Recent Statuses

3 days ago
Current Freedom of will is the ability to do gladly that which I must do.
1 like
9 days ago
Wholeness is not achieved by cutting off a portion of one’s being, but by integration of the contraries.
1 like
20 days ago
To find out what is truly individual in ourselves, profound reflection is needed; and suddenly we realize how uncommonly difficult the discovery of individuality is.
2 mos ago
The cat is cryptic, and close to strange things which men cannot see.
1 like
2 mos ago
One does not become enlightened by imagining figures of light, but by making the darkness conscious.


The Harbinger of Ferocity

Agent of the Wild, Aspect of the Ferine
Nature, red in tooth and claw.

"There is, indeed, no single quality of the cat that man could not emulate to his advantage."
- Carl Van Vechten

I am, at my core, a personification and manifestation of those characters whose blood and hearts run red with the ferocity of the animal world. It is that which convicts and controls my works - my writing; the force and guidance in which I gain creativity from. It is what inspires me as a creator and weaver of words, the very thing I admire as an author.

My leanings, savage as they are, are of the feline sort and there exists no greater lineage of beasts whom I draw from. No others captivate and motivate my talent as the greatest of cats do.

Most Recent Posts

Two posts in a row, but who cares at this rate? On and off again between devices.

<Snipped quote by mdk>

I've worked in systems that provide high quality healthcare to millions without bankrupting them. That make it possible to get real care rather than cluttering up the ERs with non critical patients, that save thousands of lives every single year. That is my sample size of one.

The VA is shit? You had a terrible experience? I am sorry for you, but even near perfect systems have malpractice and incompetence. You think the US can't do better than it currently does? That is conservative BS. You want to sit around and whine that it can't be done? That is your right but I will be out there advocating for a better system for my patients.

I will pose a contrary question then. Can you name one positive statistic overall from the Department of Veteran's Affairs' medical coverage, other than the fact it at all exists? I mean something consistent and measurable that does not fall into this story of loathing? I have never, not once in my life, met a veteran or service member who did not encounter tremendous difficulty - notably waiting times and quality of care - with the Department of Veteran's Affairs. I have instead heard many stories of them living purposefully outside of coverage by the hospital so they are forced to get referrals to practitioners who are private sector in order to get better care.

And I think that affordable healthcare is a good thing.

I certainly wouldn't call it "affordable". There is a significant issue with the current model that does not bode well for any future one theorized. At the very least, it is an ugly reality of what social programs actually do to those involved in them; cripple them when they are already asking for mercy. Why not simply let them browse the market and choose if they even want insurance at all? If they willingly go uninsured, they pay for it themselves at their own peril.…
Three teenagers, ages 18, 17, and 16 respectively broke into someone's home to rob them. After discovering them in the act and 'exchanging words,' the home-owner gunned all three boys down. Thoughts?

Age is not a significant enough factor in home intrusion scenarios; any of those killed persons could have been more armed themselves. This is reactionary thinking and the best way to say it is, "Hindsight is twenty-twenty." Anyone and everyone can play the "armchair quarterback" as I have heard it phrase - do not mind me, I know nothing of sports or why people obsess over them - but it is entirely accurate. This act of self defense should only be held to the standard of objective reasonableness, meaning that in the eyes of the shooter, was the shooting justified at the time. In the case of law, this is very justified; use of deadly force is authorized for homeowners in this state, plain as day.

Is it unfortunate people died? Of course, but these "boys", one of whom was a man, two of whom were about to be, made their choices. They chose poorly in life and more than anything I am thankful that the owners of the home were not raped, assaulted or murdered.

I would not have chosen differently if it were me in place of the defender.
The Vale
The Town,

"You know, I can smell you from here, and it isn't much of a pleasant aroma from where I'm standing!"

