Mycot
-
Content count
768 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
11
Posts posted by Mycot
-
-
^^ Man its been raining all week on & off In southeast QLD. Theirs shrooms growing out of my wooden letterbox
& a few different kinds of fungus popping up in my garden. I will go for a walk on the weekend & see if I can find some subjects to take pics of.
This is ideal weather for cubes about this time of year. No need to wait any longer than 24 hours from when rains first start to go checking for cubes. Even a couple days left too long may give over-aged fruitbodies.
-
1
-
-
What, in QLD? You sure? didnt rain that much here
Yep. picked some myself. NNSW though, close enough to QLD.
-
Goldies are out now after the rains we have been having.
-
1
-
-
Its one interpretation (and there are worse) of what appears to have occurred here which resembels an adult debating a child.or one person utilising reason in their relation with another who subscribes to religious beliefs and dogma.in other words the "true believer".
-
raketemensch is just being a troll and not really listening to anyone.
-
1
-
-
Why tell the damn enemy anything at all while they are still targeting us in their drug war. ?
-
I've really enjoyed the posts by Balsac throughout this thread. Voices of reason in this area are particularly refreshing. And Girlwriteswhat who I only came across a few weeks ago instantly impressed.
Carrying on the theme of this thread I think this vid may be amusing and rellevent.
The chap has a great deal to say about what is wrong with modern western women although he doesn't completely let men off the hook which I think is good. Although appearing to be a christian he doesn't lay this on too thick, athiests finding little trouble relating to the material. Make of it what you will.
An amusing and yet serious book worth checking out is "If Men Have All The Power How Come Women Make All The Rules", It's in pdf form.
-
Appears to be a very interesting plant. No wonder you want one. While being a coca substitute it is unlikely to actually contain cocaine and can be therefore assumed to be legal.
Definately a plant of phytochemical interest.
-
I just got the mushroom cultivator looks like a great book what would be the best book for a noob
The best book is the one you've just got but as SYNeR mentions it is a little dated with greater knowledge and sophistication in cultivation techniques having been developed since it was published. The book is still a good basic guide though.
SYNeR also also gives good advice as regards updating knowledge in any areas that one wishes to be brought up to speed in.
While the Shroomery is a great resource, in my opinion it is nowhere near as good as Mycotopia for learning cultivation techniques.
-
Perhaps something more helpful..
Chile may soon legalise ayahuasca
A Chilean court ruled that ayahuasca is beneficial to health and therefore its use should not be penalized, an act of collective consciousness that seems to advance the revival of psychedelic medicine and introduicrnos a little more to the mystery of a plant that continues tradition of the drink of the gods, the soma.
A few days ago a court in Chile ruled that ayahuasca is not a substance harmful to health. In contrast, this compound may be highly beneficial to the welfare of human beings. A mystery is revealed in this herb, as a vine metaphysical joins heaven and earth, the soul with the body and the conscious mind with the unconscious.
http://www.hangthebankers.com/chile-may-soon-legalise-ayahuasca/
-
"In the study, habitual pot users who were asked to abstain for two weeks experienced irritability, sleep difficulties and other symptoms that affected their ability to work and their relationships with other people, said study researcher David Allsop, of the National Cannabis Prevention and Information Centre at the University of New South Wales"
These sound much like the symptoms one may expect if one asked most plebs to give up TV for two weeks. Not sure how much one can conclude from this although it will be made to read :- see how bad pot is.
No more addictive than TV, Mmmm
-
1
-
-
But using ambiguous language in arguments is such an awesome tactic! Because then you can later claim, "no, that's not what I meant at all" and complain about how misunderstood you are. Really, you should try it some time.
Language allways has an ambiguous character. No avoiding that.
While care should be taken to try to communicate unambiguously, more subtle ideas may not always be communicated so easily.
Verification of claims can be made from the rest of the arguement.
-
Mycot, if you don't believe that LOVE can be experienced by homosexual couples
& if you don't believe that in such a loving relationship children can be raised,
you're not worth the time ov day.
These are two assumptions if they are to be taken strictly as written. And both false.
-
You have to be careful when arguing such matters not to use the same phrases that are being used by what is the noisy minority and thus being tarred with the same brush.
