Art Bell Quits Dark Matter

[tertiaryimam]

Well sorry but I respectively, don't have time to google for you right now.  And since you disagreed what in the heck are your counter points?  Kind of a pathetic half ass quote me/comment on your part.  Speak up.

I think when we bring up the ethical issue of Ewok murder, we need to "tread lightly", to quote Reagan. For one, the very fact of being alive at all implies that our bodies are literally murdering billions of cells. Do these cells feel pain? If not, why not? Because they don't have central nervous systems? So do we then judge the ethics of how we treat other creatures based on the development --- or lack thereof --- of their central nervous system? If so, how can we be entirely sure that there isn't some other form of pain, independent of a central nervous system as classically conceived?

The book "The Secret Life of Plants" makes the case that plants may galvanically respond to stimuli in such a way that suggests they react to threatening situations --- a way which one might say mirrors what we call "pain". If that is so, then there is no ethical basis for treating a higher mammal any better than treating a plant. To the contrary, if that higher mammal is an Ewok, it might even be a virtue to treat it less well than a plant, insofar as it is --- to quote DANdre3000 --- a "furfagnuggin."

And, even here, we're not taking into account the fact that pain might not have some hidden benefit to the creature. The Carpocratian Gnostics, for instance, believed that no soul was liberated from the despair of astral determinism until it passed through all experiences. In such case, we might be helping the Ewok on its ascent to the Elysian fields by shooting it, skinning it, and selling its fur at a nice profit. Otherwise, the Ewok in question may never experience such and, consequently, remained enmeshed in Endor, subject to a life of subjection, poverty and exploitation at the hands of the bourgeoisie.

The Carpocratians, of course, can justify anything with their logic --- any horror --- but I would venture to say that it is an equally dangerous road to start defining beings merely on the basis of how developed their brains are. Rather, our concern should be money, power, and nutrition alone. Nothing holds as much consequence for our actual lives as these, and, as such, they alone should be the basis of any form of ethics.

The elephant-in-the-room question, though, is how many animals would --- given the chance --- treat us fairly and equitably? We are talking about creatures who will not hesitate to eat a youngster's hamster days after it was bought. A foul labrador will unreservedly turn over the hamster cage, allow the poor beast to run a few feet and then pounce upon it like a lion, devouring the squeaking bastard whole. Even Joseph Stalin had other people do his murdering --- whereas a common house-cat will willfully and choosefully pick apart a cricket with its paws, then fling the remaining corpse-pieces on your mint flavored ice cream for no conceivable reason other than cthonic murder-lust.

Would you trust such a beast with your ethical standards? I wouldn't.

[NefariousBanana]

WOW

Friday December 13, 2013
Hosted by Dave Schrader
Guest(s): Corey Taylor

Filling in for George, guest host Dave Schrader (email), welcomes frontman for rock bands Slipknot and Stone Sour, Corey Taylor, who will discuss his brushes with the supernatural world including seeing ghosts up close and personal in an abandoned house in his native Iowa as a child as well as recording with Slipknot in the fabled "Houdini" Hollywood Hills mansion.

Ok, I'm listening now.  Say what you want about his music, but Corey Taylor is an interesting dude.

[tertiaryimam]

[attachimg=1]

[Spooky Matter]

Okay tertman.  Thx for expounding.  And respectively I'm sorry I asked.  New nick for ya, Earthbound Nut.

[onan]

I think when we bring up the ethical issue of Ewok murder, we need to "tread lightly", to quote Reagan. For one, the very fact of being alive at all implies that our bodies are literally murdering billions of cells. Do these cells feel pain? If not, why not? Because they don't have central nervous systems? So do we then judge the ethics of how we treat other creatures based on the development --- or lack thereof --- of their central nervous system? If so, how can we be entirely sure that there isn't some other form of pain, independent of a central nervous system as classically conceived?

The book "The Secret Life of Plants" makes the case that plants may galvanically respond to stimuli in such a way that suggests they react to threatening situations --- a way which one might say mirrors what we call "pain". If that is so, then there is no ethical basis for treating a higher mammal any better than treating a plant. To the contrary, if that higher mammal is an Ewok, it might even be a virtue to treat it less well than a plant, insofar as it is --- to quote DANdre3000 --- a "furfagnuggin."

And, even here, we're not taking into account the fact that pain might not have some hidden benefit to the creature. The Carpocratian Gnostics, for instance, believed that no soul was liberated from the despair of astral determinism until it passed through all experiences. In such case, we might be helping the Ewok on its ascent to the Elysian fields by shooting it, skinning it, and selling its fur at a nice profit. Otherwise, the Ewok in question may never experience such and, consequently, remained enmeshed in Endor, subject to a life of subjection, poverty and exploitation at the hands of the bourgeoisie.

The Carpocratians, of course, can justify anything with their logic --- any horror --- but I would venture to say that it is an equally dangerous road to start defining beings merely on the basis of how developed their brains are. Rather, our concern should be money, power, and nutrition alone. Nothing holds as much consequence for our actual lives as these, and, as such, they alone should be the basis of any form of ethics.