The burly shadow's axe held high, the wielder stepping into to meet the mysterious warrior in the doorway, Cesar's quick thinking and cutting magical words caused the attacker to pull his attack and whip about to look at the sword-bearing bard. Furious, it looked over its dark, unarmored shoulders - like the empty void - back to the target of its attack, then again to Cesar. So enraged was it, without even a word or expression on its featureless face, that it only could react by sudden jerky movements and violent shuddering. It surely was howling like a madman, but that cry of wrath was bottled up within it; it had missed with an attack that might have outright killed a lesser man. Valmjr, who was surely capable of weathering it, was only better graced now by never being struck in the first place.

Miraculously, all at the same time as this came to pass, the armored figures set about their assault on the heroes who divided them; each lashed out with a sword at the smiting paladin of Thea, the elegant Katia or the noble Haemar... but to no avail. Without their partners in battle, they seemed far, far more feeble than they had before. In fact, the Heroes of the Kingdom of Light had done so much to destroy their attempted ambushed on the Hall that they might well have won the battle, even now. But fate was fickle, one victory here was not success throughout.

They might have gained an ally, but how many more enemies were to come?

@Cu Chulainn, @Gordian Nought, @Hekazu, @JBRam2002, @Rig
Why ARE people in this thread? What are your individual reasons for engaging?

Why I am here in this particular topic is to debunk falsehoods and misconceptions, dispel lies, and destroy the extreme and minority narrative that has swallowed up the mainstream. It is statements as, "Well over 40 percent of people who voted genuinely thought that a racist, sexist, pussy grabber in chief was the right thing to do." that tell me this is, without question, a mission worth pursuing. The very last thing I want to see in the United States of America is become the social justice empire, so it is my obligation to combat it. I do not necessarily care if I change the opinions of others in the process, people are entitled to opinions even if they are bad opinions, so much as I care about disproving the illusion that has been woven.

From a personal level, I suffered at the hands of the social justice movement throughout a period of time where it was acceptable to label people anything and everything which then allowed the mob mentality to jump to its feet. It characterized a formative period in my life where the incessant squawking that "color blindness" is racist, that "Not agreeing with the homosexual lifestyle." is homophobic, holding anger over Muslims who do not moderate their extremest brothers is somehow Islamophobic, and believing men and women are biologically different is somehow misogynist, did very well to make me bitter - more bitter than I had been prior. I was made out to be things I was not; nothing but lies, knowing ones at that.

With the rebirth of the patriotic spirit after a long period of darkness, I again had hope. The election, especially the running up to and the time after, confirmed to me that most of the nation wanted to be free of this caustic mindset as well; I saw exactly what they did to the campaign of Donald Trump and the egregious crimes of the Democratic party, headed off by Hillary Clinton and Barrack Obama. What set me off on this path to where I am now in my activity was the revelation of just what took place in Benghazi and how they willingly allowed people to be left behind, tortured, and then butchered by our enemy.
And, pray tell, why would universal healthcare be a good thing and not a burden to the public? Single-payer and government health care in general is terrible. I am not sure if you have ever been subject to it, but there is nothing like being told your problem "Is not significant enough to further investigate. If it happens again, tell us and we will reopen your case after reviewing your new claim." after you were already given the run around and went through numerous referrals over the course of months.

Why does this sound like a positive when I could say, go with the private sector see any doctor I more or less wish and under my own volition provided I am covered? An addition to this is, why am I being obligated to fund other people's use of the system? And if it is so great, why are so many opting to forgo the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and just pay the fine?

I see no positive to allowing the federal government another hand in my business.

I can sympathize and support the Department of Veterans Affairs - because they have a valid reason to continue receiving support - but anyone and everyone? Do enlighten me, @Penny.
I do hope with the coming election cycle that there is an end put to this. Too many resources and too much time wasted on a dysfunctional version of health care and series of mediocre repeal attempts. This last effort was put together in a couple of weeks on short notice; not what I call a good foot to get out on. Government healthcare hasn't improved much either to show for the other side and I have yet to hear from anyone who has had benefit from the changes.

