Random Questions Box

Satyr wrote:

Erik wrote:

Hey Satyr,

Do you plan on ever making anymore audio recordings? I miss the voice.....................no homo...

No.

Damn

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]



What do you guys think of the shroud of Turin?

It's a dead bearded guy from the 3rd or 4th century AD I think, it doesn't mean anything. He bears a slight resemblance how the cartoon character Jesus of Nazareth is depicted in some medieval and most Christian comic books.

Divergense wrote:

It's a dead bearded guy from the 3rd or 4th century AD I think, it doesn't mean anything. He bears a slight resemblance how the cartoon character Jesus of Nazareth is depicted in some medieval and most Christian comic books.

What about the 3D nature of it?

How do you think it was created?

Most people don't realize that depictions of Jesus have changed throughout the centuries. Early depictions of him from the 2nd and 3rd century AD look nothing like what later artists living in the high middle ages and the early modern ages portrayed him as, and in any case, Jesus is a fictional character, there's no more evidence for his existence than there is for Achilles or Arjuna's existence, he's a mythological construct. There's no secular, roman, historical documentation of life, and the gospels are full of inconsistencies and miracles, totally discrediting it. Most of the gospels were left out of the bible, and they completely contradict the supposed testimony of Mathew, Mark etcetera. Pure fabrication. And even if Jesus did exist, and that's a big if, he would've been a brown, not white.

Erik wrote:

Divergense wrote:

It's a dead bearded guy from the 3rd or 4th century AD I think, it doesn't mean anything. He bears a slight resemblance how the cartoon character Jesus of Nazareth is depicted in some medieval and most Christian comic books.

What about the 3D nature of it?

How do you think it was created?

I heard about this along time ago.

From what I remember, it's a death shroud, something they put over dead people, to conceal the morbidity of decay. His rotting carcass left an imprint on the shroud. There were millions of dead men from that century that looked like him, it signifies nothing, and like I said, we don't even know if Jesus existed, let alone what he looked like.

In all probability, he was a mythological construct, no different than Heracles or Dionysus or Samson or Krishna or any of them.

Divergense wrote:

Most people don't realize that depictions of Jesus have changed throughout the centuries. Early depictions of him from the 2nd and 3rd century AD look nothing like what later artists living in the high middle ages and the early modern ages portrayed him as, and in any case, Jesus is a fictional character, there's no more evidence for his existence than there is for Achilles or Arjuna's existence, he's a mythological construct. There's no secular, roman, historical documentation of life, and the gospels are full of inconsistencies and miracles, totally discrediting it. Most of the gospels were left out of the bible, and they completely contradict the supposed testimony of Mathew, Mark etcetera. Pure fabrication. And even if Jesus did exist, and that's a big if, he would've been a brown, not white.

Even if it wasn't Jesus of Nazareth in the shroud, it's interesting how the image was created. Whoever created it had knowledge of inverse photography and holograms. The carbon dating goes back 1260 AD, which is bewildering....

Here's a question, what is decadence and what is the origin of it?

My definition,

Decadence is the excess and result of privilege, and privilege mostly revolves around popularly "beautiful" women, a label dependent upon social consensus and preferential discrimination of the male sex drive. As certain groups become more and more socially secured, with beauty as the marker of an elite group, these females soon become "socialites", think of Paris Hilton, Kardashians, Lindsay Lohan, Britney Spears, etc.

When immortality is granted, and your children's children's children's children futures are secured, when they are "not allowed to die" and "not allowed to fail" by the system, state, and society....then this progeny becomes decadent over time, as it cannot resist the allure of frivolous temptations.

Sweets, candies, elegant clothing, drugs, cocaine, rock and roll lifestyle, endless partying, life as a drunken stupor...

Consider smears or "shit-stain" from ILP....

Life is about pleasure. Life and happiness become defined absolutely through "pleasure" and any pain or suffering is denounced. Suffering is evil. And anybody who suffers, who brings "bad vibes" to the party, are ostracized and kicked out. No sufferers allowed inside the party of decadents and hedonists.

