Should an 11 year old American Indian with leukemia be condemned to death, because of the new age raw food eating modern medical science denying "aboriginal" beliefs of her parents? When self hating leftist hipsters in Florida and Canada do it it's not child abuse, right?
Is this a triumph for "native" "aboriginal" rights?
http://www.thespec.com/news-story/5028666-aboriginal-girl-who-refused-chemo-is-critically-ill/
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2014/11/17/an-ontario-court-dooms-a-first-nations-girl-with-cancer/
The savages are not so noble after all.
More info on the term:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noble_savage
Pinker on the general issue & other leftist denial of human nature:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ramBFRt1Uzk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Blank_Slate
A related book found:
War Before Civilization: The Myth of the Peaceful Savage
http://www.amazon.com/War-Before-Civilization-Peaceful-Savage/dp/0195119126
In my view Canada has become oh so very politically correct, and enmeshed in liberal self hate, that they cannot help but let this 11 year old "noble savage" die of leukemia.
My own further views on so-called "natives:"
American Indians: No group of humans are uniquely more noble
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2013/03/american-indians-no-group-of-humans-are.html
Noble Savages? Edward Snowden, Julian Assange, Bradley Manning, Evo Morales, Hugo Chavez, Wikileaks, Bolivia, Amerindians (American Indians), and so on.
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2013/07/noble-savages-edward-snowden-julian.html
Leaders in the Amerindian community are furthering past abuse by whitey by such actions. Taking the sword from the whites of the past, holding it in their own hands, and using it themselves on their own children.
Thursday, November 20, 2014
Wednesday, November 12, 2014
Free Will and The Self Are Not Illusions!
Criticisms of Sam Harris & other's view that free will, and even "the self," are illusions:
From Daniel Dennett - on free will:
Moving Naturalism Forward: Day 2, Afternoon, 1st Session
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Ob4c_iLuTw
From Mary Midgley:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WV48fvJsIrs#t=759
Free Will is NOT An Illusion
by W. R. Klemm, DVM, PhD | October 25, 2010
http://brainblogger.com/2010/10/25/free-will-is-not-an-illusion/
I'm a fan of Harris, but I rather think that the sense of self is no more of an illusion than color is an illusion.
Do colors exist? Yes. It's true that our range of detection depends fully on our evolutionary history. But we do detect them accurately, within the scope of our built in detection equipment.
So to say that free will & "the self" are illusions is not really accurate. It's deceptive
When the "software" of the brain is running, the "self" does exist. We feel it does. Is that an illusion? No. Simply because the software or wetware or whatever can be turned off partially doesn't mean that when it is up and running it's an "illusion." No, it's not an illusion. It's quite real, and quite physical.
Review by Mary Midgley of Dennett's Freedom Evolves:
http://www.theguardian.com/books/2003/mar/01/highereducation.news1
And Dennett's book itself mentions problems with Libet's work.
More generally:
The Self Is Not an Illusion
by Will Wilkinson
May 24, 2012, 3:24 PM
http://bigthink.com/the-moral-sciences-club/the-self-is-not-an-illusion
Free Will Is not an Illusion
by William Klemm, D.V.M., Ph.D.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/memory-medic/201010/free-will-is-not-illusion
and also at
http://brainblogger.com/2010/10/25/free-will-is-not-an-illusion/
More criticisms of the Libet experiment:
"...A more direct test of the relationship between the readiness potential and the "awareness of the intention to move" was conducted by Banks and Isham (2009). In their study, participants performed a variant of the Libet's paradigm in which a delayed tone followed the button press. Subsequently, research participants reported the time of their intention to act (e.g., Libet's "W"). If W were time-locked to the readiness potential, W would remain uninfluenced by any post-action information. However, findings from this study show that W in fact shifts systematically with the time of the tone presentation, implicating that W is, at least in part, retrospectively reconstructed rather than pre-determined by the readiness potential..."
from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_free_will
Sam Harris has apparently been *completely* persuaded by the Libet experiment.
From Dennett:
"...Here, then, are my conclusions: determinism is a red herring, neuroscience has ominous implications only for closet Cartesians, Mr. Puppet is a defective intuition pump, and there is a consequentialist, compatibilist justification of the just deserts clause. Thank you for your attention..."
from Dennett's lecture "My Brain Made Me Do It."
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B0ZmSLnUooZuQzZDdVczUENfd1k/view?usp=sharing
But one can reasonably criticize Dennett's view of theaters as well:
There may not be a Cartesian theater, but that doesn't mean there isn't a theater at all.
When the software is "up," it's running, we're conscious. That's it.
Doesn't mean the "self" is an illusion.
Doesn't mean that free will is an illusion.
Colors are real.
Perceptions are real.
Just because there's interpretation going on doesn't mean that nothing is going on, or that everything is just so spooky that we are just slaves to chance or whatever the hell the root causes are of thoughts.
Sam Harris has sadly been derailed by a faulty interpretation of Libet's work.
What do I think is the REAL problem with all this?
Buddhism. Harris's exposure to Buddhism has in my view slanted his. Another religion screwing up people's views.
"Meditate until you feel the center dropping away."
...my interpretation of what Harris is advocating for.
Oooh! Spooky! A ham fisted poorly designed poorly interpreted experiment by Libet is glommed onto by Harris & others.
Sad. So sad. Inappropriately applied reductionism and dogmatically restrictive eliminativism.
A new "god of the gaps," where god = "the illusion of free will and of 'the self'."
Still religion and denialism, just under a new name.
We don't deny there's software or wetware in operation. The fact that timing exists doesn't in any way whatsoever mean that the software doesn't exist in the first place, or that it's not running in the first place.
We have more free will than a carrot, or in other words more ability to choose & decide & calculate.
When a highly complex robot says that he or she has a sense of "self," why not take them at their word? That "self" may be the fact that their software or wetware is "up" - and that's fine. It may not mean they have a soul in the traditional sense. But so what! The "self" is an expression of a currently-operational highly complex self-aware biological system. And secular apology for spooky Buddhism doesn't detract from that fact.
Little robots can derail the thinking of intelligent robots.
I am a robot.
We are the robots.
...therefore "we're an illusion?" "Free will is an illusion?" Our "sense of self" is an illusion?
I don't think so. We're alive, or we're not. The software or wetware is up, or it's not. The loop is running, or it's not.
Also a lot of this back & forth feels very much like a fallacy of only two choices.
Harris's view seems to de facto advocate for throwing up our hands and giving up. "Thoughts just arise," as he might say. Spooky. Ok, let's throw up our hands and say our new god of the gaps did it. Timing exists in thought processes, as Libet may have found. Oooh. Spooky. Therefore we don't have free will.
Sorry. Lame conclusions.
We are just beginning to learn. But these people who quickly jump to these conclusions about free will (Harris) or even a sense of self (Dennett), are in my view jumping too quickly to their conclusions, or are being too simplistic with them.
Doesn't mean the universe is spooky like Deepak Chopra advocates for with his woo. Doesn't mean there's a god. Doesn't mean that consciousness is "beyond" the realm of understanding.
But the robotic roots of biology have unfortunately derailed some otherwise pretty smart thinkers (Harris, Dennett, and others).
We have more free will than a carrot.
We have more sense of self than a carrot.
Harris should make note of the first fact.
Dennett should make note of the second.
Both free will and the sense of self come as a direct result of evolution by natural selection. The ability to choose (to varying degrees), and the perception that we have a sense of self, all come from evolution and the fact that we've evolved to become more complex biological creatures. Creatures made of tiny robots. But the fact that these two things are processes at all (eg: software or wetware "running") seems to trip up both Harris & Dennett, depending on what you are asking them about (free will, or a sense of self). Dennett seems a bit less susceptible to being tripped up perhaps. But I have the impression that a complete dismissal of the Cartesian theater goes too far.
Maybe the impression of the theater is simply how the wetware works & functions. Does that mean the theater doesn't exist? It exists no less than any other piece of software exists. And even claiming that may be too simplistic.
"...By separating the 'we' who can rebel against our genes and our brain, this avowed materialist becomes a Cartesian dualist in the laudable interest of preserving human agency... I find this abdication unsatisfactory, and instead want to insist that our sense of freedom to act, of possessing agency, emerges inevitably from our biological nature..."
from Steven Rose:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1371044/
How about instead of Cartesian dualism we have Cartesian singularism - or perhaps the "sense of dualism" is simply how the system works. Doesn't mean it's an "illusion" though!
From Daniel Dennett - on free will:
Moving Naturalism Forward: Day 2, Afternoon, 1st Session
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Ob4c_iLuTw
From Mary Midgley:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WV48fvJsIrs#t=759
Free Will is NOT An Illusion
by W. R. Klemm, DVM, PhD | October 25, 2010
http://brainblogger.com/2010/10/25/free-will-is-not-an-illusion/
I'm a fan of Harris, but I rather think that the sense of self is no more of an illusion than color is an illusion.
