topical

Jun 21, 2006 20:52

We can accept the idea of a deficient divinity, a divinity that would be forced to create the world out of poor materials and, thinking in this way, we would eventually arrive at Bernard Shaw, who said: God is in the making. That is to say, God is not something that belongs to the past and God is possibly not something that pertains to the present ( Read more... )

Leave a comment

Comments 25

ok, you're right strange_idols June 22 2006, 15:53:54 UTC
Goofy wasn't a cow, but he DATED ONE.

Reply

ashcanprobably June 23 2006, 00:22:26 UTC
I can't see how anyone could ever suspect he was a cow. You would have had to completely ignore the famous conundrum about Goofy being a dog and the irony of his having a fellow dog for a pet: Pluto. Apparently, there are stages of evolution in anthropomorphic cartoon animals, such that it would suffice to compare the differences between Goofy and Pluto to those of a gypsy and his helper monkey.

Reply

or, Hello Kitty and Charmmy Kitty strange_idols June 23 2006, 00:42:28 UTC
The fact that he and his bovine lover produced a miniature Goofy calls it into question! The definition of speciation is the inability to produce viable offspring. Now, I doubt Disney would center a movie franchise around a kid who didn't even have a chance of reproduction! Plus, Mickey and Donald always date within their own species, don't they? As for your argument that to be a male cow he would have to be a bull, and bulls don't have horns: Donald doesn't have wings, really, so why would Goofy have to have horns, to be a bull?

Reply

Donald does so have wings ashcanprobably June 23 2006, 02:00:54 UTC
Before I condescend to take this discussion any further, you're going to have to provide substantial proof that Max Goof, Goofy's son, is actually an interspecific hybrid, because it's bad enough that he's a bastard, that his father is a cretin, but he's no half-cow!

Reply


ex_hotlavamo352 June 22 2006, 16:59:11 UTC
You know I just can't support this.

Reply

buttons and levers ashcanprobably June 23 2006, 00:09:35 UTC
Support what, exactly? I'm not trying to assemble an army here. That bit about women was meant as passing impressions, nothing truly definitive. It's like feeling a slight tremor in the ground and then wanting to ask people if they felt it as well. Apparently, I'm the only one that feels this way, I guess I imagined it all! I get frustrated when I can't reconstruct a woman's face in my memory. It's easier to give her any woman's face to a certain point. She becomes an abstraction, but then she's actually useful, I can think about her. Generalization helps me to think ( ... )

Reply


mortimer_ford June 22 2006, 20:04:42 UTC
I'm not sure I'm getting your Stephenson anecdote. I sense women and irony, but that is a broad subject. I think my Luis-to-Layman's translator is busted. In truth, it never worked that good to begin with.

Reply


mlknchz June 24 2006, 01:30:21 UTC
I dislike scientific arrogance. The arrogance that says "if we can't prove it exists, it doesn't".
Not all scientists have this arrogance, but some do.

Reply


we'll test your theory a_kumquat June 27 2006, 23:38:51 UTC
I just bought Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations.

Reply

Re: we'll test your theory joffy October 26 2006, 00:25:40 UTC
burn it! before it's too late!

Reply


Leave a comment

Up