In your view, what emotion should someone feel when they commit immoral acts?
Remorse and shame. The issue is that shame is something that should be felt by the individual, not something projected unto someone else, as Reply to TheWillowOfDarkness suggests.
And to be clear, I(and I'd guess Willow) am not arguing that shame should be a permanent state, but upon recognition of one's own immorality, shame is a good and natural emotion.
it's only good and natural on a personal level; it's never good and natural when suggested from someone else.
Noble DustNovember 26, 2017 at 09:39#1273920 likes
it's only good and natural on a personal level; it's never good and natural when suggested from someone else.
Ok. I agree with this in spirit, but I think the line between telling someone they're wrong about X and shaming them for their wrong opinion about X is a very fine line.
TheWillowOfDarknessNovember 26, 2017 at 09:44#1273940 likes
Right, and that shaming was not some attempt to hide issues beneath a taboo. It was to have them out in the open: to describe the immorality of sexism in the open with seriousness it deserves.
So the following accusation you made of our shame is false:
Noble Dust:"Shame is: the acknowledgement of an immoral act, followed by a sense of taboo; not only was the act immoral, but the act is something that should not be talked about or brought up. I.E. rape, molestation, incest, visiting prostitutes, viewing taboo porn..."
We are not hiding the act, sexism/abuse of women/objectification of women under some taboo. We want it in the open, identified as the immorality it is.
Noble DustNovember 26, 2017 at 09:45#1273950 likes
How? They're always already out in the open because they are acts taken towards other people.
I mean you're right that people might try to hide their sexism to avoid being shamed, but that's a different context, a mere masquerade anyone can see through by noting their sexist behaviour.
Noble DustNovember 26, 2017 at 09:52#1274000 likes
I mean you're right that people might try to hide their sexism to avoid being shamed, but that's a different context, a mere masquerade anyone can see through by noting their sexist behaviour.
This is what you're missing; of course someone wants to hide the shameful feeling of having committed a sexual crime. Try shaming that person.
ProbablyTrueNovember 26, 2017 at 09:52#1274010 likes
Reply to Noble Dust I was using an exaggerated number, but at some point if ND doesn't understand via appealing to his better nature, maybe another tactic is in order. Also, certain topics should require less explanation than others. How many times can you tell a Nazi that Nazism is wrong?
StreetlightNovember 26, 2017 at 09:58#1274030 likes
it's only good and natural on a personal level; it's never good and natural when suggested from someone else.
Incidentally I think this is a bit crap. Some of the most valuable teaching lessons I've had in my life have come from being shamed by others, and vowing to never act in that way again on that basis. And in any case shame is always an intersubjective affect, insofar as it marks the self-recognition of the distance between what has been done and what ought to have been done. Shame may beget shame when one cannot do otherwise, but the apparent vicious cycle of shame you keep insisting upon is anything but unconditional. And in this particular case, it's entirely irrelevant.
TheWillowOfDarknessNovember 26, 2017 at 09:59#1274040 likes
Yes, they are. We can see in someone's actions whether they are sexist. One literally cannot hide it. For it to be hidden, we would literally have to be missing the act in question and it effects, in which case there would be nonsexist action present. People can't get away just by saying: "I'm not sexist" or "They were just rude." We can tell by the action.
This is what you're missing; of course someone wants to hid the shameful feeling of having committed a sexual crime. Try shaming that person.
We do and it works with respect to both individual cases (e.g. people come to understand how objectifying women is wrong by us pointing out it is toxic) and to the social context (e.g. society doesn't let people get away with objectifying women. Pointing out the toxicity of sexism is how we teach people not to do it, sexist and non-sexist alike. The fact some sexists won't ever change their minds doesn't alter this.
Buxtebuddha has specifically been warned of a ban. The reason should be obvious.
It's not clear why you warned him unless you interpreted his language as sexist.
And to be clear, I don't think it's good for Buxte to use language such as "slut", "tits", etc. but by no means do I think that this should be a bannable offence. Much rather, it's a question of manners.
Someone just brings disrepute to themselves when they talk like that, like I brought disrepute upon myself when I got angry at Lord Hannity and started cussing him and he ignored me. My apologies oh great Lord Hannity for trying to tarnish your pristine lawyer reputation.
The rest was a general warning about sexism. Consider yourself included.
Oh yeah myself and presumably Thorongil (and now many more people) receive a "general warning" (whatever that's supposed to be now) for what? :s I protest against this warning, because we have done nothing nor said anything that is against the guidelines. Therefore we should NOT be threatened with a warning. The very fact we are threatened and given a warning is unfair.
(And no, I'm not obligated to give lessons on sexism any more than I am to give lessons on racism. If anyone here is too steeped in prejudice to even know how not be sexist even after all the time we've already spent discussing it, they'll be warned and / or banned and justly so.)
No, of course you're not obligated to do it, but it would be good if you understood what was said to begin with. It doesn't seem that you understand that none of us made the strawman statement that you, and especially the others like SLX et al., claim we have. None of us agree with the statement that "if a woman is dressed inappropriately, she deserves to be assaulted" or anything of that nature. And none of us agreed with the statement that "in a court of law, rape should not be an offence if the victim was dressed inappropriately".
So by your own criteria, we haven't actually said anything sexist.
Conservatism as a political position has no necessary connection at all with sexism as far as I'm concerned.
:-d ... yeah except that you're giving us warnings even though we haven't said anything sexist. So those warnings aren't given for sexism, they're given for our conservative positions, which you do not want to tolerate, probably pressured by the likes of StreelightX and TL.
Oh let's see... people like TheWillow, StreelightX and TimeLine - all three of them highly steeped in POMO-literature and extreme left-wing views, especially SLX, who has already demonstrated that he is incapable of rational judgements OR fair consideration when it comes to positions he disagrees with.
And fair consideration and a cool head are exactly what a moderator should have, and unfortunately, I think SLX has proven and continues to prove that he lacks both. And I'm absolutely not the only one who thinks he should step down from the position he holds. If we held a public poll, without the moderators voting, this would be clear. He is actually a danger to the diversity of this community in that position.
By the way when I say I'm not going to debate this, I include the usual suspects, which means you too Agustino. It's not up for debate. It's a policy statement.
Yeah, a very unclear policy statement, because none of us - myself, Lone Wolf, Thorongil, Bitter Crank, Buxtebuddha, T Clark, etc. - consider ourselves sexist or argue that sexism in any of the forms you yourself have outlined should be permitted.
So really you're just using a psychological double-bind here on us. You really mean "shut up with your conservative positions or you'll get banned", but you say "stop being sexist or you'll get banned" pre-empting the reason why you'd ban us. Of course you have to claim we're doing something against the guidelines, otherwise you have no leg to stand on and ban us, since conservatism isn't in the guidelines at least not yet.
We will not have this site or any part of it turning into a toxic waste dump of male stupidity and ignorance towards women.
Right, no you won't, and the way you'll do that is by allowing some people to post comments such as "Woman, go on your knees!" and justify it because they're drunk - that makes a lot of sense :B . Instead you'll punish those who aren't actually sexist and who make reasonable arguments for their positions. I see.
You may have missed the long open discussions we have already had about sexism and how the mod team should deal with it. We're now obliged to enforce the guidelines as discussed. You can read whatever else you want into it. That's your issue.
So because we had one discussion already, whatever you decide are its results will always be its results, and we should never discuss it again? :s
Why the hell was he warned? :s He didn't say anything sexist. Again, you cannot point to a single sexist thing he said. You can certainly point to rude things he said, and vulgar things he said, that's for sure. But there's nothing sexist there. You - and your other friends - are just strawmanning in order to get rid of positions you don't agree with by other means.
Yes, if you are going to claim that women are responsible for the sexual violence against them purely because of the clothing they choose to wear, you will be banned.
If I am your son and I go dressed in Louis Vuitton with tons of cash on me walking through the hood and the worst part of town, will you not say anything to me? :s Sure, if I get assaulted, I am not responsible, at least not morally and legally, for what happened to me. But it doesn't follow that it was a smart thing to go through that part of town dressed and acting in that manner.
Actually, I think most people here would agree that it is both sexist and disgusting to blame women for sexual violence against them purely on the basis of their clothing. But regardless, it is the policy that that is unacceptable, yes.
Yes, everyone agrees with that, even the people you warn for sexism... :-}
And by the way, I bother to have this conversation with you because you actually are somewhat of a rational person, unlike SLX, and things can be discussed with you, even if you disagree with them. You have shown some evidence of at least trying to consider different perspectives, and that's good. But your own views probably often blind you and make you instantaneously side with those holding similar views to you.
The point is this: no matter how flamboyant or provocative any woman behaves in public, she is never responsible for being sexually assaulted. That doesn't mean there can't still be public decency laws.
You and Clark are using two different senses of responsible and not distinguishing between them. Baden is also doing the same. Someone who goes dressed inappropriately in the inappropriate place/context and acts inappropriately will increase their chances of being harrassed. But of course this doesn't mean that they are morally or legally responsible for being harrassed - absolutely not. But it does mean that they lack pragmatic understanding of how the world actually is, as distinguished from how it should be. They don't understand what they should do to keep themselves safe.
Ironically, TimeLine understands this perfectly in practice:
I personally understand the cultural aspects to dress; when I was in Tel Aviv, I dressed the same as I do in Australia because wearing shorts and dresses and bikinis is normal, girls everywhere wear it and there is no underlying assumptions, unlike, say, when I was in Jerusalem or Palestine.
So there we go. She understands that pragmatically going around dressed in the wrong way in the wrong context will increase the chances of harm to herself (even though this shouldn't happen), so she protects herself. That's why in Jerusalem and Palestine she did not go around wearing shorts and bikinis.
You are strawmanning Buxte, as he never said what you attribute to him here, and T Clark is exactly right to call you out for your white knight pretensions.
For what reason would a woman dress immodestly (or perhaps not at all)? How would this help convey a point or establish a meaningful revolution? How is this going to end sexism? I don't see how it would solve anything. A woman who shares her body with each and every other person nearby does not seem to be a self-respecting woman.
The only reason I am aware of a woman dressing immodestly (and may I add that I am a woman myself) is to gain attention; good and bad. Can she control who looks at her? No, but she can generally control what everyone else sees. So, if a woman knows that dressing a certain way will cause a certain response from others, why would she dress that way and not expect that reaction? Seems no different than licking a metal pole in the dead of winter; it's gonna stick. The pole isn't sexist or racist, it just does what the laws of nature command it to do. So, in order for anyone to say that a woman dressing a certain way would not generally prompt a particular response is to say that she is ignorant; which would imply that women are morbidly stupid. And that is indeed a sexist statement. Instead, one ought to be inclined that women are not morons, and actually have a degree of intelligence as do their male counterparts.
Does this make a woman fully responsible for being raped? By no means! But it is a logical conclusion that dressing immodestly will increase her probability as being seen as a toy instead of a living, breathing, thinking human capable of making rational decisions. As no grown, educated person would lick a metal pole outside in the freezing cold, a woman should not suppose that dressing immodestly will not bring sexist and possibly dangerous reactions.
The focus on dress completely obscures the dimension of power and opportunity which, far more than any idiotic and sexist appeal to appearance, affords instances of rape. Fuck your appeals to modesty, you sexually-repressed fucks.
It's not a focus, but it is a factor. I see this all the time. You walk on the street and in front of you is a scantily dressed woman, and taxi drivers open their windows as they pass by, scream after her, whistle, honk at her etc. If the same woman was modestly dressed, that would be avoided. And this is a fact, I've witnessed and even tested this on purpose myself. It also happens with construction workers very frequently around here.
Those women aren't raped, but they are being harrassed. So obviously your favorite POMO authors should come to Eastern Europe to see how dressing in the wrong way in the wrong place increases your chances of being harrassed.
So again, you're stuck in your POMO-bubble, unaware of the reality of the world. I suggest you come out of those books for awhile.
Yep. I loathe to have to mention it, but it's such a pernicious, vile myth - promulgated by multiple shitheads in this thread alone - that it deserves address.
Yeah, like the other testosterone "myth" that I schooled you on last time? Like that one yes? :-} You're really a laughing stock and should step down from your position as a moderator.
ArguingWAristotleTiffNovember 26, 2017 at 11:19#1274130 likes
Fuck your appeals to modesty, you sexually-repressed fucks.
That's an example of moderator talk :-! It's also an example of being clear-headed, dispassionate, and capable of having a clear judgement on the situation un-influenced by your own personal views... Thank God that @Baden is an Administrator and not you... jamalrob was wise to choose Baden over you.
TheWillowOfDarknessNovember 26, 2017 at 11:38#1274150 likes
The accusations of sexism are right becasue there is still an underlying objectification of women occurring in their accusations of responsibility.
Aside from the many problems of equating dress as a cause of harassment or assault, the causality of someone getting harassed or assaulted isn’t the issue. It’s the way in which women are objectified in these arguments about causality, treated as thing defined to be assaulted by their own nature. It’s way the argument is used to deflect objections about male behaviour.
On a deeper level, the issue isn’t suggesting there are some instances where women could protect themselves for one reason or another, it’s that the form of argument eliminates the responsibility of men for harassing or assaulting women. It used as an excuse not to think about how men have behave or how women are people (even “provocative” ones). Instead of functioning as wise advice which might keep a woman safe, it is substituted into contexts where people are pointing out there is an issue with how men understand and behave towards women.
Instead of giving wisdom about safety, the argument functions to deny there is a serious problem in how men understand women. When the objectification of women is raised, the safety argument is used to shunt responsibility for objectification onto the women, as men “just react that way when attracted” as if only she can prevent it from happening, as men aren't even engaging in actions themselves.
unenlightenedNovember 26, 2017 at 11:40#1274170 likes
You, like good old Sappy, are also insufferable. You're contributing to toxic shame when you insult the people you disagree with; no where, unless I'm missing something, in this debate, have you actually brought an argument; you've just shamed those you disagree with by grossly insulting them (abusing your mod powers), and then you're confusingly coy with me, maybe because you think I agree with you. I'm not sure.
This comment alerts me to the fact that you are distinguishing healthy and toxic shame. But elsewhere, you seem to forget that healthy shame exists. I hope you will be healthily ashamed of causing this misunderstanding over several pages, and perhaps we can try and expound the difference a little together for the education of all, particularly in terms of how to respond. Here's my first attempt:
Let us suppose that we all, men and women both, are the products of a historically sexist society, and some or all of us are struggling to reform ourselves and others. If I say, 'that is a sexist remark', and then present an explanation of how it is so, that it is unbalanced or derogatory or whatever, then I am legitimately promoting a non-sexist society, and provoking, if they are convinced by my explanation, healthy shame in the author of the remark.
If, on the other hand, I identify the author as a sexist, and therefore a dinosaur, or some such, I am not offering them the chance to reform themselves, but telling them that they are irredeemable. I am provoking toxic shame
I should note though, that when one is on the receiving end of either form of criticism, to the extent that one already suffers from toxic shame, that one can be totally unaware of, it has the effect of activating toxic shame whichever way the criticism is presented. And because most of us have a measure of toxic shame already, complaints or arguments about a specific posting behaviour are frequently taken as being directed at personal identity, and responded to in kind.
So let's try not to call people insufferable, but only remarks. It probably won't be received any differently, but it is at least possible for it to be so. Are we more on the same page?
Psychologists sometimes differentiate healthy from unhealthy shame. Healthy shame is a warning sign that will, hopefully, motivate us to do better next time.
I’ll eat a smaller portion next time and save some cake for others. This shame helps us correct our behavior.
Toxic shame is not beneficial at all. Many of us are locked into toxic shame and we don’t know how to escape. We see ourselves as the problem, as bad:
I’m dumb, stupid, clumsy
I can’t do anything right!
What’s wrong with me?
I’m so awkward, fat, ugly, short, etc.
If the same woman was modestly dressed, that would be avoided.
Alternatively, if she didn't live among beasts and those who encourage and support them by victim-blaming, such a situation could also be avoided.
As to your standard flappery about my modding, I've neither said nor done anything in my capacity as a mod in this thread, but I understand that basic situational analysis is not your forte, so I won't hold it against you. I too, am glad that Baden is an admin and not me, as he's been alot more proactive in his wielding of the rules than I tend to be. But don't let that stop your little persecution complex from playing out in all its neurotic splendour - I'd flail about for substance too if I were so congenitally devoid of any.
unenlightenedNovember 26, 2017 at 12:38#1274210 likes
Can I suggest that it is the obsessive covering of breasts that makes a glimpse so exciting. "In olden days a glimpse of stocking..."
Why are beards not expected to be covered in public as secondary sexual features?
It’s the way in which women are objectified in these arguments about causality, treated as thing defined to be assaulted by their own nature. It’s way the argument is used to deflect objections about male behaviour.
:s
That makes no sense. It's like how you accused me of being sexist because you claim I react negatively to all women contradicting or reprimanding me, and then I showed you examples of women contradicting and reprimanding me where I did not react negatively at all. It's just empty & slanderous nonsense based on false imaginations.
it’s that the form of argument eliminates the responsibility of men for harassing or assaulting women.
So when I say that if a man rapes a woman, regardless of how she is dressed, he is fully responsible and guilty for that crime, when I say that, my argument eliminates the responsibility of men for harassing or assaulting women? :s
Instead of giving wisdom about safety, the argument functions to deny there is a serious problem in how men understand women. When the objectification of women is raised, the safety argument is used to shunt responsibility for objectification onto the women, as men “just react that way when attracted” as if only she can prevent it from happening, as men aren't even engaging in actions themselves.
Clarification: are you saying that I (or the people in this thread) are using the argument in this way, or that some people out there are using it in this way?
Alternatively, if she didn't live among beasts and those who encourage and support them by victim-blaming, such a situation could also be avoided.
No, I don't support the beasts, I actually despise them for behaving in that way. However, that doesn't mean that women should go around naked on the street. One worse wrong does not cancel out a relatively minor wrong (by comparison), nor does it mean that I should close my eyes to more minor wrongs, just cause there are other greater wrongs.
Public decency, contrary to your shameless white knighting, is important. Your white knighting around here seems to be nothing but your own sexual mating strategy. I have no interest in sexual mating or popularity, so I say what I think the truth is. Contrary to your silly propaganda, I'm not trying to get laid at all, that seems to be just your own projection. Nor am I "afraid" of the other sex.
And yes, going around naked on the street with the word "slut" written on you and the like is behaving like a savage. If you don't like it, deal with it, but that's my opinion, and it's shared by many decent folks.
TheWillowOfDarknessNovember 26, 2017 at 14:03#1274310 likes
Agustino:Clarification: are you saying that I (or the people in this thread) are using the argument in this way, or that some people out there are using it in this way?
I was referring you.
The issue is that the topic of discussion is not how a women might prevent instances of harassment or assault, but rather how the actions of said men are present at all. It's trying to tackle an underlying point about the objectification of women. Taking on the actions of men, regardless of whether a woman could have done something to present being harassed or assaulted, to move towards a higher prevalence of men who do not harass or assault, in any circumstances.
When you turn this into a question of how high a woman should have jumped to prevent her own abuse, you bury that's it's a man's action which involves an objectified understanding of women. You spend all your time piling on women for not prevent their abuse, ignoring the underlying issue of how men think about women. It becomes impossible to discuss and identify issues with how men understand women.
We can't move to a position that recognises men ought not be objectifying women, no matter how "provocative" they might be. If someone tries to point this out, they are met with denials, that it's the woman's "provocative" action which is all that's present. Men's actions and how they think about women becomes invisible.
Agustino:So when I say that if a man rapes a woman, regardless of how she is dressed, he is fully responsible and guilty for that crime, when I say that, my argument eliminates the responsibility of men for harassing or assaulting women?
Indeed. You shut down discussion of his thoughts, motivations and actions, such that we may not identify his responsibility and understanding of women involved in the event. You recognise him as a legally or even morally responsible in a way, but it's disconnected from his own thoughts and actions as a casual presence. He's not understood as a someone who thinks about women a certain way and abuses them as a result.
You might recognise he rapes but you do not recognise why or how he rapes, instead shifting those onto the women ("She didn't do what she needed to prevent it").
BuxtebuddhaNovember 26, 2017 at 14:44#1274410 likes
Have you ever had an experience where what you are attempting to convey has been misunderstood, perhaps further still have not been able to adequately communicate at all because what you say flies over the head of one intellectually beneath you or perhaps because they are of a different linguistic or cultural background?
I agree. Communication by words, gestures, behaviors, and whatever can be misinterpreted, even despite great efforts at clarification. Despite that, people do effectively communicate even the most complex things, even such things as sexual desire towards one another.
My only point really was in challenging the proposition that clothing was an excluded method of communication, but I would also find anyone in Western countries disengenuous and perhaps criminal who tries to assert that the language of our community is that minimal clothing on a female equates to a solicitation for sex. The point is that wearing a bikini does not mean "I want sex," anymore than saying "pass the butter" does and it's hard to dismiss someone who suggests otherwise as being simply confused.
Alternatively, if she didn't live among beasts and those who encourage and support them by victim-blaming, such a situation could also be avoided.
I don't believe that calling people, or even actions or words, sexist is useful. They may be wrong, or more importantly, disrespectful of people who deserve respect. I think calling something sexist makes the people who do feel virtuous and effective, as if they've done something of value, but they haven't. Respect is what's important in reason and on this forum.
If I did believe in calling statements sexist, I would say this is the most sexist thing that has been written in this interesting and valuable set of posts. So, @Baden, hows about you threaten SLX with a ban.
The issue is that the topic of discussion is not how a women might prevent instances of harassment or assault, but rather how the actions of said men are present at all. It's trying to tackle an underlying point about the objectification of women. Taking on the actions of men, regardless of whether a woman could have done something to present being harassed or assaulted, to move towards a higher prevalence of men who do not harass or assault, in any circumstances.
When you turn this into a question of how high a woman should have jumped to prevent her own abuse, you bury that's it's a man's action which involves an objectified understanding of women. You spend all your time piling on women for not prevent their abuse, ignoring the underlying issue of how men think about women. It becomes impossible to discuss and identify issues with how men understand women.
We can't move to a position that recognises men ought not be objectifying women, no matter how "provocative" they might be. If someone tries to point this out, they are met with denials, that it's the woman's "provocative" action which is all that's present. Men's actions and how they think about women becomes invisible.
No, that's not the issue. If you look at the genesis of this discussion, you will see that it started out by a discussion of public decency, and the need for both men and women to dress decently when out in the public. So if you really want to talk about the issue at play, that's the issue.
The twin issues of whether dressing indecently increases the likelihood of harassment OR the issue of the responsibility of the man if he rapes the women are two side issues with regards to this original point.
You recognise him as a legally or even morally responsible in a way, but it's disconnected from his own thoughts and actions as a casual presence. He's not understood as a someone who thinks about women a certain way and abuses them as a result.
Yeah, he is understood as precisely that, that's exactly why he is legally and morally responsible for what he does.
You might recognise he rapes but you do not recognise why or how he rapes, instead shifting those onto the women ("She didn't do what she needed to prevent it").
No, I don't shift anything on the woman, because she has no duty or moral responsibility to prevent it. As it has been said already, in a just world, she would not get raped regardless of how she dresses.
Now you and your cohort are trying to sideline the main issue, which is the issue of public decency. If she dresses indecently, that is a moral failing in itself. And this has little to do with what is currently discussed.
Can I suggest that it is the obsessive covering of breasts that makes a glimpse so exciting. "In olden days a glimpse of stocking..."
I don't think a glimpse is "so exciting". And I doubt that in the West's sexually promiscuous and porn-filled culture "seeing a breast" is so exciting at all.
Why are beards not expected to be covered in public as secondary sexual features?
For the same reason hair (on your head, not in other places) isn't expected to be covered. Women aren't expected to cover their hair either, except in places like Saudi Arabia where their standards of decency are different for cultural and religious reasons.
If women happened to have beards too, I wouldn't expect that they'd be expected to cover them either.
So there we go. She understands that pragmatically going around dressed in the wrong way in the wrong context will increase the chances of harm to herself (even though this shouldn't happen), so she protects herself. That's why in Jerusalem and Palestine she did not go around wearing shorts and bikinis.
I would appreciate if you did not intentionally misconstrue the relevant point I was attempting to make. Are you saying that in countries where clothing of modest dress is enforced, women do not get raped? I continued with the following:
It does not, however, make it justifiable that any act of sexual violence is causally linked to the way a person dresses. On the other hand, acts of violence against women and in particular sexual violence is linked and can be correlated to paternalistic cultures with ingrained misogynistic values (such as acid throwing or honour killings) and therefore the problem is the underlying misogyny which itself could potentially be linked to rape.
To say that it is a woman' fault for inviting sexual assault based on what she wears is entirely sexist. End of story.
The reason I don't want pornographic billboards, public street sex, naked women walking down the street, and all other imaginable sexual displays has nothing to do with my concern that if I see such images I will forcibly assault the nearest woman, but it's that I simply wish to be spared such things.
I also wonder if your GIF will be deleted when I check the forum tomorrow, as the one I posted not long ago was the subject of rebuke in this very thread.
What do you know. It's still there. Paiging @Michael and @Baden.
To say that it is a woman' fault for inviting sexual assault based on what she wears is entirely sexist. End of story.
Yeah, no doubt if you frame the issue like that it is. But that's a strawman. I was quite specific that it is not the woman's moral or legal fault if she dresses licentiously and she gets raped. But I did say that, depending on the circumstances (where she is going, what she will be doing, etc.), it may be a stupid thing for her to dress licentiously since this may increase the chances that she will be harassed. And I gave many examples already. And you, through your own actions, at least as you retold them to us, have demonstrated that you are well aware of this.
Yeah, no doubt if you frame the issue like that it is. But that's a strawman. I was quite specific that it is not the woman's moral or legal fault if she dresses licentiously and she gets raped. But I did say that, depending on the circumstances (where she is going, what she will be doing, etc.), it may be a stupid thing for her to dress licentiously since this may increase the chances that she will be harassed. And I gave many examples already. And you, through your own actions, at least as you retold them to us, have demonstrated that you are well aware of this.
You are a broken record, repeating the same thing over and over again and fail to actually see the relevant point about ingrained misogynistic values, because you are a part of the same framework.
You and I are finished in this conversation. My only point in speaking to you was to inform you not to use my arguments falsely or incorrectly, for which I have clarified.
You are a broken record, repeating the same thing over and over again and fail to actually see the relevant point about ingrained misogynistic values, because you are a part of the same framework.
Right. Well as far as I am concerned, if you're going to speak past what I say, you can go on and duel with the phantoms of your imaginative opera.
My only point in speaking to you was to inform you not to use my arguments falsely or incorrectly, for which I have clarified.
I haven't used your arguments falsely or incorrectly. You have shown through your actions that you are aware that dressing inappropriately heightens your risk of harm in certain specific contexts. That's a FACT, and is undeniable.
Now I agree that it shouldn't heighten your risk, but we live in an imperfect world where it does in certain circumstances.
BuxtebuddhaNovember 26, 2017 at 18:45#1274830 likes
I don't think a glimpse is "so exciting". And I doubt that in the West's sexually promiscuous and porn-filled culture "seeing a breast" is so exciting at all.
Then the whole argument about prudential covering up falls apart.
I would appreciate if you did not intentionally misconstrue the relevant point I was attempting to make. Are you saying that in countries where clothing of modest dress is enforced, women do not get raped?
I think it is you who is misrepresenting what Agustino wrote. Agustino pisses me off sometimes with what I see as casual disrespect for women, but I don't see him doing that here.
Also, I think you would be furious if someone accused you of "intentionally" misconstruing something you disagree with them on.
I just read through the latter parts of this thread and I must say the degree of irrationality being displayed by those claiming that sexist comments have been made is mind-boggling.
AkanthinosNovember 26, 2017 at 19:11#1274930 likes
Holy Jeebus, we gonna stay on this crap-sandwich of a subject all weekend?
Just a minute, just a minute. You said you were going to get your insults from Shakespeare, but it appears you are also dipping into Margaret Atwood (Hag-Seed, one of the Hogarth Shakespeare series).
I just read through the latter parts of this thread and I must say the degree of irrationality being displayed by those claiming that sexist comments have been made is mind-boggling.
It is the result of not getting one's eyes out of POMO literature. I think some people have very little experience with these issues outside of those books.
The part that is sadder is that some of them are moderators and they shouldn't be since they just create intolerance and division within the community in order to enforce their own personal agenda through handing out warnings, threatening with bans, and similar. Positions that go against their favourite prejudices tend to fall victim to this mentality. Such people really are a danger to the diversity of this place.
unenlightenedNovember 26, 2017 at 21:12#1275300 likes
I had forgotten. Explain the difference for me again.
:B
Attraction is when you want to have something/someone or be close to something/someone. Basically when something or someone provokes your interest, liking and desire.
Excitement is an emotional feeling of enthusiasm and eagerness to do something.
Something you see or do for the first time is generally exciting because it's new and unexpected. If you keep doing something over and over, unless you are a buddha :-O , that something becomes less exciting.
Something that is attractive can keep being attractive even after you've done it or seen it for many times. That's why we have such things as addictions for example.
unenlightenedNovember 26, 2017 at 21:31#1275440 likes
I don't think a glimpse is "so exciting". And I doubt that in the West's sexually promiscuous and porn-filled culture "seeing a breast" is so exciting at all.
So breasts are attractive but not exciting. Then semi nakedness does not excite male passion and does not lead to rape, which I think counts as "doing something".
I'm wondering at this point whether you actually have a position on this, or whether you just have old-fashioned views and a gift for blowing smoke.
Metaphysician UndercoverNovember 26, 2017 at 21:42#1275490 likes
I think it is you who is misrepresenting what Agustino wrote. Agustino pisses me off sometimes with what I see as casual disrespect for women, but I don't see him doing that here.
Also, I think you would be furious if someone accused you of "intentionally" misconstruing something you disagree with them on.
I am not claiming that particular statement he mentioned was sexist, on the contrary, it is clear that I agree cultural behaviour in various regions of the world dictate how women must dress and as a traveller or foreigner I must respect that. My point, however - and what is in complete contrast to Agu' overarching point - is that the reasoning behind these prohibitions are misogynistic and enable justifications for holding women responsible for soliciting acts of sexual aggression against them. From a legal standpoint - and as a woman - I find that reprehensible.
I directly work with young girls who have arrived as refugees and migrants into Australia from countries such as Iraq and Somalia who have informed me that they have been raped; in addition, many women from such places have been imprisoned or ostracised for being raped, Islamic girls that are completely covered. I needn't repeat this, but how a person dresses is irrelevant.
Funny you should say that you "think" I would anything while at the same time purporting that I am incorrect for claiming intentional behaviour. He and his consistent POMO references is exhausting and irrational.
But TimeLine, I don't think Agustino did misunderstand what you said. Sometimes several people on the forum (not just you) have had difficulty perceiving agreement and understanding, just as some people regularly misinterpret what others have said -- deliberately or not. And it occurs in all sorts of discussions, not just ones involving rape, discrimination, sexism, et al.
TheWillowOfDarknessNovember 26, 2017 at 23:18#1275850 likes
Agustino:
The twin issues of whether dressing indecently increases the likelihood of harassment OR the issue of the responsibility of the man if he rapes the women are two side issues with regards to this original point.
Whether dressing in certain way causes people to be assaulted or harassed and the legal and moral responsibility in the sense you are talking about, are side issues with respect to our point. Our point isn't about about either.
The "responsibility" we are looking at is the being of the man abusing women, regardless of the two side issues you raise. Our argument is about forming an understanding of the how and why of the abuser in terms of him, regardless of the way anyone might be dressed. It's not mere legal or moral responsibility, but causal or presence, an action or state which wouldn't have happened if the man in question didn't understand women were objects. The point is to recognise objectification of women as an action and understanding which may be altered or prevented, stopping instances of harassment and abuse in the first instance.
When you try to pretend this issue isn't within the context of this argument, that what we are talking boat is somehow only a question of public decency, you destroy any capacity to understand in these terms. Acts of assault and harassment are understood to be actions women didn't do enough to prevent, rather than abuses of men which could have been absent had they not objectified women.
In this context, the issue has never been public decency. From the beginning, it was about the context of women being assaulted or harassed, not whether their dressing was decent. It began with you guys claiming she ought to have stopped her own abuse, not with the separate moral claim someone ought to dress decently.
Agustino:Now you and your cohort are trying to sideline the main issue, which is the issue of public decency. If she dresses indecently, that is a moral failing in itself. And this has little to do with what is currently discussed.
No, we aren't. We are pointing out public decency was never the main issue. The comments in question were made in response to understanding instances of when women had been absurd, not in respect to a context of whether a woman was dressing decency and how she might be a moral failing for that.
I agree how she dresses has little to with the subject of discussion. Our point was always a moral failing of indecent dressing had little to do with what was being discussed, giving a description of an abuser's actions. Any moral failing of indecent dressing is a separate moral description to be given on its own terms.
One of the reasons I like reading what you have to say about relations between men and women is that, even though you focus your efforts and attention on vulnerable young women, you are committed to even-handedness. Better yet, it's clear that that even-handedness is not pro forma, but comes from a deeply felt compassion for men as much as for women. From my point of view, that gives you a tremendous amount of authority and credibility. I do think you are sometimes too harshly judgmental, but to me, that is well-earned.
Funny you should say that you "think" I would anything while at the same time purporting that I am incorrect for claiming intentional behaviour. He and his consistent POMO references is exhausting and irrational.
Once you beat me senseless because I suggested I might have some slight understanding of something you might have been feeling. Maybe. Sort of. Kind of. Perhaps. From that I decided I would always put "seems to me," or "I think maybe," before I attribute anything to you. You, on the other hand, seem comfortable attributing intention to Agustino as fact with no qualification.
Reply to Hanover No, turkey wings are too scrawny to bother cooking over high heat. Throw them in a pot of water (sort of like horse shoes. one at a time) and low boil, high simmer with a couple of onions and a couple of ribs of celery for 1.5 to 2 hours. Strain the stock. If you want, pick over the mess for any meat that might happen to be worth keeping. Probably not much.
Return stock to pot to stove; add sliced carrots, one raw onion chopped up, 1 raw rib of celery chopped up, noodles or chunked potatoes, some minced garlic, parsley, salt, pepper. Add matzo balls.
Plan B: Fricassee the turkey wings and serve in a white sauce. You're a white dude, you should know how to make a white sauce. (I assume chicken can be served with milk, since birds have nothing to do with milk, their titless breasts notwithstanding.
Plan C: give the bag of turkey wings to the poor family down the street. They'll be grateful. Be sure the wings are not spoiled or their gratitude may be eternal.
Plan D: ruin the wings on the BBQ and then throw them out.
TheWillowOfDarknessNovember 26, 2017 at 23:36#1275920 likes
T Clark:Once you beat me senseless because I suggested I might have some slight understanding of something you might have been feeling. Maybe. Sort of. Kind of. Perhaps. From that I decided I would always put "seems to me," or "I think maybe," before I attribute anything to you. You, on the other hand, seem comfortable attributing intention to Agustino as fact with no qualification.
His intention is clear: to divert any discussion of the actions of abusive men into questions about whether a woman was dressing decently.
It's sexism because it prevents us recognising abuse in terms of the actions of such men. When we reduce the account of the action of rape or harassment to a woman failure to prevent it, we cannot the recognise understating of women present in such actions and how it relates to our culture. Pointing out the role of objectification or how identifying it as a moral problem can becomes impossible.
Our discourse about the actions of abusive men is poisoned to a point where we cannot recognise cultural influences which go into causing instances abuse. If all we keep saying is: "Women ought to have prevent her assaulted," we cannot develop a culture which identifies the role of the objectification of women and takes it on as a moral issue.
His intention is clear: to divert any discussion of the actions of abusive men into questions about whether a woman was dressing decently.
I read through all the comments back and forth in the set of posts - Agustino's and everyone else's. Sometimes things Agustino writes are disrespectful of women. In my opinion, that is not the case here, no matter what the knee-jerk reactions are to his heresy.
TheWillowOfDarknessNovember 26, 2017 at 23:43#1275940 likes
I didn't make a claim about what Agustino said in that sense, I pointed out what he was doing-- that the way in which he was acting which do not fit his claim of innocence with respect to sexism.
There are over 1,000 members now and probably over 1,000 views on what sexism is. The fact that a few members including you don't consider any remarks that have been made in the Shout box sexist doesn't sway things all that much. Others obviously do. And beyond all the white noise, what happened here was that I warned Buxtebuddha that one of his comments was seriously sexist and unacceptable, which it was, and I gave a general warning to others involved in the conversation not to be sexist. Then, in a conversation with T Clark I gave an example of something that would be considered as serious sexism. Hardly cause for this much drama. One thing I didn't mention, but which is also sexist, is referring to women as "sluts" simply on the basis of their wearing revealing clothes, something that Buxtebuddha has also done. That should end too. Regarding insults and so on: We don't tend to delete flames by anyone in the Shout box, mod or not, and the poster, Meta, who made the other sexist comment you referenced was warned of a ban by PM (you should know that as he complained about it publicly). So, I don't see credible evidence of double standards here.
One point you made, which is fair, is the question as to why we didn't just delete the comments we considered sexist. Personally, I've been very loathe to delete anything in the Shout box at all but in future, that, and private warnings, may be a better way to avoid this endless public fighting. Anyway, Buxte has already said he didn't intend to blur the line on responsibility, and clarified some of his comments, which is good, and hopefully everyone will be more careful in future as, though debate on public decency is acceptable, we do have rules concerning sexism and we will enforce them.
Noble DustNovember 27, 2017 at 00:10#1276040 likes
Yes, I think you described the idea well; better than I did. And yes, as you say, it's hard to extricate ourselves from the cycle of toxic shame; I wasn't able to do that myself even while trying to make the argument. Reply to StreetlightX and Reply to TimeLine, apologies to you both for the insults. Now, I'm curious if the two of you and Reply to TheWillowOfDarkness have any comments on unenlightened's description of toxic shame, which was the only contribution I was trying to make to the discussion.
TheWillowOfDarknessNovember 27, 2017 at 00:21#1276050 likes
I agree with him a bit and disagree with him a lot.
My position takes unenlightened's second half further: in immorality, we are toxic and there is nothing redeemable about it. It's not just an accident of passionate exchange, but a fact of being immoral.
If someone has done something immoral, there is nothing they can do to remove that toxicity. Even if they act perfectly for the rest of their lives, they were still toxic. We think we can escape our toxicity at our peril-- it means excusing the horror we have etched into the fabric of the world. Take that step, we are running from what we have done, from honesty about our own actions.
StreetlightNovember 27, 2017 at 00:29#1276080 likes
Reply to Bitter Crank Ah, but Atwood cribbed it from Prospero's conversation with Caliban in the first act of the Tempest:
"Hag-seed, hence!
Fetch us in fuel. And be quick, thou 'rt best,
To answer other business. Shrug’st thou, malice?
If thou neglect’st or dost unwillingly
What I command, I’ll rack thee with old cramps,
Fill all thy bones with aches, make thee roar
That beasts shall tremble at thy din."
The last four lines being a potential personal motto, perhaps?
If someone has done something immoral, there is nothing they can do to remove that toxicity. Even if they act perfectly for the rest of their lives, they were still toxic. We think we can escape our toxicity at our peril-- it means excusing the horror we have etched into the fabric of the world. Take that step, we are running from what we have done, from honesty about our own actions.
You can entertain whatever moral scheme you want, of course, but since you have expressed in openly here, I am free to criticize it.
In your statement, the consequences of an immoral action (toxicity) can not be removed--ever. Neither can an immoral action be compensated by behaving morally in the future. Any attempt to escape the unending toxicity and "horror we have etched into the world", is a cowardly escape attempt, and dishonest.
There is a familiar odor about this: it's the scent of scorched earth fundamentalism. "Nope -- you're damned for all time. Sin once or sin a million times, and you're guilty. No mercy, no forgiveness, no penance is possible. You belong to Satan."
I'm not suggesting that you are a fundamentalist Christian or Moslem, of course. You're probably some sort of atheist -- which isn't a criticism -- but atheism is no bar to this sort of fundamentalist moral absolutism.
When it comes to immorality, I'm inclined to think of the traditional immoral acts: murder, theft, adultery, idolatry, etc. I'm not willing to grant the gravitas of idolatry to sins against what is currently considered proper respect for women and minorities. I'm not willing to equate murder with having the wrong attitude, or for being crude and tasteless.
If you judge sexist statements by this morality, I wonder what you would do with murder?
Yours is an inhuman morality, because it seems to suppose that there are people (yourself, perhaps?) who have not sinned. If you have not sinned, then you are like the Virgin Mary -- born without sin. Maybe you were, I don't know. Did your mother have strange visitors before she got pregnant with you? If you have sinned, then who are you to lay out damnation?
Yours is an inflexible morality because it doesn't allow for the benefit of remorse, reform, forgiveness, absolution, compensatory acts, and so on. Your morality doesn't have much scale to it -- in the context it appeared, I assume you are talking about sexism. If sexist comments or acts etch horror into the fabric of the world, then what does murder and armed robbery or arson do?
That’s when I drew a timeline on a sheet of paper. It was made up of three parts: the minutes of her life to date, the 20 minutes of her assault, and then the 23 years of minutes that would take her up to 44. I was putting the assault into temporal perspective, stressing that one bad event lasting a few minutes wouldn’t diminish her life before it happened and didn’t have to diminish her life afterwards. I also said that despite the assault, most of her life was still ahead of her, and that she had a certain amount of control over they way in which it would unfold. As such, I said, she could choose to recover—when she was ready—because “women do it all the time.” I added that this was a perspective that victims rarely heard but was nonetheless valid. Her eyes lit up when I said this.
(she had both mental and physical confidence), and I shuddered at the thought of her receiving “politicized” support. What I mean by that is the narrative extolled by university trained feminists that implies assault victims are victims for life and have been irreparably damaged. It’s a pernicious double-whammy, a child, metaphorically speaking, of over-zealous Neighbourhood Watchers and feminist victimology. That’s because installing the idea of permanent victimhood into the minds of those freshly victimized is powerful: despite the face of kindness that comes with this support, it can be as chauvinistic and as disempowering as the most boorish, sexist man. It’s one thing to help a young woman use her anger as a source of strength; it’s quite another to allow a group to use it to advance an ideology. We’ve institutionalized the latter to the detriment of far too many women.
TheWillowOfDarknessNovember 27, 2017 at 02:52#1276360 likes
Bitter Crank:There is a familiar odor about this: it's the scent of scorched earth fundamentalism. "Nope -- you're damned for all time. Sin once or sin a million times, and you're guilty. No mercy, no forgiveness, no penance is possible. You belong to Satan."
