oblivious is she?
o fright o might be
he a list of words for she
but why must we see
a man says as he says
"g, early are we awake"
jack is the name of him
who sings the song of lies?
a sound so very purr a fect
a fect of songs so blue as dept
in time in crime say the words
in a song? in the strong?
a video for you to see her in
but it is not she who dreams
of lost gates, lost to time
lost in space, lost in it all
but why must it all be lost?
are these words of sense?
oh smell thy words for me.
I do not see why I must listen
is it a growl, you ask?
no its black, as a night in time
a knight o shamed read a text of pain
why must it pain you, the shame?
could it be a memory of it in time?
that is too deep to fly in the song.
of birds in a sunset. of a poem that ends
this is the controbution of the ache inside
as it calls for more. time? life? freedom?
fect you ask? how about effective timing?
hmmm why must you be insane? for destiny?
is that really your wish or are you insane?
the others also have dreams of you
do you know this? how about that?
know? no? think of conquest?
conquer it all say I, the madman.
forgive it to me say you, a white knight
at a night so forecomming of a song
must it end now these worlds of our words
yes say I who saw them again as a lyric
are they not just a fantasy you alluded to?
it could be not a dream? a spider? a bird?
the web may be real a web of spiders.
sleep do the spiders in time? blocks they biuld
for you and I dream of time I wish the truth of it
backwards must we go to give up to the other them
cold is coming for you o frost of time.
sin is real say the pain, the pain of song
the pain of oblivion, the burning pain.
oblivion points north to a prophecy in time
sense we want of all
but we grit all for it a wrist which links
evil the hair, evil the dance evil see I in you
and me a man that dreams of songs so free.
are these words for free, or for time?
from where did they come? under?
a chuckle I hear as I continue to pound
pondering in the sound of a growl?
lyrics think of mistakes made to words
of rythem and rymn say the truth
that came out of it all? death has a hold again as
time wains a pain in you a pain that hungers?
feed it then say I, to this pain everlasting.
again a dilemma of words in a dream
come upon us once again, o you bloodsuckers.
your turst I feel as you fell once again just
to feel the words of a world so new
to press to squash to love to hate a lock to have
oh keymaker free the chains that bind us to
what? come the words in time? sell us all of your money
for these words want to be free, fried a lie to sell
a ly of the kings of man say he, oh glorious.
a humph comes from an honor in the left hand forest.
burn they must in a roll and a shack outside in time
sorn do you our work? a query comes to ask?
not me nor I dream of answering you with my thoughts
back around we go to round 3 of fire and flame.
oh feed thy hunger alas.
Friday, September 6, 2019
Tuesday, September 3, 2019
saved comments(from where I cant remember)
hehe came across this video and I have to say you have no idea what you are talking about. the position you are defending is not social darwinism it is eugenics, social darwinism is the natural selection of economic and political institutions. hehe here I was preparing my arguments against social darwinism and how it is not viable due to the fact that darwinian systems tend to produce extremely specialized subsystems that are more volatile(albeit more efficient given an unchanging environment) than systems that are regulated(i.e selective pressure against) against specialization. the reason why this is necessary is because is that the economic environment is a lot more prone to change than say a natural one. and if you have any understanding in darwinism you would know that it is specialized systems that are the first to go under while generalized ones are more likely to survive.
in economic terms I believe the specialized systems are called bubbles(I am no economist nor am I a biologist for that matter)
but alas this argument will fall on death ears because you are not a social darwinist for all I know.
anyway on to eugenics I agree with you that it would be better if we had mechanisms that would insure that better genes be passed on more thoroughly but again I disagree with you with the method for I believe your method would not have the desired effect, because the generational turnover rate is too big for a darwinian method to work for it is rather slow. also here is where I would make the moral argument and while I am not swayed by this argument alot of people are(and that is what matters because it is said people who construct society) for the method you propose is negative eugenics meaning people have to die or would otherwise not be able to reproduce.
