People at a Catholic charismatic session, laughing hysterically, barking like dogs, oiking like pigs and rolling on the floor.
Teonanácatl
the Aztecs called the flesh of a fungus type of mushroom they regularly ate before religious ceremonies.
This flesh of the gods – known by the hippy generation of the sixties as the magic mushroom – has a hallucinogenic effect that is very similar to religious experiences. In 2006 Dr. Roland Griffths of Johns Hopkins University published his research of the effects of psilocybin on the mental state of humans. In Psychopharmacology he revealed results of a study of this active component in these mushroom fungi that is comparable to the hallucogenic trances religion induces in people.
A co-researcher with Griffiths, Dr. Solomon Snyder, told The Economist (July 15, 2006) psychedelic drugs could be used to to probe the basis of consciousness. Snyder believed that investigation of such drugs “could help scientists understand the molecular changes in the brain that underlie religious experiences”.
In the study by Griffiths and his team, the participants “were no strangers to spiritual highs. Almost all engaged at least monthly in religious or spiritual activities such as prayer or attending religious services, and were selected for the trial on this basis. Yet two months after the trial, 79% of them reported moderately or greatly increased well-being or satisfaction… Why this should be is not well understood. Psilocybin is thought to work by mimicking serotonin. This is one of the messenger molecules that carry signals between nerve cells in the brain, and it is known to influence mood,” The Economist reported.
Psilocybin in the magic mushroom thus acts like a God pill, bringing a feeling of strong emotional well-being to its users. Other studies have established that religion is one of the strongest activators for serotonin release in the brain. It acts like a drug and once you are addicted to it, it becomes very difficult for religiously addicted persons to be cured of their addiction.
No wonder the anti-evolutionists are so vehemently opposed to Darwin’s theory – the science of evolution is like taking their drug (religion) away from them.
But religion goes a step further: it not only puts you on a psychedelic high through its hallucinogenic effects, it takes away any rational thinking in the user because of the promise of an after-life accompanying the God pill.
I wish I could compare the two types of high. I have taken magic mushrooms twice. The first time I laughed my ass off for about 3-4 hours, and it felt pretty dam good. The second time was a lot different. More intense. But I never (or at least don’t remember) falling and rolling around and acting like an idiot. Also, there is a hangover involved for the body, after doing that, so I wonder if these religious fundies who experience this “high” also have a hangover to deal with the next day?
I don’t think I will be able to experience the religious high. Since I totally believe that there is no god/gods. I wonder if it can be done by doing something you enjoy. I have experienced feelings of total ecstacy, for example when I speared big fish while diving, came within an inch of hitting a hole in one while playing golf, hiking in the Himalayas, and of course that feeling you get after a close shave with danger. But this could be caused by adrenaline too, or maybe a combination of adrenaline and serotonin. But it is fun. And it does create a mental addiction. I tend to enjoy sport and activities where these feelings and that “rush” is one of the rewards. But I don’t pick activities where I look like a total ass while I feel those “rewards”.
The religious fundies are pathetic when they speak in tongues, roll around the floor, act like they are possessed. In earlier times, they would have been burned as witches. I can recommend a good movie. It is called “Jesus Camp”. There you will see how crazy these fundies are and how they become “possessed” by the holy spirit. Also watch “Borat”, where Borat goes to Colorado and visits an evangelical church, and he totally takes the piss out of these fundies, and they don’t even realize it.
I guess thinking of it now, that “rush” people get after a close shave, could be a feeling of ecstacy caused by the release of chemicals in the brain and body, when realizing that you get to live another day, and you really appreciate that.
For the fundies I guess it is because the believe they get to live another live later, where they will have everything they need, no shortcomings, and they won’t be seen as a bunch of pathetic losers, and they will be best mates with the almighty creator.
I can’t imagine if there was an almighty creator why in the world he would want to hang out for all eternity with those pathetic wankers anyway. They will just whinge him to death, always asking for justice and for war to kill the unbelievers and all others on earth they disapprove off. And they will want heaven to be a more exclusive club, “so please don’t let these mother fuckers in and those guys are assholes, we know, and those people are just too much, and those over there killed your son”.
Comment by McBrolloks — July 8, 2008 @ 3:26 pm |
Corrections:
“For the fundies I guess it is because the believe they get to live another live later”
should be
For the fundies I guess it is because they believe they get to live another life later
Comment by McBrolloks — July 8, 2008 @ 3:28 pm |
Mack, you do not have to correct any language or tense; for me at least. How will I know anyway? You are very much like Steinbeck’s Cannery Row, Sweet Thursday and Tortilla Flat. What a treat!
Comment by Savage — July 8, 2008 @ 3:40 pm |
Psilocybin mushrooms are difficult to find, they have lovely color efects, you see beautiful contrasts. They do little to the mind, even a joint has more halucinogenic effects and a joint has none.
The mushrooms people get these days even in Amsterdam are the LSD type, they are prettymuch fake, and LSD has all the qualities mentioned.
In the fifties and the sixties the US tested LSD as a telepathic enhancer, apparently they did have success but every subject that managed a telepathic ability went insane, also apparently so did a few of the scientists that tested the drug on themselves.
You wont find any proof of this connected with the US, but you will find thousands of LSD users that claim to have experienced a telepathic moment after taking LSD
Comment by Nicholas — July 8, 2008 @ 5:08 pm |
Nicholas/Aijo/User Unknown/Whoever wrote (#4 or thereabouts):
A succession upon a series upon a chain of convenient coincidences. It seems that you got your information telepathically if there’s no proof.
Comment by Con-Tester — July 8, 2008 @ 5:47 pm |
Nicolas #4: “In the fifties and the sixties the US tested LSD as a telepathic enhancer, apparently they did have success but every subject that managed a telepathic ability went insane, also apparently so did a few of the scientists that tested the drug on themselves.”
Not true. Read Karry Mullis’s, (Noblest in chemistry), experience with LSD in his book, “Dancing naked in the mine fields”; it tells a different story.
Comment by Savage — July 8, 2008 @ 5:50 pm |
Savage
Thank you I will do.
Comment by Nicholas — July 8, 2008 @ 6:00 pm |
The big problem is that telepathy is complete bullshit.
“A technique which shows statistically significant evidence of telepathy on every occasion has yet to be discovered. This lack of reliable reproducibility has led skeptics to argue that there is no credible scientific evidence for the existence of telepathy at all.”
http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telepathy
Comment by McBrolloks — July 8, 2008 @ 6:00 pm |
The big problem is that telepathy is complete bullshit.
“A technique which shows statistically significant evidence of telepathy on every occasion has yet to be discovered. This lack of reliable reproducibility has led skeptics to argue that there is no credible scientific evidence for the existence of telepathy at all.”
“http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telepathy”
Comment by McBrolloks — July 8, 2008 @ 6:01 pm |
I have just started to read “Dancing naked in the mind field.”
Comment by McBrolloks — July 8, 2008 @ 6:02 pm |
Perhaps you should amble over to the “How to counter the Three Storey Universe” blog entry so you can witness for yourselves the manure friend Nicholas/Aijo/User Unknown/Whoever is attempting to fertilise these pages with.
Comment by Con-Tester — July 8, 2008 @ 6:11 pm |
Thanks, Con-Tester, just at a glance, without having read anything, these guys must have a halve-dead-sleeping god. When things are said and buried, the resurrection is there; “Go disciples, attack the infidels!
Will report back later. Pretty drunk at this stage.
Comment by Savage — July 8, 2008 @ 6:39 pm |
Savage wrote (#11 or thereabouts):
I’m not sure that’s a bad thing, actually. Being fratzed, I mean. It’s a tossup whether the religious or the New Age knuckleheads are the more mind-numbingly tedious lot to deal with. Both share the same ability to spout huge volumes of horse apples at a moment’s notice and an equal disability to recognise convincing evidence if it walked up and booted them in the googlies.
Comment by Con-Tester — July 8, 2008 @ 8:46 pm |
Crosses burnt on students’ arms
08/07/2008 21:35 – (SA)
Ohio – The decision to fire a science teacher accused of preaching his Christian beliefs in the classroom and burning crosses on students’ arms has divided residents of an Ohio town and rekindled the debate over the separation of church and state.
Teacher John Freshwater, 52, was fired last month after an outside consulting firm released a report concluding that he taught creationism and was insubordinate in failing to remove a Bible and other religious materials from his classroom at Mount Vernon Middle School.
Creationism is a religious belief that the universe and human life were created by a deity, as opposed to the scientific theory of evolution.
Mount Vernon, a small city in central Ohio surrounded by farmland, is dotted by churches of just about every denomination. The town has a strong evangelical presence.
Courageous fighter?
Some residents consider Freshwater a courageous fighter for religious freedom. Others say he has brazenly violated the separation of church and state, as required by the First Amendment to the US Constitution.
“This is going to be a mess,” said Dr Allan Bazzoli, who has written letters to the local newspaper criticising Freshwater. “Resident against resident, and worse, student against student.”
Freshwater’s supporters have rallied on the town’s square urging school board members to resign.
A much-viewed sign about 1.6 kilometres from town reads: “If the Bible goes, the school board should follow.”
“The Bible, that should be OK to have,” said James Mills, 25, a former student of Freshwater. “Isn’t it in the Constitution that we have freedom of religion?”
Freshwater, who has filed an appeal with the school board over his firing, said on Monday he’s disappointed with the way the investigation was conducted.
An ‘X’ or a cross?
“They used half-truths. They didn’t interview people who had been in my classroom,” he said.
He likely will be suspended without pay during the appeals process, which could extend into autumn, said David Millstone, the school board’s attorney.
Some residents blame school leaders for letting the situation come to a boil. Officials knew that Freshwater used a science tool to burn images of a cross on students’ arms in December, according to findings by outside investigators.
“I think things were just overlooked and overlooked and overlooked, and then it just came to a head,” said Kelly Montgomery, whose son was a student in Freshwater’s class a few years ago. “It’s been terrible for the whole community.”
Freshwater told investigators he simply was trying to demonstrate the device on three to eight students and described the images as an ‘X’ not a cross. But pictures show the images depict a cross, the report said.
Comment by McBrolloks — July 8, 2008 @ 8:51 pm |
that was from News 24
http://www.news24.com/News24/World/News/0,,2-10-1462_2354062,00.html
Comment by McBrolloks — July 8, 2008 @ 8:52 pm |
George wrote: “the science of evolution is like taking their drug (religion) away from them.”
We should just keep in mind that people also have the ability to fake things, like the “slayed in da spirit mahn”. After all, the fundie churches does teach (not directly, but still) that you fake/try talking in tonques, it is a step of faith until the “real” thing happens. Same goes for the other looney crap they do. It is thus really hard to figure out who is really going apeshit because of chemicals in the brain or who is “trying” really hard to “experience” god.
Mac wrote: ” I wish I could compare the two types of high. I have taken magic mushrooms twice.”
I have never taken shrooms but I really do want to try it. Still weighing up the risks though (for years now). About a week or two ago New Scientist published an article on a study of people taking shrooms in a controlled environment. The benefits on an emotional level is very interesting.
Mac wrote: “But I never (or at least don’t remember) falling and rolling around and acting like an idiot.”
Mac wrote: “Also, there is a hangover involved for the body, after doing that, so I wonder if these religious fundies who experience this “high” also have a hangover to deal with the next day?”
Just like with the “motivational” speakers, the effects wear off and they have to go back for another fix.
Mac wrote: ” I have experienced feelings of total ecstacy, for example when I speared big fish while diving,”
Ah… yes. I shot a 8.5kg cracker a couple of years ago in serious current behind the breakers – vis was bad. What a rush… or working 9 meter water and encountering a nice sized (2m) shark… or dolphins… or a really big sting ray… or a shark cage dive… the list goes on. The best thing in my opinion about a good dive is the feeling, the “after-glow” afterwards with a nice beer and a camel.
