human nature

[imthefoolonthehill]

In a previous thread (Alchohol, Bible)... we were cut off.

I am not extending the argument, I am only clarifying myself.


wow... thankfully this hasn't turned into a debate yet... that would have angered me...because I don't think the subject is biblically debatable.

so... thats good... I will have to go find something else to gripe about... you guys sure make it hard on me... next time you should make it easy for me to find something to gripe about.


I was laughing at my own nature, not antagonizing..... THERE WAS NO NEED TO CLOSE THAT THREAD... I was insulted, and then resonded with sarcasm... then somehow I was 'not leaving someone alone' ... therefore antagonizing 'even more'.... I still don't understand why the thread was closed...

This is absolutely absurd... somehow, people always read threads as though the person writing them is either out to insult them, or hates them.

Anyways...THEN... we started a conversation about human nature, a conversation I would like to continue with a k-hind (way some people pronounce kind) spirit... and not the spirit of (which never really existed in that thread) antagonism...

SO: is it human nature to be happy with your circumstances, or to gripe about them? (the answer seems obvious to me... so I will ask another question)...

Are human beings generally evil in nature, or generally good? If a human was given the best circumstances available, could that person possibly become evil?

I don't know if anyone else finds this interesting, but I do... so I will see how many people reply.

[Koa]

i sent you a private message, did you see it?

[imthefoolonthehill]

yes... I got it... I find it rediculous that you, along with several other people who have sent me private messages have voiced fears of being deleted for discussing this.

It is stupid and rediculous... admin... please tell these people that you will be fair and reasonable and not delete people who simply post in this forum.

[Koa]

yes... I got it... I find it rediculous that you, along with several other people who have sent me private messages have voiced fears of being deleted for discussing this.



well sorry for participating then... :rolleyes: :(

[imthefoolonthehill]

no! lol thats not what I meant... I meant to say that I find it ridiculous that people need fear the admin deleting them for discussing such a subject.

[ASA]

The mind boggles after reading the above! What on earth were you discussing... that's what I'd like to know?!

[imthefoolonthehill]

go to Bible, then read the alchohol thread.

[ASA]

Well – thank you imthefoolonthehill – I’ve just finished reading that thread.

So much has been written on the subject of happiness and joy hasn’t it? The ancient Greeks had great long debates about how one might attain it (I’m thinking here of the sayings of Epicurus and his letters to Menoeceus), sects of all great religions have concerned themselves with it (though the latter do tend to equate happiness/joy with inner peace – the Buddhist & Sufi ideas about the losing of the Self come to mind), then there’s the scientific points of view (these days, most seem to refer to the levels of serotonin in the brain), and of course, it has crept into the work of most great writers/artists in some way or another all across the ages.

A vast subject then, but one which concerns us across the board. Naturally, if anyone is still interested in talking about it with any degree of logic, we would first need to decide and agree on a definition of happiness (or joy if you prefer). Before you can debate something properly – you must make a group judgement about the limits of what it is!

As for the other stuff – I’m not sure what’s going on with all the angst. I don’t mean to cause offence to either of you – but Shea and imthefoolonthehill – you seem to have forgotten the initial argument and started to have a go at each other on a surprisingly personal level. I wonder why?

For what they’re worth – here are a few thoughts:

Shea my dear – you strike me as a person who tries to be kind. And for me there is merit in that and something to respect. However, you say you pity imthefoolonthehill because he gripes and so on – but I would say to you: be careful with pity – it is so often an excuse not to try and understand. If you are secure in your ability to think for yourself, then there is nothing that imthefoolonthehill can say to you which should be upsetting. Perhaps you could try to distance yourself emotioanally a little? Just be laid back and interested in an intellectual way. I would be very pleased if you would care to return to this topic and talk to me about how you perceive happiness, but if you feel you don’t wish to, I shall understand.

imthefoolonthehill – just so you know, your griping will not bother me one jot! – I am perfectly able to grin and handle any sarcasm you tap out in my direction so feel free. (I am always more amused than angered at such things – and if your wit is really up to intelligent banter my friend – then sharpen your fingers and try sparring with me. There’s a challenge in there somewhere I think!) On the subject of happiness there is an age old argument (as I’m sure you know) about melancholy being a pleasurable state… and given the (willing or unwilling) cynic residing within you… I wonder whether you agree with that?

