D
DÛke
Guest
...
Than how come I find myself disagreeing with my own self, when I know I agree about one issue but not another? Is this some kind of self-paradox game?
Seriously, the other thread was about beating people for a cause. This is not even about beating...it's about those "urges you just can't control no matter how powerful of will you posses." These urges are only backed by your own mind, not by something that offended you...there's no such thing as control when it comes for these things...
Than how come I find myself disagreeing with my own self, when I know I agree about one issue but not another? Is this some kind of self-paradox game?
Seriously, the other thread was about beating people for a cause. This is not even about beating...it's about those "urges you just can't control no matter how powerful of will you posses." These urges are only backed by your own mind, not by something that offended you...there's no such thing as control when it comes for these things...
C
Chaos Turtle
Guest
1- If I were in a place where the eating of hman brain was legal, I would probably give it a try. I'd like some assurance that it was free from harmful substance though.
2- By "strange" do you mean "abnormal" or "unusual?" I don't think it's abnormal, but I'd be shocked to drop in at a friend's apartment to find him having a bowl of Irishman Stew. If I was visiting in a society where cannibalism was customary, then I would probably have a little, too.
3- Yes. Not only mine but occasionally others', both from curiosity and as a reult of violence.
4- Okay, now we're getting somewhere interesting. Just because someone is born with certain desires does not mean that we necessarily must succumb to them. If I acted on every socially unacceptable desire I had, I'd get into quite a lot of trouble. So the desire to retain my liberty -- and to avoid harm -- keeps me from behaving too badly.
If I found myself unable to control my baser impulses, I would seek professional counselling.
Note this: If a sadist manages to find someone who likes the pain, then more power to them both. There's nothing morally wrong with consentual behavior, even if it is self-destructive.
5- See #4. I only repress those desires that would bring harm to others without cause.
Sadism: If I wanted to hurt someone who didn't want to be hurt, I wouldn't do it. Unless we're talking about someone who really needs some pain in their lives. I mean, haven't we all run into someone who just seems to be begging for a beating?
Incest: I want to be clear that I don't approve of any sort of incest that involves one person forcing (physically, verbally, or emotionally) any other to engage in sex. Actually, this can be applied to any such case, incest or not. That said, if a couple of adults who are related want to go at it, who am I to tell them not to? As long as they take appropriate precautions to avoid conception (as the offspring is very likely to be damaged in any number of ways) then I see no reason at all why they can't have their fun.
Homosexuality: I don't repress my homosexual feelings. I don't think anyone should. I am not one to make an issue of it, though, and that usually keeps me out of trouble with those who might want to practice a little sadism on someone they don't understand.
Necrophilia: I don't have any such urges. I would certainly seek psychological help if I did, since there is obviously something wrong with me if I can't find sexual pleasure with anything other than a corpse.
Cannibalism: Again, no problem if it's the custom, or legal.
Homocide: For no reason at all except to satisy an urge to kill? No. For my own or others' safety? Probably. For revenge? Probably not, but sadism might be an option.
One final note. Even if I did have some of the more "unusual" urges -- and I felt compelled to act upon them -- I should not be surprised to find myself punished by a society which disapproves of them.
2- By "strange" do you mean "abnormal" or "unusual?" I don't think it's abnormal, but I'd be shocked to drop in at a friend's apartment to find him having a bowl of Irishman Stew. If I was visiting in a society where cannibalism was customary, then I would probably have a little, too.
3- Yes. Not only mine but occasionally others', both from curiosity and as a reult of violence.
4- Okay, now we're getting somewhere interesting. Just because someone is born with certain desires does not mean that we necessarily must succumb to them. If I acted on every socially unacceptable desire I had, I'd get into quite a lot of trouble. So the desire to retain my liberty -- and to avoid harm -- keeps me from behaving too badly.
If I found myself unable to control my baser impulses, I would seek professional counselling.
Note this: If a sadist manages to find someone who likes the pain, then more power to them both. There's nothing morally wrong with consentual behavior, even if it is self-destructive.
5- See #4. I only repress those desires that would bring harm to others without cause.
Sadism: If I wanted to hurt someone who didn't want to be hurt, I wouldn't do it. Unless we're talking about someone who really needs some pain in their lives. I mean, haven't we all run into someone who just seems to be begging for a beating?
Incest: I want to be clear that I don't approve of any sort of incest that involves one person forcing (physically, verbally, or emotionally) any other to engage in sex. Actually, this can be applied to any such case, incest or not. That said, if a couple of adults who are related want to go at it, who am I to tell them not to? As long as they take appropriate precautions to avoid conception (as the offspring is very likely to be damaged in any number of ways) then I see no reason at all why they can't have their fun.
