>
>>I thought that was the British spelling of tobacco.
> The british spelling is
> "gradual death inducement smoked by thick twats who defend their
>stupidity with empty cliches"
Please point out my cliches ... that hurts.
> Eva wrote:
>>>2.) I also find it very strange, to say the least, that Nate would
>>>advocate watching TV on drugs as harmless, in contrast to camping on
>>>drugs.
>> Nate Replied:
>>I'm afraid I don't see whats so strange here... I was trying to contrast
>>passive activities with active ones. For instance, I had the misfortune
of
>>attending Lollapalooza ... a large rock concert ... a couple of years
ago.
>> It should have been a fairly passive activity. People were throwing an
>>individual up in the air using their blankets. Pretty soon the activity
>>caught on and idiots were doing it with bed sheets and sleeping bags.
Tony wrote:
> Nate, you really should light up less and lighten up more.
Nate replied:
I suspect you've missed my point. I don't give a shit that the revelers
are doing something that is obviously going to get them hurt. I mildly
resented the fact that one of them was being carried out on a backboard in
a neck brace surrounded by security. One of the security guys bumped me as
I was carrying 4 beers back to my blanket. I spilled about half of it.
That pissed me off. But WHAT REALLY PISSED ME OFF was that security then
began patrolling the concert grounds enforcing order.
If society would allow natural selection to operate unimpeded then I could
accept your "lighten up" attitude. I don't give a fuck about the
consequences of YOUR ACTIONS FOR YOURSELF OR YOUR KIN. Its when your
actions directly affect me or cause the Leviathan to affect me that I
grumble about what an insufferable felcher you are.
Tony wrote:
> I sense that you are always behaving responsibly. Surely then
>for you it would be all the more fantastic to behave irresponsibly. We
>all need a healthy ratio. 100 percent of any extreme is irresponsible.
Nate replied:
Not really ... but I do keep the downside in mind. My standard rap here is
about the difference between "adventure" and "fucking up". Stupid people
seem to confuse fucking up with adventure ..." We all got real drunk and
then went out and chased each other on our trail bikes" ... that's fucking
up when you do it around me because I don't want to run the risk of you
running over my camp site with your bike. "I waited 'till the drunks
passed out and then increased the slack in the brake cables on their trail
bikes" ... that's adventure.
>>
>>I contend that even when jungle explorers are camping in a KOA campground
>>drinking one 3.2 beer the consequences of a stupid action are more severe
>>than at home. Really this is a pet peeve of mine ... watching people do
>>unsafe things with coleman stoves, hatchets, fire arms, etc. just pisses
>>me off because eventually I end up paying for the consequences of their
>>actions...even if its just a slightly higher campground fee to support
the
>>ranger who comes around to make sure I'm OK.
> Its all relative. Staying in your tent is safer than venturing
>out. Staying at home is safer than going camping. Never being born is
>safer than being born. Not smoking is safer than smoking. Firing a
>shotgun in your mouth is safer than telling your girlfriend she is
>slightly overweight.
> and all of this is safer than mountaineering.
Tony, You FAT DUMB UNCUT STINKING WELSH PIG, You've missed the point again.
I only care when I have to share the costs of the risks that you take.
Climb all the mountains you want as long as my tax dollars don't get spent
on your inevitable rescue.
>>
>>Nate to Eva wondering what's more dangerous exposure to memes or exposure
to reality:
>>I find it strange that you see nothing weird about getting into a
>>suggestible state as long as you control what is being suggested. In
what
>>way are the memes propagated by TV dangerous? Are you saying that by
>>watching TV on drugs I'm more likely to go out and emulate Jason from
>>Friday the 13th or to believe I can fly ala Art Linkletter's daughter?
Or
>>are you saying by watching TV on drugs I'll go out and purchase bounty
>>paper towels over the store brand? What is the danger of exposing myself
>>to TV in a suggestible state?
Tony arguing that memetic infection is more dangerous then blithely defying
Newton's laws:
> For an individual the danger is small, but overall the net
>effect of allowing yourself to be influenced by adverts is that one
>(unelected) conglomeration will eventually rule the world, I am
>surprised you dont realise this.
Nate's reply:
Frankly I would rather be ruled by an unelected conglomeration bent on
manipulating demand then the elected shills who currently subjugate me.
Economic boycotts seem more effective then voting.
Eva seems like an eminently reasonable individual. I happen to disagree
with her about the relative dangers of physical action in a suggestive
state of consciousness vs. passive media exposure. I can imagine a
McDonald's commercial that says ... "Our food tastes great when you're
stoked. But you should buy it before you've toked." The commercial would
show some teenagers going to McDonald's cleareyed, purchasing their food,
and returning to their home to light up over a sack full of hamburgers. It
is in McDonald's best interest to keep their restaurant relatively free of
stoned individuals. <Parking, Customer Throughput, etc.> while still
propagating "the munchies are cool" meme since it increases sales.
