No, this is fucking ugly, no arguments:Originally Posted by Strangelove
No, this is fucking ugly, no arguments:Originally Posted by Strangelove
beauty is in the eye of the beholderOriginally Posted by JPaul
I understand your statement.
I don't agree with it.
"They revelled in the harmony and lived as one with the world, of which they were part. They celebrated the beauty and majesty and built their lives around it. "
To which ancestors are you referring?
At what point did these romanticised ancestors morph into us?
"We have seperated ourselves. We cut nature down and polute it with the smoke from our pyres. We have turned against our mother and now despoil her, like errant children"
"Nature" has, and will continue to, reward one trait above all others- adaptability which leads to survival.
Successfully exploiting one's niche in the ecosystem is not a shortcoming, it is a biological imperative.
Species who fail at this prime directive disappear, those who are successful dominate until a more aggressively adaptable replacement arrives or the ecosystem itself changes (or is changed).
How do you justify arbitrarily placing our species outside the rules/domain of "Nature" as if we sprung, full-fledged, from another continuum?
Did we not arise ( either in seven days or over the span of millenia, take your pick) from the same wellspring as the beatified beaver or the lowly cockroach?
Clockmakers everywhere are curious....
"I am the one who knocks."- Heisenberg
It is only a matter of opinion, if I knew an accountant he or she would live up to a rigid stereotype and attempt to use mathematics, no doubt, to explain it thusly:Originally Posted by Mr JP Fugley
In the beginning we can agree that all that existed was nature. We can also agree that nature is a positive thing, beauty is a positive thing but ugliness is a negative thing.
As time progresses then the varients of nature become more varied, twisted, even. This is a natural process some call evolution. Genes are added to, divided and multiplied in this process.
Given that a positive thing when multiplied, divided or added to can only remain positive in a world full of positives then the process that allowed modern man to exist must have been beautiful.
If all that exists is nature then all that man does is natural.
If we are to be as rigid as your first post dictates then we can conclude that:
All nature is beautiful => Ugliness cannot exist.
I do not subscribe to that.
Originally Posted by JPaul
Or maybe the most dangerous ugly is not the ugly which man creates, it is the ugly that exists within man?
Last edited by Everose; 11-25-2004 at 02:27 PM. Reason: To take a little ugly from JP's World. :-)
Well, 'but' is a conjunction and was probably used in lieu of a comma, if I read it correctly.Originally Posted by Mr JP Fugley
I don't believe a comma is strictly necessary in that sentence.
You do appear to have a bit of a weak spot with the old comma-age, JP
Stops you Glossing over the facts...Originally Posted by Mr JP Fugley
I have added the comma, but am having a hard time doing away with the 'but.' (and no, dieting is not the answer) Any suggestions?
Thank you, JP, for your help.
Last edited by Everose; 11-25-2004 at 02:37 PM. Reason: ooooooopppppssss.....forgot a comma. lol!!!
Bookmarks