Johnny Lingo; 8 cow wife. Mormon films and productions fall into a scale with at least two dimensions: campy versus professional, and anally retentive versus friendly.
About Jian Ghomeshi & Terry Gross: the childless-gay interviews of public radio.
The way you love does matter.
If you love the wrong way you might just get AIDS, die, and leave your straight family with no father.
You can have abuses on both sides.
Atheists of Utah: one big problem with this group is that the focal point for their activities is attending the yearly gay pride festival in Salt Lake.
Regarding human sexuality: Unless kids come along naturally, you can end up with a life that goes nowhere.
Inherently non-reproductive sexuality does, in the long term, go nowhere.
To my fellow atheists & naturalists: will you try to eject me from your de facto church?
I can see why Tom in Portland went back to evangelical Christianity. Poor dating prospects in the secular groups, which are usually highly populated by gay fat women with strange hair.
Having kids is a good thing.
We need to reform atheist groups: extracting such groups from the dogmatism of the left.
Currently if you don't adhere to the ultra-liberal agenda you will undergo a heresy & excommunication trial in many secular / atheist / naturalist groups.
Regarding the GCHQ spying on the intimate activities of people who use Yahoo Messenger to have webcam chats: That does go too far. Gathering connection to connection data into a large database is one thing. But keeping content data, and being able to watch en-masse webcam chats by regular people, without court approval for each search of actual content does go too far.
The U.S. Capitol Building should be returned to the people, for open walking around. Right now it is most definitely not a "temple of freedom." Perhaps the Congress can go work elsewhere, and have the building returned to the people. An initial security scan is ok at the door. But after that people should be free to walk around the building. Until then, it is not, nor will it ever be, a "temple of freedom" as is claimed in the current mandatory film they show to all visitors at present.
Commentary on pronunciation issues with English. John Boehner's last name should be pronounced boner, not bayner. English is English. Pakistan is Pakistan, not Paaaakaaastaaaaan. It's France, not Fronce. It's Mexico, not Mehico. And so on. English is English. If Mr. Boner wants people to pronounced his name as Bayner then he should change the spelling of his last name.
1. A visit to a Mormon meeting, to pick up my father so that we could go to a museum with him.
2. A visit to the Natural History Museum of Utah so see their chocolate exhibit.
3. Sadly, two visits to a disreputable grocery store that sold us rotten food. Details below regarding that issue...
Also commentary about the recent events in Ukraine. Perhaps Viktor Yanukovych can go live with Edward Snowden in Russia...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viktor_Yanukovych
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Snowden
Regarding item 3 above:
Rotten food sold by:
Tay Do Supermarket
3825 South Redwood Road
West Valley City, Utah (Salt Lake valley).
Manufactured by: Woo Kee Inc., S. El Monte, California 91733
Product name: Fresh Rice Rolls
Problems found: Tasted rotten. My wife (who is from China and who is an expert regarding rice products) detected mold/mildew on the rolls.
Full UPC: 6 34913 00068 2
Net weight 20 oz.
Cost of item: $2.99 plus tax.
No expiration date listed on rolls, even though they were freshly cooked by the manufacturer.
Store refused to take product back for a refund, or for an exchange for a DIFFERENT product. They wanted to just provide to us the SAME product in exchange. Store told us that the food they sell is perishable, and that they have no responsibility for it's status after it leaves the store. "You takes your chances for the food you buy from us because we refuse to stand behind it, or to properly investigate problems with the food we sell." - This is an accurate description of their stance. It's a stance that may be common in Vietnam or China, but it's rather uncommon here.
Here's a list of stores which do readily take products back, and which are very interested in detecting problems with the food they sell: Trader Joe's, Smiths (Kroger), Winco, and even Walmart. These Asian stores simply need an education that this is America, and in America stores tend to care more about the safety of the food they sell.
When stores refuse to take food back for refund or exchange, that promotes the following: a.) the selling of unsafe food, and b.) a failure to take responsibility for the selling of unsafe food, and c.) no ready method of correction for the selling of unsafe food. Thankfully stores like those I mentioned starting with Trader Joe's GLADLY take food back - because they CARE about their customers and food safety!