VRWC (if you’re still about) – you have differentiated between joy and happiness. I like the fact that you attend to such detail and I happen to agree with you, but can you expand on this? (For example, CS Lewis believed that joy existed in moments – where as happiness was a state of mind. He also believed that true joy is to be found in the wanting of something, not in the having of it. What are your thoughts on that?)

waxmephilosophical (if you’re still interested) – you said that Shea has given you enough to chew on for some time – so what conclusions did you come to?

To all four and anyone else who stumbles across this – I’d love to hear from anybody on the subject of happiness, but in talking, let’s do ourselves a favour and remember (in the words of John Stuart Mill): “He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that.”

Have a very pleasant day!

[DumbLikeAPoet]

"Are human beings generally evil in nature, or generally good? If a human was given the best circumstances available, could that person possibly become evil? "

From a christian veiwpoint, we are all born into sin. Sin is evil and the absence of sin is good. So I would say that humans are naturaly evil in nature. As for the second question I think that given the best circumstances you have an increased chance to become evil. Because you do not understand true pain or hardship and so have no way of understanding how good you have it. Well those are my opinions (I only thought about it for a few minutes so please forgive the simplicity of the view).

JonUs

[imthefoolonthehill]

I wouldn't call your view simple.

I agree completely. Human nature is to be evil and immoral.

Asa- Julia from 1984 talked about why B.B. didn't want them having sex. She said something like, "because after your done, you feel good, your happy, and you don't give a bloody rot for Big Brother, the 2 minutes hate" etc etc

Notice she said, you're happy, you don't give a bloody rot for all this stuff B.B....


So I guess it depends on your definition of meloncholy... I have two distinct, different feelings of meloncholy... One is what I call true Meloncholy... when I simply don't care about anything at all. When I am free of all worries, troubles, stresses. Or, when I can take those worries, troubles, and stresses and say to heck with 'em. I don't care.

The other type of feeling... I don't think is meloncholy at all... but I don't give a .... then, either. This is when I get a big grin on my face, start laughing for no reason, and walk on air (for no reason at all... just because I have ceased to care)

either way... I love meloncholy because it is a heck of a lot better than being stressed out, bored, angry, and sometimes even happy.


And ASA... I believe you got Joy and Happiness switched around... Didn't C.S. Lewis think that Happiness was a momentary thing, whereas joy was a state of mind (if he didn't, then I find C.S. Lewis to be absurd in his thinking) Just an opinion... and I am entitled to my own stupid opinion, just like everyone else :-D

[alatar]

Well spoken ASA and well responded amthefoolonthehill.

ASA - I felt that you pretty much hit the nail on the head.

imthefoolonthehill - I felt, after reading Alcohol, that Shea was in the wrong, but also that you handled that poorly. Obviously, Shea was offended by your sarcasm; and, while I am more the kind of person to use sarcasm myself, I agree that once she got upset you should have backed off on the sarcasm a little bit.

I also feel that this point has been made before i butted in.....but anyways.......

In any case...I thank DumbLikeAPoet for his/her opinion....my sentiments exactly. I guess my opinion in this matter doesn't really make any difference, heads or tails, but there it is.

[imthefoolonthehill]

anyone have any opinions on Melencholy or Human nature? ... Does anyone else find this interesting?

[Eric, son of Chuck]

From the Christian standpoint, yes, we are born into sin. However, as a Christian, I don't actually believe that humans are naturally sinful. We are exposed to sin from birth, and as a result have the potential for evil. Left unattended, this will certainly develop. That doesn't mean the it's human nature to be evil though.