Here is to hoping for a full repeal in due time.
I find it amusing you chose the extremely controversial changes to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders as your citation,
@catchamber. You do know that those alterations, as with the ones that affected related gender dysphoria and Autism were and are extremely suspect, correct? They might be "official" changes, but there is still debate on their validity to this day and some mental health offices do not recognize those changes. Why would someone do this?

It was a matter of political correctness and funding, not science. If you look up any of the other forms of dysphoria, quickly compare them to those gaps that have since been created. Clinically, there is an argument for them understood as being mental illnesses. This is not my saying one way or another if they are, but fact is being intentionally removed from science because it "hurts people's feelings".

There is no standard of "must cause pain" only the standard of "it must not be the statistical norm for humans". That entire attempted argument is such an insane line of reasoning I needn't explain myself any further there, @Odin summarized it.

As for "Not present in many human beings.", can you show me where any statistical majority is present where people do not meet those criteria? Even a percent of the entire human population less than half is considered a minority, sorry. I can guarantee you that far, far, far fewer than a percent of people would fail to qualify under that definition of human. That is not a large enough population to cater a special definition to or unique understanding of.

With regard to people being biased against genetically modified organisms, just sit back for a moment and observe the massive organic market and it's continued boom into mainstream. People wrongfully fear something as simple as food that has been altered to be more resistant to drought or even the use of antibiotics in meat animals, which is comparatively much more tame. There are even anecdotes of shipments of modified rice being donated to starving people in Africa that were destroyed because the local populace were convinced by activists thatit was somehow tainted; they then in turn misunderstood this as some sort "curse" or witchcraft. An anecdote certainly, but we are talking about humanity.

Bypassing the need for reproductive sex will not bypass the fact of what humans subconsciously tend toward in their preferencing for mate selection. They would logically choose, in most cases, desirable traits for their children or those they understood as desirable. Not that they are thinking to reproduce with their children, but what is generally known and understood as worthy of pursuit by either gender.

As I said before, when speaking to odds and likelihood, feel free to believe the fringes, but I will be here, placing my bets on what I can confirm as most likely.
Humans with polymelia, smaller brains, no capacity for articulate speech or abstract reasoning, or severe cases of scoliosis don't fit this definition. While you can call them defected, some would say that giving them that title is a form of morphological chauvinism.

Those "some" you refer to are allowing their emotions and feelings to cloud their reality. If you are diagnosed medically lacking, are disabled, or are somehow biologically defective, you are just that. This does not mean you are somehow useless or not worthy of life, or inherently are a lesser person, but it is a fact that you are not the norm and are still graded against that. A few of us in this topic are medically classified as having some form of disability, yet here we are, still serving a purpose and still doing things in our lives, still off being individuals. Arguing "morphological chauvinism" is newspeak, plain and simple.

None the less, you have blatantly disregard several key areas to make your attempted point. The word choice and content of the cited paragraph is clear, as shown below:

Human being, a culture-bearing primate classified in the genus Homo, especially the species H. sapiens. Human beings are anatomically similar and related to the great apes but are distinguished by a more highly developed brain and a resultant capacity for articulate speech and abstract reasoning. In addition, human beings display a marked erectness of body carriage that frees the hands for use as manipulative members. Some of these characteristics, however, are not entirely unique to humans. The gap in cognition, as in anatomy, between humans and the great apes (orangutans, gorillas, chimpanzees, and bonobos) is much less than was once thought, as they have been shown to possess a variety of advanced cognitive abilities formerly believed to be restricted to humans.

Yes, because you can predict the future so well, you know how the average person will respond to genemodding becoming mainstream. Let's ignore the fact that the breeding, selling, and consuming of genetically modified organisms has been approved in numerous countries, let alone that legal genemodding of human embryos has already happened in the UK, US, and China.

Yes, you can get a blurry image of the future without a crystal ball. Try looking to the past and present first, then imagining thereafter through that combined lens. I am going to stay on the side of probability and median likelihood rather than plunge off into the pool of hypothetical "What if?" statements. I will not argue this point with you again. I care nothing at all for the maybe when the probably is more pressing and likely.