This is exactly the sort of thing that recognising the irredeemability of sin seeks to avoid.
When sin is redeemed, it becomes cheap in exactly this way: be damned one, twice, a million times, it doesn't matter, just take whatever action you need to be redeemed, then it will be as if you never did anything wrong at all. The toxic nature of your actions will be taken away. You're allowed pretend you have done nothing wrong. Comprehension of the harm you have done is lost. Everyone is redeemed and we have no idea anymore of the specific harms they have caused others,
My point is we should not be running away from our sins. We should be owning our toxicity, how we have caused irreparable harm to the world, not trying to claim it's something that was not really us. It is not against mercy, forgiveness or penance. Those are respective actions taking in response to sin. They are just actions no matter how much irredeemable sin someone has committed.
We are damned only insofar as those toxic moments. For the rest of our lives, we may belong to God rather than Satan. The point is we shouldn't be using belonging God to claim we never belonged to Satan. We ought to keep in mind how we were toxic in the past, so we do not forget the damage we have caused and end up repeating it.
We must say: "Yes, I was toxic then" rather than thinking we can somehow undo what we did by taking other actions.
Bitter Crank:Yours is an inflexible morality because it doesn't allow for the benefit of remorse, reform, forgiveness, absolution, compensatory acts, and so on. Your morality doesn't have much scale to it -- in the context it appeared, I assume you are talking about sexism. If sexist comments or acts etch horror into the fabric of the world, then what does murder and armed robbery or arson do?
Mine is a serious morality, one which doesn't allow people the excuse "but I didn't do this worse things," such that we don't just ignore violations.
It has no scale because immorality only has one level: ought not happen. The moment we introduce a scale, we are ignoring the damage someone has done, suggesting it's not really damaging because someone else took a different damaging act. My morality is only "inflexible" in that it doesn't let people get way with excusing immoral actions.
Remorse, reform, forgiveness and compensatory acts are all fine and good. Indeed, they are supported by this position: it means such actions (to their appropriate level) will be taken for sexism, rather than just being reserved for armed robbery and arson. Absolution is rejected, as it amounts to pretended you didn't do what you did, that somehow the toxicity of your past sins can be taken away.
TheWillowOfDarknessNovember 27, 2017 at 02:57#1276380 likes
The second part is nonsense. Feminists taking issue with sexism and the abuse of women doesn't create some victim narrative which makes it impossible for assault to move on with their lives. It's a separate political activity.
Plan B: Fricassee the turkey wings and serve in a white sauce. You're a white dude, you should know how to make a white sauce. (I assume chicken can be served with milk, since birds have nothing to do with milk, their titless breasts notwithstanding.
Plan C: give the bag of turkey wings to the poor family down the street. They'll be grateful. Be sure the wings are not spoiled or their gratitude may be eternal.
Interesting reference to white people and poor people because my idea for the turkey wings was sparked recently at a soul food restaurant (where I was the only white guy other than my son who also happens to be white) and I ordered the turkey wings. They served me two huge wings that had been stewed in a barbecue sort of seasoning. They were very tender and were the sort of deliciousness that only those schooled in cooking low quality foods can make.
I baked my wings at 400, which made them too dry and rubbery. I think what I'll do next time is cook them in a crock pot with barbecue sauce. In response to Benkei's well formed objection, the crock pot also is an acceptable form of male cooking because you just throw the food in there and you don't think about it. If you make food that you have to fret over, then you might as well wear a French maid apron and talk like a girl.
One thing I'm not a fan of are Southern style cornbread muffins. They don't mix in any wheat flour and the rolls are really crumbly because they're pure corn meal. They also pour bacon grease in them, making them like 8000 calories a bite. They do make really good survival food that you might want to store in your fallout shelter, assuming you have one. I built mine during the Carter administration during the Cold War, but since the Berlin Wall fell, I have been using it as a place to keep my treadmill, which I use to stack my clothes on, which my cat uses as a bed.
Your decision to use the wings as a tangential flavoring agent for a measly broth speaks to your Midwestern roots steeped in white privilege and devoid of any suffering or character, but I challenge you to find a way to use this rare and valued protein for actual nourishment. You do that without using words like "fricassee," which surely no one who is buying turkey wings has ever heard.
Reply to Bitter Crank I'll be generous and think you did not see the response I already gave relating to that. Our conversation feels pointlessly alluring, just like my incredibly busy lifestyle matched with a deep stillness and peace that I am able to find the time to respond to you. I feel like this right now:
One of the reasons I like reading what you have to say about relations between men and women is that, even though you focus your efforts and attention on vulnerable young women, you are committed to even-handedness. Better yet, it's clear that that even-handedness is not pro forma, but comes from a deeply felt compassion for men as much as for women. From my point of view, that gives you a tremendous amount of authority and credibility. I do think you are sometimes too harshly judgmental, but to me, that is well-earned.
I was going to respond with a sophisticated and yet cryptic appreciation (for seeing me for exactly what I am) and the intent behind being cryptic was only because I worry that any thanks for your kind words may be taken away from me by either yourself or others, but I guess the risk is worth it. Thank you. O:)
ProbablyTrueNovember 27, 2017 at 05:58#1276860 likes
Hypothetical question.
You are browsing in an antique shop and find an old vase with a genie in it. It grants you one of three options.
1. You never have to eat again.
2. You never have to sleep again.
3. You no longer have sexual desires or drives(procreation becomes entirely external and dispassionate).
There is a catch, however. Whichever one you choose you choose for you alone, and you must choose one of the other two options for every other person in the world. Which do you choose for yourself and which do you choose for everyone else?
There is a catch, however. Whichever one you choose you choose for you alone, and you must choose one of the other two options for every other person in the world. Which do you choose for yourself and which do you choose for everyone else?
I love to eat. I love to sleep. I love sex. Can I say "none of the above? I wonder how many of the other people in the world I made the choice for would feel the same way.
I guess if I were a masochist, I would pick 2 for myself and 3 for the others. Then I could sit awake, 24 hours a day, wanting to get laid but without any potential partners.
ProbablyTrueNovember 27, 2017 at 06:12#1276890 likes
I love to eat. I love to sleep. I love sex. Can I say "none of the above? I wonder how many of the other people in the world I made the choice for would feel the same way.
I'm afraid not. You either choose one of the options or the genie would give you taste buds in unpleasant places.
On reflection I think this hypothetical might be too easy. I think choose 2 for myself and 1 for everyone else. I could binge eat every night while everyone was sleeping. Getting a variety of food might be tough though.
You are browsing in an antique shop and find an old vase with a genie in it. It grants you one of three options.
1. You never have to eat again.
2. You never have to sleep again.
3. You no longer have sexual desires or drives(procreation becomes entirely external and dispassionate).
There is a catch, however. Whichever one you choose you choose for you alone, and you must choose one of the other two options for every other person in the world. Which do you choose for yourself and which do you choose for everyone else?
1 for me and 2 for everyone else.
Noble DustNovember 27, 2017 at 10:44#1277330 likes
It's true, I'm pretty daft; having the likes of you and TL around to remind me of what a failure I am is extremely helpful; otherwise, I might begin to presume that I'm an autonomous individual with my own rationally and intuitively constructed views about not only the given world, but also my own intersubjective experience of that given world. Thank god I have beneficiaries like yourself to remind me that I don't belong here at all.
I might begin to presume that I'm an autonomous individual with my own rationally and intuitively constructed views about not only the given world, but also my own intersubjective experience of that given world. Thank god I have beneficiaries like yourself to remind me that I don't belong here at all.
You're an autonomous individual, why would you need to belong? ;)
Noble DustNovember 27, 2017 at 11:09#1277390 likes
I think the nicest thing anyone has said to me all week was that I'm not an oppressive lefty ogre admin bent on destroying conservatism in the forum through surreptitious means.
I think the nicest thing anyone has said to me all week was that I'm not an oppressive lefty ogre admin bent on destroying conservatism in the forum through surreptitious means.
Wait, no one actually said that...
If nobody said it then it can't be true.
Noble DustNovember 27, 2017 at 11:16#1277440 likes
You are browsing in an antique shop and find an old vase with a genie in it. It grants you one of three options.
1. You never have to eat again.
2. You never have to sleep again.
3. You no longer have sexual desires or drives (procreation becomes entirely external and dispassionate).
There is a catch, however. Whichever one you choose you choose for you alone, and you must choose one of the other two options for every other person in the world. Which do you choose for yourself and which do you choose for everyone else?
How hypothetical is this? Are we to assume that the first and second option wouldn't lead to a horrible death, as they would in reality?
Because I think autonomously, but act within a social context of belonging.
I would think the need for belonging would threaten the authenticity of your autonomy, unless you lead a double life where on one hand there is you, the real you, and on the other there is the social, the link between the two is the loneliness you feel and the desire you feel to overcome the loneliness.
Anyway, in keeping with @Baden cheerful repertoire, did you guys read what T-Clarke wrote? Surely that was so nice that I doubt anyone could beat that.
:P I get it! I hold grudges too. I wish I didn't, though. I'm working on it. (I'm a Scorpio, remember...) But your sarcasm, grudges or not, is something I'll always gladly war against. And I'll always gladly resort to the shoutbox to blow off the steam.
Noble DustNovember 27, 2017 at 11:25#1277520 likes
I would think the need for belonging would threaten the authenticity of your autonomy, unless you lead a double life where on one hand there is you, the real you, and on the other there is the social, the link between the two is the loneliness you feel and the desire you feel to overcome the loneliness.
No, I don't see autonomy and belonging as opposites. Autonomy only obtains within belonging; I have autonomy within the context of other autonomous beings; otherwise, my autonomy is some special case of autonomy: I'm the only autonomous being, because no one else is. So, if instead there are many autonomous beings, then I'm just one of them, and we relate via belong to one another through our autonomy.
I love birds, actually. I have this weird thing, that, sense childhood, I've been, somehow, a "birder". I was a bird-watcher from an early age. I think my parents innocently put out a few bird feeders in the yard, but I was the weird youngest child who actually gave a shit about the poor little starving feather-balls. I have a life-list, somewhere, of American species that I've seen. I haven't actually added to the list for maybe 10 years or so, but... don't assume your adorable little owl eyes haven't gone unseen. I'm watching that gaze of yours....
Thank god I have beneficiaries like yourself to remind me that I don't belong here at all.
I realize I haven't had much of a chance to interact with you Noble Dust but let me assure you, I have been reading you and have agreed with you too many times to count.
I do hope you give us some more time to get to know you and you get to know some of us that might make you reconsider.
ArguingWAristotleTiffNovember 27, 2017 at 12:27#1277810 likes
Is it possible that there is a 'cap' to the amount of intelligence that the brain can retain at any one given time?
Example: My son who is in college is in a math course that is so complex that he now has a hard time doing simple math like fractions. My other son said it has to do with his brain working at a higher level of math that is making simple math more of a struggle.
So breasts are attractive but not exciting. Then semi nakedness does not excite male passion and does not lead to rape, which I think counts as "doing something".
Nice equivocation. You're having a hard time following.
Attraction is when you want to have something/someone or be close to something/someone. Basically when something or someone provokes your interest, liking and desire.
Excitement is an emotional feeling of enthusiasm and eagerness to do something.
If breasts are attractive, that means they "provoke your interest, liking and desire".
If breasts are attractive, that means they "provoke your interest, liking and desire".
Right. And, typically, that involves no excitement whatsoever?
The truth is that one could easily swap "provoke" with "excite" in that statement without significant change to the meaning. You seem to be tying yourself in knots by arguing that two synonyms are not synonymous, in order to reverse your earlier own goal.
unenlightenedNovember 27, 2017 at 12:31#1277850 likes
ArguingWAristotleTiffNovember 27, 2017 at 12:32#1277860 likes
What exactly is wrong with a breast provoking interest, liking and desire?
I, myself, happen to think breasts can be provoking interest, liking and desire.
Is there something wrong with me for having such a reaction?
ArguingWAristotleTiffNovember 27, 2017 at 12:34#1277870 likes
@unenlightened I think a roommate of his is gaining speed and might pass you on that! X-)
The truth is that one could easily swap "provoke" with "excite" in that statement without significant change to the meaning. You seem to be tying yourself in knots by arguing that two synonyms are not synonymous, in order to reverse your earlier own goal.
Yah, by changing the meaning of excite. As I defined it, excitement means eagerness or enthusiasm about something. It doesn't mean arousing something, as in arousing a passion, etc.
I didn't make a claim about what Agustino said in that sense, I pointed out what he was doing-- that the way in which he was acting which do not fit his claim of innocence with respect to sexism.
Right, you point out what I am doing the same way you pointed out what I was doing when you said I was sexist cause I disagree with TimeLine right? :-d
No, not according to the definitions unenlightened agreed on without complaint.
I defined it that way (it's the dictionary definition btw), and unenlightened agreed with the definition because he never disputed it, and went on with the rest of his thought.
I defined it that way, and unenlightened agreed with the definition because he never disputed it, and went on with the rest of his thought.
I know. I read that the first time around. I am not unenlightened. I am apparently more complacent and I am not playing along with your word game. (Inconvenient, isn't it? Would you rather I was more obliging?).
Reply to Agustino Yes, that is one definition. And, if you google the meaning of "excite", you will see that there is also another definition, which is the one that I mentioned. You will also see that "provoke" is first in the list of synonyms.
Reply to Sapientia So unenlightened agrees on some definitions with me, and then proceeds to make an argument using different definitions. Is that equivocation? Yes or no?
So unenlightened agrees on some definitions with me, and then proceeds to make an argument using different definitions. Is that equivocation? Yes or no?
If that is what unenlightened did, then that it was it could be.
Attraction is when you want to have something/someone or be close to something/someone. Basically when something or someone provokes your interest, liking and desire.
Excitement is an emotional feeling of enthusiasm and eagerness to do something.
Something you see or do for the first time is generally exciting because it's new and unexpected. If you keep doing something over and over, unless you are a buddha :-O , that something becomes less exciting.
Something that is attractive can keep being attractive even after you've done it or seen it for many times. That's why we have such things as addictions for example.
Excitement is an emotional feeling of enthusiasm and eagerness to do something.
— Agustino
I don't think a glimpse is "so exciting". And I doubt that in the West's sexually promiscuous and porn-filled culture "seeing a breast" is so exciting at all.
— Agustino
So breasts are attractive but not exciting. Then semi nakedness does not excite male passion and does not lead to rape, which I think counts as "doing something".
If that is what unenlightened did, then that it was it could be.
So he cites my definition, and then writes out his argument. Did he, or did he not equivocate? Yes or no? I shouldn't have to bicker so much with you to get you to see a basic fact of the situation.
TheWillowOfDarknessNovember 27, 2017 at 13:02#1278010 likes
They are similar. In both cases, you are missing a wider context of how your actions have a particular impact on women and an understanding which devalue them. In both cases, it's not a literal definition of the words you speak, but the wider context of your actions and what they mean towards women.
Not all sexism is directly stated and proudly announced.
ArguingWAristotleTiffNovember 27, 2017 at 13:07#1278030 likes
The fact that a [s]few[/s] members including you don't consider any remarks that have been made in the Shout box sexist doesn't sway things all that much. Others obviously do.
Correction, it's not a few members. Those who agree with you are few. There are many members - over 7-8 long-time members who have expressed open disagreement with your moderating decisions in regards to the warnings you've issued, and what you consider to be sexism. Who are you serving? The interests of this community, or the interests of an elite formed of 3-4 members? There may be 1000 members, but probably less than 10% are active, and out of those who are active, most significant contributors probably number around less than 40 (and that's easily an over-estimation).
That's the arrogance @T Clark mentioned to you before. You have come to view yourself as some sort of god who never admits he is wrong. You cannot cite one instance when you said "fine, I'm wrong here, let's do it like this"
Why not? Apart from better serving the interests of this community, I think it would be a show of virtue. Admitting one's wrongs takes a strong person to do.
And beyond all the white noise, what happened here was that I warned Buxtebuddha that one of his comments was seriously sexist and unacceptable
Most people did not find it seriously sexist, despite the vulgarity that it contained. I think this should give you an idea that you ought not apply your own personal definition of sexism, and instead apply one that best fits with the position of the members of this community.
If you don't want to do that, then you ought to make clear that you don't care what others consider sexism, because you're very certain you are correct.
I gave a general warning to others involved in the conversation not to be sexist
So the others in the conversation were not sexist, but you gave them a "general warning"? Yes or no?
And if they weren't sexist, why did you give them a general warning? Do you just give general warnings like that to random people? :s Why did I get a general warning or why did Thorongil get a general warning?
So, I don't see credible evidence of double standards here.
And the people who didn't make sexist comments even by your own standards, they receive a general warning right? That surely doesn't smell like double standards to you?
So he cites my definition, and then writes out his argument. Did he, or did he not equivocate? Yes or no? I shouldn't have to bicker so much with you to get you to see a basic fact of the situation.
I don't think that he cited your definition followed by his argument. I think that he took a conclusion of your argument, namely that breasts are attractive, but not (so) exciting, and he then attempted a reduction to the absurd, which does seem to use a different definition, and does seem to be equivocation.
Sorry about the bickering. But remember, like you once said of me, I could be prime minister. Practice makes perfect!
I don't think that he cited your definition followed by his argument. I think that he took a conclusion of your argument, namely that breasts are attractive, but not (so) exciting, and he then attempted a reduction to the absurd, which does seem to use a different definition, and does seem to be equivocation.
And how many times must I ask a question before it is answered?
My apologies, which question do you mean? I was busy responding to Baden and Sappy, and some older posts, that's why I didn't address your question.
No doubt that TheWillow will now say that my actions show that I am sexist, because I disconsidered a woman's questions and answered them after I answered questions from the men! >:O
Is it possible that there is a 'cap' to the amount of intelligence that the brain can retain at any one given time?
Example: My son who is in college is in a math course that is so complex that he now has a hard time doing simple math like fractions. My other son said it has to do with his brain working at a higher level of math that is making simple math more of a struggle.
Hmm it has to do with practice. I can't do basic math (ie calculations) very easily either now. It even takes me some time to calculate change with money >:O
What exactly is wrong with a breast provoking interest, liking and desire?
I, myself, happen to think breasts can be provoking interest, liking and desire.
Is there something wrong with me for having such a reaction?
I don't think there is anything wrong with that, or with you for that matter.
They are similar. In both cases, you are missing a wider context of how your actions have a particular impact on women and an understanding which devalue them. In both cases, it's not a literal definition of the words you speak, but the wider context of your actions and what they mean towards women.
Not all sexism i directly stated and proudly announced.
Right, so if I show you examples to the contrary, you will put an end to those false accusations and apologise right?
I don't accept your analysis but I'm not really interested in discussing it further, so you can have the last word. By the way, the Shoutbox was never intended to be a substitute Feedback forum. In future, if you, or anyone, has an issue, you are welcome to take it to Feedback or use PM. Any further comments on moderation elsewhere in the forum will be deleted for being off-topic. For my part, I'll PM warnings and I'll try to be charitable in my interpretation of posters' comments and give them a chance to explain what they meant before taking action. Despite what you may think of the mod team, we are not looking for trouble but trying to keep the place free of it.
ArguingWAristotleTiffNovember 27, 2017 at 13:21#1278100 likes
This was the confirmation I was looking for, Thank you. (Y)
TheWillowOfDarknessNovember 27, 2017 at 13:23#1278120 likes
Agustino:No doubt that TheWillow will now say that my actions show that I am sexist, because I disconsidered a woman's questions and answered them after I answered questions from the men! >:O
Maybe in some situations, if you were taking a class, for example, and went around taking questions from everyone, leaving the women only two questions in the last minute, there would be a problem, whether you intended it (i.e. "I;m not going to let women ask any proper questions") or not (i.e. excluding the women without realising it by talking to everyone else).
I've already got many examples showing the opposite.
There is no falsehood and nothing to apologise for on my part. For you to show otherwise is impossible. You don't seem to realise this is not a matter of opinion: we've noticed aspects of your actions and understanding of women you have not.
Reply to Sapientia Getting back to the substance of that argument though, there is a reason why I picked that definition. I know what unenlightened, being older, has in mind.
40 years ago, in communism, seeing a woman's breasts was very rare, unless you were married. And even then, your wife would think you're a pervert if you wanted to see them. When guys found a porn magazine somewhere, they'd all gather around together to look at it. They were fascinated - indeed excited - about a woman's body.
But that's not the case today in the West, since, well, a woman's body is easily available in today's society (whether through prostitution, hookups, pornography, TV ads, movies, etc. etc.). So they aren't fascinated or excited by it anymore. That's just one of the effects of an overly promiscuous culture - paradoxically, a woman's body becomes devalued, since it's easy to see, it's no longer a mystery.
TheWillowOfDarknessNovember 27, 2017 at 13:36#1278170 likes
The server does that for me; I just look up the relevant post when required.
Little point trying to show you're not sexist as accused? Indeed. One cannot show something when the evidence literally shows it to be true. it would be a waste of my time and yours. We'd have to talk about why the evidence showed sexism, the various relations between your actions and women to go anywhere interesting.
That misunderstands how sexism works. It's individual actions which is sexist, not a sum total which is used to determined whether someone is sexist or not.
When other evidence shows the opposite, it only shows that given action was sexist. Most of the time, people engage in some sexist and non-sexist actions.
Getting back to the substance of that argument though, there is a reason why I picked that definition. I know what unenlightened, being older, has in mind.
40 years ago, in communism, seeing a woman's breasts was very rare, unless you were married. And even then, your wife would think you're a pervert if you wanted to see them. When guys found a porn magazine somewhere, they'd all gather around together to look at it. They were fascinated - indeed excited - about a woman's body.
But that's not the case today in the West, since, well, a woman's body is easily available in today's society (whether through prostitution, hookups, pornography, TV ads, movies, etc. etc.). So they aren't fascinated or excited by it anymore. That's just one of the effects of an overly promiscuous culture - paradoxically, a woman's body becomes devalued, since it's easy to see, it's no longer a mystery.
I don't agree that they're [i]not[/I] fascinated or excited by it anymore, although it's possible that they're [i]less[/I] fascinated or excited by it now.
That misunderstands how sexism works. It's each action which is sexist, not a sum total which is used to determined whether someone is sexist or not.
When other evidence shows the opposite, it only shows that given action was sexist. Most of the time, people engage in some sexist and non-sexist actions.
Right, so then it's time to take back your statement that Agustino is sexist, since that is clearly wrong, even by your own criteria.
You should now state that "very few of Agustino's actions are sexist" - that's a more accurate rendition of your views it seems to me, though I'd still disagree.
No. "Sexist" is used to refer to someone how has engaged in sexist actions. You're under the false impression I was using "sexist" to refer to some sort of sum total. I was not. I was using it as a description of someone who has engaged in sexist actions, whether the be few, several, many or every act they've ever taken.
TheWillowOfDarknessNovember 27, 2017 at 14:01#1278300 likes
Reply to Baden If you're into strictly separated, never-gonna-talk-to-you-the-way-I-talk-to-my- wife, postage-and-telephone-costs-are-on-you, Platonic relationships I would, except for the fact that Dutch law doesn't recognise polygamy. :D
In case your employer still needs employees, I could come to Australia!
I love my job and hate it at the same time. I love the actual grassroots work, being with the kids directly, but the rest? The whole managerial, teleconferences, meetings, reports, people management, leadership? Blurg. As long as you have demonstrated experience being capable of pretending to do work because you can finish the required tasks for a whole week in the space of a few hours and therefore have the time to talk with me about politics or science or philosophy, then get that damned ticket, boy!
Reply to TimeLine That's why our economy is going badly. People get paid to work and they slack off. Finish a week's task in a few hours... Listen to that... No doubt that people prefer jobs as opposed to entrepreneurship. Here if I don't [s]work[/s] get results, I don't get paid. The money ain't gonna come by itself.
I talked with my cousin's wife awhile ago, and I was shocked by the work ethic of management at the multinational company she works at. Everyone in management (both higher ranks and lower, including her) slacks off and does a bit of paper work every now and then - and everyone else, the slaves - they work >:o (N) That's very twisted. The boss should work the hardest, he or she should encourage everyone else by their supreme work ethic and absolute dedication to the task. I almost cannot stand the ladder-climbing non-entities who make their habitation in large businesses where adequate systems of verification don't exist or are corrupt - where pay is by position instead of by results.
Reply to Agustino The productivity and skills are major impediments for most people but unfortunately I am not one of them and it is the reason why my organisation has promoted me twice in the space of twelve months. What I finish in a day, others finish in a week and so I often use that time to innovate systems or procedures. My only flaw is that most of what I do needs to be for a reason and if I feel that the organisation or senior management are not worth the effort, I shut down. I'm learning to work through that and luckily I love what my NGO does now but all that 'show' and meetings and what not is just a waste of time. Good staff also comes hand-in-hand with good management and my leadership methods are more personalised. Im quiet and don't have that 'showy' assertiveness, so people who don't know me often underestimate my capacity and that just annoys me. But, anyway, I still love my job, just hate being middle management, which is probably why I am on my phone talking to you as some form of temporary escapism.
ProbablyTrueNovember 27, 2017 at 20:22#1278900 likes
Very. This genie is legit. No eating would mean optimal nourishment, no sleep optimal rest.
I would never sleep again, and everyone else would never eat again. I enjoy eating, and without sleep I would have loads more time to do stuff. Also, starvation and undernutrition is no longer a problem.
1. You never have to eat again.
2. You never have to sleep again.
3. You no longer have sexual desires or drives(procreation becomes entirely external and dispassionate).
Hmmm... let's see. I already have trouble sleeping (not falling asleep, but as in I don't sleep enough), so definitely 2 for me. I can work at night too then >:) just imagine how productive I'd be.
1 isn't a big problem, it's quite enjoyable, and 3 would eliminate the possibility of romantic intimacy so no. Hmmm I'd pick 1 for everyone else, they need a way to compete with me who can now work 8 extra hours. At least they'll catch up on 1-2 hours that was spent eating :P
ProbablyTrueNovember 27, 2017 at 21:06#1279050 likes
I would never sleep again, and everyone else would never eat again. I enjoy eating, and without sleep I would have loads more time to do stuff. Also, starvation and undernutrition is no longer a problem.
I agree. Picking #1 for everyone else means no more hunger, obesity, heart disease, etc. I think that's probably why this hypothetical is a bit too easy. Then again, being the only hungry person in a world that no longer has food production would be tough. It would put an enormous quantity of people out of work, but I guess that wouldn't be all that bad considering they can't starve. I think I'd tell everyone what a hero I was so that some percentage would offer alms.
I wonder how different the world would be if you chose #3 for everyone else. Would be pretty awful being the only person who had a sense of sexuality.
I don't really care about sexuality at this point in my life though, so it would largely be irrelevant to me personally, but for the future, I imagine it could be quite bad if you couldn't have a romantic relationship with your wife. In a way, it would prevent you feeling intimate with anyone. Not that it's the end of the world, just not something very good.
I agree. Picking #1 for everyone else means no more hunger, obesity, heart disease, etc. I think that's probably why this hypothetical is a bit too easy. Then again, being the only hungry person in a world that no longer has food production would be tough. It would put an enormous quantity of people out of work, but I guess that wouldn't be all that bad considering they can't starve. I think I'd tell everyone what a hero I was so that some percentage would offer alms.
Yeah, that consequence was a concern for me too. I would hope that people would be charitable enough to help me obtain food easily enough. It would be like I had a unique illness which required medicine just to survive. That's how I'd spin it, anyway.
BuxtebuddhaNovember 27, 2017 at 21:25#1279120 likes
There's an oddity here. One person spends days brow beating another into the ground for being a mongoloid pseudo man and mental degenerate, yet will, the next day, "escape" from her work by talking to a misogynist, sexist man-child. I just don't get it.
It's as if serious insults upon another's character amounts to nothing if one merely gets in bed with someone so dastardly without a second thought.
BuxtebuddhaNovember 27, 2017 at 21:28#1279150 likes
Interesting. Do you find eating to be a chore? I sometimes do. Not needing to eat could allow a person to live in some interesting conditions.
If others don't eat then food production would stop, and I'd have to learn to hunt/forage/farm. If others don't have sexual desire then that wouldn't be any fun. So that leaves others not sleeping.
Between me not having to eat and me not having sexual desire, it's an easy choice.
This mum wants Sleeping Beauty removed from her child’s curriculum
Talks to self: Agustino, control, control, resist the temptation to click that link or else you will get angry when reading the stupidity that may await you inside... >:O >:O
Basically, the story glorifies a man kissing an unconscious women. It's sexual assault, and so not appropriate for children who might think that it's an acceptable thing to do.
BuxtebuddhaNovember 28, 2017 at 16:44#1281840 likes
Don't forget mouth to mouth resuscitation. Such behavior is clearly abusive. The unconscious, dying person never gives permission first before their life is saved. Obviously mouth to mouth resuscitation is just a ploy by predominately mongoloid pseudo men who are dominated by their pathological misogyny and desire for female flesh. This sort of perversion makes me sick. I oughta tattoo D.N.R. on my forehead so if anyone tries to sneak a french kiss after I've finished choking on a shrimp, they'll know that I say NO!
She is again revived by the dwarfs ... When the mirror again indicates that Snow White still lives, the queen makes a third and final attempt on Snow White by disguising herself as a farmer's wife, and offering a poisoned apple to her. The girl is at first hesitant to accept it, so the queen cuts the apple in half, eating the white (harmless) half and giving the red poisoned half to Snow White. The girl eagerly takes a bite and falls into a state of suspended animation. This time, the dwarfs are unable to revive Snow White. Assuming that she is dead, they place her in a glass casket.[1][5]
After a short period of time, a prince traveling through the land sees Snow White. He strides to her coffin. Enchanted by her beauty, he instantly falls in love with her. The seven dwarfs succumb to his entreaties to let him have Snow White. The moment he lifts the coffin to carry it away, the piece of poisoned apple falls from between her lips and Snow White awakens saying "Where am I?" The Prince then declares his love for her and soon a wedding is planned. Snow White and the prince invite everyone to come to their wedding party, including Snow White's stepmother.
Meanwhile, the queen, still believing that Snow White is dead, again asks her magic mirror who is the fairest in the land. The mirror says: "Thou, lady, art loveliest here, I ween; but lovelier far is the new-made queen", which enrages the queen. Not knowing that the Prince's bride is her stepdaughter, the queen arrives at the wedding and sees that the bride is Snow White, whom she thought dead. She is frozen with rage and fear, but iron slippers have been put in the fire, and they are put before her. She is then forced to put on the red-hot slippers and dance to death.
Basically, the story glorifies a man kissing an unconscious women. It's sexual assault, and so not appropriate for children who might think that it's an acceptable thing to do.
I assume you are making a joke at the expense of the absurd literalism displayed in the story to which you linked.
One can only hope that you don't share this lunatic literalism.
BuxtebuddhaNovember 28, 2017 at 18:31#1281900 likes
Reply to Buxtebuddha I don't think your ridicule even works as a reductio ad absurdum (as it tries to be), as in the original the prince didn't know that kissing her would wake her.
Actually, the kiss didn't wake her. The spell had her sleep for a hundred years, and it just so happened that the prince kissed her moments before the spell ended.
BuxtebuddhaNovember 28, 2017 at 19:16#1281950 likes
You must be right. I guess the prince is a filthy rapist, then. How dare there be a story about a prince who kisses a princess. Vile!
The jack boots coming to suppress your favorite children's stories .
This is old news. One of my geography teacher (yup, no clue why) back in highschool decided to spend an entire course explaining why every fairytale is basically a twisted sex-ed primer for the ultra-retrograde. Apparently every dwarves are represententations for cock. So are all towers.
And I mean, yeah, someone who says, when looking at a comatose girl. "man, I gotta have her", then procedes to procure her and brings her home... That's pretty creepy. Really pretty creepy.
Basically, the story glorifies a man kissing an unconscious women. It's sexual assault, and so not appropriate for children who might think that it's an acceptable thing to do.
:B
Why is it not acceptable? If a woman kisses you while you're asleep will you complain of sexual assault? I may tell her not to do that when I awaken (and maybe stop being friends with her), but I will most certainly not claim she's assaulting me. There are lots of things that affect me and that I don't consent to - such as someone sneezing on me on the street, etc. but I don't take people to court if they do it. Likewise, if someone tries to kiss me without requesting my consent, no problem, so long as they don't physically force themselves on me while I physically try to resist them - that would indeed be assault.
These politically correct people are very crazy. Are you supposed to ask all the time to your girlfriend or wife "may I kiss you now dear?" :s - that's not how that thing works. She can kiss you whenever she wants, and so can you - generally, unless of course, either of you says no. But asking for approval first is nonsense.
I never asked my first girlfriend if I can kiss her when I first did. As far as I remember, she didn't find that to be assault or anything of that nature. Quite the contrary, she found it quite romantic.
If a woman kisses you while you're asleep will you complain of sexual assault?
Yes, because it would be. UK law defines sexual assault as:
(1) A person (A) commits an offence if —
(a) he intentionally touches another person (B),
(b) the touching is sexual,
(c) B does not consent to the touching, and
(d) A does not reasonably believe that B consents.
These politically correct people are very crazy. Are you supposed to ask all the time to your girlfriend or wife "may I kiss you now dear?" :s - that's not how that thing works. She can kiss you whenever she wants, and so can you - generally, unless of course, either of you says no. But asking for approval first is nonsense.
I never asked my first girlfriend if I can kiss her when I first did. As far as I remember, she didn't find that to be assault or anything of that nature. Quite the contrary, she found it quite romantic.
The example with Sleeping Beauty is of kissing an unconscious stranger. That's sexual assault.
unenlightenedNovember 28, 2017 at 21:09#1282170 likes
Kissing is not necessarily sexual. I kinda think when Grandma kisses a sleeping infant, it's not sexual - unless it is. Or when she kisses farewell the corpse of Grandpa. Or when she kisses the Pope's signet ring. I would hope and expect that for a normal primary school child, kissing is not sexual. In which case, there is no problem?
So if you're in a nightclub for example, and a random girl tries kissing you out of the blue, will you report her to the police, even though she stopped when you told her no? There are many such cases happening everyday in the UK probably.
It's like symptoms of diseases. Fatigue may be a very important symptom of lyme disease and a host of other diseases too. But if you read that, you don't get the right idea. Because the kind of fatigue we're talking about isn't simply the "I don't feel like getting out of bed fatigue"... it's the "I need to get out of bed but don't have the energy fatigue" - as in you really can't get out of bed. Likewise, those who apply the law know the difference between assault and someone being rude, etc.
So if you're in a nightclub for example, and a random girl tries kissing you out of the blue, will you report her to the police, even though she stopped when you told her no? There are many such cases happening everyday in the UK probably.
I might, but what does that have to do with what I'm saying? Even if I don't report her, and even if I don't care, it's still sexual assault.
I might, but what does that have to do with what I'm saying? Even if I don't report here, and even if I don't care, it's still sexual assault.
Okay, so then why wouldn't you report her if it is sexual assault? You don't want to do your duty as a member of the community and prevent this horrible crime from going on?
Kissing is not necessarily sexual. I kinda think when Grandma kisses a sleeping infant, it's not sexual - unless it is. Or when she kisses farewell the corpse of Grandpa. Or when she kisses the Pope's signet ring. I would hope and expect that for a normal primary school child, kissing is not sexual. In which case, there is no problem?
The example is of the Prince kissing Sleeping Beauty. Is that anything like the examples above, or is it sexual?
Okay, so then why wouldn't you report her if it is sexual assault? You don't want to do your duty as a member of the community and prevent this horrible crime from going on?
Does it matter? My reaction does not determine the legal status of the act. A woman can be raped even if she doesn't report it. I can be sexually assaulted even if I don't report it.
The example is of the Prince kissing Sleeping Beauty. Is that anything like the examples above, or is it sexual?
I'd say it's a deal like. It's a ritualised symbolic kiss, and there is no erotic subtext in the versions I've seen. It's not the kind of material that used to be sold under the counter, or displayed on the top shelves, and it is not much bought by old men in raincoats. In a children's story, a kiss is presumably a child's kiss, other things being equal.
Why are there so many unconscious or imprisoned women? Snow White, Rapunzel, Cinderella, Beauty And The Beast's Belle...
This is more so what might concern a feminist; not the letter of the law in fiction, so much as the weight of tradition en mass, to which the answer is to produce more suitable material.
Which has been going on for a long time, and there are all sorts of kids books that reflect a more equal society in terms of both gender and ethnicity. So it seems reasonable at this point to want the curriculum, and the school library, to be updated. Which is what is being suggested, rather than any ban.
(c) B does not consent to the touching, and
(d) A does not reasonably believe that B consents.
The way you've defined this is that Sleeping Beauty would have to not consent and Prince Charming would have to reasonably believe that Sleeping Beauty did not consent in order for their to be a crime. Typically Prince Charming believes there is consent because, after all, who wouldn't want to be kissed by Prince Charming?
And this goes to the whole communication thing. If I asked the girl "would you like to be kissed now," then the answer that was yes might well now be no. And just because she says "yes," that hardly means yes any more than what her behavior might communicate. That is to say, verbal responses are no more reliable than behavioral responses. I don't need a "yes, please kiss me now" hostage video sort of response to let me know I can now engage in the kiss,, meaning "yes" could mean no. I also wouldn't find a "no, don't kiss me" whispering statement terribly persuasive given enough non-verbal cues, like if she had her hand on my goober.
So, yes, you need to figure out if she wants to be kissed before you kiss her, but it's not all that confusing in real life. If you kiss your girlfriend who is lying next to you asleep in bed, my guess is that she consented to it, and she would be happy to know you want to kiss her even when she doesn't specifically know about it.
But let's say I'm sitting next to a random sleeping passenger on an airplane and I just decide what the hell and I start kissing her neck, then that ought to land me in some sort of real trouble, considering no reasonable person would think she has consented just by having been assigned a seat next to me, despite me being pretty amazing by any account.
Typically Prince Charming believes there is consent because, after all, who wouldn't want to be kissed by Prince Charming?
"I don't even wait. And when you're a star, they let you do it, you can do anything... grab them by the pussy."
TheWillowOfDarknessNovember 28, 2017 at 22:24#1282590 likes
Agustino:These politically correct people are very crazy. Are you supposed to ask all the time to your girlfriend or wife "may I kiss you now dear?" :s - that's not how that thing works. She can kiss you whenever she wants, and so can you - generally, unless of course, either of you says no. But asking for approval first is nonsense.
This is a red-herring. It misses people may know there intentions of wishes without specifically naming then. People can general kiss their SO not because of a basic rule: "You may kiss your SO whenever you want" but rather because one's partner wants it or thinks it is fine. Asking approval can be "nonsense", if you understand the wishes of the person in question already.
The myth of "contract of approval" is formed in a perverse understanding of consent, like it was simply about having someone say: "Yes" to whatever someone wanted to do, be it kissing or sex. Consent is not game about whether someone gets what they want. It's defined by the interests and will of the other person, they want to be involved with whatever activity is in question. People only think of it in terms of a game or conflict because they are objectifying others as a means to get what they want, rather than understanding ethical relationships are about whether the other person wants to.
Utterances of "yes" don't actually define the presence of consent. People can to pressured into saying "Yes" by circumstance. Only someone genuinely having a desire interest in the activity in question defines it It's about another person wanting to be involved. When there is a question of kissing or sex, one must be genuinely thinking in terms of another person, about if they want to be involved, rather than just being a beast and assuming their desire means they get whatever they want (including with one's partner).
Reply to Michael Sure, and he's ridiculous. I'm not a star, and I've never done the pussy grabbing thing, but I have kissed plenty of girls being the Casanova I am without asking, but it has been only after I had the verbal cues and history built up to do it. If you've been sitting next to her for hours with your arm around her and she looks at you, you can either kiss her or take out your 1047 form and have it signed before a notary public before you make your move. Let me know how that works for you.
but I have kissed plenty of girls being the Casanova I am without asking, but it has been only after I had the verbal cues and history built up to do it. If you've been sitting next to her for hours with your arm around her and she looks at you, you can either kiss her or take out your 1047 form and have it signed before a notary public before you make your move. Let me know how that works for you.
Sure, but again, I was specifically talking about the case of Sleeping Beauty where a man kisses an unconscious stranger because he finds her beautiful. So all these examples that you and unenlightened and Agustino have offered are strawmen (although you at least understood the Sleeping Beauty issue with your example of the airplane).
Fairy-tales are supposed to function on a symbolic level. Leave them alone even if kissing an unconscious woman is sexual assault or killing witches is manslaughter or whatever...
You can't inflict the logic of modern politics on one fairy-tale anyway without making a presumption that renders all of them inert i.e. that somehow the literal is the level on which classic narratives like this exclusively work - as if fairy-tales have lasted as long as they have just by accident, as if there wasn't a timeless symbolic resonance at their kernel, as if there was no real magic to them in the first place and that they are just run-of-the-mill role model vehicles. Or worse, as if they are supposed to function merely as entertainment and therefore there is no counterweight of value to balance against contemporary ethical mores. As if they weren't different in quality to modern children's stories which are, for the most part, simple vehicles for contemporary values or entertainment or some mixture of both and therefore more compatible with political correctness. In short, I'd rather have the wisdom at the root of classic fairytales "corrupt" modern life than we corrupt it with shortsighted and unnecessary attempts at censorship.
One unconscious princess or another -- they're all somewhere on the Glasgow Coma Scale.
How about the fairy tale where the witch turned the children into fire wood, and when the cold parents put the wood on the fire, the children-turned-into-wood began screaming in agony? Old women and stepmothers are always doing terribly things to people in these stories. How come all you feckless petunias who find assault in the prince waking the unconscious damsel aren't out picketing Amazon for selling hate literature about old women, and depicting the most egregious child abuse.
Crimes involve a subjective and an objective aspect, a Mens Rea and an Actus Reus. In the case of assault (seperated from battery) :
Definition : An assault is any act by which someone, intentionally or recklessly, causes another person to apprehend immediate and personal violence.
[Actus Reus]
Actual Bodily Harm means any injury which is 'calculated to interfere with the health or comfort of the [victim]' (R v Donovan per Swift J).
"For this purpose we think that "bodily harm" has its ordinary meaning and includes any hurt or injury calculated to interfere with the health or comfort of the prosecutor. Such hurt or injury need not be permanent, but must, no doubt, be more than merely transient and trifling."
[Mens rea]
The causing of actual bodily harm requires no additional mens rea. Defendant need not intend or foresee the causing or inflicting of a wound or grievous bodily harm. If Defendant was unaware that his conduct might cause any injury at all (Savage [1992]) there is no mens rea. unless voluntary intoxicated because it is a crime of basic intent. Maliciously means intentionally or recklessly. To do some kind of bodily harm. Recklessness is subjective in the Cunningham sense.
