logo Sign In

Open-Eyed Thinking (Exploring Uncomfortable Topics) — Page 5

Author
Time
Post link

Trident said:

Post Praetorian said:

Trident said:

I don't know why I am bothering to post this here since I don't seem to get anyone wanting to explain why any of these ideas won't work, but #5 is about welfare.

To get welfare you should have to work at some job to the best of your abilities. There are tons of things that could be done, but some of them would be like getting paid to fix up their own house or their landlord's house (by re-painting the outside or fixing the fence, etc. Then pay them to fix up and paint as many neighbor houses as wanted so that they could make the whole area look nicer. They could learn a trade, get skilled at it and not lose self respect or a working routine. Then every Friday they could get paid to deliver resumes. The resume would have a centralized phone number with an extension for them on it. They would get bonuses for each unique business that called them up for an interview and then a big bonus for getting hired and another one for staying at a job for more than 6 months. After that they could not go back on welfare until they had earned the same amount of money working at a job that they collected while on welfare (they'd keep the money, it would just be a guide to make sure people weren't just getting fired in order to get hired and get bonuses again) or until double the length of time they were on welfare had passed.

Tell me why this is a bad idea or how it could be made better.

 It is wondered whether the landlord is apt to enjoy having his or her windows painted shut by a tenant whose likely chief preoccupation with the job at had is to have it finished with as soon as possible...finished with in such a way as to never demand an encore...

 OK so how would you do it? Do you think making them work is a bad idea or do you think they just shouldn't paint their masters houses? I mean maybe they could just paint each other's houses or ?

 The recompense would require being commensurate with the end product...much as it is for every other industry...

I was once…but now I’m not… Further: zyzzogeton

“It wasn’t the flood that destroyed the pantry…”

Author
Time
Post link

Trident said:

Post Praetorian said:

Trident said:

#6

Prison inmates should work for pay while in prison, but a part of that pay should be sent to the victims of their crime. They should not get out of jail until they have paid their victim the amount the court figures they were owed. This means that all prison sentances would be based on restorative justice rather than simply on punishment.

By being able to restore a financial payment to their victim the inmate has a chance of earning a sense that they have truly paid their debt to society rather than an abiding anger at being held in a cage for a random number of years.

 Might it not be disconcerting to no small few to realize the life of a loved one might amount only to $420.50 monthly...? However, the thought is considerate...and we could use the money...although it is uncertain if the depositing of said cheque along with other notable income might elicit persistent negative memories...never mind contemplating how to record it on one's taxes...is there yet a line for blood money allowance...? 

 I don't know what you mean. What are you talking about that you could use the money?

Under your scenario I would become a beneficiary...

And why would it be only $420 a month?

Is it not anticipated that a criminal class for hire must needs be working at a rate somewhat beneath established norms? Further is it not to be expected that only a portion of his/her earnings might be expected to be garnished according to a predetermined formula in order that some incentive might exist in the here and now for our inmate?

Given the above, is it not likely that the amount actually received by a grieving family will necessarily be far less than anticipated?

Further, is it not also possible for the unscrupulous to use such a method of gaining funds while criminals languish in order to accuse the innocent?

Otherwise do you think it's a good idea or not? I really don't know that it would be blood money so much as restitution. 

 

I was once…but now I’m not… Further: zyzzogeton

“It wasn’t the flood that destroyed the pantry…”

Author
Time
Post link

We need bigger cars so we can fit the whole team in one.

Team Olie

Author
Time
Post link

But I thought you could fit a lot of clowns in a really small car? ;-)

K. Let’s have this ride.

Author
Time
Post link

Here's one that is sure to offend.

When the DSM IV (the manual for diagnosing psychiatric conditions, 4th edition) came out, homosexuality was removed.  Very recently the DSM V came out, changing transsexualism so that it in itself is not a psychiatric disorder, but the dissatisfaction with one's body which doesn't match one's internal gender is the disorder.  While I am not here to argue the morality or anything of such things, I wish to point out the politics and imprecise nature of psychiatric conditions.

