Posts by chaosphere

Welcome to UKHIppy2764@2x.png

UKHippy is a long running online community and of likeminded people exploring all interpretations on what it means to be living an alternative lifestyle -- we welcome discussions on everything related to sustainability, the environment, alternative spirituality, music, festivals, politics and more -- membership of this website is free but supported by the community.

    Personally I don't think I kicked up a ruckus with Ness here, I don't feel I made any personal attacks or implied that I even disliked her (why would I?).

    I do hold by this - anything you say everyone else has the right to challenge you on it as others on this thread have done to me.

    I offered her a fair debate over the Biblical interpretation of Jesus. I got no response. This strikes me as someone who wants to stand there shouting 'I'M RIGHT I'M RIGHT', and I have no time for that.

    after reading this thread i feel i must say something. i know ness is a lovely person & wouldn't want to cause conflict between you & herself but i feel that you have been completely out of order. as has been pointed out your tone is angry & aggressive, & your use of bad language appalling. it is clear that you have no respect for what ness has to say. i understand you're entitled to your beliefs but please respect other people's beliefs too.


    If you don't want to debate, don't go posting your opinions all over the internet. As for bad language - in a world with this much genuine horror I think there are bigger things to concern yourself with.

    You say most Christian's are not intellectual?

    No, neither are most pagans, students or any other group I've encountered save maybe Mensa. It doesn't mean most are unintelligent either.


    So it's really hard for me to take any of what you are saying with any true credibility!

    Then why did you reply? If you are uninterested in what those who don't agree with you say, why not just never speak to anyone who doesn't agree with you completely?


    You say you will "Call me on my shit" and I can do the same to you. Do you not understand that I am so content in my faith that I feel no need to question you on yours?

    Are you serious?

    I certainly wouldn't limit it to religion, I am happy to be told I'm wrong on any subject. We're all dumber than we would like to think, I know I don't know all the things I wish I did and its been helpful for me many times in my life for someone to point out where I was at fault and wrong. You're challenging me right now - good, thanks, it pays for someone to come along and state where they disagree. If nothing else, its given me reason to rethink why I hold these views.


    Jesus being a rebel is how you percieve it, if you read the Bible properly you would understand he did everything with grace.

    If you wish, we can have another thread where we cite the Bible verses that demonstrate our views? Sounds challenging, I'd be up for giving it a go.


    God being an afterthought? Jesus is not separate from God? Jesus is God, you say you read the Bible cover to cover, and you think Christians see God as an after thought? The constant theme in the new testament is that God is Jesus. Jesus is God. And then the Holy Spirit is God. The divine three. Father, Son, Spirit. A trinity, equality. One God. One love.

    And this is where we're into the realm of opinions... To me the point was the universal love, God is related but ultimately its the universal love which meant something to me as a kid in church, God is far more debateable.


    I've nothing more to say?

    Yes you do or you wouldn't reply at all.


    I just think your anger/judgement towards apparently all religion could be used for something far more useful.

    You always revert back to this 'zomg ur just angry' argument. No, I really am just like that.

    I think the Bible is completely relevant.Have you honestly whole hearedly ever taken time to read it?

    Cover-to-cover, yes, once at the age of 12. Since then only the occasional book at a time (Revelation being my personal favourite).

    Most Christian's are not scholars or intellectuals. Research what Jesus meant by turning the other cheek. At that time Isreal was occupied, if a Roman soldier struck a Jew he may escape conviction but if he continued to strike you, he would get in trouble and might cause a riot. This is what Jesus encouraged, he told the people in power to fuck themselves, he was a rebel (beautifully so - kicking up a storm in a corrupt church? That's my kind of Son of God!). He was a radical who tore shreds in a society that needed love and non-judgemental living, not 10 tight commandments. I believe his message was corrupted beyond recognition, until you come to Christianity today which is a patchwork of earlier religious beliefs from varying sources tied together by nothing but authorities who had no business. Also, its no longer relevant - the mythology presented is vastly out of date. The message of Jesus, to love all (self included) without judgement, is the most relevant message any human can hear. God is merely an afterthought, if there even is a God (I can love what I'm unsure of).


