Sleeper's Amazin' Asians

[ziggy gaydust]

some fucking long ass posts

[Lie]

Originally Posted by sleeper

the question of what religion actually is is, obviously, central to this and everything and yet remains kind of unresolved. i think it depends on the exact usage. when we talk back and forth about "religious people" that means one thing, and what just qualifies as "Religion" is another. the meshing of those two seems to have led to some confusion. but, honestly, i dont know absolutely what it is, but i do have a good idea of what it isnt and what elements of it are essential to it, if all together incomplete

but i agree with your characterization of it as being something outside of knowledge, and thats whats both most interesting and infuriating about it. passively having beliefs or hypothetical positions about things that lie outside of knowledge, like the question of god, is fine, its when people start using that as the basis for real world action or allow it to infringe upon objective knowledge or reality, a la intelligent designers refusing to accept evolution, in spite of whatever mountain of evidence, and choosing faith instead. that is absolutely, absolutely inexcusable i think and represents the worst of what religion, or just faith in general, is capable of. everyone, to some degree or another, places faith above reason for things at some point for whatever, but i think the degree needed to entirely ignore what reality is telling your for something like that is basically the exclusive province of religion
but, yeah, i think by definition faith is apart from proof or reality and its actually a really weird feeling letting that idea run around your head for a second. every so often i allow myself to think that way and i can definitely understand the psychology of it all, and why people who have such a faith are so entirely impervious to outside claims against their belief that use objective evidence as a foundation. it can never work. its what yelling is to the deaf. but, really, it is incredibly interesting.

this is going to sound ridiculously contradictory, but i actualyl consider myself a pretty (pardon the tonnes of cheese that this word carries as baggage) 'spiritual' guy. this comes, though, 100% through connection with reality. or, exists AS a connection with reality. it exists as reality does. it seems like i cant even continue one word further without just bathing in cheese here. i dont know what to do. i think i kind of had this awakening to it last summer when i was sitting outside on a really warm windy day. if you can imagine the scene, there were squirrels running about, back and forth, here and then gone and then here again, and just trees rocking in the wind. thats it, but if you kind of eliminate every barrier that youve constructed to your perception of things, especially nature, and allow yourself to see whatever is there, you can kind of see the "order" of things. this sounds like the boring ravings of some drug addict or soemthing but its hard to escape that. its all very, i guess, buddhist at best and (oh god, im going to barf even typing these words) "new age" at worst.actually it isnt, what the fuck am i saying. its hard to avoid giving that impression, sure, but its not without substance and isnt at all so throwaway and tritel. the point is that i dont accept this idea that is sometimes put forth, that, because these thigns are "inherently unknowable" (i dont exactly agree with that anyways) that the raising of these questions is irrelevant and futile, if not damaging. i dont like that idea. i thnk there are very valid questions there

on a related note, a few days ago i read britannicas article on "religious experience" and the opening was really hilarious and interesting. enough so, i thought, to share with you:



i always marvel at how words or ideas are defined words dictionaries and the like, i think its so interesting. i was obsessed before with looking up definitions for very common ideas, things that i knew perfectly well what their meaning was. its a real heady thing to do, i found. its weird

I don't think the idea of you being very spiritual is ridiculous or contradictory. I also didn't mean to say that I think that religion is "inherently unknowable," if you thought I was, what I meant is that if you're going to delve into questions concerning knowledge of religion, you're approaching it from an entirely different angle from someone seeking spiritual guidance and you have to acknowledge that to a certain extent, otherwise there's really no point in exploring it anyway. I personally have never understood the way that "most people" relate to religion; I have no problem admitting that. When I look at religions I primarily see funtionality, not spirituality, but obviously a lot of people belonging to a religion would be insulted or confused by that.

I think what we're mainly talking about in all of this is a question of superstition, like you said, but I find that very sketchy as well in terms of where to draw the line. Greek and Roman mythology, for example, seems far more superstitious than modern-day Christianity, as many Christians don't even take the Bible or the story of Christ as literal, and yet in a lot of ways those systems of belief were less of a "worldview" than Christianity and the monotheistic religions that dominate today, as well as containing more of a concern for explanations of nature than absolute morals. What religion is changes, I think, thoughout history, and so does the idea of morals and the way people relate to both of them, so it's very difficult to pin any of them down. It could be that a thousand years from now, there will be a way of rejecting belief that is stronger and more "logical" in many peoples' way of thinking than atheism.

Faith, I think, is commodity that exists in itself. I think people can have a kind of practical faith in themselves without ever resorting to religion and yet I think it's something that can be gained from religion as well. I think there's a difference between "believing in God." and "believing in the existence of God." For my own part I see no purpose in believing or not believing in the existence of God or creationism, etc. I don't think scientific evidence or lack thereof should challenge a person's "faith" in any way whatsoever...I think that's pathetic. The fact is that I would live my life exactly the same whether I knew for an absolute fact that there was or was not a definite higher power, and if that higher power was consistent with fundamental beliefs and would chuck me into hell for dressing the wrong way or taking the name of the Lord in vain, then nothing I feel about myself or life is true and there is no center to creation, it's all random and I might as well go to hell anyway...in terms of pure spirituality it makes no difference. I think most people know this at heart and when they choose to believe or not believe in God what they are really choosing is whether they need the concept of God or not. I just don't necessarily see anything inherently wrong with deciding you do. Sometimes people need to choose their own answers for a time. It doesn't mean they have to go bothering you about it. That makes it political in a sense already, which it doesn't have to be. It doesn't mean a soldier sniffing his girlfriend's panties before going into war for good luck is a bad thing, and it's not any worse of a thing if he wears the cross his mom gave him for confirmation and asks Jesus to protect him. Possibly either of those things will actually give him the presence of mind to make it through alive. If you want to know my personal feelings about it, you need look no further than that.

If I could say anything really awful about religion, or anything about it that really annoys me in general, I think it would be that it attemps to co-opt certain phenomena and truths and names them for its own: heaven, hell, miracles, etc., these are all parts of reality that exist in an environment that does not have to supernatural in any sense, but what some people consider supernatural in concept is what I might just call normal.

I certainly think it's a good idea (besides just being fun), to de-mystify things as much as possible, but the way I see it, if any of that challenges a person's faith, then probably they should re-think the way they are living their lives in the first place.

Really, I think if you just recognized that I hate religion when used in the political sense as much as you do, but that this is entirely different from judging people who belong to a religion (even if they decline to talk about it, which is often the case), there would be hardly any disagreement at all.

