Metal Reviews

Why are you talkng shit?

I have no idea, I was just trying to keep the flow.

It seems to be authentic because there are multiple photos and accounts by different media outlets.

Good thing that the kid was born into a culture where she is considered holy rather than freakish.

It can suckle both teats simultaneously. Efficient.

I have to agree with this, being a fan of Okhams Razor and all. For arguments sake; what if, around the age of three, I began to believe that I should be Japanese? I grew up obsessing about the idea that I was born the wrong race in the wrong culture. Then, once I was old enough, I bought some surgery to make me appear to look more Japanese (which in the end is very unconvincing given that I am a 6 foot tall hairy caucasian) and began wearing traditional Japanese dress. I insist that everyone refer to me as Akira. Does this, in the end, make me Japanese?

There is an awful lot of over-intellectualisation about gender roles and such, which usually claims its validity from a warped version of gender equality. As a community, it is up to the group to set standards of what is acceptable and what is not. This tends to upset those who have vested interest (or want to turn Japanese), who inevitably brings up weasle words such as Naziism or socialism.

Recently there has been a lot of publicity here about a father and daughter fucking each other and raising a family. Notice I didn't say uproar, since most people now are so numbed to any sense of community standards that it's now ok for anyone to do whatever the fuck they like.

At the end of the day, this particular case is not about a man giving birth. It's about some ugly bitch with a beard who chopped off her tits giving birth.

Ahh, the golden age of doublethink.

Oh, come ON, there's a helluva difference between having a sex change and incest. Even your Japanese example's shaky - who's to say that doesn't make you Japanese? It might not make you a pure-blooded Japanese man that people will accept as so, but it depends on what perspective you have. And even accepting your last point - so what?

Surely having Japanese citizenship makes you Japanese, regardless of what your ethnic makeup is? The ethnicity example is kind of shaky. If a Japanese person came to live in the UK and got citizenship then we would consider him British, and most likely frown upon anyone who said that he could never be so because of the way he was born.

Im just saying that humans are very complex, it doesn't take much to fuck everthing up. If you lose that balance you had before you could make mistakes trying to restablish it during the process. I'm just very skeptical about this that's all, and i hate how some people are so fucking sure that nothing can go wrong.

You say: "Do not speak for nature, you don't know what it could want", then turn around and say that nature is accidental... I love how you claim that we can't speak for nature and then do so in the same breath.
How do YOU know that nature is not a sentient being?
How do YOU know that nature is accidental?
How do YOU know that there is no "method to her madness"?
Fact: procreation of humans is obnly possible through a male and a female. That is how nature has it. When humans start fooling around with things, it becomes man-made, unnatural, artificial.





What big words? Anyways, that sounds very self-centered.
I sure hope you don't have children, since the first thing you learn is: you come last.
And, please spare me the lesson in semantics; I get it you are in Uni, I really am not impressed that easily.
A good example of sacrfice for the greater good is Japanese auto manufacturing companies vs. American automobile companies.
The Japanese execs make personal sacrifices in favor of the company, while in American companies, all the sacrifices are made by the workers, i.e, the company.
When a Japanese company fails to meet it's goals, the top guy doesn't geta pay raise, whereas the American CEO gets a pay raise regardless, even in the face of massive layoffs... even when the red ink is so thick that the CEO has to go, he STILL gets an obscene severance package; the little guy? He / she gets the door.



Who said anything about you or any woman giving up intellect, etc.?
If you are going to raise a family, male or female, sacrifices have to be made, by both parents.
Me, me, me, all the time is fail, as you put it.



Good for you.



I don't; I believe in courtesy and manners, and more often than not I will offer the bigger piece; the fact the you always take the bigger piece makes you sound grasping and selfish.
And if your partner did the same, you'd probably think he or she was selfish.
And it is cultural; in a situation where it is every person for themselves, I could understand it, if not necessarily condone it. But there is plenty of cake to go around; how do you feel about the Mega-corporations making many millions of dollars while paying workers barely enough to live? What about forced slave labor?
In some countries, people make barely enough for a bowl of rice, while some fat bastard in a NYC penthouse who runs that business makes a million $$$ just for showing up to a meeting a few times a week.
So, you must agree with that as well, right?