Ascetics are unwelcome inside the club of hedonists. Anybody who reminds the privileged, pampered, spoiled children of the inner sanctum, that there exists an "outside world" full of hardships, pain, suffering, death, negativity......are unwelcome.

What causes cancer?

Erik wrote:

What causes cancer?

Cancer is defined as the uncontrolled or unchecked growth of cells in a body, usually resulting in large tumors that are sometimes outwardly visible. Sometimes these tumors are small, and when flowing through the blood stream, can travel throughout the entire body, resulting in the spread of usually fatal cancer.

Cancer is caused by a corruption of genetic coding, in either DNA or RNA molecules. Extreme radiation can cause this directly, such as working near a nuclear reactor. There are indirect causes of cancer which are being researched by medical scientists today. For example, asbestos is claimed as a carcinogen as well as cigarette smoking, probably caused by a chemical reaction.

Cancer is most dangerous because it is a body turning on itself. Normally viruses and infections are recognized by your body as "foreign" and the autoimmune system can take appropriate measures. But a cancerous tumor is not treated as a "foreign body" that needs destroyed. So the tumor is treated as "good tissue" even though it is "bad".

Uncontrolled growth is technically not "bad". Because during infancy, the human body actually needs and wants "uncontrolled growth", which is how the human body evolves from a seed and egg tissue, into a fully formed human body. This represents the growth spurts from infancy, to puberty, to adolescence. The fully formed human stops "growing" into maturity and adulthood.

The fertilized embryo in a woman's womb technically can count as a "cancer" since it is an uncontrolled growth of tissue. The difference is that uncontrolled growth is positive/good during infancy, but "bad" during adulthood.

These represent different phases of biological growth of the human body.

"Æon are you a genius?"

Yes, yes I am....

Erik wrote:

What causes cancer?

Long life.

Each cellular replication increasing the temporal effects, or the background effects of flux.
The damage mutates the cell to where it no longer is in harmony with the other cells; it is no longer within the organism's hierarchy, in tune with its organization.

Benign versus malignant cancers/tumors..........

Malignant cancers, the dangerous and fatal condition, occur when a corruption of genes occur at the deepest level of the body. In the case of humans, "stem cells" and core DNA/RNA are stored in the safest areas of the body, within the bone marrow (inside the bones) and within vital organs such as heart tissue, the spinal cord, lungs, etc.

When core genetic material is compromised, and corrupted, for example by a blast of severe radiation, then malignant cancer will form.


I've observed that some humans are far more susceptible to cancer than others. So humans with cancer "resistance" may have bodies which are either more resistant to cancer causing environments, or simply have means to destroy or fix damaged genetic material.

Agreed with Satyr, cell replication, over time, can also cause genetic corruption.

The more a cell reproduces itself, the more there is a chance that it will have "errors".

Æon wrote:

My definition,

Decadence is the excess and result of privilege, and privilege mostly revolves around popularly "beautiful" women, a label dependent upon social consensus and preferential discrimination of the male sex drive.  As certain groups become more and more socially secured, with beauty as the marker of an elite group, these females soon become "socialites", think of Paris Hilton, Kardashians, Lindsay Lohan, Britney Spears, etc.

When immortality is granted, and your children's children's children's children futures are secured, when they are "not allowed to die" and "not allowed to fail" by the system, state, and society....then this progeny becomes decadent over time, as it cannot resist the allure of frivolous temptations.

Sweets, candies, elegant clothing, drugs, cocaine, rock and roll lifestyle, endless partying, life as a drunken stupor...

Consider smears or "shit-stain" from ILP....

Life is about pleasure.  Life and happiness become defined absolutely through "pleasure" and any pain or suffering is denounced.  Suffering is evil.  And anybody who suffers, who brings "bad vibes" to the party, are ostracized and kicked out.  No sufferers allowed inside the party of decadents and hedonists.

