AzurePhoenix

Quizno's, B!tch! But the very best isn't a subshop, it's Schlotzsky's.

a thick wad of hot and peppery pastrami with black olives tucked in, on toasted sourdough, the baby-swiss melted into the bread as well as layered on the meat, with thick sliced dill pickle, bacon, tomato slices, a thick layer of crisp lettuce, hot mustard, and maybe jalepenos or some sorta hot pepper

It caught up with him in his later college years. Lou Gerig's Disease or something like that is a common name for it. Ol' Stevie is one of the few to survive with it for so long. My family knows someone who came down with it not so long back, and they doubt he'll even make it another year.

he's got a point, but the main factor is that time travel without a DeLorean is just lame. You can't go wrong with requests for desired books, movies, computer/video games and generic giftcards. Maybe lingerie. Tacos. A pony. A sexy little sheep for the pony to play with.

The Dragon Princess bit and all the weirdling stuff that goes on north of the wall is what matters to me, and is actually interesting, and since they were entirely left out of Crows, i definately agree, but the next should focus more on all of that, and the little dwarfy man, YAY. I mean, crows basically only focused on all the political crap between the warring factions, how good could it possibly have been? Well then again... incest and little girl in a death cult temple, yay for those too.

If it's the one I'm thinking about, and I'm pretty certain it is, I just couldn't get into it, the story itself was really dragged out, I couldn't bring myself to give a damn about the characters. But then again, I might be thinking of another book about a meteorite-related antarctic government conspiracy, I can't confirm that though because it's one of the elite group of ten or so books I've ever been able to bring myself to trade in at a used bookstore, so I don't have it around to check.

I'm alternating my way through the books of the Dark Nest Trilogy (star wars) and the Banned and the Banished series (Wit'ch Fire), with a single chapter of Feast of Crows (George R. R. Martin) between each book I read to keep the details fresh in my mind for when his next book in the Song of Ice and Fire series eventually comes out.

I have to agree, they all had the same tone, they all rang with the same sort of non-flowy kinda hollowly plastic style and grammatical/verbal "personality"

careful, asking him to stop strawmanedly warping what was said and stick to the issues is what got me diagnosed with a need for therapy.

I don't see what other choice you have. You're obligated. Don't shirk your sacred duty. It's for his own good. It'll hurt him more than it'll hurt you, etc etc etc.

realistically that which made him a being is dead and gone. So he's a human. Meat. I used one hypothetical in order to elucidate my meaning. It was obvious you weren't paying attention to what I was saying, so I was forced to take it a step further into the hypothetical to clarify. But, obviously, you will contuinue to fail to pay attention to what I'm actually saying. It seems no matter how often I clarify the meaning and context of what I was saying, you continue to respond as if I were actually saying what you initially assumed I was. If you're going to argue this matter, argue with what I'm actually saying, not with what you want to pretend I'm saying. And yes, there was a second hypothetical in regards to artificial intelligences, but it'd be superstitious to think that the consciousness of a biological organism couldn't be duplicated or aproximated if we built a compelx enough system, and that someday we very possibly might be able to do so. Yes, the conscious mind is a consequence of having a funcitoning brain able to cause the consequence, as I've pointed out multiple times before throughout this thrad, i agree with that entirely. But the entire essence of being a being is dependent on that simple consequence. The cause of that consciousness and where it comes from doesn't matter. Without the consequence, you aren't a being. That is what I was saying when I pointed out that in this case, being a being is dependent on what, not why. the brain is not the mind, it it simply what harbors and creates it, the cause of the mind but not the mind itself. Once that brain stops functioning, every bit of the brain might still be there, but the mind is gone. You can't deny that a corpse no longer has a mind. So I guess we should rephrase this "mind" business and start saying "a functional brain not only with the capacity for awareness, but actively displaying it." That's a mouthful though, so let's just call it a mind anyway for simplicity's sake. There are certainly ingrained dispositions, unique aspects of personality, faults and good traits, all sorts of stuff that are heavily influenced by genetics, but it's simply outrageous to claim that environment and experience don't go far to mold the raw elements of a person's mind, but, I don't see what nature vs nurture has to do with this argument. No matter what influences the form of a being's consciousness, it's still consciousness, so what's the point of this line of thought in relation to this whole debate? I don't disagree at all. But those cumulative bits of data all strung together are the mind, not that which it's all stored on. The mind is the consciousness itself. Consciousness is clearly not something to can remove on it's own and pick at and examine. It is woven into the physiology, created by it, altered and influenced by it, but it isn't it. And once it's biological medium fails, it's gone. If they're truly conscious, then yeah, they're beings. But science suggests many creatures below a certain level complexity are scarcely more than cold programming, devoid of actual awareness, simple responsive organisms. Not aware, not beings. Of course, they MIGHT be aware on some level, it's just damned difficult to say so. again, you're ignoring the fact that I don't care about whether something is conscious or not. It doesn't have to be aware or intelligent to be of value to me. I appreciate every lifeform but earwigs (an unfair prejudice), and it's well known that humans are rather low on my scale of appreciation. You keep turning my arguments back to value, but that is simply false, and you refuse to acknowledge that no matter how many times I have to refute you. Maybe this is about the value of humanity to others who might be interested in being vs non-being, but for me this is simply about the definition of a being. Please remove your head from your colon and pay attention to what I'm saying and arguing rather than what you want this argument to be about. exactly. but, as I'm sure you're aware, this analogy was in relation to being a "complete organism" in the sense of being fully functional as intended within the genes, by which I'm comparing baking to being able to breed. Just to be entirely clear just in case, this metaphor had nothing to do with whether or not the cake is a being. Just complete.

