Considering Snuhwolf
Sandman
The theory is that those that have a fervour for super-powerful
fictional characters are generally unsatisfied with their body.
Alienation would feed that. You don't spend a huge slice of your life
posting to related special-interest groups unless you're hooked by a
some deep psychological connection. Even now, I do see desultory
attempts by you to participate in the subject. You're exactly the type
that would wish that he was a fierce werewolf. And yet your current
posts show a strong resentment of those with similar yearnings. So what
happened to cause that?
I've seen enough to know that it's much the same as most of the other
unhappy and disruptive people that cause problems for themselves in
Usenet. Initially, your attraction to the fierce half-animal motif
fixated you on these groups. Unfortunately, you had problems with
interacting on the same level as the other participants but you were
unable to recognise that fault as your own. And so your frustration
resulted in your blaming the other group members. I bet it didn't take
long for that to develop in your case. It built up tit-for-tat until
you believed that you must punish them for a multitude of wrongs.
That's the real reason for those political rants and your attempts to
ridicule others here. Disrupting the groups because they dared to
ignore and/or abuse you. As with others like you, your derision will be
a reflection of your own problems, and when I first came here, I noted
that you were frequently suggesting that people get psychiatric help.
So you probably have some neurological issues, but don't realise how
they limit your self-introspection. You probably intend to maintain
this mordancy for the rest of your life, and believe that "they" will
have won if you stop.
That's it. Same old story. Determined self-destruction. Sorry that I've
been so blunt, but I don't think that you'd be served by half measures,
given what you've already put yourself through. Maybe this way, a
little of what I've said will get through to you. However, I expect
that you're going to continue stewing on your resentment for a good
while yet. I actually doubt that you'll continue it for the rest of
your life even though you probably still plan to do so. If I still
remember, I might check back here in future months (or years maybe) to
see how you're getting on.
I'll do a little Google checking now of your early posts using those
aliases that you gave me, but I know what I'll find.
§nuhwolf
> Snuhwolf,
>
> The theory is that those that have a fervour for super-powerful
> fictional characters are generally unsatisfied with their body.
No. I was a victim of good ol school yard bullying :)
Every kid that likes monsters probably was.
> Alienation would feed that. You don't spend a huge slice of your life
> posting to related special-interest groups unless you're hooked by a
> some deep psychological connection. Even now, I do see desultory
> attempts by you to participate in the subject. You're exactly the type
> that would wish that he was a fierce werewolf. And yet your current
> posts show a strong resentment of those with similar yearnings. So
> what
> happened to cause that?
>
Go talk to Safari :) He helped me get past what I now see was a
emotional crutch. He was very good at getting to the truth of a thing.
HE split so I decided to take over where he left off.
Lets face it, *somebody* has to play that role. Otherwise you get noting
but a NG full of people just enableing eachothers silly fantasies.
> I've seen enough to know that it's much the same as most of the other
> unhappy and disruptive people that cause problems for themselves in
> Usenet. Initially, your attraction to the fierce half-animal motif
> fixated you on these groups. Unfortunately, you had problems with
> interacting on the same level as the other participants but you were
> unable to recognise that fault as your own. And so your frustration
> resulted in your blaming the other group members. I bet it didn't take
> long for that to develop in your case. It built up tit-for-tat until
> you believed that you must punish them for a multitude of wrongs.
>
Sure. Revenge is a great motivator. But after that wore off I saw my
role as a gadfly. Someone who focused on the truth of *why* people
wanted to be these fictional beings.
I see myself as a sort of councelor to people who need a bit of "tough
love", not more enableing.
> That's the real reason for those political rants and your attempts to
> ridicule others here. Disrupting the groups because they dared to
> ignore and/or abuse you. As with others like you, your derision will
> be
> a reflection of your own problems, and when I first came here, I noted
> that you were frequently suggesting that people get psychiatric help.
> So you probably have some neurological issues, but don't realise how
> they limit your self-introspection. You probably intend to maintain
> this mordancy for the rest of your life, and believe that "they" will
> have won if you stop.
>
You're reading *way* too much into this. I'm bored sure. Mosst of usenet
*is*. But I'm doing something I see as constructive.
People need the alternative POV.
And I bring that to the situation :)
> That's it. Same old story. Determined self-destruction.
Nice try. But no.
> Sorry that
> I've
> been so blunt,
That was blunt? You're really much too polite for my tastes, NippleChips
:)
> but I don't think that you'd be served by half
> measures,
> given what you've already put yourself through.
Riiiiiiiiiight. Posting to Usenet is *such* hardship.
ROTFLMAO!
> Maybe this way, a
> little of what I've said will get through to you. However, I expect
> that you're going to continue stewing on your resentment for a good
> while yet. I actually doubt that you'll continue it for the rest of
> your life even though you probably still plan to do so. If I still
> remember, I might check back here in future months (or years maybe) to
> see how you're getting on.
>
Thats very kind of you.
How can I ever repay such a favor?
<wipes tear>
> I'll do a little Google checking now of your early posts using those
> aliases that you gave me, but I know what I'll find.
>
So much for you having an open mind eh?
Sandman
aliases that you gave me, "Zenwolf"+"real name", gave a result on the
first page. From that, I found that you were once happy to post to this
group under your real name, and that you once wrote a comic called
"Willie Wolf". So, like so many I've seen, you did initially try to fit
in. It's sad the way these things can turn out.
To find what others thought of you, I tried a search with "Zenwolf" in
the subject line and this was the top hit. It really is the same old
story. I reckon that there's been a Zenwolf or two for at least half of
the Usenet groups that I've read, although you top them for duration.
From: "Kamatu" <n...@nujj.arg>
Newsgroups: alt.lifestyle.furry,alt.horror.werewolves
Subject: Zenwolf now thinks he's a fur??
Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2001 19:37:37 -0400
Message-ID: <9a8eb...@news1.newsguy.com>
If Zenwolf marches into one more newsgroup claiming to be "just like you, I
hope you accept me", I swear I'm gonna blow chunks. For those of you who
don't know the history of Zenwolf/aka Silverwere/ aka 12 other aliases,
let's get you caught up.
Zenwolf came onto the AHWW scene sometime last year, just as the drunk
cannuck Jaue Lang was being the most disruptive. She convinced him he was
everything being a "were" was supposed to be, and that lasted for a week.
After a week's time Safari started making Zenwolf doubt himself and he
decided that the Meowers were having more fun posting at AHWW and proclaimed
he was actually one of them. Then the real fun began.
27 flamewars later, Zenwolf, who by now was using at least 7 aliases,
started branching out, taking his show on the road to the newsgroup
alt.acme.exploding.newsgroups where he found little support for his trolling
ways and was quickly ignored and asked to leave. Being kicked off the lowest
newsgroup on the totem pole took it's toll on our little Zenwolf/Silverwere
and he came back to AHWW to proclaim that he wasn't really a meower
afterall, he was truly a were and just thought he was a meower because
Safari made him cry and doubt himself.
Shortly thereafter the meowers posted tons of paperwork proclaiming Zenwolf
an Empire Fraud, then Zennie posted a message to AHWW that he was gonna send
me some dog doo-doo in the mail. Soon thereafter a package came addressed to
me with his return address. What he didn't know was that I only check my
mail once a month, and that poor old doggie doo-doo was gonna start stinking
up a storm.
Anyway, the package ended up being investigated by the postal authorities,
they called out the bomb squad, and he disappeared from Usenet until this
week.
So, please, do accept Zenwolf into your "furry" little fold. Having such a
lost delusional fuck in your ranks should be good publicity.
Kamatu
§nuhwolf
> Well, Mr. William Schultz aka Shuhwolf, a search on the first of your
> aliases that you gave me, "Zenwolf"+"real name", gave a result on the
> first page. From that, I found that you were once happy to post to
> this
> group under your real name, and that you once wrote a comic called
> "Willie Wolf". So, like so many I've seen, you did initially try to
> fit
> in. It's sad the way these things can turn out.
>
royalties that will be forthcoming after you publish my biography.
I'm sure we can work something out :)
> To find what others thought of you, I tried a search with "Zenwolf" in
> the subject line and this was the top hit. It really is the same old
> story. I reckon that there's been a Zenwolf or two for at least half
> of
> the Usenet groups that I've read, although you top them for duration.
>
Indeed. I thought it was a realy kewl name until Saffy pointed out that
I didnt know anything about zen :(
Btw, this next bit is a post from Jim Hershey who is actually a distant
cousin :)
But we never did quite see eye to eye on things...
Ah......poor Jimmy. He lives in a swamp in New Jersey and has *full*
disability due to lymes disease.
Or so he claims...maybe the whole werewolf act by him is just a way to
keep from holding a job?
Hmmmmmm....
:)
Sandman
that your derision is a reflection of your own problems. Your
frequent jibes about people needing psychiatric help really was
an unmistakable case. So searching on Snuhwolf/Zenwolf with the
obvious psychological term gave this below. It *is* unfortunate.
You really are indulging in self-harm by soliciting abuse in
Usenet. However, the post does show that you once did have the
insight to recognise that you were projecting your disorder, so
maybe you will find a way out of your pit. Well, that seems to be
all that can be learned here, so I'll move on now. Bye.
From: Zenwolf <dschu...@digisys.net>
Subject: I dont expect a group hug but it's time I admitted something
Date: 2000/07/09
Message-ID: <396933...@digisys.net>#1/1
Newsgroups: alt.horror.werewolves
Howdy,
Well, as you can see I'm back again.I know that by now most of you may
suspect that something is pretty abberent about my behaviour.They say
that nowadays there is'nt supossed to be any "stigma"about admitting
you're mentally ill.In my experience, this is'nt the case.Some of you
might have noticed how much I enjoyed wilds company on the NG.The reason
for that is that I know what it's like to suffer from serious
depression.I also have simple paranoia,to be distinguished from the
psychotic variety.I don't hear voices, but I do have delusions about
people watching me, etc.I thought my neighbor was watching me the other
day because,'he was in the navy in vietnam and must be a friend of
Kamatu's and he has been told to watch me'.I know that sounds
irrational, and it is.But that's the way your mind works(or dosen't)when
you have a mental illness.Safari was the first to see this.Despite his
being a rude individual, he is nonetheless pretty observant.He probably
dosen't remember this but he once suggested to me that I belong on
alt.depression.So he's right once in a while, Sue Me!Well, anyway I have
it under control for the time being.When my sister was sending my folks
the joke sheets from her work, I was seeing all sorts of "embedded
messages" in them criticising me.Yup, as far as I was concerned, my
sister was in on it too.*g*I _still_ think that Safari and Kamatu are
posting on alt.acme......but even if they are, who cares right?Well if
your paranoid like me, danger lurks around every corner.I _don't_ want
your pity, that wont help, but I would like another chance at old AHWW.
And when you guys see me "projecting" my disorder on others by calling
them "delusional", just remind me to"TAKE YOUR MEDS!!"
Thanks
ZW
Kisses To You
SnowshoeSnuhwolf, not at all.
Anybody know his age ?Or maybe puppy will be kind enough to tell me
LOL
Cypher
§nuhwolf wrote:
> Sandman wrote:
> > Snuhwolf,
> >
> > The theory is that those that have a fervour for super-powerful
> > fictional characters are generally unsatisfied with their body.
>
> No. I was a victim of good ol school yard bullying :)
> Every kid that likes monsters probably was.
I used to pretend I was a werewolf at recess and chase the other kids
around :P.
>
> > Alienation would feed that. You don't spend a huge slice of your life
> > posting to related special-interest groups unless you're hooked by a
> > some deep psychological connection. Even now, I do see desultory
> > attempts by you to participate in the subject. You're exactly the type
> > that would wish that he was a fierce werewolf. And yet your current
> > posts show a strong resentment of those with similar yearnings. So
> > what
> > happened to cause that?
> >
> Go talk to Safari :) He helped me get past what I now see was a
> emotional crutch. He was very good at getting to the truth of a thing.
> HE split so I decided to take over where he left off.
> Lets face it, *somebody* has to play that role. Otherwise you get noting
> but a NG full of people just enableing eachothers silly fantasies.
Safari was not against the idea of therianthropy, just the backstabbers
and fools who proclaimed to be a werewolf but never actually walked
their talk. For better or worse, Kamatu and Safari chased them all
away...leaving a usenet ghost town behind.
At least I've met some really interesting, amazing people through here.
Seriously, has anyone seen the Werelist and Therianthropy.org lately
(well, more like in general)? Boring! Hardly a trace of original
thought, not a single explorer into the depths of what is considered a
highly important aspect of our being.
>
>
> > I've seen enough to know that it's much the same as most of the other
> > unhappy and disruptive people that cause problems for themselves in
> > Usenet. Initially, your attraction to the fierce half-animal motif
> > fixated you on these groups. Unfortunately, you had problems with
> > interacting on the same level as the other participants but you were
> > unable to recognise that fault as your own. And so your frustration
> > resulted in your blaming the other group members. I bet it didn't take
> > long for that to develop in your case. It built up tit-for-tat until
> > you believed that you must punish them for a multitude of wrongs.
> >
>
> Sure. Revenge is a great motivator. But after that wore off I saw my
> role as a gadfly. Someone who focused on the truth of *why* people
> wanted to be these fictional beings.
> I see myself as a sort of councelor to people who need a bit of "tough
> love", not more enableing.
Why is that so important that you've stayed here all these years
though?
Heh, maybe I should ask myself that too :).
<snipped>
-Cypher
§nuhwolf
> Snuhwolf, I note that you're blinding yourself to the possibility
> that your derision is a reflection of your own problems. Your
> frequent jibes about people needing psychiatric help really was
> an unmistakable case. So searching on Snuhwolf/Zenwolf with the
> obvious psychological term gave this below. It *is* unfortunate.
> You really are indulging in self-harm by soliciting abuse in
> Usenet. However, the post does show that you once did have the
> insight to recognise that you were projecting your disorder, so
> maybe you will find a way out of your pit. Well, that seems to be
> all that can be learned here, so I'll move on now. Bye.
>
But I *like* my pit!
Its all warm & cozy :)
<sighs>
They always run away....
:(
§nuhwolf
>
> §nuhwolf wrote:
>> Sandman wrote:
>> > Snuhwolf,
>> >
>> > The theory is that those that have a fervour for super-powerful
>> > fictional characters are generally unsatisfied with their body.
>>
>> No. I was a victim of good ol school yard bullying :)
>> Every kid that likes monsters probably was.
>
> I used to pretend I was a werewolf at recess and chase the other kids
> around :P.
>
some girls in 4th grade in my class...during recess.
>>
>> > Alienation would feed that. You don't spend a huge slice of your
> life
>> > posting to related special-interest groups unless you're hooked by
> a
>> > some deep psychological connection. Even now, I do see desultory
>> > attempts by you to participate in the subject. You're exactly the
> type
>> > that would wish that he was a fierce werewolf. And yet your
> current
>> > posts show a strong resentment of those with similar yearnings. So
>> > what
>> > happened to cause that?
>> >
>> Go talk to Safari :) He helped me get past what I now see was a
>> emotional crutch. He was very good at getting to the truth of a
> thing.
>> HE split so I decided to take over where he left off.
>> Lets face it, *somebody* has to play that role. Otherwise you get
> noting
>> but a NG full of people just enableing eachothers silly fantasies.
>
> Safari was not against the idea of therianthropy, just the
> backstabbers
> and fools who proclaimed to be a werewolf but never actually walked
> their talk.
Uh...how exactly *would* one walk their talk if ones walk was to be a
fictional animal?
> For better or worse, Kamatu and Safari chased them all
> away...leaving a usenet ghost town behind.
THis town aint big enough for the both of us...
<revolver clicking>
> At least I've met some really interesting, amazing people through
> here.
By amazing you mean entertainingly nutty, sure.
> Seriously, has anyone seen the Werelist and Therianthropy.org lately
> (well, more like in general)? Boring! Hardly a trace of original
> thought, not a single explorer into the depths of what is considered a
> highly important aspect of our being.
>
Like I said...wait'll Hollywood gets a new crop of monster flicks with
werewoofs in them.
>>
>>
>> > I've seen enough to know that it's much the same as most of the
> other
>> > unhappy and disruptive people that cause problems for themselves
> in
>> > Usenet. Initially, your attraction to the fierce half-animal motif
>> > fixated you on these groups. Unfortunately, you had problems with
>> > interacting on the same level as the other participants but you
> were
>> > unable to recognise that fault as your own. And so your
> frustration
>> > resulted in your blaming the other group members. I bet it didn't
> take
>> > long for that to develop in your case. It built up tit-for-tat
> until
>> > you believed that you must punish them for a multitude of wrongs.
>> >
>>
>> Sure. Revenge is a great motivator. But after that wore off I saw my
>> role as a gadfly. Someone who focused on the truth of *why* people
>> wanted to be these fictional beings.
>> I see myself as a sort of councelor to people who need a bit of
> "tough
>> love", not more enableing.
>
> Why is that so important that you've stayed here all these years
> though?
Saffy & Jimmy arnt here to play devils advocate.
I'm just giving back to the were-community :)
§nuhwolf
Just send money :)
Snuhwolf
PO Box 693
whitefish MT
59937
Cypher
§nuhwolf wrote:
> Oh hey...I'll go you one better: I got in trouble for showing my cock to
> some girls in 4th grade in my class...during recess.
On two seperate occassions, a guy has shown me his cock in a gazebo. So
since you seem to know a thing or two about the flashing, do you think
there's any kind of correlation or am I just unlucky? :)
>
> Uh...how exactly *would* one walk their talk if ones walk was to be a
> fictional animal?
First of all, your statement assumes therians in general believe
themselves to be an animal/human hybrid monster.
And as for how one would walk their talk, Blackbear and his bearwalks
come to mind. This site is another great example
http://winterscapes.com/somafera/
>
>
> > For better or worse, Kamatu and Safari chased them all
> > away...leaving a usenet ghost town behind.
>
> THis town aint big enough for the both of us...
>
> <revolver clicking>
>
>
> > At least I've met some really interesting, amazing people through
> > here.
>
> By amazing you mean entertainingly nutty, sure.
The definition of entertainingly nutty would be otakukin.
>
> > Seriously, has anyone seen the Werelist and Therianthropy.org lately
> > (well, more like in general)? Boring! Hardly a trace of original
> > thought, not a single explorer into the depths of what is considered a
> > highly important aspect of our being.
> >
> Like I said...wait'll Hollywood gets a new crop of monster flicks with
> werewoofs in them.
Lycans make me cry :(
How noble.
Jure Sah
>>> The theory is that those that have a fervour for super-powerful
>>> fictional characters are generally unsatisfied with their body.
>> No. I was a victim of good ol school yard bullying :)
>> Every kid that likes monsters probably was.
>
> I used to pretend I was a werewolf at recess and chase the other kids
> around :P.
And I used to pin all who oppose me...
First bullys think they can bully the little dog-sized me then they get
a squeeze on the neck... inna tender spot that makes them kids feel
uncomfortable enough. Then they stay away from me thinking I'm a psychopath.
But you know... it IS considered antisocial.