This can be difficult especially if you refuse to allow that noisy minority to steal and monopolize the language. Not good for the more poetic amongst us.
I've been thinking about whats been occuring in this thread
You look at a sentence one way and its saying one thing and if you look at that same sentence in another way it is saying something compleatly different.
So it can be tricky sometimes figuring out what is actually being expressed.
-
Yeah SYNeR needn't freak too much about someone who's got polygamy, child marriages, arranged marriages, polyfidelity, divorce, same sex marriages,asian and indian ladyboys, third sexes and now even Two-Spirit people in their bed. Wears me out though.
Perhaps just shy.
-
Thanks for clearing that up. I had indeed assumed you were approaching this with some religious principles at the core of your objection. You have to be careful when arguing such matters not to use the same phrases that are being used by what is the noisy minority and thus being tarred with the same brush. You did also preceed the 'holy matrimony' phrase with a comment about religion, which further compounded the impression.
By changing this perspective you are however opening the field up even further ;) If you are looking at marriage in a cross cultural perspective then to think of it as just between a man and a woman is ignoring the many other variations. You have now also included polygamy, child marriages, arranged marriages, polyfidelity, and divorce into it as these are all types of marriages that have existed for probably thousands of years in various cultures. So are you accepting that these are all part of the definition of marriage? That suddenly makes same sex marriages much less unattractive, right?
And if you are going cross culturally and historically, what about the ancient greeks and their same sex unions? how about the asian and indian ladyboys and their relationships [as old as the kama sutra]? and the 'third sex' in hawaii?
Yes, yes and yes. But one must be careful. At the center there is the alchemical symbol,, It is a sacrred symbol, the union of yin and yang .One must still treat the symbol with the utmost sacrednes and respect for it ot have any value.
You are most welcome to make up your own definition of marriage and claim to protect that, but please do not couch your arguments in history, evolution or some supposed universal construct, all of which clearly fail to support your choice. Picking and chosing will never convince anyone.
I'm not sure what you are getting at here or where I may be picking and choosing., All I said is that evolution has given us bodies with certain needs. Any universal construct would be like Jungs Universal unconscious.
Maybe having said yes, yes and yes, that has clarified this as well.
On another note, if evolution and universal natural principles are so infallible, then why are about 2.5% of the population exclusively gay? That's some pretty fucked up evolution if that is not in some way beneficial.
I've come acros something of this nature in Robert Anton Wilson. If I recall correctly its like nature trows in a random unpredictability factor disliking perfection. The Japanese have a similar concept where they porposly intoduce an imperfection into their arts and crafts.
-
Gosh, you poor, poor thing. You write up a very controversial post which you must by now realise contains stuff that many people here will disagree with- and then complain about the response?
That's my future you're proposing to have a say in, mine and a lot of people I care about, their kids and friends and other family
What were you expecting? That we'd just roll over and let that shit slide?
Your starting to sound really twisted here Darklight. Take a chill pill and get some sleep.
-
Holy fuck Torsten. I can see that you have way misunderstood me in many really fundemental ways on even basic central concepts of religion central to a lot of your arguement or even my definition of marriage which is supposedly limited so let me try to clarify. By the way you write even longer posts than Darklight I may have to appoach it in a piecemeal fashion.
For starters I don't give two hoots about marriage having to be in some christian religious format. The bible has some good stuff in it but that does not mean that one has to take an orthodox religious approach towards it.
Now some of my more religios sounding comments "Holy Matrimony". When people hear this they may think Oh Oh here comes that christian shit but is not what was meant. By definition marriage has a sacred aspect and being married is the same thing as being joined in holy matrimony and all this is crosscultural.. Don't think religion but spirit. Think of marriage as symbol. The alchemical marriage. The Tantric marriage. The union of shiva and shakti. These are all symbolic archetypes of the mind which are universal. My comment about "man, woman and god". I certainly was not refering to the christian god but the phrase was meant more as an alchemical idea the joining of man and woman producing bliss and the experience of the sacred.
I wonder how many had so grossly misunderstood me on where I was coming from in invocing the Spiritual/Sacred aspect of marriage but this is symbol which underlies the human ceromony.
