Diogo Ribeiro

Fair enough. By individual I mean either the condition of being an individual as a distinct entity (as distinct as one can be); or a form of distinction based on opposing any form of authoritary control and promoting independant liberty. I may have been using the terms interchangeably; if so that was a clear error on my part. A better distinction was perhaps needed. As such my theme of discussion has been primarily focused on the second meaning rather than the first. To answer your question I feel egotistic and selfish may be wrong depictions of the concept, while contrary and anarchist might seem better... Though I still maintain that I believe there is some measure of differences between individualism and anarchism.

If I'm elected I promise to keep fighting the tyranny of gookery everywhere it rears its ugly head and crappy Pepsi jackets! Well, Avant Browser is more of a frontend to IE, and does a good job as it is. I've been tempted to change before, but for now it's fine.

"More information"? Exitium is a douchebag, that's all the information we need to know. I sent Saint a PM from these boards, as I don't have his email stored in my email account. Just told him about the situation, and showed him the same picture. In all honesty I'm not concerned if the ban is lifted or not. That I have been banned from there by "Rexexitumolinvictus" just proves I was doing something right - just as right when he changed my forum rank to some insulting title. If the ban is lifted I will keep giving hell to that overbloated attention whore. If it isn't, I don't care. All the same to me. The only downfall is that several of the board members are fun people to talk with, but hey, them's the breaks.

I feel all warm and fuzzy just knowing that I managed to aggravate that drama queen BAN THE G00KS LOL

Anarchy could be seen as a sort of individualism, I guess. though I think (*) there are some differences. Well, as before, anarchism could be considered an aspect of individualism... Both seem to share similarities when it comes to the belief that rulership is unecessary. Except while anarchy is focused on a desire to have a stateless society, it's still based on the concept of voluntary social interaction and harmony. Individualism, however, seems to be focused more individual expression and self-reliance, even outside the concept of any kind of social hierarchy (truth be told, I may be confusing it with solipsism?). In all honesty I'm not arguing for either anarchism or individualism, just trying to grasp the concept of individualism and why I feel we aren't absolutely individualistic. As you said, there is a degree of individualism that is possible to attain even when one is inset into society, confident that all my choices are my own but knowing they may be influenced by state, laws, or morals (even if personally one would not directly subscribe to them). The gist of this isn't even trying to claim which would be better - relative or absolute individualism - just discussing how each differs. Because much as absolute individualism is an attractive option, I think I've become such a whore that I'm not sure I'd be able to pursue such a change... I can always be a resignated whore though. The problem is not that I can't find worth in relative individualism, it's just that I can't find enough worth in it.

Evil babies rule.

I am smitten.

Less known, more crude and crass, for some reason I feel myself compelled to read Morning Glory >_>

Needs more spam.

o_O;

By reading that you "used to", I assume you no longer do it? If so, that's a shame. In all honesty and somewhat off point, I'm surprsed at the number of people I find to be intelligent and with sharp wit in here but that don't communicate (at least not enough in my opinion). If I had a tenth of your, metadigital's, alanschu's, or gromnir's intelligence I'd have already setup a global network of sites pertaining to dozens of subjects, instead of sticking with my campy attempts at poetry and short fiction :/

Interesting viewpoint. I wish to subscribe to your newsletter, good sir!

I've been told German gamers have a tendency to exagerate the value of German games due to the lack of overall good games; anything they get they cling on to. So it might have been just hype and a desire to like the game as opposed to the game's own merits. The Fall was apparently as bad as other Silver Style games, even buggier on release, but fans kept dismissing that. All these patches are supposed to make the game much more playable... But from what I've heard of the game I'm not sure I'd want to play it in any case. That whole Fall/Fallout 3 whoring left a bitter aftertaste to boot.

It can't be more graphic than a lesbian spanking inferno.

At first glance that seems more like the inner workings of civilization... Then again culture can be different things though they all seem to gravitate around human activity of sorts, including (but not limited to) civilization and its aspects.

I asked if there were similarities, and you stated that there were similarities to an extent...

Book information on Amazon.com IMDB entry Wikipedia entry It seems there are some similarities, as Darth Flatus pointed out... But isn't individualism the opposition to all forms of control, of authority, over the individual? My frame of mind is that my interests in society more often than not are different than my interests as an individual, if not somewhat opposed. I can't personally tell where I begin and society ends on several aspects. I find my interests are predominantly monopolized by a sense of obligation towards concepts such as family, or law; respect of structures which I find inherently flawed or self-serving as opposed to contributing to individuals or communities. Though as you say this doesn't preclude individualism; anyone in theory can live by an independent principle, and avoid society's interference with his belief, but what is the limit? It seems true, absolute individualism will always be very hard to attain. In theory mankind can also build societies which will always support and promote people's growth in a positive way, and this would ultimately be something like an utopia. But isn't this a double edged sword? Determining what is best for someone or something may not be necessarily the best. A society could allow humans to grow unmolested by radical environment, viruses, the chaos that would likely come from lack of structured, ruling hierarchy, etc.; and mankind could grow prosper and safe, but this would cost placing control in others' hands rather than our own. Note that I'm not arguing that absolute individualism is better than the positive aspects a given society can bring.

Out of curiosity does it bare any similarities with Battle Royale?

Well said It's like my brain's acquired this great amount of knowledge! But now I don't know what to do with it... >_>

One kicks ass, the other chews ears... Hard to say.

I have to finish reading that book sometime, but with my current backlog... But in what way? I suspect that the absence of a regulating authority that would keep human growth and advancement, when in the context of a society, in check would likely slow down, halt, and possibly regress humanity. Then again, we evolved before there were any forms of socialiatal societies - who's to say we can't do so again? In what ways do you think a lack of such authority would contribute to the deevolvement (I'm not even sure this word exists) to groups of individuals, or people trying to be truly individual?

I think those elements make us unique individuals, but not necessarily examples of individualism. No one else is like me, but I am like everybody else: physically distinct, but socially and morally bound to what is written and considered the norm. My life is my own, but my own life falls into the cracks that others' lifes often do. I don't believe I am living for myself, and I doubt I ever will. I find myself doing things I do not want to get things I don't think I particularly need and to please people I don't like at all, hate or am afraid of letting down (if they haven't let me down in the first place, that is). Am I really that different from others? And how do you define yourself, the "I"? I'll drudge up more unfounded and ignorant opinions just for the sake of conversation, and submit that no one truly exists as an individual because we must conform to a reality that does not allow us to grow or become our true selfs, actual individuals. We are limited by self-regulations, barred by laws, we are tied by social, political and moral conventions which most of the time neuter our perceptions and desires, and confine our abilities. When we do not place regulating powers in others' hands, we are regulating ourselves. Am I a true individual considering I don't allow myself to be more? To be truly individual? Ah, wasted youth...

Honestly I do not believe in the concept of soul, although I agree with your point (and the rest of what you wrote). However, would you agree ethics derived from exclusively personal interaction with oneself are always founded on external interaction first and foremost, it being a base for future interactions (even only with the self)? It is said that men does not become good or evil because of his interactions with others but because of interactions with himself (or something to that effect). But it seems before going through that he will need to have a base, an example or set of examples that will allow him to do so on his own, ie, he'll need to judge others and learn from interactions with them before he can stop judging them and rely solely on interactions with himself. Speaking of which - how does someone relying on interactions with no one but himself define his own morality? If I choose not to interact with others, how do I allow my own morality to grow, or even improve itself? I may rely on my morality but what if a more better shaped morality would suit me best how would I know of this if I did not interact with others?

Baley as a god would be interesting. THE POWER OF SPAM COMPELS YOU!!