GTA, Hands off???

Tawakalna · Aug 14th 2005

ok. who exactly IS this Jack Thompson character? IÂ´m presuming heÂ´s some American media cove so that explains why IÂ´ve never heard of him. And from the sounds of it, heÂ´s not likely to be a relative of Hunter S. Thompson, is he now? and donÂ´t knock Hilary! I happen to like her an awful lot. only American politician i have any time for and IÂ´ve always found her very attractive in a kind of school-marmy sort of way, she should have married me, not Billy no-Pants. "thou hast awakan from thy slumberr, o ancient Sorrowe of yearres.."

Captain Picard · Aug 14th 2005

<BLOCKQUOTE><hr size=1 noshade>I was disgusted at murder, rape, torture <hr size=1 noshade></BLOCKQUOTE> NobodyÂ´s forcing you to watch TV series or movies etc. that feature such things. Like my old man used to say, if donÂ´t like it, donÂ´t watch it.

Chips · Aug 14th 2005

<BLOCKQUOTE><hr size=1 noshade>Like my old man used to say, if donÂ´t like it, donÂ´t watch it. <hr size=1 noshade></BLOCKQUOTE> Aye Capt, and as it gets worse - we may not even get the chance for a choice! Taw - Jack Thompson is a lawyer (figures), and an american lawyer (speaks volumes about what to expect). What is worse, he makes more accusations based upon what he has read/heard from other sources than even I used to do. Edited by - Chips on 8/14/2005 3:25:36 AM

Tawakalna · Aug 14th 2005

ah, leave Wilde be; his heartÂ´s in the right place. somewhere in Canadia I think, Moose-Jaw region <img src=smilies/icon_smile.gif width=15 height=15 border=0 align=middle> well thx for that explanation Chips, one would have thought a halfway decent lawyer would at least have some respect for the proper use of primary evidence and not he said she said scuttlebutt but then in Amurrika theyÂ´re rather more politicised and polemic - is he trying to make a career for himself as a media pundit or is he aiming for a political appointment? if its not games, its television, or films, or something else thats responsible for all societyÂ´s ills. if only it were that simple! "thou hast awakan from thy slumberr, o ancient Sorrowe of yearres.." Edited by - Tawakalna (Reloaded) on 8/14/2005 4:27:56 AM

The Evil Thing · Aug 14th 2005

Basically, he wants money and sees the videogame industry as ripe for the picking. HeÂ´s going on the media a lot to try and rally public support for his cause so he can make enormous amounts in lawsuit cuts. He doesnÂ´t actually believe most of what he says, he just pretends to. If you try to contact him he throws insults at you and accuses you of harassment. (So IÂ´ve heard)

Tawakalna · Aug 14th 2005

ironic, isnÂ´t it? thereÂ´s always some self-serving hypocrite ready to present himself as the voice of the *silent majority* and QUITE BY CHANCE they get a big pile of loot out of it too. funny, that. q bizarrely when i went down to a game exchange shop in town recently, I was told by the girl serving me that she couldnt take some games off me for trade because they were 18+ and she wasnÂ´t 18. I said, *so what, there are copies on the shelf already and you arenÂ´t going to be playing it are you? it says not for sale or display to minors - IÂ´m not selling it to you as an individual, you are an employee of the shop and all you are doing is handling it which is not in the terms of the distribution warning* - but she wasnÂ´t having none of it. how ridiculous. later on I went back and saw her putting 18+ games out on the shelf. i asked her and her manager why she wasnt allowed to take it off me as a trade-in but she was allowed to put them on the shelf. all i got was a stupid *those are the company rules* to which i replied, * but they donÂ´t make sense. even a really stupid person like you must be able to see the inconsistency there.* and thats what really gets me about nanny state Britain. not only is it annoying and intrusive and onstructive, its also basically q dumb. look at airport rules. you canÂ´t take baby milk onto a flight, but you can take matches or a lighter even though youÂ´re not allowed to smoke. and the muppets who enforce these rules canÂ´t or wonÂ´t see the stupidity of these bungled rules. what a world. "Thou hast awoken from thy Slumberre, o Ancient Sorrowe of yearres.."

The Shroud · Aug 14th 2005

all i have to say about jash $41# it that he is a oppourtunitist who has no idea what heÂ´s talking about and says it any way accoring to him video games are"murder simulators", if you have enough brain power to go out buy that game and decide to do it in real life then theres either something wrong with you or you havenÂ´t got enough brain cells anyway.

