Rayman Pirate-Community

Jewish Candy wrote:Ahh, depression affects even the most 'rational' of folk mah boi. But surely at the ripe age of 15 ^ has seen ^'s voice start to break, the first sproutlings of keratin corpses start to bloom in new and exciting places...
< still thinks ^ is far too confident in ^'s protective bubble.

Ah, yes, well < has had some effects then.
< sees things very logically and doesn't see the point in being sad, it's not going to solve anything and will just make your life worse for however long you are sad, it does no good. < is content pretty much all the time and doesn't get sad at anything really, even things that would make other people sad.
< doesn't quite understand what you mean by "protective bubble" though

PluMGMK wrote:< recently read something about the evolutionary purpose of depression. < remembers nothing of it though.

< recalls one theory is that is evolved as a survival mechanism - depression can often manifest as a lack of will to be or do, which could have been beneficial for keeping a human ancestor safely holed up during an otherwise perilous period. < tends to find a lot of evopsych theories rather too speculative for <'s liking. Combine it with the media's penchant for blase reporting on scientific studies, and you get a whole lot of stupid people thinking they've got someone else toootally sussed.

Ambidextroid wrote:< sees things very logically and doesn't see the point in being sad, it's not going to solve anything and will just make your life worse for however long you are sad, it does no good.

< is glad you're able to not feel sad to order, but lots of people don't work that way. Besides, that's a pretty illogical position to hold. The feeling and expression of sadness can be an extremely useful both as an internal process or as external impetus for change. Also, depression /= sadness, though the latter can be implicated.

Ah, and by protective bubble, < means your planning which you hope rids you of any need for a mobile. But again, it's your choice and < doesn't mean to put your decision down in any way.

< just found out that < is alone on t'boat tonight, and doesn't have to go to work tomorrow :/
< could've gone home, there's nada to do in London, especially on a thursday

WHAT DO YOU MEAN NOTHING TO DO
THERE'S AN EXHIBITION ON SEX STUFF AT THE WELLCOME AMONGST OTHER THINGS
LIKE GOING FOR A WALK IN THE NUMEROUS GREEN SPACES
OR TAKING A FERRY
OR VISITING A CITY FARM

Plus, how can there be less to do in London than Nayland? Still, sucks man. Houses beat boats anyday.

< would offer to meet ^ for a coffee, but < is occupied tomorrow, sozbb xxxxx

Cheeky edit there, ^ is learning from <

Damn straight a house is better than a boat, < is freezing <'s socks off, plus you can't tilt a house by moving two inches

< hates walking by <'s self
< has no money right now for your fancy museums and sex ferries

Jewish Candy wrote:< is glad you're able to not feel sad to order, but lots of people don't work that way. Besides, that's a pretty illogical position to hold. The feeling and expression of sadness can be an extremely useful both as an internal process or as external impetus for change. Also, depression /= sadness, though the latter can be implicated.

Ah, and by protective bubble, < means your planning which you hope rids you of any need for a mobile. But again, it's your choice and < doesn't mean to put your decision down in any way.

Some people think we have a reason for being on earth. Some people think we have a mission of some kind. Some people think we where where made by an intelligent being for a reason.
< just thinks we where a big old accident who happened to evolve through a process of evolution. We don't matter at all, in my eyes.

< strives to be happy at all times if possible, becuase happiness is nice. Sadness doesn't do anything for me so it can bugger off. It's not like a switch or a tap that < just turn off and ignore, it's more that < just doesn't see it as necessary, at least it hasn't been for <.

As for the phone thing, < should have probably said this earlier: < never really even goes out at all, like hardly ever. Maybe in the future < might need a phone, but definately not now.

What age were you again, ambs? < remembers < first got <'s phone at age of 14 but didn't even touch it until < was 16.

Ambidextroid wrote:Some people think we have a reason for being on earth. Some people think we have a mission of some kind. Some people think we where where made by an intelligent being for a reason.
< just thinks we where a big old accident who happened to evolve through a process of evolution. We don't matter at all, in my eyes.

< strives to be happy at all times if possible, becuase happiness is nice. Sadness doesn't do anything for me so it can bugger off. It's not like a switch or a tap that < just turn off and ignore, it's more that < just doesn't see it as necessary, at least it hasn't been for <.

Great, if that's how you roll. But < would suggest you don't put that attitude down to 'being logical', aye? You finding no benefit so far does not mean it hasn't been objectively beneficial for others many times before. And are you honestly saying you've never felt sad before?

< didn't mean to be pressurising about the phone thing, < probably came off too hot on that.

@BadGuy, < couldn't have had a better teacher

I'm da besssss
Not depresssssed
but da presssssed
juice is da besssssssss

, < says

< got an ol' Nokia at about the age of 12, it was a hand-me-down only for emergencies. < didn't get a proper phone until < was around 14, t'was a Tocco Lite, if memory serves.

"Comma!" said BadGuy, "
< couldn't resist.

< still uses an old nokia < wants to get an even older, black and white, Snake 2 one.

< had a Sony Ericsson

Dammit wanted to post before ^ could edit out ^'s hideous mistake

< had an Ericsson Xperia Arc S prior to <'s current Moto 4G. < did find it to be a decent phone, if a bit sluggish thanks to the 4.0 update it got.

Shrooblord wrote:What age were you again, ambs? < remembers < first got <'s phone at age of 14 but didn't even touch it until < was 16.

15, but I doubt I'd even use it at 16. I actually think I was given a really really old motorola model ages ago but it just collected dust, not because I didn't like it but because I never needed to use it.

Jewish Candy wrote:Great, if that's how you roll. But < would suggest you don't put that attitude down to 'being logical', aye? You finding no benefit so far does not mean it hasn't been objectively beneficial for others many times before. And are you honestly saying you've never felt sad before?

Yes, I have, but no where near as much or as long as others, especially in recent years.
I would also argue that it's still logical as it applies to me. I find no benefit in being sad so I do not get sad, that is very logical in my eyes. If other people find benefit in being sad then they should let themselves be as sad as they want, that is also logical.
I didn't mean nobody should be sad, just that I dont get sad and that it's a very logical thing to do in my case.

< had a clamshell Samsung X640 because it was dirt cheap, when < was probably about...11? Maybe?

< then replaced it in 2007 with a K850i, right before the iPhone came out

< encourages people to join in on TTQ as it's going very slowly!

< would join in, but < would only have terrible incorrect answers...

< might TTQ the next question. At the mo < is too lazy!

Ambidextroid wrote:Yes, I have, but no where near as much or as long as others, especially in recent years.
I would also argue that it's still logical as it applies to me. I find no benefit in being sad so I do not get sad, that is very logical in my eyes. Ifother people find benefit in being sad then they should let themselves be as sad as they want, that is also logical.
I didn't mean nobody should be sad, just that I dont get sad and that it's a very logical thing to do in my case.

Your earlier usage of 'logical' implied that you believed your attitude was more objective, it's this that < took issue with because that's blatantly untrue If that's not what you meant, alright, <'s bad.
But you are presuming that people 'let themselves' get sad rather than, you know, get sad. The statement < underlined suggests that you personally are indeed capable of switching off sadness within yourself, but that honestly is something fairly unique. Whether there's benefit or not, whether they want it or not, people in general get sad.

If had the option of not ever feeling sad, < would not use it

< would use it selectively.