art Nouveau really mean if I didn't read that website. This is
just another argument that our society is indeed becoming way too derivative
of the previously era, which is also derive from something else which we no
longer remember. I think there must be some who make Art Nouveau style
artcrafts are actually making things that resemble the style, instead of
making an art. What do you think?
> --
> d e+ N- T- Om++ UK!1!2!3!4!56A78! u uC uF- uG+ uLB+ uA nC nR nH+ nP
> nI+ nPT nS+
> nT- y- a22
> Captain in the Cinnaguard, Weirdo
> Blue Bow [B><B]
> Website: http://badger.ac.brocku.ca/~ao98ad/
> -----------
> Yours Truly Saint George's Dragon
> Allan Olley -==UDIC==-
> -----------
> "The best beer in the world is the one in my hand." Charles Papazian.
Ashikaga
Singing Dragon
> ad-libbing is considered as an art form?
QUICK! Play something!!! readysetGO!
I expect art is the last thing on the performer's mind in that sort of
situation.
>Spontaneity wasn't considered as a
> value, and every one were supposed to have formal practices and planning
> before they perform, you see.
What time period are you talking about?
In baroque music, I don't know that spontaneity was so much valued as
taken completely for granted! Everything and its dog was spontaneous,
and most music that one heard was improvised to a large extent.
> I don't disagree with your view. Derivative works are necessary, just like
> everything evolutionary. Culture is a result of a further development of an
> existing set of ideas.
I think culture is those existing ideas, actually - culture is made up
of all the stuff that people living in that culture are expected to
understand and make sense of, from the music, to the language, to the
funny little mannerisms, to gestures, to other art, to shoe style... the
originality that you see in, say, Stravinsky pushes the culture to
different areas, just like a "cultural figure" like Kurt Cobain can
shift trends in several different ways.
> Most of the greatest musicians are not necessarily the inventor of his/her
> own genre. In fact Beethoven is the only one I can think of who started his
> own genre, and I think he is overrated even.
Aye - most of EVERY artist or anything else is thought of like that,
really. As I said, it's a 20th century phenomenon, really, though
started in the 19th century, with Beethoven being the most prominent one
to start it off.
And to say that he invented his own genre is REALLY stretching things.
Most Beethoven sounds more like Mozart than, say, Schumann or
Mendelssohn.
> So..., I knew you are a real musician. :-) You have scrutinized aspects of
> musical ideas you study before you come the conclusion of what you said. I
> don't necessarily care what answer people come up with. AFAIK, some people
> without musical background may have come to the same conclusion, but it's
> the explanation and the process of coming to that conclusion that I care
> (whether it be art or any topic). If someone say the same thing you do, I
> probably would be skeptical and refuse to accept. It's the background stuff
> I care about when I judge people's validity of their argument, not whether I
> agree with you or not.
That's a real problem with something as ephemeral as music, or culture
and society... NOBODY knows all the facts, because any one thing you say
about it is many sided.. by it's very definition, its possibilities are
infinite: it can be anything.
To make things more confusing, our present culture is VERY
heterogeneous, with bits of thousands of other cultures, and huge
subcultures present everywhere. Any generalization is going to be wrong
(ha!) before you even begin, so you have to proceed by talking about
vague meta-culture, and use a lot of anecdotes which may or may not be
valid...
> I don't with you entirely, btw, since my ideal is still closer to Romantics,
> but like I said, to each of our own. Just because something is
> incomprehensible doesn't mean somebody must reject it. I do agree with you
> if we endore stuff without any context, it's hard to relate, but that
> shouldn't pull any artist (or whoever) back from achieving their ideals. If
> everything must fit into the context, then there is no originality to speak
> of. I know this begins to sound Catch-22. :-)
Music is an interesting case. It's like a language where the vocabulary
IS the grammar. (or maybe you could say that the vocabulary is a
higher-level construct of the grammar, but that's its subject to its own
grammar, etc etcetc..) In any case, you can't really say how music works
except in relation to other music. With a story or movie, at least it
relates in a concrete way to something concrete...
> Craft and evolutionary products pegged on the contemporary culture, whereas
> an original stuff goes its own way. There was upon a time everything jazz
> was the pop culture, then it suddenly became the music of the status, then
> it got rejected and classical came back to take the place it had always
> enjoyed before jazz took it over temporarily.
Whoah! That's a huge leap, I think... Partly by the definition of
"classical".
Lemme sum stuff up the way I see it, which might clarify things:
roman empire collapses. Skip a bit. Western Culture (WRT music, anyway)
starts happening around 1000, at least in terms of what we can really
trace.
It chugs along until the beginning of the 20th century.