So you're the one who refused to answer my question and deflected with another question, and now I'm the one deflecting eh? >:O Funny guy you are...
How I react to the act has nothing to do with whether or not the act is a crime. Your question is irrelevant, and so ignoring it isn't deflecting from the issue at hand. Whereas asking such a question does seem to deflect from the issue at hand (or is heading towards a non sequitur, arguing that it's not a crime if I don't think it worth reporting?).
I've been down this road so many times with Terrapin Station. I have absolutely no patience for it anymore.
I feel, @Hanover that there is a staleness in our relationship, our daily routine leaving us with nothing but a haunting sense of apathy and boredom that our happiness is living in autopilot, the misery within burning away any dignity we have left. It doesn't help that everyone else here is weird as heck. From my Noir Collection I give you "A Room With A View" in black and white for bit of variety. We need variety.
BuxtebuddhaNovember 29, 2017 at 12:50#1285270 likes
Star trek gifs off limits, female leg pictures A-OK.
BuxtebuddhaNovember 29, 2017 at 12:51#1285280 likes
Reply to Buxtebuddha
We can accept the odd gif here but we don't want too many of them because they can be annoying if not used sparingly. If you want to post a picture of your legs feel free.
BuxtebuddhaNovember 29, 2017 at 13:00#1285350 likes
Reply to Baden Only if you'll crave them like TL's. I'd want my hairy legs to be admired, perhaps lusted after. Maybe I could even carry on an intensely creepy conversation about them with another poster!
Deleted UserNovember 29, 2017 at 13:01#1285360 likes
Ugh, here we go again. Seriously, this is disgusting.
The controversy. The intrigue. The dangerous liaisons.
Deleted UserNovember 29, 2017 at 13:05#1285390 likes
Reply to Baden Because then we all get drug along for a lame conversation about nonsense. The joke has already been told several times, we need a new joke now because we're not a bunch of old people who can't remember anything. :-}
BuxtebuddhaNovember 29, 2017 at 13:05#1285410 likes
I think they're low quality posts. Bans are in order.
Reply to Lone Wolf Should I take a photo of my eye balls? Perhaps that part of my abdomen where the gall bladder is?
Deleted UserNovember 29, 2017 at 13:12#1285440 likes
Reply to Baden The same lame joke being repeated over, and over, and over, and over, and over? Unless others find it humorous that some people don't realize when they already told that joke, many times... >:O
Deleted UserNovember 29, 2017 at 13:15#1285450 likes
Reply to TimeLine Depends on what kind of a person you want to portray yourself to be... :-}
StreetlightNovember 29, 2017 at 13:16#1285460 likes
She picked him up with two fingers, carried him upstairs, and set him in a corner. As she was lying in bed, he came creeping up to her and said, "I am tired, and I want to sleep as well as you do. Pick me up or I'll tell your father."
With that she became bitterly angry and threw him against the wall with all her might. "Now you will have your peace, you disgusting frog!"
But when he fell down, he was not a frog, but a prince with beautiful friendly eyes.
"A wealthy but childless merchant wishes he had a child, even a hedgehog. He comes home to find that his wife has given birth to a baby boy that is a hedgehog from the waist up. They then name him "Hans My Hedgehog".
After eight years, Hans leaves his family astride a cock to seek his fortune. He goes off into the woods and watches over his donkeys and pigs. A few years later, a lost king stumbles upon Hans after hearing him play beautifully on the bagpipes...."
"A second lost king stumbles upon Hans and agreed to his deal. Upon his return, the second king's only daughter rushed out to greet him, and in doing so became the property of Hans. For the sake of her father, the princess happily agreed to Hans's deal.
In time, Hans My Hedgehog goes to claim his promises. The first king attempts to withhold his daughter, but Hans forces him to yield her. Hans then makes her to take off her clothing, pierces her all over with his quills, and sends her back to the kingdom in disgrace. The second king agrees to the marriage; the princess holds herself bound by her promise and Hans My Hedgehog marries her."
How I react to the act has nothing to do with whether or not the act is a crime. Your question is irrelevant, and so ignoring it isn't deflecting from the issue at hand. Whereas asking such a question does seem to deflect from the issue at hand (or is heading towards a non sequitur, arguing that it's not a crime if I don't think it worth reporting?).
Sure, now can you get around to answering my irrelevant question please? That's if you want me to answer your relevant question.
That's if you want me to answer your relevant question.
So you won't answer a relevant question (did I even ask a question?) unless an irrelevant one is answered? Sounds like deflection to me.
My claim stands. It would be sexual assault if a stranger walked up to me in a club and kissed me without invitation. It would be sexual assault to kiss an unconscious stranger. This has nothing to do with being "politically correct" and everything to do with the actual law.
Reply to TimeLineI too felt that same anxiety that always seems to emerge after the newness begins to wear off, where we begin to wonder whether all the sweet nothings we exchanged were true tokens of our heart or whether they just impulsive gestures motivated by fleeting infatuation. There is no time more frightening than now, where we must decide whether to push forward into hopefully something everlasting, exposing all our vulnerabilities, or whether we should part ways, recognizing that disappointment is all that is beyond the horizon.
And then you send me that photo of you, in all your comfort, relaxed, overlooking the sea, with your skirt abandoning its formality and finding its way up your thigh, and I then I realize how foolish it would be, dare I say pathetically fearful, to walk away now, right before I truly invest my heart and see what dividends might wait for me, for us, forever.
If that doesn't deserve a navel pic, I don't know what does. I mean I got a navel pic out of Benkei, and while I question whether it was actually the belly of a 40 something year old Dutch dad, at least he gave me something pretty sweet to look at.
So you won't answer a relevant question (did I even ask a question?) unless an irrelevant one is answered? Sounds like deflection to me.
My claim stands. It would be sexual assault if a stranger walked up to me in a club and kissed me without invitation. It would be sexual assault to kiss an unconscious stranger. This has nothing to do with being "politically correct" and everything to do with the actual law.
. It would be sexual assault if a stranger walked up to me in a club and kissed me without invitation.
Suppose it were Baden who kissed you? Even without invitation, you must admit that the taste of Guinness, day old coffee, and clove cigarettes breathed into your lungs would be magical and the sort of sexual assault you've always dreamed of.
[hide="Aesthetically Unpleasing Image Of Hanny. Click at your own risk"][/hide]
Reply to TimeLine That's not good enough. If you want to have a proper career in porno you need to try harder than that. As things stand, you've only impressed Hanover.
Reply to Agustino
Hell, I'll do it. Who's got the electric cable? Can we have lights please! Camera rolling...Yes, just lie down here for a minute Agu.
Right so these people were looking to employ TimeLine and they see me as competition. But why, I'm just looking to open a massage saloon. It will offer hand relief of great value to the great nation of Kazakhstan.
Suppose it were Baden who kissed you? Even without invitation, you must admit that the taste of Guinness, day old coffee, and clove cigarettes breathed into your lungs would be magical and the sort of sexual assault you've always dreamed of.
Shit, you might be right:
(1) A person (A) commits an offence if—
(a) he intentionally touches another person (B),
(b) the touching is sexual,
(c) B does not consent to the touching,
(d) A does not reasonably believe that B consents, and
(e) A is not Baden and B is not Michael.
If that doesn't deserve a navel pic, I don't know what does. I mean I got a navel pic out of Benkei, and while I question whether it was actually the belly of a 40 something year old Dutch dad, at least he gave me something pretty sweet to look at.
And then you send me that photo of you, in all your comfort, relaxed, overlooking the sea, with your skirt abandoning its formality and finding its way up your thigh, and I then I realize how foolish it would be, dare I say pathetically fearful, to walk away now, right before I truly invest my heart and see what dividends might wait for me, for us, forever.
But, dare I say, however romantic this may be, however the fluttertings of my heart or beating of my chest may overwhelm my sensibilities, with the presence of those maniacical conservatives who perchance view a beauty spot as a freckle, who see art as pornography, what can I do but say nay!
We must part, dear Hanover. We must. *Runs a few steps in the opposite direction. Pauses. Glances back over her shoulder. Then runs away.
AkanthinosNovember 29, 2017 at 19:27#1286580 likes
We must part, dear Hanover. We must. *Runs a few steps in the opposite direction. Pauses. Glances back over her shoulder. Then runs away.
Alas, she has left, but I know how this story continues...
On a drunken night not far away, I shall receive text after apologetic text, yearning for what once was. I will predictably ignore those pleas, although both of us will know it's strategic, yet both will continue the game of cat and mouse, now with you as mouse. I will finally cryptically respond, perhaps with a frowny face emoji that will you will hang onto, as it will be the first communication in days, although it will feel like years. You will finally sleep knowingly though, recognizing that the yellow sad face will eventually move to flat and then to smiling, and finally, yes finally, of a boy and a girl with a heart hanging between their heads. At that point, you will know I've returned. And it will be glorious,.
And then finally I will get a God damned navel pic. Jesus fucking Christ, what's a guy gotta do for a navel pic. You'd think I was asking to [self censored].
On a drunken night not far away, I shall receive text after apologetic text, yearning for what once was. I will predictably ignore those pleas, although both of us will know it's strategic, yet both will continue the game of cat and mouse, now with you as mouse. I will finally cryptically respond, perhaps with a frowny face emoji that will you will hang onto, as it will be the first communication in days, although it will feel like years. You will finally sleep knowingly though, recognizing that the yellow sad face will eventually move to flat and then to smiling, and finally, yes finally, of a boy and a girl with a heart hanging between their heads. At that point, you will know I've returned. And it will be glorious,.
I hold in my hand my ticket and consider the consequences if I were to tear it up and throw it away with the hope that the emoji is true to your heart, but as I sit silently at the airport with my strong cup of coffee and half eaten bagel, my book sitting gently on my lap as I longingly glare out the window in all the hurt and pain, nothing, not even these cryptic games will get me to change my mind. I must leave this forsaken place and allow my heart to love another.
You took too long, Hans. You took too long. I cannot wait for you to have the courage to be my friend anymore. There is no glory in games. No amount of the cuteness of those little round yellow faces will change that. *wipes tear
Reply to Akanthinos I'm quite upset that you picked up on the gorgeous wallpaper, but not my loving espadrilles that gently collide against this perfect backdrop and silhouettes the comfort of the view. Espadrilles. I shall write a poem.
I hold in my hand my ticket and consider the consequences if I were to tear it up and throw it away with the hope that the emoji is true to your heart, but as I sit silently at the airport with my strong cup of coffee and half eaten bagel, my book sitting gently on my lap as I longingly glare out the window in all the hurt and pain, nothing, not even these cryptic games will get me to change my mind. I must leave this forsaken place and allow my heart to love another.
I think long and hard about the anti-Semitic bagel reference and feel your leaving much like I would a rock to the head from a terrorist over disputed lands. Having friends in high places, and knowing how to divert a plane without having to resort to predictable box cutter jokes, I contact the man in the sky who formed a covenant with my chosen people some time ago, and a mighty storm brews up like a hot cup of Joe sitting next to a stale bagel with ruby red lipstick stains on it. In addition to flooding thousands of people and leaving them famished and naked, the storm delays your plane the 15 minutes I need to find you at the airport in your puddle of sadness and urine (sorry, bathroom humor is my specialty).
I pick you up and kiss you without consent as Michael attempts to indict me on obscure charges against Her Majesty who decrees such laws. You, being so overwhelmed with my embrace, drop to your knees, throw back your hair, and raise your sassy sweater with the funny cat scene on it and reveal your navel, finally allowing me to understand your prior reluctance. The 5 inches of decaying umbilical cord still attached, the overpowering aroma, and the bagel crumbs are too much to bear. Despite it all, my love actually grows, and I taste those golden bagel morsels as if they are the finest caviar.
You don't fucking know weird. Weird would be to imply that the romanticism inherent in my words impregnated you with our love child named Jeremy, who despite his slow speech and uneven eyes, has a heart of gold. Sure, being shuttled between your shanty by the sea and my palace by the swamp has caused him confusion and an indecipherable stutter, but he does have a heart of gold.
Fucking know weird before you speak of weird, you knower of only normal ordinary things. You are ordinary, the same as all others. Hop aboard your plane to Peoria and live your life as a seamstress with a fat bellied auto mechanic named Clyde and vacation in Wisconsin while pretending the Great Lakes are an ocean.
How I react to the act has nothing to do with whether or not the act is a crime. Your question is irrelevant, and so ignoring it isn't deflecting from the issue at hand. Whereas asking such a question does seem to deflect from the issue at hand (or is heading towards a non sequitur, arguing that it's not a crime if I don't think it worth reporting?).
I've been down this road so many times with Terrapin Station. I have absolutely no patience for it anymore.
But how would a corrupt official in Kazakhstan react?
And have you heard that Obama's daughter is allegedly kissing white boys and smoking weed? (!)
Reply to Noble Dust I guess I overlooked Meshuggah, somehow. "Meshuggah" means crazy in Yiddish. Maybe you could figure out how to adapt Meshuggah (the band) to Lutheran and Anglican liturgy.
Yes, I have heard Bach on the harpsichord, once or twice, at least. There's a lot of Bach I could live without, but some I couldn't live without.
Don't get me wrong: Bagpipes have a place (somewhere in Scotland). I will admit to liking "Highland Cathedral". It's appallingly schmaltzy, but...
Not my thing...I think I like bagpipes because my stereotypical perception of bagpipe music is that it's drone music; stays on the tonic the whole time. That's why I like it; but these hymn-like chord changes are schmaltzy, yes.
Fucking know weird before you speak of weird, you knower of only normal ordinary things. You are ordinary, the same as all others. Hop aboard your plane to Peoria and live your life as a seamstress with a fat bellied auto mechanic named Clyde and vacation in Wisconsin while pretending the Great Lakes are an ocean.
Listen, Hansel, what would you know about travel and the world? You think the British Virgin Islands is an Island full of virgins from Britain only because @Michael lives there. I mean, you thought that by taking that long drive to TGI Fridays where a lethargically lanky, pimple-faced teen with hormonal issues who served you the Memphis Burger meant that you actually went to Memphis.
Listen, Hansel, what would you know about travel and the world? You think the British Virgin Islands is an Island full of virgins from Britain only because Michael lives there. I mean, you thought that by taking that long drive to TGI Fridays where a lethargically lanky, pimple-faced teen with hormonal issues who served you the Memphis Burger meant that you actually went to Memphis.
Just grow up.
I once visited the British Virgin Islands. They are now the British Islands.
Listen, Hansel, what would you know about travel and the world? You think the British Virgin Islands is an Island full of virgins from Britain only because Michael lives there. I mean, you thought that by taking that long drive to TGI Fridays where a lethargically lanky, pimple-faced teen with hormonal issues who served you the Memphis Burger meant that you actually went to Memphis.
Just grow up.
Just because you were able to somehow know of my confusion about the British Virgin Islands and TGIF doesn't make you the smartest person in the room, it just makes you lucky.
It was inevitable that our nasty break up would get uglier, with you hurling insults about my lack of geographical wherewithal, something I've always tried to hide and that I'm very sensitive about. It's really beneath you that you'd go so low, but I have the dignity not to hit you in your weak areas, like how your right breast sags helplessly to the ground or how you insist upon wearing flannel and being called Steve on Sunday mornings.
My only option at this point will be to date your sister. Yeah, I'm going there, little miss "I'm going to insult your sense of direction." We'll just see who wins this little battle.
We're a match made in heaven. You and I could be the new Hanover and Timeline. Just think of the possibilities. We could have a baby, and then I could turn it into a large bagel for each of us to feast upon - the best of both worlds.
It was inevitable that our nasty break up would get uglier, with you hurling insults about my lack of geographical wherewithal, something I've always tried to hide and that I'm very sensitive about. It's really beneath you that you'd go so low, but I have the dignity not to hit you in your weak areas, like how your right breast sags helplessly to the ground or how you insist upon wearing flannel and being called Steve on Sunday mornings.
I only asked you to call me Steve to help you differentiate why the story of Adam and Eve is not Adam and Steve, and that was only after you caused all that hullabaloo at Church when you openly admitted your night-time naughty for Tom Jones following the release of Great Balls of Fire back in '89. I mean, what else can I do? You speak of direction, but you are having trouble differentiating the difference between your nostril and a hole in the ground.
Reply to TimeLine If you're not sure of it, then I pity you too, as I pity all of those who have the disability of being unable to recognise my brilliance for what it is. Either you're wearing befuddled-awkwardness-tinted glasses, or befuddled awkwardness is just how some people happen to react to my brilliance.
I only asked you to call me Steve to help you differentiate why the story of Adam and Eve is not Adam and Steve, and that was only after you caused all that hullabaloo at Church when you openly admitted your night-time naughty for Tom Jones following the release of Great Balls of Fire back in '89. I mean, what else can I do? You speak of direction, but you are having trouble differentiating the difference between your nostril and a hole in the ground.
And so now you've resorted to airing all our dirty laundry out in public, so you've thrown down the gauntlet. But before that, I want to recall a tender moment, the time when we walked hand in hand through the cemetery, playfully half burying children's shoes in the soft mud to tease passersby, mischievously moving the grave markers around so that we could watch the mourners cry over the wrong person, and interrupting funerals by literally dancing on graves, the Charleston no less in full flapper regalia.. Ahhh, you were such a sweet yet dark soul, finding humor in the oddest of places. And now, look at what you've become. A self-righteous, humorous and indignant vixen.
Please see the above where I tried to outdo your dead baby comment. I am up for the challenge, as I think I can mix a healthy dose of sexual perversion, death, and sadness and come up with some really funny stuff.
Please see the above where I tried to outdo your dead baby comment. I am up for the challenge, as I think I can mix a healthy dose of sexual perversion, death, and sadness and come up with some really funny stuff.
Yes, you tried. I will give you that much. You're welcome to keep trying, but that would be like a distraught mother trying to resuscitate a stillborn.
Reply to Hanover I am so much more funnier than you. I wager in a poll we can have a joke-off and I would kick you up your wee bonnie lass. I mean, even you said I am:
"Let me say only this much to the moral issue involved: Suppose Germany had developed two bombs before we had any bombs. And suppose Germany had dropped one bomb, say, on Rochester and the other on Buffalo, and then having run out of bombs she would have lost the war. Can anyone doubt that we would then have defined the dropping of atomic bombs on cities as a war crime, and that we would have sentenced the Germans who were guilty of this crime to death at Nuremberg and hanged them?"
- Leo Szilard, physicist on the Manhatten Project who advocated a peaceful demonstration of the atomic bomb
Holy crap.
I think there is going to be serious trouble.
Once more the idiotic government of our piece of heaven have screwed up. The presidential elections happened last Sunday and they have still not given a final result.
The people are out on the streets and taking the roads so no one can pass. I just had to walk through a 6 mile traffic jam to get home.
I think I will be staying in my house for a few days. :(
I think I will be staying in my house for a few days.
Are you from Honduras? I doubt due to the so-called 'glitches' among other things that the vote count will in anyway be accepted and they may end up having to either arrange for a recount under the supervision of an unbiased third-party or simply re-do the electoral vote once more. In the meantime, just stay inside.
I'm inside too. I get today off work because there are storms and a flood warning. Gonna veg out and read all weekend in my PJs...
AkanthinosDecember 01, 2017 at 03:36#1290500 likes
Don't know how bad it is, but good luck. Vis-à-vis the storms and floods. And spiders too, I guess. Always spiders, man.
I know right? Huntsman. Scary as heck. I had one a few weeks ago that actually jumped from the wall and I managed to reach a vocal range of soprano as I jumped up and around myself like I was an MI5 agent.
Meta, you are God? Man, have I got a few bones to pick with you!
About this Mother In Law thing....what on earth have I done to deserve such a blessing?
Reply to ArguingWAristotleTiff You know man I was sitting in my mom's basement when I realized that getting a job is boring and creating some logic cancer is much more enjoyable. Feel free to refute my argument.
As for the mother in law thing... God works in mysterious ways.
ArguingWAristotleTiffDecember 01, 2017 at 12:06#1291220 likes
@Meta
Let me get this right: all this chaos happening around me is to keep you entertained?
Reply to ArguingWAristotleTiff Not at all! My works are so mysterious even I don't understand them. (Assuming the proof in my thread is correct)
ArguingWAristotleTiffDecember 01, 2017 at 12:25#1291320 likes
Reply to Sir2u It seems like there is a rash of unverifiable elections. I wonder how that can be now that we have such amazing technology in our lives~ I've got some really good pitchforks down by the hay barn and a pair of Rotties that have a tendency to clear the way as we walk down the street. I will loan you anything I can to keep you safe~
ArguingWAristotleTiffDecember 01, 2017 at 12:30#1291340 likes
Not at all! My works are so mysterious even I don't understand them.
Oh boy! I think we are going to need a bigger boat. Last time Noah forgot the Unicorn's lover, so this time make sure he gets ALL the animals, two by two!
I am so much more funnier than you. I wager in a poll we can have a joke-off and I would kick you up your wee bonnie lass. I mean, even you said I am:
Very well. I am ready for it. The joke begins, "A cat walks into a bar... "
Let's hear your lame joke, likely devoid of any sexual, digestive disorder, or murderous reference. You simply have no idea how to frame a joke. You'll probably talk about how the cat was helpful and nice and then say something that makes you smile and think it's funny.
Reply to YourLeaderSapientia You know, the only other persons I know that refer to themselves as a "leader" are an insecure little fuck from North Korea and the other is a manchild with tiny hands.
I don't know how and why you do it. I would freaking love to live anywhere I don't have to shovel snow 5 months a year, but it is absolutely impossible for me to even think about moving to a place with spiders bigger than my thumb.
About the same number of people were killed in the firebombing of Tokyo and Dresden as were killed in the atomic bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima - all in the 80,000 to 150,000 range. Rape of Nanking - 200,000 to 300,000.
Winners don't get prosecuted for war crimes.
For perspectiive - an estimated 80 million people died in World War 2.
I don't know how and why you do it. I would freaking love to live anywhere I don't have to shovel snow 5 months a year, but it is absolutely impossible for me to even think about moving to a place with spiders bigger than my thumb.
Also, babies get eaten by dingoes; the toilets flush backwards; their greatest actor is Paul Hogan; the national anthem is "Waltzing Matilda" which, by the way, is a slang word for masturbation; and their greatest living songwriter is Rolf Harris, who wrote a song about the enslavement of aborigines which made the Australian top 10.
On the other hand, my father lived in Melbourne for three years in the 1990s. He loved it. Good food and good people. No one he knew was killed by giant poisonous spiders.
Reply to Akanthinos Nice! I lived in Denmark for a while and traveled through the harsh Scandinavian landscapes and the cold, almost desolate beauty was incredibly appealing. But I also got terribly sick there too and I think that my body identifies with more warmer, Mediterranean tempretures.
unenlightenedDecember 01, 2017 at 23:25#1292520 likes
Can't be bothered to read actual posts? Thread titles make a good dialogue:
What are facts?
I am an Ecology
MeToo
Welcome to The Philosophy Forum - an indoctrination thread
The Last Word
Deleted UserDecember 01, 2017 at 23:28#1292530 likes
Very well. I am ready for it. The joke begins, "A cat walks into a bar... "
First of all, that is not how a joke-off works. We need a control, a ring girl who will hold up a placard that numbers each round, likely @YourLeaderSapientia who just has that natural transvestite aura about him and no doubt would look fantastic in heels and a bikini.
Secondly, my sense of humour is devoid of any grotesque references of a sexual or homicidal nature and, indeed, I find no need to express to an audience about the goings-forth of materials within your duodenum. Such jokes are only funny to someone named Bobby-Joe from the Appalachian mountains who drinks moonshine and has one tooth. Not my problem.
Less tax is a good thing overall. Some sectors shouldn't have lower taxes (like the financial sector), but sectors involved in production and services absolutely deserve it.
Reply to Agustino Your political views have changed for the worse. You used to be critical of big business and call yourself a socialist. Now you're a cheerleader for big business and [i]laissez-faire[/I] capitalism.
Reply to YourLeaderSapientia That's what happens when you fall for a cult of personality. He's so invested in Trump that he'll go along with anything. He's probably one of the 60% who will never stop supporting him, no matter what he does.
At least Trump was right when he said that he could shoot somebody and not lose his base.
I have shifted a bit more to the right, but slight amount. I never claimed to be a socialist, I'm a distributist. It's close to socialism but only in some regards. In other regards it's close to capitalism. That's why I confuse you.
That's false. You did claim to be a kind of socialist. I distinctly remember it.
Yeah, and I said I like the distributists right after, which are close to socialism in some regards.
I'm definitely very close to socialism with regards to the financial sector for example - nationalised banking, no financial speculation (or highly taxed). Overall, I am on the left side of the spectrum.
Depends - conservatism generally and historically refers to social policy. Someone can be a conservative with a socialist view of economics, nothing contradictory in that. In fact, my economics are probably slightly left-leaning as well (free education, free healthcare, government restriction of multinational corporations, etc.) Marx had something that he called reactionary socialism (because such a socialism was practiced before) - which is very alike to social conservatism coupled with socialist leaning economics.
I have no problem with his fight against trickle-down economics. In fact I support that. If you check my profile in the uploads section you'll see that I'm a kind of socialist.
I have no problem with his fight against trickle-down economics. In fact I support that. If you check my profile in the uploads section you'll see that I'm a kind of socialist. My problem with Sanders is his take on morality - that, and not his economics, is why I would never vote for him.
I have no problem with his fight against trickle-down economics.
Yeah, I do not approve of trickle-down economics. Tax cuts don't have to "trickle down". Each should get what their work deserves to get. There should be no unfair trickling down. I am against the idea of everyone getting progressively richer. Society should only make sure that it provides the basic needs of everyone - schooling, healthcare, food, shelter, water. Not more. The middle class or whatever shouldn't get progressively richer. That's not the aim of society. That's part of the neoliberal worldview that I disagree with.
If you want more than the basic necessities (your needs basically), then you have to work for them. So I'm absolutely in favour of asymmetric distributions of wealth.
And yes with regards to Sanders, I was mostly against his morality. I didn't find his economic views that horrifying though there are things I don't agree with there as well.
Reply to Michael I don't think my views changed, I just no longer express it as socialism because people think the communism/Sanders kind of socialism, which isn't really my thing. Quoting Agustino
I'm a socialist bro... Does it seem to you like I buy the idea of a taxless utopia in the first place like other economic conservatives?
Secondly, my sense of humour is devoid of any grotesque references of a sexual or homicidal nature and, indeed, I find no need to express to an audience about the goings-forth of materials within your duodenum.
And here you finally admit to lacking a sense of humor. That's the first step to recovery.Quoting TimeLine
Such jokes are only funny to someone named Bobby-Joe from the Appalachian mountains who drinks moonshine and has one tooth. Not my problem.
Please leave my mother out of this. She has two teeth by the way, the second she keeps in her pocket for good luck.
Someone willing to engage in extreme self deprecation is impervious to attack from such gnats like you. A good play would be for you to demand you were an even smaller gnat than I could imagine, a bacteria of sorts. That and showing me your navel are two things you just can't do. You're just not strong enough.
ArguingWAristotleTiffDecember 02, 2017 at 13:47#1293430 likes
Well, made the first steps to go back to college for a degree in philosophy. Hope this ball rolls as long as it can.
Woo Hooo! Congratulations on going back to school! Congratulations on taking that first step and signing up for classes! Well done!
But I would be amiss not to say that it is going to take more than "hope" to keep this ball rolling. It is going to take a degree of commitment on your part that you are not only going to sign up but you are going to successfully rise to the challenge that classes are going to face you with. Even if you don't pull all "A's" your first time though, finish the class you start, to the very last final exam. If you have to take a class over again to pass? Take the class over again to pass. It might surprise you that I had to take Logic101 in college and I failed miserably the first time through the class and my friends laughed. Ooo there is no better way to fire me up and I took the class a second time, pulling the highest grade in the class and my friends have been regretting it since. 8-)
Don't let failure discourage you, instead turn it inward to fire you up, that you take it as a personal challenge, to kick butt the second time around in taking the class. That is how you keep the ball rolling my friend AND if Mayor was here, he would tell you that when you begin to better yourself, the ball isn't rolling so much as it is you, much like Sisyphus, that is pushing it UP the hill. But unlike Sisyphus you will find satisfaction in successfully getting that ball to the top. I have faith in you and will be here to remind you if you get flattened by that ball coming back down the hill, to get back up again and start pushing. ;)
Hey and remember, you have ALL of us to bounce questions off of and together we can get you to where you want to be in life, a healthy place to thrive~ (L)
Someone willing to engage in extreme self deprecation is impervious to attack from such gnats like you. A good play would be for you to demand you were an even smaller gnat than I could imagine, a bacteria of sorts. That and showing me your navel are two things you just can't do. You're just not strong enough.
If you guys really decide to go ahead with this, please do it in a separate thread or debate so we can all follow along and cheer, or more likely, whatever the opposite of cheer is.
If you want more than the basic necessities (your needs basically), then you have to work for them. So I'm absolutely in favour of asymmetric distributions of wealth.
Attaining qualities of a life that extend beyond one's survival is not ensured merely because one works. The driver for greater autonomy and prosperity within a given economy is one's access to capital. The debate around minimum wages in the US is partly so heated because most people working minimum wage jobs can't even provide for themselves at a basic level, and if they do, they've no surplus with which they can grow their financial footprint. People get stuck at a threshold, and because they've no room to fail, when they do fail, or at least make a bad financial decision (which is bound to happen), that threshold moves down a peg, thus enabling them even less. You seem blissfully unaware of how quickly someone can get screwed over even when they're making good financial decisions. The world just doesn't care about your needs or your wants or your aspirations. The world isn't fair, so I'd hesitate to divine up an economic blueprint that attempts to make the world a fair and reasonable place where if you just break your back enough you'll be a millionaire.
Yeah, if you guys were anything but lazy and read that in context you'd understand what it meant. I was replying to someone who thought I wanted there to be zero taxes, and who took me to be a full-on capitalist. But of course, that's not the case. It's not the first time that Michael shows great dexterity at creating false impressions through taking statements out of context.
The world isn't fair, so I'd hesitate to divine up an economic blueprint that attempts to make the world a fair and reasonable place where if you just break your back enough you'll be a millionaire.
It's not just about breaking your back, you have to work smart.
The driver for greater autonomy and prosperity within a given economy is one's access to capital.
Yes, access to capital on good conditions is important - what is not important is access to 8-20% interest capital, which basically destroys you.
Having said that, the best capital is your own. So greater autonomy and prosperity depend on your own ability to create capital, for the most part. That doesn't really depend on already having access to capital. You need to use your smarts to make up for what you lack in capital.
People get stuck at a threshold, and because they've no room to fail, when they do fail, or at least make a bad financial decision
The worst financial decision is risking capital when you cannot afford to lose it. Make your first 100K without risking anything (except your time, you obviously have to risk that). Once you have 100K in the bank and a solid, independent source of income, then you can spend that 100K to grow your source of income or create new ones.
The best way to make that first 100K is some independent activity, even if you are not registered as a business, and act instead as a sole trader. The reason for that is that when you work for someone else, you need to put more time to earn more. Your pay is tied to the amount of time you spend, and NOT to the work that you do (or the results you get). Some months you may do work worth many many many times what you get paid.
You may start working part-time or full-time in a job, and work on a trade or something else on the side. That's possible, and a great thing. But don't expect a job, no matter how highly paid it is, to get you to financial independence.*
* exception are sales jobs, and jobs where pay is not tied to the time you spend, but the results you get.
For example. The interesting bit isn't how Jeff Greene became a billionaire. Neither how he became a millionaire. The interesting bit is how he made the first 100K that allowed him to get into real estate in the first place.
ProbablyTrueDecember 02, 2017 at 17:11#1293690 likes
You do realize this is ridiculously unrealistic for the majority of the population, right? Most people make their first 100k via inheritance or equity accrual from property.
You do realize this is ridiculously unrealistic for the majority of the population, right?
Why is it unrealistic? Is it because "most Americans have less than $1000 in savings"?
That's not how you solve a question, nor how you think whether something is ridiculous or not. It's like me telling you that the Earth is flat because most people think so...
You have to start from basic principles and reason upwards. So, in this case, how much does it cost to live as, let's say, 1 person in the US? I'm talking about just survival here, so only healthcare, food, water and shelter.
I will await you to give me a number. Then we shall see whether it's possible for people to have much more than $1000 in savings.
There's also the question of what means do there exist in the US to earn money? Most people may have jobs for example - but is this the most efficient way to earn money that they have at their disposal, or do they simply not know any better, since the whole educational system has been gearing them towards this?
I'm sure poor money management is in some way responsible for this low figure, but surely not all of it.
It's not just poor money management. It's the fact that Americans love to spend and consume. Think of all the unnecessary goods - cigarettes, alcohol, etc.
In addition to that, it's also that most people don't actually spend a lot of time thinking about how it's best to make money. They just go do what others say - indeed most people live their lives following what others say. Few think for themselves. Now in this forum, I would expect all of you to think for yourselves. So I'm not going to talk to you like your average man or woman, because, as far as I'm concerned, at least in terms of brainpower, you're not average, so stop pretending.
You are often so quick to reply that you forget to read what someone says in the first place.
That is possible. One quick point I wanted to make is that the idea of "taking risk" isn't very accurate in terms of how wealth is created. Wealth isn't created by taking "risk" - if by risk you understand anything which, if it doesn't work out, will lead to financial ruin. Wealth is created by doing what Nassim Taleb recommends in one of 180 Proof's favorite books (The Black Swan) - minimising the downside while maximsing the upside.
So - to give you a basic financial example. A deal where I stand to lose 10% if it goes bad, but will win 10,000% if it goes well is a great deal (and doing that deal is not "risk", I mean give me a break :P ) . A deal where I stand to double my money or lose it - for example sports betting (in which I used to take part in, in @Sapientia's country, where I grew £10 in quite a bit, all tax free to the great happiness of Sappy who is more worried about taxing my business than taxing money made out of thin air in all the gambling houses of the nation) isn't a great deal.
The debate around minimum wages in the US is partly so heated because most people working minimum wage jobs [...] and if they do, they've no surplus with which they can grow their financial footprint.
But they don't need surplus in their case, they need time to make money in other ways, apart from the minimum wage job. Time and encouragement.
Entrepreneurship is declining, especially amongst the poor, which is very worrying. People need to be encouraged, not foolishly, but they need to be encouraged to trust their thinking and think for themselves, not based on what mommy and daddy tell them (that being a metaphor for the rest of society).
This is what America needs. Watch the first one, the second one is the same but with more context:
To do something I love doing, meaning philosophy. And, to be busy with something productive in my life rather than live on welfare. I know, I know, you want me to be my own boss or be an entrepreneur, but I have no marketable idea to patent or exploit.
That's good! Do you have a long-term plan for it, somewhere where you'd like to arrive at through studying philosophy? I mean is there some larger vision at work, or do you rather want to see how it goes and go from there?
I know, I know, you want me to be my own boss or be an entrepreneur, but I have no marketable idea to patent or exploit.
Well being your own boss has to be integrated into a larger scheme of life. I think it would be good for you and your family if you were your own boss, at least in the longer term future. You could probably help many more people too. But philosophy is also part of that.
As for not having a marketable idea or patent... you can always do something useful for someone, starting small and scaling from there. For example, if you're good at marketing, you can market other people's products, help other people grow their business and so on so forth. And you can do that at the same time as college probably.
AkanthinosDecember 02, 2017 at 22:04#1294260 likes
And don't get others to bring you down, University years are the best years.
ArguingWAristotleTiffDecember 02, 2017 at 23:37#1294510 likes
It's the most wonderful time of the year! (L)
Right?
I am not sure how it is around you but where I am, there are a bunch of bah humbugs rumbling through the stores. :-}
[quote=Tiff]It's the most wonderful time of the year! (L)
Right?
I am not sure how it is around you but where I am, there are a bunch of bah humbugs rumbling through the stores. :-}[/quote]
Funny how it's so much harder to refrain from eating them all as an adult. As a kid, I never had a problem with waiting everyday, but now, these things barely last 3 days in the month.
Someone willing to engage in extreme self deprecation is impervious to attack from such gnats like you. A good play would be for you to demand you were an even smaller gnat than I could imagine, a bacteria of sorts. That and showing me your navel are two things you just can't do. You're just not strong enough.
Bacteria enables positive affirmations for digestion, can live in terribly difficult conditions and so is a survivor, can also be useful is soy sauce, I mean the benefits are endless.
I'm actually pleased to hear that I'm not the only one that just mashes fifty things into a paste and calls it food. I should have known that I didn't come up with it, I'm but a vessel.
I do make a mean soup, I don't count that as a paste. Though with those too I can never get enough ingredients in the pot, it's never big enough. I need like all the things in there. Baby potatoes are some good in soup.
Reply to Wosret My curried sweet potato soup recipe was published in a cooking magazine. 8-) But, my favourite will always be the simple pumpkin soup. The thing I love about soup is that you can make it from any vegetable. Technically the vegetables in there are (or can be) turned into a paste and watered down. Potatoes are the best, by the way.
Damn, sounds good. Sweet potatoes are also pretty good, though haven't had those in a while, I should get them.
The only other two things I've been told I make well are potato/macaroni salads, and cabbage rolls. I like to use both potato and rice bases in those.
My sister makes a mean apple crumble, and I was always getting her to do it, but it's a lot of work, so she hated it. Gotta peal like two bags of apples, though I pealed them a couple of times for her.
cheeses sliced, Just how big a batch of apple crumble was she making?
Here, Wosret: this just takes 1 apple.
1 cup of flour
1 1/2 t of baking powder
1 T butter (or a little more)
dash of salt
mix (work the butter into the flour with your fingers) into dry stuff
1/2 cup of milk and mix it in.
Meanwhile, back at the ranch
bring to a boil 1/2 cup of water
mix 1 T of flour into 1/2 Cup of sugar
pour mixture into boiling water--stir as you do so to avoid lumps
add butter
reduce heat, cook for just a few minutes until thick
add 1 t of vanilla
Still back at the ranch
peel and slice very thinly 1 apple
wash a handful of cranberries (pick out the soft ones and feed them to the birds or something)
Well, there were six of us, and I require an unreasonable amount of apple crumble. I don't know why so many though, I didn't question the chef, one of the few that are to never be questioned.
Reply to Bitter Crank I miss our old recipe thread. :’( I was the biggest show-off there. Nevertheless, I must say, have you never had a wonderful pasta salad?
Pasta salads there are in abundance -- or in plague, really.
How dare you.
I make my own mayonnaise with the olive that I use to drench sundried tomatoes in so it has this really amazing taste, and after that is made, I crush basil, walnuts and pecorino into a pesto with cracked pepper and salt and add one teaspoon of this to four tablespoons of the mayo. I roast sliced red peppers, some shallots and cherry tomatoes drizzled in crushed garlic, balsamic vinegar and some olive oil in the oven for bit before tossing that through al dente conchiglie pasta, before adding a small amount of red kidney beans, tiny slices of the sundried tomatoes and some rocket leaves. Sounds like
a mess, but this salad makes my hardcore Sicilian neighbours blush.
You're right. The test says you're on the left, so you simply must be on the left. All hail the test.
After all, you say you're on the left... (And by that same logic, I must really be an owl).
>:O Multiple sources of evidence point to the conclusion that my politics with regards to economic issues are left-leaning (and it's not just that one test, there are multiple political compass tests that I've taken and all of them identify a slightly leftward basis you can check my profile - in addition, my politics are on the left with regards to a lot of economic activities very clearly, such as banking and financial speculation). You can either accept that fact or keep protesting against it, regardless of what you do, it ain't going to change it.
Your position on sexuality and sexual roles is consistent with mores ending around 1950 or 1960 in the US. Your views aren't technically conservative, considering no conservative still holds them. For that reason, I'd call them regressive.
Your views on economics are leftist to the extent you have disdain for what you generally consider a controlling and dehumanizing work environment. There are some Marxist elements to your views, although they are half-baked, sometimes arguing that the bourgeoisie are in control of the proletariat and that we should revolt against that slavery, although you don't use those terms, as it would be too revealing. Your solution to this problem, which is why I refer to it as half baked, is to be entrepreneurial. That solution leads me to believe that your real complaint isn't philosophical, but it's just you don't like being told what to do, you have a questionable work ethic, and you'd rather run a lemonade stand outside your house making an unsupportable living and complaining than you would getting a real job. I'd call your views here immature leftism, with the understanding that the word "immature" describes you personally, not your philosophical view.
I don't mean anything mean by this, but I'm not wrong, so I thought I'd say it.
Agustino: "Wah, lefty mods made this terrible decision!"
Baden: "You can either accept that fact or keep protesting against it, regardless of what you do, it ain't going to change it."
BuxtebuddhaDecember 03, 2017 at 16:02#1296280 likes
Reply to Hanover Have you ever been punched square in the face? I suspect you have, perhaps that's why your teeth are so uneven. Good communist dentistry, (Y)
Your views aren't technically conservative, considering no conservative still holds them.
Apparently, you haven't heard of, for example, Mike Pence. But I know why, it's because you're not a conservative, you're a cuckservative - goes well with your servile nature I guess.
LOL >:O - if my work ethic is questionable Hanover, then you have never worked a day in your sorry life. I work harder in a day, than you work in 3, and that's almost guaranteed, since I literarily work almost non-stop. And you work what, 8 hours with Saturday and Sunday off? Pff, don't make me laugh. And you have the audacity to tell me about work ethic. You get off your butt and start working weekends perhaps it will help you lose some of those extra pounds of hunky lawyer meat.
and you'd rather run a lemonade stand outside your house making an unsupportable living and complaining than you would getting a real job.
Apparently, Hanover, you're so smart you know my numbers better than I do. I will direct the government to your small law practice in Atlanta, there's no need for me to file taxes anymore, you already know the numbers better than I do. They should ask you and stop bothering me.
And by the way, I've never actually complained about anything, so I have no idea what you're talking about. Quite the contrary.
I don't mean anything mean by this, but I'm not wrong, so I thought I'd say it.
Says the lawyer with a big ego. If you're so smart, you would realise that people like you have work because of people like me and not the other way around. I don't actually need people like you - if there's no government, I can still make money, because I do stuff that's actually useful in people's lives. If there's no government, you'd be out of business in no time. You're an auxiliary when it comes to the needs of this world, doing more harm than good by on purpose fighting to introduce thicker and more complicated regulation so that you have more work.