Do colors exist? Yes. It's true that our range of detection depends fully on our evolutionary history. But we do detect them accurately, within the scope of our built in detection equipment.
So to say that free will & "the self" are illusions is not really accurate. It's deceptive
When the "software" of the brain is running, the "self" does exist. We feel it does. Is that an illusion? No. Simply because the software or wetware or whatever can be turned off partially doesn't mean that when it is up and running it's an "illusion." No, it's not an illusion. It's quite real, and quite physical.
Review by Mary Midgley of Dennett's Freedom Evolves:
http://www.theguardian.com/books/2003/mar/01/highereducation.news1
And Dennett's book itself mentions problems with Libet's work.
More generally:
The Self Is Not an Illusion
by Will Wilkinson
May 24, 2012, 3:24 PM
http://bigthink.com/the-moral-sciences-club/the-self-is-not-an-illusion
Free Will Is not an Illusion
by William Klemm, D.V.M., Ph.D.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/memory-medic/201010/free-will-is-not-illusion
and also at
http://brainblogger.com/2010/10/25/free-will-is-not-an-illusion/
More criticisms of the Libet experiment:
"...A more direct test of the relationship between the readiness potential and the "awareness of the intention to move" was conducted by Banks and Isham (2009). In their study, participants performed a variant of the Libet's paradigm in which a delayed tone followed the button press. Subsequently, research participants reported the time of their intention to act (e.g., Libet's "W"). If W were time-locked to the readiness potential, W would remain uninfluenced by any post-action information. However, findings from this study show that W in fact shifts systematically with the time of the tone presentation, implicating that W is, at least in part, retrospectively reconstructed rather than pre-determined by the readiness potential..."
from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_free_will
Sam Harris has apparently been *completely* persuaded by the Libet experiment.
From Dennett:
"...Here, then, are my conclusions: determinism is a red herring, neuroscience has ominous implications only for closet Cartesians, Mr. Puppet is a defective intuition pump, and there is a consequentialist, compatibilist justification of the just deserts clause. Thank you for your attention..."
from Dennett's lecture "My Brain Made Me Do It."
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B0ZmSLnUooZuQzZDdVczUENfd1k/view?usp=sharing
But one can reasonably criticize Dennett's view of theaters as well:
There may not be a Cartesian theater, but that doesn't mean there isn't a theater at all.
When the software is "up," it's running, we're conscious. That's it.
Doesn't mean the "self" is an illusion.
Doesn't mean that free will is an illusion.
Colors are real.
Perceptions are real.
Just because there's interpretation going on doesn't mean that nothing is going on, or that everything is just so spooky that we are just slaves to chance or whatever the hell the root causes are of thoughts.
Sam Harris has sadly been derailed by a faulty interpretation of Libet's work.
What do I think is the REAL problem with all this?
Buddhism. Harris's exposure to Buddhism has in my view slanted his. Another religion screwing up people's views.
"Meditate until you feel the center dropping away."
...my interpretation of what Harris is advocating for.
Oooh! Spooky! A ham fisted poorly designed poorly interpreted experiment by Libet is glommed onto by Harris & others.
Sad. So sad. Inappropriately applied reductionism and dogmatically restrictive eliminativism.
A new "god of the gaps," where god = "the illusion of free will and of 'the self'."
Still religion and denialism, just under a new name.
We don't deny there's software or wetware in operation. The fact that timing exists doesn't in any way whatsoever mean that the software doesn't exist in the first place, or that it's not running in the first place.
We have more free will than a carrot, or in other words more ability to choose & decide & calculate.
When a highly complex robot says that he or she has a sense of "self," why not take them at their word? That "self" may be the fact that their software or wetware is "up" - and that's fine. It may not mean they have a soul in the traditional sense. But so what! The "self" is an expression of a currently-operational highly complex self-aware biological system. And secular apology for spooky Buddhism doesn't detract from that fact.
Little robots can derail the thinking of intelligent robots.
I am a robot.
We are the robots.
...therefore "we're an illusion?" "Free will is an illusion?" Our "sense of self" is an illusion?
I don't think so. We're alive, or we're not. The software or wetware is up, or it's not. The loop is running, or it's not.
Also a lot of this back & forth feels very much like a fallacy of only two choices.
Harris's view seems to de facto advocate for throwing up our hands and giving up. "Thoughts just arise," as he might say. Spooky. Ok, let's throw up our hands and say our new god of the gaps did it. Timing exists in thought processes, as Libet may have found. Oooh. Spooky. Therefore we don't have free will.
Sorry. Lame conclusions.
We are just beginning to learn. But these people who quickly jump to these conclusions about free will (Harris) or even a sense of self (Dennett), are in my view jumping too quickly to their conclusions, or are being too simplistic with them.
Doesn't mean the universe is spooky like Deepak Chopra advocates for with his woo. Doesn't mean there's a god. Doesn't mean that consciousness is "beyond" the realm of understanding.
But the robotic roots of biology have unfortunately derailed some otherwise pretty smart thinkers (Harris, Dennett, and others).
We have more free will than a carrot.
We have more sense of self than a carrot.
Harris should make note of the first fact.
Dennett should make note of the second.
Both free will and the sense of self come as a direct result of evolution by natural selection. The ability to choose (to varying degrees), and the perception that we have a sense of self, all come from evolution and the fact that we've evolved to become more complex biological creatures. Creatures made of tiny robots. But the fact that these two things are processes at all (eg: software or wetware "running") seems to trip up both Harris & Dennett, depending on what you are asking them about (free will, or a sense of self). Dennett seems a bit less susceptible to being tripped up perhaps. But I have the impression that a complete dismissal of the Cartesian theater goes too far.
Maybe the impression of the theater is simply how the wetware works & functions. Does that mean the theater doesn't exist? It exists no less than any other piece of software exists. And even claiming that may be too simplistic.
"...By separating the 'we' who can rebel against our genes and our brain, this avowed materialist becomes a Cartesian dualist in the laudable interest of preserving human agency... I find this abdication unsatisfactory, and instead want to insist that our sense of freedom to act, of possessing agency, emerges inevitably from our biological nature..."
from Steven Rose:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1371044/
How about instead of Cartesian dualism we have Cartesian singularism - or perhaps the "sense of dualism" is simply how the system works. Doesn't mean it's an "illusion" though!
Tuesday, November 4, 2014
The clitoris is more huge -accurately renaming the g-spot
Terms like "G-spot" & "vaginal orgasm" are apparently misnomers or a identification of what are actually other structures, such as the internal bulbs of the clitoris itself and so on.
Journal article:
Summary: http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/PressRelease/pressReleaseId-112610.html
Full version:
http://media.wiley.com/PressRelease/112610/CA_Anatomy_of_Sex.pdf
news citations:
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/life-style/health-fitness/health/Vaginal-orgasm-doesnt-exist-at-all-Study/articleshow/44701884.cms
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/10/08/the-truth-about-female-orgasms-look-to-the-clitoris-not-the-vagina.html
My response: Maybe the terms are inaccurate (eg: g-spot vs urethral sponge). And I bet one still can get some additional response from finding what some call the g-spot. Saying "it doesn't exist" is just plain wrong. Maybe the anatomical labeling is incorrect, or the embryological roots have been misidentified - but that doesn't mean the structure doesn't exist.
Journal article:
Summary: http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/PressRelease/pressReleaseId-112610.html
Full version:
http://media.wiley.com/PressRelease/112610/CA_Anatomy_of_Sex.pdf
news citations:
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/life-style/health-fitness/health/Vaginal-orgasm-doesnt-exist-at-all-Study/articleshow/44701884.cms
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/10/08/the-truth-about-female-orgasms-look-to-the-clitoris-not-the-vagina.html
My response: Maybe the terms are inaccurate (eg: g-spot vs urethral sponge). And I bet one still can get some additional response from finding what some call the g-spot. Saying "it doesn't exist" is just plain wrong. Maybe the anatomical labeling is incorrect, or the embryological roots have been misidentified - but that doesn't mean the structure doesn't exist.
Saturday, October 25, 2014
John Harvey Kellogg: what an f-er. Masturbation prevention is evil.
John Harvey Kellogg in his own words:
"Kellogg thought that masturbation was the worst evil one could commit; he often referred to it as 'self-abuse.' He was a leader of the anti-masturbation movement, and promoted extreme measures to prevent masturbation. In addition, Kellogg thought that diet played a huge role in masturbation and that a bland diet would decrease excitability and prevent masturbation. Thus, Kellogg invented Corn Flakes breakfast cereal in 1878. He hoped that feeding children this plain cereal every morning would help to combat the urges of 'self-abuse.'"