Until then, basically music of a given time and place has all been
pretty similar - there were arty versions, and simpler versions, but all
were basically the same sort of music (a good comparison can be found in
renaissance England, where there was a lot of back and forth traffic
between this high and low). Same is true later on - compare Chopin and
Brahms, for example (though both wrote fluffy light stuff and big
'serious' stuff, of course).
In the 20th century, stuff got funny, though.. Throughout the 19th
century, there was a growing trend in western music to deify composers
of the past, and resurrect their music. Especially with Bach -
Mendelssohn's revival of his music is seen as a pivotal moment in this
trend. In any case, by the beginning of the 20th century, Western music
split: on the one side, you had modernist avant-garde composers like
Stravinsky and Schoenberg, who started writing atonal music of immense
complexity. Then you had the growing popularity of older music, with
Bach being played by symphonies everywhere - part of this trend can be
seen in the "early music movement", in which people attempt to play old
music as it was originally performed - Couperin on a harpsichord instead
of a piano, etc.. The third trend is that, with the growing power of the
lower classes, and cultural underdogs getting more and more important in
North America, we see jazz and its derivatives taking over for the
lighter stuff.
So the way things are now, VERY generally (exceptions abound) is with
the musical elite writing and playing their avant-garde music, people
hanging on to the old Western music and listening to older classical
stuff, and everyone else listening to more African-based music. It's
more confused now than it was 50 years ago, of course, because there's
so much mingling - there's also a growing attitude to treat jazz as
"classical" music, and try to revive older styles of jazz, as well as a
large avant-garde jazz movement. As well, the Early Music movement is
overtaking the mainstream classical people, at least with regard to
recordings - far more CDs of "period performances" are sold than of
modern musicians playing the same music.
Anyway. It's complicated, to say the least.
> In the process, musicians of
> different era would inevitably be more sensitive of the style the
> contemporary culture is in. OTOH, original people still develop stuff in
> their own ways, and not as greatly influenced by the stuff around them. So
> what defines the current culture? Yet another Catch-22. Culture defines
> the direction art is going, but art also defines culture....
I don't think it's so much that one defines the other, as that one is a
PART of the other. You get out of the twisty definitions that way.
Singing Dragon
> Most art today would still be produced along the lines of someone
> doing it in order to meet somebodies need. I think building are still
> built or renovated with a careful eye toward the artistic/aesthetic
> considerations. Certainly the design of any monument involves a great
> deal of artistic consideration. Even the various mass produced items
> that are all around us may have had a small contribution from the
> concern for the artistic elements. Also, mass entertainment in its
> myriad of forms all has at least a smidgen of the artistic in it.
Yep! I definitely agree. I think this sort of 'art' is closer to stuff
going on in the 17th and 18th centuries than the 19th and early 20th
though - the stuff thought of as "Art" (with an oh-so-capital A)
> Also, even most of the art for art sakes is either done on commission,
> for a grant or on spec. that someone will pay for it down the line. It
> is just that we specialize, rather than buying something which
> multitasks, we want an object that is dedicated to art to maximize its
> artsyness. Something, beautiful, somehting horrible, something
> sublime, something powerful. It makes no sense for me to get a
> portrait done if all I want is a likeness of myself, a photograph will
> do just as well and be significantly cheaper. Since many crafts have
> been systemitized and turned scientific, the technician replaces the
> craftsman. So the artistic and the utilitarian aspects of design are
> pushed to extremes, things are either mostly worried about being
> useful or mostly worried about artistic concerns.
>
> Also, we have more and more people commissioning art for more and more
> reasons, before (since at least the renaissance IIRC) there were
> professional musicians and painters who worried about nothing more
> than the production of fine art and music but they were doing it at
> the behest of a small and homogenous elite.
THat's a very big change in our culture... despite the various
revolutions here and there, I don't think the lower classes REALLY got a
whole lot of power until this century.
> Any cultural or artistic activity requires at least some effort in
> order for it to be appreciated. Anything that does not require much
> effort may well not be worth much anyway. That being said some stuff
> is going to take more work to appreciate then any normal person is
> going to want to expend, so be it, that is the way things are.
I dunno about that, really.. there are different sorts. I mean, a bunch
of people sitting around talking is a sort of culture. Not necessarily
anything artistic, but closely linked to it. THere are all sorts of that
kind of thing, and some are complicated and 'different', and some are
commonplace and simple. Some art is good just because it's pretty, no
more than that.
> As to modern art I am not sure what to think of it, but I do know that
> I do not know any better way to pursue art than what is currently
> pursued. Also, art will always have some context even if it is only
> the artwork itself, but I agree it can be taken to a level where
> things become incomprhensible and futile, but I do not think that kind
> of activity endures for very long. I would suggest though that modern
> art is in fact probably a lot less exclusive than many forms of art
> have been in the past, if you consider the percentage of the
> population that appreciates them versus in the past where some arts
> were the domain of a very small rich and educated elite.