Nicholas wrote: “The mushrooms people get these days even in Amsterdam are the LSD type, they are prettymuch fake, and LSD has all the qualities mentioned.”
Another thing User Unknown told you? I am actually really interested in this. You have any references, citations etc? Anything at all, I’ll trace it from there.
Savage wrote: “Will report back later. Pretty drunk at this stage.”
Have fun!
Con-Tester wrote: “It’s a tossup whether the religious or the New Age knuckleheads are the more mind-numbingly tedious lot to deal with.”
We can just file them as “brain-hurters” and leave it at that :-p Fuck, it’s been raining like mad here in CPT. All the cats are indoors, but the mere though of trying to “connect” with a cat just makes my brain go “WTF are you up to, I’m not wasting my time with crap!”
Comment by Renier — July 9, 2008 @ 10:21 am |
Renier wrote (#15 or thereabouts):
Yes, it’s called “reality,” a property of the universe that many, many people choose either to ignore or to petition a not always temporary suspension of. In its turn, this largely explains the eternal and wide popularity of assorted hallucinogens – and not necessarily just that of the chemical varieties either.
Comment by Con-Tester — July 9, 2008 @ 10:55 am |
Con-Tester, is there a way I can get you email addr?
Comment by Renier — July 9, 2008 @ 1:58 pm |
Renier wrote: “Ah… yes. I shot a 8.5kg cracker a couple of years ago in serious current behind the breakers – vis was bad. What a rush… or working 9 meter water and encountering a nice sized (2m) shark… or dolphins… or a really big sting ray… or a shark cage dive… the list goes on. The best thing in my opinion about a good dive is the feeling, the “after-glow” afterwards with a nice beer and a camel.”
Yes Renier, I know the feeling. Nothing like a natural high. I Great White shark came to check me out one day, I was diving from a boat, and drifting for more than 5 minutes with this monster circling me several times, before the buggie picked me up. I had quite a lot of beers that night, and a lot of Camels. And it felt so dam good, each sip, each drag, I was on a hell of a high for hours. I have also looked at those monsters from the comfort of a cage. Quite a nice experience, I would do it again. As you can tell, I love diving. Free diving. Another great experience was when I was diving at Sodwana, and a huge turtle passed underneath me. I immediately dropped my gun, and swam down and held on to this enormous creature’s back for as long as I could hold my breath. I swam up for air, followed it for a while and repeated going down and hanging on to it’s back, for quite some time. It was also very nice. Things like this makes me realize that we are just one small specie in a very big world, part of a very big universe, etc. etc. etc. We have to get the most out of this life. No point wasting time of wishful thinking, like heavens etc.
Comment by McBrolloks — July 9, 2008 @ 2:29 pm |
McBrolloks and Renier,
You guys make me sick and very jealous. My greatest rush was being down about 25 meters when i saw this shadow pass over me…glancing up all i saw was this shark tail that was at least 4 m from top of tail to the bottom … no need to explain that i made like jesus when i hit the surface! It was a whale shark and i saw it twice more on the following day…and in fact had the opportunity once to hitch a ride for a short distance.. (there was a small Zambezi in its wake
and i had to keep an eye out).
Comment by Objective — July 9, 2008 @ 2:56 pm |
Renier wrote (#17 or thereabouts):
Sure, you can reach me here.
(I hope the hyperlink works. If not, it’s »con-tester@vodamail.co.za«.)
Comment by Con-Tester — July 9, 2008 @ 2:57 pm |
Divers, eh? Me too – scuba, though.
Best single dive out of Ponto D’Ouro, Mozambique, February 1995: A “big blue” dive in a group of eight at 30 to 35 metres; plenty of smaller beasties like tuna and bass, two giant turtles, a huge manta ray, a couple of hammerheads, a far-off black-tip and a smallish zambezi that actually buzzed the group at our 5 metre safety stop. Awesome!
Best series of dives Red Sea in 1997 and again in 1998. Wrecks, abundant sea life, clearest viz and 27°C water temp. Also, longest dive done there: 2 hours 43 minutes, all at around 12 metres. What can I say? I started getting cold. Seriously!
Comment by Con-Tester — July 9, 2008 @ 3:15 pm |
Objective, what a nice experience. Things like this makes me love life even more. Everything in life feels better when you work hard and play hard. Rewards are sweeter, and it’s easier to get rid of the blues by just going out and doing something you really enjoy.
Comment by McBrolloks — July 9, 2008 @ 3:17 pm |
Hey CT, amazing how many divers I know who are skeptics too. Maybe depriving the brain of oxygen for long periods of time, or maybe the pressure of diving deep does something to the brain.
I must say, I do know other divers who are very religious.
Comment by McBrolloks — July 9, 2008 @ 3:27 pm |
Con-Tester,
Now i hate you too –
I remember diving with two other guys off Kosi Bay. Around 5 pm i saw them looking for me…but i was about a km away, had some fish on the float,a conch shell in each hand and my speargun under my arm and they didnt see me. After some time they took off for Banga Neck…about 15 km south (where we were illegally resident for the weekend). I had a choice: i could swim to the beach and slog the 15 km in wetsuit weightbelt etc or i could swim out to sea and catch a ride on the current. I chose the latter option. No need to tell you that once it was dark…. my mind started playing all sorts of games with me.
Comment by Objective — July 9, 2008 @ 3:54 pm |
McBrolloks,
“Maybe depriving the brain of oxygen for long periods of time..”
somebody did assert at some stage that breathold diving kills off a few million neurons on every dive…
fortunately we have billions… LOL
Comment by Objective — July 9, 2008 @ 3:57 pm |
Objective,
Drinking does also kill a lot of neurons, but I see it a culling of the weak ones, and replacing them with fresh ones. Hope I don’t run out of fresh ones soon.
Comment by McBrolloks — July 9, 2008 @ 4:12 pm |
“Why (Almost All) Cosmologists are Atheists.”
http://preposterousuniverse.com/writings/nd-paper/
Comment by Savage — July 9, 2008 @ 5:10 pm |
Here’s a novelty item that is becoming ever more essential these days. Trouble is, the battery will be flat in all of about half an hour…
Comment by Con-Tester — July 9, 2008 @ 7:23 pm |
Excellent article, Savage. From the Conclusions, the dollar quote:
Comment by Con-Tester — July 9, 2008 @ 7:41 pm |
Objective wrote (#24 or thereabouts):
But not, I’d wager, as much as that zambie that was deprived of an easy breakfast snack back in 1995…
Comment by Con-Tester — July 9, 2008 @ 7:55 pm |
Con-Tester,
“Trouble is, the battery will be flat in all of about half an hour…”
lol… yeh it would also require an automatic button pusher…that can be activated the moment you meet with someone else…
Comment by Objective — July 10, 2008 @ 5:24 am |
Con-Tester,
It is a really beautiful part of the SA coast for diving…the risks are naturally slightly higher… c’est la vie. (aka shit happens – even for a hungry shark.) (:Þ
Comment by Objective — July 10, 2008 @ 5:28 am |
To return to George’s topic:
Primitive peoples have been dancing themselves into a trance for thousands of years…and there are even primitive civilized people who live in the modern world who regularly attend such “trance dances” hoping i suppose to find the god in the machine…. (see the picture above) Their ignorence prevents them from understanding that their own brain (or is that solitary neuron?) produces the drug that makes them (even more) stupid.
Comment by Objective — July 10, 2008 @ 5:35 am |
I see the fundies are very quiet all of a sudden, but having my ear to the ground, the whispers among the mushrooms are; “watch out guys, weirdoes on the loose!”
Comment by Savage — July 11, 2008 @ 4:25 pm |
@RENIER-Natural mushrooms in Hawai was a unique experience compared to those in Cape Town which had remarkable similarities to pure LSD. I will strongly advise against the LSD trip, madness, self mutilation and suicide are but a few of the things I have seen. You can easily get yourself stuck in a 12 hour trip gone bad.
Comment by pandeist — July 13, 2008 @ 6:42 pm |
Thanks for the reply, pandeist. Just a question, are you sure they were laced with LSD and how do you know? Could the bad things not happen on pure shrooms?
I’m not an expert on such things, just asking.
Comment by Renier — July 14, 2008 @ 8:51 am |
I honestly wont be able to say for sure how every person would react to psilocybin, I have (unfortunately) not been involved with this type of research. I can only speak from extensive personal experience and observation. Keep an eye on the MAPS research, John and Andrew are testing both chemicals, although it is not the intent of the research, something usefull might emerge. http://www.maps.org
Comment by pandeist — July 14, 2008 @ 9:41 am |
I’ll have a look. tx
Comment by Renier — July 14, 2008 @ 10:08 am |
Renier, one more thing from experience. If you suffer from, or have suffered from, or even have tendencies towards depression, stear well clear of LSD, unless you dont mind becoming institutionalised for losing your hold on reality.
Comment by pandeist — July 14, 2008 @ 11:01 am |
pandeist, thanks for the warning. As it is I have no intention of touching LSD, never have, never will. Just not willing to risk a “reboot” and pop out a different personality.
Comment by Renier — July 15, 2008 @ 6:12 am |
Good reasoning Sir!
Comment by pandeist — July 15, 2008 @ 3:40 pm |
SA prostitution plans condemned
Plans to legalise prostitution for the 2010 football World Cup in South Africa have been criticised by religious groups and opposition parties.
The local authority in Durban wants legalised adult entertainment venues during the tournament.
But African Nazareth Democratic Movement (ANDM) president Thokozani Hlatshwayo said the proposal was “against the word of God”.
Opposition parties fear that, if introduced, it could become permanent.
The main opposition Democratic Alliance and the youth wing of the Inkatha Freedom Party (IFP) have condemned the suggestion.
“Plans to legalise Durban’s red-light districts before the 2010 World Cup should be condemned in the strongest possible manner,” said Pat Lebenya-Ntanzi of the IFP youth brigade.
She said the South African government was sending out mixed messages to young people.
“On the one hand it preaches strong family values and moral regeneration, but on the other hand they want to legalise prostitution on Durban’s streets. It doesn’t make sense,” she said.
An additional concern is Aids – some five million people in South Africa are HIV-positive – making it one of the world’s worst-hit countries.
Thrives
Durban’s municipality said Germany had many adult entertainment centres during the World Cup in 2006, which were very popular with visitors.
It said while prostitution was illegal in South Africa, it could not ignore the fact that the sex industry thrives during major events like the World Cup.
To address this, entertainment centres such as strip clubs and escort agencies would be located in special areas where they would be safe and easily accessible.
Municipality Deputy Mayor Logie Naidoo said a final decision had not yet been taken.
“The national government will give us a lead in this matter, whether it relates to the 2010 Soccer World Cup or any other time for that matter,” he said.
Safe environments
City officials admit that there are already young girls and women working as prostitutes on the streets of Durban.
They say plans are already in place to help them operate in safe environments.
We would support any legalisation of sex work
Nicola Fick, Sweat
In January, MP George Lekgetho called for prostitution to be legalised during the tournament.
“It is one of the things that would make it a success,” he said.
He told parliament that it would help cut incidences of rape.
The BBC’s Mpho Lakaje in Johannesburg says his suggestion was met with derision by other MPs. But a group representing sex workers welcomed it.
“We would support any legalisation of sex work, particularly during the 2010 World Cup,” Nicola Fick from the Sex Workers Education and Advocacy Task Force (Sweat) told the BBC.
The idea of legalising sex workers was first proposed last year by police commissioner Jackie Selebi, who has since been suspended over corruption charges.
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/africa/7509357.stm
Published: 2008/07/16 14:46:43 GMT
© BBC MMVIII
Comment by McBrolloks — July 16, 2008 @ 8:09 pm |
So there are many reasons mentioned why it will be a good idea to legalize prostitution for the World Cup in South Africa.