But sadly when Asian merchants come to America they assume that the Asian way of doing business is how they should act here - but it ain't! In America we care about food safety, ok? Welcome to America Mr. or Mrs. Asian-immigrant grocery store owner. We like buying Asian food here, yes that's true, but not food that's rotten or spoiled, and not such food from stores which refuse to take any responsibility for the food they sell.
When my Chinese wife shared our experience at Tay Do with her friends, they were surprised. "This happens in America?," they said. Yes it does - when grocer immigrants bring a criminal lack-of-responsibility unsafe food selling culture here it does. In China & Vietnam the grocers may well not take responsibility for the food they sell. "You takes your chances, and after food leaves our store we take no responsibility for it!" Ok, that's the way people do things in China & Vietnam. But in America when stores & food manufacturers try this, relevant governmental agencies will hear about what happened, and the consumers who report problems won't go to jail for complaining (like they can do in China & Vietnam).
Relevant photos of the rotten food:
Where's the expiration date?
And notice their angry statement on the above receipt "NO REFUNDS & EXCHANGES!"
Translate this to me: We can sell you shitty spoiled rotten food, and take NO responsibility for it. Yeah, such a stance really promotes food satefy.
Ukraine has been in the news recently. In Portland I met a very nice family from Ukraine, an experience which led in part to a desire to seek about seeking a wife from there. That experience resulted in the following:
1. Several blind dates, with about 30% normal women, 50% women who wanted nothing more than a free meal from an American man, and 20% outright thieving women.
These dates were orchistrated via the following sites:
2. Tours of sites in Ukraine which normal tourists would never see. Swimming in a large river near Kiev. Touring cathedrals & seeing the circus. Visit to Soviet-era-looking towns and staying in similar style hotels. Visits to Odessa & the surrounding area. Odessa was known as a city of thieves. It still deserves that label, unfortunately.
A pretty face can bring ready cash. Pretend to be interested in real relationships with foreign men, and suddenly, cha-ching, the cash starts flowing in. Yes there are certainly honest hard working down to Earth people in Ukraine. It's just that most such people do not, in my view & experience, visit agencies to help them meet foriegn men to marry. It's something about the culture perhaps.
China is different. Chinese women. You will have better luck with women from China. Less likely to cheat & deceive. More hard working. A higher liklihood that you will be approached honestly & for the same purpose as you are out looking. Women not just looking for a free meal or a one night stand.
Anyway, so far I've created two video commentaries about Ukraine since they've been in the news recently.
Ukraine, freedom, dating scams, thieves, dating advise, & related thoughts - 2-20-2014
In Portland I met a very nice family from Ukraine. Before coming to my senses and marrying a nice woman from China, I went on some blind dates with some Ukraine women. Some were normal. Some were just wanted a free meal / date. And at least one or two were outright thieves.
Why does Moscow care so much about Kiev? Because that's where their ancestors came from. But if they want to all be Ukrainian at heart why did they move to Moscow?
Russians want Ukraine to essentially be & remain a de facto Russian state / province. But a lot of Ukrainians don't appreciate the boot of Putin.
In a bar in Odessa I remember one man telling me "we just want people outside of Ukraine to view it like it's a regular normal country."
If the protests succeed and if the place can be one where the former PM is not imprisoned by the current president and so on, then perhaps the man's dream can come true.
As for the dating scam women and all of the wallet dropping scam men, I rather hope they all move somewhere else. Maybe to Putin's neighborhood.
City of thieves indeed. There are normal down to Earth honest people in Ukraine, but they are unfortunately surrounded by a bunch of crooks. Maybe the normal people want to throw the crooks out.
2-20-2014 7:35am and afternoon
Commentary included with video 2:
Mr. Beeb and the Birdies; more thoughts on Ukraine; the naivete of liberal relativism.
To find, in my view & opinion, 30% normal women, 50% women who are interested in nothing more than a free meal from a foreigner (and a one night stand with a big spender), and 20% women who are outright thieves visit: http://www.kievconnections.com About the same odds later findable at: http://www.elenasmodels.com
Recommendations instead for dating & marriage: In the first instance first hand interaction & offline introductions. Online later, but only AFTER a real flesh & blood first hand introduction by a friend or college. This applies both to seeking someone here or abroad. And in my view and first hand experience, women from China will tend to be more honest with you regarding what exactly they're approaching you for than women from Ukraine, Russia, or similar countries. Yes there are honest down to Earth women in the former-USSR countries, but you have to do more sifting to find them. Does the woman want to go buy expensive shoes or clothing immediate after your first dinner date? Is she eager for you to meet her family? Does she call you at odd hours of the night to request emergency cash? All these are signs that you're simply being used.