Homosexuality: I don't repress my homosexual feelings. I don't think anyone should. I am not one to make an issue of it, though, and that usually keeps me out of trouble with those who might want to practice a little sadism on someone they don't understand.
Necrophilia: I don't have any such urges. I would certainly seek psychological help if I did, since there is obviously something wrong with me if I can't find sexual pleasure with anything other than a corpse.
Cannibalism: Again, no problem if it's the custom, or legal.
Homocide: For no reason at all except to satisy an urge to kill? No. For my own or others' safety? Probably. For revenge? Probably not, but sadism might be an option.
One final note. Even if I did have some of the more "unusual" urges -- and I felt compelled to act upon them -- I should not be surprised to find myself punished by a society which disapproves of them.
D
DÛke
Guest
...good reply Chaos Turtle.
Things must be expressed, and repressing them, I believe, will lead to (more) violence. So when you have someone with abnormal (what is "normal" anyway?) urges, these urges should be treated while they are being acted...not while they're repressed.
Actually, Hannibal itself made me wonder if the society should punish others for having abnormal, violent behaviors. I believe that every human has some kind of deep desires (or urges, Spiderman) that must be acted out. Do you not ever get the feeling to must do something? Of course, it could be just your daily job, talking to a certain someone, or whatever...but doesn't everyone has a "must", to an extent or another? I don't know. It seems to me that people with abnormal strongy "urges" should not be punished, but studied like actual humans...not animals. Even in the movie, there is a part where that female cop (forgot her movie name) asks the African-American doctor how he survived for 6+ years with Hannibal, when nobody else can survive for more than 3 hours. He basically told her he respected him and treated him as a human, not some mutant under study...he didn't really fear him...
Things must be expressed, and repressing them, I believe, will lead to (more) violence. So when you have someone with abnormal (what is "normal" anyway?) urges, these urges should be treated while they are being acted...not while they're repressed.
C
Chaos Turtle
Guest
That's an interesting -- and good -- point. I can't really argue with it, as Thomas Harris (the author of Hannibal) makes a point of plying for sympathy for Lecter from his audience.
Unfortunately, in the real world, people who exhibit deviant behavior often have no qualms about harming innocent people.
Harris' own character Tom Noonan (The Toothfairy, from Red Dragon) is obviously mad, and murders entire families only to transform himself into a god.
Anyhow, the point was to let you know that if you liked Hannibal, the movie, you should definitely read the book. It will blow your mind, and the movie is disappointing and rather stupid by comparison.
You've probably also seen it already, but I'll recommend the movie Quills as well. It's about the Marquis de Sade, and features a theme very similar to Hannibal in that it seeks to develop sympathy for a character historically regarded as a "monster."
Unfortunately, in the real world, people who exhibit deviant behavior often have no qualms about harming innocent people.
Harris' own character Tom Noonan (The Toothfairy, from Red Dragon) is obviously mad, and murders entire families only to transform himself into a god.
Anyhow, the point was to let you know that if you liked Hannibal, the movie, you should definitely read the book. It will blow your mind, and the movie is disappointing and rather stupid by comparison.
You've probably also seen it already, but I'll recommend the movie Quills as well. It's about the Marquis de Sade, and features a theme very similar to Hannibal in that it seeks to develop sympathy for a character historically regarded as a "monster."
D
DÛke
Guest
...Quills? Is it about De Sade himself, or a character similar to De Sade? What year is it, anyone? I'd like to see it...
Well, I did develop sympathy for Dr. Lecter...but I was the only one. Everyone else who's seen it that I know wanted him dead or something.
At the end of the movie, I noticed he cut-off his own hand rather than the lady cop's. How can you not feel sympathy for that...
Has anyone else seen Hannibal here?
Well, I did develop sympathy for Dr. Lecter...but I was the only one. Everyone else who's seen it that I know wanted him dead or something.
At the end of the movie, I noticed he cut-off his own hand rather than the lady cop's. How can you not feel sympathy for that...
Has anyone else seen Hannibal here?
C
Chaos Turtle
Guest
It's about the Marquis de Sade, during his incarceration in a mental institution, and his being tormented by a prudish, tyrannical doctor. Geoffrey Rush plays de Sade; Michael Caine is the doctor.
The movie works on a number of levels, serving both as a commentary on the social and political situation then, and now.
You, DÛke, would really like it, I think. It's right up your alley.
It's interesting that so many people you know didn't develop any sympathy for Lecter. I certainly did. It's made very clear that Dr. Lecter only "eats the rude," and in the movie it's plainly demonstrated that his victims are often even more reprehensible than he.
