i had no idea one of the things i would miss most about the internet would be a forum. so the very first place i head? that's right...www.goats.com, where all your dreams can come true.

after a painfully long absence (for me, anyway), i have gained temporary access to a computer, and wanted to take this opportunity to visit, if ever so briefly with my favourite people (at least among the people i've never met).

so please, take a moment, and give me something to remember you by when, once again, i am left without my dear dear Dr. Internet. cavort, bitch, argue and make random statements. just entertain me, and i promise, eventually it will all seem worthwhile.

I see the monkeys have come for your brain. Don't give up! You can still win!

Did you go home for Christmas?

Where do you and the rest of the gay robots spend your time when you're not visiting us freeqs online? Are you still in British Columbia? Have you smoked anything lovely lately?

Bribe the corrections officers with cigarettes for library privileges in the joint. ;-)

Good luck.

In Response to Teledildonix (#18830):

yes i'm still in good old b.c. i spend most of my time here working (well until i got fired last week, now i look for work), and trying to avoid the blasted summer heat and the smoke from fires around where i live. this means i spend a lot of time indoors, playing my ps2, watching movies and reading. if anyone can recommend something entertaining in any of these categories, i'd be much obliged.

speaking of smoke, i have smoked a variety of lovely things, including something called "hippie crack". now that was something special. mmm. yes. unfortunately my lack of job has resulted in lack of money, which has in turn resulted in lack of things to put in my pipe. sad for me. but i have generous friends, and i make it through.

so basically my life is the same as it ever was, but with much less internet time.

In Response to Rich (#18833):

what an exceedingly helpful suggestion. i'll keep it in mind.

In Response to goat_girl (#18836):

Mmmm... i love crack. [Not the narcotic variety, of course]

I don't know anything about the Sony PlayStation. But for movies and reading, i could make some general recommendations. Authors that you might enjoy (if you haven't already explored any of their work yet) are John Varley and Kurt Vonnegut. I mention them because i happen to have read some of their stuff recently, and i've been enjoying them off and on for decades.

One of my favorite Canadian films (available on video in many places, i believe) is Strangers In Good Company. It's so good, i can rewatch it after a few years and enjoy it again-- sort of like Harold and Maude or Shirley Valentine; although i admit it's not a comedy nor a drama, it is touching.

In Response to Teledildonix (#18838):

i admit it's not a comedy nor a drama, it is touching

Yeah, but you'd say that about Lie Down With Dogs [imdb.com].

In Response to goat_girl (#18836):

As for books, i always have to recommend Ender's Game by Orson Scott Card. It's the first in a great series, but is still simply amazing even if read by itself. You don't want the author's difinitive edition though, i am troubled by anyone, including the author, going back and changing books to make them PC.

Also, the Otherland series by Tad Williams is quite good. You have to read the entire set for that as it is basically one huge book sold in 4 600-page segments. Nice and well written.

As for a movie, i'd recommend Requiem for a Dream and Flight of the Navigator. They are both movies i've watched in the last couple days that i enjoyed.

Just a couple things to use your time to a nice end.

In Response to zamphir (#18840):

That's not fair of you to say. Are you implying i have no taste? or that i'd recommend something-- no matter how awful-- just because the main characters are gay?

I really hope your teasing doesn't indicate your true opinions about my sensibilities. I thought you knew me better than that.

In Response to AsphaltBuffet (#18842):

Holy flarking schnit! I can't believe you just recommended Orson Scott Card to somebody who has previously mentioned that they are not strictly heterosexual. What are you thinking?

Here's an example of what i mean: link [about.com]

Card writes:

Laws against homosexual behavior should remain on the books, not to be indiscriminately enforced against anyone who happens to be caught violating them, but to be used when necessary to send a clear message that those who flagrantly violate society's regulation of sexual behavior cannot be permitted to remain as acceptable, equal citizens within that society.

The goal of the polity is not to put homosexuals in jail. The goal is to discourage people from engaging in homosexual practices in the first place, and, when they nevertheless proceed in their homosexual behavior, to encourage them to do so discreetly, so as not to shake the confidence of the community in the polity's ability to provide rules for safe, stable, dependable marriage and family relationships.

Card is a Mormon, and his beliefs become quite evident when reading his books. I gave up on Ender's Game after the first hundred-plus pages, when i realized what a dickhead the author was-- although i was only about thirteen or fourteen years old at the time, deep in the closet, i could nevertheless see what his values were.