Quotes from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Harvey_Kellogg#Masturbation_prevention
Makes you want to never touch corn flakes ever again, or ANY cereal made by the company that still bears this f-er's name.
Also:
“ A remedy which is almost always successful in small boys is circumcision, especially when there is any degree of phimosis. The operation should be performed by a surgeon without administering an anesthetic, as the brief pain attending the operation will have a salutary effect upon the mind, especially if it be connected with the idea of punishment, as it may well be in some cases. The soreness which continues for several weeks interrupts the practice, and if it had not previously become too firmly fixed, it may be forgotten and not resumed. ”
further
“ a method of treatment [to prevent masturbation] ... and we have employed it with entire satisfaction. It consists in the application of one or more silver sutures in such a way as to prevent erection. The prepuce, or foreskin, is drawn forward over the glans, and the needle to which the wire is attached is passed through from one side to the other. After drawing the wire through, the ends are twisted together, and cut off close. It is now impossible for an erection to occur, and the slight irritation thus produced acts as a most powerful means of overcoming the disposition to resort to the practice ”
and
“ In females, the author has found the application of pure carbolic acid (phenol) to the clitoris an excellent means of allaying the abnormal excitement.
"Kellogg thought that masturbation was the worst evil one could commit; he often referred to it as 'self-abuse.' He was a leader of the anti-masturbation movement, and promoted extreme measures to prevent masturbation. In addition, Kellogg thought that diet played a huge role in masturbation and that a bland diet would decrease excitability and prevent masturbation. Thus, Kellogg invented Corn Flakes breakfast cereal in 1878. He hoped that feeding children this plain cereal every morning would help to combat the urges of 'self-abuse.'"
Quotes from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Harvey_Kellogg#Masturbation_prevention
Makes you want to never touch corn flakes ever again, or ANY cereal made by the company that still bears this f-er's name.
Atheists of Utah is a religion
Found Sam Harris's comments about his recent interview on the Young Turks:
http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-young-turks-interview
http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-young-turks-interview
After reading his further complaints about Glenn Greenwald and similar leftist a-holes I have the following response:
Truth be told I still have nothing but disdain for the Duck Dynasty hating politically correct ignoramuses who head up Atheists is Utah and related groups. These people will never reach the rural middle and right in America, with their reflexive self righteous petty piling on and pouncing.
As I read what Harris wrote I can see exactly where he's coming from.
Perhaps I'm moderately "ok" with gay marriage now, such as it is. But I think atheism should and must be a big enough tent to allow for all views to be expressed, how ever politically incorrect, of offensive to your average shit for brains ultra-PC liberal - speaking as a general economic liberal myself, but one who's not fucking PC about every little thing.
Tuesday, October 21, 2014
response to Rory Patrick's 100 day masturbation abstinence - the pain and sorrow of having genitals
A man (Rory Patrick) abstains from touching his penis for 100 days. Supporters then express solemn tearful solidarity with him.
An interview of the man:
http://www.vice.com/read/our-interview-with-a-guy-who-didnt-masturbate-for-100-days-722
Oh the pain & sorrow, of having genitals. The great solidarity raised by three fingers, of others, offering great & wonderful support to the protagonist.
As I viewed the people's responses at #Rory100 I felt amazed, annoyed, and sick. My fuck what did the guy do? Abstain from touching his penis for 100 days? That warrants tearful wondrous support for the guy? WTF?
In any case:
The left bemoans the fact that we have genitals at all, nearly as much as the right does.
The left is unhappy that genitals can be used to make babies.
The right is unhappy that genitals can be used for things other than making babies.
And both seem to get pretty upset when your average sexual urge interferes with your ability to do other activities.
Oh, if there were just a way to separate out this part of our brain, right?
But, to do so is IMO abusive. For example the Mormon flavor of abusiveness:
http://corvus.freeshell.org/corvus_corax/two/life_path/Mortal_Mormonism.htm
and http://mormoncurtain.com/topic_markepeterson.html
and http://www.lds-mormon.com/only.shtml
And then there's Islam:
http://nowscape.com/islam/Islam_masturbation.htm
These religious prophets, leaders, and scholars hear you Mr. Patrick. They've got their three fingers up in solidarity with you. So do the Victorians and Puritans.
100 days without masturbating? Who gives a flip (rephrase in the common Internet colloquialism as you please).
I fully agree there can be some value in abstaining say for a few days, or maybe for up to two weeks. So that you can, for example, focus on finding a real in the flesh date or mate. But concepts like Karezza are in my view dangerous and abusive.
And the "solidarity" expressed sort of reminds me of World Hijab Day supporters. An excellent response: http://freethoughtblogs.com/maryamnamazie/2013/02/01/world-hejab-day/
And then there's cancer:
Masturbation 'cuts cancer risk'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3072021.stm
And more recent health benefit articles:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2518802/Masturbation-good-health-prevents-cystitis-diabetes-cancer.html
Yes perhaps our moods would be more even if we didn't have genitals. But if we didn't have them we wouldn't be here. So don't look too closely at the mouth of this wonderful gift horse (if that's a good analogy - whatever).
Yes it's good that sex results in kids, and it should. The childfree life has a higher probability of being an empty one.
But it's also mostly ok that outliers like gays can have sex. They can contribute to society, and sex can help their lives be more happy. That's fine too. So both sides are wrong, and right, on these issues.
Potentially related posts:
Self-hatred in the "skeptical" community via angry neurotic so-called "feminists"
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2012/07/self-hatred-in-skeptical-community-via.html
Subverting normal human sexuality: Mormon Church's principal crime
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2012/12/subverting-normal-human-sexuality.html
whitewashing history -- sex obsessed ancestors -- nudist hypocrisy
and explorations & activities after leaving Mormonism: nudism, & Temple Square protests
at http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/search/label/puritan
Karezza is dangerous & abusive - reuniting.info: teaches us to be afraid of orgasms, very afraid
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2013/03/karezza-is-dangerous-abusive.html
Issues with being "childfree:"
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/search/label/childfree
Announcement: Ok, I'm not opposed to gay marriage and gay adoption
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2014/09/announcement-ok-im-not-opposed-to-gay.html
An interview of the man:
http://www.vice.com/read/our-interview-with-a-guy-who-didnt-masturbate-for-100-days-722
Quote from interview: "...On April 5, 2014, Rory Patrick announced to his Twitter followers that he was going to stop masturbating for 100 days. Soon, a hashtag was started: #Rory100. Friends and supporters cheered him on, sent him messages of encouragement..."
Respondents from his supporters as found at #Rory100: "...solidarity. we love you..." "...I believe..."...in my heart I believe in u & ur miracles..."My response to all:
Oh the pain & sorrow, of having genitals. The great solidarity raised by three fingers, of others, offering great & wonderful support to the protagonist.
As I viewed the people's responses at #Rory100 I felt amazed, annoyed, and sick. My fuck what did the guy do? Abstain from touching his penis for 100 days? That warrants tearful wondrous support for the guy? WTF?
In any case:
The left bemoans the fact that we have genitals at all, nearly as much as the right does.
The left is unhappy that genitals can be used to make babies.
The right is unhappy that genitals can be used for things other than making babies.
And both seem to get pretty upset when your average sexual urge interferes with your ability to do other activities.
Oh, if there were just a way to separate out this part of our brain, right?
But, to do so is IMO abusive. For example the Mormon flavor of abusiveness:
http://corvus.freeshell.org/corvus_corax/two/life_path/Mortal_Mormonism.htm
and http://mormoncurtain.com/topic_markepeterson.html
and http://www.lds-mormon.com/only.shtml
And then there's Islam:
http://nowscape.com/islam/Islam_masturbation.htm
These religious prophets, leaders, and scholars hear you Mr. Patrick. They've got their three fingers up in solidarity with you. So do the Victorians and Puritans.
100 days without masturbating? Who gives a flip (rephrase in the common Internet colloquialism as you please).
I fully agree there can be some value in abstaining say for a few days, or maybe for up to two weeks. So that you can, for example, focus on finding a real in the flesh date or mate. But concepts like Karezza are in my view dangerous and abusive.
And the "solidarity" expressed sort of reminds me of World Hijab Day supporters. An excellent response: http://freethoughtblogs.com/maryamnamazie/2013/02/01/world-hejab-day/
And then there's cancer:
Masturbation 'cuts cancer risk'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3072021.stm
And more recent health benefit articles:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2518802/Masturbation-good-health-prevents-cystitis-diabetes-cancer.html
Yes perhaps our moods would be more even if we didn't have genitals. But if we didn't have them we wouldn't be here. So don't look too closely at the mouth of this wonderful gift horse (if that's a good analogy - whatever).
Yes it's good that sex results in kids, and it should. The childfree life has a higher probability of being an empty one.