I can't stress this enough: Read the book!
The movie looks like a sclock slasher flick by comparison. The book is easily one of the best I have ever read. The plot proceeds rather differently, and the ending is so much better than the trite thing they tacked onto the end of the film. It's positively wonderful.
The movie works on a number of levels, serving both as a commentary on the social and political situation then, and now.
You, DÛke, would really like it, I think. It's right up your alley.
It's interesting that so many people you know didn't develop any sympathy for Lecter. I certainly did. It's made very clear that Dr. Lecter only "eats the rude," and in the movie it's plainly demonstrated that his victims are often even more reprehensible than he.
I can't stress this enough: Read the book!
The movie looks like a sclock slasher flick by comparison. The book is easily one of the best I have ever read. The plot proceeds rather differently, and the ending is so much better than the trite thing they tacked onto the end of the film. It's positively wonderful.
T
Thallid Ice Cream Man
Guest
Something interesting happened in English class today...
We analyzed a poem, Porphyria's Lover by Robert Browning:
The rain set in early tonight.
The sullen wind was soon awake.
It tore the elm-tops down for spite,
And did its worst to vex the lake:
I listened with heart fit to break.
When glided in Porphyria; straight
She shut the cold out and the storm,
And kneeled and made the cheerless grate
Blaze up, and all the cottage warm,
Which done, she rose, and from her form
Withdrew the dripping cloak and shawl,
And laid her soiled gloves by, untied
Her hat and let the damp hair fall,
And, last, she sat down by my side
And called me. When no voice replied,
She put my arm about her waist,
And made her smooth white shoulder bare,
And all her yellow hair displaced,
And, stooping, made my cheek lie there.
And spread, o'er all, her yellow hair,
Murmuring how she loved me - she
Too weak, for all her heart's endeavour,
To set its struggling passion free
From pride, and vainer ties dissever,
And give herself to me for ever.
But passion sometimes would prevail,
Nor could tonight's gay feast restrain
A sudden thought of one so pale
For love of her, and all in vain:
So, she was come through wind and rain.
Be sure I looked up at her eyes
Happy and proud; at last I knew
Porphyria worshipped me; surprise
Made my heart swell, and still it grew
While I debated what to do.
That moment she was mine, mine, fair,
Perfectly pure and good: I found
A thing to do, and all her hair
In one long yellow string I wound
Three times her little throat around,
And strangled her. No pain felt she;
I am quite sure she felt no pain.
As a shut bud that holds a bee,
I warily opened her lids: again
Laughed the blue eyes without a stain.
And I untightened next the tress
About her neck; her cheek once more
Blushed bright beneath my burning kiss:
I propped her head up as before,
Only, this time my shoulder bore
Her head, which droops upon it still:
The smiling rosy little head,
So glad it has its utmost will,
That all it scorned at once is fled,
And I, its love, am gained instead!
Porphyria's love: she guessed not how
Her darling one wish would be heard
And thus we sit together now,
And all night long we have not stirred,
And yet God has not said a word!
Now, the teacher read the poem aloud, and after she was finished, we were supposed to analyze the poem.
Most of the people called the main character a "psycho," and when we had to talk about whether the narrator was objective, the general consensus was that he was definitely not.
I didn't get such strong objections to this poem; in fact, after reading this poem, I didn't think "Oh, he killed her," even though I had read it. I didn't even think about the fact that she was dead.
To that you might say that I didn't read closely enough. That may be true, but my point is that this didn't strike me as weird.
I only brought this up because I thought it was very similar to what happened when DÛke watched Hannibal.
We analyzed a poem, Porphyria's Lover by Robert Browning:
The rain set in early tonight.
The sullen wind was soon awake.
It tore the elm-tops down for spite,
And did its worst to vex the lake:
I listened with heart fit to break.
When glided in Porphyria; straight
She shut the cold out and the storm,
And kneeled and made the cheerless grate
Blaze up, and all the cottage warm,
Which done, she rose, and from her form
Withdrew the dripping cloak and shawl,
And laid her soiled gloves by, untied
Her hat and let the damp hair fall,
And, last, she sat down by my side
And called me. When no voice replied,
She put my arm about her waist,
And made her smooth white shoulder bare,
And all her yellow hair displaced,
And, stooping, made my cheek lie there.
And spread, o'er all, her yellow hair,
Murmuring how she loved me - she
Too weak, for all her heart's endeavour,
To set its struggling passion free
From pride, and vainer ties dissever,
And give herself to me for ever.
But passion sometimes would prevail,
Nor could tonight's gay feast restrain
A sudden thought of one so pale
For love of her, and all in vain:
So, she was come through wind and rain.
