AzurePhoenix

Is it wrong that the only reason I am even remotely interested in this painting is because I'm imagining that little monkey spreading some agonizing and gruesomely deadly jungle-disease to everyone? Including the personality-rich little girl, and that naked-mole-rat-like dog with the little bow. Now, dogs playing poker? that one is a masterpiece, a mark of genius and creativity, life and absolutely meaningless "WTFness" (the keystone of good art ).

Saw this when I was putzing around and thought it was relevant and amusing -> Bad Case of the Humans Not criticizing your personal opinion or anything, but mind if I ask why it is you think that? (pertaining to humans being prettiful)

Eh, I think I more meant "negative" from the simple perspective of the "victim" in question rather than the outright all-encompassing (as set by people) moral value of what's going on (I have a problematic obsession with splitting hairs and forming complex and often convoluted concepts impossible to cleanly define in my state of mind, please forgive me). Not totally contradictory I think, but definately misplaced considering the nature of the specific ramble it was in the middle of. And here I am rambling again for no real reason . Though I certainly otherwise do think all that earthy stuff is negative too.

I myself would never say "destroy" unless nuclear war comes up, but I've got to say you're severely underestimating the negative influence humanity has on the planet. Global warming isn't even an issue anymore, it's escalating into a damn matter of total climatic shift, influencing entire damn hurricanes, melting down the arctic, drying up something like 10,000 Alaskan lakes. Species are dying off at an unnatural rate, much quicker than new ones can evolve (allegedly equivalent to the six or seven famed mass extinctions of earth's history), and having a tiny plot of forest no more than 500 acres set aside to save a newly discovered bird species from deforestation is considered a generous victory (that's only of note when you consider the sheer size of any decent sized forest in comparison to 500 acres). Now, if it was a question of a species here and there, I'd agree with you, but it's not. The whole damn planet is rumbling and until some new evidence pops up to suggest otherwise, it seems clear that we're driving force behind the rumbling. Whether that's right or wrong moral or immoral isn't the point I'm trying to make, just the sheer observable extent of the notably negative human influence in the first place. It's certainly more than a tiny bit, and if Bascule's chart is even remotely right, it shows that things could start to patch up pretty quickly if what we were doing to exacerbate the damage would stop. Not that I expect we're capable of pulling back on the onslaught any more than that tiny bit you suggested. So I guess I rambled my way back to square one

I was more amused actually, and I need that, cuz these forums have offered me NOTHING to be interested in for a few weeks, but anyway, it's not a matter of morality pointing out that we aren't the sole intelligent creature on the planet. It's also simple common sense to point out that the state of the planet, as in the world as a whole, which as Dalek pointed out in this case primarily refers to the BIOSPHERE (which itself is closely bound and influencing/influenced of/by the state of the hydrosphere, atmosphere, and geosphere), would be better off without our influence (granted, without humans to percieve them (unless dolphins and chimps are complex enough to have developed some equivalent to our moral values) no morality would exist so what would it matter if he planet was well off or not?). I wouldn't be surprised if I got a court order to rewrite that whole thing there.... Nothing is "meant to be" anything. What is is and what will be will be, and it could shift any which way in the future, probably completely, meaninglessly randomly without active choice to guide it somewhere. Any deeper "meaning" is a purely human concept that doesn't exist beyond our perceptions. From the universal standpoint, what humans have done to this world is negligable, but within our own grasp is our own ability to create our own values and, most importantly, make our own choices best suited to those values. The only thing that confuses me is that, while we're very eager to create these values and yammer on and on about them, when it actually comes down to practicing them, we avert our eyes and shuffle onward and backtrack and try to rewrite new values if directly confronted with the truth of the matter. (the opinions stated here not reflecting the beliefs or facts of any organization blah blah blah etc etc etc )

He never said dolphins or ravens or parrots or the apes and monkeys or others went extinct too did he? And even if they don't fit your idea of intelligent, hey look, a whole new niche to be filled by prospective sapients! Whoo for possibilities offered by evolution! Besides, if what humans do around "here" is appreciating existence on this world, I think the earth could do without appreciation for a while.

