NationStates Jolt Archive

The misconception of what a misconception is, is really bugging me. No-one has certain rights.
Example: I walk up to you with an aussalt rifle and kill you. I don't believe you have a right to life. You are dead now, so I think I may have a point. But then, someone who has been put in place by a bureaucrat hauls my ass to jail. He has protected your right. A bit late, but the intention is there.

Without that copper to protect your rights, you have none. The only right you have, is the right to be the toughest person on the block, so you can protect yourself.

that's absolute bollocks. the state doesn't bestow rights, it only takes them away.

that's absolute bollocks. the state doesn't bestow rights, it only takes them away.

Rights are what a society believes and a state protects. There's nothing inherent about them.

Pretty much anything negative about Christianity, because it usually isn't true.

But it is wrong to end an English sentence with a preposition.

I can see why some people think it's permissable to split infinitives (it isn't) because it makes sentence construction easier, but there's simply no benefit to ending a sentence with a preposition.

Rights are what a society believes and a state protects. There's nothing inherent about them.

society doesn't need a state to validate the rights it believes in. sure, many fucked up societies need a state to protect the rights it believes in, but that doesn't mean that without the protection of the state the rights do not exist.

that's absolute bollocks. the state doesn't bestow rights, it only takes them away.

Generally speaking, taking away your right to kill someone is considered to be a good thing.

In no particular order...


That schizophrenia is the same thing as Dissociative Identity Disorder.
That being atheist makes you immoral, evil, or misguided.
That gays are responsible for everything.
That being gay is a choice you have made to spite the christian god.
ANYTHING about "The Rapture."
That monotheism has done good things for every country, time, and person without fail.
That polytheists "had the right idea" but were "misguided."
That the public school system was designed for anything but systematic brainwashing to ensure a nationalistic, conforming populace.
That being atheist means you have "faith" in science.
That evolution "is just a theory."
"Darwin recanted on his death bed!"
The flood described in the events of Noah's ark happened, and the Grand Canyon is proof.
Carbon Dating is inaccurate and unreliable.
Being a psychology major CLEARLY means you are crazy.
Usage of insanity as if it were anything besides a legal term.
That, to defeat someone in debate, you can label them with a political label and auto-win.


...I'd go on, but this post would be stupid huge.

Being a psychology major CLEARLY means you are crazy.

Are you SURE this one isn't true?


:p:D

Don't be silly. Rights are legal constructs.

So you're saying that without a government, we would have no rights? That makes no sense.

Without that copper to protect your rights, you have none.

Wrong.

Gee, this argument reminds me of something:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, ... (emphasis added)

Nah, that isn't persuasive. ;)

society doesn't need a state to validate the rights it believes in. sure, many fucked up societies need a state to protect the rights it believes in, but that doesn't mean that without the protection of the state the rights do not exist.They don't necessarily require state protection, but they require some form of protection in order to exist.

So you're saying that without a government, we would have no rights? That makes no sense.Yes, that is what I'm saying.
How does anything else make sense? The person living alone on a deserted island has no rights, merely abilities.

Gee, this argument reminds me of something:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, ... (emphasis added)

Nah, that isn't persuasive. Not really, no.

Yes, that is what I'm saying.
How does anything else make sense? The person living alone on a deserted island has no rights, merely abilities.

If rights are "legal constructs," then by your logic, the state should be able to crush your communes without legal repercussions. After all, the state defines what is right.

Gee, this argument reminds me of something:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, ... (emphasis added)

Nah, that isn't persuasive. ;)

Governments "secure" rights the same way that foxes "secure" hen houses.

Governments "secure" rights the same way that foxes "secure" hen houses.

Cute. But not particularly insightful.

Without any government or society, where would we be?

I know:

Whatsoever therefore is consequent to a time of war, where every man is enemy to every man, the same consequent to the time wherein men live without other security than what their own strength and their own invention shall furnish them withal. In such condition there is no place for industry, because the fruit thereof is uncertain: and consequently no culture of the earth; no navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by sea; no commodious building; no instruments of moving and removing such things as require much force; no knowledge of the face of the earth; no account of time; no arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.

--Thomas Hobbes, The Leviathan (http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl302/texts/hobbes/leviathan-c.html)

Quite. Firstly, everyone holds some form of mental disorder or disquiet, so the entire point is moot. Secondly, I'm the one who'll be treating you. I'm pretty sure that whatever my disquiet is clearly isn't a big deal, if at all.

:confused:

If rights are "legal constructs," then by your logic, the state should be able to crush your communes without legal repercussions. After all, the state defines what is right.The state does not define what is right, the state decides what is a right (in areas where there are states as opposed to some other form of social contract). This question is separate from moral considerations, as legal considerations don't have to take moral considerations into account, though they usually do.

Cute. But not particularly insightful.

Without any government or society, where would we be?

I know:

Whatsoever therefore is consequent to a time of war, where every man is enemy to every man, the same consequent to the time wherein men live without other security than what their own strength and their own invention shall furnish them withal. In such condition there is no place for industry, because the fruit thereof is uncertain: and consequently no culture of the earth; no navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by sea; no commodious building; no instruments of moving and removing such things as require much force; no knowledge of the face of the earth; no account of time; no arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.

--Thomas Hobbes, The Leviathan (http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl302/texts/hobbes/leviathan-c.html)

Hobbes says we are born into the world all alone and solitary. we aren't. we are born into voluntary associations that thrive through reciprocity rather than coercion. That is what hobbes failed to notice and what prior philosophers did.

Are you SURE this one isn't true?


:p:D

Quite. Firstly, everyone holds some form of mental disorder or disquiet, so the entire point is moot. Secondly, I'm the one who'll be treating you. I'm pretty sure that whatever my disquiet is clearly isn't a big deal, if at all.

Hobbes says we are born into the world all alone and solitary. we aren't. we are born into voluntary associations that thrive through reciprocity rather than coercion. That is what hobbes failed to notice and what prior philosophers did.

If this is true, where do governments come from? Why do they exist?

If rights are "legal constructs," then by your logic, the state should be able to crush your communes without legal repercussions. After all, the state defines what is right.

Surely there is a difference between "right" and "rights"?

Perhaps, for instance, it is "right" for society to decide democratically what sort of "rights" individuals enjoy.

The state does not define what is right, the state decides what is a right (in areas where there are states as opposed to some other form of social contract). This question is separate from moral considerations, as legal considerations don't have to take moral considerations into account, though they usually do.

A right is a moral power to something. There is no difference.

If this is true, where do governments come from? Why do they exist?

The state is founded upon AGGRESSION, not protection.

Surely there is a difference between "right" and "rights"?

Perhaps, for instance, it is "right" for society to decide democratically what sort of "rights" individuals enjoy.

No.

The state is founded upon AGGRESSION, not protection.

Um. That doesn't come close to answering my questions.

I ask again: Where do governments come from? Why do they exist?

No.

That is not much of a reply.

Out of curiosity: show me a natural right.

That is not much of a reply.

Out of curiosity: show me a natural right.

Right to one's body.

Right to one's body.

What about it?

Where does it reside? Where does it come from? What reason do I have to acknowledge it?

Um. That doesn't come close to answering my questions.

I ask again: Where do governments come from? Why do they exist?

Governments come from reciprocal obligations between leaders of warriors and his warriors, such as in Anglo-Saxon England, to extract as much from the conquered as possible. They exist in order to grant privilege to those who can give support to the political apparatus. In layman's terms: They exist to leech off the citizenry.

Hobbes says we are born into the world all alone and solitary. we aren't. we are born into voluntary associations that thrive through reciprocity rather than coercion. That is what hobbes failed to notice and what prior philosophers did.

The more I read this the more question I have.

What are these voluntary associations?

How are they voluntary if you are born into them?

How do these associations counter Hobbes' state of nature?

What about it?

Where does it reside? Where does it come from? What reason do I have to acknowledge it?

In order to engage in argumentation, one has to command scarce resources, i.e. one's body. Without the exclusive control (i.e. right or moral power over the body in question), one cannot argue. Therefore, in arguing, one shows one's bodily right.

What about it?

Where does it reside? Where does it come from? What reason do I have to acknowledge it?

Its the only thing we are given in this life. Its really the only thing we have to look after to. We have the gift of life, and the responsibility to sustain our own, therefore, don't we also naturally have a right to what we do with our own body?

In order to engage in argumentation, one has to command scarce resources, i.e. one's body.

Right.

Without the exclusive control (i.e. right or moral power over the body in question),

Wait, "right or moral power"? No. I only need physical power. That tells us nothing about "right."

Therefore, in arguing, one shows one's bodily right.

One shows that one actually controls one's body.

One shows nothing whatsoever about right.

Governments come from reciprocal obligations between leaders of warriors and his warriors, such as in Anglo-Saxon England, to extract as much from the conquered as possible. They exist in order to grant privilege to those who can give support to the political apparatus. In layman's terms: They exist to leech off the citizenry.

From where do these warriors get the ability to create obligations upon the citizenry?

Why does the citizenry cooperate? Why should they?

And how is this better than the state of nature?

The more I read this the more question I have.

What are these voluntary associations?

How are they voluntary if you are born into them?

How do these associations counter Hobbes' state of nature?

Voluntary associations are things such as families or the hundred of Anglo-Saxon England. One can choose one's mediator or arbiter, such as transferring between the hundred in Anglo-Saxon England, and as such are voluntary. They counter the imaginary violence conjured up by Hobbes through respecting property rights through ostracism and mutually agreed upon reciprocal obligation, rather than making law through legislation which does not require the consent of those coerced by it.

What are you confused about? Everybody is neurotic about something for some reason which probably rests in the form of a mental disquiet or unrest. Alfred Adler, for instance, made an entire division in psychology because of his inferiority complex.

I'm not sure what you mean by "mental disquiet or unrest"? Or how such a term is meaningful if it applies to everyone?

I trust you aren't denying that mental disorders are a different category entirely. ;)

Its the only thing we are given in this life. Its really the only thing we have to look after to.

So we are born with bodies. So what?

We have the gift of life, and the responsibility to sustain our own,

Even assuming such a responsibility, what does it prove about our bodies?

Indeed, if we have such a responsibility, doesn't that imply that we don't have a right to our bodies--that we cannot, for instance, exercise such a right by committing suicide?

:confused:

What are you confused about? Everybody is neurotic about something for some reason which probably rests in the form of a mental disquiet or unrest. Alfred Adler, for instance, made an entire division in psychology because of his inferiority complex.

From where do these warriors get the ability to create obligations upon the citizenry?

Why does the citizenry cooperate? Why should they?

And how is this better than the state of nature?

Through conquest and the gradual accumulation of military and economic power through expropriation. Because of this economic power, they are able to enforce coercive laws onto the populace which, though they often resist, eventually they give in because of habit and some coercive incentives that allow them to externalize some of their costs as well. The leaders of warriors and warriors are not superior to a state of nature, because they have the power to legislate and change laws through their monopoly on jurisdiction, i.e. their state.

Right.



Wait, "right or moral power"? No. I only need physical power. That tells us nothing about "right."



One shows that one actually controls one's body.

One shows nothing whatsoever about right.

In arguing with another person, one recognizes that you yourself and the other person have the moral right to argue, since arguing requires one to use one's body. Otherwise, one would not engage in such an activity.

What about the people who harbored Jews in their houses and lied about it to protect them? Oh, and sorry for Godwinning.
The ideal situation would have been this:
Nazi: Do you have Jews in your house?
Protector: Yes.
Nazi: May we see them?
Protector: Umm... Here the protector hits the soldier with a frying pan and ties him up in the basement

Perhaps that's not the most likely of situations.
As a serious answer, I would say it would best to admit that one was hiding Jews and then refuse to let them be taken away. I realize that this is easier said than done. Honestly, I'd probably be more upset with someone who admitted to hiding people and was then unable to protect them than someone who lied knowing they would be unable to stop the soldiers, so maybea revision is in order:
Lying is always wrong unless it involves Nazis or similar scum.
Even then, though, I would not consider it "good."

So we are born with bodies. So what?



Even assuming such a responsibility, what does it prove about our bodies?

Indeed, if we have such a responsibility, doesn't that imply that we don't have a right to our bodies--that we cannot, for instance, exercise such a right by committing suicide?

Lets say some gift is given to you. The person that gave it to you gave no instructions, or anything of that sort. They just hand you something. Do you, or do you not have the right to do what you want with that object? Couldn't you paint it? Or disassemble it? Or even destroy it completely? I do believe its a natural instinct of our. Give a baby something. They will think its theirs, and will do what they want to with it, ie bite it, throw it, etc. Its not something we teach them, but they acquire by nature. If its ours, we can do what we want with it. And if its not ours, then who does it belong to?

I am bothered that people don't seem to understand what a lot of words mean by definition. A lot of us were told to fetch a dictionary whenever we didn't know what a word meant, and it has translated (for me) into irritation that people keep heedlessly repeating phrases and words they only understand connatatively, which is to say they have no real clue what they're saying.

i.e. Anarchy: typically translated as kids throwing bricks through car windows, anarchy can quickly be divided into the roots "arch" (which means "greatest" as in bestestest, like archrival, archangel) and the prefix "a" which turns into "an" in front of the vowel in arch. "A-" simply means "not" or "no" referring to the root word it's attatched to. (preposition, HAHAHA!)
So, compared to something like "monarchy" where you have a king of some sort who's supposed to be the ultimate ruler of everybody, "anarchy" just means there is no "greatest" of anybody. It's not a word you chant while stealing daddy's liquor, it's just a rather "arch"-ane way of expressing social equality without hier-"arch"-y.

I am bothered by people who ask, "Do you believe in God?" This phrase presupposes that there actually is some GOD out there and they're just checking to see if you're aware of it. More intelligently, they should be asking, "Do you think there's a God?"

You're killing me when you talk down on Wikipedia, seriously, killing me. Yeah, it's technical, and for a very good reason... it's a fricking ENCYCLOPEDIA. If you're looking for a dumbed-down version of everything try some elementary level beginners books and stay away from the hard stuff. If you're willing to attempt real knowledge, try clicking on all those fancy links in wikipedia that explain almost every term referenced in each article. This annoyance is really an extension of my irritation at people who can't be bothered to use dictionaries. BTW, if you're still skeptical about wikipedia, you are probly one of those people who fall prey to the "it's impossible" propaganda technique. That's the one where some guy is betting you won't be able to think of a real explanation for something, so they tell you "it's impossible!!!!" and you walk away going, "oh gosh i guess 'it's impossible.'" Except then they throw some freakish explanation at you and you swallow it whole. Examples: aliens taught technology to early humans because there's no way they could have figured out how to build pyramids by themselves and aligned them together, or simply the garbage "Intelligent Design" which is mostly a catch-phrase handed out to folks who otherwise would have no opportunity to use the word "intelligent."

In arguing with another person, one recognizes that you yourself and the other person have the moral right to argue,

This is simply not true. I can do something I know is wrong. But I'll grant you this point on the assumption that you're really talking about our assertion of the moral legitimacy of argumentation.

since arguing requires one to use one's body.

So? There are vast numbers of moral theories that don't assert ownership of bodies that can still morally justify argumentation.

Argumentation is one use of our bodies. There are many potential ones. Furthermore, argumentation does not presuppose that I have exclusive right to my body. Perhaps I believe that I can argue only until someone else demands to use it.

You're killing me when you talk down on Wikipedia, seriously, killing me. Yeah, it's technical, and for a very good reason... it's a fricking ENCYCLOPEDIA. If you're looking for a dumbed-down version of everything try some elementary level beginners books and stay away from the hard stuff. If you're willing to attempt real knowledge, try clicking on all those fancy links in wikipedia that explain almost every term referenced in each article. This annoyance is really an extension of my irritation at people who can't be bothered to use dictionaries. BTW, if you're still skeptical about wikipedia, you are probly one of those people who fall prey to the "it's impossible" propaganda technique. *snip*

Are you actually of the impression that people who criticize Wikipedia do so because it is too technical for them? LOL. :D

No, it's not. It's not about being purist, it's about being right."Right" and "Wrong" have nothing to do with music.

"Emo" or emotional music...All music is emotional.

...is a relatively knew genre and applies to bands like Evenescence, but "emo" isn't the only label applied to emo bands.Apparently not, because last time I checked Evanescence wasn't technically emo. But maybe they changed their style since I last listened to them which was something like five years ago.

For example, Good Charlotte has been described as "emo", but is also modern pop-punk.Those genres overlap each other more than not.
edit - well, maybe not technically, but it sure seems that way to me.

Music genres are complicated, and similarly to film, a band can come from a certain "genre" but still utilise a "style" that belongs to another "genre".Yes, I am familiar with music.
Nirvana is known as "Grunge", but Nirvana themselves disagreed with that title. They were heavily influenced by punk. Read Heavier Than Heaven, and the Kurt Cobain Journals.Exactly. Both emo and grunge are pop-refined off-shoots of punk that ultimately undermined their essential punkness and became whiny (I understand whiny has a negative connotation, but I don't necessarily mean it in a bad way. Lots of good art is whiny).

Obsessive or compulsive behaviour do not constitute a disorder.True, but whether obsessive-compulsive behavior rises to the point of disorderly is mostly a factor of a particular society's tolerance for deviation from the social norms obsessive-compulsive behaviors might violate. That is to say, subjectively speaking, the line between OCD vs not-quite-OCD is arbitrary. For example, I used to walk in a very particular way over differently-patterned-surfaces, only turn to the left (never the right), was a germ freak, and had to do other behaviors in certain alternating left-right or other ritualistic patterns. Had I grown up in a different environment, this could have interfered with my ability to function in society, which from what I understand would make it a disorder.

