Shit man, I'm farther to the left than I thought...

28 October, 2011 - 7:40am — swimmerguy

http://www.gallup.com/poll/147842/Doctor-Assisted-Suicide-Moral-Issue-Di...

Wow. Apparently I'm further off the mainstream than I've previously thought... Maybe because I go to high school in a coastal state, a place I imagine is practically falling over left, at least with the people I talk to.
But, I'm generally the left side "morally acceptable" on basically all of those, the only outliers being:
The Death Penalty, one of the most useless things I can imagine, mostly cause it's just used by vindictive asswipes...
Eh, suicide, it depends, I generally take it as a pretty low blow to family and friends but I think it's up to people to make their own choices about their lives.
And maybe affair between a married couple, I'm not quite sure what the question is, if it's whether someone should secretly fuck someone else without their partner's knowledge and consent, then definitely not, but if it's about having an open married relationship, go for it I say.

The ones that surprised me:
Again, the Death Penalty. I mean, maybe I've been spoiled, because I looked at the Wikipedia page for the near-debt-default and debt downgrade crisis of July and August, and I found that after the fact the approval ratings for the tea party actually went down and that amazed me because that's what any reasonable, knowledgeable person would think, and this country hasn't struck me as being particularly either of those... So maybe I assumed people to be not vindictive asswipes about the Death Penalty... I guess I'll have to be disappointed.
Um, abortion. Now, it depends whether it's early, middle, or late term in which the opposition to it surprises me, because I myself am a little iffy on late-term abortions, but general opposition surprises me... Again perhaps I expected reasonableness, too much...
DOCTOR FUCKING ASSISTED SUICIDES that apparently even the majority opposes that drives me up the fucking wall. It's such a terrible, fucking awful thing to do to someone, "no, I know you hate living and you would rather die peacefully and without pain rather than struggle on through another month or two racking up stratospherically high medical bills in abject pain and agony before dying a choking, horrible death, but I've decided that morality doesn't actually come from anything related to the real world, but somewhere else, apparently, out there... Maybe we'll eventually find out why these morals cause so much pain and suffering with absolutely no benefit at all to anyone, but as for now we're blindly following them, because religious people tell us to..."

And porn too... Who the fuck doesn't love porn? It's so fucking hot...
Although, I've noticed something odd, I wonder if there's anyone out there who likes to watch porn and horror movies but dislikes swearing and since both of them usually have gratuitous amounts of it, they feel conflicted about watching what they really want... Now, I doubt many people watch porn that are offended by swearing, but what about horror movies? Is there any people who like them who are put off by the swearing?

And lastly, polygamy. What the fuck does it matter what they do down there? I've waffled on this before because of issues of abuse, but I don't think a lot of polygamists are like that...

Now, I thought I was just a left-leaning guy, but I guess based on the rest of the country I'm a little farther out than that...

OH, HOLD ON I'VE JUST FALLEN IN LOVE, okay, from reading the God Delusion I just found something incredibly clever...
A lot of people say that God is both omniscient and omnipotent.
But, if God is omniscient, meaning that he knows all past and future events, must surely be able to foresee his future interventions.
If he can't foresee them, he ain't omniscient,
However, if he can see them, than he ain't omnipotent, because that means he's no longer able to change his mind about making the decisions...
Or, put more cleverly than I can: Can omniscient God, who
Knows the future, find
The omnipotence to
Change His future mind?
THAT'S FUCKING CLEVER.
Love it, rationality turns me on so hard.

Tags:

Swimmerguy's journal

Comments

28 October, 2011 - 9:27am — Uncertain

Theodicies

Not necessarily my position, in response to your position:

What if time is not linear for God as humans perceive it?
What if God has limited agency in the world?
What if omnipotence does not mean doing the logically impossible?

29 October, 2011 - 12:55am — swimmerguy

Well

The first one is just waffling as far as I'm concerned... It's an abstract concept that one could argue about but then it's all pure opinion with no ability to be verified logically, scientifically, or even from scripture, like most. And one of the themes of Western Religion seems to be a linear picture of time. There was a beginning, then we're in the middle somewhere, and there is a future end looming, as opposed to say, Hinduism that has a circular concept of time, that the universe restarts. I don't see how anyone could make any arguable case for the first and then it's all in the abstract anyway.
The second one, well, that would again be inimical to the Western God, that routinely takes interest in the matters of us humans, answering prayers and punishing sinners. And most Western Religions claim God to be omnipotent, the definition of which would be not having limited agency in the world...
The third, again, a God that can't do the logically impossible isn't omnipotent, he can't perform miracles. In the Bible he performs many logically impossible things, i.e. people getting swallowed by fish or transformed into pillars of salt. The definition of a miracle would be something that's logically impossible, the point it it's divine.