Wilde · Aug 14th 2005

<BLOCKQUOTE><hr size=1 noshade>somewhere in Canadia I think, Moose-Jaw region <hr size=1 noshade></BLOCKQUOTE> Oh, screw you! <img src=smilies/icon_smile_tongue.gif width=15 height=15 border=0 align=middle> (itÂ´s good to have you back taw, Canadia jokes and all) Edit: And Moose Jaw is in Saskatchewan, several hundred kilometres west-north of here <img src=smilies/icon_smile_wink.gif width=15 height=15 border=0 align=middle> ...and Picard, once again you miss the point. I was simply commenting on the tastelessness of your joke and defending my stance on the issue. I will repeat this again: I HAVE NOTHING AGAINST MURDER AND TORTURE IN ANY FORM OF MEDIA. Ok? Understand? I am constantly exposed from my own free will to books, movies, etc. with violence, I have nothing against them. GTA just doesnÂ´t appeal to me. And once again, prove my original premise wrong. Misogeny, murder, bloodthirst, and greed are NOT the basest instincts of humanity? Edited by - Wilde on 8/14/2005 12:21:56 PM

Captain Picard · Aug 14th 2005

<BLOCKQUOTE><hr size=1 noshade>I will repeat this again: I HAVE NOTHING AGAINST MURDER AND TORTURE IN ANY FORM OF MEDIA. Ok? Understand? I am constantly exposed from my own free will to books, movies, etc. with violence, I have nothing against them. GTA just doesnÂ´t appeal to me. <hr size=1 noshade></BLOCKQUOTE> Alright, alright. Calm down....

Wilde · Aug 14th 2005

No.

Tawakalna · Aug 14th 2005

"And Moose Jaw is in Saskatchewan, several hundred kilometres west-north of here" so just round the corner for you then? you must sled over every weekend, thatÂ´s what i heard. "Thou hast awoken from thy Slumberre, o Ancient Sorrowe of yearres.."

The Evil Thing · Aug 14th 2005

Actually, Wilde, I donÂ´t think they ARE the basest instincts of humanity. Certainly there is a selfishness instinct in people but that should not be confused with greed. Greed is created when a notion of plenty in conditioned into the human psyche and is spun off from our inherent selfishness brought about by the instinct to survive. IÂ´ll give you that one half way. <img src=smilies/icon_smile.gif width=15 height=15 border=0 align=middle> Bloodthirst is silly. There is no way people are instinctively bloodthirsty. I challenge you to find an example in history (or modern society if you can) where behaviour appearing to be bloodthirsty cannot be attributed to other causes or beliefs. Murder, same as above. Besides, murder is an artificial and arbitrary concept created by society. Ignoring that, if murder was buried in base human desire there would be a lot more deaths than there are now. Murders are generally commited by people motivated by greed, fear or passion, not fun (excepting psychopathic killers) Misogyny (assuming my definition is correct) seems rather a strange thing to attribute to basic desires or instinct. Where have you encountered examples of such Â´instinctiveÂ´ behaviour.

Captain Picard · Aug 14th 2005

<BLOCKQUOTE><hr size=1 noshade>No. <hr size=1 noshade></BLOCKQUOTE> Yeeeeeees....think of something calming, like a sunset on a lake or something. I agree with Evil Thing here. And itÂ´s 1 AM so i canÂ´t be arsed to think about anything.