But it's also mostly ok that outliers like gays can have sex. They can contribute to society, and sex can help their lives be more happy. That's fine too. So both sides are wrong, and right, on these issues.
Potentially related posts:
Self-hatred in the "skeptical" community via angry neurotic so-called "feminists"
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2012/07/self-hatred-in-skeptical-community-via.html
Subverting normal human sexuality: Mormon Church's principal crime
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2012/12/subverting-normal-human-sexuality.html
whitewashing history -- sex obsessed ancestors -- nudist hypocrisy
and explorations & activities after leaving Mormonism: nudism, & Temple Square protests
at http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/search/label/puritan
Karezza is dangerous & abusive - reuniting.info: teaches us to be afraid of orgasms, very afraid
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2013/03/karezza-is-dangerous-abusive.html
Issues with being "childfree:"
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/search/label/childfree
Announcement: Ok, I'm not opposed to gay marriage and gay adoption
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2014/09/announcement-ok-im-not-opposed-to-gay.html
Monday, October 6, 2014
Balkan Erotic Epic - part of the set of short films in Destricted - commentary & review
Part of the film Destricted - a collection of short films that all showed during Sundance.
http://history.sundance.org/films/3508/destricted
Balkan Erotic Epic:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o4cjqgcSri0
The US version of the Destricted DVD lacks this short film for some reason. Without this short in the collection the DVD really is incomplete.
Additional review of the short film, with comments by Lady Gaga:
http://dangerousminds.net/comments/sex_magick_marina_abramovics_balkan_erotic_epic_nsfw
Yes, the full version of Destricted, including the Balkan short film, did show at the humble Broadway theater (Salt Lake Film Society) during Sundance in 2006. How does Robert Redford stand living in Utah County? Sooo icky poo. The brain washed bubble. But, I guess even the mobots down there can't stop some artists from L.A. doing their thing high in the mountains.
Maybe some found Destricted dull. It wasn't dull for me in 2006. I had to pinch myself: Am I still in Utah? OMG, this film is actually playing here in a real theater? Yes it was. Revolutionary for a Mormon boy to see that Salt Lake could finally host such a thing.
The perversions of Brigham Young & Joseph Smith, with 14 & 15 year old wives & the wives of other men, and the perversions of Spencer Kimball, with his Miracle of Forgiveness house of horrors evil book - finally receive a small humble & healthy response with a film like this showing during Sundance. Maybe in London they're already well past worry about Victorian style intrusions into the private lives of their citizenry. But things like this still happen in Mormon bishop's offices here. So, yes, this is one reason why having a film like this show in Salt Lake was important - to counter the hypocrisy, lies, and abuse present here w/in Mormon churches.
A review of each short film in the collection: http://letterboxd.com/gdw/film/destricted/
Some better reviews at Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/Destricted-Sativa-Rose/product-reviews/B003B2UK1S/ref=cm_cr_pr_hist_5?ie=UTF8&filterBy=addFiveStar&showViewpoints=0&sortBy=bySubmissionDateDescending
A BBC reviewer found the film boring: http://www.bbc.co.uk/films/2006/08/30/destricted_2006_review.shtml
Another review: http://www.eyeforfilm.co.uk/review/destricted-film-review-by-themroc
The 2006 version, in PAL format - may play on some computers in the US maybe:
http://www.amazon.com/Destricted-NON-USA-FORMAT-PAL-Reg-2/dp/B00J46UAA6/
2010 version, sadly lacking the Balkan film:
http://www.amazon.com/Destricted-Sativa-Rose/dp/B003B2UK1S/
For all I know all of the shorts have made it onto youtube & other forums. You can check yourself. But I'm glad to see that one of the shorts I found to be of interest, and which was omitted from the 2010 US version, did make it onto youtube & other sites.
http://history.sundance.org/films/3508/destricted
Balkan Erotic Epic:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o4cjqgcSri0
The US version of the Destricted DVD lacks this short film for some reason. Without this short in the collection the DVD really is incomplete.
Additional review of the short film, with comments by Lady Gaga:
http://dangerousminds.net/comments/sex_magick_marina_abramovics_balkan_erotic_epic_nsfw
Yes, the full version of Destricted, including the Balkan short film, did show at the humble Broadway theater (Salt Lake Film Society) during Sundance in 2006. How does Robert Redford stand living in Utah County? Sooo icky poo. The brain washed bubble. But, I guess even the mobots down there can't stop some artists from L.A. doing their thing high in the mountains.
Maybe some found Destricted dull. It wasn't dull for me in 2006. I had to pinch myself: Am I still in Utah? OMG, this film is actually playing here in a real theater? Yes it was. Revolutionary for a Mormon boy to see that Salt Lake could finally host such a thing.
The perversions of Brigham Young & Joseph Smith, with 14 & 15 year old wives & the wives of other men, and the perversions of Spencer Kimball, with his Miracle of Forgiveness house of horrors evil book - finally receive a small humble & healthy response with a film like this showing during Sundance. Maybe in London they're already well past worry about Victorian style intrusions into the private lives of their citizenry. But things like this still happen in Mormon bishop's offices here. So, yes, this is one reason why having a film like this show in Salt Lake was important - to counter the hypocrisy, lies, and abuse present here w/in Mormon churches.
A review of each short film in the collection: http://letterboxd.com/gdw/film/destricted/
Some better reviews at Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/Destricted-Sativa-Rose/product-reviews/B003B2UK1S/ref=cm_cr_pr_hist_5?ie=UTF8&filterBy=addFiveStar&showViewpoints=0&sortBy=bySubmissionDateDescending
A BBC reviewer found the film boring: http://www.bbc.co.uk/films/2006/08/30/destricted_2006_review.shtml
Another review: http://www.eyeforfilm.co.uk/review/destricted-film-review-by-themroc
The 2006 version, in PAL format - may play on some computers in the US maybe:
http://www.amazon.com/Destricted-NON-USA-FORMAT-PAL-Reg-2/dp/B00J46UAA6/
2010 version, sadly lacking the Balkan film:
http://www.amazon.com/Destricted-Sativa-Rose/dp/B003B2UK1S/
For all I know all of the shorts have made it onto youtube & other forums. You can check yourself. But I'm glad to see that one of the shorts I found to be of interest, and which was omitted from the 2010 US version, did make it onto youtube & other sites.
Friday, October 3, 2014
latest thoughts on how atheism is a de facto religion
Found this on facebook:
Using all caps does not increase the validity of an argument.
If political ideology & goals have been brought into one or more atheist groups you belong to, which I'm sure they HAVE, then yes you have a de facto religion.
Are children blank slates? The modern denial of human nature.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Blank_Slate
Are the wages of sin, death (in other words, are there very good fully natural evolutionary reasons religions came up with prohibitions regarding destructive behaviors)?
http://www.bbc.com/news/health-29442642
More general counter-counter commentary:
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/
Additional humanist counter-theory:
http://www.avoiceformen.com/
The more popular groups, such as CFI, American Atheists, and national humanist groups do very much have political goals & ideologies engrained in their core group "missions." And so, rather like the creationists do with Darwinian evolution & the god concept, they put the cart before the horse.
Oh, and pot does rot your brain...
http://thechart.blogs.cnn.com/2014/04/16/casual-marijuana-use-may-damage-your-brain/
http://io9.com/5903837/what-cannabis-actually-does-to-your-brain
Add Atheist Community of Austin and Atheists of Utah to the list of new religions.
A single atheist may not be a religion. But when more than one is gathered in the name of a political ideology, they quickly become one, de facto.
Recovery from Atheists of Utah
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2014/05/recovery-from-atheists-of-utah.html
Do you all see a difference between being an atheist and being antireligion? | Atheism is a religion
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2014/04/do-you-all-see-difference-between-being.html
Shermer on confirmation bias:
http://www.michaelshermer.com/tag/confirmation-bias/
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-political-brain/
"Atheism is a religion" I see that is the new thing going around. This is simply NOT true!!My response:
Using all caps does not increase the validity of an argument.
If political ideology & goals have been brought into one or more atheist groups you belong to, which I'm sure they HAVE, then yes you have a de facto religion.
Are children blank slates? The modern denial of human nature.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Blank_Slate
Are the wages of sin, death (in other words, are there very good fully natural evolutionary reasons religions came up with prohibitions regarding destructive behaviors)?
http://www.bbc.com/news/health-29442642
More general counter-counter commentary:
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/
Additional humanist counter-theory:
http://www.avoiceformen.com/
The more popular groups, such as CFI, American Atheists, and national humanist groups do very much have political goals & ideologies engrained in their core group "missions." And so, rather like the creationists do with Darwinian evolution & the god concept, they put the cart before the horse.
