Whats your view on human nature

[Vergazi]

Arguably, most of what we humans do is based on biological drives. So based on that, then, one can argue that all acts are selfish or at least have a selfish component. So we end up debating back and forth the relative selfishness or selflessness of various scenarios when ultimately all we are doing is rationalizing what is basically a biological motive. All of this talk on here has made me clearly realize something I believe..

Those who are devoted to the new pseudo-religion of Transhumanism detest their animal nature and find it filthy and disgusting. I truly believe that most Transhumanists actually believe this to be true. They seem to want to exorcise themselves of the biological component ( one's flesh body ) in order to remove from themselves some sense of the original sin. As uploaded personalities they believe they will be able to live lives that are without sin; either secular or spiritual. They will not eat animal flesh, they will not eat plants, they will not require other people to reproduce and they will be, effectively, immortal-barring accidents. No longer will they be troubled by those annoying and confusing biological imperatives that make them do strange and illogical things at times. However, no longer will they be Human. I would argue that it is fundamental to human nature to be a flawed being and once you are able to cast off all of your flaws you surrender your membership in our hominids only club.

Thanks, but no thanks Transhumanists...I'll keep my flaws and my humanity.

Kirk was right, as he said so eloquently in Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan

and to borrow from someone I disagree with so very frequently, yet have high regard for nevertheless. "KHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAN!"

 

[DeletedUser20951]

In most people's thoughts of such things the absolute highest form of love is the totally selfless -- where the person is not aware of or thinking at all about, what he or she would get out of it. This, in many people's minds, is "pure love." So, ideally, the existence of selfish and unselfish motivations in the same act corrupt the act -- if you hold "pure love" to be the desired goal.

In the end I think we might both be right.

Aye, we definitely are, given the subjectivity of motivations and what actually constitutes emotions to begin with, which I believe to be nothing more than the chemical reactions of dissimilar wired brains filtered through the lens of personal experience, environment, learned/taught behaviors, and whatnot, but generally ascribed a "higher", spiritual explanation. I don't think "pure love", or the common definition of love, exists.

So based on that, then, one can argue that all acts are selfish or at least have a selfish component. So we end up debating back and forth the relative selfishness or selflessness of various scenarios when ultimately all we are doing is rationalizing what is basically a biological motive.

This is what I am always debating, since I, on an unwavering fundamental level, hold the conviction that everything, and I mean every single thing we do, comes from a place of selfishness, of doing what is "best" for yourself, whatever that may be, but I like to tease out why other people think they do what they do, a topic I find endlessly intriguing. Well, I guess I tend to wind up arguing that there's nothing wrong with our innate selfishness, provided you use it to the benefit of humanity, not just yourself... Which still comes round full circle to jointly being valuable for yourself, supporting a system that is good for all, as you are included in the total sum. "Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me" continues to be greatly relevant to this day and likely always will be. If I don't stand up for the liberties that may not even affect me, if we collectively only stand up for what specifically affects us, if liberty, itself, isn't recognized as important instead of imposing individual morals and judgments on the whole, someone's gonna get screwed and that someone could be me. No thanks. I would like to add a within reason to the imposing morals part, since there are things that are simply 'wrong', in that they ignore and supersede the autonomy and safety of others, but if a manner of going about living harms no one and is simply found reprehensible from a personal belief stance, it should not govern the majority.

Those who are devoted to the new pseudo-religion of Transhumanism detest their animal nature and find it filthy and disgusting.

Ew! Reminds me of the Believers of the Source from Torment, one of my least favorite Factions. XD I'll have to look more into this; sounds fascinating in a, "I don't believe anything you just said but your utter wrongness shall help define and mold my rightness."

I would argue that it is fundamental to human nature to be a flawed being and once you are able to cast off all of your flaws you surrender your membership in our hominids only club.

I don't think anything could actually make humans not human. The monsters among us are still human, although most like to paint them as significantly different from themselves for peace of mind. My main issue with the concept is the assertion that true perfection can be achieved, when that's impossible. Improvement, yes, that certainly can be gained, and I am constantly striving to modify myself into being a person I have more respect for.

Kirk was right

Yes, yes he was. KHHHAAANNN!!!