Maybe his books would be interesting to people who don't have a problem with bigotry, elitism, homophobia, sexism, heterosexism, and a bunch of other idiotic attitudes. Maybe.

In Response to Teledildonix (#18845):

Ok, I'm just going to say that for the record, I'm gay, I loved Ender's Game, and I don't think that Ender's Game has a single homophobic reference within it. Orson Scott Card is a devout Mormon and obviously a rather narrow minded person, from what I have read of that essay on homosexuality that the quote is from. However, that doesn't make Ender's Game any less of a great book in my opinion. It's well written, has a interesting plot, has the most unexpected twist and the characters are well drawn. I think it's a matter of separating the man from his work really. There are plenty of homophobes who've written great books... pretty much anyone living before a certain point in the 20th century would've been homophobic, so does that mean that pre-20th century fiction is now no longer worth recommending or reading? If Ender's Game was homophobic in nature or content I might agree with you but I really don't. In fact, I also read Ender's Game when I had big, big issues with my homosexuality and had people do crap things to me, but I still enjoyed it, and I really didn't feel oppressed as a gay person at all by it... in my opinion there was nothing in it that lead to oppression!

What exactly about Ender's Game put you off so much? What about the author's purportedly offensive personal views came through in the writing?

In Response to Teledildonix (#18844):

I really hope your teasing doesn't indicate your true opinions about my sensibilities. I thought you knew me better than that.

Bah.

It was a poor joke about 'touching', that's all. Don't mind me.

In Response to snipergirl (#18846):

Before you lunge at me for criticizing a book which i didn't even finish reading, let me retract some of what i said. I claimed that his beliefs become quite evident when reading his books-- but maybe i was wrong. Maybe some of his beliefs are only subtly presented in his writing, and he might not be quite as overt about his heterosexism as i said he is.

But what i did read (only a small portion of his supposedly "incredible masterpiece" of science fiction) showed me a couple things right away: Card put a lot of violence into his writing in ways that seemed quite unnecessary. This is something that just turns my stomach, particularly when it is directed towards children, as in Ender's Game. Card also felt that woman are not equal to men, and he even went so far as to rewrite this novel at a later date in order to satisfy some of his critics who pointed out his obvious sexism.

But if you want to read his books, and you enjoy them, then that's fine. Don't let me stop you from doing something that brings you happiness.

But... before you pick up one of his pieces of "literature", please read this article which he wrote in February, 2004. These are his own words, and they show exactly how he thinks and feels, here and now; and if you can read his article without vomiting, then you have a stronger stomach than i do. Not only is it full of obvious fallacies, some of it is downright offensive and insulting to anybody with a modicum of intelligence. When you get to the part where he tries to claim that only heterosexual masculine fathers are responsible for imbuing children with moral judgment-- as if mothers could not-- try not to fall off your chair. When he says, "Your divorce hurts my kids too," and the milk is launched from your nostrils, just remember: he was indoctrinated with the usual Mormon brainwashing techniques. Try to forgive him for being only as stupid as his peers. When he says that the sentiment of "If it feels good, do it!" is a "slogan of immaturity and barabarism", just try to keep in mind that this type of moronic self-denial and implausible inability to face reality is probably just an indicator of how sick and twisted his brain really is; Noam Chomsky sarcastically refers to this type of insanity as "intellectual discipline".

When he claims that monogamous marriage is the foundation of civilization, i almost stopped reading the article right there. How could i go on? How could i give him another moment of my time? I guess i must be slightly masochistic in some abstract way, because i kept reading his puke. When his discourse reveals an over-arching notion of supremacist-elitist-hegemonist-conformist dogma, i said to myself, "Oh, well-- i guess he's just another ordinary person; i.e., dumb as shit." When he refers to social progress towards homo- and bi-sexual acceptance as a "disease", he merely reveals the diseased thinking of his own mind.

At least i did get a small laugh: when he claimed that he lived a life of "tolerance". That made me chuckle out loud. When he says there is a myth that homosexuals are 'born that way' and anybody who disagrees is merely expressing their faith... well, all i can say in response is: the pot is calling the kettle black.