When people consider themselves part of a religion but decline to talk about it or use it in argument or in relation to anything else....that is something that I entirely respect and will absolutely not judge them by that or try to figure out what's going on in their head concerning it. I think to treat that situation otherwise is to just shortchange or stress myself out for no good, practical reason I can discern.

[Shparticus]

HAY GUYS, WHATS GOIN ON IN THIS THREAD?!?

[sleeper]

Originally Posted by Lie

Okay, well I think you hit on what I was saying about halfway down, that I wasn't talking about Religion with a capital "R," but people who call themselves religious and the way they relate to it. I don't think this is something you can discount even if it's not your main point; I think it's absolutely relevant. I don't think that Religion is the same thing as a chess club or a feminist group and wasn't implying that it was, but the fact remains that there are plenty of religious people (varieties of Protestant especially) who treat it this way. I think another thing you're missing about what I'm saying is that religion isn't just something that people choose, it's something that people actively create and define...that's why we have like a million offshoots of Christianity and why there will always be faith groups tolerant enough for practically anyone. I'm not saying it's a good or a bad thing, I'm just saying that throughout history people have bent and added to the rules of various religions to suit their own interpretations and their own views, that religion is not this separate entity, it's something that people have had a large hand in maintaining. And sure religion has been used politically for manipulation and coercion of various kinds, but you can't on the one hand criticize people for taking the choice of being religious and on the other hand blame Religion for various problems in society...this phenomenon is a problem, no shit it is, and I would like to see it stop as much as you, I'm sure, but I think your way of looking at it muddies the actual problem.

As far as your question about feeling comfortable with a religious person or a fundamentally irreligious person, I would feel most comfortable with the person who was the least fundamentally disposed in actuality in whatever sense. I would feel safer with my Muslim friend who I've known since grade school or my Methodist friend from college who are very tolerant and pragmatic people, than I would with, say, a bloodthirsty racial nationalist who was of no religious persuasion whatsoever but had a problem with the way I looked. Statistically speaking, you're right, my chances of landing someone who hated me would probably be greater if I picked an irreligious person, but I don't think either of us is interested in discussing odds or chances while we're having a primarily theoretical discussion here.

I certainly don't see how it's "absolutely right" to place judgment on people for being religious. Maybe you could explain what you mean or why you feel this way because beyond logical discussion, I just don't feel it at all. I don't know what kind of a world you live in but I live in one where I can meet and talk to or work with someone for years and never know if they are religious because they never mention it. The most blatantly fundamentally irreligious person I know these days is a guy who is very bitter and angry about the world and makes HIS worldview that the human race is full of jackasses and therefore he has every right to be a jackass to everyone else. He has problems with gay people and black people and anyone who makes more money than he does and he voices this openly. I realize that this isn't exactly relevant to the discussion either, but it's just the give you an idea of where I'm coming from. In reality, the lines are blurred considerably, and I speak partially from personal experience.

i wasnt ignoring that idea because i think its irrelevant (i dont think im really fully ignoring it, to be clear), i was just trying to keep to resolving the original point of contention here, the original question, which was "can you judge religious people on grounds of their religion alone?" with that as the question, i find it hard to get past this capital R religion idea. if someone declares themself as "religious", what can you do but take their word on it? its untouchably personal and you can never verify someones inner convictions or whatever, so all you can do is assume someone who says they are religious are religious, and are thus held to it.

let me just again halt things and seek assurance that im reading you right: youre saying that there are people who are nominally "religious" (who identify themselves as such) but who arent really even "religious", in terms of their actual actual behaviour and beliefs. that what religion has come to mean in a practical sense (what a "religious person" is, or can be) isnt necessarily what is in principle or by its definition, or whatever, and that therefore you cant accurately criticize people for being this "religious" thing and have that original principle in mind because it doesnt really apply. is that right? i do see what youre saying with this but i still disagree. sort of. ive thought about it and i do really envision your argument clearly in my head. its interesting. i dont know what to say. its a pretty neat issue.
on one hand this idea that you can only take their word on it is still correct (maybe just on a kind of pedantic, technical level) but on the other hand it is, yes, just kind of dishonest and unfair to play it like that and ignore the effects of that attitude. but at what point can someone be religious (claim themselves as religious) and yet sufficiently distance themselves from all those core things that im criticizing to not be touched by that criticism? im not so sure its even possible. there are sore obvious exceptions: a child who says hes religious could indeed be someone who is saying they are religious and yet at the same time couldnt at all be criticized for "being religious" the way i am others, and id hate it if you thought i thought that they could. like i said above, im not so literal with it. like where i would take someone who says they are "religious", entirely irrespective of any circumstance or context, and then automatically deduce such and such a conclusion on them. ive been trying to fight that impression from the beginning and i feel as though i ahev repeated it many times (dont remember).


but even with this diluted conception of what it means when someone claims to be religious i still dont think its right to fully equate it with other, similar things. like this:

I still see it as that even among people who declare outright that their religion dictates their views on everything, that kind of devotion can only truly take place as a private contract in a person's own head, and any of those other things (soccer, feminism, etc.) can equally take a person over.

equally? i think the nature of religion, what it deals with, its power and scope, preclude such a comparison


i dont really buy that characterization. it seems like youre taking this too far in the other direction. i agree that its something that people define (im just going to assume this "conscious adult who actually believes" definition of "religious" for a second), but, as i said above, only to a certain degree, and never enough (if it is a "religion") to change the main core of it which im criticizing. like, within your example, there are a million different variations to christianity, but i none vary on, say, the point that jesus was the son of god (if they did i dont think they could be christian, correct me if im wrong). so i dont know what amount of redefining can change that fact enough to make it any less ridiculous, if you see what im getting at. theres this general principle here, which i think, in itself, you agree with


i didnt mean it like that. i was trying to bring to light this idea (within the context of these religious people who have, at least to one degree, separated themselves from reality, and explicitly nonreligious people who are entirely within reality) that people who are detached like that are the truly scary ones, are the ones you cant really fully trust. the reasons are many, but i think it mainly has to do with the fact that there isnt a shared base of understanding on things. if reason and reality is the master, everyone has to obey, but if someone plays outside of that realm you cant count on things. i was just talking about this notion that people who accept faith the way religious people do have depreciated the value of "reason" within their entire worldview and thus fit into that detached category. the analogy you brought up was really unfair too. my whole question was intentionally basic, where you had to decide on those grounds and only those grounds. who would you decide? your answer was supposed to reveal something to you. i dont mean that last line in a condescending way, if thats how you read it


this is a bit of a tangent now, but i really dont like this idea. i mean, there are all kinds of things that you can not know about a person for years, while being perfectly ok with them all along. but the fact that that information didnt stop you from thinking less of them during that time doesnt mean the information is irrelevant or cant justly change things. is the character of your personal relationship with someone the sole determinant as to who they are? its not. for instance, its like all those people who know some neighbour for 30 years, and have a great relationship with him, but then one day open their window and see him being hauled off to jail for being a pedophile with all these children caged in his basement for the same amount of time or something. i know im playing with fire again making another so loaded analogy, but it does serve a purpose this time: would you or would you not be justified in changing your opinion of the guy? i mean the fact that he was a pedophile didnt change him in any ways that stopped you from liking him all those years, but would it not now? some facts have the power to change the meaning of the facts that preceded it. so i dont like what youre implying when you bring up this idea that you can be totally ok with someone first, and that its silly to then be less ok with them later, after finding out theyre catholic or some shit. you can learn enough about a person to like or respect them, why cant you learn enough, learn more, to dislike or disrespect them? (dont think that i would be, again, be so literal and automatic about it, where i automatically dislike a person after learning something.)