Anyway I'm lucky to have found the woman I did, and that friends in the US were able to help coordinate our initial contact. A beautiful son has so far been the result.
Regarding politics, liberalism & conservatism: My preference is to now take the Hitchens approach. Question everything in the first instance, and then see where the evidence lies. Sometimes conservative or moderate ideals end up being correct, after examining sufficient evidence. A hard truth for a liberal to admit.
The fruity flakey nature of the man's mother didn't help with his propensity to be sucked into such claptrap.
Here's one friend of the man in question: "Predator was coach, Scout chief" http://goo.gl/vmC2J8
How nice.
I now have no contact with the whackjob psychic in question, and upon reflection I'm glad to also have no association moving forward with his friends, such as the abusive ex-con mentioned on the third site listed above.
Not everything is black & white, nice and pleasant, happy & healthy, in the "gay" community... Crass narcissism. Endless petty vain tail chasing. New-Age moonbattery. Easy acceptance of other abusers. These attributes are common in the culture.
Unitarians are the most accepting people? If you're too accepting you might just get AIDS, die, and leave your straight family with no father.
No, I ain't one, but after first hand exposure via my gay nephew & attendance within him at many gay parties and a few gay bars, I can see why someone would want to "live straight."
Living straight means: A more productive life, one which naturally includes the ready possibility of children. A life that doesn't require frequent contact with new age nutjobs and vain petty narcissists. A life which isn't, by default and without great effort to avoid it, a dead end. Anyway...
The Mormon war on men's bits & pieces, and on liberating life
changing sexual pleasure, is never ending, and yet they never admit to
the crimes of their founding leaders.
Recently BYU Idaho, which is really a glorified de facto private high school formerly known as Ricks College, released a video via their Student Housing Department, called Wounded On The Battlefield. It's an anti-porn anti-masturbation propaganda video. Here it is:
In a cult the leader gets to
have all the sex he wants, with whomever he wants. But it's the height
of hypocrisy to be concerned about normal natural healthy
otherwise-private activities of children & adults while at the same
time failing to admit to and own up to the crimes of the founders of
your stupid religion / cult.
Philip Seymour Hoffman was a great arrr-tiest (artist), who in my view was also (and most importantly) a druggie who betrayed his family. The guy had three kids and an ex-partner whom in my view he betrayed - and that's the most important thing we can say about the man.
What would we think of the guy if he were not a "great" actor? Just some man or woman who died of a drug overdose, with perhaps (according to news reports & the police) ~70 bags of heroin in his apartment? We'd rightly conclude they were incredibly petty, stupid, vain, shallow, and unfit to be a parent. A man or woman who betrayed his three kids & family.
This business of separating the artist from his or her supposedly-separate personal life is wrong headed & immoral, but it's par for the course for liberal dogmatists who hold so very tightly to their relativism.
Roman Polanski, and possibly Woody Allen (as per claims by his ex-wife & some of his kids), are also examples of men who have acted in incredibly slimy ways. Oh, they're such great artists? Who cares, right? No. People shouldn't get a pass on such matters just because they won the Hollywood or Sundance popularity contest.
Perhaps Hollywood should just go trolling for new directors at the local prison and mental institute. Perhaps this is what they've already done.
Drugs can hijack your built in by evolution by natural selection brain reward circuitry. Also just because something is "natural" doesn't mean it's safe. Chemicals are chemicals, and "natural" plants and naturally-derived chemicals can F you up just as much as any man made chemical can. Thus harmful drugs such as marijuana & heroin should remain illegal, but people should not be locked away if they take them. Instead there should be mandatory treatment programs, and mandatory check ins and monitoring.
There are natural highs that are ok, such as sex, good & healthy food, positive social interaction, helping others, etc. But adding dangerous chemicals to your brain which force your reward circuitry into overdrive can permanently damage how the system works.