I think that grammar is a tool you use to help you get your head around ideas and relate them effectively to other people. It's more a means to an end tho, not the end itself.

Do you, or do you not have the right to do what you want with that object?

Better question, in the context: if someone else tries to take it, are they behaving wrongly?

To believe that we have a right to our bodies is to say yes, they are. But this position requires a positive argument.

If its ours, we can do what we want with it. And if its not ours, then who does it belong to?

Maybe it belongs to no one. Maybe it's the sort of thing whose moral status cannot be accurately summarized by "property."

Ask a lion if there is any such right.

A lion is not a rational creature, and cannot understand the notion of "right" if such a thing exists.

You only have a right to your body if you can protect it.

Is/ought. My capacity to defend a right has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not I possess it. Rights are about right or wrong, not about what I have the actual physical capacity to protect.

Are you actually of the impression that people who criticize Wikipedia do so because it is too technical for them? LOL. :D

I think someone on this thread did say that many of the articles on Wikipedia were written by people who, while knowledgeable of the subject, were not good at writing or complaining.

But you're right; for most people, that is not the only reason they take issue with the Wikster. (That's right, I called it the Wikster.)

A right is a moral power to something. There is no difference.

Where do you think such things come from? Without someone protecting said "rights," they don't exist. With no one protecting our rights, then the only thing I have a right to do is die if I'm not the toughest one on the block. And if I am, I have the right to do anything I want, to anyone I want.

Right to one's body.

Ask a lion if there is any such right. You only have a right to your body if you can protect it. That is how the "natural" world operates.

Better question, in the context: if someone else tries to take it, are they behaving wrongly?

To believe that we have a right to our bodies is to say yes, they are. But this position requires a positive argument.



Maybe it belongs to no one. Maybe it's the sort of thing whose moral status cannot be accurately summarized by "property."

Humans are rarely rational creatures. When analyzing a situation from a detached point of view, they can think perfectly rationally. When actually in a serious situation, they tend to rely on gut reactions and emotions.

You only have a right to your body if you can prevent me from taking it from you, if there's no one else to protect it. If you can't, I can take whatever I want from you, including your body and your life.

I am bothered that people don't seem to understand what a lot of words mean by definition. A lot of us were told to fetch a dictionary whenever we didn't know what a word meant, and it has translated (for me) into irritation that people keep heedlessly repeating phrases and words they only understand connatatively, which is to say they have no real clue what they're saying.

i.e. Anarchy: typically translated as kids throwing bricks through car windows, anarchy can quickly be divided into the roots "arch" (which means "greatest" as in bestestest, like archrival, archangel) and the prefix "a" which turns into "an" in front of the vowel in arch. "A-" simply means "not" or "no" referring to the root word it's attatched to. (preposition, HAHAHA!)
So, compared to something like "monarchy" where you have a king of some sort who's supposed to be the ultimate ruler of everybody, "anarchy" just means there is no "greatest" of anybody. It's not a word you chant while stealing daddy's liquor, it's just a rather "arch"-ane way of expressing social equality without hier-"arch"-y.

*snip*


You had me 'til there.

-archy

a combining form meaning “rule,” “government,” forming abstract nouns usually corresponding to personal nouns ending in -arch: monarchy; oligarchy.

[Origin: ME -archie < L -archia < Gk, equiv. to arch(os) or -arch(és) -arch + -ia -y3]

-arch

a combining form meaning “chief, leader, ruler,” used in the formation of compound words: monarch; matriarch; heresiarch.

[Origin: < Gk -archos or -archés, as comb. forms of árchos leader; cf. archi-]

Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.

As for your assertion about "archangel" or arch-rival...

arch-1

a combining form that represents the outcome of archi- in words borrowed through Latin from Greek in the Old English period; it subsequently became a productive form added to nouns of any origin, which thus denote individuals or institutions directing or having authority over others of their class (archbishop; archdiocese; archpriest). More recently, arch-1 has developed the senses “principal” (archenemy; archrival) or “prototypical” and thus exemplary or extreme (archconservative); nouns so formed are almost always pejorative.

[Origin: ME; OE arce-, ærce-, erce- (> ON erki-) < L archi- < Gk (see archi-); but D aarts-, MLG erse-, MHG, G Erz- < ML arci-, and Goth ark- directly < Gk. Cf. archangel]

Note the differing etymologies of the two forms.

I completely understand being frustrated at someone who, while seated at a computer, actually POSTS a request for a definition when dictionary.com is a few seconds away with a few keystrokes. It irritates me, too.

However, if you go into smug mode and then fuck up the etymology of a root like archos, it makes you seem...unnecessarily arrogant. The point is, we're none of us infallible, so rant all you want, but be prepared to have your own perceptions shredded. I've had many of mine dismembered here, and while a chastening experience, I've learned a lot.

Welcome to NSG.

Humans are rarely rational creatures.

Rationality refers to capacity. In no sense does it suggest that humans actually act upon it.

As rational creatures, we are capable of understanding--and are thus bound by--moral justification. We may fail to fulfill it every time. But that changes nothing.

You only have a right to your body if you can prevent me from taking it from you, if there's no one else to protect it.

Thanks for repeating yourself. Care to actually respond to what I said?

Again, "rights" reference right and wrong (though they are not the sum total of right and wrong.) To say that I have a "right" to something is not to say anything about my capacity to protect it or your capacity to take it; it is only to say that if you decide to take it, you have done wrong.

True, but whether obsessive-compulsive behavior rises to the point of disorderly is mostly a factor of a particular society's tolerance for deviation from the social norms obsessive-compulsive behaviors might violate. That is to say, subjectively speaking, the line between OCD vs not-quite-OCD is arbitrary. For example, I used to walk in a very particular way over differently-patterned-surfaces, only turn to the left (never the right), was a germ freak, and had to do other behaviors in certain alternating left-right or other ritualistic patterns. Had I grown up in a different environment, this could have interfered with my ability to function in society, which from what I understand would make it a disorder.

This idea that mental disorders are just different points on the normal scale of human thoughts and behaviors is quite misinformed.

Obsessive Compulsive Disorder is a mental illness, not just a mental quirk. It has a defined criteria of symptoms of a required severity. See the DSM-IV (http://www.behavenet.com/capsules/disorders/o-cd.htm)

Would you say the line between physical health and physical disorders is arbitrary? Is cancer? Diabetes? Flu?

But wadda I know? Apparently I'm just emo.

Where do you think such things come from? Without someone protecting said "rights," they don't exist. With no one protecting our rights, then the only thing I have a right to do is die if I'm not the toughest one on the block. And if I am, I have the right to do anything I want, to anyone I want.

Until the one(s) you're taking from either band together or discover your weakness. Hence, the evolution of intelligence and ingenuity over, say, fangs and claws on homo sapiens sapiens.

A lion is not a rational creature, and cannot understand the notion of "right" if such a thing exists.

Is/ought. My capacity to defend a right has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not I possess it. Rights are about right or wrong, not about what I have the actual physical capacity to protect.

A lion is an instinctual creature -- rationality (or "not rationality") doesn't enter into the picture.

As far as your second assertion, your rights disappear whenever someone who doesn't give a shit about them and has leverage of some sort on you decides to use that leverage to subjugate you. Legions of unpunished motherfuckers are living fine, unencumbered lives all over the globe after abridging the "rights" of any number of fellow human beings for any number of reasons, or no reason at all. And not just in Africa, where "rights" go for vacations, apparently.

"Right" and "Wrong" have nothing to do with music.

Agreed. It's all about perception, experience and taste.

All music is emotional.

I'll have to disagree there. Philip Glass, John Cage -- there have been entire movements devoted to bleeding music of any sense of emotion and/or crafting it with solely mathematical motivation.

Apparently not, because last time I checked Evanescence wasn't technically emo. But maybe they changed their style since I last listened to them which was something like five years ago.

Oh balls, isn't that the group where there's one guy who's "instrument" is just yelling a hook while the chick sings in an airy-fairy head voice? Can't stand that shit.

Exactly. Both emo and grunge are pop-refined off-shoots of punk that ultimately undermined their essential punkness and became whiny (I understand whiny has a negative connotation, but I don't necessarily mean it in a bad way. Lots of good art is whiny).

Almost too much thinking and credit in that paragraph, but I'd agree with the analysis on a basic level. Grunge, on the whole, tended to have a more complicated chord structure than basic punk, and I don't think anything emo would exist without the likes of "anti-pop" like Depeche Mode and The Cure (anti-pop in the sense of anti-hero, not the opposite of pop). I'm a fan of not splitting genres into ridiculous sub-species.[/QUOTE]

I think emo folks have gone back in time to try to claim Nirvana's grudge for their own, particularly since he shot hisself. No label is really going to be effective at describing the similar or dissimilar qualites of each type of music, altho I'll admit there are matching themes at times. "What else can I say, everyone is gay.." or "In your eyes, I'm not worth it" do seem like Emo lyrics, but Cobain seems to be somewhat different in caliber than many emo artists who would like to name-drop him as if he were their cousin or something.

Rationality refers to capacity. In no sense does it suggest that humans actually act upon it.

As rational creatures, we are capable of understanding--and are thus bound by--moral justification. We may fail to fulfill it every time. But that changes nothing.

Nope. I'm pretty sure despots across the millennia understood exactly what they were doing. I'm equally sure they felt no compunction about it whatsoever.

Again, "rights" reference right and wrong (though they are not the sum total of right and wrong.) To say that I have a "right" to something is not to say anything about my capacity to protect it or your capacity to take it; it is only to say that if you decide to take it, you have done wrong.

Not if someone doesn't share your sense of right and wrong. YOUR rights are only what YOU conceive them to be. If someone doesn't share that conception, they're not very likely to understand what you're complaining about when you say they "haven't the right" to do or take whatever it is they're doing or taking. More than a few missionaries have discovered that concept in some of the more interesting parts of the world.

A lion is an instinctual creature -- rationality (or "not rationality") doesn't enter into the picture.

Yes, a lion is an instinctual creature. It follows that it is not rational.

I'm not sure what kind of distinction you're trying to draw here.

As far as your second assertion, your rights disappear whenever someone who doesn't give a shit about them and has leverage of some sort on you decides to use that leverage to subjugate you. Legions of unpunished motherfuckers are living fine, unencumbered lives all over the globe after abridging the "rights" of any number of fellow human beings for any number of reasons, or no reason at all. And not just in Africa, where "rights" go for vacations, apparently.

Again: is/ought. I can have rights even if they are not respected. Right action does not depend on people engaging in it.

Does the fact that people murder others prove that they are right to do so?

I think emo folks have gone back in time to try to claim Nirvana's grudge for their own, particularly since he shot hisself. No label is really going to be effective at describing the similar or dissimilar qualites of each type of music, altho I'll admit there are matching themes at times. "What else can I say, everyone is gay.." or "In your eyes, I'm not worth it" do seem like Emo lyrics, but Cobain seems to be somewhat different in caliber than many emo artists who would like to name-drop him as if he were their cousin or something.

I can appreciate where you're going with that paragraph, but I think labels are sloppy shorthand. Simple tools for simple minds. I couldn't tell you what genre much of my favorite music fits into, and I really couldn't care less -- I'd rather listen to it. When someone asks me what I like, and I decide not to be a smart-ass, I don't list genres, I list artists. It confuses some people, and I like that.

Nope. I'm pretty sure despots across the millennia understood exactly what they were doing. I'm equally sure they felt no compunction about it whatsoever.

So? "Understanding" of that sort is only one aspect of rationality.

If someone doesn't share that conception, they're not very likely to understand what you're complaining about when you say they "haven't the right" to do or take whatever it is they're doing or taking.

Right. If someone doesn't share my assumptions, they're not going to understand my argument. Again, so?

You have shown that beliefs differ. You have shown also that beliefs differ enough that sometimes my language will seem meaningless to others. But what does that have to do with anything? It remains true that rights depend in no sense on "capacity."

Obessive-compulsivity is inherent to everybody. Just like any other psychological trait, it has to start to interfere with your ability to live your live and handle day-to-day activities before it becomes identified as a "disorder." I had several ticks when I was a small child that I gradually grew out of and don't habitually perform all the time. They're still there in my head, but not so much that I really HAVE to perform them or suffer anxiety. I can imagine the nightmare of dealing with it indefinitely and very much sympathize with anyone still struggling to control them.

-odd thought, OCD strikes me as somewhat like habitually smoking.

When people say the heart is in the left breast. No idiot, thats a lung and an artery.

When people say a 2nd person game is where the view is over the shoulder. No idiot, 2nd person is when you view the action from your enemy, and has only been used in one experimental game. 1st person = you, 2nd person = enemy, 3rd person = observer. Its common sense.

Fall Out Boy and other such MTV trash is rock. No idiot, its pop rock. Eg shit.

Apples are not PCs. Yes idiot, its a computer for personal use.

Ipods are something different from MP3 players. No idiot, they play MP3s, they might have a few different functions (and lack even more) but they are MP3 players.

Ipods are the best MP3 players. No.

Lost is never going to end and should have stopped by now. Whats wrong with a long story?

Disagreeing with Israels warmongering makes you an anti-semite.

Disagreeing with the USA/neoconservatives warmongering makes you not love your/the country.

Democracy as it is currently implemented works well and truly represents the people.

Russia/USSR was evil and was going to start a nuclear war any day.

Every news organisation except FOX is biased towards liberals.

Every news organisation is biased towards republicans.

(I honestly did hear someone say this) CNN is biased towards Obama and against Clinton.

Bush deserved to win in 2000.

All conspiracy theories are rubbish, you don't need to look into the evidence because they are all crazy.

The Iraq invasion was a noble effort to remove a dictator who was going to acquire and use WMDs.

Iran is a threat.

America has always respected the sovereignty of democratically elected governments.

Terrorism is a threat and we will all die if democrats get elected.

We should vote for republicans because they will abandon the country the REPUBLICANS invaded, for reasons that were untrue.

Ralph Nader did not hand the election to Bush. Do the math, he did, and I doubt his voters wanted Bush in. But thats what you gave us. GG.

Yes, a lion is an instinctual creature. It follows that it is not rational.

I'm not sure what kind of distinction you're trying to draw here.

Truthfully, I'm not all that sure myself. The distinction that bringing animals into the argument was a mistake?

Again: is/ought. I can have rights even if they are not respected. Right action does not depend on people engaging in it.

Does the fact that people murder others prove that they are right to do so?

Okay, I'm glad you're aware of David Hume, but your having rights depends on others agreeing that you have them. There's no "ought" in any of my statements. If anything, you're the one dancing with "ought". Asserting your right not to be made a meal of is not likely to sway a jury of hungry cannibals.

Lots of people feel that murder is right -- otherwise, there'd not be so much of it. Much of that might be rationalization or justification, but some of it is not.

Obessive-compulsivity is inherent to everybody. Just like any other psychological trait, it has to start to interfere with your ability to live your live and handle day-to-day activities before it becomes identified as a "disorder." I had several ticks when I was a small child that I gradually grew out of and don't habitually perform all the time. They're still there in my head, but not so much that I really HAVE to perform them or suffer anxiety. I can imagine the nightmare of dealing with it indefinitely and very much sympathize with anyone still struggling to control them.

-odd thought, OCD strikes me as somewhat like habitually smoking.

That's a fine point. When I was a child, I ascribed feelings and volition to inanimate objects like favorite blankets, stuffed animals and other things. To this day, I can't leave the garage door closed if the rope-pull is poking out. For some reason, I think that "hurts" the rope, and that it needs to be inside the garage, out of the cold and/or wet. It COULD be a subconscious need to keep the rope from getting degraded by the elements and wearing out faster than it needs to, but I do feel a twinge if I try to leave the rope "squished". That's gotta be at least a mild OCD tic.

I couldn't tell you what genre much of my favorite music fits into, and I really couldn't care less -- I'd rather listen to it. When someone asks me what I like, and I decide not to be a smart-ass, I don't list genres, I list artists. It confuses some people, and I like that.

I go so far as only listing songs, because I don't like every song by every artist I listen too. Kansas for example, only ever created two good songs in my opinion, but if I said "I listen to Kansas" people would assume I like all their music.

So? "Understanding" of that sort is only one aspect of rationality.

Right. If someone doesn't share my assumptions, they're not going to understand my argument. Again, so?

You have shown that beliefs differ. You have shown also that beliefs differ enough that sometimes my language will seem meaningless to others. But what does that have to do with anything? It remains true that rights depend in no sense on "capacity."

Perhaps I'm misreading what you mean by "capacity". Do you mean that someone must understand what rights are regardless of their choice to cherish or chuck 'em, or are they inherent? It seems to me that the very concept of rights demands someone else, even one other person, respect those rights or willfully abrogate them.

I go so far as only listing songs, because I don't like every song by every artist I listen too. Kansas for example, only ever created two good songs in my opinion, but if I said "I listen to Kansas" people would assume I like all their music.

"Dust in the Wind" and "Carry on My Wayward Son"?

I completely understand that.

Illustration: I became very enamored of a song called "The Way", by a group named Fastball. I went to amazon.com and bought their CD All the Pain Money Can Buy and almost instantly regretted it. After struggling through the first few tracks, I skipped to "The Way", listened to it, and filed the CD into my collection, never to be seen again until my biennial review-and-resell session (unless it's got sentimental value or is a classic or rarity, it gets sold).

Truthfully, I'm not all that sure myself. The distinction that bringing animals into the argument was a mistake?

I quite agree, but I was not the one who brought them up.