 

[ajqtrz]

The great thing about the term "gaslighting" is that it can be used to describe anybody who is effective in convincing others to believe him or her. In politics it's a wonderful way to paint your opponent without actually having to deal with what your opponent is actually saying. It's a form of ad hominem argument when it's directed at a person who, supposedly, has convinced a large group of people of his or her position. The one using the term, generally speaking, can't see any reason to believe his or her opponent, but has to account for their ability to influence so many people somehow. "It cant be rational since if it were I'd see it," he or she thinks, and then concludes that some irrational method of manipulation is at work, "gaslighting" being the easiest to assume.

Of course, just saying your opponent is "gaslighting" is effective enough if those listening have already concluded he or she is unbelievable. To those who believe your opponent you aren't going to convince them without a lot more work, and even then, it will be pretty much impossible. For one reason in saying your opponent is using such a tactic you imply that everyone else -- those who believe your opponent -- are undergoing psychological manipulation of the worst kind and are, therefore, dupes, stupid, or insane, stake your pick. If you want to convince an audience that they are being manipulated you need to deal with the issues rather than just call your opponent "manipulative."

In any case, if you look at gas-lighting carefully you will see it would be pretty much impossible to do on a large scale since the break down of a persons belief in their own sanity is a very intense operation. To do it with an audience of hundreds, thousands or even millions, probably impossible.

AJ

 

[DeletedUser20951]

FOOD
A Surprisingly Complicated Matter
​

Nearly everybody loves food. It is dear to them, they adore the communal act of dining together, the sense of fellowship that is garnered through this common bond, and I try very, very hard not to begrudge this, but that is quite difficult due to the hostile reactions I usually receive if I state my indifference, which is something I normally only do, politely, when my boredom becomes too great to feign interest in the topic. I don't outright dismiss discussions regarding sustenance, because if it is important to someone, it is worth listening to and acknowledging, the same as with any subject I am not drawn to, such as knitting, fashion, the bulk of pop culture, and thousands of other pursuits. I am aware, too, that it can be an extremely touchy issue due to widespread body shaming and eating disorders. I challenge commentary about the appearance of another as sternly as I jump on a person for other forms of bigotry. One, it's none of anybody's business but their own; two, the discrimination faced because of size is definitely real; and three, it does not matter to me what somebody looks like, at all, and the pettiness of judging/rating people in the looks department has always raised my hackles.

In my last therapy session, it finally occurred to me to ask, "Hey, do some people just not produce dopamine when they eat?", because it is simply not something I give much thought to on a regular basis, but I don't actually enjoy consuming food, despite being able to recognize if a dish is delicious and possessing no abnormalities regarding a sense of taste or smell, which can dampen the gratification derived. If I am engaged in an activity, I don't feel hunger, and often go all day without eating (extremely unhealthy; I do not recommend this). It is a chore, one I unenthusiastically see to out of necessity. My therapist didn't know the answer to my question, but is supposedly going to find out, a task I could fulfill, myself, granted I cared enough to. It just is, like having brown hair or preferring the uncolor gray, and I don't feel superior, nor disdainful of those who do love food (I'd hate my entire family if I did; loving food is an understatement in their case), but, Christ Almighty, are people offended if I don't tread carefully (and frequently still are when I do). It is wearying, given how common the dialogue surrounding cuisine is, and I've been known to snap on occasion, but I prod my mind constantly to be respectful of this global devotion towards the fuel that keeps us living. Barring my mouth shut and not saying anything is the safest route, but when asked directly, it's rude to ignore, so, yes, careful treading tends to be required.

 

[ajqtrz]

Food? I would suggest that, yes, consuming food does trigger a dopamine response. If you don't have one or it's weak it may be a physiological condition. One of the causes may be the diet itself. Too much refined sugar (i.e starches) over a long time can effect the pituitary gland, the pancreas, the thyroid and the adrenal glands making eating boring. It will then effect everything else in one's life.

Pleasure is a positive thing as it is what drives us to continue our existence and procreate. If boredom is present it's usually because we are not stimulated enough and are in the trap of thinking we have to be "excited" enough about the activities we could be doing to actually begin engaging in them. In other words we are waiting for the payoff to come before we do the work.