There is one reason mentioned why it is not a good idea:
“”African Nazareth Democratic Movement (ANDM) president Thokozani Hlatshwayo said the proposal was “against the word of God”.”"
Funny how a simple statement like this holds up against good reasoning when it comes to politicians and law makers making their final decision.
Another great example of the religious leaders forcing everyone, by penalty of law, what we can and can not do. It is especially hard on the woman who work in the sex industry. They can’t be protected by the law, they are at the mercy of other people.
And how many of these religious fundies have been caught with their pants down? Usually with hookers.
Another great example is Elliot Spitzer, who prosecuted prostitutes and sex workers for years, was directly responsible for sending dozens of people to jail for working in the sex industry, and one women, a madam, committed suicide, because she didn’t want to go to jail. The he got caught out for using the services of sex workers.
Comment by McBrolloks — July 16, 2008 @ 8:32 pm |
McBrollocks,
#43/44
Indeed but it demonstrates once again the arrogance of people who presume to prescribe to others based on their believe in ghosts. The same applies to the public in general who considers “society” to be some functional entity.
Like Lysander Spooner i do not think that the constitution has any authority but since almost all people do, it will behove us to remember that it was formulated on the premises that all people are equal and have a right to their own lives and to exercise these right to secure for themselves a living.
I think the most pervasive form of prostitution is evident in the general approach of people to social coexistence. It is ok to steal and plunder as long it is done under the protection of some written law…in the name of some unknown group known as ‘the people’ and as long as their property and values are not threatened.
It does not really matter whether you call it god, boy ghost jesus fucking christ,the holy fairy god or society…these are all mystical concepts that people use to impose their value systems on others and obtain the property of other people to enrich themselves. The individual is forbidden by law to defend himself, his family and physical property. The “people” has a prior right to determine who owns what under what conditions; who may live and by what standards they must live.
The responsibility for this state of nationalized prostitution is of course with the individuals (who cease being ‘the people’ once they have voted since they then become impotent and the elected few become the impotent all encompassing powers of truth and right) who fail to embrace reason and objectivity to both understand the concepts of right and truth and to insist on its application.
People are happy to prostitute their consciousness but insist on keeping the body pure….interesting dont you think?
Comment by Objective — July 17, 2008 @ 5:39 am |
The lesser of all the evils will be a decently regulated trade, as in Amsterdam and other European “red light” districts. Can we expect it to be done decently though? Sounds like we will end up with “loose cannon” HIV vending machines.
Comment by pandeist — July 17, 2008 @ 8:13 am |
pandeist,
#46 “The lesser of all the evils will be a decently regulated trade…”
When you accept an evil, no matter how ‘lesser’, you accept all evil. The problem is precisely this. It is only a mystic who thinks you can reap good when you support evil only the religious who thinks that some mystical force will exonerate them from the laws of nature.
Comment by Objective — July 17, 2008 @ 10:44 am |
I wonder what is evil in paying for sex. It is a mutually agreed transaction between two (or more) persons. The religious dogmas are so interbred in most of us that we have difficulty distinguishing between prostitution and crime.
Comment by Savage — July 17, 2008 @ 12:23 pm |
It is not ONLY mistics that make that mistake. I dont see prostitution as quite the job creation we should root for! but regulating the trade is the less harmfull choice wouldnt you agree?
Comment by pandeist — July 17, 2008 @ 12:28 pm |
Savage, #48
There is nothing evil about paying for sex nor is there anything evil about offering sex for money –
pandeist # 49
Yes it is ONLY mystics who make the mistake – rational people understand that there is no compromise between right and wrong or between good and evil as there is no compromise between 1 and 0.
It is not for you to regulate the activities of individuals or something *WE* can or should or could “root” for. I do not agree that control (the initiation or threat of the use of force) or as you call it “regulation” is less harmful!! Less than what? less harmful in what sense? Is being less harmful less harmful that more harmful? What the fuck does that mean?
Comment by Objective — July 17, 2008 @ 12:39 pm |
Savage,
I would in fact argue that taking money for sex is a moral act and that giving sex away free is immoral – we exhange value for value : we do not live as parasites on our fellow humans.
Comment by Objective — July 17, 2008 @ 12:42 pm |
Savage wrote (#48 or thereabouts):
The use of the word “evil” to describe a consensual transaction is quite consciously pejorative by those who use it. The picture becomes considerably clearer once one realises that the whole prostitution question is a turf war by warring factions of pimps and whores. The god-pimps and god-whores have always deemed it their inalienable right to meddle in the private bedroom affairs of other people, which, as Objective has pointed out, is the inevitable extension of their farcical pretensions to some kind of superior morality which they seek by hook or by crook to impose on everyone else.
Regulating the sex-trade is not the right answer, either. Regulation generally does more harm than good because it is both prescriptive and reactive, often resulting in restriction, stifling and unanticipated side effects. The proper course of action is, in my view, laissez faire backed by sufficient education and an adequate emphasis on caveat emptor. But nobody really wants to hear that answer because we all like to think that we, after all, know much better than the next person.
Comment by Con-Tester — July 17, 2008 @ 12:56 pm |
I am all for laissez fair, especially in light of caveat emptor, this is one case where demand outstrip supply. personally I abhor regulation, but in this case theoretical arguments aside someone will have to look out for the health of at least the vendors. Let me not use the word evil in any litteral or figurative way lest I receive bold objective. Lets just say in reality the “least harmfull” option will be the involvement of health. education, and police entities unfortunately selling sex is not the same as selling candy. Education is a great idea, if there is enough time.
Comment by pandeist — July 17, 2008 @ 2:58 pm |
The previous government really missed a golden opportunity. Remember all the control boards we had. The mielie CB, meat CB, dairy CB, you-name-it CB. Just imagine if we had a sex CB then. With the new government who abolished all the control boards, we would be able today to go and buy our sex locally, import if we so wanted, at any price we mutually agreed on, and at any joint we picked.
Comment by Savage — July 17, 2008 @ 3:40 pm |
The idea of regulation as a protective measure is predicated on a pair of questionable assumptions, namely (1) that one can simply intimidate society’s bad eggs out of existence via legislation, and (2) that most people will generally behave irresponsibly to their own and others’ detriment given half a chance. This variety of Calvinism derives directly from an outdated and resolute certainty of unassailable rectitude, based on an authoritarian-religious conviction of moral ascendancy. It is precisely why prostitution was declared illegal in the first place: Society’s moral guardians knew without a doubt that the very fabric of society would be rent if such “immorality” were permitted.
Trouble is, the evidence showed and continues to show something different. That always happens whenever you assume that you have to treat people like children before actually giving them a chance to prove otherwise.
Savage wrote (#54 or thereabouts):
Have you forgotten about the SA Censor Board? We did import sex. It came wrapped in a magazine called Scope that had to be sealed in a plastic sleeve in case anyone under the age of 139 might accidently open it. In fact, we absolutely had to import sex because the Censor Board simply forbade all SA sex by herding it into oblivion and advocated a programme of immaculate conception for the purposes of procreation.
Comment by Con-Tester — July 17, 2008 @ 3:57 pm |
P.S.: The Scope age restriction is also why SA suffered a horrible spate of sex crimes in the 70s and 80s committed by an army of horny, inflamed, slobbering centenarians…
Comment by Con-Tester — July 17, 2008 @ 4:04 pm |
@Con-Tester
Do you have a reference for the evidence you speak of.
@Objective
If you divide the people of the world that expect good to come of evil into only mystics vs rational groups, what do you make of an atheist Robin Hood like thief?
Comment by pandeist — July 17, 2008 @ 4:25 pm |
When South Africa became a democracy with a constitution, it was the publishers of Hustler Magazine who had to fight, at great expense, for our human rights, for us to choose for ourselves, what we want to and don’t want to read. The censorship board was still yanking publications of the shelves. If it wasn’t for Hustler, nothing would have changed. The publisher was even threatened with some serious jail time, but he kept fighting those bastards, and he kept winning. I was a subscriber, mostly because I enjoyed reading Hustler ( I just bought it for the articles, of course), and partly because it was the only way to support them, and what they were fighting for.
Larry Flint, the founder of Hustler, got shot by a religious fundie, and was paralyzed since that day. He has spent millions and millions to keep himself out of jail in the USA. And he is still fighting for people’s freedom of making their own choices.
Comment by McBrolloks — July 17, 2008 @ 5:14 pm |
pandeist wrote (#57 or thereabouts):
Germany. Holland. Several South-East Asian countries. They have not decayed and continue to function quite well, even having the utter cheek to prosper, without special provisions and/or regulations governing prostitution. In most cases, crime rates for many other common crimes are also lower than in many countries where social restrictions pervade. The figures can be verified by consulting the annual CIA Fact Book.
Comment by Con-Tester — July 17, 2008 @ 5:54 pm |
Bollocks!!
Mossel Strasse in Frankfurt Germany is highly regulated with routine health checks. Amsterdam practically has a local driver’s license department complete with mandatory written test that has to be passed before they give you the keys. Don’t get me started on the sexual atrocities you get in Asia, they have as much respect for a woman as they do abalone.
Dutch Prostitution Laws
Prostitution is legal in the Netherlands since 1830. Until 1980 there was a law (dating from 1911), forbidding taking profit from prostitution. This was the law against people exploiting working girls. In practice the law has been rarely applied and prostitutes were actually not protected. In 1988, prostitution has been recognized as a legal profession. The new law introduced in October 2000 clearly makes prostitution legal, subjecting it to the municipal regulations about the location, organization and the practice of business. The authorities try to regulate prostitution, aiming at protecting minors, eliminating forced prostitution and combating the new phenomena of human trafficking. Any sex business must obtain from a municipality a license, certifying that it has fulfilled the legal requirements to operate.
Independent entrepreneurs, VAT on the bill
Dutch authorities treat prostitutes as independent entrepreneurs. Working girls (or boys for that matter) have to submit the income tax declaration and pay taxes. Amazingly, in 2007 the judge decided that the VAT which strip dancers have to add to the bill for their performances should be not as on other services – 19%, but lower – the same as on art and artistic performances – 6%.
Monitoring the regulations
The police, urban district council and municipal health authorities are the main bodies responsible for enforcing the existing laws. Police controls sex establishments, to verify that minors or illegal aliens are not working as prostitutes. Also creating nuisance to the surrounding area is seen as a reason to the eventual refusal of the license to lead a sex business. Infringements such as the presence of illegal prostitutes or employment of the minors may be the reason for the business closure. In 2007 the municipality of Amsterdam withdrew the licenses to as many as 30 different sex businesses, accusing them of breaking the existing laws.
Problems linked to Prostitution
The Dutch believe that banning existing social phenomena makes them more difficult to control, and therefore more difficult to eliminate the gravest criminal behavior as trafficking with women, their exploitation and prostitution of minors. Dutch administration makes a big effort to fight all these criminal activities.
Health care and support
The city health services inform the prostitutes about a free or low -cost clinic for sexually transmitted diseases, provide free or low cost medical car. A number of or organizations, some of them established by the prostitutes themselves (often still active as working girls), as the support group The Red Thread (Dutch: De Rode Draad) and the Prostitution Information Center (Prostitutie Informatie Centrum), try to help prostitutes with their problems. Foundations AMOC and Rainbow (Regenboog) are helping the prostitutes with drug problems.
Prostitution Information Center
A charitable foundation, which has been established by a former prostitute Mariska Majoor, to inform the society about the prostitution and influence the way we perceive the sex workers has a small shop in the Red Light District (De Wallenwinkel). The PIC shop sells books about the prostitution, organizes lectures and guides tours around the area. Prostitution Information Center together with the union of prostitutes The Red Thread, fight for the rights of working women and has been instrumental in influencing the recent changes in the Dutch prostitution laws.