Okay, I'm glad you're aware of David Hume, but your having rights depends on others agreeing that you have them.

Perhaps, but if so, not because I do not have rights if my rights are not protected.

The fact that a murderer can kill me in no sense implies that he should.

There's no "ought" in any of my statements.

That is precisely my point.

If anything, you're the one dancing with "ought".

Right. Questions of "rights" are inherently questions of "ought."

Asserting your right not to be made a meal of is not likely to sway a jury of hungry cannibals.

True. But the fact that I have not persuaded them does not prove that their actions are right.

Lots of people feel that murder is right -- otherwise, there'd not be so much of it.

Perhaps. So? It still does not follow from the mere existence of the behavior that it is justified.

Do you mean that someone must understand what rights are regardless of their choice to cherish or chuck 'em, or are they inherent?

I mean simply that human beings are capable of understanding moral arguments. Nothing more.

It seems to me that the very concept of rights demands someone else, even one other person, respect those rights or willfully abrogate them.

That doesn't seem inherent in the notion of "rights" to me. True, it is only in such a condition that rights will manifest themselves in the real world, that they will actually "matter" practically--but they are (or at least could be) still "out there" regardless.

I mean simply that human beings are capable of understanding moral arguments. Nothing more.

I agree with that.

That doesn't seem inherent in the notion of "rights" to me. True, it is only in such a condition that rights will manifest themselves in the real world, that they will actually "matter" practically--but they are (or at least could be) still "out there" regardless.

This seems more like a faith type of thing you're describing. The "inalienable" rights to which those who composed the Declaration of Independence referred.

For something to be "out there" without the need for anyone to acknowledge it is almost a perfect principle of faith. Faith, too, does not need manifestations to be imagined, ideated or invented (no matter what those who harangue you about going to church might insist ;)).

This idea that mental disorders are just different points on the normal scale of human thoughts and behaviors is quite misinformed.I disagree. "Normal" itself is a word with a fuzzy definition.

Obsessive Compulsive Disorder is a mental illness, not just a mental quirk.Those terms aren't mutually exclusive. I feel we're playing semantics games a little here.
It has a defined criteria of symptoms of a required severity. See the DSM-IV (http://www.behavenet.com/capsules/disorders/o-cd.htm)That is a nice, clean definition, and to be applauded. You'll note that there is a reference to "normal routine, occupational (or academic) functioning, or usual social activities or relationships," which must occur within a scope defined by the environment created by one's particular society.

Would you say the line between physical health and physical disorders is arbitrary? Is cancer? Diabetes? Flu?Yes, I would say so for many conditions, though not all. Many (most?) Mental disorders are not defined in discrete biological terms, however, but in behavioral terms, which IMO is a crucial difference.




I'll have to disagree there. Philip Glass, John Cage -- there have been entire movements devoted to bleeding music of any sense of emotion and/or crafting it with solely mathematical motivation.I'm not sure that is an accurate characterization. It is certainly true that they intended to narrow the focus of the emotional content in many of their pieces, but it is only music in the sense that it can convey an emotional sentiment to a listener.

I'm a fan of not splitting genres into ridiculous sub-species.At least it's not a debate about metal and whether to add "-core" suffixes (or "post-" prefixes) to various mix-and-match descriptors.

eh quote "are you really of.. wikipedia.. because it's too technical" .. etc.

No, I was refferring to a specific post, but haven't figured out how to clip out quotes from previous posts.

True. But the fact that I have not persuaded them does not prove that their actions are right.

Snipped the rest, mostly because it's solid stuff, and well presented.

The cannibals' actions are right to them. You are food. Then again, this opens up debate about veganism, and personally, I'm too enamored of meat to go there. That does beg the question, though: what of "animal rights"? Are those inherent, too, or are we "extending the shields" around beings which, by their very nature, are incapable of perceiving rights?

I ask because I've often seen myself as a hypocrite for eating cow (not veal), pig (not suckling), chicken (and eggs), turkey, mutton (not lamb) -- but getting upset at cultures who feel a similar lack of compunction about eating dogs. Being a dog lover, I know that the lines I've drawn could be easily mocked or derided.

"What, so your prerequisites are nothing bred to be man's best friend and nothing young -- other than that, carve it up?"

So yeah, I guess that IS where I've got the line as of now. I even go so far as to examine that line and posit things like this: what's the point of not eating young animals when they're likely to have a life that ends in being food anyway? I salve that burn by buying non-mass-production meat as much as I can (or more likely, can afford -- I find it annoying that having a conscience costs more).

Sorry for the verbal diarrhea, but these are the thoughts that kept me out of the really good schools...and can keep me up nights, too.

eh quote "are you really of.. wikipedia.. because it's too technical" .. etc.

No, I was referring to a specific post, but haven't figured out how to clip out quotes from previous posts.

Lower right-hand side of each post, you can + (add that post to your next reply) or - (take it out if you've already added it).

I'm not sure that is an accurate characterization. It is certainly true that they intended to narrow the focus of the emotional content in many of their pieces, but it is only music in the sense that it can convey an emotional sentiment to a listener.

Well, I'm sure it's accurate. Otherwise, I went through music history at both undergrad and graduate levels for no good reason, and that would be really irritating. Seriously, entire schools of musical thought were devoted to emotionless compositions and presentations.

Your demand that music must have an emotional component is entirely dependent on the listener, not the music. If someone pulls an emotion out of Glass or Cage or Steve Reich, I'm not sure I'm going to trust them.

At least it's not a debate about metal and whether to add "-core" suffixes (or "post-" prefixes) to various mix-and-match descriptors.

Oh, no kidding -- massive pet peeve there. I'm talkin' mastiff+great Dane+Newfie-sized pet here.

""""Quote:
Originally Posted by Plasticia
I am bothered that people don't seem to understand what a lot of words mean by definition. A lot of us were told to fetch a dictionary whenever we didn't know what a word meant, and it has translated (for me) into irritation that people keep heedlessly repeating phrases and words they only understand connatatively, which is to say they have no real clue what they're saying.

i.e. Anarchy: typically translated as kids throwing bricks through car windows, anarchy can quickly be divided into the roots "arch" (which means "greatest" as in bestestest, like archrival, archangel) and the prefix "a" which turns into "an" in front of the vowel in arch. "A-" simply means "not" or "no" referring to the root word it's attatched to. (preposition, HAHAHA!)
So, compared to something like "monarchy" where you have a king of some sort who's supposed to be the ultimate ruler of everybody, "anarchy" just means there is no "greatest" of anybody. It's not a word you chant while stealing daddy's liquor, it's just a rather "arch"-ane way of expressing social equality without hier-"arch"-y.

*snip*

You had me 'til there.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
-archy

a combining form meaning “rule,” “government,” forming abstract nouns usually corresponding to personal nouns ending in -arch: monarchy; oligarchy.

[Origin: ME -archie < L -archia < Gk, equiv. to arch(os) or -arch(és) -arch + -ia -y3]

-arch

a combining form meaning “chief, leader, ruler,” used in the formation of compound words: monarch; matriarch; heresiarch.

[Origin: < Gk -archos or -archés, as comb. forms of árchos leader; cf. archi-]

Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.

As for your assertion about "archangel" or arch-rival...


Quote:
Originally Posted by same place
arch-1

a combining form that represents the outcome of archi- in words borrowed through Latin from Greek in the Old English period; it subsequently became a productive form added to nouns of any origin, which thus denote individuals or institutions directing or having authority over others of their class (archbishop; archdiocese; archpriest). More recently, arch-1 has developed the senses “principal” (archenemy; archrival) or “prototypical” and thus exemplary or extreme (archconservative); nouns so formed are almost always pejorative.

[Origin: ME; OE arce-, ærce-, erce- (> ON erki-) < L archi- < Gk (see archi-); but D aarts-, MLG erse-, MHG, G Erz- < ML arci-, and Goth ark- directly < Gk. Cf. archangel]

Note the differing etymologies of the two forms.

I completely understand being frustrated at someone who, while seated at a computer, actually POSTS a request for a definition when dictionary.com is a few seconds away with a few keystrokes. It irritates me, too.

However, if you go into smug mode and then fuck up the etymology of a root like archos, it makes you seem...unnecessarily arrogant. The point is, we're none of us infallible, so rant all you want, but be prepared to have your own perceptions shredded. I've had many of mine dismembered here, and while a chastening experience, I've learned a lot.

Welcome to NSG. """

Please forgive my poor posting skills, as I'm not even sure how this will appear when I post it or if it shall be intelligible. However, I see no refutation in you response post to my arch-rant.

Those 2 versions of the roots words are not in opposition to each other, nor is my application irrelevent or off-base in my exposition. You've referenced a version of the root directly from greek meaning:

-arch

a combining form meaning “chief, leader, ruler,” used in the formation of compound words: monarch; matriarch; heresiarch.

- this is the version i reffered to when i said:

"arch" (which means "greatest" as in bestestest, like archrival, archangel)



The other reference was:

-archy

a combining form meaning “rule,” “government,”


-which was more to the point of the post of comparing monarchy and anarchy.

Again, I cannot find what it is you are objecting to. Those are all flowing from the same root word, and are not in dissonance with each other.

Please forgive my poor posting skills, as I'm not even sure how this will appear when I post it or if it shall be intelligible. However, I see no refutation in you response post to my arch-rant.

Those 2 versions of the roots words are not in opposition to each other, nor is my application irrelevent or off-base in my exposition. You've referenced a version of the root directly from greek meaning:

-arch

a combining form meaning “chief, leader, ruler,” used in the formation of compound words: monarch; matriarch; heresiarch.

- this is the version i reffered to when i said:

"arch" (which means "greatest" as in bestestest, like archrival, archangel)



The other reference was:

-archy

a combining form meaning “rule,” “government,”


-which was more to the point of the post of comparing monarchy and anarchy.

Again, I cannot find what it is you are objecting to. Those are all flowing from the same root word, and are not in dissonance with each other.

Okay, first off, I posted you about how to add quotes to your posts. Quote buttons appear on every post. Look around.

"arch- / -arch" means "leader", not "best" or "great". That's the point.

I think emo folks have gone back in time to try to claim Nirvana's grudge for their own, particularly since he shot hisself. No label is really going to be effective at describing the similar or dissimilar qualites of each type of music, altho I'll admit there are matching themes at times. "What else can I say, everyone is gay.." or "In your eyes, I'm not worth it" do seem like Emo lyrics, but Cobain seems to be somewhat different in caliber than many emo artists who would like to name-drop him as if he were their cousin or something.

I can appreciate where you're going with that paragraph, but I think labels are sloppy shorthand. Simple tools for simple minds. I couldn't tell you what genre much of my favorite music fits into, and I really couldn't care less -- I'd rather listen to it. When someone asks me what I like, and I decide not to be a smart-ass, I don't list genres, I list artists. It confuses some people, and I like that.



WOOOHOOO I found the quote button!

Anyways, you confused me immediately by saying "I agree, but.." and then agreeing with me. lol

ais "No label is really going to be effective..."

Okay, first off, I posted you about how to add quotes to your posts. Quote buttons appear on every post. Look around.

"arch- / -arch" means "leader", not "best" or "great". That's the point.

K, that's awefully nit-picky, and doesn't particulary address the context or purpose of the post. Bear with me enough to notice the mild similarities among the words "best, great" and "Chief; principal."

Furthermore, "leader" is not synonymous with "arch." Leader indicates a person or thing that directs a path to be followed. Your dog can lead you.

However, our repartee is a living example of the ensuing struggle that is the pursuit of real meaning versus the illusions that plague us.

Here's a few that bother me...

1) Natural Selection explains origin.

2) Scientific evidence overwhelmingly supports naturalistic origins.

3) Current scientific theory is unbiased.

4) Christian faith precedes common sense or logic.

5) Mankind is more good than bad.

6) Based on the sheer number of stars and galaxies, there must be countless earth type planets and complex life forms throughout the universe.

7) Scientific evidence overwhelmingly supports the theory that the earth is billions of years old.

8) In order to be scientific, one MUST be a naturalist.

I'm sure I can think of more, but that's a good start. :)

K, that's awefully nit-picky, and doesn't particulary address the context or purpose of the post. Bear with me enough to notice the mild similarities among the words "best, great" and "Chief; principal."

Furthermore, "leader" is not synonymous with "arch." Leader indicates a person or thing that directs a path to be followed. Your dog can lead you.

However, our repartee is a living example of the ensuing struggle that is the pursuit of real meaning versus the illusions that plague us.

Nitpicking is what I do when you saunter into a thread and mock others' intelligence while misrepresenting an etymology. All I'm saying is be sure you get your facts straight before you tap dance on someone else's posts. I posted the definition with the etymology, and the word "great" is NOT among the definitions ascribed to the root "archos". It means leader, as in leader of men, in this case, "head of state". Some leaders are great, but not all great people are leaders, and no leader of men has ever been a dog.

By the way, Cat Tribes, you wouldn't happen to be a professor of politics at Mount Holyoke College, would you? Did you create this site, perchance? (http://www.governmentisgood.com/)

Chinese is difficult to learn because of tones.
You're right, it's not too difficult to get the intonation right. You just need to have a mouthful of wasps when speaking. The tones come easy after that.
Unless it's Cantonese. Then you just need to shout everything like you're close to coming to blows with the other person.

WOOOHOOO I found the quote button!

Anyways, you confused me immediately by saying "I agree, but.." and then agreeing with me. lol

ais "No label is really going to be effective..."

I must have misinterpreted your post. I apologize. Congrats on locating the quote feature. Handy, ain't it?

Geez, why don't you type of her address, DoB, and social while you're at it.

I edited my post, please edit yours, as well.

"Right" and "Wrong" have nothing to do with music.

When it comes to music theory (which includes music genres and music history), there are "rights" and "wrongs", and saying Nirvana is "proto-emo" is wrong.

All music is emotional.

"Emo" came from the word "emotional". You need to stop pulling "facts" out of your ass, because people with actual knowledge (for example, music students, like myself) will pick you up on it.

Apparently not, because last time I checked Evanescence wasn't technically emo. But maybe they changed their style since I last listened to them which was something like five years ago.

Well, I've previously heard Evanescence described as "emo" by music teachers, but I suppose they come under the label of "alternative metal" or just "alternative".



Those genres overlap each other more than not.
edit - well, maybe not technically, but it sure seems that way to me.

Avril Lavigne is pop-punk. She's not "emo".

Yes, I am familiar with music.

But are you familiar with the study of music?

True, but whether obsessive-compulsive behavior rises to the point of disorderly is mostly a factor of a particular society's tolerance for deviation from the social norms obsessive-compulsive behaviors might violate.

No, that's incorrect. It becomes a "disorder" if it interferes with living life.

That is to say, subjectively speaking, the line between OCD vs not-quite-OCD is arbitrary. For example, I used to walk in a very particular way over differently-patterned-surfaces, only turn to the left (never the right), was a germ freak, and had to do other behaviors in certain alternating left-right or other ritualistic patterns. Had I grown up in a different environment, this could have interfered with my ability to function in society, which from what I understand would make it a disorder.

If it fits these criteria, it's OCD:

The Quick Reference to the diagnostic criteria from DSM-IV-TR (2000) describes these obsessions and compulsions:[1]

Obsessions are defined by:

Recurrent and persistent thoughts, impulses, or images that are experienced at some time during the disturbance, as intrusive and inappropriate and that cause marked anxiety or distress.
The thoughts, impulses, or images are not simply excessive worries about real-life problems.
The person attempts to ignore or suppress such thoughts, impulses, or images, or to neutralize them with some other thought or action.
The person recognizes that the obsessional thoughts, impulses, or images are a product of his or her own mind, and are not based in reality.
Compulsions are defined by:

Repetitive behaviors or mental acts that the person feels driven to perform in response to an obsession, or according to rules that must be applied rigidly.
The behaviors or mental acts are aimed at preventing or reducing distress or preventing some dreaded event or situation; however, these behaviors or mental acts either are not connected in a realistic way with what they are designed to neutralize or prevent or are clearly excessive.
In addition to these criteria, at some point during the course of the disorder, the sufferer must realize that his/her obsessions or compulsions are unreasonable or excessive. Moreover, the obsessions or compulsions must be time-consuming (taking up more than one hour per day), cause distress, or cause impairment in social, occupational, or school functioning.[1] OCD often causes feelings similar to those of depression.


If it doesn't, it's just obsessive or compulsive behaviour. I have obsessive-compulsive tendancies, but I don't have OCD. Someone very dear to me has OCD, and it impacts every day of his life.

Well, whether you had a good reason to go to music school is none of my business, but if your definition of music is something like "sound (or lack) in time", then that's not a definition of something specifically artistic. Art is not created without intent, and intent is never without emotional accompaniment.

The difference is, I can show you pieces that were actually composed without emotional intent. Aside from etudes and exercises, there are modern works by composers like Steve Reich which are designed to express mathematical shifts, or phases, and NOTHING ELSE (see his Clapping Music for an example).

Hehe, sorry to disappoint, but the academization of music has always failed when taken too far, which I suppose is a good thing if they were trying to create the oxymoron of emotionless music.

You're not disappointing me by limiting yourself to a definition that's incorrect. You're applying your feelings about music to your own definition, and that's fine, but it's not completely accurate.

It's not a demand so much as it's a semantical thing. Somebody has to receive something from it or its just noise. If you want to go all meta and say that boredom is an emotion, or confusion about a piece's intent is an emotion, I guess that's a potential cop-out one could use.