> Safari was not against the idea of therianthropy, just the backstabbers
> and fools who proclaimed to be a werewolf but never actually walked
> their talk. For better or worse, Kamatu and Safari chased them all
> away...leaving a usenet ghost town behind.
From the links you provide, I suppose this "walking their talk"
actually means "talked their talk" or maybe even "wrote their chat".
But yes I agree the therianthropy scene is not for schizophrenic
roleplayers, 14-yo girls who mistake their hormones for wolf spirit and
kids who spent all their time around their pet dogs enough to start to
think they are dogs too.
> At least I've met some really interesting, amazing people through here.
> Seriously, has anyone seen the Werelist and Therianthropy.org lately
> (well, more like in general)? Boring! Hardly a trace of original
> thought, not a single explorer into the depths of what is considered a
> highly important aspect of our being.
Well, gee, I did try to post original thought there, but if you come to
think the fact that those 'scenes' are moderated by Coyote and Jakkal,
intelligence there never really stood a chance. They consider anything
outside of their own ideas to be a threat to them and will get you
banned real quick if you attempt to disagree with them.
With Jakkal, her highness, coining terms the therianthropy scene shall
use on her own, based on some awkward mathematical terms which NOBODY
ever actually used to describe anything about himself/herself and lord
Coyote defining the rules of conduct for every soul on this world,
moderating out anything outside of his current norm, what you ask for,
is never going to happen.
Hm, come to think of it, I have backups of my posts to those places
stored somewhere. Might take some interesting content from them to here
and see what happens.
--
Model: INFJ
Primary function: Coprocessor
Secondary function: Cluster commander
Pay once per lifetime webhosting:
http://farcomm-it.com/?ref=jsah
"...need lots of luck,
a bit of Google,
and some Dust..."
-- CosMix
§nuhwolf
>
> §nuhwolf wrote:
>> Oh hey...I'll go you one better: I got in trouble for showing my
> cock to
>> some girls in 4th grade in my class...during recess.
>
> On two seperate occassions, a guy has shown me his cock in a gazebo.
> So
> since you seem to know a thing or two about the flashing, do you think
> there's any kind of correlation or am I just unlucky? :)
>
HTH
>
>>
>> Uh...how exactly *would* one walk their talk if ones walk was to be
> a
>> fictional animal?
>
> First of all, your statement assumes therians in general believe
> themselves to be an animal/human hybrid monster.
Riiiiiiiight...I forgot all the "spiritual" mumbo jumbo that tries to
couch the fantasy as some sort of New Agey religious experience where
"were all just 'displaced souls' that either:
A) Are having serious memory flashbacks from our past lives as critters
B) Are sharing a body with another soul.
<snicker>
> And as for how one would walk their talk, Blackbear and his bearwalks
> come to mind. This site is another great example
> http://winterscapes.com/somafera/
>
Well the page admits its nothing new. Eastern martial arts refernce is
sufficient explanation.
THe idea that "weres" have the discipline for that is laughable however
:)
>>
>>
>> > For better or worse, Kamatu and Safari chased them all
>> > away...leaving a usenet ghost town behind.
>>
>> THis town aint big enough for the both of us...
>>
>> <revolver clicking>
>>
>>
>> > At least I've met some really interesting, amazing people through
>> > here.
>>
>> By amazing you mean entertainingly nutty, sure.
>
> The definition of entertainingly nutty would be otakukin.
>
Must I grep?
THis pretty much sums it up:
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=otakukin&defid=890379
Yep...the internet is utterly batshit insane.
>>
>> > Seriously, has anyone seen the Werelist and Therianthropy.org
> lately
>> > (well, more like in general)? Boring! Hardly a trace of original
>> > thought, not a single explorer into the depths of what is
> considered a
>> > highly important aspect of our being.
>> >
>> Like I said...wait'll Hollywood gets a new crop of monster flicks
> with
>> werewoofs in them.
>
> Lycans make me cry :(
>
THey make me chuckle :)
I CARE TOO MUCH!!!!1111!!!!!
Cypher
Jure Sah wrote:
> And I used to pin all who oppose me...
>
> First bullys think they can bully the little dog-sized me then they get
> a squeeze on the neck... inna tender spot that makes them kids feel
> uncomfortable enough. Then they stay away from me thinking I'm a psychopath.
>
> But you know... it IS considered antisocial.
Perhaps all/most kids start out antisocial (the psychological
affliction of being unable to empathise, not the commonly accepted
connotation of being shy and withdrawn) and slowly grow out of it.
Either that, or they learn how to fake caring about others, even lying
to themselves in the process. The mind is such an interesting thing :).
> From the links you provide, I suppose this "walking their talk"
> actually means "talked their talk" or maybe even "wrote their chat".
Can't exactly speak of those who don't make themselves known.
>
>
> Well, gee, I did try to post original thought there, but if you come to
> think the fact that those 'scenes' are moderated by Coyote and Jakkal,
> intelligence there never really stood a chance. They consider anything
> outside of their own ideas to be a threat to them and will get you
> banned real quick if you attempt to disagree with them.
Moderation in general is no good for development, but their style can
be really irksome. I don't really have anything against Coyote, he's
just too much of a goddamn hippie sometimes :P. Jakkal will disagree
with people just for the sake of disagreeing it seems.
The otherkin community on livejournal is the only well moderated
therian-related place I've frequented. And by that I mean the mod
doesn't really do anything but crack a few skulls now and then when
people are being especially idiodic. There's even a couple fun trolls
on there to stir shit up. It's much like this place but more active.
>
> With Jakkal, her highness, coining terms the therianthropy scene shall
> use on her own, based on some awkward mathematical terms which NOBODY
> ever actually used to describe anything about himself/herself and lord
> Coyote defining the rules of conduct for every soul on this world,
> moderating out anything outside of his current norm, what you ask for,
> is never going to happen.
It's not just them though, it's the stagnation of the people in
general. It amazes me how many therians think that after you figure out
what animal you are, there's nothing else to discover. What's worse,
when you tell them it doesn't have to be this way, and that figuring
out the inner animal is only the BEGINNING of a lifelong journey, they
scoff and give some nonsense excuse why they can't be bothered. Most
therians on moderated communities fall into this trap, so I've learned
to seek out the lesser known places to find weres not corrupted by
order.
Jure Sah
>> But you know... it IS considered antisocial.
>
> Perhaps all/most kids start out antisocial (the psychological
> affliction of being unable to empathise, not the commonly accepted
> connotation of being shy and withdrawn) and slowly grow out of it.
> Either that, or they learn how to fake caring about others, even lying
> to themselves in the process. The mind is such an interesting thing :).
Given the point that scientists today do observe this thing called the
EQ (emotional quotient) as something people are born with and which
measures a person's ability to empathize with others around him/her. If
we were to say there are people on this world that have a nonzero EQ or
perhaps that the majority of people have a nonzero EQ, I'd say the
situation is not so grim.
> Moderation in general is no good for development, but their style can
> be really irksome. I don't really have anything against Coyote, he's
> just too much of a goddamn hippie sometimes :P. Jakkal will disagree
> with people just for the sake of disagreeing it seems.
> The otherkin community on livejournal is the only well moderated
> therian-related place I've frequented. And by that I mean the mod
> doesn't really do anything but crack a few skulls now and then when
> people are being especially idiodic. There's even a couple fun trolls
> on there to stir shit up. It's much like this place but more active.
There are some rules of conduct that have been bogged down by being used
in places that involve a very large number of people. For example IRCNet
IRC network, where there are currently 93553 active users, to give the
general idea. There the rules are set so that those who have
administrative rights do not bother themselves with what is being
discussed on the network as long as it doesn't interfere with the
integrity of the network. The whole thing is taken to such an extent
that the only users who really have the ability to bring things to a
total stop are computer programs, while the human users are either kept
as equals amongst each other, incapable of interfering with each other's
ability to communicate as much as possible, or as half-administrators
that are kept on a leash by the system.
I find that general idea that system administrators should be prevented
from interfering with the discussions and usage of the resource as the
only right way for things to be (and yes, I am a system administrator
myself).
> It's not just them though, it's the stagnation of the people in
> general. It amazes me how many therians think that after you figure out
> what animal you are, there's nothing else to discover. What's worse,
> when you tell them it doesn't have to be this way, and that figuring
> out the inner animal is only the BEGINNING of a lifelong journey, they
> scoff and give some nonsense excuse why they can't be bothered. Most
> therians on moderated communities fall into this trap, so I've learned
> to seek out the lesser known places to find weres not corrupted by
> order.
Well in an environment where you are basically told what to believe upon
arrival into the community, I think that is quite unsuprizing. I mean
you know I think people do live their lives by the day, finding new
things about their therianthropy all the time, but the second stage of
all those discoveries is making sense of them. And if you already have
some means of categorization set out for you, you usually seek to fit
your experiences in that, rather than exploring it's aspects on your own.
For example a therian in a community where the rules are set by official
medicine, they look at their therianthropy and see Asperger's syndrome,
ADHD, random hightened sensitivity syndromes, schizophrenia and various
delusional states (and perhaps BJ might add something more accurate here
by the time she finishes her research). Where the rules are set by one
of our common therianthropy resources, these same things are seen as
either shifter, contherian or suntherian therianthropy styles and
onwards with subtypes of shifts, various species and spirituality types.
When a person has all this wisdom already prepared for them, there is no
reason to go against the categorical system, it is much easier to
generalize, stick your therianthropy code onto your signature and expect
everybody will understand you in depth based on that.
Mircea
this seems to be a really sad story :(
I got through something similar too after I started feeling attracted
to being a fur long before finding out and I understand that for some
its a stronger feeling, but I never ever went against someone else like
me, especially be against what I want and believe with others. But I
can understand you have your own reasons to be like this but being bad
for no reason wont help anyone. Yes, I know that at one point when its
just too much you tend to turn against everyone but you must try to
fight this. It does not help you or anyone. If you do this noone will
want to help you and thrust me, I know its allmost impossible to get
through something like this alone.
I understand you, I want to help you, but as long as you are so harsh
with everyone for no reason I really dunno what to do (and I can bet
you will make fun of this post too but well, its your choise). If you
want you can try to explain it more clearly since i didn't understand
everything well maybe I can tell you something or help in some way. If
not... at least try to consider what I said, and try to have patience
and keep your calm about it, it ends up good in the very end, ok?
§nuhwolf
> Well I didn't quite understand everything and exactly what happened
> but
> this seems to be a really sad story :(
<hands out kleenex>
> I got through something similar too after I started feeling attracted
> to being a fur long before finding out and I understand that for some
> its a stronger feeling, but I never ever went against someone else
> like
> me, especially be against what I want and believe with others. But I
> can understand you have your own reasons to be like this but being bad
> for no reason wont help anyone.
Whos bad?
<cue Michael Jackson>
> Yes, I know that at one point when its
> just too much you tend to turn against everyone but you must try to
> fight this. It does not help you or anyone. If you do this noone will
> want to help you and thrust me,
Unless thats a solicitation, you need to enable spellcheck.
> I know its allmost impossible to get
> through something like this alone.
Safari was quite helpful :)
> I understand you, I want to help you,
Send money.
> but as long as you are so harsh
> with everyone for no reason I really dunno what to do
Send money.
> (and I can bet
> you will make fun of this post too but well,
With precognitive skills like that, we need to head to the dog track.
> its your choise). If you
> want you can try to explain it more clearly since i didn't understand
> everything well maybe I can tell you something or help in some way.
Whats your PIN number?
:)
> If
> not... at least try to consider what I said, and try to have patience
> and keep your calm about it, it ends up good in the very end, ok?
>
Only if it involves sex.
:)
Kisses To You
lol
Mircea
and careless" thing by doing this you are wasting your time. This topic
so far is enough to know how you really are thrust me, you are not even
half evil as you want to look :) because if you where I probably
wouldn't be posting here. And there are people who are way more mean
then you (hope you don't understand this as an invitation for you to
proove you are worse because it's not)
And second, this post is about you, not me, and by making fun you are
not making fun of me, but of yourself. Probably you are simpy doing it
to proove us that you don't need anyone and don't care about anyone's
help, I dont know, but as long as you dont want to get out of this you
will not get better. I dont know what else I can do for you really (and
to spare you from the reply, I can't send you any money because I don't
have a card and I don't know your adress :) )
I dont know what else to say for now. Hope that despite the replies you
are posting you have understood something from what I have said. I said
it for your own good, not mine, and its your choise what you will do
next. Sorry I couldn't get through to you. And seeing that you dont
want to talk to anyone I'll let you be thow I'll be watching you. Hope
you decide to listen to me thow...
Jure Sah
follow as lately the thread structure gets a little bit mixed up every
now and then.
Mircea pravi:
--
Primary function: Coprocessor
Secondary function: Cluster commander
Pay once per lifetime webhosting:
http://farcomm-it.com/?ref=jsah
01010010 01100101 01110011 01101001 01100100 01100101 01101110 01110100
01000010 01000001 01010011 01001001 01000011
Mircea
Jure Sah wrote:
> Hey... Could you tell me who you are responding to here, it's hard to
> follow as lately the thread structure gets a little bit mixed up every
> now and then.
I saw this for the first time yesterday when I registered and I posted
here just cuz I've read his story and I wanted to help...
§nuhwolf
> Snuhwolf, if you're trying to get me into this "I'm all mean and evil
> and careless" thing by doing this you are wasting your time.
I'm trying to get you to remove your cranium from your rectum.
> This
> topic
> so far is enough to know how you really are thrust me,
PUH-lease, get the spellchecker going.
> you are not
> even
> half evil as you want to look :)
Nicely aSSumed. ASSume lots more now :)
> because if you where I probably
> wouldn't be posting here. And there are people who are way more mean
> then you (hope you don't understand this as an invitation for you to
> proove you are worse because it's not)
I'm not trying to be "mean". I'm trying to talk some sense into you
dimmy.
> And second, this post is about you, not me, and by making fun you are
> not making fun of me, but of yourself.
Huh?
> Probably you are simpy doing it
> to proove us that you don't need anyone and don't care about anyone's
> help,
Funny, I was trying to help *you* get your head outta your ass and
listen to reason.
Now tell me about your pee-shifting episodes.
> I dont know, but as long as you dont want to get out of this you
> will not get better.
ROTFLMAO!
Pretty funny coming from a Real Were (tm).
> I dont know what else I can do for you really
> (and
> to spare you from the reply, I can't send you any money because I
> don't
> have a card and I don't know your adress :) )
PO Box 693
whitefish MT
59937
I prefer small unmarked bills.
FYI
> I dont know what else to say for now. Hope that despite the replies
> you
> are posting you have understood something from what I have said.
I understand that you think that you're a Real Were (tm).
> I
> said
> it for your own good, not mine, and its your choise what you will do
> next. Sorry I couldn't get through to you. And seeing that you dont
> want to talk to anyone I'll let you be thow I'll be watching you. Hope
> you decide to listen to me thow...
>
H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^!!
Classic :)
Dan Skunk
Not ignoring him enough. Don't feed the troll.
"Sandman" <san...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:e4urio$3oe$1...@emma.aioe.org...
§nuhwolf
> *Shudders*
>
> Not ignoring him enough. Don't feed the troll.
>
:)
Mircea
§nuhwolf a scris:
I would like to ask you a question, seen as you're still trolling and
its a question I still couldn't get an anwser to;
You know you are a wherewolf. You even admitted it as far sa I
remember. Now why do you like making fun of people just because they
know exactly the same things you do and are talking about things...
well not exactly like those you believe in but very similar instead of
trying to help others and let others help you instead of treating
everybody like your enemies. I would really like to know your version
because I am curious about it...
Snuhwolf
>
>> Dan Skunk wrote:
>> > *Shudders*
>> >
>> > Not ignoring him enough. Don't feed the troll.
>> >
>> Wassamatta Danny? Too pussy to attack me on ALF?
>>
>> :)
>>
>> --
>> www.alternet.org
>
> I would like to ask you a question, seen as you're still trolling and
> its a question I still couldn't get an anwser to;
> You know you are a wherewolf.
Correction: I played werewolf. You cant *be* a mythical creature.
> You even admitted it as far sa I
> remember.
Wrong again. I *claimed* to be one for emotional purposes.
I've long since pulled my head out of my ass in that regard.
> Now why do you like making fun of people just because they
> know exactly the same things you do and are talking about things...
Just trying to point the way to enlightenment.
Or at least the path to a reality based thought process.
:)
> well not exactly like those you believe in but very similar instead of
> trying to help others and let others help you instead of treating
> everybody like your enemies. I would really like to know your version
> because I am curious about it...
>
All "were" and "furry" claims to be some magical creature where you're
"not really human" are just the individual creating an idealised self to
take the place of the self-preceived flawed genuine self that has become
untolerable usually due to some emotional trauma.
That and the fact that people need to "feel special".
HTH
Jure Sah
Ruediger
Remember Sibe? Was it worth all that trouble - nope.
What would have been the best for us all to do? Bingo.
So, let's do the same again.
"You cannot change the world all of a sudden on your own.
So better you go and keep your own little surroundings clean and intact.
And when all would do so, the world would be changing to the better,
with noone being forced to anything."
§nuhwolf wrote:
--
Sincerely
Ruediger
Wanderer
logic and emotion cannot penetrate that cynical armor:
"Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and
he will tell you the truth."
"The aim of life is self-development. To realize one's nature perfectly -
that is what each of us is here for."
And finally, the one that made me think of you in the first place:
"Selfishness is not living as one wishes to live, it is asking others to
live as one wishes to live."
Yours pointedly,
The disapproving,
Wanderer
"Where am I going? I don't quite know.
What does it matter *where* people go?
Down to the woods where the bluebells grow!
Anywhere! Anywhere! *I* don't know!"
-- "Spring Morning", by a. a. milne
Dan Skunk
"Snuhwolf" <snuhwo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:PM000416D...@tilly.centurytel.net...
> All "were" and "furry" claims to be some magical creature where you're
> "not really human" are just the individual creating an idealised self to
> take the place of the self-preceived flawed genuine self that has become
> untolerable usually due to some emotional trauma.
> That and the fact that people need to "feel special".
> HTH
Or is the fursona the respresentation of the genuine self that's being
repressed?
It could be seen as an attempt to escape reality, but it can also be seen as
a attempt to find it.
How an idea is symbolised is less important than what the idea itself means.
If someone sees themsleves as a wolf and uses wolves to learn more about
their humanity and how to live a better life, that's not really a bad thing.
Whether they really are a wolf or have a wolf spirit or are being guided by
a wolf spirit or are just subconsciously percieving themsleves as such is
less important that whether they learn to become better people through it.
Snuhwolf
> Therians are not mythical creatures, FYI.
>
yes there is no such thing as a therian.
I'll retract my statement if you can provide proof of transformation.
FYI
:)
Snuhwolf
>
> "Snuhwolf" <snuhwo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:PM000416D...@tilly.centurytel.net...
>
>> All "were" and "furry" claims to be some magical creature where
> you're
>> "not really human" are just the individual creating an idealised
> self to
>> take the place of the self-preceived flawed genuine self that has
> become
>> untolerable usually due to some emotional trauma.
>> That and the fact that people need to "feel special".