I hope that my efforts to bring some clarity has had some success and I imagine that this may possibly have a large effect on how one may interpereet you last post.
Anyway I am tired, yeah it's pretty late and will have another look at the content of your last rather long post. I'm not winging It's just more work for me.
Namaste.
-
1
-
-
*sigh* I should know better than to reply to your stuff Mycot, but some deep and reasonable part of my soul continues with the delusion that a well reasoned discussion actually changes things
The first part of this brings a gentle smile to my lips, I may be building up some fondness for you as I'm making an effort of addressing your post.. You write long posts so if I miss Important things that you want me to address, let me know.
Of the latter I also am known to suffer from the same delusion. Perhaps when people can figure out what they specifically agree on and where specifically they may disagree that may be a starting point for forward progression.
Frankly, for someone who is attempting to neutrally explain their case I find your tone belittling:
Don't mean no malicious intent but I am way past giving a damn, so that may indicate that I am growing increasingly impatient.
I mean, aside from the assumption that people who disagree with you are your intellectual inferiors, the notion that political correctness ( such a loaded term touted by the right... I preferred it when public consideration for others was simply called good manners ) is some kind of default position of weakness for the sheep who need to harden the fuck up and agree with you... is laughable
I don't make this assumption merely on the basis that a view differs. In fact I am intrigued by any well thought out position especially when it is well communicated.
I like people to think for themselves and not take the easy out by just going along with the crowd or even just going along with mechanically agreeing with me because it is easy or safe. If you agree with me know specifically what you are agreeing with and why and likewise if you disagree with me know specifically what it is that you are disagreeing with. People who think and challenge rather than followers.
I feel that use of the term PC is legit with wikipedia giving several differring interpretations of the term.
I'll take break for now. Let me know if there is something you want me to adress.
-
^ attack me if you like matey
Yeah, you asked for it though.
-
2
-
-
that's right, waterboy is a fucking muppet..
I like the drummer. The rest should be sacked.
-
*facepalm*
So much fail in this thread, I don't even know where to start.
I might write up a proper reply once I get over the insanity of how bigoted people are and can muster the energy.
You think that you have problems. You only have to reply to one person. How am I supposed to muster the energy to reply to many many people, some who have written quite long posts, some quite rhetoricle and some maybe just goofing off and also posts that reveal severe misunderstanding of my position. So that I may have to choose who and what to reply to because I simply do not have the energy to get round to everything by everyone. Requests to adress specific items will be given special consideration.. I'd like to think that an arguement here may make some progression rather than just spinning its wheels. So far I have found my conversation with Torsten the most satisfying.
-
And I thought I came from the backwards state.....
By the look of your avatar I can understand why you may think this.
-
Mycot - I am really torn in this discussion. On one hand I personally don't care about getting 'married' as long as I have the same rights. On the other hand I feel that as long as same sex couples are denied total equality there will be discrimination, which I find a very important issue. So my support for gay marriage is ONLY because it is being fought so hard by the bigoted conservatives.
Thanks for the thoughtful reply Torsten. Yourself and a good many of the gay community similarly don't personally care too much about marriage and the punters out there know this. So it's a case of lets give these rights (marriage) to a bunch of folk who can't even take the damn thing seriously, the root idea of marriage being joined toghetr in holy matrimony.remember. With the poor state that marriage is in these days further demoralising of the institution is probably the last thing we need. Young guys out there ought to remember that to a large extent getting married is how they get to have meaningful sex and live a fulfilling and complete life. Living the single life is not all its cut out to be. Lonely older men and cat ladies is what our society is turning into and not too many males are overly thrilled about hooking up with a woman who's been with dozens of males because she was busy looking after her carreer during her younger years. With all the legal changes, marriage these days is not the same deal as what it was for previous generations. So much so that I consider any young man considering marriage under our present legal system as positively insane. For starters they should spend a few days observing divorce proceedings in the family law court to know what they are really letting themselves in for. which is often getting screwed in a very big way. So it's become quite unattractive to many males these days.