Ascetics are unwelcome inside the club of hedonists.  Anybody who reminds the privileged, pampered, spoiled children of the inner sanctum, that there exists an "outside world" full of hardships, pain, suffering, death, negativity......are unwelcome.

Yup, that's one way of putting it.

How hard is it to create a silencer for a rifle end out of a used air canister?

Up to how many shots is it effective for?

Will it effect the ability of the rifle's range for distance?

If I want to bury a recently deceased person, is Lime really an affective chemical compound to bury them with? How much Lime should I use?

LaughingMan wrote:

If I want to bury a recently deceased person, is Lime really an affective chemical compound to bury them with?  How much Lime should I use?

What are you alluding to?


  

Erik wrote:

LaughingMan wrote:

If I want to bury a recently deceased person, is Lime really an affective chemical compound to bury them with?  How much Lime should I use?

What are you alluding to?


  

Me? I watch way too much CSI.   

The only weapon I really ever wanted was two dual-wielding Uzi's. Anyone got a wetdream kind of weapon?

I used to have something that look like this:


[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Though bigger. But it's still just a toy, some kind of expertise dagger on the other hand..

There Will Be Blood wrote:

The only weapon I really ever wanted was two dual-wielding Uzi's. Anyone got a wetdream kind of weapon?

Remote control fully auto sniper assault rifle that works within a twenty mile radius via remote control and lap top computer.  It's what I've always wanted for Christmas.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]


So beautiful...

Erik wrote:

What causes cancer?

Mainstream scientists say it's mutant/rogue cells, some alternative scientists say it's more like fungi.

Cancer, they maintain, like fungi, bad bacteria, viruses, or flies, or in other words, bottom feeders, are attracted to shit, decay, rot, they can only take root in your body when it's full of crap. Are they the enemy, or are they merely natures cleanup crew? According to Antoine Bechamp contra his rival Louis Pasteur, it's the terrain that gives rise to the germ, not the germ the terrain (the condition or texture of the body). In other words, imbalance causes cancer and all disease/illness, too much of this (excess), too little of that (deficiency), too much nutrients, too little, too much stress, too little, too much radiation, too little, poisons in the air/food/water. We're taught it's a genetic thing in the case of cancer, or a viral thing in case of other diseases/illnesses, but what if it was primarily environmental? Since cancer is up like 100 fold, and other sicknesses are down 100 fold, since the previous century or two, maybe Bechamp was onto something. Symptoms may be the way the body deals with sickness, rather than sickness itself, and suppressing them, may only lead to more illness later on. Is cancer itself the problem, or is it merely the result of other problems? According to alternative medicine and science, we're a hell of a lot more responsible for what goes on in our bodies than we're taught by the big drug companies, who make billions of dollars off of our ignorance and irresponsibility, to believe.

Is more... more antibiotics, chemo, drugs, radiation and surgery, really more, or are there cheaper, but more effective, but less convenient, alternatives?

Is big pharma rich just because... just because it's more proven effective? Or is it because there's more money in drugs and surgery, because drugs, particularly artificial ones, can be patented (monopolized), unlike nutrients, and surgery is expensive. Do drugs solve problems, or are they poisons that mask symptoms? I'd suggest looking into some of these alternative explanations. Cancer goes away on its own sometimes, or with more natural/nutritional remedies. Causality is applied to everything, but we're taught either there is no cause of illness, or it's esoteric, only the specialists know, and even then, there not interested in preventative medicine, no, there's little money in that, the money is in keeping you just well enough to function/just sick enough to keep you coming back for more. Are nutrition and other therapies/treatments impotent, or are they just untried/untested, and if so, why, why aren't they being tested? Is it because scientists get the vast majority of their funds from big pharm? Did you know in the early 20th century, when things were actually free, there were four major medical schools - allopathic, naturopathic, and, I forgot the other two (dang), but by the end of the 20th century, only one remained, or rather, only one was supported by the political, economic and scientific establishment (allopathic).