It's funny to see you have this attitude. The difference between me and you is one of character. If I was the king of the world, you'd bow down your head to me in no time, and forget that you ever said anything bad about me. I can almost see you - you'd come crawling on your knees asking for favours and throwing praise. If you were the king of the world, on the other hand, I wouldn't even give you a second glance. That's the difference between us - I have character, and you don't. You're just a 40-50 year old limerick who comes here to write nonsense and has done very little for anyone, philosophically or otherwise. So that's my final comment to your sorry self. Go find a better hobby than insulting random people you know nothing about, and take a long hard look in the mirror.
Imagine, you're so smart you would have told Schwarzenneger to get a job :B - best advice ever, coming from a great lawyer. Good that people like Schwarzenneger never listen to the naysayers.
I make a delicious pork chop shake and bake. Take some pork chops and get them a little wet, but not soaking dripping wet. Open the box and take out the bag. Pour about half of the mix in the bag. One at a time put a pork chop in the bag and hold the top of the bag and shake. If you don't hold the bag closed, the shit'll get all over your NASCAR shirt and it'll make it taste funny. I know just what you're thinking: why don't I just throw all thr damn pork chops in the sack and shake them at once. Don't do it is all I can say because you'll get uneven coating, and the one stuck with too little coating will whine and mope while the guy with all the coating's gonna gloat. I been there,trust me.
Anywho, finish up with each pork chop and cook it like the box says or a little longer to be sure they're good and cooked and not slimy and shit.
Serve with mashed potato mixed up with water and a sack of frozen peas and carrots heated to a pot over-flowing boil that you gotta run up to and turn down real quick. Water'd be fine to drink with all this stuff. Maybe a Little Debbie snack treat for dessert while you clean the plates in the sink.
in addition, my politics are on the left with regards to a lot of economic activities very clearly, such as banking and financial speculation
Since the 2008 financial crash, no one's politics, wherever they fall on the political spectrum, is supportive of banking and financial speculation. At least not openly. So that's not a very good way of attempting to distinguish your position from others.
I mean, can you imagine if someone came on Question Time and declared that what we need is more banking and financial speculation, of the kind that got us into such a big mess in the first place?
Reply to Hanover Well yeah, I'm very proud of the business I've created, I've started from nothing and I work very hard, and have thankfully had the Lord's blessing and support along the way. If you had ever created anything through your own work, and not through kissing butt left and right (which you shamelessly advocate), then you would be proud too. I don't need no retards with half a brain like yourself giving me unsolicited and offensive advice.
I mean, can you imagine if someone came on Question Time and declared that what we need is more banking and financial speculation, of the kind that got us into such a big mess in the first place?
Despite all evidence to the contrary, Republicans continue to tout their tax bills as “middle-class tax cuts.” In reality, the bills making their way through Congress are tax cuts for the rich and big corporations, at the expense of working families.
Any crumbs thrown towards low- and middle-income families disappear at the end of 2025, and left in their place are some tax increases, not cuts. But the tax cuts for big corporations — both cutting the headline rate and giving them tax advantages to offshore profits and jobs — are permanent.
Under the Senate bill, in 2027, households making under $75,000 will see their taxes rise on average according to the Joint Committee on Taxation. And according to the Tax Policy Center, 62 percent of the benefits of the tax plan in 2027 would go to the top 1 percent — households currently making income of $730,000 or more.
The real damage to working families will come in the near future; Republicans have already signaled their plans to leverage the deficits that result from their tax plan to gut Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security.
Left with no other way to claim that the middle class wins out in these bills, proponents are claiming that the benefits to corporate tax cuts will trickle down.
The logic goes like this: Corporate tax cuts will increase after-tax profits, which will boost private savings. Higher profitability will spur firms’ incentive to invest and the new savings will make funds available to finance these new investments. These investments will in turn boost productivity which will boost workers’ wages.
This is a long chain of events that has to happen, and most of its links are pretty weak when tested against real-world data. After-tax corporate profits are already near historically high, and interest rates incredibly low, and yet investment has been weak.
Why would doing more of the same (i.e., fattening companies’ profit margins) all of a sudden reverse this trend? And even if investment picks up and boosts productivity, there is no guarantee that this will boost a typical workers’ wages.
Sky-high after-tax corporate profits and low interest rates make clear that it isn’t corporations’ profitability or insufficient available savings holding back investment. Corporations are sitting on plenty of cash, but have used that money to boost shareholder returns, not investment. Quite simply, cutting corporate taxes solves no problem currently facing the American economy.
Given this, tax cuts for corporations are just tax cuts for the rich by another name. Claims that corporate tax cuts will make it all the way down to workers’ wages are not supported by real-world evidence.
There is no evidence in recent American economic history, no evidence from international comparisons and no evidence from individual U.S. states that corporate tax cuts will boost the wages of American workers. This is a case we’ve been making for a while.
As it turns out, the CEOs of major companies agree with us. Companies including Cisco, Pfizer, Coca-Cola and Amgen have said that the gains from corporate tax cuts will go to shareholders.
When CEOs were asked at a Wall Street Journal event to raise their hands, “If the tax reform bill goes through, do you plan to increase investment — your company’s investment, capital investment,” few raised their hands.
White House National Economic Council Director Gary Cohn asked “Why aren’t the other hands up?” The hands weren’t up because the gains from corporate tax cuts will go to shareholders, not workers.
This means the gains from cutting corporate taxes will disproportionately accrue to the rich, since the top 1 percent holds about 40 percent of stock wealth.
With corporate tax claims thoroughly debunked, there is no avenue left through which the Republican tax bills can be considered anything but huge tax cuts for the rich at the expense of working families.
So remind me; what's so great about this tax bill?
Reply to Sapientia But now in all seriousness, I do have a left-leaning tendency, but I'm against collectivism and pro individualism. I'm also against central planning.
Since the 2008 financial crash, no one's politics, wherever they fall on the political spectrum, is supportive of banking and financial speculation. At least not openly. So that's not a very good way of attempting to distinguish your position from others.
My position isn't anywhere near what capitalism advocates to this day, which is the continuance of private banking and financial speculation. Hedge funds are doing better than ever.
ArguingWAristotleTiffDecember 03, 2017 at 21:49#1296870 likes
The word is to invest in bit coin if anyone is looking for an alternative form of currency. There is a waiting list for Visa like cards called Cryptopay Debit Cards that will actually be transferring monies via bit coin without the receiver of said monies ever knowing it's bit coin.
Anyone game?
The word is to invest in bit coin if anyone is looking for an alternative form of currency. There is a waiting list for Visa like cards called Cryptopay Debit Cards that will actually be transferring monies via bit coin without the receiver of said monies ever knowing it's bit coin.
Anyone game?
Ethereum is at it's 5th (or 6th?) big hack n' steal in the last 4 months. And that's pretty much the only one you can farm reliably with low-end investment (just a bunch of GCU hooked togheter). With Bitcoins, a dedicated machine such as an AntMiner is gonna cost you (entry price) around $300 and will generate less than $5 per months.
There are ways to make it profitable (in a bubble), but they are predicated around access to very (almost free) cheap electricity. China often subsidize 100% of the electricity costs of Bitcoin farming, which means that it is almost impossible to compete.
Funnily enough, there is no possible way for China to ever recoup the money invested. Unless they figured out how to turn virtual bitcoins into gold.
ArguingWAristotleTiffDecember 04, 2017 at 00:18#1297460 likes
Ethereum is at it's 5th (or 6th?) big hack n' steal in the last 4 months. And that's pretty much the only one you can farm reliably with low-end investment (just a bunch of GCU hooked togheter
I will let you know how Ethereum works out. Right now there is no risk in mining.
AkanthinosDecember 04, 2017 at 00:36#1297520 likes
I will let you know how Ethereum works out. Right now there is no risk in mining.
Well that's not exactly true. The biggest risk is that you'll never be able to recoup your initial investment. I calculated a few months back when Ethereum was getting big. To guarantee a mine rate of 1/day, you'd have to invest in about 20-25 high end ($900 and more) GCU. Back then, one Ether was $330, so you could recoup your investment pretty well as long as you had a decent starting investment.
The problem is that those Ether must stay somewhere. Wallets are hackable. Blockchains can be corrupted. All of a sudden your virtual wallet that contained $750 000 contains 0 simply because the chain allowed an incorrect block to be added 3000 units back.
To guarantee a mine rate of 1/day, you'd have to invest in about 20-25 high end ($900 and more) GCU. Back then, one Ether was $330, so you could recoup your investment pretty well as long as you had a decent starting investment.
Another problem is that so many people have gotten into mining that graphics cards are in high demand making that initial investment far greater. A coworker of mine says he makes about ~300USD a month mining Ether. He's not investing any more money into it though. He thinks it'll bust soon.
Well that's not exactly true. The biggest risk is that you'll never be able to recoup your initial investment. I calculated a few months back when Ethereum was getting big. To guarantee a mine rate of 1/day, you'd have to invest in about 20-25 high end ($900 and more) GCU. Back then, one Ether was $330, so you could recoup your investment pretty well as long as you had a decent starting investment.
If your mining, there is no initial investment except for the electricity that it takes to run high end GCU's doing the mining. If those are already in place then the only real risk is losing what you have accumulated by mining.
The problem is that those Ether must stay somewhere. Wallets are hackable. Blockchains can be corrupted. All of a sudden your virtual wallet that contained $750 000 contains 0 simply because the chain allowed an incorrect block to be added 3000 units back.
Which came first? Cryptocurrency or Cryptolocks? One gave birth to the other, correct?
As I understand it, the beauty of the Ether is that as it is moved through so many nodes, that each and every node provides an essential backup of every transaction. So to try to manipulate it is possible but it is growing stronger each day.
But let me ask you: would you rather take a risk on a world wide currency or one that is backed by the gold bullion that the USA has....or had....wait what is the USA dollar backed by again?
The problem is that those Ether must stay somewhere. Wallets are hackable. Blockchains can be corrupted. All of a sudden your virtual wallet that contained $750 000 contains 0 simply because the chain allowed an incorrect block to be added 3000 units back.
I thought blockchains can only be corrupted if one party calculates more than 50% of the blockchain? Wallets aren't hackable per se, it's when you have another party maintain your wallet for you or at bitcoin exchanges that it can go wrong. Currently, cryptocurrencies aren't very mature yet but I suspect these thefts/hacks will diminish as it matures over time.
unenlightenedDecember 04, 2017 at 14:39#1301180 likes
Bitcoin is just a massive pyramid scheme. actually surprised they haven't shut it down in the US
but clearly this is the year republicans ran out of fucks to give about fiscal responsibility.
Random web comment.
On the other hand, last time I looked there was a sodding great pyramid printed on the dollar bill too.
Attorney John Dowd has shot down any speculation that his client obstructed justice, saying Trump is president and therefore above the law.
The “President cannot obstruct justice because he is the chief law enforcement officer under [the Constitution’s Article II] and has every right to express his view of any case”.
Reply to Wosret No, the worst kind of Jew is the kind that kills babies and bludgeons their mothers with them at their funerals while committing adultery in front of their cancer stricken spouses while eating a communion cracker.
I did that once without a condom and boy did I regret it 9 months later when I had to repeat the whole bludgeoning thing all over again.
Dead babies, why did it have to be dead babies? Everyone just knows that dead babies are the worst thing, that's why child sacrifice is always what devil worshipers and all of Rome's enemies were super into it. (Also pessimists sometimes want to rid the world of all babies everywhere forever, which surely isn't often an extreme claimed against anyone, because who would believe that anyone would be that comic book super villain like?)
Personally I am more of a naturalist, so as long as none of it goes to waste.
I thought blockchains can only be corrupted if one party calculates more than 50% of the blockchain?
Well, maybe "corrupted" isn't the right word, but it happens also when an hash that shouldn't have been added to the blockchain is retroactively discovered to be invalid, which has happened in the past. At that point, all transactions following the addition of that block to that chain must be erased up to the nearest fork. Or you must separate the chains into two different databases.
AkanthinosDecember 04, 2017 at 19:53#1301950 likes
Another problem is that so many people have gotten into mining that graphics cards are in high demand making that initial investment far greater. A coworker of mine says he makes about ~300USD a month mining Ether. He's not investing any more money into it though. He thinks it'll bust soon.
Not only that, but you'll burn your GCUs a lot faster by having them constantly run high-end mining algorithms than by occasionally playing Skyrim. It'd be surprised if a card could run an entire year non stop without melting down.
The word is to invest in bit coin if anyone is looking for an alternative form of currency. There is a waiting list for Visa like cards called Cryptopay Debit Cards that will actually be transferring monies via bit coin without the receiver of said monies ever knowing it's bit coin.
Anyone game?
No, it's too uncertain now. I had a friend who informed me about this opportunity in May, that would have been a great time to buy. I was sketchy about it, partly because I was looking to invest the money in my own business, not in something I had no control over. But it would have been a great "investment" if I had made it back then. This is the current growth of Bitcoin, around a x10 growth.
We've seen that once before in its history, and this is what happened.
So be very careful. I personally wouldn't touch it, but I'm really a "control" person, and not a "risk" person. Personally, if I had Bitcoin, I'd be selling them now.
had a friend who informed me about this opportunity in May, that would have been a great time to buy. I was sketchy about it, partly because I was looking to invest the money in my own business, not in something I had no control over. But it would have been a great "investment" if I had made it back then.
We did the exact same thing by reinvesting in our own company but are now kicking ourselves for not investing it. So come back around to Ethereum and the same is being presented, only this time with mining as the discussion, rather than the cash investment that bit coin would have required.
As a side note? My brother was offered stock in a shoe company for $5.00 a share way back in the day and my parents said absolutely not and they held his savings. It turns out that it was getting in on the ground floor of Reebok. Ohh for the days....wait maybe Ethereum is worthy?
I never take risks with money I don't have to lose which makes me a buzzkill in Vegas but who knows about Ethereum, it is possible that the house (banking system) will be on the losing side this time.
But let me ask you: would you rather take a risk on a world wide currency or one that is backed by the gold bullion that the USA has....or had....wait what is the USA dollar backed by again?
Nothing, as far as I know. Forex traders determine the value as in any market: your money is worth however much foreign money someone is willing to trade it for.
We were just binge'ing Dark the other day, which have some similarities.
It does have a sort of darker feel to it.
I'm thinking they could have done a bit more to portray the 3 periods in time the events take place.
Oh, it did have
Regarding bitcoin, that boat has sailed a while ago.
I was contemplating investing in BTC around when it first popped up; but, held off due to concerns about the amount I was willing to invest and the issues surrounding security and theft of coins. Would have been a multi-millionaire by now, oh well.
I was contemplating investing in BTC around when it first popped up; but, held off due to concerns about the amount I was willing to invest and the issues surrounding security and theft of coins. Would have been a multi-millionaire by now, oh well.
So, how much about this Roy Moore is true? I saw a Washington post article that showed a card allegedly signed by Roy when he was 34 and the woman 17. How hard is it to check this?
I'd say it's that easy that it is very likely that woman is telling the truth. Why don't the republicans care about having a paedophile in their ranks? It's pretty sick.
Reply to Benkei If we're going to be technical then paedophilia is pre-pubescent children. It's ephebiphilia (?) for adolescents, but even then only if it's the exclusive or primary interest. But I think the best term in this situation (if true) is "child molester", which is also useful in distinguishing non-voluntary attraction from voluntary actions.
ArguingWAristotleTiffDecember 05, 2017 at 11:09#1304740 likes
Damn. I wasn't thinking straight and was just focusing on the non-voluntary part. An adult man or woman being attracted to a child isn't an issue in itself and non-voluntary, after all, we don't choose who we find attractive.
I have never thought that logic all the way through. So is a pedophile's sexual attraction to children, the the same as my sexual attraction to Fire Fighters, except that one is legal and one is not?
I have never thought that logic all the way through. So is a pedophile's sexual attraction to children, the the same as my sexual attraction to Fire Fighters, except that one is legal and one is not?
Sexual attraction to children isn't illegal. Sexual activity with a child is illegal.
omg ...... they leave me speechless when I run into them shopping....I literally get weak in the knees...which gets me closer to the ground where on my knees I could bow to them...for they are so worthy.
Reply to ArguingWAristotleTiff They're the same in that they're both sexual attraction. They're different in that one is towards children and the other towards Fire Fighters. Your question isn't really very clear.
I am trying to equate the level of control that we have over this involuntary attraction.
None? The body's physiological response to visual stimulation isn't really something we have much control over – at least not without professional psychiatric help, in some cases (e.g. phobias).
I can't choose to be gay, or to be a pedophile, and nor can someone who's gay choose to be straight, or someone who's a pedophile choose not to be.
ArguingWAristotleTiffDecember 05, 2017 at 11:51#1304990 likes
@Michael
I feel horrible because all this time I have been consciously convicting someone of having such a perverse thought of children with being not just a pedophile but more of a child molester. When in all reality the only difference between myself and a pedophile is our focus of attraction.
I feel horrible because all this time I have been consciously convicting someone of having such a perverse thought of children with being not just a pedophiles but more of a child molester. When in all reality the only difference between myself and a pedophile is our focus of attraction.
It's a common thing, which I believe is why so few pedophiles seek psychiatric help. They're terrified of the stigma. I think there was a documentary on it here in the UK recently.
A firefighter could be a man, a child, a woman, a water hose, or a dalmation, so one's attraction to a firefighter could be pedophelia, homosexuality, bestiality, or the love of hoses (conduitaphelia).
I would assume that Tiff's attraction is to young hoses with male adapters at the end to connect to female hoses. Either that or she's really into dalmations. Cruella Deville.
ArguingWAristotleTiffDecember 05, 2017 at 11:54#1305020 likes
It's a common thing, which I believe is why so few pedophiles seek psychiatric help. They're terrified of the stigma. I think there was a documentary on it here in the UK recently.
What a horrible secret to have to deal with alone. I actually feel sympathetic towards the pedophile now. Is that as odd to read, as it is to type?
ArguingWAristotleTiffDecember 05, 2017 at 11:59#1305030 likes
A firefighter could be a man, a child, a woman, a water hose, or a dalmation, so one's attraction to a firefighter could be pedophelia, homosexuality, bestiality,
One confirmation of a bunny in your bedside drawer a decade ago and the whispers of bestiality will never go away. :-}
It's not a sound, but there is a vibration effect it generates from the visual. If I watch it but close my eyes, I see dark. When the pole thing jumps up and down and splays its legs like that, I think of Baden.
If all attraction is non-voluntary, that means that a pedophile has not actively chosen to be sexually attracted to children, right?
@ArguingWAristotleTiff, ever had an urge to get into a fistfight with a colleague or a homophobe on a bus or whatever? For the most part people don't actually act on it, but takes a more tempered (or reasoned) approach.
Pedophiles typically have involuntary sexual urges towards children, much like what you describe for other (sexual) urges. The moment they act on it, it's a crime, but not until then, though. It can be difficult getting them help due to the prevalent stigma @Michael mentioned. :(
Others have obsessive-compulsive disorders (maybe excessive attention to the number 13 or washing hands several times an hour or something).
Ain't always easy being alive.
Others have obsessive-compulsive disorders (maybe excessive attention to the number 13 or washing hands several times an hour or something).
I have something like that. There's a particular routine I have to do before going to bed (checking taps and heating and the doors), and if I'm interrupted I have to start again.
Bitter Crankus:Agustino says he leans very strongly left. That seems surprising to me, but I don't know what Agustino's life actually looks like.
@Bitter Crank - I don't actually claim to lean VERY STRONGLY left. Just that I do lean left, pretty much exactly as my political compass on my profile indicates.
And it also depends on what you understand by "left". I'm certainly not a communist type of left person. And I'm also not on the left because I'm a lazy bum or anything of that sort despite what some people think ( :-} ).
But I'm on the left in the sense that I do believe in free healthcare for all, in not being allowed to access better healthcare just cause you have more money, in equal opportunity to access schooling and education for all, in environmental protection, in local market protectionism, in government support for museums, art, and other cultural spheres, in nationalising banking, in outlawing financial speculation especially with regards to derivatives and options trading, in limiting the influence of multinational corporations, in support programs for those in need who cannot care for themselves, higher taxes for gambling, etc.
So I'm actually curious why me being slightly on the left seems surprising to you?
Probably cause I'm very much pro-business and pro-ownership and the wide distribution of ownership and property. Well yeah, that goes perfectly with distributism. But I will let you answer, I'm curious what you're thinking.
Jake TarragonDecember 05, 2017 at 21:00#1305810 likes
Reply to Jake Tarragon Ah okay. Well, I don't know much of the positions of the Church of England on political issues, but I'm certainly not a member. I'm an Eastern Orthodox Christian, but I'm also close in terms of beliefs to Catholicism.
Jake TarragonDecember 05, 2017 at 21:07#1305880 likes
Reply to Agustino There are two themes in your writing that do not point left: your religious views are conservative (and the fact that you have strong religious views, which isn't common among leftists, these days), and your emphasis on entrepreneurial effort as the way to better one's self (might be 100% true, but doesn't point leftward).
No one would take you for a hard line communist, or even a fuzzy, cushioned, soft-line communist. Your evidence of leftward leaning points towards European democratic socialism. In the United States, European democratic socialism is viewed as one of the fire-breathing dragons of communism -- by the religious right and entrepreneurial types.
The United States has had a very strong conservative, pro-business, pro-entrepreneurial political strata for a long time. What it is missing in the current century is the liberal wing of the Republican Party -- the so-called Rockefeller Republicans who were personified by Nelson Rockefeller. They were socially liberal, fiscally conservative. They started getting washed out of the Republic Party quite some time ago, and by the time of Ronald Reagan were pretty much gone.
So, by American standards, you are radically leftist, but by European standards, merely centrist. So, there's a difference in perspective here.
There used to be religious leftists. Among the leading figures of religious leftism would be Dorothy Day, founder of the Catholic Worker, the Kerrigan priest-brothers, Rev. M. L. King, the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, Quakers, and various others. A lot of these people are dead (old age), and their supporting organizations have receded. There are not too many, these days.
Dorothy Day, for example, was quite orthodox in her religious faith, solidly leftist (communist party in in the 1930s) and was a longtime peace activist and social critic.
your religious views are conservative (and the fact that you have strong religious views, which isn't common among leftists, these days)
It is true that nowadays most people on the left do not hold conservative religious positions. However, is that because there is something that makes religious/social conservatism inherently, or in principle, anti-left? Or is it merely because people on the left simply don't happen to be religious on average?
No one would take you for a hard line communist, or even a fuzzy, cushioned, soft-line communist.
But is the left subsumed by communism? Why is communism the only "left" system? Dorothy Day was a distributist for example, an ideology that she found expressed most closely by communist organizations at that time.
In the United States, European democratic socialism is viewed as one of the fire-breathing dragons of communism -- by the religious right and entrepreneurial types.
>:O yeah, but I don't really understand why.
AkanthinosDecember 05, 2017 at 21:31#1306000 likes
I am trying to equate the level of control that we have over this involuntary attraction.
We pretty much have complete control in general terms. A boner never forced anyone to do anything. But that boner is a sneaky little beast, with his own reasons and rhymes.
So yes, most of male attraction is involontary. That's something most women I've been with seem to have had problems understanding, so perhaps femal attraction is much more volontary.
It must be absolutely terrible to be a pedophile with the sense to see that your pulsions are as monstrous as they really are. Suicidal thoughts would be the natural follow-up. :s
We pretty much have complete control in general terms. A boner never forced anyone to do anything. But that boner is a sneaky little beast, with his own reasons and rhymes.
So yes, most of male attraction is involontary. That's something most women I've been with seem to have had problems understanding, so perhaps femal attraction is much more volontary.
I am the woman that you speak of because I can understand what you are saying but to be the receiver of an involuntary attraction is actually a really odd thing to comprehend. As a woman, we have many issues to deal with in the sexual arena but having my nipples suddenly become uncontrollably hard, at the sight of a Fire Fighter has never led me astray. Why do males think of their boner as a sneaky little beast? It makes it sound like not only does it think on it's own but it acts (not against another) on it's own. Is that really what it is like?
It must be absolutely terrible to be a pedophile with the sense to see that your pulsions are as monstrous as they really are. Suicidal thoughts would be the natural follow-up. :s
What you say is a likely route to take but there must be a way, that we as a society can help bring the healthy pedophile back into the folds of society that we wrongly shunned them from, IF their ideas remain in thought and not action.
ArguingWAristotleTiffDecember 05, 2017 at 23:51#1306650 likes
Tis me jorn~ I have OCD but I have grown to work with it, spot it faster and make light of it and those around me seem to find a common ground with some of my OCD habits. I don't advertise it but as soon as someone says they have OCD, I let them know they are in good company. ;)
In the United States, European democratic socialism is viewed as one of the fire-breathing dragons of communism -- by the religious right and entrepreneurial types.
— Bitter Crank
>:O yeah, but I don't really understand why.
Reply to Hanover How did I miss this? Ok, so I stand corrected regarding your dietary thunder thighs, but I hardly think it changes the fact that we Mediterranids have awesome hair, blemished thigh and chubby hands aside. I also get to wear over sized t-shirts to work while you Harry Potter around your strange desk of epic proportions.
Reply to Sapientia Tradition: 1 a :an inherited, established, or customary pattern of thought, action, or behavior (such as a religious practice or a social custom) b :a belief or story or a body of beliefs or stories relating to the past that are commonly accepted as historical though not verifiable.
Oh really? For what reason? >:) Have you modified the guidelines to say that negative remarks about our dear leader Baden aren't allowed? You made yourself part of the constitution like Xi Jinping?
It says here in The Complete Dicktionary Of All English And Non-English Words The Agustino Version:
Tradition: a. The word “tradition” has several usages, of which the two most important, in our time, are these: (1) a belief or body of beliefs handed down from age to age by oral communication; (2) a custom handed down from one age to another, acquiring by prescription and frequent verifications almost the force of law and truth.
And it also has a secondary definition as all words in this dicktionary do reading:
b. Thou shalt not question the definitions of The Complete Dicktionary Of All English And Non-English Words The Agustino Version, which shall rule over all the dicktionaries of the earth :B
With the emoticon, yes.
ArguingWAristotleTiffDecember 06, 2017 at 11:57#1308460 likes
Ahhh, she's into uniforms. Soldiers, firemen, cops sailors, probably the UPS delivery guy...
Hmmm... you may be right about the uniforms because I admittedly have hugged more Police Officers than I have negative interactions with them...I cannot say that I have had anything other than positive interactions with them but I am a "Yes Sir, No Sir" lady with hands at 10 and 2 if I am ever pulled over.
Soldiers as well, I have hugged many soldiers both serving and Veterans and have nothing but positive to say about it.
Sailors...now I do question their intentions as the whole role play of Pirate and Cabin Wench never really did anything for me. But a sailor in Uniform, hands behind his back...yeah I could enjoy that.
UPS or Fed Ex guys were enjoyable when I was working outside of the ranch but now, the Rotties have let it be known that the end of the walkway leading up to the front door will be considered "delivered" just fine.
But the Fire Fighters have my full attention hands down. They wear the most hideous outfits, hardly body hugging, bright yellow with duct tape at the ankles BUT they are the one source of help, that you can call and they will come without question, ready to help and arrive without a firearm. (L)
Reply to ArguingWAristotleTiff Tiff, guess what. I live a few houses away from a Fire Depot. Cupcakes, Fireman, but you have to come soon as I am moving house. ;)
ArguingWAristotleTiffDecember 06, 2017 at 12:03#1308510 likes
No, you misread that because you didn't update page. I changed it to isn't almost immediately.
You're hilarious! If the page wasn't updated before I read it, then I didn't misread it. I didn't misread it, you miswrote it. That's your fault, not mine.
You're hilarious! If you didn't update the page before I read it, then I didn't misread it. I didn't misread it, you miswrote it. That's your fault, not mine.
Okay, my apologies, but it was fixed in the meantime. So please respond to the intended argument and be charitable :B
ArguingWAristotleTiffDecember 06, 2017 at 12:33#1308670 likes
@TimeLine
Do you have any requests of something I can bring with me to your place that you might only be able to find in the states? I hear they let Lizards on the planes as therapy pets (Y)
Rotflmao from one cook to another, you ain't missing nothing. The first indicator is wetting the pork chops with water instead of milk regardless of what the package says. Maybe Hanover could come with for cooking lessons from you? :D
ArguingWAristotleTiffDecember 06, 2017 at 13:01#1308840 likes
Reply to jamalrob If you could get her to eat a burger would be AMAZING!
For reference: the use of beef broth to flavor water to cook rice caused her stomach pains all night as it was too rough on her system. :-O
Rotflmao from one cook to another, you ain't missing nothing. The first indicator is wetting the pork chops with water instead of milk regardless of what the package says. Maybe Hanover could come with for cooking lessons from you? :D
Mixing meat and dairy isn't kosher, don't corrupt him further.
BuxtebuddhaDecember 06, 2017 at 14:25#1308990 likes
"If I reach deep enough I'll find a cash cache, right?"
Jokes aside, I'm surprised how presidential Trump has been. I think most people thought he'd be a lot more crass and disrespectful than he has been. Is nice to see him giving respect, here.
Mixing meat and dairy isn't kosher, don't corrupt him further.
I asked this question earlier, but no one saw fit to respond, as usual. Why isn't it kosher to make chicken with a milk sauce, since chickens don't feed their young on milk? I can see why creamed chipped beef on toast (aka shit on a shingle) is not kosher, since cows feed their young on their own milk. Is dipping raw chicken in egg before rolling in crumbs prior to frying kosher?
Reply to AgustinoReply to Sapientia Maybe you two can straighten this out after you get done with transubstantiation (or Lutheran consubstantiation).
What do you think these songs have in common? "You're Sixteen, You're Beautiful And You're Mine," "Sixteen Candles," Happy Birthday Sweet 16," "Sweet Little 16," "Only Sixteen." If you said that all of them are songs by grown men about how hot 16-year-old girls are, congratulations! Your prize is sadness.
Did you hear that cracked laid off all the media employees? No more videos :(
An admin blamed the parent company, saying that online media in general is in trouble, and things may be changing abruptly with respect to it in general, as profits are evaporating.
I was sad enough to see Jack go, he was great. I really wish that they would as well... I always watch their daily videos. I'll most assuredly miss them.
As a woman, we have many issues to deal with in the sexual arena but having my nipples suddenly become uncontrollably hard, at the sight of a Fire Fighter has never led me astray. Why do males think of their boner as a sneaky little beast? It makes it sound like not only does it think on it's own but it acts (not against another) on it's own. Is that really what it is like?
Perhaps because one state influences more the mind of the male experiencing it than the female equivalent. Both boner and hardened nipples are involuntary reactions, so I can understand why you would think of one and another to compare. Perhaps, however, the boner comes with a more heavy cocktail of hormones, and those explains why it seems so much that for men, as Reply to Bitter Crank said, that "a stiff prick doesn't have ethics".
Hormones can change the world. For me, the most obvious is when I wake up next to a women. It is absolutely impossible, however much a lady put works into her looks, that I will find her more attractive at any other time. And obviously it's about the time where we look at our worst, but my head is so full of whatever it if full of, that I cannot see any flaws.
Plus, hardened nipples can put a women in a thight spot, but it's hard to imagine a female-equivalent to the daddy-gets-a-hard-one-dancing-with-his-daughter-at-her-prom scenario. Yeah, it's likely some of those dads were complete creeps, but it's also likely a good part were as mortified by themselves as their girls.
Ahh, wait a second, I remember, first you Brits have pre-drinks... then you start the real drinking at around like 22:00-23:00 >:O >:O >:O . Never forget the warm-up >:O
Plus, hardened nipples can put a women in a thight spot, but it's hard to imagine a female-equivalent to the daddy-gets-a-hard-one-dancing-with-his-daughter-at-her-prom scenario.
Wtf? TMI. Really dude, that's not a thing. That's you. I just vomited in my mouth.
Ahh, wait a second, I remember, first you Brits have pre-drinks... then you start the real drinking at around like 22:00-23:00 >:O >:O >:O . Never forget the warm-up
We're a frugal lot. Drinks from Tesco are much cheaper than at the club.
AkanthinosDecember 06, 2017 at 21:13#1309670 likes
. Maybe Hanover could come with for cooking lessons from you? :D
Impossible, most of my recipes contain sugar and you well know Hanover and sugar are not compatible. When was it, sometime not too long ago at that child's party where he locked his gaze on the fairy bread, those delightful and buttery triangles sprinkled with a rainbow of sweet, edible goodness before moments later tackling a five year old boy like a quarterback, grabbing the plate of fairy bread and running off cackling deliriously only to be found several hours later lying naked on a tree. No, I think for the interest of public safety, we'll let him continue feasting on unpalatable processed foods.
ArguingWAristotleTiffDecember 07, 2017 at 12:25#1311260 likes
Twinkle Toes Hanover stuck, lying naked, in a tree? I know just who to call! (Y)
I might be delayed a bit as I stand by the Fire Fighters and make sure that they get him safely out of the tree. I will be sure to casually remind them that a calendar of them at work, without their shirts on, would be a great revenue generator. 8-)
Reply to ArguingWAristotleTiff There are calendars of fireMEN with a good deal less than their shirts on. The svelte fellow below is in the service d'incendie français.
A good looking man can never be too naked.
AkanthinosDecember 07, 2017 at 17:14#1311540 likes
Of course! After all, it's a prime trait for selection!
"As such, lordosis in the human spine is considered one of the primary physiological adaptations of the human skeleton that allows for human gait to be as energetically efficient as it is."
Reply to Akanthinos Lordosis is excessive curvature. Which is clear, which is also a feminine trait. Likely means he feels pretty. Females do it ever so slightly when they're interested, and men do the opposite, tucking the pelvis forward when they are, ever so slightly. Which is why excess tends to go in those directions for either sex.
That's just the most clear and obvious thing, that should be easily seen by everyone, I notice other things which would be less obvious, and more controversial.
In yoga, they say that the hips are like a bowl, when you balance it properly, and don't spill out anywhere, the upper body above the hips is entirely weightless. The middle, or neutral being ideal.
Reply to Sapientia Really, I think we need to advance beyond these kindergarten New Atheist objections. That's exactly the kind of thing that makes New Atheism entirely laughable. I'm not saying that you can't be a smart atheist, but for certain you can't be a smart New Atheist :P
AkanthinosDecember 07, 2017 at 18:41#1311730 likes
No. Lordosis is normal inward curvature. You mean hyperlordosis. Lordosis is one of the reasons why human mouvement is more efficient than the gait-based mouvement of other primates.
"Lordosis is defined as an excessive inward curve of the spine. It differs from the spine's normal curves at the cervical, thoracic, and lumbar regions, which are, to a degree, either kyphotic (near the neck) or lordotic (closer to the low back)"
"Bathed in flames we held the brand, uncurl the fingers in your hand, pressed into the flesh like sand, now do you understand?" - Rise Against, Savior.
Really, I think we need to advance beyond these kindergarten New Atheist objections. That's exactly the kind of thing that makes New Atheism entirely laughable. I'm not saying that you can't be a smart atheist, but for certain you can't be a smart New Atheist.
:P
But the irony is that you are an Eastern Orthodox Christian, whereas I would be a smart Christian.
AkanthinosDecember 07, 2017 at 23:11#1312580 likes
That describes hyperlordosis. I guess lordosis is an accepted term for the hyperlordotic disorder. That's fine, it also has other meanings.
"Lordosis refers to the normal inward lordotic curvature of the lumbar and cervical regions of the human spine.[1] The normal outward (convex) curvature in the thoracic and sacral regions is termed kyphosis or kyphotic. The term comes from the Greek lord?sis, from lordos ("bent backward").[2]
Lordosis in the human spine makes it easier for humans to bring the bulk of their mass over the pelvis. This allows for a much more efficient walking gait than that of other primates, whose inflexible spines cause them to resort to an inefficient forward leaning "bent-knee, bent-waist" gait. As such, lordosis in the human spine is considered one of the primary physiological adaptations of the human skeleton that allows for human gait to be as energetically efficient as it is.[3]
Lower spine disorders occur when lumbar lordosis is excessive (lumbar hyperlordosis), minimal, or reversed into lumbar kyphosis. Lumbar hyperlordosis is commonly called hollow back or saddle back (after a similar condition that affects some horses). These conditions are usually a result of poor posture and can often be reversed by learning correct posture and using appropriate exercises.[4]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lordosis
Lordosis also refers to a type of sexual behaviour present in mammals, the fact that quadruped mammal females communicate sexual receptivity through the lowering of the front limbs and the arching of the back (also called 'presenting'). For biped mammals which have a strong gait structure, that's more or less impossible, and useless. For hominid bipeds, presenting is a secondary sexual signaling system in both males and females, because it enhance the definition of sexually relevant features like the glutes in females, and the T-like structure of shoulders-and-abdomen in males.
So yeah, you could say most people find lordosis attractive. You could even say that hyperlordosis might be also attractive, in the way that hyper-exaggerated sexual features can be found attractive.
AkanthinosDecember 07, 2017 at 23:13#1312590 likes
So yeah, you could say most people find lordosis attractive.
I don't get what you see as 'attractive' in the exaggerated inward curve of the lower back. Granted, the normal spine is not ramrod straight, but there should only be a normal curve -- not a drastic curvature. I suppose if you are fixated on gluteus maxima, anything that makes them more prominent would be desirable. How about causing edema in the derrière -- that would make it bigger. So would cellulitis, a big tumor, (both sides, matched, please), and so on. You don't want to come off like a mouth breather with thoracic kyphosis
AkanthinosDecember 08, 2017 at 00:25#1312710 likes
I don't get what you see as 'attractive' in the exaggerated inward curve of the lower back. Granted, the normal spine is not ramrod straight, but there should only be a normal curve -- not a drastic curvature.
Well, you chose a complete sideway slide for comparison, which has for effect to erase our ability to gauge the shoulder-to-abdomen ratio. Turn each of those models 30 degrees one side or the other, and suddenly Mr numeros 2 looks a lot less dumb, while Mr numeros 4 looks a lot more like a psychopath. If Mr numeros 2 would only draw one of his leg backward, it would already help offset the apparent disbalance a bit.
Anyway, I see a lot of women with type 2 posture that I wouldn't quite call unattractive.
Transubstantiation is no harder to believe than that light is a wave and particle at the same time. That there are a practically infinite number of parallel universes that can never be seen. That the world consists of mathematics. That objective reality exists when there is no way, even in theory, to know it directly.
(Y)
Transubstantiation is still really esoteric, though.
Metaphysician UndercoverDecember 08, 2017 at 02:38#1312950 likes
It's a really cool word though, transubstantiation, much cooler than transform. Cool enough to make one want to believe in it just on the sake of its coolness. What kind of cool words does science give us which are so cool that they would make us want to believe in them? Gondwanaland? Big Bang?, Quark? Quantum Entanglement? I don't think these compare for coolness.
Reply to Agustino I haven't even gotten around to that yet. Hold your damn horses. What I've read thus far hasn't convinced me, and I don't have high hopes.
StreetlightDecember 08, 2017 at 10:41#1313760 likes
Reply to Agustino True, but neither in any half-respectable book not written by the adherents of an idiosyncratic turn of the millennium cult.
True, but neither in any half-respectable book not written by the adherents of an idiosyncratic turn of the millennium cult.
Mystical experiences are found to be discussed in many respectable books, some not written by adherents to religions. Would you like a book list perhaps?
StreetlightDecember 08, 2017 at 10:46#1313810 likes
Dude, I was just suggesting that having your point of view confirmed by mumbo jumbo is not that great a recommendation, though highly appropriate to a shout box.
ProbablyTrueDecember 08, 2017 at 11:42#1314130 likes
Reply to unenlightened Ahhh I see. Well, when discussing religious doctrine, one generally relies on mumbo jumbo to make points.
ArguingWAristotleTiffDecember 08, 2017 at 11:50#1314150 likes
~whistling
Has anyone considered that God is actually married to Mother Nature? O:)
Mother Nature is showing her might the world over, especially in my neighbors state of California in the form of fire and then will come the rains that bring the floods. (N)
ArguingWAristotleTiffDecember 08, 2017 at 11:53#1314170 likes
@jamalrob
Has my Mother In law arrived safely? We haven't heard from her so my guess is she is being looked after quite well by you.
We are planning a trip, actually a move, a relocation if you will. I will send you her return address when we find it.
Thanks for everything! You are a doll! (L)
Reply to ArguingWAristotleTiff She's doing pretty well, I think. She is satisfying my prodigious needs, at least, and she seems to be having a good time. So you're very welcome.
ArguingWAristotleTiffDecember 08, 2017 at 12:17#1314210 likes
Has anyone considered that God is actually married to Mother Nature? O:)
Mother Nature is showing her might the world over, especially in my neighbors state of California in the form of fire and then will come the rains that bring the floods.
He may have been married back in Old Testament times. He was cranky, vindictive, and mean. They must have broken up after she found out Mary was having his kid. That's why Christian doctrine is so much nicer after Jesus was born.
AkanthinosDecember 08, 2017 at 14:34#1314450 likes
He may have been married back in Old Testament times. He was cranky, vindictive, and mean. They must have broken up after she found out Mary was having his kid. That's why Christian doctrine is so much nicer after Jesus was born. — T Clark
This is probably the only time you have taken one of my posts seriously. Seems a bit self-serving to me.
Science believes in placebos; medicine that has no effect, yet has an effect. Spooky!
If you think about it, every little thing is actually spooky. The only reason why we don't find it spooky is because we're so used to seeing it. So familiarity makes us take it for granted.
AkanthinosDecember 08, 2017 at 16:08#1314730 likes
I have only recently started reading Quillette.
Do they ever do anything else than bitch (poorly) about postmodernism?
Science believes in placebos; medicine that has no effect, yet has an effect. Spooky!
I don't think the placebo effect is spooky at all. I have been thinking that it is related to awareness. For some bodily issues, becoming more aware of your body, how it feels, the effects of other actions on it, is an effective method of treatment. Seems to me, in my ignnorance, that is the basis for a lot of eastern medicine. The west has one little idea. The east has a whole body of knowledge.
As I said, these are just preliminary thoughts. I'm not ready to defend them in any depth. If you guys will jump on my ideas and pound me, maybe I'll learn something.
ArguingWAristotleTiffDecember 08, 2017 at 17:14#1314880 likes
Something dawned on me at 2am. I am a hugger, everyone that knows me, knows I am a hugger, always have been, always will be. No matter what Profession, if you care for me in any way, I usually have a hug waiting with your name on it. I have always offered the hug, never hugged someone who suggested they were not open to a hug but I began to wonder. Can the offer of a hug be imposing?