Can't the "something" that someone receives be not emotional? Practicing an etude that was never meant to express or convey anything is still playing music. Again, you're adding your own emotional value to a definition that doesn't need it. All music needs is an observer -- the emotional state before, after or during the observation is irrelevant to the definition. Music can express or produce emotion, but it is not a requirement that it do so in order to be music.

Well, I'm sure it's accurate. Otherwise, I went through music history at both undergrad and graduate levels for no good reason, and that would be really irritating.Well, whether you had a good reason to go to music school is none of my business, but if your definition of music is something like "sound (or lack) in time", then that's not a definition of something specifically artistic. Art is not created without intent, and intent is never without emotional accompaniment.

Seriously, entire schools of musical thought were devoted to emotionless compositions and presentations.Hehe, sorry to disappoint, but the academization of music has always failed when taken too far, which I suppose is a good thing if they were trying to create the oxymoron of emotionless music.

Your demand that music must have an emotional component is entirely dependent on the listener, not the music. If someone pulls an emotion out of Glass or Cage or Steve Reich, I'm not sure I'm going to trust them.It's not a demand so much as it's a semantical thing. Somebody has to receive something from it or its just noise. If you want to go all meta and say that boredom is an emotion, or confusion about a piece's intent is an emotion, I guess that's a potential cop-out one could use.

By the way, Cat Tribes, you wouldn't happen to be a ____, would you? Named ____, perchance?
Geez, why don't you type of her address, DoB, and social while you're at it.

RhynoDD;13516620']Generally speaking, taking away your right to kill someone is considered to be a good thing.

That's not really a right. It's more of an ability, an ability is different from a right.

When it comes to music theory (which includes music genres and music history), there are "rights" and "wrongs", and saying Nirvana is "proto-emo" is wrong.Not buyin' it.
"Emo" came from the word "emotional". You need to stop pulling "facts" out of your ass, because people with actual knowledge (for example, music students, like myself) will pick you up on it.Music student, huh? In that case, here's how I should have responded:
Really? Emo came from the word emotional? Seriously? Did they teach you that in Intro to Crappy Music 101? Is that a fact?

Well, I've previously heard Evanescence described as "emo" by music teachers, but I suppose they come under the label of "alternative metal" or just "alternative".They're definitely emo in a sense, but hipsters will chide you for saying that they are of the "emo" genre. Also, where I went to school (i.e. not Berklee), music teachers were not a good source of information for modern music.
But are you familiar with the study of music?Too familiar.

No, that's incorrect. It becomes a "disorder" if it interferes with living life.If that's appreciably different from what I said, I'm going to side with myself. People have been diagnosed with disorders who aren't about to die because of them.



The difference is, I can show you pieces that were actually composed without emotional intent. Aside from etudes and exercises, there are modern works by composers like Steve Reich which are designed to express mathematical shifts, or phases, and NOTHING ELSE (see his Clapping Music for an example).Firstly, I doubt you could show me music composed wholly without emotional intent. Although it may be buried or obfuscated, even a computer has a programmer, and there are alwasy variables that have to be chosen. Secondly, if you do succeed in making something that sufficiently obscures any detectable emotional communication, then in that sense, what you have made isn't really music. A lot of twelve tone row pieces are like this. Pitch yes. Rhythm yes. Music no.

You're not disappointing me by limiting yourself to a definition that's incorrect. You're applying your feelings about music to your own definition, and that's fine, but it's not completely accurate.Oh really? Look at it from a linguistic perspective. How words are used in the popular lexicon to describe things. In this sense, music has probably had an even narrower true definition than I ascribe to it. Only in the certain academic fields has the effort been made to purge emotion from music, or to widen its definition to the point of meaninglessness. You play some crazy avant-garde piece for the general population, and tell them that it is designed to be unfelt, emtionless, and they will look at you crazy if you call it music.

Can't the "something" that someone receives be not emotional?No, not when the receiver is a human, and especially not with music.
Practicing an etude that was never meant to express or convey anything is still playing music.And yet they're generally designed to convey a simple emotion to be somewhat pleasing to the ear.

Again, you're adding your own emotional value to a definition that doesn't need it. All music needs is an observer -- the emotional state before, after or during the observation is irrelevant to the definition. Music can express or produce emotion, but it is not a requirement that it do so in order to be music.If that is so, then the definition of music is naught more than sound itself, in which case "music" would be a useless word.

Until the one(s) you're taking from either band together or discover your weakness. Hence, the evolution of intelligence and ingenuity over, say, fangs and claws on homo sapiens sapiens.


And hence, the origin of a social group. And hence the origins of a government.

Which popular misconceptions, if any, do you find the most irritating? It can relate to science (evolution is "only" a theory), religion (Muslims are required to hate America), politics (too many to count), or even a common misunderstanding of something more trivial (it is wrong to end a sentence with a preposition).

That VLC is the best video player. Fuck VLC, I use WMP because it fucking works, dammit!

:confused:
The obvious argument made here, of course, is that everyone generalizes.

By the way, Cat Tribes, you wouldn't happen to be a professor of politics at Mount Holyoke College, would you? Did you create this site, perchance? (http://www.governmentisgood.com/)

:D:D Nope, I'm afraid that ain't me. Cool website, however.

I'm not sure what you mean by "mental disquiet or unrest"? Or how such a term is meaningful if it applies to everyone?

I trust you aren't denying that mental disorders are a different category entirely. ;)

I distinguish terms because a Disorder is quite different from a disquiet or unrest. One is major, and interchangeable with insanity, the other is far more minor and usually doesn't have serious implications for daily life.

A mental disquiet, for example, is seeing two tables being ever so crooked or not right next to each other and having it irritate you, seemingly inexplicably. It's fairly close to a mannerism, actually. Probably a better term for what I'm describing. That or an idiosyncrasy.

And no, I don't deny a full-blown disorder is in another place entirely. As I said, that is serious business.

That schizophrenia is the same thing as Dissociative Identity Disorder.

THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU! I can't STAND it when people use "schizo" to mean "split-personality", and it happens so often in media. Gah.

This idea that mental disorders are just different points on the normal scale of human thoughts and behaviors is quite misinformed.

Obsessive Compulsive Disorder is a mental illness, not just a mental quirk. It has a defined criteria of symptoms of a required severity. See the DSM-IV (http://www.behavenet.com/capsules/disorders/o-cd.htm)

Would you say the line between physical health and physical disorders is arbitrary? Is cancer? Diabetes? Flu?

This is a very difficult question to answer, for me. I've read all different POVs on this thread, and I think I fall somewhere in between them. I do not think that schizophrenia falls anywhere in the normal scale of human thought/behavior--it isn't a super intense form of normal paranoia. However, I do think that some behaviors that appear in much of the population can become exaggerated to an extent that they become disorders.

While I most definitely believe that mental illness is real and on the same plane as physical illness (our brains are only made of cells too, after all) I think that many mental disorders are... less easily pinpointed than many "medical" ailments. You can draw someone's blood for a test and definitively determine whether or not the person has hepatitis. You cannot perform an impartial test to determine whether a person is bi-polar, or narcissistic, or even an addict.

With some illnesses, like schizophrenia, we have more information about the unique functioning of affected brains that helps us refine our understanding, that helps positively "indicate" a disorder. In other cases, such as, say, borderline personality disorder, the disorder is more easily characterized as a "constellation of symptoms" which seem to occur together often, seem to have a particular effect or present in a particular way, and which may benefit from particular treatments. That does not make the disorder any less real, but the line is arbitrary in a way. That's what the DSM is for--to make that arbitrary line more definitive, more consistent, and more useful.

Obessive-compulsivity is inherent to everybody. Just like any other psychological trait, it has to start to interfere with your ability to live your live and handle day-to-day activities before it becomes identified as a "disorder." I had several ticks when I was a small child that I gradually grew out of and don't habitually perform all the time. They're still there in my head, but not so much that I really HAVE to perform them or suffer anxiety. I can imagine the nightmare of dealing with it indefinitely and very much sympathize with anyone still struggling to control them.

I had the same experience. As a child I had a lot of compulsions and ticks, but as I got older I learned to---internalize them, I guess you could say. I made my physical ticks/rituals mental in a way, counting in my head, or performing compulsions that were small and easy to hide. I've also learned to just NOT do something and live with the anxiety sometimes, if I must. I don't think my compulsions rise to the level of OCD anymore, but they are on the continuum.

I disagree. "Normal" itself is a word with a fuzzy definition.
Those terms aren't mutually exclusive. I feel we're playing semantics games a little here.
That is a nice, clean definition, and to be applauded. You'll note that there is a reference to "normal routine, occupational (or academic) functioning, or usual social activities or relationships," which must occur within a scope defined by the environment created by one's particular society.

True, but whether obsessive-compulsive behavior rises to the point of disorderly is mostly a factor of a particular society's tolerance for deviation from the social norms obsessive-compulsive behaviors might violate. That is to say, subjectively speaking, the line between OCD vs not-quite-OCD is arbitrary. For example, I used to walk in a very particular way over differently-patterned-surfaces, only turn to the left (never the right), was a germ freak, and had to do other behaviors in certain alternating left-right or other ritualistic patterns. Had I grown up in a different environment, this could have interfered with my ability to function in society, which from what I understand would make it a disorder.

The difference is neither semantic nor trivial. I guess we have to do this the hard way -- comparing your quirks to the criteria for OCD:

A. Either obsessions or compulsions:

Obsessions as defined by (1), (2), (3), and (4):

(1) recurrent and persistent thoughts, impulses, or images that are experienced, at some time during the disturbance, as intrusive and inappropriate and that cause marked anxiety or distress
(2) the thoughts, impulses, or images are not simply excessive worries about real-life problems
(3) the person attempts to ignore or suppress such thoughts, impulses, or images, or to neutralize them with some other thought or action
(4) the person recognizes that the obsessional thoughts, impulses, or images are a product of his or her own mind (not imposed from without as in thought insertion)

Compulsions as defined by (1) and (2): (1) repetitive behaviors (e.g., hand washing, ordering, checking) or mental acts (e.g., praying, counting, repeating words silently) that the person feels driven to perform in response to an obsession, or according to rules that must be applied rigidly
(2) the behaviors or mental acts are aimed at preventing or reducing distress or preventing some dreaded event or situation; however, these behaviors or mental acts either are not connected in a realistic way with what they are designed to neutralize or prevent or are clearly excessive

B. At some point during the course of the disorder, the person has recognized that the obsessions or compulsions are excessive or unreasonable. Note: This does not apply to children.

C. The obsessions or compulsions cause marked distress, are time consuming (take more than 1 hour a day), or significantly interfere with the person's normal routine, occupational (or academic) functioning, or usual social activities or relationships.

D. If another Axis I disorder is present, the content of the obsessions or compulsions is not restricted to it (e.g., preoccupation with food in the presence of an Eating Disorders; hair pulling in the presence of Trichotillomania; concern with appearance in the presence of Body Dysmorphic Disorder; preoccupation with drugs in the presence of a Substance Use Disorder; preoccupation with having a serious illness in the presence of Hypochondriasis; preoccupation with sexual urges or fantasies in the presence of a Paraphilia; or guilty ruminations in the presence of Major Depressive Disorder).

E. The disturbance is not due to the direct physiological effects of a substance (e.g., a drug of abuse, a medication) or a general medical condition.

Now, you don't complain of any obsessions. Just some quirky behaviors that may be compulsions. "Compulsions are repetitive behaviors or rituals that the patient performs to counteract the anxiety and distress produced by obsessive thoughts" Here you don't appear to have obsessive thoughts to counteract. More specifically, your alleged compulsions must be (1) repetitive behaviors that you feels driven to perform in response to an obsession, or according to rules that must be applied rigidly . And (2) these behaviors or mental acts are aimed at preventing or reducing distress or preventing some dreaded event or situation; however, these behaviors or mental acts either are not connected in a realistic way with what they are designed to neutralize or prevent or are clearly excessive.

So, if you've passed the compulsions hurdle, it must next be true that you recognize that the obsessions or compulsions are excessive or unreasonable; you know that what you are doing makes no sense.

If that is true, then we next ask whether compulsions cause marked distress, are time consuming, or significantly interfere with your normal routine, occupational (or academic) functioning, or usual social activities or relationships. You are right that what society you live in may influence the latter part of this criteria, but a modern Western society is pretty able to accomodate minor compulsions.

I lack enough enformation about your quirks to know how far through the criteria they made it. (Hopefully not far. ;)) Regardless, I hope I have made my point that the criteria is far from a simple arbitrary line. :cool:

THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU! I can't STAND it when people use "schizo" to mean "split-personality", and it happens so often in media. Gah.

You're welcome. :D

I'm an aspiring clinical psychologist, so this particularly annoys me. How about you have a seat over there and tell me all about it?


This is a very difficult question to answer, for me. I've read all different POVs on this thread, and I think I fall somewhere in between them. I do not think that schizophrenia falls anywhere in the normal scale of human thought/behavior--it isn't a super intense form of normal paranoia. However, I do think that some behaviors that appear in much of the population can become exaggerated to an extent that they become disorders.

Schizophrenia is not inherently paranoid. Paranoid Schizophrenia, however, is. Schizophrenia is most frequently noticable in non-sequitor style thinking, disjointed speech if the patient speaks at all, and I'm pretty sure they have a distinct lack of hygiene. There is also physical brain deterioration that is present and evident within the first five or so years, which is very disturbing but understandable.

This is also where my support for 'Mental Disquiets' comes in. Some people have minor signs of symptoms related to schizophrenia, but not the full-blown disorder.

While I most definitely believe that mental illness is real and on the same plane as physical illness (our brains are only made of cells too, after all) I think that many mental disorders are... less easily pinpointed than many "medical" ailments. You can draw someone's blood for a test and definitively determine whether or not the person has hepatitis. You cannot perform an impartial test to determine whether a person is bi-polar, or narcissistic, or even an addict.

Er... the problem is that 'illness' doesn't really fit when it is dealing with mental issues. A disorder, yes, but illness has a very doctor-y feel to it like, as yous aid, physical illnesses.

Tests can be done, but the best way to determine things like you described is with psychoanalysis, really. But I do believe there is something else... I forget the name of the book, but it has a whole host of stuff like 'Axis' of disorder behavior and the like. I really shouldn't be forgetting it, but oh well...

With some illnesses, like schizophrenia, we have more information about the unique functioning of affected brains that helps us refine our understanding, that helps positively "indicate" a disorder. In other cases, such as, say, borderline personality disorder, the disorder is more easily characterized as a "constellation of symptoms" which seem to occur together often, seem to have a particular effect or present in a particular way, and which may benefit from particular treatments. That does not make the disorder any less real, but the line is arbitrary in a way. That's what the DSM is for--to make that arbitrary line more definitive, more consistent, and more useful.

THAT'S WHAT IT WAS. The DSM. It draws lines, yes, but is also a helpful tool in determining general symptoms and knowing where to start when treating patients. Thanks for reminding me!



I had the same experience. As a child I had a lot of compulsions and ticks, but as I got older I learned to---internalize them, I guess you could say. I made my physical ticks/rituals mental in a way, counting in my head, or performing compulsions that were small and easy to hide. I've also learned to just NOT do something and live with the anxiety sometimes, if I must. I don't think my compulsions rise to the level of OCD anymore, but they are on the continuum.

Dear, dear. That's terrible. You have my sympathy.

There are no viruses for Linux

I lack enough enformation about your quirks to know how far through the criteria they made it. (Hopefully not far. ) Regardless, I hope I have made my point that the criteria is far from a simple arbitrary line.The arbitrariness is not that the criteria are inexact, but that their exactness refers to a criterion that is arbitrary with respect to the subject's inherent properties - the criterion of functioning in a given society.

You'll note that there is a reference to "normal routine, occupational (or academic) functioning, or usual social activities or relationships," which must occur within a scope defined by the environment created by one's particular society.
...thus opening the possibility that diagnoses are formed as a consequence of society rather than the subject's inherent mental attributes.

You are right that what society you live in may influence the latter part of this criteria, but a modern Western society is pretty able to accommodate minor compulsions.I'm stongly suspect that this is not the case with regard to more community-oriented societies, which include most non-Western and non-modern society-types. Small cooperative communities are better able to adapt the environment to suit the subject's needs, and have a stronger and more comprehensive social network to help subjects cope with their behavioral tendencies, or even make use of them.

This is all not to say that the OCD diagnosis scheme isn't useful - it is, but we should be honest about the fact that the diagnosis reflects not just an internal condition, but an environmental one as well.

All Christians want to kill all Muslims (yes, that is probably a Norfolkism).

Norfolk is Britain's hub of religious extremism!? :O

http://www.boomspeed.com/looonatic/Misc-EvilClowns.jpg

:)

And what about the Judas Clown himself, Ronald McDonald?

Well, I'm sure it's accurate. Otherwise, I went through music history at both undergrad and graduate levels for no good reason, and that would be really irritating. Seriously, entire schools of musical thought were devoted to emotionless compositions and presentations.

Your demand that music must have an emotional component is entirely dependent on the listener, not the music. If someone pulls an emotion out of Glass or Cage or Steve Reich, I'm not sure I'm going to trust them.



Oh, no kidding -- massive pet peeve there. I'm talkin' mastiff+great Dane+Newfie-sized pet here.

Sorry, but i have to disagree with Glass here. Ever heard the Philip Glass and Ravi Shankar "Passages". They are very emotional. Maybe Shankar's doing?
Between emotionless composers i'd count J.S. Bach, the Brandeburg Concertos and Goldberg variations are void of emotion as a math formula. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy both math and Bach.
Also baroque virtuoso music was almost by definition emotionless as it was written to show the skill of the interpreter.

