Well season one was a real page turner.
Sat and watched two thirds of it in a single sitting.
Laughed so hard at one point I thought I was going to stroke out, seriously I stopped it and did some bogus breath control shit trying to slow my heart down, which for the record failed miserably. It was like the adult version of trying not to laugh in class.
But of course as with House, as with Dexter, and so on, it transformed into a after school special about how to sell your soul to the vagina.
I don't know which is worse, the fact that these shows portray all women as lying whores or the fact that when I say so in defense of real women I'm told, by real women, that I must think all women are whores.
So either they actually are all lying whores, or they feel behaving like lying whores is acceptable, or they don't and they are lying to themselves.
It's like Catch 22, what happens if I use a bit of healthy skepticism to admit the fact that I might be wrong but in so doing actually reinforce that I might be right?
All I see on TV is men having women's backs against the world and then being berated at home for it. Am I dysfunctional for wanting no part of that? Apparently so.
Well, it was nice while it lasted, one good season is better than none since I'm not allowed to do shit but sit here and watch TV like some catatonic.
Edit: The show picked up after the half way point, it got just a smidge less about conforming with sufficient vigor to please the unpleaseable, and actually introduced at least one excellent character, but of course they executed him. Probably because they can't afford his ass since season 3 was late 2009 and that's when he's going to be in battlestar.
"Big ups" to him. I'd pick battlestar too.
Wednesday, December 31, 2008
Thursday, December 25, 2008
Merry Xmas!
Sometimes its shocking how things turn out.
I got a hot chocolate mug, a SWEET hoodie and a gal bladder attack this xmas.
And would you believe it as of this moment I'm having a damn fine xmas.
1. The mug and hoodie were very thoughtful.
2. I generally feel really guilty come xmas time because I have no job and no money.
3. I feel even more guilty because the people that love me enough to get me gifts I'd rather not take from, and the bastards that owe me money never even send so much as a card... with my money in it.
4. I had some muscle relaxers left over from my emergency room visit for my last gal bladder attack, so while I was literally writhing in agony for I'm not sure how long, it had to have been under an hour. Having had previous attacks last for several hours this means a lot to me.
Now I'm the first to point out the selective reasoning whenever people point out a 99% catastrophe as a miracle. You know, bus of toddlers goes over a cliff, one lives, invariably someone calls that one living a miracle. I myself say why toss it over at all? Why not miracle a total prevention? Personally a floating buss being gently placed back on the road would be more effective in conveying god's love, but I digress.
I am genuinely happy that I am no longer in pain. I also feel no malice that I was in pain. I wonder if that's just me being seriously stupid, or cowardly, or somehow noble.
Intellectually I know that I could have been placed in this state of mind without the pain, but, I'm happy just the same.
I got a hot chocolate mug, a SWEET hoodie and a gal bladder attack this xmas.
And would you believe it as of this moment I'm having a damn fine xmas.
1. The mug and hoodie were very thoughtful.
2. I generally feel really guilty come xmas time because I have no job and no money.
3. I feel even more guilty because the people that love me enough to get me gifts I'd rather not take from, and the bastards that owe me money never even send so much as a card... with my money in it.
4. I had some muscle relaxers left over from my emergency room visit for my last gal bladder attack, so while I was literally writhing in agony for I'm not sure how long, it had to have been under an hour. Having had previous attacks last for several hours this means a lot to me.
Now I'm the first to point out the selective reasoning whenever people point out a 99% catastrophe as a miracle. You know, bus of toddlers goes over a cliff, one lives, invariably someone calls that one living a miracle. I myself say why toss it over at all? Why not miracle a total prevention? Personally a floating buss being gently placed back on the road would be more effective in conveying god's love, but I digress.
I am genuinely happy that I am no longer in pain. I also feel no malice that I was in pain. I wonder if that's just me being seriously stupid, or cowardly, or somehow noble.
Intellectually I know that I could have been placed in this state of mind without the pain, but, I'm happy just the same.
Thursday, December 11, 2008
Pedophilia, Paraphilia and Society
It was once said about me, when I was attacking what I characterize as the pedophile witch hunt in the west, that perhaps I wish us not to "hunt" pedophiles at all. Ignoring the use of the word hunt with regard to human beings and before I explore the question of whether or not merely hunting pedophiles is the best way to protect children, I'd like to clarify my position on pedophilia generally.
In short, I think we shouldn't create pedophiles and then act all surprised when we find them. The natural next question is how can they be created? And who is doing the creating?
The first question's answer is obvious. and to ask it exposes a fundamental and willful ignorance. To ask the question exposes a deep and pressing ideological bias quite honestly not seen since Nazi Germany. You probably felt it already and have formed opinions about me before ever reaching this sentence because of a clear and factual implication that I've already made that you probably disagree with. The implication, and indeed my outright statement, is that pedophiles are humans. They are not monsters to be caught and tortured.