    Or respect that it helps millions of people in their daily lives because they believe it to be relevant.

    Couldn't care less... hundreds of people out there doubtless think homosexuals are evil monsters and racism is an acceptable prejudice. Respect them for their numbers? Why?


    It's not the only "religious" book out there either. What is your stance on all the other books?

    I've drawn pictures of Mohammad just to prove how little doing so matters, but then I am a fucking bastard.


    You sound so angry! Why would you tell people who know God is real to "shut up" and "fuck off?!"

    They know God, they don't know she's real. No one does, heaven holds a sense of wonder for a reason.


    I never feel the need to tell evangelising athiests to do so. Nor anyone who I think believes in false God's.

    You don't have to be a total fuck about it, but I don't see why you shouldn't challenge them on their beliefs. I'll call you on your shit, please call me on mine, then we as people can grow together and make this shit world a little better.

    Dear middle-class fap-boy at the keyboard,


    'unabashed sexuality and promiscuity'

    is what happens when I get the horn, Paganism is a completely seperate hobby of mine, do not drag others innocent names through the mud. Ps is your wife hot?

    Hard love,

    Seriously who fucking knows. Oh yeah, nobody. (No, you don't, fuck off, shut up). I can love something that is not real and often I choose to - I love many fictional characters, I love concepts, I love a lot of shit that ISN'T real, I can certainly have love for something I'm simply not sure is real. If you don't want to? Good for you also.

    Perhaps God is here and now and not 'up there'. Take some mdma and make love to reality itself, call that God, I'm comfortable with that. God is a self-defining entity, when you find God you know God. The Bible is a poison against God as far as I'm concerned, a painful chokehold on human spirituality that has lost a great deal of its influence because it is no longer relevant.

    If you are doing it in place of work, it still looks better on a CV than an employment gap. If you are doing it as well as working, it'll just make you look very motivated.

    In fact this is probably better for you than doing a masters in career terms. The 'overqualified' tag is a nasty one to shake. Make it 100% clear when applying for jobs 'This is not a stop gap, I hope to be doing this long-term' and that you are happy with the wage offered.

    I'd reccomend Stephen Hawking's 'A Brief History of Time' as much as theological study there.

    This even assumes we have the physical technology on us to ever comprehend the universe we exist within. Honestly I don't think we do. Our minds don't 'get it' because our brains are not kitted out with the means.

    Just going to answer the OP without reading the thread due to time constraint.

    God and energy have similar characteristics, this is a great thought. However its not just energy, there are other things such as money that have similar characteristics to a god. Money is represented symbolically, however to actually see it or meet it in person is not possible.

    I have my own ideas of divinity (and not all of them involve a concious divinity, but here's where myself and most religious thought part ways) and most of them are comparable to many more accepted entities, like language and physical sensation.

    We could analyse every word in our language to see whether or not it is a tiny bit "offensive" or "discriminatory" we'd end up saying nothing!

    What on Earth. God.

    Look its not about being unoffensive, I have no idea what this is even in reply to. Its not relevant to the discussion.

    What makes you think every word we use has,or has to have,'meaning'? Language,especially social language,is to a great extent non specific.Thats why we have tone of voice,body language and context when we communicate and not just 'words'.And 'normal' doesnt have to be explained anew every time its used because of those things.Its *just* a word.

    Oh come on, we both know you just used a ton of words in a context which meant we both took their meaning. Symbolic though language is we are trained to know the meanings as specifically as possible.


    Also known in some quarters by the specific name of 'normal tea'.Thats the beauty of language,its not a set,staid thing.

    If language isn't at all set then 'GET UNDER THE SINK THEY CAN'T SEE YOU IN THE INCENSE BURN THE CHOCOLATE MAN' means the same thing approximately as 'Entropy in all systems'. Words mean things, which is the problem with 'normal'.

    It is though thats why its so widely used.There isnt a single objective normal thats the same for everyone,like stardust said it depends what youre used to,but 'normal' is still a neccessary benchmark.