Evil is not the natural path. To be good, we must be positively influenced, and the same goes for being evil. The reason many people believe that we are naturally prone to evil is because we are exposed to it constantly, and as a result influenced. If we were not born into a sinful world, and were not exposed to good either, we would simply end up innocent/neutral.

Forgive me if this makes no sense, as I've just had a couple refreshing daquiris after a long day at work. ;-) I look forward your (the collective you) responses.

[alatar]

obviously, the natural inclination of man varies greatly from person to person; but, in general, most people would choose to benefit themselves given the opportunity...if most people found a few hundred dollars on the ground and no one else around, they would elect to keep it for their own good as opposed to giving it to a beggar or the police, etc. also, if someone is exposed only to good, then that person will likely become spoiled or bored. a life filled with good things and opportunities is usually quite dull. a person who is not exposed to evil will take his situation for granted and always see the evil path as one of mystery and excitement, having fun risking life and limb to survive. this intrigue would pull him toward the wrong path much more so than seeing his mother beaten and his siblings raped.

[imthefoolonthehill]

hmm... interesting thoughts... I agree with the part about the attraction of mystery being greater than the pull of evil influences.

[Munro]

I only just read this line, and I read the line on Alcohol as well, and I have to say that I'm very interested in what's being said here. I need to have a long think about it though, despite all the work I got, and then I can post what I think about human happiness...I think it deserves more than a few minutes thought, right?
By the way, is there room for a purely non-Christian/religious perspective on the topic, or am I going to be heckled as an infidel? ;)

[imthefoolonthehill]

Hell, I don't care... you can give any perspective you like.... as for heckling... I don't control that... but I do do a fair share of it myself...

-but who cares if they get heckled? We are just a bunch of faceless names on the internet.

[Eloise]

Are human beings generally evil in nature, or generally good?

Both? I've heard this argued from both christian and non-christian viewpoints, but being a christian myself I'll only give that one for now. I think that there is a mixture of both good and evil in humanity as is, good because of what God put there himself (made in the image of God etc), evil because what we've got now is the fallen version of the originally created good, which leads to sin (original or not) etc.


If a human was given the best circumstances available, could that person possibly become evil?

Yes (although I do think that circumstances, and our response to them also play a role), but what do you mean by best circumstances available? Or are you thinking more best circumstances possible? I think definitions of that would be very subjective.

[chrisvosje]

I do not believe in human nature being 'good' or 'evil'. 'Good' and 'evil' are categories created to divide actions into 'helpful for the community' and 'harmful to the community'. Man is not moral or immoral, but a-moral. Society is built on morals, and therefore man is socialized, he learns the morality of his society, so that the society can continue to exist. This happens through schooling, through education, in the family, in institutions, in daily life. In time the pressures to conform are interiorized(which is a good thing btw, we wouldn't want everyone making up his own morals, his own society, his own rules, without regard to others). And eventually we are so convinced that these rules are right, that we carry them out ourselves, that we become 'moral beings'. Changes are possible, of course, because we still have something called will and we still have a mind of our own.

[waxmephilosophical]

ASA, I actually never got around to checking out those scriptures..pretty busy right now. But I appreciate the response Shea, and I will definitely try to check them out. I actually still don't know what I think about it, but i guess that's not the topic of discussion anymore...lol. I'd have to say that the inclination to either be happy with your circumstances or find fault with them really has to do with the disposition of the individual. Some people are tirelessly optimistic, and find a reason to be thankful for everything in their life, and some will never be satisfied. It's perfectly natural to always want more out of life, though. As for the question of whether man is inherently evil or good, I'd have to agree with Eloise...if we were purely good, life wouldn't be quite as hard as it is, would it? :) We'd have this underlying spark of "goodness" that would come to the rescue every time we were tempted or tried. On the other hand, man cannot be innately evil, because, as Eloise said, we were created in God's image. And, once again, individual perceptions of life also factor in...