Example: I love to write but I hate to start writing. I have, over the years, disciplined myself to start writing even if I don't feel like it -- which I almost always don't. When this occurs I remind myself that starting is the discipline, not writing. After I start, within a few minutes I love it. The same with playing my instruments. I don't like walking over to the keyboard and beginning, but once I do, I find within minutes I love what I'm doing.

When most people face an effort -- something that uses energy -- they refrain from it because the body it build to store energy lest no nuts and berries are found and/or the game goes scarce. The body is built for lean times so it naturally conserves energy. When faced with a choice to expend energy or not, it will usually not. For this reason starting a new activity is usually fraught with a certain level of dread. You don't know if you are really going to like the new activity and find it worth the effort and you dread wasting time and energy to find out. So you wait for the feeling that, "Yeah, I really want to do that" to come and when it doesn't you reinforce the conclusion that the thing you anticipated doing "isn't for me." Over time you lose interest in more and more things until boredom is all you know.

The solution? Self-discipline. Not the self-discipline of force but of choice. START something even if you don't feel like it. Nine times out of ten you will be okay once you do it for 5 minutes. Starting something takes your mind off pondering your boredom, feeling sorry for being bored, wondering why you are bored, and other useless thoughts. You are bored because you don't do something, not you are bored and thus you don't do something. Boredom is the result of not choosing to do something, not the cause.

Finally, if a person wants to be happy he or she needs only do two things. First, he or she must learn to accept what they have and be content with it. This does not mean no ambition, but instead, a realization and acceptance that where you are now, is okay. You aren't "behind," a "failure," or worse, "a loser." You are where you are and it's okay for now. Second, you must be self-disciplined. This simply means you must do what needs to be done to maintain your psychological equilibrium. And that means, proper sleep, diet, exercise, and the general avoidance of things that will upset that equilibrium -- drugs, including alcohol. Think about it. If you take drugs you are altering your psychological state and that means you are changing yourself chemically. Not only is that dangerous, it's not consistent. The biological effects of chemically induced mental states is usually not positive or if it is, it's positive only in the short run. Self-discipline can almost be synonymous with taking the long view. So get your sleep, eat right, exercise, avoid chemically induced psychological states, and START something whenever you get bored and want a dopamine jolt.

At least that's what I do and it works for me pretty well.

AJ

 

[Vergazi]

I've known people who have assaulted their brains with various chemicals and alcohol and in almost all cases it had a lasting effect on their mental/emotional states. In one case a guy swore he had no sense of taste after years of alcoholism. So, sometimes it's not a big philosophical issue and just plain self-abuse and neurological damage.

 

[DeletedUser20951]

Too much refined sugar

I've never eaten much sweets or sweetened food. Sweet!

You don't know if you are really going to like the new activity and find it worth the effort and you dread wasting time and energy to find out.

I usually know ahead of time if I will enjoy something, but it's not the uncertainty, it's exactly the amount of effort and time taken away from other obligations that draws the line. Dropping an adored hobby for a new shiney? No thanks.

Self-discipline.

*cackles*

First, he or she must learn to accept what they have and be content with it.

I do this. Why always look to what you don't have? What good is that?

This does not mean no ambition

Son of a witch!

the general avoidance of things that will upset that equilibrium

I do this, as well. Life is too short to spend it upset about stupid crap that doesn't mean much at all in the grand scheme of things.

drugs, including alcohol

Ah, Jesus, you're that kind? It's great to advise this, self-righteously, when you don't have physiological and/or mental addiction problems of your own. (yes, I'm assuming)

So get your sleep, eat right, exercise, avoid chemically induced psychological states, and START something whenever you get bored and want a dopamine jolt.

What's the true payoff, though? Measuring out your time left alive adhering to strict rules for a couple years (possibly a lot more, I'll grant) of continued existence? Do you enjoy thi- No, scratch that. Do you love it? *winks* Does it give you meaning in the void?

So, sometimes it's not a big philosophical issue and just plain self-abuse and neurological damage.

I've stated, clearly, the damage done to my brain by my own actions (and violence from others). How does that diminish the philosophical? I got here in a different route, I suppose, from what is generally taken, and, again, you reveal your own limitations with the limited view you possess of the circumstances of people different from yourself.