Perhaps the guy wanted to portray Truman Capote for a reason. Two peas in the pod. But self destructive people need proper intervention, and they should be properly called out when they're betraying their own family.
So you're a great artist, but also a druggie or worse? Who cares about your artistry. Get yourself cleaned up, and then perhaps we'll check out whether you've painted a pretty picture or not.
------------
February 7, 2014 addendum:
Comments posted in response to the following blog:
I can see why Daniel Dennett considers
the Harris view on free will insidious. Does the crack mom have a
choice? Does the abusive father? Does the abusive Catholic Priest? Yes,
absolutely they do have a choice. More choice than an amoeba. More
choice than a carrot. More choice than a cat, dog, or lion. More choice
than Sam Harris and presumably you will allow for.
Hoffman’s actions were no better than that of a crack mother in my
view. He had three kids. He very much WAS responsible for his actions.
Irresponsible. Abusive. Retrograde. And so on.
more thoughts:
------------
Someone then replied with mention of Jesus. Here's my reply to them - Comment 2:
1. Do abusers have a choice? Yes. Do they have free will? Yes, in the compatibilist sense that Daniel Dennett talks about & which I very much agree with. The level of choice, and the ability to make what could reasonably be stated to be good choices, varies depending on the individual. Regardless though dangerous people should be locked up. And non-violent druggies should be forced into treatment & mandatory rehab programs by the law (not into prison).
2. Mention of Jesus has little sway with me as I'm not a believer in him. The Biblical Jesus judged plenty of people, as do many of his followers in spite of the admonition to not judge. In fact for the past 2000 years they've done >nothing but< judge others, and in many cases to kill others for their lack of belief in Jesus.
But, we should judge people, reasonably. And we should be judged, in reasonable ways. We are judged by our peers all the time. That's how human society works. We're social animals. And cheaters, rightly, get called out for cheating. And dangerous outliers are locked up - and that's a good thing.
3. Rather than devote time to prayer, may I suggest devoting time to real things that will help. Intervention into the lives of people who're virtually drowning is one good task. More people should have intervened in the life of Phillip Seymour Hoffman. His neighbors. The police. A judge could have ordered him into treatment.
Who failed Hoffman? His sycophantic admirers, his fellow Hollywood druggie friends, and the press. Also the probably underpaid police for not catching him earlier. 70 bags of heroin is a lot. Rich & poor should be treated equally I agree - not prison. Instead all non-dealers should be routed to mandatory treatment & mandatory follow ups. Also mandatory inspections of the living quarters of affected people. It takes some tax money. Jesus isn't enough. Real flesh & blood in person people need to be there to do the work. But it's cheaper in the long run to pay for in person intervention than to pay for prison or to pay for the loss of someone.
Review of our Sunday February 2nd, 2014 visit to the Utah Science and
Technology Arts Museum (also known as the Leonard Museum), in Salt Lake
City, Utah.
Currently on display is a Dead Sea Scrolls exhibit there, an exhibit which appears to be rotating around to various museums.
The admission price for the special exhibit is very high.
Here's what you'll see in side:
1. Sand on the floor.
2. Old pottery.
3. Old coins.
4. A few very small pieces of the scrolls, which are impossible to read or view in any reasonable way. Blown up images of the few pieces brought.
5. Staff who state that they believe in prayer.
6. A replica of the Jerusalem wailing wall (western temple wall), into which you can place a prayer paper, which will supposedly later be taken to Jerusalem.
7. A special Utah section about the Dead Sea Scrolls that talks about the contribution of Utahns - mainly talking about the involvement of the group FARMS (Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies - now the Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship at BYU), and strangely about the DNA work of Scott Woodward. FARMS and it's successor serve as a "scholarly" "scientific" apologetic instrument of the Mormon Church.
Mention of Scott Woodward's DNA work in the Utah section was particularly appalling. Where is the Lamanite DNA? Google plant geneticist Simon Southerton to find out - there is none. FARMS/Maxwell/BYU apologetic pseudoscience has no place in an honest science museum.
Our neural networks are highly mailable. We can be swayed into various memetic-social camps due to various influences including: parental, social, educational, experiential, etc. When within one memetic camp we erect walls of defense to keep from being pulled into another camp. If pulled into another camp, we erect new memetic walls to keep us in the new camp.