[imthefoolonthehill]

Eloise: so do you think some people are born good, some evil, and some a mix? Do I have it completely wrong?


Chrisvosje: consider yourself officially heckled by my following statement. "BLA! BLA! BLA! YOUR WRONG BLA BLA IM RIGHT BLA BLA BLA BLA BLA BLA!"
:D

Seriously, I do disagree with your statements.... while they are fun to think about, I do not believe that they withstand the test of logic. If good and evil were merely categories put into place so that a society can exist more... peacefully (?) ... then it would not be wrong to kill someone who does not benefit society... For example, if the definitions of right or wrong were merely : that which helps or harms society... then I shouldn't have a troubled mind if I drove to Los Angelas and killed the hundreds of homeless people there.... well... maybe the part about the troubled mind isn't part of the point.... and I might not logically be able to draw THAT conclusion.... maybe I should simply say that it would not be morally wrong to kill all those people according to your definition.

Waxmephilosophical: Man was created in God's image... but was Man's character or nature created in God's image? If it was, wasn't that ruined after the fall of man?

[imthefoolonthehill]

sorry about this... I accidently did something weird... hit quote instead of edit or something... and now I can't delete this....

oh... and the part about killing the homeless people... please note it was purley hipothetical.

[Eloise]

Eloise: so do you think some people are born good, some evil, and some a mix? Do I have it completely wrong?

You have it completely wrong! I think everybody is born a mix.

[waxmephilosophical]

By saying that man was created in God's image I mean that something created in his image cannot be purely evil...it's not possible.

[imthefoolonthehill]

Eloise: pardon me... thank you for making your view very clear. :-)

Waxmephilosophical: I realize that is what you mean... I am questioning whether or not you have a valid argument. According to the Bible, man was created in God's image. He then fell-dooming the future members of the human race to have a sin-nature. You know... if we are going to go the Biblical route (as you seem to be), then human nature is to be evil. However, if you do not claim to believe in the infallibility of scripture, your argument makes more sense. From your current and previous arguments, however, I have assumed that you do not believe that the Bible can be wrong... If this is true... then you are contradicting yourself

I want the emoticon that is a combination between :D :) and :-?

[waxmephilosophical]

Yes, of course we have a sinful nature, but I don't believe that it is purely and solely evil. I've yet to see how I'm contradicting myself. And no, I do not believe that the Bible can be wrong...do you? :rolleyes:

[CelestialBeastie]

To begin, I wrote that post after two hours sleep, so it is justifiably a little foggy. Why should it bother anybody?

Also, shouldn't somebody as well versed in logic( as you seem to consider yourself to be) know better than to use ad hominem arguments. They are completely irrelevant to the discussion and prove that the user is uncivil.

:evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :D :evil: :evil: :D :evil: :evil: :D :evil: 8) :evil: ;) :evil:

I am only writing this because the forum won't let me delete my messages. Perhaps if I swore a little (with incorrect spelling, just in case), it will delete if for me. fuc fuc fuc fuc

I could correct a number of spelling mistakes you made (while you were, I presume, fully awake and had double-checked) but I have probably proven myself immature enough already (with this post).

You are too hostile. Despite the anonymity of the 'net, you are still communicating with other people.

[imthefoolonthehill]

hmm... I hope I didn't offend you, waxmephilosophical, because that was in no way my intent.

I have always looked upon "sin nature" as inherently, 100% evil. (as in as bad as satan... if the sins of two different types of beings can be compared... another topic of discussion maybe?)