While we know why we have a heart, why it beats, what is going wrong when it beats incorrectly, what may cause cardiac conditions or what effects cardiac conditions may cause, etc, we know so very little about psychiatric conditions.  When someone is having congestive heart failure, they receive a diagnosis based on the root cause, not the subsequent fluid buildup in lungs, lower extremities, lab results, etc.  However in psychiatric conditions, we do not label based on the root cause, but rather the manifestation.  So for whatever biological reasons a person may be severely depressed or seeing things that are not there, no matter how varied the root cause, they will receive a diagnosis of major depressive disorder or schizophrenia.  My point: psychiatry/psychology is a far less precise science.

How is this relevant? Well, with such imprecision, it allows for a society to redefine psychiatric conditions with ease, depending on the prevailing winds of societal wisdom.  Today, as Bruce Jenner transitions into Caitlyn Jenner, transgender rights and acceptance are at the forefront of many minds, particularly those who consider themselves very open-minded.

So let me challenge that open-mindedness.  Are these changes always right?  Or perhaps do they not go far enough?  For instance, the differences in sexual orientation are in many ways analogous to the differences between normal adults and pedophiles.  I am certain this will cause offense, but the parallels are many, regardless.  The big difference is that it is socially wrong for adults to have sexual relations with children.  Similarly, there are those who wish to have sex with animals, or sex with close relatives, but such things are not acceptable socially.

Now imagine a future society where we are more sexually open.  Children are permitted to have sex with adults starting at the age of 9, perhaps with parental permission.  People are permitted to get extra close to their pets, and the siblings are permitted to be partners.  And over time, the psychiatric diagnoses that accompany these conditions are changed to suit public views.  And of course there are those who do not approve of such behavior, but they are just close-minded and condemned for their bigotry and narrow-mindedness.

Do you feel these are extreme examples?  There are societies, even primitive societies, where all young men (of minor age) must give oral sex to an older man in order to achieve their own status of manhood.  There are societies where hallucinations are actually seen as visions, insight that those without schizophrenia lack.  These things are seen as natural, and with further research, and with political favor, these things might even be seen as evolutionarily beneficial, just as the more pressing issues of today are now being explained as beneficial to human evolution.

My point is that the mind is a complex thing, and that politics are indeed involved in what is and is not acceptable, appropriate, or even a disorder.  There are those who are cruel bigots, and I certainly don't feel such is appropriate.  But while my views have liberalized quite a bit in recent years in these areas, I still feel I must defend those who believe such behaviors are not natural.  There is plenty of justification for those views, and many of them are not bigots in spite of their beliefs.  If you find some of the behaviors I suggested above offensive, just consider how those views may change some day, and just consider how resistant you might be to those changes.

Author
Time
Post link

I like you most of the time Ender, but when you occasionally say insane things like...

darth_ender said:

the differences in sexual orientation are in many ways analogous to the differences between normal adults and pedophiles.  I am certain this will cause offense, but the parallels are many, regardless.  The big difference is that it is socially wrong for adults to have sexual relations with children.  Similarly, there are those who wish to have sex with animals, or sex with close relatives, but such things are not acceptable socially.

Sorry but f*ck you. I'm sure you'll argue that paragraph doesn't say "Being gay is like being a pedophile" but yeah it does. Children and animals can't give consent, adults can. You aren't an idiot, so I know you understand this distinction. So why make a post like that?

VIZ TOP TIPS! - PARENTS. Impress your children by showing them a floppy disk and telling them it’s a 3D model of a save icon.

