Every now and then I simply have to write, be it poetry or prose, and though the moments are not often the urge is most strong. I have been keeping the results under the name 'Eyes of a fool', for no particular reason other than that the phrase was stuck in my head, and so I have named this thread the same. I will post the previous results here as well as any further ones, each in its own post and with the file name (a mini-title, if you will) as well.
Comments, critiques, criticisms, condolences, questions, and the like are both welcome and appreciated, and I will respond to any I receive -- I like getting feedback of any sort. ^_^ Keep in mind that while most of these are at least based off of something felt, whether real or imagined on my part, there is also on occasion a bit of artistic license involved. ^_^'
News: ~August 18th 2022~ - (Old News)
The move has been completed successfully! Everything appears to have survived the move just fine, but if anyone finds a broken link or anything else that doesn't work as it should, please make a post in Away from the Woods to let me know, thank you.
RP News: ~November 19th 2015~ (Old RP News)
There is no current plot. The forests welcome new travelers within these lands.
Event Status: Not Active (each accepted character allowed to RP in multiple RP threads)
RP Season: Summer
This means everything is green, flowers are everywhere, and the shining sun creates a need for shady shelter on the warmest days.
The move has been completed successfully! Everything appears to have survived the move just fine, but if anyone finds a broken link or anything else that doesn't work as it should, please make a post in Away from the Woods to let me know, thank you.
RP News: ~November 19th 2015~ (Old RP News)
There is no current plot. The forests welcome new travelers within these lands.
Event Status: Not Active (each accepted character allowed to RP in multiple RP threads)
RP Season: Summer
This means everything is green, flowers are everywhere, and the shining sun creates a need for shady shelter on the warmest days.
Eyes of a fool
Moderator: forgerofsouls
-
ddpej
- Oldie
- Posts: 1181
- Joined: Sat Jul 27, 2002 10:58 pm
- Location: Wandering along the edge of a black hole
- Contact:
Eyes of a fool
"Wisdom isn't always a blessing. Sometimes it's a curse." --me
[I am always willing to help others fine-tune their RP skills. Send me a message or catch me in chat if you're interested. ^_^]
[I am always willing to help others fine-tune their RP skills. Send me a message or catch me in chat if you're interested. ^_^]
-
ddpej
- Oldie
- Posts: 1181
- Joined: Sat Jul 27, 2002 10:58 pm
- Location: Wandering along the edge of a black hole
- Contact:
lookatme.html -- Nov. 11, 2006
Watch me smile, sad eyes
Watch me sing, echoing alone in the night
Watch as I fall, drowning in darkness, sinking in sleep.
I had a dream last night, about friends and fools and danger and joy and laughter and pain and fear and smiles. I was in a room, sitting in a small booth with someone next to me, and his face kept changing. First one friend, then another, then a face I'd meant to forget, then a man I didn't recognize, then back to a friend, and so on... He was always changing faces, never one person but so many melting into and away from each other. There were others standing seven feet away, a man and a woman, and they too had no given face but many. We talked, the four of us, the twelve-and-twenty thousand people in that room, and one for me, the only face unchanging. What was said I cannot remember; it was a scholarly sort of conversation intermingled with memories and experiences. We spoke and listened in order to learn, to understand. We were smiling, laughing, shadowed pain in our voices and eyes. I didn't understand it but I could feel fear and sadness, danger, and it touched me as well as the thousand-in-three. I felt closest to the one sitting next to me, the many faces there; he had fewer faces than the others; he seemed a friend, one I could trust. I felt safe sitting there next to him, comfortable for all that we were pressed against each other in the small cramped booth. The standing two had a darker glint in their eyes, not necessarily dangerous or mean but with the potential to hurt, and they did not come close. They smiled as I did, and as the hundred next to me did, and the darkness was in my own eyes as well as theirs; nothing flared between us and no harm would have been done to let them closer but they did not try and I did not invite; we kept our distance. Through the night, the dream, we talked; we laughed and smiled and nodded; we felt sorrow and joy alike, and the danger and pain lurked beneath it all. I remember we grew quiet once, words fading and the darkness shifting and rising; we saw it all of us and looked at it with calm eyes (my own seemed resigned, theirs accepting -- the difference struck me), and it settled back down with a sigh more felt than heard. At the end, the scholarly discussion drew to a close naturally and I rose, my companions and I meeting at the center of the room. The room began to fade, the booth disappearing, the edges of vision and senses gradually blurring away. The two and hundreds who had remained standing seven feet away while we talked drew near now at the end, coming just near enough to reach out a hand and touch me; fingers brushed my forehead light as a feather and they were gone from my dimming sight. The other, the hundred-in-one who sat by my side, came closer still; his many eyes and faces smiled a little at me with sadness; he put his hand on my shoulder and left the gentlest of kisses on my forehead; a whispered word seemed almost a blessing and he too vanished from my fading sight; a moment later, all was dark and I awoke.
It seems even now a most peculiar dream. It hasn't faded from memory, as most of my dreams do within minutes of waking. Truth be told, it will not leave my mind. What is the meaning behind it? Is there any at all? There seems a religious feel to it, and indeed this morning I have begun rereading the Bible through -- a task I completed many years ago and did not think I would do again. It would seem this urge is connected to the dream, but I cannot seem to make sense of it...
Look at the mild eyes, touched by confusion, hesitating, unsure
Look at the smile, soft and sad and small
Look at me...
Watch me sing, echoing alone in the night
Watch as I fall, drowning in darkness, sinking in sleep.
I had a dream last night, about friends and fools and danger and joy and laughter and pain and fear and smiles. I was in a room, sitting in a small booth with someone next to me, and his face kept changing. First one friend, then another, then a face I'd meant to forget, then a man I didn't recognize, then back to a friend, and so on... He was always changing faces, never one person but so many melting into and away from each other. There were others standing seven feet away, a man and a woman, and they too had no given face but many. We talked, the four of us, the twelve-and-twenty thousand people in that room, and one for me, the only face unchanging. What was said I cannot remember; it was a scholarly sort of conversation intermingled with memories and experiences. We spoke and listened in order to learn, to understand. We were smiling, laughing, shadowed pain in our voices and eyes. I didn't understand it but I could feel fear and sadness, danger, and it touched me as well as the thousand-in-three. I felt closest to the one sitting next to me, the many faces there; he had fewer faces than the others; he seemed a friend, one I could trust. I felt safe sitting there next to him, comfortable for all that we were pressed against each other in the small cramped booth. The standing two had a darker glint in their eyes, not necessarily dangerous or mean but with the potential to hurt, and they did not come close. They smiled as I did, and as the hundred next to me did, and the darkness was in my own eyes as well as theirs; nothing flared between us and no harm would have been done to let them closer but they did not try and I did not invite; we kept our distance. Through the night, the dream, we talked; we laughed and smiled and nodded; we felt sorrow and joy alike, and the danger and pain lurked beneath it all. I remember we grew quiet once, words fading and the darkness shifting and rising; we saw it all of us and looked at it with calm eyes (my own seemed resigned, theirs accepting -- the difference struck me), and it settled back down with a sigh more felt than heard. At the end, the scholarly discussion drew to a close naturally and I rose, my companions and I meeting at the center of the room. The room began to fade, the booth disappearing, the edges of vision and senses gradually blurring away. The two and hundreds who had remained standing seven feet away while we talked drew near now at the end, coming just near enough to reach out a hand and touch me; fingers brushed my forehead light as a feather and they were gone from my dimming sight. The other, the hundred-in-one who sat by my side, came closer still; his many eyes and faces smiled a little at me with sadness; he put his hand on my shoulder and left the gentlest of kisses on my forehead; a whispered word seemed almost a blessing and he too vanished from my fading sight; a moment later, all was dark and I awoke.
It seems even now a most peculiar dream. It hasn't faded from memory, as most of my dreams do within minutes of waking. Truth be told, it will not leave my mind. What is the meaning behind it? Is there any at all? There seems a religious feel to it, and indeed this morning I have begun rereading the Bible through -- a task I completed many years ago and did not think I would do again. It would seem this urge is connected to the dream, but I cannot seem to make sense of it...
Look at the mild eyes, touched by confusion, hesitating, unsure
Look at the smile, soft and sad and small
Look at me...
Last edited by ddpej on Fri Jul 24, 2009 8:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Wisdom isn't always a blessing. Sometimes it's a curse." --me
[I am always willing to help others fine-tune their RP skills. Send me a message or catch me in chat if you're interested. ^_^]
[I am always willing to help others fine-tune their RP skills. Send me a message or catch me in chat if you're interested. ^_^]
-
ddpej
- Oldie
- Posts: 1181
- Joined: Sat Jul 27, 2002 10:58 pm
- Location: Wandering along the edge of a black hole
- Contact:
gift.html -- Dec. 21, 2006
Someone once asked me why I never let anyone, particularly guys, do anything nice for me. At the time, I didn't have a good answer. I won't say it's good, but I think I at least have an answer now.
I shy away from help and gifts and such because it's what I want. Most of the time, I would love to have somebody taking care of me, protecting me, and so on. But I am instinctively aware (or merely afraid, perhaps) that if it were to happen, I would swiftly become a spoiled brat. I would take advantage of the fact that said guy was willing to do all this, and that would be neither fair nor right.
I'm just like everyone else. I inherently like gifts, and I like the feeling of having someone who is there for me when I need it (and when I don't). It's a definite perk of being in a relationship...and a perk I rarely, if ever, let myself enjoy. I don't want it to be something I'm used to, something I depend on, and so I fight it. I don't let my friends pay for me when we go out to a movie, or a restaurant, or bowling, or whatever the case may be. I don't typically let people do things for me, even little things like opening doors and such, and when I do, I feel weird about it. It's silly, naturally, but still true.