Yes, it is stupid of you, thank you . It's clear that you're expanding beyond what I said, making false assumptions. The soul angle was simply to put the meaning into a more clearly understandable context, not to be taken as any more than a reference to help simplify the potentially vague concepts. The hypothetical situation doesn't alter what the mind is, and doesn't seriously suggest a metaphysical nature for it, it's simply a demonstration that the mind is the whole idea of being a being, no matter how it resides, whether in a biological and functional organism, in the circuits of some computer that might not be that far off from reality, or in some ectoplasmic state that christians will be happy to hoot over. The mind is cleary a construct of the biological brain, framed genetically, augmented with some randomness, and int he case of humans at the very least shaped by life experiences. It is entirely derived from biological sources. But that mind, however derived, is still the essence of being. An undeveloped or broken organism without a functional brain cannot create that mind, and so is non-being. You are placing all the weight in "why," not in "what." Just as you are defining the organism by the unique code within the dna itself rather than in the "intended" final organism, you are in this quote placing weight on where the mind comes from rather than what the mind is. But the fact is, a person without a functioning brain does not have a mind. That is undeniable. And without that mind, you are not a being. The rest is the shell that once but no longer supports or harbors a mind, the organism. you are again taking what I said out of context and generalizing, falsely I might add. And also, lots of birds can't fly. this isn't about value. I don't give a crap about people, you know that and have used that point to argue against me before. I definately consider pigs beings, but I won't turn down a BLT or two or three. And I certainly don't consider the deer antler on my desk a being, but I'll still beat the crap out of my siblings if they touch it. But the mind is what makes something a being. If braindead, or without a brain or the functional equivalent, there is no mind. Thereby, if consciously aware mind = being, no mind = not a being. It's not a matter of value. It's simple rationale. maybe a baby isn't very complex, still malleable and fresh, and yeah, dumb as a rock, but it's still aware. It has a mind. I don't give a damn about the quality of the mind in question. If I read your earlier definitions correctly, you claim that it is the intended sum of the parts, no matter what the phase in developement, in an organism that is still alive that makes it a being, and the rest is the simple human... building blocks? Aye? But that seems to me to be a sentimentalist view, not practical. A blastocyst isn't a complete human. Neither is a half-formed fetus. No more so than you would call raw cake batter a cake. The complete human is that which reaches the purpose for which it is "designed," which is to breed and start the process over. Anything less is unfinished, an incomplete proximity of the aimed-for organism, useless in the lifecycle. And if you're braindead, you're no longer able to function as outlined either, you're incomplete. If, again hypothetically , i were to shift to your outlook on the definition of a being as a "complete organism," then I'd still have to say you aren't a being unless you can either get knocked up or knock someone else up. Not to mention that fact that any brain-dead organism certainly isn't functional, and thereby complete, if its neurological systems aren't working.

it's not about parts at all. There isn't a single part in the human body that is the human being, nor any combination of them stuck together, not even the entire human. The being part of the human is the mind itself. The parts all put together onyl build up to the human organism outlined in the genetic blueprints. Hypothetically say that the human soul and spirit was real, no tangible body, no biology, no dna, but the conscious mind existed intact. THAT spirit would be the being. The corpse or brain-dead body left behind would be the human organism. Again hypothetically, if an artificial lifeform could attain a true "mind," self-awareness, consciousness, it would be no less of a being than a functional, conscious human. Ever see "Short Circuit," "Bicentennial Man," or "I-Robot"? Those robots would count as beings. There is the human organism, the physical body made up of all the various tissues and stuff outlined in the dna. Then their is the mind, that which makes an entity a being. It is only when you put both the human organism and the coscious mind of that organism together that you get a human being.