Brits & Kiwis who think that because I'm Australian I like/know about rugby. Basically, only two states (Qld & NSW) in Aus play rugby. I come from one of the other 5 states where rugby is a minor sport & Aussie Rules Football is the passion. I don't follow rugby, know very little about it & have even less interest in it.

Go Pies!

The arbitrariness is not that the criteria are inexact, but that their exactness refers to a criterion that is arbitrary with respect to the subject's inherent properties - the criterion of functioning in a given society.


...thus opening the possibility that diagnoses are formed as a consequence of society rather than the subject's inherent mental attributes.

I'm stongly suspect that this is not the case with regard to more community-oriented societies, which include most non-Western and non-modern society-types. Small cooperative communities are better able to adapt the environment to suit the subject's needs, and have a stronger and more comprehensive social network to help subjects cope with their behavioral tendencies, or even make use of them.

This is all not to say that the OCD diagnosis scheme isn't useful - it is, but we should be honest about the fact that the diagnosis reflects not just an internal condition, but an environmental one as well.

Your point has a grain of truth to it, but little more.

You are exagerrating the role that "normal routine, occupational (or academic) functioning, or usual social activities or relationships" plays in diagnosis.

We start with having thoughts that are "intrusive and inappropriate and that cause marked anxiety or distress" and/or compulsions that seek to alleviate such thoughts. So far, internal symptoms.

With obsessions, the person attempts to ignore or suppress such thoughts, impulses, or images, or to neutralize them with some other thought or action. With compulsions, the person must be driven to the repetitive behaviors and they must be "clearly excessive." Again, internal symptoms with outer manisfestations.

Finally some point during the course of the disorder, the person has to have recognized that the obsessions or compulsions are excessive or unreasonable. This is again an inernal matter.

Only after we go though the above steps to determine the person sufers from qualifying obsessions and/or compulsions, do we look to the degree of disturbance. The obssession and/or compulsions are a disorder if the obsessions or compulsions:
(1) cause marked distress,
(2) are time consuming (take more than 1 hour a day), or
(3) significantly interfere with the person's normal routine, occupational (or academic) functioning, or usual social activities or relationships. The first of these is internal and the second is objective. Only the last carries with it your implication of societal standards. Note: this last one is significant interference with the person's normal routine, functioning, or social activities.

I obviously do not deny that the degree to which a disorder disrupts the life of the patient may depend a great deal on his/her environment. There are undoubtedly some outlying cases where whether or not someone's condition is called a disorder may depend on how supportive or hostile that person's environment is. But that should only be exceptions to the rule. It is not the case that the disorder is defined largely by societal standards.

Brits & Kiwis who think that because I'm Australian I like/know about rugby. Basically, only two states (Qld & NSW) in Aus play rugby. I come from one of the other 5 states where rugby is a minor sport & Aussie Rules Football is the passion. I don't follow rugby, know very little about it & have even less interest in it.

Go Pies!

They're not talking about rugby for the sake of talking about rugby. They're talking about rugby for some banter. So dig around in your head for the last time you heard about England/ NZ losing and act like that is the most shameful thing that has ever happened.

Good times await!

(1) cause marked distress,
(2) are time consuming (take more than 1 hour a day), or
(3) significantly interfere with the person's normal routine, occupational (or academic) functioning, or usual social activities or relationships. The first of these is internal and the second is objective. Only the last carries with it your implication of societal standards. Note: this last one is significant interference with the person's normal routine, functioning, or social activities.


Ignoring the "societal" debate for a moment, these three criteria strongly support the case that OCD isn't like cancer in the sense that you have it or you don't. Each is inexact aside from number 2 which is clearly an exact figure only for the purposes of operationalising something that is inexact.

We start with having thoughts that are "intrusive and inappropriate and that cause marked anxiety or distress" and/or compulsions that seek to alleviate such thoughts. So far, internal symptoms.You know, I wouldn't say these were necessarily entirely internal either. A person in another society might not consider the thoughts and compulsions intrusive, but natural. And much of the related anxiety may be social in nature.

Finally some point during the course of the disorder, the person has to have recognized that the obsessions or compulsions are excessive or unreasonable. This is again an inernal matter.In other societies, obsessions and compulsions may not only not be considered excessive or unreasonable, but actually be considered desirable and responsible. Many of the roles relinquished by modern Western society that may be present in others practically require obsession and compulsive behavior. Those who have OCD here and now could have been heroes and pillars of society in another place or time.

(1) cause marked distress,
(2) are time consuming (take more than 1 hour a day), or
(3) significantly interfere with the person's normal routine, occupational (or academic) functioning, or usual social activities or relationships.

The first of these is internal and the second is objective. Only the last carries with it your implication of societal standards. Note: this last one is significant interference with the person's normal routine, functioning, or social activities.
The first is internal, but may have societal causes. The second is arbitrary by its very nature. Why one hour? I spend more than that each day jacking off. People are addicted to normal repetitive behaviors that last far more than an hour - morning routines, etc - that would be considered compulsive if such behaviors weren't normal. As for the third, yeah, but one's normal routine is itself primarily defined by society.

I would be interested in reading studies about what is considered to cause OCD and whether it was/is present in non-Western or non-modern societies.

Most irritating misconception: "Republicans are for small government."

They're not talking about rugby for the sake of talking about rugby. They're talking about rugby for some banter. So dig around in your head for the last time you heard about England/ NZ losing and act like that is the most shameful thing that has ever happened.

Good times await!

This is what I'm talking about.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13512964&postcount=8

Most irritating misconception: "Republicans are for small government."

Not anymore, they aren't. Only the Ron Paul Republicans, nowdays. :cool:

Here's one: Polka music always involves lederhosen and a tuba.

A right is a moral power to something. There is no difference.Of course there is. I can have the legal right to lie, but doing so would be morally wrong.

In order to engage in argumentation, one has to command scarce resources, i.e. one's body. Without the exclusive control (i.e. right or moral power over the body in question), one cannot argue. Therefore, in arguing, one shows one's bodily right.Having the ability to argue does not imply having the right to argue.

In arguing with another person, one recognizes that you yourself and the other person have the moral right to argue, since arguing requires one to use one's body.Rape also requires one to use one's body.

I go so far as only listing songs, because I don't like every song by every artist I listen too. Kansas for example, only ever created two good songs in my opinion, but if I said "I listen to Kansas" people would assume I like all their music.There are bands out there who have lots of good songs, though. If you can't find absolutely any, you're listening to the wrong type of music. ;)

Illustration: I became very enamored of a song called "The Way", by a group named Fastball. I went to amazon.com and bought their CD All the Pain Money Can Buy and almost instantly regretted it. After struggling through the first few tracks, I skipped to "The Way", listened to it, and filed the CD into my collection, never to be seen again until my biennial review-and-resell session (unless it's got sentimental value or is a classic or rarity, it gets sold).There are a couple of other good songs on there. Listen to it again. If you don't have it anymore, you could probably find it used for a low price (I got my copy for $1).

Brits & Kiwis who think that because I'm Australian I like/know about rugby....I don't follow rugby, know very little about it & have even less interest in it.
ditto. Because of my size and coming as I do from NZ, the immediate assumption is that I MUST play rugby and I MUST be obsessed with the bloody game.

Only reason I know anything about it at all was because my Dad loved it so much and as such it was a topic I'd talk to him about because I knew how much he enjoyed it.

THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU! I can't STAND it when people use "schizo" to mean "split-personality", and it happens so often in media. Gah.

That drives me nuts, too.

The media tends to portray:
Eating disordered people as emaciated,
Obsessive compulsive disordered people as Monk,
People with PTSD as war veterans and so on.

Mental illness doesn't define you.

[now i just need to convince myself of that. :(]



The difference is neither semantic nor trivial. I guess we have to do this the hard way -- comparing your quirks to the criteria for OCD

I already quoted it. :p

So, who are you, my rather-similar friend?

Ignoring the "societal" debate for a moment, these three criteria strongly support the case that OCD isn't like cancer in the sense that you have it or you don't. Each is inexact aside from number 2 which is clearly an exact figure only for the purposes of operationalising something that is inexact.

Well, of course, the critera are flexible, but if you don't fit the criteria, you simply don't have the disorder. That doesn't mean you're not obsessive compulsive, it just means you don't have OCD. Not having a diagnosed disorder doesn't mean you're not mentally ill.

I'm learning too much in my sessions...:headbang:

Not having a diagnosed disorder doesn't mean you're not mentally ill.


I've always wondered about that whole mental health malarky. What, I wonder is normal?

My experience is the inverse is true. Mexicans are some of the hardest working folks I know.

Exactly my point. Mexicans are extremely hard workers. I think it's unfair that they're labeled as lazy just from some stereotype Hollywood created.

Exactly my point. Mexicans are extremely hard workers. I think it's unfair that they're labeled as lazy just from some stereotype Hollywood created.

Ohh you mean like Brits are 'bad guys'?

Ohh you mean like Brits are 'bad guys'?

Yeah, or that all Italians belong to the mafia.:D

Yeah, or that all Italians belong to the mafia.:D

What.. they don't? Ahhh stronzo!

What.. they don't? Ahhh stronzo!

:D

Firstly, I doubt you could show me music composed wholly without emotional intent. Although it may be buried or obfuscated, even a computer has a programmer, and there are alwasy variables that have to be chosen. Secondly, if you do succeed in making something that sufficiently obscures any detectable emotional communication, then in that sense, what you have made isn't really music. A lot of twelve tone row pieces are like this. Pitch yes. Rhythm yes. Music no.

More of your opinion. That's fine, but it's not correct. I've already mentioned a few pieces composed without emotional intent. Steve Reich's Clapping Music or Terry Riley's In C. And Arnold Schoenberg would disagree with your complete mischaracterization of serialism as "not music". Really, at this point you're just being childish -- "nuh-UH! If it doesn't have emotion it's NOT music! It's NOT, it's NOT, it's NOT!!!" All well and good, but still incorrect. I'll stop arguing with you about it. It's a waste of my time to try and convince you and you sure as hell won't convince me.

Oh really? Look at it from a linguistic perspective. How words are used in the popular lexicon to describe things. In this sense, music has probably had an even narrower true definition than I ascribe to it. Only in the certain academic fields has the effort been made to purge emotion from music, or to widen its definition to the point of meaninglessness. You play some crazy avant-garde piece for the general population, and tell them that it is designed to be unfelt, emtionless, and they will look at you crazy if you call it music.

Yeah, and yet the composer will still believe that it is music and not give a shit what someone with limited experience and a puerile sense of definition says. Weird, that.

No, not when the receiver is a human, and especially not with music.
And yet they're generally designed to convey a simple emotion to be somewhat pleasing to the ear.

"Generally"? According to your central theme, there can be no "generally". It's supposed to be "always". Are you backtracking here? If not, then:

Wow. Wrong. Just wrong. They were designed to train players. End of story.

If that is so, then the definition of music is naught more than sound itself, in which case "music" would be a useless word.

Patterns of sound and silence over time. Yup. Emotional context is not critical to the definition. Again, you win -- you enjoy your definition and I'll enjoy mine. I'm done trying.

I'm completely in agreement with Callisdrun. Apart from the fact that if you can't protect your rights, they don't exist, another reason why rights aren't inherent is the different rights that exist in certain cultures, and or times.

If rights were inherent, women would have had the right to vote, as soon as democracy was founded. Slavery never would have happened. There's 2 obvious examples, I could keep going, but I will not. Rights are chosen by a community and given to that community.

An example of community chosen rights. The US gives itself the right, through sheer force of arms, to respond to certain American deaths, with unreasonable amounts of killing of foreigners, who they think might be associated with someone who might have killed an America. Other countries can't do this, so that right isn't inherent to all countries.

Sorry about the last one, but I like choosing extreme examples. Anyone who disagrees with that paragraph, read up on Madeline Albright.

I've always wondered about that whole mental health malarky. What, I wonder is normal?

I think everyone has issues, and it's normal to feel "sad", "stressed",
"angry", "hurt" and so forth at certain times during life. However, I don't think it's normal if emotions, feelings, or thoughts take over your life. I was dicussing this with my pscyhiatrist today. Thinking a terrorist attack might happen one day is normal; thinking it every day isn't. Feeling guilty for saying someone mean for a day is normal; feeling guilty for something you haven't even done for years isn't. Cleaning when something's dirty is normal; cleaning when it's already clean and feeling severe anxiet until it's clean isn't.

However, mental illness is common, but it's not "normal".

Pfft, Tom Cruise is nothing compared to my Crazy Aunt Deedee.

She's tried to "cure" me of everything from depression to measles using the whole range of new-age crap. Crystals, regressing into past lives, mud therapy (yes, it's just what it sounds like), color therapy, Feng Shui...I drew the line at acupuncture.

I think we have finally uncovered LGs true identity

EDIT: damn these time warps - get them with both forums and forums2. gggrrrrrr

I think everyone has issues, and it's normal to feel "sad", "stressed",
"angry", "hurt" and so forth at certain times during life. However, I don't think it's normal if emotions, feelings, or thoughts take over your life. I was dicussing this with my pscyhiatrist today. Thinking a terrorist attack might happen one day is normal; thinking it every day isn't. Feeling guilty for saying someone mean for a day is normal; feeling guilty for something you haven't even done for years isn't. Cleaning when something's dirty is normal; cleaning when it's already clean and feeling severe anxiet until it's clean isn't.

That's pretty much how it works, yeah.

I learned a few years ago that I have several "abnormal" compulsive behaviors that are linked to anxiety. For instance, ever since I was a little kid I had problems with socks. I would put my socks on, but they wouldn't feel...right. So I had to take them off and put them on again. I actually got grounded once because my dad thought I was stalling on purpose, but I really was just freaking out because I couldn't get my socks on "right." I learned to control this a little bit, but even as an adult there would be mornings when I had to take my shoes and socks off as many as 10-15 times in order to get my socks on "right."

When I started taking anti-depressants (for what I thought was totally unrelated reasons), this compulsion suddenly vanished, along with a couple other compulsive habits.

That's pretty much how it works, yeah.

I learned a few years ago that I have several "abnormal" compulsive behaviors that are linked to anxiety. For instance, ever since I was a little kid I had problems with socks. I would put my socks on, but they wouldn't feel...right. So I had to take them off and put them on again. I actually got grounded once because my dad thought I was stalling on purpose, but I really was just freaking out because I couldn't get my socks on "right." I learned to control this a little bit, but even as an adult there would be mornings when I had to take my shoes and socks off as many as 10-15 times in order to get my socks on "right."

When I started taking anti-depressants (for what I thought was totally unrelated reasons), this compulsion suddenly vanished, along with a couple other compulsive habits.

Quick! Call Tom Cruise!

Quick! Call Tom Cruise!
Pfft, Tom Cruise is nothing compared to my Crazy Aunt Deedee.

She's tried to "cure" me of everything from depression to measles using the whole range of new-age crap. Crystals, regressing into past lives, mud therapy (yes, it's just what it sounds like), color therapy, Feng Shui...I drew the line at acupuncture.

There are no viruses for Linux

There are??!! *is scared and cries*

For instance, ever since I was a little kid I had problems with socks. I would put my socks on, but they wouldn't feel...right. So I had to take them off and put them on again. I actually got grounded once because my dad thought I was stalling on purpose, but I really was just freaking out because I couldn't get my socks on "right." I learned to control this a little bit, but even as an adult there would be mornings when I had to take my shoes and socks off as many as 10-15 times in order to get my socks on "right."

I TOLD my parents that wasn't weird! But did they listen? No, it was all, "Socks are socks, it doesn't matter where the seam is, it doesn't matter if they bunch a little or slip down or the heel is just a teeny bit too big or too small or you think there might be a tiny microscopic piece of thread on the bottom!" I feel so vindicated.

That's pretty much how it works, yeah.

I learned a few years ago that I have several "abnormal" compulsive behaviors that are linked to anxiety. For instance, ever since I was a little kid I had problems with socks. I would put my socks on, but they wouldn't feel...right. So I had to take them off and put them on again. I actually got grounded once because my dad thought I was stalling on purpose, but I really was just freaking out because I couldn't get my socks on "right." I learned to control this a little bit, but even as an adult there would be mornings when I had to take my shoes and socks off as many as 10-15 times in order to get my socks on "right."

When I started taking anti-depressants (for what I thought was totally unrelated reasons), this compulsion suddenly vanished, along with a couple other compulsive habits.

I used to have the same problem with my socks and my ice skates. It had to go left sock, right sock, right boot, left boot, and then I'd re-do my skates again and again. I think it started because they didn't used to feel comfortable (like, my sock would be caught, or the laces were to constrictive), but then it got to the stage where I'd get off the ice, even if they were relatively comfortable, to re-do the laces. But, while it was annoying, it wasn't OCD.

SSRIs can be great for depression, but also for anxiety and for OCD. Obsessive compulsive disorder is hugely linked to anxiety disorder. I found that on SSRIs there were things that I do when I'm off them. One thing I actually missed on them (but it's starting to go away now that I'm "recovering" anyway) is that I used to always have to rub my legs together when I fell asleep at night. It didn't bother me at all, and that's part of the problem with meds: You want your problems to go away, but you don't want to lose your attention span/personality/creativity etc.

I TOLD my parents that wasn't weird! But did they listen? No, it was all, "Socks are socks, it doesn't matter where the seam is, it doesn't matter if they bunch a little or slip down or the heel is just a teeny bit too big or too small or you think there might be a tiny microscopic piece of thread on the bottom!" I feel so vindicated.

I thought it was kind of weird, but I didn't know it was so common!