I remember my time in Portland as being like an Alice in Wonderland. One of my experience paths involved going to weekly meetings for the new sadly defunct group United States Atheists. At those meetings a very nice man befriended me and we would often go to a nearby bar to talk, with a few of the others from the meetings. Also this man later headed up atheist group monthly visits to the OMSI Science Pub events, in connection with atheist related meetup.com groups & later with the Center For Inquiry, Portland.
Here's another video of my friend (who would go to the USA Atheists meetings & the bar afterward & to the OMSI Science Pub CFI events), from 2009. In that 2009 video he talks about going from being a Christian to an atheist.
Within the past few days from February 4, 2014 I found that my friend has converted back to evangelical Christianity. Here is a related video, and some additional debate notes I found about the issue.
The Mormon & Christian Memetic Whirlpool
Mormons wear nice clothes. That was the first comment from my wife as I drove her around downtown Salt Lake, especially during their General Conferences. But just wearing nice clothes doesn't mean you are happy.
As I have walked with my wife & son around Temple Square, I know she's felt the pull of the Mormon memetic whirlpool. I've felt it too, but I also get a huge icky poo feeling along with. A cult is a group which engages in a few key things:
1. Leader worship.
2. Excommunication of those who disagree - both from your own family if you disagree, and from the cult in general.
3. Active suppression of evidence that may discredit what the leaders are claiming.
4. Putting the cult first, above family & other human relationships.
A cult is an especially strong form of memetic group or camp with especially strong defenses, and strong belief maintenance to keep people in line.
Our path through the forest of competing ideas can result in our being sucked one way or another, based on how we are feeling & what's happening to us at any given time.
So, I won't be returning to Mormonism or Christianity any time soon. Why? Because I remember the deception, the lies, and the pain. I haven't forgotten the lies of the leaders or their hypocrisy.
My related video commentary on this whole situation:
While in Portland I was befriended by a man who went with me to weekly meetings for the now defunct group United States Atheists. After those meetings we often would go to a bar for a chat. Also the man became an organizer for Center for Inquiry, Portland and their past monthly OMSI Science Pub events. Also the man invited me to participate in a cable access TV show called Sciligion.
Here's one example where we're appearing together on the show:
In the video at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DxjSAuLAG48 my friend talks about a differentiation between the the physical and the metaphysical, the normal and the paranormal. For me such differentiations are simply memetic camp defense mechanisms. If some god exists in another dimension as a "spiritual being," he or she or it would still be a physical entity. Does the so-called metaphysical item or entity exist? If the answer is yes then they are physical AKA a real thing with real physical properties.
It's sad that to belong to a human social group we have to a.) suck up to a leader, and b.) state that we believe in one or more joint-lies. Can we change this situation? Can we have human social groups where we don't all have to state that we believe in the joint lies?
When we leave conservative religion we may encounter what is essentially liberal-religion. Many atheist & "free thought" groups are essentially liberal religions. If you don't tow the party line in these liberal flavors of religion you will then undergo a heresy trial, one which almost exactly mirrors the heresy trials of conservative religions. In those trials you will be accused of having held onto tenets from your old religion, concepts which you should have just completely tossed according to them. But the key fallacies in their arguments can be revealed via the following activity: Going to China, where they know nothing about your religion, and see what they believe in & do. Do the same thing in other cultures. Religion is a NATURAL phenomenon, and so even tenets in conservative religion can still be fully natural.
It's too simplistic to state that because human brains have come up with medical advances, that therefore a child does not need, and would best benefit by having, a father and mother - normally, ideally, usually.
From an experiential perspective I've seen a lot of gay culture. For several years I went to gay parties & gay bars with a nephew of mine. However we recently had a falling out & no longer speak. I feel I’ve finally seen the light about his position & my need to stay away from it.
My gay nephew spends his life chasing his own tail, going to petty alcohol centered parties & bars, and in vain & petty pursuits that lead nowhere. When a convicted child abuser (12 year olds – sex related) was released from prison, my gay nephew & his friends readily accepted the man back into their social circle. And like I say he appears to be living a life that will in the end count for pretty much nothing.