If your concept of God doesn't have a linear concept of time, limited agency, and can't do the logically impossible, I think that's respectable, like Einstein's view of religion, which was that he rejected the Western God that was interested in human affairs, and was distinct and thinking, and replaced it with a more nebulous concept of the sort of "God is the universe. God is everything, and everything is God" which I consider more spirituality than religion and which I can totally respect even if I don't partake in it myself really, although it does interest me.
It's religion I don't like, not spirituality.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xt5ghXdq6Z0&safe_search=on

29 October, 2011 - 7:32am — Uncertain

Interesting responses! I

Interesting responses!
I wouldn't say I exactly agree but don't want to hijack the journal so I'll leave it at that.

28 October, 2011 - 12:11pm — elph

So... your mom relented...

...on Dawkins? Are you going to share the backstory?

Err... that last sentence... I'm now obliged to research the possibility of a direct connection between one's degree of rationality and libido.

Seems logical in light of both eliciting similar physical responses (at least for you). :)

****

On porn: Gratuitous swearing/profanity grates on me... quite negatively!

Also... any porn that underscores masculine domination over a partner definitely turns me off. The message communicated (to me) by an excessively masculine, dominant male is, "Look at me... I'm every bit a real man... I'm not a woman... don't you dare doubt it!"

So wrong... good sex must be affectionate... and between equals! Just my take.

(NB: Anal activity is grossly over-emphasized in gay porn... it's far less common in gay sex than it would have the viewer/reader infer.)

28 October, 2011 - 6:18pm — jeff

Hehe...

Good sex must be affectionate and between equals in porn?!

In Thailand sex shows, something about which I have *no* first hand knowledge, heh, the old school version had a buff masculine guy dominating a younger thinner weak guy. But the new take is to have two big buff guys instead.

But again, these are all fine rules outside of porn. ;-)

One might say the amount of sex in general is overemphasized in porn. There's a hot Asian guy who occasionally delivers my pizza, and every time I sign for the pizza, he just leaves?! A lot of people hold off on anal until they're in a relationship, but it certainly isn't rare. At all...

---
"You can judge the whole world on the sparkle that you think it lacks" - Dawes, When My Time Comes (http://youtu.be/Z0FrcTX6hWI)

28 October, 2011 - 8:01pm — elph

This is not what I said:

I did not say that good sex should be between equals in porn!

We all know that this is not the case.

The sex one sees in gay porn is usually quite exploitative with at least one of the actors taking on the role of a super-dominant real man!

This may titillate... but it should not be viewed as setting anything approaching an example of what constitutes a rewarding, real-life sexual experience --- gay or het!

****

As for the preponderance of anal sex... I didn't say it was rare.

My point was that gay porn (falsely) characterizes anal sex as the preponderant form of sexual activity between gays.

Within the past month a new study from George Mason University, Indiana University, and the OLB Research Institute at Online Buddies, Inc. reported:

"Of all sexual behaviors that men reported occurring during their last sexual event, those involving the anus were the least common [less than 40 percent]. There is certainly a misguided belief that ‘gay sex equals anal sex,’ which is simply untrue much of the time."

Arguments militating against regular anal sex are that it defies spontaneity, requires scrupulous cleansing (before and after), and the use of a condom is imperative (unless both possess a hand-written document from God stating that both are totally free of any STD).

Sex should be fun; it's healthy... if done correctly... alone, or with a loving partner :)

28 October, 2011 - 8:36pm — jeff

OK...

The topic was porn, though, so I didn't think anyone needs to know that porn is different from real life. And, people who do need to learn that are unlikely to find that out through reading anyway, heh.

The irony of your comments about dominance, etc., is that in most urban environments, there is usually a feeling that there are way more bottoms than tops. Also, porn is about fantasy, so if your porn keeps featuring that theme, you're not watching the right porn for you. It certainly isn't a feature of all gay porn. If you think it is, then the only projecting isn't happening onto the screen (I'll pretend you're watching your porn in a theater, just for my reference to work).