Be sure I looked up at her eyes
Happy and proud; at last I knew
Porphyria worshipped me; surprise
Made my heart swell, and still it grew
While I debated what to do.
That moment she was mine, mine, fair,
Perfectly pure and good: I found
A thing to do, and all her hair
In one long yellow string I wound
Three times her little throat around,
And strangled her. No pain felt she;
I am quite sure she felt no pain.
As a shut bud that holds a bee,
I warily opened her lids: again
Laughed the blue eyes without a stain.
And I untightened next the tress
About her neck; her cheek once more
Blushed bright beneath my burning kiss:
I propped her head up as before,
Only, this time my shoulder bore
Her head, which droops upon it still:
The smiling rosy little head,
So glad it has its utmost will,
That all it scorned at once is fled,
And I, its love, am gained instead!
Porphyria's love: she guessed not how
Her darling one wish would be heard
And thus we sit together now,
And all night long we have not stirred,
And yet God has not said a word!
Now, the teacher read the poem aloud, and after she was finished, we were supposed to analyze the poem.
Most of the people called the main character a "psycho," and when we had to talk about whether the narrator was objective, the general consensus was that he was definitely not.
I didn't get such strong objections to this poem; in fact, after reading this poem, I didn't think "Oh, he killed her," even though I had read it. I didn't even think about the fact that she was dead.
To that you might say that I didn't read closely enough. That may be true, but my point is that this didn't strike me as weird.
I only brought this up because I thought it was very similar to what happened when DÛke watched Hannibal.
Z
Zadok001
Guest
CT: Gotta disagree on the Hannibal issue... The book was good, right up until the total destruction of one main character's persona (if you've read it, yes, I mean THAT). I just can't see that happening within the bounds of that character. A friend of mine once jokingly asked me to tell him that particular series of events happened at the end of the book. He was GREATLY dismayed when I said "Ok."
I really liked that book until the end.
As for the character of Dr. Lecter, I personally relate to him far better than to the other characters in the movie. He's obviously intelligent and logical - He just has an interesting way of dealing with people he doesn't like, that's all. *grin!*
I really liked that book until the end.
As for the character of Dr. Lecter, I personally relate to him far better than to the other characters in the movie. He's obviously intelligent and logical - He just has an interesting way of dealing with people he doesn't like, that's all. *grin!*
C
Chaos Turtle
Guest
I understand your point about that plot element. It struck me (and a lot of others people, apparently) as being grossly out-of-character. But keep in mind that there was obviously methodical brainwashing involved, and the destruction of the persona follows logically from that. The character in question is no longer exercising free will.
Liken it to The Empire Strikes Back. It ends with the protagonists in a sound state of defeat. I expect the Harris's next novel with these characters will reveal the end of that personalitiy's subjugation.
I think it is a much more powerful statement about what does and does not constitute personality and free will, than the movie's weak ending.
In any case, not being one to judge a book by its ending, I still strongly recommend it. Despite the questionable finale, the book itself shines as an example of high-quality writing.
Liken it to The Empire Strikes Back. It ends with the protagonists in a sound state of defeat. I expect the Harris's next novel with these characters will reveal the end of that personalitiy's subjugation.
I think it is a much more powerful statement about what does and does not constitute personality and free will, than the movie's weak ending.
In any case, not being one to judge a book by its ending, I still strongly recommend it. Despite the questionable finale, the book itself shines as an example of high-quality writing.
C
CAMDEX
Guest
1. Would you try to eat, with will, if legally offered a piece of cooked human brain? My mom was so amazed that I answered with an unhesitant “yes”.
2. Do you think cannibalism is strange? I do not.
3. Have you, by any means, tasted human blood? I certainly have.
4. Do you think sadism is strange? I believe it is one of the human natures.
5. Supposing you have certain desires or feelings that are perceived as abnormal or even immoral by the society, would you suppress such desires – desires of the sadism, incestuous, homosexuality, necrophilia, cannibalism, and homicide? Everything I am is explicit. The day I have to repress who I am is the day I will commit suicide. Nevertheless, I will never commit incestuous acts or those related to necrophilia, even if I have the strongest of temptations to do so. I would seek professional help, instantly, upon these urges, however, I do not think they are strange by many means.
1. Yes, I would. I think it would be very interesting.
2. No, i don't think cannibalism is strange. If u have no food...
3. No duh. I've cut lips, cut fingers, of course i've tasted blood.
4. No, but it is disturbing, and ther is a difference. If something is strange, there is still a chance one would accept it. if u think it is disturbing, that means u disapprove of it.