>> HTH
>
> Or is the fursona the respresentation of the genuine self that's being
> repressed?
>
preponderance of information and opinion on this supports my asertion
that individuals that are marginalized by society will create in
response an idealised self.
> It could be seen as an attempt to escape reality, but it can also be
> seen as
> a attempt to find it.
>
Its an escape.
> How an idea is symbolised is less important than what the idea itself
> means.
>
A superior form. A more acceptable form. Its the very representation of
rejecting humanity.
Think of all the times that people use the term "mundanes" in an
obviously derogatory fashion.
> If someone sees themsleves as a wolf and uses wolves to learn more
> about
> their humanity and how to live a better life, that's not really a bad
> thing.
Sure. But if they claim "wolfhood" then they are escaping reality and
creating an emotional crutch.
> Whether they really are a wolf or have a wolf spirit or are being
> guided by
> a wolf spirit or are just subconsciously percieving themsleves as such
> is
> less important that whether they learn to become better people through
> it.
>
What if they become "better people" through theft?
I.E., they take up stealing then when they see the effect and quit they
"become better"?
Whats the price of the method?
§nuhwolf
> Snuh, perhaps these three Oscar Wilde quotes will get through to you,
> where
> logic and emotion cannot penetrate that cynical armor:
>
> "Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a
> mask, and
> he will tell you the truth."
>
> "The aim of life is self-development. To realize one's nature
> perfectly -
> that is what each of us is here for."
>
> And finally, the one that made me think of you in the first place:
>
> "Selfishness is not living as one wishes to live, it is asking others
> to
> live as one wishes to live."
>
Poor Oscar. Such a tortured soul to be gay at that time in history :(
Wanderer
> In my experience and in what Ive read in the psycological literature the
> preponderance of information and opinion on this supports my asertion
> that individuals that are marginalized by society will create in
> response an idealised self.
No offense, Snuh, but your psychoanalysis is deeply flawed. Aside from the
point that you're attempting to psychoanalyze from a distance (something no
*responsible* psychoanalyst would ever do), you're not looking at the
self-images to understand the drives behind them.
<stands up to present himself> Here, we'll take me for an example. Here is
the description of my spiritual avatar, so to speak:
You see before you an average-looking werewolf, his brown fur shading to
black atop his head and down the back of his neck, tracing to the point
where it enters the collar of his shirt. He has blunt claws on his fingers
and toes, and his feet are of the canine style. He stands about 5'11", and
looks back at you with an appraising smirk on his muzzle. He wears a light
blue t-shirt and dark blue jeans.
<shrug> Not terribly "idealized", am I? No bulging muscles, no impressive
height, no superpowers (beyond being able to take the hits and come back
from them). Nothing out of the ordinary but my state of being.
See, you're not attacking the neurotic's ideal self, here; you're attacking
the self-sentiment, our cognitive self-concept (with Cattell and Gorsuch).
The self-sentiment is who we are to ourselves, what we are inside. We are
werewolves, and weretigers, and werebats, and so on... just as much as you
are "Snuh, defeater of illusions, Light of the World, leading the poor,
deluded idiots to the truth and sanity that Snuh has found in
anti-everythingness".
<smirk> So if you're going to ask us to abandon our self-images for you,
Snuh, you're going to have to abandon yours first, to show us how it's done.
>
>> It could be seen as an attempt to escape reality, but it can also be
>> seen as
>> a attempt to find it.
>>
> Its an escape.
One may escape to or from, Snuh. What are you running from?
>
>> How an idea is symbolised is less important than what the idea itself
>> means.
>>
> A superior form. A more acceptable form. Its the very representation of
> rejecting humanity.
Ah, looking through your own lens, again. And again, and again, and
again...
Problem is, Snuh, it doesn't work that way. You don't get to define who we
are; we do. You've gotten to define yourself as the anti-everything savior
of the world; do go off and work at it, and leave us alone.
> Think of all the times that people use the term "mundanes" in an
> obviously derogatory fashion.
More exasperated than derogatory, Snuh; in any event, there really are
people who deserve to be called "Mundanes". These are the people who,
self-professedly, have neither an imagination nor the need of one. They do
not read fiction, they cannot imagine the future, or being something else,
or ever being more than they are this very second.
*Those* are Mundanes.
>> If someone sees themsleves as a wolf and uses wolves to learn more
>> about
>> their humanity and how to live a better life, that's not really a bad
>> thing.
>
> Sure. But if they claim "wolfhood" then they are escaping reality and
> creating an emotional crutch.
Similar to your own emotional crutch of, "I'm much smarter than anyone else
in this newsgroup"?
>> Whether they really are a wolf or have a wolf spirit or are being
>> guided by
>> a wolf spirit or are just subconsciously percieving themsleves as such
>> is
>> less important that whether they learn to become better people through
>> it.
>>
> What if they become "better people" through theft?
> I.E., they take up stealing then when they see the effect and quit they
> "become better"?
> Whats the price of the method?
>
You're violating your own example. (Violating? Heck, you just rammed a pipe
up its backside and called it a car.) That's not "becoming better through
theft". That's "becoming better by abandoning theft".
You're also using emotionally-loaded terms; comparing the self-sentiment to
theft, as in this case, is a transparent attempt to reduce the Self to an
aberration, as long as it does not match up with what you want us to be.
Poor Snuh, standing there screaming, "If I can't have an ideal self, nobody
can! You're all crazy poopy-heads! I'll cure you all!"
You should really seek counseling, Snuh, and find the root cause behind your
need to control others.
Yours truly,
The wolfish,
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
[...]
><smirk> So if you're going to ask us to abandon our self-images for you,
> Snuh, you're going to have to abandon yours first, to show us how it's done.
I'd love Snuh to reach enlightenment.
--
Please excuse my spelling as I suffer from agraphia. See
http://dformosa.zeta.org.au/~dformosa/Spelling.html to find out more.
Free the Memes. Will set followups on crossposts of 3 of more
Dan Skunk
> Dan Skunk wrote:
> >
> > "Snuhwolf" <snuhwo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:PM000416D...@tilly.centurytel.net...
> >
> >> All "were" and "furry" claims to be some magical creature where
> > you're
> >> "not really human" are just the individual creating an idealised
> > self to
> >> take the place of the self-preceived flawed genuine self that has
> > become
> >> untolerable usually due to some emotional trauma.
> >> That and the fact that people need to "feel special".
> >> HTH
> >
> > Or is the fursona the respresentation of the genuine self that's being
> > repressed?
> >
> In my experience and in what Ive read in the psycological literature the
> preponderance of information and opinion on this supports my asertion
> that individuals that are marginalized by society will create in
> response an idealised self.
>
though. My identifying with a skunk doesn't make me any better than anyone
else. Skunks aren't really that exciting.
> > It could be seen as an attempt to escape reality, but it can also be
> > seen as
> > a attempt to find it.
> >
> Its an escape.
>
> > How an idea is symbolised is less important than what the idea itself
> > means.
> >
> A superior form. A more acceptable form. Its the very representation of
> rejecting humanity.
> Think of all the times that people use the term "mundanes" in an
> obviously derogatory fashion.
>
I think that was mostly used as to refer to someone lacking imagination or
ability to have fun. I don't think it's unreasonable for someone to want to
reject a lifestyle like that.
>
> > If someone sees themsleves as a wolf and uses wolves to learn more
> > about
> > their humanity and how to live a better life, that's not really a bad
> > thing.
>
> Sure. But if they claim "wolfhood" then they are escaping reality and
> creating an emotional crutch.
>
I don't see how that works as an emotional crutch. Identifying with wolves
isn't going to make your problems go away. In fact, I think believing
yourself to be a wolf would only create more problems for you. Increase your
sense of not belonging in the world.
>
> > Whether they really are a wolf or have a wolf spirit or are being
> > guided by
> > a wolf spirit or are just subconsciously percieving themsleves as such
> > is
> > less important that whether they learn to become better people through
> > it.
> >
> What if they become "better people" through theft?
> I.E., they take up stealing then when they see the effect and quit they
> "become better"?
> Whats the price of the method?
>
I don't think theft is a valid analogy.
> --
> www.alternet.org
Snuhwolf
> "Snuhwolf" <snuhwo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:PM000416E...@tilly.centurytel.net...
>> In my experience and in what Ive read in the psycological literature
> the
>> preponderance of information and opinion on this supports my
> asertion
>> that individuals that are marginalized by society will create in
>> response an idealised self.
>
> No offense, Snuh, but your psychoanalysis is deeply flawed.
So you'll be CITEING several web pages and sources to back you up,
right?
> Aside
> from the
> point that you're attempting to psychoanalyze from a distance
> (something no
> *responsible* psychoanalyst would ever do), you're not looking at the
> self-images to understand the drives behind them.
>
Ooops! Guess not. Just stick with your own delusions then eh?
> <stands up to present himself> Here, we'll take me for an example.
> Here is
> the description of my spiritual avatar, so to speak:
>
Nicely hedged.
> You see before you an average-looking werewolf,
Average? How can you get an "average" when theres no other base to
compare to?
> his brown fur shading
> to
> black atop his head and down the back of his neck, tracing to the
> point
> where it enters the collar of his shirt. He has blunt claws on his
> fingers
> and toes, and his feet are of the canine style. He stands about
> 5'11", and
> looks back at you with an appraising smirk on his muzzle. He wears a
> light
> blue t-shirt and dark blue jeans.
>
Sounds like you put a lot of time into creating this fantasy image of
yourself.
Just think of all the time youve wasted, Chuck.
> <shrug> Not terribly "idealized", am I? No bulging muscles, no
> impressive
> height, no superpowers (beyond being able to take the hits and come
> back
> from them). Nothing out of the ordinary but my state of being.
>
Indeed. If one accepts that *being* a werewolf is an ordinary thing.
I'd say its a measure of ones sanity.
You're failing, Chuck.
> See, you're not attacking the neurotic's ideal self, here; you're
> attacking
> the self-sentiment, our cognitive self-concept (with Cattell and
> Gorsuch).
So its okey dokey to play make believe?
> The self-sentiment is who we are to ourselves, what we are inside.
I think you're silly.
> We
> are
> werewolves, and weretigers, and werebats, and so on... just as much as
> you
> are "Snuh, defeater of illusions, Light of the World, leading the
> poor,
> deluded idiots to the truth and sanity that Snuh has found in
> anti-everythingness".
>
Nice strawman.
> <smirk> So if you're going to ask us to abandon our self-images for
> you,
> Snuh, you're going to have to abandon yours first, to show us how it's
> done.
>
What self image am I accused of having?
Define your terms, Chuck.
>>
>>> It could be seen as an attempt to escape reality, but it can also
> be
>>> seen as
>>> a attempt to find it.
>>>
>> Its an escape.
>
> One may escape to or from, Snuh. What are you running from?
>
I'm not the one playing "werewoof" Chuck.
Try again.
>>
>>> How an idea is symbolised is less important than what the idea
> itself
>>> means.
>>>
>> A superior form. A more acceptable form. Its the very representation
> of
>> rejecting humanity.
>
> Ah, looking through your own lens, again. And again, and again, and
> again...
>
You expect a human to be objective?
Subjectivity is the norm , Chuck.
> Problem is, Snuh, it doesn't work that way. You don't get to define
> who we
> are; we do.
You defined yourself: you're playing werewolf.
Try again.
> You've gotten to define yourself as the anti-everything
> savior
> of the world; do go off and work at it, and leave us alone.
>
More strawmen? Figures. You're loosing the battle against reality based
thought hetre , Chuck.
As for me "going away"; you do a lot of complaining for a guy who claims
to know how to kilfile :)
>> Think of all the times that people use the term "mundanes" in an
>> obviously derogatory fashion.
>
> More exasperated than derogatory, Snuh; in any event, there really are
> people who deserve to be called "Mundanes".
Used in the context to support your claims to be "other than human",
sure.
:)
> These are the people who,
> self-professedly, have neither an imagination nor the need of one.
> They do
> not read fiction, they cannot imagine the future, or being something
> else,
> or ever being more than they are this very second.
>
And that concerns you because? Oh yes. Its because they cant accept your
claims to being a Magic Wolf.
Heh...and you need validation like a crack addict needs the pipe.
> *Those* are Mundanes.
>
The people who dont believe in fairy storys, sure.
:)
>>> If someone sees themsleves as a wolf and uses wolves to learn more
>>> about
>>> their humanity and how to live a better life, that's not really a
> bad
>>> thing.
>>
>> Sure. But if they claim "wolfhood" then they are escaping reality
> and
>> creating an emotional crutch.
>
> Similar to your own emotional crutch of, "I'm much smarter than anyone
> else
> in this newsgroup"?
>
I'm not the one claiming that. But people keep labeling me with it.
Whats it to ya, Chuck?
>>> Whether they really are a wolf or have a wolf spirit or are being
>>> guided by
>>> a wolf spirit or are just subconsciously percieving themsleves as
> such
>>> is
>>> less important that whether they learn to become better people
> through
>>> it.
>>>
>> What if they become "better people" through theft?
>> I.E., they take up stealing then when they see the effect and quit
> they
>> "become better"?
>> Whats the price of the method?
>>
>
> You're violating your own example. (Violating? Heck, you just rammed
> a pipe
> up its backside and called it a car.) That's not "becoming better
> through
> theft". That's "becoming better by abandoning theft".
>
So your example is that they should stay theives?
Hmmmmm...
> You're also using emotionally-loaded terms;
PKB, spanky.
> comparing the
> self-sentiment to
> theft, as in this case, is a transparent attempt to reduce the Self to
> an
> aberration, as long as it does not match up with what you want us to
> be.
>
Reduce the self to an abberation?
ROTFLMAO! No dimmy. I'm trying to get you to accept your humanity.
> Poor Snuh, standing there screaming, "If I can't have an ideal self,
> nobody
> can! You're all crazy poopy-heads! I'll cure you all!"
>
Huh? I'm not the one who wants to play werewolf, Chuck.
> You should really seek counseling, Snuh, and find the root cause
> behind your
> need to control others.
>
I CARE TOO MUCH!!!!!11111!!!!!
:(
Snuhwolf
THe disney idea of Flower?
>> > It could be seen as an attempt to escape reality, but it can also
> be
>> > seen as
>> > a attempt to find it.
>> >
>> Its an escape.
>>
>> > How an idea is symbolised is less important than what the idea
> itself
>> > means.
>> >
>> A superior form. A more acceptable form. Its the very representation
> of
>> rejecting humanity.
>> Think of all the times that people use the term "mundanes" in an
>> obviously derogatory fashion.
>>
> I think that was mostly used as to refer to someone lacking
> imagination or
> ability to have fun. I don't think it's unreasonable for someone to
> want to
> reject a lifestyle like that.
>
Some people are more concrete in their thought.
But the term "mundanes" is used by the furry community to deride those
who are not furry.
>> > If someone sees themsleves as a wolf and uses wolves to learn more
>> > about
>> > their humanity and how to live a better life, that's not really a
> bad
>> > thing.
>>
>> Sure. But if they claim "wolfhood" then they are escaping reality
> and
>> creating an emotional crutch.
>>
> I don't see how that works as an emotional crutch. Identifying with
> wolves
> isn't going to make your problems go away.
It takes years for some people to realise that :)
> In fact, I think believing
> yourself to be a wolf would only create more problems for you.
> Increase your
> sense of not belonging in the world.
>
Or explain it.
>> > Whether they really are a wolf or have a wolf spirit or are being
>> > guided by
>> > a wolf spirit or are just subconsciously percieving themsleves as
> such
>> > is
>> > less important that whether they learn to become better people
> through
>> > it.
>> >
>> What if they become "better people" through theft?
>> I.E., they take up stealing then when they see the effect and quit
> they
>> "become better"?
>> Whats the price of the method?
>>
> I don't think theft is a valid analogy.
>
It was a grasp for some strawmen to be sure ;)
--
Mircea
they really are and he's very sure that he is right. I understand it
happens thow, the problem is he won't listen to anybody no matter what,
unless they agree with what he believes right now. And he won't listen
to me if I tell him that he can never be happy untill he accepts
himself or learn anything new untill he listens to others. And it's
more then obvious that what he's posting here is not what he really
believes after taking some time and thinking. His anwsers are only
given after his own code wrote only ONCE that says "that is good and
that is bad and its like this forever". But what he says is obvious its
not something he really believes and want to sustain. Its an fixed idea
its not even what he really feels like believing. That will never get
anyone anywhere and I'm sorry he's wasting his life away like this cuz
seeing how things are, this is what he is doing.
Dan, I would like to ask you to try to be a little more gentle about
it. We can try to ignore what Shun says on other topics he's trolling
on since they don't really mean something like I said, he must just try
to find a way to understand what really is going on (and btw Dan about
what they said earlier, I dun recall ever seeing you flaming or
insulting someone, you where even very helpful on topics, but even if
someone is annoying at times, dun be bad yourself or anything cuz it
won't help them, ok?). I'm not good in the domain really but enough
psychology I know to guess parts of whats going on. Unless he doesn't
take the chance to listen to anyone else except himself he won't get
anywhere.
Wanderer
*do* you stay single?
Sarcasm aside: Since I've never known you to read my citations, I thought I
might spare you the bother of ignoring them this once. Still, as you like
it:
Given your pretentions to psychoanalysis, let's start with the basics:
http://allpsych.com/psychology101/intro.html
"The study of psychology has five basic goals:
1. Describe - The first goal is to observe behavior and describe, often in
minute detail, what was observed as objectively as possible.
2. Explain - While descriptions come from observable data, psychologists
must go beyond what is obvious and explain their observations. In other
words, why did the subject do what he or she did?
3. Predict - Once we know what happens, and why it happens, we can begin to
speculate what will happen in the future. There's an old saying, which very
often holds true: "the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior."
4. Control - Once we know what happens, why it happens and what is likely to
happen in the future, we can exert control over it. In other words, if we
know you choose abusive partners because your father was abusive, we can
assume you will choose another abusive partner, and can therefore intervene
to change this negative behavior.
5. Improve - Not only do psychologists attempt to control behavior, they
want to do so in a positive manner, they want to improve a person's life,
not make it worse. This is not always the case, but it should always be the
intention."
The first point at which you fall down is also the first point: You are not
observing behavior. You are reading written messages with little or no
insight as to the nature of the person writing them. Worse, you refuse to
remain objective; you insist upon remaining as SUBjective as possible.
Instead of actually looking at what we do, you make it up out of your own
head and pretend you understand what we "really meant to say". (Here's a
hint, Snuh: Overriding another person's entire personality with your own
judgements is called abuse:
http://www.suite101.com/welcome.cfm/verbal_emotional_abuse "Abuse is about
control".)
Then we move on to the next fault:
http://allpsych.com/psychology101/research.html
Now: Out of the methods derived from the text, you like to pretend you're
engaging in Naturalistic Observation. Problem is, this is text messaging;
hardly a "natural" environment. You have no visual clues, no audio cues,
nothing to work with, yet you pretend you understand what is going on.
Lastly, there is the matter of your ignorance of psychopathology:
http://allpsych.com/psychology101/classification.html
You apply a single variable of Axis I to all "patients" (everyone you want
to control), and ignore Axes II-IV completely. Worse, you then make callous
and unfounded predictions, having no basis in reality, with regard to Axis
V.