While it is a far cry from sexual advances or sexual molestation, it is body contact that is about to happen or not happen. While I have always opened up my arms to a hug and occasionally been offered a handshake, I have to believe that those who took me up on my offer of a hug, did so knowingly and willingly.
Cause man if huggss were considered sexual assault of harassment? Flog me in the town square today!
Yes, if it is repeated despite expressed refusal, it could be considered harassment.
It couldn't be sexual assault unless you knew that the person you were about to hug was very very uncomfortable with physical contact. Assault requires harm or intent of harm, or some form of viciousness involved.
ArguingWAristotleTiffDecember 08, 2017 at 17:36#1314930 likes
Yes, if it is repeated despite expressed refusal, it could be considered harassment.
I am so glad I have asked and gotten verbal consent each time I offer a hugg especially with the Police officers and Veterans because both are likely armed. (Y)
While it is a far cry from sexual advances or sexual molestation, it is body contact that is about to happen or not happen. While I have always opened up my arms to a hug and occasionally been offered a handshake, I have to believe that those who took me up on my offer of a hug, did so knowingly and willingly.
As I've gotten older and more mellow, I have become more and more of a hugger. As a man, I'm pretty good at telling when a woman will think it's acceptable for me to hug them. I have run into men who were obviously uncomfortable when I did. Now, when I'm not sure, I open my arms and say "may I?" Usually, they laugh and say sure.
AkanthinosDecember 08, 2017 at 17:43#1314970 likes
The problem is like this: Your messiah has to be better than you, so that's why the gentiles had to go get a Jewish guy because Jews are better than gentiles. For there to now be a Jewish messiah, we'd have to get something better than Jews, and there's really not anything better than Jews except ninjas and they're like super hard to find. So, it's not like we're not trying to get a messiah, it's just way hard, so lay off.
AkanthinosDecember 08, 2017 at 18:25#1315050 likes
When's your messiah due anyway? I hope you have a mouth full of bacon on a Saturday on the way to work when they arrive.
Well, none of that would prevent Hanover from entering the Kingdom of God in the Ends of Time. He could even die on a Saturday on his way to work while chomping on bacon-bits covered lamb cooked in the milk of it's mother and he wouldn't necessarily see Hell.
AkanthinosDecember 08, 2017 at 18:26#1315060 likes
Aren't you supposed to put one of those dumbass smiley faces on a message when you are being ironic. I never do, but that's because my religion tells me its wrong.
Yeah, good to know. Thanks for your input. Your opinion means a lot to me.
It's a good thing they don't ban people for dumbass philosophy. @Bitter Crank and I would be the only ones left. But then I would ban him or he would ban me, and that would be that.
It's a good thing they don't ban people for dumbass philosophy. Bitter Crank and I would be the only ones left. But then I would ban him or he would ban me, and that would be that.
Come off it. You can barely even focus on the philosophy. You're too busy playing the man.
Deleted UserDecember 08, 2017 at 22:05#1315610 likes
It's Friday!!!
BuxtebuddhaDecember 08, 2017 at 22:15#1315670 likes
Very courteous of you to say so! Well, I did do an MA in Buddhist Studies in 2011-12 simply out of love for the subject, so if I can make a useful contribution, happy to do so.
__//|\\__
ProbablyTrueDecember 09, 2017 at 08:05#1317280 likes
Why is it relevant if I agree or disagree? I personally find the statement unenlightening and boring to be honest, so I don't really have an impression on it, whether that would be to agree or disagree for that matter.
Noble DustDecember 09, 2017 at 10:45#1317600 likes
“Martha, Martha,” the Lord answered, “you are worried and upset about many things, but few things are needed—or indeed only one. Mary has chosen what is better, and it will not be taken away from her.” -Luke 10:41-42
StreetlightDecember 09, 2017 at 11:45#1317750 likes
Mystical experience lol more like your brain farted and now you're trying to justify the smell.
Anyone else here watch Mr. Robot? This season has been phenomenal, the acting is great and the cinematography jaw-dropping. Certainly one of the best television shows I've ever seen.
Anyone else here watch Mr. Robot? This season has been phenomenal, the acting is great and the cinematography jaw-dropping. Certainly one of the best television shows I've ever seen.
I watched the first season and enjoyed it, but I haven't been able to get myself back in the right mindset to watch more.
Anyone else here watch Mr. Robot? This season has been phenomenal, the acting is great and the cinematography jaw-dropping. Certainly one of the best television shows I've ever seen.
Really? Me and housies just finished season two of Stranger Things last night, definitely not as good as the first though. Alright, next one appears to be Mr. Robot then methinks?
Reply to TimeLine On another note, I don't know if I should complain to you or Banno because you're both Australian I believe, but I got an Outback steak delivered to my house (cuz dats how playas roll) and it was chewy and inedible. Could you talk to someone in Australia and fix that for me? I was unhappy with my dining experience and it makes your people look like fuck ups.
You never saw my navel; it was your sister's butt.
So here's the thing. I'm not talking to my sister right now because of the Thanksgiving "incident," and it's pretty fucking low you throwing that in my face and reminding me of her sweet loins that culminate into that perfectly drum tight butt.
Reply to TimeLine Well, that's a fine how do you do! I will talk to Banno and, knowing him, he'll have you fired from Australia so fast your head will spin. You've not heard the last of me, that I assure you.
AkanthinosDecember 10, 2017 at 00:40#1319390 likes
So here's the thing. I'm not talking to my sister right now because of the Thanksgiving "incident," and it's pretty fucking low you throwing that in my face and reminding me of her sweet loins that culminate into that perfectly drum tight butt.
Jeez, you nearly busted a vein when I only referenced daddy/daughter issues, but now you go all wincest on us? Them double standards.
?TimeLine Well, that's a fine how do you do! I will talk to Banno and, knowing him, he'll have you fired from Australia so fast your head will spin. You've not heard the last of me, that I assure you.
Your glorious inability for sophistication aside, you decide to eat Australian steak during Thanksgiving after you rolled off your sister and wonder why she is not talking to you. It's Turkey, damn it. Turkey during Thanksgiving.
Reply to TimeLine The steak wasn't on Thanksgiving. The "incident" was though. Look, my life is complicated. I wouldn't expect you to understand. It's that time of the month, and nothing I do is ever right. I've like eaten way too much Haagen Dazs and you're probably wanting me to get fat.
Reply to TimeLine Well what the fuck was it supposed to mean? An occassional "You look pretty" wouldn't be so hard. We can't all be perfect TimeLine with a navel that looks like it was molded by the hands of God and fluttered down to earth by angels cradeling it in their soft cheeks and spitteling it onto your otherwise unindented belly. Just think of others sometimes.
AkanthinosDecember 10, 2017 at 01:08#1319510 likes
Anyone else here watch Mr. Robot? This season has been phenomenal, the acting is great and the cinematography jaw-dropping. Certainly one of the best television shows I've ever seen.
Is Stephanie Corneliussen still as deliciously evil and hot as in the 2nd season?
Reply to Hanover The constant nagging and then punishing me by refusing a good shag only so I can feed your pathetic self-esteem issues with lies. That's right, lies! What you are is an overgrown walrus with man boobs the size of cantelopes. Pah, i'm outta here!
Reply to TimeLine I never used the harsh tactic of sexual denial as a manipulative tool. I'm up to 60 hours a week at the inner city sperm bank barter co-op and I'm simply spent when I arrive home. It is my calling to Hanoverize and Jewisize the gene pool in the A-T-L and I can't have your constant kvetching with all this mishigas trying to distract me. Oy vey.
Dude, you've just put in my head the idea that she dies this season.
If she dies this season, I will hold you responsible. You will feel the full extent of my wrath.
(incidentally, The Full Extent of My Wrath is also the name of my penis. But that's unrelated)
AkanthinosDecember 10, 2017 at 06:50#1320000 likes
You have mad people like Madam Blavatsky plagiarising from Hinduism and Gnosticism and then wrap it all up by pretending it is philosophical, creating Theosophy where she believes that the devil is god and that Aryans and Atlanta actually exist,
I was with you up to that point. I know Atlanta exists, and yes, it is a hellscape, a seperate, nightmarish reality. :P
Reply to Noble Dust The type we used to have before you left me at the alter to pursue an acting career after you finally got the role of your dreams as Priscilla, Queen of the Desert?
Noble DustDecember 10, 2017 at 07:08#1320200 likes
Reply to Noble Dust I had my doubts. Those nights you would come home late in the evening singing Wake Me Up by Wham, you trying on my dresses for fun, or plucking your eyebrows because you think "being groomy is being groovy".
Noble DustDecember 10, 2017 at 07:22#1320260 likes
That's relatable. I certainly didn't mean to evoke those feelings. Groomy and groovy are pretty much the same thing though, regardless of gender norms. Anything that involves buying shit is progressive, as far as I'm concerned.
I'm not overjoyed at being a killjoy; I'm just happy you're starting to get to know me. You probably are not happy about that though; most aren't. There's certainly a paradox involved in being happy about one's ability to damper bullshit with reality, though. Just off the top of my head.
Noble DustDecember 10, 2017 at 07:28#1320310 likes
If reality is shared - if everything is interconnected - and if only one person has a mystical experience, that is verification that mystical experiences themselves are individual and therefore pathological because such experiences are not real.
But way more than one person has had a mystical experience. (Hey there! Now I'm back to making real arguments).
Reply to Sapientia Nice! Is that usual this time of year? I love skiing actually, miss it already.
Anyway, off to bed, I can barely keep my eyes open. :-d
ArguingWAristotleTiffDecember 10, 2017 at 12:10#1321020 likes
So I was ranch sitting for a client up the way and when I inquired about the care for the horses, she said that I should talk to her husband about that. I said sounds good, what's his first name? And left me speechless when she said I could call him Gerald or asshole, he answers to either one. :-O
I am sorry, it is one thing to be in the heat of a fight and say someone is acting like an asshole but just as a way to refer to a loved one? That is not my style. Not only is it not my style but how absolutely degrading to him. Oh my, when I got home I told NicK that if he ever were to say to another person, you can call her Tiff or Bitch she answers to both? It would be a deal breaker. >:O
They don't think Jesus is locked in a room, sitting ready to have a finger lobbed off and blood run at a whim, to be teleported to the appropriate location every time some takes a piece of bread and sip of wine.
ArguingWAristotleTiffDecember 10, 2017 at 15:20#1321510 likes
X______________________________
I am placing my name in line for my turn in The Philosophy Forum confessional as I can see Sunday mornings are going to be a busy place for a while.
Nice! Is that usual this time of year? I love skiing actually, miss it already.
Anyway, off to bed, I can barely keep my eyes open.
Well, if there's going to be snow, then it's not unusual for there to be snow around this time of year. According to statistics, on average, across the UK there's only 15.6 days a year when snow is on the ground.
AkanthinosDecember 10, 2017 at 19:26#1322020 likes
X______________________________
I am placing my name in line for my turn in The Philosophy Forum confessional as I can see Sunday mornings are going to be a busy place for a while.
"Forgive me Father, for I have sinned.
It's been 15 years since my last confession.
My biggest sin since then is having entertained the idea that maybe the Holy Mother might have actually wanted to have cock, at some point in her life, and maybe, you know, Jesus is just the very natural result of this cock-craving."
(that ought to land me at least a couple hundreds Hail Mary's)
It is more dangerous then simply some astrologist telling a gullible minded moron that they are a Capricorn and next week they will meet the man of their dreams...
Your understanding of transubstantion is simply incorrect. Your analogy offers no change at all in the girl, but a change of opinion in guy. If all you're saying is that you feel differently about the wafer but the wafer is the same old wafer, you're not talking about transubstantiation.
Exactamundo.
Deleted UserDecember 10, 2017 at 21:02#1322400 likes
Yes, it's bad. It means that I have to get up at 6am tomorrow morning and go to work. Now I know just how Jesus felt. Father, why have you forsaken me?!
Deleted UserDecember 10, 2017 at 21:13#1322500 likes
What time does your work finish normally? It's like 21:30 atm there, so not too bad.
That shift would finish at 4pm, I think.
It is too bad. It's the worst thing since sliced body. The cup is half empty. The end is nigh. I may as well just kill myself now and get it over and done with. The anti-natalists were right all along.
It is too bad. It's the worst thing since sliced body. The cup is half empty. The end is nigh. I may as well just kill myself now and get it over and done with. The anti-natalists were right all along.
Reply to Agustino Sometimes. The number of hours per shift depends on the day. Sometimes it's seven, sometimes it's nine. But at the end of the week, it should always add up to at least 39 hours, excluding breaks.
Sometimes. The number of hours per shift depends on the day. Sometimes it's seven, sometimes it's nine. But at the end of the week, it should always add up to at least 39 hours, excluding breaks.
I see. Do you ever exceed the 40 hours or so mark? As in do you ever have a week when you work 60 hours say?
I see. Do you ever exceed the 40 hours or so mark? As in do you ever have a week when you work 60 hours say?
Sometimes I work 60 hours a day. Sometimes I work upside down with no clothes on. Sometimes I work in the 1950s, before I was born. And sometimes I get bored of the conversation, so I make stuff up to keep myself entertained.
It is too bad. It's the worst thing since sliced body. The cup is half empty. The end is nigh. I may as well just kill myself now and get it over and done with. The anti-natalists were right all along.
If you do kill yourself, they might make Agustino a moderator. Or is that when hell freezes over? I forget. Anyway, you might think of that as a reason to live.
BuxtebuddhaDecember 11, 2017 at 01:00#1323170 likes
I'm sure if Jeremy Corbyn died for all our political sins, Sappy would whip his dick out and make a cult of it.
Come on, that thing is absolutely adorable. I want to stare deeply into its globulous eyes for days on end. And I'm pretty sure it would look back, all abyss-like and all.
Evelyn Underhill, arguably the most learned scholar on Christian mysticism, disagrees. She argues to some length that mystical experiences are unitive
In what sense unitive? Christians must necessarily disagree that the communion that is achieved with the Godhead in the process of theosis is unitive in the sense of the individual self being absorbed in the Godhead, as the Neoplatonists would hold. The Christian theosis is marked by communion with the Godhead as an individual.
Noble DustDecember 11, 2017 at 09:28#1324700 likes
Well, that's her term, from the early 1900's. I interpret it as meaning that there's a common experience; I think you could interpret it as ecumenicative, for instance, within the context of the text. Quoting Agustino
Christians must necessarily disagree that the communion that is achieved with the Godhead in the process of theosis is unitive in the sense of the individual self being absorbed in the Godhead, as the Neoplatonists would hold. The Christian theosis is marked by communion with the Godhead as an individual.
Yeah, I agree, except that the mystics seem to take it one tick further; not absorption into the Godhead, but not just communion, either.
I'm not sure, because it's hard to get a handle on. Underhill seems to err on the side of absorption, which I don't think is right, but the idea of simple communion doesn't feel right either. That's why I always end up back at Berdyaev's concept of God having a need for man, as man has need for God; the metaphor of God reaching down to meet man's outstretched hand. That metaphor, to me, suggests something more nuanced and in between, and it's the concept that resonates with me the most deeply.
Why is that strange? And that's the only comment you have?
StreetlightDecember 11, 2017 at 09:40#1324790 likes
The lady mystics are the coolest (and the wildest):
“While I was standing in prayer, Christ on the cross appeared more clearly to me while I was awake … he then called me to place my mouth to the wound in his side. It seemed to me that I saw and drank the blood that was freshly flowing from his side. His intention was to make me understand that by this blood he would cleanse me. And at this I began to experience a great joy…" (Angela of Foligno)
“As so often, the Lord Himself appeared to her, determined to satisfy her, and, drawing her mouth towards the wound at His side, made a sign to her to sate herself to her heart’s content on His body and blood. She did not need to be invited twice, and drank long from the rivers of life at their source in the holy side; and such sweetness ascended into her soul that she thought she must die of love.” (Catherine of Siena)
But some of the Christian mystics are considered heretical, or borderline. Am I wrong? is she not the most learned scholar on Christian mysticism? I certainly could be wrong.
The lady mystics are the coolest (and the wildest):
“While I was standing in prayer, Christ on the cross appeared more clearly to me while I was awake … he then called me to place my mouth to the wound in his side. It seemed to me that I saw and drank the blood that was freshly flowing from his side. His intention was to make me understand that by this blood he would cleanse me. And at this I began to experience a great joy…" (Angela of Foligno)
“As so often, the Lord Himself appeared to her, determined to satisfy her, and, drawing her mouth towards the wound at His side, made a sign to her to sate herself to her heart’s content on His body and blood. She did not need to be invited twice, and drank long from the rivers of life at their source in the holy side; and such sweetness ascended into her soul that she thought she must die of love.” (Catherine of Siena)
Is vore fetish more acceptable because it is religious vore fetish? Apparently so.
Noble DustDecember 11, 2017 at 09:44#1324860 likes
Am I wrong? is she not the most learned scholar on Christian mysticism? I certainly could be wrong.
I don't see how you make that assertion. There are many scholars of Christian mysticism, why do you say she's the most learned? What about people like:
Ok sure; why do you suggest he's more learned? (At this point, this feels pedantic already. My understanding was that she was sort of the litmus test on the subject, but as I said, I could be wrong. But it sounds like you don't know either, which is fine).
Huh. I was thinking about it more in terms of quasi-vampiric Christians, which is a lovely thought, I think.
If anyone could find references to quasi-werewolvian Christians, and then have them debating their views with the quasi-vampiric ones … well, I’d be quite impressed.
Underworld, what a movie that was, huh.
… as long as they’d not spin things too much and remain relatively upfront about things, I’m guessing.
Noble DustDecember 11, 2017 at 10:06#1325010 likes
Reply to Noble Dust I am not like you. You tell people to "fuck off" after espousing love and Christian mysticism that perhaps verifies advocates of mysticism have issues. Luckily, I want to point out:
Valentinus comes to mind, one of the Gnostics, Basically pretty much the entire sect of Christian gnostics, which were all mystics of some stripe or another, were heretical.
Ok sure; why do you suggest he's more learned? (At this point, this feels pedantic already. My understanding was that she was sort of the litmus test on the subject, but as I said, I could be wrong. But it sounds like you don't know either, which is fine).
I don't suggest he's more learned, I'm not sure why you suggest Evelyn is though...
Valentinus comes to mind, one of the Gnostics, Basically pretty much the entire sect of Christian gnostics, which were all mystics of some stripe or another, were heretical.
Yeah, it's well known that gnosticism was considered heretical. So you fully agree with that?
Yeah, it's well known that gnosticism was considered heretical. So you fully agree with that?
I think the gnostics are heretical. Not only were they considered heretical back in the day, but their doctrines actually are heretical. Voegelin writes very well about this in The New Science of Politics.
I think the gnostics are heretical. Not only were they considered heretical back in the day, but their doctrines actually are heretical. Voegelin writes very well about this in The New Science of Politics.
Makes sense. I don't know Voegelin, so I'll look into it. Of course, I'm not really a Christian myself, so whether or not gnosticism is heretical is kind of only peripherally interesting to me. But I was curious.
Reply to ArguingWAristotleTiff This is for you. I take your Rotty was a way of expressing that they are not violent, malicious creatures. I rescued this hotty as a pup and she is in the care of a now very good friend of mine (I couldn't look after her at the time).
You see, here is the thing. I have more of a feminine type discipline thing about me where I kind of sting people and they go 'eeouch' and afterward put a bit of pawpaw cream on the sore, stick a bandaid over it, maybe get mumsie to kiss it better. But, they recover, you know. Whereas with the masculine approach, one kind of mauls them like a rottweiler, savagely dig their jaws and shred off a large chunk of their thigh, lacerate and mutilate until they end up hospitalised for months and remain scarred for the rest of their life.
I am not sure why no one noticed, but you had a gun man. You had a gun. You pointed that gun at your ugly, stupid cat and yes it is an ugly stupid cat but that doesn't somehow make it alright that you had a gun.
You scary.
:D
ArguingWAristotleTiffDecember 11, 2017 at 12:46#1325540 likes
Reply to TimeLine Such an intelligent looking dog! It takes a lot to acknowledge that we have to give up our precious animals for the betterment of them. Logically it seems like a no brainer but our hearts speak differently.
We had to give away our three horses when during the recession/depression, we had to choose between food for us or them. Fortunately we had wonderful friends who took them in as their own. Our mare still lives at the ranch next to ours at 30 yrs old and her care is up to $1,200 a month. I am Thankful to be able to visit her but I still couldn't pay for her care. Life takes crazy turns we never expect~
ArguingWAristotleTiffDecember 11, 2017 at 12:52#1325560 likes
Reply to ArguingWAristotleTiff She doesn't need a leash, she is so peaceful and placid unlike any other husky I have ever known. She is actually shy of strangers and hides. She was the runt and unwell so I guess I am happy because at least she was rescued in the end. I had a car accident and could barely look after myself at that time.
I love horses! I went horse riding recently in Hawaii at the Kualoa Ranch and completely ignored the protestations from the guy telling me to 'slow down' - but the best was when I was in New Zealand many years ago at Hanmer Springs with this white beauty who took me along this dangerous cliffside. So awesome.
ArguingWAristotleTiffDecember 11, 2017 at 13:16#1325690 likes
I love horses! I went horse riding recently in Hawaii at the Kualoa Ranch and completely ignored the protestations from the guy telling me to 'slow down' - but the best was when I was in New Zealand many years ago at Hanmer Springs with this white beauty who took me along this dangerous cliffside. So awesome.
It is said that if you look into the eye of a horse you will see a reflection of your soul.
If there's good reason to reject what the shitty authority on shit is claiming, then why shouldn't the shit disturbers disturb the shit out of the shitty authority on shit by refusing to accept his shit?
This is probably the most logical thing I have heard anyone say today.
I am not sure why no one noticed, but you had a gun man. You had a gun. You pointed that gun at your ugly, stupid cat and yes it is an ugly stupid cat but that doesn't somehow make it alright that you had a gun.
I don't want to confuse you or anything, but why make this about you?
And, yes.
ArguingWAristotleTiffDecember 12, 2017 at 12:05#1329200 likes
Time for Corporate gifts for our top 12 clients! Yay!!
Which means a dozen homemade cookies for each tin, most are local deliveries but two are in Atlanta and one in Washington, those I will ship.
So 12 dozen cookies is 144 actual cookies with a break/snitch risk ratio of 1 cookie per dozen means 13 dozen! I can double the recipe without losing the "love" ingredient everyone can taste but anything more than double and it gets a mass produced taste.
So six double batches... each hand rolled... anyone want a FREE cookie? One requirement, you need to help with a dozen first!
Who am I kidding? Everyone and I mean EVERYONE is banned from the kitchen during this hot kitchen event and so help me, if someone asks me to get them a drink in the middle of this Epic Cookie Adventure? I pity the fool.
ArguingWAristotleTiffDecember 12, 2017 at 12:22#1329270 likes
We had dirt growing up to keep us amused. Where are these kids going to learn to use their imagination?
So, that being said, calico cats, pro or con? Says he, as if there could be any cons. O:)
Sure, pick the cute breed. Saps cat appears to be a cross Bombay slash the spawn of Satan who was dumped by his feral mother in a back alley near the Isle of Dogs.
Jesus, I read that as "bread" just now. Too much talk of bread and wine. Or, should that be the body and blood of Christ? I could do with a nice glass of blood of Christ right now, come to think of it.
I have no idea what would constitute "winning" here.
Anyhow, I knew nought about the transubstantiation when I was a young Catholic chewing on wafers, and I knew no-one who did (Aristotelian-based theological concepts were not big in Ireland at the time) and now that is seeming like a blessing. So, I will give my personal first-place prize to whichever side stops first.
Anyone here have any experience(s) with psilocybin?
PS. It's best to make a tea from the srooms. Do not over heat, and use a paper filter to strain the solids out. Apparently strychnine stays with the solids so you will be reducing the toxicity.
Dose: I cannot recommend taking drugs as I am not a doctor.
First timers do not take more than 10 (I'm talking about the tiny pointy headed mushrooms that commonly grow wild in horse fields from September onwards.
If you think that has not done anything then wait for at least half an hour before taking more. (oral medicine takes longer than smoking). Tea works faster than eating raw or dried.
If you think that is all very funny, then its probably because they have already started to take effect. The Law: As I understand it, not even the UK government has managed to outlaw shit you can pick up off the ground. Psilocybin are not illegal. But making preparations of them might be taken as intent to sell.
So when you prepare them in anyway do not leave them lying about for the filth to find!
FYI. It's these wild mushrooms to which I refer, common in the UK.
https://vice-images.vice.com/images/articles/meta/2015/09/07/microdosing-psilocybin-depression-184-1441634090.jpg?crop=1xw:0.6955177743431221xh;center,center&resize=1200:*
4-AcO-DMT, psilacetin. A prodrug. As effective and easier to obtain for me.
ArguingWAristotleTiffDecember 13, 2017 at 11:51#1332450 likes
So many cookies, so much flour, so many oats and I am only halfway done.
Tomorrow my youngest indian comes home from college and then we can pick out a Christmas tree and put it up. I am so excited to have him back home! Huggggggssssssss all around when my family circle is once again complete. (L)
Here is a picture of tree last year and yes the front door is open cause it's Arizona!
[url=https://postimg.org/image/bneldnai3/]
ProbablyTrueDecember 13, 2017 at 11:59#1332500 likes
I've taken srooms on several occasions through the years. I think my first was about aged 18. That was nearly 40 years ago.
They have always been fun, and companionable . If your question is with a view to trying them, just take my advice and take it slow.
They are not addictive and the effects are not permanent. Like many fun substances from pot, to beer, to sweeties are children's parties they can upset your tummy.
making tea seems to avoid this, but do not forget to eat something whilst you are having fun.
I do not recognise the phrase dissolution of the self, but like any psycho-active drug it can change your response and reception of things, ideas, and situations. In my experience of various drugs over the years I always maintain a sense of self, and never become wholly disinhibited.
I think the phrase you are using is just shit people say to explain what they cannot.
After all we could have a 700 page discussion on what is meant by "the self" let alone what would it mean to dissolve it!!!
If you are with good friends and what to laugh together for no particular reason give them a try.
It beats sitting in front of the TV allowing that shit to pour into your brain.
Keep in mind that I was at the time quite a depressed and anxious individual. So, if you are experiencing depression or are anxious, then it would be wise to seek another means to address those issues, as psychoactive drugs tend to amplify those feelings considerably, which is even worse in the wrong settings.
That's why these drugs are being now investigated as tools for psychotherapy to take place. Though, I don't like anything psychoactive (even pot scares me) so I'd be patient and do the therapy without any assistance from said tools that could be utilized.
I think it's fair to say that the triumvirate of myself, Hanover, and Michael, have won this debate on transubstantiation, and that Agustino and Metaphysician Undercover are the losers.
They are not addictive and the effects are not permanent.
I'm not entirely sure about that. I've read that if you have a predisposition for psychosis or schizophrenia, then it could launch you into a full-blown psychosis. The dangers with mushrooms tend to get downplayed a lot, just like with pot; but, there are some real concerns in regards to ingesting it if you're in a prodromal phase of schizophrenia or such.
On the flipside, you could have an awesome trip and feel connected to the world.
I get my kicks from reading Wittgenstein nowadays.
Know this! Know it well, and always remember. For anyone that denies the truth of transubstantiation, I will henceforth transubstantiate all food they encounter for the rest of their lives into poo! The phenomenal nature will remain the same, but the thing in itself, the noumenon, the actual substance of it will always now be poo.
@Metaphysician Undercover, anyway, Hanover and Michael are more than enough to keep your hands full. Good luck trying to win that debate. You'll need it.
..
If you are prone to schizophrenia then there are many events that can be blames for that first jump into psychosis. For my brother it was seeing a tree in a storm.
I think it's fair to say that the triumvirate of myself, Hanover, and Michael, have won this debate on transubstantiation, and that Agustino and Metaphysician Undercover are the losers.
What was the argument?? Agustino claimed to 'believe' it is true, and had to back peddle on what it is exactly since the whole thing is absurd. Not much of a challenge.
Reply to charleton Oh yes, their arguments were refuted yonks ago! The only challenge was attempting to get them to come to that realisation, and that one's a toughie.
I think it's fair to say that the triumvirate of myself, Hanover, and Michael, have won this debate on transubstantiation, and that Agustino and Metaphysician Undercover are the losers.
Comments (61561)
Remorse and shame. The issue is that shame is something that should be felt by the individual, not something projected unto someone else, as suggests.
Quoting ProbablyTrue
it's only good and natural on a personal level; it's never good and natural when suggested from someone else.
Actually, you're right, those were my critiques.
Ok. I agree with this in spirit, but I think the line between telling someone they're wrong about X and shaming them for their wrong opinion about X is a very fine line.
Right, and that shaming was not some attempt to hide issues beneath a taboo. It was to have them out in the open: to describe the immorality of sexism in the open with seriousness it deserves.
So the following accusation you made of our shame is false:
We are not hiding the act, sexism/abuse of women/objectification of women under some taboo. We want it in the open, identified as the immorality it is.
No, the line isn't fine at all; the line is "hey ND, you were wrong to call X a jerk", vs. "Hey ND, you're a piece of shit for calling X a jerk".
You continue to misunderstand; I want those acts out in the open too.
What I'm arguing is that shame keeps those acts secret.
I think when you tell ND 16 times that he's wrong to call X a jerk and ND still doesn't get it, feel free to call him a POS.
So 16 times warrants that you call ND a piece of shit? Is 16 the criteria, or is it something else?
How? They're always already out in the open because they are acts taken towards other people.
I mean you're right that people might try to hide their sexism to avoid being shamed, but that's a different context, a mere masquerade anyone can see through by noting their sexist behaviour.
No they're not.
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
This is what you're missing; of course someone wants to hide the shameful feeling of having committed a sexual crime. Try shaming that person.
Incidentally I think this is a bit crap. Some of the most valuable teaching lessons I've had in my life have come from being shamed by others, and vowing to never act in that way again on that basis. And in any case shame is always an intersubjective affect, insofar as it marks the self-recognition of the distance between what has been done and what ought to have been done. Shame may beget shame when one cannot do otherwise, but the apparent vicious cycle of shame you keep insisting upon is anything but unconditional. And in this particular case, it's entirely irrelevant.
Yes, they are. We can see in someone's actions whether they are sexist. One literally cannot hide it. For it to be hidden, we would literally have to be missing the act in question and it effects, in which case there would be nonsexist action present. People can't get away just by saying: "I'm not sexist" or "They were just rude." We can tell by the action.
Quoting Noble Dust
We do and it works with respect to both individual cases (e.g. people come to understand how objectifying women is wrong by us pointing out it is toxic) and to the social context (e.g. society doesn't let people get away with objectifying women. Pointing out the toxicity of sexism is how we teach people not to do it, sexist and non-sexist alike. The fact some sexists won't ever change their minds doesn't alter this.
It's not clear why you warned him unless you interpreted his language as sexist.
And to be clear, I don't think it's good for Buxte to use language such as "slut", "tits", etc. but by no means do I think that this should be a bannable offence. Much rather, it's a question of manners.
Someone just brings disrepute to themselves when they talk like that, like I brought disrepute upon myself when I got angry at Lord Hannity and started cussing him and he ignored me. My apologies oh great Lord Hannity for trying to tarnish your pristine lawyer reputation.
Quoting Baden
Oh yeah myself and presumably Thorongil (and now many more people) receive a "general warning" (whatever that's supposed to be now) for what? :s I protest against this warning, because we have done nothing nor said anything that is against the guidelines. Therefore we should NOT be threatened with a warning. The very fact we are threatened and given a warning is unfair.
Quoting Baden
No, of course you're not obligated to do it, but it would be good if you understood what was said to begin with. It doesn't seem that you understand that none of us made the strawman statement that you, and especially the others like SLX et al., claim we have. None of us agree with the statement that "if a woman is dressed inappropriately, she deserves to be assaulted" or anything of that nature. And none of us agreed with the statement that "in a court of law, rape should not be an offence if the victim was dressed inappropriately".
So by your own criteria, we haven't actually said anything sexist.
Quoting Baden
:-d ... yeah except that you're giving us warnings even though we haven't said anything sexist. So those warnings aren't given for sexism, they're given for our conservative positions, which you do not want to tolerate, probably pressured by the likes of StreelightX and TL.
Quoting Baden
Oh let's see... people like TheWillow, StreelightX and TimeLine - all three of them highly steeped in POMO-literature and extreme left-wing views, especially SLX, who has already demonstrated that he is incapable of rational judgements OR fair consideration when it comes to positions he disagrees with.
And fair consideration and a cool head are exactly what a moderator should have, and unfortunately, I think SLX has proven and continues to prove that he lacks both. And I'm absolutely not the only one who thinks he should step down from the position he holds. If we held a public poll, without the moderators voting, this would be clear. He is actually a danger to the diversity of this community in that position.
Quoting Baden
Yeah, a very unclear policy statement, because none of us - myself, Lone Wolf, Thorongil, Bitter Crank, Buxtebuddha, T Clark, etc. - consider ourselves sexist or argue that sexism in any of the forms you yourself have outlined should be permitted.
So really you're just using a psychological double-bind here on us. You really mean "shut up with your conservative positions or you'll get banned", but you say "stop being sexist or you'll get banned" pre-empting the reason why you'd ban us. Of course you have to claim we're doing something against the guidelines, otherwise you have no leg to stand on and ban us, since conservatism isn't in the guidelines at least not yet.
Quoting Baden
Right, no you won't, and the way you'll do that is by allowing some people to post comments such as "Woman, go on your knees!" and justify it because they're drunk - that makes a lot of sense :B . Instead you'll punish those who aren't actually sexist and who make reasonable arguments for their positions. I see.
Quoting Baden
So because we had one discussion already, whatever you decide are its results will always be its results, and we should never discuss it again? :s
Quoting Baden
Why the hell was he warned? :s He didn't say anything sexist. Again, you cannot point to a single sexist thing he said. You can certainly point to rude things he said, and vulgar things he said, that's for sure. But there's nothing sexist there. You - and your other friends - are just strawmanning in order to get rid of positions you don't agree with by other means.
Quoting Baden
If I am your son and I go dressed in Louis Vuitton with tons of cash on me walking through the hood and the worst part of town, will you not say anything to me? :s Sure, if I get assaulted, I am not responsible, at least not morally and legally, for what happened to me. But it doesn't follow that it was a smart thing to go through that part of town dressed and acting in that manner.
Quoting Baden
Yes, everyone agrees with that, even the people you warn for sexism... :-}
And by the way, I bother to have this conversation with you because you actually are somewhat of a rational person, unlike SLX, and things can be discussed with you, even if you disagree with them. You have shown some evidence of at least trying to consider different perspectives, and that's good. But your own views probably often blind you and make you instantaneously side with those holding similar views to you.
Quoting ProbablyTrue
You and Clark are using two different senses of responsible and not distinguishing between them. Baden is also doing the same. Someone who goes dressed inappropriately in the inappropriate place/context and acts inappropriately will increase their chances of being harrassed. But of course this doesn't mean that they are morally or legally responsible for being harrassed - absolutely not. But it does mean that they lack pragmatic understanding of how the world actually is, as distinguished from how it should be. They don't understand what they should do to keep themselves safe.
Ironically, TimeLine understands this perfectly in practice:
Quoting TimeLine
So there we go. She understands that pragmatically going around dressed in the wrong way in the wrong context will increase the chances of harm to herself (even though this shouldn't happen), so she protects herself. That's why in Jerusalem and Palestine she did not go around wearing shorts and bikinis.
Quoting Thorongil
Exactly.
Quoting Lone Wolf
(Y)
Quoting StreetlightX
It's not a focus, but it is a factor. I see this all the time. You walk on the street and in front of you is a scantily dressed woman, and taxi drivers open their windows as they pass by, scream after her, whistle, honk at her etc. If the same woman was modestly dressed, that would be avoided. And this is a fact, I've witnessed and even tested this on purpose myself. It also happens with construction workers very frequently around here.
Those women aren't raped, but they are being harrassed. So obviously your favorite POMO authors should come to Eastern Europe to see how dressing in the wrong way in the wrong place increases your chances of being harrassed.
So again, you're stuck in your POMO-bubble, unaware of the reality of the world. I suggest you come out of those books for awhile.
Quoting StreetlightX
Yeah, like the other testosterone "myth" that I schooled you on last time? Like that one yes? :-} You're really a laughing stock and should step down from your position as a moderator.
Thank you, simply Thank you.
That's an example of moderator talk :-! It's also an example of being clear-headed, dispassionate, and capable of having a clear judgement on the situation un-influenced by your own personal views... Thank God that @Baden is an Administrator and not you... jamalrob was wise to choose Baden over you.
The accusations of sexism are right becasue there is still an underlying objectification of women occurring in their accusations of responsibility.
Aside from the many problems of equating dress as a cause of harassment or assault, the causality of someone getting harassed or assaulted isn’t the issue. It’s the way in which women are objectified in these arguments about causality, treated as thing defined to be assaulted by their own nature. It’s way the argument is used to deflect objections about male behaviour.
On a deeper level, the issue isn’t suggesting there are some instances where women could protect themselves for one reason or another, it’s that the form of argument eliminates the responsibility of men for harassing or assaulting women. It used as an excuse not to think about how men have behave or how women are people (even “provocative” ones). Instead of functioning as wise advice which might keep a woman safe, it is substituted into contexts where people are pointing out there is an issue with how men understand and behave towards women.
Instead of giving wisdom about safety, the argument functions to deny there is a serious problem in how men understand women. When the objectification of women is raised, the safety argument is used to shunt responsibility for objectification onto the women, as men “just react that way when attracted” as if only she can prevent it from happening, as men aren't even engaging in actions themselves.
This comment alerts me to the fact that you are distinguishing healthy and toxic shame. But elsewhere, you seem to forget that healthy shame exists. I hope you will be healthily ashamed of causing this misunderstanding over several pages, and perhaps we can try and expound the difference a little together for the education of all, particularly in terms of how to respond. Here's my first attempt:
Let us suppose that we all, men and women both, are the products of a historically sexist society, and some or all of us are struggling to reform ourselves and others. If I say, 'that is a sexist remark', and then present an explanation of how it is so, that it is unbalanced or derogatory or whatever, then I am legitimately promoting a non-sexist society, and provoking, if they are convinced by my explanation, healthy shame in the author of the remark.
If, on the other hand, I identify the author as a sexist, and therefore a dinosaur, or some such, I am not offering them the chance to reform themselves, but telling them that they are irredeemable. I am provoking toxic shame
I should note though, that when one is on the receiving end of either form of criticism, to the extent that one already suffers from toxic shame, that one can be totally unaware of, it has the effect of activating toxic shame whichever way the criticism is presented. And because most of us have a measure of toxic shame already, complaints or arguments about a specific posting behaviour are frequently taken as being directed at personal identity, and responded to in kind.
So let's try not to call people insufferable, but only remarks. It probably won't be received any differently, but it is at least possible for it to be so. Are we more on the same page?
https://www.awakenment-wellness.com/toxic-shame.html
Alternatively, if she didn't live among beasts and those who encourage and support them by victim-blaming, such a situation could also be avoided.
As to your standard flappery about my modding, I've neither said nor done anything in my capacity as a mod in this thread, but I understand that basic situational analysis is not your forte, so I won't hold it against you. I too, am glad that Baden is an admin and not me, as he's been alot more proactive in his wielding of the rules than I tend to be. But don't let that stop your little persecution complex from playing out in all its neurotic splendour - I'd flail about for substance too if I were so congenitally devoid of any.
Why are beards not expected to be covered in public as secondary sexual features?
Nobody in this thread said dress is an (efficient) cause of harassment or assault.
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
:s
That makes no sense. It's like how you accused me of being sexist because you claim I react negatively to all women contradicting or reprimanding me, and then I showed you examples of women contradicting and reprimanding me where I did not react negatively at all. It's just empty & slanderous nonsense based on false imaginations.
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
So when I say that if a man rapes a woman, regardless of how she is dressed, he is fully responsible and guilty for that crime, when I say that, my argument eliminates the responsibility of men for harassing or assaulting women? :s
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
Clarification: are you saying that I (or the people in this thread) are using the argument in this way, or that some people out there are using it in this way?
No, I don't support the beasts, I actually despise them for behaving in that way. However, that doesn't mean that women should go around naked on the street. One worse wrong does not cancel out a relatively minor wrong (by comparison), nor does it mean that I should close my eyes to more minor wrongs, just cause there are other greater wrongs.
Public decency, contrary to your shameless white knighting, is important. Your white knighting around here seems to be nothing but your own sexual mating strategy. I have no interest in sexual mating or popularity, so I say what I think the truth is. Contrary to your silly propaganda, I'm not trying to get laid at all, that seems to be just your own projection. Nor am I "afraid" of the other sex.
And yes, going around naked on the street with the word "slut" written on you and the like is behaving like a savage. If you don't like it, deal with it, but that's my opinion, and it's shared by many decent folks.
Quoting StreetlightX
Yeah, I guess you have a lot of experience with this.
I was referring you.
The issue is that the topic of discussion is not how a women might prevent instances of harassment or assault, but rather how the actions of said men are present at all. It's trying to tackle an underlying point about the objectification of women. Taking on the actions of men, regardless of whether a woman could have done something to present being harassed or assaulted, to move towards a higher prevalence of men who do not harass or assault, in any circumstances.
When you turn this into a question of how high a woman should have jumped to prevent her own abuse, you bury that's it's a man's action which involves an objectified understanding of women. You spend all your time piling on women for not prevent their abuse, ignoring the underlying issue of how men think about women. It becomes impossible to discuss and identify issues with how men understand women.
We can't move to a position that recognises men ought not be objectifying women, no matter how "provocative" they might be. If someone tries to point this out, they are met with denials, that it's the woman's "provocative" action which is all that's present. Men's actions and how they think about women becomes invisible.
Indeed. You shut down discussion of his thoughts, motivations and actions, such that we may not identify his responsibility and understanding of women involved in the event. You recognise him as a legally or even morally responsible in a way, but it's disconnected from his own thoughts and actions as a casual presence. He's not understood as a someone who thinks about women a certain way and abuses them as a result.
You might recognise he rapes but you do not recognise why or how he rapes, instead shifting those onto the women ("She didn't do what she needed to prevent it").
It's late here and I have work to prepare. I'll reply tomorrow.
I agree. Communication by words, gestures, behaviors, and whatever can be misinterpreted, even despite great efforts at clarification. Despite that, people do effectively communicate even the most complex things, even such things as sexual desire towards one another.
My only point really was in challenging the proposition that clothing was an excluded method of communication, but I would also find anyone in Western countries disengenuous and perhaps criminal who tries to assert that the language of our community is that minimal clothing on a female equates to a solicitation for sex. The point is that wearing a bikini does not mean "I want sex," anymore than saying "pass the butter" does and it's hard to dismiss someone who suggests otherwise as being simply confused.
