Cyborg Posted May 17, 2004 Share Posted May 17, 2004 It was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nampigai Posted May 17, 2004 Share Posted May 17, 2004 as I recall there was blood, and as I recall he was screaming. I've read and heard about the ones claiming the clip was false and I really couldn't care less if it was or not. What I've seen seemed very real. Nonetheless had he been dead they still molested his corpse in my eyes they are not human. There is no excuse what so ever for what they've done.As for his colour, have any of you ever been sat in his possision? I'd bet my right arm that if you were you'd be as pale as a dead man! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyborg Posted May 17, 2004 Share Posted May 17, 2004 I'd bet my right arm that if you were you'd be as pale as a dead man!Therefore I didn't mention that.Of course there was blood in the clip, but the screaming came from the person performing the "ritual". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolf Posted May 17, 2004 Share Posted May 17, 2004 I'm fairly certain the Bergs know how their son screams, or at least what his voice sounds like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nyarlathotep Posted May 17, 2004 Share Posted May 17, 2004 What ever the current discussion may be, I think we all agree that it was absolute horror and hope that this won't happen to another soul (we can hope can we ?). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dante Posted May 17, 2004 Share Posted May 17, 2004 Hoping for the impossible is kind of delusional isn't it? This kind of thing will continue to happen, we might as well accept that and stop calling it names, and instead work on how to stop giving people reasons to do this in the first place. If they can't justify their actions, we'll be on our way.Optimists are happy, pessimists are correct. I'm not so sure about that; does not the existence of happiness and/or "good things" sort of prove that pessimists are actually incorrect in an absolute sense? Therefore making both philosophies, optimisim and pessimism, equally valid? Happiness is fleeting and only lasts as long as there is something to make you happy. Unhappiness is lasting and will continue even when there's nothing specific to take you unhappy (either through lack of something to make you happy or through boredom). Still, this is by the by really... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolf Posted May 17, 2004 Share Posted May 17, 2004 One; you've taken a class in existentialism, havn't you? Schopenhauer would be my guess, or it could be Nietzsche.Two; even with your explanation, I still think that you're incorrect. Unhappiness is not lasting, since happiness exists -- regardless of how fleeting happiness may or may not be. You say unhappiness is lasting, but, how can it last when there is such a thing as happiness? For unhappiness to last in an absolute sense, an individual would have to be happy and unhappy at the same time. There is just as much a guarantee that an individual will be unhappy in the future as he will be happy. Basically, Dust, I think what you meant to say was that there is more unhappiness than happiness -- not that unhappiness is an absolutem, which is plain wrong. Besides, its possible for individuals to be happy more than they are unhappy... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dante Posted May 17, 2004 Share Posted May 17, 2004 Ok, maybe I didn't explain myself properly. The basic feeling of a mind recieving no stimulus would be neutral, quickly becoming boredom and thus unhappiness. This state will continue until something changes to make the mind happy. Happiness will last until boredom sets in, or the happy stimulus ceases. Of course a new stimulus may make the mind happy for longer. The point is that without constant 'happy stimuli,' the mind will revert to being bored and unhappy. Where it has time to think. Happiness doesn't allow the time for reflection, because reflection is generally sombre. This was nicely put in a newspaper cartoon I once read (Calvin and Hobbes, little gem...)"I'm happy.""But I'm not euphoric.""And now I'm not happy because I'm not euphoric.""I need to stop thinking while I'm ahead."I paraphrased but you get the idea. Thinking is depressing because it leads to inevitable but unpalatable conclusions. As for the existentialism, I actually haven't taken any classes, though I've flipped through a book on Nietzsche and learnt about Schopenhauer's leaf example. No, most of my thinking comes from my own mind, as well as a year long class in Higher Philosophy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolf Posted May 17, 2004 Share Posted May 17, 2004 Ahh, I see, Dust. Still, unhappiness is not absolute; you are not unhappy all the tame. Perhaps that is where we are miscommunicating? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dante Posted May 17, 2004 Share Posted May 17, 2004 Maybe. I think I'm having some trouble getting my point across as I would like to do it. It's late, I'm tired, but I'm trying. :)Very trying... Heh heh... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts