mererdog

Who, Cohen? He's the world's most deadly octogenarian. A barbarian lord whose age is proof that he is really good at not dying. The sort of honest and direct sort you should never tell "I would die for my king!" A force of nature in a very small loincloth. But he's not in all the books. I'm pretty sure no character is. Pratchett would seem to fall in love with a character or premise for a time, then move on to something newer and shinier. He was averaging two novels a year, so that's understandable...

Nah. The fact that an act is harmful in one context has no real bearing on the morality of the same act in a different context. Otherwise, surgeons would get arrested for all the stabbing. As for thinking someone is a jerk... That is exactly what I was talking about when I said "It isn't about being nice, or even pleasant. It is about having a reason to feel superior. ** that." https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotional_blackmail

It kind of depends on where you were in the series. Broadly speaking, the series takes familiar conventions from the fantasy genre and reframes them for comic effect. He could be very subtle about it, but he wasn't afraid to use a recurring character named Cohen the Barbarian.

I read the Discworld novels out of sequence. I don't remember which one I started with, but I was halfway through it when my father told me it was a spoof. The second half read like a completely different book. And now I need to mention that Alzheimer's disease is one of my absolute least favorite things.

The problem with ideas like political correctness is that it replaces empathy with rules-following. We don't use that word. Why not? Its a bad word. What makes a word bad? It upsets some people. None of those people are here. We don't use that word.

Because the act of creation is valuable, in and of itself. Because sometimes you just need to sing, and sometimes you just need to complain- even if no one else cares. Because a joke that no one else gets can be the funniest joke of all. Mostly, because the stuff in our heads wants to get out.

There are two distinct motives behind all communication. One is the desire to be understood. The other is the desire to express one's self. To create a mutual understanding requires at least a degree of teamwork, but self-expression can be a completely private affair. Wanting to be understood does not beholden others to attempt to understand me. Wanting to speak does not create an obligation speak understandably. This means that if I want to understand or be understood, I am asking for something that I am not owed. This is an important distinction to me. Political correctness is just verbal etiquette. Etiquette is just a way to signal group identity and separate "us" from "them." It isn't about being nice, or even pleasant. It is about having a reason to feel superior. ** that.

Or, you start with an observation, and you theorize the soul as an explanation for that observation. You would then define the soul according to the qualities necessary to explain the observation. As you got more precise measurements over time, the definition would either be adjusted to fit, or be discarded in favor of a more fitting explanation. Atoms, germs, and Planet X were all originally defind this way.

To prove a soul exists, you first have to have a distinct, detailed definition of soul. Once you have determined the qualities that are unique to a soul, you need a way to measure those qualities. You then need a way to control for other variables that may be effecting your measurements. Unless a soul is a very simple thing, this cannot be a simple process. As such, the ability to recognize proof of a soul as such may require specialized knowledge or access to rare materials or equipment. This means that providing proof to others may be an even more complicated process than simply finding proof. This all assumes you are looking for proof of a scientific nature. Otherwise, all it really takes is for you to see something you can't figure out how to explain any other way. When we get desperate for answers, we tend to see proof everywhere.

Long ago, my grandmother's doctor suggested Tai Chi to help with her arthritis. The first teacher she tried spent the first half hour of the class talking about what chi is and how it can be harnessed for healing purposes. She didn't stay for the whole class and never tried another teacher. Luckily, her first yoga class wasn't heavy on the "chakra talk." The regular exercize and the social environment did her a lot of good.

Thanks. I was hoping that would happen to at least one person, but people usually don't say anything about the title unless it has a typo or is a blatant bait and switch... so I expected to never know whether it worked.

In my case, it would have to be more a matter of thinking others think like others, because they clearly don't think like me. The mythology they built up on their music, and the more "Christiany" (for lack of a better word) explanation given for how to decode that mythology, are both familiar and alien. To get a sense of what I'm talking about, I suggest looking up the lyrics for "Pass Me By" and "Terrible." Those aren't exactly subtle. More broadly, The Amazing Jeckel Brothers is mostly a concept album revolving around a pair of jugglers who represent the good and bad aspects of your soul. The muted refrain goes- "Jeckel drop ball, Shangri La dies One for your greed Two for your lies"

Same thing, really.... In effect, if not in detail...

Years ago, I heard a speech from Violent Jay of the Insane Clown Posse. I want to say it was from the first Gathering of the Juggalos, but I could be wrong about that. Anyway, there was a point where he explained that his music was designed to morally and religiously instructive, but that the kids don't listen unless you're "waving the hatchet." Now, I've always found ICP hilarious, and when you look past the standardized adolescent male posturing and shock-for-the-sake-of-shock stuff, you see some fairly standard morality plays. But when I look at the fans, I see a whole lot of missing the point. It makes me wonder about that point where changing your delivery to make your message more accessible makes your message get lost.