the rest was kind of explained by everything else ive said already. it is right to judge someone who is religious for being religious with these points in mind: a) the person is that competent adult who honestly believes as per the classic meaning of "religious." (questions remain about the soundness of this being extended to those outside of this, or someones ability to discern the difference between these honest adults and their more flaky contemporaries) b) that, varieties of religion or religious belief or not, that, it being religion, that hard core exists across them all and c) that its fair to criticize that.
so it seems like we agree that that exists and that that can be criticized, just not on our ability to identify it. im trying to atomize this debate as far as possible for clarity, sure, but also and for fun, sorry if its annoying

[Lie]

Can you explain what you think the "hard core" of that belief is as you see it? Because I have a hard time knowing what we're really talking about here. Like, if someone is religious with a capital R, what does that mean to you and what precisely is worthy of criticism, if you could be as specific as possible?

Again, the example of being a pedophile or serial killer just doesn't work, and not because of the extreme negative connotation, but because being a serial killer means you kill people, being a pedophile means you're sexually attracted to children, but what does being religious mean? That's a serious question and I'd like you to try and answer it. You can say that it's buying into dogma or a world view but is that really the case? I think there are people who don't "buy into" a dogma or world view the way that you mean but at the same time consider themselves religious and would be offended if you told them they weren't.

What I don't like and what I would criticize (and this is the part we presumably agree on) is not some "hard core" of belief that exists inside of people, it's people using their religion outside of themselves for direct influence, argument, or coercion. The way that I see it, if that "hard core" (in my interpretation) truly exists in a bad way, it shows itself. I don't see anything necessarily worthy of criticism about people embracing an abstract concept, even if it has roots in dogma. The only thing I see worthy of criticism is attempting to bring that abstraction into the concrete world and or using it against other people in a concrete way. Beyond that, it really is speculation unless you can be more specific.

I can understand your frustration with my refusal to just deal with the classic understanding of what being religious means, but I think that hits on the very difference in the way we see things. It's not equally likely that a person can be effectively taken over by an obsession with soccer as through some religion, no, but my point is that a person can choose to be taken over by any number of things, religion just being the most practical for that, and no matter how you look at it, whatever a person believes is something they are doing themselves. It is not a passive choice even if it seems like one, as I'm sure you would agree. It's strange because it seems like even though you are criticizing a religious worldview in the face of rationality and reason, you're mystifying religion, and that's exactly what I'm trying not to do. I'm pretty sure that at least you would agree that, generally speaking, people create religion because it suits their needs, right? This makes religion something that people do rather than something that people accept. Everything that a person does is significant in some way or other, and you're right, anything about a person can potentially change the way you look at them, but that little declaration "I am religious" means nothing to me in itself. You may not believe me, but stick with me for a minute here and try to understand what I'm saying. As with your question about who I would feel more comfortable with, I pretty much said that if I had to choose being trapped on an island with one of those people, I would choose someone who was not "religious" as I would be inclined to think that the statistical chance of them being a nutcase would be lower. That is as far as I can go in answering that question, because statistics/facts as they stand, are all that I have to go on there. I'm answering it as best as I can, not avoiding it, but the fact that there ARE other factors involved, and that "religion" is more of a statistical and associative land mine than anything, is kind of the whole point of what I'm saying.

If I knew someone for years and thought they were a cool person and so on, and then suddenly, out of nowhere, they said, "I'm religious," of course I would be aware that might be something that could change the way I saw them, but I would not know if it did until they explained what that meant or how that affected them.

Okay, so let's take the bull by the horns because I have the feeling I'm still not talking about the same thing you are. Let's say there's this guy who's raised Catholic. In his head he believes very simply in all the literal dogma, in the saints, etc., but he never speaks a word of it to anyone outside his family or who doesn't share his beliefs. So we have this literal structure of actual existing belief in very specific things that kind of holds down this spirtual fortress for him, and we're presuming it's no more complicated than that. Through communion and confession he feels, we presume, something that he interprets as spiritual fulfillment, and when he does something that he interprets as a sin, he feels guilty, but he never mentions this to anyone but a priest. Okay, so let's say he's taught about evolution and does not believe in it immediately because he finds it to not be accordance with his beliefs. He doesn't tell anyone he doesn't believe in it, but he doesn't, simply because of what he's been taught through the Catholic church. He does not consider any other option, but he also does not talk about it. Is this worthy of criticism? In my opinion yes, and the main reason why is because he has somehow equated spiritual fulfillment with his ability to uphold a doctrine whose only inherent virtue is its age, and he's probably doing it because he's too scared to consider anything else. There is nothing substantial being used here and it's really at the point where an arbitrary set of rules are really using him, because he has not even thought about why he believes what he believes.

So if that's what you're talking about then yes, I think that kind of thought process is worthy of criticism, but first of all you're never going to be in a position in criticize a person for something like that unless they come right out and tell you what's going on in their head and second of all what I would criticize him for is not being religious but his thought process concerning it and his refusal to consider anything beyond very simple, literal lines.

[Ensoul]

maybe I'll go back and read all that one day.

I can speak Japanese! well, a little bit. not a lot. I don't know why I learned it since I hate anime and don't play video games that much. oh wait, I know why.

[sleeper]

Originally Posted by Lie

I don't think the idea of you being very spiritual is ridiculous or contradictory. I also didn't mean to say that I think that religion is "inherently unknowable," if you thought I was, what I meant is that if you're going to delve into questions concerning knowledge of religion, you're approaching it from an entirely different angle from someone seeking spiritual guidance and you have to acknowledge that to a certain extent, otherwise there's really no point in exploring it anyway. I personally have never understood the way that "most people" relate to religion; I have no problem admitting that. When I look at religions I primarily see funtionality, not spirituality, but obviously a lot of people belonging to a religion would be insulted or confused by that.