Oh, and pot does rot your brain...
http://thechart.blogs.cnn.com/2014/04/16/casual-marijuana-use-may-damage-your-brain/
http://io9.com/5903837/what-cannabis-actually-does-to-your-brain
Add Atheist Community of Austin and Atheists of Utah to the list of new religions.
A single atheist may not be a religion. But when more than one is gathered in the name of a political ideology, they quickly become one, de facto.
Recovery from Atheists of Utah
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2014/05/recovery-from-atheists-of-utah.html
Do you all see a difference between being an atheist and being antireligion? | Atheism is a religion
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2014/04/do-you-all-see-difference-between-being.html
Shermer on confirmation bias:
http://www.michaelshermer.com/tag/confirmation-bias/
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-political-brain/
Thursday, October 2, 2014
Liberal anger at being human - Criticisms of California Senate Bill SB 967
Debunking the dominant paradigm - a never ending job.
Here, specifically, the State tells us exactly how to have sex:
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140SB967
Who says?
This is the government of California telling everyone in colleges in California, exactly, how to have sex.
The abusers deserve to be locked up. But this goes too far. And wrongful accusers can be abusers as well.
More criticisms of the bill:
http://www.thefire.org/fire-statement-on-california-affirmative-consent-bill/
http://www.independent.com/news/2014/aug/11/affirmative-consent-u/
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/churchformen/2014/09/men-the-sexual-revolution-is-over/
http://www.city-journal.org/2014/cjc0718bb.html
And sometimes even the libertarians are right:
http://libertarianviewpoint.com/blog/california-government-proposes-license-law-for-consensual-sex/
http://reason.com/blog/2014/09/29/jerry-brown-signs-bill-telling-college-k
It's also abhorrent for the church to be in your bedroom as well (eg: your average Mormon bishop or Catholic priest).
http://corvus.freeshell.org/corvus_corax/two/life_path/Mortal_Mormonism.htm
Rape laws are already on the books. But this new law goes way too far. Plus it's based on a lie - the one in five lie. More info:
1 in 5: Debating the Most Controversial Sexual Assault Statistic
http://time.com/2934500/1-in-5%E2%80%82campus-sexual-assault-statistic/
2.5% probably, not 20.
Quote from article:
And dually-boozing partners who have buyer's remorse afterward should not be included in any rape statistics.
Politifact's take:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2014/may/02/are-20-percent-women-sexually-assaulted-they-gradu/
Washington Post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2014/05/01/one-in-five-women-in-college-sexually-assaulted-the-source-of-this-statistic/
Judgy Bitch chimes in:
http://judgybitch.com/2014/04/30/i-am-now-officially-sick-of-rape-culture-bullshit/
Interesting comments:
http://www.drtraycehansen.com/Pages/writings_politics.htm
From the above:
Pinker debunks the blank slate:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Blank_Slate
...see related videos of Pinker talking about this on youtube & TED.
Humans are not born blank slates, and leftists work to deny human nature in huge ways. Righties deny human nature in other ways (& truth & facts). But it's sad to see that both sides are in denial.
From Wendy McElroy:
http://blog.panampost.com/editor/2014/04/14/the-big-lie-of-a-rape-culture/
From Caroline Kitchens:
Rape Hysteria & the Rape Culture Lie Must End
http://www.avoiceformen.com/mens-rights/rape-hysteria-the-rape-culture-lie-must-end-jessicavalenti-rapeculture/
Anyway I agree that NFL jocks who hit their girlfriends & wives should be ejected. I agree that abusers who break the law should be locked up.
There *may* be "rape culture" in some hiphop music. But it's way too non-PC to be honest about that...
Also rape is about sex, not just about control. I have no idea why people say it's not about sex. How do they know? And what happens during rape anyway?
Is rape about control or sex?
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-human-beast/201104/is-rape-about-control-or-sex
Why do rapists rape? For power or sex?
http://emmatheemo.wordpress.com/2012/12/20/why-do-rapists-rape-for-power-or-sex-lets-ask-a-rapist/
from apparently conservative blogger
http://glaivester.blogspot.com/2006/03/rape-is-about-sex-duh.html
A tough topic but it's important to be honest. There's fear mongering & inappropriate shaming on the left that needs to be debunked, called out, and resisted.
Forcibly imposed upon self, and all people, undue flagellation & shame, because yes some humans are criminals or abusers. But not everyone is and we all shouldn't be treated like we are.
Anger and hatred at being human, at all humans, because a few humans do bad things. Now that is a type of "rape culture," rape of a different kind.
Both the right AND the left seek to use & abuse students in colleges & universities for their own ends. Both sides tell them lies, about human nature, and the truth.
A portion of the "sexual revolution" has, can, and does destroy families (ie: advocacy for non-monogamy, for the "childfree" life, for disposable marriages, and for seeking to have a general disconnect between sexuality & reproduction - all incredibly abusive tenants of the revolution).
The parts of the revolution that advocate for honesty, education, having more fun with our partners, being less inhibited with our partners, and not shaming for adults viewing other adults sexual activities (eg: sexuality expressed in art & film) - yes those are some generally good parts. But seeking to outright deny human nature, and decouple sex from having babies is evil & abusive.
Both sides have an agenda: to hide the truth in their own ways.
Yes evolution by natural selection did happen. No there is no god. But, on the other hand you can really fuck up your life if you "choose" to live a wastrel childfree life when you could have, and should have, had some kids. You can fuck up your children via adultery and believing you can easily bail on your husband or wife.
Separating yourself too far from the tree of life, and from basic human nature, can screw up your life & the lives of others.
Oh, and a certain percentage of humans will be naturally born criminals (sociopaths & worse). Lock them up, I very much agree...
Here, specifically, the State tells us exactly how to have sex:
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140SB967
"...lack of protest or resistance does not mean consent, nor does silence mean consent..."
Who says?
This is the government of California telling everyone in colleges in California, exactly, how to have sex.
The abusers deserve to be locked up. But this goes too far. And wrongful accusers can be abusers as well.
More criticisms of the bill:
http://www.thefire.org/fire-statement-on-california-affirmative-consent-bill/
http://www.independent.com/news/2014/aug/11/affirmative-consent-u/
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/churchformen/2014/09/men-the-sexual-revolution-is-over/
http://www.city-journal.org/2014/cjc0718bb.html
And sometimes even the libertarians are right:
http://libertarianviewpoint.com/blog/california-government-proposes-license-law-for-consensual-sex/
"...it is fundamentally abhorrent for the government to be in your bedroom..."also check out:
http://reason.com/blog/2014/09/29/jerry-brown-signs-bill-telling-college-k
It's also abhorrent for the church to be in your bedroom as well (eg: your average Mormon bishop or Catholic priest).
http://corvus.freeshell.org/corvus_corax/two/life_path/Mortal_Mormonism.htm
Rape laws are already on the books. But this new law goes way too far. Plus it's based on a lie - the one in five lie. More info:
1 in 5: Debating the Most Controversial Sexual Assault Statistic
http://time.com/2934500/1-in-5%E2%80%82campus-sexual-assault-statistic/
2.5% probably, not 20.
Quote from article:
"...This means that 2.5% of women are sexually assaulted in college, not 20%..."In the military the risks to women are higher than in the general population that's true. In college the risks are less.
And dually-boozing partners who have buyer's remorse afterward should not be included in any rape statistics.
Politifact's take:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2014/may/02/are-20-percent-women-sexually-assaulted-they-gradu/
Washington Post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2014/05/01/one-in-five-women-in-college-sexually-assaulted-the-source-of-this-statistic/
Judgy Bitch chimes in:
http://judgybitch.com/2014/04/30/i-am-now-officially-sick-of-rape-culture-bullshit/
Interesting comments:
http://www.drtraycehansen.com/Pages/writings_politics.htm
From the above:
"...a view held by many on the left that presumes man is born a blank slate..."OMG! The Blank Slate! Remember that one!
Pinker debunks the blank slate:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Blank_Slate
...see related videos of Pinker talking about this on youtube & TED.
Humans are not born blank slates, and leftists work to deny human nature in huge ways. Righties deny human nature in other ways (& truth & facts). But it's sad to see that both sides are in denial.
From Wendy McElroy:
http://blog.panampost.com/editor/2014/04/14/the-big-lie-of-a-rape-culture/
From Caroline Kitchens:
Rape Hysteria & the Rape Culture Lie Must End
http://www.avoiceformen.com/mens-rights/rape-hysteria-the-rape-culture-lie-must-end-jessicavalenti-rapeculture/
Anyway I agree that NFL jocks who hit their girlfriends & wives should be ejected. I agree that abusers who break the law should be locked up.
There *may* be "rape culture" in some hiphop music. But it's way too non-PC to be honest about that...
Also rape is about sex, not just about control. I have no idea why people say it's not about sex. How do they know? And what happens during rape anyway?
Is rape about control or sex?
