Is no one "straight"?

[C's Button]

My dear Cbutton...apology tendered if required, I did not intend to condescend or denigrate and your use of language is superb.


"...I have a young mind that does not speak English as a first language.. Also, have a Webster's 25Th unabridged college dictionary that is bigger than the Gutenberg Bible. giggling at the thought of amicus and I, drawing dictionaries at 20 paces...."

It was that statement of yours about a young mind to which I referred and nothing more.

It is a pleasure making your acquaintance, I hope we shall meet again and if you have not been previously welcomed to the Author's Hangout Forum, then consider the deed done. Welcome!

I have a friend in Hong Kong and one near Manila, but neither quite as verbose as you.

Take care.

amicus...

Very sorry amicus for misreading you. I can not even blame the reading comprehension on this one, it was me, all me. And part of the problem, is I love a good debate. As per the verbosity, blame Crown! (Paul UK).. laughing I picked it up from him, and he does help a bit when I am stuck somewhere. Note to the ladies: never ask him to explain a slang term. Maybe it is just me, but the two people he uses in his explanations usually end up naked together..

Seriously, I do read a lot and that helps. Now if only I could get the entire English speaking world to spell the same way. What do the Americans do with all the extra "u"s?

<brace for on topicness>

I was at a BBQ of assorted kinksters the other day, and a similar conversation came up when someone quoted the Marquis de Sade.. Something to the effect that everyman is a tyrant when he is fucking. The conversation wandered off into whether or not your tops and bottoms (whatever labels you put on them, masters or mistresses or slaves whatever..) have the potential to be both. (Almost to the on topic-ness, bear with me) Some say they must, as a good Dominant takes good care of the subbie person, and this is somehow viewed as a submissive trait; some said no, especially a subbie chick who had problems with giving someone a birth day spanking. The general consensus was that no one is truly one or the other. (I do not feel this way.) I put in, jokingly that is like saying every one is really bisexual, whether they choose to act on it. I got a hairy eyeball from some people and a lot of laughter from others. I asked a hairy eyeball-er what was wrong with my comment. She ( a leather lesbian daddy) said that after the stonewall riots in New York, the gay liberation movement used the 10 point scale (I think Kinsey devised it) and pointed out that most people fall in the middle areas, between 3 or 7 ish. And at first, dazzling people with science helped a little bit, but it turned into a two-edged sword sort of thing as the detractors pointed out the greater number of people in the middle were on the heterosexual time, so the majority of people who were feeling bi were not acting on it. She also gave me a bit of a run down of what her bi sub was saying about being bi. It was most interesting.

Very bizarre conversation.

(okay, so that was only sort of on-topic, but it was interesting.)

edited for grammitical clarity and spelling issues. This is what happens when I post pre-coffee.

 

[hogjack]

wouldnt that be panquadrupedisexual?

It's going to take me weeks to pronounce this one correctly.

 

[SlickTony]

What an interesting thread! I'd like to wade into the discussion, but then I'd be here till past midnight.

 

[okie45]

The worst condition is barely.

Not at all wouldn't be a problem.

Multiple would only be complicated.

 

[amicus]

Cbutton....welcome back...

I read your post last night...and could not find a response. I read it again this morning and had a thought.

I do not have empirical knowledge of either homosexual or lesbian activities such as you describe.

I was struck by your somewhat blase' and offhand references to such activity minus any reference to a moral position.

Let us suppose (says the devils advocate) let us suppose that many consider the activities you describe and imply are seen as 'aberrant behavior', immoral and sure to send you to hell in a handbasket when judgment day arrives.

Until the formal world of Psychology reversed its position in the early 1970's, homosexual, lesbian activities were considered to be symptoms of a mental disorder, a sexual dysfunction that could and should be treated.

I read your earlier post and realize that your circumstances may play a role in your current thought and if it is painful to relate to that, please ignore me and tell me it is none of my damned business and I will go away quietly.

Happy New Year!

amicus...

 

[carsonshepherd]

..I was struck by your somewhat blase' and offhand references to such activity minus any reference to a moral position.

Let us suppose (says the devils advocate) let us suppose that many consider the activities you describe and imply are seen as 'aberrant behavior', immoral and sure to send you to hell in a handbasket when judgment day arrives.


amicus...

I know this was not directed at me, but I had to say something about it.

Many people consider still homosexuals aberrations. I have heard this a great percentage of the days in my life, maybe not always overtly, but at least sometimes in subtle ways.

People are entitled to believe what they want. Their moral compass is their own.

Amicus, you seem not to accept that your moral compass is not absolute. In your quest for truth, you seem to proclaim "your opinion" as truth.