Stockings are worse, don't you think? Argh. If the crotch keeps coming down... and the static... and the seams... Being a woman sucks sometimes.

I think we have finally uncovered LGs true identity

EDIT: damn these time warps - get them with both forums and forums2. gggrrrrrr

I think it has something to do with the clock setting on your local machine.

More of your opinion. SNIP

This is directed at both of you. Define 'emotion'. Then define how music can express or elicit it. Then we can discuss whether music requires it or not.

Although, I am mostly agreeing with Intangelon, as Tongass appears only to be retorting with personal preferences and rather narrow definitions.

SSRIs can be great for depression, but also for anxiety and for OCD. Obsessive compulsive disorder is hugely linked to anxiety disorder. I found that on SSRIs there were things that I do when I'm off them.

Exactly!


One thing I actually missed on them (but it's starting to go away now that I'm "recovering" anyway) is that I used to always have to rub my legs together when I fell asleep at night.

Holy crap, I do that too. I'm kind of glad that meds make it go away, because it used to bug the hell out of Himself when we shared a bad.

This is directed at both of you. Define 'emotion'. Then define how music can express or elicit it. Then we can discuss whether music requires it or not.

Although, I am mostly agreeing with Intangelon, as Tongass appears only to be retorting with personal preferences and rather narrow definitions.

Well, I'm not entirely sure there can be an empirical definition of emotion. I think that even pride in the creation of a piece of utterly unsentimental music would count as "eliciting emotion".

I'll try: emotion is a state of mind aroused by any circumstance which involves anything to which that mind assigns value or sentiment. Emotion is therefore dependent upon a circumstance and a mental (and often also physical) reaction to that circumstance provided that it involves something that the percipient considers valuable (i.e. cares about).

Ugh. Rotten definition. I've never tried to define emotion before.

Well, I'm not entirely sure there can be an empirical definition of emotion. I think that even pride in the creation of a piece of utterly unsentimental music would count as "eliciting emotion".

I'll try: emotion is a state of mind aroused by any circumstance which involves anything to which that mind assigns value or sentiment. Emotion is therefore dependent upon a circumstance and a mental (and often also physical) reaction to that circumstance provided that it involves something that the percipient considers valuable (i.e. cares about).

Ugh. Rotten definition. I've never tried to define emotion before.

That's not too bad by itself (though I'd point out that emotions are largely unconscious and short-term, and that 'cares about' is not the only requirement, think of 'surprise'), but how does it relate to music and how we experience it?

(This is kind of a trick question, or at least leading into one: no-one in the last century has managed a definition that has adequately described our experiences of emotion related to music, I'd just like people to think about it before discussing it using rather vaguely described terms like 'emotion' or 'emotional(less) music')

This seems more like a faith type of thing you're describing.

Not at all. Faith involves belief. If nobody acknowledges rights, obviously no one believes in them. But they might still be out there.

For something to be "out there" without the need for anyone to acknowledge it is almost a perfect principle of faith.

To provide an imperfect analogy: before human beings had a clue about relativity, did it exist?

hmm here are some misconceptions that irritate me:

"Dude your Muslim?!"

"Yeah.."

Possible/typical responses:

"Where's your turban?"
"but you're white.."
"do you pray 5 times a day?"
"no way! I thought you were Jewish!"

typical reactions (on my part):

-gtfo-
-so?...-
-no-
-.......-

My most hated misconceptions:

All autistics are retarded

People with asperger's are not "really autistic" (WTF?)

People with asperger's must be self diagnosed (it's annoying hearing this one)

Mercury causes autism (not a single study has shown any correlation)


Liberal is a swear word :rolleyes:

the free market fixes everything (the way the welfare state in Europe works says otherwise)

Realist Theory is realistic

We cannot trust politicians, even if we voted for them (i've only heard this one recently)

I must be lazy beause I'm unemployed

Holy crap, I do that too. I'm kind of glad that meds make it go away, because it used to bug the hell out of Himself when we shared a bad.

My man doesn't mind. The thinks my legs feel nice against his. :p Plus, he understands the whole needing to do things thing.

To make STOP everyone hating america, america should build up it's reputation and become friends with other countries.:cool:

To make everyone hating america, america should build up it's reputation and become friends with other countries.

Yeah Barabucha, spamming outside the "Spam" forum is generally frowned upon.

Although if thats a refrence to a certain song by Eminem when you say "Americahhhhh" I might be tempted to maybe possibley forgive you

Chinese is difficult to learn because of tones.

This is a fallacy bought into by most Chinese teachers themselves and it screws up how Chinese is taught for many people, who give up because the fact is that learning Chinese through correct tones really is very difficult.

It's just the wrong way to teach it - the fact is that context counts for a huge amount and tones simply aren't overly important unless you're looking to state a single word out of context.

It's far better to just teach people conversational Chinese, we naturally pick up the tones the more we speak.

instead, you see entire lessons spent on repeating a simple word in the right tone, making it both boring and buying into the idea that it's difficult to learn.

I've seen too many people give up for this reason and it's a shame.
I've always wondered about that, because Chinese is not the only language where tones matter. Someone learning English, for example, could accidently say, "Everyone gets their just deserts" (spoken DES-erts) and I would know what they meant. Same with Spanish; if someone said "Esta cansada" (with the accent on the "e" in "esta"), I think Spanish-speakers could figure out they meant "She is tired" and not "This tired." I suppose these aren't really tones, but it's the same idea, and I know Spanish and English teachers don't spend too much time on it.

hmm here are some misconceptions that irritate me:

"Dude your Muslim?!"

"Yeah.."

I think you mean, "you're Muslim?!" I wouldn't nitpick but it looks funny the way you have it now, as if someone found a lost Muslim and wanted to know who he belonged to.

I've always wondered about that, because Chinese is not the only language where tones matter. Someone learning English, for example, could accidently say, "Everyone gets their just deserts" (spoken DES-erts) and I would know what they meant. Same with Spanish; if someone said "Esta cansada" (with the accent on the "e" in "esta"), I think Spanish-speakers could figure out they meant "She is tired" and not "This tired." I suppose these aren't really tones, but it's the same idea, and I know Spanish and English teachers don't spend too much time on it.

Perhaps that´s because grammatical rules in Spanish are incredibly complicated. In English, for example, you have 4 verb tenses whereas in Spanish you have close to 12 or 13. Professors tend to not dwell too much on the accentuation rules so as not to discourage students. Plus, Spanish, phonetically speaking, is very hard on English speakers. Trust me, I know, I use Spanish every day, it´s my language.:p And even after years of studying in school and college, I get confussed.

Perhaps that´s because grammatical rules in Spanish are incredibly complicated. In English, for example, you have 4 verb tenses whereas in Spanish you have close to 12 or 13. Professors tend to not dwell too much on the accentuation rules so as not to discourage students.

I don't know. I took Spanish in school, and reached a level of competency where I could get the gist of what I read, "gist Spanish." There were much more rules than English, but the rules were also typically more consistent than English and grammar was never a huge problem.

Plus, Spanish, phonetically speaking, is very hard on English speakers. Trust me, I know, I use Spanish every day, it´s my language.:p And even after years of studying in school and college, I get confussed.

No question there. Being able to read and, to a lesser degree, write in Spanish did not mean I could speak it without sounding like I was a four-year-old.

I don't know. I took Spanish in school, and reached a level of competency where I could get the gist of what I read, "gist Spanish." There were much more rules than English, but the rules were also typically more consistent than English and grammar was never a huge problem.



No question there. Being able to read and, to a lesser degree, write in Spanish did not mean I could speak it without sounding like I was a four-year-old.

The had to be more consistent. What´s good about Spanish is that you write words as they sound, differently from English. I like that about Japanese too, it´s very similar to that aspect as in Spanish (except the usual silent vowels at the end of a word). English is more complicated in that you don´t write same as a word sounds.

Not sure if this one has been said or not:

"The terrorists attacked us on 9/11 because they hate our freedoms."

More of your opinion. That's fine, but it's not correct.Why not? Either something is music or it's not, and in some cases it's going to be "not".

I've already mentioned a few pieces composed without emotional intent. Steve Reich's Clapping Music or Terry Riley's In C.I've not listened to those.

And Arnold Schoenberg would disagree with your complete mischaracterization of serialism as "not music".I'm sure that it's possible to write serial music, but the mere ordering pitches in a serially-acceptable manner hardly makes a noise into music.

Really, at this point you're just being childish -- "nuh-UH! If it doesn't have emotion it's NOT music! It's NOT, it's NOT, it's NOT!!!" All well and good, but still incorrect. I'll stop arguing with you about it. It's a waste of my time to try and convince you and you sure as hell won't convince me.I don't know. It seems to me that you're the one getting childish and defensive here, as if positing a definition for something as holy as music is treading on sacred ground only to be addressed in the most high-minded vague, abstract and non-defining way possible by only the high priests of academic "music study". Fact is, you can call whatever you want music, be my guest, but that doesn't mean it's what the term actually means in general usage of the English language.

Yeah, and yet the composer will still believe that it is music and not give a shit what someone with limited experience and a puerile sense of definition says. Weird, that.If what he's writing isn't music, I'm not sure that "composer" is the correct term. I'm going to start calling my farts performances of my intestinal compositions, and then call other people "puerile" and possessing of "limited experience" (regardless of what their experience really is in the area) if they critique me.

"Generally"? According to your central theme, there can be no "generally". It's supposed to be "always". Are you backtracking here? If not, thenNot necessarily "always". It could be that a particular etude simply isn't musical. I know a lot of the one's I've played have seemed that way.

Wow. Wrong. Just wrong. They were designed to train players. End of story.Yes, I know what an etude is, bud.

Patterns of sound and silence over time. Yup. Emotional context is not critical to the definition. Again, you win -- you enjoy your definition and I'll enjoy mine. I'm done trying.I'm not sure what you're "trying" to accomplish. In my opinion, your definition is a little problematic.

1) Patterns of sound and silence exist in nature and chaos, and in the noise of my car engine. Would you say that all of these things constitute music?

2) It might be possible for me to create sound (and/or silence) that one might consider to be music that is not a pattern and does not contain any patterns. This sound might even succeed as being music under my definition by communicating emotive content.

3) Here's something I just thought that might make me clarify my definition too. Is a book on tape considered music?

This is directed at both of you. Define 'emotion'. Then define how music can express or elicit it. Then we can discuss whether music requires it or not.
Emotions: Maybe the biochemical states of mind that affect one's experiences. But I guess I would really desribe emotion as a state of feeling, or perhaps sentiment (or anything) experienced in mind that does not specifically require consciously semantic thought. Or something like that. It's hard to define.

Music elicits it by stimulating the senses so as to suggest or manipulate (for a suitably receptive listener) the emotive experience. This can be accomplished through a variety of means - the interplay of consonance and dissonance: the mathematical ratios (or lack thereof) among pitches can be either soothing or harsh to one's sense of hearing interpretation as a blank can be pleasantly smooth or irritatingly rough. This interplay usually includes a temporal element. Pitch movement and rhythm may be similar to that speech. Patterns are used Expectation is created. Resolution is anticipated and either reached or taken away. It can be like taking a giant shit where you're in pain, but you know if will be oh-so-good when it all comes out and the cadence resolves.

So music elicits emotion through limitless combinations of any aural means possible.

Music expresses emotion in that it is designed to elicit emotion, or in that it is the product of the expression of the artist's emotion, which theoretically can be observed by an audience. Usually (maybe always?) it's both.

Although, I am mostly agreeing with Intangelon, as Tongass appears only to be retorting with personal preferences and rather narrow definitions.Oh really? I consider music to be the sonic art form. Can you suggest a meaningful less narrow definition of music?

Not sure if this one has been said or not:

"The terrorists attacked us on 9/11 because they hate our freedoms."
This is actually true in a sense. Terrorist Islam considers America to be decadent because we allow so people the freedom to do all these things they consider immoral.

There are??!! *is scared and cries*

Bigger-world anxiety?
*consoles*
*laughs*

I thought it was kind of weird, but I didn't know it was so common!

Stockings are worse, don't you think? Argh. If the crotch keeps coming down... and the static... and the seams... Being a woman sucks sometimes.

As a little kid, when I was forced to wear stockings, I'd sometimes wear two pairs of underwear; one inside and one outside the stockings. Then the crotch didn't fall down!

It's possible I just shared way too much about my childhood on the internet.

It's possible I just shared way too much about my childhood on the internet.
's'all good.
Makes a good sig if nothing else, eh? :)

This is actually true in a sense. Terrorist Islam considers America to be decadent because we allow so people the freedom to do all these things they consider immoral.

That's not why they attacked us, though. Not even one of the reasons.

's'all good.
Makes a good sig if nothing else, eh? :)

I'm strangely comfortable with that.

I'm strangely comfortable with that.
This is the part where i welcome you to the fold, formally.
*bows*
http://www.websmileys.com/sm/evil/870.gif
Mud and tacos to follow shortly, along with, perhaps, some good anecdotes and threadstealing.

Mud and tacos to follow shortly, along with, perhaps, some good anecdotes and threadstealing.

You're LG's partner-in-crime? o.O

This is the part where i welcome you to the fold, formally.
*bows*
http://www.websmileys.com/sm/evil/870.gif
Mud and tacos to follow shortly, along with, perhaps, some good anecdotes and threadstealing.

Thank you! This is probably the part where I should be running to save whatever sanity I have left, but I'm easily bought by the low low price of tacos. As long as they're not served by clowns. I'm holding a firm line on this one.

You're LG's partner-in-crime? o.O

Partner, maybe. <.<
>.>
We have complimenting scars.

Oh, crime? Depends on which state you're in.
Also - i had a dream that he was running a webcam and i finally got to see his face.
Intentionally entendre-full

Thank you! This is probably the part where I should be running to save whatever sanity I have left,It'll be like running is in a dream, sluggish and molasses-flavoured. Best swim through it. :)
but I'm easily bought by the low low price of tacos.It's just like the express line at the store, where all the tabloids are. Too delicious and savory a sin to let go. :p
As long as they're not served by clowns. I'm holding a firm line on this one.
What about part-time clowns, clowns-in-training, people-who-only-play-clowns-on-TV-and-the-'net, and mimes?
Give it time. :)

This is actually true in a sense. Terrorist Islam considers America to be decadent because we allow so people the freedom to do all these things they consider immoral.
Pardon? The fact that 1st world countries have consistently propped up nut job dictators who promise to keep the oil flowing, doesn't come in to it just a bit?

Wait. I'll just watch Fox, click my heels 3 times, and say "theres no need to think, there's no need to think, there's no need to think" and suddenly you'll be right.

Pardon? The fact that 1st world countries have consistently propped up nut job dictators who promise to keep the oil flowing, doesn't come in to it just a bit?But of all the groups affected by our foreign meddling, only the crazy Wahabist Islam folks are sending us terrorists. I don't see a lot of Latin Americans blowing themselves up, and goodness knows there are plenty of them here. Middle Eastern governments are responsible for just as much strife in their region as we are, if not vastly more. To pretend that religious ideology isn't responsible for Islamic terrorism is denial.

But of all the groups affected by our foreign meddling, only the crazy Wahabist Islam folks are sending us terrorists. I don't see a lot of Latin Americans blowing themselves up, and goodness knows there are plenty of them here. Middle Eastern governments are responsible for just as much strife in their region as we are, if not vastly more. To pretend that religious ideology isn't responsible for Islamic terrorism is denial.

If they attacked us because they hated our freedom, then explain why countries that are arguably just as free have not been attacked.

If they attacked us because they hated our freedom, then explain why countries that are arguably just as free have not been attacked.Or perhaps it explains why they have, in the case of some European countries. Anyway, I'm not arguing that freedom-hate was the sole cause. That would indeed be Fox News crazy. Obviously, the US would not be as significant a target if it were not a prominent figure in Middle Eastern affairs. I'm just saying that religious-ideological differences were also a requirement for the terrorist attacks.

Or perhaps it explains why they have, in the case of some European countries. Anyway, I'm not arguing that freedom-hate was the sole cause. That would indeed be Fox News crazy. Obviously, the US would not be as significant a target if it were not a prominent figure in Middle Eastern affairs. I'm just saying that religious-ideological differences were also a requirement for the terrorist attacks.
But those radical islamist got in to power on the back of US meddling. Basically, when the nut job dictator just feathers his own nest at the expense of his populace, if a certain group of people (extreme religious groups) promise to stand up to the dictator and the dictator's puppet master (US), then that group starts to get lots of new members. Especially from disaffected youth who see no future.

What annoys me,

People whom know nothing about England, saying how we are all posh and up ourselves.

Those people need to look at themselves. they are likly to be up themselves.

I'm sure that it's possible to write serial music, but the mere ordering pitches in a serially-acceptable manner hardly makes a noise into music.

I don't know. It seems to me that you're the one getting childish and defensive here, as if positing a definition for something as holy as music is treading on sacred ground only to be addressed in the most high-minded vague, abstract and non-defining way possible by only the high priests of academic "music study". Fact is, you can call whatever you want music, be my guest, but that doesn't mean it's what the term actually means in general usage of the English language.

I'm not sure what you're "trying" to accomplish. In my opinion, your definition is a little problematic.

1) Patterns of sound and silence exist in nature and chaos, and in the noise of my car engine. Would you say that all of these things constitute music?

2) It might be possible for me to create sound (and/or silence) that one might consider to be music that is not a pattern and does not contain any patterns. This sound might even succeed as being music under my definition by communicating emotive content.

3) Here's something I just thought that might make me clarify my definition too. Is a book on tape considered music?

You seem to be confusing the term 'music' with 'music that I like'.