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-human-beast/201104/is-rape-about-control-or-sex
"...Evolutionary psychologists have been at pains to show that rape is actually a sexual crime through which men seek sexual gratification from women who would otherwise refuse them..."related blog post:
Why do rapists rape? For power or sex?
http://emmatheemo.wordpress.com/2012/12/20/why-do-rapists-rape-for-power-or-sex-lets-ask-a-rapist/
from apparently conservative blogger
http://glaivester.blogspot.com/2006/03/rape-is-about-sex-duh.html
"...Which leads in to the reason why we keep hearing that rape is not about sex. It is philosophically untenable to keep pushing the boundaries of the sexual revolution without making rape seem less and less violative by comparison, as the act which is coerced in rape becomes less and less private, personal, and valued in society. So the only way to retain the sense of horror at rape is to alter the rationale for rape being bad; that the goal is total violation, so that the violence becomes the issue; rather than the horror coming from the intimacy of the act which was forced upon the victim, which is the old rationale..."---
A tough topic but it's important to be honest. There's fear mongering & inappropriate shaming on the left that needs to be debunked, called out, and resisted.
Forcibly imposed upon self, and all people, undue flagellation & shame, because yes some humans are criminals or abusers. But not everyone is and we all shouldn't be treated like we are.
Anger and hatred at being human, at all humans, because a few humans do bad things. Now that is a type of "rape culture," rape of a different kind.
Both the right AND the left seek to use & abuse students in colleges & universities for their own ends. Both sides tell them lies, about human nature, and the truth.
A portion of the "sexual revolution" has, can, and does destroy families (ie: advocacy for non-monogamy, for the "childfree" life, for disposable marriages, and for seeking to have a general disconnect between sexuality & reproduction - all incredibly abusive tenants of the revolution).
The parts of the revolution that advocate for honesty, education, having more fun with our partners, being less inhibited with our partners, and not shaming for adults viewing other adults sexual activities (eg: sexuality expressed in art & film) - yes those are some generally good parts. But seeking to outright deny human nature, and decouple sex from having babies is evil & abusive.
Both sides have an agenda: to hide the truth in their own ways.
Yes evolution by natural selection did happen. No there is no god. But, on the other hand you can really fuck up your life if you "choose" to live a wastrel childfree life when you could have, and should have, had some kids. You can fuck up your children via adultery and believing you can easily bail on your husband or wife.
Separating yourself too far from the tree of life, and from basic human nature, can screw up your life & the lives of others.
Oh, and a certain percentage of humans will be naturally born criminals (sociopaths & worse). Lock them up, I very much agree...
---
p.s. Found this video;
Friday, September 12, 2014
Thomas Rowlandson's erotic engravings.
From http://
To view larger versions of the images, use Firefox or Chrome, then right click on any image, and select either "view image," or "open image in new tab."
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
the sexual, mostly positive, but sometimes negative, art of Mihály Zichy
The sexual, mostly positive, but sometimes negative (but honest), art of Mihály Zichy
Mihály Zichy (1827 to 1906).
Born in Hungary.
Drawings as in the book Liebe (the quality of love, pleasure, joy, favor, love).
Full title: Liebe. Vierzig Zeichnungen
http://scanzen.tumblr.com/tagged/zichy-mih%C3%A1ly
http://scanzen.tumblr.com/tagged/zichy+mih%C3%A1ly/page/2
http://scanzen.tumblr.com/tagged/zichy+mih%C3%A1ly/page/3
http://scanzen.tumblr.com/tagged/zichy+mih%C3%A1ly/page/4
http://scanzen.tumblr.com/tagged/zichy+mih%C3%A1ly/page/5
A few of the drawings are a bit disturbing, in that they show the more deviant (justifiably-lockable-up) side of human sexual behavior. But there's healthy depictions in other drawings.
It's worth making note of the truth (and locking away the abusers when necessary). Celibate the good & healthy. Lock up the abusers though. His drawings show both sides.
Found a few copies of the book:
http://www.en.zvab.com/advancedSearch.do?title=Liebe++Vierzig+Zeichnungen&author=Zichy
Mihály Zichy (1827 to 1906).
Born in Hungary.
Drawings as in the book Liebe (the quality of love, pleasure, joy, favor, love).
Full title: Liebe. Vierzig Zeichnungen
http://scanzen.tumblr.com/tagged/zichy-mih%C3%A1ly
http://scanzen.tumblr.com/tagged/zichy+mih%C3%A1ly/page/2
http://scanzen.tumblr.com/tagged/zichy+mih%C3%A1ly/page/3
http://scanzen.tumblr.com/tagged/zichy+mih%C3%A1ly/page/4
http://scanzen.tumblr.com/tagged/zichy+mih%C3%A1ly/page/5
A few of the drawings are a bit disturbing, in that they show the more deviant (justifiably-lockable-up) side of human sexual behavior. But there's healthy depictions in other drawings.
It's worth making note of the truth (and locking away the abusers when necessary). Celibate the good & healthy. Lock up the abusers though. His drawings show both sides.
Found a few copies of the book:
http://www.en.zvab.com/advancedSearch.do?title=Liebe++Vierzig+Zeichnungen&author=Zichy
Monday, September 8, 2014
whitewashing history -- sex obsessed ancestors -- nudist hypocrisy
In school, they completely whitewashed history.
Check out these caricatures through 1827 by Thomas Rowlandson...
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Rowlandson
In listening to Sister Wendy at
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3a4GbfVBEjs&t=1m32s
she complains of Puritanism AND feminism. Why is that?
Disgust about shame regarding sex from the right AND the left. I think that's what makes Sister Wendy upset.
From the 1524 book I Modi (The Ways):
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6d/EneeDidon.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Modi
...found one copy for $50:
http://www.abebooks.com/servlet/BookDetailsPL?bi=12297590527&searchurl=kn%3DI%2BModi%253A%2BThe%2BSixteen%2BPleasures%26amp%3Bsts%3Dt%26amp%3Bx%3D0%26amp%3By%3D0
We recently watched the documentary at
https://indieflix.com/indie-films/beyond-naked-35063/
(log onto your local library website first to view it free).
...Beyond Naked - about nude biking during an art festival in Seattle.
One key thing that struck me about the film was when one very fat woman, who's nude with her husband at home 99% of the time, offered fearful & crass advise regarding penile erections to the participants.
A very unattractive fat woman with rolls and rolls of fat is going to offer advise to men about the state of their penises when they're nude?
Ironic. Strange. A leftist hippie form of sexual shaming. And key denialism from the "nudist" camp regarding what nudity is always partly about, that is when adults are present and can see each other - you know, the S word that they fear so much.
Related links:
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2013/06/explorations-activities-after-leaving.html
http://agalltyr.wordpress.com/2013/12/27/nudistsnaturists-are-not-special/
and http://drglennsmith.co.uk/RES-000-22-0569-5k.pdf
..."Mainstream naturism relies on discriminatory and dishonest practices to manage
sexuality that limits the diversity of the naturist population and presents an image and
culture that lacks integrity and transparency..." Damn right.
Am I for 100% nudism all the time? No. Why? Because there's crazies in the world who will do worse things than what they're already doing if everyone were nude. You know, the homeless nutjob who goes pee in front of your local Walmart, and worse nutjobs lurking. There's always a certain percent.
But, on the other hand, viewing films like The Good Old Naughty Days (available at many public libraries), and learning of the art in Pompeii, and the above more contemporary links, and books like the Kama Sutra are enlightening and eye opening & incredibly important as well - as are the works that Sister Wendy has shown us.
Life is a balancing act. How to balance between the Puritans on the right and the anti-porn anti-freedom hysterical feminazi hippies on the left? How to reject shame from the right and the left, while still remaining healthy, and free, and happy? It's hard work. But I think we need to be honest.
Humans very thinly hide their sexuality for some very good reasons. But on the other hand, if we hide it too much we can also become fucked up...
When naked adult humans can see each other, and one or both are not 100% ugly, there is a sexual component present, even if the participants are fundamentally dishonest about their status & state (eg: your average nudist in America & Europe).
Sex is hard wired into us. Hysterical leftist hippie nudists cannot rip that wiring out, any more than rightist Bishops & Priests can. It's there. There's no denying it. It does need some management I agree. But we can go too far either way. It's refreshing to know that our ancestors were obsessed - and for good reason. We would not be here otherwise, probably.
Check out these caricatures through 1827 by Thomas Rowlandson...
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Rowlandson
In listening to Sister Wendy at
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3a4GbfVBEjs&t=1m32s
she complains of Puritanism AND feminism. Why is that?
Disgust about shame regarding sex from the right AND the left. I think that's what makes Sister Wendy upset.