Now don't be too hasty to generalize. the hand named Thing from The Adams Family would count as a being

but being a being has nothing to do with genetics, it's about the conscious state of the particular entity in question. The "being" part of "human being" can be tacked on to any functionally aware creature, maybe even an artifically created one. You could call a raven a being, a dog and a chimp and a dolphin, probably even an octopus and others, but not a slug or an ant or a tree (based on current understandings of course) The being part of the creature is the active, thinking mind of the creature in question. A blastocyst has no awareness or perception, consciousness, thought, no mind. Neither does a braindead human. I'm not saying you have to be intelligent or smart, even George Bush could qualify for being-hood. The rest? individual cells and tissues? the dna? organs and skin, hair, the entire human body and even the brain itself? not human beings, just human.

maybe it would help both sides if we took a moment and you would cleary and primly define for us both terms as you percieve or understand them ("human" and "human being" separately).

I've had some pretty intense conversations and even debates about shows, ranging from what might come next, what something in the show might have meant or will lead to, the science of it, how it might have been better written, trying to unravel the ongoing mystery as the show unfolds and twists about. Television can provide some pretty good mind-excercises as long as you don't let it be the only thing you have anytthing to talk about. And that goes for everything. If you're a physicist, don't let physics be all you talk about. A preacher? Ditch God every once in a while and talk about an episode of Jerry Springer you loved. You love your kids? That's great, now talk about something else dammit. :edit: Computers though... they're like portals through which you can explore the world and all the knowledge compiled within it (even if half of it's crap). Brilliant and versatile tools, media centers and even social platforms... no surprise that the weak get hooked.

Aye, for my family I do alot fo the cooking, then it's just a simple matter of letting the Fed Ones fight out who gets saddled with dishes, always my dad. But with my boyfriend, he does all the cooking, and I get the dishes unless I can play his heartstrings. Laundry's just a free for all, I'll do my own, but the rest of my family shares a number of color-divided clothes hampers that get washed whenever someone needs something out of them, and vacuuming is a matter of who was home that day. Yardwork on the otherhand, seems to be a task assigned to my father, and me simply because he can't trim a bush with an aesthetic eye to save his ass. Step-mommy does some feminine gardening, but everyone keeps the yards and porches clean and swept. I don't know how it is elsewhere, but yardwork vs gardening is still cleanly divided between males and females in every home in my neighborhood.

I'm afraid I don't see how most of those things are manly vs feminine, contemporarily (though granted, the yardwork = male theme seems to still exist in modern households). They're simply practical tasks that must be accomplished. Unless of course, you wear an apron for any of it. And tune to the cooking channel, all the big-time chefs are male.

a little disembodied head of a person with their arms raised in the air in joy

Adult films are for girls too \o/ And you can't be blamed for the sports things, those you listed are all crap. Soccer, rugby and lacrosse are where it's at.

I have to disagree on that point. Focusing the anger on exactly what excited it means that little else is going to get caught up in the firestorm of a rage-driven tantrum. There's nothing that I take seriously and won't make fun of... often stepping on the sensitivities of others in the process, sure. And that includes myself and the things that I truly mean and possibly believe in. But that's a problem in itself. It takes alot of focus to take the time to post seriously often enough, and the effort can be so great at times that I'll just avoid a thread rather than accidentally insult the amusing problems certain people get so emotionally tangled up in. eh, save the therapy for people who deserve it It seems their issues developed OUT of their general and more tolerable venting-form angers, as told by a variety of those elder relatives who watched the process unfold. Unbound anger just breeds more of itself. coconut and orange has a really good contrast between sharp and fruity and rich and savory, and always use the oils, not the lotion

Ah, see, I've never been a venter. I know few as well. There are a few in my family who vent constantly, but they're all the intolerant bigoted bipolar psychotics that would be best removed from society. As I've always seen it, venting is the tantrum of a hot-tempered, emotionally driven fool. A cold and calculating fury is so much nicer.

And now you're concerned about the safety and welfare of others? Talk about being a p-ussy. And, READ THE JOKERY YOU MORON

I was initially basically responding to your hostile and pointless attack on Sisy, not to your original post, and I couldn't care less aobut whatever random delusions you might harbor within the rant as logn as you had kept them there. But Sisy responded to your public post in a public forum, ratioally and calmly, and he didn't attack you or put you down or any such thing, and you put him down for it, over nothing. THAT is what I was responding to. As for rants... I believe that most of that which I rant about (and I do certainly rant) usually boil down to killing off huge portions of humanity, then denying alot of the basic "human rights" of the survivors. I wasn't aware that misanthropy and eugenics was a feminist issue. Oi. So you flip-flop from being anti-republican to being anti-liberal then you accuse those who are arguing your extremely intolerant jerkwad post by accusing them of being intolerant, and not only the target of your page-long rant but all women as well. Yes, I apologise that I was so intolerant of your nazi-esque intolerance. Whatever was I thinking?