 

[Vergazi]

I've stated, clearly, the damage done to my brain by my own actions (and violence from others). How does that diminish the philosophical? I got here in a different route, I suppose, from what is generally taken, and, again, you reveal your own limitations with the limited view you possess of the circumstances of people different from yourself.

Once again you get reflexively defensive over something that is not a personal attack and then counter the imagined offense with a claim that I am either ignorant, bigoted or or in this case lacking compassion and empathy, which is the very definition of what you typed. You mentioned you "got here in a different route". what does that even mean in the context of this thread? It seems unclear to me. Oh, and I'm limited? Big shock there! We all have limitations of one sort or another, but, once again, you misjudge me. While I'm on that you seem very adept and judging people's motivations and intent with only a few typed words to go by. I wish I had such acumen. Since you seem to claim by your words possession of a comprehensive knowledge and discernment of other people I suppose I should remind you that there is a term for one who claims to be so all-knowing and wise. Now what could it be? ( scratches chin in thought ) Why yes, I do recall it after all. By some coincidence it just happens to be the third word in the quote on your signature line.

Happy Gaming! <3

 

[ajqtrz]

The claim that a person who suggests a particular course of action is not healthy is just being "self-righteous," -- as if the person making the suggestion is sitting smugly at their keyboard motivated by a sense of superiority and engaging in an act of self-aggrandizement -- must be warranted by something other than the claim itself. Think carefully. If that person makes the suggestion that your actions are damaging to you, is it not possible they are just motivated by concern for you? And even if they aren't don't forget, the "self-righteous" are sometimes actually right. Just because they are "self-righteous" doesn't make them wrong. In debate such a tactic would be considered an "ad hominem" remark because doesn't actually address the question at hand, but the motives of the speaker. My experience with it, and the people who use it, is that they are avoiding the question because they really don't have an answer to it. Often, in the case of drugs and alcohol they defend their right to use and abuse it because they can't let it go. That addiction might be as much psychological as physiological. Let me explain.

Most people have a vision of themselves. Since self-esteem is a necessary component of keeping a psychological balance, they spend a good deal of time defending that vision of themselves. It's called the "ideal self" and it is built of a lot of things we learn as a child, some good, some bad. Over time we find ourselves not so much striving to live that "ideal self" but instead, to get others to see us as being our "ideal self." This is not necessarily some vision of righteousness or goodness, but of whatever we think praiseworthy and valuable. And we want others to perceive us that way. If we love "brutal honesty" we want other to perceive us as "brutally honest." If we think "sensitive and caring" is ideal, we want others to perceive us as such. The list is long and complex, but the important thing to understand is that nobody ever lives up to their own vision of the ideal and thus, everybody has in their heart of hearts, a core of shame. "Everyone has missed the target and fallen short" of their own vision of reality, let alone that of the gods.

Response to this failure leads to one of two things. In a healthy person he or she either changes their vision of the "ideal self" to something they can accept and come reasonably close to achieving. This is what adults come to do over their adult lives. And it's a measure of emotional maturity. In an unhealthy person they either continue holding their ridiculous standards and engaging self-administered punishments -- (physiological, social and/or pshchological), or they pick some alternative standard and attempt to throw off the original one -- denying what they once praised they generally try to live the opposite standard. In other words they rebel and are proud of themselves for their rebellion (which is just another "ideal self" -- the "rebel").

In any case, the only real answer to the arrested development is honesty and trust. Being honest with ones self is very difficult because you have to confront the shame you feel in not living up to the ideal self or even the ideal self you got to when your rebelled! Whatever you vision of what you "ought" to be, you will fall short, often very, very short. Being honest with ones self is very difficult because when you are it can become so confusing. One moment you think you are this, the next that. Looking at your own heart too long will blind you. but you still have to look. Which is why you should never look alone, especially if you know you aren't healthy. That's where trust comes in. In the end you have to take the journey with someone --a someone who has "other eyes." That's where therapy comes in. A therapist is, or should be, your "other eyes." Your heart has a landscape and the therapist just helps you see the thing more clearly by pointing out the mountains and valleys.