From the 1524 book I Modi (The Ways):
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6d/EneeDidon.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Modi
...found one copy for $50:
http://www.abebooks.com/servlet/BookDetailsPL?bi=12297590527&searchurl=kn%3DI%2BModi%253A%2BThe%2BSixteen%2BPleasures%26amp%3Bsts%3Dt%26amp%3Bx%3D0%26amp%3By%3D0
We recently watched the documentary at
https://indieflix.com/indie-films/beyond-naked-35063/
(log onto your local library website first to view it free).
...Beyond Naked - about nude biking during an art festival in Seattle.
One key thing that struck me about the film was when one very fat woman, who's nude with her husband at home 99% of the time, offered fearful & crass advise regarding penile erections to the participants.
A very unattractive fat woman with rolls and rolls of fat is going to offer advise to men about the state of their penises when they're nude?
Ironic. Strange. A leftist hippie form of sexual shaming. And key denialism from the "nudist" camp regarding what nudity is always partly about, that is when adults are present and can see each other - you know, the S word that they fear so much.
Related links:
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2013/06/explorations-activities-after-leaving.html
http://agalltyr.wordpress.com/2013/12/27/nudistsnaturists-are-not-special/
and http://drglennsmith.co.uk/RES-000-22-0569-5k.pdf
..."Mainstream naturism relies on discriminatory and dishonest practices to manage
sexuality that limits the diversity of the naturist population and presents an image and
culture that lacks integrity and transparency..." Damn right.
Am I for 100% nudism all the time? No. Why? Because there's crazies in the world who will do worse things than what they're already doing if everyone were nude. You know, the homeless nutjob who goes pee in front of your local Walmart, and worse nutjobs lurking. There's always a certain percent.
But, on the other hand, viewing films like The Good Old Naughty Days (available at many public libraries), and learning of the art in Pompeii, and the above more contemporary links, and books like the Kama Sutra are enlightening and eye opening & incredibly important as well - as are the works that Sister Wendy has shown us.
Life is a balancing act. How to balance between the Puritans on the right and the anti-porn anti-freedom hysterical feminazi hippies on the left? How to reject shame from the right and the left, while still remaining healthy, and free, and happy? It's hard work. But I think we need to be honest.
Humans very thinly hide their sexuality for some very good reasons. But on the other hand, if we hide it too much we can also become fucked up...
When naked adult humans can see each other, and one or both are not 100% ugly, there is a sexual component present, even if the participants are fundamentally dishonest about their status & state (eg: your average nudist in America & Europe).
Sex is hard wired into us. Hysterical leftist hippie nudists cannot rip that wiring out, any more than rightist Bishops & Priests can. It's there. There's no denying it. It does need some management I agree. But we can go too far either way. It's refreshing to know that our ancestors were obsessed - and for good reason. We would not be here otherwise, probably.
Saturday, August 23, 2014
The selective erection of the U.S. Border, for liberals -- We all live in one country? Yes! No double standards.
BBC news: The world is going to hell in a hand basket. We all live in one country. When a medieval / stone age barbarian kills people in "another country," they are really killing people in "your county," in our country too.
When it comes to illegal immigrants, liberals believe in erasing the border.
When it comes to people being killed in Iraq, boy howdy that U.S. border goes up damn quick for them.
Speakin' as a (now former) liberal myself - well a modified liberal who wants nothing to do with Amy Goodman, Noam Chomsky, Glenn Greenwald, or etc.
When it comes to illegal immigrants, liberals believe in erasing the border.
When it comes to people being killed in Iraq, boy howdy that U.S. border goes up damn quick for them.
Speakin' as a (now former) liberal myself - well a modified liberal who wants nothing to do with Amy Goodman, Noam Chomsky, Glenn Greenwald, or etc.
An atheist watches Duck Dynasty, and likes it!
We watched Duck Dynasty last night, for the first time. A great show.
My wife enjoyed it very much. I remember when I was excommunicated from Atheists of Utah for expressing my appreciation for the duck people's general stance of challenging the new dominant paradigm, and advocacy for good old fashioned family values.
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2014/06/duck-dynasty-pride-month.html
Hitchens quits the Nation.
http://www.thenation.com/article/taking-sides
"...In the past few weeks, though, I have come to realize that the magazine itself takes a side in this argument, and is becoming the voice and the echo chamber of those who truly believe that John Ashcroft is a greater menace than Osama bin Laden..."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JPZFLROaouM
http://www.salon.com/2002/10/29/hitchens_6/
Juan Williams got tossed out of NPR.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=76KH0Ym51yQ
Where's a Hitch when you need him?
Maybe my views on the whole gay thing are softening a bit, but the de facto cult status of Stonewall is still ringing in my ears. I know of the gentle service oriented gays. But I also know of the wastrels who happily befriend convicted pedos. Can we separate the Truman Capote types from the service oriented ones? The people interested in real service to humanity, instead of vain wastrel tail chasing bullcrap?
My wife enjoyed it very much. I remember when I was excommunicated from Atheists of Utah for expressing my appreciation for the duck people's general stance of challenging the new dominant paradigm, and advocacy for good old fashioned family values.
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2014/06/duck-dynasty-pride-month.html
Hitchens quits the Nation.
http://www.thenation.com/article/taking-sides
"...In the past few weeks, though, I have come to realize that the magazine itself takes a side in this argument, and is becoming the voice and the echo chamber of those who truly believe that John Ashcroft is a greater menace than Osama bin Laden..."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JPZFLROaouM
http://www.salon.com/2002/10/29/hitchens_6/
Juan Williams got tossed out of NPR.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=76KH0Ym51yQ
Where's a Hitch when you need him?
Maybe my views on the whole gay thing are softening a bit, but the de facto cult status of Stonewall is still ringing in my ears. I know of the gentle service oriented gays. But I also know of the wastrels who happily befriend convicted pedos. Can we separate the Truman Capote types from the service oriented ones? The people interested in real service to humanity, instead of vain wastrel tail chasing bullcrap?
Friday, August 8, 2014
August 8, 2014: Moving left
My experiment with touching my toe into the pool of conservative ideology is largely over. One too many worshipers of Ayn Rand showing up on "The Atheist Conservative's" page? Was that the tipping point? Maybe.
Being away from wastrels from the past, and their abusive friends, has helped. Plus being married, having two kids, and a wife with zero association with all the crap I've seen has helped also. Still taking a step back. But becoming more compassionate & open to hearing what the left has to say. The right is generally increasingly poopy smelling. The left, not so much. So, I'm a left-leaning moderate as of now.
Being away from wastrels from the past, and their abusive friends, has helped. Plus being married, having two kids, and a wife with zero association with all the crap I've seen has helped also. Still taking a step back. But becoming more compassionate & open to hearing what the left has to say. The right is generally increasingly poopy smelling. The left, not so much. So, I'm a left-leaning moderate as of now.
Friday, July 4, 2014
Happy 4th of July! Human are humans, in a tipi or out.
On the 4th of July liberals are upset about America even existing at all.
Should the borders be fully opened?
Mexican drug gangs that kill en masse would move right in, more than they already are in Mexico.
As for the "indigenous" "native" oh so noble savages:
Using heads in football:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesoamerican_ballgame
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesoamerican_ballgame#cite_note-56
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_sacrifice_in_Maya_culture
More:
http://tvliberty.blogspot.com/2007/09/steven-pinker-debunks-noble-savage-myth.htmlhttps://twitter.com/sapinker/status/298096581293535233
Human are humans, in a tipi or out.
Humans will migrate & expand. But once a certain saturation point on the land has been reached, they'll erect borders so as to protect what's already been set up.
Does this mean I believe there should be no immigration from the south? No. But not everything is equal. And there was actually some value to the landing of Columbus, even if it also had a terribly high cost.
The movement of humans across the land & sea, due to increasing technology, was inevitable.
If the so-called natives had had guns & so on, they could have fended off the conquistadors.
Why weren't pre-Columbian American cultures as technologically advanced as Europe? Probably: resources & agriculture available in Europe.
Any person who's born in a place is a native.
Everyone is racist, especially people who claim they aren't.
But travel and first hand exposure to other cultures, does widen the mind, and it also widens our in group morality.
Whitees today are not responsible for the sins of other humans who happened to be white. To claim as much is not only intellectually dishonest, it's racist. On the other hand I'm very much for reparations for slavery, and for the genocide committed against the American Indians. That's fine. Doesn't mean "whitey" is responsible. But the sins of past humans, which have placed certain other groups of humans in a hole - those sins need to be made up for, by the society as a whole, by working to repair the damage.
On the other hand if you make a person or group too dependent, that can also be abusive. So a one-time-very-large reparation should probably be done both for blacks & Indians in America. Maybe giving more valuable city & farm land to Blacks & Indians, instead of just way-out-in-the-fucking-boonies away-from-everything dry desolate unfarmable land. And the Indian Health Service is a very good thing.
