"work day-dream"

[Guest Risk]

To bottom-line this: The scariest thing, IMO, a human can conceive of, is "good" and "evil" not being real.

[Guest J*ingus]

Personally, I find the concept of Hell to be the scariest (and most outrage-inducing) thing I've ever come across, but I can see your point.

[Guest Risk]

I don't believe in Hell.  Recently I have been doupting there is an afterlife.  While eternal torment and isolation can be very scary, is it scarier than the theory that nothing we do matters; that we are not the most important creatures and our actions have little if any consequence on the universe?  That there is no universal will and our existance is neither looked on with hate or love?  

 

That no creature has any strong feelings towards us?  Have you ever read of the work of H.P. Lovecraft?  He's very good.

[Guest]

What a ridiculous discussion. Let's cut to the chase.

If I were straight, I'd date Jingus way before Risk.

 

Now go and be better people.

[Guest gthureson]

1) Chicks dig good looking guys with money/power.

2) Guys dig hot chicks.

3) There is no heaven or hell, and when you die you are snuffed out like a candle.

4) There is no 'higher' power that really gives a rat's ass about the human race.  We are merely a sentient race living on a mudball in the galactic boondocks.  

5) While 'good' and 'evil' may not be the right terms, they suffice.  Humans are social animals, and there are inherently 'social' and 'anti-social' forms of behaviour.   Being nice to people is social.  Bashing them over the head with a rock is anti-social.  Call it good and evil if you will, it amounts to the same thing in the end.

6) Lovecraft is overrated.

7) Violence in the world cannot be traced back to a root cause of 'not enough action for the dudes'.

8) This thread has gotten awfully stupid.

 

Hopefully that clears everything up.

[Guest DrTom]

"6) Lovecraft is overrated.

8) This thread has gotten awfully stupid."

 

These are the only two points I disagreed with.  Lovecraft was very good, though I admit his style is a bit "heavy" by today's standards.  As for the second point, this thread was stupid from the giddy-up, and hasn't improved at all since.

[Guest]

No, Tom, #6 is right. Lovecraft is overrated. He's a brilliant writer but he has at most two styles, and his characterisation is consistently terrible - although that's more because his stories generally don't need characterisation. Anyway, your criticism of #8 is correct.

[Guest gthureson]

I stand corrected on Point #8, but I am unmoveable on the Lovecraft stance.

[Guest Risk]

Eh, Lovecraft may be distastful to some if you don't understand exactly what he is saying(which is possible, it takes some getting used too).  But most horror writers, like Stephen King, hold him in high regard.

[Guest Risk]

What a ridiculous discussion. Let's cut to the chase.

If I were straight, I'd date Jingus way before Risk.

 

Now go and be better people.

Hm.  Kay.

[Guest gthureson]

Eh, Lovecraft may be distastful to some if you don't understand exactly what he is saying(which is possible, it takes some getting used too).  But most horror writers, like Stephen King, hold him in high regard.

No, I understand what he is saying.  I don't find him 'distasteful'.  I just don't like him.

 

I'm not a huge fan of Tolkien either, no matter how many times I'm told its a classic or how many other fantasy writers hold him in high regard.

[Guest J*ingus]

Lovecraft's biggest problems are 1.His HORRIBLE dialogue and 2.The fact that he only really had three or four stories in him, and rewrote them over & over again, just changing the details.  I really like his style, but he does tend to repeat himself, and once you get a hold on him his "surprise" endings become predictable.  But still, he did basically invent the "evil demons/aliens/subhumans who live underground and are out to corrupt us all and TAKE OVER THE WORLD... if they ever notice us at all" type stories.  

 

I'd also say that gthurson's 3rd and 4th points are debatable, and his 1st and 2nd don't always apply.

[Guest gthureson]

Whether women always get the hot guy with power and money or the guy always get the hot chick is beside the point.

 

 

The fact that they dig them cannot be denied.

 

And as with most religious topics, yes, the existence of an afterlife is debateable.  However, the debate usually goes like this:

 

Pro: There is an afterlife, you just need to have faith in it.

Con: Prove it to me.

Pro: You can't prove it...you need faith.

Con: Sorry.

 

And then hours of arguments back and forth degenerating into name calling.

[Guest J*ingus]

"Whether women always get the hot guy with power and money or the guy always get the hot chick is beside the point. The fact that they dig them cannot be denied."

 

Sure it can.  There are people who simply aren't like that.  What about Marney?  She certainly doesn't dig guys with money or power.  

 

As for religion, you're right.  Nobody ever really changes anyone else's mind on the subject.

[Guest gthureson]

Sheesh, you go out of your way to be pithy and terse and what happens...

 

Addendum:

 

1) Chicks dig hot guys with money/power.  Unless they are lesbians.  Then dig hot chicks with money/power.  However, as there are likely not enough hot guys with money/power (or chicks, if that is the side of the plate you swing from), then it is conceivable they will not end up with them, and will end instead dating schmucks like the rest of this.

 

2) Guys dig hot chicks.  Unless they are gay.  Then they dig hot guys.  Guys are not usually in the position to be awfully choosy, however, and as such, will often end up with some one other than a hot chick.  Or guy.  If they are gay.

 

Happy now?

[Guest fk teale]

Who could have foreseen that the simple odyssey of a trollish shut-in who peeps in on back seat baby paste picnics would be taken as an oracle of social darwinism by someone who wants to beat up the women he's attracted to?  As it turns out, everyone who doesn't deserve a punch in their whiny cunts.  I'd point out here that backpeddling with "most of what I'm saying has no basis in contemporary reality" is more a long, winding Snake of retarded than the Ladder to erudition one might hope, but really, this whole post is going to be lost on anyone whom it might do some good because I'm not basing my arguments on how my dog behaves or a misreading of castration myths, so let's just cut to the chase here:

 

Lovecraft.  Uber alles.  Valid points from all concerned, but Rats in the Walls, for example: not so much a spooky thing from beyond yarn as a sustained metaphor of the collective unconscious.  So yeah, I think he had more depth than most are allowing for, although if I start basing my literary opinions on what I heard Stephen King thinks, you all have carte blanche to shoot me in my fat fucking face.

 

Also, if the people you're meeting are attracted primarily, out of all the possible assets the human condition encompasses, to cash, looks, and stroke?  I'm thinking you need to start meeting people someplace else.

 

Also, I'm thinking there's really no reason to bloat threads by having an enlarged version of your avatar in your sig, but that's just me.

[Guest J*ingus]

Not really, cuz I still disagree with your basic premise.  But I'll quit now because I guess it's like religion, neither of us is gonna change the other's mind.

[Guest gthureson]

Until I'm walking down the street with a couple of my friends (we'll say 1 female and 1 male) and at different times they turn to me and say:

 

Male: Hey, check out the ugly, overweight chick.  I bet she has a real sweet personality.  I'm gonna go ask  her out....

 

and,

 

Female:  Oh, look...a panhandler!  I bet he has some unique views on life that would lead to a solid relationship.....

 

If, ever once, I hear something like that....I'll be willing to change my stance that human attraction is not based on looks or money.  The only thing that alters it is a certain pragmatic realism that leads to lowered standards and, "Well...its better than nothing."

[Guest Risk]

Basically, I think some men are frustrated they can't mate when they want to because of society, whereas they could if we were all still living in jungles and swinging from trees.  Humans ARE still animals, IMO.

[Guest]

Humans ARE still animals, IMO.

 

You are out of your mind.

[Guest Frank Zappa Mask]

Yep, that's as true as it gets.

 

fk teals, all shitting aside, you've got quite a writing style.  that last post of yours was nearly too much for my little mind....