But when he goes on to claim that most homosexuals became that way because they were molested or abused somehow, that's when i had to walk away for a few minutes. I had to go get a snack, drink a soothing beverage, and just try to pretend that i could remain calm and polite. In all honesty, i can't really do so. Instead, i find myself compelled to say some very impolite things: Orson Scott Card is an ignorant, hateful, hurtful, stupid, bigoted, EVIL writer who stands out as a shining example of how religion will totally fuck up an otherwise functioning brain.

So then he goes on to claim that people who believe in equality (such as fairness towards all people, regardless of sexual orientation) are really working against democracy. Again, i almost gave up, almost stopp...

Read the rest of this comment...

In Response to Teledildonix (#18848):

Ok, I'm going to tackle this in two parts:

Ender's Game

The violence was sort of the point. You're supposed to be shocked by it. It's a pretty subtly written book, and the violence also makes more sense once you read the entire thing. And to be quite honest, Orson Scott Card was aiming to show some of the cruelty which goes on among children, and especially in the context of a military training facility. I don't think he condoned that kind of violence as an author, he was showing how it can be used as a tool to shape people into killing machines, as well as showing what drives some people to violence and cruelty.

I dunno, I saw no problem with that aspect. I've written some pretty cruel and violent stories but I'm not cruel or violent in real life at all. I've generally written them in order to explore those themes- they are fascinating. I think that's why people enjoy watching horror movies for example. People's reactions to violent stories.

Orson Scott Card

I find his views interesting.

He's certainly a structuralist- he believes that various parts of society (marriage in particular) perform a "purpose" and therefore are productive and should be protected. It's an ideology which tends to be conservative and against change. The main flaw I find in his pro-marriage claims basically stems from the fact that the weakenings in the institution of marriage actually probably sprang from other changes in the socioeconomic fabric of Western societies- people used to have a much larger economic incentive to stay together for example. I don't think that current Western culture is all that congruent with permanent marriages as being the only socially acceptable option anymore either.

I think he is right in that people see an argument against gay marriage and overreact. People don't generally stop and read arguments about gay marriage without being really emotional about it. I think you are overreacting and not reading his arguments properly. That said, I don't agree with much of what he is trying to say either.

What he calls "barbarism" is actually the philosophy of reactively pursuing pleasure without any heed for consequences; I certainly am not a barbarian under that definition, and I don't know that you are either.

His arguments are largely valid if you take his premises to be valid. However he proceeds from what I feel to be invalid premises. He thinks that homosexuality is created by child abuse for example (what about bisexual people; were they HALF abused?) Another example is the assumption that fixed gender roles are important for society to function. Yet other are: that marriage is the only way to raise normal children; that just because homosexuality is partially "environmental" this means that people can be convinced that they are gay. And so on and so forth.

Some of his arguments are fatally flawed as well. It does not follow that changing definitions of marriage automatically mean that people will stop getting married. And he does start ranting at the end, which doesn't help his cause at all.

However there were points during his essay that I found myself agreeing as well.

Interestingly, from having read a different essay on homosexuality that he wrote, Orson Scott Card does have gay friends and is generally against discrimination against gay people (sort of like my friend at college). I think he is genuinely sympathetic towards gay people, but is so narrow-minded and religious that he cannot understand how people can be gay in the first place and also be happy with being gay. The fact that he believes that homosexuality is a sin sort of also contributes a great deal to how he approaches the issue- "love the sinner, hate the sin".

So no, I don't think he's evil at all. I think he's probably a reasonably compassionate individual within his religious framework. I doubt he sees banning gay marriage as discrimination- which is the problem. If he did see it that way, I'm sure he'd be pro gay marriage. He i...

Read the rest of this comment...

In Response to Teledildonix (#18845):

Disregarding Ender's Game because Card is a Mormon is like ignoring Mein Kampf just because it was written by a mass-murdering psychopath!

But seriously, although Card's works tend to have a warm fuzzy spot for the traditional family, I really wouldn't say any of the ones I've read are propaganda pieces for the LDS'ers.

In Response to snipergirl (#18849):

I don't think he condoned that kind of violence as an author

I was going to disagree... but i read the story twenty years ago, so perhaps i'm not remembering correctly. I shouldn't argue about something that really isn't fresh in my mind. I think my opinions have been tainted by his stench.

I find his views interesting.

I don't. They are unoriginal. They are dogmatic. They are so completely based on conformity to the indoctrination and brainwashing of his religion, and they are so terribly ordinary. There is nothing particularly intelligent, rational, nor even entertaining in his words of bigotry. I find his views to be about as interesting as the views of Himmler, or of the Catholic Popes, or of Islamic evangelists; which is to say: not interesting at all. I'm only interested in either reality-based discussions, or in fantasy-based discussions whose purpose is to provide pleasure and enlightenment, rather than hate-mongering.