I've gotten better at accepting it when someone insists, but even now I don't usually manage to accept gracefully. I would much rather do things for others than allow others to do things for me. You see, at the same time that I want someone to care for me, I also want to protect and watch out for everyone else. I am fiercely protective of my friends, and I keep an eye out for everyone, even complete strangers. I can't, however, do the same for myself -- and still I continue to try, feeling as though it is a major flaw, a weakness.
In my deeper moments of reflection, I can admit that it's no fatal character flaw but simply a balancing factor. Usually, though, I am unable to admit this to myself, or often simply unable to believe it. Therein lies the actual flaw, of course, bringing a nice bit of irony to the whole situation.
The fact that I am naturally stubborn doesn't help at all, as you might expect. Once I choose an action, I am very rarely swayed from my course. This can be both good and bad, depending on the circumstances. More often than not, my stubborn streak gets me into trouble due to the simple fact that when I get stubborn all common sense and rationality has a tendency to go flying away on vacation. For a person whose greatest strength is in her mind, this in most cases is not beneficial. The case discussed above is, as I mentioned, one such example...
I will watch and guide and protect you
I will hold and guard you at no cost
And I will ask nothing of you
My love I give freely
To friends and foes and strangers
I gather all those I meet under my wings
I am no hero, no angel, no god
I am merely a young woman
With a large heart
Who cannot
Focus.
It is harder to take than to give.
I shy away from help and gifts and such because it's what I want. Most of the time, I would love to have somebody taking care of me, protecting me, and so on. But I am instinctively aware (or merely afraid, perhaps) that if it were to happen, I would swiftly become a spoiled brat. I would take advantage of the fact that said guy was willing to do all this, and that would be neither fair nor right.
I'm just like everyone else. I inherently like gifts, and I like the feeling of having someone who is there for me when I need it (and when I don't). It's a definite perk of being in a relationship...and a perk I rarely, if ever, let myself enjoy. I don't want it to be something I'm used to, something I depend on, and so I fight it. I don't let my friends pay for me when we go out to a movie, or a restaurant, or bowling, or whatever the case may be. I don't typically let people do things for me, even little things like opening doors and such, and when I do, I feel weird about it. It's silly, naturally, but still true.
I've gotten better at accepting it when someone insists, but even now I don't usually manage to accept gracefully. I would much rather do things for others than allow others to do things for me. You see, at the same time that I want someone to care for me, I also want to protect and watch out for everyone else. I am fiercely protective of my friends, and I keep an eye out for everyone, even complete strangers. I can't, however, do the same for myself -- and still I continue to try, feeling as though it is a major flaw, a weakness.
In my deeper moments of reflection, I can admit that it's no fatal character flaw but simply a balancing factor. Usually, though, I am unable to admit this to myself, or often simply unable to believe it. Therein lies the actual flaw, of course, bringing a nice bit of irony to the whole situation.
The fact that I am naturally stubborn doesn't help at all, as you might expect. Once I choose an action, I am very rarely swayed from my course. This can be both good and bad, depending on the circumstances. More often than not, my stubborn streak gets me into trouble due to the simple fact that when I get stubborn all common sense and rationality has a tendency to go flying away on vacation. For a person whose greatest strength is in her mind, this in most cases is not beneficial. The case discussed above is, as I mentioned, one such example...
I will watch and guide and protect you
I will hold and guard you at no cost
And I will ask nothing of you
My love I give freely
To friends and foes and strangers
I gather all those I meet under my wings
I am no hero, no angel, no god
I am merely a young woman
With a large heart
Who cannot
Focus.
It is harder to take than to give.
Last edited by ddpej on Fri Jul 24, 2009 8:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Wisdom isn't always a blessing. Sometimes it's a curse." --me
[I am always willing to help others fine-tune their RP skills. Send me a message or catch me in chat if you're interested. ^_^]
[I am always willing to help others fine-tune their RP skills. Send me a message or catch me in chat if you're interested. ^_^]
-
ddpej
- Oldie
- Posts: 1181
- Joined: Sat Jul 27, 2002 10:58 pm
- Location: Wandering along the edge of a black hole
- Contact:
brokenheart.html -- Jan 11, 2007
I have a broken heart.
No, no, not like that. Don't be silly.
I'm not heart-broken. I just have a heart that doesn't work quite properly.
I know, you don't understand. I suppose, if you want, I could try to explain...
It's tricky, you know. Hard to describe.
I always fall for friends. Not just friends, but close friends.
Yeah, nothing wrong with that. I know. But the thing about my close friends is, we're close like family. Like brother and sister. Or at least, that's how they see it.
So they go off and find girlfriends, and bring them back for introductions and all that good stuff. Not a problem, I can handle that. It's certainly nothing I'm not used to.
Though, I admit, it's a little awkward being surrounded by your friends and their dates when you're single. But I digress.
I say my heart is broken because when I'm watching my friends with their girls on their arms, I don't get jealous. I don't cry, or get mad, or any of that.
I smile. I feel empty and sad and lonely and thrilled that they're happy, and I smile with no trace of pain in my eyes at all.
You can't tell me that's normal.
So yes, my heart is broken, but that's ok.
I'd rather they were happy anyway.
I'll just keep on smiling.
No, no, not like that. Don't be silly.
I'm not heart-broken. I just have a heart that doesn't work quite properly.
I know, you don't understand. I suppose, if you want, I could try to explain...
It's tricky, you know. Hard to describe.
I always fall for friends. Not just friends, but close friends.
Yeah, nothing wrong with that. I know. But the thing about my close friends is, we're close like family. Like brother and sister. Or at least, that's how they see it.
So they go off and find girlfriends, and bring them back for introductions and all that good stuff. Not a problem, I can handle that. It's certainly nothing I'm not used to.
Though, I admit, it's a little awkward being surrounded by your friends and their dates when you're single. But I digress.
I say my heart is broken because when I'm watching my friends with their girls on their arms, I don't get jealous. I don't cry, or get mad, or any of that.
I smile. I feel empty and sad and lonely and thrilled that they're happy, and I smile with no trace of pain in my eyes at all.
You can't tell me that's normal.
So yes, my heart is broken, but that's ok.
I'd rather they were happy anyway.
I'll just keep on smiling.
Last edited by ddpej on Fri Jul 24, 2009 8:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Wisdom isn't always a blessing. Sometimes it's a curse." --me
[I am always willing to help others fine-tune their RP skills. Send me a message or catch me in chat if you're interested. ^_^]
[I am always willing to help others fine-tune their RP skills. Send me a message or catch me in chat if you're interested. ^_^]
-
ddpej
- Oldie
- Posts: 1181
- Joined: Sat Jul 27, 2002 10:58 pm
- Location: Wandering along the edge of a black hole
- Contact:
flames.html -- Mar 07, 2007
An old love spoke to me tonight
We've spoken little since the split
It's been a while, we both have changed,
But we both still know the buttons to hit...
What is it about some people that forces them to always find a way to fight? I'm glad he's willing to talk to me again; I was afraid he would be too mad and hurt to do so. Nevertheless, and even now that it's just idle chatter, he still manages to turn everything said into an argument. What's the point? I don't understand. He knows there are topics we don't agree on; there always have been, and they always caused a battle because he couldn't accept that his opinion wasn't right... How, pray tell, can an opinion be right or wrong? That is the beauty of opinions -- everyone has their own, and there is no 'right' or 'wrong' involved, only a difference in how you look at things. And even if an opinion could be 'right', what on earth makes him think it's always his? I may not express my opinions loudly or without being pushed, but by the same token, I don't tend to talk freely either. The fact that I am a quiet individual does not render my opinions any less valid; nor does it mean that I will stand back and allow anyone to tear them down because they do not agree. Does that make me unreasonable, as he used to tell me so often? I think not...but if there is any person who wishes to believe I am, that is their right, and I will not say they are wrong or I am right. It is hardly an important enough matter to warrant an agument, after all, and yet I can remember defending my position on the matter many times in the past, against fierce and angry opposition. There are many things I did in our time together that I am willing to apologize for; I'm afraid, however, that refusing to allow him to stomp down my personal view on the world is not one of them. We saw things differently, he and I...the difference was large enough to drive us apart, though we clung to each other for far longer than we ought to have done, as I think we both realize now, months later. We -- and I must include myself, for I am ashamed to admit I partook in this too -- were continuously attempting to bring the other around to our point of view, rather than learning to let our opinions and views coexist. Was it wrong of me to end things as I did? I do not regret the ending; only the method by which it was done, and the pain it caused him. Had I been wiser, I would have gone about it differently, and perhaps then we both would have hurt less in the jagged emptiness that followed. I at least had fast new friends to help me along...he did not. I knew it at the time I hurt him so, and I saw the results, and for that much I truly was and am sorry. The breaking itself, however, I cannot apologize for, despite the pain...and if that is a fault or weakness on my part, my eyes do not see it as such.
Perhaps I am a silly child,
Still too young to know the rules,
Or perhaps I've merely learned the art
Of looking through the eyes of fools...
We've spoken little since the split
It's been a while, we both have changed,
But we both still know the buttons to hit...