I think what we're mainly talking about in all of this is a question of superstition, like you said, but I find that very sketchy as well in terms of where to draw the line. Greek and Roman mythology, for example, seems far more superstitious than modern-day Christianity, as many Christians don't even take the Bible or the story of Christ as literal, and yet in a lot of ways those systems of belief were less of a "worldview" than Christianity and the monotheistic religions that dominate today, as well as containing more of a concern for explanations of nature than absolute morals. What religion is changes, I think, thoughout history, and so does the idea of morals and the way people relate to both of them, so it's very difficult to pin any of them down. It could be that a thousand years from now, there will be a way of rejecting belief that is stronger and more "logical" in many peoples' way of thinking than atheism.

Faith, I think, is commodity that exists in itself. I think people can have a kind of practical faith in themselves without ever resorting to religion and yet I think it's something that can be gained from religion as well. I think there's a difference between "believing in God." and "believing in the existence of God." For my own part I see no purpose in believing or not believing in the existence of God or creationism, etc. I don't think scientific evidence or lack thereof should challenge a person's "faith" in any way whatsoever...I think that's pathetic. The fact is that I would live my life exactly the same whether I knew for an absolute fact that there was or was not a definite higher power, and if that higher power was consistent with fundamental beliefs and would chuck me into hell for dressing the wrong way or taking the name of the Lord in vain, then nothing I feel about myself or life is true and there is no center to creation, it's all random and I might as well go to hell anyway...in terms of pure spirituality it makes no difference. I think most people know this at heart and when they choose to believe or not believe in God what they are really choosing is whether they need the concept of God or not. I just don't necessarily see anything inherently wrong with deciding you do. Sometimes people need to choose their own answers for a time. It doesn't mean they have to go bothering you about it. That makes it political in a sense already, which it doesn't have to be. It doesn't mean a soldier sniffing his girlfriend's panties before going into war for good luck is a bad thing, and it's not any worse of a thing if he wears the cross his mom gave him for confirmation and asks Jesus to protect him. Possibly either of those things will actually give him the presence of mind to make it through alive. If you want to know my personal feelings about it, you need look no further than that.

If I could say anything really awful about religion, or anything about it that really annoys me in general, I think it would be that it attemps to co-opt certain phenomena and truths and names them for its own: heaven, hell, miracles, etc., these are all parts of reality that exist in an environment that does not have to supernatural in any sense, but what some people consider supernatural in concept is what I might just call normal.

I certainly think it's a good idea (besides just being fun), to de-mystify things as much as possible, but the way I see it, if any of that challenges a person's faith, then probably they should re-think the way they are living their lives in the first place.

Really, I think if you just recognized that I hate religion when used in the political sense as much as you do, but that this is entirely different from judging people who belong to a religion (even if they decline to talk about it, which is often the case), there would be hardly any disagreement at all.

When people consider themselves part of a religion but decline to talk about it or use it in argument or in relation to anything else....that is something that I entirely respect and will absolutely not judge them by that or try to figure out what's going on in their head concerning it. I think to treat that situation otherwise is to just shortchange or stress myself out for no good, practical reason I can discern.

for the record, i said "pretty spiritual," not "very." im in a strange and uncomfortable land with this spiritual thing and i have to be fierce and protective

i used to be the same way and still, obviously, kind of am. i used to just see it as irrational and moronic and end it at that, but if you actually do try and see it from their perspective, which i recommend you try for a second (tether yourself), its really neat. its a world apart, and thats what so hard to realize about it. try and imagine something that just is absolutely apart or above or independent from what you currently see or understand or know. i mean, what is futile is trying to describe it, its inherently beyond words. this is that "leap of faith" that people talk about. it makes me sick

i just checked out britannicas definition of that idea and i found it very interesting

to describe commitment to an objective uncertainty, specifically to the Christian God. For Kierkegaard, God is totally other than man; between God and man there exists a gulf that faith alone can bridge.Kierkegaard was equally opposed to the German philosopher G.W.F. Hegel's rationalized Christianity and to orthodox attempts to demonstrate the truth of the Christian faith by rational argument, and he insisted that religious truth is incapable of objective proof and can be appropriated only by an act of will. Kierkegaard praised aesthetic and ethical responses to life but maintained that they do not free man from dread and despair. Man requires a relationship with God founded on a commitment that has no conclusive evidence to recommend it; faith is a risk or, as the 17th-century French writer Blaise Pascal put it, a “wager.”

i absolutely love that word "wager" being used for that, that is perfect. i was kind of psychologically anticipating what word it would be in the millisecond between reading and understanding the part of the sentence before it ("as x described it..") and it complemented the thread of thought i had so excitingly well. ah that felt so good


i agree that there are layers of stupidity to the whole thing that superstition alone doesnt have, one of which certainly is this idea that its a system, its a set of beliefs, an entire worldview, an answer to life. i hate the fact that people can at once fully and totally adopt such an answer to life and at the same time be entirely ignorant of the world. im saying that that possibility exists within this. its ridiculous

it changes throughout history, sure, in terms of its purpose or basic identity or whatever, but surprisingly little that is actually critical to it seems to change

well if that persons faith makes positive claims about the world around us, then scientific evidence alone can and should unseat that faith. this issue youre bringing up about how some people need it, about how it does some good, etc, is really clouded, but, nevertheless, i still think its wrong. "slightly but unmistakably smelly" to quote the moron christopher hitchens.
for one, like i said before, theres the question of good or bad and right or wrong. i dont see them as being so translatable, where something being good (having a good practical effect, like helping that soldier survive) means its right. some people evidently do need it, and it does sometimes do some good, but i still dont think that necessarily justifies it. it might excuse it in some minds, but it doesnt do much for me. i also dont even agree that it actually does that good on the whole. some good things may come, ok, but all kinds of good things can come from bad things without having that jusify the bad thing. its like when people say WWII was great for the development of science and technology, which it was, but that wouldnt serve justify, just to mitigate, the war. again, a loaded example, but theres a general principle here that applies with regards to your argument. i dont think its wholly good because i dont agree that that choice (choosing religion or not) is -- or, indeed, even can ever be -- so contained. or contained enough to make it just like a "i believe in this, you believe in that" kind of thing. it depends on a million things, but, just in principle, it does matter. this whole thing really is clouded though, i dont know where to hack away. like it depends on that person choosing religion, or if theyre just choosing god, as in the existence of, it still depends on to what degree. but just the basic idea, that because x does y good thing its alright, i dont like

[sleeper]

Originally Posted by Lie

Can you explain what you think the "hard core" of that belief is as you see it? Because I have a hard time knowing what we're really talking about here. Like, if someone is religious with a capital R, what does that mean to you and what precisely is worthy of criticism, if you could be as specific as possible?