Compare that to the psychological analysis of furry fandom put forth by
Joshuwain:
http://www.visi.com/~phantos/furrysoc.html
That used the experiment type "Survey", with a sample size of 350.
Now, as to the self-sentiment:
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/DPF.CHAP28.HTM
"The self-sentiment concerns the maintenance and advancement of the whole
personality as well as its physical preservation and functioning. It is the
clearinghouse for the needs and overrides their satisfaction consistent with
the self concept."
Basically, Snuh, the animals we are in spirit (not in the transformation you
consider a helpless and struggling target fit for a scavenger like yourself)
are our selves. They describe us more fully than "human" does.
And the worst part is this: As soon as you hit the word "spirit", your eyes
glazed over and you began figuring out how you could ignore that central
concept. That concept you cannot imagine, no matter how we throw it in your
face and rub your nose in it: Spirit. To accept that there is more to us
than our bodies invalidates you, and so you refuse to admit any such view
into consideration.
Go ahead, Snuh. Claim once again to be the divine retribution against all
we "poor", "deluded" "psychotics". Tell us again how your magical mind can
see in black and white letters what it takes a "mere" trained psychiatrist
months of therapy to decipher. Tell us all about how you really are a
psychiatrist who just doesn't have any training or medical education. Go
ahead.
We'll be here.
Mircea
Very nice, Wonderer, thow try not to make him feel like a pacient under
therapy with this cuz his real problem is just being lost and having a
reason to hold onto a certain idea because of it. Anywayz what you said
is very very true.
Snuh, I dun think you're really an atheist (or however they're called
in english sorry if I dunno right) to believe there is nothing else
except this life. Now you had a reason to believe you are an wherewolf,
and now you just dont want to. Having gotten to the point where I can
see this better myself, and I promise I won't lie to you, if you are
something but refuse to admit it, no matter how you put it, it will
never let you have a happy life. You are just throwing everything away
only to sustain this blocked idea you are in. I'm not saying it for
myself, but I dun think you want to have an unhappy life just like this
for no reason. This is what I believe and you should really try to
think about it and what the others said because we are right at least
this time.
Snuhwolf
> My, how witty: "defended his delusions". With such a charming wit,
> how
> *do* you stay single?
>
Chucky.
> Sarcasm aside: Since I've never known you to read my citations, I
> thought I
> might spare you the bother of ignoring them this once. Still, as you
> like
> it:
>
> Given your pretentions to psychoanalysis, let's start with the basics:
>
> http://allpsych.com/psychology101/intro.html
>
> "The study of psychology has five basic goals:
>
> 1. Describe - The first goal is to observe behavior and describe,
> often in
> minute detail, what was observed as objectively as possible.
>
I see dumb people. THey call themselves "therians".
:(
> 2. Explain - While descriptions come from observable data,
> psychologists
> must go beyond what is obvious and explain their observations. In
> other
> words, why did the subject do what he or she did?
>
They want to be "special". Furries & weres are marginalized individuals
with low self esteem.
> 3. Predict - Once we know what happens, and why it happens, we can
> begin to
> speculate what will happen in the future. There's an old saying, which
> very
> often holds true: "the best predictor of future behavior is past
> behavior."
>
I see many fanbois attending many a con in the future. Complete with
"Spirituality Panels".
> 4. Control - Once we know what happens, why it happens and what is
> likely to
> happen in the future, we can exert control over it. In other words, if
> we
> know you choose abusive partners because your father was abusive, we
> can
> assume you will choose another abusive partner, and can therefore
> intervene
> to change this negative behavior.
>
I didnt know your father was abusive :(
I FEEL YUOR PAIN.
> 5. Improve - Not only do psychologists attempt to control behavior,
> they
> want to do so in a positive manner, they want to improve a person's
> life,
> not make it worse. This is not always the case, but it should always
> be the
> intention."
>
Furries need to accept their own humanity.
Ayep...
> The first point at which you fall down is also the first point: You
> are not
> observing behavior. You are reading written messages with little or
> no
> insight as to the nature of the person writing them.
So you're saying LJ and web forums are all full of LIARS?
:(
> Worse, you
> refuse to
> remain objective; you insist upon remaining as SUBjective as possible.
> Instead of actually looking at what we do,
Make claims for harboring multiple spits in your human bodies, sure.
> you make it up out of your
> own
> head and pretend you understand what we "really meant to say".
Try not typing gibberish?
I'm not up on my Stupidese.
> (Here's a
> hint, Snuh: Overriding another person's entire personality with your
> own
> judgements is called abuse:
> http://www.suite101.com/welcome.cfm/verbal_emotional_abuse "Abuse is
> about
> control".)
>
OMG! I'm a TEXT ABUSER!!!
I NEEDS HEPL!!!!1111!!!!
Did I make the Baby Jebus cry as well?
:(
> Then we move on to the next fault:
>
> http://allpsych.com/psychology101/research.html
>
> Now: Out of the methods derived from the text, you like to pretend
> you're
> engaging in Naturalistic Observation.
I dont think theres anything "natural" about what you folks do...
> Problem is, this is text
> messaging;
> hardly a "natural" environment. You have no visual clues, no audio
> cues,
> nothing to work with, yet you pretend you understand what is going on.
>
Sure, blame the medium. If I only met youall in RL I'd see what Sane &
Sensible people you *really* were.
ROTFLMAO!
These same people have made threats, pushed other fursuiters down stairs
at cons etc.
Sure, totally reasonable behavior.
H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^
> Lastly, there is the matter of your ignorance of psychopathology:
>
Sorry Chuck, unlike you I dont have that insider info :(
> http://allpsych.com/psychology101/classification.html
>
> You apply a single variable of Axis I to all "patients" (everyone you
> want
> to control), and ignore Axes II-IV completely.
I knew it! My piss poor math skills are confounding me!
> Worse, you then make
> callous
> and unfounded predictions, having no basis in reality, with regard to
> Axis
> V.
>
Tell me more about your calculus pee-shifting theories, Chuck.
> Compare that to the psychological analysis of furry fandom put forth
> by
> Joshuwain:
>
And his PH D was in what? He got his MD from what university?
Fully qualified eh?
;)
> http://www.visi.com/~phantos/furrysoc.html
>
> That used the experiment type "Survey", with a sample size of 350.
>
> Now, as to the self-sentiment:
>
> http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/DPF.CHAP28.HTM
>
> "The self-sentiment concerns the maintenance and advancement of the
> whole
> personality as well as its physical preservation and functioning. It
> is the
> clearinghouse for the needs and overrides their satisfaction
> consistent with
> the self concept."
>
Nice string of words that say about as much as a politician making
campaign promises.
Try again, Chuck.
> Basically, Snuh, the animals we are in spirit (not in the
> transformation you
> consider a helpless and struggling target fit for a scavenger like
> yourself)
> are our selves. They describe us more fully than "human" does.
>
You hate being human. Why?
> And the worst part is this: As soon as you hit the word "spirit",
> your eyes
> glazed over and you began figuring out how you could ignore that
> central
> concept.
Its carte blanche for any wild claims. Your hiding behind a claim of
"its our religion".
> That concept you cannot imagine, no matter how we throw it
> in your
> face and rub your nose in it: Spirit. To accept that there is more
> to us
> than our bodies invalidates you, and so you refuse to admit any such
> view
> into consideration.
>
How much does your "spirit" weigh, Chuck?
> Go ahead, Snuh. Claim once again to be the divine retribution against
> all
> we "poor", "deluded" "psychotics". Tell us again how your magical
> mind can
> see in black and white letters what it takes a "mere" trained
> psychiatrist
> months of therapy to decipher. Tell us all about how you really are a
> psychiatrist who just doesn't have any training or medical education.
> Go
> ahead.
>
I never said I was, Pee Shifter :)
Mircea
because they want to be cool. I neither like them neither dislkie them
but its like commercial music if you think about it, when you know its
not for real :( but as long as they admit thats the reason they are
doing it theres nothing wrong with it really.
Whats important is that you don't mix them with those who are doing it
because they know that they are what they are. What I believe in has
nothing to do with being cool. If you've read my post on ALF you know
that being like this and knowing it by half made my life a nightmare.
Would I make my life a nightmare just to be cool (if something like
that could be done by someone)? No, I dun think so really. Would I
spend so much time on the net seartching for info about it and being so
active and interested just to be cool? No, I wouldn't. Or you think I'm
lying or something? You have neither proof that I am, neither that I'm
not. So you either don't believe any of the two, either choose what to
believe after what you read, in time. And at one point you get to know
who is "for real" and who's not. This doesn't mean you can't be tricked
thow and keep in mind that everyone can be wrong no matter how sure
they think they are. But thrust me, if I was doing it to be cool (witch
I wouldn't even want to think about it), I would be doing it for a few
months only untill I would find something cooler like painting my car
with graffitti and racing around the city (actually, this is what I
dream to do to be cool :p but it has nothing to do with what I really
am). I mean you have to believe in something yourself (even if its
nothing). So what if I would tell you "you believe in
nothing/Jesus/Alah, or what you believe in just to be special". You
know its not true and you believe it because its what you feel like
believing.
You're too smart to believe something like this really. That everyone
does this only to be special. Of course, I can't lie that at one point
we can be tempted to say "its cool that I am like this" but the only
thing that makes the difference is if you do it for that or not. I mean
its like you do something cuz its what you like or its your dream and
at one point you can say "hey, its cool that I know how to
drive/paint/sing" but this has nothing to do with the reason you're
doing it and being what you are. For me its just a small subclass of a
very important thing.
Now, about the fact that we have our religion, the reason is (or at
least my reason) that "political" religions, know over years, dont
really believe in therians, wheres, etc... or consider them evil
(christians consider animal spirits demon spirits for example) witch
basically means that we are left out (uncool actually :( ) so some of
us make their own religions and some (like me) just believe in what
they feel. If you where in a group with interests and beliefs different
then yours, you would tend to go alone all by yourself or with freinds
and just think about what you really wish for, right?
Snuh, do the first step now and REALLY ask yourself if we are saying
the truth, if we are doing this just to be special or if its something
from inside we are born with that makes us this way forever. I won't
dye if you believe I am lying, I have my concience in rest I'm not and
it won't change what I am, but you will be the one living a lie just to
not ask yourself if you can be wrong or not. Take your time to think
about it and don't fear questions if you have any.
Harry
As to considering that particular individual, why bother?
Harry,
being utterly un-consider-ate
Wanderer
"Snuhwolf" <snuhwo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:PM0004170...@tilly.centurytel.net...
>> Compare that to the psychological analysis of furry fandom put forth
>> by
>> Joshuwain:
>>
>
> And his PH D was in what? He got his MD from what university?
> Fully qualified eh?
> ;)
>
Actually, he has a B.S. in Historical Studies, with a focus on Ancient -
Social, Religious, Political. Of course, you never actually looked at the
document (or you would have seen the lovely link at the top that answers the
question, O willful idiot), but the methodology was my reference, O
brainless wonder; not his qualifications, though he *is* qualified to run a
sociological study. He performed an actual analysis, rather than your "I
don't believe anyone but me has a brain, so I'm much better than any of you"
trash.
If you had any idea how stupid you truly act, Snuh, you'd be a danger to
yourself.
Yours bluntly,
Snuhwolf
> To answer the only question in that entire mass of uninformed
> ridicule:
>
> "Snuhwolf" <snuhwo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:PM0004170...@tilly.centurytel.net...
>>> Compare that to the psychological analysis of furry fandom put
> forth
>>> by
>>> Joshuwain:
>>>
>>
>> And his PH D was in what? He got his MD from what university?
>> Fully qualified eh?
>> ;)
>>
>
> Actually, he has a B.S. in Historical Studies, with a focus on Ancient
> -
> Social, Religious, Political.
H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^!
Yeah...*iminently* qualified to comment on the psychological health of
the "furry and were" community.
> Of course, you never actually looked at
> the
> document (or you would have seen the lovely link at the top that
> answers the
> question, O willful idiot), but the methodology was my reference, O
> brainless wonder; not his qualifications, though he *is* qualified to
> run a
> sociological study.
Sociology != Psychology.
FYI
> He performed an actual analysis, rather than your
> "I
> don't believe anyone but me has a brain, so I'm much better than any
> of you"
> trash.
>
Funny how you keep impuigning that I think I'm smarter than you.
Defensive much, Chuck?
> If you had any idea how stupid you truly act, Snuh, you'd be a danger
> to
> yourself.
>
I'm not the one claiming to be a "werewolf" :)
Warren Forest
> > Actually, he has a B.S. in Historical Studies, with a focus on Ancient
> > -
> > Social, Religious, Political.
>
>
> H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^!
> Yeah...*iminently* qualified to comment on the psychological health of
> the "furry and were" community.
Actually, I'd trust anybody with a "B.S." in just about any degree to
be fully qualified to comment upon the mental health of the furry
community. I've been to a couple of cons and sat in on a few panel
discussions, and it certainly seems like the bigger the B.S., the more
the con-goers eat it up. ;-)
I'll admit, though, that when Kamau and I lead the Christian
spirituality panel at FC2004 things were rather mundane. Nobody tried
to claim that baby Jesus made them p-shift, or that the the Bible is
literally correct about Christ being a Lion / Sheep, or nothing. :-(
- Warren Forest
Patrick Elliott
warren....@gmail.com says...
resist. lol
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive
call functional_code()
else
call crash_windows();
}
Jure Sah
>> Therians are not mythical creatures, FYI.
>
> Unless you want to claim that its some sort of "spiritual" thing, then
> yes there is no such thing as a therian.
> I'll retract my statement if you can provide proof of transformation.
Therians have nothing to do with physical transformations, FYI.
--
Primary function: Coprocessor
Secondary function: Cluster commander
Pay once per lifetime webhosting:
http://farcomm-it.com/?ref=jsah
We are the paragon of humanity. You may worship us. From afar.
Snuhwolf
> Snuhwolf wrote:
>> > Actually, he has a B.S. in Historical Studies, with a focus on
> Ancient
>> > -
>> > Social, Religious, Political.
>>
>>
>> H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^!
>> Yeah...*iminently* qualified to comment on the psychological health
> of
>> the "furry and were" community.
>
> Actually, I'd trust anybody with a "B.S." in just about any degree to
> be fully qualified to comment upon the mental health of the furry
> community. I've been to a couple of cons and sat in on a few panel
> discussions, and it certainly seems like the bigger the B.S., the more
> the con-goers eat it up. ;-)
>
Then I'm iminently qualified :)
> I'll admit, though, that when Kamau and I lead the Christian
> spirituality panel at FC2004 things were rather mundane. Nobody tried
> to claim that baby Jesus made them p-shift, or that the the Bible is
> literally correct about Christ being a Lion / Sheep, or nothing. :-(
>
>
> - Warren Forest
>
The entertainment value of ALF just rose by a full ten points on the UPA
scale.
Snuhwolf
> Snuhwolf pravi:
>>> Therians are not mythical creatures, FYI.
>>
>> Unless you want to claim that its some sort of "spiritual" thing,
> then
>> yes there is no such thing as a therian.
>> I'll retract my statement if you can provide proof of
> transformation.
>
> Therians have nothing to do with physical transformations, FYI.
>
merely *want* to be such.
MAkes the term quite meaningless.
Dan Skunk
"Mircea" <Mircea_th...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1151222043.9...@b68g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Don't worry. I rarely do things like that because I know it's unproductive.
When two people are insulting each other, neither is listening.
Dan Skunk
> Dan Skunk wrote:
<snip>
> Maybe skunks are more loveable?
> THe disney idea of Flower?
>
I dunno. It's not what I thought of them though.
Maybe I identified them as being loners at one point.
<snip>
> > I don't see how that works as an emotional crutch. Identifying with
> > wolves
> > isn't going to make your problems go away.
>
> It takes years for some people to realise that :)
That's a good point. People sometimes look for easy ways out of problems.
> > In fact, I think believing
> > yourself to be a wolf would only create more problems for you.
> > Increase your
> > sense of not belonging in the world.
> >
> Or explain it.
Yes. That too. Explaining and understanding a problem is the first step
towards dealing with it.
Now that you're a wolf, you've got to figure out what to do with that. :)
Still have those problems to deal with though. :P
Dan Skunk
"Warren Forest" <warren....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1151345373.2...@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Hmm... I never bothered going to a Christian spirituality panel. Figured
since I'm not Christian I'd just be wanting to debate stuff people didn't
want to debate or something.
Dan Skunk
"Harry" <HPic...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1151268158.8...@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> As to considering that particular individual, why bother?
I dunno. *shugs*
He's here and makes his presence known.
Occasionally he says something interesting.
Mircea
Snuhwolf wrote:
>
> Then since the bar is sufficiently low, we're *all* therians if we
> merely *want* to be such.
>
> MAkes the term quite meaningless.
>
> --
> www.alternet.org
Wanted to anwser you this one in particular; Technically, its true that
all can say they are or imagine they are therians if they want to. But
again, we're dealing with reasons.
Those who want to consider they are just cuz they want to cuz they dont
have what to do like I would want to imagine myself in the form of a
car or something are not really therians. Its nothing wrong if they
want to imagine they are or if they really choose to become (becoming
would involve changing the form of their spirit in my oppinion).
Now, those that really are and say they like seeing theirselves this
way and feel so attracted is because they feel attracted to if from
their inside (something they're born with. If you really dislike the
term "spirit" you can call it something genetical). And its not just
something like a small passion or "I was simply born this way randomly"
remember, nothing in this world happens without a reason.
So, the term is not something meaningless if you think about it. You
just have to be very sure about what you really are.
Wanderer
news:e7rs71$173v$1...@urocyon.critter.net...
>
> Hmm... I never bothered going to a Christian spirituality panel. Figured
> since I'm not Christian I'd just be wanting to debate stuff people didn't
> want to debate or something.
>
<chuckle> It'd be an improvement over the current situation. With nobody
but confirmed Christians attending the panel, it gets boring in a hurry, and
has been for a few years now. (Preaching to the choir, y'know.)
By all means, attend! Furcons aren't known for having the
fire-and-brimstone "Repent, Ye Sinners!" types, anyway.
Yours truly,
Dan Skunk
"Wanderer" <wand...@ticnet.com> wrote in message
news:12a49qe...@corp.supernews.com...
> "Dan Skunk" <dans...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:e7rs71$173v$1...@urocyon.critter.net...
> >
> > Hmm... I never bothered going to a Christian spirituality panel. Figured
> > since I'm not Christian I'd just be wanting to debate stuff people
didn't
> > want to debate or something.
> >
>
> <chuckle> It'd be an improvement over the current situation. With nobody
> but confirmed Christians attending the panel, it gets boring in a hurry,
and
> has been for a few years now. (Preaching to the choir, y'know.)
>
> By all means, attend! Furcons aren't known for having the
> fire-and-brimstone "Repent, Ye Sinners!" types, anyway.
Well... If that's an invitation, I might just do that.
I can see something like that getting boring. Everyone believing pretty much
the same thing already leaves not much to talk about. *Imagines everyone
sitting around saying, "yep," "yep."*
Interested in exploring different ideas and examining their faith, would
they be?