What is it about some people that forces them to always find a way to fight? I'm glad he's willing to talk to me again; I was afraid he would be too mad and hurt to do so. Nevertheless, and even now that it's just idle chatter, he still manages to turn everything said into an argument. What's the point? I don't understand. He knows there are topics we don't agree on; there always have been, and they always caused a battle because he couldn't accept that his opinion wasn't right... How, pray tell, can an opinion be right or wrong? That is the beauty of opinions -- everyone has their own, and there is no 'right' or 'wrong' involved, only a difference in how you look at things. And even if an opinion could be 'right', what on earth makes him think it's always his? I may not express my opinions loudly or without being pushed, but by the same token, I don't tend to talk freely either. The fact that I am a quiet individual does not render my opinions any less valid; nor does it mean that I will stand back and allow anyone to tear them down because they do not agree. Does that make me unreasonable, as he used to tell me so often? I think not...but if there is any person who wishes to believe I am, that is their right, and I will not say they are wrong or I am right. It is hardly an important enough matter to warrant an agument, after all, and yet I can remember defending my position on the matter many times in the past, against fierce and angry opposition. There are many things I did in our time together that I am willing to apologize for; I'm afraid, however, that refusing to allow him to stomp down my personal view on the world is not one of them. We saw things differently, he and I...the difference was large enough to drive us apart, though we clung to each other for far longer than we ought to have done, as I think we both realize now, months later. We -- and I must include myself, for I am ashamed to admit I partook in this too -- were continuously attempting to bring the other around to our point of view, rather than learning to let our opinions and views coexist. Was it wrong of me to end things as I did? I do not regret the ending; only the method by which it was done, and the pain it caused him. Had I been wiser, I would have gone about it differently, and perhaps then we both would have hurt less in the jagged emptiness that followed. I at least had fast new friends to help me along...he did not. I knew it at the time I hurt him so, and I saw the results, and for that much I truly was and am sorry. The breaking itself, however, I cannot apologize for, despite the pain...and if that is a fault or weakness on my part, my eyes do not see it as such.
Perhaps I am a silly child,
Still too young to know the rules,
Or perhaps I've merely learned the art
Of looking through the eyes of fools...
Last edited by ddpej on Fri Jul 24, 2009 8:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Wisdom isn't always a blessing. Sometimes it's a curse." --me
[I am always willing to help others fine-tune their RP skills. Send me a message or catch me in chat if you're interested. ^_^]
[I am always willing to help others fine-tune their RP skills. Send me a message or catch me in chat if you're interested. ^_^]
-
ddpej
- Oldie
- Posts: 1181
- Joined: Sat Jul 27, 2002 10:58 pm
- Location: Wandering along the edge of a black hole
- Contact:
world.html -- Apr 18, 2007
I am living in five worlds.
I have a world online, a world I left and returned to, a world of games and creatures and characters and imagination.
I have a world at school, a part-time world, of classes and students and homework and brain-strain.
I have a world at work, the other half of school, a world of paychecks and office hours and machines and adults.
I have a world twenty miles away, an old world somehow new, back in my hometown, of music and laughter and smiles and wonder.
I have a world in my own mind, confused and undefined, powerful and blind, a world of dreams and songs and wishes and words.
Some worlds are more familiar than others. Some feel more natural. Some feel easier than the others. And some...some have an undercurrent of what can only be described as a sense of wrongness, faint and hidden.
The five are fighting within me. I am fighting within them. I am fighting within myself. I am fighting for balance, for a sense of control, for my life as I know it, and I am falling.
Can I balance five worlds at once? Is it too much for me to handle? I am strong for others' sake, and my strength is my weakness...
How high could I climb? How long can I fight? How far can I fall?
Can anyone catch me if I'm falling away from everything?
Can anyone catch me at all?
How far will I fall?
I have a world online, a world I left and returned to, a world of games and creatures and characters and imagination.
I have a world at school, a part-time world, of classes and students and homework and brain-strain.
I have a world at work, the other half of school, a world of paychecks and office hours and machines and adults.
I have a world twenty miles away, an old world somehow new, back in my hometown, of music and laughter and smiles and wonder.
I have a world in my own mind, confused and undefined, powerful and blind, a world of dreams and songs and wishes and words.
Some worlds are more familiar than others. Some feel more natural. Some feel easier than the others. And some...some have an undercurrent of what can only be described as a sense of wrongness, faint and hidden.
The five are fighting within me. I am fighting within them. I am fighting within myself. I am fighting for balance, for a sense of control, for my life as I know it, and I am falling.
Can I balance five worlds at once? Is it too much for me to handle? I am strong for others' sake, and my strength is my weakness...
How high could I climb? How long can I fight? How far can I fall?
Can anyone catch me if I'm falling away from everything?
Can anyone catch me at all?
How far will I fall?
"Wisdom isn't always a blessing. Sometimes it's a curse." --me
[I am always willing to help others fine-tune their RP skills. Send me a message or catch me in chat if you're interested. ^_^]
[I am always willing to help others fine-tune their RP skills. Send me a message or catch me in chat if you're interested. ^_^]
-
ddpej
- Oldie
- Posts: 1181
- Joined: Sat Jul 27, 2002 10:58 pm
- Location: Wandering along the edge of a black hole
- Contact:
Re: Eyes of a fool
Also posted (in proper formatting, even) here and mentioned in a dA journal. As stated both places, I would love to have someone tear into this. Anything goes, though if you might push UV rules I suggest you comment on one of the other sites or through PM to avoid any hassles.
_______________________________________
I am a female.
I believe every person has the right to disagree with me.
I believe I have no reason to believe in the existence of a deity.
I believe that living cells are not of themselves equivalent to a life.
I believe the concept of souls is fully emotional and should be discarded.
I believe abortion should be legal and readily available, no questions asked.
I believe that religious beliefs are not a valid basis from which to form laws.
I believe my personal preferences cannot and should not be used to judge others.
I believe that all scales and labels have gradients which should be acknowledged.
I believe every individual deserves individual evaluation without preemptive bias.
I believe that generalizations can be useful but should never trump individuality.
I believe homo-, bi-, and asexuality are as natural and healthy as heterosexuality.
I believe the size of a paycheck says nothing about the worth of the person or job.
I don't believe in limiting safe, informed sex between consenting unmarried adults.
I don't believe getting married or having kids is any more crucial to life than TV.
I don't believe anybody is more qualified to judge the quality of my life than me.
I don't believe a person's religious beliefs are a reliable indicator of morality.
I don't believe animal research and the consumption of animal products are wrong.
I don't believe that having the ability to do something means it should be done.
I don't believe my status as a woman can be lessened by my choices and beliefs.
I don't believe that I need to change who I am in order to be worthy of love.
I don't believe a child must have one mother and one father to be healthy.
I don't believe death should be feared, revered, hated, or trivialized.
I don't believe there is more harm in words than in their context.
I don't believe in choices without cost-benefit analyses.
I don't shave.
_______________________________________
What, if anything, sets your goats on fire here?
_______________________________________
I am a female.
I believe every person has the right to disagree with me.
I believe I have no reason to believe in the existence of a deity.
I believe that living cells are not of themselves equivalent to a life.
I believe the concept of souls is fully emotional and should be discarded.
I believe abortion should be legal and readily available, no questions asked.
I believe that religious beliefs are not a valid basis from which to form laws.
I believe my personal preferences cannot and should not be used to judge others.
I believe that all scales and labels have gradients which should be acknowledged.
I believe every individual deserves individual evaluation without preemptive bias.
I believe that generalizations can be useful but should never trump individuality.
I believe homo-, bi-, and asexuality are as natural and healthy as heterosexuality.
I believe the size of a paycheck says nothing about the worth of the person or job.
I don't believe in limiting safe, informed sex between consenting unmarried adults.
I don't believe getting married or having kids is any more crucial to life than TV.
I don't believe anybody is more qualified to judge the quality of my life than me.
I don't believe a person's religious beliefs are a reliable indicator of morality.
I don't believe animal research and the consumption of animal products are wrong.
I don't believe that having the ability to do something means it should be done.
I don't believe my status as a woman can be lessened by my choices and beliefs.
I don't believe that I need to change who I am in order to be worthy of love.
I don't believe a child must have one mother and one father to be healthy.
I don't believe death should be feared, revered, hated, or trivialized.
I don't believe there is more harm in words than in their context.
I don't believe in choices without cost-benefit analyses.
I don't shave.
_______________________________________
What, if anything, sets your goats on fire here?
"Wisdom isn't always a blessing. Sometimes it's a curse." --me
[I am always willing to help others fine-tune their RP skills. Send me a message or catch me in chat if you're interested. ^_^]
[I am always willing to help others fine-tune their RP skills. Send me a message or catch me in chat if you're interested. ^_^]
-
forgerofsouls
- Moderator
- Posts: 1160
- Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2008 4:30 am
- Location: America
Re: Eyes of a fool
So you like to hear some feedback? Ok, I'll give what feedback I can give than...in basically the same order that you have things listed...of course, I have no need to comment on you being a female....thats comman knowledge.
Yes, everyone has the right to their own opinions, and this can and often does lead to disagreements between people. And its a good way to think that people have the right to disagree with others, to do so otherwise would be rude.
Believing in a diety or anything like that is purely a choice, and thus should not be forced on others....now if only religious people would figure that one out themselves...
I agree with you on the living cells bit.
Never thought of it that way, I shall have to meditate on this, and by meditate, I mean drink heavily till I'm drunk so I don't care either way...
I agree with you on abortion, it is after all the mother's choice to carry the unborn baby to full term or not, not the governments, not religions, not anyone else but the mother.
I highly agree with you on that laws should not be based off of religious beliefs and what not.
Your personal preferences are yours and yours alone, thus no one should be using them to judge others.
By scales and labels, you mean the ones that people apply to others? If so, than yes, such things do have gradients that need to be acknowledged.
In otherwords, judge a person on who they are and not using some sort of biased opinion or sterotype? I will have to agree with that one. To do otherwise is not really thinking for oneself, and is more akin to following the rest of the lemmings.