Again, the example of being a pedophile or serial killer just doesn't work, and not because of the extreme negative connotation, but because being a serial killer means you kill people, being a pedophile means you're sexually attracted to children, but what does being religious mean? That's a serious question and I'd like you to try and answer it. You can say that it's buying into dogma or a world view but is that really the case? I think there are people who don't "buy into" a dogma or world view the way that you mean but at the same time consider themselves religious and would be offended if you told them they weren't.

What I don't like and what I would criticize (and this is the part we presumably agree on) is not some "hard core" of belief that exists inside of people, it's people using their religion outside of themselves for direct influence, argument, or coercion. The way that I see it, if that "hard core" (in my interpretation) truly exists in a bad way, it shows itself. I don't see anything necessarily worthy of criticism about people embracing an abstract concept, even if it has roots in dogma. The only thing I see worthy of criticism is attempting to bring that abstraction into the concrete world and or using it against other people in a concrete way. Beyond that, it really is speculation unless you can be more specific.

I can understand your frustration with my refusal to just deal with the classic understanding of what being religious means, but I think that hits on the very difference in the way we see things. It's not equally likely that a person can be effectively taken over by an obsession with soccer as through some religion, no, but my point is that a person can choose to be taken over by any number of things, religion just being the most practical for that, and no matter how you look at it, whatever a person believes is something they are doing themselves. It is not a passive choice even if it seems like one, as I'm sure you would agree. It's strange because it seems like even though you are criticizing a religious worldview in the face of rationality and reason, you're mystifying religion, and that's exactly what I'm trying not to do. I'm pretty sure that at least you would agree that, generally speaking, people create religion because it suits their needs, right? This makes religion something that people do rather than something that people accept. Everything that a person does is significant in some way or other, and you're right, anything about a person can potentially change the way you look at them, but that little declaration "I am religious" means nothing to me in itself. You may not believe me, but stick with me for a minute here and try to understand what I'm saying. As with your question about who I would feel more comfortable with, I pretty much said that if I had to choose being trapped on an island with one of those people, I would choose someone who was not "religious" as I would be inclined to think that the statistical chance of them being a nutcase would be lower. That is as far as I can go in answering that question, because statistics/facts as they stand, are all that I have to go on there. I'm answering it as best as I can, not avoiding it, but the fact that there ARE other factors involved, and that "religion" is more of a statistical and associative land mine than anything, is kind of the whole point of what I'm saying.

If I knew someone for years and thought they were a cool person and so on, and then suddenly, out of nowhere, they said, "I'm religious," of course I would be aware that might be something that could change the way I saw them, but I would not know if it did until they explained what that meant or how that affected them.

Okay, so let's take the bull by the horns because I have the feeling I'm still not talking about the same thing you are. Let's say there's this guy who's raised Catholic. In his head he believes very simply in all the literal dogma, in the saints, etc., but he never speaks a word of it to anyone outside his family or who doesn't share his beliefs. So we have this literal structure of actual existing belief in very specific things that kind of holds down this spirtual fortress for him, and we're presuming it's no more complicated than that. Through communion and confession he feels, we presume, something that he interprets as spiritual fulfillment, and when he does something that he interprets as a sin, he feels guilty, but he never mentions this to anyone but a priest. Okay, so let's say he's taught about evolution and does not believe in it immediately because he finds it to not be accordance with his beliefs. He doesn't tell anyone he doesn't believe in it, but he doesn't, simply because of what he's been taught through the Catholic church. He does not consider any other option, but he also does not talk about it. Is this worthy of criticism? In my opinion yes, and the main reason why is because he has somehow equated spiritual fulfillment with his ability to uphold a doctrine whose only inherent virtue is its age, and he's probably doing it because he's too scared to consider anything else. There is nothing substantial being used here and it's really at the point where an arbitrary set of rules are really using him, because he has not even thought about why he believes what he believes.

So if that's what you're talking about then yes, I think that kind of thought process is worthy of criticism, but first of all you're never going to be in a position in criticize a person for something like that unless they come right out and tell you what's going on in their head and second of all what I would criticize him for is not being religious but his thought process concerning it and his refusal to consider anything beyond very simple, literal lines.

honestly, i was hoping you wouldnt ask me to define that idea. not because the idea is a sham or false or something, but because its just really tricky to define and is something of a trap. but ill try anyways. i guess the answer could be in a question: what elements are present across all religions? i mean look up in a dictionary the definition of religion and i guess that would be it (varying definitions notwithstanding). and then from that, what fundamentally do you see as wrong with accepting that? on that basic level. i vaguely outlined this before when i said that all would necessarily 1nclude (something along the lines of) "putting yourself within this preexisting system of belief that has to do with the supernatural", and that youd be "adopting a phony, catch all, absolutist solution to life", with some kind of worship i think, by definition, always involved. theres this, as ive seen it worded recently, "inner attitude." so its not just analogous to something like faith, for instance, it is a system of faith. i mean, how far can a religion ever distance itself from these things and still be a religion? we are talking about "religion" and what it means when someone says they are religious here, to be clear, not religious-like things or if that common understanding of the words meaning is less than perfect. look:

Worship is probably the most basic element of religion, but moral conduct, right belief, and participation in religious institutions are generally also constituent elements of the religious life as practiced by believers and worshipers and as commanded by religious sages and scriptures.

this is all brought up vis a vis this idea that religions are different and vary. right, i admit, but how much? ever enough to stop being a religion? if not its still a religion, still has that basic meaning (the "incontrovertible hard core"), and that basic meaning is, to me, incredibly stupid. i know weve moved beyond this idea and have gone into other issues, like what other things that arent explicitly religious are still equally worthy of being effected by the same criticism, and how or if one is even able to criticize someone for being "religious", when that term doesnt necessarily correspond to that hard core anymore