Snuhwolf
>
> "Snuhwolf" <snuhwo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:PM000416F...@tilly.centurytel.net...
>> Dan Skunk wrote:
>
> <snip>
>> Maybe skunks are more loveable?
>> THe disney idea of Flower?
>>
> I dunno. It's not what I thought of them though.
>
> Maybe I identified them as being loners at one point.
>
> <snip>
>> > I don't see how that works as an emotional crutch. Identifying
> with
>> > wolves
>> > isn't going to make your problems go away.
>>
>> It takes years for some people to realise that :)
>
> That's a good point. People sometimes look for easy ways out of
> problems.
>
Its the default response. Otherwise we'd still be using CLI computers.
>> > In fact, I think believing
>> > yourself to be a wolf would only create more problems for you.
>> > Increase your
>> > sense of not belonging in the world.
>> >
>> Or explain it.
>
> Yes. That too. Explaining and understanding a problem is the first
> step
> towards dealing with it.
>
But if people think they're something other than human, they're still in
denial.
> Now that you're a wolf, you've got to figure out what to do with that.
> :)
>
Ditch it and accept ones humanity.
> Still have those problems to deal with though. :P
>
Now you know why the Baby Jebus cries :(
Snuhwolf
>
> Snuhwolf wrote:
>>
>> Then since the bar is sufficiently low, we're *all* therians if we
>> merely *want* to be such.
>>
>> MAkes the term quite meaningless.
>>
>> --
>> www.alternet.org
>
> Wanted to anwser you this one in particular; Technically, its true
> that
> all can say they are or imagine they are therians if they want to. But
> again, we're dealing with reasons.
>
> Those who want to consider they are just cuz they want to cuz they
> dont
> have what to do like I would want to imagine myself in the form of a
> car or something are not really therians. Its nothing wrong if they
> want to imagine they are or if they really choose to become (becoming
> would involve changing the form of their spirit in my oppinion).
>
Since you cant measure or photograph "spirit" I'll choose to disagree
with your idea.
> Now, those that really are and say they like seeing theirselves this
> way and feel so attracted is because they feel attracted to if from
> their inside (something they're born with. If you really dislike the
> term "spirit" you can call it something genetical). And its not just
> something like a small passion or "I was simply born this way
> randomly"
> remember, nothing in this world happens without a reason.
>
But you're mixing physical laws and human intention.
Theres a BIG difference.
> So, the term is not something meaningless if you think about it. You
> just have to be very sure about what you really are.
>
I'm a human.
And so is everyone reading this post.
Mircea
Those who are making them up are the ones I talked about above; those
who aren't but just imagine or wish they where. But when you are born
with it since the start of your life and you Feel it, its completely
different. Thow, there are also those that Are, but deny it. There are
many kinds of both spirits and people.
> Since you cant measure or photograph "spirit" I'll choose to disagree
> with your idea.
You can't see or "measure" your spirit untill you believe :) you have
probably heard this "rumour" in many places, and I'm telling you from
my little experience that it is true.
> But you're mixing physical laws and human intention.
> Theres a BIG difference.
A human wouldn't be born feeling himself as a fur. Now since in many
(generally most from what I know) cases both of his parents are prolly
humans, both psychically and genetically OK (meaning no anormalities),
and there isn't some kind of virus you get form the air that makes you
be born like this, there couldn't be any other reasons. You also can't
be born with a "random problem" because it must have a source. Now
being born with these feelings can't be something "randomly" since
they're way too precise. The chances of one being born like this by
mistake are the same as throwing a key from a couple of meters and
expecting it to fall right in the lock and in the right position
(lower, I will add). I also have my belief that feelings and memories
are "written" in one's spirit, not his brain. Dunno if written is the
greatest term thow. But seeing also that there isn't even a next to
precise measure of what one can remember as far as I know... Sounds
possible enough, doesn't it? (want more proof? I have heard what
happens to people who's spirit is exorcited out of them by priests;
they become like vegetables. Still alive but dont talk, dont move too
much, just stay still where you put them. Obviously dont have any more
feelings. Or rumours of people posessed by demons; they become bad
people, witch includes feeling and thinking. I think others can also
confirm this, also those who are not therians or otherkins. Take your
chance and ask someone Knollagable what happens with someone exorcited
and literarily souless. But be honest with what he anwsers).
> I'm a human.
> And so is everyone reading this post.
Fizically, yes. But if you ignore that people also have a spirit you
miss a very important thing, can't say more. And it is true that
spirits of other creatures can be born under human bodies. We don't
know why it happens, but we must be honest it does. At least that it
can. For many of us its Not easy and we dont want to make any mistakes.
I know I'm a fur since an year but I'm still not taking any chances to
say exactly what species I am because I'm not sure. I just know I'm
something similar to an anthromorphic fox due to what I was born
feeling. I'm taking time to think very clear about it and if I'll say I
Am very sure its because I Have thought in detail about it and I'm not
talking whatever comes through my mind.
Look Snuh, I dunno how much you really believe in things like this so I
won't even ask you to tell us if you did it and what you got; take some
time to clear your mind and be Very sure you are not influenced by any
more fears or any more ambitions and that your mind is empty. Then ask
yourself what you Really are. And I'm saying what you feel attracted
to, not how you really portray yourself directly. Please also note that
this is not the kind of exercice you do like 2-3 times and if it
doesn't work you say "Bah! This is not true this is stupid". Now if you
still feel you are human, then you either really are, either didn't do
it correctly. If you feel you are something else, then "DO NOT" deny
it. Something like this requires you to be calm and knowing you, it
might take some time. In case you are something else you can also
expect to have a "mental shift" in a moment when you are really happy
and by yourself, witch will involve an very deep state of mind that
will change the way you feel completely as long as you are in it.
What I said was from my own experience. I dunno how much you believe so
in case it was a mistake posting this above, just pretend I didn't post
it. Your choise. But I wish you luck in case you will choose to ask
yourself some of these questions.
Snuhwolf
>>Snuhwolf wrote:
>> Yeah, "reasons". People are very good at making those up.
>
> Those who are making them up are the ones I talked about above; those
> who aren't but just imagine or wish they where. But when you are born
> with it since the start of your life and you Feel it, its completely
> different.
Some people are born crazy? Sure there are cases of schizophrenic
children.
:(
> Thow, there are also those that Are, but deny it. There are
> many kinds of both spirits and people.
>
Do you see dead people?
>> Since you cant measure or photograph "spirit" I'll choose to
> disagree
>> with your idea.
>
> You can't see or "measure" your spirit untill you believe :)
Which is unscientific. I'll go with what science can prove.
> you have
> probably heard this "rumour" in many places, and I'm telling you from
> my little experience that it is true.
>
Your sample size is too small.
Please redo your case study.
>> But you're mixing physical laws and human intention.
>> Theres a BIG difference.
>
> A human wouldn't be born feeling himself as a fur.
Unless they're schizophrenics...
> Now since in many
> (generally most from what I know) cases both of his parents are prolly
> humans,
If you know of any cases where there are human animal hybrids, please
post CITES.
> both psychically and genetically OK (meaning no anormalities),
> and there isn't some kind of virus you get form the air that makes you
> be born like this, there couldn't be any other reasons.
Unless they're crazy...
> You also can't
> be born with a "random problem" because it must have a source. Now
> being born with these feelings can't be something "randomly" since
> they're way too precise.
Unless they're really creative people who like to spend all their time
fantasizing about things.
> The chances of one being born like this by
> mistake
I dont think being born any particular way could be influenced by
intention.
> are the same as throwing a key from a couple of meters and
> expecting it to fall right in the lock and in the right position
> (lower, I will add). I also have my belief that feelings and memories
> are "written" in one's spirit, not his brain.
You have some interesting beliefs. Can you verify them independently?
> Dunno if written is the
> greatest term thow. But seeing also that there isn't even a next to
> precise measure of what one can remember as far as I know... Sounds
> possible enough, doesn't it? (want more proof? I have heard what
> happens to people who's spirit is exorcited out of them by priests;
> they become like vegetables. Still alive but dont talk, dont move too
> much, just stay still where you put them. Obviously dont have any more
> feelings. Or rumours of people posessed by demons; they become bad
> people, witch includes feeling and thinking. I think others can also
> confirm this, also those who are not therians or otherkins. Take your
> chance and ask someone Knollagable what happens with someone exorcited
> and literarily souless. But be honest with what he anwsers).
>
I think yuo come from a background thats rich in religious iconography
and spiritual content.
What you lack is a basic understanding of science.
>> I'm a human.
>> And so is everyone reading this post.
>
> Fizically, yes. But if you ignore that people also have a spirit you
> miss a very important thing, can't say more.
You're doing a good job of not saying more with all this typing...
> And it is true that
> spirits of other creatures can be born under human bodies.
THose would be maggots...fyi.
> We don't
> know why it happens, but we must be honest it does. At least that it
> can. For many of us its Not easy and we dont want to make any
> mistakes.
Just wait :)
Some day (hopefully) when you're older you'll realise what a load of
shit this spiritual furry nonsense is and you'll look back and
think;"wtf did I waste all that time playing make-believe for???"
> I know I'm a fur since an year but I'm still not taking any chances to
> say exactly what species I am because I'm not sure.
You're human dimmy.
> I just know I'm
> something similar to an anthromorphic fox due to what I was born
> feeling. I'm taking time to think very clear about it and if I'll say
> I
> Am very sure its because I Have thought in detail about it and I'm not
> talking whatever comes through my mind.
>
You're a creative person who like to fantasize too much.
You like it so much you'd rather live in the fantasy world you have
created for yourself.
> Look Snuh, I dunno how much you really believe in things like this so
> I
> won't even ask you to tell us if you did it and what you got; take
> some
> time to clear your mind and be Very sure you are not influenced by any
> more fears or any more ambitions and that your mind is empty. Then ask
> yourself what you Really are.
A human. But I wasted lots of time pretending otherwise since I didnt
like myself much.
Go figure.
> And I'm saying what you feel attracted
> to, not how you really portray yourself directly. Please also note
> that
> this is not the kind of exercice you do like 2-3 times and if it
> doesn't work you say "Bah! This is not true this is stupid". Now if
> you
> still feel you are human, then you either really are, either didn't do
> it correctly.
So if the results of the "excercise" come up "Human" I didnt do the test
correctly?
Now whose looking for pre-picked results?
> If you feel you are something else, then "DO NOT" deny
> it. Something like this requires you to be calm and knowing you, it
> might take some time. In case you are something else you can also
> expect to have a "mental shift" in a moment when you are really happy
> and by yourself, witch will involve an very deep state of mind that
> will change the way you feel completely as long as you are in it.
>
You're describing self hypnosis. And you probabaly think you're onto
something new.
Primitive cultures have done this same mind game.
> What I said was from my own experience. I dunno how much you believe
> so
> in case it was a mistake posting this above, just pretend I didn't
> post
> it. Your choise. But I wish you luck in case you will choose to ask
> yourself some of these questions.
>
And dont blame me for telling you that if you ever *do* pull your heads
out of your ass in middle age and think; "wow, I wasted a lot of time
playing make-believe"....that I never warned you.
:)
Mircea
point out just that you have exagerated and misunderstood much of what
i said. Try to read again what I wrote.
Otherwise I can't do any more from now one :/ you are still refusing
the most obvious things I had pointed out... what else to say, maybe
you'll once change your mind (and btw about the age thing, there are
people way way more older then me who believe and know this even more
then I do so changing my mind won't happen). Hope you decide to
reconsider sooner or later...
Snuhwolf
One wonders: what are you hiding from?
:(
Kisses To You
Sheesh can you go easy on him?He's just a kid,and if he wants
to play and pretend let him , you know, kids are growing up
waaaayyyy too fast today , too damned fast, so if he wants to be a
wolf , for now, or an otherkin (yes I'm giggling as I write this
BUT) or whatever let him.
He has his whole life to grow to go to college, graduate,
get a great job, marry, have children of his own ONE DAY...but
for now let the kid, be well, you know a kid.....
Patrick Elliott
@hotmail.com says...
in a knot, so looked at the killfiled messages. When did you abdicate
your position as the King of the Royal Order of Conspiracy Theorists and
actually start talking like a Rationalist? Your actually sounding
halfway sane in this thread, which started to make me wonder if the
fundies are not right and the end of the world was in progress. lol
As scary as it is that I agree with you about this guys odd (to be nice)
ideas, I actually do agree. Its the same goofy arguments usually used to
promote religions, tied up in what I can only describe as a weird mix of
animism and pseudo-reincarnation. Heck, even if he *was* talking about
reincarnation he would be wrong, since that doesn't generally make the
strange distinction between "types" of souls. Truly strange world he
lives in...
Not *quite* the same goofy thinking that led me to create this, but
close:
http://www.geocities.com/shadowfyr2/Junk/More_like_Science.png
Mircea
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> > Enjoy the fantasy world you've created for yourself.
> > One wonders: what are you hiding from?
> > :(
Nothing really. I'm just going twords what I feel like going without
hiding from anything. And thow, from what I have understood you have
admitted you are a werewolf just to hide from yourself or the world if
I got that right, this is Not my reason. Its something totally
different witch you probably just can't understand. Its nothing wrong
with that just try Not to judge what you dont understand.
> As scary as it is that I agree with you about this guys odd (to be nice)
> ideas, I actually do agree. Its the same goofy arguments usually used to
> promote religions, tied up in what I can only describe as a weird mix of
> animism and pseudo-reincarnation. Heck, even if he *was* talking about
> reincarnation he would be wrong, since that doesn't generally make the
> strange distinction between "types" of souls. Truly strange world he
> lives in...
>
> Not *quite* the same goofy thinking that led me to create this, but
> close:
>
> http://www.geocities.com/shadowfyr2/Junk/More_like_Science.png
>
I myself am not and was not mindlesly closed in a world of my own just
to escape something. Probably more in the past (nothing comparable to
what you could call "being sick"), but what I am doing now is just
knowing what I know (I'm not trying to ask anyone now if I am right or
wrong) and considering it. I am not some kind of priest sitting in a
high temple, looking at pictures and making "mmmmmm" all day long
between smoke barrels like some seem to think I might be. The most
strange things I do are just sitting inside the house way to much then
normal, trying to stay away from people and having an different
thinking that most cannot understand (witch is not a crime as I believe
it).
As for being "too" nice, I am doing it because I have gotten through
things myself. Not "my own world" but it influenced me and for years I
could say I was worse then now. Thow its not surprising everyone is
expecting all else are careless and its something unnormal to be nice.
Its dissappointing really, but everyone believes what they want to.
Even if I could it wouldn't be right to change someone's thinking by
force. I'm posting these beliefs here because I think this is what
these google groups are about (ALF and AHW).
§nuhwolf
> SnuhshoeBunny,
> Sheesh can you go easy on him?He's just a kid,and if he
> wants
> to play and pretend let him , you know, kids are growing up
> waaaayyyy too fast today , too damned fast,
Not according to this:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13573291/
> so if he wants to be a
> wolf , for now, or an otherkin (yes I'm giggling as I write this
> BUT) or whatever let him.
> He has his whole life to grow to go to college, graduate,
> get a great job, marry, have children of his own ONE DAY...but
> for now let the kid, be well, you know a kid.....
>
But what if he never does because he's hanging onto some seductive
fantasy where he can feel good about being something that dosent exist?
I dont think thats a very adaptive way to function.
Kisses To You
go out, she isn't going to be too interested in playing forrest
creatures you know ,I'm sure he'll do what is best in good time ,
until then , I guess you will continue to be Hugh Beaumont ...lol
Let him be a kid for now .....besides you're not his father, his
father should be having a talk with the boy.
Patrick Elliott
Mircea_th...@hotmail.com says...
>
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
> > > Enjoy the fantasy world you've created for yourself.
> > > One wonders: what are you hiding from?
> > > :(
>
> Nothing really. I'm just going twords what I feel like going without
> hiding from anything. And thow, from what I have understood you have
> admitted you are a werewolf just to hide from yourself or the world if
> I got that right, this is Not my reason. Its something totally
> different witch you probably just can't understand. Its nothing wrong
> with that just try Not to judge what you dont understand.
>
position we understand it as wishful thinking and odd delusions, not
dissimilar to a wide range of similar, "I believe it because I feel good
believing it.", scenarios that we think detract from a much greater
understanding and appreciation of the real world. I described it
recently like this. We are all on a boat. The boats got a lot of holes
in it. Some of us think its a mighty fine idea to plug the holes, so we
don't sink. Unfortunately, there are a mess of people that hold one of
two contrary views, the first being, "God demands the hole remain, you
can't plug it, even if its a foot wide and in the very bottom of the
boat." The second view seems to be, "I happen to like my hole, and its
not hurting anyone at the moment, come back when the boats sank enough
that my hole is below the water line." Your hole is some place up on the
crows nest, and until society starts to reinact the opening scenes of
Pirates of the Carabean, where Jack Sparrow literally rides his sinking
ship into the docks while standing on the crows nest, we can mostly
ignore it. If it ever does reach that point, we have way bigger problems
anyway. lol
Well, personally, I just think you are slightly nuts. It doesn't hurt me
for someone to wear tinfoil hats and talk about the aliens or government
trying to read his brain waves, at least not until he tries to pass a
law mandating I wear a tinfoil hat. Seriously, I think you have a shaky
grasp of reality, which from your statement above implies that you
didn't so much as gain a better understanding of the world by escaping
old habits, so much as acquired new delusions and maybe mellowed out a
bit. This is quite common among religious people and is the reason that
some things like 12-step programs, despite a 95% failure/recidivism
rate, have about 90% of the remaining 5% so convinced its a great thing
that instead of wasting hours of their lives and massive amounts of
money of drugs of booze, they instead spend 3x as much money and time
attending 12-step meetings, even after they are "supposedly" cured. It
take time, experience, hard work, a true critical examination of *why*
you need the things you are obsessed with and a lot of knowledge to make
the jump from, "That crazy idea is nuts, but my crazy idea is better!",
to, "All crazy ideas are just crazy." Most people are not a) willing to
put in the effort, b) inclined to examine and verify the assumptions
they have or c) emotionally secure enough to accept that maybe nearly
all the stuff they think about the supernatural is pure gibberish and
that their perceptions are a poor, incomplete and inherently biased
approximation of the real world, which can only truly be understood, not
through personal experience, but by repeated attempts of people to jump
off a cliff or walk on water, with the same catastrophic results.
Hell, even the ID people don't believe the dipshit stuff they do. Just
take the whole Noah's Ark thing. They will happily tell you that God
somehow suspend the laws of the universe to create 50 times the water
the planet has ever had on it, somehow kept everything from dying in the
resulting boiling pot that would have resulted and that one guy built a
huge boat to put all the animals in. Ask them how he dealt with stuff
like all the poop, or how all the animals got every place after, and you
get all sorts of goofy explanations, not one of which involves God
simply teleporting the poop off the ship or instantly transporting every
animal as it walked off the boat to the right place on the planet.