I dare say they aren't even sick genetically speaking. In my view pedophilia is formed like any other fetish, though obviously it has some drastic social consequences. This bring us to our next question because I've just explained that pedophiles are not born, they are made.
To go into this in detail would be dissertation material in both content and length. To understand my position you must also have a basically workable conceptual understanding of genetics, psychology, sexuality, and sociology. I consider myself rare in meeting all those requirements. Though of course I have no accredited stamp 'proving' it beyond my entry level college courses.
The DSM IV has a great section on paraphillia. I myself have a quite harmless fetish, and that was part of my motivation for undertaking the reading required to help answer the question "why do I feel this way?" I believe I have a satisfactory and accurate answer. It is environmental.
I am quick to add that I believe homosexuality to be a genetic anomaly, though I also believe one can acquire a "fetish" for the same sex as a result of the same mechanism that grants fetish's to all people, which accounts partially for the confusion about the origin of homosexuality. Those of one genetic sexual preference, with a fetish for the other, in my opinion accounts for the majority of people labeled "bi". I will of course not discount the possibility of a genetically bisexual individual, but I will hazard a guess that they are quite rare. And determining a blood test for sexuality so to speak will be to put it mildly, difficult, if not entirely needless. A good starting point for understanding this hypothesis would be the book Adam's Curse, which explores the consequences of intracellular genetic competition between mitochondrial and nucleic DNA.
The mechanical or environmental formation of a fetish is actually quite simple, and amounts to accident and timing. The fact that most people share sexual traits with their peers is no accident. Without going into the evidence I'll simply state that as some point during the transition from childhood to adolescence sexuality is in large part imprinted, in precisely the same way a baby bird imprints when hatching from the egg.
Children by definition are not at fault in this process, or put in another more obvious way, one cannot help and or is not responsible for their sexual formation. This is important because it shows that disposition towards pedophilia is ethically neutral. Again, put simply being a pedophile is not evil.
It must be noted that this process is analog not digital, it is not an on off switch, one can be afflicted only in part while still harboring 'healthy' sexual appetites. This in my view accounts for the infantilization some men require sexually despite not being pedophiles. (hairless vagina, child like behavior, extreme petiteness preference, pigtails, etc) This in turn partially and ironically accounts for the demand that the market is responding to when it uses sexually appealing and yet childlike models to hock its wares, which in turn creates an environment conducive to the creation of criminal pedophiles.
We create them by first and foremost by annihilating all possible routes to free, easy, and safe sexual release. Also by demonizing masturbation, pornography and outlawing all forms of non-sanctioned sexual indulgence despite their harmless nature. This over reaction stems from ignorance mainly, and to a lesser but still significant degree, from cultural puritanism.
For example, cartoons of pedophilia, which is not well understood, are illegal, but cartoons of murder, which is fairly well understood, are not only legal, but desirable. This approach of annihilating all safe outlets for pedophiles has tragic consequences for both pedophiles and children.
A good way to test the accuracy of this claim would be to compare sexual assault rates per child in the united states and japan. I say this because japan has a famously permissive attitude toward pedophile themed cartoons and manga, while the united states decidedly does not. I predict that sexual assault on children in japan is lower adjusting for population differences etc, than in the united states.
We as a society need to realize that our actions have consequences and that sexuality is both a basic human need and an effect of the environment. If you starve someone long enough they will sometimes steal, or even kill to sate their hunger. Guilt and fear are not 100% reliable tools to prevent pedophiles from acting on their paraphillia. Thus 100% emphasis on humiliation and punishment is tantamount to causing child rape. We all share responsibility for this.
In short, I think we shouldn't create pedophiles and then act all surprised when we find them. The natural next question is how can they be created? And who is doing the creating?
The first question's answer is obvious. and to ask it exposes a fundamental and willful ignorance. To ask the question exposes a deep and pressing ideological bias quite honestly not seen since Nazi Germany. You probably felt it already and have formed opinions about me before ever reaching this sentence because of a clear and factual implication that I've already made that you probably disagree with. The implication, and indeed my outright statement, is that pedophiles are humans. They are not monsters to be caught and tortured.
I dare say they aren't even sick genetically speaking. In my view pedophilia is formed like any other fetish, though obviously it has some drastic social consequences. This bring us to our next question because I've just explained that pedophiles are not born, they are made.
To go into this in detail would be dissertation material in both content and length. To understand my position you must also have a basically workable conceptual understanding of genetics, psychology, sexuality, and sociology. I consider myself rare in meeting all those requirements. Though of course I have no accredited stamp 'proving' it beyond my entry level college courses.