again you misinterpreted my analogy. i would be wiling to just automatically assume fault, because i dont doubt your ability to interpret correctly in general, but this time i dont think that would be merited. i think i sufficiently made clear what i meant. i mean, i couched that, admittedly loaded, analogy in all these specifications and redefinitions and everything -- such to the point where i dont think you could claim to just get caught up in the superficial appeal of pedophila in that analogy. i just re-read that paragraph and i dont know how i could make what i meant clearer. it has to do with your knowledge of a person and how that can change, with your view of them justly following suit. its about what it means from your perspective, your understanding of that person. coming upon the "knowledge" of someone being a catholic, or a pedophile, or whatever, can change things. you just seemed to be suggesting that.... i cant word this that much better than i did originally, so ill just copy it: "that you can be totally ok with someone first, and that its silly to then be less ok with them later, after finding out theyre catholic or some shit." which isnt true i think
the point was that i wasnt comparing religion to pedophilia, much as i wasnt comparing it serial killing earlier, i was just trying to illustrate a general principle here. extreme examples are (their flammability in arguments aside) good for this. theres no better way to demonstrate a principle than with extremes. in principle, that is


now youre bearing your true libertarian colours. truly sickening. put your clothes back on, i dont want to see this! personal belief, when its localized to that personal realm, doesnt effect you, so, therefore, who cares, right? when it does effect you then you can criticize it. of course this is basically true, but there are a few bits of clarifying to do. one is that we are kind of trying to establish the "right or wrong" aspect of it, which exists apart from the question of if or if not it affects you. two is that this isnt just an idea floating out there, its in the context of judging a person. like im not judging these mysterious strangers out there (apparently 70% of canadians identify themselves as religious), it has to do with someone telling you that they are religious and how you interpret that, what that will end up meaning in respect to your view of the person. its fine to, in the appropriate context, take it to mean somehting negative because, whether or not it affects you, it does speak to who the person is, just as any bit of information would.

I don't see anything necessarily worthy of criticism about people embracing an abstract concept

i guess this is where we differ. is any abstract concept as good as another? are they all equal? if not then why couldnt you judge someone on theirs? if the abstract concept someone embraces is, say, contradictory and irrational, am i to ignore that? does what someone believes, the choices they make and their deeds, not reflect on the person as a whole?


not equally likely sure. but i dont agree that these things people choose to be taken over with are, again, ultimately similar enough to refer to the same way. i said before that i think religion goes beyond that and does more, than its political or sports-related brethren. there may be similarities in how and why people accept either, but there are differing consequences of each individual path, and religion's is notable for its ugliness


i see what youre saying with the statistics of it. but what are those statistics founded in? surely not something irrelevant. the fact that you choose the non-religious person speaks to the significance of it in itself. obviously, yes, its just probabilistic, not deterministic, and its exact meaning depends on circumstance (like that kid who believes or whatever), i agree to all of this


so this "guy" is you, right? sad

but, yeah, thats one way it could play out. not only in that form, but the general (im saying this word too much) principle of it, where someone can still be criticized for belief that is passive, or that type of thought process that the presence of religion might signify. i think people not only have a responsibility to ask these questions and to be willing to abandon beliefs in face of evidence that proves them false, but, knowing the natural curiosity of people, that it actually takes active suppression, usually via cheap rationalizations, to uphold them throughout life. its rarely ever so passive, i think. past a certain maturity level, its a positive accomplishment, it couldnt just happen by accident, so to speak

the core idea here that you keep on mentioning is that youd have to talk to them to know what it means exactly, but that if it means what weve been talking about then, sure, youd criticize it. i generally agree that its dependent on other things, as ive pained to make clear, but at the same time i think i have, youd agree, a lower threshold than you. i think im pretty distrustful of what people say about themselves. with that, theres such possibility for dishonesty or misrepresentation, while their actions, on the other hand, are pretty definitive. with speech, i wouldnt necessarily accept the meaning of what someone says, but look to the meaning of the act of saying it. if you see what i mean. i dont think youre exactly suggesting this, but i dont think that it all has to be so explicit, where you have to hear what they say about their belief. i think other things can suffice as evidence towards these ends. like i dont have to ask anything someone about what their faith means, because other parts of their character or behaviour can explain it all. i think we agree on this though, i dont think youre so literal with it

it seems like, in general, our views are converging. or, rather, just being revealed to not be that far apart. its all so peaceful

[sleeper]

hey do you want to check out the latest wikipedia page i wrote? i have no one else to show it to and have such an huge urge to share it. maybe youve already heard of these dudes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jingjing_and_Chacha
its actually kind of related to this thread.... uh i think they look japanese

[Mayfuck]

I stopped reading the thread when sleeper said he was "spiritual" and started talking about squirrels.

[RopeyLopey]

Originally Posted by sleeper

hey do you want to check out the latest wikipedia page i wrote? i have no one else to show it to and have such an huge urge to share it. maybe youve already heard of these dudes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jingjing_and_Chacha
its actually kind of related to this thread.... uh i think they look japanese

I don't get it why they draw these figures with BLUE eyes if they are Chinese.

[sleeper]

im going shoe and watch shopping and need some help

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/KILLER-VINTAGE...QQcmdZViewItem
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/KILLER-VINTAGE...QQcmdZViewItem

i like both for different reasons, but probably the second ones more overall.



watches:
http://cgi.ebay.ca/SWATCH-SPACE-DOG-...QQcmdZViewItem
http://cgi.ebay.ca/RUSSIAN-MILITARY-...QQcmdZViewItem
http://cgi.ebay.ca/BRAND-NEW-GENTS-C...QQcmdZViewItem

i like the first one the most. spacedog. laika



this thread is going to be my home from now on, my nest. its so safe and cozy in here. really, it feels so good for some reason. i feel clean

[sleeper]

Originally Posted by RopeyLopey

I don't get it why they draw these figures with BLUE eyes if they are Chinese.

we kinda talked about this. all of the different asians try and portray themselves as more "white" (caucasian eyes, blonde hair, etc) and their enemies as more "asian" (asian eyes, short, whatever).

[sleeper]

http://memory.loc.gov/ndlpcoop/ichic...72/s007248.jpg

[RopeyLopey]

Originally Posted by sleeper

im going shoe and watch shopping and need some help

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/KILLER-VINTAGE...QQcmdZViewItem
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/KILLER-VINTAGE...QQcmdZViewItem

i like both for different reasons, but probably the second ones more overall.

this is idiotic. Why would you buy some shoes from London when you can go to your local Value Village or something?
Why to ship some shit or let it fly with aircraft and burn fossil fuels?

Originally Posted by sleeper

watches:
http://cgi.ebay.ca/SWATCH-SPACE-DOG-...QQcmdZViewItem
http://cgi.ebay.ca/RUSSIAN-MILITARY-...QQcmdZViewItem
http://cgi.ebay.ca/BRAND-NEW-GENTS-C...QQcmdZViewItem

dude, if you're gonna buy that shit with russian characters, red star and year 1968 (!!), I am going to stop talking to you, for sure! Are you trying to make me furious or what?

the second clock is Russian thematic, too - why don't you just go to Chinatown and get some normal digital watch for 5 bucks?
and the last one - meh, I thought the hipster period is over!
people should get back to roots - when it's about the function, and not the stupid design.