    Precisely the problem with normal - there isn't one. Its subjective, it travels with you and is yours alone and has to be explained anew every time its used for it to ever truly have meaning.


    Maybe because people who talk like that in reality usually have a stick up their arse? ;)

    Once when I was 18 during in a stoned truth or dare I had a broomstick up my ass. Goddamn that was painful. I won the dare, however.

    Sorry whats normal mean again? :P


    Your example generally means either 'thats unusual' or 'shes nuts' so 'thats not normal' is a kind of shorthand that people understand.It rarely actually references an objective 'normal'.

    Right. So why not just put it out as it is, call it as you see it? 'Normal' is so subjective as to lose meaning.


    Do people you meet not normally seek to communicate using at least semi-coherent language? ;)

    You sir have never tried talking to the locals of Luton.

    I need the word "normal" so I can offer people tea!

    Would you like chamomile, peppermint, green tea, rooibos, licorice, decaf earlgrey or normal tea? :shrug:

    But its not normal tea, its a specific tea, that has a name (English tea, builders tea and so on), right?

    What about the people who live in the town NORMAL Illinois USA ?

    I will concede it surviving as a place name.

    Then we could say great things like 'I'm moving away from Normal'.

    I could write an essay on that. Suffice to say, it's overly simplistic. :D

    Feel free, I don't just post ideas online in the hope of a round of applause.


    If you're tying this in to the plough example, then it's worth pointing out that most theft exists to fuel need rather than greed.

    This is getting back into capitalism vs socialism, but any need that is not met by the community is a community problem (in this case theft).


    And theft for the joy of wealth, where it exists, is hardly a new phenomenon.

    New no, ideal not so much.

    I don't get this whole "things used to better" theory

    Neither do I - did you feel the OP suggests a Golden Age of some sort?

    I don't remember saying they were "the same thing". What is the same is the human attachment to objects and bright trinkets, and a psychological fascination with the new and shiny. The desire to acquire material goods and line the nest with baubles is ancient.

    A lot of our desire to horde is Pavlovian reinforcement making us consume. We are trained monkeys, advertised to approximately 10-50 times day easily? (I haven't dug up figures for that, just a rough guess from my own daily rounds). The Anglo-Saxon's held a lot of treasure to be community treasure entrusted to an authority, for instance, while a plow would be used by who was using it. Look at modern theft - when you break into a house, you loot the electronics to take to the second hand shop, you want the money. Nobody robs your house for the physical goods. Nobody nicks your plow in Dark Ages England - if they need one they find someone who can make one.

    There have always been personal possessions, but the advertise/consume cycle we know (and brings very little joy for all the desire it brings) is something any anthropologist could isolate and unique to modern society.


    The over-consumption of resources isn't a new thing. Dartmoor was deforested in Neolithic times. Nevertheless, given sufficient motivation, there's no reason why we need to consume resources unsustainably.

    They didn't have the means to do the damage we have done and are doing. We pile landfills full of mobile phones and the last generation games consoles and computers to fill a market role as consumers to upgrade, buy again, constantly consuming. Its a success as its a futile battle, the owner will forever be upgrading the car and when the owner dies the car will still be there and the market still progressing.

    In which instance, you're talking about modern consumerism - not consumerism per se.

    However, I'd dispute that consumption within that context is exclusively the preserve of the privileged. Developing countries are rapidly catching up with the resource-guzzling ways of the west.

    The consumerism we know is incredibly recent, to talk about older trade systems as the same thing is a gross over-generalisation. Barter systems between small local tribes is worlds seperated from post-industrial consumerism we live in.


    Well it's a bit of a limited debate without addressing that fundamental question. You can only determine if change is possible by determining whether the capability to change is within our nature. If you don't believe in human nature, take a look around the forums. You can see it demonstrated here every single day.

    Overly simplistic. There are fundamental patterns to human behaviour that are determined by our biology and our psychology.

    I don't see fundamental patterns at all. Human nature if it exists is all encompassing. We do stuff, we don't even fully understand the drives.