The main flaw I find in his pro-marriage claims basically stems from [...]

The main flaw in any of his claims basically stems from his fantasy-based attempts to superimpose nonsense (i.e., religion) over real issues. I've said it before, and i'll say it again now: religion is the opposite of education. Education is the exploration and celebration of ideas. Religion is the reinforcement and perpetuation of dogma. The two are mutually exclusive.

Some of his arguments are fatally flawed as well.

All of his arguments are fatally flawed. This is because all of his arguments are based on his religious thinking. If he hadn't been brainwashed by his environment (e.g., if he had lived in a different era, in a different location, among different people with a different culture) i bet he would simply have a different background of brainwashing. He is a conformist: he has no original ideas. He is an elitist: he has no genuine interest in equality. He is a bigot: he has no true interest in reason.

So no, I don't think he's evil at all. I think he's probably a reasonably compassionate individual within his religious framework.

This is a contradiction. Compassion requires a certain amount of sympathy, tolerance, and understanding. So long as he remains "within his religious framework", he can not develop such feelings. He can only regurgitate the vomous enculturation which has been foisted upon him, repeating the cycle, perpetuating the madness. So i do think he's evil.

I didn't used to believe in truly "evil" or "good" people; i didn't used to believe that thoughts, actions, or attitudes could be absolutely "right" or "wrong"; i used to be what some people call a 'moral relativist'. But people like Card are changing my mind. People like Card are proving to me that there really is such a thing as genunine "evil". When i witness somebody who has the capacity to be a thoughtful, intelligent, considerate person, but i see them actively choosing to be a hate-monger, see them intentionally, consciously, methodically deciding to spread hurtfulness instead of kindness-- then i say they are Evil. It's one thing to hurt somebody by accident-- that's not evil, that's just sad. But when you choose to hurt people on purpose, then the actual descriptors of "bad" and "evil" and "wrong" can be applicable.

He is possibly right that if America had a referendum about gay marriage, the majority of people would be against it; however he doesn't realise that sometimes laws exist to pre-empt social change rather than reflect current attitudes- in that sense he is sort of right that changing the law is undemocratic. Who ever said that democracy protected minority rights anyway? It doesn't. It is majority rule.

1: Possibly correct; 2: wrong, 3: wrong (by misinterpretation). 4: i said it. 5: wrong.

1. If America had a referendum, i bet many people wouldn't care, and only some would have an opinion either way on the issue, if the...

Read the rest of this comment...

In Response to snipergirl (#18846):

pretty much anyone living before a certain point in the 20th century would've been homophobic

Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong. Has your education about history really been so totally biased in favor of such falsehoods? Homophobia is not a value which pervades all cultures, neither recent ones, nor those in the distant past. Homophobia is not a value which pervades all regions. Homophobia is not a value which pervades all literature.

Sure, it may be popular... but so are lots of other stupid things. That doesn't automatically make them indicative of historical paradigm.

so does that mean that pre-20th century fiction is now no longer worth recommending or reading?

That's not what i would argue at all! I've read interesting things that were written a long time ago.

However, i must say, there has been so little secular humanist progress, there has been such glacial tendencies among our species toward genuinely enlightened ideals, that it is perhaps hard to find as much open-minded literature in previous centuries as we might find in the past few decades. This is not necessarily because the past few decades have been the most progressive; it is also partly because so much of the progressive literature of the past has been burned and supressed by the hateful ididots who call themselves "moral" or "upright" or "religious" or whatever it is assholes are defining themselves as in different eras.

In Response to snipergirl (#18849):

I think he's genuinely well-meaning, however that article is not the best example. Try this one [nauvoo.com] instead. And read the whole thing too.

Sorry, i tried, but failed. He contradicted himself almost immediately. He demonstrated nothing but fantasy-based dogma immediately. Before i got to the eighth or ninth paragraph, he had already spewed crap about "God", "the Hereafter", and other nonsensical notions-- such as the ridiculous idea that "purity" implies ascetic denial of sexual desire.