Perhaps.. though the art of the rich and educated was much more similar
to the art of the poor and destitute, in general...
> On a broader level the homogenety of culture does seem to be lessening
> and this does make it harder in some ways to communicate, however it
> also holds out the hope that people can find better ways to live and
> work unobstructed by the often constricting cords of culture. Also, I
> think that it is quite likely that their are actually unifying forces
> of culture that are emerging and that may in time provide a basis for
> cross communication between far more people then have ever been able
> to communicate in the past.
My personal opinion is that, to a large extent, we'll end up with a
global culture - we're already well on our way.
Of course, subcultures will remain... I think some sort of unified
culture is necessary for people to really make sense of it all, in a
manner of speaking. A lot of the angst and depression going on in the
world today probably has its roots in this - I've experienced it a lot
myself. People just don't feel they belong, and they don't understand
how to interact with the world - how to be a part of culture. It's like
everyone's a tourist, seeing all sorts of new things, but understanding
little of them.
Singing Dragon
> thereafter), the era that interests me the most. It's the IR that made
> everything cheaper and it was intended to increase the living standard of
> people a la Adam Smith, but we know things have got cheaper but people
> aren't necessarily live better, neither do things become more affordable.
> People who understand Adam Smith would agree cheaper /= affordable;
> likewise, higher salary /= higher living standard. Can we agree with each
> other so far?
SPEND a lot more. 200 years ago, people didn't have electrical bills,
phones, cars, telephones, expensive houses using factory-produced parts,
etc etc etc... If you look back on what most people thought of as "bare
essentials" then and now, there are some huge differences. Even in
people now - I've talked to many people whose cost of living is about 10
times what mine is, and they're not significantly older, or supporting a
family, or anything like that. But they need a car, they live in
expensive places, and they have expensive hobbies (not like I don't..
but hey).
Of course, other things are also different - labour was incredibly cheap
then, so any middle-class fellow with a hint of income could expect to
have a servant around.
> Pre-revolution artisans used to craft furnitures one-by-one, and give them
> distinct features. They are expensive, because they are truly works of art
> by today's standard. Post-revolution, everything are mass produced, so
> everything looks the same. They are more affordable, but they are not the
> same even if they look similar on the exterior, because the mass-production
> furniture makers (or rather, factory workers) didn't put thoughts to their
> product like an artisan used to. Thoughts like "How can I make this product
> more aesthetic?" or "How can I make this chair more comfortable?" are no
> longer part of the equation.
And people specialize so much that they don't know all the different
aspects of the production. It's intersting looking at harpsichord
building nowadays, because so much of it returns to older ways of doing
things by necessity. It's amazing how much the good builders know about
what they're doing!
A lifetime is a long time to learn about something.
> How many of you who bought an Art Nouveau piece because you believe in the
> original spirit of Art Nouveau? Probably near zero. I wouldn't even know
> what does Art Nouveau really mean if I didn't read that website. This is
> just another argument that our society is indeed becoming way too derivative
> of the previously era, which is also derive from something else which we no
> longer remember. I think there must be some who make Art Nouveau style
> artcrafts are actually making things that resemble the style, instead of
> making an art. What do you think?
It's just like classical music - when you play something by Bach, does
it have the same meaning now as it did in Germany, 250 years ago? I
don't think it does. I don't think it CAN. Trying to capture that exact
same meaning, and therefore the same style, is futile. Aspects of it can
be brought out, of course, but outright duplication is impossible.
Even more recent examples, like your art nouveau work the same. Or to
look at Swing music, or the Beatles, or 80's rap. It's all filtered
through our view of history and our present culture. THat can't be
ignored.
Allan Olley
> > order for it to be appreciated. Anything that does not require much
> > effort may well not be worth much anyway. That being said some stuff
> > is going to take more work to appreciate then any normal person is
> > going to want to expend, so be it, that is the way things are.
> I dunno about that, really.. there are different sorts. I mean, a bunch
> of people sitting around talking is a sort of culture. Not necessarily
> anything artistic, but closely linked to it. THere are all sorts of that
> kind of thing, and some are complicated and 'different', and some are
> commonplace and simple. Some art is good just because it's pretty, no
> more than that.
Well to my mind often one of the greatest intellectual achievements
any of us achieve is mastery of our mother tongue. We already have a
great deal invested in many forms of cultural interaction. Also, even
the simplest and most universally recognized beauty, such as that
found in natural world, requires some effort to appreciate, often
people have no problem ignoring or down playing it. My point is that
the fact that the broad public do not appreciate modern art no more
denigrates its value than the broad public's lack of appreciation of
Shakespeare or nature hikes.