[Mayfuck]

Awesome watches.

[RopeyLopey]

BTW Laika looked totally different, anyways:

http://www.daviddarling.info/images/Laika.jpg


Laika was cool.

[RopeyLopey]

Originally Posted by Mayfuck

Awesome watches.

you two should get together and go shopping.

[sleeper]

Originally Posted by RopeyLopey

this is idiotic. Why would you buy some shoes from London when you can go to your local Value Village or something?
Why to ship some shit or let it fly with aircraft and burn fossil fuels?




dude, if you're gonna buy that shit with russian characters, red star and year 1968 (!!), I am going to stop talking to you, for sure! Are you trying to make me furious or what?

the second clock is Russian thematic, too - why don't you just go to Chinatown and get some normal digital watch for 5 bucks?
and the last one - meh, I thought the hipster period is over!
people should get back to roots - when it's about the function, and not the stupid design.

well, if the exact same shoes were at my local value village i would of course buy them there. but theyre not, and ive looked. ive been looking for months for shoes and i have a really hard time finding anything i like. this is what ebay is best for. and im not even crazy about these shoes, im just getting desperate because the shoes i have now are like melting into the ground theyre so worn-in.

haha 68. i didnt even notice that, good eye. thats hilarious. now i have to buy it

i dont know why the watches offend you. i know youre probably pretty anti-russian and everything due to their, you know, effective occupation of your country for 40 years, but i love their aesthetics and sensibility. russian art is the cream of the crop, jan. its perfectly situated between crude and beautiful

the last watch is great, i dont know whats wrong with you jan. havve you ever seen a watch like that? i havent


dont call me a hipster. thats cruel. i know you can be mean but you have to have some limits. why are you assualting me jan? i thought we were friends

that function over form comment makes me angry too. im not saying the opposite is ideal, to be clear, but i dont like what youre suggesting with that comment. or what people typically suggest when they make comments like that

[sleeper]

Originally Posted by Mayfuck

Awesome watches.

which one should i get?

[sleeper]

look, jan, its you:

http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth...ack-square.jpg



haha its russian art too

[RopeyLopey]

Originally Posted by sleeper

well, if the exact same shoes were at my local value village i would of course buy them there. but theyre not, and ive looked. ive been looking for months for shoes and i have a really hard time finding anything i like. this is what ebay is best for. and im not even crazy about these shoes, im just getting desperate because the shoes i have now are like melting into the ground theyre so worn-in.

why don't you get some used Doc Martens from there? I got mine from Value Village on Bloor for like 10 bucks 3 years ago and they are still awesome.
Everytime I go there i can find at least one solid pair of shoes.

Originally Posted by sleeper

i dont know why the watches offend you. i know youre probably pretty anti-russian and everything due to their, you know, effective occupation of your country for 40 years, but i love their aesthetics and sensibility. russian art is the cream of the crop, jan. its perfectly situated between crude and beautiful

you get me mistaken. Russians make (or were used to make) very reliable watches. My mom still keeps hers sho got when she was 20 and those watches just rule. What I am attacking is that you want to buy a stuff from some idiots who make 'retro' stuff or make Laika watches without even checking WHAT DOES THE REAL LAIKA LOOK LIKE. I bet these guys barely have an idea what does it say in Russian.

If you went and got some real Russian watches from a garage sale or something, I would shake your hand, but if you're buying online some trendy shit that is all just about design and what is 'in' (what basically is a total opposite of what Russian products are like) - meh.

Have you ever had Russian ice cream? The real thing? I am not sure if you can get it here, on the other hand I have a hard time to imagine how all the Russians in Toronto could get along without it.

Originally Posted by sleeper

dont call me a hipster. thats cruel. i know you can be mean but you have to have some limits. why are you assualting me jan? i thought we were friends
t

I am trying to make you and Julio friends.

BTW, if we were going about hating Russians, I think based on your ethnicity you should have thousand more reasons to hate them than I do.

[RopeyLopey]

Originally Posted by sleeper

look, jan, its you:

haha its russian art too

there's something wrong with the painting - I couldn't hang it on the wall in my house. It's not perfectly square and I admit it drives my nuts. The same story about the Red Square.

[sleeper]

Originally Posted by RopeyLopey

why don't you get some used Doc Martens from there? I got mine from Value Village on Bloor for like 10 bucks 3 years ago and they are still awesome.
Everytime I go there i can find at least one solid pair of shoes.



you get me mistaken. Russians make (or were used to make) very reliable watches. My mom still keeps hers sho got when she was 20 and those watches just rule. What I am attacking is that you want to buy a stuff from some idiots who make 'retro' stuff or make Laika watches without even checking WHAT DOES THE REAL LAIKA LOOK LIKE. I bet these guys barely have an idea what does it say in Russian.

If you went and got some real Russian watches from a garage sale or something, I would shake your hand, but if you're buying online some trendy shit that is all just about design and what is 'in' (what basically is a total opposite of what Russian products are like) - meh.

Have you ever had Russian ice cream? The real thing? I am not sure if you can get it here, on the other hand I have a hard time to imagine how all the Russians in Toronto could get along without it.



I am trying to make you and Julio friends.

BTW, if we were going about hating Russians, I think based on your ethnicity you should have thousand more reasons to hate them than I do.

i have nothing against doc martens (i think they were dead for a while but they really do look great again) but it just isnt my taste. are you saying that it should be my taste?

youre worse than stalin


well why does a design on a watch, or anything like this, have to be accurate? thats not really a concern in the least for me. im not going for some faithful representation of laika or whatever, i just think the watch looks quaint and funny. and it does. its totally charming


i go to garage sales every weekend in the summer and its where i buy practically everything. actually, there are 3 huge church sales this weekend that im excited about, so if theres anything for you that you want me to look out for, i can do it easy. just tell me a price limit. one of the churches sells stuff for the most astoundingly low prices (amazing hardcover books for like 25 cents) so i can find you anything you want i like. im always on the look out for pedals or weird instruments.
actually i just bought a new bike this past weekend for $20, as you remember how unsafe and fishy that last bike was. this new one is incredible too, youre going to be so jealous when you see it
i always check for watches and shoes but its all luck of the draw. there is usually 10 girls watches for every 1 guy watch, and its usually some slick leather shit



trendy? i had no idea russian watches were "in." i dont think they even are. i just thought that anything mechanical from russia looked great (i have some neat russian cameras) so i searched for russian watches. and i was right, these watches are neat


theres a slavic deli near my house, we should go get some ice cream. you can ride my old bike to get there because it would take too long to walk. you can also crash and die


i heard that a lot of armenians are kind of longing for the soviet days. the country is so destitute now with such unemployment and tremendous disparity between classes that its easy to see why. ive told you about the poll of east germans i read a while ago? it was conducted in the 90's i think, and the majority of those polled responded that they would prefer to go back to communism, if only greater freedom of expression and easier travel was part of the deal. ive told you this right? i forget. i think its pretty interesting and revealing

[sleeper]

Originally Posted by RopeyLopey

there's something wrong with the painting - I couldn't hang it on the wall in my house. It's not perfectly square and I admit it drives my nuts. The same story about the Red Square.

havent you heard the expression "youre a square"? is that exclusively western?

look
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square_%28slang%29

dont be a square, jan.