    Quite. Although the whole view of "tribalism" is a little bit rose-tinted and idealistic for my liking. "Tribalism" has been brutal, vicious and unsustainable too. Fundamentally though, it's in the past. We're not gonna regress to a tribal model of society. We may adopt aspects of tribal behaviour into future models of living - smaller communities and local production, for example - because that's exactly how society should grow: evolving rather than regressing. Hell, it's not like there was ever one single model of tribal existence anyway - not even amongst the native americans.

    Nobody said it'd be nice.

    Tribal life is infinitely more diverse than modern consumer culture, which is rather narrow in practise despite its endless offers of choice. Cross reference the Mosuo of China with the Jivaro of Brazil.

    An ideal culture could use the massive knowledge base we leave after we've painted ourselves into the enviromental and resources corner while losing unhealthy habits of consumer culture (its a culture now, and that's most definitely only a few generations old). Or perhaps with enough enviromental problems our ancestors will simply be a few illiterates wandering dilapitated cities fighting each other to death for the last can of cat food?


    Nothing that's avoidable is inevitable. ;)

    I don't see any sign of it turning around. However, tarot reading notwithstanding, come back in 60 years time (or maybe less) and we'll see how our resources are looking.


    God fobrid :S

    Space travel sci-fi spaceship operas are nice, but our future seriously isn't looking that way by this point.

    I disagree. We may need to mitigate some of our behaviours, but capitalism and consumerism are perfectly capable of continuing in the face of global meltdown. It's not like the world's gonna stop turning. The worst excesses may be curbed because the money ain't there, but we'll still be buying shit that we don't need and throwing stuff away that we've grown tired of. Hell, we're still digging up Roman rubbish tips!

    We're getting more into a debate into the nature of consumerism now than into 'What happens when the fuel runs out', but until its worth making another thread...

    The consumerism we have today is not thousands of years old, its less than 100 years old - the sweatshops produce en masse, the priviledged consume en masse.

    I won't get into what is or is not human nature as I doubt the existence of a seperate 'natural' behaviour. Some people stroke cats, some snort lines of mephedrone and some work 65 hour weeks. Whatever a human does is human nature, its a meaningless measure of how we'll behave in the future.

    Socialism and tribal living are not one and the same, although they crossover in certain places (the concept of private property is different in both). Socialism requires the predicate of human greed to function. The disadvantaged want more than their lot, so they desire to rise above the richer sections of society, take the excesses of the rich and redistribute them. Socialism is greed, its the human drive to have more, but its not any indication of what people will do when the floor falls out of consumerism. We haven't been doing this for very long, and its not going to be sustainable.


    That's all predicated upon some pretty apocalyptic assumptions. Food shortages, for example, are in no way inevitable. In fact they're entirely avoidable.

    That they're avoidable, agreed. Not inevitable, I disagree. Meet you back here in 60 years time to compare notes.


    Yes, our consumption of resources is unsustainable, but it's perfectly possible for our behaviour to adapt and evolve once we're pushed into a corner.

    That corner might well hit us before we hit it, if you see my meaning. Yes we'll adapt, I imagine it won't be up and on to spaceships and the stars however.


    I imagine we're in for some pretty uncomfortable changes, but I don't see us regressing back to the stone age any time soon.

    I see us regressing socially quite a way back once we're fucked. If we can squirm out of it in time no, but why would those benefitting from mass consumerism suddenly drop their empires? For the people in three generations? Doubtful.

    But for change to be sustainable, evolution is necessary.

    Once the world around us has changed I think we'll have little choice in the matter.


    Don't underestimate human resourcefulness. ;)

    I don't put much stock in apocalyptic scenarios. A lot of the problems that we face are relatively easy to mitigate with a little ingenuity and an ability to adapt.

    I really don't see how we're going to get out of it in time. The society we have is deeply rooted in consuming resources it can't afford to consume and in another 50-100 years it simply won't be able to. Whether the consumer culture is fair to others (its not, but that's another thread) its painted into a corner.