Author
Time
 (Edited)
Post link

Ryan McAvoy said:

I like you most of the time Ender, but when you occasionally say insane things like...

darth_ender said:

the differences in sexual orientation are in many ways analogous to the differences between normal adults and pedophiles.  I am certain this will cause offense, but the parallels are many, regardless.  The big difference is that it is socially wrong for adults to have sexual relations with children.  Similarly, there are those who wish to have sex with animals, or sex with close relatives, but such things are not acceptable socially.

Sorry but f*ck you. I'm sure you'll argue that paragraph doesn't say "Being gay is like being a pedophile" but yeah it does. Children and animals can't give consent, adults can. You aren't an idiot, so I know you understand this distinction. So why make a post like that?

Well any kind of deviation of sexual orientation is technically an error in the intended function of the human control system (i.e. brain). So in a completely technical sense, all kind of sexual ordination deviations can be put in the same category.

Of course being gay and doing adult gay sexual intercourse is completely acceptable from a social perspective (in my opinion at least) since they don't do any harm. But still you must note that just being a pedophile or zoophile (i.e. an error in the brain function) cannot be considered as crime on its own. On the other hand, being a child abuser or an animal abuser is a crime.

真実

Author
Time
Post link

Thanks imperialscum. You see my point for what it is, not a commentary on the morality of homosexuality, not an intended offense, but the point that it is a deviation from normal sexuality. I knew that would offend, and I'm sure my friend Ryan is not the only one I offended with that line of reasoning. I appreciate you seeing my intended point rather than the morality point.

Author
Time
Post link

Ryan McAvoy said:

I like you most of the time Ender, but when you occasionally say insane things like...

darth_ender said:

the differences in sexual orientation are in many ways analogous to the differences between normal adults and pedophiles.  I am certain this will cause offense, but the parallels are many, regardless.  The big difference is that it is socially wrong for adults to have sexual relations with children.  Similarly, there are those who wish to have sex with animals, or sex with close relatives, but such things are not acceptable socially.

Sorry but f*ck you. I'm sure you'll argue that paragraph doesn't say "Being gay is like being a pedophile" but yeah it does. Children and animals can't give consent, adults can. You aren't an idiot, so I know you understand this distinction. So why make a post like that?

 To answer your question, don't look at it as a comment on morality, legality, or even today's social acceptability. Like all analogies, mine is not perfect for the very reason you pointed out. But the primary function of sex is reproduction, with the secondary of sharing love. Homosexuality is clearly not in line with the primary function. The same could be said about pedophilia or zoophelia. There are those who experience such attraction who even argue that they simply are another sexual orientation and shouldn't be persecuted for such attraction.

Don't read it any differently than I intend. Just read the point.

Final thought. Humans can reproduce at.  Very young age. Humans used to have a far shorter life expectancy. I guarantee that older men married very underage girls many, many times throughout humanity's history. We're they wrong to do so? My point is not what is right or wrong, but how psychiatric views are shaped by societal views.

Author
Time
Post link

Monogamy is not normal sexuality. Waiting til marriage for sex is not normal sexuality. This is a two way street. Whatever "normal sexuality" is or was doesn't matter anymor. Open your eyes and get over it. Homosexuality is normal sexuality now.

You may be making a "scientific" argument but you're basically just repeating the typical homophobic "slippery slope" argument more eloquently. 

Maybe something like transsexualism is technically a "disorder" but who gives a fuck. If a guy feels like he should be a girl, then why not let him be a girl? It's a victimless act.

Having sex with children and animals is not victimles, however. That's the difference.

Author
Time
Post link

DominicCobb said:

Monogamy is not normal sexuality. Waiting til marriage for sex is not normal sexuality. This is a two way street. Whatever "normal sexuality" is or was doesn't matter anymor. Open your eyes and get over it. Homosexuality is normal sexuality now.

You may be making a "scientific" argument but you're basically just repeating the typical homophobic "slippery slope" argument more eloquently. 

Maybe something like transsexualism is technically a "disorder" but who gives a fuck. If a guy feels like he should be a girl, then why not let him be a girl? It's a victimless act.