The DSM IV has a great section on paraphillia. I myself have a quite harmless fetish, and that was part of my motivation for undertaking the reading required to help answer the question "why do I feel this way?" I believe I have a satisfactory and accurate answer. It is environmental.
I am quick to add that I believe homosexuality to be a genetic anomaly, though I also believe one can acquire a "fetish" for the same sex as a result of the same mechanism that grants fetish's to all people, which accounts partially for the confusion about the origin of homosexuality. Those of one genetic sexual preference, with a fetish for the other, in my opinion accounts for the majority of people labeled "bi". I will of course not discount the possibility of a genetically bisexual individual, but I will hazard a guess that they are quite rare. And determining a blood test for sexuality so to speak will be to put it mildly, difficult, if not entirely needless. A good starting point for understanding this hypothesis would be the book Adam's Curse, which explores the consequences of intracellular genetic competition between mitochondrial and nucleic DNA.
The mechanical or environmental formation of a fetish is actually quite simple, and amounts to accident and timing. The fact that most people share sexual traits with their peers is no accident. Without going into the evidence I'll simply state that as some point during the transition from childhood to adolescence sexuality is in large part imprinted, in precisely the same way a baby bird imprints when hatching from the egg.
Children by definition are not at fault in this process, or put in another more obvious way, one cannot help and or is not responsible for their sexual formation. This is important because it shows that disposition towards pedophilia is ethically neutral. Again, put simply being a pedophile is not evil.
It must be noted that this process is analog not digital, it is not an on off switch, one can be afflicted only in part while still harboring 'healthy' sexual appetites. This in my view accounts for the infantilization some men require sexually despite not being pedophiles. (hairless vagina, child like behavior, extreme petiteness preference, pigtails, etc) This in turn partially and ironically accounts for the demand that the market is responding to when it uses sexually appealing and yet childlike models to hock its wares, which in turn creates an environment conducive to the creation of criminal pedophiles.
We create them by first and foremost by annihilating all possible routes to free, easy, and safe sexual release. Also by demonizing masturbation, pornography and outlawing all forms of non-sanctioned sexual indulgence despite their harmless nature. This over reaction stems from ignorance mainly, and to a lesser but still significant degree, from cultural puritanism.
For example, cartoons of pedophilia, which is not well understood, are illegal, but cartoons of murder, which is fairly well understood, are not only legal, but desirable. This approach of annihilating all safe outlets for pedophiles has tragic consequences for both pedophiles and children.
A good way to test the accuracy of this claim would be to compare sexual assault rates per child in the united states and japan. I say this because japan has a famously permissive attitude toward pedophile themed cartoons and manga, while the united states decidedly does not. I predict that sexual assault on children in japan is lower adjusting for population differences etc, than in the united states.
We as a society need to realize that our actions have consequences and that sexuality is both a basic human need and an effect of the environment. If you starve someone long enough they will sometimes steal, or even kill to sate their hunger. Guilt and fear are not 100% reliable tools to prevent pedophiles from acting on their paraphillia. Thus 100% emphasis on humiliation and punishment is tantamount to causing child rape. We all share responsibility for this.
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
Understanding, Faith, and Gravity
This essay is in response to the video below.
Resisting the urge to explore why it is everything with an 'intellectual' feel has to be presented by someone with a smug English accent (Q Perhaps?) I'd like to explore a serious oversight with this position generally. IE that you must go the degree/education/peer review route to understand something with sufficient strength to attack it.
What they are saying amounts to you must be one of us before you an disagree with us, and if you were one of us you'd not disagree. That's sounds a bit familiar.
Understanding as a matter of faith.
I'll cut through all of it and restate what I hear in different ways whenever scientists like to talk about lay people attacking their work.
The basic claim is that before you can effectively attack a given view, you must first "understand" the view you are attacking. A rational version of this is to say that before you can write a program you must learn code.
That's all well and good but the way most scientists use this attack amounts to an intellectual pissing contest and pulling rank based on time investment rather than any sort of rational refutation or objection. This amounts to an argument from authority. (Your objection is invalid because I have a PHD.)
That may sound absurd on the surface, but consider what is meant by the word understand. All fields over lap at some point. We only live in the one reality. Every frog is connected to every star. Thus, true complete understand is impossible for us presently, perhaps totally if you're a fan of the uncertainty principal being a reflection of ontological reality. IE being unable to observe reality to such and such degree actually limits reality.
So you have to draw a line. You have to apply boundaries. Sometimes these boundaries are very clear, such as exploring the logic of a card game. But as set study shows us, its not always that simple. You can see this yourself when you start a conversation about dogs and end up talking about astrophysics. Dogs>park>park at night>stars.
The point is that you may completely understand something only within bounds, if at all, and where you apply those bounds is your choice ultimately. In addition, since context alters meaning, that understanding can be rendered useless with external and non conflicting data coming from outside those bounds.