    Population decrease I imagine following rather inevitable near future food shortage. What we'll look like after that I can only speculate. Something more primitive and tribal that the world we know now but with a much greater knowledge base? Capitalism/socialism probably won't be their main political concern with no McDonalds or Nike to buy.

    I think for those of us who are dissatisfied with the current system, the idea of revolutionary change is very seductive.

    No revolution required - our future is most thoroughly fucked by our own hand.


    But it's never the way society works. The human desires and drives that have created our present culture are very deep-rooted. Capitalism/consumerism arises from that, and it isn't something that's imposed upon us. We'll take a long time to evolve beyond it, and the transition is likely to be painful.

    The transition will be painful - no fuel, new harsh climate, bugger all for food from foreign sources, I see nasty nasty times in the rather near future.

    Put another way, we stand at the top of a very large cliff and we're going to fall off. I'm not proposing a socialist revolution, I'm suggesting once we're fucked on resources society is going to look very different

    The form it exists in today is very recent for a large population - consumer culture here, slave culture elsewhere.

    When enviromental and resource supply shit hits their respective fans, this won't be sustainable. I can imagine a (greatly reduced) world population of 100-200 years time salvaging a lot of their resources from decaying and delapitated towns and cities we've left behind, food is going to be a whole new ball game by that stage.

    Throwing out some thoughts and ideas - alternative ideas, criticisms or other feedback welcome.

    When something is wrong in the current generation of a species, members of the current generation seek to mate with mutants of the generation who seem to have characteristics that overcome the current problem. This is what is happening in spirituality in developed, rich nations of the present age. The old trends are unable to survive in the current climate, so new alternatives are being sought by the culture to integrate with.

    The mutants are everywhere. The exceptions to the standard are appearing everywhere in the spirituality of the current age and diversity begets diversity. New lines of trend are being spawned, others are being rejected.

    Politics is becoming ever more hapless a process. The god Politics reached his current incarnation in the ancient world, revered highly in ancient Rome and spreading through their empire. The goddess Spirituality gave birth to Politics in a long forgotten age when humanity was very young. To this day Spirituality has maintained a very dysfunctional relationship to her son Politics, but his time on Earth and his worship may be limited. The New Age will see him incarnate in Hades as his mother again dominates the pantheon.

    Any society that forgoes Spirituality in favour of her sister Consumerism soon cannibalises itself, fighting each other in a race to the ethical bottom and consuming all resources in a needless display of hostility and competition. This is where the current age will end. We stand at the ledge and are not far from falling over. Food shortages, over population and climate change all promise us a time of horrific unheveal from which a New Age is imminent. Before such a time, all we are is ready at best.

    What the spirituality of the New Age will look like is still vastly unformed, the generation has yet to pick its mate. Consumerism is an extremely wise goddess and has adapted to her sister providing all manner of ways to pay to see her. Some religions demand gigantic payouts, some small gift shops brand themselves New Age and sell you instruction books on magic and hundreds of components to use as instructed in the books. The temples of Consumerism sell Spirituality's material signs. This may well have a strong influence on what is deemed fit to survive after Spirituality regains power.

    Some of the roots of Spirituality's first incarnation may begin to show. The oblivion of self and Other, a reverance of the forces beyond and of us and new ethical and moral codes are all potential futures.

    When was Brighton moved to Columbia? :S Do you honestly think your drugs are not part of an international chain?

    We went through this on page one. Some people know their sources. She says she does.


    Indeed. Play russian roulette with "could be cut" narcotics and that is exactly what every parent who takes this stuff is doing. Now, leave this stuff as its already been through the moderation channels (or are you trolling for a reaction - you wont get one :) ).

    Your intentional lack of listening does not impress me. She said in no uncertain terms she knows the channels through which it comes.


    Bye bye :waves:

    O RLY.

    Didn't find that evidence I asked for, then? I guess we're done.

    I dont even know what you are on about. :S

    Coyote told a mother she was at risk of killing herself and leaving her child an orphan. I reckon she knows what she's doing with mdma better than you. Go have a word with yourself. (Personal? I don't care).


    :rofl: :rolleyes:

    Whats funny?