Having sex with children and animals is not victimles, however. That's the difference.

 My good DomnicCobb, I believe you are 100% correct...yet at the same time at least 50% wrong. The distinction is among what is morally, ethically, and psychologically correct. A child might prefer chocolate to peas for psychologically understood and rational reasons, yet is it in the child's best interest to pursue a life bereft of peas?

To clarify, dear Ender is putting the point that although we may believe that homosexuality is a correct lifestyle (as I do), it may not actually make psychological sense based on the hard-wired preservation of the species assumed to be nascent in all human beings. Given this anomalous situation, therefore, is it truly justifiable to refuse to study the contradiction based solely on political feelings of the time?

To clarify still further: should science consider the prevailing political views of the day in deciding for itself what might constitute symptoms of psychological behavior?

And certainly you do present an interesting argument with regards to monogamy and premarital sex, however there are fairly reasonable aspects behind the two choices that might yet make them more and more advantageous in an adaptive species. 

1) There is a vastly reduced risk of contracting and/or passing on contagious diseases to one's offspring.

2) The children seem to grow up in a less anxious environment and so tend to have improved developmental outcomes.

3) Fewer resources are expended in the pursuits of mates so that these same resources might be better spent establishing a safe and secure environment for ones progeny.

Further, such choices seemingly must often be borne with a certain difficulty and so must needs be at the very least considered quite apart from an apparent driving need to avoid the production of offspring altogether. In other words, such remain choices rather than imperatives of the psyche. 

I was once…but now I’m not… Further: zyzzogeton

“It wasn’t the flood that destroyed the pantry…”

Author
Time
Post link

DominicCobb said:

Monogamy is not normal sexuality.

That is a completely wrong statement if we look from an individual species perspective. In a few percent of animals monogamy is normal sexuality. It must have been more beneficial than polygamy to some kinds otherwise evolution would not allow it.

DominicCobb said:

Waiting til marriage for sex is not normal sexuality.

That is correct.

DominicCobb said:

You may be making a "scientific" argument but you're basically just repeating the typical homophobic "slippery slope" argument more eloquently.

I wasn't making any argument. I was stating how things are from technical point of view. Homosexually is technically an error in programming since it obstructs the propagation of the species. But nevertheless, homosexuality is completely natural. It can be either attributed to variation of species (i.e. to one of the key elements of evolution) or it can simply be an error in a very complex process.

真実

Author
Time
Post link

DominicCobb said:

Maybe something like transsexualism is technically a "disorder" but who gives a fuck. If a guy feels like he should be a girl, then why not let him be a girl? It's a victimless act.

It's not quite victimless when it has an impact on loved ones. 

Author
Time
Post link

imperialscum said:

DominicCobb said:

Waiting til marriage for sex is not normal sexuality.

That is correct.

So is the idea of "sexual purity" nonsense? Will the world eventually come to a place where everyone has sex with everything?

Nobody sang The Bunny Song in years…

Author
Time
Post link

What is sex?

Don’t do drugs, unless you’re with me.

Author
Time
 (Edited)
Post link

Danfun128 said:

imperialscum said:

DominicCobb said:

Waiting til marriage for sex is not normal sexuality.

That is correct.

So is the idea of "sexual purity" nonsense? Will the world eventually come to a place where everyone has sex with everything?

I am was quite clear. I am not saying monogamy is a nonsense. All I am saying is that marriage is a nonsense.

真実

Author
Time
Post link

imperialscum said:

Danfun128 said:

imperialscum said:

DominicCobb said:

Waiting til marriage for sex is not normal sexuality.

That is correct.

So is the idea of "sexual purity" nonsense? Will the world eventually come to a place where everyone has sex with everything?

I am was quite clear. I am not saying monogamy is a nonsense. All I am saying is that marriage is a nonsense.

 I am curious why you might say so? Or are you simply speaking of it as a technical concept?