Therefore, I assumed that you were contradicting yourself, maxmephilosophical, when you believe that the Bible is completely true --
(as do I... and I wonder what the eye-roll means... I was not patronizing you, merely questioning for the sake of obtaining personal information... not to try to get you to think about anything...)-- ... er anyways... you believe the BIble is completley true yet say that human beings cannot be purely evil. I had not realized that this (what is BIblical on this matter)was a debateable topic.


lol CelestialBeastie... you make me laugh (whether rightly or not). "all men are born evil, and fall short of the grace of God" WHERE ON EARTH DID YOU DIG THAT ONE UP? LOL! Am I being extremely ignorant? I have never seen THAT verse before.... Where is it written? Perhaps you meant, "For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God" Romans 3:23 NIV

Compared to God, all men are evil, yes... Isn't it strange how sometimes the most simple questions have the most complicated answers? I love the quote "every question has a simple, easy, and wrong answer" (I got the wording and perhaps the meaning wrong)... Anyways.... enough excuses... the question was, "what is evil"... since I am no great theologion, and am not inspired in either my thinking or my spelling... I will give you a simple, and probably wrong answer. I think that evil is the absense of the righteousness of God.

",since they would have something they" um???? gonna finish, there?

:evil: normally, this emoticon is used to show great anger or hate... This part makes me smile the most.

so you are not personally fond of arguing from the Bible... "because it can be interpreted a number of ways..." Yes it can... but when they are mutuall exclusive, only one can be correct (I am mr obvious today)... anyway {is it anyway or anyways} ... anywho... lol... I would rather know I am wrong in grammer than be unsure... lol... anywho... "... since I am not christian, I question its validity."-CelestialBeastie

ok... question its validity! please!...

:D

You don't think humans are inherently good or evil, but can be pulled either way.... ok.... it is an interesting opinion.... but then you go into some rather... vague, probably misleading, and overall crappy examples... You do not elaborate; you do nothing but throw out a bunch of barely connected words and call it good. Then, you chalk up any deficiencies to your 'laziness'... Now, if you wish to be listened to, then perhaps you better make more sense?

Ok... now that I am finished with commenting on your horrible examples, I will not turn my never-ending stream of words upon your (satisfactory) example with Mother Tereasa (sp????). With that example, yes you could say that people are somewhere in the middle and can be swayed either way... But that example could also be used to support my position... Mother Tereasa fled towards God when she saw her human nature was evil. Then, with the help of God, she defied her human nature. Please note that it is not my opinion that human nature can only be defied when someone runs toward God.

Ok... now we are at the good part of your post... "killing all the homeless people would be a wrong act whether or not you believed that morality was a social construct (along with the concepts of good and evil). it acts against the basic drive that says that taking human lives is wrong (which benefits all members)."

I agree that it would be wrong. I am unsure whether or not I agree as to why it is wrong. What people believe has nothing to do with the actual truth. Therefore, even if people believed that morality was a social construct, if it in all actuality wasn't, it would be wrong to kill a homeless person simply because he is useless to society.

Then, Celestial Beastie, you begin talking about a "basic drive". What is this basic drive, and what is it's purpose? If you rule out God as a posibility (as in ruling out -> there is an absolute truth and absolute right and our conciences pull us toward 'what we ought to do')... then what could be the purpose of this drive? Is the purpose to save the human race from itself and from total obliteration?

If that is so, the purpose of existence is existence. I suppose that if I am wrong, that might very well be true.

So I guess I am having muddled thoughts on everything today, especially this basic drive business... are you saying that this basic drive is merely a security mesure (SP is terrible) implanted into our 'instinct'? Is that your opinion, or do I have it wrong? Hm... I started off ridiculing a post that made little sense, and ended up making another one...

The quote you were reffering to is a good one... I don't remember how it went either... it was something like "when they came for the Jews, I did nothing, for I was not Jewish. When they came for the Gypsies, I did nothing, for I was not a Gypsy. When they came for the protestants, I did nothing, for I was not a protestant. When they came for me, I cried for help, but there was no one left to help me"


On the subject of happiness: strange as it sounds, sometimes I enjoy life the most while I am sad, depressed, or in a state of meloncholy. When I am happy... Life seems more hollow.