Generalization and simplification and individuality are all useful in their own ways, and none of them should trump any of the others.
I to believe that homosexuality, bisexuality are as natural as heterosexuality.
A person's paycheck means nothing other than they get payed alot, whether they deserve such a paycheck or not, well, thats a whole nothing question and line of thinking.
In otherwords, you don't agree with how the government's current form of sex-ed is about abstenance, and instead they should be teaching them about how to have safe sex, so that they can make informed safe sex descisions as adults?
Being married and having kids is indeed not a crucial thing to do in life, but for many, especially older people, it is critical to them for their children and granchildren to marry and have kids, so that they may enjoy being a granparent/great-grandparent.
The saying I believe goes something like this: You are your own worse critic. Which basically means that no one can really truelly know you, and thus can never truelly be able to judge you.
Religion in itself is a set of rules on how one is supposed to be moral, but fails in doing so because people do often misunderstand what their own dieties are saying, thus the reason for many terrorist attacks for a long time. Example, the bombings of abortion clinics since the...70s...80s?...not sure which, but they were all done by religious people, majority of them done by christians to, this is because they do not truelly understand what their own god is actually teaching them. Thus religion is not a good way to set ones morals.
All I have to say is that it depends on the animal for research, and what the research is. The consumption of animal products is not wrong, rather it is for survival. And plus it helps control certain animal's from becoming to populated and thus disturbing the delicate balance of nature...which mankind is disturbing anyways.
Having the ability to do something does not mean you should do it, at least not it doing it would be a dangerous thing to do. Plus having the ability to do something does not mean you have the capacity to do it right, or successfuly.
You are who you are, your status as a woman has nothing to do with your choices or beliefs.
If a person can't love you for who you are, than they are the messed up ones.
I grew up without a father, and for the most part I was a healthy child. After all, I had the rest of my family.
Death is a natural part of life and thus, I'll be damned if anyone mourns or cries at my funeral. They shall, instead of mourning my passing, celebrate the life I had. I had long accepted death into my life.
Words are words, and thus it is how a person takes them that determines how harmful or not they are. At its base, they have no power to harm a person, unless the reciever of the words chooses to be harmed by the words.
You mean that you don't believe in making a blind choice, instead you would only choose after analysing the costs of the choices and the benifits of the choices? An interesting way to do things, but for some, this means taking to much time to make a choice, when there is no real time to analyse such information. Thus even making choices without a cost-benifit analyse is needed and shouldn't be abondoned.
To shave or not to shave, that is question that each person answers in their own way. And thus, it is an individual's decision at best, and an individual's decision at worse. No more, no less.
In the end of everything, no mater how you look at things, morality, opinions, words, anything and everything, all that matters is perception and how an individual percives something. A picture is worth a thousand words, but what those words are is different to each individual. Many times, I do infact believe that I am dreaming up everything that is going on around me, at other times, I feel like I'm inside of someone else's dream, and still at other times, I feel like I am truelly living in reality.
A person can smile whenever they want, they don't need a reason to smile. To be told otherwise, only the one telling you that there has to be a reason for a smile is the fool. And thus, the smiling fool, the one that can smile regardless, is the one that wins in the end. But what, exactly is the end? Is the end, the end of the smile, the second, the minute, the hour, the day, the week, the month, the year, the decade, the person's life, or something else? I for one believe that there is no end, and thus even in death throught out all times, I will be smiling.
Yes, everyone has the right to their own opinions, and this can and often does lead to disagreements between people. And its a good way to think that people have the right to disagree with others, to do so otherwise would be rude.
Believing in a diety or anything like that is purely a choice, and thus should not be forced on others....now if only religious people would figure that one out themselves...
I agree with you on the living cells bit.
Never thought of it that way, I shall have to meditate on this, and by meditate, I mean drink heavily till I'm drunk so I don't care either way...
I agree with you on abortion, it is after all the mother's choice to carry the unborn baby to full term or not, not the governments, not religions, not anyone else but the mother.
I highly agree with you on that laws should not be based off of religious beliefs and what not.
Your personal preferences are yours and yours alone, thus no one should be using them to judge others.
By scales and labels, you mean the ones that people apply to others? If so, than yes, such things do have gradients that need to be acknowledged.
In otherwords, judge a person on who they are and not using some sort of biased opinion or sterotype? I will have to agree with that one. To do otherwise is not really thinking for oneself, and is more akin to following the rest of the lemmings.
Generalization and simplification and individuality are all useful in their own ways, and none of them should trump any of the others.
I to believe that homosexuality, bisexuality are as natural as heterosexuality.
A person's paycheck means nothing other than they get payed alot, whether they deserve such a paycheck or not, well, thats a whole nothing question and line of thinking.
In otherwords, you don't agree with how the government's current form of sex-ed is about abstenance, and instead they should be teaching them about how to have safe sex, so that they can make informed safe sex descisions as adults?
Being married and having kids is indeed not a crucial thing to do in life, but for many, especially older people, it is critical to them for their children and granchildren to marry and have kids, so that they may enjoy being a granparent/great-grandparent.
The saying I believe goes something like this: You are your own worse critic. Which basically means that no one can really truelly know you, and thus can never truelly be able to judge you.
Religion in itself is a set of rules on how one is supposed to be moral, but fails in doing so because people do often misunderstand what their own dieties are saying, thus the reason for many terrorist attacks for a long time. Example, the bombings of abortion clinics since the...70s...80s?...not sure which, but they were all done by religious people, majority of them done by christians to, this is because they do not truelly understand what their own god is actually teaching them. Thus religion is not a good way to set ones morals.
All I have to say is that it depends on the animal for research, and what the research is. The consumption of animal products is not wrong, rather it is for survival. And plus it helps control certain animal's from becoming to populated and thus disturbing the delicate balance of nature...which mankind is disturbing anyways.
Having the ability to do something does not mean you should do it, at least not it doing it would be a dangerous thing to do. Plus having the ability to do something does not mean you have the capacity to do it right, or successfuly.
You are who you are, your status as a woman has nothing to do with your choices or beliefs.
If a person can't love you for who you are, than they are the messed up ones.
I grew up without a father, and for the most part I was a healthy child. After all, I had the rest of my family.
Death is a natural part of life and thus, I'll be damned if anyone mourns or cries at my funeral. They shall, instead of mourning my passing, celebrate the life I had. I had long accepted death into my life.
Words are words, and thus it is how a person takes them that determines how harmful or not they are. At its base, they have no power to harm a person, unless the reciever of the words chooses to be harmed by the words.
You mean that you don't believe in making a blind choice, instead you would only choose after analysing the costs of the choices and the benifits of the choices? An interesting way to do things, but for some, this means taking to much time to make a choice, when there is no real time to analyse such information. Thus even making choices without a cost-benifit analyse is needed and shouldn't be abondoned.
To shave or not to shave, that is question that each person answers in their own way. And thus, it is an individual's decision at best, and an individual's decision at worse. No more, no less.
In the end of everything, no mater how you look at things, morality, opinions, words, anything and everything, all that matters is perception and how an individual percives something. A picture is worth a thousand words, but what those words are is different to each individual. Many times, I do infact believe that I am dreaming up everything that is going on around me, at other times, I feel like I'm inside of someone else's dream, and still at other times, I feel like I am truelly living in reality.
A person can smile whenever they want, they don't need a reason to smile. To be told otherwise, only the one telling you that there has to be a reason for a smile is the fool. And thus, the smiling fool, the one that can smile regardless, is the one that wins in the end. But what, exactly is the end? Is the end, the end of the smile, the second, the minute, the hour, the day, the week, the month, the year, the decade, the person's life, or something else? I for one believe that there is no end, and thus even in death throught out all times, I will be smiling.
There are so very many dramatic ways that vast, incomprehensible galactic phenomena can kill you, that every single day that you go unmurdered by space is a miracle.
Sugar and Spice do not mix well at times! So says many of my characters after the chocolate fiasco.
Sugar and Spice do not mix well at times! So says many of my characters after the chocolate fiasco.
-
ddpej
- Oldie
- Posts: 1181
- Joined: Sat Jul 27, 2002 10:58 pm
- Location: Wandering along the edge of a black hole
- Contact:
Re: Eyes of a fool
Thanks for replying, Forge. I don't have much time here, so this is just a drive-by hit between finals to respond to the questions raised and make some clarifications.
______________
I'd be interested to hear any thoughts you might have on the souls point, if you do take time to think on it, as that seems to have generated the most discussion so far. I suspect a certain level of skewed exposure on my part is complicating things, so the more perspectives I can get, the better.
By scales and labels, I mean both the ones that are applied to others and the ones that are applied to oneself. Not much of a distinction, but it's been my experience that people don't think of what they call themselves as labels proper, whereas I do still count that.
On the individual evaluation: yes, in essence. I'm strongly of the opinion that to let bias, stereotypes, another person's interpretation of someone, etc. determine your opinion of that someone before you have given them and yourself a chance to form your own conclusions is unfair to that person in any number of ways.
I will most certainly let individuality trump simplification and especially generalizations in cases dealing with individuals or a small group. When discussing a large group, I will use generalizations and some simplification more because in most cases I'm then looking at trends and averages rather than individuals.
I don't agree that abstinence is the ideal form of sex-ed, and I also don't support the heavy religious and societal/cultural background (at least in my experience) that tends to lean very heavily not only on the abstinence issue but the stigma thereby associated with sex between those who aren't married. Related but not explicitly stated: I'm also rather confused as to why anyone would think that sex would not be a potential problem in a marriage and should never be explored beforehand. Which isn't to say that it will be a problem and should always be test-driven, as it were, but just that it could be and that the option should not be restricted if both parties so desire.