Wilde · Aug 14th 2005

<BLOCKQUOTE><hr size=1 noshade>Greed is created when a notion of plenty in conditioned into the human psyche and is spun off from our inherent selfishness brought about by the instinct to survive. IÂ´ll give you that one half way. <hr size=1 noshade></BLOCKQUOTE> Selfishness is indeed what I meant, forgive my inclarity. <BLOCKQUOTE><hr size=1 noshade>Bloodthirst is silly. There is no way people are instinctively bloodthirsty. I challenge you to find an example in history (or modern society if you can) where behaviour appearing to be bloodthirsty cannot be attributed to other causes or beliefs. <hr size=1 noshade></BLOCKQUOTE> 1. Assyria 2. Rome 3. The KnightÂ´s Templar 4. Our good friend Mr. Tepes (not that we have anything against him...) 5. The murder of Matthew Sheppard 6. Abu Ghraib ...shall I go on? You do have a point: bloodthirst is often coupled with other motives, these most often being desires and fears that would make Freud drool. But what is meant by "bloodthirst"? A lust for the complete and total obliteration of our enemies; a path to by the highest means enforce our superiority. Prizing power and satisfaction over morality and compassion. Animalism. <BLOCKQUOTE><hr size=1 noshade> Ignoring that, if murder was buried in base human desire there would be a lot more deaths than there are now. <hr size=1 noshade></BLOCKQUOTE> Murder, per se, is not. Violence is. It is the more natural means of persuasion in our psyches. DonÂ´t believe me? Numerous and overwhelming studies have shown that two year olds, who have not mastered rational communication but have mastered basic motor skills, are more violent than even embittered, angsty, psychopathic teenagers--in fact, they are solely violent. Their only means of persuasion is through physical force. Obviously itÂ´s not very effective, them being two and all. But it is natural. Violence has to be conditioned out of us. Though we do have a natural compassion, and the capacity to even transcend the bounds of that, the predominant natural force is the more bestial of the two. <BLOCKQUOTE><hr size=1 noshade>murder is an artificial and arbitrary concept created by society <hr size=1 noshade></BLOCKQUOTE> If you take a humanÂ´s life, you take a life. Period. Society didnÂ´t create that. I fail to see how the concept of that is artificial. <BLOCKQUOTE><hr size=1 noshade>Misogyny (assuming my definition is correct) seems rather a strange thing to attribute to basic desires or instinct. Where have you encountered examples of such Â´instinctiveÂ´ behaviour. <hr size=1 noshade></BLOCKQUOTE> Really? This all goes back to need of control and superiority, coupled with the egoÂ´s twisted view of itself as higher and thereby more deserving. There is always a scapegoat, some easily recognizable group to proclaim as less than human and to oppress because of it. Misogyny, racism, anti semitism, homophobia...they all revolve around the same thing. Truly, you miss the point. Your argument is mainly directed against the "instincts of humanity" bit. My point was: Are they not base ? <BLOCKQUOTE><hr size=1 noshade>you must sled over every weekend <hr size=1 noshade></BLOCKQUOTE> No, I take the skidoo. ItÂ´s faster <img src=smilies/icon_smile.gif width=15 height=15 border=0 align=middle> <BLOCKQUOTE><hr size=1 noshade>Yeeeeees <hr size=1 noshade></BLOCKQUOTE> Nooooooooo. Edited by - Wilde on 8/14/2005 6:27:07 PM

Steel_Fang · Aug 14th 2005

Its amazing that Jack has gotten so far on a false statement. I have read more than a few intervievs and what did I find? He has NO SOLID PROOF. He never makes any references to a credible source of information. Although it may be true that the scene was embedded in the gameÂ´s programming, it is obvious that, due the necessity of a mod to see it, the scene was origionally totally unreachable by the player. Why give a game an AO rating for something the player would never see? Out of all those that Jack mentioned, it is the makers of the game that probably deserve the blame the least, and the parents that deserve it the most, for buying a game that was rated 17+ for their ten-year-old son, and for allowing their child to download the mod to unlock the hidden scene when it would be very easy to research and find out what the mod does. Lastly, Jack is a dick, anyways. Edited by - Steel_Fang on 8/14/2005 8:04:26 PM

Tawakalna · Aug 15th 2005

that was excellent Wilde! couldnÂ´t have put it better myself (round of applause for Wilde) "Thou hast awoken from thy Slumberre, o Ancient Sorrowe of yearres.."