That study seems falsely constructed to me. As there is typically a "building" to gay sex (kissing, sucking, fucking, etc.), it would naturally make sense that it always starts in the same place, but can end anywhere on that trajectory. So, sure, your last sexual activity may have just been oral (and I doubt anyone would deny there is way more oral than anal sex), but then even reference to this study seems to go one step further and say people aren't as into anal, etc.

I really love dessert, but I don't have it at every meal, but I am not sure I would like the fact that I didn't have dessert at the last meal before doing a dining survey to be read as any lack of interest in dessert. If anything, the meals where I have dessert are the preferred ones. ;-)

Also, less than 40 percent isn't quite a sliver on a pie chart, as they didn't say less than 35 percent, so... one imagines nearly a third of participants had anal, no?

I'd prefer an STD screening from a lab over parchment from a fake being, but that's just a personal preference. ;-)

Also, sex can be done alone, with a friend, an acquaintance, a stranger, or a loving partner. Missing lots of options in there.

---
"You can judge the whole world on the sparkle that you think it lacks" - Dawes, When My Time Comes (http://youtu.be/Z0FrcTX6hWI)

29 October, 2011 - 12:59am — elph

Not quite sure what inference...

...an Oasis member is expected to make.

Seriously... what's the message or advice to a novice gay teen?

Is it your contention that anal sex is the epitome of the gay experience (as gay porn would have one believe)... something that is "normally" experienced after having progressed serially through the stages: sharing of common interests/activities, holding of hands, kissing, cuddling, mutual masturbation, fellatio... then Nirvana!

Somehow... one has not truly obtained his gay credentials (sort of like the V card from another thread?) without having participated at least once in this ultimate, mind-blowing ritual that mimics heterosexual vaginal sex?

I admit that an orgasm via prostate massage can be quite an exhilarating experience... but there are so many other, much safer, and equally enjoyable alternatives to the same end! Disagree?

Why is it important that one of the participants must play the role of a macho male? The participants are not equal... one is necessarily dominant!

Peace?

29 October, 2011 - 1:36am — jeff

Well...

Whenever you try and figure out my message to teens, you always get confused. Because I don't have one.

I don't think anyone, in the history of time, has needed advice about how to have sex, what type, or anything else. The people who are having that dialogue are using it because they aren't at a place where they can find a partner, or are using the intellectual debate to avoid actually having sex. Everyone else will figure it out on their own.

My contention is your downplaying or what you find porn to be upselling are two ends of a pointless debate. I think some people have anal sex in either position and don't like it. Some only like one role. Some are fine either way. Some can take or leave it, but will engage in it if it makes a partner happy.

Homosexual sex even exists in the animal kingdom, so this stuff all exists somewhere beyond mimicing heterosexual vaginal sex. But, yes, I don't think I know anyone who hasn't tried things out. I'd be just as suspicious of someone who had strong opinions about why they didn't like pizza if they refused to eat it. Try and don't like it? They you can have an opinion. Never tried it? Then you really only have theories.

Safer? Wear a condom, and you're fine. Equally enjoyable? I know a lot of people for whom nothing would be equally enjoyable. So, I suppose I disagree that there should be people championing or negating anything. Everyone should try whatever interests them, and proceed according to their desires.

Dominate sounds way old school and irrelevant. The fact that you used macho, a term from the early days of disco and Steinem-era feminism is proof that this is old school. It is equal if both people are doing something they want.

If you don't want to be fucked, it's very easy. You say no. If you don't want anyone to be fucked, why?

---
"You can judge the whole world on the sparkle that you think it lacks" - Dawes, When My Time Comes (http://youtu.be/Z0FrcTX6hWI)

28 October, 2011 - 5:39pm — jeff

Hmm...

I'm pretty left on all that, but when I follow Occupy Wall Street, I feel nearly right wing. ;-)

---
"You can judge the whole world on the sparkle that you think it lacks" - Dawes, When My Time Comes (http://youtu.be/Z0FrcTX6hWI)

28 October, 2011 - 5:59pm — elph

Yeah...

OWS continues to remind of that proverbial chicken with its head cut off.

Incidentally... as a kid growing up on a farm, I've actually witnessed this!