Visiting the Prostitute – How it works
The Dutch do not see moral restraints in using services of the sex worker. How it works? Walking through the Red Light District you might see the girl you would like to be with. All you have to do is to show your interest through a small gesture. Usually you are immediately invited, after all girls wait for a client. You will have to talk with her at the door what kind of sexual pleasure did you have in mind, and agree upon the price by forehand – usually around € 50,-. You step inside and the curtain on the window is tightly closed and the door locked. The fee is to be paid in advance. You will have your 20 minutes of pleasure you paid for. The condom is a must, whatever you both agreed upon, for your own safety.
Escort services
A more discrete option to visiting the Red Light District, is a to call an escort. There are many specialized escort agencies or independent escorts offering a companship. This service may vary from a dinner with a model companion to a call-girl visiting a client in the hotel room. The rates of a visiting escort starts at some 150 euros per hour. A company of an exclusive escort offering a “full girl-friend experience” with a possibility staying overnight, would come obviously at a much higher cost.
The Prostitute Monument
A small woman bronze figure stands centrally located in the Red Light District, on a square before the Oude Kerk. It represents a prostitute at the door waiting for a customer. The monument has been erected here in 2007 by the Prostitution Information Center and is typical of their approach to the social phenomena of prostitution: it is a profession as any other work. Prostitution is good as long as women (or men) who work as prostitutes do it from their own will, and are not exploited. The sex workers should be respected and their rights protected.
Comment by Nicholas — July 17, 2008 @ 7:20 pm |
The Prostitute Monument, I think I will visit it the next time I go to Amsterdam.
Comment by McBrolloks — July 17, 2008 @ 8:05 pm |
Almost all of which falls under the category of “common law” for the protection of the citizenry, not to restrict prostitution. So Nicholas/Aijo/User Unknown/Whoever, what exactly are you objecting to?
Comment by Con-Tester — July 17, 2008 @ 8:07 pm |
You said, “. . .without special provision and/or regulation of prostitution.”
Comment by pandeist — July 17, 2008 @ 9:36 pm |
Lets not forget how the RCC has been protecting their employees who raped and molested children and nuns. While they preach from high up in the pulpits what a sin prostitution is as well as just about any kind of sex is if it is not purely for breeding.
I wonder if that is also “..against god’s will.”
Comment by McBrolloks — July 17, 2008 @ 11:13 pm |
pandeist #57
“If you divide the people of the world that expect good to come of evil into only mystics vs rational groups, what do you make of an atheist Robin Hood like thief?”
The story has been coloured by many different people over a long time but given the basic tenet one cannot steal from a thief. Robin Hood if i recall correctly stole from the taxman (the king) and gave the money back to the “poor” who were the rightful owners of the property. Thus Robin Hood must be considered a judge rather than a thief, adhering to the principle that all that law can properly concern itself with is the protection of property rights by adjudicating between contradicting claims and ensure restitution when required.
The idea that law must be used to control and otherwise compel people to part with their property, is archaic, irrational and belongs properly to a time when kings & priests professed to plunder, rape and destroy in the name of god. Rational people understand the principle of closed causality and that humans are not excempt from the laws of physics….and therefor cannot expect to reap a good when they sow an evil. Yuo cannot point a gun at any one and ask: “lets reason about this”….and the fact that you call the pointing gun the law does not exonerate you from the consequences.
Calling the gods in whose name you profess to control others the people does not make you rasional.
Comment by Objective — July 18, 2008 @ 5:17 am |
McBrollocks, #64
“While they preach from high up in the pulpits what a sin prostitution is as well as just about any kind of sex is if it is not purely for breeding.”
It is well in keeping with the basic religious tradition of elevating the mind and degrading the body maintaining a ghostly and unsubstantiated claim that the two exist independent of each other. The initial rationalization was provided by Plato including the idea that the body is despicable. From there the religious abhorence of anything that provides the body of man with physical pleasure. It demonstrates yet again the basic premise and motivation of religion: hate and more hate for all that is good and enjoyable for a living human.
Do not think that the church (religion) admire the human mind – the mind as it functions in man (according to them) is not real…. it is posited in some world of forms external to this world and its contents are revealed to us. The human mind is corrupted and corrupts even these revelations…except of course in the pope….
Religion hates life as it hates existence and the only reason the mystics allow sex for procreation is to ensure that they will have an endless supply of victims to hate and to destroy.
Comment by Objective — July 18, 2008 @ 5:53 am |
Okay, a semantic misunderstanding, then – I failed to clarify the contextual meaning of the words I used carefully enough, I see. Trade regulation usually entails the establishment, by legislative Act, of special-purpose bodies, commissions and/or agencies with executive powers and a mandate to govern, or in some sense restrict, the day-to-day operations of the trade in question. In the context of prostitution in SA, this would very probably entail special officials who can decide who may screw whom where, for how long, in what manner, how often, in which circumstances, at what charge, and what procedures to follow and penalties to impose in cases of disobedience.
We’ll ignore the fact that in SA the government acts as its own regulatory body for screwing the public…
None of these distinctive features encumber prostitution in any of the countries I mentioned, and the civil authorities (police, legal systems) handle statutory transgressions of local and national laws and bylaws pretty much as matters of common law, as are any disputes. In short, there are no independent, purpose-built regulatory structures for prostitution. The only “regulation” is through special laws and bylaws that address specific aspects of the trade, much as is the case with certain goods like tobacco and alcohol.
Comment by Con-Tester — July 18, 2008 @ 8:22 am |
Just in case there’s still any lingering doubt, the principles are quite clearly spelled out here (emphasis added):
Comment by Con-Tester — July 18, 2008 @ 8:38 am |
Con-Tester wrote: “Regulating the sex-trade is not the right answer, either. Regulation generally does more harm than good because it is both prescriptive and reactive, often resulting in restriction, stifling and unanticipated side effects. The proper course of action is, in my view, laissez faire backed by sufficient education and an adequate emphasis on caveat emptor. But nobody really wants to hear that answer because we all like to think that we, after all, know much better than the next person.”
I disagree a bit but I agree 100% with your concerns about regulating the industry. If the sex trade is legalised it has to be regulated in my opinion. My reason for this view is that certain (perhaps minimilastic) controls do need to be put in place, in order to protect the sex workers themselves, much like the corparates have to abide by the law on the treatment of their employees. For instance, I would deem regular testing for STD/HIV important and perhaps the usage of condoms. My opinion is also that there needs te be clear regulations regarding the overall working conditions, minimum wages, working hours (amount) etc. These things are neccesary, in my opinion, to protect the workers and their clients from exploitation. I understand that probalby most of these reugulation are already covered in laws related to all workers, but specific regulations would probably be required, as mentioned with the STD/HIV issue.
I do realise of course that putting regulations in place opens up another can of bees, the people making the regulations forcing their own crappy agendas and perhaps even religious views on other people. We find control freaks all over the place that would love to dictate how we are “supposed” to live our lives. However, my suggestion of regulations are because of my concern for the safety of the sex workers and their clients.
In the early 90s I was in Switserland. The following info is not validated, merely what I picked up in discussions with some Swiss people at that time. There was at that time a “problem” with young people selling their services in order to obtain money for drugs. The Swiss government helped the people out by delivering fresh clean needles *and* drugs, every day, so that the users would not have to resort to prostitution to get their fix or use dirty needles. Just an interesting story that really wowed me out since all I knew at that time was the old SA government.
Con-Tester wrote: “(1) that one can simply intimidate society’s bad eggs out of existence via legislation, and (2) that most people will generally behave irresponsibly to their own and others’ detriment given half a chance.”
Understood, but perhaps the area is a bit grey. Legalizing prostitution for instance allows them (the sex workers and their clients) to be protected by the law. They can phone the police if a customer gets a bit “over excited” or becomes abusive. Since it is illegal now, they have no protection from the law. I agree that most people will probably not behave irresponsibly, but of course there are always the exceptions, and these exceptions need to be catered for. Perhaps every industry needs regulations that would not apply to other industries, like the tests for VDs that I propose in this case.
Con-Tester wrote: “Germany. Holland. Several South-East Asian countries [...] without special provisions and/or regulations governing prostitution”
Are there no special regulations/provisions? I ask this since I won’t be able to google such info without “being regulated”
Nicholas wrote: “The Dutch [...] The condom is a must, whatever you both agreed upon, for your own safety.”
Is this required by law?
Comment by Renier — July 18, 2008 @ 9:25 am |
Posted before reading the clarification. Silly!
Comment by Renier — July 18, 2008 @ 9:29 am |
Renier #69
“My opinion is also that there needs te be clear regulations regarding the overall working conditions, minimum wages, working hours (amount) etc. These things are neccesary, in my opinion, to protect the workers and their clients from exploitation. ”
The problem you face is the following:
In order to regulate govt has to obtain money somewhere (by use of force or the threat of force [law]. So you use the law not as an instrument of justice but as a criminal would use a gun; to compel people. Thus you would use the law to compel and if it is accepted that the law may be so used what prevents the law maker <the religious majority) to make a law to burn all atheists at the stake or compel them to attend church meetings (which i would consider to be worse than death on the stake)?
Since there is nothing at present that prevents govts (read an unknown majority to enslave people in order to provide other people with a risk free living and people are generally so enslaved of course they use the law to compel employers to fork out money all the time for their employees and to work for free for the govt by collecting money on the govts behalf and to utilize private resources including time without compensation.
Some negatives that the (VOTING) workers never realise is that minimum wages must await the negotiating table prior to it being adjusted and it is normally much lower than employers would be paying in a free market. Workers who work for minimum wages work at minimum efficiency and therefor increases the price of the product. Most western countries are exporting their factories to the East because of labour legislation and the so called poor are increasingly being further impoverished. Lastly, minimum wages and other legalised shit makes the necessity to educated himself obsoleter for the unskilled worker and often prices the worker out of the market – employers simply dont hire – and rightly so.
“Legalizing prostitution for instance allows them (the sex workers and their clients) to be protected by the law.”
Not at all. Without legislation – in a system of justice – all people are protected by law. Their rights are protected – NOT what is granted them by some benevolent majority. As Con Tester mentioned earlier: Caveat Emptor applies to prostitution as it does to all deals.
The thing with legislation is that it removes responsibility for their choices and actions from individual people and places it on the govt. But who is the govt? Do govts really protect people? Did you know that in SA we do nt have a law that states: Thou shalt not commit murder. Yet we regularly prosecute people who committed murder. How could this be possible in the absence of some law? I WONDER suddenly if there even exists a law that criminalises theft, fraud, rape and assault?
The ANC govt has promulgated around 4000 new laws since they came to power. Did all these new wonderful regulating laws result in a peaceful, crimefree country? Remeber the 4000 were added to the thousands that already existed and very few of the offensive laws of apartheid govt has been recinded.
The law is not some mystical force (like gods are to assholes) that will somehow have wonderful consequences.
MOST if not all laws that are promulgated by politicians are in violation of common law principles and serves only one function: the entrenchment and enhancement of the power of the ruling elite.
Comment by Objective — July 18, 2008 @ 12:25 pm |
dammit sorry about the incorrect closure of the bold code…should be a forward slash i now think.
Comment by Objective — July 18, 2008 @ 12:26 pm |
Objective wrote (#71 or thereabouts):
Not as explicit legislation on any statute books. These crimes, which include murder, are deemed to be self-evident infringements of a person’s so-called “negative” rights. (To clarify: a “negative” right is one that obliges other people not to engage in actions that would breach that right, e.g. the right to life, whereas a “positive” right is one that in its exercise obliges the taking of some definite action or other, e.g. a right to healthcare for which someone must create the requisite infrastructure before the right can be applied.) In most countries, laws for the protection of an individual’s most basic negative rights exist constitutionally and/or as legal precedent rather than as legislative enactments although the penalties for breaking such laws can be, and often are, legislated.