The sick person is one who has stopped growing or slowed their growth due to addiction. It is not surprising that one of the chief characteristics of those engaged in long term drug and alcohol abuse is that they suffer from a slow down in their emotional growth. This is well documented and the reason a lot of forty-something musicians still dream of being a rock-star even when they have little to no talent. If you are forty-five and not yet a rock star you should realize that the boat left the harbor at least ten years ago and nobody's going to send it back to pick you up. But those with abuse problems grow more slowly so when they are 45 they are often psychologically 30. All of which is measurable and sad.

Just some thoughts.

 

[ajqtrz]

What's the true payoff, though? Measuring out your time left alive adhering to strict rules for a couple years (possibly a lot more, I'll grant) of continued existence? Do you enjoy thi- No, scratch that. Do you love it? *winks* Does it give you meaning in the void?

Sorry if I didn't answer this in the previous post. I know there's something about not multi-posting or something, but here's my answer to this question.

In Victor Frankl's "Man's Search for Meaning" we confront his experience in the Nazi concentration camps. In reading this book I found that the "grand" meaning of things greatly reduced in the lives of those in the camps. Most people eventually just looked to survival as enough justification. Nietzsche noted "he who has a why to live can endure almost any how." So the question is, why live?

Recently a British writer, David Benetar wrote, "Better Never to Have Been Born." In this work he argues that the pain and suffering of the world is not worth the existence of life. In other words, whatever value life offers, the pain is worse and we would be better to not have been born. That's his premise.

Now here's the thing. Pain as a value, is not measurable. It's subjective. Joy is also a subjective experience (taking joy as the opposite of pain, though, traditionally pleasure is usually used). And since they are both subjective experiences, it is impossible for anyone but the one living to say if his or her joy is worth the pain endured.

Suppose you are born and you live 120 years of torturous, agonizing, pain. Seven days a week, twenty-four hours a day, three-hundred-sixty-five days a year for 120 years. Except. When you are 77, on the third day of the the year, you awake and, suddenly, for only a brief moment, you experience the tiniest sliver of joy. Just a flash and it's gone and you are returned to your agonizing pain. What is the value of that single moment of joy?

One thing it tells you, and maybe the only thing, is that you can experience joy. Joy does exist. Think about it. A brief moment of the tiniest sense of joy tells you that your life isn't all pain. It isn't all agonizing torture. AND it tells you that there is something possible. Something you can, maybe, have again!

So out of that brief moment you get hope. In Frankl's book hope is the thing that keeps people going. But it's a certain kind of hope. It is not the "faith" that "we'll be home by Christmas" or "if I keep that flower alive I'll survive" because such specific things only meant, in Frankl's experience, that when the object of hope -- the Christmas, the flower -- passes, so will the hope, and invariably the people died. No, the hope is the sustaining kind build on just a general belief that eventually, things will change. It is survival hope, founded on the simple drive to survive.

So what's the purpose of all that self-discipline? Joy. What's the purpose of all that contentment? Joy. Happiness. We don't torture ourselves to live in pain but to live in joy and the pain of saying no to ourselves is, in the long run, saying yes to that joyous life.

Finally, is joy enough? The wisest of sages and most spiritual of the religious generally say it is. Some seek joy by denying the body, some by intellectual rigor, some by loving their neighbor. Other routes exist, but saying "yes" to life is what it's all about and the beginning of the journey to joy. At least that's what I've found in my own life.

AJ

 

[DeletedUser20951]

Once again you get reflexively defensive over something that is not a personal attack and then counter the imagined offense with a claim that I am either ignorant, bigoted or or in this case lacking compassion and empathy, which is the very definition of what you typed.

I was parodying your own frequent behavior, and your response did not disappoint. The irony is delicious!

If that person makes the suggestion that your actions are damaging to you, is it not possible they are just motivated by concern for you?

Often, they are, but where the self-righteousness and insulting connotations come into play is the suggestion that a complicated issue is solved in such a simple manner (just right yourself and fly straight), not to mention that most of this advice is neither asked for nor wanted in the majority of contexts. Screwed up people are usually aware of what they are doing 'wrong', and require greater assistance than just being told how they should be, instead. There tends to be a lot of missing understanding when someone has not faced the same hardships, which is why many counselors and the like are former addicts, too.