I'm not entirely sure where you're going with the children thing -- are you suggesting that a person should consider having children for their parents' sake, when that grandparental desire is present, or merely that the parents' desires for grandchildren might perhaps be the final weight for someone who is otherwise not inclined in either direction? Or perhaps that a person considering whether or not to have children should be thinking of whether or not they may want grandchildren in the future, which is a bit difficult to obtain in the usual manner without first birthing kids of their own? Or something else entirely?
When I say animal research isn't wrong, I don't mean that every kind of animal research is valid and necessary and that ani.research of any sort should be given a free pass. Only that it is not inherently wrong, such that all forms of it should be eradicated without fail. Research of any kind, be it on animals, humans, plants, or bricks, should be evaluated beforehand to ensure the most effective, cost-efficient, procedurally valid, least harm, ethical testing possible.
On choices: I mean that all choices to be made have an associated cost-benefit analysis. I don't think that analysis must be conscious and deliberate; for many people, the vast majority are not. I also don't think that such an analysis has to be made for every choice -- only that the analysis is there to be made, if desired (and choosing not to make that analysis is itself a form of C/B analysis wherein the cost of making the full analysis is outweighed by the perceived benefit of not doing so).
______________
I'd be interested to hear any thoughts you might have on the souls point, if you do take time to think on it, as that seems to have generated the most discussion so far. I suspect a certain level of skewed exposure on my part is complicating things, so the more perspectives I can get, the better.
By scales and labels, I mean both the ones that are applied to others and the ones that are applied to oneself. Not much of a distinction, but it's been my experience that people don't think of what they call themselves as labels proper, whereas I do still count that.
On the individual evaluation: yes, in essence. I'm strongly of the opinion that to let bias, stereotypes, another person's interpretation of someone, etc. determine your opinion of that someone before you have given them and yourself a chance to form your own conclusions is unfair to that person in any number of ways.
I will most certainly let individuality trump simplification and especially generalizations in cases dealing with individuals or a small group. When discussing a large group, I will use generalizations and some simplification more because in most cases I'm then looking at trends and averages rather than individuals.
I don't agree that abstinence is the ideal form of sex-ed, and I also don't support the heavy religious and societal/cultural background (at least in my experience) that tends to lean very heavily not only on the abstinence issue but the stigma thereby associated with sex between those who aren't married. Related but not explicitly stated: I'm also rather confused as to why anyone would think that sex would not be a potential problem in a marriage and should never be explored beforehand. Which isn't to say that it will be a problem and should always be test-driven, as it were, but just that it could be and that the option should not be restricted if both parties so desire.
I'm not entirely sure where you're going with the children thing -- are you suggesting that a person should consider having children for their parents' sake, when that grandparental desire is present, or merely that the parents' desires for grandchildren might perhaps be the final weight for someone who is otherwise not inclined in either direction? Or perhaps that a person considering whether or not to have children should be thinking of whether or not they may want grandchildren in the future, which is a bit difficult to obtain in the usual manner without first birthing kids of their own? Or something else entirely?
When I say animal research isn't wrong, I don't mean that every kind of animal research is valid and necessary and that ani.research of any sort should be given a free pass. Only that it is not inherently wrong, such that all forms of it should be eradicated without fail. Research of any kind, be it on animals, humans, plants, or bricks, should be evaluated beforehand to ensure the most effective, cost-efficient, procedurally valid, least harm, ethical testing possible.
On choices: I mean that all choices to be made have an associated cost-benefit analysis. I don't think that analysis must be conscious and deliberate; for many people, the vast majority are not. I also don't think that such an analysis has to be made for every choice -- only that the analysis is there to be made, if desired (and choosing not to make that analysis is itself a form of C/B analysis wherein the cost of making the full analysis is outweighed by the perceived benefit of not doing so).
"Wisdom isn't always a blessing. Sometimes it's a curse." --me
[I am always willing to help others fine-tune their RP skills. Send me a message or catch me in chat if you're interested. ^_^]
[I am always willing to help others fine-tune their RP skills. Send me a message or catch me in chat if you're interested. ^_^]
Re: Eyes of a fool
We must not forget that there is a very high probability of misinterpretation, considering how this almost half-filled circle formed essentially from statements of beliefs or nonbeliefs are generalizations made of subjectivity, and in the realm of subjectivity, that is, the diversity of individual perspectives, ethics is not so defined while ideas or words can have much more depth or definition than they appear at a glance. Be wary of thorny semantics under the aesthetics of syntax. Practice safe comments, use objectivity (objective reasoning), but sometimes objectivity breaks to specious hindrances.
Given all such I statements from ddpejian reasoning, all such statements that begin with I are subjective. Therefore, such statements are a part of personal identity. In verifying the integrity or coherence of this part of such identity, namely the sum of given statements, a mind from objectivity shall question the most general, yet critical, of statements from the given list. The ultimate statement to consider is as follows:
“I don't believe in choices without cost-benefit analyses.”
It seems that don’t and without were used for the sake of symmetry, having no overall effect on the idea expressed in original version of the statement. Another version of the statement with the same meaning: I do believe in choices with cost-benefit analyses. For the sake of clarity, the latter version shall be sufficient.
Definition of terms:
cost-benefit analysis: a comparison of disadvantages and advantages; a method of evaluation that compares the potential benefits with the anticipated costs.
choice: act of choosing; power to choose; chosen object.
believe: trust; to be of the opinion that something is right or beneficial.
Objective interpretation:
The virtue in choosing is consequential in that the chooser takes into account the possible effects to the possible causes, particularly decisions relevant and viable, before finally choosing.
Popular variation of the statement:
The ends (either actual or anticipated) justify the means or vice versa.
Arising moral dilemma, irrelevant to the topic:
When faced with choices, choose the ones that are consequentially advantageous, as opposed to choosing the ones that are intrinsically appropriate. Choose in such a way that you might benefit more in the end than you might if you were to choose otherwise.
Now, back on topic:
We must remember that the notion of believing is of a choice, as in choosing what to believe in and what not to believe in. Since the act of believing or non-believing is a choice and since ddpej doesn’t believe in any choice without cost-benefit analysis in some form or another, all such choices that involved believing or non-believing without cost-benefit analyses would be contradictions or misbeliefs. For example, consider this statement:
“I don't believe getting married or having kids is any more crucial to life than TV.”
How is TV crucial to life as getting married or having kids? There is something fundamentally wrong or incoherent here. Clearly, the cost-benefit analysis in life would be in favor of life, the betterment of life, not TV (assuming “TV” is an abbreviation for television).
quod erat dêmônstrandum
Re: Eyes of a fool
Ohhhh boyyy....
Very good for a first try Herz. But try to stay on the topic this time? She wants opinions to her statements, not a re-interpretation.
You correcting her on her own words doesn't make you right on her own topic.
Also
It's written in a poem form.
That semicircle with every word that lists in one style for the first half and then talks in an opposite form for the second half? It's a style.
Meaning that syntax and set dictionary definitions don't really apply.
Rendering your argument mostly bunk.
Dust the night out of your eyes boyo, and try again.
Very good for a first try Herz. But try to stay on the topic this time? She wants opinions to her statements, not a re-interpretation.
You correcting her on her own words doesn't make you right on her own topic.
Also
It's written in a poem form.
That semicircle with every word that lists in one style for the first half and then talks in an opposite form for the second half? It's a style.
Meaning that syntax and set dictionary definitions don't really apply.
Rendering your argument mostly bunk.
Dust the night out of your eyes boyo, and try again.
-
Luxon Cobrat
- Oldie
- Posts: 1505
- Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2006 10:34 am
- Location: Questing through nebulae in search for crystal stone
Re: Eyes of a fool
That was a bit hard to follow, Herz.
But, cutting to the bit about marriage vs TV, I think you missed the point there. What dd said is that getting married and having kids isn't a necessity for a complete life. It's something you can do if you want, but it doesn't make you any better of a person. As far as which the C/B analysis would go, if a person doesn't want to get married and have kids, then there would be no benefit and the cost would be high, whereas TV provides entertainment and isn't nearly as expensive. So, TV would be favored there.
As far as the moral delimma is concerned, morality can fit into the analysis. A person can consider moral good to be a benefit, or immorality to be a cost. So, if there's a dilemma, it's a consideration made within the C/B analysis itself, not between the analysis and the "intrinsically appropriate" choice.
Also, you got her statement about C/B analyses backwards. She's not just saying that choices based on them exist, she's saying that choices that don't rely on them don't exist.
But, cutting to the bit about marriage vs TV, I think you missed the point there. What dd said is that getting married and having kids isn't a necessity for a complete life. It's something you can do if you want, but it doesn't make you any better of a person. As far as which the C/B analysis would go, if a person doesn't want to get married and have kids, then there would be no benefit and the cost would be high, whereas TV provides entertainment and isn't nearly as expensive. So, TV would be favored there.
As far as the moral delimma is concerned, morality can fit into the analysis. A person can consider moral good to be a benefit, or immorality to be a cost. So, if there's a dilemma, it's a consideration made within the C/B analysis itself, not between the analysis and the "intrinsically appropriate" choice.
Also, you got her statement about C/B analyses backwards. She's not just saying that choices based on them exist, she's saying that choices that don't rely on them don't exist.
-
forgerofsouls
- Moderator
- Posts: 1160
- Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2008 4:30 am
- Location: America
Re: Eyes of a fool
Herz...how about letting dd explain things herself...same with you lux...her explination was far more easier for me to read than your version. 