[waxmephilosophical]

You in no way offended me...I think you're used to offending people, so you naturally assume that everything you say is offensive...I find it hard to get offended by something that somebody types in a literature forum...call me crazy! :D Oh, and the eye roll was not an eye roll - that's always looked more to me like a look of wondering. So, used in context, it meant "Do you believe that the bible can be wrong, I wonder?" I would never, ever want someone to misread my emoticon usage...does this clear it up? :D :D

[imthefoolonthehill]

for those of you confused by my last post, it is only because celestial beastie edited the post before that.

Ad hominem! LOL! I was not insulting you to further my opinion... I am not completely sure that I am correct... I have no wish to make others believe as I do in this matter.... yet... :-)

Secondly, I was not specifically insulting you, only your words... small detail...

I called your examples crappy (they were).... and that is pretty much it... I never insulted you personally....

"You are too hostile. Despite the anonymity of the 'net, you are still communicating with other people."

Yep, I am communicating with people.... but they are all evil in nature and should be bad-mouthed anyway... {anyway, anyways????} (that was a joke by the way).... ha. ha. ha. (that is my 'oh God, that was lame' laughter)....

PS Editing your posts can be considered impolite... even if you are editing something out that should be edited out.... It is impolite because it makes posts that come afterward confusing.

When I screw up, say something stupid, AND want to change it... I usually put a
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please disreguard this post because the author of it was being stupid
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

thing in it... By the way... ignore the disreguard sign.... lol....



ok... on to you waxmephilosophical.... You are absolutely correct. I am used to accidently offending thin-skinned people.... I am glad to hear that you have thicker skin... as we all should.

:rolleyes: Hmm.... I never thought about this emoticon being a wondering thing.... but since when you click on it, it says : r o l l : I assumed that it was an eye roll...

thx for being clear....

[waxmephilosophical]

no prob bob

[imthefoolonthehill]

bob????????????? um?????? Now I am confused.

[lahk]

I believe in all humans there is the ability for evil and good. It does not matter whether you are a Christian or not, the ability is still there. What I would be easily tempted to do, may not be what someone else would be easily tempted to do. I have known people that don't want to be "good". They enjoy the dark side. I know people that easily hate others. I also know people that seem to radiate love. So, really it's a choice, a decision to choose evil or good. This is a topic that a person could go on and on and on. Back to my book reading.....

[theMarsMonster]

first post and probably the last as well :)

you can go on and on about anything...

i try to understand others and follow the live and let others do whatever they want to do as long as they don't affect me.
that is my measure of good.

[Nevolia]

I agree with lahk (for those of you who want this topic to die-so to speak-sorry) Anyway, I think environment has a lot to do with how "good" or "evil" a person is. I believe people are born innocent and good, and are not naturally pre-disposed to act or think evil. Envirnment does that to the child, not the child itself.

[usman.khawar]

‘Nafs (Self, nature)’ ‘Qalb(heart)’ Rooh( Soul, spirit)’.

Well! Many things have been said about these. Actually you don’t know any thing. You always pass a confusing statement about those things. When people did not know much about Nafs they said; it is the greatest enigma in the history of mankind (what is nafs) but it was not difficult. Nafs(self) is actually the basic packet of your instincts, when get together they create a self that is nafs. And Qalb is a place; its very equivalence place where wisdom and nafs both act. It is a place. If I don’t have a place for anger in my heart I won’t get angry. Even if the Satan works very hard with me we provide him something from inside so it is a kind of land where he cast his seed. Heart is a place which lives with God. It only remains happy with God. But when it is not with God it is land of mischief. So everybody can come and puts some wrong in it. So I already told you when things go cracked, Qalb and nafs from a bad way of thinking moves on too. As Quran says:

God has created every thing in balance.