This is not reasonable. This is not intelligent. This is not humanist. This is not secular. This is not the work of a person who deserves my attention to their entire article. It is trash, it is rubbish, it is a total waste of time, it is archaic, it is regurgitated dogma which shows nothing but conformity to hegemony, and it is what i define as "perversion".

I think it was some crazy guy like Rossellini (a religious, and probably very sexist and homophobic person) who said: "I am not a pessimist; to perceive evil where it exists is, in my opinion, a form of optimism." Well, in this case, i'm going to agree with Rossellini, even though he might have been a stupid fantasy-based throwback most of the time.

I see evil. I am pointing it out. And i am doing this not because i derive any satisfaction from the realization that it exists; but rather, because i sincerely believe that improvement is possible. I am optimistic.

All that is necessary in order to move toward improvement, in order to head toward progress, is to simply educate. Education is the antidote for religion. Intelligence is one of the many cures for Evil. Love is another. I don't think i can bring myself to love somebody like Card, but i think i can love my principles of secular humanism so fervently that some benefit may ultimately be achieved.

In Response to Teledildonix (#18853):

I am finding it really hard to swallow your argument towards nondiscrimination and such that follows when you're constantly flinging out hatred towards religion and those within it who might hold their faith to be an important part of their lives.

I also take offense of your implication that because I (or any person) am within the framework of a religion, that I cannot show or feel compassion. That is, as we say, utter bullshit.

I could summarise down your discussion to thes following: "I have completely different viewpoints than those in that group over there and because I simply must be right, their way of thinking, being part of a system formed further in the past, must be archaic and thus completely inferior. THis follows largely in part because I believe my way to be so much better."

Not to say that I'm implying that my summary isn't bullshit, but the mere fact that it's relatively easy to make such an interpretation shows to me that you might be drawing dangerously near the contradictions and hypocracy you are using to discredit someone else.

Just thought you might like to know that. Or think about that. Maybe even attack me for these words. (But please don't, I don't mean for conflict, but you angered me with your own generalisations)

In Response to themysticalone (#18858):

You deserve every opportunity to point out any instance where i veer towards hypocrisy. When i was ranting, i honestly kept asking myself, "Am i too self-righteous? Am i too smarmy? Am i a big hypocrite?" I tried to temper my rancor with attention to these issues.

I don't wish to attack you personally, although i do wish to attack religion in general. I'm an iconoclast, and i feel that "the framework of religion" is one of the most fundamental evils in all of human society. Religion is a sort of brain-virus, the most virulent of mind-destroying illnesses; it sickens, it kills, it counters good things like sense, intelligence, reason and science. Religion is evil, no matter how you try to dress it up in popular justifications, and i'm sorry if that offends you, but you can go ahead and try to defend your contrary position. It will be amusing to observe.

Am i flinging out hatred? Am i showing so much disrespect and disgust for people who are religious? I guess so. I guess i'm not really all that tolerant towards people who are religious; i don't believe they deserve my tolerance, because they have demonstrated their propensity to do things like burn heretics at the stake, discriminate against homosexuals and other minorities, etc, etc.... Basically, i consider them to be no more intelligent than the average lemur or army-ant. Actually, i take that back: lemurs and army-ants are probably much smarter than religious people; and probably no more conformist. Try to argue against that, if you wish; more amusement for me.

I'm sick of this perpetuation of the mythological notion of "freedom of religion". That is an oxymoronic phrase, self-contradictory by its very definition. The only way to have freedom is to have freedom from religion.

Before you come back with a knee-jerk response, try, just for a minute, to do some of your own thinking. Try, if you possibly can, to formulate an opinion which is not based on the brainwashing which you have received as a member of your religion/culture/popular social hegemony/et cetera. Can you do it? Can you come up with your own response, and not just another scripted reaction which your religion and enculturation have trained you to parrot?

Here is one of my favorite articles: The Doors Of Perception: Why Americans Will Believe Almost Anything [mercola.com] . Read that (it's brief, only a couple pages) and then think about your response to my inflammatory challenges.

Also, give a moment's consideration to this gem of wisdom from Maurice Maeterlinck: "The decent moderation of today will be the least of human things tomorrow. At the time of the Spanish Inquisition, the opinion of good sense and of the good medium was certainly that people ought not to burn too large a number of heretics; extreme and unreasonable opinion obviously demanded that they should burn none at all."

Chew on that for a second, with your religious mandibles, and then see if your response is "the opinion of good sense", or whether it is "extreme and unreasonable". Go ahead, don't be afraid.

