Best Ever Albums

Re: Morrissey

alelsupreme — Mon, 15 Aug 2011 13:25:30 GMT

Author: alelsupreme

Posted: 08/15/2011 17:25

Jhereko wrote:

mooseboy101 wrote:

Jhereko wrote:

itsit wrote:

mooseboy101 wrote:

itsit wrote:

aisn't

Holy shit, we need to add this word to the oxford english dictionary.

Mixture of ain't and isn't.

So then what does itsit mean?

It's an ice cream

and it's fucking delicious.

Oh Its It for some bizaree reason I was reading it as It Sit :lol:

Basically I couldn't think of a name so I looked at whatever album was playing on spotify at the moment. I happened to be listening to something from the remix album Its-It by The Sugarcubes so I went with that.

Re: Morrissey

Anonymous — Mon, 15 Aug 2011 10:57:05 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 08/15/2011 14:57

mooseboy101 wrote:

Jhereko wrote:

itsit wrote:

mooseboy101 wrote:

itsit wrote:

aisn't

Holy shit, we need to add this word to the oxford english dictionary.

Mixture of ain't and isn't.

So then what does itsit mean?

It's an ice cream

and it's fucking delicious.

Oh Its It for some bizaree reason I was reading it as It Sit 🤣

Re: Morrissey

mooseboy101 — Mon, 15 Aug 2011 09:24:15 GMT

Author: mooseboy101

Posted: 08/15/2011 13:24

Jhereko wrote:

itsit wrote:

mooseboy101 wrote:

itsit wrote:

aisn't

Holy shit, we need to add this word to the oxford english dictionary.

Mixture of ain't and isn't.

So then what does itsit mean?

It's an ice cream

and it's fucking delicious.

Re: Morrissey

Anonymous — Mon, 15 Aug 2011 06:47:15 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 08/15/2011 10:47

itsit wrote:

mooseboy101 wrote:

itsit wrote:

aisn't

Holy shit, we need to add this word to the oxford english dictionary.

Mixture of ain't and isn't.

So then what does itsit mean?

Re: Morrissey

alelsupreme — Mon, 15 Aug 2011 05:16:46 GMT

Author: alelsupreme

Posted: 08/15/2011 09:16

I like Jack's as well.

Re: Morrissey

mooseboy101 — Sun, 14 Aug 2011 15:04:09 GMT

Author: mooseboy101

Posted: 08/14/2011 19:04

itsit wrote:

mooseboy101 wrote:

itsit wrote:

aisn't

Holy shit, we need to add this word to the oxford english dictionary.

Mixture of ain't and isn't.

Exactly 😁 😁

Re: Morrissey

Jackwc — Sun, 14 Aug 2011 13:36:40 GMT

Author: Jackwc

Posted: 08/14/2011 17:36

itsit wrote:

mooseboy101 wrote:

itsit wrote:

aisn't

Holy shit, we need to add this word to the oxford english dictionary.

Mixture of ain't and isn't.

Aisn't - something this isn't very Asian.

Re: Morrissey

alelsupreme — Sun, 14 Aug 2011 13:35:53 GMT

Author: alelsupreme

Posted: 08/14/2011 17:35

mooseboy101 wrote:

itsit wrote:

aisn't

Holy shit, we need to add this word to the oxford english dictionary.

Mixture of ain't and isn't.

Re: Morrissey

Anonymous — Sun, 14 Aug 2011 13:23:23 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 08/14/2011 17:23

mooseboy101 wrote:

This threads still going?

You could say Morrissey has started something he couldn't finish.

Re: Morrissey

Jackwc — Sun, 14 Aug 2011 13:08:26 GMT

Author: Jackwc

Posted: 08/14/2011 17:08

hairymarx1 wrote:

"Man's ideas, views and conceptions, in one word, man's consciousness, changes with every change in the condition of his material existence, in his social relations and his social life".

In other words, unlike animals, we have a history that socially, materially and consciously evolves. Far from being the case that human nature cannot be changed, the capacity for change and development is an essential part of human nature. It is one of the key things which distinguishes us from other animals.

In short, it follows that the "human nature" of competiveness is therefore a product of a moment in time that is shaped by specific socioeconomic relations attributable to class and the social divisions that is implied by it.

I hope you now understand.

This could be an argument in favor of moral relativism perhaps, but I don't feel it proves in favour of competitiveness being a symptom of a class system. Though, from what I've read of your arguments so far, it really seems like you're focusing on "violent" form of competition, as opposed to more subtle forms of competition, such as competing for a mate.

...also, I'm gonna go ahead and move this to another thread in the Lounge.

Re: Morrissey

Anonymous — Sun, 14 Aug 2011 12:12:57 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 08/14/2011 16:12

mooseboy101 wrote:

itsit wrote:

aisn't

Holy shit, we need to add this word to the oxford english dictionary.

You realise this means now if you make one typo everyone has licence to give you a really hard time about it, right?

Re: Morrissey

mooseboy101 — Sun, 14 Aug 2011 11:33:31 GMT

Author: mooseboy101

Posted: 08/14/2011 15:33

itsit wrote:

aisn't

Holy shit, we need to add this word to the oxford english dictionary.