The elephant-in-the-room question, though, is how many animals would --- given the chance --- treat us fairly and equitably? We are talking about creatures who will not hesitate to eat a youngster's hamster days after it was bought. A foul labrador will unreservedly turn over the hamster cage, allow the poor beast to run a few feet and then pounce upon it like a lion, devouring the squeaking bastard whole. Even Joseph Stalin had other people do his murdering --- whereas a common house-cat will willfully and choosefully pick apart a cricket with its paws, then fling the remaining corpse-pieces on your mint flavored ice cream for no conceivable reason other than cthonic murder-lust.

Would you trust such a beast with your ethical standards? I wouldn't.

What a bunch of pointless brain calisthenics. Galvanic response merely shows conductivity. The physiology of pain is a much more complicated subject.

To suggest there is no difference between killing for sustenance and affectation is... well a pointless argument.

[pepsiguy]

Damn

[Pam J.]

This was in the panhandle of Kansas where we were picking up swinging beef to take back to NYC.   

Kansas doesn't have a panhandle. In fact, quite the opposite: there's a bite out of the northeast corner of the state.

Don't question me, just Google it.

[jazmunda]

The inaugural GabCast 2.0 will be airing live in 10 minutes (Monday 12/9) from 8pm EST/5pm PST (12pm AEDT).

The GabCast features BellGab's own eddie dean, onan, b_dubb and jazmunda.

To listen live go to ufoship.com.

[tertiaryimam]

BTW I adore Sting and Trudy.

Re:  Brimstone and Treacle
Re:  The Grotesque

Two amazing fucking MUST see movies.  Styler is in The Grotesque.

I thought Sting's best movie was Labyrinth.

[CantFindTVRemote]

I think when we bring up the ethical issue of Ewok murder, we need to "tread lightly", to quote Reagan. For one, the very fact of being alive at all implies that our bodies are literally murdering billions of cells. Do these cells feel pain? If not, why not? Because they don't have central nervous systems? So do we then judge the ethics of how we treat other creatures based on the development --- or lack thereof --- of their central nervous system? If so, how can we be entirely sure that there isn't some other form of pain, independent of a central nervous system as classically conceived?

The book "The Secret Life of Plants" makes the case that plants may galvanically respond to stimuli in such a way that suggests they react to threatening situations --- a way which one might say mirrors what we call "pain". If that is so, then there is no ethical basis for treating a higher mammal any better than treating a plant. To the contrary, if that higher mammal is an Ewok, it might even be a virtue to treat it less well than a plant, insofar as it is --- to quote DANdre3000 --- a "furfagnuggin."

And, even here, we're not taking into account the fact that pain might not have some hidden benefit to the creature. The Carpocratian Gnostics, for instance, believed that no soul was liberated from the despair of astral determinism until it passed through all experiences. In such case, we might be helping the Ewok on its ascent to the Elysian fields by shooting it, skinning it, and selling its fur at a nice profit. Otherwise, the Ewok in question may never experience such and, consequently, remained enmeshed in Endor, subject to a life of subjection, poverty and exploitation at the hands of the bourgeoisie.

The Carpocratians, of course, can justify anything with their logic --- any horror --- but I would venture to say that it is an equally dangerous road to start defining beings merely on the basis of how developed their brains are. Rather, our concern should be money, power, and nutrition alone. Nothing holds as much consequence for our actual lives as these, and, as such, they alone should be the basis of any form of ethics.

The elephant-in-the-room question, though, is how many animals would --- given the chance --- treat us fairly and equitably? We are talking about creatures who will not hesitate to eat a youngster's hamster days after it was bought. A foul labrador will unreservedly turn over the hamster cage, allow the poor beast to run a few feet and then pounce upon it like a lion, devouring the squeaking bastard whole. Even Joseph Stalin had other people do his murdering --- whereas a common house-cat will willfully and choosefully pick apart a cricket with its paws, then fling the remaining corpse-pieces on your mint flavored ice cream for no conceivable reason other than cthonic murder-lust.

Would you trust such a beast with your ethical standards? I wouldn't.

Oh, to live in your brain for five minutes. You crack me up. Most people just don't get it.

[tertiaryimam]

Oh, to live in your brain for five minutes. You crack me up. Most people just don't get it.

You'd think the opening sentence "I think when we bring up the ethical issue of Ewok murder, we need to 'tread lightly', to quote Reagan." would tip them off, but, alas, it's not enough.

[DanTSX]

You'd think the opening sentence "I think when we bring up the ethical issue of Ewok murder, we need to 'tread lightly', to quote Reagan." would tip them off, but, alas, it's not enough.

Are you going to join the chat and podcast?
http://ufoship.com/chat/index.php

[tertiaryimam]

What a bunch of pointless brain calisthenics. Galvanic response merely shows conductivity. The physiology of pain is a much more complicated subject.

To suggest there is no difference between killing for sustenance and affectation is... well a pointless argument.

I think when we demonize the topic of Ewok killing as "pointless" --- for purposes of selling the fur to Sting's wife or otherwise --- we do an injustice to all conversation as a whole and, in fact, to all humanity.