also you assume this will weed out people with negative traits I submit to you that the contrary is true for it is generally poor people who are more inclined to have children, this is programmed into them so that they can ensure their
"Being tied to one through-line or theme with little depth to it isn't enough to make a character interesting for me."- you have to understand that I just laid out tanya's unique and consistent psychological profile based on 3 of the 5 personality traits. I could have done the other 2 but my comment was getting long(and though they are consistent they do not really matter also tanya is average in neuroticism and she is low but not too low in extraversion ). the fact that you could do that with tanya is itself proof of the nuance put in her character. you would be hard pressed to create a complete psychological profile of most characters in any medium. and yes it is the nuances that point to this(nuances that you fail to grasp): like tanya keeping her shit organized and tidy(i.e. her gun) is something an orderly(a subset of conscientious) person would do
" Psychology doesn't apply to a fictional story when it fails to add layers onto i
ts characters."-psychology underpins a characters under"Being tied to one through-line or theme with little depth to it isn't enough to make a character interesting for me."- you have to understand that I just laid out tanya's unique and consistent psychological profile based on 3 of the 5 personality traits. I could have done the other 2 but my comment was getting long(and though they are consistent they do not really matter also tanya is average to high in neuroticism and she is low but
not too low in extraversion ). the fact that you could do that with tanya is itself proof of the nuance put in her character. you would be hard pressed to create a complete psychological profile of most characters in any medium. and yes it is the nuances that point to this(nuances that you fail to grasp): like tanya keeping her shit organized and tidy(i.e. her gun) is something an orderly(a subset of conscientious) person would do
" Psychology doesn't apply to a fictional story when it fails to add layers onto its characters."-not all people have layers for what you describe as layers come about by internal contradictions tanya is a very conscientious person and part of being conscientious is being orderly and part of being orderly is sorting out your wants and desires, tanya rationally knows what she wants and values, and any contradictions to that are only due to emotional upheaval.
"You've described the sum total of characterization for not just Tanya, but for the entire show's 12-episode run"- most of the character traits are made evident by episode 2, if you are able to pay attention to any degree and are able to read between the lines
"if there was any semblance of depth"- this phrase is an interesting one because one has to think of what do people mean when they say this, people can for example point to examples of character who have dept but they generally have a hard time describing it. I think a character with depth is a character who has deeper subconscious motivators to the actions. and I think ones personality is one of those motivators, for it is hard to change ones personality.
and tanya has a very interesting personality, because it is similar to the personality of hitler, though I think hitler may have been more agreeable than anime tanya.
in economic terms I believe the specialized systems are called bubbles(I am no economist nor am I a biologist for that matter)
but alas this argument will fall on death ears because you are not a social darwinist for all I know.
anyway on to eugenics I agree with you that it would be better if we had mechanisms that would insure that better genes be passed on more thoroughly but again I disagree with you with the method for I believe your method would not have the desired effect, because the generational turnover rate is too big for a darwinian method to work for it is rather slow. also here is where I would make the moral argument and while I am not swayed by this argument alot of people are(and that is what matters because it is said people who construct society) for the method you propose is negative eugenics meaning people have to die or would otherwise not be able to reproduce.
also you assume this will weed out people with negative traits I submit to you that the contrary is true for it is generally poor people who are more inclined to have children, this is programmed into them so that they can ensure their
"Being tied to one through-line or theme with little depth to it isn't enough to make a character interesting for me."- you have to understand that I just laid out tanya's unique and consistent psychological profile based on 3 of the 5 personality traits. I could have done the other 2 but my comment was getting long(and though they are consistent they do not really matter also tanya is average in neuroticism and she is low but not too low in extraversion ). the fact that you could do that with tanya is itself proof of the nuance put in her character. you would be hard pressed to create a complete psychological profile of most characters in any medium. and yes it is the nuances that point to this(nuances that you fail to grasp): like tanya keeping her shit organized and tidy(i.e. her gun) is something an orderly(a subset of conscientious) person would do
" Psychology doesn't apply to a fictional story when it fails to add layers onto i
ts characters."-psychology underpins a characters under"Being tied to one through-line or theme with little depth to it isn't enough to make a character interesting for me."- you have to understand that I just laid out tanya's unique and consistent psychological profile based on 3 of the 5 personality traits. I could have done the other 2 but my comment was getting long(and though they are consistent they do not really matter also tanya is average to high in neuroticism and she is low but
not too low in extraversion ). the fact that you could do that with tanya is itself proof of the nuance put in her character. you would be hard pressed to create a complete psychological profile of most characters in any medium. and yes it is the nuances that point to this(nuances that you fail to grasp): like tanya keeping her shit organized and tidy(i.e. her gun) is something an orderly(a subset of conscientious) person would do
" Psychology doesn't apply to a fictional story when it fails to add layers onto its characters."-not all people have layers for what you describe as layers come about by internal contradictions tanya is a very conscientious person and part of being conscientious is being orderly and part of being orderly is sorting out your wants and desires, tanya rationally knows what she wants and values, and any contradictions to that are only due to emotional upheaval.
"You've described the sum total of characterization for not just Tanya, but for the entire show's 12-episode run"- most of the character traits are made evident by episode 2, if you are able to pay attention to any degree and are able to read between the lines
"if there was any semblance of depth"- this phrase is an interesting one because one has to think of what do people mean when they say this, people can for example point to examples of character who have dept but they generally have a hard time describing it. I think a character with depth is a character who has deeper subconscious motivators to the actions. and I think ones personality is one of those motivators, for it is hard to change ones personality.
and tanya has a very interesting personality, because it is similar to the personality of hitler, though I think hitler may have been more agreeable than anime tanya.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)