Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Incredulous exaggeration as an artform has indeed lost a lot of ground since Mark Twain died.

That's pretty funny Where did you hear that?

Lewis Black has a comedy routine on HBO in which he jabs a bit at creationism. It seems that the issue is starting to leak into mainstream comedy.

wandel, That's a very good one! LOL

At once amusing, gratifying, and wonderfully promising is that those most outraged at finding themselves rendered public laughingstock precisely are and most energetically persist in being the causation of their own discomfiture.

Timber wrote:



You talkin to ME?

No, no, not at all; this is more a somewhat amorphously abstract religio-philosophical discussion than a strictly objective politico-philosophical discussion. Be patient, wait your turn, and I'll get to your particular favorite psychosocial abberation as mood and circumstance present themselves.



How you and Bernie doin', anyhow? Don't see near enough of either of you here lately.

The joke that I posted was from the fake news report on Saturday Night Live.

good joke Wande.....I'm in the 66%, big surprise.

Timber.....good to see you too. We've been extremely busy making jewelry and making money. I shouldn't be here now. I'm supposed to be working.....I have jewelry to make for customers who will pay.

I'll have to check back in more often. Love ya all.

Timber wrote-



Perhaps Clarkson might have a point after all.

I saw the opportunity to try to do Mr Black a small favour in case the judge was reading here or one of his staff. It was quite clear that I don't share the opinion and I can only assume that you have reading difficulties because otherwise you have shifted me slightly nearer to Clarkson's viewpoint. I could shred that article.

Hi Lola-

Have you read Veblen on female ornament? It seems that the woman is a sort of advertising hoarding on which to display to public view the prowess of her owner who generally finds it distasteful to carry out the function himself. I think the shortest treatment is in an essay entitled The Economic Theory of Women's Dress. It might be The Barbarian Status of Women.

The cardinal principles of women's dress ,as distinct from clothing, are-

1-Expensivesness- It must be uneconomical and afford evidence of the wearer's owner to pay for things that are of no use.

2-Novelty-Heirlooms are an exception because they argue the practice of waste over many generations.

3-Ineptitude-articles,in order to be considered tasteful, should incapacitate the wearer for any useful effort.

If you apply these three principles, which I have barely summarised, you can't go wrong.

Obviously cheap jewelry is self defeating as it affords evidence that the wearer's owner is skint or that she has no owner but likes pretending she has.

wande wrote-



That was a joke!!!!????

Sheesh. Have you heard the one about the lemur monkey and the Baghdad mosque?

I'd better not on second thoughts.

spendi, It would take a lot of "thoughts" before you posted anything on a2k.

I don't find it at all necessary for women to dress to please me. In fact, I think the younger, trimmer ones, at least, present best with absolutely minimal adornment ... a bit of makeup perhaps, or a tasteful, well-placed tatoo, but beyond that ....

Now of course its also true some folks, gender-irrespective, look best when in a different building.

Spendi,

You are such a sweet, if predictable old fart. In order to have an owner, one must be dependent upon the resources of the owner. Other than the usual dependencies, those that are customarily denied by many members of the human race, I have none that would cause me to be unable to take care of myself if said "owner" were to disappear. It is fun to play the game, however, male/female relations and hormones being as they are. And adornment is me. You'll just have to accept that quality........or at least put up with it if you are to be my friend. Now, if we're going to continue this argument, we should do so on the Cafe thread.

Timber,

I find that one can't please everybody, so I am just myself. Anyway, adornment makes a lot of money and that's what I need to keep my couch (living room couch) where I am able, like Spendi, to behave as I please. Also, adornments can be fun if they are removed one at a time.

Lola-

I was offering some hints to help you be a success. They are the ones which took Cartier's, Tiffany's and Dior to the top. timber is a backwoodsman and I wouldn't take any notice of him in this regard.

What use to you is-

?

I ask you!

look for reply on Cafe thread........unless the others don't mind this divergence.

Why should they mind. They often go off topic on here. They only complain about it when it isn't them who has done it.

Women's ornamentation can be looked at spiritually or scientifically. I can do both but not at the same time. It is a bit like ID in that respect so could be considered on topic as illustration of a principle.

I think it's a bit more like natural selection.....funny how we tend to see these matters from an affective spot in our brains. Cognition is in no way employed when hot topics like ID are introduced.

Lola wrote-



Do you think there is any alternative?



I presume you mean from within a certain segment of humanity selected by time, region and class in which certain unique habits of socialisation take place. It is a very complex subject I'm afraid and to minimise the effects of the "affective spot" one has to put down a lot of those habits as best one can. Those who can't just end up discussing their own habits of socialisation which are a very small part of a subject of such importance as women's dress of which ornamentation is only a part.



I have tried but I think I'm banging my head against the pillow.

I believe you may be right.