Comment by Con-Tester — July 18, 2008 @ 1:00 pm |
@ObjectiveI
see. . .
“what you sow is what you reap”
Very biblical!
I cannot agree with your black and white statement, I have observed too many examples of non mystic people that do not subscribe to any unwavering level of coherent rational thought.
Comment by pandeist — July 18, 2008 @ 1:02 pm |
pandeist,
“what you sow is what you reap”
Very biblical!
The bible is produced by people and if you wish to bullshit as many people as the authors of the bible you have to work in some very self evident facts. the principle is as old as the universe and like much else the authors of the bible simply copied it.
“I cannot agree with your black and white statement, I have observed too many examples of non mystic people that do not subscribe to any unwavering level of coherent rational thought.”
1. Your agreement is not required.
2. perhaps you should review your definitions of non mystic and coherent rational thought(irrational people).
Comment by Objective — July 18, 2008 @ 3:58 pm |
Con Tester, #73
Merci. (: i suspected as much. I hoped to make the point to some of our less astute readers that many crimes that are not on the statutes are nevertheless successfully prosecuted.
Comment by Objective — July 18, 2008 @ 4:00 pm |
Objective,
1 was no surprise, but preemption would have been refutation.
2 Please enlighten me as to my errors regarding said definitions, you can start by quoting mine if you please.
Comment by pandeist — July 18, 2008 @ 4:34 pm |
“I cannot agree with your black and white statement, I have observed too many examples of non mystic people that do not subscribe to any unwavering level of coherent rational thought.”
Comment by pandeist — July 18, 2008 @ 1:02 pm [#74]
In the statement quoted above it is clear that you consider a “non mystical person” as someone who profess not to be mystical but who may act irrational – Thus someone who says i dont believe in god and then crosses himself or someone who says i am not a mystic but i will act irrationally to achieve some goal because i either do not consider that there is a relationship between my ideas and my actions or that somehow my irrationality will result in the achievement of the desired goal.
your treatment of the terms ‘non mystic’ and ‘irrational’ applied to the same person is oxymoronic and you clearly do not consider words to have exact meaning…nor do you seem to care. So now tell me why i should even consider anything you say?
Comment by Objective — July 18, 2008 @ 5:18 pm |
Objective wrote (#76 or thereabouts):
Or, more generally, that certain things do not need to be formalised to be clearly and universally understood. Age and experience have taught me, however and unfortunately, that the field of eligible concepts is tragically narrower than any sane individual could reasonably expect, mostly because of basic and institutionalised insecurities that are cultivated in the individual through various means. With few exceptions, people are taught to want to be dominated and directed, a lesson that they gladly accept and learn, thus making it self-perpetuating, because it displaces the hardship having to deal with those insecurities oneself. At the severe risk of being overly tedious, it bears pointing out – once again – that the epitome and archetype means towards this end is, of course, religion.
Objective wrote (#78 or thereabouts):
Amen. Sadly, there is an infinite chasm between the pure and indubitable validity of this point and the abnegations it is sure to provoke. It goes to the very heart, the very kernel of what philosophy from the late 1800s onwards has attempted, and to this day is still attempting, to resolve. There’s this really kak idea promoted by various humanist quarters that it’s okay to say whatever you want to say as long as it makes sense to you because you are the (usually post hoc) arbiter of your own meaning. How deliciously convenient.
Objective wrote (#78 or thereabouts):
Because, despite the no doubt inevitable futility of trying to get the point across, the point itself, namely that language is not arbitrarily malleable if we are to communicate effectively, is too important not to be fought for. But maybe that is an issue you and I can amicably disagree on.
Comment by Con-Tester — July 18, 2008 @ 10:14 pm |
Objective
From the above it is clear that you have loaded the word “mystic” with your personal genre related repertoire of anti religious meanings.
Thus, Mr. Objective, in at least this derivation your irrational non mystical behavior is paradigm.
Why dont you put into operation some of the intimate honesty you allegedly maintain and acknowledge the authentic trigger for you tirade.
Comment by pandeist — July 19, 2008 @ 7:16 am |
Con-Tester
If it was not for your over compensation I would have been inclined to believe you. But in reality you are more likely to be a pimply thirty something kid that has a decent Thesaurus on his spelling check feature, and fast internet link with a propensity to spend a lot of time behind a computer. You are a REAL fraud!
Comment by pandeist — July 19, 2008 @ 7:47 am |
Con-Tester #79
“Because, despite the no doubt inevitable futility of trying to get the point across, the point itself, namely that language is not arbitrarily malleable if we are to communicate effectively, is too important not to be fought for. But maybe that is an issue you and I can amicably disagree on.”
I would never disagreee on that point.
Yes of course you are correct – i continue to accommodate these people as demonstration of my commitment to communication and freedom but as you can see from the above, our friend pandeist is not happy with this approach.
No doubt his inherent honesty will compel him to recognize the conceited nature of his statements and he will consequently concede that his words must be loaded with his personal genre related repertoire of religious meanings.
Comment by Objective — July 19, 2008 @ 8:42 am |
You are not being very objective, Objective. What is your objective?
Comment by pandeist — July 19, 2008 @ 11:11 am |
You make a claim upon my honesty. I am not religious, I do not frequent any church, nor do I subscribe to any particular religious philosophy. I am however, not a nighlistic anarchist either.
Preemption may be an exercise in futility but dont take that as an accusation…just yet.
Comment by pandeist — July 19, 2008 @ 11:33 am |
Pandeist #84
Anarchism: a theory which interprets the ideals of human freedom and equality very strictly, so as to exclude all relations of domination; particularly important, is the refusal to accept the legitimacy of state power. (Penguin Dictionary of Philosophy. 1996).
Nihilism: Any view which contains a significant denial can be described as nihilistic, but when the term is used there is often a suggestion of loss or despair. Among the views so labelled are those which deny the existence of God, the immortality of the soul, the freedom of the will, the authority of reason, the possibility of knowledge, the objectivity of morals, or the ultimate happy ending of human history. (Ibid. p. 388)
Since you combine the concepts “anarchist” and “nihilistic” you are implying what is already evident from your previous posts, namely that you accept that there should be some control exercised by some people over others. Again I infer from your posts that you are not for total power but only for limited power.
The question is whether power over other people could ever be limited. How for example would your theory limit the power of some people over others?
My objective? To promote the fact that everything we know and everything that exists, exists in a form that can be known objectively by us. Secondly to make it clear to people that they cannot escape their own premises; that their conclusions inevitably derive from their premises and perhaps to point out to those who hold contradictory premises that their conclusions must obviously fail as a consequence.
It is not a matter of preemption at all but simply a logical process available to anyone willing to consider the issues at hand: the fact that there are no supernatural existents and that everything in a brain is logically integrated because the brain obeys the laws of physics – it is a physical structure after all.
Any reference to “the state”, for example, as if it is some functional entity, reflects either the idea that constructs are actual existents (in no need of verification – to be accepted on faith) or lazyness to consider the consequences of such ideas. Most people are ignorent of these principles and those who can but refuse to engage in an evaluation of such ideas are clearly lazy and do not care for the very ideas upon which their lives depend. It is logical to infer that they dont care about their lives. Which implies that they refuse to recognise that there is a direct relationship between their ideas and their lives, which in turn implies that they either do not care for their lives or they are liars about their premises: ie they are in fact mystics who hate life and existence and prefer to see people suffer in misery rather be happy, responsible and free.
Comment by Objective — July 19, 2008 @ 3:57 pm |
Then reality does not share your level of black and white either.
Comment by pandeist — July 19, 2008 @ 5:25 pm |
It is a nice ideological concept.
Comment by pandeist — July 19, 2008 @ 5:34 pm |
I am assuming you advocate education as the most important factor?
Comment by pandeist — July 19, 2008 @ 5:44 pm |
Nicholas/Aijo/User Unknown/pandeist/Whoever wrote (#81 or thereabouts):
What on earth are you gibbering about?
Nicholas/Aijo/User Unknown/pandeist/Whoever wrote (#81 or thereabouts):
How is my appearance and my resources relevant to the correctness or otherwise of my claims?
Nicholas/Aijo/User Unknown/pandeist/Whoever wrote (#81 or thereabouts):
Let’s examine that claim a little more closely. Shall we?
Definition of “real,” as per answers.com:
Definition of “fraud,” as per answers.com:
Hmm, no, I don’t think that’s sustainable, let alone accurate.
See, that’s one of the problems of being so vain, variously moronic, as to take one’s unfounded hunches as demonstrable and solid evidence: inevitably, one ends up making such fatuous statements as the ones above.
Comment by Con-Tester — July 19, 2008 @ 6:38 pm |
Thank you for confirming my suspicions.
Your addition of my name to your shit list is a desperate tactic, the fact that you are wrong is easily verifiable, and utterly pointless.
Comment by pandeist — July 20, 2008 @ 6:13 am |
I must amend my statement, you clearly have an arsenal of dictionaries at you fingertips, and a propensity for grammar.
Comment by pandeist — July 20, 2008 @ 6:26 am |
Nicholas/Aijo/User Unknown/pandeist/Whoever wrote (#90 or thereabouts):
Oh? And just how did I accomplish that?
Nicholas/Aijo/User Unknown/pandeist/Whoever wrote (#90 or thereabouts):
It’s very curious then that members on my “shit list” make the same errors of spelling and grammar. But, yes, it’s quite possible that you could be someone else from the same school. And desperation on my part has nothing to do with it – yet another of your very odd and ill-conceived inventions.
Nicholas/Aijo/User Unknown/pandeist/Whoever wrote (#90 or thereabouts):
Wrong on which specific point(s)? And if these things are so “easily verifiable,” why not actually verify them if for no other reason than to garner a modicum of credibility? That’s hardly an “utterly pointless” pursuit, if you ask me.
In any case, your prior accusation of me as “a REAL fraud” still remains wholly unsubstantiated. Please rectify this lamentable deficiency otherwise readers might just start realising just who the real fraud is around here.
Comment by Con-Tester — July 20, 2008 @ 8:47 am |
Con-Tester,
“I must amend my statement, you clearly have an arsenal of dictionaries at you fingertips, and a propensity for grammar.
Comment by pandeist — July 20, 2008 @ 6:26 am #91″
It is clear that his level of education does not allow for the possibility of a comprehensive vocabulary and a proper grasp of grammar as well as an intellectual competence to understand the regurgitations of the dross.
I have to confess: there are times that I find it extremely difficult to not yield to the suspicion that the vast majority are really doff and should be written off as god-fodder.
Comment by Objective — July 20, 2008 @ 9:20 am |
Blog owners can verify sockpuppetry. You can thus catch me out if indeed you are correct. You may also feel free to list my spelling mistakes if you feel it will strengthen your argument.
Comment by pandeist — July 20, 2008 @ 4:18 pm |
pandeist, it seems to have escaped your fragile attention that I am not the blog owner. Moreover, sock puppetry is only easy to detect on pandeist-planet where people have only one e-mail address and nobody knows about DHCP servers or their roles in ISPs.
So, based on Objective’s observations about you, your tedious capacity for talking puerile crap, but mostly on your ongoing reluctance (or could it be wholesale inability?) to provide verifications you yourself labelled “easy,” coupled with your ongoing evasions in the guise of attempts to pass the proverbial buck onto me, I find it necessary to commence a new list with you as its very first member, a list that will probably remain very sparsely populated for a long, long time.
I’ll call it my “lying shit-fer-brains list.”
Comment by Con-Tester — July 20, 2008 @ 7:07 pm |
Dear Con-Artist/Objective/Whoever, you can add me to any list, if it makes you feel better.