----------


Wandering back to goat_girl's requests for entertainment suggestions, i will try to propose a few things that i feel successfully step outside of the usual tendency to conform. A very good (and somewhat brief) book by John Gardner is Grendel. A couple hilarious and satirical works of science-fiction/comedy by Douglas Adams are The HitchHiker's Guide to the Galaxy series, and the Dirk Gently novels. Adams pokes fun at people's tendency to be slaves to convention. A couple of decent films which are not too far away from the mainstream but nevertheless propose some ideas which challenge the hegemony of our culture are: Harold and Maude, and Shirley Valentine. They are definitely not radical, by anybody's definition; but they are somewhat decent representations of alternate viewpoints that deviate from the popular "norms"...

Read the rest of this comment...

In Response to Teledildonix (#18860):

Religion is evil, no matter how you try to dress it up in popular justifications

Yup all those 10 commandments, and the love thy neighbour things. Pure flat out evil. And as for all of the charities and missions, sheesh don't get me started. Making people try to do good things is just evil.

Can't you see that very few things are black and white and categorising a thing as evil is kind of moronic?

Why have you not noticed yet that your viewpoints are just as vehement as the people you are attacking? My "potential for dickhead behaviour" detector is triggered by anyone that has strong opinions about what other people do wrong.

Considering the "knee-jerk response" statement I find I can't help but lump you in with others that have strong opinions about things which are not black and white, your own statement falls within the bounds of that paragraph.

And please, shorter posts man. I suspect if you thought carefully about your opinions and made succinct posts you'd have more pride in your opinions.

In Response to tor (#18865):

all those 10 commandments

Most of those commandments are utter bullshit, and a prime example of why i'm an iconoclast. Okay, sure, i don't think murder is justifiable.... but "adultery" is a "sin"? The two notions ("adultery" and "sin") are both laughable. In fact, any people who live their lives under the assumption that "sin" is a valid concept are just plain idiotic.

"Don't covet thy neighbor's wife or property" (are those interchangeable?) is bullshit. "Honor thy parents" is hegemony at its worst. "Don't take the mythological god-being's name in vain" is so laughable, i still get a good chuckle when people mention that one. Jehovah! Jehovah! Jehovah! Yaweh! Krishna! Buddha! Confucious! Jesus H. Frickin' Christ! hahahahaha!

And as for all of the charities and missions, sheesh don't get me started.

Don't get me started, you big sucker. You actually continue to lap up all that purile bullcrap about "religions like Christianity must be good because they do so much charitable work"? Puh-leez!!! Grow up! Wake up and smell the reality! It sure is weird how people are quick to point out the "charitable" works of religious orders, but they flinch whenever i mention all the heretic-burnings, homosexual persecution, sexism, heterosexism, and other forms of evil that one would tend to think might give an institution a bad name throughout thousands of years of recorded (and suppressed) history! Again, i refer you to my comments about "selective repression/denial" and "intellectual discipline". Do you really enjoy being such a total product of your indoctrination? Do you really derive satisfaction from the act of subsuming your individuality to the overarching herd-instinct and hegemony? Bah.... such conformity makes you more pathetic than a sheep, more ridiculous than a lemming, if that's truly the case.

Can't you see that very few things are black and white and categorising a thing as evil is kind of moronic?

I used to agree totally with the first part of your question ("very few things are black and white" absolutely), and i still do agree to a great extent. But i do not believe that categorizing a thing as Evil-- when i can tell you exactly why there are a hundred reasons to specifically accuse it of being exactly that-- is moronic at all. Like i said, to point out Evil where it exists is, in fact, an act of optimism, because it implies that i can imagine a superior alternative, an improvement, a progressive direction away from the Evil towards something smarter. A moron is somebody who lacks the imagination and individuality to envision anything better than the trite banalities of our unacceptable, deplorable, popular customs.

Why have you not noticed yet that your viewpoints are just as vehement as the people you are attacking?

I have indeed noticed that my vehemence comes across just as strongly as that of the cretins and their religions which i attack. Why shouldn't it? Why shouldn't i oppose their despicable nonsense with the same vigor that they attack my private life, my personal attitudes, my freedom? What is so unfair about that? Have i violated some rule of civility? Are you the right person to be answering such a question?

And please, shorter posts man. I suspect if you thought carefully about your opinions and made succinct posts you'd have more pride in your opinions.