    The entire drugs trade is laced through with violence and intimidation; have you actually lived in a news-free-zone for the last 20 years? :S

    Where? I don't see any news reports on violent mdma gangs. Come on big mouth, show.


    If all you can manage is denial it really is pointless discussing with you. :waves:

    This 'zomg you're just in denial' straw man has no pull with me dude. I'll change my mind when I am shown to be wrong. I offer this to you - show me I'm wrong and not just in denial? Show.

    Dont judge everyone by yourself.

    What you said was fucked. Y/N?


    Yes, I am in denial of reality. The drug trade isnt largely the province of organised crime and organised crime is actually made of nice people who love kittens. :rolleyes:

    Was the deal I offered? Evidence, or gtfo. Come on bay-bi, you can do this.


    (except where you admit that it is nasty organised crime in charge.....which is when you want a legalisation of your narcotic of choice).

    Where did I say that? OH YEAH I didn't.

    I said I wanted it legalised so no more shit was sold in e and so organised violent gangs don't have the chance (apart from the government and police but we're a bit stuck on that one). I admit they might be out there. However your premise that all mdma apart from one or two isolated incidents come from violent gangs doesn't hold in reality.


    Yes, because if I disagree with you wihout linking to something else on the internet it means I'm trolling. :rolleyes:

    You know this isn't what I said.


    It is by nature a subject that is quite divisive and brings up strong feelings :shrug:

    You told a mother she was risking the future of her child to further your weak argument. This is quite frankly one of the worst things I've ever read online. And no apology. Dude, you WANTED her strong feelings and sunk daaaamn low for them. Still, no apology.


    but its also one that starts with the self-evident fact that the vast majority of the drug trade is controlled by organised crime and that organised crime is a vicious thing.

    No mate. You're not getting out of this.

    You make big claims behind your keyboard, I ask for evidence - any. Physical, reliable resources online, whatever, I want to see it.

    Put up or shut up. No more bullshit. 'It is self evident' is the biggest pile of toss I've ever heard. You have no leg to stand on. If you do, lets see it.


    I guess when people are committed to using these drugs its uncomfortable to think about the process these substances go through to get to them.

    Sorry, you have nothing to base this on.


    How the little pill that gives the fuzzy warm glow is something that is supplied by the kind of people who regularly cut the drugs they sell with all kinds of crap, such is the level of unconcern over the people they sell to. Of course the users are quite happy to admit this situation when its part of the "drugs need legalising" arguement....but when its turned around it becomes an uncomfortable truth, possibly it seems too uncomfortable. :S

    Pills are being sold cut with bullshit, we need legalisation. That much I can agree on since I've had pills told me full of all sorts.

    As for the 'ZOMG YOU SHOULD BE ASHAMED ITS COMING FROM TEH MURDER0RS!', you can shut up until you can show me this.

    None of this is a personal attack on you, I don't dislike people I've only spoken to online and when debating an issue I can be very vocal and still have respect for the person I debate with. Even so, I feel I am not being the least unreasonable here in asking for a concession. I admitted I was wrong to say priests who rape cannot make valid statements as priests for instance, and Coyote (rightly) said otherwise. This is the value of discussion.

    Tbh I don't see the point in this thread.

    If someone had made their mind up on something without any evidence to back it up, any sources to cite, any reason whatsoever, discussion is meaningless. Its like when children just shout again and again 'I want sweets! I want sweets!' It doesn't matter mummy has no money left for sweets does it?

    I really don't think I can continue this discussion without pointing back again and again to what I've said before, while Coyote will again say 'Oh, that's just an exception....' or 'But the effect of the product changes everything!' (a point of view I do not share and cannot frankly). A stale mate is a stale mate.

    If this isn't trolling, god help us all. Whatever it is, discussion it is not.

    Sorry but you just refuse to answer questions, whats the point in discussion?

    You asked us how we can approve of getting those feelings from mdma while people get murdered for it. We answered. You then said 'No that's not what I wanted to hear...' and ignored us. Come on dude I'm not so new to the internet I've never been trolled before. If anything, nice one for playing us so far. :D