I don't much worry about going to hell in a handbasket because to be completely honest I don't believe in hell (or heaven for that matter.) Does that mean I take carte blanche to rape, kill, steal and lie and cheat? Absolutely not. For an "aberration" I probably have stronger morals than most people who DO believe that they will be punished by hell when they die if they're not careful. I think the reason is, I choose these morals instead of having them forced upon me because of fear of an afterlife punishment.

I'm not trying to change anyone's mind because I know that won't happen. Just wanted to tell you, amicus, that not everyone fits into your little box of what is moral and what isn't.

 

[BlackShanglan]

Interesting. Of course I adore Carson, as all rational beings do. Yet I feel I have to take up that gauntlet, oh perspicacious one. I do believe in an afterlife. However, I do not feel that my moral choices are forced upon me. I believe in a loving God who wishes humans to develop to their highest and most beautiful natures; thus, I take moral standards in that context. I think that they are there to help us to be happy and joyful creatures.

Then again, I've never really agreed with the interpretation of the Bible that suggests that homosexuality is wrong. For that reason, I tend to focus more on how the relationship is carried out than who it is with.

Shanglan

 

[carsonshepherd]

However, I do not feel that my moral choices are forced upon me. I believe in a loving God who wishes humans to develop to their highest and most beautiful natures; thus, I take moral standards in that context. I think that they are there to help us to be happy and joyful creatures.


Shanglan

Of course that's only one interpretation of it, and not necessarily the right one. I was playing the devil's advocate to a point, babes.

 

[BlackShanglan]

Of course that's only one interpretation of it, and not necessarily the right one. I was playing the devil's advocate to a point, babes.

Well, you *were* responding to amicus. Carry on.



Shanglan

 

[carsonshepherd]

Carry on.



Shanglan

I'm done.

 

[ABSTRUSE]

Interesting. Of course I adore Carson, as all rational beings do. Yet I feel I have to take up that gauntlet, oh perspicacious one. I do believe in an afterlife. However, I do not feel that my moral choices are forced upon me. I believe in a loving God who wishes humans to develop to their highest and most beautiful natures; thus, I take moral standards in that context. I think that they are there to help us to be happy and joyful creatures.

Then again, I've never really agreed with the interpretation of the Bible that suggests that homosexuality is wrong. For that reason, I tend to focus more on how the relationship is carried out than who it is with.

Shanglan

It's all about the love baby.

 

[amicus]

Carsonshepherd....not sure we have exchanged ideas before... but Seasons Greetings nonetheless...

you said, in part:

"...Amicus, you seem not to accept that your moral compass is not absolute. In your quest for truth, you seem to proclaim "your opinion" as truth. ..."


Carson, et al...it is not whether my moral compass is absolute; rather my question has always been, 'can there be an absolute moral compass and if so what?' Outside faith based compasses should go without saying.

I try to refrain from expressing my personal viewpoint on any issue on this forum or any forum for that matter.

I try to take an objective viewpoint, sans opinion, faith or belief, and explore the possibilities of a rational approach to understand moral and social issues.

Most, not just on this venue, are so deeply mired in personal experience, in subjective pronouncements that they even deny the possiblity of being 'objective' about anything.

I surmise the word exists for a reason.

Even people of deep and abiding faith in recent history have recanted the moral absolutes of their religion as it does not suit their personal lifestyle and moral choices.

The Catholic Church has always had a remedy for this guilt of non compliance; one can always confess and be forgiven...for all things.

Religions around the world are confronting the 21st in various ways, to keep the flock in the fold and yet not deny their basic premises, it is a curious dance they do.

On an objective level, I 'think' it is imperative and essential that man have a logical basis upon which to make moral decisions concerning the issues that face us.

I 'think' most people would like a definitive and absolute answer to a great many pressing questions, such as abortion. Is it moral or not?

Practicing homosexuals might want to know if their lifestyle is indeed just a matter of sexual preference or if indeed it is naturally dsyfunctional.

Anal intercourse on this thread or another one is also an issue that perhaps some might wish had an absolute moral answer to that practice.

In most of my posts, sans the Boodles, I try to refrain from passing moral judgment on any issue; instead I seek a rational logical answer to the right or the wrong of the issue, usually by suggesting that perhaps there is an absolute, universal code of ethics and morality that arises from the nature of humanity.

My little box of moral understanding expands almost daily, with the advent of cloning and genetic manipulation and the dozens of other new biology that may have an effect on all of us.

In searching for answers, I look for 'truth'. I look for non contradiction and consistency and honesty. I usually do not find those things in conversation with others, but the passion and sometimes anger and rage with which some defend their own 'moral absolutes' is educational.

I am not quite Diogenes with a lamp searching for intelligence in the universe, but I have found it to be a rare commodity indeed.

regards...


amicus...