while it's possible, I'm working under the thought right now that the simplest explanation is the best without the additional information needed to state otherwise. I think it's simply most likely that the weapon wasn't properly secured. If that isn't the case, then the case changes. definately, I certainly wouldn't hold them responsible for the kid's behavior itself simply because most of them are inherantly insane around that age and not even the most fantastic parents might be aware of the problem. Especially if the kid is smarter than his parents. That certainly wouldn't be their fault. i completely agree. And even if investigation into how they might have unwitteningly contributed DID show they were negligent, I'd say that should NOT serve as any excuse to lessen whatever is dealt out to the kid, and that they shouldn't be held responsible for his crime at all, only for the poor weapon handling itself (if that's even a crime within a personal household, which it might not be).

They definately have a share a small part of the responsibility, and if they're gonna slip up like that their rights to possess firearms should defiantely be questioned and perhaps taken away, but they themselves didn't do anything outright wrong or malicious or "bad," and for all anyone knows they might be good, wholesome people completely undeserving of prison-time, who might have just been stupidly naive or unwisely trusting of their son. The kid on the otherhand... he should be locked up for a while, whether a juvenile-prison or a psyche-ward depending on his rationale and intent. No matter how good or bad his parents, he still carries the share of the blame. Afterall, it was HIM who did it.

And if New York actually follows through with those threats, that's great, honestly, but are those things actually usually carried out? Because here, no matter what the lawfully outlined penalty might be, they're almost certain to get off with a smile, a handshake, and the simple several hundred dollar fine, which I don't really consider proper "punishment" at all, it certainly doesn't make them suffer to the core (and younger kids often get brought home and dropped off and that's that). But the actual law states they should be getting the fine, a three month license suspension, and a week or so in jail. Hence my disdain. The only time that's not the usual case around here is when the counties stage "binges" where they set up snag-points to reel in and catch as many drunk-drivers as they can in a night or two, who then get... special treatment from the courts. All to show the media they're doing their job. They make a big party out of it

I think that, understandably, you seem to incorrectly associate my support for "handling it themselves" (at least former support for when I thought they were "first timers") for letting them off more leniantly. I fully understand the harsh and unforgivable nature of the crime. I simply feel that more often than people realize, especially regarding kids, that good parenting can be FAR more effective than legal action. Especially for crimes of this nature (based on how it works where I live of course), legal prosecution does little more than humiliate them in the strict sense of lasting beurocratic paper-tags following them around, which themselves can be a superfluous hassle for everyone involved. I can garuntee you that if I ever had a kid who pulled a stunt like that, they would suffer for it in ways far more potent than what a court could dish out. So my stance is not based on the sake of the girls at all, but on the overall effectiveness of handling the situation as a whole. But, as I also mentioned, that effectiveness is directly dependent on how good the parents are at parenting. Some will be better than the legal system, most will be just about as effective, but very few will be less so, just because the legal way to do it really doesn't accomplish crap. I'd have to disagree on that count. Kids these days are tough, and are particularly disdainful of the law. They bitch about the cops that caught them the first time around, but nothin ever came of it, so they go out and do it again the very next night. Most of the kinda kids who are likely to be scared outa the habit are often only kids who would be too scared to risk it in the first place. On the otherhand, parents, if they're doing their job, at least hav ethe potential to make life hell for their unruly spawn, and actually hold at least some bit of power. In theory at least. and the legal consequences aren't neccesarily the most effective ones. I don't understand why people always seem to associate the legal avenues with being the best ones, or having anything to do with justice. Jail? Hah, unless you actually kill someone, prison for drunk-driving is a myth, and even if you do smear someone you might not get any jail-time. I'm only against getting the cops involved because that would only cause trouble for the school and parents without necessarily punsihing the girls any worse than a good parent would be able to manage. well... crippling injury is the best teacher, especially if they can't use pedals anymore besides, you do something that dangerous, you deserve to suffer the consequences for it. No pity for the self-harmed. It's jsut too bad that for a drunk-driver to actually get punished legally (in the more effective than usual ways), they HAVE to hurt someone first or at least put them in serious near danger (and usually then only if it's a kid in harm's path).