Emotions: Maybe the biochemical states of mind that affect one's experiences. But I guess I would really desribe emotion as a state of feeling, or perhaps sentiment (or anything) experienced in mind that does not specifically require consciously semantic thought. Or something like that. It's hard to define.

Music elicits it by stimulating the senses so as to suggest or manipulate (for a suitably receptive listener) the emotive experience. This can be accomplished through a variety of means - the interplay of consonance and dissonance: the mathematical ratios (or lack thereof) among pitches can be either soothing or harsh to one's sense of hearing interpretation as a blank can be pleasantly smooth or irritatingly rough. This interplay usually includes a temporal element. Pitch movement and rhythm may be similar to that speech. Patterns are used. Expectation is created. Resolution is anticipated and either reached or taken away. It can be like taking a giant shit where you're in pain, but you know if will be oh-so-good when it all comes out and the cadence resolves.

Your definition is decent, but with too much Western dependence. Is the music of some tribe in Africa not emotional because it does not contain cadence or a concept of consonance/dissonance?

Music expresses emotion in that it is designed to elicit emotion, or in that it is the product of the expression of the artist's emotion, which theoretically can be observed by an audience. Usually (maybe always?) it's both.

Music cannot express emotion directly, it is not sentient, but yes it is designed (or not, as exampled by Intangelen) to elicit emotion in the listener. Can a synthesised playing elicit emotion? Is the human necessary in the performance?

Oh really? I consider music to be the sonic art form. Can you suggest a meaningful less narrow definition of music?

You definition conflicts with your previous comments in this thread. I repeat my statement of your confusion about 'music' and 'music that I like'.

Nitpicking is what I do when you saunter into a thread and mock others' intelligence while misrepresenting an etymology. All I'm saying is be sure you get your facts straight before you tap dance on someone else's posts. I posted the definition with the etymology, and the word "great" is NOT among the definitions ascribed to the root "archos". It means leader, as in leader of men, in this case, "head of state". Some leaders are great, but not all great people are leaders, and no leader of men has ever been a dog.

I've been thinking about this since your first reply to my post, and it's that frequently our own internal thinking directs us to perceive in others what is actually a dominant trait in ourselves. I suggest that YOU are the one seeking to tap dance on others' posts. YOU are the one failing to understand etymology. YOU can't even comprehend the source material you copy/paste into a post to purchase an appearance of knowledge. YOU have had the experience of someone ripping apart your perceptions, and for some reason you've tranferred that into the very loose reading you've applied to my starter post.

As for your misrepresentation of myself: you have failed miserably to make any sort of factual relationship between the fake imagery of me as a poster and a person and the actual posts I've made. You're total lack of attention to content beyond hungrily searching for a pretense to claim yourself the more learned poster is the sort of trash that will rot the brain in your still-breathing body. I cannot possibly expect you to stop babbling your mindless drivel as you desperately attempt to maintain your ego, but I feel it is a sensible request to desist in misrepresenting other people's opinion, much less pretend ownership of an actual argument.

The message your own mind seems to be sending out is simple, "All I'm saying is be sure you get your facts straight before you tap dance on someone else's posts," and it is very good advice, far more appropriate to your own behavior than to mine.

And seriously, leader has a completely different and specific meaning definitively. You are mixing up the connotations, which is the entire problem of the misconception of "anarchy." Try not to be so shallow.

Well that kind of killed it.

...tacos, anyone? *wanders off crunching*

Well that kind of killed it.

...tacos, anyone? *wanders off crunching*
Mmmm...taco's...

That's not too bad by itself (though I'd point out that emotions are largely unconscious and short-term, and that 'cares about' is not the only requirement, think of 'surprise'), but how does it relate to music and how we experience it?

(This is kind of a trick question, or at least leading into one: no-one in the last century has managed a definition that has adequately described our experiences of emotion related to music, I'd just like people to think about it before discussing it using rather vaguely described terms like 'emotion' or 'emotional(less) music')

Gah. What makes it even trickier is that there are some pieces of music that elicit the same emotion every time I hear them, and other that might elicit that emotion once and never again. So that suggests that mood with regard to receptivity has to be included in that emotion-related-to-music definition. Seems to me that aesthetic philosophers have been debating this since Aristotle, Plato and Socrates...and even they only partially worked it out. Nowadays, you've got Dewey, Kant, Nietzsche, Bloom, Burke, and lots more, and I don't think we're any closer. However, that's the nature of something like music and emotion -- an empirical definition is not possible, but the attempt is somehow worthwhile.

Excellent poser...I wish I were smart enough to give a better response.

Not at all. Faith involves belief. If nobody acknowledges rights, obviously no one believes in them. But they might still be out there.

To provide an imperfect analogy: before human beings had a clue about relativity, did it exist?

Imperfect, indeed. The very notion of a "right" demands that someone develop the moral compunction to imagine it, and then the moral authority to convey it. Some rights, or rules, such as the Golden Rule (no, not "he who has the gold makes the rules", but "treat others as you would have them treat you"...which is always thready when it comes to masochists), seem fairly obvious. "I don't want to die, so I won't kill anyone." That can lead to "I won't kill anyone unless they're clearly out to kill me", and so forth.

Relativity as a concept didn't exist. The effects of what became known as relativity gradually became perceivable as they were discovered. I don't think rights are discovered so much as they're invented, and "consensused". However, I'm not all that sure about that. You have given me something to think about.

I've been thinking about this since your first reply to my post, and it's that frequently our own internal thinking directs us to perceive in others what is actually a dominant trait in ourselves. I suggest that YOU are the one seeking to tap dance on others' posts. YOU are the one failing to understand etymology. YOU can't even comprehend the source material you copy/paste into a post to purchase an appearance of knowledge. YOU have had the experience of someone ripping apart your perceptions, and for some reason you've tranferred that into the very loose reading you've applied to my starter post.

Look, pal, all I did was insist that your usage of an etymology was incorrect. You've now officially flown off the handle and have begun wailing like some backhanded child. I did no such thing to you. I think you need a cookie and a nap. This is NSG. Come off as cocksure about something here and I guarantee you there will be someone who will come along, read your post, and inform you that you're completely full of shit. It happens to me regularly. Not this time, though.

But what the hell, the night's young, I'll bite -- how, exactly, do I not comprehend the dictionary definition and etymology I posted to contradict your assertion that "-archy" and related words mean "best" -- or, as you put it, however facetiously, "bestest"? How is saying "hey, that's not quite right" a "very loose reading" of your inaccurate representation of a Greek word base? I have definitely had the experience of someone ripping my posts apart, and guess what? My posts usually deserved it when it happened. You've really got to lay off the coffee.

As for your misrepresentation of myself: you have failed miserably to make any sort of factual relationship between the fake imagery of me as a poster and a person and the actual posts I've made. You're total lack of attention to content beyond hungrily searching for a pretense to claim yourself the more learned poster is the sort of trash that will rot the brain in your still-breathing body. I cannot possibly expect you to stop babbling your mindless drivel as you desperately attempt to maintain your ego, but I feel it is a sensible request to desist in misrepresenting other people's opinion, much less pretend ownership of an actual argument.

I don't recall trying to make anything of you other than playing fast and loose with etymology. I really can't understand why you've decided to escalate this into some sort of psychoanalysis. I happen to have had some training in word origins, and I had the good fortune to have a Greek lover for three years, and picked up some of the language. I saw you misrepresent "archos", and I called you on it.

Let me repeat this, in deference to your obvious state of...well, I don't know what, really -- THIS HAPPENS A LOT ON NSG. It isn't personal. In fact, if it gets personal, the Mods (peace be upon them) usually intervene and tell all involved to knock it off. Your last post is a cry for help, and while I'm not qualified, I know there must be someone near there who can. Because your own "mindless drivel" is getting pretty thick.

The message your own mind seems to be sending out is simple, "All I'm saying is be sure you get your facts straight before you tap dance on someone else's posts," and it is very good advice, far more appropriate to your own behavior than to mine.

And yet, you still think your own posts somehow so far above reproach that you launch into this pseudo-analytical tirade in order to defend yourself. Well, that's all fine and dandy, but I refer you to your own words in the very posts I'm quoting -- your ego is the one getting the workout here. You seem to need to believe that I was somehow looking to better myself at your expense. I wish I could help you there, but I can't. All I was doing was trying to make you look at how much of a pedantic jackass your original post made you seem. Let me refresh your memory:

i.e. Anarchy: typically translated as kids throwing bricks through car windows, anarchy can quickly be divided into the roots "arch" (which means "greatest" as in bestestest, like archrival, archangel) and the prefix "a" which turns into "an" in front of the vowel in arch. "A-" simply means "not" or "no" referring to the root word it's attatched to.
So, compared to something like "monarchy" where you have a king of some sort who's supposed to be the ultimate ruler of everybody, "anarchy" just means there is no "greatest" of anybody. It's not a word you chant while stealing daddy's liquor, it's just a rather "arch"-ane way of expressing social equality without hier-"arch"-y.

Except that it doesn't. End of story. Not only that, but "kids throwing bricks through windows is -- wait for it -- one of the current connotations of the word. You don't get to decide who uses a word and in which way. Those using the word do. That's the beauty (and danger) of language, and especially English.

Let me also remind you of my reply:

However, if you go into smug mode and then fuck up the etymology of a root like archos, it makes you seem...unnecessarily arrogant. The point is, we're none of us infallible, so rant all you want, but be prepared to have your own perceptions shredded. I've had many of mine dismembered here, and while a chastening experience, I've learned a lot.

Welcome to NSG.Emphasis added for this post.

Note the word "seem"? Note also at the end where I readily admit that I'm far from perfect? See, this whole post was designed to be a genuine, sincere welcome into the NSG community. I agreed with you on several other points you made (most notably in post #316 about OCD -- or did you forget those posts, too?), and I noticed that you were new (less than 10 posts at the time), so I figured I'd help you out by explaining that NSG can get bumpy, but very few people are out to specifically piss you off or offend you, and that one way to avoid it is to not take a pedantic tone in your posts unless it's warranted.

You are clearly an intelligent person and adept with word and composition. All I was trying to do was point out one or two of the quirks here in NSG for your edification. It's what many veterans have done for me in the past, and I've appreciated it. I'm not saying you have to even acknowledge my attempt to pay it forward, as it seems that I've royally botched it.

And seriously, leader has a completely different and specific meaning definitively. You are mixing up the connotations, which is the entire problem of the misconception of "anarchy." Try not to be so shallow.

*sigh* Back to this again. It isn't about depth. It's about you going off about people not knowing how to use a dictionary and then posting the wrong meaning for a root word. Period.

One more time -- I'm sorry if any tone I took or anything I said irritated you. I'll try not to be so shallow if you try not to overreact. Deal?

And Tongass? Agree to disagree, man.

As a little kid, when I was forced to wear stockings, I'd sometimes wear two pairs of underwear; one inside and one outside the stockings. Then the crotch didn't fall down!

It's possible I just shared way too much about my childhood on the internet.

I did the same thing!

As a little kid, when I was forced to wear stockings, I'd sometimes wear two pairs of underwear; one inside and one outside the stockings. Then the crotch didn't fall down!

It's possible I just shared way too much about my childhood on the internet.

Back when I was a kid and had to wear lederhosen...

Ah. We'll just leave it at that.

I did the same thing!You shared possibly too much with strangers on the internet? ;)

Back when I was a kid and had to wear lederhosen...

Ah. We'll just leave it at that.

...in a vat of sour cream?

Those people need to look at themselves. they are likly to be up themselves.

Yeah, but when we're up each other, it's always rougher than we like! :p

You shared possibly too much with strangers on the internet? ;)

You wish. :p

You wish. :p
You know, i wasn't even thinking that when i posted it. Seriously. I might be thinking it a lot right now, but i wasn't then.
http://www.websmileys.com/sm/crazy/156.gif
I was actually thinking about a certain myspace link. :p

You seem to be confusing the term 'music' with 'music that I like'.Nothing of what I said requires that I enjoy something for it to be music. There's no shortage of music that I care not a wit for.

Your definition is decent, but with too much Western dependence. Is the music of some tribe in Africa not emotional because it does not contain cadence or a concept of consonance/dissonance?The cadence wasn't part of my definition, but a single example of how it might be fulfilled. Other examples would include rhythm patterns, variations, mimicry, variations in timbre, etc. It would be impossible for me to describe every emotion-moving mechanism of music, especially when the mechanisms work with each other in different ways to elicit emotion. And most aboriginal music does contain elements that could be described as consonant, dissonant, and cadential, but that's irrelevant to the point of your question and my counterpoint.

Music cannot express emotion directly, it is not sentient, but yes it is designed (or not, as exampled by Intangelen) to elicit emotion in the listener. Can a synthesised playing elicit emotion? Is the human necessary in the performance?If a human is necessary, it would be in some element of its composition - not necessarily in its performance. Of course, if a tree falls in a forest and produces a symphony, is it music? That could be problematic with an intent-definition like I've suggested, but if music is an art, then intent is required, like-it-or-not, and the tree symphony is not music. But if is not necessarily art, then perhaps all that is necessary is for somebody somewhere to have their emotions touched by it.

You definition conflicts with your previous comments in this thread. I repeat my statement of your confusion about 'music' and 'music that I like'.I read it the first time. I see no contradiction. Maybe there's something I can clarify?

And Tongass? Agree to disagree, man.
Don't worry. I have no intention of agreeing with you until you change your mind or demonstrate that I'm wrong. But if one of those happens, then I'm afraid I could no longer agree about disagreeing.

Heh, as of page 8 I only have one misconception that irritates me.

My one (female) roommate is under the misconception that, and mind you this is despite the fact that my only 2 partners were female, because I have not had sex with anyone in over 5 years I must be gay. :confused:

I'm still not sure where she gets that from or why she refuses to believe that I simply do not care to have random sex, I do not care to have sex outside of a relationship, and I do not care to have a relationship at this point in my life much less a relationship with most of the females I've met in the "fine" city of Omaha.

I'm sure a few more general misconceptions will be brought to mind for futher expulsion of irritation.

Back when I was a kid and had to wear lederhosen...

Ah. We'll just leave it at that.Pics!

The cadence wasn't part of my definition, SNIP

Ok.

If a human is necessary, SNIP

I prefer an intent definition of art and music, not a definition that relies on the emotional response of an observer/listener. Although, you could question whether birdsong can be called music as its existence was never dependent on whether humans liked it or not. If the creator intends something that is not detected or misunderstood by most people, can, by popular opinion, it not be called 'art' or 'music'? or is this unnecessarily ignoring the minority that do get something from it. If you don't respond to something and no-one else does, you could legitimately ask what was the point of creating it, but to say that because the majority of people don't respond it is necessarily 'not art' seems harsh to those who do.


Some example quotes:

if you do succeed in making something that sufficiently obscures any detectable emotional communication, then in that sense, what you have made isn't really music. A lot of twelve tone row pieces are like this. Pitch yes. Rhythm yes. Music no.

I'm not sure I'd agree that 'a lot of twelve tone row pieces' try to deliberately obscure emotion. Even still, I see no reason why a definition of music must include an emotional response in a listener just because this has been a traditional part of previous music.

You play some crazy avant-garde piece for the general population, and tell them that it is designed to be unfelt, emtionless, and they will look at you crazy if you call it music.

I feel that relying on the general population is a bad idea. Achieving popular response and success is not a requirement for something to be called 'art'.


Nothing of what I said requires that I enjoy something for it to be music. There's no shortage of music that I care not a wit for.

Your definition (which is quite a good one) of music as a "sonic art form". Perhaps I am slightly misrepresenting things you've said in a different context to this, but I just feel you've narrowed a definition of 'art' by including popular response as a requirement.

Something can be systematised hugely (like serial music) but to be called 'music' requires human influence, but I'm not sure this has to be in the form of emotional response by the general population.

A few more irritating misconceptions have come to mind.

#1 "I can do whatever I want because it's (the USA) a free country," and "I can say whatever I want, free speech."

My (again, female) roommate totes these lines a lot and it's very annoying.

#2 That one of the Biblical commandments is, "Thou shalt not kill."

Unless I'm mistaken the original Hebrew text used a word that had many context-dependant meanings and the context used was "murder," not "kill." Whether this was mistranslated on purpose to further the goals of people who wanted to convince everyone we were all sinners or on accident I don't know.

#3 "Saying Goddamnit is taking The Lord's name in vain."

So far as I know no god has his/her/it's official/real name listed as "God." Even the Christian god's real name is Iehovah if I'm not mistaken.

#4 "You wear nothing but black, are you emo/punk/a Satan-worshipper?"

It never occurs to the people who ask that I wear black because I'm comfortable with it and that other colors make me feel nervous and self-concious but it always occurs to them that I'm part of some (to me) silly sub-culture or "religion" or whatever.

#5 "If you don't believe in God you'll go to Hell and suffer for all eternity."

Except that for a couple centuries after the Bible was originally written "Hell" was a limbo of sorts, the afterlife, not fire and brimstone and eternal punishment which invalidates the "suffering" part. Furthermore some writings in the Christian faith stipulate that people in Hell (during the end of days/armageddon stuff I believe) will be given a chance to repent for their sins and go to Heaven which invalidates the "eternal damnation" part.

#6 "If you don't believe in God you must be a satan-worshipper/atheist/agnostic/whatever."

Maybe it's the literalist in me but you can believe in the existance of a god but not put faith in it or its plans for its followers. Many people seem to think that if you believe in the existance of a deity that you must also put faith in its ideals/goals/plans or that if you don't believe in it you must believe against it and that's quite incorrect.