Logic, however irrational, overly complicated and silly, trumps, "God
did it!", the moment you get past, "And they landed on top of a
mountain." As soon as the, "It had to happen that way, because some book
says so.", moment passes, they fall back on everything from bizarre
claims that Noah "trained" the animals to hold it in, to "Well, yeah, I
suppose Evolution can explain how Kangaroos ended up in Australia, just
not any of the stuff that happened before that!!"
Forgive me saying so, but I tend to suspect you are doing the same
thing. There are things you are comfortable with believing, you know you
would feel lost without them, so you come up with a mix of total
gibberish and semi-sciency explanations to defend it. I find it slightly
funny, and very sad, which is why I feel the need to comment on it, but
its hardly something I worry about. At least not in anything but the
more nebulous sort of, "Why are so many people unable to think
rationally about some things?", sense.
Jure Sah
> Then since the bar is sufficiently low, we're *all* therians if we
> merely *want* to be such.
Exactly.
> MAkes the term quite meaningless.
Not to therians it isn't. ;)
Jure Sah
> I'm a human.
> And so is everyone reading this post.
No Snuh. You are wrong.
My newsreader program is not human.
Mircea
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Sorry, but the problem here is we do think we understand it. From our
> position we understand it as wishful thinking and odd delusions, not
> dissimilar to a wide range of similar, "I believe it because I feel good
> believing it.", scenarios that we think detract from a much greater
> understanding and appreciation of the real world. I described it
> recently like this. We are all on a boat. The boats got a lot of holes
> in it. Some of us think its a mighty fine idea to plug the holes, so we
> don't sink. Unfortunately, there are a mess of people that hold one of
> two contrary views, the first being, "God demands the hole remain, you
> can't plug it, even if its a foot wide and in the very bottom of the
> boat." The second view seems to be, "I happen to like my hole, and its
> not hurting anyone at the moment, come back when the boats sank enough
> that my hole is below the water line." Your hole is some place up on the
> crows nest, and until society starts to reinact the opening scenes of
> Pirates of the Carabean, where Jack Sparrow literally rides his sinking
> ship into the docks while standing on the crows nest, we can mostly
> ignore it. If it ever does reach that point, we have way bigger problems
> anyway. lol
Well yes, its true. Normally, from here something like this can only be
described as a feeling and as a wish. But I believe later on, when you
get close to it and it really is a spiritual thing you can feel it over
the point where you normally just feel something you're wishing. I am
basing my beliefs over things I see. I dont make them up when I'm bored
and never say that I am 100% right.
And the boat thing is not really that way because I am not saying I am
what I am just cuz I have nothing better to do. I believe I am
something after I have felt I am for my entire life. And I also know I
couldn't feel this way if my spirit wasn't what it is. I basically
wouldn't have any reason to.
What I'm believing is based over what I have understood myself like I
said. I ain't promoting any religion or trying to insert any specific
idea (and I'm not encouraging anyone to believe they are what I want to
or something, just what they are). For some it might sound very strange
and I probably posted what I think too directly, so sorry.
As for me being slightly nuts, I will admit you might be half-right. It
is something that makes me only be happy if I believe it and be so
important, but at the same time I am aware of reality (viewing it
differently is something else) and am thinking all the time if I am
right or wrong so I won't believe something that is not true. I just
want to know the truth. Theres nothing wrong with that. I might be
giving wierd anwsers because its what I have understood right now. You
can call me crazy if you want thow, it doesn't really bother me :p thow
I believe everyone in this world is more or less crazy over their own
reasons (and if its about my belief, I was way worse then now before
finding out what therians and otherkins are becasue I also didn't know
why I was feeling the way I was thow I wasn't taking so much time with
all these questions).
Snuhwolf
> Snuhwolf pravi:
>> Then since the bar is sufficiently low, we're *all* therians if we
>> merely *want* to be such.
>
> Exactly.
>
>> MAkes the term quite meaningless.
>
> Not to therians it isn't. ;)
>
Now fetch me my mead, page!
Snuhwolf
> Snuhwolf pravi:
>> I'm a human.
>> And so is everyone reading this post.
>
> No Snuh. You are wrong.
>
> My newsreader program is not human.
>
Btw, your newsreader was made by humans, not "therians" :)
§nuhwolf
kid?
THe fact that the little dimmy is running about on usenet looking for
"other werewolveses" should be a clue that daddy dosent care too much.
Jure Sah
How come you are so sure? What if I made it and made it post fake
headers for compatibility? ;)
Jure Sah
> Jure Sah wrote:
>> Snuhwolf pravi:
>>> Then since the bar is sufficiently low, we're *all* therians if we
>>> merely *want* to be such.
>> Exactly.
>>
>>> MAkes the term quite meaningless.
>> Not to therians it isn't. ;)
>
> I'll go back to being King then.
Illusions play a vital role in the society. What an irony, eh? Or
perhaps an oxymora? How can an illusion play a vital role.
People do not really respond to only what they can objectively sense,
people have a thinking capacity and their entire society which as
hardwired as it may be into their instincts, is based on emotions all of
which are nothing real, only illusions.
People take these illusions and give them names. People handle and
exchange these illusions and produce meaning. Tell me how can there be
meaningless meaning? That IS an oxymora and yet this is entirely logical.
The solution, if it manages to evade your most skeptical thinking, is
that these illusions that have names are symbols. Just like in the
alphabet, where I can say every letter of the alphabet that I choose in
any sequence I wish (how meaningless this alphabet thing, eh Snuh?) And
yet saying "your house is on fire", an assembling of these symbols is
not completely meaningless either. How did this come to be?
Yes, the label of "therian" is meaningless as anyone can choose to be
one, yet in this awkward phenomena called "society" pointless labels
eventually attain meaning, it is within the very nature of neural nets.
If you use your brains, it just happens.
Kisses To You
Patrick Elliott
beacon.net says...
> Snuhwolf pravi:
> > I'm a human.
> > And so is everyone reading this post.
>
> No Snuh. You are wrong.
>
> My newsreader program is not human.
>
But more to the point. Truth, to cover the end of the last post, is, one
can project human emotions and actions on other animals, both
anthropomorphizing them and exaggerating the similarities. This is
perfectly normal. It doesn't however mean that a) such animals really
act like what ever idealized vision of them a person has, or b) that you
are really seeing those things in yourself. Human civilization is built
on the presumption that we should ignore much of the underlying
instincts that we share with other animals. We have, over our history,
been everything from gatherers that climb trees to find fruit to expert
hunters that plan and out think our targets. In other words, we have, to
a lesser extent, every instinct and pattern of behavior of just about
every animal on the planet, due to mimicry of those attributes. Those
best able to mimic them survived. This has also produced a sort of
schizophrenic nature, where some people are on the extremes of behavior.
Thrill seekers will "never" be able to eat salads as their main diet or
sit down for hours contemplating the play of shadows on the rocks. Some
classes of enviro-nuts would find it nearly impossible to give up
looking for a salad to eat something they just killed or *ever* risk
jumping off a cliff, even to save their own lives. Most of us have some
complicated mix in between, with no consistent pattern, other than what
behavior we have picked up over time or have attributed themselves too.
I happen to emphasize with Foxes, but while I know "some" of the
attributes I emphasize with are real, I know a lot of it is just what
society has projected on them down through the years, and my vision of
them is neither a) 100% accurate or b) anything more than my associating
with those attributes, both real and imaginary.
I am not surprises that you can attribute your instincts to something
else. At some point all of our ancestors probably had that animals as a
neighbor and those best able to take the positive traits and project
them into real world actions lived to produce us. As much as we like to
believe that humanity is the great shaper of worlds, much of what we are
is a direct result of watching everything else and surviving by doing
the same thing. Back then, fail to notice something, you die, or at
least do worse than if you had noticed. I think you are simply reading
into things what you "want" to be true, while ignoring why they might be
on some level, without making all of what you want completely true.
Warren Forest
> If you know of any cases where there are human animal hybrids, please
> post CITES.
What about all those little piggies with human DNA stuck in them? Do
they count?
http://www.cbc.ca/story/news/national/2002/10/21/xenopigs021021.html
Jure Sah
> In article <ZkDpg.4069$oj5.1...@news.siol.net>, admin@thought-
> beacon.net says...
>> Snuhwolf pravi:
>>> I'm a human.
>>> And so is everyone reading this post.
>> No Snuh. You are wrong.
>>
>> My newsreader program is not human.
>
> Nor is it really "reading" the post in any real sense.
I disagree. It is reading in all of the meaning. Reading and
comprehending are two different things, my NEWS READER PROGRAM is
capable of the first, but probably not of the latter.
> But more to the point. Truth, to cover the end of the last post, is, one
> can project human emotions and actions on other animals, both
> anthropomorphizing them and exaggerating the similarities. This is
> perfectly normal. It doesn't however mean that a) such animals really
> act like what ever idealized vision of them a person has, or b) that you
> are really seeing those things in yourself.
A bird which happens to be engineering enough to use open seeds and use
tools like an ape does is not the same thing as a bird trying to be an ape.
While I understand that the easiest interpretation of human
understanding is that you know what you are saying whereas everybody
else does not, I simply cannot agree with your thesis.
I have written about at length, previously as a response to Blue Wolf's
post about how people... say therians... could interpret their
connection to an animal, which is vastly more sophisticated than your
direct assumption.. I really don't feel like writing it all all over again.
Long story short, I think it is most likely that very few therians are
anthropomorphizing or projecting emotional compatibility or feel like
their animal-side is akin to certain theories that have been later
prooven as incorrect. Zoophiles are much more likely to do that.
I believe most therians observe their similarity to another animal from
a static perspective. For example comparing the relations: dog -> world
with self -> world as opposed to comparing world -> dog to self -> world
or something equally flawed.
It has been stated over and over again that animal behavior and therian
behavior is not really comparable. Any therian trying to behave like his
animal side alone is doing it wrong (and is possible on his way to a
health problem at the very least). Being a therian is a balance between
the animal side and the human side, sometimes swaying between the two
wildly, sometimes a static compromise between both and sometimes a
mildly swaying composition of both. This is entirely based on the view
of animal -> world and self -> world. There is no room here for
idealized pictures or anything. The bottom line is that it is irrelevant
what exact species your animal side is, as in your life as a therian,
all you really need is to find a way for you to survive. Knowing the
animal is most helpful, but matching it to todays relatively retarded
research is not.
> Human civilization is built
> on the presumption that we should ignore much of the underlying
> instincts that we share with other animals. We have, over our history,
> been everything from gatherers that climb trees to find fruit to expert
> hunters that plan and out think our targets. In other words, we have, to
> a lesser extent, every instinct and pattern of behavior of just about
> every animal on the planet, due to mimicry of those attributes.
Again, disagreed. Humans are very much embedded in their pillows of
instinct, whether the scientists admit it or not. There are hundreds of
instincts a healthy human requires to function normally in life and all
of those instincts are very much there to stay.
I have written computer programs and seen various animals behave as such
that I think I have sufficient proof that mimic is not the only way to
come to an identical conclusion as some other lifeform. And I do very
much have reason to believe that all the many things humans figured out
eventually did not require any sort of mimic skill at all.
A chance of human symbiosis with the early canniness (wolves -> dogs),
resulting in an ability to empathize (and thus socialize) with them
possibly being an evolutionary advantage, is indeed very different from
mimic on it's own.
> I am not surprises that you can attribute your instincts to something
> else. At some point all of our ancestors probably had that animals as a
> neighbor and those best able to take the positive traits and project
> them into real world actions lived to produce us. As much as we like to
> believe that humanity is the great shaper of worlds, much of what we are
> is a direct result of watching everything else and surviving by doing
> the same thing. Back then, fail to notice something, you die, or at
> least do worse than if you had noticed. I think you are simply reading
> into things what you "want" to be true, while ignoring why they might be
> on some level, without making all of what you want completely true.
And sometimes within such a debate it helps to compare one's subjective
opinion with scientific reasoning. Or else you are led astray into your
very special understanding of everything.
An example of which, your post may very well be.
Snuhwolf
> Snuhwolf pravi:
>> Jure Sah wrote:
>>> Snuhwolf pravi:
>>>> I'm a human.
>>>> And so is everyone reading this post.
>>> No Snuh. You are wrong.
>>>
>>> My newsreader program is not human.
>>
>> Its not "reading" the post in the way I ment it.
>> Btw, your newsreader was made by humans, not "therians" :)
>
> How come you are so sure? What if I made it and made it post fake
> headers for compatibility? ;)
>
Then I'd have to come over there and kick your ass :)
Snuhwolf
> Snuhwolf pravi:
>> Jure Sah wrote:
>>> Snuhwolf pravi:
>>>> Then since the bar is sufficiently low, we're *all* therians if we
>>>> merely *want* to be such.
>>> Exactly.
>>>
>>>> MAkes the term quite meaningless.
>>> Not to therians it isn't. ;)
>>
>> I'll go back to being King then.
>
> Illusions play a vital role in the society. What an irony, eh? Or
> perhaps an oxymora? How can an illusion play a vital role.
>
> People do not really respond to only what they can objectively sense,
> people have a thinking capacity and their entire society which as
> hardwired as it may be into their instincts, is based on emotions all
> of
> which are nothing real, only illusions.
>
Oh, you're talking about "truthiness".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truthiness
> People take these illusions and give them names. People handle and
> exchange these illusions and produce meaning. Tell me how can there be
> meaningless meaning? That IS an oxymora and yet this is entirely
> logical.
>
Its not *logic*, its truthiness. THe *feeling* that something must be
true or factual based not on *facts* but on ones "gut instinct".
> The solution, if it manages to evade your most skeptical thinking, is
> that these illusions that have names are symbols. Just like in the
> alphabet, where I can say every letter of the alphabet that I choose
> in
> any sequence I wish (how meaningless this alphabet thing, eh Snuh?)
Buh to you.
> And
> yet saying "your house is on fire", an assembling of these symbols is
> not completely meaningless either. How did this come to be?
>
Thats something entirely different. THe development of language has what
to do with therians being "real"?
> Yes, the label of "therian" is meaningless as anyone can choose to be
> one, yet in this awkward phenomena called "society" pointless labels
> eventually attain meaning, it is within the very nature of neural
> nets.
> If you use your brains, it just happens.
>
ANd you end your little essay with a vague reference to memes.
You can do better than that.
:(
Snuhwolf
I was thinking more along the lines of the rumored to be chimp-human
thing that supposedly lives in China.
Mice with human ears growing outta their backs for research are so ten
minutes ago...
Jure Sah
Why? Cause you were wrong?
You're acting like my dad again.
Jure Sah
>> What about all those little piggies with human DNA stuck in them? Do
>> they count?
>>
>> http://www.cbc.ca/story/news/national/2002/10/21/xenopigs021021.html
Yay. More eco-paranoia.
> I was thinking more along the lines of the rumored to be chimp-human
> thing that supposedly lives in China.
That story is old enough to qualify for a myth. The whole idea was to
cross a person with a monkey to create some kind of stupid human that
can be used as cheap and nondemanding workforce. While I believe China
managed to do that without the interspecies hybrids, it is an
interesting idea.
It is unlikely that you can make a stupid human that is more suitable
for work via genetic engineering. It is more likely that you can breed
certain traits in humans to create the perfect worker. If they, for
example, wanted to make a clone worker army out of my DNA, they'd spare
themselves quite a lot of work. But do they do it? Do I get calls from
big mean corporations asking me for a licenced copy of my DNA? Nooo.
Stupid humans.
> Mice with human ears growing outta their backs for research are so ten
> minutes ago...
That was more transplanting works. Amazing how they neutralized the
mice's immune system.
Patrick Elliott
beacon.net says...
> Patrick Elliott pravi:
even if you reach completely ridiculous conclusions. I am not real sure
what research you think is so retarded either. You seem to be blaming
the scientists, who have spent years telling people, "We are animals,
live with it!", with the fools that constantly whine that they are not
animals and shouldn't ever act like such a thing. If anything, research
is showing "higher" levels of similarity and more complexity that ever
imagined by the types of clowns that think animal behavior is all
pointlessly irrelevant.
> > Human civilization is built
> > on the presumption that we should ignore much of the underlying
> > instincts that we share with other animals. We have, over our history,
> > been everything from gatherers that climb trees to find fruit to expert
> > hunters that plan and out think our targets. In other words, we have, to
> > a lesser extent, every instinct and pattern of behavior of just about
> > every animal on the planet, due to mimicry of those attributes.
>
> Again, disagreed. Humans are very much embedded in their pillows of
> instinct, whether the scientists admit it or not. There are hundreds of
> instincts a healthy human requires to function normally in life and all
> of those instincts are very much there to stay.
>
I didn't say that we are not buried in instincts. What I said is that we
have a long societal tradition of rejecting the idea that we are driven
by those instincts and substituting subjective BS like religions, dogma
and, "just so..", stories about what "real" humans are supposed to be
like. Rather than figuring out what we really are as humans, most of the
world spends insane amounts of time trying to hide in ivory towers of
badly constructed artifices about what it means to be human, moral or
rational. Therions are doing the same thing, they aren't interested in
what makes them human, they want to be something else. All facades and
justifications for artificial constructs are by definition **far** more
complex and convoluted than the real world. They have to be. The can't
stay standing without people finding new ways to prop them up. Claiming
that its more complex than the simple explanation I gave does not help
the cause.
> I have written computer programs and seen various animals behave as such
> that I think I have sufficient proof that mimic is not the only way to
> come to an identical conclusion as some other lifeform. And I do very
> much have reason to believe that all the many things humans figured out
> eventually did not require any sort of mimic skill at all.
>
Wrong, wrong, wrong! If they didn't mimic the animals, they mimicked
each other. A child without external input won't learn speech, let alone
much of anything else we value in the modern world. They might not even
learn to walk upright, without a specific need to do so. Heck, even much
of the most recent animal studies and research have shown that, contrary
to past assumptions, by people that never bothered to look very hard or
simply didn't have the tools to do so, the number of behaviors seen in
the animal world that can be directly attributed to mere instinct is
very small. Virtually everything teaches its young "some" behaviours,
and they certainly don't pick up any of it telepathically. The ones that
don't are invariably the ones that first start going extinct, because
their specialization is so ingrained that they can't adapt to conditions
that do not permit the behavior.
> A chance of human symbiosis with the early canniness (wolves -> dogs),
> resulting in an ability to empathize (and thus socialize) with them
> possibly being an evolutionary advantage, is indeed very different from
> mimic on it's own.
>
Well.. Mimicry in the sense I am implying it is more accurately called
"observation". A baby doesn't have much choice but to mimic. Later on
they start to observe and make choices, but they "start" with mimicry.
This is hardly a major, "Wow!" The result is a complex mix of instincts
that no one really pretends to understand, since most of the last 2,000+
years have been about denying that humans "have" animal insincts, a
confused bunch of things we learned to mimic from a young age and a mass
of complicated justifications for why we later decided we don't like
roller coasters, even though both parents loved them, which on some
level could very well be our unique genetics that don't have the "I love
danger" component and maybe some bad experiences. Instead of trying to
understand why we are the way we are, truly, we build elaborate
explanations for it, which seldom have anything to do with the true
reasons.