5. No comment. I've never had such feelings.
None of this seems strange, but then again, I talk to myself, stay up at nights thinking about bunnies, and have often told people that I hear voices sometimes.
2. Do you think cannibalism is strange? I do not.
3. Have you, by any means, tasted human blood? I certainly have.
4. Do you think sadism is strange? I believe it is one of the human natures.
5. Supposing you have certain desires or feelings that are perceived as abnormal or even immoral by the society, would you suppress such desires – desires of the sadism, incestuous, homosexuality, necrophilia, cannibalism, and homicide? Everything I am is explicit. The day I have to repress who I am is the day I will commit suicide. Nevertheless, I will never commit incestuous acts or those related to necrophilia, even if I have the strongest of temptations to do so. I would seek professional help, instantly, upon these urges, however, I do not think they are strange by many means.
1. Yes, I would. I think it would be very interesting.
2. No, i don't think cannibalism is strange. If u have no food...
3. No duh. I've cut lips, cut fingers, of course i've tasted blood.
4. No, but it is disturbing, and ther is a difference. If something is strange, there is still a chance one would accept it. if u think it is disturbing, that means u disapprove of it.
5. No comment. I've never had such feelings.
None of this seems strange, but then again, I talk to myself, stay up at nights thinking about bunnies, and have often told people that I hear voices sometimes.
G
Gizmo
Guest
1. No I wouldnt. Not even close.
2. Cannibalism is a degenerate act. Not using emotional language here, using the word degenerate as a fact. We exist to perpetuate our species, and groups/species that have become cannibalistic (for whatever reason) are degenerate because they no longer follow the same basic principle of existence as the rest of us. The basic drive is to survive and perpetuate YOUR genes, yes, but the secondary drive is the survival of the species, which provides a deeper gene pool and a better future for your perpetuated genes. Cannibals abandon the secondary drive.
Only in circumstances where there is no other food source is it possible able to be considered anywhere near 'Not Freak City'.
3. Erm, yes. Have I drunk human blood on purpose? No. Often the enjoyment of the taste of blood is confused by the rush of endorhpins to an injured part of the body - ie, if you cut your lip you will taste blood and equate that to pleasure, but the pleasure is not necessarily from the taste, but from the chemical response in your brain to experiencing pain.
4. Sadism is enjoying inflicting pain on others? Id bet a dollar that 90%+ of sadistic tendencies reflect inner psychological damage, whatever the source. If you enjoy inflicting pain you are screwed up, not terminally or anything, and if you can do so with a consenting adult then good luck to you. Its still damaged goods though.
5. As a member of society you are bound to repress those sentiments/urges to the point at which they do not infringe on other people. What consenting adults do to each other is another thing entirely. If youve got an urge to commit homicide Id suggest you repress it, unless the whole point of this thread was to justify the actions of the terrorists, albeit in a roundabout way.
2. Cannibalism is a degenerate act. Not using emotional language here, using the word degenerate as a fact. We exist to perpetuate our species, and groups/species that have become cannibalistic (for whatever reason) are degenerate because they no longer follow the same basic principle of existence as the rest of us. The basic drive is to survive and perpetuate YOUR genes, yes, but the secondary drive is the survival of the species, which provides a deeper gene pool and a better future for your perpetuated genes. Cannibals abandon the secondary drive.
Only in circumstances where there is no other food source is it possible able to be considered anywhere near 'Not Freak City'.
3. Erm, yes. Have I drunk human blood on purpose? No. Often the enjoyment of the taste of blood is confused by the rush of endorhpins to an injured part of the body - ie, if you cut your lip you will taste blood and equate that to pleasure, but the pleasure is not necessarily from the taste, but from the chemical response in your brain to experiencing pain.
4. Sadism is enjoying inflicting pain on others? Id bet a dollar that 90%+ of sadistic tendencies reflect inner psychological damage, whatever the source. If you enjoy inflicting pain you are screwed up, not terminally or anything, and if you can do so with a consenting adult then good luck to you. Its still damaged goods though.
5. As a member of society you are bound to repress those sentiments/urges to the point at which they do not infringe on other people. What consenting adults do to each other is another thing entirely. If youve got an urge to commit homicide Id suggest you repress it, unless the whole point of this thread was to justify the actions of the terrorists, albeit in a roundabout way.
L
linsivvi
Guest
I think the rede "an ye harm none do what ye will" sums up my beliefs. I think any of these things, if done in a way that does not negativly affect other peopel (though with homocide that would be hard) are ok. If you decide you are a person that wants to eat human brains, go ahead, as long as its ok with the person whose brain it is. (I personally would not want my brain eaten, at least today. Maybe tommorow)