[sleeper]

here jan, for you, for your inner nationalist

http://cgi.ebay.ca/CZECH-SUPPORTERS-...QQcmdZViewItem

[mpp]

i'd like to be able to read it but i have a life

[RopeyLopey]

Originally Posted by sleeper

i have nothing against doc martens (i think they were dead for a while but they really do look great again) but it just isnt my taste. are you saying that it should be my taste?

youre worse than stalin

no, I don't say it should be your taste. I just wanted to show you can get some good quality stuff there.

I'd have never bought brand new Martens for the original price, but if I can get them for 10 bucks, that's a different story

I just like wearing them here, because people don't look at me as if I were a skinhead or had some sympathies with Nazis.

Originally Posted by sleeper

well why does a design on a watch, or anything like this, have to be accurate? thats not really a concern in the least for me. im not going for some faithful representation of laika or whatever, i just think the watch looks quaint and funny. and it does. its totally charming

frankly I am scared if it's just about the watches whatever, when people start using something like totally disconnected from the original context - that they apparently don't even bother to check out the real story (here what did the real Laika look like).

"let's do some kick ass design....dude, you know the first creature in the space was some Russian dog!?! Whoa, that's kick-ass, dude.....Russian is teh shit, man....OK, let's do some killer design...let's throw in some Russian characters and ...I can't find that dog on Internet - whatever, no one cares anyway...."

What if the Russian characters say 'I AM A TOTAL DICK'? Tell me, would you bother to check/learn what does it say prior to seriously considering buying the watches? It's like the Chinese tattoo characters....

Originally Posted by sleeper

i go to garage sales every weekend in the summer

you could get me some harmonica if you see some - I don't care which key it will be in. That would be great.
Actually when I was at home, I was thinking about bringing you some Czech-made drum sticks, but I couldn't find any .

Originally Posted by sleeper

trendy? i had no idea russian watches were "in." i dont think they even are. i just thought that anything mechanical from russia looked great (i have some neat russian cameras) so i searched for russian watches. and i was right, these watches are neat

but these are not Russian watches! I don't know/follow what's out/in - I just assume ithis is cool now, otherwise they wouldn't make it, huh? But I bet these watches wouldn't surely out-last the watches of my mother, going like 35th year strong.

Originally Posted by sleeper

theres a slavic deli near my house, we should go get some ice cream. you can ride my old bike to get there because it would take too long to walk. you can also crash and die

hah, we should go to Prague Deli on Queen. I have heard there's some Slovakian chick behind the counter these days. I want to check her out.

Originally Posted by sleeper

and the majority of those polled responded that they would prefer to go back to communism, if only greater freedom of expression and easier travel was part of the deal. ive told you this right? i forget. i think its pretty interesting and revealing

so what does it tell us? How brain-washed people are, not willing to care about their lives on their own? Let's leave state to take care of everything. We are not to be blamed for our very own failure.

[sleeper]

Originally Posted by RopeyLopey

no, I don't say it should be your taste. I just wanted to show you can get some good quality stuff there.

I'd have nver bought brand new Martens for the original price, but if I can get them for 10 bucks, that's a different story

I just like wearing them here, because people don't look at me as if I were a skinhead or had some sympathies with Nazis.



frankly I am scared if it's just about the watches whatever, when people start using something like totally disconnected from the original context - that they apparently don't even bother to check out the real story (here what did the real Laika look like).

"let's do some kick ass design....dude, you know the first creature in the space was some Russian dog!?! Whoa, that's kick-ass, dude.....Russian is teh shit, man....OK, let's do some killer design...let's throw in some Russian characters and ...I can't find that dog on Internet - whatever, no one cares anyway...."

What if the Russian characters say 'I AM A TOTAL DICK'? Tell me, would you bother to check/learn what does it say prior to seriously considering buying the watches? It's like the Chinese tattoo characters....



you could get me some harmonica if you see some - I don't care which key it will be in. That would be great.
Actually when I was at home, I was thinking about bringing you some Czech-made drum sticks, but I couldn't find any .


but these are not Russian watches! I don't what's out/in - I just assume ithis is cool now, otherwise they wouldn't make it, huh? But I bet these watches wouldn't surely out-last the watches of my mother, going like 35th year strong.


hah, we should go to Prague Deli on Queen. I have heard there's some Slovakian chick behind the counter these days. I want to check her out.


so what does it tell us? How brain-washed people are, not willing to care about their lives on their own? Let's leave state to take care of everything. We are not to be blamed for our very own failure.

honestly, i rarely buy anything new. i dont know how weve worked up this situation where im the prude and youre the sensible buyer who knows what to look for. literally almost everything i buy is used. i just bought some used books online for dirt cheap, and got 6 amazing books for 6 dollars at the church sale last weekend. both of my drum kits are used, all of my cameras and equipment is used, my computer monitor is used, etc. so im as stingy as you alright. please, dont insult me

ok ill look for a harmonica

they arent russian? the first one isnt, i guess, but the other two are. i mean how could you not say the second one is russian? its as russian as russian gets. please, dont insult me

well who says theyre brainwashed? love it or hate it, its all of a very rational nature, theyre not all brainwashed

[sleeper]

ok some new candidates

this one is pretty interesting but i dont think im sufficiently extroverted to actually ever wear something like this. its also too explicitly hip. i can see it becoming a liability in no time flat
http://cgi.ebay.ca/PAUL-SMITH-RED-EA...QQcmdZViewItem


im attracted to these and i dont know why. everything is telling me that theyre hideous yet i cant look away
http://cgi.ebay.ca/Nike-retro-orange...QQcmdZViewItem


i actually really love these. i would buy them in a second were they not a size too big. theyre great great great
http://cgi.ebay.ca/KILLER-VINTAGE-PA...QQcmdZViewItem