self is fifty percent wisdom and fifty percent of the satanic impression. When you do get balance, heart gets balance, even Rooh gets balance. But when it gets corrupted, heart gets corrupted even the spirit gets corrupted and you go to Hell. When these are impaired, when they are not properly functioning, when they are not fulfilling the purpose of their creation they go to Hell. And if they succeed in knowing themselves Even a particle of faith will not die. Even a particle of faith will take you to the heaven if you are sincere. So basically there is no difference. We use people, use the mystic the mystic, use these words for facility. They don’t have any worthwhile explanation, what is heart? What is this? May be a teacher explains it as metaphysically, others mystically, the third one scientifically. And basically they use these words and phraseology for explaining certain conditions of mind so nafs is a word which is used for all negative qualities of man. And Qalb is a name which is used for a balanced sheet which has fifty percent both. And Rooh is used for the utmost purification of life. There are three mental conditions. I have never found a difference between Rooh and nafs and all this because to me they all work together this way or that way.

there is a thread with an amazing investigation about self/nature. lets see it
http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=63002

[LitNetIsGreat]

Wow a thread from 2003 with people bickering at each other from the start, how times have changed...

[JuniperWoolf]

Cool, a zombie thread. Thought to be long dead, but behold, it yet lives.

[Paulclem]

Yes - the icons change but the people don't.

(Hmmm - should I write that down as potentially meaningful. The one meaningful sentence in my meaningless literary contributions......?.....Nah...):lol:

[papayahed]

Yes - the icons change but the people don't.


nice!! I would use that as my signature but I can't bear to part with Yoda.

[Paulclem]

nice!! I would use that as my signature but I can't bear to part with Yoda.

No, you're right. Yoda is great.

[LitNetIsGreat]

Yes - the icons change but the people don't.

(Hmmm - should I write that down as potentially meaningful. The one meaningful sentence in my meaningless literary contributions......?.....Nah...):lol:

Yeah, and a touch ironic that the thread is dealing, or supposed to be so, with human nature. Unchanging human nature and all of that.

I wonder what people will think in 8 years time if they bring back one of my silly threads or important silly ramblings in regards to what me and Emil are eating and drinking, or Woody Allen conversations etc, etc? Obviously they will realise the genius but what else?

Currently drinking a bit of Stella...

[papayahed]

Yeah, and a touch ironic that the thread is dealing, or supposed to be so, with human nature. Unchanging human nature and all of that.

I wonder what people will think in 8 years time if they bring back one of my silly threads or important silly ramblings in regards to what me and Emil are eating and drinking, or Woody Allen conversations etc, etc? Obviously they will realise the genius but what else?

Currently drinking a bit of Stella...

I've gone back and pulled up a few of my old gems and for the most part I agree with my 2004 self.

[papayahed]

God damn I've been here for seven years.

[LitNetIsGreat]

I've gone back and pulled up a few of my old gems and for the most part I agree with my 2004 self.


God damn I've been here for seven years.

Oh I hate it when old threads of mine come up and I've only done three years or so. Never return to the past I think - go forward. At least you agree with your past self, I very much doubt if I would though.

[JuniperWoolf]

I wonder what people will think in 8 years time if they bring back one of my silly threads.

This sentence filled me with a sinking feeling of cold dread. *cringe* Stupid 2009 Juniper...

[papayahed]

Oh I hate it when old threads of mine come up and I've only done three years or so. Never return to the past I think - go forward. At least you agree with your past self, I very much doubt if I would though.

It's not so bad, see:


Hello, I am new to this site, the forum part anyway, though I am glad I have joined for literature is my first passion and I have been studying it for years (part-time). Others interests include listening to music, drinking beer and sleeping.

Anyway, I hope that I can learn a few things as well as pass a few things on, I have already come across a couple of must read books having just read a few threads. This thing could be dangerous!

:lol::lol::lol:

[JuniperWoolf]

Haha, reading, listening to music, drinking beer and sleeping. Boy Neely, how you've changed!

[LitNetIsGreat]

Oh dear that's embarrassing, but yes it does seem pretty accurate. 2005? It says that I've joined in 2008? I don't know, I don't even remember joining or that post, it's just a haze. I was probably under influence at the time. That's how exciting my life is, some people after drinking and a hazy wild night find themselves next to a strange women ("who are you?") or find unusual traffic cones/road signs scattered across the room - something like that etc, etc; me, I join a literature forum! As my current monkier says "Bohemian", notice the intended irony there?