What did the Romans ever do for us?
Additional thoughts in a related post:
Noble Savages? Edward Snowden, Julian Assange, Bradley Manning, Evo Morales, Hugo Chavez, Wikileaks, Bolivia, Amerindians (American Indians), and so on.
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2013/07/noble-savages-edward-snowden-julian.html
Noble Savages? Edward Snowden, Julian Assange, Bradley Manning, Evo Morales, Hugo Chavez, Wikileaks, Bolivia, Amerindians (American Indians), and so on.
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2013/07/noble-savages-edward-snowden-julian.html
commentary on: 300 Articles You Have to Read to Understand What Is Meant by the Term "Homofascism"
Commentary on the following article:
300 Articles You Have to Read to Understand What Is Meant by the Term "Homofascism"
http://englishmanif.blogspot.com/2014/07/300-articles-you-have-to-read-to.html
The first article about the 14 year old is a prime example of why I now disable comments on most of my youtube videos. I've left commenting enabled on my blog. But a certain percentage of all people are sociopaths & so on.
My own personal experience of expressing some much needed rebellion and skepticism within an atheist group:
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2014/05/recovery-from-atheists-of-utah.html
The rather ironic thing about the group in question is this:
When a previous leader of a leftist atheist group he took over has a kid with an excommunicated-from-another atheist group pro-life atheist woman.
A of U unilaterally absorbed into themselves a long standing group formerly known as Salt Lake Valley Atheists. During an SLVA meeting about four years ago a rare pro-life atheist woman was told she wasn't welcome because SLVA had determined that ultra-liberal politics & social policy advocacy was a key thing they were about. Atheists of Utah was headed up by an older guy whose wife was dying. He hooked up with this pro-life atheists whom SLVA kicked out & had a kid with her. He also did outreach work to the gay pride festival here. The legacy of his outreach work was this: Only a few years later Atheists of Utah had a.) unilaterally dissolved & absorbed SLVA, and b.) become headed up by mostly people from the local Stonewall center, and c.) determined that they would incorporate into their whole being the ultra-liberal social & political stance of SLVA whom they had absorbed into themselves.
Why is this ironic? Because the guy who headed up A of U only a few years before had a kid with a pro-life atheist woman whom herself had been previously rejected by SLVA.
Seculars do need to have more kids. The ready acceptance of gay "marriage" is a symptom of a much larger problem with the left as a whole.
Slow motion suicide.
http://www.amazon.com/Decline-Fall-Europes-Motion-Suicide/dp/B0096EPE48
Many former LDS move to the LDC.
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/search/label/ldc
...and end up having zero kids of their own.
Here's a prime example of this in leftist atheist culture:
A-hole (IMO) P.Z. Myers:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ch1XFqmGeM&t=19m10s
Oh my god listening to this man makes me sick. I can only take about 4 minutes of the guy and then I feel like I'm going to throw up. He of course directly discounts the fact that his 13.8 billion year evolved body managed to produce children. His views & protrayal of this KEY part of human existence is sickening and sick.
More examples of scummyness of the man:
PZ Myers isn't a feminist
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5OhbLDFeE4w
PZ Myers accuses Shermer of rape
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4WA4qtemcUs
13.8 billion years, and then there's this guy. A shallow and petty view of evolution by natural selection, from a biologist. A biologist who's been fully brain washed by LDC dogma.
Remember when the four horsemen came out with their various books? Dawkins. Hitchens. Harris. Dennett. Those were the days. But when atheists form social groups they almost invariably integrate their dogmatic political views as key agenda points in their groups. Shermer may have his head in the sand about gay "marriage," but he does have a point about confirmation bias:
http://www.michaelshermer.com/tag/confirmation-bias/
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-political-brain/
The ready application of the use of the word "marriage" to gay civil unions really is about denying basic human nature. Active denial, and being a traitor to, the 13.8 billion year process that brought you and I here today. A person can either tie directly into that whole process, by reproducing themselves, or if not they can sometimes (and often in leftist-circles) buy into a whole culture that is in active rebellion against that 13.8 billion year process.
Is sexual reproduction trivial?
Do children need a mommy & a daddy?
Is everything equal?
No. Yes. No.
Gayness is a side effect of how sex gets set up in humans. A side effect. Not a primary effect. The primary effect results in reproduction. Children come from reproduction.
Any oh so natural vegan, and Whole Foods shopper, should recognize the high value in raising children in a more natural & healthy way. And adopted kids should have an environment which most closely matches the natural & health way.
Federal Appeals Court: Gays Have Right to Marry, And Everyone Has AIDS!
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2014/06/federal-appeals-court-gays-have-right.html
Why is "gay pride" so strong in Salt Lake City? Because of the abusive stances of BOTH the Mormon Church and the Stonewall responders.
300 Articles You Have to Read to Understand What Is Meant by the Term "Homofascism"
http://englishmanif.blogspot.com/2014/07/300-articles-you-have-to-read-to.html
The first article about the 14 year old is a prime example of why I now disable comments on most of my youtube videos. I've left commenting enabled on my blog. But a certain percentage of all people are sociopaths & so on.
My own personal experience of expressing some much needed rebellion and skepticism within an atheist group:
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2014/05/recovery-from-atheists-of-utah.html
The rather ironic thing about the group in question is this:
When a previous leader of a leftist atheist group he took over has a kid with an excommunicated-from-another atheist group pro-life atheist woman.
A of U unilaterally absorbed into themselves a long standing group formerly known as Salt Lake Valley Atheists. During an SLVA meeting about four years ago a rare pro-life atheist woman was told she wasn't welcome because SLVA had determined that ultra-liberal politics & social policy advocacy was a key thing they were about. Atheists of Utah was headed up by an older guy whose wife was dying. He hooked up with this pro-life atheists whom SLVA kicked out & had a kid with her. He also did outreach work to the gay pride festival here. The legacy of his outreach work was this: Only a few years later Atheists of Utah had a.) unilaterally dissolved & absorbed SLVA, and b.) become headed up by mostly people from the local Stonewall center, and c.) determined that they would incorporate into their whole being the ultra-liberal social & political stance of SLVA whom they had absorbed into themselves.
Why is this ironic? Because the guy who headed up A of U only a few years before had a kid with a pro-life atheist woman whom herself had been previously rejected by SLVA.
Seculars do need to have more kids. The ready acceptance of gay "marriage" is a symptom of a much larger problem with the left as a whole.
Slow motion suicide.
http://www.amazon.com/Decline-Fall-Europes-Motion-Suicide/dp/B0096EPE48
Many former LDS move to the LDC.
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/search/label/ldc
...and end up having zero kids of their own.
Here's a prime example of this in leftist atheist culture:
A-hole (IMO) P.Z. Myers:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ch1XFqmGeM&t=19m10s
Oh my god listening to this man makes me sick. I can only take about 4 minutes of the guy and then I feel like I'm going to throw up. He of course directly discounts the fact that his 13.8 billion year evolved body managed to produce children. His views & protrayal of this KEY part of human existence is sickening and sick.
More examples of scummyness of the man:
PZ Myers isn't a feminist
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5OhbLDFeE4w
PZ Myers accuses Shermer of rape
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4WA4qtemcUs
13.8 billion years, and then there's this guy. A shallow and petty view of evolution by natural selection, from a biologist. A biologist who's been fully brain washed by LDC dogma.
Remember when the four horsemen came out with their various books? Dawkins. Hitchens. Harris. Dennett. Those were the days. But when atheists form social groups they almost invariably integrate their dogmatic political views as key agenda points in their groups. Shermer may have his head in the sand about gay "marriage," but he does have a point about confirmation bias:
http://www.michaelshermer.com/tag/confirmation-bias/
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-political-brain/
The ready application of the use of the word "marriage" to gay civil unions really is about denying basic human nature. Active denial, and being a traitor to, the 13.8 billion year process that brought you and I here today. A person can either tie directly into that whole process, by reproducing themselves, or if not they can sometimes (and often in leftist-circles) buy into a whole culture that is in active rebellion against that 13.8 billion year process.
Is sexual reproduction trivial?
Do children need a mommy & a daddy?
Is everything equal?
No. Yes. No.
Gayness is a side effect of how sex gets set up in humans. A side effect. Not a primary effect. The primary effect results in reproduction. Children come from reproduction.
Any oh so natural vegan, and Whole Foods shopper, should recognize the high value in raising children in a more natural & healthy way. And adopted kids should have an environment which most closely matches the natural & health way.
Federal Appeals Court: Gays Have Right to Marry, And Everyone Has AIDS!
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2014/06/federal-appeals-court-gays-have-right.html
Why is "gay pride" so strong in Salt Lake City? Because of the abusive stances of BOTH the Mormon Church and the Stonewall responders.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)