As you say, neither me, nor you, can prove anything, but you have more clout with George, and you made the accusation, unless you do this only as misdirection the burden of proof lies with you.
My opinion of you is still that you are an immature. unexperienced kiddie.
Comment by pandeist — July 21, 2008 @ 6:47 am |
pandeist wrote (#96 or thereabouts):
Okay, consider yourself added to the list.
pandeist wrote (#96 or thereabouts):
No. What I said – mostly by implication, you will note – is that it is not easy to prove certain things, specifically sock puppetry. I said neither that we can’t prove such things nor that such difficulties apply universally (“prove anything” – another slimy little deception of yours). Therefore, your already meagre powers of observation and comprehension (or, perhaps what few remnants of honesty you still possess) have once again let you down, which is why you keep feeling the need to manufacture the most demonstrably ludicrous things.
pandeist wrote (#96 or thereabouts):
What on earth gave ever you that idea? Are you jealous, or is this yet another dodge into pandeist-fantasyland. Seriously, you should stop conflating your fevered imaginings with reality through the simple expedient of occasionally testing the one against the other.
pandeist wrote (#96 or thereabouts):
Not paying any attention, once again, are we? Conveniently so, no doubt. I clearly allowed for the possibility that I am wrong, as just a glimpse at comment #92 (or thereabouts), second reply paragraph, will make abundantly plain. Besides, the reasons for my suspicions extend further than just those I named.
But your fundamental dishonesty is becoming ever more evident. You started this accusation binge in comment #81 (or thereabouts). You have yet either to substantiate or to withdraw this libellous allegation, and keep jumping around like a hyperactive jack-in-the-box, hoping to distract people from your unfulfilled evidentiary obligations. Moreover, there are several questions that have been directed at you, not one of which you have even attempted to answer.
pandeist wrote (#96 or thereabouts):
See above. The misdirection is yours alone. It’s such a pity for you that your ruses are so hilariously transparent.
pandeist wrote (#96 or thereabouts):
Which I will gladly elaborate on once you have met your own prior responsibilities re the abovementioned accusation and questions.
pandeist wrote (#96 or thereabouts):
My, my, what irony, this little gem directly following the above childish and truculent harangue!
Comment by Con-Tester — July 21, 2008 @ 8:10 am |
That is exactly the point, rather than discussing the topic, I am accused of labelling sex as evil, of being a mystic for not adhering to the theory that there are only black and white options and of not defining words in the same way you do, case and point is the ludicrous idea that a non mystic irrational person would be an oxymoronic concept.
From my first post here, you Objective/Con-Artist/Whoever, have not been very open to discussion but chose instead to ridicule any interpretation that suited your fancy while you conveniently let these opportunities slide when they occur amongst your mates.
Your attempt to portray yourself as reputable with words like Truculent and Harangue, when rant would do, is cheap and long winded.
Care to discuss the topic again, or shall we indulge in another round of insults?
Comment by pandeist — July 21, 2008 @ 11:13 am |
“Care to discuss the topic again, or shall we indulge in another round of insults?
Comment by pandeist — July 21, 2008 @ 11:13 am”
Lol – the discussion option has always been available to you but as yet you didn’t make use of it, but rather turned to name calling and wild speculation on the characters of the people posting here.
You did not once discuss anything – I am sure you are not able. If you think that “irrationality” and “non mysticism” can be reconciled you are free to demonstrate how. Perhaps you should give me a positive form of “non mysticism” so we can pose that against irrationality.
A good starting point for any discussion is to spell out your premises and define your terms. I am always happy to engage anyone who is willing and able to deal with me in rational terms, but I find it tempting to point a middle finger at those who profess to be rational but refuse to demonstrate it.
Comment by Objective — July 21, 2008 @ 12:13 pm |
Still you offer nothing more than further subterfuge and evasion. Are you or are you not going to substantiate your accusation in #81 (or thereabouts) and answer the questions put to you? Or are you going to withdraw the allegation? Or are you going to carry on pretending that you are being unjustly persecuted?
pandeist wrote (#98 or thereabouts):
How, please, is my turn of phrase, whether in your rather inconsequential opinion cheap and long-winded or not, in any way relevant? Are you feeling left behind, maybe? Because the words I use exist and have meaning for a reason. In any case, your continuing sleazy attempts at evading the issue so as to portray yourself as an innocent victim are downright laughable.
pandeist wrote (#98 or thereabouts):
As should be amply obvious by now, I make no pretensions about being mature or sensible or big enough or whatever to pass over your oily duplicities. Unlike other people who would simply ignore you (and obviously are doing so), I’m quite at ease with the idea of meeting you at whatever level you choose. The basic question is this habit of making inane statements and expecting to get away with it unchallenged. I’m not proud and I do enjoy a good mud fight occasionally. But if you want civility from me, which seems to be what you are now angling for, you can get it either by substantiating your earlier accusation and answering the questions, or by withdrawing it, at which point I will address your concerns. Or we can continue this entertaining game for just as long as George will permit.
So, which is it to be?
Comment by Con-Tester — July 21, 2008 @ 12:18 pm |
Ooopsie — apologies Objective; didn’t mean to anticipate you.
Comment by Con-Tester — July 21, 2008 @ 12:19 pm |
Your self proclaimed ” Age and experience in #79 and your slippery denial in #67 gives me reason to say, “Then the game, Con-Artist, continues, George willing.”
Comment by pandeist — July 21, 2008 @ 2:09 pm |
Mr.Objective
Fair comment, I apologise tentatively for my insolence.
Required or not I still do not agree with #50, notwithstanding your good explanation in #78, the finest lexical definitions do not fully represent the meanings applied in reality. We do not easily change reality.
Irrational is used in terms of illogical behaviour, a lack of accord with reason. Is it impossible for a non-mystic, someone without immediate, direct, or intuitive knowledge of God, or to keep it simpler still, an atheist, to act so?
Comment by pandeist — July 21, 2008 @ 2:35 pm |
What monstrosity, pray tell, has your addled brain vomited up this time that has you issuing nonsensical gibberish about “[a]ge and experience” and “slippery denial,” pandeist? Are you now presuming to know my thoughts, intentions, age, experience and verbal facility better than I do? Because if you are, it’s further proof (as if any were needed) that you’re in dire need of a reality fix.
Comment by Con-Tester — July 21, 2008 @ 2:38 pm |
UNANSWERED QUESTIONS.
#50
Less harmful than the alternatives I could think of at the time.
#78
Because I can change if you can change me for the better, through a clearer mutual understanding of each other.
#85
I cannot answer this question, all I can say is grey areas exist, power over others in the same reference frame can neither be absolute nor absent.
Comment by pandeist — July 21, 2008 @ 3:09 pm |
“Then the game, Con-Artist, continues, George willing.”
Comment by pandeist — July 21, 2008 @ 2:09 pm ”
A Con-Artist is someone who is good at conning people – a trickster, swindler. Con-Tester on the other hand is someone who tests those who attempt to con/trick/swindle.
W’eve had a few con-artists here and most of them are a lot better than you boet.
What I find interesting is that you call Con-Tester a Con-Artist. The method is old and well known and very transparent and it is generally a sign that you have been mated intellectually.
I am guilty of overestimating your honesty. There is nothing wrong with saying “I dont know” or “please explain” – all it requires is some honesty.
I mean…even I can be wrong occasionally as is obvious from my misjudgement re your honesty. I was right though that you didnt wish to discuss anything – rather promote a subliminal desire for a god/force/magical power somewhere.
You have nothing to offer boet – go make a bomb
http://www.http//home.earthlink.net/~enigmaep/annihilation/buildabomb.html
Comment by Objective — July 21, 2008 @ 3:10 pm |
Con-Artist
You may pick a single, or a collection of addled fingers.
Comment by pandeist — July 21, 2008 @ 3:16 pm |
Hmm, let’s see now… yes, I’ll pick the one Objective is showing you. And the one I’m pointing at you for your mounting pile of fabrications and falsehoods. And finally the one you keep pointing at your own dim-witted evasiveness.
Comment by Con-Tester — July 21, 2008 @ 3:47 pm |
SUbjective/Con-Artist/Whoever
Irrational non-mystical behaviour. A world where prostitutes and pimps of the decidedly south african variety are deemed intelligent enough to regulate themselves, to see to their own protection and to be educated enough to seek professional medical advice of their own accord. A world where black is black and white is white and grey is just not acceptable. Where only atheists are rational because they do not need a god to exist. Where every mystic is irrational by definition. Regardless of the fact that god is allowed to be possible just not probable, judging from the knowledge we have obtained regarding the building blocks, of our litte toy room of a corner of this known universe. Not that god is a spaghetty monster or a pink unicorn in definition, according to Atheists who know the real singular meanings of words. Where organised religion is the proposed cause of every human failing. From politics, to the seven sins. Where an atheist tells a person that has been freshly judged a lunatic, irrational, bull shitter, mystic, to go build a bomb? And provided with a link to a bit of education that informs this said idiot to actualy build one.
Now I would love to know what education you rational folk had in mind for them professionals.
Comment by pandeist — July 21, 2008 @ 6:36 pm |
Instead of babbling in churlish incoherencies, pandeist, maybe you should first attend to a number of more pressing issues, for instance your as yet totally unsubstantiated accusation in #81 (or thereabouts) and answering the questions I have asked of you. Then maybe your most recent psychotic fugue in several of your latest comments that has Objective and me supposedly living in the same skin.
Otherwise people might start suspecting you’re a complete, as opposed to just a part-time, cheat. Not that you haven’t made your disdain for my suggestions quite plain, though. Still, one can hope.
Comment by Con-Tester — July 21, 2008 @ 7:13 pm |
#109
“SUbjective/Con-Artist/Whoever”
“Irrational non-mystical behaviour.”
Definitions by definition isolates the essential elements of a concept and ignore the accidentals – try again.
” A world where prostitutes and pimps of the decidedly south african variety are deemed intelligent enough to regulate themselves, to see to their own protection and to be educated enough to seek professional medical advice of their own accord.”
Yes. A world where all people are deemed to be equal before the law. A world where nobody is considered to be ordained by gods or other imaginative forces to be ‘carpenters, bricklayers or philosopher kings..”…a world where every person is responsible for himself and accountable to the principles of reason in law.
” A world where black is black and white is white and grey is just not acceptable.”
It is called The Law of Identity philosophy; The law of the conservation of energy in physics.
” Where only atheists are rational because they do not need a god to exist.”
Atheism is a conclusion not a premise. The premises from which atheism is concluded are two: the law of identity and the law of the conservation of energy Any violation of these two laws constitutes irrationality (mysticism) because it requires some replacement which by its very nature need to be supernatural.
” Where every mystic is irrational by definition.”
Yes – see above.
“Regardless of the fact that god is allowed to be possible just not probable, judging from the knowledge we have obtained regarding the building blocks, of our litte toy room of a corner of this known universe.”
Incorrect. No such knowledge exists or have ever been demonstrated or shown to be logically derived from the premises stated. Any and all attempts to do so violated at least one and most often both premises. God is not a possibility except in the imaginations of people who have constructed and invalid concept to explain aspects of their cosmology and biological functionality of which they were ignorent (and remain ignorent).
“Not that god is a spaghetty monster or a pink unicorn in definition, according to Atheists who know the real singular meanings of words.”
Not all people who profess to be atheists are in fact atheists. Just as there are people who profess to be rational but can be shown to be rational. Words however do have specific meanings. Since all words are representative of existents in reality and are constructed via sensory input as symbols of such existents any word that cannot be shown to have a correllate in reality is not representative of anything in reality – not representative of any existent – and therefor not valid.
“Where organised religion is the proposed cause of every human failing. From politics, to the seven sins.”