 

[DeletedUser]

I know there's something about not multi-posting or something

It's different here in The Lounge, you're not doing one or two-word replies. Plus, posts do have a length restriction, so you would have to split yours up anyway. So no worries.

 

[ajqtrz]

1) Length restrictions?! Oh dear! LOL

2) The problem with any pure text posting is that it's difficult to put your tone in it so that others can get when it's a parody, serious, or some other type of reply. Perhaps avoiding such responses would be best given how many times they are misunderstood -- which usually leads to the one doing the parody implying the one missing the parody is somehow at fault or at least should have seen it in the way intended. Intentions are internal and words often don't clearly convey them by themselves.

3) I agree that sometimes people who haven't experienced a thing might not understand and offer canned advice. However, I don't believe it's because they are self-righteous (though they might be) so much as ignorant. If the one talking is ignorant you can simply thank them for their words and ignore those words. Nothing lost in that. Or you can attempt to cure their ignorance by letting them know in what way they are ignorant. I have seen many instances of people assuming that the solution that appears to be simple, direct, and easy is the one that should be used because they do not understand the dynamics of the problem. But I have also seen the one facing the problem ignore the simple, direct and easiest solution by simply declaring the one giving the advice does not understand. The point is this: does the simple, direct and easy solution offered work, or does it not? Can the person do it or can they not?

Now often they cannot but if not then some reason must exist for them not being able to do so. Many just assume their failure is a lack of will-power or they are morally suspect. Both, of which, may be true enough. But most of the time I think the "lack of will-power" comes from an unwillingness to pay the price of adopting the solution. Sometimes the price is emotional, sometimes it's social, and sometimes it's physical. Often it's a combination of all three. One of the worse things a person can do when faced with a solution is attempt the solution before understanding what it will cost. An alcoholic may say "I'm quitting" and mean it until he or she finds out that not only do they have to quit drinking but they have to also quit hanging our with their friends and family, move to a new town, attend weekly AA meetings, endure withdrawal, endure relapse, pick themselves up again, and do it all over, sometimes for the rest of their lives. Addiction is one stubborn monkey and you never can be sure you killed it even if it's been dead for decades. My best friend, just two years ago, after twenty years of sobriety, relapsed when his brother died. Fortunately he called for help after a few drinks and the whole thing lasted only a day or so, but it scared him and made him realize the monkey wasn't as dead as he thought.

4) One of the best practices you can have in your relationships with others is to put the best face on anything they say. Instead of hearing the insult, make them say it plainly. They seldom will. To do this you generally just take their words and hear them without connotations implied. For instance, if you said to me, "You're an idiot!" it would be pretty clear you intended to insult me, right? But what if I am an idiot? What if the "insult" is just the truth of the matter? When somebody does this to me I consider what they are saying and assume they want the best for me. (I really do this MOST of the time but it took me years to train myself to do so). So I ask for clarification. "You say I'm an idiot?" I ask, followed by, "What have I done or said that is idiotic?" They are usually unprepared for taking the question because they were not communicating that they actually think I'm an idiot but that they are frustrated with me in one way or another. So by taking seriously their "insult" and responding as if it is a statement of their opinion and then asking them for their evidence, you turn away their anger and bring the topic back to the question -- because they have to actually deal with what you said or did and show that it was an "idiotic" thing to do or say. The insult is a label of a person, the label attached to words or actions is not an insult because you can't insult words or actions.

The other thing this does, as suggested at the beginning of the last paragraph, is to force them to actually be clear that they are insulting you. I can't remember anybody actually responding except to become exasperated because I refuse (in essence) to accept an insult.

Just further thoughts.

AJ

 

[DeletedUser19483]

*looks around with anger*
WHAT IS THIS BLASPHEMY?

Too much refined sugar

YOU YOU unscrupulous fiend!!!!! I'll have you know that one of the few good things about this SPECIES you call HUMANS is the sugar. To rob me the delight of the unrestricted consumption of this fabulous, heart-stopping, miraculous MARVEL by saying the diabolical words of TOO MUCH..... well...well shame.... SHAME I SAY.