28 October, 2011 - 8:23pm — lonewolf678

:O

Poor chicken!

29 October, 2011 - 10:58am — elph

My feeling...

...exactly!

29 October, 2011 - 5:04am — ferrets

heh

if god is all powerful he is unable to build a wall he cannot jump over ;D
i told that to my friend, just jokingly, and he got super offended. like i thought he might hit me. heh.
i go back and forth on the death penalty. assisted suicide? fine by me. your body, your right, eh? polygamy. that's one of those things im truthfully passive about. i just dont care. i would certainly never be a polygamist relationship, it would make me feel unwanted by my partner. but if you can justify it to yourself, sure, why not.

"A loving man and woman in a committed relationship can marry. Dogs, no matter what their relationship, are not allowed to marry. How should society treat gays and lesbians in committed relationships? As dogs or as humans?"

29 October, 2011 - 5:54am — swimmerguy

The death penalty...

I've never seen one reason in favor of it.

It's more expensive, for one thing, the appeals process generally costs at least two million dollars, as opposed to about 20,000 a year to keep someone in prison for life.
And really, I'd say it's mercying them. If I'd done something that terrible, getting killed and not having to deal with anything anymore, as well as getting a last meal of whatever I want!, and getting literally DECADES in fucking court, (for example, I read Under The Banner of Heaven recently, and this guy, Ron Lafferty, killed 2 people in I think it was 1981, right, and he got sentenced to death, and as far as I know he's still alive) to just do whatever the fuck I want, example, this guy Ron Lafferty the book said now just insults the judge right to his face with no reconciliation, calling him "fucking prick" and "punky brewster". The only problem with getting sentenced to death I'd have is fear it'd hurt to die. And that ain't so bad, even though they say that even under lethal injection it might hurt terribly... (making it cruel and unusual punishment by the way)
And the family, for example, the family of the people Ron Lafferty killed have now been subjected to nearly 30 fucking years of trial after trial after appeal after appeal, being reminded of their daughter's death all the fucking time

Also, even though I hope we wouldn't convict any innocent people to life, it has happened where we've killed people and then found out after the fact they were innocent. Dozens of times, actually... Now, going to jail for 20 years and then getting let out for a crime you didn't commit is pretty shitty, but at least it's still possible to let them out if we don't kill them.

And there's just no reason for it. Just reading about what Ron, and his brother Dan Lafferty did to their sister-in-law and her child is enough to make my blood run cold. (They believed God commanded them to do this by the way... beat and then cut the throat of a mother in her 20's and then her newborn child...) and I wish they could die. But killing them is just a knee jerk reaction. If we kill them, what happens? We now have, well, 3 dead people (Dan was sentenced to life, not death) and the mother and her baby are not any more alive, and the state's coffers are a little more drained. No one wins.

We made the death penalty to supposedly be worse than life, but I consider the only thing worse than life in prison would be torture, and we're constitutionally obligated not to do that...

29 October, 2011 - 10:37pm — ferrets

oh.

there's one argument for the death penalty. god said not to commit sins, so obviously as good Christians we have to wipe sinners out of existence ;D I've literally heard people say that in support of the death penalty before...
my biggest thing about the death penalty was the monetary cost on society. i didn't realize it cost so much. why does it cost so much!? you can put a cat to sleep for 50 dollars. where does the truly massive cost of 2 million dollars come form? what are they doing, killing them by flooding their veins with liquefied gold or the tears of children or something?
but yeah, i always assumed that life in prison was alot more expensive, and i always figured that it wasn't fair to cost society for theses criminals who will never contribute anything to the world when the money could be used to keep our schools from falling into disrepair and such.
i also think jail time for none violent drug offense is stupid, but that's a whole different issue heh...

29 October, 2011 - 11:24pm — elph

Ah... "tongue-in-cheek"... hopefully?

"so obviously as good Christians we have to wipe sinners out of existence"

So... God is not omnipotent? You don't think he can do the job by himself (apology for the sexist pronoun)?

30 October, 2011 - 11:35am — Uncertain

It's more expensive because

It's more expensive because the appeal process usually lasts longer, the jury selection process is more stringent and the facilities housing them waiting for execution are special facilities other than standard prisons which can house a lot of prisoners at once which reach economies of scale. They can sit in there for years.