--
d e+ N- T- Om++ UK!1!2!3!4!56A78! u uC uF- uG+ uLB+ uA nC nR nH+ nP
nI+ nPT nS+
nT- y- a22
Captain in the Cinnaguard, Weirdo
Blue Bow [B><B]
Website: http://badger.ac.brocku.ca/~ao98ad/
-----------
Yours Truly Saint George's Dragon
Allan Olley -==UDIC==-
-----------
"For without friends no one would choose to live, though he had all
other
goods." Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics.
Ashikaga
> My, Ashikaga, what a big post you have!
Sorry, I don't have much time, but I'll eventually get back to you, so
please don't feel I am ignoring you or running out of the stuff to say.
BTW, if I got time, I'll go on Weyrmount to find you. Yesterday I couldn't
find you, even though the Weyrmount didn't list you in the idle status....
So here are the quickies:
> > For example, how would one make improvasations when s/he doesn't agree
> > ad-libbing is considered as an art form?
>
> QUICK! Play something!!! readysetGO!
>
> I expect art is the last thing on the performer's mind in that sort of
> situation.
I think in that particular case the performance itself is an art form.
> >Spontaneity wasn't considered as a
> > value, and every one were supposed to have formal practices and planning
> > before they perform, you see.
>
> What time period are you talking about?
> In baroque music, I don't know that spontaneity was so much valued as
> taken completely for granted! Everything and its dog was spontaneous,
> and most music that one heard was improvised to a large extent.
I didn't know that. I thought musicians mostly wrote their pieces before
hand, all except Schubert. Anywayz, to give you an idea what I had in mind
when I said that. I took a jazz appreciation class before, and we read some
jazz history there. One of the thing that jazz was not accepted in
mainstream at first is because it wasn't written down. Not until Joplin
starts to write down some rag time he played, jazz was essensially called a
bastard music. That's why I believe what I said.
> > I don't disagree with your view. Derivative works are necessary, just
like
> > everything evolutionary. Culture is a result of a further development
of an
> > existing set of ideas.
>
> I think culture is those existing ideas, actually - culture is made up
> of all the stuff that people living in that culture are expected to
> understand and make sense of, from the music, to the language, to the
> funny little mannerisms, to gestures, to other art, to shoe style... the
> originality that you see in, say, Stravinsky pushes the culture to
> different areas, just like a "cultural figure" like Kurt Cobain can
> shift trends in several different ways.
Please..., don't talk about shoe styles.... My brain is going to explode!!!
> > Most of the greatest musicians are not necessarily the inventor of
his/her
> > own genre. In fact Beethoven is the only one I can think of who started
his
> > own genre, and I think he is overrated even.
>
> Aye - most of EVERY artist or anything else is thought of like that,
> really. As I said, it's a 20th century phenomenon, really, though
> started in the 19th century, with Beethoven being the most prominent one
> to start it off.
>
> And to say that he invented his own genre is REALLY stretching things.
> Most Beethoven sounds more like Mozart than, say, Schumann or
> Mendelssohn.
Not true. You probably have heard Beethoven's earlier pieces, which are
classified as classicals by historians, but later pieces are anything but
vivacious like ones that characterize Mozart's style. Listen to Beethoven's
string quartets then you'll definitely see Romanticism rather than Classical
style. Of course, many Beethoven's pieces are less Romantic than, let's say
Schubert's, but remember he is actually one of the pioneers in that genre,
and that's what happens to any transitional period musician, you would
expect to see some overlappings.
BTW, saying Beethoven invented his own genre, I guess like you said, is a
little streching. After all Vivaldi's pieces are considered as Romantic
rather than Baroque by some historians who use styles rather than periods to
categorize musicians. And Brahm, the retro, is considered as Classical by
some, when he is actually Chopin and Wagner's contemporary.
I alwayz think all Gothics look a like.... Platform shoes, heavy make ups
and all that. That's not what I call heterogenous. But I see your point.
We are just looking from different scales.
> > I don't with you entirely, btw, since my ideal is still closer to
Romantics,
> > but like I said, to each of our own. Just because something is
> > incomprehensible doesn't mean somebody must reject it. I do agree with
you
> > if we endore stuff without any context, it's hard to relate, but that
> > shouldn't pull any artist (or whoever) back from achieving their ideals.
If
> > everything must fit into the context, then there is no originality to
speak
> > of. I know this begins to sound Catch-22. :-)
>
> Music is an interesting case. It's like a language where the vocabulary
> IS the grammar. (or maybe you could say that the vocabulary is a
> higher-level construct of the grammar, but that's its subject to its own
> grammar, etc etcetc..) In any case, you can't really say how music works
> except in relation to other music. With a story or movie, at least it
> relates in a concrete way to something concrete...