Re: Morrissey

Anonymous — Sun, 14 Aug 2011 09:20:44 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 08/14/2011 13:20

[quote="hairymarx1"]Anyway, back on topic: Morrissey is a prick.[/quote]

at least we agree on this

Re: Morrissey

alelsupreme — Sun, 14 Aug 2011 08:16:47 GMT

Author: alelsupreme

Posted: 08/14/2011 12:16

It's turned from "Man, aisn't Morrissey a douche?" to Hairymarx and Purple debating exactly why and when humans became pricks.

Re: Morrissey

mooseboy101 — Sat, 13 Aug 2011 20:52:51 GMT

Author: mooseboy101

Posted: 08/14/2011 00:52

This threads still going?

Re: Morrissey

Cryptozoologist — Sat, 13 Aug 2011 17:48:50 GMT

Author: Cryptozoologist

Posted: 08/13/2011 21:48

Shouldn't this be moved to the Lounge? It isn't about music.

Anyway, epic thread.

Re: Morrissey

hairymarx1 — Sat, 13 Aug 2011 15:53:31 GMT

Author: hairymarx1

Posted: 08/13/2011 19:53

Anyway, back on topic: Morrissey is a prick.

Re: Morrissey

hairymarx1 — Sat, 13 Aug 2011 15:38:54 GMT

Author: hairymarx1

Posted: 08/13/2011 19:38

purple wrote:

I don't know how many times you have to be told that we are animals, regardless of conscientiousness, and that the laws of biology apply to animals

It's "consciousness" not "conscientiousness". I've already explained to another poster that sociobiology is a pseudo science but you don't seem to be able to grasp this fact. The 'laws of genetics' are a myth. You are regurgitating nonsense propagated by people like Desmond Morris who perceives humans as "the naked ape". ..Its rubbish. It's a caricature of human behaviour.

As Aristotle commented, humans are "social beings"....In other words, we do not exist in isolation of one another but we rely on cooperation to meet our needs. That is the "life" you referred to earlier. You cannot separate the one from the other. This is also true of animals..But unlike other animals, we are able to consiously shape our own environment over time for the better. Unlike animals, therefore, we change with changing circumstances.

Human nature is therefore not fixed. So although greed, selfishness and competition are a feature of todays world, it wasn't always so. In fact, to repeat, for 99 per cent of our history, these WERE NOT features of our "human nature".

So what is human nature?

The truth is that it incorporates many characteristics. But here is the important point, relevant to the discussion: We are not INHERENTLY competitive. The anthropologists have confirmed this. As humans we are a distinct biological species, possessing quite a specific genetic human code. This genetic code determines the basic physical structure of human beings.

Whereas animals act predominently instinctively and thus repetitevely through generations to meet their needs, human labour is learned and develops, to meet theirs. In all probability it was our collaborative labour relations that led to the development of language. In turn language is decisive in the development of human social consciousness. Culture can then be learned and passed on from one generation to the next.

So at this stage, the main features of "human nature" can be summarized thus: Humans are a distinct biological species with certain common basic needs which are met through collaborative social labour leading to the development of language, social consciousness and culture.

As humans transform their environment they also transform themselves and their relations with others. As the form of production changes so does the organization of society. As we move from hunting and gathering to agriculture and from agriculture to craft manufacture and industry, so we move from the small nomadic clan to the settled village to the town and the modern nation. In the process, human behaviour and attitudes change radically.

Karl Marx put it like this:

"Man's ideas, views and conceptions, in one word, man's consciousness, changes with every change in the condition of his material existence, in his social relations and his social life".

In other words, unlike animals, we have a history that socially, materially and consciously evolves. Far from being the case that human nature cannot be changed, the capacity for change and development is an essential part of human nature. It is one of the key things which distinguishes us from other animals.

In short, it follows that the "human nature" of competiveness is therefore a product of a moment in time that is shaped by specific socioeconomic relations attributable to class and the social divisions that is implied by it.

I hope you now understand.

Re: Morrissey

Anonymous — Sat, 13 Aug 2011 14:28:02 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 08/13/2011 18:28

I don't know how many times you have to be told that we are animals, regardless of conscientiousness, and that the laws of biology apply to animals

Re: Morrissey

hairymarx1 — Sat, 13 Aug 2011 14:07:18 GMT

Author: hairymarx1

Posted: 08/13/2011 18:07

purple wrote:

this is what you don't understand hairy, that the accepted thought is that competition rules animals and we are animals, so we are competitive (maybe if I and others say this enough times we can drill it into your head). we aren't applying biology to the social world, we are applying it to life, which is what it is meant to be applied to; the social realm is dependent upon life. you're also right I have no idea what your class before competition argument is on about because it makes no sense.

It makes perfect sense. Maybe you do not understand what the formation of class, as a direct result of socioeconomic relations, is? I cannot legislate for your lack of knowledge and understanding on this issue...Again we are not the same as other animals. Unlike other animals, we have developed a consciousness...I don't know how many times I've got to tell you this before it sinks in? The rationale of why we are NOT inherently competitive was explained to you when I cited the anthropologist, Richard Lee. You asked for evidence, I supplied it..Now you want to conveniently ignore it, because it doesn't fit in with your pre-conceived ideas.