[attachimg=1]

[CantFindTVRemote]

You'd think the opening sentence "I think when we bring up the ethical issue of Ewok murder, we need to 'tread lightly', to quote Reagan." would tip them off, but, alas, it's not enough.

The plight of a mad, satirical genius... Reagan. Still laughing.

[tertiaryimam]

Are you going to join the chat and podcast?
http://ufoship.com/chat/index.php

I listened for a bit but I got bored. Tell them they need more of the Australian guy. He's a card.

[tertiaryimam]

I listened for a bit but I got bored. Tell them they need more of the Australian guy. He's a card.

I turned it back on. Onan is talking about my fake joke post. Haha.

[tertiaryimam]

I turned it back on. Onan is talking about my fake joke post. Haha.

I went in the chat and it was all blank and the audio shut off. Fuck computers.

[Danger!UFO]

I think when we demonize the topic of Ewok killing as "pointless" --- for purposes of selling the fur to Sting's wife or otherwise --- we do an injustice to all conversation as a whole and, in fact, to all humanity.



[attachimg=1]

[Danger!UFO]

Got in late and missed GabCast. Just caught the end. Does it repeat tonight or do I wait fir the podcast? What happened? Any news?

[Snoreman]

I thought Sting's best movie was Labyrinth.

That was David Bowie.

[DanTSX]

I thought Sting's best movie was Labyrinth.

I enjoyed him in Mister Baseball

less codpiece

[DanTSX]

First question.  Is that real! Do you have proof it's not faux fur?  First point.  MOST faux fur is NOT!  The fuckers still keep caged and then tortured many beautiful and smaller creatures adding it to their supposed faux fur that we fucking buy at Christmas time in the form of FAUX FUR collars, scarves, ear muffs, gloves, etc... It is appalling.

Second question.  What if this is real?  What if her grandmother passed it down?  Second point.  Is she not supposed to wear it when it's so beautiful and an heirloom at that.  And if you think that, then think about this, it's a little fucking late for the animals who were killed for it.

Third and final question.  Do any of you eat meat, at all ever?  These animals suffer intolerably as well.  I've been to a slaughter house and I can assure you, you must have serial killer tendencies to work in one.  I could not eat meat for a decade after that experience.  This was in the panhandle of Kansas where we were picking up swinging beef to take back to NYC.  Third point.  When I see meat being marked down and I know the next place is the trash can, I will occasionally buy it thinking I have at least honored this poor creature and that it did not suffer in pure vain.

Off topic, the best most tender meats, like fruit are kept to rot initially which tenderizes it tremendously by breaking down certain proteins.  Don't question anything I said.  Just google it and draw your own conclusions.

I am not concerned about the fur

I am

OUT

FOR

BLOOD

[tertiaryimam]

Got in late and missed GabCast. Just caught the end. Does it repeat tonight or do I wait fir the podcast? What happened? Any news?

Sarah Brestlin is actually an even sexier ghost hunter named Kris.

[jazmunda]

I listened for a bit but I got bored. Tell them they need more of the Australian guy. He's a card.

I can never tell when you are being serious or when you are taking the piss. Not looking for adulation if you were being the former but would like some constructive criticism if it's the latter.

[DanTSX]

I can never tell when you are being serious or when you are taking the piss. Not looking for adulation if you were being the former but would like some constructive criticism if it's the latter.

You don't sound like an Australian.

You sound like a New Zealander.

[tertiaryimam]

I can never tell when you are being serious or when you are taking the piss. Not looking for adulation if you were being the former but would like some constructive criticism if it's the latter.

All of what I will say on this post will be dead fucking serious:

When I tuned in the first time the show sounded like it was lagging abit and I've always liked your calls to Art Bell or the Specsheet, so the first thought which came to my mind was "More Jazmunda!" But I didn't really hear enough of the show to make an informed comment. Once I listen to the whole thing I'll let you know. When will the downloadable version be up?

[DanTSX]

All of what I will say on this post will be dead fucking serious:

When I tuned in the first time the show sounded like it was lagging abit and I've always liked your calls to Art Bell or the Specsheet, so the first thought which came to my mind was "More Jazmunda!" But I didn't really hear enough of the show to make an informed comment. Once I listen to the whole thing I'll let you know. When will the downloadable version be up?

There is a good thread about midgits in general discussion

[tertiaryimam]

There is a good thread about midgits in general discussion

Are those like ewoks?

[DanTSX]

Are those like ewoks?

There is a midgit living inside each ewok.

If you cut their head off, a midgit pops out free to live it's life in peace.

Kind of like in Sonic the Hedgehog, when you spin attack one of Robotnik's attack bots, a cute little animal jumps out to freedom.

The cut has to be VERY precise.  You MUST use a Ginsu blade made by a German blacksmith with 20 years experience, or the midgit will die upon their birth.  Hell of a mess.


This midgit's name is Sample

[jazmunda]

You don't sound like an Australian.

You sound like a New Zealander.

Them's fighting words. Which is surprising coming from a Canadian like you.

Where's my pistol?