I was once…but now I’m not… Further: zyzzogeton

“It wasn’t the flood that destroyed the pantry…”

Author
Time
Post link

Danfun128 said:

imperialscum said:

DominicCobb said:

Waiting til marriage for sex is not normal sexuality.

That is correct.

So is the idea of "sexual purity" nonsense? Will the world eventually come to a place where everyone has sex with everything?

imperialscum also said:

DominicCobbsaid:

Monogamy is not normal sexuality.

That is a completely wrong statement if we look from an individual species perspective.

Author
Time
 (Edited)
Post link

Post Praetorian said:

imperialscum said:

Danfun128 said:

imperialscum said:

DominicCobb said:

Waiting til marriage for sex is not normal sexuality.

That is correct.

So is the idea of "sexual purity" nonsense? Will the world eventually come to a place where everyone has sex with everything?

I am was quite clear. I am not saying monogamy is a nonsense. All I am saying is that marriage is a nonsense.

 I am curious why you might say so? Or are you simply speaking of it as a technical concept?

One's concious decision or being led to it by a natural instinct are two self-sufficient conditions for one to practise monogamy. Marriage is just a human-made redundant nonsense. I hope I don't need to explain why religious marriage is so. Civil marriage is the same nonsense but on top of that it is also adds injustice with the unfair wealth-splitting laws in case of separation (half-half crap etc.).

真実

Author
Time
Post link

@impscum I was talking to ender, who in a previous post made the slippery slope argument I was referring to.

To both you and Post Prae, I am quite aware that our species has evolved to prefer monogamous and altruistic behaviors. That wasn't really my point, though. I was merely stating that, yes, on the face of it, homosexuality does not help reproduction. Well, on the face of it only having one sexual partner is not great for reproduction either, numbers wise. But my point is that doesn't matter. There's no shortage of babies. And we live in a world where homosexual parents can be just as good as heterosexual parents in terms of helping their children develop, whether that child was obtained through natural means or otherwise.

In regards to what causes such things as homosexuality and transsexuality, I too am curious. Is it neurological? Is it upbringing? It is not "normal" per se, but my point in this regard is that, again, it doesn't matter. Even if it is "technically" a psychological disorder, that doesn't matter, because, unlike the other disorders, it's not harmful (in fact the only thing harmful about it is other people making fun of them or comparing them to pedophiles). 

And DE you're going to have to explain yourself there.

Author
Time
Post link

DominicCobb said:

Monogamy is not normal sexuality. Waiting til marriage for sex is not normal sexuality. This is a two way street. Whatever "normal sexuality" is or was doesn't matter anymor. Open your eyes and get over it. Homosexuality is normal sexuality now.

You may be making a "scientific" argument but you're basically just repeating the typical homophobic "slippery slope" argument more eloquently. 

Maybe something like transsexualism is technically a "disorder" but who gives a fuck. If a guy feels like he should be a girl, then why not let him be a girl? It's a victimless act.

Having sex with children and animals is not victimles, however. That's the difference.

 If I were making any anti-homosexual argument at all, you could say this was a homophobic slippery slope.  Did I say either was wrong?  Did I say they were inappropriate?  Did I say they shouldn't have the right?  This is the problem with trying to have intelligent discussions with those who are far too sensitive on certain topics.  It's automatically taken as insulting.  My point is that things change, and as this is supposed to be the uncomfortable topic thread, I was making an uncomfortable point.  The same applies with other things that have or have not been called disorders.  I did bring up psychotic disorders, for instance.  But most poignant and recently applicable are those which have recently been hot news items.  Please, read my posts for content, and don't try to read between the lines.  As you point out in your first two sentences, even modern definitions of normal sexuality are not necessarily normal.  So instead of jumping down my shorts, read the posts, and consider the fact that you are in fact making my point, which, short and sweet is:

DEFINITIONS CHANGE BASED ON SOCIETY!