We are not living in a day and age where that level of genetic experimentation on humans is significant enough, not even close I add, to make such a profound change in what it means to be human. Furthermore, you seem to have blatantly ignored my reference to this as well, so do not act as though I did not somehow acknowledge your claim in anticipation thereof:

In fact, convincing the general population that genetic engineering would be safe at all would be the hardest battle one would fight; I refer to the prevalence of genetically modified organisms and that the common man is generally predispositioned against them, regardless if he actually knows they already make up a fair amount of his diet and some of his wear.


So long as the ability to modify the underlying patterns that influence mate selection is rare or nonexistent, this might be true. But, in a world where that ability exists and is easily accessible, it's quite possible that trend may stop being universal. In vitro fertilization already bypasses the need for sex, and in vitro gametogenesis makes multiplex parenting a feasible strategy. There's nothing to indicate that humanity as a whole will forever be bound to traditional mating strategies.

"In a world where that ability exists and is easily accessible, it's quite possible that rend may stop being universal."

I need ask, what world do you see around you? The entire system has shifted over time, I have no doubt about that and you are acting as if I am for some reason, but you are attempting to make an extreme and baseless claim. Again, I will not even entertain that argument unless you have profound evidence to show that somehow people in this future you keep referring to are so far removed from their own humanity that this metric no longer applies. I further note that "in vitro fertilization" does not bypass the biological influences of sexual drive or sexuality at all. They might not be physically having said children, but I strongly doubt people will suddenly up and surrender deep seated, subconscious, primitive, mammalian mate determining qualities.

In the future platinum hair might be viewed as taboo and all people desire is curly, rich, midnight colored hair. That I could believe, any number of reasons that might be credible, but I am not about to be convinced that the majority will ever dive off into something as insane as adding or removing digits, limbs or tails, cat ears, hooves, et cetera. Odds strongly favor against that to be the outcome.

Even today in what is considered a "progressive culture" a fair amount of people hold that tattoos are still somehow taboo, even if only one. Body modification just takes that one step further until your concentric circles reach a point where the everyman will not tolerate it at all.
The definition of human is anything but arbitrary, @catchamber. It is so well defined that one could open up any dictionary and find the indexed portion dedicated to humans, whose qualities are generalized there.

No less, fringe groups as those will not become mainstream if the average person has any say in it, which they will by power of their aggregate number. This is common sense, not something one needs be enlightened into. You will not see some massive macro culture shift to anything near that degree of deviation. In fact, convincing the general population that genetic engineering would be safe at all would be the hardest battle one would fight; I refer to the prevalence of genetically modified organisms and that the common man is generally predispositioned against them, regardless if he actually knows they already make up a fair amount of his diet and some of his wear.

Physical attraction is complicated and varies across all human cultures, eras, and individual preferences (hence the fact that beauty is subjective). Some things are pretty universal: Scientifically, women tend to prefer masculine features and men who are taller than they are (usually a symbol of high testosterone, strength and sexual prowess); men tend to be attracted to women who are shorter than they are, have fuller lips, symmetrical faces, and large breasts (symbols of high estrogen levels and thus high fertility). Scientifically and evolutionarily, we prefer people whose features promise us reliable reproduction options: healthy, attractive, and strong children.
Medical Daily

We are speaking to statistical averages, not individual variations. You have previously demonstrated to me you take difficulty on me noting this from our prior conversations, so let me be up front; the normal person is, by the numbers, going to consistently identify the same or similar traits as what they find attractive as the next most averaged person. By working out from there, you develop a measurable trend until you reach the extremes of what people would willingly tolerate in social and cultural norms, especially in dominant First World countries who would unquestionably have access to widespread use of such technology before anyone else.
Until you have evidence otherwise that people are not going to behave like people, your contrarian claim's burden of proof is on you and you alone, @catchamber. This is a fact, one of several you have previously put effort to combat before. This is no different from those.
© 2007-2017
BBCode Cheatsheet