McDonald's is an offensive entity on several levels of abstraction ...
Locally their memes prevent diversity ... Mom and Pop hamburger joints
don't stand a chance against the mighty clown. Globally they waste
resources to propagate their memes...styrofoam containers with the company
logo, etc.. But, I feel that I can have more impact on how McDonald's does
business then on how my country is run. McDonald's has become "greener"
overall then the American Govt.. If I could convince McDonald's it was in
their economic best interest to encourage drug use they would ... which is
more than I can say for getting the American Govt. to adopt a rational drug
policy. My point is that advertising memes all have a built in feedback
mechanism ... consumption. I don't think that advertising tries to create
value memes so much as ride them and propagate the ones that benefit the
product. For instance, since you're a foul breathed Welsh pig I can expect
you to lose your teeth before you're 50. Will I think your puss got uglier
because I've been influenced by the toothpaste advertisements or because I
am genetically programmed to find youth more appealing? Govt. on the other
hand overtly controls behavior. The reason that security was escalated at
Lollapalooza was not because the promoters were worried about the welfare
of the audience ... they were worried about torts. Similarly, society
controls behavior because society must pick up the cost of the
consequences.
> BTW, since I have called you a cunt and been generally rather
antagonistic I feel > the need to spell something out:
I love you man,
Right back at you .
O and everybody else on this list, except of course for Drakir, who is a
cunt.
Couldn't agree with you more ;->{)=.
Hope you don't mind a bit of the same.
In message <c=US%a=_%p=NCR%l=DAYTONOH/AOHSDCG1/00035B17@aohsdcg1.daytono
h.ncr.com>, "Gifford, Nate F" <giffon@SDCPOS3B.DAYTONOH.ncr.com> writes
>>A progagating suicide meme is viable if it can garner converts fast
enough
>><"The War To End All Wars"> or if it occurs late enough in life for the
>>carriers to reproduce and propagate the meme <The Hemlock Society,
>>Kevorkian, Steppenwolf, Smoking>.
Tony must have plagerised a good idea:
> I think it is interesting to consider what might be the effect
>on smokers if the risk of smoking was realised (unchanged in size) in
>different ways, e.g.
> 1) As soon as you smoke a ciggy you must roll the dice which
>subjects you to the apropriate risk of getting fatal cancer there and
>then.
I would love to have one of those dice. Instead of going through the
hassle of lighting up I would throw my 10,000 sided die. 9,999 sides would
equal some pleasurable payoff. One side would be death.
> 2) Each ciggy brings foreward your death by x mins (and you know
>the date).
If I knew the time and method of my death ... and if I were assured that as
long as I did not smoke I would live a long and healthy life ... then
maintaining my addiction would not be rational. On the other hand, if I
knew that I was going to die in a car crash next year then I'd be
chainsmoking Camel unfiltereds.
Nate wrote:
>>
>>A meme that I see as very similar to suicide is procreation. Have you
ever
>>noticed how many people who swear they'll never have children don't get
>>themselves neutered? I have a friend who was going ape shit because he
>>thought his wife had gotten pregnant and his self-indulgent yuppie
>>lifestyle was in danger. But even after that scare he didn't want to get
>>his seminiferous tubules tied.
Tony replied:
> A "have the snip attitude" is corelated with a "I am so sure of
>what I want that nothing will ever change my mind" attitude.
Your preconceived notion of me as an anal retentive cunt is getting in the
way of me making my point you mis-bred coprapage ... God help us if you've
already propagated. Given my mental picture of you whatever progeny your
wife has born are probably the postman's anyway.
There is an economic cost to having children. People who claim to have
chosen not to incur that cost still incur health costs to hedge their bets.
This is particuarly pathetic since the person bearing the cost is the
woman ... while technology could hedge the man's bet. The man could freeze
a litre of his sperm <Metric math problem: 10cc per ejaculation, 1 litre =
how many trips to the sperm bank?>. I'm only aware of this because I was
concerned about my wife's health. It was my impression that the risks of
taking birth control pills after 35 or so are on par with smoking. Perhaps
a more informed reader could give me a more accurate notion of what the
risks are.
Nate:
>>Any ideas for making vasectomies/tubals cooler?
Tony:
> Advertise them heavily.
> "Since I had all the sperm removed from my ejaculations eight
>out of ten girls say the taste has improved.
Who picks up the tab? The idea of postponing child rearing is in the
pharmaceutical company's best interests, while the idea of preventing it
altogether is not.