#7 "There is only one God."

This outright ignores the fact that there have been hundreds if not thousands of gods throughout man's existance and many of them have had mutually exclusive, and often outright contradictory, aspects to them.

#8 "Homosexuallity is a sin against God," "Men are superior to women because God made Man first/gave Adam dominion over Eve," "People of this ethnic/racial/color group are inferior to white people," and similar statements.

The hypocrisy is astounding. If all men (the gender) are made in "God's" image then in that respect whites, blacks, asians, gays, straights, and every other male is equal. If all of man (the species) was made in "God's" image then it doesn't matter what your race, gender, or orientation is you are all aspects of "God."

#9 "Cloning/genetic modification/"tampering with nature"/etc. is a sin against God."

No religious text I've read pieces of has ever explained how their god created mankind. The closest is from the Christian/Catholic writings where, and I could be mistaken, Adam was created from dust, Lilith from mud, and Eve was made from one of Adam's ribs. The first two creations are almost completely in line with using nanobots/nanotech to take base material (like lead) and create something totally different (gold) while the last creation is completely in line with cloning and genetic modification.

As a little kid, when I was forced to wear stockings, I'd sometimes wear two pairs of underwear; one inside and one outside the stockings. Then the crotch didn't fall down!

It's possible I just shared way too much about my childhood on the internet.

I thought it was kind of weird, but I didn't know it was so common!

Stockings are worse, don't you think? Argh. If the crotch keeps coming down... and the static... and the seams... Being a woman sucks sometimes.

At the risk of revealing too much of my own self, consider this. Women shave their legs as a matter of course and don't (usually) have testicles that can fall down through either leg if you don't wear underwear beneath your stockings/pantyhose, both of which are major pains for guys.

Granted that they aren't designed for men (except for specific types of tights used for various performing arts) and are designed for people who shave their legs but still, it's probably almost just as "great" being a guy with "alternative" tastes in clothing. :)

Which brings me to my final annoying misconception.

#10 "All crossdressers/transvestites are homosexuals."

I knew a girl who wore her fiance's boxers, my mother bought jeans for herself off the men's rack, and women left and right wear shirts designed for and marketed to men for multiple reasons and nobody has ever suggested that they were less than heterosexual, but get a guy wearing panties of any sort, wearing a skirt (and for some kilts count as skirts), or wearing a shirt that looks just a little too feminine/effimate and suddenly their sexuallity gets called into question.

Statistically 90%+ of all transvestites are 100% heterosexual yet many people either don't know this or outright ignore it because it's inconvenient for their predjudices.

I don't see that this will ever change, however, as sexual discrimination (women being required to have their upper bodies covered in public while letting men go topless) and double standards (girl with C cup breasts wearing bra is normal, guy with same sized breasts wearing bra is bad) are built into almost every society on Earth and most people don't seem to know or care enough to change them.

#2 That one of the Biblical commandments is, "Thou shalt not kill."

The King James (the only English translation worth its salt) uses kill. I can't read Hebrew. However, I too have heard that the original word was "murder". Then again, I've heard that the original Hebrew word used to refer to Him was gender-neutral or ambiguous.

Statistically 90%+ of all transvestites are 100% heterosexual yet many people either don't know this or outright ignore it because it's inconvenient for their predjudices.

Luckily Eddie Izzard has made great strives in educating the general population. :D

I don't see that this will ever change, however, as sexual discrimination (women being required to have their upper bodies covered in public while letting men go topless) and double standards (girl with C cup breasts wearing bra is normal, guy with same sized breasts wearing bra is bad) are built into almost every society on Earth and most people don't seem to know or care enough to change them.

My favorite weird discrimination about breasts is when they show gender reassignment surgery on TV, and they show a MTF's nipples before, but not AFTER the breast augmentation, even though it's the same two bits of skin.

My one (female) roommate is under the misconception that, and mind you this is despite the fact that my only 2 partners were female, because I have not had sex with anyone in over 5 years I must be gay. :confused:

I'm still not sure where she gets that from or why she refuses to believe that I simply do not care to have random sex, I do not care to have sex outside of a relationship, and I do not care to have a relationship at this point in my life much less a relationship with most of the females I've met in the "fine" city of Omaha.She probably thinks you're gay because you cross-dress. Take off your pants and give her some "proof" that you're not.

If the creator intends something that is not detected or misunderstood by most people, can, by popular opinion, it not be called 'art' or 'music'? or is this unnecessarily ignoring the minority that do get something from it. If you don't respond to something and no-one else does, you could legitimately ask what was the point of creating it, but to say that because the majority of people don't respond it is necessarily 'not art' seems harsh to those who do.I would reject a majoritarian definition. If only one person artistically appreciates a piece, then it is still definitely art. If nobody does, then it still probably is, perhaps because the creator of the piece understands it (that might be cheating) or because somebody else might someday in the future.

Even still, I see no reason why a definition of music must include an emotional response in a listener just because this has been a traditional part of previous music.Because it's the musical part of music. Without emotional content, there is only noise. You can't define music in a less specific way without collapsing the concept.

I feel that relying on the general population is a bad idea. Achieving popular response and success is not a requirement for something to be called 'art'.Agreed - I should say I'm talking about a popular audience only from the defining perspective, not the interpreting perspective. So perhaps a better example is that an unbiased group of people listen to a piece, and then the composer explains its purpose and intent, and then appreciators explain their appreciation for it, then based on that information, the audience would judge whether it met the definition of music even if they don't understand or enjoy it.

Your definition (which is quite a good one) of music as a "sonic art form". Perhaps I am slightly misrepresenting things you've said in a different context to this, but I just feel you've narrowed a definition of 'art' by including popular response as a requirement.I should have clarified myself when invoking linguistics and evolution of language, etc. The idea is that music must meet the popular definition, not that the populous should decide what is music.

Heh, as of page 8 I only have one misconception that irritates me.

My one (female) roommate is under the misconception that, and mind you this is despite the fact that my only 2 partners were female, because I have not had sex with anyone in over 5 years I must be gay. :confused:

I'm still not sure where she gets that from or why she refuses to believe that I simply do not care to have random sex, I do not care to have sex outside of a relationship, and I do not care to have a relationship at this point in my life much less a relationship with most of the females I've met in the "fine" city of Omaha.

I'm sure a few more general misconceptions will be brought to mind for futher expulsion of irritation.

This is all an elaborate ploy designed to drive you to offer to have sex with her in an effort to prove you're not gay, accomplishing what she desired all along.

Or she's just ignorant. But my way is sexier.


#1 "I can do whatever I want because it's (the USA) a free country," and "I can say whatever I want, free speech."

Ask them what would happen if they went out into town hall and shouted N****R and shot at people.

#2 That one of the Biblical commandments is, "Thou shalt not kill."

Unless I'm mistaken the original Hebrew text used a word that had many context-dependant meanings and the context used was "murder," not "kill." Whether this was mistranslated on purpose to further the goals of people who wanted to convince everyone we were all sinners or on accident I don't know.

I believe you're right on this one.

#3 "Saying Goddamnit is taking The Lord's name in vain."

So far as I know no god has his/her/it's official/real name listed as "God." Even the Christian god's real name is Iehovah if I'm not mistaken.

Now that's food for thought. I'll have to think about that one. Anyway, we usually say it's Jehovah over here in the U.S. of A., but It's probably a l'il different than that.

#7 "There is only one God."

This outright ignores the fact that there have been hundreds if not thousands of gods throughout man's existance and many of them have had mutually exclusive, and often outright contradictory, aspects to them.

Yeah, but the theology argues that those gods aren't real and are just fabrications of man. So it's accurate in the sense that it lines up with the theology, but maybe it would be clearer if the word 'real' was added in?

My favorite weird discrimination about breasts is when they show gender reassignment surgery on TV, and they show a MTF's nipples before, but not AFTER the breast augmentation, even though it's the same two bits of skin.

What I get a kick out of is how, if my memory is accurate, one of the first sights I caught of a naked female breast was an African tribeswoman on PBS sent over the airwaves back in the late 80s or early 90s yet even on Comedy Central, which has South Park and Drawn Together, on cable they can't show nudity, even in the after-midnight movies where they don't censor the swearing.

Heh, then there's the time I watched some boxing/fighting movie because the ratings on HBO said "Partial Nudity." Took me a few hours to realize after watching the movie that by "Partial Nudity" they were referring to the topless guys boxing. :headbang:

She probably thinks you're gay because you cross-dress. Take off your pants and give her some "proof" that you're not.

No, she's fairly simple-minded and straightforward, She only accuses me of being gay when we get into arguments she can't win because she has to resort to verbal attacks and her justification for it is because I haven't had sex with a girl in 5 years. This is completely ignoring the two facts that I haven't had sex period in 5 years and haven't had sex with anyone who wasn't female at all :headbang:

That aside, I have two other roommates, one of whom is her fiance/boyfriend who is also the father of their son (doesn't live at home due to legal kidnapping) and on medication for anger management issues so I don't need to worry about sex with her.

Heck, she accuses him of being "a faggot" too when he disagrees with her in arguments so it's more a case of very poor logic on her part than anything else.

Either way the cross-dressing's not an issue since it's limited to underwear and what's out of sight is out of mind with this woman.

This is all an elaborate ploy designed to drive you to offer to have sex with her in an effort to prove you're not gay, accomplishing what she desired all along.

Or she's just ignorant. But my way is sexier.

It's stupidity more than anything. When she gets mad and gets into arguments and can't support her position she resorts to personal attacks and this is one of them. Lately I've put a stop to it by telling her to invite one of her friends over and watch us have sex on her bed.

I don't much care for the friend in question but she's the least objectional female we both know. All things considered I'm glad she drops the subject as soon as I use that counter because "least objectionable" still means, "I'd rather sleep alone than sleep with her."

I would reject a majoritarian definition. If only one person artistically appreciates a piece, then it is still definitely art. If nobody does, then it still probably is, perhaps because the creator of the piece understands it (that might be cheating) or because somebody else might someday in the future.

Agreed.

Because it's the musical part of music. Without emotional content, there is only noise. You can't define music in a less specific way without collapsing the concept.

I think the problem comes in having (or not) a distinction between emotional response and aesthetic response. There are pieces that I find stimulating and perhaps enjoyable, but the music is necessarily emotionless as that is how it has been written. So, if you take this stimulating listening as an emotional response, I suppose yes, emotional response (not sure 'content' is the right word) is required in this sense.

Agreed - I should say I'm talking about a popular audience only from the defining perspective, not the interpreting perspective. So perhaps a better example is that an unbiased group of people listen to a piece, and then the composer explains its purpose and intent, and then appreciators explain their appreciation for it, then based on that information, the audience would judge whether it met the definition of music even if they don't understand or enjoy it.

I should have clarified myself when invoking linguistics and evolution of language, etc. The idea is that music must meet the popular definition, not that the populous should decide what is music.

Fair points. I really dislike it when someone says something like 'that is not music' simply because their don't like it/respond to it, but I do sometimes think after listening to a piece, 'what was the point of that?'. This is the problem I find with some music (mainly classical) written in the last 70 years, in some cases it seems that a computer could produce ordered (or random) sounds and a human listener would not know the difference.

"Shrimp on the barbie..."

We say PRAWN in Aus. Bloody Paul Hogan...

#3 "Saying Goddamnit is taking The Lord's name in vain."

So far as I know no god has his/her/it's official/real name listed as "God." Even the Christian god's real name is Iehovah if I'm not mistaken.

AAAAARRRRGGGGHHHHH!!!!! Stone him!!! He said it!!!

Actually I use the same argument... The annoying part is when, after 5 minutes silence, they tell you that "still it is blasphemy" and you cannot get out of them WHY!

Luckily Eddie Izzard has made great strives in educating the general population. :D

Executive transvestite. "Male lesbian". Right on.

My favorite weird discrimination about breasts is when they show gender reassignment surgery on TV, and they show a MTF's nipples before, but not AFTER the breast augmentation, even though it's the same two bits of skin.

What I get a kick out of is how, if my memory is accurate, one of the first sights I caught of a naked female breast was an African tribeswoman on PBS sent over the airwaves back in the late 80s or early 90s yet even on Comedy Central, which has South Park and Drawn Together, on cable they can't show nudity, even in the after-midnight movies where they don't censor the swearing.

Heh, then there's the time I watched some boxing/fighting movie because the ratings on HBO said "Partial Nudity." Took me a few hours to realize after watching the movie that by "Partial Nudity" they were referring to the topless guys boxing. :headbang:

I hadn't thought of it that way. How incredibly bleeding retarded is that? It reminds me of the bit Lewis Black does on when he was asked to perform at the Congrssional Correspondents' Dinner in DC. He was asked to censor the word "nipple" from his act because it made the First Lady uncomfortable.

Quoth Mr. Black: "I paused and then asked: Is there something...we should know? I mean, I's gots nipples, you's gots nipples -- ALL God's chillun gots nipples."

AAAAARRRRGGGGHHHHH!!!!! Stone him!!! He said it!!!

Actually I use the same argument... The annoying part is when, after 5 minutes silence, they tell you that "still it is blasphemy" and you cannot get out of them WHY!

The only thing I can think if is that no matter what name you use they think you are referring to their god.

That leads to another misconception that a lot of people have.

"Words have intrinsic meanings."

No, they don't. We are taught that specific words have certain meanings as if they were permanent, but they don't.

Look at urban culture where people often refer to each other as "dog" without meaning that they are four-footed hairy animals with mild and permanent cases of halitosis.

Or how about the evolution (or de-evolution as it could be argued) of the words gay, faggot, queer, and fag. Their meaning has changed because the usage of the word has changed.

Even the meanings of the more common "cuss" words is changing as people use them more and more frequently in situations outside of their original scope. When you call a girl a bitch you usually aren't calling her a female dog in heat anymore.

Yet despite all this people still hold to the concept that a word and it's meaning are permanently linked and etched in stone without realizing that in 200 years someone's "god" would mean the same as our "hamburger" and their "satan" is our "god."

As a result they'll think that any "damn it" type statement with even a hint of a deific reference is aimed at their god and therefore blasphemous. :headbang:

My favorite weird discrimination about breasts is when they show gender reassignment surgery on TV, and they show a MTF's nipples before, but not AFTER the breast augmentation, even though it's the same two bits of skin.
My favorite is when they show a woman getting one of those boob jobs where they remove the nipples and then reattach them after putting in the implants...and they blur out the nipples when they're sitting in a freaking dish over on the operating tray. Mind you, they'll show the bloody bits of flesh and fat that they've cut off, and they'll show the gaping holes in her chest where they're shoving the implants, but those two little circles of nipple are so obscene that they must be shaded out even when they're not attached to the boobies.

One that really makes my brain jolt is the preferred one of casual leftists who join in the earsay about "Israel's invasion of Palestine", as if Palestine was ever an independent state (It's now, but Israel's NOT invading it, is it?)...
If only these messed up leftists cared to read history books, or read papers, they would be stoned with a simple array of facts:

In 1940's Palestinians refused independancy solely on the fact that they would not accept a jewish state as a neighbor. Terrorism was better...

In the 60's they did whatever they could to ruin any peace talks that may lead to a Palestinian statehood.

Finaly, they got their state.
But the uncontroled killing continues...

That ticks me off...
:mad:

I'm not sure if anyone has already said this but.

That British are from Britain when referring to just the English and England.

I think the biggest misconception that t's me off:

The Republican party is the party of fiscal responsibility and constitutionalists.

Signed,
Village Idiot

By the by 2nd misconception: Ill read your 15 paragraphs cause I think your writing is worth that much of my time.

My favorite is when they show a woman getting one of those boob jobs where they remove the nipples and then reattach them after putting in the implants...and they blur out the nipples when they're sitting in a freaking dish over on the operating tray. Mind you, they'll show the bloody bits of flesh and fat that they've cut off, and they'll show the gaping holes in her chest where they're shoving the implants, but those two little circles of nipple are so obscene that they must be shaded out even when they're not attached to the boobies.Wouldn't want somebody fapping to disembodied nipples.

"The Welsh deserve voting rights"

I think the problem comes in having (or not) a distinction between emotional response and aesthetic response.I don't distinguish between the two. It seems to me that aesthetic assessments are essentially judgments of emotional preference/resonance.

There are pieces that I find stimulating and perhaps enjoyable, but the music is necessarily emotionless as that is how it has been written. So, if you take this stimulating listening as an emotional response, I suppose yes, emotional response (not sure 'content' is the right word) is required in this sense.Then we more or less agree on that point. I think when you're saying that music is written to be "emotionless" you're probably only considering a narrow definition of how music can be emotional.

I don't distinguish between the two. It seems to me that aesthetic assessments are essentially judgments of emotional preference/resonance.

Perhaps. Certainly in music emotional response is far stronger than with other things, with something like a painting I've never felt a strong emotion accompanying seeing it, but can form an aesthetic judgement.

Then we more or less agree on that point. I think when you're saying that music is written to be "emotionless" you're probably only considering a narrow definition of how music can be emotional.

Yes, that may be a fair assessment, I was trying to think of a way to describe emotionless with reference to a piece but generally come up with something that really is mechanical but very calm as a result (although this may have been an unintended result according to the composer). In a way, our methods of describing music are intrinsically linked to our emotional responses to it, and it may be the case that, whatever a composer tries to do regarding lack of emotion, some listeners may also respond in an emotional way.

I do generally listen to music for an emotional response or a stimulating experience in terms of interest in hearing something perhaps new to me. However, those pieces which 'move' me the most I am generally at a loss of how to describe them, other than something horribly simple like 'beautiful'.