Also I have in my experiential profile a gay uncle who died of AIDS because he cheated on his wife during the ‘60s, therefore leaving his family with no father or grandfather. Also he apparently influenced one of his daughters such that her brain was modeled in such a way as to allow herself the internal latitude to consider herself to be gay.
Ok, so there's that. But, I also have been an observer of some gay people who are not quite so petty, shallow, and destructive. For example there's a very nice man who helps us out when we go on vacation. He spends his life helping others, both professionally and personally.
Here is a list of my current views, after making all these observations, and taking into account exposure to cultures outside of the United States which are largely secular, but which also have concerns about homosexuality:
1. People who are accepting of convicted child abusers are themselves suspect. There may be a dangerous trend or propensity within some parts of “gay culture” to be accepting of child abusers.
2. Having children is a good thing. People who "choose" to not have them are making a huge mistake, in their own lives, and for humanity as a whole. Also people who don't have kids due to environmental concerns are also highly misguided & deceived.
3. Maybe human children really do need a father & a mother, normally, and ideally. Children can adapt, but I'm talking about what is "preferred" and "ideal."
4. What if science of any reasonable flavor disproves progressive or liberal dogma or presuppositions?
5. Religion is a natural phenomenon. This fact cuts both ways. What can be "instilled" by a religion, can nevertheless be fully natural with fully naturalistic roots. Concerns over masturbation & pornography. Concerns over non-procreative sex. Concerns about preserving life. It's simply too easy and lazy to state that all such concerns can be dismissed out of hand because leaders in a given religion express concerns. For me, as an ex-Mormon, it's a matter of balance.
Should children be shamed for masturbation? Should adults be prevented from viewing porn? No to both. But on the other hand, both pursuits can be detrimental if they prevent someone from having real meaningful interactions with another flesh & blood human being.
Should life be valued? Yes. In my view abortion should be discouraged, but not illegal before viability.
And so on.
It's very hard work for an ex-religionist to find what really is of value, from a human perspective, amongst all the chaff & lies in their former religion. With religions like Mormonism this is a particularly hard task because of the incredibly strict & controlling nature of Mormonism. When one leaves such a religion one can naturally feel the need to let it all hang out & to rebel as much as possible. On the other hand, if you let it all hang out for too long, you may either a.) cheat on your wife, get AIDS, die, and leave your family with no father, or b.) spend your life as a morbidly obese virgin who's obsessed with porn & masturbation - to the exclusion of normal & healthy flesh & blood human relations.
Do humans have a right to marry if they're gay? Perhaps. But regardless enough people now feel as if their "moral zeitgeist" has moved along such that they now feel self-professed gay people should be able to marry legally. Most any opinion can be justified by case law, left or right or otherwise.
Should gay couples adopt children? Maybe. I suppose if abusive straight ones can adopt & take in foster kids, then more reasonable & kind gay couples probably should be able to. But it's still an open question for me as to whether having a lack of gender balance with parents has a negative or detrimental effect on children. It may, at the very least, allow the brains of children to be drawn more readily into them considering themselves to be “gay,” when they may accurately be more “bi” or a mix, or both, or able to go either way – reasonably. Being "gay accepting" can allow for the brains of children to consider "gayness" as more of an option. There are gradations.
People can choose to become "ex-gay" or to live the life of a straight person - and be happy.
Saying all these things is heresy to the Stonewall liberal. Non sequitur assumptions, accusations, ad hominem attacks, black listing, and heresy trials – leftist style, can quickly and easily begin when a person says much of any of the above. But, in my view we need to nevertheless question liberal dogma points as well as conservative ones.
The person who angrily tells either side to just "shut up" goes too far & needs to be militantly ignored. Both the conservative preacher and the politically correct liberal need to be ignored & pushed past in my view.
Anyway, I appreciate hearing what you have to say in most cases. I’m simply trying to convey that it’s too simplistic to state that conservative views can be dismissed out of hand because people who’re currently religious happen to make such claims. Dennett’s truth about the natural state of religion does cut both ways, and should give pause to the liberal as he may be working to fervently adhere to his own dogma points.