> > I am not surprises that you can attribute your instincts to something
> > else. At some point all of our ancestors probably had that animals as a
> > neighbor and those best able to take the positive traits and project
> > them into real world actions lived to produce us. As much as we like to
> > believe that humanity is the great shaper of worlds, much of what we are
> > is a direct result of watching everything else and surviving by doing
> > the same thing. Back then, fail to notice something, you die, or at
> > least do worse than if you had noticed. I think you are simply reading
> > into things what you "want" to be true, while ignoring why they might be
> > on some level, without making all of what you want completely true.
>
> And sometimes within such a debate it helps to compare one's subjective
> opinion with scientific reasoning. Or else you are led astray into your
> very special understanding of everything.
>
> An example of which, your post may very well be.
>
No, I was just focusing on a very narrow aspect of the process, while
you attributed it to the entire thing. There are three levels of
behavior (well, maybe more depending on who you ask, but this is my
definition, not theirs). 1. Self justification - That which we construct
to justify our approach to the world. It doesn't always include rational
observations or careful consideration of "why" we justify things that
way. 2. Learned reactions - This is a mix of mimicry of other behaviors
and a, not always successful, attempt to extrapolate cause and effect
from the world. This can lead to seriously goofy learned behaviors due
to completely failing to grasp how the world really works in a specific
case. 3. Instinctual reactions - The stuff that happens so far below the
threshold of conscious awareness that not only are we usually unaware
they happen, we don't know, in some cases, that we *have* done something
until its already half finished, then we have to invent an explanation
for why we did it. A number of experiments have shown this to be the
case. Induces to react instinctively, using known conditions created by
the experimenters but unknown to the subject, the subject will invent
anything from relatively reasonable, but wrong, explanations, to
completely ridiculous ones. We are just not capable, on a basic level,
of accepting that our own brains/bodies are doing something without our
conscious mind having a direct say in what happened, so we literally
make something up.
Some people just make stuff up on a much bigger scale than the rest of
us.
Mircea
guess you're both right. But the way we feel because we are how we are
comes from instinct and that influences the concious mind, I can
guarantee that. Now from that point on, what everyone chooses to
believe can vary very much. It will probably bring each closer to what
they are, or further, depending on how they see it.
Snuhwolf
> Snuhwolf pravi:
>> Jure Sah wrote:
>>> Snuhwolf pravi:
>>>> Jure Sah wrote:
>>>>> Snuhwolf pravi:
>>>>>> I'm a human.
>>>>>> And so is everyone reading this post.
>>>>> No Snuh. You are wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>> My newsreader program is not human.
>>>> Its not "reading" the post in the way I ment it.
>>>> Btw, your newsreader was made by humans, not "therians" :)
>>> How come you are so sure? What if I made it and made it post fake
>>> headers for compatibility? ;)
>>
>> Then I'd have to come over there and kick your ass :)
>
> Why? Cause you were wrong?
>
> You're acting like my dad again.
>
<stokes beard thoughtfully>
Tell me about your father...
Snuhwolf
> Snuhwolf pravi:
>>> What about all those little piggies with human DNA stuck in them?
> Do
>>> they count?
>>>
>>>
> http://www.cbc.ca/story/news/national/2002/10/21/xenopigs021021.html
>
> Yay. More eco-paranoia.
>
you.
>> I was thinking more along the lines of the rumored to be chimp-human
>> thing that supposedly lives in China.
>
> That story is old enough to qualify for a myth. The whole idea was to
> cross a person with a monkey to create some kind of stupid human that
> can be used as cheap and nondemanding workforce.
Its Bush's idea to create an army...
The Chimp leading the chimposapiens!
> While I believe China
> managed to do that without the interspecies hybrids, it is an
> interesting idea.
>
Do tell.Really do tell me how you can do it.
> It is unlikely that you can make a stupid human that is more suitable
> for work via genetic engineering. It is more likely that you can breed
> certain traits in humans to create the perfect worker. If they, for
> example, wanted to make a clone worker army out of my DNA, they'd
> spare
> themselves quite a lot of work. But do they do it? Do I get calls from
> big mean corporations asking me for a licenced copy of my DNA? Nooo.
> Stupid humans.
>
MAybe they dont want kids who think they're werewolves?
:(
>> Mice with human ears growing outta their backs for research are so
> ten
>> minutes ago...
>
> That was more transplanting works. Amazing how they neutralized the
> mice's immune system.
>
I'd like to see a mouse with a horses cock. Ala the crazy artwork on
V-cl.
Mircea
> The Chimp leading the chimposapiens!
As far, the only thing we both agree with :) our common enemy :p
Jure Sah
> Jure Sah wrote:
>> Snuhwolf pravi:
>>> Jure Sah wrote:
>>>> Snuhwolf pravi:
>>>>> Jure Sah wrote:
>>>>>> Snuhwolf pravi:
>>>>>>> I'm a human.
>>>>>>> And so is everyone reading this post.
>>>>>> No Snuh. You are wrong.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My newsreader program is not human.
>>>>> Its not "reading" the post in the way I ment it.
>>>>> Btw, your newsreader was made by humans, not "therians" :)
>>>> How come you are so sure? What if I made it and made it post fake
>>>> headers for compatibility? ;)
>>> Then I'd have to come over there and kick your ass :)
>> Why? Cause you were wrong?
>
> No, because you lied.
I never lie. Us Aspies are neurologically incapable of lying. ;)
So, where's the lie? :P
>> You're acting like my dad again.
>
> <stokes beard thoughtfully>
The correct syntax for single tags is <stokes beard thoughtfully />, FYI.
> Tell me about your father...
In this perspective, he will always keep a conversation strictly
scientific, as long as it serves in prooving him right. When it no
longer serves in that, he lets go of the scientific stuff and starts
using invalid (only seemingly correct, to amateurs) farmer logic to
proove himself right. In the end, regardless of what he says about his
conversation style, it is not about what is true or what is logical, it
is all about him being right.
It sucks sometimes, because if I appear in front of him at the wrong
time, I am suddenly guilty for higher gas bills because I shower too
long, taking up too much common space when HE uses the common space to
store huge stuff like car tires, etc. He doesn't care about other
people's feelings, as long as he is right.
But then again, the other person who raised me, my grandmother, is a far
worse psychopath than him. :P
Jure Sah
Which is particularly evident, when the two people in the argument are
talking about two completely different things without realizing it. Add
an emotional element to the mix and Bang! You got a very active and very
pointless debate.
Snuhwolf
> Snuhwolf pravi:
>> Jure Sah wrote:
>>> Snuhwolf pravi:
>>>> Jure Sah wrote:
>>>>> Snuhwolf pravi:
>>>>>> Jure Sah wrote:
>>>>>>> Snuhwolf pravi:
>>>>>>>> I'm a human.
>>>>>>>> And so is everyone reading this post.
>>>>>>> No Snuh. You are wrong.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> My newsreader program is not human.
>>>>>> Its not "reading" the post in the way I ment it.
>>>>>> Btw, your newsreader was made by humans, not "therians" :)
>>>>> How come you are so sure? What if I made it and made it post fake
>>>>> headers for compatibility? ;)
>>>> Then I'd have to come over there and kick your ass :)
>>> Why? Cause you were wrong?
>>
>> No, because you lied.
>
> I never lie. Us Aspies are neurologically incapable of lying. ;)
>
> So, where's the lie? :P
>
You said it was made by therians.
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.4 (Windows/20060516)
I dont think "therians" coded T-bird and as for Windows...well that
might explain the lack of quality :)
>>> You're acting like my dad again.
>>
>> <stokes beard thoughtfully>
>
> The correct syntax for single tags is <stokes beard thoughtfully />,
> FYI.
>
THis aint no html...
>> Tell me about your father...
>
> In this perspective, he will always keep a conversation strictly
> scientific, as long as it serves in prooving him right. When it no
> longer serves in that, he lets go of the scientific stuff and starts
> using invalid (only seemingly correct, to amateurs) farmer logic to
> proove himself right. In the end, regardless of what he says about his
> conversation style, it is not about what is true or what is logical,
> it
> is all about him being right.
>
You dad is obviously human.
THus proving my point that you are also human :)
> It sucks sometimes, because if I appear in front of him at the wrong
> time, I am suddenly guilty for higher gas bills because I shower too
> long, taking up too much common space when HE uses the common space to
> store huge stuff like car tires, etc. He doesn't care about other
> people's feelings, as long as he is right.
>
OMG! He is soooo unique!
I bet he wants you to get your own apartment.
> But then again, the other person who raised me, my grandmother, is a
> far
> worse psychopath than him. :P
>
Now we see further into the whys & wherefores of your rejecting your own
humanity.
Five cents please...
(reference to Peanuts cartoon strip for those too young to know)
Jure Sah
>> A bird which happens to be engineering enough to use open seeds and use
>> tools like an ape does is not the same thing as a bird trying to be an ape.
>> It has been stated over and over again that animal behavior and therian
>> behavior is not really comparable. Any therian trying to behave like his
>> animal side alone is doing it wrong (and is possible on his way to a
>> health problem at the very least). Being a therian is a balance between
>> the animal side and the human side, sometimes swaying between the two
>> wildly, sometimes a static compromise between both and sometimes a
>> mildly swaying composition of both. This is entirely based on the view
>> of animal -> world and self -> world. There is no room here for
>> idealized pictures or anything. The bottom line is that it is irrelevant
>> what exact species your animal side is, as in your life as a therian,
>> all you really need is to find a way for you to survive. Knowing the
>> animal is most helpful, but matching it to todays relatively retarded
>> research is not.
>
> Umm. First off, your not actually saying anything different than I have,
> even if you reach completely ridiculous conclusions. I am not real sure
> what research you think is so retarded either. You seem to be blaming
> the scientists, who have spent years telling people, "We are animals,
> live with it!", with the fools that constantly whine that they are not
> animals and shouldn't ever act like such a thing. If anything, research
> is showing "higher" levels of similarity and more complexity that ever
> imagined by the types of clowns that think animal behavior is all
> pointlessly irrelevant.
It would seem we were thinking different things then.
The relatively retarded research that I was reffering to, is the
research into animal behavior. Not intelligence or instinct or any of
those floating-meaning subjects, but behavior, simple observable
behavior. E.g.: "Only the alpha male of the wolf pack is the one that
marks it's territory." I believe this was one conclusion I read in some
book about wolves a few years ago. It's not true of course as scientists
later realized.
When I was younger I had a pack amongst furries. It felt like a pack to
me, but as you may notice, there's no way to tell. With some would start
out quite the way my guts told me was right, but eventually I would
realize that whatever it is that those people had in mind for "pack", it
was not what I had in mind for it. They would then go to lengths digging
amongst books about wolf behavior to proove me that how I am behaving is
not like the wolf behavior. Even got into arguments with certain "ex
wolf specialists" in such ways. I could care less what all the books say
about it if it's not what I feel. Eventually, we got trough to newer
literature (observing wolf behavior in nature as opposed to captivity)
and all of the things that I previously disagreed strongly with, were
recognized as such in the literature as well.
Not saying that experience I had prooves anything objectively, but it
does tell me personally a lot.
> I didn't say that we are not buried in instincts. What I said is that we
> have a long societal tradition of rejecting the idea that we are driven
> by those instincts and substituting subjective BS like religions, dogma
> and, "just so..", stories about what "real" humans are supposed to be
> like. Rather than figuring out what we really are as humans, most of the
> world spends insane amounts of time trying to hide in ivory towers of
> badly constructed artifices about what it means to be human, moral or
> rational. Therions are doing the same thing, they aren't interested in
> what makes them human, they want to be something else. All facades and
> justifications for artificial constructs are by definition **far** more
> complex and convoluted than the real world. They have to be. The can't
> stay standing without people finding new ways to prop them up. Claiming
> that its more complex than the simple explanation I gave does not help
> the cause.
It is impossible to assume upon the result of a certain natural
(re)action, without simplifications. It is impossible, by the definition
of assumption. But that does not mean that all assumptions are wrong.
Yet, most are.
My problem in your argument is not that you are capable of simplifying
the reasoning, but more that you are capable of oversimplifying it.
Having wrote what you have, I am forced to assume that you believe your
understanding is more profound than that of all (or most) of the others.
I cannot accept that, since with that belief, you will come to improper
conclusions. If you want to claim in front of me that your conclusions
in this matter are correct, you must first understand that even many of
the supporters of the "subjective BS like religions, dogma and, 'just
so..', stories" have done a thinking process as profound as the one you
have written about above (and possibly far more profound) and have come
to a different conclusion.
>> I have written computer programs and seen various animals behave as such
>> that I think I have sufficient proof that mimic is not the only way to
>> come to an identical conclusion as some other lifeform. And I do very
>> much have reason to believe that all the many things humans figured out
>> eventually did not require any sort of mimic skill at all.
>
> Wrong, wrong, wrong! If they didn't mimic the animals, they mimicked
> each other. A child without external input won't learn speech, let alone
> much of anything else we value in the modern world. They might not even
> learn to walk upright, without a specific need to do so.
A child already possesses all the neural mechanisms required to support
speech, all the skeletal construct required to walk upright, etc, etc, etc.
The behavior that you recognize as mimic here is not the child
duplicating every part of it's parents capacity, but actually only key
segments, which allow it to grow the neural connections to activate it's
predeveloped capacity. Any child, who is not capable of acquiring these
key segments will die quickly in a society that cannot afford to support
it as such, thus increasing the society's probability of survival.
In a similar way thus, a child is not capable of acquiring key segments
of any behavior, for which it does not have a predeveloped capacity.
This group of exclusion, I believe, includes many of the behaviors that
are noticeable in therians.
> Well.. Mimicry in the sense I am implying it is more accurately called
> "observation". A baby doesn't have much choice but to mimic. Later on
> they start to observe and make choices, but they "start" with mimicry.
> This is hardly a major, "Wow!" The result is a complex mix of instincts
> that no one really pretends to understand, since most of the last 2,000+
> years have been about denying that humans "have" animal insincts, a
> confused bunch of things we learned to mimic from a young age and a mass
> of complicated justifications for why we later decided we don't like
> roller coasters, even though both parents loved them, which on some
> level could very well be our unique genetics that don't have the "I love
> danger" component and maybe some bad experiences. Instead of trying to
> understand why we are the way we are, truly, we build elaborate
> explanations for it, which seldom have anything to do with the true
> reasons.
So you are saying that therianthropy is genetic? Reading this, in
combination with what I have stated above kind of says that a
therianthrope is simply activating predeveloped capacity, which the
human genome still includes from the evolutionary past.
And yet, there are so many different kinds of therianthropes. How do you
explain that? Are different animal traits inherited down different
family structures? Or perhaps are different animal traits activated in
accordance to individual 'cultures of child upbringing'?
Many therians are interracial hybrids. In genetics, when you cross two
sets of genetic code which have in their genetic past long been kept
apart, there is a relatively high probability that the offspring will
have traits of the last common ancestor (I believe the probability for
each individual trait is 50%, but I don't remember the results of the
maths I had done on this).
>> And sometimes within such a debate it helps to compare one's subjective
>> opinion with scientific reasoning. Or else you are led astray into your
>> very special understanding of everything.
>>
>> An example of which, your post may very well be.
Disregard the above cited text in future conversation as it was written
in anger so to write.
> 1. Self justification
> 2. Learned reactions
> 3. Instinctual reactions
[Note major Snips]
> Some people just make stuff up on a much bigger scale than the rest of
> us.
And some people really don't even care enough to do any of the stuff you
have written above, short of #3, hence making a obvious exceptions to
your oh so objective universal rules.
Mircea
I have replied something some posts ago about this but I'll try to be
more clear now if I wasn't then and also re-write this again.
Theriantrophy cannot be something genetic and fortunately, its in the
list of things that can be prooved. A child is born from 2 "normal"
parents (normal meaning they are not therians themselves, without
adding if its something genetical or spiritual right now). And as he
grows up, he discovers he is attracted and has feelings for the species
he is as a therian rather then humans (this varies very much depending
on the case). It lasts for years and a lifetime, untill he understands
its part of him. Forever :)
Now, if he is like this, his way of being obviously must have a source.
Either genetical, either spiritual. The fact is that, considering both
of his parents are (not in absolutely all cases thow) gentically
normal, if this was a genetical problem, what could have been its
source? A thing we could say is that these parents of his could have
had "something" that over his generations wasn't "enabled" but now,
puf, this person was born with it suddendly. But this from my oppinion
is impossible, seeing the nature of teriantrophy and I couldn't agree
with something like that. Otherwise, untill no virus or disease that
makes people be born with the impression they are something else is
discovered, this 2nd posibility also fails.
But, there's another very common belief for those who just want to be
sure Everything is scientifically prooved otherwise, not accepted; that
this is something that can just happen randomly. You're just born with
a problem cuz your mom was hit when you where a few months old or
something and so you are born with something in your mind or a DNA
problem. The proof that this is impossible also is simple; again, it
must have a source, and teriantrophy is something very very precise. So
if it is possible for someone to be born with this as an "error", the
chances for someone to be a therian because of this are the same as
choosing a number between 0 and 100000000 then expecting it to fall
from the first throw of the counter. And seeing how many therians there
are these days, again, its impossible. And well, a 4th explanation if
we're really looking for one might be they simply become obsessed fans
of animals or furs. All I can say is that, despite the fact you are
born with it from the beggining, it lasts in most cases all your life
(unless you dont get "blinded") and in some cases it doesn't even have
a source again (like "watching too much anime"), an simple passion
can't get anyone to this point so easily. I mean I also like cars but I
couldn't come and say I am a car's myself or something.
This only leaves room for the explanation many will want to deny; there
are 2 reasons why this happens; Either the spirit has a form (is the
spirit of) a certain species, witch of course leaves traits also in
this life, and the reason "normal" people are normal is they are both
humans spiritually and fizically here (or in a few cases there might be
those who are something else and either dont realise it either the
spirit's traits dont influence so much here), and the second reason we
might be born this way (this theory is actually made up by me but i
hope its not true) is that the spirit just chooses a set of feelings,
then gets reincarnated in a body, despite its true nature. Again, I
hope its not true and I dun really believe it, its mostly a thought.
Well, to all what I said above, I should also add that its a way to
powerful feeling to be able to be confused with a little problem to
where I have gotten to myself. I have felt it and can understand its
not a problem clearly, but I think most won't consider this in their
list.
I hope this post won't start a riot cuz many still want to refuse it
can be a spiritual thing. Its what I see and believe and I hope that
for once, people can move from the belief it has to be first prooved
sicentifically to the belief that if it is there, it exists, even if
we're not 100% sure how.
Patrick Elliott
beacon.net says...
correct itself, its a human endevour and most of those 20 year old books
where based on 50 year old observations, made by people that had an
unfortunate tendency to extrapolate what they wanted to be true from
what they thought they observed, instead of what was really going on.
For example, without DNA testing and radio tags, it was "real" easy for
Victorian thinking male researchers to observe birds nesting, then
extrapolate the BS idea that they where paragons of monogamy. Its only
if you start looking at the DNA evidence and have the ability to
specifically track specific birds that the prior assumptions completely
fall apart. This is unfortunately why, ironically the same kinds of
idiots that made these false projections, are now attacking science for
redefining long held assumption, which would never had been made, if not
for the very class of people now attacking science for "fixing" the
mistakes. If it wasn't so horrifyingly dangerous to future scientific
progress, it could be an three stooges episode.