Not necessarily. Scientific laws are based on past observation, and can apply to a given phenomenon only as much as that phenomenon is similar to what has previously been observed. A newly observed phenomenon always has the potential to completely change our understanding of how the universe works, necessitating a completely new scientific law to explain why existing ones can't apply in certain circumstances. And it is always possible that some things are simply beyond our ability to understand.

Why not? Space and time are immaterial, yet exist outside a mental thought.

He never said he was offended. He suggested that your words have the potential to alienate people, driving them away from the forum. He also indicated frustration over an apparent failure, on your end, to see that. It is part of an ongoing complaint he has regarding what he sees as the marginalization of those who do not share the predominate "Abrahamic worldview" (for lack of a better way to put it). Based on previous conversations with him, I would bet he is not trying to make you look or feel bad for what you said, but is basically saying "How are we* supposed to communicate when we* clearly don't speak the same language? How can I* feel welcomed if I* am ignored?" *In general terms. Sound fair and/or accurate, LeopardBoy?

I tend to find the rude and crude to be hilarious. The mean spirited stuff is complicated... I have never told a racist joke, but a well-crafted setup and punchline will usually catch me off guard enough to provoke a laugh. Its as if my sense of humor is faster than my sense of moral outrage. Similarly, if I see someone fall, I will usually laugh before I think to ask if they are hurt. Standup comics have spent decades developing the character of the misanthropic insult comic. A character who likes nothing and no one and has nothing but bad things to say. Its a truly mean-spirited character that only really works when it seems to express an understanding that it is even more messed up than the rest of us. As if they only lash out only because they are in pain, you know? When it is done right, it is like candy to me. And then there is satire. The best satire is aggressively biting. It uses debasement and ridicule like surgical instruments to cut away cultural preconceptions and expose important truths. It is mean, but mean with a purpose. When it is aimed at ideologies and power structures, rather than personalities and individuals, it bridges that gap between the funny and the profound- which may very well be where Truth is found. At the same time, I recognize that words can cause harm, and I believe that intentionally harming others is wrong. So, as I said, its complicated....

No need to apologize, although it may take me a while to put together a response that does your post justice. Thank you for the nice things you said about me.

Well, **. When it comes to the death of a friend, I have no pretty words and no comforting wisdom. I miss him already.

A while back, I was told by a fellow poster on this board that I had repeatedly been mean to him. We didn't get into specifics, but he made it clear that my words had made him feel demeaned and rejected. This put me in the uncomfortable position of having to rethink all our previous interactions. This was a man I liked and respected, but clearly I had been misunderstanding at least some of his responses to me. I could not help wondering whether he was really the man I liked and respected, or if that man was just an illusion created by projecting my expectations and desires onto someone else. It was not a pleasant experience, to say the least, but I can't blame him. I have always loved humor. Some of my fondest childhood memories are of telling jokes to my grandmother and her friends while they sat on the porchswing. Making people laugh makes me feel good, and it is no brag to say that I have gotten very good at it. But humor is never without risk. It is fundamentally a matter of taste, and there is nothing that is universally considered tasty. There are few things that can bond us together stronger than a shared emotional experience, and few things that can divide us as sharply as a belief that the other does not feel the same way we do. Sharing a laugh can bring us closer together, and a joke that bombs can drive us apart. Such is empathy, I think. I am a fan of self-deprecation as humor. A laugh at one's own expense has a special purity to it that just speaks to me. As a corollorary to that, I also have a special love for jokes at the expense of "us." Jokes that highlight the absurdity in "our" thinking or that poke fun at the things "we" do. I am drawing the distinction here between the jokes that invite us to laugh at "you" or "them," but it is a distinction that is easily lost track of. And, unfortunately, perhaps, the more comfortable I feel with my audience, the less effort I put into keeping the distinction crystal. It is uncomfortable to realize that we are not playing the same game, or to realize that the other guy simply isn't playing. It is hurtful to know that while I was trying to be friends the other guy saw me as an enemy. But while the line between insulting and teasing exists only in our heads, it has profound effects on the real world. I am curious how others draw that line, both in terms of deciding what to say and in terms of deciding how to react to others.

I know that it is. I also know that it is all that I have to work with.

The difference lies in the phrase "I don't know." I neither believe that God is real, nor do I believe that God is not real. I do not believe either way. Allow me to demonstrate how this works. You have never seen me. If asked what color my hair is, the honest answer is "I don't know." You do not believe I have brown hair. You do not believe I have blonde hair. You do not know.

I rarely either agree with someone completely or disagree with someone completely. You?