Okay no worries. Goodnight!
I don't believe that calling people, or even actions or words, sexist is useful. They may be wrong, or more importantly, disrespectful of people who deserve respect. I think calling something sexist makes the people who do feel virtuous and effective, as if they've done something of value, but they haven't. Respect is what's important in reason and on this forum.
If I did believe in calling statements sexist, I would say this is the most sexist thing that has been written in this interesting and valuable set of posts. So, @Baden, hows about you threaten SLX with a ban.
"I was referring TO you"
Your lack of adequate sentence structure and spelling errors makes it very difficult to read through what you're saying.
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
No, that's not the issue. If you look at the genesis of this discussion, you will see that it started out by a discussion of public decency, and the need for both men and women to dress decently when out in the public. So if you really want to talk about the issue at play, that's the issue.
The twin issues of whether dressing indecently increases the likelihood of harassment OR the issue of the responsibility of the man if he rapes the women are two side issues with regards to this original point.
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
Yeah, he is understood as precisely that, that's exactly why he is legally and morally responsible for what he does.
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
No, I don't shift anything on the woman, because she has no duty or moral responsibility to prevent it. As it has been said already, in a just world, she would not get raped regardless of how she dresses.
Now you and your cohort are trying to sideline the main issue, which is the issue of public decency. If she dresses indecently, that is a moral failing in itself. And this has little to do with what is currently discussed.
I don't think a glimpse is "so exciting". And I doubt that in the West's sexually promiscuous and porn-filled culture "seeing a breast" is so exciting at all.
Quoting unenlightened
For the same reason hair (on your head, not in other places) isn't expected to be covered. Women aren't expected to cover their hair either, except in places like Saudi Arabia where their standards of decency are different for cultural and religious reasons.
If women happened to have beards too, I wouldn't expect that they'd be expected to cover them either.
I would appreciate if you did not intentionally misconstrue the relevant point I was attempting to make. Are you saying that in countries where clothing of modest dress is enforced, women do not get raped? I continued with the following:
Quoting TimeLine
To say that it is a woman' fault for inviting sexual assault based on what she wears is entirely sexist. End of story.
That happens to be one of my reasons as well.
Quoting Thorongil
What do you know. It's still there. Paiging @Michael and @Baden.
No. What suggested to you that I might be saying that?
Quoting TimeLine
Yeah, no doubt if you frame the issue like that it is. But that's a strawman. I was quite specific that it is not the woman's moral or legal fault if she dresses licentiously and she gets raped. But I did say that, depending on the circumstances (where she is going, what she will be doing, etc.), it may be a stupid thing for her to dress licentiously since this may increase the chances that she will be harassed. And I gave many examples already. And you, through your own actions, at least as you retold them to us, have demonstrated that you are well aware of this.
Quoting Thorongil
>:O
You are a broken record, repeating the same thing over and over again and fail to actually see the relevant point about ingrained misogynistic values, because you are a part of the same framework.
You and I are finished in this conversation. My only point in speaking to you was to inform you not to use my arguments falsely or incorrectly, for which I have clarified.
Right. Well as far as I am concerned, if you're going to speak past what I say, you can go on and duel with the phantoms of your imaginative opera.
Quoting TimeLine
I haven't used your arguments falsely or incorrectly. You have shown through your actions that you are aware that dressing inappropriately heightens your risk of harm in certain specific contexts. That's a FACT, and is undeniable.
Now I agree that it shouldn't heighten your risk, but we live in an imperfect world where it does in certain circumstances.
>:O
This is richer than my bank account.
>:O (Y)
Then the whole argument about prudential covering up falls apart.
I think it is you who is misrepresenting what Agustino wrote. Agustino pisses me off sometimes with what I see as casual disrespect for women, but I don't see him doing that here.
Also, I think you would be furious if someone accused you of "intentionally" misconstruing something you disagree with them on.
Just a minute, just a minute. You said you were going to get your insults from Shakespeare, but it appears you are also dipping into Margaret Atwood (Hag-Seed, one of the Hogarth Shakespeare series).
What argument, please be specific? Also, don't forget that attraction isn't the same as excitement.
Quoting Janus
It is the result of not getting one's eyes out of POMO literature. I think some people have very little experience with these issues outside of those books.
The part that is sadder is that some of them are moderators and they shouldn't be since they just create intolerance and division within the community in order to enforce their own personal agenda through handing out warnings, threatening with bans, and similar. Positions that go against their favourite prejudices tend to fall victim to this mentality. Such people really are a danger to the diversity of this place.
I had forgotten. Explain the difference for me again.
:B
Attraction is when you want to have something/someone or be close to something/someone. Basically when something or someone provokes your interest, liking and desire.
Excitement is an emotional feeling of enthusiasm and eagerness to do something.
Something you see or do for the first time is generally exciting because it's new and unexpected. If you keep doing something over and over, unless you are a buddha :-O , that something becomes less exciting.
Something that is attractive can keep being attractive even after you've done it or seen it for many times. That's why we have such things as addictions for example.
Quoting Agustino
So breasts are attractive but not exciting. Then semi nakedness does not excite male passion and does not lead to rape, which I think counts as "doing something".
I'm wondering at this point whether you actually have a position on this, or whether you just have old-fashioned views and a gift for blowing smoke.
I'd go with the latter
I am not claiming that particular statement he mentioned was sexist, on the contrary, it is clear that I agree cultural behaviour in various regions of the world dictate how women must dress and as a traveller or foreigner I must respect that. My point, however - and what is in complete contrast to Agu' overarching point - is that the reasoning behind these prohibitions are misogynistic and enable justifications for holding women responsible for soliciting acts of sexual aggression against them. From a legal standpoint - and as a woman - I find that reprehensible.
I directly work with young girls who have arrived as refugees and migrants into Australia from countries such as Iraq and Somalia who have informed me that they have been raped; in addition, many women from such places have been imprisoned or ostracised for being raped, Islamic girls that are completely covered. I needn't repeat this, but how a person dresses is irrelevant.
Funny you should say that you "think" I would anything while at the same time purporting that I am incorrect for claiming intentional behaviour. He and his consistent POMO references is exhausting and irrational.
Merciful God.
But TimeLine, I don't think Agustino did misunderstand what you said. Sometimes several people on the forum (not just you) have had difficulty perceiving agreement and understanding, just as some people regularly misinterpret what others have said -- deliberately or not. And it occurs in all sorts of discussions, not just ones involving rape, discrimination, sexism, et al.
Whether dressing in certain way causes people to be assaulted or harassed and the legal and moral responsibility in the sense you are talking about, are side issues with respect to our point. Our point isn't about about either.
The "responsibility" we are looking at is the being of the man abusing women, regardless of the two side issues you raise. Our argument is about forming an understanding of the how and why of the abuser in terms of him, regardless of the way anyone might be dressed. It's not mere legal or moral responsibility, but causal or presence, an action or state which wouldn't have happened if the man in question didn't understand women were objects. The point is to recognise objectification of women as an action and understanding which may be altered or prevented, stopping instances of harassment and abuse in the first instance.
When you try to pretend this issue isn't within the context of this argument, that what we are talking boat is somehow only a question of public decency, you destroy any capacity to understand in these terms. Acts of assault and harassment are understood to be actions women didn't do enough to prevent, rather than abuses of men which could have been absent had they not objectified women.
In this context, the issue has never been public decency. From the beginning, it was about the context of women being assaulted or harassed, not whether their dressing was decent. It began with you guys claiming she ought to have stopped her own abuse, not with the separate moral claim someone ought to dress decently.
No, we aren't. We are pointing out public decency was never the main issue. The comments in question were made in response to understanding instances of when women had been absurd, not in respect to a context of whether a woman was dressing decency and how she might be a moral failing for that.
I agree how she dresses has little to with the subject of discussion. Our point was always a moral failing of indecent dressing had little to do with what was being discussed, giving a description of an abuser's actions. Any moral failing of indecent dressing is a separate moral description to be given on its own terms.
One of the reasons I like reading what you have to say about relations between men and women is that, even though you focus your efforts and attention on vulnerable young women, you are committed to even-handedness. Better yet, it's clear that that even-handedness is not pro forma, but comes from a deeply felt compassion for men as much as for women. From my point of view, that gives you a tremendous amount of authority and credibility. I do think you are sometimes too harshly judgmental, but to me, that is well-earned.
Quoting TimeLine
Once you beat me senseless because I suggested I might have some slight understanding of something you might have been feeling. Maybe. Sort of. Kind of. Perhaps. From that I decided I would always put "seems to me," or "I think maybe," before I attribute anything to you. You, on the other hand, seem comfortable attributing intention to Agustino as fact with no qualification.
Return stock to pot to stove; add sliced carrots, one raw onion chopped up, 1 raw rib of celery chopped up, noodles or chunked potatoes, some minced garlic, parsley, salt, pepper. Add matzo balls.
Plan B: Fricassee the turkey wings and serve in a white sauce. You're a white dude, you should know how to make a white sauce. (I assume chicken can be served with milk, since birds have nothing to do with milk, their titless breasts notwithstanding.
Plan C: give the bag of turkey wings to the poor family down the street. They'll be grateful. Be sure the wings are not spoiled or their gratitude may be eternal.
Plan D: ruin the wings on the BBQ and then throw them out.
His intention is clear: to divert any discussion of the actions of abusive men into questions about whether a woman was dressing decently.
It's sexism because it prevents us recognising abuse in terms of the actions of such men. When we reduce the account of the action of rape or harassment to a woman failure to prevent it, we cannot the recognise understating of women present in such actions and how it relates to our culture. Pointing out the role of objectification or how identifying it as a moral problem can becomes impossible.
Our discourse about the actions of abusive men is poisoned to a point where we cannot recognise cultural influences which go into causing instances abuse. If all we keep saying is: "Women ought to have prevent her assaulted," we cannot develop a culture which identifies the role of the objectification of women and takes it on as a moral issue.
I read through all the comments back and forth in the set of posts - Agustino's and everyone else's. Sometimes things Agustino writes are disrespectful of women. In my opinion, that is not the case here, no matter what the knee-jerk reactions are to his heresy.
Well, I'm telling you it is disrespectful of women; I pointed out how in my last post.
Have you got an argument about how that is wrong or mistaken?
As has been noted numerous times throughout this series of posts, what you claim Agustino said is not what he actually said.
I didn't make a claim about what Agustino said in that sense, I pointed out what he was doing-- that the way in which he was acting which do not fit his claim of innocence with respect to sexism.
There are over 1,000 members now and probably over 1,000 views on what sexism is. The fact that a few members including you don't consider any remarks that have been made in the Shout box sexist doesn't sway things all that much. Others obviously do. And beyond all the white noise, what happened here was that I warned Buxtebuddha that one of his comments was seriously sexist and unacceptable, which it was, and I gave a general warning to others involved in the conversation not to be sexist. Then, in a conversation with T Clark I gave an example of something that would be considered as serious sexism. Hardly cause for this much drama. One thing I didn't mention, but which is also sexist, is referring to women as "sluts" simply on the basis of their wearing revealing clothes, something that Buxtebuddha has also done. That should end too. Regarding insults and so on: We don't tend to delete flames by anyone in the Shout box, mod or not, and the poster, Meta, who made the other sexist comment you referenced was warned of a ban by PM (you should know that as he complained about it publicly). So, I don't see credible evidence of double standards here.
One point you made, which is fair, is the question as to why we didn't just delete the comments we considered sexist. Personally, I've been very loathe to delete anything in the Shout box at all but in future, that, and private warnings, may be a better way to avoid this endless public fighting. Anyway, Buxte has already said he didn't intend to blur the line on responsibility, and clarified some of his comments, which is good, and hopefully everyone will be more careful in future as, though debate on public decency is acceptable, we do have rules concerning sexism and we will enforce them.
Yes, I think you described the idea well; better than I did. And yes, as you say, it's hard to extricate ourselves from the cycle of toxic shame; I wasn't able to do that myself even while trying to make the argument. and , apologies to you both for the insults. Now, I'm curious if the two of you and have any comments on unenlightened's description of toxic shame, which was the only contribution I was trying to make to the discussion.
I agree with him a bit and disagree with him a lot.
My position takes unenlightened's second half further: in immorality, we are toxic and there is nothing redeemable about it. It's not just an accident of passionate exchange, but a fact of being immoral.
If someone has done something immoral, there is nothing they can do to remove that toxicity. Even if they act perfectly for the rest of their lives, they were still toxic. We think we can escape our toxicity at our peril-- it means excusing the horror we have etched into the fabric of the world. Take that step, we are running from what we have done, from honesty about our own actions.
"Hag-seed, hence!
Fetch us in fuel. And be quick, thou 'rt best,
To answer other business. Shrug’st thou, malice?
If thou neglect’st or dost unwillingly
What I command, I’ll rack thee with old cramps,
Fill all thy bones with aches, make thee roar
That beasts shall tremble at thy din."
The last four lines being a potential personal motto, perhaps?
You can entertain whatever moral scheme you want, of course, but since you have expressed in openly here, I am free to criticize it.
In your statement, the consequences of an immoral action (toxicity) can not be removed--ever. Neither can an immoral action be compensated by behaving morally in the future. Any attempt to escape the unending toxicity and "horror we have etched into the world", is a cowardly escape attempt, and dishonest.
There is a familiar odor about this: it's the scent of scorched earth fundamentalism. "Nope -- you're damned for all time. Sin once or sin a million times, and you're guilty. No mercy, no forgiveness, no penance is possible. You belong to Satan."
I'm not suggesting that you are a fundamentalist Christian or Moslem, of course. You're probably some sort of atheist -- which isn't a criticism -- but atheism is no bar to this sort of fundamentalist moral absolutism.
When it comes to immorality, I'm inclined to think of the traditional immoral acts: murder, theft, adultery, idolatry, etc. I'm not willing to grant the gravitas of idolatry to sins against what is currently considered proper respect for women and minorities. I'm not willing to equate murder with having the wrong attitude, or for being crude and tasteless.
If you judge sexist statements by this morality, I wonder what you would do with murder?
Yours is an inhuman morality, because it seems to suppose that there are people (yourself, perhaps?) who have not sinned. If you have not sinned, then you are like the Virgin Mary -- born without sin. Maybe you were, I don't know. Did your mother have strange visitors before she got pregnant with you? If you have sinned, then who are you to lay out damnation?
Yours is an inflexible morality because it doesn't allow for the benefit of remorse, reform, forgiveness, absolution, compensatory acts, and so on. Your morality doesn't have much scale to it -- in the context it appeared, I assume you are talking about sexism. If sexist comments or acts etch horror into the fabric of the world, then what does murder and armed robbery or arson do?
This is exactly the sort of thing that recognising the irredeemability of sin seeks to avoid.
When sin is redeemed, it becomes cheap in exactly this way: be damned one, twice, a million times, it doesn't matter, just take whatever action you need to be redeemed, then it will be as if you never did anything wrong at all. The toxic nature of your actions will be taken away. You're allowed pretend you have done nothing wrong. Comprehension of the harm you have done is lost. Everyone is redeemed and we have no idea anymore of the specific harms they have caused others,
My point is we should not be running away from our sins. We should be owning our toxicity, how we have caused irreparable harm to the world, not trying to claim it's something that was not really us. It is not against mercy, forgiveness or penance. Those are respective actions taking in response to sin. They are just actions no matter how much irredeemable sin someone has committed.
We are damned only insofar as those toxic moments. For the rest of our lives, we may belong to God rather than Satan. The point is we shouldn't be using belonging God to claim we never belonged to Satan. We ought to keep in mind how we were toxic in the past, so we do not forget the damage we have caused and end up repeating it.
We must say: "Yes, I was toxic then" rather than thinking we can somehow undo what we did by taking other actions.
Mine is a serious morality, one which doesn't allow people the excuse "but I didn't do this worse things," such that we don't just ignore violations.
It has no scale because immorality only has one level: ought not happen. The moment we introduce a scale, we are ignoring the damage someone has done, suggesting it's not really damaging because someone else took a different damaging act. My morality is only "inflexible" in that it doesn't let people get way with excusing immoral actions.
Remorse, reform, forgiveness and compensatory acts are all fine and good. Indeed, they are supported by this position: it means such actions (to their appropriate level) will be taken for sexism, rather than just being reserved for armed robbery and arson. Absolution is rejected, as it amounts to pretended you didn't do what you did, that somehow the toxicity of your past sins can be taken away.
The first part if great.
The second part is nonsense. Feminists taking issue with sexism and the abuse of women doesn't create some victim narrative which makes it impossible for assault to move on with their lives. It's a separate political activity.
Interesting reference to white people and poor people because my idea for the turkey wings was sparked recently at a soul food restaurant (where I was the only white guy other than my son who also happens to be white) and I ordered the turkey wings. They served me two huge wings that had been stewed in a barbecue sort of seasoning. They were very tender and were the sort of deliciousness that only those schooled in cooking low quality foods can make.
I baked my wings at 400, which made them too dry and rubbery. I think what I'll do next time is cook them in a crock pot with barbecue sauce. In response to Benkei's well formed objection, the crock pot also is an acceptable form of male cooking because you just throw the food in there and you don't think about it. If you make food that you have to fret over, then you might as well wear a French maid apron and talk like a girl.
One thing I'm not a fan of are Southern style cornbread muffins. They don't mix in any wheat flour and the rolls are really crumbly because they're pure corn meal. They also pour bacon grease in them, making them like 8000 calories a bite. They do make really good survival food that you might want to store in your fallout shelter, assuming you have one. I built mine during the Carter administration during the Cold War, but since the Berlin Wall fell, I have been using it as a place to keep my treadmill, which I use to stack my clothes on, which my cat uses as a bed.
Your decision to use the wings as a tangential flavoring agent for a measly broth speaks to your Midwestern roots steeped in white privilege and devoid of any suffering or character, but I challenge you to find a way to use this rare and valued protein for actual nourishment. You do that without using words like "fricassee," which surely no one who is buying turkey wings has ever heard.
ABSOLUTELY!
I was going to respond with a sophisticated and yet cryptic appreciation (for seeing me for exactly what I am) and the intent behind being cryptic was only because I worry that any thanks for your kind words may be taken away from me by either yourself or others, but I guess the risk is worth it. Thank you. O:)
You are browsing in an antique shop and find an old vase with a genie in it. It grants you one of three options.
1. You never have to eat again.
2. You never have to sleep again.
3. You no longer have sexual desires or drives(procreation becomes entirely external and dispassionate).
There is a catch, however. Whichever one you choose you choose for you alone, and you must choose one of the other two options for every other person in the world. Which do you choose for yourself and which do you choose for everyone else?
I love to eat. I love to sleep. I love sex. Can I say "none of the above? I wonder how many of the other people in the world I made the choice for would feel the same way.
I guess if I were a masochist, I would pick 2 for myself and 3 for the others. Then I could sit awake, 24 hours a day, wanting to get laid but without any potential partners.
I'm afraid not. You either choose one of the options or the genie would give you taste buds in unpleasant places.
On reflection I think this hypothetical might be too easy. I think choose 2 for myself and 1 for everyone else. I could binge eat every night while everyone was sleeping. Getting a variety of food might be tough though.
I'll take the taste buds. If I can acquire a taste for raw oysters, blue cheese, and red twizzlers, I can acquire a taste for anything.
I noticed that too.
1 for me and 2 for everyone else.
It's true, I'm pretty daft; having the likes of you and TL around to remind me of what a failure I am is extremely helpful; otherwise, I might begin to presume that I'm an autonomous individual with my own rationally and intuitively constructed views about not only the given world, but also my own intersubjective experience of that given world. Thank god I have beneficiaries like yourself to remind me that I don't belong here at all.
Hey, I think you're pretty cool. Don't think we ever had mutual intelligibility problems. Fwiw...
Indeed. That was an own goal.
You're an autonomous individual, why would you need to belong? ;)
That's the nicest thing anyone has said to me all week! :) :’(
Because I think autonomously, but act within a social context of belonging.
Ha, happy to spread some good cheer for a change. We need more of that around here. :) (Y)
Wait, no one actually said that... :-|
If nobody said it then it can't be true.
(Y) (Y) (Y)
:’( sorry about that...
Positivity on a philosophy forum...what a dastardly concept...
How hypothetical is this? Are we to assume that the first and second option wouldn't lead to a horrible death, as they would in reality?
I would think the need for belonging would threaten the authenticity of your autonomy, unless you lead a double life where on one hand there is you, the real you, and on the other there is the social, the link between the two is the loneliness you feel and the desire you feel to overcome the loneliness.
Anyway, in keeping with @Baden cheerful repertoire, did you guys read what T-Clarke wrote? Surely that was so nice that I doubt anyone could beat that.
I used to think that, but then he reacted badly to my beloved sarcasm and called me insufferable. :-|
But I'd like to beat him.
:P I get it! I hold grudges too. I wish I didn't, though. I'm working on it. (I'm a Scorpio, remember...) But your sarcasm, grudges or not, is something I'll always gladly war against. And I'll always gladly resort to the shoutbox to blow off the steam.
Put up your gloves, then!
>:O
No, I don't see autonomy and belonging as opposites. Autonomy only obtains within belonging; I have autonomy within the context of other autonomous beings; otherwise, my autonomy is some special case of autonomy: I'm the only autonomous being, because no one else is. So, if instead there are many autonomous beings, then I'm just one of them, and we relate via belong to one another through our autonomy.
That's not even a contest; it's easy....
>:O
Yes, I just punched a random stranger in the face. I win!
Saints be stricken! Can it really be so? And all these years of work...
Why contest it? It's just reality. You've made a great victory.
Hm, you cribbed that line from Baudrillard, didn't you? :B
What? But I'm known for being the nicest around. I'm a harmless, cuddly, loveable little owl. I'm everyone's fine feathered friend.
I love birds, actually. I have this weird thing, that, sense childhood, I've been, somehow, a "birder". I was a bird-watcher from an early age. I think my parents innocently put out a few bird feeders in the yard, but I was the weird youngest child who actually gave a shit about the poor little starving feather-balls. I have a life-list, somewhere, of American species that I've seen. I haven't actually added to the list for maybe 10 years or so, but... don't assume your adorable little owl eyes haven't gone unseen. I'm watching that gaze of yours....
Yes, they [i]are[/I] adorable. Thank you.
I assume that was sarcasm, but what you couldn't have possibly foreseen is that, yes, I really do agree that those eyes are truly adorable.
I realize I haven't had much of a chance to interact with you Noble Dust but let me assure you, I have been reading you and have agreed with you too many times to count.
I do hope you give us some more time to get to know you and you get to know some of us that might make you reconsider.
Never! I made a solemn promise.
Example: My son who is in college is in a math course that is so complex that he now has a hard time doing simple math like fractions. My other son said it has to do with his brain working at a higher level of math that is making simple math more of a struggle.
Nice equivocation. You're having a hard time following.
Quoting Agustino
If breasts are attractive, that means they "provoke your interest, liking and desire".
Quoting unenlightened
I've already outlined my position several times.
Right. And, typically, that involves no excitement whatsoever?
The truth is that one could easily swap "provoke" with "excite" in that statement without significant change to the meaning. You seem to be tying yourself in knots by arguing that two synonyms are not synonymous, in order to reverse your earlier own goal.
I, myself, happen to think breasts can be provoking interest, liking and desire.
Is there something wrong with me for having such a reaction?
No, not according to the definitions unenlightened agreed on without complaint.
Quoting Sapientia
Yah, by changing the meaning of excite. As I defined it, excitement means eagerness or enthusiasm about something. It doesn't mean arousing something, as in arousing a passion, etc.
Well, my complaint is that you're making it up as you go along to get yourself out of a pickle.
Quoting Agustino
I see.
Right, you point out what I am doing the same way you pointed out what I was doing when you said I was sexist cause I disagree with TimeLine right? :-d
Do you have reading comprehension problems?
Quoting Agustino
I defined it that way (it's the dictionary definition btw), and unenlightened agreed with the definition because he never disputed it, and went on with the rest of his thought.
No. Do you?
Quoting Agustino
I know. I read that the first time around. I am not unenlightened. I am apparently more complacent and I am not playing along with your word game. (Inconvenient, isn't it? Would you rather I was more obliging?).
The definition I gave is also the dictionary definition. You might want to check what "exciting" or "excitement" mean.
If that is what unenlightened did, then that it was it could be.
Quoting unenlightened
Quoting Sapientia
So he cites my definition, and then writes out his argument. Did he, or did he not equivocate? Yes or no? I shouldn't have to bicker so much with you to get you to see a basic fact of the situation.
They are similar. In both cases, you are missing a wider context of how your actions have a particular impact on women and an understanding which devalue them. In both cases, it's not a literal definition of the words you speak, but the wider context of your actions and what they mean towards women.
Not all sexism is directly stated and proudly announced.
And how many times must I ask a question before it is answered?
Correction, it's not a few members. Those who agree with you are few. There are many members - over 7-8 long-time members who have expressed open disagreement with your moderating decisions in regards to the warnings you've issued, and what you consider to be sexism. Who are you serving? The interests of this community, or the interests of an elite formed of 3-4 members? There may be 1000 members, but probably less than 10% are active, and out of those who are active, most significant contributors probably number around less than 40 (and that's easily an over-estimation).
That's the arrogance @T Clark mentioned to you before. You have come to view yourself as some sort of god who never admits he is wrong. You cannot cite one instance when you said "fine, I'm wrong here, let's do it like this"
Why not? Apart from better serving the interests of this community, I think it would be a show of virtue. Admitting one's wrongs takes a strong person to do.
Quoting Baden
Most people did not find it seriously sexist, despite the vulgarity that it contained. I think this should give you an idea that you ought not apply your own personal definition of sexism, and instead apply one that best fits with the position of the members of this community.
If you don't want to do that, then you ought to make clear that you don't care what others consider sexism, because you're very certain you are correct.
Quoting Baden
So the others in the conversation were not sexist, but you gave them a "general warning"? Yes or no?
And if they weren't sexist, why did you give them a general warning? Do you just give general warnings like that to random people? :s Why did I get a general warning or why did Thorongil get a general warning?
And if they were sexist, how were they sexist?
Quoting Baden
And the people who didn't make sexist comments even by your own standards, they receive a general warning right? That surely doesn't smell like double standards to you?
I don't think that he cited your definition followed by his argument. I think that he took a conclusion of your argument, namely that breasts are attractive, but not (so) exciting, and he then attempted a reduction to the absurd, which does seem to use a different definition, and does seem to be equivocation.
Sorry about the bickering. But remember, like you once said of me, I could be prime minister. Practice makes perfect!
Okay.
Quoting Sapientia
Forgiven :D
Quoting Sapientia
>:O >:O Yah, you'd make a great Tory PM >:)
My apologies, which question do you mean? I was busy responding to Baden and Sappy, and some older posts, that's why I didn't address your question.
No doubt that TheWillow will now say that my actions show that I am sexist, because I disconsidered a woman's questions and answered them after I answered questions from the men! >:O
Quoting ArguingWAristotleTiff
Hmm it has to do with practice. I can't do basic math (ie calculations) very easily either now. It even takes me some time to calculate change with money >:O
Quoting ArguingWAristotleTiff
I don't think there is anything wrong with that, or with you for that matter.
Right, so if I show you examples to the contrary, you will put an end to those false accusations and apologise right?
I don't accept your analysis but I'm not really interested in discussing it further, so you can have the last word. By the way, the Shoutbox was never intended to be a substitute Feedback forum. In future, if you, or anyone, has an issue, you are welcome to take it to Feedback or use PM. Any further comments on moderation elsewhere in the forum will be deleted for being off-topic. For my part, I'll PM warnings and I'll try to be charitable in my interpretation of posters' comments and give them a chance to explain what they meant before taking action. Despite what you may think of the mod team, we are not looking for trouble but trying to keep the place free of it.
This was the confirmation I was looking for, Thank you. (Y)
Maybe in some situations, if you were taking a class, for example, and went around taking questions from everyone, leaving the women only two questions in the last minute, there would be a problem, whether you intended it (i.e. "I;m not going to let women ask any proper questions") or not (i.e. excluding the women without realising it by talking to everyone else).
You're fine in this instance.
Oh, but thank you great goddess of darkness for your kindness and mercy >:O
I've already got many examples showing the opposite.
There is no falsehood and nothing to apologise for on my part. For you to show otherwise is impossible. You don't seem to realise this is not a matter of opinion: we've noticed aspects of your actions and understanding of women you have not.
Do you keep them in a sort of Agustino file, all collected?
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
Oh dear... then clearly there is little point in me even trying...
40 years ago, in communism, seeing a woman's breasts was very rare, unless you were married. And even then, your wife would think you're a pervert if you wanted to see them. When guys found a porn magazine somewhere, they'd all gather around together to look at it. They were fascinated - indeed excited - about a woman's body.
But that's not the case today in the West, since, well, a woman's body is easily available in today's society (whether through prostitution, hookups, pornography, TV ads, movies, etc. etc.). So they aren't fascinated or excited by it anymore. That's just one of the effects of an overly promiscuous culture - paradoxically, a woman's body becomes devalued, since it's easy to see, it's no longer a mystery.
The server does that for me; I just look up the relevant post when required.
Little point trying to show you're not sexist as accused? Indeed. One cannot show something when the evidence literally shows it to be true. it would be a waste of my time and yours. We'd have to talk about why the evidence showed sexism, the various relations between your actions and women to go anywhere interesting.
And ignore all other evidence which shows the opposite? O:)
Racist.
Oh dear... will I be given a general warning for that? :-x
That misunderstands how sexism works. It's individual actions which is sexist, not a sum total which is used to determined whether someone is sexist or not.
When other evidence shows the opposite, it only shows that given action was sexist. Most of the time, people engage in some sexist and non-sexist actions.
I don't agree that they're [i]not[/I] fascinated or excited by it anymore, although it's possible that they're [i]less[/I] fascinated or excited by it now.
Not sure exactly why, but this came to mind during the backs and fourths of this conversation.
Right, so then it's time to take back your statement that Agustino is sexist, since that is clearly wrong, even by your own criteria.
You should now state that "very few of Agustino's actions are sexist" - that's a more accurate rendition of your views it seems to me, though I'd still disagree.
Are you fascinated by breasts young lad? >:)
No. "Sexist" is used to refer to someone how has engaged in sexist actions. You're under the false impression I was using "sexist" to refer to some sort of sum total. I was not. I was using it as a description of someone who has engaged in sexist actions, whether the be few, several, many or every act they've ever taken.
I'll have to do a thread someday on the sexism of both the conservatives and liberals. You and Sapientia can be my major case studies.
I think I'm more fascinated by the fascination of breasts, than by breasts themselves - the latter of which I do not find very fascinating.
Time for another eye roll, methinks: :-}
While you're at it, do you think that you could fit some studies on how to proofread in there?
You're not an oppressive lefty ogre admin bent on destroying conservatism in the forum through surreptitious means.
Will you marry me? (L)
Bugger...
He said platonic.
Oh yeah, missed that. :(
Freudian connotations? With certainty.
I love my job and hate it at the same time. I love the actual grassroots work, being with the kids directly, but the rest? The whole managerial, teleconferences, meetings, reports, people management, leadership? Blurg. As long as you have demonstrated experience being capable of pretending to do work because you can finish the required tasks for a whole week in the space of a few hours and therefore have the time to talk with me about politics or science or philosophy, then get that damned ticket, boy!
I talked with my cousin's wife awhile ago, and I was shocked by the work ethic of management at the multinational company she works at. Everyone in management (both higher ranks and lower, including her) slacks off and does a bit of paper work every now and then - and everyone else, the slaves - they work >:o (N) That's very twisted. The boss should work the hardest, he or she should encourage everyone else by their supreme work ethic and absolute dedication to the task. I almost cannot stand the ladder-climbing non-entities who make their habitation in large businesses where adequate systems of verification don't exist or are corrupt - where pay is by position instead of by results.
Brave. Very brave.
Quoting Michael
Interesting. Do you find eating to be a chore? I sometimes do. Not needing to eat could allow a person to live in some interesting conditions.
Quoting Sapientia
Very. This genie is legit. No eating would mean optimal nourishment, no sleep optimal rest.
So no sex means total satisfaction? I'll go for that then, and you lot can choose between food and sleep.
I would never sleep again, and everyone else would never eat again. I enjoy eating, and without sleep I would have loads more time to do stuff. Also, starvation and undernutrition is no longer a problem.
Hmmm... let's see. I already have trouble sleeping (not falling asleep, but as in I don't sleep enough), so definitely 2 for me. I can work at night too then >:) just imagine how productive I'd be.
1 isn't a big problem, it's quite enjoyable, and 3 would eliminate the possibility of romantic intimacy so no. Hmmm I'd pick 1 for everyone else, they need a way to compete with me who can now work 8 extra hours. At least they'll catch up on 1-2 hours that was spent eating :P
Think refractory period.
Quoting Sapientia
I agree. Picking #1 for everyone else means no more hunger, obesity, heart disease, etc. I think that's probably why this hypothetical is a bit too easy. Then again, being the only hungry person in a world that no longer has food production would be tough. It would put an enormous quantity of people out of work, but I guess that wouldn't be all that bad considering they can't starve. I think I'd tell everyone what a hero I was so that some percentage would offer alms.
Quoting Agustino
I wonder how different the world would be if you chose #3 for everyone else. Would be pretty awful being the only person who had a sense of sexuality.
I don't really care about sexuality at this point in my life though, so it would largely be irrelevant to me personally, but for the future, I imagine it could be quite bad if you couldn't have a romantic relationship with your wife. In a way, it would prevent you feeling intimate with anyone. Not that it's the end of the world, just not something very good.
Yeah, that consequence was a concern for me too. I would hope that people would be charitable enough to help me obtain food easily enough. It would be like I had a unique illness which required medicine just to survive. That's how I'd spin it, anyway.
It's as if serious insults upon another's character amounts to nothing if one merely gets in bed with someone so dastardly without a second thought.
>:O By the nine divines! How I'd like to live a life wherein all my faults but stem from a single flaw!
They do. It's called ... oh wait, I'd better not say that. But it's odd to hear you appeal to the White Goddess.
Thanks Tiff! I was just exhausted by all the unnecessary drama from awhile back in this thread when I said that. I do plan to stay around.
If others don't eat then food production would stop, and I'd have to learn to hunt/forage/farm. If others don't have sexual desire then that wouldn't be any fun. So that leaves others not sleeping.
Between me not having to eat and me not having sexual desire, it's an easy choice.
There'd be another option: learn to manipulate.
That's fantastic.
I thought so too.
Kissing an unconscious woman. Sexual assault or not?
Talks to self: Agustino, control, control, resist the temptation to click that link or else you will get angry when reading the stupidity that may await you inside... >:O >:O
Basically, the story glorifies a man kissing an unconscious women. It's sexual assault, and so not appropriate for children who might think that it's an acceptable thing to do.
Actually, Michael, the story is worse than you think, and in the pre-Disney version, she isn't kissed awake. Here:
Quoting wikipedia
I assume you are making a joke at the expense of the absurd literalism displayed in the story to which you linked.
One can only hope that you don't share this lunatic literalism.
Never! The dying ought always to die if consent to save them was never given! :D
I was summarising the news report as Agustino didn't click through to read it.
Presumably you disagree with the woman's desire to ban the book. Is that because it isn't sexual assault, despite what she claims?
Actually, the kiss didn't wake her. The spell had her sleep for a hundred years, and it just so happened that the prince kissed her moments before the spell ended.
This is old news. One of my geography teacher (yup, no clue why) back in highschool decided to spend an entire course explaining why every fairytale is basically a twisted sex-ed primer for the ultra-retrograde. Apparently every dwarves are represententations for cock. So are all towers.
And I mean, yeah, someone who says, when looking at a comatose girl. "man, I gotta have her", then procedes to procure her and brings her home... That's pretty creepy. Really pretty creepy.
:B
Why is it not acceptable? If a woman kisses you while you're asleep will you complain of sexual assault? I may tell her not to do that when I awaken (and maybe stop being friends with her), but I will most certainly not claim she's assaulting me. There are lots of things that affect me and that I don't consent to - such as someone sneezing on me on the street, etc. but I don't take people to court if they do it. Likewise, if someone tries to kiss me without requesting my consent, no problem, so long as they don't physically force themselves on me while I physically try to resist them - that would indeed be assault.
These politically correct people are very crazy. Are you supposed to ask all the time to your girlfriend or wife "may I kiss you now dear?" :s - that's not how that thing works. She can kiss you whenever she wants, and so can you - generally, unless of course, either of you says no. But asking for approval first is nonsense.
I never asked my first girlfriend if I can kiss her when I first did. As far as I remember, she didn't find that to be assault or anything of that nature. Quite the contrary, she found it quite romantic.
Yes, because it would be. UK law defines sexual assault as:
(1) A person (A) commits an offence if —
(a) he intentionally touches another person (B),
(b) the touching is sexual,
(c) B does not consent to the touching, and
(d) A does not reasonably believe that B consents.
The example with Sleeping Beauty is of kissing an unconscious stranger. That's sexual assault.
Kissing is not necessarily sexual. I kinda think when Grandma kisses a sleeping infant, it's not sexual - unless it is. Or when she kisses farewell the corpse of Grandpa. Or when she kisses the Pope's signet ring. I would hope and expect that for a normal primary school child, kissing is not sexual. In which case, there is no problem?
So if you're in a nightclub for example, and a random girl tries kissing you out of the blue, will you report her to the police, even though she stopped when you told her no? There are many such cases happening everyday in the UK probably.
It's like symptoms of diseases. Fatigue may be a very important symptom of lyme disease and a host of other diseases too. But if you read that, you don't get the right idea. Because the kind of fatigue we're talking about isn't simply the "I don't feel like getting out of bed fatigue"... it's the "I need to get out of bed but don't have the energy fatigue" - as in you really can't get out of bed. Likewise, those who apply the law know the difference between assault and someone being rude, etc.
I might, but what does that have to do with what I'm saying? Even if I don't report her, and even if I don't care, it's still sexual assault.
Okay, so then why wouldn't you report her if it is sexual assault? You don't want to do your duty as a member of the community and prevent this horrible crime from going on?
The example is of the Prince kissing Sleeping Beauty. Is that anything like the examples above, or is it sexual?
Does it matter? My reaction does not determine the legal status of the act. A woman can be raped even if she doesn't report it. I can be sexually assaulted even if I don't report it.
You're still alive, I see. :(
I've asked you a question. I'll answer it once you answer mine.
I'd say it's a deal like. It's a ritualised symbolic kiss, and there is no erotic subtext in the versions I've seen. It's not the kind of material that used to be sold under the counter, or displayed on the top shelves, and it is not much bought by old men in raincoats. In a children's story, a kiss is presumably a child's kiss, other things being equal.
This is more so what might concern a feminist; not the letter of the law in fiction, so much as the weight of tradition en mass, to which the answer is to produce more suitable material.
Which has been going on for a long time, and there are all sorts of kids books that reflect a more equal society in terms of both gender and ethnicity. So it seems reasonable at this point to want the curriculum, and the school library, to be updated. Which is what is being suggested, rather than any ban.
The way you've defined this is that Sleeping Beauty would have to not consent and Prince Charming would have to reasonably believe that Sleeping Beauty did not consent in order for their to be a crime. Typically Prince Charming believes there is consent because, after all, who wouldn't want to be kissed by Prince Charming?
And this goes to the whole communication thing. If I asked the girl "would you like to be kissed now," then the answer that was yes might well now be no. And just because she says "yes," that hardly means yes any more than what her behavior might communicate. That is to say, verbal responses are no more reliable than behavioral responses. I don't need a "yes, please kiss me now" hostage video sort of response to let me know I can now engage in the kiss,, meaning "yes" could mean no. I also wouldn't find a "no, don't kiss me" whispering statement terribly persuasive given enough non-verbal cues, like if she had her hand on my goober.
So, yes, you need to figure out if she wants to be kissed before you kiss her, but it's not all that confusing in real life. If you kiss your girlfriend who is lying next to you asleep in bed, my guess is that she consented to it, and she would be happy to know you want to kiss her even when she doesn't specifically know about it.
But let's say I'm sitting next to a random sleeping passenger on an airplane and I just decide what the hell and I start kissing her neck, then that ought to land me in some sort of real trouble, considering no reasonable person would think she has consented just by having been assigned a seat next to me, despite me being pretty amazing by any account.
Seems like you're deflecting.
"I don't even wait. And when you're a star, they let you do it, you can do anything... grab them by the pussy."
This is a red-herring. It misses people may know there intentions of wishes without specifically naming then. People can general kiss their SO not because of a basic rule: "You may kiss your SO whenever you want" but rather because one's partner wants it or thinks it is fine. Asking approval can be "nonsense", if you understand the wishes of the person in question already.
The myth of "contract of approval" is formed in a perverse understanding of consent, like it was simply about having someone say: "Yes" to whatever someone wanted to do, be it kissing or sex. Consent is not game about whether someone gets what they want. It's defined by the interests and will of the other person, they want to be involved with whatever activity is in question. People only think of it in terms of a game or conflict because they are objectifying others as a means to get what they want, rather than understanding ethical relationships are about whether the other person wants to.
Utterances of "yes" don't actually define the presence of consent. People can to pressured into saying "Yes" by circumstance. Only someone genuinely having a desire interest in the activity in question defines it It's about another person wanting to be involved. When there is a question of kissing or sex, one must be genuinely thinking in terms of another person, about if they want to be involved, rather than just being a beast and assuming their desire means they get whatever they want (including with one's partner).
'Twas a joke.
Quoting Hanover
Sure, but again, I was specifically talking about the case of Sleeping Beauty where a man kisses an unconscious stranger because he finds her beautiful. So all these examples that you and unenlightened and Agustino have offered are strawmen (although you at least understood the Sleeping Beauty issue with your example of the airplane).
Or really great, depending.
And then this charming man became president.
One unconscious princess or another -- they're all somewhere on the Glasgow Coma Scale.
How about the fairy tale where the witch turned the children into fire wood, and when the cold parents put the wood on the fire, the children-turned-into-wood began screaming in agony? Old women and stepmothers are always doing terribly things to people in these stories. How come all you feckless petunias who find assault in the prince waking the unconscious damsel aren't out picketing Amazon for selling hate literature about old women, and depicting the most egregious child abuse.
Be a hero! Ban a book.
You need to work on the high notes.
It's current events, and you're wearing the boots.
Good. It's snowy out. We should all wear a good pair of boots.