BUT IS THIS THE END OF THE BETRAYAL???

I've never eaten much sweets or sweetened food.

*GASPS* YOU..... you Unenlightened barbarian. To even think of speaking words so foul..... so NAUSEATING. You disgust me. Any being that would deny the inner craving to their soul self through the consumption of this gift of greater being...... they are less then the very dirt that I grace with my greatness.

You two bring forth unfathomable agony in my very soul. MY VERY BEING with your degrading contemptible quarrel. I announce that you two be stricken from the annals of sugar history for what you said here.

what say you in your defense?

 

[DeletedUser20951]

you Unenlightened barbarian.

*blows on claws and buffs them on shirt* Why, thank you, for such a... sweet compliment. Eh? EH?!

I announce that you two be stricken from the annals of sugar history for what you said here.

what say you in your defense?

Wait, I don't want to mount a defense against this. I scorn sugar and sugar scorns me. It's a mutually gratifying distaste and loathing, truly. Now let your mother pray... SUGAR!!!

 

[Vergazi]

*looks around with anger*
WHAT IS THIS BLASPHEMY?


YOU YOU unscrupulous fiend!!!!! I'll have you know that one of the few good things about this SPECIES you call HUMANS is the sugar. To rob me the delight of the unrestricted consumption of this fabulous, heart-stopping, miraculous MARVEL by saying the diabolical words of TOO MUCH..... well...well shame.... SHAME I SAY.



BUT IS THIS THE END OF THE BETRAYAL???



*GASPS* YOU..... you Unenlightened barbarian. To even think of speaking words so foul..... so NAUSEATING. You disgust me. Any being that would deny the inner craving to their soul self through the consumption of this gift of greater being...... they are less then the very dirt that I grace with my greatness.

You two bring forth unfathomable agony in my very soul. MY VERY BEING with your degrading contemptible quarrel. I announce that you two be stricken from the annals of sugar history for what you said here.

what say you in your defense?

+1

 

[ajqtrz]

Hmmm.... too sweet or not too sweet, that is the question. Is it nobler to ingest and by ingestion suffer our pancreas it's sorrow, or to refrain, and by refraining end the sweetness? A life of dull and steady rhythms without the soaring of a Crispy Creme, Mrs Butterworth, Frosted Flakes and Snickers. Is it nobler sling at our pancreas arrows of sugary sweetness and pass too quickly away, or to refrain and by refraining add but a few more years to our tired, bland lives? Oh but wait? Perchance we have missed the candied message in refined sugar. For do not the angels have their sweetness? Is the color of refined sugar not white as snow? Mustn't Angel-food cake be made with sugar? Are not heavenly Crispy Cremes glazed?! Thus, it must be said, if we coat our lives with the crystal of sweetness, are we not merely rushing ourselves departure to the place of heavenly delights? A place where every cloud is powered? If so then let us go each morning to fetch our Crispy Cremes and pour our Mrs. Butterworth without restraint! Ingest on I say, ingest on! Cherish every powered, refined, and syrupy concoction and forget my previous errant post! I repent!

Does this get me off the hook? LOL

AJ

 

[DeletedUser20951]

Does this get me off the hook?

Melodrama absolves all sins. This is an undebatable fact, and why I am without fault, pristine in my stone-casti- *cries out and grasps temple as blood flows down face* SON OF A BOAR, WHO THREW THE RAZOR-FILLED ROCK?!

 

[DeletedUser]

**Smacks NA with dead salmon**

 

[DeletedUser19483]

Does this get me off the hook? LOL

AJ

Your plea is good. For now you shall be sent free back into the wild to explore this vast sugary world, but know my candy drop eyes are watching you......... always watching...... candy drop....*drools*

Melodrama absolves all sins. This is an undebatable fact, and why I am without fault, pristine in my stone-casti- *cries out and grasps temple as blood flows down face* SON OF A BOAR, WHO THREW THE RAZOR-FILLED ROCK?!

*whistles and takes out another rock* YOU ON THE OTHER HAND SHALL BE SENTENCED TO BANISHMENT FROM THIS LAND OF GUMDROPS AND DREAMS!!!!!