Errr... I took a film class and I definitely can see there is some forms
that film makers are using. Some chooses realistic approach, some uses
formalistic, but interpretation and how one delivers a story is not
concrete. That's where the originality comes in. You can give Steven
Spielberg and Ridley Scott (or maybe me, if somebody pays me) the same
script, and I am sure both will tell the story differently.
> > Craft and evolutionary products pegged on the contemporary culture,
whereas
> > an original stuff goes its own way. There was upon a time everything
jazz
> > was the pop culture, then it suddenly became the music of the status,
then
> > it got rejected and classical came back to take the place it had always
> > enjoyed before jazz took it over temporarily.
>
> Whoah! That's a huge leap, I think... Partly by the definition of
> "classical".
That's because you didn't see it coming. :-) I had jazz in mind when I
talked about improvasation all the time.
<snipped some history>
It is! Anywayz, I am kind of confused what do you mean by "... far more CDs
of 'period performances' are sold than..." statement.
Revival of the old style of jazz is the work of Wynton Marsalis. That's
what I learned from the class, but I have a Wynton Marsalis CD and I can
definitely see some later jazz "stylistic" influence in his old style jazz.
He still use those traditional 12-bar or 16-bar blue or things that nature,
very formalistic, but the melodic rhythms are definitely more abstract than
anything people from 20's or 30's people would accept.
Those are definitely more artsy than the original swings. Of course I am
defining "artsy," as in Romantic ideals, so keep that in mind. I like Big
Band style very much as well, but definitely I appreciate them differently.
> > In the process, musicians of
> > different era would inevitably be more sensitive of the style the
> > contemporary culture is in. OTOH, original people still develop stuff
in
> > their own ways, and not as greatly influenced by the stuff around them.
So
> > what defines the current culture? Yet another Catch-22. Culture
defines
> > the direction art is going, but art also defines culture....
>
> I don't think it's so much that one defines the other, as that one is a
> PART of the other. You get out of the twisty definitions that way.
Okay. That's what I meant, actually, but you do see why I think they are
somewhat intermingled, right? :-) That's it for now. I read your other
post with Allan Olley's already. Maybe we can talk about it some time later
on Werymount, as well as hearing your performance? :-)
> --
> Singing Dragon
> -- Don't forget to *enjoy* the *sauce* --
> - UnSpluttable -
> - 1 Boa point -
Ashikaga
Ashikaga
> Singing Dragon the Thrilling Caped Confidant of Liberty wrote:
> > My, Allan Olley, what a big post you have!
> > > Any cultural or artistic activity requires at least some effort in
> > > order for it to be appreciated. Anything that does not require much
> > > effort may well not be worth much anyway. That being said some stuff
> > > is going to take more work to appreciate then any normal person is
> > > going to want to expend, so be it, that is the way things are.
> > I dunno about that, really.. there are different sorts. I mean, a bunch
> > of people sitting around talking is a sort of culture. Not necessarily
> > anything artistic, but closely linked to it. THere are all sorts of that
> > kind of thing, and some are complicated and 'different', and some are
> > commonplace and simple. Some art is good just because it's pretty, no
> > more than that.
Yes, that's how I feel too. I just like things because I like them. No
more than that. I could do some justifications, but you'll find me like all
sort of things. Use music as an example, though I told you I like Chopin,
but he is pretty much one of the very few Romantics I like, but I like jazz,
and like Mozart too... so my personal taste is just way too wide to be
easily categorized. I am pretty sure lots of people are also like this,
instead of concused on one very selected genre.
> Well to my mind often one of the greatest intellectual achievements
> any of us achieve is mastery of our mother tongue. We already have a
> great deal invested in many forms of cultural interaction. Also, even
> the simplest and most universally recognized beauty, such as that
> found in natural world, requires some effort to appreciate, often
> people have no problem ignoring or down playing it. My point is that
> the fact that the broad public do not appreciate modern art no more
> denigrates its value than the broad public's lack of appreciation of
> Shakespeare or nature hikes.
That's true. When I was on my way to garage tonight after the class was
over, it was raining, so I opened up my umbrella, and there I found the
shadow casted by the streetlight shining over me that is moving as I walked.
I was just so fascinated by it, it almost strike me as funny. And my head
was having this image of me making this little short film of me walking down
the street looking at the shadow with monotonous music synchronizing with
the movement of the shadow.... It was fun. REALLY!