WHAT IF, hedonism was the cause of 50% of our physical and psychological health problems?

A few years back, I was more than willing (and capable) of being Grendel in the mead hall.

Nuthin' was sweeter than goin' 'round and 'round with folks for pages and pages.

Now (older, perhaps a bit *wiser) I recognize there's no profit for me in warring with folks in forums.

I self-interrogate and find that if I'm gonna piss away time, there are other, better, ways.

The question: how many here find themselves losing interest?

In the net?

In forum life (and forum war)?









*perhaps raising a kid has sumthin' to do with this

Question of the day:

How do you become more intelligent?

I don't think reading( memorizing information ), necessarily, makes one more intelligent.

Someone edify me in the practice of mental-weightlifting.

It's a muscle.

Memorizing information will improve your memory, in all likelihood.

If you want to improve your thinking, think more, and think hard.

Don't be afraid to challenge everyone, even your idols, if you have any.

Dare to think outside the box, and formulate your own thoughts on anything that interests you, using only reality as a reference, as opposed to deferring and referring to someone else's interpretation of it.

You can actually improve you iQ just by taking iQ tests repeatedly, but iQ tests test intelligences that're totally abstracted from reality, and can thus, stunt and retard development, in other areas. I recommend trying to solve philosophical and scientific problems, and even challenges in your everyday life, in an unconventional manner.

Intelligence is both innate and extrinsic.

We can all strengthen our muscles, but of course, bigger people with larger frames, and certain genetics, can grow their muscles bigger and faster than others, and they have less limitations to how far they can develop them. The same applies to thinking, even an imbecile can get smarter, but he's never going to get very far beyond his default intellect.

Other activities that might assist you, include chess, games of various sorts, even video games, particularly strategy and role playing games. Reading, so long as you take time to comprehend and challenge what's being read, and see if you can apply it to yourself, and the world. Don't be afraid to get into debates, challenge what people say, go beyond them, even what I'm saying to you right now, if something looks erroneous, call me or whoever on it, develop your counterpoints.

Body = inherited potentials.

Brain/Mind = inherited potentials.

You can stretch potentials but you can entirely break free from their determined limits.
Nature = sum of all past nurturing.
One generation of nurturing cannot erase centuries of it.

How does one nurture his body to its fullest potentials?
It stresses it - exercise.
How does one make the body more graceful, more efficient in its movements, or application of its energies?
It exercises - repeating the movements until they become fluid.

Stress, like anxiety/fear, forces an efficiency in application of energies.
Superfluity is wasted energy - it leads to death if the excessive energies, stresses, anxieties, are not directed towards a goal - focused upon an object/objective.
To care not is to be careless.

Same applies for the brain/mind.

The Greeks had one word for exercise for mind and body" askesis....asceticism is its practical application.
What is it?
Controlled, regular, stress.  

You want to remain a soft, imbecile, you talk to phonee and her hedonistic clan (Mooo, shit-Stain et all), who offer comfort, pleasure as an end, production as an identifier, consuming as a goal, the atrophy of jaded complacency (just because - it isn't that bad etc.), becoming cynical about anything that threatens to slap it out of its lethargy, hiding in word-games, and feminine emotive manipulations.   

But when a female's strength comes from her sexual promise, making pleasure into an end increases her potential powers of seduction.
A male - a man-child - whose sense of self, his masculinity, is tied up in feminine judgments, is pulled into the paradigm.
 
It's why in modern systems where females have been released from Paternalistic limits to sexual expres​sion(only feminine sexual expression), men obsess over sex, and can think of nothing else.
Poetry, creativity, innovation, art, all suffer, because all they do is think talk and concern themselves with seducing and keeping pussy satisfied.
Everything is sexualized.

There was a time when men had families by the age of 25, when they could discuss politics, philosophy, ideas....today?
All they talk about is sports, bodies, relationships, sex, violence, money, women....everything to do with becoming attractive and pleasing to females.  

This too is dumbing-down in practice.