If they're in an actual, criminal gang, then I say yes, it does matter. As I've mentioned, once I heard that these girls had prior delinquent behaviors unde rtheir belts, I thought that they should automatically have been given to the cops. I think there's a big difference between a one-time offender who does something that might be out of character, and someone who might regularly get into trouble (and it doesn't matter what they wear or what they look like in that regard) Indeed, drunk driving is a serious thing that needs to be regarded, (i believe I did say I would have said to flog them, in all seriousness) but also, it's a crime of stupidity and foolish wrecklessness rather than a malicious or at least unstable and outright attempt to scare, harm, or kill others, a far different degree on the scale of possible intent. Perhaps the beebee gun kid is just incredibly stupid, but maybe not, and a closer, more responsible look into them needs to be taken. Now, under these particular circumstances with the car(as I have stated based on new information) the girls should have been handed over to the cops, having committed their crime in daylight and not being first-time offenders. However, had they been first-timers, and the incident had happened at night, i would say that it is perfectly acceptable for the parents to be allowed to drive in the point (however sadly, it seems that at least one set of them didn't do that in this particular case.) As for the breast thing, if she wasn't okay with it then yes, it is sexual harrassment (probably not molestation depending on the circumstances), and is a matter that needs to be addressed by the victim's desires, not something to be determined solely by the school.

or unless they were drinking at the school in the first place, another common trend hereabouts (we had a "drinking tree"), though it sounds as if it's a small school, so I guess that's unlikely. But you're definately right, my only thought was "the scene of the crime," for which I'll blame CSI

What I think is sad is that it isn't practiced this way, or at least, that law is too inflexible to accomadate these simple facts, sometimes making it so that doing the legal thing might actually be the wrong thing to do. maybe they'll make her ride the Teacups over and over, it'd be a fitting punishment Again, i would have said that that didn't really matter as long long as they effectively handled it themselves (which, based on the day-lit, repeat-offender circumstances, they didn't). As for the possibility of the school actually blatantly committing a crime by handling it themselves, no school I know would stick their necks out that far to do "the right thing" (the "right thing" here being my first assumption about the circumstances rather than the illumnated version) so I would guess that they at least thought they were within their rights. Of course, maybe the east is just alot less shrewd than the west. Aye, that changes everything. I was thinking more along the lines of them getting caught by night security and being "handed over" to some authority figure called in. Things like that have happened often enough around the schools hereabouts to make that a pretty common process.

I'm probably a little bit of an anarchist, but I don't feel the legal way is always the best &/or most practical, or even "right" way to go about things. I'd say it all depends on whether or not the girls had the severity of the issue impressed upon them, and more importantly, upon their parents. If they eventually did suffer for it at the hands of their parents (which of course they might not have) then I'd say the school carried out the best course of action for everyone concerned, whether a valid legal route or not. i think that might be debatable as to whether or not the issue fell under the judgement of those placed in authority of the school (I am only assuming of course the principal oversaw the issue) especially considering that they were not just let off and waved away (which would have been utterly irresponsible). I think I assumed this thing happened in the dead of the night (which doesn't make it any mroe "right" on the part of the girls by any means), was it elsewhen? If it happened in the day or evening I think I'd definately have to change my outlook. Just two eh? Well then, with stats like that, I wouldn't be surprised if the school took the quietest course of action possible to avoid any racially-fueled controversy. Or maybe not. Who can tell until it happens? Repeat offenders eh? Then I say flog 'um, then call the cops. Seriously.

While I'm a fan of corporal for crimes that could potentially hurt someone (such as this) manual labor is certainly a far more realistic punishment than just giving them a week-long break. I would agree, except that it did occur on their property. I would say that gives them say as to whether or not they want to press actual charges or press the matter. And with the particular type of incident, I'd say the school's decisions and whatever punishments some of the parents might press would likely be adequate. How about, rather than saying we should mistreat everyone equally, we work at treating the gangbangers more FAIRLY... then again, rather than make them simply innocently black, you suggested they are gang-members, which suddenly changes the idea of fairness a little, doesn't it? Almost seems a little funny to me you felt you had to throw in that bit... lastly... in light of the recent events across the us, you'd have to be an idiot to just nod away at a kid who brings a projectile weapon, even a minor one, as for the girl, sexual abuse is a far cry above generic adolescent wrecklessness, and does have a direct victim, rather than just in theory.