BTW, my brain is so weird, I wanted to call masculine-color umbrellas
"manbrellas," and feminine-colored ones "ma'ambrellas...." I am not sure
what's passerby's thought on that when they saw me thinking about those
names and laughed to myself.... "Must be a weirdo." :-|
> --
> d e+ N- T- Om++ UK!1!2!3!4!56A78! u uC uF- uG+ uLB+ uA nC nR nH+ nP
> nI+ nPT nS+
> nT- y- a22
> Captain in the Cinnaguard, Weirdo
> Blue Bow [B><B]
> Website: http://badger.ac.brocku.ca/~ao98ad/
> -----------
> Yours Truly Saint George's Dragon
> Allan Olley -==UDIC==-
> -----------
> "For without friends no one would choose to live, though he had all
> other
> goods." Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics.
Ashikaga
Ashikaga
> My, Ashikaga, what a big post you have!
> > The homogeneity of the society would trace back to Industrial Revolution
(IR
> > thereafter), the era that interests me the most. It's the IR that made
> > everything cheaper and it was intended to increase the living standard
of
> > people a la Adam Smith, but we know things have got cheaper but people
> > aren't necessarily live better, neither do things become more
affordable.
> > People who understand Adam Smith would agree cheaper /= affordable;
> > likewise, higher salary /= higher living standard. Can we agree with
each
> > other so far?
>
> Hard to say really - I mean, yes, we make a lot more money, but we also
> SPEND a lot more. 200 years ago, people didn't have electrical bills,
> phones, cars, telephones, expensive houses using factory-produced parts,
> etc etc etc... If you look back on what most people thought of as "bare
> essentials" then and now, there are some huge differences. Even in
> people now - I've talked to many people whose cost of living is about 10
> times what mine is, and they're not significantly older, or supporting a
> family, or anything like that. But they need a car, they live in
> expensive places, and they have expensive hobbies (not like I don't..
> but hey).
That's pretty much what I said. I don't have an expensive hobby, but I do
have a time consuming one.... Guess what that is.
> Of course, other things are also different - labour was incredibly cheap
> then, so any middle-class fellow with a hint of income could expect to
> have a servant around.
Yes..., I wish I have a servant around. It'll be very fun.
<snip>
> And people specialize so much that they don't know all the different
> aspects of the production. It's intersting looking at harpsichord
> building nowadays, because so much of it returns to older ways of doing
> things by necessity. It's amazing how much the good builders know about
> what they're doing!
>
> A lifetime is a long time to learn about something.
Unless the person dropped dead early, perhaps by a harpsichord dropped over
the head? :-)
Okay, seriously, okay... actually I cannot think of a serious comment ATM.
But I do agree with you. And learning is a lifetime thing.
> > How many of you who bought an Art Nouveau piece because you believe in
the
> > original spirit of Art Nouveau? Probably near zero. I wouldn't even
know
> > what does Art Nouveau really mean if I didn't read that website. This
is
> > just another argument that our society is indeed becoming way too
derivative
> > of the previously era, which is also derive from something else which we
no
> > longer remember. I think there must be some who make Art Nouveau style
> > artcrafts are actually making things that resemble the style, instead of
> > making an art. What do you think?
>
> It's just like classical music - when you play something by Bach, does
> it have the same meaning now as it did in Germany, 250 years ago? I
> don't think it does. I don't think it CAN. Trying to capture that exact
> same meaning, and therefore the same style, is futile. Aspects of it can
> be brought out, of course, but outright duplication is impossible.
>
> Even more recent examples, like your art nouveau work the same. Or to
> look at Swing music, or the Beatles, or 80's rap. It's all filtered
> through our view of history and our present culture. THat can't be
> ignored.
I don't mean to duplicate the style, btw. I don't think anybody can know
the original intention of everything we do. Though I alwayz think it's kind
of nice to know the history.
> --
> Singing Dragon
> -- Don't forget to *enjoy* the *sauce* --
> - UnSpluttable -
> - 1 Boa point -
Ashikaga
Allan Olley
Well, I still think that the narrow enforced monolithic cultural
conformity of today is far less severe than it was in the past (say in
the 50s). The social stigma and hostility towards being different is I
would guess far less than in earlier periods. However, it still could
be as you say that people are becoming less original and more
derivative. Just because people are not prevented from being different
does not mean they will chose to be different.
It seems to me that people are confronted by more and more different
ways to live their lives and in the face of the kaledioscope of choice
a kind of potluck culture develops. I get the impression that our
society has a lot more variety allowed than in previous times, however
that could be in some sense more of the same and as you say derivative
rather than living and original. Indeed people often seem to me to be
so skeptical and even cynical of every human endeavour that they can
not really get behind things enough to actually do anything big that
requires commitment. The lack of a direct opposition to braking from
conformity may actually make people trying to be different less
energized since their is no longer one big monolithic oppressive
culture to fight.