And no, I did not miss the point on the marriage/tv bit lux. Instead with how you tried to explain it means that you failed to understand what I was trying to say. What I was trying to point out is that many people decide to get married and/or hav children due to many different reasons to the point that some find that marriage and having children is indeed a cruical part of their life. This has nothing to do with c/b what so ever in fact. In fact your example of not being married but having children to have no benifit and a high cost is also highly inaccurate. For if you notice throughout what I had been saying, you'll notice two themes to what I was saying: First and most obvious theme: Everything is a choice of an idividual, and thus cannot really be easy to explain anything. Everything dd has choosen to believe and not believe in, is due to her own personal choices, some might have had help from outside sources for her to make her choices, but they are her choices. And the second theme, the not so obvious theme, is that it is all about perception of each individual. While you might see that there is no benifit from having a child without being married, lux, doesn't mean there is no benefit. In fact, I can think of many benefits from having a child and not being married. Sure the costs are high, but ultimately the benefits outway the costs, even if the benefits are not physical. It had nothing to do with favoring one or the other like in your last sentence. What she was saying was that none of those are essensital to her or anyone's life. It wasn't about making a choice between marriage, children, or tv. You have to start reading between the lines, lux, to see this.
Sorry, I think I may have rambled there.
But in its fullest, to answer your question about the children thing dd, for the most part all of those examples you listed are all correct in the reasoning for why many people tend to think that getting married and/or having children is indeed a crucial part of life. These are more or less noticable in religions. Thus ultimately, it all depends on the individual, on what they want. It is safe to say that many people have the need to get married and/or have children, and because of that need, it is a crucial part of their life. So in the end all I was doing was trying to show you how people can think of such things as crucial; regardless, if it is cruical or not is basically completly irrelevant to these people. But the biggest difference between marriage/children, and tv, is that marriage/children take a lot of work to make work, but the benefits from them are worth it. While, the tv, takes no work to get (they are cheap to buy, I've seen small ones for like $30), and while the benefit is entertainment, it is a short lived benefit, while the benefits from a successful marriage, and from the children, can last a life time. Thus while in reality, none of the three are indeed cruical to life, marriage and children have higher end benefits than a tv does.
And I think I understand what you mean by the c/b analysis now dd. Indeed, as I stated earlier, I find what you have said about it to be completly easier to understand than what lux said. He didn't explain a thing is what I mean. And from what dd is saying, is that while you do make a c/b anaylsis about making a c/b anaylsis for a descision, if you choose to not make the c/b anaylsis, than there is no c/b analysis for the descision, only a c/b anaylsis on making the c/b anaylsis on the descision, which are two seperate parts of the descision, those while there was one c/b in the equation, ultimately there was no c/b on the descision itself. So there can be descisions that have no c/b analysis to them. What she is saying is that she doesn't believe that making descisions without the c/b anaylsis is a smart choice. And that making the c/b anaylsis is the smarter, wiser choice.
And no, I did not miss the point on the marriage/tv bit lux. Instead with how you tried to explain it means that you failed to understand what I was trying to say. What I was trying to point out is that many people decide to get married and/or hav children due to many different reasons to the point that some find that marriage and having children is indeed a cruical part of their life. This has nothing to do with c/b what so ever in fact. In fact your example of not being married but having children to have no benifit and a high cost is also highly inaccurate. For if you notice throughout what I had been saying, you'll notice two themes to what I was saying: First and most obvious theme: Everything is a choice of an idividual, and thus cannot really be easy to explain anything. Everything dd has choosen to believe and not believe in, is due to her own personal choices, some might have had help from outside sources for her to make her choices, but they are her choices. And the second theme, the not so obvious theme, is that it is all about perception of each individual. While you might see that there is no benifit from having a child without being married, lux, doesn't mean there is no benefit. In fact, I can think of many benefits from having a child and not being married. Sure the costs are high, but ultimately the benefits outway the costs, even if the benefits are not physical. It had nothing to do with favoring one or the other like in your last sentence. What she was saying was that none of those are essensital to her or anyone's life. It wasn't about making a choice between marriage, children, or tv. You have to start reading between the lines, lux, to see this.
Sorry, I think I may have rambled there.
But in its fullest, to answer your question about the children thing dd, for the most part all of those examples you listed are all correct in the reasoning for why many people tend to think that getting married and/or having children is indeed a crucial part of life. These are more or less noticable in religions. Thus ultimately, it all depends on the individual, on what they want. It is safe to say that many people have the need to get married and/or have children, and because of that need, it is a crucial part of their life. So in the end all I was doing was trying to show you how people can think of such things as crucial; regardless, if it is cruical or not is basically completly irrelevant to these people. But the biggest difference between marriage/children, and tv, is that marriage/children take a lot of work to make work, but the benefits from them are worth it. While, the tv, takes no work to get (they are cheap to buy, I've seen small ones for like $30), and while the benefit is entertainment, it is a short lived benefit, while the benefits from a successful marriage, and from the children, can last a life time. Thus while in reality, none of the three are indeed cruical to life, marriage and children have higher end benefits than a tv does.
And I think I understand what you mean by the c/b analysis now dd. Indeed, as I stated earlier, I find what you have said about it to be completly easier to understand than what lux said. He didn't explain a thing is what I mean. And from what dd is saying, is that while you do make a c/b anaylsis about making a c/b anaylsis for a descision, if you choose to not make the c/b anaylsis, than there is no c/b analysis for the descision, only a c/b anaylsis on making the c/b anaylsis on the descision, which are two seperate parts of the descision, those while there was one c/b in the equation, ultimately there was no c/b on the descision itself. So there can be descisions that have no c/b analysis to them. What she is saying is that she doesn't believe that making descisions without the c/b anaylsis is a smart choice. And that making the c/b anaylsis is the smarter, wiser choice.
There are so very many dramatic ways that vast, incomprehensible galactic phenomena can kill you, that every single day that you go unmurdered by space is a miracle.
Sugar and Spice do not mix well at times! So says many of my characters after the chocolate fiasco.
Sugar and Spice do not mix well at times! So says many of my characters after the chocolate fiasco.
-
Luxon Cobrat
- Oldie
- Posts: 1505
- Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2006 10:34 am
- Location: Questing through nebulae in search for crystal stone
Re: Eyes of a fool
My post was addressed entirely to Herz, and it was dd who prompted me to make it.
Also, I said nothing about "having kids without being married." I was talking about getting married and having kids. Or either of the two, I suppose. And whether it's beneficial or not will be relative to the individual.
Also, I said nothing about "having kids without being married." I was talking about getting married and having kids. Or either of the two, I suppose. And whether it's beneficial or not will be relative to the individual.
Re: Eyes of a fool
*blinks at some of forger's first paragraph*
*reads through Lux's post again*
Ah. I think I can see what happened. Lux actually wasn't responding to your discussion, forger; while Herz was mentioned only in the first line, the entire post was directed against his arguments. I recall Lux saying as much in Chat.
Also, I think you may have missed the point he was making:
He was speaking of a case in which one doesn't want to get married and have kids -- and thus, while not the point, might prefer watching TV. He made no mention of how common this case is, merely that it exists. It's a possible preference set that falls in line with what you say about all individuals having their own perceptions, not a statement of how everyone feels or must/should feel.
By the same token, the statement that the benefits of raising a child (with or without marriage) ultimately outweigh the costs is an indication of one's preference, not a universal truth. That's not to say it isn't a common preference, or that there are no benefits to raising a child. However, those benefits will not necessarily exceed the costs for all people.
... And I see I've been ninja'd by a far more succinct Luxon. By an hour or so, apparently ^_^o Such is life.
On the poem itself, and any other comments I wish to make, I suspect I'll have 1-3 cents or so to throw in when this stack of papers is shorter/gone.
*reads through Lux's post again*
Ah. I think I can see what happened. Lux actually wasn't responding to your discussion, forger; while Herz was mentioned only in the first line, the entire post was directed against his arguments. I recall Lux saying as much in Chat.
Also, I think you may have missed the point he was making:
(emphasis mine)As far as which the C/B analysis would go, if a person doesn't want to get married and have kids, then there would be no benefit and the cost would be high, whereas TV provides entertainment and isn't nearly as expensive. So, TV would be favored there.
He was speaking of a case in which one doesn't want to get married and have kids -- and thus, while not the point, might prefer watching TV. He made no mention of how common this case is, merely that it exists. It's a possible preference set that falls in line with what you say about all individuals having their own perceptions, not a statement of how everyone feels or must/should feel.
By the same token, the statement that the benefits of raising a child (with or without marriage) ultimately outweigh the costs is an indication of one's preference, not a universal truth. That's not to say it isn't a common preference, or that there are no benefits to raising a child. However, those benefits will not necessarily exceed the costs for all people.
... And I see I've been ninja'd by a far more succinct Luxon. By an hour or so, apparently ^_^o Such is life.
On the poem itself, and any other comments I wish to make, I suspect I'll have 1-3 cents or so to throw in when this stack of papers is shorter/gone.
Re: Eyes of a fool
That is the ultimate issue, Juno. In order to have opinions about it, one must have some fair understanding of what was originally said in it. Interpreting that which was said is part of the process of forming an opinion. There are general points made the half circle. If meaning or sense was sacrificed for the sake of poetry and symmetry, then the half circle is fallacious and there is nothing more to say, whilst the author introduces plug-in semicircular explanations to fortify already inadequate general statements. The living half circle is an evolving entity that continues to grow and morph even in dissection. Consider how it even spawns a biological agent called Sesquipedalian Loquaciousness, a tangent microbe referenced by Luxon. I don’t follow it at all, and I don’t even know why he referred to it; perhaps it’s convenient enough, though it has no actual bearing on the examination of the living half circle. This calls for drastic measures. I shall bring in a 99.9% grade objective solution to neutralize it.Juno wrote:She wants opinions to her statements, not a re-interpretation.