If you want to talk about "animal behaviour", I strongly suggest taking
anything written more than 10 years ago with a huge grain of salt and a
recognition that those that made them where often unqualified, prone to
misinterpretation and biased in what they assumed "should" be going on,
so ignored, discounted or labeled as "deviant" anything that didn't fit.
You got the same stupid BS in archeology, where large bones from
dinosaurs where just labelled, "some big bone", because it didn't occur
to anyone that they where a) useful, b) important to the culture (even
if found on a bloody alter in the middle of a temple) and c) just junk.
You still get the same kind of stupidity, though often more in the form
of, "This proves their where once giants, because it can't be from a
Tyranosuar!", type BS from so called "Christian" archaeologists today.
But most of the archaeological community now laments the fact that those
artifacts, like a supposed cyclops skull, which drawings of it that did
survive indicate was likely a mammoth skull, where lost or destroyed.
Much of the early years of research in psychology, archology, sociology,
etc. was buried in the presuppositions of the society they developed in.
Some, like sociology are still so entangled in the politics and complex
justification (without experiment, which has unacceptable moral
consequences, valid examination or rock solid evidence) that society
uses to define itself, that they **can't** provide objective truths. On
a scale from 1-10, where 10 is absolutely scientific and testable,
sociology is probably 4, psychology is around 5 (higher if you mean
nuero-psychology), medicine is 6, since it relies in biology, biology
varies from 7-10, depending on the field and how badly corrupted that
field is by bad assumptions and everything else. By nature of relying on
flawed human thinking, is around 9-9.8. Unfortunely, policy decisions
and social choices are usually made by personal experience or social
dogma, which ranges from -1 to about 9, with most of it floating in the
same realm as sociology, neither absolutely right, or so completely
wrong it won't sort of work most of the time.
Someone quoted a scientist a bit ago, who said that bad ideas could fit
into three categories, mostly wrong, completely wrong, and "not even"
wrong, which is to say, right out the realm of being possible to even
describe "how" it is wrong. Much of early science involving both human
and animal behavior has been "mostly wrong", with bits of "not even
wrong" thrown in. Unfortunately, most of society refuses to give up one
being "mostly wrong" or "not even wrong", when you are talking about
humans, instead of animals.
> When I was younger I had a pack amongst furries. It felt like a pack to
> me, but as you may notice, there's no way to tell. With some would start
> out quite the way my guts told me was right, but eventually I would
> realize that whatever it is that those people had in mind for "pack", it
> was not what I had in mind for it. They would then go to lengths digging
> amongst books about wolf behavior to proove me that how I am behaving is
> not like the wolf behavior. Even got into arguments with certain "ex
> wolf specialists" in such ways. I could care less what all the books say
> about it if it's not what I feel. Eventually, we got trough to newer
> literature (observing wolf behavior in nature as opposed to captivity)
> and all of the things that I previously disagreed strongly with, were
> recognized as such in the literature as well.
>
> Not saying that experience I had prooves anything objectively, but it
> does tell me personally a lot.
>
Some times personal experience can tell you that other people are full
of it. But only if you have some incite they don't. The bunch you are
talking about obviously "tried" to get the facts right, but failed to
realize that a) those facts didn't matter, but where rather an obsession
for them and b) they might not be completely accurate.
> > I didn't say that we are not buried in instincts. What I said is that we
> > have a long societal tradition of rejecting the idea that we are driven
> > by those instincts and substituting subjective BS like religions, dogma
> > and, "just so..", stories about what "real" humans are supposed to be
> > like. Rather than figuring out what we really are as humans, most of the
> > world spends insane amounts of time trying to hide in ivory towers of
> > badly constructed artifices about what it means to be human, moral or
> > rational. Therions are doing the same thing, they aren't interested in
> > what makes them human, they want to be something else. All facades and
> > justifications for artificial constructs are by definition **far** more
> > complex and convoluted than the real world. They have to be. The can't
> > stay standing without people finding new ways to prop them up. Claiming
> > that its more complex than the simple explanation I gave does not help
> > the cause.
>
> It is impossible to assume upon the result of a certain natural
> (re)action, without simplifications. It is impossible, by the definition
> of assumption. But that does not mean that all assumptions are wrong.
> Yet, most are.
>
> My problem in your argument is not that you are capable of simplifying
> the reasoning, but more that you are capable of oversimplifying it.
>
> Having wrote what you have, I am forced to assume that you believe your
> understanding is more profound than that of all (or most) of the others.
Not in the least. The only qualification I can say I have that others
don't, is that I don't assume I am 100% right. By necessity one has to
simplify such things. The problem is that any "reasonable"
simplification of the subject would require a 500 page essay, so by
definition, any attempt to explain it in a Usenet post is going to be an
"oversimplification." lol
> I cannot accept that, since with that belief, you will come to improper
> conclusions. If you want to claim in front of me that your conclusions
> in this matter are correct, you must first understand that even many of
> the supporters of the "subjective BS like religions, dogma and, 'just
> so..', stories" have done a thinking process as profound as the one you
> have written about above (and possibly far more profound) and have come
> to a different conclusion.
>
Umm.. No, that I can't accept. I have yet to meet anyone that professes
belief in things like religion that hasn't at some point in the process
of profound thinking, simply "stopped" thinking when the problem became
too complicated for them. They all claim such and will go to great
lengths to explain how the conclusion was inevitable, but universally,
they at some point **always** fall back to, "I just believe it", not
matter what artificial justifications of claims of evidence they
espouse, yet fail to present. There is nothing profound about refusing
to learn or not bothering to think about something after you reach a
point where your justifications are sufficiently comfortable. Nor is
discovering the vacuity of such arguments any more profound that looking
out the back door and finding that indead, the unicorn someone insisted
was eating your roses doesn't actually exist. In this one respect I am
afraid I absolutely cannot agree with you.
> >> I have written computer programs and seen various animals behave as such
> >> that I think I have sufficient proof that mimic is not the only way to
> >> come to an identical conclusion as some other lifeform. And I do very
> >> much have reason to believe that all the many things humans figured out
> >> eventually did not require any sort of mimic skill at all.
> >
> > Wrong, wrong, wrong! If they didn't mimic the animals, they mimicked
> > each other. A child without external input won't learn speech, let alone
> > much of anything else we value in the modern world. They might not even
> > learn to walk upright, without a specific need to do so.
>
> A child already possesses all the neural mechanisms required to support
> speech, all the skeletal construct required to walk upright, etc, etc, etc.
>
> The behavior that you recognize as mimic here is not the child
> duplicating every part of it's parents capacity, but actually only key
> segments, which allow it to grow the neural connections to activate it's
> predeveloped capacity. Any child, who is not capable of acquiring these
> key segments will die quickly in a society that cannot afford to support
> it as such, thus increasing the society's probability of survival.
>
> In a similar way thus, a child is not capable of acquiring key segments
> of any behavior, for which it does not have a predeveloped capacity.
> This group of exclusion, I believe, includes many of the behaviors that
> are noticeable in therians.
>
Umm. I think you are wrong in that. I can observe a wide range of
supposed Therian behaviors that can be directly attributed to societal
stereo types, TV, or just watching the neighbors dog play in the back
yard. But otherwise I don't agree with the idea of key segments, albeit
now "you" are the one over simplifying the process. Some of those
segments are so key that failing to get them at the right time
permanently rewires the mechanisms to do something completely different,
losing the original function. The brain is highly plastic. Not being
born with, or losing early, for example, a left arm doesn't mean the
brain lacks the motor system for that arm, but that the motor system for
that arm is swallowed up by other close by systems and re-used for a new
task. This tends to have the very permanent effect that, even if you
could do so, giving the person a new left arm wouldn't allow them to
"ever" use it, not unless this was also done very early and there is no
guarantee that the left arm part of the brain will be what ends up
providing the control for it. The result will never be the same as what
should have happened.
> > Well.. Mimicry in the sense I am implying it is more accurately called
> > "observation". A baby doesn't have much choice but to mimic. Later on
> > they start to observe and make choices, but they "start" with mimicry.
> > This is hardly a major, "Wow!" The result is a complex mix of instincts
> > that no one really pretends to understand, since most of the last 2,000+
> > years have been about denying that humans "have" animal insincts, a
> > confused bunch of things we learned to mimic from a young age and a mass
> > of complicated justifications for why we later decided we don't like
> > roller coasters, even though both parents loved them, which on some
> > level could very well be our unique genetics that don't have the "I love
> > danger" component and maybe some bad experiences. Instead of trying to
> > understand why we are the way we are, truly, we build elaborate
> > explanations for it, which seldom have anything to do with the true
> > reasons.
>
> So you are saying that therianthropy is genetic? Reading this, in
> combination with what I have stated above kind of says that a
> therianthrope is simply activating predeveloped capacity, which the
> human genome still includes from the evolutionary past.
>
No, I am saying that we can observe and incorporate a large swath of
behaviours, unlike say a chimpanzee, which past a certain age can't even
figure out how to properly use a stick to fish termites out of a log,
when shown how to by a chimp from a troop that stumbled on that
solution. They literally "can't" learn the behavior. If, in the absense
of TV, pet dogs, cats, any societal information about how animals behave
and **any** possible source of contamination about them, your therian's
still exhibited those behaviours, I might give credence to the idea. The
problem is, you ignore all of these far more direct methods of learning
it, and a child's tendency to want to be just about anything but a
child, in favor of assuming that its all somehow just "there". What I am
saying about genetics is, humans "can" express such things, because we
are human, if we where chimps or even house cats, we could never do so,
because the capacity to internalize those behaviours, past a certain
age, if ever, wouldn't exist at all.
> And yet, there are so many different kinds of therianthropes. How do you
> explain that? Are different animal traits inherited down different
> family structures? Or perhaps are different animal traits activated in
> accordance to individual 'cultures of child upbringing'?
>
> Many therians are interracial hybrids. In genetics, when you cross two
> sets of genetic code which have in their genetic past long been kept
> apart, there is a relatively high probability that the offspring will
> have traits of the last common ancestor (I believe the probability for
> each individual trait is 50%, but I don't remember the results of the
> maths I had done on this).
>
All you are saying is that people manage to pick and choose traits, act
them out, decide they like them, then not realizing "how" they developed
those traits, invent some goofy explanation for it. I seriously doubt
any of them where born purring or growling, etc., instead of developing
those attributes later on, almost certainly well after they started
"seeing" examples of those very things. By that standard, I should have
ended up being a lion, not a fox, since I loved to play at being the
former when I was 5-6 or so. But I can remember quite clearing "how" I
derived those behaviors and it came from TV. All I can say about yours
is, I doubt its any different at all, and that you simply don't
remember, like 90% of humanity, the details of your childhood well
enough to see where it really came from.
> >> And sometimes within such a debate it helps to compare one's subjective
> >> opinion with scientific reasoning. Or else you are led astray into your
> >> very special understanding of everything.
> >>
> >> An example of which, your post may very well be.
>
> Disregard the above cited text in future conversation as it was written
> in anger so to write.
>
> > 1. Self justification
> > 2. Learned reactions
> > 3. Instinctual reactions
> [Note major Snips]
> > Some people just make stuff up on a much bigger scale than the rest of
> > us.
>
> And some people really don't even care enough to do any of the stuff you
> have written above, short of #3, hence making a obvious exceptions to
> your oh so objective universal rules.
>
Its only an exception if you can prove it to be one. Saying, "I think
there are exceptions. QED there must be exceptions.", is not a valid
premise. It is called circular logic. The most likely explanation is
that you started to play out some of these behaviors as a child, having
learned them from TV, etc., and have since completely forgotten the
source, in much the same way people completely forget why they hate
certain foods, so have made something up to explain it. If I where less
aware of how I derived some of my behaviors and very clearing understood
their source, I would probably be in complete agreement with you. Then
again, I have always, from a very early age, been prone to self
examination and careful study. I can remember in almost exact detail the
first time I tried growling like a lion and that I got the idea from
watching Wild Kingdom. I can't imagine myself some other scenario,
because I **know** how I started doing it. You, I suspect, probably
don't, and I also suspect that the one thing you have never done is
something as simple as ask your parents or close friends when the first
time you did something was, and in what context. The result is not going
to support your current assumptions. I can say that with only a 99.9%
degree of certainty, because there is a chance they might not accurately
remember either.
BTW, if you have notices a stupid tendency to find mispellings of words
only in conjunction with things like ","s, blame my news reader.
Something they changed in the spellcheck as of the last version fails to
ignore punctuation when checking words. Odds are I mispelled all
instances of them, but couldn't fix the ones with punctuation... :( I
really hope they fix the damn thing soon..
Patrick Elliott
Mircea_th...@hotmail.com says...
> > So you are saying that therianthropy is genetic?
>
> I have replied something some posts ago about this but I'll try to be
> more clear now if I wasn't then and also re-write this again.
>
> Theriantrophy cannot be something genetic and fortunately, its in the
> list of things that can be prooved. A child is born from 2 "normal"
> parents (normal meaning they are not therians themselves, without
> adding if its something genetical or spiritual right now). And as he
> grows up, he discovers he is attracted and has feelings for the species
> he is as a therian rather then humans (this varies very much depending
> on the case). It lasts for years and a lifetime, untill he understands
> its part of him. Forever :)
>
vacuum, with no exposure to or association with the animal in question,
how ever indirect, then later they where shown a picture of one, to
which they said, "That's what I am!!", then **that** would qualify as
proof. What you are describing is no different than someone developing a
complete certainty that they are an alien, because they don't seem to
fit in among other people. That this describes "everyone" at some point
in their life doesn't change the fact that some people never get that
message, or believe it, so they justify being outside by being so
completely different that the don't fit at all. As I said in another
post to this, by your definition, I should have ended up associating
with cats, specifically lions, the problem is, "I remember how I started
to behave that way." Most people don't have a clear idea about anything
the think, are afraid of, like or dislike. If you don't remember how the
association developed, as is the case with 90% of all humans, its much
easier to make up an explanation. Most people come up with believable
ones though, which "can" be proven under the right conditions. Yours
can't, save in conditions that would morally preclude attempting to make
such an experiment in the first place, and it flies in the face of
"everything" that can be legitimately deduced from what "has" been
proven by experiment.
But heck, its obvious at this point that you are like everyone else that
believes this sort of stuff. You will go to any lengths to try to prove
how it can't be proven, insist that it is proven, because you think it
is, but never critically examine the means, process, assumptions of
conclusions that lead you to believing it is proven. At that point.. It
is no longer possible to have a rational conversation or pursue
reasonable explanations about the subject, since all avenues of logical
discussion and critical examination are exhausted. Lets try to make this
"really" simple. Evidence, the sort that scientists and even people that
build your car, consider reliable, is deemed such because it is a)
reproducible, under b) strictly controlled conditions that preclude the
15 billion things that might bias the results and invalidate their
tests. An observation that some people "seem" to associate with certain
animals, without "seeming" to get it from any place, but where they grew
up in a world with books, movies, TV, other people that have seen those
things or even the real animals, and maybe even the animals themselves,
all of which are in the category of 15 billion things that can screw up
te results, is **not** reliable, scientific or valid evidence of any
sort. No more so that going to Ireland a few hundred years ago and
asking them if they "honestly" thought leprecauns of elves where real,
and being told, "based on the evidence of missing keys, spilled pots,
etc.", that yes, they really where.
All you have proven with such a claim is that you haven't bothered to
try to really prove anything. The same claim can be made for "anything",
with equal validity and just as much legitimate proof, if not more,
while still being completely ridiculous and dead wrong. I mean, how the
heck many cases of dog skeletons and observations that an area contains
bats, insects and even small scavengers that "do" cause the sorts of
wounds seen, do you need before Chupacabre is considered BS? Or the
complete farce of a Lock Ness monster that everything from fresh water
ecologists to sonar experts can't either find or believe could ever
survive in the lake do you need before Nessie dies the death of ohter
mythological creatures? This is just cryptozoology projected on humans,
based on "less" evidence.
Wanderer
news:MPG.1f15ed20a...@news.critter.net...
> Umm. No. If this sense of not being human developed entirely in a
> vacuum, with no exposure to or association with the animal in question,
> how ever indirect, then later they where shown a picture of one, to
> which they said, "That's what I am!!", then **that** would qualify as
> proof.
<snip>
Forgive my saying so, but you've just reinvented "royal genetics". The
theory went, you see, that only the nobility could read; therefore, if a
commoner could read, there must be nobility in his family line.
Allow me to explain: You postulate that the only proof would be someone who
had never seen the animal, never heard its name, never seen a picture, never
encountered any reference to the animal or its characteristics at any time
during the formative years.
Therefore, this reasoning runs, anyone who believes they are spiritually a
given animal has encountered that animal during their formative years, by
obscure or overt mechanism. If they do not remember the encounter, it is
simply because they have forgotten it.
This statement cannot be disproved; it is therefore not valid science.
Unless you're saying you've kept a child locked away in a room somewhere
until he's eighteen, carefully censoring all the materials he sees and
hears...
Forgive me for removing the remaining text, but you seem to have overlooked
the word "spiritual" in the context of both these newsgroups. You attach
science, the examination of the seeable and testable, to spirituality, the
examination of the unseeable and untestable. While it is tempting to assume
that someone who believes that nothing can exist that cannot be tested is an
atheist, I shall refrain from jumping to that conclusion; besides, most of
the atheists I know are much more open-minded than you are. (i.e. They do
not inherently consider the existence of the spirit "completely ridiculous
and dead wrong" as you seem to.)
From our point of view, O pondering, patronizing Patrick, you are saying:
"I know everything about spirits. I proved they don't exist, and all of
Science agrees with me. So I know all of you are crazy or lying. If you
disagree with me, you're lying or crazy. If you try to argue with me,
you're also stupid; I know everything, and I get to tell you what your soul
is or isn't. Not you."
By that perception of your position, O patrician, you could just as easily
define us as projections of your own intellect; you would then be entitled
to turn off the computer and never visit Usenet again, as nobody is posting
here but you. (Any posts you might encounter are clearly the product of a
deranged imagination.)
As for your scientific credentials, I hope they're better than your debating
tactics; realizing that you cannot hope to establish your "inherent
superiority" with a spirituality discussion, you backhandedly accuse your
opponent of being in league with cryptozoologists (though not ever daring to
state such a thing openly) in order to establish your Divine Right to laugh
at anyone who is Not You.
Now go and read "The Golden Bough"; it's much more relevant to the
discussion. That's by Scottish anthropologist Sir James George Frazer, and
was published in 1890. When you have some vague grasp of comparative
religion, perhaps you will realize why we do not wish to allow a stranger
such as yourself (and you're stranger than most) to define our selves and
our natures.
Yours truly,
The wolfish,
Wanderer
"Where am I going? I don't quite know.
What does it matter *where* people go?
Down to the woods where the bluebells grow!
Anywhere! Anywhere! *I* don't know!"
-- "Spring Morning", by a. a. milne