Your two points sound like things that have always been true. However,
I would point out that on TV for example their is a greater variety of
shows, with bizarre genre mixing, and weird plots (not necessarily
truly original but I think TV is very different these days). Almost no
television show gets as many viewers today as even mediochre ones did
in the past. It seems to me that their is less and less a single
fasion for anything these days.
There may be a kind of homogeneity that is becoming more present. Most
people may tend to act in the same way and be derivative when
possible. However to me that seems an inevitable outcome of people's
inheirent similiarity to each other. In terms of being original, that
to me is something which only individuals can do and I think that in
the current society people are more free than ever to be original, but
it is also their choice alone to do so or not. Although perhaps more
encouragement could be offered.
> The homogeneity of the society would trace back to Industrial Revolution (IR
> thereafter), the era that interests me the most. It's the IR that made
> everything cheaper and it was intended to increase the living standard of
> people a la Adam Smith, but we know things have got cheaper but people
> aren't necessarily live better, neither do things become more affordable.
> People who understand Adam Smith would agree cheaper /= affordable;
> likewise, higher salary /= higher living standard. Can we agree with each
> other so far?
>
> Pre-revolution artisans used to craft furnitures one-by-one, and give them
> distinct features. They are expensive, because they are truly works of art
> by today's standard. Post-revolution, everything are mass produced, so
> everything looks the same. They are more affordable, but they are not the
> same even if they look similar on the exterior, because the mass-production
> furniture makers (or rather, factory workers) didn't put thoughts to their
> product like an artisan used to. Thoughts like "How can I make this product
> more aesthetic?" or "How can I make this chair more comfortable?" are no
> longer part of the equation.
Well, I would not like to say that material goods make your life all
that much better I have to say that I think that we are better off
thanks to mass production. Especially for some of the poorer elements
of society, I think their are far fewer people per capita living at
bare subsistance level now than before the Industrial Revolution and I
think that constitutes a real and undeniable increase in the standard
of living. Many people back then would probably have been happy for
mass produced goods over the crude clothing and furniture they had
(while craftmanship may have been more important then, I think most
people could not afford it). Also, while it may be nice to have a few
well crafted things about, as I said I do not think material things
should necessarily be that important, I am perfectly happy with a
knife and fork as long as they get the job done.
Now that does not mean people are all that much happier now then they
were in the past, however I do not think the main cause of people's
current unhappiness is lack of quality furniture.
--
d e+ N- T- Om++ UK!1!2!3!4!56A78! u uC uF- uG+ uLB+ uA nC nR nH+ nP
nI+ nPT nS+
nT- y- a22
Captain in the Cinnaguard, Weirdo
Blue Bow [B><B]
Website: http://badger.ac.brocku.ca/~ao98ad/
-----------
Yours Truly Saint George's Dragon
Allan Olley -==UDIC==-
-----------
"And Jacob said to Rebekah his mother, Behold, Essau my brother is a
hairy man, and I am a smooth man:" Genesis 27:11.
Allan Olley
> > original spirit of Art Nouveau? Probably near zero. I wouldn't even know
> > what does Art Nouveau really mean if I didn't read that website. This is
> > just another argument that our society is indeed becoming way too derivative
> > of the previously era, which is also derive from something else which we no
> > longer remember. I think there must be some who make Art Nouveau style
> > artcrafts are actually making things that resemble the style, instead of
> > making an art. What do you think?
> It's just like classical music - when you play something by Bach, does
> it have the same meaning now as it did in Germany, 250 years ago? I
> don't think it does. I don't think it CAN. Trying to capture that exact
> same meaning, and therefore the same style, is futile. Aspects of it can
> be brought out, of course, but outright duplication is impossible.
>
> Even more recent examples, like your art nouveau work the same. Or to
> look at Swing music, or the Beatles, or 80's rap. It's all filtered
> through our view of history and our present culture. THat can't be
> ignored.
Just a comment, I seriously doubt that two different people living
today in the same place get the same thing out of contemporary music
and art. We all have our own perspecitives on these things and when it
comes to something as complex as defining a style we will probably
come to different conclusions. If you think about it two people
working in the same style of art or music can often make contradictory
remarks about that style. It can still be very worthwhile and fruitful
to try and understand different styles and cultures.
BTW Ashikaga if someone choses to be derivative how is that a less
valid chose than trying to be original? Especially if it is the choice
between doing something good but derivative or something original but
bad, as it may be for some people. Also, what about the synthesis of
the new from the old which to my mind occurs a great deal?