[Emil Miller]

I wonder what people will think in 8 years time if they bring back one of my silly threads or important silly ramblings in regards to what me and Emil are eating and drinking, or Woody Allen conversations etc, etc? Obviously they will realise the genius but what else?

Well not genius exactly but an attempt liven up an incredibly boring thread.
What could be more tedious than....'An apple' or 'Nuts' or most mind-bendingly soul destroying and my personal bête noire ...'Lime flavoured popsicle' ?

[LitNetIsGreat]

True, and also I'm often scared at some of those "foodstuffs" that some of our dear American friends bring up. I saw something the other day that someone had put it about a sausage on a stick wrapped in a pancake with chocolate chips!!! I obviously thought it was a wind-up but then, who knows, with cheese in a can and pizza for breakfast, you never know?:D

[JuniperWoolf]

That's how exciting my life is, some people after drinking and a hazy wild night find themselves next to a strange women ("who are you?") or find unusual traffic cones/road signs scattered across the room - something like that etc, etc; me, I join a literature forum!

:smilielol5:

[papayahed]

Oh dear that's embarrassing, but yes it does seem pretty accurate. 2005? It says that I've joined in 2008? I don't know, I don't even remember joining or that post, it's just a haze. I was probably under influence at the time. That's how exciting my life is, some people after drinking and a hazy wild night find themselves next to a strange women ("who are you?") or find unusual traffic cones/road signs scattered across the room - something like that etc, etc; me, I join a literature forum! As my current monkier says "Bohemian", notice the intended irony there?


Yeah, that was my fault when I was copy that post over I couldn't remember your year so I took a stab at 2005.

Did you know you and bean joined right around the same time??

[papayahed]

:D Juniper's turn:


I really love Rimbaud. The first time that I ever felt that there was something to existance was when I was reading his poetry. It makes me want to do something.

[JuniperWoolf]

Hahaha, I guess that one's not so bad; I just got a little excited. It's better than some of the things you could have picked, I've said some pretty weird things - none of which are quite as weird as this:


I think it was determined before that the Ninjas could beat the pirates, but what about Ninjas vs. Robot Monkeys from Outer Space?


Robot monkeys all the way! LONG LIVE BOBO!!!

[Stanislaw]

lol ninjas, vs pirates, vs robot monkeys... those were some good times :D

[papayahed]

Hahaha, I guess that one's not so bad; I just got a little excited. It's better than some of the things you could have picked, I've said some pretty weird things - none of which are quite as weird as this:



I think it was determined before that the Ninjas could beat the pirates, but what about Ninjas vs. Robot Monkeys from Outer Space?




Robot monkeys all the way! LONG LIVE BOBO!!!


1) :lol:

2) Context is everything, it was a different time on litnet (there were pirates and ninjas roaming freely, we were always on the look out for Stan's Dastardly ship)

3) See!! I still agree!!




lol ninjas, vs pirates, vs robot monkeys... those were some good times :D

hahaha I know right??

[Emil Miller]

True, and also I'm often scared at some of those "foodstuffs" that some of our dear American friends bring up. I saw something the other day that someone had put it about a sausage on a stick wrapped in a pancake with chocolate chips!!! I obviously thought it was a wind-up but then, who knows, with cheese in a can and pizza for breakfast, you never know?:D

Yes I saw that sausage contraption, it's not for nothing that the US is home to the word 'gimmick', and it seems to be part of that vast swathe of inconsequential junk that flows in US capitalism's wake, such as Barbie Dolls, Ninja Turtles, Muppets, Action Man etc. etc. and which is usually manufactured abroad and sold back to credulous buyers in the US and elsewhere. Though nobody is ever going to better the giggling Sigmund Freud shown on LitNet a while back. I'm already laughing again.