I loved the one with the bodies, especially the crushed skull with the brain smeared out through the cracks, and the scorched AND eviscerated one, and the one where the guy's upper body was basically a lumpy reddish smear across the ground. That video had me revved up all day. "Wow, when I get a car, I'll have the power to do THAT to someone!" But yes, the school thing, it was on their property, and their students, so taking a more educational jurisdiction over the whole thing was probably just ALOT less of a hassle than going the legal route (or maybe they just did it that way because they didn't think it was bad enough to put them through the legal punishments, or yeah, maybe they were jsut cute), and I'd say what they did was within the realm of reasonability.

heh, there was a little more than that (along the sides, not central). But like like I said, not much; it was still stark and clinically unwelcoming, but it was less so than now. beh, guests schmests , purpose messages just take up space with psuedo-pretentious blithering. Hmmm... i guess the "aura" of the site is just fundementally uninteresting and bland,I just never noticed until it became more so

Yes yes, and that method is functionally adequate, but it's also more cold and sterile, just a list of titles with some stats about them. The homepage gave a good presentation of what else was going on, with the current graphs window, the news pages, important community-note threads along the side; it was more than just "current threads," I saw it as the only actual "community" page, and even it was a bit sparse and empty as far as those kinda things go. Not that I'm complaining; what's gone is gone, and that's up to the big-wigs. It's just that shrugging about it and pointing at the "current threads" page as if it's the same doesn't really do any justice to the poor, much beloved page's memory *edit* whoops, Forum Index you said, not new threads... well that's even worse, it looks nicer than the New Threads Page, but everything's so much more... "distant" to directly access and snap through

I was of the understanding that Bourgeoisie is just middle class, well-enough payed and comfortable but workin' for a livin'.

Either read a good, fast-pace book, listen to music and nap, binge in the kitchen, go to the wildlife center and just keep myself busy butchering rabbits and pigeons, hiking or swimming or maybe a short fishing trip, go out with friends and be deliquenty, or...ahem... other things.

I think they have to cover any three of several criteria to be a "vampire." Drinks blood being the key, along with sensitive skin, a garlic allergy, naturally pointy canines, nocturnal habits, and obsessive complusive disorder. Oh, and that's just to be a psuedo-vampire, to be a REAL vampire they have to have died prior to manifesting these characteristics

Aye, my lovebird is a tyrant. He has free access around the house, so he has his chosen ceiling fans that he sleeps on and cannot ever be turned on anymore, he has a very distinct "turn on the goddamned faucet" chirp... and food... he'll attack MY fork to defend his claim over MY plate and if I get in his way he'll fly up to my shoulder, shriek angrily, bite my face, then fly back for the food. And if you leave him alone in a room he'll go insane like some abadnoned toddler, no matter than he can fly anywhere in the house and back in the time it takes me to walk out of a friggin' room...

This wiki-article gives a quick review of what was done with the foxes and the general idea of it all

There does seem to be a rather large "them or us" mentality. The conservative view towards atheists that I've noticed always seems to associate them with things like satanism, communism, anarchism and fascism. There's lots of misunderstanding in there. It's a bit like associating Hades with Satan. The two are scarcely comparable in any way (Hades the god wasn't even a bad guy, and Hades the place was a whole range of underworlds with hellish and heavenly bits), but the common perceptions of them in the populace blur the distinctions, so you always see Hades depicted hellishly.

Humans have always fallen into the middle ground, between the aggressively driven common chimp and the hippie-esque bonobo, and betwen the two species, the differnce seems not to be dependent on communicative skills, but rather, upon the availability of food and resources. Bonobos, largely herbivorous, generally have easy access to plenty of food, vs a greater scarcity for the omnivorous chimpsn (a factor dependent on their environmental ranges). And while early humans (omnivorous hunter gatherers) may have been more flexible with there "dominance" status, some patriarchal, some matriarchal, some at a tribal level, some only down to the family level, a clear dominance was a pretty standard, ever-present thing. you should note that hyenas actually do interact and cooperate at a rather high and complex level, and quite effectively, even between packs. Gentler and more peaceful doesn't necessarily equate more advanced.