Now where did I put my shotgun...

You have a strictly biological view on humanity. There's more to us than that, but to some self-haters it is indeed beyond their scope. It's rather of a defeatist opinion that you would advocate self-preservation as being the natural thing to do, as preservation of the self is below what makes us human, namely altruism; preservation of one's next of kin, of one's offspring, etc. We could argue about whether altruism truly exists or not, but it's an endless discussion which I'll end neatly by stating that acts of altruism are what a civilised and intelligent person should strive for to achieve.

V, your nature argument only needs one word change. Change nature to God

God? No need to bring that tit into this.

Which one?

Ya, that is kind of the vibe I'm getting with all the talk of nature's purpose. That said, I have to disagree with Sasheron on many of her points- always taking a slice of the bigger piece and arguing against sacrifices in favour of always doing whats best for you isn't exactly what good societies are built on. If one of my friends were to always behave selfishly, we'd call him a douchebag.

Before monotheism, nature was the basis of "religion", for example, Paganism .
Old religion vs. monotheism is another subject altogether, though, and promises 50 pages of point / counterpoint, so, count me out.

Of, course, arguing points such as the ones here as absolute truths is inaccurate and futile, anyways; reality is one shade of grey fading into another, interupted only occasionally with stark shocks of black and white.

Ya, I don't want to go into another 50 page rant, but saying "paganism" (whatever that means, since its a Christian and anachronistic term) in general is based in nature is simply a huge generalization and largely not true. Or at least its a lot more complicated than that.

Anachronistic in what sense? Neo-paganism, perhaps, but I am referring to what the pre-christian peoples of Europe believed, not some new-age twattery designed to sell books.
Paganism = pre monotheistic religion.
And, paganism, whatever, was based on the personification of the forces of nature, and the natural instincts in humans, which themselves were seen as personified by "gods".
What is about the term "nature" that is so difficult for some here to grasp?

Its anachronistic because the term pagan doesn't refer to any group that ever existed. The word "pagan" derives from the latin adjective "paganus", meaning rural, and was applied in the 4th-6th centuries by Christians to any group that wasn't Christian, which mainly happened to be rural folk at that point. There was no "pagan religion", and we can't generalize about all non-Christian religions. Hell, in the Greek religion class I'm taking now, my prof basically argues (and I agree) that there was no Greek religion at all, and that religion was based around the city state- certain Pan-Hellenic structures existed which connected the religious systems of most Greek cities (like Delphi, Homer's writings, some pan-hellenic gods and the Olympic Games) but even gods like Zeus were worshiped under different forms and epiphets wherever you went. So claiming that pagan religion was all about one thing is both anachronistic and probably wrong, since religious experience and worship differed as you went from place to place.

And some gods were definitely the personification of natural phenomena; Zeus controls the thunderbolt, Death is a god, as are most rivers. But most gods worshipped by the Greeks were anthropomorphic; and therefore not natural. In the Theogony, Zeus is painted as the king of the cosmos and one who brings human concepts like justice, law and wisdom to the universe. Anyway, it was the ritual and human side of the coin that could really matter; the Spartans sacrifice to Zeus before battle not because Poseidon represents the sea, but because they wanted to gain the god's favour as a rational being and because they wanted to see whether the omens were good or not. Most scholars of Greek religion anthropologists of myth tend not to see it as purely etiological (ie. meant to explain the natural universe) but as something that is also directly linked to the performance of ritual and the personal context in which the myth was delivered (ie: what is the poet trying to accomplish by talking about Zeus as the king of the universe?).

Anyway, the point here isn't that Greek religion (if we have to define it as one religion) or Roman religion or whatever didn't try to explain nature or represent nature. But ancient religions are a helluva lot more complicated than that. Really, I don't want to go into this all here, but can you please take my word that there's a lot more to ancient religions (or at least the ones I've studied, Greek and Roman religious systems) than nature? I don't really want to write about this anymore here.

As for the why its so difficult for us to "grasp the term 'nature'", sorry V, but its the way you're using it, treating nature as a sentient being which most people here seem to disagree with.