The Evil Thing · Aug 15th 2005

<BLOCKQUOTE><hr size=1 noshade>Selfishness is indeed what I meant, forgive my inclarity. <hr size=1 noshade></BLOCKQUOTE> You are forgiven <img src=smilies/icon_smile.gif width=15 height=15 border=0 align=middle> <BLOCKQUOTE><hr size=1 noshade>Assyria <hr size=1 noshade></BLOCKQUOTE> You have the advantage on me here, my classical knowledge doesnÂ´t extend much further east than ancient Egypt. <BLOCKQUOTE><hr size=1 noshade>Rome <hr size=1 noshade></BLOCKQUOTE> Such as? The gladiatorial contests were never about bloodlust, though it is easy to think that. The Romans saw and enjoyed the games for the skill and bravery of the combatants, not for the sight of blood. The venationes were used as a symbol of RomeÂ´s everlasting power over nature. Brutal executions were carried out because there was a strong feeling of vengeance towards criminals. People are only as Â´moralÂ´ as the society they are brought up in. Romans were no stranger to death, seeing so much of it all through their lives, so they saw no reason not to cause it. The bloodthirsty Romans were in a tiny minority of the population. <BLOCKQUOTE><hr size=1 noshade>Our good friend Mr. Tepes <hr size=1 noshade></BLOCKQUOTE> I assume you mean Vlad III. He was just insane. You canÂ´t use one mentally unstable man (however powerful) as a model for all of humanity <img src=smilies/icon_smile.gif width=15 height=15 border=0 align=middle> <BLOCKQUOTE><hr size=1 noshade>The murder of Matthew Sheppard <hr size=1 noshade></BLOCKQUOTE> From what research I have been doing I must believe that this was in fact homophobic, not driven by bloodthirst. If you can find a reputable source saying otherwise then I will concede you this point, but still remind you that 2 people are hardly models of humanity <img src=smilies/icon_smile.gif width=15 height=15 border=0 align=middle> <BLOCKQUOTE><hr size=1 noshade>Abu Ghraib <hr size=1 noshade></BLOCKQUOTE> Tough one to explain. I personally donÂ´t believe that this was down to bloodlust or inherent violence within humanity but have no real evidence to support this. I can only look at the abuse and try to interpret the motivations from what the Americans did and (more importantly) what they didnÂ´t. Therefore if you can again provide evidence to the contrary I will also concede this point too. Notice that it seemed to revolve around humiliation. Most of the time the prisoners were stripped and/or threatened, which suggests a feeling of vengeance coupled with loutish behaviour. What the Americans didnÂ´t do is consistenty inflict grievous bodily harm on the prisoners in nearly the same amount as general humiliaton (not that that makes it any more acceptable - itÂ´s still war crimes) so they may not have been doing it for violenceÂ´s sake. <BLOCKQUOTE><hr size=1 noshade>...shall I go on? <hr size=1 noshade></BLOCKQUOTE> At the risk of digging myself into a hole, please do <img src=smilies/icon_smile.gif width=15 height=15 border=0 align=middle> <BLOCKQUOTE><hr size=1 noshade>But what is meant by "bloodthirst"? A lust for the complete and total obliteration of our enemies; a path to by the highest means enforce our superiority. <hr size=1 noshade></BLOCKQUOTE> I just use the dictionary definition (which doesnÂ´t actually exist, so I used bloodlust instead <img src=smilies/icon_smile.gif width=15 height=15 border=0 align=middle>) of a desire to spill blood. Using your definition though, it sounds like a compilation of innate selfishness and instinctive desire for security and safety overriding the idea of mercy and/or compassion. I think. IÂ´m not entirely sure what you mean here. <img src=smilies/icon_smile_tongue.gif width=15 height=15 border=0 align=middle> So sort of what you said. <BLOCKQUOTE><hr size=1 noshade>Numerous