That is true in any possible world of the known universe because the two premises and the laws they represent function in all possible worlds of the known universe. No man can succeed in any possible world with any form of appeal to non existent supernatural forces powers or imagined ghosts. Many people who profess to be atheists often appeal to such forces when they do sloppy work thinking it will bring the rewards of excellent work and many people who profess to be rational pray for their sports teams to win or appeal to gods in times of stress.
” Where an atheist tells a person that has been freshly judged a lunatic, irrational, bull shitter, mystic, to go build a bomb? ”
It the only way to get rid of idiots – make them responsible for themselves and hope for the best.
“And provided with a link to a bit of education that informs this said idiot to actualy build one.”
How else would a rational person expect to be successfull when he is dealing with an idiot ?
Now I would love to know what education you rational folk had in mind for them professionals.
Comment by pandeist — July 21, 2008 @ 6:36 pm
Comment by Objective — July 21, 2008 @ 7:45 pm |
I
will
admit
I
was
wrong
once
about
you
Objective
you
are
no
better
than
con artist
you
are
mean
spirited
in
approach
and
ineffective
in
attainment
of
your
objective, you frequent these pages at least in part for the cheap thril of ridicule. Those who are not capable of understanding the universe as clearly as you do, and those who do though differing from you, alike. Your views are harsh and animal like, as a human you need to rise above your present station, not to please some god but to achieve your full potential in removing yourself from the gene pool, not that there is anything wrong with your genes, its the nurture where you got fucked.
Now you have made it an obsession, a mania, a fascination, you are fixated with the adrenaline rush you have chosen to replace the warm fuzzy feeling.
YOU PRETEND TO HAVE ADMIRABLE PRINCIPLES, BELIEFS AND FEELINGS BUT YOU BEHAVE OTHERWISE. THUS YOU DELIBERATELY DECEIVE, THUS you are both a hypocrite and a really real fraud.
You demonstrate same as con artist, that you cannot be honest with yourself.
Comment by pandeist — July 22, 2008 @ 6:37 pm |
More of your churlishly incoherent babblings, pandeist, instead of first, as per suggestion, attending to a number of more pressing issues, for instance your as yet totally unsubstantiated accusation in #81 (or thereabouts) and answering the questions I have asked of you. Followed perhaps by your most recent psychotic fugue in several of your later comments that has Objective and me supposedly living in the same skin.
More confirmation that you’re a complete, as opposed to just a part-time, cheat and a moron. In addition, you’re a fine specimen self-righteously to be brandishing such concepts as “honesty” and “humanness” about like so many cudgels because they are wholly alien to you. You’re much more comfortable with those other notions like “deceit,” “pretence,” “fraud,” “hypocrisy” and more that you speak so authoritatively on.
Comment by Con-Tester — July 22, 2008 @ 7:29 pm |
Objective wrote: “It is clear that his level of education does not allow for the possibility of a comprehensive vocabulary and a proper grasp of grammar as well as an intellectual competence to understand the regurgitations of the dross.
I have to confess: there are times that I find it extremely difficult to not yield to the suspicion that the vast majority are really doff and should be written off as god-fodder.”
Ouch.
Comment by Renier — July 23, 2008 @ 8:15 am |
Pandeist,
YOu continuing refusal to engage in proper discussion notwithstanding.
“Those who are not capable of understanding the universe as clearly as you do, and those who do though differing from you, alike. ”
I have never ridiculed anyone who differ from me but rather engaged them in discussion if they were willing.
There is however no other method available to be but ridicule when dealing with someone who is able but unwilling to engage in reason because 1. his beliefs in spooks are so ill defined and unsupported that he cannot argue coherently for them and 2. who clearly has the ability but an obvious unwillingness/lazyness to expend the effort to acquire the knowledge to either properly support his beliefs or engage those who challenge him on rational terms OR remain quiet and do some reading prior to starting his name calling and innuendos on pages such as these.
There are many blogs where you will get away with it but on these pages there are numerous people who will challenge you time and again and as long as you refuse to engage them on their level and resort to namecalling you will be ridiculed.
As for building a bomb..dont bother…. i doubt that you are able to pass on your genes anyway.
Comment by Objective — July 23, 2008 @ 8:42 am |
Pandeist,
““Those who are not capable of understanding the universe as clearly as you do, and those who do though differing from you, alike. ”
Every human being with a functional brain (99.999999999% of all) has the ability to aquire the knowledge required to understand the principles of both existence per se and life. Only 1% perhaps have the inclination.
Comment by Objective — July 23, 2008 @ 8:45 am |
Renier wrote (#114 or thereabouts):
Not really. Ridicule is a perfectly apt response to the blatantly ridiculous. The pervasively common presumption that social niceties and politenesses are somehow more important than a striving for rigorous factuality and logical coherence, that the former trounce the latter, lies at the heart of why religions and an abundance of other superstitions haven’t simply died the quick deaths that by rights they should. In short, “The truth will set you free – but first, it’ll piss you off.”
Also, you might want to review how this kook pandeist arrogates for him/herself the right to point an assortment of finger at others for no better reason than a delusional “feeling,” an ill-based “intuition,” s/he mistakes for reality, probably pursuant to an overindulgence in diverse hallucinogens and recreational chemicals, though I wouldn’t know for sure. No evidence or substantiation whatsoever are offered, and counter-charges are met with laughable chutzpah in the shape of demands for evidence. If such sanctimoniously hypocritical behaviour isn’t of a kind with the deep conceit of the religious, I really don’t know what is.
Comment by Con-Tester — July 23, 2008 @ 9:14 am |
Con-Tester wrote: “Not really. Ridicule is a perfectly apt response to the blatantly ridiculous.”
Yes, but perhaps more than one fly got swatted in one go.
I, for one, have terrible spelling and my grammar is even worse. Often I am too lazy to paste my writings into MS Word for a spell check. My intellectual competence is not something I consider to be proud of and my level of education is even worse. In addition to these severe shortcomings I have to admit that I often have trouble following the intellectual conversations and struggle when so-called “big words” are used, both in English and in Afrikaans. Since I have used this same tactic it makes me a hypocrite. If the shoe fits I suppose. But I don’t want to engage in a fight over this. I’ll get ripped to shreds in an intellectual discussion and the point would be moot anyway. Are there other atheists or Free Thinkers that share these shortcomings with me. Most certainly.
Con-Tester wrote: “The pervasively common presumption that social niceties and politenesses are somehow more important than a striving for rigorous factuality and logical coherence[...]”
I’m not the politeness police nor do I care about social niceties on this blog. I’m all for people speaking their minds and often swear at people on this blog. Perhaps it’s just that in my opinion a “smarter than thou” attitude is really not so much different from a “holier than thou” attitude. Or I could of course just stop whining because I am probably being over-sensitive here.
Comment by Renier — July 23, 2008 @ 10:01 am |
Renier,
#118 “I, for one, have terrible spelling and my grammar is even worse. Often I am too lazy to paste my writings into MS Word for a spell check. My intellectual competence is not something I consider to be proud of and my level of education is even worse.”
While my spelling is fairly good my typing is often not up to scratch. In addition my posts here are off the top of my head and i do not put enough effort into them and for that i must be accountable.
I do however spend too much time here already and can only offer an attempt to reduce the time as an excuse for not proofing my posts.
When i commented on the grammar of pandeist i was commenting on some criticism he leved at Con-Tester to the extent that the vocabularly and grammar skills demonstrated by Con-Tester is not possible without some serious technological aid: implying that no person could acquire such skills.
AS far as your intellectual prowess is concerned i think you demonstrate the requirements for rational discourse and you have often demonstrated a willingness and openness to read and understand a viewpoint even if yours may be different. That is what learning is all about.
I know that i hold some very controversial points of view on numerous issues.
My problem is that very few people have challenged them in even remotely rational terms….and i desperately need opposing viewpoints to clarity my own views.
I would only ridicule a person who begs for it: someone who approaches the sort of idiotic levels demonstrated by this pandeist person. I often simply ignore them but as my good friend Con-Tester pointed out : the enterprise of promoting reason and proper use of language is too important to let it pass.
What to do with someone who willfully and obsessively continue to abuse rather than discuss with the pretense that they are seeking knowledge?
I think you have only one option namely ridicule. beside it is so easy to do so with such people.
Comment by Objective — July 23, 2008 @ 10:59 am |
Renier,
As a child i suffered incredible abuse (intellectual as well as assualts on my character and personality) at the hands of people such as parents teachers and peers. I learnt fairly early that it takes a lot of weight off your chest if you can simply say: fuck you too!
Even today i must suffer the shit people offer me in platitudes such as : merry xmas; may god bless you etc. I have decided long ago that i wont tolerate it and lost some good friends in the process (if they were friends to start with) and still make enemies of people that i would prefer to have as intellectual sounding boards.
But why do i have to suffer their ignorence and abuse but they not mine?
life is too short to contemplate the shit too.
Comment by Objective — July 23, 2008 @ 11:04 am |
Okay, then I must confess to having misread your concerns, and possibly Objective’s intent, too.
Comment by Con-Tester — July 23, 2008 @ 11:05 am |
As did I. I should have taken the post and compared it to my overall impression of Objective and thus not in total isolation like I did. Talk about a misunderstanding. Ai. Sorry ’bout that blokes.
Comment by Renier — July 23, 2008 @ 11:23 am |
Objective wrote: “I know that i hold some very controversial points of view on numerous issues.”
While we are on this topic. I have been spending the last couple of days wrecking my brain over the whole regulation thing regarding the sex trade. This of course got me thinking about laws and my impression of them in general. My proposed regulation like compulsary HIV tests (for the sex industry) for instance met some resistence and I think I see why. But I find myself confronted with a totally different view point and would like to understand it.
Should HIV tests, in your opinion (and Con-Tester’s) not be required, and if not, why not? Someone mentioned tax and the way we pay the government. Are there alternative models/ schools of thought that seems plausable? I am always looking to identify ways where my view on things might be akin to a “belief”, and this area (laws, politics and governments) appears to be fertile ground. I mean, my last vote I casted was for the ACDP after all, although it was a couple of years back. Now I find myself asked base questions again. Do we need a government? Apart from the obvious theft by government officials of our tax money, are there other ways of looking at tax? What would happen if the tax system was taken away? Do we need a police force? What things are currently considered crimes that are in fact not crimes, like the sex trade for instance? Is our prosecution process flawed? Do laywers defend clients with logic and reason or are emotional pleas more popular? Is the “free market” the best concept and how much should governments regulate big companies. Should they regulate them at all? Why did communism fail in Russia but is still alive and kicking in China?
Lots of questions, I know.
Comment by Renier — July 23, 2008 @ 11:55 am |
Regarding compulsory HIV tests, caveat emptor very firmly places the responsibility on the shoulders of the trading partners instead of on those of some third party, just as proper free trade would require. The client has a right to request from the sex-worker a reasonably up-to-date report from a recognised and accredited laboratory (or other proof) that certifies HIV-free status. If this is not forthcoming, the client is free to take his (or her) business somewhere more accommodating, which one can reasonably expect will encourage sex-workers to be tested regularly. A similar right also vests, of course, in the sex-worker towards the client. It should be clear that there is minimal or no coercion implicit in this scenario, and the responsibility rests mostly on the consenting parties. Making it the responsibility of others is as good as asking people to do reckless, stupid and self-destructive things.
Comment by Con-Tester — July 23, 2008 @ 12:34 pm |
Con-Tester wrote: “Making it the responsibility of others is as good as asking people to do reckless, stupid and self-destructive things.”
Yes, that’s the impression I got. Very interesting way of looking at things. In truth, the first time I encountered this type of view. Lots of thinking to do.
Ps: Still no reply from John. Sad thing is, the lady that was mentioned (that refered me to John) just dissed the reply as too intellectual and thus above her understanding?!?!?