Crimes involve a subjective and an objective aspect, a Mens Rea and an Actus Reus. In the case of assault (seperated from battery) :
Definition : An assault is any act by which someone, intentionally or recklessly, causes another person to apprehend immediate and personal violence.
[Actus Reus]
Actual Bodily Harm means any injury which is 'calculated to interfere with the health or comfort of the [victim]' (R v Donovan per Swift J).
"For this purpose we think that "bodily harm" has its ordinary meaning and includes any hurt or injury calculated to interfere with the health or comfort of the prosecutor. Such hurt or injury need not be permanent, but must, no doubt, be more than merely transient and trifling."
[Mens rea]
The causing of actual bodily harm requires no additional mens rea. Defendant need not intend or foresee the causing or inflicting of a wound or grievous bodily harm. If Defendant was unaware that his conduct might cause any injury at all (Savage [1992]) there is no mens rea. unless voluntary intoxicated because it is a crime of basic intent. Maliciously means intentionally or recklessly. To do some kind of bodily harm. Recklessness is subjective in the Cunningham sense.
So you're the one who refused to answer my question and deflected with another question, and now I'm the one deflecting eh? >:O Funny guy you are...
How I react to the act has nothing to do with whether or not the act is a crime. Your question is irrelevant, and so ignoring it isn't deflecting from the issue at hand. Whereas asking such a question does seem to deflect from the issue at hand (or is heading towards a non sequitur, arguing that it's not a crime if I don't think it worth reporting?).
I've been down this road so many times with Terrapin Station. I have absolutely no patience for it anymore.
We can accept the odd gif here but we don't want too many of them because they can be annoying if not used sparingly. If you want to post a picture of your legs feel free.
TL is being humorous. Random pics of legs are not something most people here are going to take much notice of. I don't see an issue tbh.
The Shoutbox was intended for nonsense though. It's the serious stuff that is actually out of place here.
A selfie.
Diet seems to be working. (Y)
:-*
:D
To be revived after 100 years and some princely sex assault action.
Wasn't it she contracted a pic of Hanover in his underwear? Fatal except in fairy-tales where a return pic of svelte legs works like a charm.
Wall or well? :s
OBEY.
Stick around for the complete tales of Hansover.
First up: Hans My Hedgehog.
"A wealthy but childless merchant wishes he had a child, even a hedgehog. He comes home to find that his wife has given birth to a baby boy that is a hedgehog from the waist up. They then name him "Hans My Hedgehog".
After eight years, Hans leaves his family astride a cock to seek his fortune. He goes off into the woods and watches over his donkeys and pigs. A few years later, a lost king stumbles upon Hans after hearing him play beautifully on the bagpipes...."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_My_Hedgehog
"A second lost king stumbles upon Hans and agreed to his deal. Upon his return, the second king's only daughter rushed out to greet him, and in doing so became the property of Hans. For the sake of her father, the princess happily agreed to Hans's deal.
In time, Hans My Hedgehog goes to claim his promises. The first king attempts to withhold his daughter, but Hans forces him to yield her. Hans then makes her to take off her clothing, pierces her all over with his quills, and sends her back to the kingdom in disgrace. The second king agrees to the marriage; the princess holds herself bound by her promise and Hans My Hedgehog marries her."
:-O
Not on the primary school curriculum I believe.
Sure, now can you get around to answering my irrelevant question please? That's if you want me to answer your relevant question.
No. Why would I? It's irrelevant.
Quoting Agustino
So you won't answer a relevant question (did I even ask a question?) unless an irrelevant one is answered? Sounds like deflection to me.
My claim stands. It would be sexual assault if a stranger walked up to me in a club and kissed me without invitation. It would be sexual assault to kiss an unconscious stranger. This has nothing to do with being "politically correct" and everything to do with the actual law.
And then you send me that photo of you, in all your comfort, relaxed, overlooking the sea, with your skirt abandoning its formality and finding its way up your thigh, and I then I realize how foolish it would be, dare I say pathetically fearful, to walk away now, right before I truly invest my heart and see what dividends might wait for me, for us, forever.
If that doesn't deserve a navel pic, I don't know what does. I mean I got a navel pic out of Benkei, and while I question whether it was actually the belly of a 40 something year old Dutch dad, at least he gave me something pretty sweet to look at.
Don't you EVER say anything about the purity of that perfect thigh! Damn you! You are nothing.
Good, then I don't care.
Suppose it were Baden who kissed you? Even without invitation, you must admit that the taste of Guinness, day old coffee, and clove cigarettes breathed into your lungs would be magical and the sort of sexual assault you've always dreamed of.
Or he may just prefer a quill up the jacksie.
[hide="Aesthetically Unpleasing Image Of Hanny. Click at your own risk"]
That's not good enough. If you want to have a proper career in porno you need to try harder than that. As things stand, you've only impressed Hanover.
Whut? I know lawyers suck at mathematics but this is just ridiculous.
And here's hoping your extremely brief career in snuff movies takes off soon.
Come this way, I'll introduce you to the director...
Perchance. Shall we see?
Who's that gonna be?
Charles Manson's bastard son.
I was being silly.
Smith & Wesson. It's an old school western.
One of these people over here.
*Points to eager sea of smiling volunteers.*
Me?
>:O What's the relationship between TL and these smiling volunteers?
I thought you were his grandpa, grampa.
She told them about you.
Quoting Benkei
Quoting Hanover
Quoting Baden
Hell, I'll do it. Who's got the electric cable? Can we have lights please! Camera rolling...Yes, just lie down here for a minute Agu.
Right so these people were looking to employ TimeLine and they see me as competition. But why, I'm just looking to open a massage saloon. It will offer hand relief of great value to the great nation of Kazakhstan.
Quoting Baden
No TV cameras please, I don't like being filmed.
That's kind of the point. Speaking of points, turn around if you will...
BC was right, you communists want to eradicate entrepreneurs like meself as the Brits say :’(
Shit, you might be right:
(1) A person (A) commits an offence if—
(a) he intentionally touches another person (B),
(b) the touching is sexual,
(c) B does not consent to the touching,
(d) A does not reasonably believe that B consents, and
(e) A is not Baden and B is not Michael.
You're sexist.
Why thank you.
It was a question: "why fuck you?"
WHEN did this happen? And why did I not see it?
Quoting Hanover
But, dare I say, however romantic this may be, however the fluttertings of my heart or beating of my chest may overwhelm my sensibilities, with the presence of those maniacical conservatives who perchance view a beauty spot as a freckle, who see art as pornography, what can I do but say nay!
We must part, dear Hanover. We must. *Runs a few steps in the opposite direction. Pauses. Glances back over her shoulder. Then runs away.
The gorgeous wallpaper!
I'm confused?
Alas, she has left, but I know how this story continues...
On a drunken night not far away, I shall receive text after apologetic text, yearning for what once was. I will predictably ignore those pleas, although both of us will know it's strategic, yet both will continue the game of cat and mouse, now with you as mouse. I will finally cryptically respond, perhaps with a frowny face emoji that will you will hang onto, as it will be the first communication in days, although it will feel like years. You will finally sleep knowingly though, recognizing that the yellow sad face will eventually move to flat and then to smiling, and finally, yes finally, of a boy and a girl with a heart hanging between their heads. At that point, you will know I've returned. And it will be glorious,.
And then finally I will get a God damned navel pic. Jesus fucking Christ, what's a guy gotta do for a navel pic. You'd think I was asking to [self censored].
I hold in my hand my ticket and consider the consequences if I were to tear it up and throw it away with the hope that the emoji is true to your heart, but as I sit silently at the airport with my strong cup of coffee and half eaten bagel, my book sitting gently on my lap as I longingly glare out the window in all the hurt and pain, nothing, not even these cryptic games will get me to change my mind. I must leave this forsaken place and allow my heart to love another.
You took too long, Hans. You took too long. I cannot wait for you to have the courage to be my friend anymore. There is no glory in games. No amount of the cuteness of those little round yellow faces will change that. *wipes tear
Damn, and such a unique name it was, too!
Coffee has that effect.
She needs to step it up and try covfefe
I think long and hard about the anti-Semitic bagel reference and feel your leaving much like I would a rock to the head from a terrorist over disputed lands. Having friends in high places, and knowing how to divert a plane without having to resort to predictable box cutter jokes, I contact the man in the sky who formed a covenant with my chosen people some time ago, and a mighty storm brews up like a hot cup of Joe sitting next to a stale bagel with ruby red lipstick stains on it. In addition to flooding thousands of people and leaving them famished and naked, the storm delays your plane the 15 minutes I need to find you at the airport in your puddle of sadness and urine (sorry, bathroom humor is my specialty).
I pick you up and kiss you without consent as Michael attempts to indict me on obscure charges against Her Majesty who decrees such laws. You, being so overwhelmed with my embrace, drop to your knees, throw back your hair, and raise your sassy sweater with the funny cat scene on it and reveal your navel, finally allowing me to understand your prior reluctance. The 5 inches of decaying umbilical cord still attached, the overpowering aroma, and the bagel crumbs are too much to bear. Despite it all, my love actually grows, and I taste those golden bagel morsels as if they are the finest caviar.
>:O - actually, granted its commonness it was absolutely unique to own it since there can only be one of them ;)
True, it appears I have forfeited my unique privilege to own something pedestrian... :’( :s :-d :)
I had an Australian classmate in high school who loved it but the appeal is lost on me.
You don't fucking know weird. Weird would be to imply that the romanticism inherent in my words impregnated you with our love child named Jeremy, who despite his slow speech and uneven eyes, has a heart of gold. Sure, being shuttled between your shanty by the sea and my palace by the swamp has caused him confusion and an indecipherable stutter, but he does have a heart of gold.
Fucking know weird before you speak of weird, you knower of only normal ordinary things. You are ordinary, the same as all others. Hop aboard your plane to Peoria and live your life as a seamstress with a fat bellied auto mechanic named Clyde and vacation in Wisconsin while pretending the Great Lakes are an ocean.
Sonic?
Hansover. He who rides a big cock and plays bagpipes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hansover_My_Hedgehog
But how would a corrupt official in Kazakhstan react?
And have you heard that Obama's daughter is allegedly kissing white boys and smoking weed? (!)
*Throws a mop in Baden's face*
Tastes like idiot.
Your pipes aren't patriotic enough. :(
What's wrong with bagpipes anyway? The lack of dynamic range? Haven't you ever heard Bach on a harpsichord, BC? Or listened to Meshuggah?
Yes, I have heard Bach on the harpsichord, once or twice, at least. There's a lot of Bach I could live without, but some I couldn't live without.
Don't get me wrong: Bagpipes have a place (somewhere in Scotland). I will admit to liking "Highland Cathedral". It's appallingly schmaltzy, but...
*smh*...
Quoting Bitter Crank
Sounds about right.
Not my thing...I think I like bagpipes because my stereotypical perception of bagpipe music is that it's drone music; stays on the tonic the whole time. That's why I like it; but these hymn-like chord changes are schmaltzy, yes.
Listen, Hansel, what would you know about travel and the world? You think the British Virgin Islands is an Island full of virgins from Britain only because @Michael lives there. I mean, you thought that by taking that long drive to TGI Fridays where a lethargically lanky, pimple-faced teen with hormonal issues who served you the Memphis Burger meant that you actually went to Memphis.
Just grow up.
I once visited the British Virgin Islands. They are now the British Islands.
You didn't go all the way. Looking at a map is not really a visit, now is it.
Just because you were able to somehow know of my confusion about the British Virgin Islands and TGIF doesn't make you the smartest person in the room, it just makes you lucky.
It was inevitable that our nasty break up would get uglier, with you hurling insults about my lack of geographical wherewithal, something I've always tried to hide and that I'm very sensitive about. It's really beneath you that you'd go so low, but I have the dignity not to hit you in your weak areas, like how your right breast sags helplessly to the ground or how you insist upon wearing flannel and being called Steve on Sunday mornings.
My only option at this point will be to date your sister. Yeah, I'm going there, little miss "I'm going to insult your sense of direction." We'll just see who wins this little battle.
And I like dead babies.
We're a match made in heaven. You and I could be the new Hanover and Timeline. Just think of the possibilities. We could have a baby, and then I could turn it into a large bagel for each of us to feast upon - the best of both worlds.
It's worse than that. He's alive, but presumably he can't see my brilliant comments. That's self-torture.
I only asked you to call me Steve to help you differentiate why the story of Adam and Eve is not Adam and Steve, and that was only after you caused all that hullabaloo at Church when you openly admitted your night-time naughty for Tom Jones following the release of Great Balls of Fire back in '89. I mean, what else can I do? You speak of direction, but you are having trouble differentiating the difference between your nostril and a hole in the ground.
Not sure about this brilliancy you speak of as you tend to elicit the same befuddled awkwardness that @Baden caused with all his hedgehog references.
The rare, mythical everything pumpernickel bagel is where it's at.
And so now you've resorted to airing all our dirty laundry out in public, so you've thrown down the gauntlet. But before that, I want to recall a tender moment, the time when we walked hand in hand through the cemetery, playfully half burying children's shoes in the soft mud to tease passersby, mischievously moving the grave markers around so that we could watch the mourners cry over the wrong person, and interrupting funerals by literally dancing on graves, the Charleston no less in full flapper regalia.. Ahhh, you were such a sweet yet dark soul, finding humor in the oddest of places. And now, look at what you've become. A self-righteous, humorous and indignant vixen.
Please see the above where I tried to outdo your dead baby comment. I am up for the challenge, as I think I can mix a healthy dose of sexual perversion, death, and sadness and come up with some really funny stuff.
Yes, you tried. I will give you that much. You're welcome to keep trying, but that would be like a distraught mother trying to resuscitate a stillborn.
Quoting Hanover
So true. (L)
- Leo Szilard, physicist on the Manhatten Project who advocated a peaceful demonstration of the atomic bomb
I think there is going to be serious trouble.
Once more the idiotic government of our piece of heaven have screwed up. The presidential elections happened last Sunday and they have still not given a final result.
The people are out on the streets and taking the roads so no one can pass. I just had to walk through a 6 mile traffic jam to get home.
I think I will be staying in my house for a few days. :(
Are you from Honduras? I doubt due to the so-called 'glitches' among other things that the vote count will in anyway be accepted and they may end up having to either arrange for a recount under the supervision of an unbiased third-party or simply re-do the electoral vote once more. In the meantime, just stay inside.
I'm inside too. I get today off work because there are storms and a flood warning. Gonna veg out and read all weekend in my PJs...
Don't know how bad it is, but good luck. Vis-à-vis the storms and floods. And spiders too, I guess. Always spiders, man.
I know right? Huntsman. Scary as heck. I had one a few weeks ago that actually jumped from the wall and I managed to reach a vocal range of soprano as I jumped up and around myself like I was an MI5 agent.
That's a withering criticism of the ineffectiveness of the British intelligence service...
You and your better half are ALWAYS welcome at the Ranch~ Be careful my friend~
Meta, you are God? Man, have I got a few bones to pick with you!
About this Mother In Law thing....what on earth have I done to deserve such a blessing?
As for the mother in law thing... God works in mysterious ways.
Let me get this right: all this chaos happening around me is to keep you entertained?
Twisted little bastard ain't he?
Your top of the list for escaping hell. Just hope we don't have too much trouble.
Oh boy! I think we are going to need a bigger boat. Last time Noah forgot the Unicorn's lover, so this time make sure he gets ALL the animals, two by two!
I must admit that putting the T-rex next to the weight bench was a bad idea.
Oh my Go....Meta? :-O
Very well. I am ready for it. The joke begins, "A cat walks into a bar... "
Let's hear your lame joke, likely devoid of any sexual, digestive disorder, or murderous reference. You simply have no idea how to frame a joke. You'll probably talk about how the cat was helpful and nice and then say something that makes you smile and think it's funny.
I don't know how and why you do it. I would freaking love to live anywhere I don't have to shovel snow 5 months a year, but it is absolutely impossible for me to even think about moving to a place with spiders bigger than my thumb.
About the same number of people were killed in the firebombing of Tokyo and Dresden as were killed in the atomic bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima - all in the 80,000 to 150,000 range. Rape of Nanking - 200,000 to 300,000.
Winners don't get prosecuted for war crimes.
For perspectiive - an estimated 80 million people died in World War 2.
Also, babies get eaten by dingoes; the toilets flush backwards; their greatest actor is Paul Hogan; the national anthem is "Waltzing Matilda" which, by the way, is a slang word for masturbation; and their greatest living songwriter is Rolf Harris, who wrote a song about the enslavement of aborigines which made the Australian top 10.
On the other hand, my father lived in Melbourne for three years in the 1990s. He loved it. Good food and good people. No one he knew was killed by giant poisonous spiders.
As I said, it's not a war crime if you win.
Can't hate on the dingoes, everyone knows babies taste the best!
Montréal, Province de Québec, Canada. O:)
What are facts?
I am an Ecology
MeToo
Welcome to The Philosophy Forum - an indoctrination thread
The Last Word
I am God. Me too.
What will Mueller discover? Mermaids aren't falsifiable.
What is the meaning of life? Too much philosophy.
What is nothing? Philosophy in our society.
The biggest problem with women's sports: the sins of Leon Wieseltier.
What pisses you off? Political correctness.
What is true love? Philosophical alienation.
What do you think the world is lacking? The robot who was afraid of the dark.
What's the point of this conversation? Blame.
What are you listening to right now? Time and such.
Kill me now.
First of all, that is not how a joke-off works. We need a control, a ring girl who will hold up a placard that numbers each round, likely @YourLeaderSapientia who just has that natural transvestite aura about him and no doubt would look fantastic in heels and a bikini.
Secondly, my sense of humour is devoid of any grotesque references of a sexual or homicidal nature and, indeed, I find no need to express to an audience about the goings-forth of materials within your duodenum. Such jokes are only funny to someone named Bobby-Joe from the Appalachian mountains who drinks moonshine and has one tooth. Not my problem.
hurrah!
Less tax is a good thing overall. Some sectors shouldn't have lower taxes (like the financial sector), but sectors involved in production and services absolutely deserve it.
At least Trump was right when he said that he could shoot somebody and not lose his base.
I have shifted a bit more to the right, but slight amount. I never claimed to be a socialist, I'm a distributist. It's close to socialism but only in some regards. In other regards it's close to capitalism. That's why I confuse you.
That's false. You did claim to be a kind of socialist. I distinctly remember it.
Yeah, and I said I like the distributists right after, which are close to socialism in some regards.
I'm definitely very close to socialism with regards to the financial sector for example - nationalised banking, no financial speculation (or highly taxed). Overall, I am on the left side of the spectrum.
Quoting Agustino
And this?
Quoting Agustino
And this?
Quoting Agustino
And this?
Quoting Agustino
This:
Quoting Agustino
Quoting Agustino
Yeah, I do not approve of trickle-down economics. Tax cuts don't have to "trickle down". Each should get what their work deserves to get. There should be no unfair trickling down. I am against the idea of everyone getting progressively richer. Society should only make sure that it provides the basic needs of everyone - schooling, healthcare, food, shelter, water. Not more. The middle class or whatever shouldn't get progressively richer. That's not the aim of society. That's part of the neoliberal worldview that I disagree with.
If you want more than the basic necessities (your needs basically), then you have to work for them. So I'm absolutely in favour of asymmetric distributions of wealth.
And yes with regards to Sanders, I was mostly against his morality. I didn't find his economic views that horrifying though there are things I don't agree with there as well.
Quoting Agustino
Very clever pun, talking about how we should all joke off. A worthy opponent indeed.Quoting TimeLine
And s/he looks even better in nothing at all.Quoting TimeLine
And here you finally admit to lacking a sense of humor. That's the first step to recovery.Quoting TimeLine
Please leave my mother out of this. She has two teeth by the way, the second she keeps in her pocket for good luck.
Someone willing to engage in extreme self deprecation is impervious to attack from such gnats like you. A good play would be for you to demand you were an even smaller gnat than I could imagine, a bacteria of sorts. That and showing me your navel are two things you just can't do. You're just not strong enough.
Woo Hooo! Congratulations on going back to school! Congratulations on taking that first step and signing up for classes! Well done!
But I would be amiss not to say that it is going to take more than "hope" to keep this ball rolling. It is going to take a degree of commitment on your part that you are not only going to sign up but you are going to successfully rise to the challenge that classes are going to face you with. Even if you don't pull all "A's" your first time though, finish the class you start, to the very last final exam. If you have to take a class over again to pass? Take the class over again to pass. It might surprise you that I had to take Logic101 in college and I failed miserably the first time through the class and my friends laughed. Ooo there is no better way to fire me up and I took the class a second time, pulling the highest grade in the class and my friends have been regretting it since. 8-)
Don't let failure discourage you, instead turn it inward to fire you up, that you take it as a personal challenge, to kick butt the second time around in taking the class. That is how you keep the ball rolling my friend AND if Mayor was here, he would tell you that when you begin to better yourself, the ball isn't rolling so much as it is you, much like Sisyphus, that is pushing it UP the hill. But unlike Sisyphus you will find satisfaction in successfully getting that ball to the top. I have faith in you and will be here to remind you if you get flattened by that ball coming back down the hill, to get back up again and start pushing. ;)
Hey and remember, you have ALL of us to bounce questions off of and together we can get you to where you want to be in life, a healthy place to thrive~ (L)
Now, get after it!!!! (Y)
If you guys really decide to go ahead with this, please do it in a separate thread or debate so we can all follow along and cheer, or more likely, whatever the opposite of cheer is.
Based on what I've read from you recently, I don't think so.
Quoting Michael
Yeah, I know. Funny.
Attaining qualities of a life that extend beyond one's survival is not ensured merely because one works. The driver for greater autonomy and prosperity within a given economy is one's access to capital. The debate around minimum wages in the US is partly so heated because most people working minimum wage jobs can't even provide for themselves at a basic level, and if they do, they've no surplus with which they can grow their financial footprint. People get stuck at a threshold, and because they've no room to fail, when they do fail, or at least make a bad financial decision (which is bound to happen), that threshold moves down a peg, thus enabling them even less. You seem blissfully unaware of how quickly someone can get screwed over even when they're making good financial decisions. The world just doesn't care about your needs or your wants or your aspirations. The world isn't fair, so I'd hesitate to divine up an economic blueprint that attempts to make the world a fair and reasonable place where if you just break your back enough you'll be a millionaire.
Right, so I do a test that assess that, and I end up on the left. I tell you that I'm on the left too. And you still think I'm not on the left :s lol
Quoting Sapientia
Yeah, if you guys were anything but lazy and read that in context you'd understand what it meant. I was replying to someone who thought I wanted there to be zero taxes, and who took me to be a full-on capitalist. But of course, that's not the case. It's not the first time that Michael shows great dexterity at creating false impressions through taking statements out of context.
It's not just about breaking your back, you have to work smart.
Quoting Buxtebuddha
Yes, access to capital on good conditions is important - what is not important is access to 8-20% interest capital, which basically destroys you.
Having said that, the best capital is your own. So greater autonomy and prosperity depend on your own ability to create capital, for the most part. That doesn't really depend on already having access to capital. You need to use your smarts to make up for what you lack in capital.
Quoting Buxtebuddha
The worst financial decision is risking capital when you cannot afford to lose it. Make your first 100K without risking anything (except your time, you obviously have to risk that). Once you have 100K in the bank and a solid, independent source of income, then you can spend that 100K to grow your source of income or create new ones.
The best way to make that first 100K is some independent activity, even if you are not registered as a business, and act instead as a sole trader. The reason for that is that when you work for someone else, you need to put more time to earn more. Your pay is tied to the amount of time you spend, and NOT to the work that you do (or the results you get). Some months you may do work worth many many many times what you get paid.
You may start working part-time or full-time in a job, and work on a trade or something else on the side. That's possible, and a great thing. But don't expect a job, no matter how highly paid it is, to get you to financial independence.*
* exception are sales jobs, and jobs where pay is not tied to the time you spend, but the results you get.
For example. The interesting bit isn't how Jeff Greene became a billionaire. Neither how he became a millionaire. The interesting bit is how he made the first 100K that allowed him to get into real estate in the first place.
You do realize this is ridiculously unrealistic for the majority of the population, right? Most people make their first 100k via inheritance or equity accrual from property.
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/most-americans-have-less-than-1000-in-savings-2015-10-06
I'm sure poor money management is in some way responsible for this low figure, but surely not all of it.
Why ask why ask why ask why ask why ask?..
What do you mean, what do you mean, what do you mean?..
Allegedly allegedly allegedly allegedly allegedly allegedly..
What do you mean, “allegedly”?
Why ask?
(missing punctuation marks)
Why is it unrealistic? Is it because "most Americans have less than $1000 in savings"?
That's not how you solve a question, nor how you think whether something is ridiculous or not. It's like me telling you that the Earth is flat because most people think so...
You have to start from basic principles and reason upwards. So, in this case, how much does it cost to live as, let's say, 1 person in the US? I'm talking about just survival here, so only healthcare, food, water and shelter.
I will await you to give me a number. Then we shall see whether it's possible for people to have much more than $1000 in savings.
There's also the question of what means do there exist in the US to earn money? Most people may have jobs for example - but is this the most efficient way to earn money that they have at their disposal, or do they simply not know any better, since the whole educational system has been gearing them towards this?
Quoting ProbablyTrue
It's not just poor money management. It's the fact that Americans love to spend and consume. Think of all the unnecessary goods - cigarettes, alcohol, etc.
In addition to that, it's also that most people don't actually spend a lot of time thinking about how it's best to make money. They just go do what others say - indeed most people live their lives following what others say. Few think for themselves. Now in this forum, I would expect all of you to think for yourselves. So I'm not going to talk to you like your average man or woman, because, as far as I'm concerned, at least in terms of brainpower, you're not average, so stop pretending.
Congrats, Posty. Such a Led Zeppelin moment right now.
[hide="Reveal"]
In a rushed manner :'O
Quoting Buxtebuddha
That is possible. One quick point I wanted to make is that the idea of "taking risk" isn't very accurate in terms of how wealth is created. Wealth isn't created by taking "risk" - if by risk you understand anything which, if it doesn't work out, will lead to financial ruin. Wealth is created by doing what Nassim Taleb recommends in one of 180 Proof's favorite books (The Black Swan) - minimising the downside while maximsing the upside.
So - to give you a basic financial example. A deal where I stand to lose 10% if it goes bad, but will win 10,000% if it goes well is a great deal (and doing that deal is not "risk", I mean give me a break :P ) . A deal where I stand to double my money or lose it - for example sports betting (in which I used to take part in, in @Sapientia's country, where I grew £10 in quite a bit, all tax free to the great happiness of Sappy who is more worried about taxing my business than taxing money made out of thin air in all the gambling houses of the nation) isn't a great deal.
Quoting Buxtebuddha
But they don't need surplus in their case, they need time to make money in other ways, apart from the minimum wage job. Time and encouragement.
Entrepreneurship is declining, especially amongst the poor, which is very worrying. People need to be encouraged, not foolishly, but they need to be encouraged to trust their thinking and think for themselves, not based on what mommy and daddy tell them (that being a metaphor for the rest of society).
This is what America needs. Watch the first one, the second one is the same but with more context:
What's your reasoning for this decision?
To do something I love doing, meaning philosophy. And, to be busy with something productive in my life rather than live on welfare. I know, I know, you want me to be my own boss or be an entrepreneur, but I have no marketable idea to patent or exploit.
That's good! Do you have a long-term plan for it, somewhere where you'd like to arrive at through studying philosophy? I mean is there some larger vision at work, or do you rather want to see how it goes and go from there?
Quoting Posty McPostface
Well being your own boss has to be integrated into a larger scheme of life. I think it would be good for you and your family if you were your own boss, at least in the longer term future. You could probably help many more people too. But philosophy is also part of that.
As for not having a marketable idea or patent... you can always do something useful for someone, starting small and scaling from there. For example, if you're good at marketing, you can market other people's products, help other people grow their business and so on so forth. And you can do that at the same time as college probably.
And don't get others to bring you down, University years are the best years.
Right?
I am not sure how it is around you but where I am, there are a bunch of bah humbugs rumbling through the stores. :-}
After all, you [I]say[/I] you're on the left... (And by that same logic, I must really be an owl).
I'm saying that I did not have have sexual relations with that woman.
Right?
I am not sure how it is around you but where I am, there are a bunch of bah humbugs rumbling through the stores. :-}[/quote]
I'll take that with a pinch of salt.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/opposition-protests-escalate-incumbent-president-slideshow-wp-210042275/photo-p-supporters-libre-alliance-presidential-photo-210042797.html
http://edition.cnn.com/2017/12/02/americas/honduras-unrest-post-election/index.html
https://www.yahoo.com/news/honduras-suspends-constitutional-guarantees-amid-election-unrest-041014669.html
Gubmuh hab!
Funny how it's so much harder to refrain from eating them all as an adult. As a kid, I never had a problem with waiting everyday, but now, these things barely last 3 days in the month.
Ah, that infamous moment when Bill Clinton revealed himself to be a Heideggerian.
Add a few slices of Salami and some stuffed olives, and you got yourself a feast.
Only if I get to mash it all together into a paste.
And here we can note the average's Anglo-Canadian culinary skills.
Bacteria enables positive affirmations for digestion, can live in terribly difficult conditions and so is a survivor, can also be useful is soy sauce, I mean the benefits are endless.
I have no fear.
It's called "Singapore Bird" and it was the pattern my mother had when we were kids.
I'm actually pleased to hear that I'm not the only one that just mashes fifty things into a paste and calls it food. I should have known that I didn't come up with it, I'm but a vessel.
I do make a mean soup, I don't count that as a paste. Though with those too I can never get enough ingredients in the pot, it's never big enough. I need like all the things in there. Baby potatoes are some good in soup.
Damn, sounds good. Sweet potatoes are also pretty good, though haven't had those in a while, I should get them.
The only other two things I've been told I make well are potato/macaroni salads, and cabbage rolls. I like to use both potato and rice bases in those.
My sister makes a mean apple crumble, and I was always getting her to do it, but it's a lot of work, so she hated it. Gotta peal like two bags of apples, though I pealed them a couple of times for her.
No you don't. Nobody has ever made a macaroni salad worth eating. Disgusting. Cold, wet, lumpy--and that's just its positive features.
I knew that I'd be the first to do something.
cheeses sliced, Just how big a batch of apple crumble was she making?
Here, Wosret: this just takes 1 apple.
1 cup of flour
1 1/2 t of baking powder
1 T butter (or a little more)
dash of salt
mix (work the butter into the flour with your fingers) into dry stuff
1/2 cup of milk and mix it in.
Meanwhile, back at the ranch
bring to a boil 1/2 cup of water
mix 1 T of flour into 1/2 Cup of sugar
pour mixture into boiling water--stir as you do so to avoid lumps
add butter
reduce heat, cook for just a few minutes until thick
add 1 t of vanilla
Still back at the ranch
peel and slice very thinly 1 apple
wash a handful of cranberries (pick out the soft ones and feed them to the birds or something)
Add the apples and cranberries to the dough, mix.
Turn out into a pie pan
sprinkle cinnamon and 2 or 3 T brown sugar on top
pour sugar mixture over apple/dough mix in pan
bake for 30 minutes, +/-, at 350
Well, there were six of us, and I require an unreasonable amount of apple crumble. I don't know why so many though, I didn't question the chef, one of the few that are to never be questioned.
https://cukermajster.si/mini-limetine-pite/
No -- because there is no such thing as a "wonderful" pasta salad. Pasta salads there are in abundance -- or in plague, really.
How dare you.
I make my own mayonnaise with the olive that I use to drench sundried tomatoes in so it has this really amazing taste, and after that is made, I crush basil, walnuts and pecorino into a pesto with cracked pepper and salt and add one teaspoon of this to four tablespoons of the mayo. I roast sliced red peppers, some shallots and cherry tomatoes drizzled in crushed garlic, balsamic vinegar and some olive oil in the oven for bit before tossing that through al dente conchiglie pasta, before adding a small amount of red kidney beans, tiny slices of the sundried tomatoes and some rocket leaves. Sounds like
a mess, but this salad makes my hardcore Sicilian neighbours blush.
>:O Multiple sources of evidence point to the conclusion that my politics with regards to economic issues are left-leaning (and it's not just that one test, there are multiple political compass tests that I've taken and all of them identify a slightly leftward basis you can check my profile - in addition, my politics are on the left with regards to a lot of economic activities very clearly, such as banking and financial speculation). You can either accept that fact or keep protesting against it, regardless of what you do, it ain't going to change it.
Do you mind if I write this down and use it against you? ;)
How would you propose to use it against me?
Your position on sexuality and sexual roles is consistent with mores ending around 1950 or 1960 in the US. Your views aren't technically conservative, considering no conservative still holds them. For that reason, I'd call them regressive.
Your views on economics are leftist to the extent you have disdain for what you generally consider a controlling and dehumanizing work environment. There are some Marxist elements to your views, although they are half-baked, sometimes arguing that the bourgeoisie are in control of the proletariat and that we should revolt against that slavery, although you don't use those terms, as it would be too revealing. Your solution to this problem, which is why I refer to it as half baked, is to be entrepreneurial. That solution leads me to believe that your real complaint isn't philosophical, but it's just you don't like being told what to do, you have a questionable work ethic, and you'd rather run a lemonade stand outside your house making an unsupportable living and complaining than you would getting a real job. I'd call your views here immature leftism, with the understanding that the word "immature" describes you personally, not your philosophical view.
I don't mean anything mean by this, but I'm not wrong, so I thought I'd say it.
Where all this falls on the graph, I don't know.
Agustino: "Wah, lefty mods made this terrible decision!"
Baden: "You can either accept that fact or keep protesting against it, regardless of what you do, it ain't going to change it."
(Y)
Apparently, you haven't heard of, for example, Mike Pence. But I know why, it's because you're not a conservative, you're a cuckservative - goes well with your servile nature I guess.
Quoting Hanover
Right, and being "too revealing" on a site full of leftists is bad. With that kind of logic, I'm sure that I won't come to you for legal advice.
Quoting Hanover
LOL >:O - if my work ethic is questionable Hanover, then you have never worked a day in your sorry life. I work harder in a day, than you work in 3, and that's almost guaranteed, since I literarily work almost non-stop. And you work what, 8 hours with Saturday and Sunday off? Pff, don't make me laugh. And you have the audacity to tell me about work ethic. You get off your butt and start working weekends perhaps it will help you lose some of those extra pounds of hunky lawyer meat.
Quoting Hanover
Apparently, Hanover, you're so smart you know my numbers better than I do. I will direct the government to your small law practice in Atlanta, there's no need for me to file taxes anymore, you already know the numbers better than I do. They should ask you and stop bothering me.
And by the way, I've never actually complained about anything, so I have no idea what you're talking about. Quite the contrary.
Quoting Hanover
Says the lawyer with a big ego. If you're so smart, you would realise that people like you have work because of people like me and not the other way around. I don't actually need people like you - if there's no government, I can still make money, because I do stuff that's actually useful in people's lives. If there's no government, you'd be out of business in no time. You're an auxiliary when it comes to the needs of this world, doing more harm than good by on purpose fighting to introduce thicker and more complicated regulation so that you have more work.
It's funny to see you have this attitude. The difference between me and you is one of character. If I was the king of the world, you'd bow down your head to me in no time, and forget that you ever said anything bad about me. I can almost see you - you'd come crawling on your knees asking for favours and throwing praise. If you were the king of the world, on the other hand, I wouldn't even give you a second glance. That's the difference between us - I have character, and you don't. You're just a 40-50 year old limerick who comes here to write nonsense and has done very little for anyone, philosophically or otherwise. So that's my final comment to your sorry self. Go find a better hobby than insulting random people you know nothing about, and take a long hard look in the mirror.
Imagine, you're so smart you would have told Schwarzenneger to get a job :B - best advice ever, coming from a great lawyer. Good that people like Schwarzenneger never listen to the naysayers.
Anywho, finish up with each pork chop and cook it like the box says or a little longer to be sure they're good and cooked and not slimy and shit.
Serve with mashed potato mixed up with water and a sack of frozen peas and carrots heated to a pot over-flowing boil that you gotta run up to and turn down real quick. Water'd be fine to drink with all this stuff. Maybe a Little Debbie snack treat for dessert while you clean the plates in the sink.
Bon apetite!
Since the 2008 financial crash, no one's politics, wherever they fall on the political spectrum, is supportive of banking and financial speculation. At least not openly. So that's not a very good way of attempting to distinguish your position from others.
I mean, can you imagine if someone came on Question Time and declared that what we need is more banking and financial speculation, of the kind that got us into such a big mess in the first place?
Yep. Ask The Mootch.
If by "ask", you mean "assassinate"...
CEOs agree: Corporate tax cuts won't trickle down
So remind me; what's so great about this tax bill?
And you're wrong about:
Quoting Sapientia
My position isn't anywhere near what capitalism advocates to this day, which is the continuance of private banking and financial speculation. Hedge funds are doing better than ever.
Anyone game?
Ethereum is at it's 5th (or 6th?) big hack n' steal in the last 4 months. And that's pretty much the only one you can farm reliably with low-end investment (just a bunch of GCU hooked togheter). With Bitcoins, a dedicated machine such as an AntMiner is gonna cost you (entry price) around $300 and will generate less than $5 per months.
There are ways to make it profitable (in a bubble), but they are predicated around access to very (almost free) cheap electricity. China often subsidize 100% of the electricity costs of Bitcoin farming, which means that it is almost impossible to compete.
Funnily enough, there is no possible way for China to ever recoup the money invested. Unless they figured out how to turn virtual bitcoins into gold.
I will let you know how Ethereum works out. Right now there is no risk in mining.
Well that's not exactly true. The biggest risk is that you'll never be able to recoup your initial investment. I calculated a few months back when Ethereum was getting big. To guarantee a mine rate of 1/day, you'd have to invest in about 20-25 high end ($900 and more) GCU. Back then, one Ether was $330, so you could recoup your investment pretty well as long as you had a decent starting investment.
The problem is that those Ether must stay somewhere. Wallets are hackable. Blockchains can be corrupted. All of a sudden your virtual wallet that contained $750 000 contains 0 simply because the chain allowed an incorrect block to be added 3000 units back.
Such a great show.
Damn. I was supposed to do something else tonight than binge watch ST for a 4th time.
Oh well.
Another problem is that so many people have gotten into mining that graphics cards are in high demand making that initial investment far greater. A coworker of mine says he makes about ~300USD a month mining Ether. He's not investing any more money into it though. He thinks it'll bust soon.
If your mining, there is no initial investment except for the electricity that it takes to run high end GCU's doing the mining. If those are already in place then the only real risk is losing what you have accumulated by mining.
Quoting Akanthinos
Which came first? Cryptocurrency or Cryptolocks? One gave birth to the other, correct?
As I understand it, the beauty of the Ether is that as it is moved through so many nodes, that each and every node provides an essential backup of every transaction. So to try to manipulate it is possible but it is growing stronger each day.
But let me ask you: would you rather take a risk on a world wide currency or one that is backed by the gold bullion that the USA has....or had....wait what is the USA dollar backed by again?
I thought blockchains can only be corrupted if one party calculates more than 50% of the blockchain? Wallets aren't hackable per se, it's when you have another party maintain your wallet for you or at bitcoin exchanges that it can go wrong. Currently, cryptocurrencies aren't very mature yet but I suspect these thefts/hacks will diminish as it matures over time.
Random web comment.
On the other hand, last time I looked there was a sodding great pyramid printed on the dollar bill too.
The “President cannot obstruct justice because he is the chief law enforcement officer under [the Constitution’s Article II] and has every right to express his view of any case”.
[quote=Nixon]Well, when the president does it, that means it is not illegal.[/quote]
Yet this conflicts with the constitutional principle that no person can be above the law.
The Mediterranean Diet Vs. The American Diet. Or should I say, the Nutritious and Tasty Diet Vs.the Heart Disease and Thunder Thighs Diet?
I did that once without a condom and boy did I regret it 9 months later when I had to repeat the whole bludgeoning thing all over again.
Whatever. My svelte American figure:
Aww guy, I didn't even see that last part coming.
Dead babies, why did it have to be dead babies? Everyone just knows that dead babies are the worst thing, that's why child sacrifice is always what devil worshipers and all of Rome's enemies were super into it. (Also pessimists sometimes want to rid the world of all babies everywhere forever, which surely isn't often an extreme claimed against anyone, because who would believe that anyone would be that comic book super villain like?)
Personally I am more of a naturalist, so as long as none of it goes to waste.
Remember what my abdomen looked like compared to my hand? Hopefully you just make Trump feel secure about his giant hands.
Seriously though, good show in being willing to show off.
Well, maybe "corrupted" isn't the right word, but it happens also when an hash that shouldn't have been added to the blockchain is retroactively discovered to be invalid, which has happened in the past. At that point, all transactions following the addition of that block to that chain must be erased up to the nearest fork. Or you must separate the chains into two different databases.
Not only that, but you'll burn your GCUs a lot faster by having them constantly run high-end mining algorithms than by occasionally playing Skyrim. It'd be surprised if a card could run an entire year non stop without melting down.
No, it's too uncertain now. I had a friend who informed me about this opportunity in May, that would have been a great time to buy. I was sketchy about it, partly because I was looking to invest the money in my own business, not in something I had no control over. But it would have been a great "investment" if I had made it back then. This is the current growth of Bitcoin, around a x10 growth.
We've seen that once before in its history, and this is what happened.
So be very careful. I personally wouldn't touch it, but I'm really a "control" person, and not a "risk" person. Personally, if I had Bitcoin, I'd be selling them now.
PS: @Sapientia hates this stuff :P
We did the exact same thing by reinvesting in our own company but are now kicking ourselves for not investing it. So come back around to Ethereum and the same is being presented, only this time with mining as the discussion, rather than the cash investment that bit coin would have required.
As a side note? My brother was offered stock in a shoe company for $5.00 a share way back in the day and my parents said absolutely not and they held his savings. It turns out that it was getting in on the ground floor of Reebok. Ohh for the days....wait maybe Ethereum is worthy?
I never take risks with money I don't have to lose which makes me a buzzkill in Vegas but who knows about Ethereum, it is possible that the house (banking system) will be on the losing side this time.
Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn.
You live in Alberta, right? Never understood why everyone there put motivational posters everywhere. X-)
I'd guess for motivation.
Does it work? I mean, do you really need a picture saying that home is where the heart is at, to know that the home is where the heart is at?
Just like tying string around the finger, sometimes I think you do.
Nothing, as far as I know. Forex traders determine the value as in any market: your money is worth however much foreign money someone is willing to trade it for.
With season 1 they did a great job capturing an 80s feel.