How do you do, Mr. Luxon? I was informed that you are the prompts representative of DDPEJ Enterprise. I have some concerns about the recent presentation of “D” and its list of I statements. Noted points to consider:Luxon wrote:it was dd who prompted me to make it.
These two interpretations you have made, albeit on behalf of ddpej or what not, cannot be derived from the half circle alone. There are no explicit statements in the half circle to secure their formulations. They are what I call “thorny semantics” in my previous post. In the half circle, there was no mention of the notion of a “complete life” nor was there any mention of morality in marriage or procreation. How could a reader interpret that from this line? “I don't believe getting married or having kids is any more crucial to life than TV.”What dd said is that getting married and having kids isn't a necessity for a complete life. It's something you can do if you want, but it doesn't make you any better of a person.
It’s a false analogy. TV is neither crucial to life nor comparable to marriage and procreation. Therefore, the so-called cost-benefit analysis in practice can be unsound.
If the half circle is not taken seriously for what is written in it, then there is really no point to commenting on it. Obviously, without an outside or original source, a reader cannot be sure of what was meant by that line. Therefore, the half circle, in its current form, is capable of morphing to defend itself should there be any ardent critic of it. It keeps defining beyond its original form in that way; thus, the half circle itself is fallacious though vaguely metaphorical and undeserving of meaningful consideration in terms of ethics, since the author must clarify by adding or setting new subjective conditions to variable terms in each statement. The half circle is better as an artwork to behold rather than an in-depth discussion.
Ah, well, the half circle was almost convincing, but it is still biased. No use commenting on personal generalizations.
A final comment:
It's shape is pretty nice.
quod erat dêmônstrandum
-
forgerofsouls
- Moderator
- Posts: 1160
- Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2008 4:30 am
- Location: America
Re: Eyes of a fool
Is it just me, or does Herz read like a VCR Manual? I mean seriously, half the time even though I want to think that what he is saying is his opinion, it looks more like he copied it from a book. There is hardly anything in there that idicates what his opinion truely is. In fact, I can see that he can't even began to comprehend what half the things in here were saying. To the point that he digs deeper than actually neccassary. Did you ever think, Herz, that the statement: "I don't believe getting married or having kids is any more crucial to life than TV." Just might not be something deep, but is just dd saying that marriage, having kids, and tv are not crucial to life, complete life or no complete life. And if you can't even see this, than you fail to see anything in any of the statements. Not to even metion the half circle you keep talking about. For you, what is being said here is actually truelly invisible to you due to the fact that you are trying to hard to find a meaning in them. Let go of that need for a deeo meaning, and what is being written in front of you becomes clear.
And, I see once again I have misinterpeted things myself, so I guess apologizes are needed for you lux.
Sorry about the misinterpetation.
But back to Herz. First off, why everyone assumed that you did a re-interpetation, and in this case, it means basically that you just said what dd said but in a different way. Is that everything you included in your first post was excessive not needed information that reads as if you ripped it off from some other site. Serisouly, that is how I read your two posts is that you ripped the saying and stuff off of another site. I really do not see your opinions, but instead I see what dd said via art, in this case a poem, just rewritten to fit a scientist with no artistic appreciation in their body. You want an idea of how an opinion reads? Reread my first post. Even though it has a lot of, "I agree" or "I to", its because my opinions on the matter matched. But I didn't retype what dd said in a different way to a text book reading, instead I gave it my own personal opinions on the matter.
Your first post just explains things, but doesn't explain a single thing about your own opinion. Its like you are just giving us a long winded version of what dd said with one sentence. I think this is why people think you just gave a re-interpetation and not an actual opinion.
Also Herz, I would like to understand what you mean by this half circle concept you are talking about, but have yet to trurelly explain, or maybe someone else that knows what that is can explain it to me.
And, I see once again I have misinterpeted things myself, so I guess apologizes are needed for you lux.
Sorry about the misinterpetation.
But back to Herz. First off, why everyone assumed that you did a re-interpetation, and in this case, it means basically that you just said what dd said but in a different way. Is that everything you included in your first post was excessive not needed information that reads as if you ripped it off from some other site. Serisouly, that is how I read your two posts is that you ripped the saying and stuff off of another site. I really do not see your opinions, but instead I see what dd said via art, in this case a poem, just rewritten to fit a scientist with no artistic appreciation in their body. You want an idea of how an opinion reads? Reread my first post. Even though it has a lot of, "I agree" or "I to", its because my opinions on the matter matched. But I didn't retype what dd said in a different way to a text book reading, instead I gave it my own personal opinions on the matter.
Your first post just explains things, but doesn't explain a single thing about your own opinion. Its like you are just giving us a long winded version of what dd said with one sentence. I think this is why people think you just gave a re-interpetation and not an actual opinion.
Also Herz, I would like to understand what you mean by this half circle concept you are talking about, but have yet to trurelly explain, or maybe someone else that knows what that is can explain it to me.
There are so very many dramatic ways that vast, incomprehensible galactic phenomena can kill you, that every single day that you go unmurdered by space is a miracle.
Sugar and Spice do not mix well at times! So says many of my characters after the chocolate fiasco.
Sugar and Spice do not mix well at times! So says many of my characters after the chocolate fiasco.
-
Luxon Cobrat
- Oldie
- Posts: 1505
- Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2006 10:34 am
- Location: Questing through nebulae in search for crystal stone
Re: Eyes of a fool
So, you're motioning to close this line of the conversation? I can't imagine that you would make an argument and then call for the floor to be closed before your opponent has a chance to react, as such a tactic would hardly be becoming of an individual of high ethical character, so I must conclude that you are offering me the final word. In that case, I graciously accept.Ah, well, the half circle was almost convincing, but it is still biased. No use commenting on personal generalizations.
Forger's last post covers the relevance pretty well.Consider how it even spawns a biological agent called Sesquipedalian Loquaciousness, a tangent microbe referenced by Luxon. I don’t follow it at all, and I don’t even know why he referred to it; perhaps it’s convenient enough, though it has no actual bearing on the examination of the living half circle.
Not bad. I finished mowing the lawn today, so I won't have to deal with that for the rest of the week. I'm a bit hungry at the moment, though, and currently don't have much in the way of easily-prepared food on hand.How do you do, Mr. Luxon?
"Prompts representative?" What is a "prompts representative?"I was informed that you are the prompts representative of DDPEJ Enterprise.
You just have to do a basic level of reading between the lines as Mr. Ofsouls recommended. The rest of us got the correct meaning just from what dd wrote in her post. Generally, unless there is language present to suggest the existence of a hidden meaning, the most obvious meaning of a statement should be assumed even if it does rely on statements that weren't made explicitely. If you're going to communicate with other humans, this is a skill you will need to develop.These two interpretations you have made, albeit on behalf of ddpej or what not, cannot be derived from the half circle alone. There are no explicit statements in the half circle to secure their formulations. They are what I call “thorny semantics” in my previous post. In the half circle, there was no mention of the notion of a “complete life” nor was there any mention of morality in marriage or procreation. How could a reader interpret that from this line? “I don't believe getting married or having kids is any more crucial to life than TV.”
Also, you're jumping the gun by mixing the issue of morality with the issue of marriage and procreation. Your original post covered them seperately and my post kept them in two seperate paragraphs, so the obvious and reasonable assumption to make would be that I was addressing the two issues seperately. Unfortunately, as you have closed yourself out of replying by declaring your intent to leave this conversation, you have missed your chance to properly challenge my actual point here. That's too bad, I suppose.
You have not provided evidence to support this assertion. How are marriage and procreation crucial to life? They may enhance the experience for some people, but one can live without either. The point isn't that TV is crucial to life, it's that marriage and procreation aren't.It’s a false analogy. TV is neither crucial to life nor comparable to marriage and procreation. Therefore, the so-called cost-benefit analysis in practice can be unsound.
Again, it's too bad that you've missed your chance to enlighten us on these details.
Or maybe you just overanalyzed it. It would be easy enough to argue about any point made if you were to actually argue about any point made instead of about what was said.If the half circle is not taken seriously for what is written in it, then there is really no point to commenting on it. Obviously, without an outside or original source, a reader cannot be sure of what was meant by that line. Therefore, the half circle, in its current form, is capable of morphing to defend itself should there be any ardent critic of it. It keeps defining beyond its original form in that way; thus, the half circle itself is fallacious though vaguely metaphorical and undeserving of meaningful consideration in terms of ethics, since the author must clarify by adding or setting new subjective conditions to variable terms in each statement. The half circle is better as an artwork to behold rather than an in-depth discussion.
Re: Eyes of a fool
I haven't yet taken the time to go through this thread with a fine toothed comb, but after given it a quick read I felt the need to address this statement. None of the above are crucial to life, and thus are all relatable if not comparable. Procreation is just required for the creation of a life. Marriage, in it's myriad forms, is just a construct of society/religion that historically has more to do with modifying inter-clan relations than with love and child rearing.Herz wrote:It’s a false analogy. TV is neither crucial to life nor comparable to marriage and procreation. Therefore, the so-called cost-benefit analysis in practice can be unsound.
Seeing as I actively acknowledge that I will never wed nor sire children, not even do so much as contribute to the rearing or raising of any children, I am of the opinion that TV is in fact more crucial to my life than marriage and/or kids.
I realize dd said 'anything goes' in her original post, but judging from her posts and what was said in chat she's looking for responses to the opinions she expressed within her (poem?), not critical analysis of the poem's structure and word usage. If I'm wrong, I trust dd will say so.