What comes out of the mouths of humans is always natural. I think we can be more kind & compassionate though, and expand our in group morality. But we also need to be careful. Warnings from religion can have value & can be fully natural & reasonable. It's hard work to separate the lie-infused covering from the nevertheless-naturalistic-truths which may be inside and which need to be considered even if they were inside of the Mormon or Catholic burrito. My apologies to Mexican food. I prefer human free thinker atheist Chinese burritos myself. Much more tasty.
=========================
1-16-2014 afternoon addendum containing a discussion exchange:
Another person wrote:
>I do think it's a good idea to be very skeptical of ideas promoted by religion. <
My reply:
Skeptical, but not dismissive just because the ideas happen to be harbored within a religion. Does Thor exist? No. But natural human morals & ethics existed within the religion which loved him.
It's hard work for a liberal to be skeptical of liberalism. Pinker / Harris / Dennett / Dawkins have been skeptical of certain aspects of "liberal" as well as "conservative" thought.
>It can be very hard to know which of your values have been instilled by your upbringing and which have rational justification. <
Taking a step further back, away from Christianity, Islam, and Judaism, helps one to see the forest through the trees. If all the cultures I had examined thus far were Mormonism followed by ex-Mormonism, more of my views would probably lie firmly within the liberal camp.
<clip>
>In particular on masturbation and pornography<
<clip>
I'm a masturbation advocate, as well as a marriage, life, and children advocate. I'm also appreciative of the fact that certain forms of porn can be useful, to adults, and in moderation. But what I'm trying to say is there's value in making note of why people say the things they do. When people express concerns over non-procreative forms of sexuality, why do they do that? Because their mommy said so? Because the Bible says no? What I'm saying is that the answer seems to be, n-o - no it's not that simple.
The lies expressed by religion, especially by religions like Mormonism, have tainted the well of conversation. Their lies & controlling nature have made it more difficult to sift & see if, and what, they may be saying may actually be of value. How can we free ourselves of this problem? Go visit China. That's one way. Perhaps 99% of Chinese people have 0% exposure to Mormonism, Christianity, Islam, Judaism, etc. And yet, for some reason, they do express concerns about destructive or non-procreative forms of human sexuality. Why is that? Maybe because they're human, and such concerns have naturalistic roots.
It's rather highly inconvenient to be a liberal and to find out that some of your own suppositions & opinions as a liberal may in fact be wrong, unfounded, or damaging.
<clip>
>... it really does seem to me that you are left with a lot of overly-conservative values that need to be re-examined... <
After leaving Mormonism I did a fair amount of exploring. Time & experience has allowed me to take a step back from the letting it all hang out "phase" of my departure from Mormonism. I ain't goin' back. I also am not going to kiss the rear end of Jesus in the future.
I don't advocate the type of concern level expressed by people in Uganda for example. That goes way way too far. Mormon Prophet Spencer Kimball's book Miracle of Forgiveness also goes way way too far in the level of concern expressed. But, on the other hand, I've also seen what happens when people let it all hang out in their rebellion.
The death of my uncle who died of AIDS is one example. He was perhaps a victim of the strictness of Mormonism. Perhaps he would not have rebelled quite so much if either a.) the Mormon Church were itself less strict on sexuality, or b.) his wife had met him part way in his exit by leaving Mormonism herself & being more open sexually with him. It's a valuable thought experiment to consider - post mortem iudicium of rebelling too much and getting AIDS & dying as a result.
> Your overly negative stereotype of masturbation, <
There's no need to personalize too much on that point. I'm advocating looking at what non-Abrahamic cultures do & think. Masturbation can lead one to very much want a real relationship - that's also true. It can enhance a real relationship. But there's destructive forms of the activity which can also lead one away from a real relationship. Do you have enough "sexual energy" left for the date you're about to go on, or are you pooped out? That's one small example. But again I'm advocating taking a step back from American / Christian / Islamic / Jewish myopia on this & all issues. What do non-Abrahamic cultures do & advocate in countries which have had little exposure to the religions of our youths?
>I mean, why should it be?<
Are humans more happy when they are led or lead themselves into a relationship which is inherently non-reproductive?
Is being straight "better" than being gay? Exclude the outliers (psychopaths, etc.), what if the answer is yes?
Is the "childfree" life better? No.
Would it be better if humans had never existed? No.
But liberals tend to answers these questions differently.