On the discrimiatory/ equality issue many things that may appear discrimatory are actually not. An example is cheating that may occur in heterosexual couples. The PC would insist cheating is the same thing regardless of which sex performs it where the more insightful knows full well in their bones that cheating is a very different scenario for a male performs it than when a female performs it. I'm not saying that either is good but just different. The case of gay couples may be somewhat similar. For example laws and perks may exist that are really intended to encourage hetersexual couples to get married and have children which is a different set of circumstances than that applying to same sex couples. Similar but different.
Yeah I know bigoted conservatives get up to some crazy assed shit but that doesn't mean that we should react to them in a kneejerk fashion.
The problem with maintaining some system that does not have total equality means where do you draw the line? How about at parents rights? I am quite shocked by how you trivialise the issue. You seem to care so much about the children yet you completely neglect the last point I made in my post #12, which deals directly with the best interest of the child.
if you establish a system that is not equal then you need to make it clear which rights you do not want same sex couples to have. Please have a read of the major legal issues that are at the cente of this debate [my post #12] and elaborate where you would draw the line.
Had a reread of post # 12 and agree that there are legal changes that ought to be made both for fairness and for what is best. Personally I've never been comfortable with the state getting involved with marriage which is esentially a religous or spiritual affair. Just the man, woman and God, the state should stay out of it and also the church also as much as possible. I agree that systems need to put in place that make clear what rights we want same sex couples to have. Where would I draw the line, there are many areas that ought to be addressed with laws intended to encourage procreation being one area and laws pertaining to children another. Perhaps like Thelema suggested we should have a separate institution that recognizes legal issues that same sex couples face but also recognizes that it is not the same thing as heterosexual marriage just as a marriage that is sacred and meaningful is different to a marriage for more secular porposes. Call it G-marriage or G-hookups.
If i've come across as trivializing the issue perhaps part of the reason is because I have never been legally married and yet have never felt any great sense of deprivation because of this.
Don't know what I'm missing I guess and yet am glad that I missed it. Seriously though the ramifications and issues are complex and this ought to be recognized and understood rather than overly simplistic portayals which don't aid true understanding of the issues faced by same sex couples.
I am also bemused by your reference to evolution. our society is so far outside the normal evolutionary processes that it is quite ridiculous to use this as a reason the way you did. The natural order of things also demands that mature men get 13 year old girls pregnant, yet in most countries we now know this is very unhealthy for the girl and hence restricted by legislation. Such legislation is not that old when you look at it in an evolutionary scale, yet hardly anyone in the developed would question the scientific data that backs it up. So if we are able to use science to make better social decisions then this is obviously acceptable to you in some cases. Why then deny the clear and overwhelming scientific evidence about same sex parenting? This has nothing to do with being PC, but with evidence.
the way I see evolution is that as organisms our bodies have lived and addapted to certain circumstances for millenia and many of these circumstances are important for physical and mental health, Eg paleolitic diet and tribal structures and the more we fall outside of the natural the worse our situation becomes. Yes I agree that science can enable us to make better decisions but too often science is hubristic enough to believe it can dispense with nature that we have conquered nature. I believe that much of this so-called scientfic evidence is skewed by political correctness just as PC may skew many statistics and possitions.
The evidence that I have examined strongly implies that mothers are most important to babies but come todlerhood when ego structures are being formed then fatherhood is most important to the child.
In australia 22% of all families are single parent. If you care so much about kids then maybe you should focus on them, because the overall outcome for same sex family kids is MUCH better than that for single parent kids. Most same sex couples don't even want kids. Many of the ones that do actually have them from previous relationships. The legal issues previously discussed are primarily for them. Hardly any gay couple is going to suddenly decide they want kids because the laws have changed, so the legal changes will not increase the number of same sex families, they will just give legal certainty to those that already exist.
I have no great fondness for single parent families and it may well be that children raised by two or more persons may be better off than a single parent families but not as good as children raised by both sexes.
I have no great issue if the occasional child should fall under the care of a same sex couple and yet would hesitate at this being accepted as some type of norm as your last sentence addresses and many heterosexuals fear..
Again thanks for your thoughtfulness.
Was life inevitable?
in Chill Space
Posted
Ah, pure speculation.