Na tarraing mi gun adhbhar, 's na pill mi gun chliu
"Neither draw me without cause, nor return me without honour"
"Neither draw me without cause, nor return me without honour"
-
ddpej
- Oldie
- Posts: 1181
- Joined: Sat Jul 27, 2002 10:58 pm
- Location: Wandering along the edge of a black hole
- Contact:
Re: Eyes of a fool
Oi. I take a few days off to graduate and move out and all that, and the place explodes while I'm away! Let's hit things in order here starting from my last post, shall we?
Herz, first post:
If safe comments were the ideal, I wouldn't have bothered posting. I can come up with plenty of those all by myself, no outside input necessary. Furthermore, if I wanted a discussion in terms of objectivity (and recall, if you will, the discussion you and I had in chat on that) I also would not have posted, as an objective view of beliefs renders the entire conversation here irrelevant. Belief is by necessity subjective. If you can't contribute with a subjective response, please don't chime in with inaccurate distractions.
Regarding "I don't believe in choices without cost-benefit analyses."
"Don't" and "without" were not used for the sake of symmetry, and "I do believe in choices with cost-benefit analyses." does not have the same meaning as my statement. Given that everything else on that topic is based on that invalid assumption, I can't really address it.
Regarding "I don't believe getting married or having kids is any more crucial to life than TV."
If you believe that getting married or having children is more crucial to life than TV, please state so clearly. Your post here reads as if this is an objective, irrefutable fact. It is not. I again can't address this until I know where you, personally, stand, as right now the only feel I have for your opinion is that you either don't have one or you are confused on what differentiates opinion and fact.
So in both cases: If you can clarify your stances via subjectivity rather than trying to address opinions using objective means, I will cheerfully discuss any differences between our opinions.
Juno:
Looks like you came to the same basic conclusion I did about Herz's post, so good to know. Nothing much else to say here.
Lux, first post:
I see my encouragement to post your take on it all paid off. A good summary of things; as I suspected, you hit how I was looking at things rather nicely on the head. Thanks for clarifying for me while I was out and about.
Forge, first post:
Some confusion on who addressed who, it looks like, but a peek ahead tells me I don't need to go into that.
On the reasons to have children: I never intended to claim that marriage, kids, or TV could not, for some people, be vital to a fulfilling life. All three could indeed be crucial, alone or in combination, for some people. None of the three, however, are inherently crucial without exception, and that is my only point there. To address a specific comment you made, I will say that the benefits of marriage and/or children are not necessarily worth anything -- marriage is not guaranteed to be successful, children that are not desired may well be nothing more than a burden, and both can and in many cases do limit one's career opportunities and affect one's social life, and could make one miserable just as easily as they could make one happy. So no, I would not agree that marriage and children necessarily have higher end benefits than a TV.
On cost-benefit analyses: Amusingly enough, I must not have been as clear as you think -- it seems like you still aren't quite understanding what I've said. I have no opinion on whether or not making a C/B analysis is a "smart choice". I believe that, when you choose not to 'make' an analysis, you're actually making an analysis anyway, because the perceived benefit of not 'making' the analysis (quicker response, the thrill of spontaneity, etc.) seems to be higher than the perceived cost of 'making' it. Just because most people don't think in terms of C/B analyses and aren't always aware of 'making' them doesn't mean they aren't still making them, and a C/B analysis does not have to be conscious to be made. So actually, I do firmly believe that there is no choice that does not have an associated C/B analysis -- even when the person making the choice is not aware of or does not think he or she is making that analysis.
Lux, second post:
Nothing much to say here. Thank you for pointing out relative benefits; that's definitely something I'd like to be remembered.
Gaius:
A very nice clarification on individual perspective. I see you've hit some of the same points I just typed for Forge, so I could have saved myself the trouble if I'd looked. Oops. ^_^' In any case, I'm looking forward to hearing your approximately 2 cents on the whole thing if you find time to do so.
Herz, second post:
As much as I try, it's very difficult to interpret this as anything but purposeful obtuseness. I really have nothing to say about the vast majority of it, as you seem to be trying to raise ire more than anything else, which is quite irrelevant to actual discussion. Everything I might have issue with was already discussed, both by others and in my previous comments here, so please read those again and then ask for clarification if you're genuinely confused. If not, as mentioned regarding your first post, then if you care to comment with actual opinions I'd be happy to address them.
Forge, third post:
I guess I'm not alone in my interpretation of Herz's post, eh? Don't see anything for me in there, though, so -- onward! (Also, "half-circle" = the squished-bullet shape used for presentation purposes, extrapolated out to mean the whole thing.)
Lux, third post:
This is a fantastic post. The voice..! There is nothing I could say that would do it justice. You can't see me, but please take my word for it -- I've got the most gleeful grin on my face right now.
Sith:
Nope, you're right. Anything goes, but I can't address anything beyond opinions without straying from the spirit of the discussion (and therefore I won't). Also, thank you for the input on the marriage/spawn/TV comments; you've illustrated my point quite nicely, I think.
Herz, first post:
If safe comments were the ideal, I wouldn't have bothered posting. I can come up with plenty of those all by myself, no outside input necessary. Furthermore, if I wanted a discussion in terms of objectivity (and recall, if you will, the discussion you and I had in chat on that) I also would not have posted, as an objective view of beliefs renders the entire conversation here irrelevant. Belief is by necessity subjective. If you can't contribute with a subjective response, please don't chime in with inaccurate distractions.
Regarding "I don't believe in choices without cost-benefit analyses."
"Don't" and "without" were not used for the sake of symmetry, and "I do believe in choices with cost-benefit analyses." does not have the same meaning as my statement. Given that everything else on that topic is based on that invalid assumption, I can't really address it.
Regarding "I don't believe getting married or having kids is any more crucial to life than TV."
If you believe that getting married or having children is more crucial to life than TV, please state so clearly. Your post here reads as if this is an objective, irrefutable fact. It is not. I again can't address this until I know where you, personally, stand, as right now the only feel I have for your opinion is that you either don't have one or you are confused on what differentiates opinion and fact.
So in both cases: If you can clarify your stances via subjectivity rather than trying to address opinions using objective means, I will cheerfully discuss any differences between our opinions.
Juno:
Looks like you came to the same basic conclusion I did about Herz's post, so good to know. Nothing much else to say here.
Lux, first post:
I see my encouragement to post your take on it all paid off. A good summary of things; as I suspected, you hit how I was looking at things rather nicely on the head. Thanks for clarifying for me while I was out and about.
Forge, first post:
Some confusion on who addressed who, it looks like, but a peek ahead tells me I don't need to go into that.
On the reasons to have children: I never intended to claim that marriage, kids, or TV could not, for some people, be vital to a fulfilling life. All three could indeed be crucial, alone or in combination, for some people. None of the three, however, are inherently crucial without exception, and that is my only point there. To address a specific comment you made, I will say that the benefits of marriage and/or children are not necessarily worth anything -- marriage is not guaranteed to be successful, children that are not desired may well be nothing more than a burden, and both can and in many cases do limit one's career opportunities and affect one's social life, and could make one miserable just as easily as they could make one happy. So no, I would not agree that marriage and children necessarily have higher end benefits than a TV.
On cost-benefit analyses: Amusingly enough, I must not have been as clear as you think -- it seems like you still aren't quite understanding what I've said. I have no opinion on whether or not making a C/B analysis is a "smart choice". I believe that, when you choose not to 'make' an analysis, you're actually making an analysis anyway, because the perceived benefit of not 'making' the analysis (quicker response, the thrill of spontaneity, etc.) seems to be higher than the perceived cost of 'making' it. Just because most people don't think in terms of C/B analyses and aren't always aware of 'making' them doesn't mean they aren't still making them, and a C/B analysis does not have to be conscious to be made. So actually, I do firmly believe that there is no choice that does not have an associated C/B analysis -- even when the person making the choice is not aware of or does not think he or she is making that analysis.
Lux, second post:
Nothing much to say here. Thank you for pointing out relative benefits; that's definitely something I'd like to be remembered.
Gaius:
A very nice clarification on individual perspective. I see you've hit some of the same points I just typed for Forge, so I could have saved myself the trouble if I'd looked. Oops. ^_^' In any case, I'm looking forward to hearing your approximately 2 cents on the whole thing if you find time to do so.
Herz, second post:
As much as I try, it's very difficult to interpret this as anything but purposeful obtuseness. I really have nothing to say about the vast majority of it, as you seem to be trying to raise ire more than anything else, which is quite irrelevant to actual discussion. Everything I might have issue with was already discussed, both by others and in my previous comments here, so please read those again and then ask for clarification if you're genuinely confused. If not, as mentioned regarding your first post, then if you care to comment with actual opinions I'd be happy to address them.
Forge, third post:
I guess I'm not alone in my interpretation of Herz's post, eh? Don't see anything for me in there, though, so -- onward! (Also, "half-circle" = the squished-bullet shape used for presentation purposes, extrapolated out to mean the whole thing.)
Lux, third post:
This is a fantastic post. The voice..! There is nothing I could say that would do it justice. You can't see me, but please take my word for it -- I've got the most gleeful grin on my face right now.
Sith:
Nope, you're right. Anything goes, but I can't address anything beyond opinions without straying from the spirit of the discussion (and therefore I won't). Also, thank you for the input on the marriage/spawn/TV comments; you've illustrated my point quite nicely, I think.
"Wisdom isn't always a blessing. Sometimes it's a curse." --me
[I am always willing to help others fine-tune their RP skills. Send me a message or catch me in chat if you're interested. ^_^]
[I am always willing to help others fine-tune their RP skills. Send me a message or catch me in chat if you're interested. ^_^]