(after you finish calling me an arrogant, know it all, one way son of a bitch, totally ignorant, uncultured, uneducated and plain dumb, maybe we can talk.)

ciao

 

[BlackShanglan]

Anal intercourse on this thread or another one is also an issue that perhaps some might wish had an absolute moral answer to that practice.

Personally, I am strongly in favor of anal intercourse on this thread or another one. Thank you for the suggestion.

As I surmise you are aware from our previous discussions, I don't believe it possible to construct a moral absolute in the absence of divine mandate. I feel that only what is practical, not what is moral, can be determined through reason. This is not to critique reason, which is an extremely useful thing; rather, it is to suggest that the meaning of the word "moral" has, for most of its history, contained within it a spiritual element, and that it would for this reason not be the appropriate word for a system of mores and rules based purely on what works best rather than what carries spiritual weight. I suppose that the best way to put my argument is that I don't think it's possible to use the word "moral" meaningfully without reference to spiritual ramifications. "Good practice," "effective," "ethical," or "humane" would all work for me.

(after you finish calling me an arrogant, know it all, one way son of a bitch, totally ignorant, uncultured, uneducated and plain dumb, maybe we can talk.)

Perhaps this might be a good time, Carson, for me to introduce you to amicus's habit of arguing not with what one has said, but with the opinions he has assigned to one. I suspect that this is in fact the reason he feels that he has not met with much intelligent counter-discourse; it is because he does not assign to his opponents intelligent opinions or arguments, and he frequently chooses not to listen to the ones that they actually put forward. This can be an annoying habit, but at times it is also an amusing one, as listening to amicus's version of one's thoughts is rather like looking into a particularly distorting funhouse mirror.

Shanglan

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by BlackShanglan
I feel that only what is practical, not what is moral, can be determined through reason.

Agreed.

 

[Guest]

Ami -

You are an arrogant, know it all, one way son of a bitch; you're totally ignorant, uncultured, uneducated and just plain dumb.

Have a nice day.

 

[carsonshepherd]

Re: Ami -

You are an arrogant, know it all, one way son of a bitch; you're totally ignorant, uncultured, uneducated and just plain dumb.

Have a nice day.

 

[BlackShanglan]

Agreed.

And what a relief that is. I actually found myself pondering what your position might be as I wrote that, and wondered if we'd end up crossing swords. Mind you, it would certainly have been instructive. I always enjoy a good wrangle.

Shanglan

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by BlackShanglan
And what a relief that is. I actually found myself pondering what your position might be as I wrote that, and wondered if we'd end up crossing swords. Mind you, it would certainly have been instructive. I always enjoy a good wrangle.

Shanglan

Its rational. Utilitarianism has been the only strong (set of) argument in Ethics that has endured, but that talks about what is function--what is pragmatic--not really what is goodness. It may be that "goodness" doesn't actually exist and we're supposed to edge closer and closer to a convergeant ethical realism... but that's still not a capturing of "goodness", just convenience.

There has to be something more than logic (which is only the science of idea relation) and more than experential confirmation (which will give us pragmatics), if we're to say "this is rightness and this other thing is wrongness" and not do so arbitrarily.

Metaphysical revelation OR divine revelation could give it to us. But those are the only choices. The former hasn't any yet concieved way of happening (but is technically possible, by definition), the latter has any number of possible ways of happening (assuming God exists, which is still an uncertain variable in three-thousand years of Philosophy).

So, that's the long-hand way of me saying "I agree".

Time to get flamed... I, gasp, over-rationalized.

 

[Guest]

So, that's the long-hand way of me saying "I agree".

Time to get flamed... I, gasp, over-rationalized.

Um, so what else is new?

 

[carsonshepherd]

Just wake me up when we start talking about butt-fucking again.

 

[carsonshepherd]

Practicing homosexuals might want to know if their lifestyle is indeed just a matter of sexual preference or if indeed it is naturally dsyfunctional.

Actually - most of us just want to know the gross national product of Norway. We don't care about that other shit.

 

[NoJo]

It's fun talking about the gross national product of Norway while fucking someone up the arse.

 

[carsonshepherd]

It's fun talking about the gross national product of Norway while fucking someone up the arse.

That is a favorite, but we also enjoy singing rousing renditions of "The Street Where You Live" in two part harmony.

 

[Guest]

That is a favorite, but we also enjoy singing rousing renditions of "The Street Where You Live" in two part harmony.

http://www.addis-welt.de/smilie/smilie/musik/mnote.gif I have often walked, down that street before . . . http://www.addis-welt.de/smilie/smilie/musik/mnote.gif


Of course, why does the rhyming phrase of back door seem to somehow be part of the lyrics now?

 

[BlackShanglan]

That is a favorite, but we also enjoy singing rousing renditions of "The Street Where You Live" in two part harmony.

Carson, damnit, it's not nice to make the horse piss itself laughing.

You're on stable cleanup

Shanglan