and overwhelming studies have shown that two year olds, who have not mastered rational communication but have mastered basic motor skills, are more violent than even embittered, angsty, psychopathic teenagers <hr size=1 noshade></BLOCKQUOTE> First of all, teenagers are not psychopaths, nor are psycopaths automatically violent, just a minority which is approximately the same proportion as the rest of us. (But irrelevant<img src=smilies/icon_smile.gif width=15 height=15 border=0 align=middle>) Secondly can you show me these studies, please? ItÂ´s not that I donÂ´t believe you (<img src=smilies/icon_smile_wink.gif width=15 height=15 border=0 align=middle>) but that I want to see the original data for myself. Until then, I wonÂ´t respond to this until I can form balanced and supportable conclusions, rather than bluff my way through and make a complete ass of myself. <img src=smilies/icon_smile.gif width=15 height=15 border=0 align=middle> <BLOCKQUOTE><hr size=1 noshade>If you take a humanÂ´s life, you take a life. Period. Society didnÂ´t create that. I fail to see how the concept of that is artificial. <hr size=1 noshade></BLOCKQUOTE> Murder is, as societies generally see it, the deliberate, premeditated actions resulting in the death of someone who presented no immenent physical danger to the perpetrator. The obvious exceptions are human sacrfice and executions. These are motivated by the beliefs of a culture and are therefore not true murder. Notice that this concept is arbitrary. There is no preconditioned notion of murder, it has to be taught to us that certain circumstances dictate when we can kill people without fear of consequences. <img src=smilies/icon_smile.gif width=15 height=15 border=0 align=middle> Killing is not artificial, but killing is not always murder <img src=smilies/icon_smile.gif width=15 height=15 border=0 align=middle> <BLOCKQUOTE><hr size=1 noshade>This all goes back to need of control and superiority, coupled with the egoÂ´s twisted view of itself as higher and thereby more deserving. There is always a scapegoat, some easily recognizable group to proclaim as less than human and to oppress because of it. Misogyny, racism, anti semitism, homophobia...they all revolve around the same thing. <hr size=1 noshade></BLOCKQUOTE> Unfortunately you canÂ´t put mysogyny and racism et al. under the same heading. They are motivated by different things. Racism and homophobia are created through a personÂ´s innate distrust of outsiders and all things new. The best way to remove this is to integrate. You could argue that in fact homophobia is caused more by again the arbitrary beliefs that many religions propound, such as Christianity or Islam. It is interesting to note that in areas where there is little influence by the major monodeic (is that a word? <img src=smilies/icon_smile.gif width=15 height=15 border=0 align=middle>) religions homophobia is not particularly rampant. But I digress, misogyny seems to be a categorical hatred towards women. This is not about scapegoats or anything like that, just irrational hatred. Just try and explain how irrational hatred is innate in the human psyche. <img src=smilies/icon_smile_tongue.gif width=15 height=15 border=0 align=middle> <BLOCKQUOTE><hr size=1 noshade>Truly, you miss the point. Your argument is mainly directed against the "instincts of humanity" bit. My point was: Are they not base ? <hr size=1 noshade></BLOCKQUOTE> And my point was: No they are not. I quote myself: <BLOCKQUOTE><hr size=1 noshade>Actually, Wilde, I donÂ´t think they ARE the basest instincts of humanity. <hr size=1 noshade></BLOCKQUOTE> So there <img src=smilies/icon_smile_tongue.gif width=15 height=15 border=0 align=middle> Your serve. <img src=smilies/icon_smile.gif width=15 height=15 border=0 align=middle>