My posts will be as short or long as i deem appropriate. Don't like my length? You are free to ignore them. And i always think carefully about my opinions before stating them aloud or in print. In fact, i tend to obsess, rehearse, and rewrite everything repeatedly in my mind (and/or on my computer) before it comes out of my mouth or off my fingertips. I always proof-read a minimum of two times, usually four or five. I always articulate my sentences carefully in my head before they pass from my lips.

My posts aren't succinct enough for you? Well, all i can say is: this i...

Read the rest of this comment...

In Response to Teledildonix (#18867):

sure, i don't think murder is justifiable

So you agree with me then and I don't have to read the rest as it can only continue to agree with me (i.e. religion is not pure evil and nothing but) or be self contradictory.

cool.

In Response to tor (#18870):

As you wish. Apparently, your "logic" in this instance is of the same caliber which one might encounter among other lemmings. Perhaps your attention span is also comparable to that of other typical sheeple*.


* sheeple (noun) : "sheep" + "people". Etymology of this contrived term is uncertain, but usage can be cited in the conversations of my friends a couple years ago.

In Response to Teledildonix (#18867):

I usually stay out of these discussions. I feel there's enough variation in political and moral stances on these boards for me to simply squat under the table and enjoy watching the food being thrown. Plus, I generally never feel strongly enough about anything to actually argue about it. Well, maybe literature and alcohol. But that's about it.

However, hopped up on painkillers as I now am (excuse incoherence), that's the issue I want to address. With elections coming up in several key countries this year, this has been something I've been thinking on for a while, and I think it's time someone here finally stood up for ambivalence.

One of the charges frequently levelled at politicians (and I'm looking at both 'sides' here, though the attack comes more often from the right) is that of 'wishy-washyness'. Not having or maintaining a strong viewpoint on a particular issue is seen as a character flaw. It has been said by several thinkers a lot more talented than I that the willingness to change your position based on new information, the willingness to be reflexive about your own opinions, is in fact a strength, not a weakness. I would go slightly further and say it is a fucking necessity. Everything to do with morality, ethics, humanity IS black and white - but it's black and white on a microscopic, case-by-case basis, and on a macroscopic scale thus appears grey.

So I think that a strongly declared, inflexible position on anything at all to do with people as a group, society, ethics, any of the aforementioned topics is not being strong-minded or having courage, or even being an iconoclast, thought that's closer - it's intellectual fascism. Seeing all issues as grey isn't cowardice, or pessimism - it is having due respect for every single person and potentiality. To paraphrase another author - to generalise at all, to categorise, to declare an inviolate position on any issue at all - what an insult to the infinite variety and boundless possibilities of the human experience!

There is a old sci-fi short story that comes to mind, called Ethical Quotient*, written by John Phillifent, I think. It takes place in a universe I think you'd love, Tele. The premise is of a galaxy ruled by ethics. Rigorous testing of the populace pinpoints those with the highest moral and ethical standards, and labels them Ethical Absolutes. These individuals then 'govern' the galaxy - sort of. A problem is encountered, a group of five randomly chosen EAs convene, they discuss the problem until they are all satisfied, they vote and then disband. Violence in this place is anathema, even tic-tac-toe is regarded as philosophically inappropriate, given its metaphor for war. The story examines what happens when a human - the ultimate moral relativist - is thrown into the mix. And comes to the conclusion that intellectual fascism - ethical absolutism - is fundamentally flawed no matter how humanist or liberated it is.

I'm not going to respond to any particular points anyone has made here, because I both agree and disagree with pretty much all of them, to some extent. It's just that moral relativism is so frequently seen as the cowardly option - but I think it's the only one that demonstrates room for growth. Sure, it leads you into all sorts of internally inconsistent messes when you try to examine it rigorously, as snipergirl discovered earlier. But the fact is that being human is a terribly inconsistent, illogical thing to be, and perhaps our ideology should reflect that. I've always said you were an idealist, Tele, but then so is the subject of this discussion (O.S.C), and I don't necessarily see that either brand of idealism has much to recommend it.

(It's this kind of wishy-washy thinking that got me into awful trouble in philosophy class in high school).

*It is, by the way, a terrible story. It takes Mary-Sueism to a ridiculous level and there's the inane love-sub-plot that was a ubiquitous feature of so much late 60s / early 70s SF. I really don't recommend it as an example of good literatu...

Read the rest of this comment...