Rejection of the nihilism present in Evangelical Christianity is a happy activity of some atheists. But how about a rejection of the nihilism & defeatism of the left? Who's advocating for that?
Only the "Black Atheists of Atlanta?" I'm not a member of their group, and some of the stuff they advocate for is quite nutty. But, listening to them at the very least provides an opportunity for your average ultra-liberal rebelling atheist to take a step back and question liberal presuppositions as well. And perhaps more importantly, listening to my own wife who had zero exposure to all the (admited & acknowledged) crap I was exposed to as a kid, has helped me take a step back as well.
What I'm advocating for is that the questions of whether elements of conservative thought are actually valid should be *on the table* so to speak, and not swept under the carpet out of fear of offending the new self-appointed leaders of dogmatic liberal de-facto religion. One way of sweeping them under is to try & dismiss them out of hand "because a religion advocated for a given point." It's not that easy or simple is what I'm saying.
"...Due to the nature of the conference presentations and the serving of alcohol during the evenings, we have established a strict policy that no children are allowed except for nursing infants. In addition, since the presentations are recorded for our website, it's important that we control the ambient noise during the recordings. If you have any questions about this policy, please contact the Conference Chairman..."
Your strict "no children" AKA no-normal-human policy is still present. As such we won't be going.
Suggest your foundation be led by people who realize that people who grow up in a children-friendly environment (eg: sacrament meetings where children are welcome) may expect to have a similar environment in their so-called "recovery-from-Mormonism."
I think we need recovery from recovery from Mormonism, if "recovery" means giving up our kids or leaving them behind.
The Salt Lake conference should be Salt-Lake-people-originated, and operated by people who remember what many years of life were like as a Mormon: Children were there, and that was actually a good thing. We didn't kick them out or send them away like Unitarians do, and we aren't going to do so as so-called "exmos" - not even if there's a "strict" policy requiring this.
Hey, I remember when Tal Bachman brought his several kids to the conference. No problem right?
Anyway, in my view the current leaders of the Exmormon Foundation have constructed a group which is essentially a cult of personality.
Utah is a kid friendly place, even for people recovering from recovery from Mormonism. We aren't from Portland, and we didn't grow up going to UU churches. Sending kids away is not natural for us, and neither is a "strict no child policy." Such a policy is anti-human and anti-life.
Hoffman’s actions were no better than that of a crack mother in my view. He had three kids. He very much WAS responsible for his actions. Irresponsible. Abusive. Retrograde. And so on.
more thoughts:
------------
Someone then replied with mention of Jesus. Here's my reply to them - Comment 2:
1. Do abusers have a choice? Yes. Do they have free will? Yes, in the compatibilist sense that Daniel Dennett talks about & which I very much agree with. The level of choice, and the ability to make what could reasonably be stated to be good choices, varies depending on the individual. Regardless though dangerous people should be locked up. And non-violent druggies should be forced into treatment & mandatory rehab programs by the law (not into prison).
2. Mention of Jesus has little sway with me as I'm not a believer in him. The Biblical Jesus judged plenty of people, as do many of his followers in spite of the admonition to not judge. In fact for the past 2000 years they've done >nothing but< judge others, and in many cases to kill others for their lack of belief in Jesus.
But, we should judge people, reasonably. And we should be judged, in reasonable ways. We are judged by our peers all the time. That's how human society works. We're social animals. And cheaters, rightly, get called out for cheating. And dangerous outliers are locked up - and that's a good thing.
3. Rather than devote time to prayer, may I suggest devoting time to real things that will help. Intervention into the lives of people who're virtually drowning is one good task. More people should have intervened in the life of Phillip Seymour Hoffman. His neighbors. The police. A judge could have ordered him into treatment.
Who failed Hoffman? His sycophantic admirers, his fellow Hollywood druggie friends, and the press. Also the probably underpaid police for not catching him earlier. 70 bags of heroin is a lot. Rich & poor should be treated equally I agree - not prison. Instead all non-dealers should be routed to mandatory treatment & mandatory follow ups. Also mandatory inspections of the living quarters of affected people. It takes some tax money. Jesus isn't enough. Real flesh & blood in person people need to be there to do the work. But it's cheaper in the long run to pay for in person intervention than to pay for prison or to pay for the loss of someone.