Wilde · Aug 15th 2005

Mmm, I smell a kill! <img src=smilies/icon_smile_tongue.gif width=15 height=15 border=0 align=middle> Ok, so considering that you bow to my knowledge of Assyria, letÂ´s continue to the next point: Rome. I was actually talking about Nero, who burned about a tenth of the city to the ground, blamed it on the Christians, and subsequently replaced the standard flame-and-wood torch with, well, live humans. He burned Christians live, that is, to provide light for his parties. And of course the good man Commodus, son of the wisest morally-based emperor Rome (or indeed the ancient world) ever saw. Who brought back the gladiatoral combat after his fatherÂ´s death not because he admired the skill of the combatants but rather because he wanted to see people get killed. Or so historical accounts seem to point out. Having said this, Commodus was somewhat of a natural douchebag, and no more representative of humanity on the whole than was Marcus Aurelius, though they occupy opposite ends of the spectrum. But going back to the gladiatoral events, there were several where the situation was not two equals battling each other to the death, but rather...well, exactly the opposite. Except for the death. Examples being the opening of the Flavian amphitheatre, where along with the thousands of animals, hundreds of unarmed prisoners and criminals were released into the arena to be slaughtered by executioners; and in later years, after the rise of Christianity, heretics (usually Christians) were bound hands and feet to stakes, with starved lions released into the arena (one per heretic)...and, well, were subsequently ripped to shreds. Or should I mention the 6000 men crucified along the Via Appia? Mmmm. Crassus was such a lovely person. Of course you could make the argument that he had it done as an example to further slave-revolutionaries, but crucifixion is a somewhat blood-crazed measure to take, donÂ´t you think? The empireÂ´s history is essentially drenched in blood. Mm. Next Point: Ahem. 2000 men impaled. However insane, itÂ´s still bloody. And donÂ´t forget: insanity is only a colossal mental emphasis of certian psychological elements (to the exclusion of all others, in worst case scenarios) that are more or less universal. NEXT: Well, of course it was driven by homophobia. But the reason that I selected this as opposed to others is because there are attacks in schools, on the streets, and so forth which are based around homophobia, but these tend to go no farther than verbal attacks or perhaps a few blows thrown in. Matthew Sheppard was beaten with crowbars, tortured until he fell into a coma, and then mock-crucified to a fence. BUT I will concede the point about Abu Ghraib. What I should have rather pointed out was the incident about 10 years ago when Canadian peacekeepers humiliated, tortured, then killed a prisoner of war (I believe this was in Croatia, but someone correct me if IÂ´m wrong). Though both lust for humiliation and lust for violence revolve around the same point (enforcing oneÂ´s superiority; a physical expression of the Master-and-slave complex). I will get right on finding links to studies for you. They do exist, I wasnÂ´t bluffing. <img src=smilies/icon_smile_wink.gif width=15 height=15 border=0 align=middle> And I do see your point about murder, so in that case your argument was mainly with my term as opposed to killing itself. IÂ´d make a different argument concerning the nature of homophobia and racism. Yours is the generally excepted interpretation; the way I look at it is rather that this instinct of mistrust and apprehension of the unknown is a shadow, an offshoot of manÂ´s pure terror when confronting the unknowable (metaphors and words being vehicles and only vehicles when conveying this image). An example (out of literature, but true in a different sense than historical): In the Bhagavad Gita, the prince Arjuna asks his charioteer Krishna to reveal his true form to him--Krishna being a physical incarnation of the Absolute. He complies, and reveals himself as a sudden infinite colossus, overwhelming and Absolute, whose being cannot be comprehended fully by the conscious, framed mind. Arjuna, of course, falls on his face in pure terror. This is representative of a psychological reaction that is one of the only entirely universal tendencies. Humans universally are simultaneously drawn to and pulled away from the Real, feeling awe, terror, a need for, and a hate towards. That which is not known and can be we are suspicious of; that which is not known and is impossible to know we are petrified of. And so, if we, like animals, feel the terror as the highest emotion we choose to lash out at the source; if we instead choose the desire towards as the higher impulse, we deify the source, proclaim it holy; In both cases power is given. "Plunge into the totality of the Real." Seneca couldnÂ´t have put it any better. No matter what our response, the emotion is always because of this plunge (sudden drop! whoo!) into the deep. That which is liminal is always given power in this way. That is to say, when something falls between the categories of our mental frame, when it is neither one nor the other, we always naturally attribute importance to it. The thing can no longer be fully comprehended by oneÂ´s frame. It cannot be categorized, grouped, and understood. It goes beyond , and therefore is unknowable. Doubt me? Example time! All cultures have invented concepts of monsters. But what is meant by this term? A monster universally is a concept of a man (or familiar/helpful/known animal) mated with bestial, demonic forces. That is to say that which is human, possessing sentience, crossed with that which is not human, less than human. And why is this so universally frightening? It is a liminal idea. It crosses the line between the worlds of man and beast. It cannot be comprehended. Therefore, it is representative of the Real in that its presence forces one to plunge into the depths of the unknown. Another concept of monster is that of the undead. Similarly, this is a liminal concept: crossing between the worlds of living and dead. But we honour this not always with demonhood; return from death has also been heralded as angelic and divine (Revelations, the myth of Persephone, The epic of Gilgamesh). Where am I going with this rant? Racism and homophobia are direct results of this terror of the unknowable. The formerÂ´s subjectÂ´s liminality is, from a racistÂ´s eyes, between beast and human. The liminality of homosexuality is, from a homophobeÂ´s eyes, both between man and woman and beast and human. In both cases, the purity code is violated, and thus one has a subject for the projection of the half-man. Because we are scared of everything that crosses the boundaries in this way, our first instinct when we give way to terror (which hasnÂ´t always happened) is to demonize. This is why I said we lash out at the source of our terror, and our weapon is to project upon it, upon the image of it in our minds, all our lower instincts, claiming it to be evil, lower and lesser than we are, incompassionate and insentient. Less able, less intelligent, soulless. All that which is depraved inside us, all that we detest about ourselves, we project onto these vehicles which we cannot comprehend and deify our own persons, showing how humanity, morality, and wisdom is on our side. (WeÂ´re arseholes, essentially.) Now, for the big finish: misogyny ties in with all this. The concept of course has some qualitative differences, but possesses the same cause and the same end result. Essentially, men cannot understand women in the same way they can understand men. Though they do not per se cross any boundaries of the purity code, they still represent in some way to men the unknowable, that which cannot be comprehended. And so they are another "object" that is viewed as less than human and so oppressed. Irrational hatred is not innate in the human psyche. Irrational hatred stemming from a terror at the unknowable is. AND back to you <img src=smilies/icon_smile.gif width=15 height=15 border=0 align=middle> Edited by - Wilde on 8/15/2005 8:02:16 AM

Aliens! Aaaah, aliens! · Aug 15th 2005

Are you two sure youÂ´re both using the same definition of "base"?

Tawakalna · Aug 15th 2005

tell me more about your knowledge of Assyria. Ancient Empires of the Middle-East have always interested me, sadly i never quite got to Iraq although i have been on the Turkish side of the border (when i was wandering around looking for Ararat) "Thou hast awoken from thy Slumberre, o Ancient Sorrowe of yearres.."

Share