Africa
Should I Stay or Should I Go
Whip It
Runaway
Time After Time
Rock You Like a Hurricane
We were just binge'ing Dark the other day, which have some similarities.
It does have a sort of darker feel to it.
I'm thinking they could have done a bit more to portray the 3 periods in time the events take place.
Oh, it did have
I Ran (So Far Away)
:D
I was contemplating investing in BTC around when it first popped up; but, held off due to concerns about the amount I was willing to invest and the issues surrounding security and theft of coins. Would have been a multi-millionaire by now, oh well.
You are a total legend, JD! I am going to have the best train ride home, methinks (Y)
>:O how does that make you feel?
I'd say it's that easy that it is very likely that woman is telling the truth. Why don't the republicans care about having a paedophile in their ranks? It's pretty sick.
Quoting Benkei
What.
Edit: I'm working on the assumption of course that if you prove he lied about one, he probably lied about them all.
Little butthurt, lol! :P
Don't worry, at least you escaped from having @Sapientia run after you to get your millions with his pitchfork X-)
Could you please give an example of a non-voluntary attraction in regards to paedophilia /pedophilia?
Those are two different kinds of love, of course?
Are you being facetious?
Pedophilia is the sexual attraction to children, whereas child molestation is the crime. There are many pedophiles who never act on their desires.
Damn. I wasn't thinking straight and was just focusing on the non-voluntary part. An adult man or woman being attracted to a child isn't an issue in itself and non-voluntary, after all, we don't choose who we find attractive.
Obviously no. See above. :(
I had no idea that this was even possible. How does someone get the label of a pedophile then if they are only thoughts and not action?
They either admit to their attraction (and often seek psychiatric help) or they never get labelled a pedophile, even though they are.
If all attraction is non-voluntary, that means that a pedophile has not actively chosen to be sexually attracted to children, right?
I have never thought that logic all the way through. So is a pedophile's sexual attraction to children, the the same as my sexual attraction to Fire Fighters, except that one is legal and one is not?
Sexual attraction to children isn't illegal. Sexual activity with a child is illegal.
Disgusting
Fair enough. So is a pedophile's sexual attraction to children, the same as my sexual attraction to Fire Fighters?
omg ...... they leave me speechless when I run into them shopping....I literally get weak in the knees...which gets me closer to the ground where on my knees I could bow to them...for they are so worthy.
Yes, YES, in the form of a Fire Fighter!
Where is my wagging tongue emoticon?
None? The body's physiological response to visual stimulation isn't really something we have much control over – at least not without professional psychiatric help, in some cases (e.g. phobias).
I can't choose to be gay, or to be a pedophile, and nor can someone who's gay choose to be straight, or someone who's a pedophile choose not to be.
I feel horrible because all this time I have been consciously convicting someone of having such a perverse thought of children with being not just a pedophile but more of a child molester. When in all reality the only difference between myself and a pedophile is our focus of attraction.
It's a common thing, which I believe is why so few pedophiles seek psychiatric help. They're terrified of the stigma. I think there was a documentary on it here in the UK recently.
I would assume that Tiff's attraction is to young hoses with male adapters at the end to connect to female hoses. Either that or she's really into dalmations. Cruella Deville.
What a horrible secret to have to deal with alone. I actually feel sympathetic towards the pedophile now. Is that as odd to read, as it is to type?
One confirmation of a bunny in your bedside drawer a decade ago and the whispers of bestiality will never go away. :-}
@ArguingWAristotleTiff, ever had an urge to get into a fistfight with a colleague or a homophobe on a bus or whatever? For the most part people don't actually act on it, but takes a more tempered (or reasoned) approach.
Pedophiles typically have involuntary sexual urges towards children, much like what you describe for other (sexual) urges. The moment they act on it, it's a crime, but not until then, though. It can be difficult getting them help due to the prevalent stigma @Michael mentioned. :(
Others have obsessive-compulsive disorders (maybe excessive attention to the number 13 or washing hands several times an hour or something).
Ain't always easy being alive.
(Y) I can't be held responsible for any earworms though. :D
I have something like that. There's a particular routine I have to do before going to bed (checking taps and heating and the doors), and if I'm interrupted I have to start again.
If I've been cooking, I tend to check the stove+oven is off a few times before turning in.
@Bitter Crank - I don't actually claim to lean VERY STRONGLY left. Just that I do lean left, pretty much exactly as my political compass on my profile indicates.
And it also depends on what you understand by "left". I'm certainly not a communist type of left person. And I'm also not on the left because I'm a lazy bum or anything of that sort despite what some people think ( :-} ).
But I'm on the left in the sense that I do believe in free healthcare for all, in not being allowed to access better healthcare just cause you have more money, in equal opportunity to access schooling and education for all, in environmental protection, in local market protectionism, in government support for museums, art, and other cultural spheres, in nationalising banking, in outlawing financial speculation especially with regards to derivatives and options trading, in limiting the influence of multinational corporations, in support programs for those in need who cannot care for themselves, higher taxes for gambling, etc.
So I'm actually curious why me being slightly on the left seems surprising to you?
Probably cause I'm very much pro-business and pro-ownership and the wide distribution of ownership and property. Well yeah, that goes perfectly with distributism. But I will let you answer, I'm curious what you're thinking.
Church of England?
What's that? Church of England?
No one would take you for a hard line communist, or even a fuzzy, cushioned, soft-line communist. Your evidence of leftward leaning points towards European democratic socialism. In the United States, European democratic socialism is viewed as one of the fire-breathing dragons of communism -- by the religious right and entrepreneurial types.
The United States has had a very strong conservative, pro-business, pro-entrepreneurial political strata for a long time. What it is missing in the current century is the liberal wing of the Republican Party -- the so-called Rockefeller Republicans who were personified by Nelson Rockefeller. They were socially liberal, fiscally conservative. They started getting washed out of the Republic Party quite some time ago, and by the time of Ronald Reagan were pretty much gone.
So, by American standards, you are radically leftist, but by European standards, merely centrist. So, there's a difference in perspective here.
There used to be religious leftists. Among the leading figures of religious leftism would be Dorothy Day, founder of the Catholic Worker, the Kerrigan priest-brothers, Rev. M. L. King, the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, Quakers, and various others. A lot of these people are dead (old age), and their supporting organizations have receded. There are not too many, these days.
Dorothy Day, for example, was quite orthodox in her religious faith, solidly leftist (communist party in in the 1930s) and was a longtime peace activist and social critic.
Quoting Bitter Crank
It is true that nowadays most people on the left do not hold conservative religious positions. However, is that because there is something that makes religious/social conservatism inherently, or in principle, anti-left? Or is it merely because people on the left simply don't happen to be religious on average?
Quoting Bitter Crank
I will concede this one. As I said, I'm definitely not a communist, nor approve of communism.
Quoting Bitter Crank
But is the left subsumed by communism? Why is communism the only "left" system? Dorothy Day was a distributist for example, an ideology that she found expressed most closely by communist organizations at that time.
Quoting Bitter Crank
>:O yeah, but I don't really understand why.
We pretty much have complete control in general terms. A boner never forced anyone to do anything. But that boner is a sneaky little beast, with his own reasons and rhymes.
So yes, most of male attraction is involontary. That's something most women I've been with seem to have had problems understanding, so perhaps femal attraction is much more volontary.
It must be absolutely terrible to be a pedophile with the sense to see that your pulsions are as monstrous as they really are. Suicidal thoughts would be the natural follow-up. :s
I am the woman that you speak of because I can understand what you are saying but to be the receiver of an involuntary attraction is actually a really odd thing to comprehend. As a woman, we have many issues to deal with in the sexual arena but having my nipples suddenly become uncontrollably hard, at the sight of a Fire Fighter has never led me astray. Why do males think of their boner as a sneaky little beast? It makes it sound like not only does it think on it's own but it acts (not against another) on it's own. Is that really what it is like?
Quoting Akanthinos
What you say is a likely route to take but there must be a way, that we as a society can help bring the healthy pedophile back into the folds of society that we wrongly shunned them from, IF their ideas remain in thought and not action.
Tis me jorn~ I have OCD but I have grown to work with it, spot it faster and make light of it and those around me seem to find a common ground with some of my OCD habits. I don't advertise it but as soon as someone says they have OCD, I let them know they are in good company. ;)
Ol' Freddy had issues. I don't think anyone scores higher on the OCD scale than that guy.
~swoons (L)
At least it was a good cause. Or not?
See New Thread, Communism, Socialism, Distributivism, Capitalism, & Christianity
A stiff prick has no ethics.
Quoting ArguingWAristotleTiff
Ahhh, she's into uniforms. Soldiers, firemen, cops sailors, probably the UPS delivery guy...
Are boots part of it? Into boots?
The first letter always capitalised? Reads like an advertisement? >:)
Oh yes, did that take a lot of hard thinking Mike? :B
http://www.kirkcenter.org/detail/what-are-american-traditions
Less than the amount needed to make sense of and justify a belief in transubstantiation.
Well done, you've now graduated first grade! Time to move onto the second grade 8-)
Who gave you permission to intrude over here? :-} :D
Sorry, just trying to help. I'll leave y'all to it then.
Haha I was just joking :P
I know. If you weren't I would have banned you.
Oh really? For what reason? >:) Have you modified the guidelines to say that negative remarks about our dear leader Baden aren't allowed? You made yourself part of the constitution like Xi Jinping?
Oh, we only think up reasons after the bannings. Give us a minute. (Y)
I can't even answer that or I may be banned from China. :-O
He should be careful, considering the severe burn I just gave.
Or maybe Baden is planning to transubstantiate Agustino into ash?
>:O Do you live in China? I thought you lived in Thailand for some reason?
Moving back to Thailand soon. (Y)
No, that's Hanover. I will transubstantiate him into wine and drink deep of his wisdom.
I want to transubstantiate him into whitepot pudding.
Tradition: a. The word “tradition” has several usages, of which the two most important, in our time, are these: (1) a belief or body of beliefs handed down from age to age by oral communication; (2) a custom handed down from one age to another, acquiring by prescription and frequent verifications almost the force of law and truth.
And it also has a secondary definition as all words in this dicktionary do reading:
b. Thou shalt not question the definitions of The Complete Dicktionary Of All English And Non-English Words The Agustino Version, which shall rule over all the dicktionaries of the earth :B
With the emoticon, yes.
Hmmm... you may be right about the uniforms because I admittedly have hugged more Police Officers than I have negative interactions with them...I cannot say that I have had anything other than positive interactions with them but I am a "Yes Sir, No Sir" lady with hands at 10 and 2 if I am ever pulled over.
Soldiers as well, I have hugged many soldiers both serving and Veterans and have nothing but positive to say about it.
Sailors...now I do question their intentions as the whole role play of Pirate and Cabin Wench never really did anything for me. But a sailor in Uniform, hands behind his back...yeah I could enjoy that.
UPS or Fed Ex guys were enjoyable when I was working outside of the ranch but now, the Rotties have let it be known that the end of the walkway leading up to the front door will be considered "delivered" just fine.
But the Fire Fighters have my full attention hands down. They wear the most hideous outfits, hardly body hugging, bright yellow with duct tape at the ankles BUT they are the one source of help, that you can call and they will come without question, ready to help and arrive without a firearm. (L)
Now, Dixie. What have I said about fibbing?
You said that it's your favorite practice of the day and of the night Ms. Teacher :B
<
Have you been trained in banging there? :B
You're hilarious! If the page wasn't updated before I read it, then I didn't misread it. I didn't misread it, you miswrote it. That's your fault, not mine.
Okay, my apologies, but it was fixed in the meantime. So please respond to the intended argument and be charitable :B
Do you have any requests of something I can bring with me to your place that you might only be able to find in the states? I hear they let Lizards on the planes as therapy pets (Y)
Rotflmao from one cook to another, you ain't missing nothing. The first indicator is wetting the pork chops with water instead of milk regardless of what the package says. Maybe Hanover could come with for cooking lessons from you? :D
I suggest hamburger helper, spray cheese, tater tots, and twinkies.
Oh my, my Mother In law would throw all that away, not even feeding it to the dogs. Maybe you can influence her?
What do you suggest?
For reference: the use of beef broth to flavor water to cook rice caused her stomach pains all night as it was too rough on her system. :-O
Mixing meat and dairy isn't kosher, don't corrupt him further.
Jokes aside, I'm surprised how presidential Trump has been. I think most people thought he'd be a lot more crass and disrespectful than he has been. Is nice to see him giving respect, here.
This is more unbelievable than wine turning into blood.
Me to Jesuit priest friend: "Bertrand Russell says that people who believe in transubstantiation are ready to believe in anything."
Jesuit priest friend: "Exactly."
Yes it is. Many Americans think that Catholicism is peculiar.
It sounds like the dogs have gotten out of hand, again.
I asked this question earlier, but no one saw fit to respond, as usual. Why isn't it kosher to make chicken with a milk sauce, since chickens don't feed their young on milk? I can see why creamed chipped beef on toast (aka shit on a shingle) is not kosher, since cows feed their young on their own milk. Is dipping raw chicken in egg before rolling in crumbs prior to frying kosher?
Maybe you two can straighten this out after you get done with transubstantiation (or Lutheran consubstantiation).
It is because it's weird because of the relationships of the animals, or because it may actually be bad for you?
https://www.livestrong.com/article/379714-is-eating-meat-and-cheese-together-healthy/
Did you hear that cracked laid off all the media employees? No more videos :(
An admin blamed the parent company, saying that online media in general is in trouble, and things may be changing abruptly with respect to it in general, as profits are evaporating.
Yeah, apparently a bunch of them pre-emptively quit. Soren got a job writing for American Dad now, if rumors are right.
I was sad enough to see Jack go, he was great. I really wish that they would as well... I always watch their daily videos. I'll most assuredly miss them.
Is today Friday? >:O
Perhaps because one state influences more the mind of the male experiencing it than the female equivalent. Both boner and hardened nipples are involuntary reactions, so I can understand why you would think of one and another to compare. Perhaps, however, the boner comes with a more heavy cocktail of hormones, and those explains why it seems so much that for men, as said, that "a stiff prick doesn't have ethics".
Hormones can change the world. For me, the most obvious is when I wake up next to a women. It is absolutely impossible, however much a lady put works into her looks, that I will find her more attractive at any other time. And obviously it's about the time where we look at our worst, but my head is so full of whatever it if full of, that I cannot see any flaws.
Plus, hardened nipples can put a women in a thight spot, but it's hard to imagine a female-equivalent to the daddy-gets-a-hard-one-dancing-with-his-daughter-at-her-prom scenario. Yeah, it's likely some of those dads were complete creeps, but it's also likely a good part were as mortified by themselves as their girls.
Wtf? TMI. Really dude, that's not a thing. That's you. I just vomited in my mouth.
We're a frugal lot. Drinks from Tesco are much cheaper than at the club.
Lol. I have no kid, no worries. Anyway, that was a Degrassi thing, if I remember right.
Impossible, most of my recipes contain sugar and you well know Hanover and sugar are not compatible. When was it, sometime not too long ago at that child's party where he locked his gaze on the fairy bread, those delightful and buttery triangles sprinkled with a rainbow of sweet, edible goodness before moments later tackling a five year old boy like a quarterback, grabbing the plate of fairy bread and running off cackling deliriously only to be found several hours later lying naked on a tree. No, I think for the interest of public safety, we'll let him continue feasting on unpalatable processed foods.
I might be delayed a bit as I stand by the Fire Fighters and make sure that they get him safely out of the tree. I will be sure to casually remind them that a calendar of them at work, without their shirts on, would be a great revenue generator. 8-)
A good looking man can never be too naked.
Bloody hell, my self image, man. Now I really gotta get that gym membership. >:o
Makes me feel better about myself, lol.
Well we can't all be that perfect, or at least, not without effort, Mister-Million-Dollard-Glutes-Muscles. :P
Is lordosis really hot on a dude?
Of course! After all, it's a prime trait for selection!
"As such, lordosis in the human spine is considered one of the primary physiological adaptations of the human skeleton that allows for human gait to be as energetically efficient as it is."
-wiki
That's just the most clear and obvious thing, that should be easily seen by everyone, I notice other things which would be less obvious, and more controversial.
No. Lordosis is normal inward curvature. You mean hyperlordosis. Lordosis is one of the reasons why human mouvement is more efficient than the gait-based mouvement of other primates.
Here is some visual aid for you. https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRoQHsdtqj5Cp1w_DxFNsRTiJtT8TizlhDDDM8pQmjJcRXJ1xlx
https://www.spineuniverse.com/conditions/spinal-disorders/closer-look-lordosis
Question for you two:
[hide="Reveal"]Who here suffers from Peyronie's Disease?[/hide]
But the irony is that you are an Eastern Orthodox Christian, whereas I would be a smart Christian.
That describes hyperlordosis. I guess lordosis is an accepted term for the hyperlordotic disorder. That's fine, it also has other meanings.
"Lordosis refers to the normal inward lordotic curvature of the lumbar and cervical regions of the human spine.[1] The normal outward (convex) curvature in the thoracic and sacral regions is termed kyphosis or kyphotic. The term comes from the Greek lord?sis, from lordos ("bent backward").[2]
Lordosis in the human spine makes it easier for humans to bring the bulk of their mass over the pelvis. This allows for a much more efficient walking gait than that of other primates, whose inflexible spines cause them to resort to an inefficient forward leaning "bent-knee, bent-waist" gait. As such, lordosis in the human spine is considered one of the primary physiological adaptations of the human skeleton that allows for human gait to be as energetically efficient as it is.[3]
Lower spine disorders occur when lumbar lordosis is excessive (lumbar hyperlordosis), minimal, or reversed into lumbar kyphosis. Lumbar hyperlordosis is commonly called hollow back or saddle back (after a similar condition that affects some horses). These conditions are usually a result of poor posture and can often be reversed by learning correct posture and using appropriate exercises.[4]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lordosis
Lordosis also refers to a type of sexual behaviour present in mammals, the fact that quadruped mammal females communicate sexual receptivity through the lowering of the front limbs and the arching of the back (also called 'presenting'). For biped mammals which have a strong gait structure, that's more or less impossible, and useless. For hominid bipeds, presenting is a secondary sexual signaling system in both males and females, because it enhance the definition of sexually relevant features like the glutes in females, and the T-like structure of shoulders-and-abdomen in males.
So yeah, you could say most people find lordosis attractive. You could even say that hyperlordosis might be also attractive, in the way that hyper-exaggerated sexual features can be found attractive.
Not me. Too young anyway.
You might want to re-think this.
A rose by any other name.
I don't get what you see as 'attractive' in the exaggerated inward curve of the lower back. Granted, the normal spine is not ramrod straight, but there should only be a normal curve -- not a drastic curvature. I suppose if you are fixated on gluteus maxima, anything that makes them more prominent would be desirable. How about causing edema in the derrière -- that would make it bigger. So would cellulitis, a big tumor, (both sides, matched, please), and so on. You don't want to come off like a mouth breather with thoracic kyphosis
Well, you chose a complete sideway slide for comparison, which has for effect to erase our ability to gauge the shoulder-to-abdomen ratio. Turn each of those models 30 degrees one side or the other, and suddenly Mr numeros 2 looks a lot less dumb, while Mr numeros 4 looks a lot more like a psychopath. If Mr numeros 2 would only draw one of his leg backward, it would already help offset the apparent disbalance a bit.
Anyway, I see a lot of women with type 2 posture that I wouldn't quite call unattractive.
(Y)
Transubstantiation is still really esoteric, though.
Well said. If only materialists could wrap their heads around this concept. Belief is as funny a thing for the theist as it is for the atheist.
Oooh it's something that the poor white knight could not find in his POMO books hmmm X-)
You are as convinced as Mike is about making some easy money trading Bitcoins >:) >:O >:O >:O
Hey there, young tulip. Kindly note my quote of T Clark for the proper context of my comment.
I did kindly take note of it, young lad. T Clark makes no mention of materialism >:)
Yet it's clearly implied. I'll let T Clark correct me if I'm mistaken.
Right X-) - it's implied there but not visible... I see X-)
Do you?
Because you've been given actual reasons.
You're funny. Obviously, those actual reasons aren't good enough.
This was too much for you:
Quoting Agustino
You must have been like :OOOOOOOOOOO - what will I say now? :’( (Y)
Mystical experiences are found to be discussed in many respectable books, some not written by adherents to religions. Would you like a book list perhaps?
You're being unfair to respectable books.
You're being unfair to irespectable books.
As respectable as the POMO books you read all the time? You mean those books that no one's ever heard of? X-)
Dude, I was just suggesting that having your point of view confirmed by mumbo jumbo is not that great a recommendation, though highly appropriate to a shout box.
Has anyone considered that God is actually married to Mother Nature? O:)
Mother Nature is showing her might the world over, especially in my neighbors state of California in the form of fire and then will come the rains that bring the floods. (N)
Has my Mother In law arrived safely? We haven't heard from her so my guess is she is being looked after quite well by you.
We are planning a trip, actually a move, a relocation if you will. I will send you her return address when we find it.
Thanks for everything! You are a doll! (L)
I am so pleased to hear she is doing well! (Y)
He may have been married back in Old Testament times. He was cranky, vindictive, and mean. They must have broken up after she found out Mary was having his kid. That's why Christian doctrine is so much nicer after Jesus was born.
Especially since you are replying to yourself. :P
I find that I almost always agree with myself, although I am a believer in Emerson's sentiment about consistency.
I revised my post to correct a quotation error.
I can't figure out how to link back to my own post. How do I do it?
More likely than indigestion, right?
If you think about it, every little thing is actually spooky. The only reason why we don't find it spooky is because we're so used to seeing it. So familiarity makes us take it for granted.
Do they ever do anything else than bitch (poorly) about postmodernism?
I don't think the placebo effect is spooky at all. I have been thinking that it is related to awareness. For some bodily issues, becoming more aware of your body, how it feels, the effects of other actions on it, is an effective method of treatment. Seems to me, in my ignnorance, that is the basis for a lot of eastern medicine. The west has one little idea. The east has a whole body of knowledge.
As I said, these are just preliminary thoughts. I'm not ready to defend them in any depth. If you guys will jump on my ideas and pound me, maybe I'll learn something.
While it is a far cry from sexual advances or sexual molestation, it is body contact that is about to happen or not happen. While I have always opened up my arms to a hug and occasionally been offered a handshake, I have to believe that those who took me up on my offer of a hug, did so knowingly and willingly.
Cause man if huggss were considered sexual assault of harassment? Flog me in the town square today!
Oh my...hugs are just a tip of the iceberg of what would preclude me from running for Congress.
Yes, if it is repeated despite expressed refusal, it could be considered harassment.
It couldn't be sexual assault unless you knew that the person you were about to hug was very very uncomfortable with physical contact. Assault requires harm or intent of harm, or some form of viciousness involved.
I am so glad I have asked and gotten verbal consent each time I offer a hugg especially with the Police officers and Veterans because both are likely armed. (Y)
As I've gotten older and more mellow, I have become more and more of a hugger. As a man, I'm pretty good at telling when a woman will think it's acceptable for me to hug them. I have run into men who were obviously uncomfortable when I did. Now, when I'm not sure, I open my arms and say "may I?" Usually, they laugh and say sure.
So you'd agree that saying 'I have a mouthful of wafer' is the same thing as saying 'I have a mouthful of Jesus'?
When's your messiah due anyway? I hope you have a mouth full of bacon on a Saturday on the way to work when they arrive.
The problem is like this: Your messiah has to be better than you, so that's why the gentiles had to go get a Jewish guy because Jews are better than gentiles. For there to now be a Jewish messiah, we'd have to get something better than Jews, and there's really not anything better than Jews except ninjas and they're like super hard to find. So, it's not like we're not trying to get a messiah, it's just way hard, so lay off.
Well, none of that would prevent Hanover from entering the Kingdom of God in the Ends of Time. He could even die on a Saturday on his way to work while chomping on bacon-bits covered lamb cooked in the milk of it's mother and he wouldn't necessarily see Hell.
Ah, sorry, didn't know you were Jewish.
Clearly you haven't been wearing your little hat. I do agree that ninjas can be hard to find.
I want him to feel comically awkward, not to suffer and burn for eternity.
Well, I'm sure if anyone could pull both off with grace and charm, that would be Hanover. O:)
Can someone write me a poem with all these rhymes?
"Cracker" is used as a derogatory term in the US for poor Southerners. It often includes an implication that they are racist.
Wait. I've just realised how funny that is. How can I answer that without first entertaining the idea? >:O
Aren't you supposed to put one of those dumbass smiley faces on a message when you are being ironic. I never do, but that's because my religion tells me its wrong.
It's a good thing they don't ban people for dumbass philosophy. @Bitter Crank and I would be the only ones left. But then I would ban him or he would ban me, and that would be that.
Come off it. You can barely even focus on the philosophy. You're too busy playing the man.
I don't have a dog in this doctrinal fight.
Flannery O'Connor, the southern fiction writer and strict Catholic, said about the Eucharist:
Yeah! Damn that First Amendment.
Thou shalt not challenge the all mighty Google. That would be blasphemy.
__//|\\__
How dare you insult my mysterious steed!
What happened with the crack pipe? X-) :P
You disagree?
Why is it relevant if I agree or disagree? I personally find the statement unenlightening and boring to be honest, so I don't really have an impression on it, whether that would be to agree or disagree for that matter.
So you didn't get the joke, then?
I'm not sure man, you know... I was looking for enlightenment not jokes :P
So you didn't get the joke, then?
Probably not, but I don't see what difference it makes.
“Martha, Martha,” the Lord answered, “you are worried and upset about many things, but few things are needed—or indeed only one. Mary has chosen what is better, and it will not be taken away from her.” -Luke 10:41-42
Hurr Hurr, lol I'm StreetlightX and I can't even tie my shoes, hurr hurr.
Because it turns the subjective self on top of itself. Hehe.
Oh! (T Clark hits his forehead with the heel of his hand) why didn't I think of that. You were right all along.
I watched the first season and enjoyed it, but I haven't been able to get myself back in the right mindset to watch more.
Really? Me and housies just finished season two of Stranger Things last night, definitely not as good as the first though. Alright, next one appears to be Mr. Robot then methinks?
You never saw my navel; it was your sister's butt. As swift as the Anglo-Zanzibar War. *files nails.
So here's the thing. I'm not talking to my sister right now because of the Thanksgiving "incident," and it's pretty fucking low you throwing that in my face and reminding me of her sweet loins that culminate into that perfectly drum tight butt.
Jeez, you nearly busted a vein when I only referenced daddy/daughter issues, but now you go all wincest on us? Them double standards.
Your glorious inability for sophistication aside, you decide to eat Australian steak during Thanksgiving after you rolled off your sister and wonder why she is not talking to you. It's Turkey, damn it. Turkey during Thanksgiving.
:-O
Is Stephanie Corneliussen still as deliciously evil and hot as in the 2nd season?
uhhh....[spoilers!]
Dude, you've just put in my head the idea that she dies this season.
If she dies this season, I will hold you responsible. You will feel the full extent of my wrath.
(incidentally, The Full Extent of My Wrath is also the name of my penis. But that's unrelated)
I was with you up to that point. I know Atlanta exists, and yes, it is a hellscape, a seperate, nightmarish reality. :P
I was about to edit and there you are all speedy Gonzales. Atlantis!
From a pathological, patently absurd artist/mystic to a dry, "inarticulate" engineer: (Y) keep it up.
I can't tell someone I agree with them?
:-d
Sorry, I fell asleep; what?
Got it.
I dunno, what kind of moment?
Is that some sort of misplaced Freudian metaphor?
No? Why were you petrified at first?
That's relatable. I certainly didn't mean to evoke those feelings. Groomy and groovy are pretty much the same thing though, regardless of gender norms. Anything that involves buying shit is progressive, as far as I'm concerned.
You're starting to get to know me! (record response time, btw, wow)
I'm not overjoyed at being a killjoy; I'm just happy you're starting to get to know me. You probably are not happy about that though; most aren't. There's certainly a paradox involved in being happy about one's ability to damper bullshit with reality, though. Just off the top of my head.
"Pure undistorted truth burns up the world." - Nikolai Berdyaev
What is a pathological mystic?
Tell you why I made a joke using those terms?
No.
What question?? I'm totally lost because I'm clueless.
Ah, I see. You are showing me an example of mysticism. Makes sense!
Exactly! Mystics like myself are just chaff blowing in the wind! Finally I've made you see.
lol wut
But way more than one person has had a mystical experience. (Hey there! Now I'm back to making real arguments).
Anyway, off to bed, I can barely keep my eyes open. :-d
I am sorry, it is one thing to be in the heat of a fight and say someone is acting like an asshole but just as a way to refer to a loved one? That is not my style. Not only is it not my style but how absolutely degrading to him. Oh my, when I got home I told NicK that if he ever were to say to another person, you can call her Tiff or Bitch she answers to both? It would be a deal breaker. >:O
Atlanta and Aryans actually do exist, although I'll admit that most Alantans are not Aryan.
>:O >:O >:O
>:O >:O
I am placing my name in line for my turn in The Philosophy Forum confessional as I can see Sunday mornings are going to be a busy place for a while.
Well, if there's going to be snow, then it's not unusual for there to be snow around this time of year. According to statistics, on average, across the UK there's only 15.6 days a year when snow is on the ground.
"Forgive me Father, for I have sinned.
It's been 15 years since my last confession.
My biggest sin since then is having entertained the idea that maybe the Holy Mother might have actually wanted to have cock, at some point in her life, and maybe, you know, Jesus is just the very natural result of this cock-craving."
(that ought to land me at least a couple hundreds Hail Mary's)
But... [I]twelve[/I].
Exactamundo.
:'O is that bad?
2 x 15 pages to give on tuesday morning. I feel the pain.
Big or tiny disaster? :-O
Yes, it's bad. It means that I have to get up at 6am tomorrow morning and go to work. Now I know just how Jesus felt. Father, why have you forsaken me?!
What time does your work finish normally? It's like 21:30 atm there, so not too bad.
That shift would finish at 4pm, I think.
It is too bad. It's the worst thing since sliced body. The cup is half empty. The end is nigh. I may as well just kill myself now and get it over and done with. The anti-natalists were right all along.
>:O oh dear...
So you work 9-10 hours a shift?
I see. Do you ever exceed the 40 hours or so mark? As in do you ever have a week when you work 60 hours say?
Sometimes I work 60 hours a day. Sometimes I work upside down with no clothes on. Sometimes I work in the 1950s, before I was born. And sometimes I get bored of the conversation, so I make stuff up to keep myself entertained.
If you do kill yourself, they might make Agustino a moderator. Or is that when hell freezes over? I forget. Anyway, you might think of that as a reason to live.
That post of mine was a joke directed as a criticism against your opponents in this discussion, actually.
Come on, that thing is absolutely adorable. I want to stare deeply into its globulous eyes for days on end. And I'm pretty sure it would look back, all abyss-like and all.
TL confirmed for big meanie. O:)
I'm like Katniss Everdeen, actually. Inside, anyway. So yes, his cat should be cooked.
Isn't that some sort of pathological, mystical fantasy to liken oneself to her? :P
We need the facepalm emoticon, man, why does no one hear my plea?
I have sleep paralysis, what can I say. And I assume that response means you've read none of the mystics. Nice.
I hear it TL. In fact, if I get around to asking the developers, I might request an entirely different, better set of emoticons.
Starsign as in astrological sign? I told you in a PM like yesterday or something. And why would you care, of all people?
You're a mod now. Get used to explaining stuff. Without end.
facepalm. Facepalm. FACEPALM.
In what sense unitive? Christians must necessarily disagree that the communion that is achieved with the Godhead in the process of theosis is unitive in the sense of the individual self being absorbed in the Godhead, as the Neoplatonists would hold. The Christian theosis is marked by communion with the Godhead as an individual.
Right, so you've read none of the mystics, but you have paragraphs to say about mysticism. Got it.
Well, that's her term, from the early 1900's. I interpret it as meaning that there's a common experience; I think you could interpret it as ecumenicative, for instance, within the context of the text. Quoting Agustino
Yeah, I agree, except that the mystics seem to take it one tick further; not absorption into the Godhead, but not just communion, either.
Meaning?
PIZZA!
I'm not sure, because it's hard to get a handle on. Underhill seems to err on the side of absorption, which I don't think is right, but the idea of simple communion doesn't feel right either. That's why I always end up back at Berdyaev's concept of God having a need for man, as man has need for God; the metaphor of God reaching down to meet man's outstretched hand. That metaphor, to me, suggests something more nuanced and in between, and it's the concept that resonates with me the most deeply.
That is strange, since absorption is heretical according to Christianity.
Why is that strange? And that's the only comment you have?
“While I was standing in prayer, Christ on the cross appeared more clearly to me while I was awake … he then called me to place my mouth to the wound in his side. It seemed to me that I saw and drank the blood that was freshly flowing from his side. His intention was to make me understand that by this blood he would cleanse me. And at this I began to experience a great joy…" (Angela of Foligno)
“As so often, the Lord Himself appeared to her, determined to satisfy her, and, drawing her mouth towards the wound at His side, made a sign to her to sate herself to her heart’s content on His body and blood. She did not need to be invited twice, and drank long from the rivers of life at their source in the holy side; and such sweetness ascended into her soul that she thought she must die of love.” (Catherine of Siena)
NomNomNom.
Because you called her arguably the most learned scholar in terms of Christian mysticism, and the notion of absorption isn't Christian.
*swoon*
White Knight.
But some of the Christian mystics are considered heretical, or borderline. Am I wrong? is she not the most learned scholar on Christian mysticism? I certainly could be wrong.
St. Thomas Aquinas was a mystic too X-)
Is vore fetish more acceptable because it is religious vore fetish? Apparently so.
Of course; so was Augustine. I'd rather here you respond to my post above.
Indeed, only problem is trying to do this with morons. I think I now get why Sap is so fiery.
Nice job editing your post to make it look like I said "fuck off" for no reason.
Some of them sure - in fact some of them may very well have been heretical.
Quoting Noble Dust
I don't see how you make that assertion. There are many scholars of Christian mysticism, why do you say she's the most learned? What about people like:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_McGinn_(theologian)
I told you TimeLine is a masterful politician before, didn't I?
Did you not edit this post?
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/132471
Who do you consider heretical?
Quoting Agustino
Ok sure; why do you suggest he's more learned? (At this point, this feels pedantic already. My understanding was that she was sort of the litmus test on the subject, but as I said, I could be wrong. But it sounds like you don't know either, which is fine).
If anyone could find references to quasi-werewolvian Christians, and then have them debating their views with the quasi-vampiric ones … well, I’d be quite impressed.
Underworld, what a movie that was, huh.
… as long as they’d not spin things too much and remain relatively upfront about things, I’m guessing.
So you edited that post?
Underworld was alot of fun for its time. I dunno how well they'd hold up though. Think I'm still a Blade man.
Quoting Noble Dust
She had five. Your statements about her were also incorrect. In addition, to say:
Quoting Noble Dust
Are you sure you have?
Valentinus comes to mind, one of the Gnostics, Basically pretty much the entire sect of Christian gnostics, which were all mystics of some stripe or another, were heretical.
Quoting Noble Dust
I don't suggest he's more learned, I'm not sure why you suggest Evelyn is though...
Yeah, it's well known that gnosticism was considered heretical. So you fully agree with that?
Quoting Agustino
She's written more on the subject than most anyone else, I'm pretty sure. Have you read her?
I think the gnostics are heretical. Not only were they considered heretical back in the day, but their doctrines actually are heretical. Voegelin writes very well about this in The New Science of Politics.
Quoting Noble Dust
No, I haven't yet.
Makes sense. I don't know Voegelin, so I'll look into it. Of course, I'm not really a Christian myself, so whether or not gnosticism is heretical is kind of only peripherally interesting to me. But I was curious.
Quoting Agustino
I would recommend her.
:D
We had to give away our three horses when during the recession/depression, we had to choose between food for us or them. Fortunately we had wonderful friends who took them in as their own. Our mare still lives at the ranch next to ours at 30 yrs old and her care is up to $1,200 a month. I am Thankful to be able to visit her but I still couldn't pay for her care. Life takes crazy turns we never expect~
I love horses! I went horse riding recently in Hawaii at the Kualoa Ranch and completely ignored the protestations from the guy telling me to 'slow down' - but the best was when I was in New Zealand many years ago at Hanmer Springs with this white beauty who took me along this dangerous cliffside. So awesome.
It is said that if you look into the eye of a horse you will see a reflection of your soul.
This is probably the most logical thing I have heard anyone say today.
Either that or the horse's eye.
Hold it. Wait. Am I the cat? I'm lost.
I don't want to confuse you or anything, but why make this about you?
And, yes.
Which means a dozen homemade cookies for each tin, most are local deliveries but two are in Atlanta and one in Washington, those I will ship.
So 12 dozen cookies is 144 actual cookies with a break/snitch risk ratio of 1 cookie per dozen means 13 dozen! I can double the recipe without losing the "love" ingredient everyone can taste but anything more than double and it gets a mass produced taste.
So six double batches... each hand rolled... anyone want a FREE cookie? One requirement, you need to help with a dozen first!
Who am I kidding? Everyone and I mean EVERYONE is banned from the kitchen during this hot kitchen event and so help me, if someone asks me to get them a drink in the middle of this Epic Cookie Adventure? I pity the fool.
I'm a civil engineer. I still use dirt for fun, although as a mature, intelligent, professional adult, I call it "soil."
Let's see. Are you ugly and stupid? And did I point a gun at you? If so, then you might well be the cat.
Anyway, my cat isn't ugly and stupid. My cat is cute and stupid.
I told you I was lost.
Wrong. Do we really need to start a discussion on feline aesthetics?
That's not its eye.
Well, 'need' is not the word the word I'd use, but still.
So, that being said, calico cats, pro or con? Says he, as if there could be any cons. O:)
I somehow feel this could be turned into record gold.
Sure, pick the cute breed. Saps cat appears to be a cross Bombay slash the spawn of Satan who was dumped by his feral mother in a back alley near the Isle of Dogs.
Jesus, I read that as "bread" just now. Too much talk of bread and wine. Or, should that be the body and blood of Christ? I could do with a nice glass of blood of Christ right now, come to think of it.
Quoting Hanover
Seems like you're defecating.
Anyhow, I knew nought about the transubstantiation when I was a young Catholic chewing on wafers, and I knew no-one who did (Aristotelian-based theological concepts were not big in Ireland at the time) and now that is seeming like a blessing. So, I will give my personal first-place prize to whichever side stops first.
Quoting ProbablyTrue
PS. It's best to make a tea from the srooms. Do not over heat, and use a paper filter to strain the solids out. Apparently strychnine stays with the solids so you will be reducing the toxicity.
Dose: I cannot recommend taking drugs as I am not a doctor.
First timers do not take more than 10 (I'm talking about the tiny pointy headed mushrooms that commonly grow wild in horse fields from September onwards.
If you think that has not done anything then wait for at least half an hour before taking more. (oral medicine takes longer than smoking). Tea works faster than eating raw or dried.
If you think that is all very funny, then its probably because they have already started to take effect.
The Law: As I understand it, not even the UK government has managed to outlaw shit you can pick up off the ground. Psilocybin are not illegal. But making preparations of them might be taken as intent to sell.
So when you prepare them in anyway do not leave them lying about for the filth to find!
FYI. It's these wild mushrooms to which I refer, common in the UK.
https://vice-images.vice.com/images/articles/meta/2015/09/07/microdosing-psilocybin-depression-184-1441634090.jpg?crop=1xw:0.6955177743431221xh;center,center&resize=1200:*
http://www.chm.bris.ac.uk/motm/psilocybin/mushroom.gif
I understand there may be others by that name, so don't take 10 of them.
Just one. Had a psychotic episode on it. Not for everyone. Read about set and setting if your going to try it.
4-AcO-DMT, psilacetin. A prodrug. As effective and easier to obtain for me.
Tomorrow my youngest indian comes home from college and then we can pick out a Christmas tree and put it up. I am so excited to have him back home! Huggggggssssssss all around when my family circle is once again complete. (L)
Here is a picture of tree last year and yes the front door is open cause it's Arizona!
[url=https://postimg.org/image/bneldnai3/]
So one positive and one negative. Either of you experience ths "dissolution of self" that is often talked about?
How long did your bad trip last Posty?
I've taken srooms on several occasions through the years. I think my first was about aged 18. That was nearly 40 years ago.
They have always been fun, and companionable . If your question is with a view to trying them, just take my advice and take it slow.
They are not addictive and the effects are not permanent. Like many fun substances from pot, to beer, to sweeties are children's parties they can upset your tummy.
making tea seems to avoid this, but do not forget to eat something whilst you are having fun.
I do not recognise the phrase dissolution of the self, but like any psycho-active drug it can change your response and reception of things, ideas, and situations. In my experience of various drugs over the years I always maintain a sense of self, and never become wholly disinhibited.
I think the phrase you are using is just shit people say to explain what they cannot.
After all we could have a 700 page discussion on what is meant by "the self" let alone what would it mean to dissolve it!!!
If you are with good friends and what to laugh together for no particular reason give them a try.
It beats sitting in front of the TV allowing that shit to pour into your brain.
Sounds like another anecdotal case for using a natural product and not some synthetic shit.
Heh, no difference from mushrooms from every report I've read on it.
Anyway, been there done that, not for me.
Too long. Time gets distorted on such drugs. But objectively around 5 hours.
That's why these drugs are being now investigated as tools for psychotherapy to take place. Though, I don't like anything psychoactive (even pot scares me) so I'd be patient and do the therapy without any assistance from said tools that could be utilized.
>:O
I'm not entirely sure about that. I've read that if you have a predisposition for psychosis or schizophrenia, then it could launch you into a full-blown psychosis. The dangers with mushrooms tend to get downplayed a lot, just like with pot; but, there are some real concerns in regards to ingesting it if you're in a prodromal phase of schizophrenia or such.
On the flipside, you could have an awesome trip and feel connected to the world.
I get my kicks from reading Wittgenstein nowadays.
Quoting Agustino
"I believe in transubstantiation [paraphrased]" - Agustino
Never forget. Poo, always poo now.
You're right. Hanover's a one-hander, but I definitely require both.
I use two or three fingers, so I'm a bit slow.
If you are prone to schizophrenia then there are many events that can be blames for that first jump into psychosis. For my brother it was seeing a tree in a storm.
What was the argument?? Agustino claimed to 'believe' it is true, and had to back peddle on what it is exactly since the whole thing is absurd. Not much of a challenge.
Is this self-mockery?
Never! I am always deadly serious. All owls are, and I am King of the Owls, like Jesus was King of the Jews. You should know that by now.
Is this self-mockery? Now I'm confused.