--
d e+ N- T- Om++ UK!1!2!3!4!56A78! u uC uF- uG+ uLB+ uA nC nR nH+ nP
nI+ nPT nS+
nT- y- a22
Captain in the Cinnaguard, Weirdo
Blue Bow [B><B]
Website: http://badger.ac.brocku.ca/~ao98ad/
-----------
Yours Truly Saint George's Dragon
Allan Olley -==UDIC==-
-----------
"What then is time? Provided that no one asks me, I know."
Confessions
of St. Augustine XI. xiv tr. Henry Chadwick.
erimess
wrote:
>
><SNIP>
>> To a large extent, derivative works are not only a good thing, but
>> NECESSARY. So much culture of every sort (including language and
>> personal attitudes and habits) are very difficult to understand and be a
>> part of without understanding their context - I'm a bit of an expert at
>> this, from my experience trying to understand old music: deliberately
>> taking it out of its cultural context is HARD. However, when we endorse
>> originality above all else, we basically make art/culture without a
>> context. It's no surprise that most modern art is incomprehensible to
>> the masses, and that most people don't like it.
>
>The masses also seem to find classical music incomprehensible and do
>not like it. Also, opera, Shakespearean plays and a whole host of
>other things which have weathered the changes of culure. Heck take
>cars they have a well defined culture context, but some people greatly
>appreciate them (their costruction, maintence and design), while for
>others they just turn the key and it goes, and that is as much as they
>ever want to know,
<raises hand>
> and they have a hard time understanding people who
>want to know more.
I don't need to understand. Those people are into different things
than I am and I only need to respect that.
>
>Any cultural or artistic activity requires at least some effort in
>order for it to be appreciated. Anything that does not require much
>effort may well not be worth much anyway.
Why? I can appreciate something and not have thought about it at all.
Sometimes if I start thinking about it, it just ruins the experience
for me. (Depends on what it is, what mood I'm in, etc.) Of course, I
suppose we could debate on the term "appreciate." If you mean
appreciate as in understand, then you'd probably be right. But to me
appreciate just means liking it or getting something from it, feeling
something from it. And I don't have to think to do that.
> That being said some stuff
>is going to take more work to appreciate then any normal person is
>going to want to expend, so be it, that is the way things are.
On the other hand, is that a bad thing? Is it necessary for me to
appreciate every painting I see? If I don't I don't, and I don't find
it necessary to.
erimess
>>
>>>See what you art guys think of my wife's cousins' art.
>>>http://www.lorenadams.com/
>>
>>I'm not an "art guy" -- I just like what I like and don't like what I
>>don't like. Since I'm trying to keep my online time down I only
>>looked at the home page picture for right now. I like her style. I
>>like the colors. It has charm. I also like things that look like
>>what they are supposed to (I hate abstract stuff) but not so much that
>>it looks like a photograph. Don't suppose she's done lighthouses? I
>>love lighthouse paintings.
>>
>
>Well, um, first off, he's a he.
Oops, I see now that you said your wife's *cousin.* I was thinking of
your wife. :-)
>He's been in many magazines and exhibitions, and is popularly known as "The
>Master of the Translucent Wave". He does mostly West Coast shorelines, and I'm
>not sure if he has done any lighthouse paintings (which we also adore), but
>since he once did a nautical group there is a likeleyhood that he did. We have
>a couple of his autographed prints as does the MIL.
> ~~O^O~~
>Optician Dragon
> -==UDIC==-
>You who are rich and whose troubles are few
>May come around to see my point of view.
>What price the crown of a king on his throne
>When you're chained in the dark all alone?
>
Erimess Dragon
Ashikaga
> Singing Dragon the Thrilling Caped Confidant of Liberty wrote:
> > My, Ashikaga, what a big post you have!
> BTW Ashikaga if someone choses to be derivative how is that a less
> valid chose than trying to be original? Especially if it is the choice
> between doing something good but derivative or something original but
> bad, as it may be for some people. Also, what about the synthesis of
> the new from the old which to my mind occurs a great deal?
I don't say that's less valid, actually. I myself have not always been
original. I am saying people could have benefited from being more original.
But then again, it's just an opinion thing. I don't see why someone choose
to be derivative could be bad, except I think it's more meaningful (for me
at least) to get more original whenever I have a chance (which is not always
a choice).
> --
> d e+ N- T- Om++ UK!1!2!3!4!56A78! u uC uF- uG+ uLB+ uA nC nR nH+ nP
> nI+ nPT nS+
> nT- y- a22
> Captain in the Cinnaguard, Weirdo
> Blue Bow [B><B]
> Website: http://badger.ac.brocku.ca/~ao98ad/
> -----------
> Yours Truly Saint George's Dragon
> Allan Olley -==UDIC==-
> -----------
> "What then is time? Provided that no one asks me, I know."
> Confessions
> of St. Augustine XI. xiv tr. Henry Chadwick.
Ashikaga