Comment by Renier — July 23, 2008 @ 12:58 pm |
Wait, “Making it the responsibility of others is as good as asking people to do reckless, stupid and self-destructive things.”
Does this refer to the sex worker and her client or a third party?
Comment by Renier — July 23, 2008 @ 1:00 pm |
Renier,
“Should HIV tests, in your opinion (and Con-Tester’s) not be required, and if not, why not?”
The way you pose this question does not address the real issue but hides it by yuor choice of the words “be required.”
What you mean is: “should some people not have the right to compel others to act according to the wishes of those who are compelling?”
And here lies the problem. If some people should have the right (obtained by illegal means *another question i know*) to compel others to act in any specific way why should they not use this right to compel others to do whatever they wish such as for example to give up their property to the gun toters (compelling) when such demand it? There is no end to such a system.
It is similar to the choice of the word “mostly” by Con-Tester in: “[ ] …and the responsibility rests mostly on the consenting parties.” I would argue that it rests exclusively on the consenting parties… because mostly implies some additional responsible entity.
I know i am a pain in the ass when i highlight the use of these terms but i learnt in a hard school that people choose specific words for specific purposes.
I remember at one time while i was still at school a teacher reported to my father that i was irreverant in terms of religious instruction because after a serious sermon he asked the class in general if there were any questions: i offered my hand and when called offered my question: “Where do one join up to become a mercenary?” [ (: i will never forget the expression on his face)
By this time my skin had gone hard and the old man thought he would attempt a different approach so he called in teh dominee and two ouderlinge who sat me down to explain some biblical truths. In this i was quite skilled already by that time but i lost out sometimes because my use of the correct words and my skill at discerning linguistic sleigh of mouth was not as well developed and i always left with this terrible frustration…..
I will attempt some answers to some of your other questions later if you wish.
Comment by Objective — July 23, 2008 @ 1:15 pm |
Objective, please, if you don’t mind, air your opinion on the questions.
Objective wrote: “What you mean is: “should some people not have the right to compel others to act according to the wishes of those who are compelling?”
Interesting way of putting it, I think. Hard to wrap the mind around it. I’ll contemplate it a bit.
Comment by Renier — July 23, 2008 @ 1:26 pm |
Objective #120: “Even today i must suffer the shit people offer me in platitudes such as : merry xmas; may god bless you etc. I have decided long ago that i wont tolerate it and lost some good friends in the process …”
How do you do it, Objective, I mean not to tolerate them? I am not joking, I seriously would like to hear how you handle it. I am in a similar boat but, perhaps I’m a hypocrite. I say happy xmas and where is the booze?; that solves many problems.
Comment by Savage — July 23, 2008 @ 1:40 pm |
Renier wrote (#125 or thereabouts):
Thanks for the feedback, but the response doesn’t surprise me. “Too intellectual” is an underhanded way of saying “I won’t be thinking about what you said.”
Renier wrote (#126 or thereabouts):
What I mean is that if any such social contract was subject to conditions or even a vetting by a separate regulatory body, the contract parties – i.e. the client and sex-worker – are both more likely to behave irresponsibly because there’s a good chance that they will view such regulation as a drudge or an imposition, rather than as their duty to themselves and to others, and any negative consequences will likely be blamed on a regulatory failure, rather than on the partaking individuals.
Objective wrote (#127 or thereabouts):
True enough, though I qualified it with “mostly” because there is also some small responsibility on the greater society as a whole to ensure the furtherance and sustainment of the mooted practices, otherwise they will soon fall into neglect. Then again, it could reasonably be argued that a collective responsibility derives from one on its constituent individuals, so it’s really more a matter of perspective.
Comment by Con-Tester — July 23, 2008 @ 1:50 pm |
I think I get the underlying concept. It’s pretty much the same as me getting pissed off because the law “forces” me to wear a seat-belt?
Comment by Renier — July 23, 2008 @ 1:59 pm |
Savage,
#129 “How do you do it, Objective, I mean not to tolerate them? I am not joking, I seriously would like to hear how you handle it.”
I take the McBrollocks approach after a fashion.I tell them: “I do not believe in ghosts. There are no ghosts or other gremlins and i would appreciate it if you would not direct such drivel at me because you oblige me to give you the answer i am giving you.”
To my sister who insisted for a while to send me godmails (real shitty stuff about put god first and the rest will follow and send this on to get a free seat in the front row…) i wrote back: you know where i stand re the spook stuff. If you continue to litter my mailbox with this shit i will be obliged to no longer give you the benefit of the doubt re your level of intellegence and redirect your mail to my wastebasket.”
Comment by Objective — July 23, 2008 @ 2:44 pm |
Con-TEster,
#130 “True enough, though I qualified it with “mostly” because there is also some small responsibility on the greater society as a whole to ensure the furtherance and sustainment of the mooted practices, otherwise they will soon fall into neglect. Then again, it could reasonably be argued that a collective responsibility derives from one on its constituent individuals, so it’s really more a matter of perspective.”
Now this is definitely one that we can amicably agree to disagree on but certainly worth a reasonable discussion.
Comment by Objective — July 23, 2008 @ 2:49 pm |
REnier,
#131 Yes.
Wearing a seatbelt is required by law if you wish to drive without being even further harassed by them taking your money …because giving money for comitting a crime is required unless you dont mind spending time locked up by people with guns!
If one pays careful attention you will notice that it is not only your obedience that they require but your consent.
Comment by Objective — July 23, 2008 @ 2:55 pm |
Con-Tester,
My #133 refers to the last part of the paragraph quoted. You acknowledge my earlier observation re the qualification in the first part of the paragraph.
Comment by Objective — July 23, 2008 @ 3:07 pm |
Objective wrote (#135 or thereabouts):
Why, yes. Yes, I do. The difficulty is of course separating out the finer points of where a given individual’s responsibilities begin and end whenever there’s a potential for the ripples of that individual’s actions to reach others and affect them in some way, whether positive or negative and whether foreseeable or not. And rarely is such potential not present.
Comment by Con-Tester — July 23, 2008 @ 4:40 pm |
Con-Tester,
Agreed in principle that there are always a potential but whether one can act on a potential or hold people responsible for potential damages is a question in law and in reason that has never been challenged by anyone. It is assumed.
Judges and magistrates simply apply the law and often invoke potential damage as a reason for meting out a specific sentence [for disobedience]. I’m thinking “drunken” driving where the competence levels are determined in advance from an average instead of from the actual abilities of the individual and where there often are no victims involved – no actual damage. In fact in most cases where there are victims involved the drunk issue plays a minor role.
The (social) theory of course does not even consider the issue but imposes responsibility on the individual simply because he lives in a group of people (Hume, Rousseau kant ?)….and it has been argued since the greeks that man without society is nothing more than a beast in the forest.. (aristotle i think?) I do know that he argued that “the family and the state is by nature prior to the individual…” but that “the chicken is actuality while the egg is potentiality and that the potentiality can only be actualized by an actual existent” (that the chicken comes first)(quoted from ageing memory) . How did the man who first introduced mankind to logic manage this ?- i remain puzzled.
Needless to say – i disagree simply because every living thing is an entity that exists on its own with its own life as the goal and purpose of its actions. When such an entity enters into a cooperative relationship with any other living organism/s there is an equal trade off – symbiotic. Human society however is not symbiotic at all but rather representative of parasitic behaviour -
Comment by Objective — July 23, 2008 @ 6:11 pm |
You weren’t referring to the “butterfly effect” were you?
Comment by Objective — July 23, 2008 @ 6:28 pm |
Yes, the whole question of “potential” raises a sticky clot of intertwined questions, which is what I intended to point up. Additionally, even in cases of realised potential, it is often not an easy matter to decide just where an involved individual’s liability ends because in the first instance the circumstances usually aren’t precisely known even a posteriori, in the second, demonstrating intent (or lack thereof) is fraught with difficulties, and in the third, there are probably unusual conditions to begin with that resulted in the contentious realised potential. In other words, the theory is quite clear but the practicalities, chiefly incomplete knowledge, thwart the theory’s proper application. Legislation does a poor job of meeting this inescapable challenge by an overabundance of specificity – it tries to anticipate every situation and only ends up being arguable and/or ineffective.
The consequence is that, while in many cases jurisprudence attempts – often too hard, I think – to be proactive and/or pre-emptive, there is nonetheless some merit in minimalist delineations of the extents of rights and duties because not only do these provide behavioural guidelines to which people will generally, through use and familiarisation, voluntarily adapt themselves without requiring any real, variously forced, sacrifice of their liberties, but they also readily enable the resolution of many (if not most) conflicts without resort to some form of external arbitration. (Phew, what a sentence!) The short of it is that I am disappointed in the general apathy for Thomas Jefferson’s ideas concerning the nature and purpose of government.
Objective wrote (#138 or thereabouts):
Not at all. The “butterfly effect” is one of those concepts people have latched onto and abducted from a branch of mathematics called “chaotic dynamical systems,” twisting it into a vague and crippled shadow of what it actually is. The effect is a shorthand metaphor that encapsulates the idea that in certain interdependent systems very small variations in initial conditions can, given enough time, become dramatically amplified to produce significantly different end results. The idea of a “butterfly flapping its wings to produce a hurricane” is something of a straw man because first there needs to exist a significant and sufficient potential for the hurricane to occur in the first place. Then, and only then, can the butterfly’s wing-flapping procure the hurricane (or not).
Comment by Con-Tester — July 23, 2008 @ 8:31 pm |
Con-TEster,
A quick search on the term delineations gave me:
1. the act or process of delineating.
2. a chart or diagram; sketch; rough draft.
3. a description.
Your emphasis on minimalist leaves the impression that you mean to say the description still contains elements of a prescription but i take it you mean simply DEscription.
I think the original ideas as formulated by Jefferson were the ideas that people supported initially. The problem we face is highlighted by the fact that the majority of people must understand and support such ideas if you wish to establish reason and the modus operandi.
I argued somewhere in my own notes that the process proceeded historically from replacing the voice of god with the voice of the king with the voice of the people and that the first and last options are the worst because nobody can be held accountable nor can the ideas (proposed to issue from god or the people) be tested.
What should have happened is that the principles of science/reason should have been established first and applied to the so-called human sciences as strictly as they are applied to science.
The problem is that the premises of most people are that the end justifies the means – derived from their god idea that to look at a woman and desire her means you have already committed adultary. Thus to have some “noble” goal somehow exonerates you from what you actually do. From there the idea that anything done in the name of the people/god/the state etc must be good and ultimately lead to the good. So if you have to take out the atheists/jews/muslims/homosexuals/catholics ect for the greater good..it is merely collateral damage: the idea is that you can take a whole (a sum 10) remove some of the parts (1,1,1) but retain teh whole (10) and irrespective of how you do it, it remains good because it serves this ethereal higher “good”. iow actions are good or evil depending on intent.
The whole problem of course results from a failure to establish a scientific theory of knowledge and a failure to accept that only matter exists.
Comment by Objective — July 24, 2008 @ 5:51 am |
sorry but a ps.
re the ‘butterfly’ effect. I only wondered afterwards if that wasnt perhaps what you were referring to (knowing that the deviousness of your mind is very similar to my own) because as you pointed out: to approach the problem from that angle opens up a whole different can of worms.
Comment by Objective — July 24, 2008 @ 5:53 am |
Hi there George! See you left “The Citizen”. I’m settling into Auckland now from Taipei. Please give me a mail so we can exchange contact details. Charles
Comment by Charles — November 7, 2008 @ 4:57 am |
Regarding my comment above. I assume you can see my email address on your backdoor … if not: it’s myname.mysurname@gmail.com
Comment by Charles — November 10, 2008 @ 8:38 pm |