Hypothetical: I've shot someone in the head. I'm also being tried for murder. You can fully understand both facts, but do you claim to completely understand the situation from those facts alone? What more data do you need? Consider the true scope of the question. To fully understand you'd have to perfectly master history and psychology at the very least, and perhaps the human brain if an insanity by mental defect defense is used, that would radiate out to physics since the brain is an electrochemical mechanism, and philosophy since you'd also have to define "person"See what I mean? You have to draw a line somewhere, and the key word is you.
So while the argument sounds good there is one insurmountable problem for claiming any scientific claim is totally objective. How you define "understand" and where you put boundaries are themselves subjective decisions.
For the record I don't care if I'm the only person who thinks this way. I don't care that you built a shuttle or this computer. Accomplishments don't denote absolute knowledge and agreement does not alter reality. Contrary to what O'Brian may claim he cannot levitate. But of course this is merely my belief, my faith if you will, in gravity.
Sure you may feel you have good reason, you may even feel you have evidence ,but the rule always applies, your understanding of those reasons and your understanding of that evidence is also subject to applied bounds and is therefor subjective. This extends to understandings of both refutation and prediction. The extends to understanding of experiments. This extends to the very nature of knowledge. Thus science, itself, in a very fundamental way, is subjective. Sound familier?
Ultimately science can be understood as a religion which changes its dogma based on interpertations of clergy derived from what they call experimentation, observation, and prediction.
To dismis this similarity with older faiths is dangerous to the integrity of science.
Reality is in fundamental paradox. There are questions that cannot be answer with the scientific method. But that's another paper.
My point is that I don't need complete understanding of a theory to attack it. It's like chopping down a tree, I don't need to see the whole tree to cut it down, the trunk will do.
If you're a scientist I'll let you make my arguments for me. What If I said understanding Christianity extends to memorizing the KJV bible letter for letter? What if I said you don't understand it enough to attack it or any claim it or I make about it until you have? Would you not immediately attack my definition of understanding? Would you not try to convince me or others that where I put my bounds is somehow invalid compared to where you put your bounds? What if I then said you didn't understand my definition of understand which I said stems from my understanding of the KJV?
We both rationally make the same claim: I don't need to read all your books and records to attack your claim.
The irony of scientists making this claim to religious people is staggering. Never forget, religion gave birth to science they will always be related, as both are effort to understand and predict a world that in some ways is forever mysterious, and unpredictable.
All of reality is in fundamental or harmonious paradox like this at same level.
All of knowledge is suspect (thanks Kant) and the degree to which we accept it is a matter of faith, that fact must be understood by scientists if they wish to avoid turning into a cult. This is both true and unprovable. Thanks Godel.
So I guess in closing what I'm saying is before science can attack religion it needs to understand philosophy and epistemology. :)
Bet the lab coats in the crowd are objecting already, and all I have in response is a question.
Are you sure you understand?
The war between religion and science is futile. It's the left and right had attacking the face. There is a derogatory slang term for that kind of behavior. Retarded.
Resisting the urge to explore why it is everything with an 'intellectual' feel has to be presented by someone with a smug English accent (Q Perhaps?) I'd like to explore a serious oversight with this position generally. IE that you must go the degree/education/peer review route to understand something with sufficient strength to attack it.
What they are saying amounts to you must be one of us before you an disagree with us, and if you were one of us you'd not disagree. That's sounds a bit familiar.
Understanding as a matter of faith.
I'll cut through all of it and restate what I hear in different ways whenever scientists like to talk about lay people attacking their work.
The basic claim is that before you can effectively attack a given view, you must first "understand" the view you are attacking. A rational version of this is to say that before you can write a program you must learn code.
That's all well and good but the way most scientists use this attack amounts to an intellectual pissing contest and pulling rank based on time investment rather than any sort of rational refutation or objection. This amounts to an argument from authority. (Your objection is invalid because I have a PHD.)
That may sound absurd on the surface, but consider what is meant by the word understand. All fields over lap at some point. We only live in the one reality. Every frog is connected to every star. Thus, true complete understand is impossible for us presently, perhaps totally if you're a fan of the uncertainty principal being a reflection of ontological reality. IE being unable to observe reality to such and such degree actually limits reality.
So you have to draw a line. You have to apply boundaries. Sometimes these boundaries are very clear, such as exploring the logic of a card game. But as set study shows us, its not always that simple. You can see this yourself when you start a conversation about dogs and end up talking about astrophysics. Dogs>park>park at night>stars.
The point is that you may completely understand something only within bounds, if at all, and where you apply those bounds is your choice ultimately. In addition, since context alters meaning, that understanding can be rendered useless with external and non conflicting data coming from outside those bounds.
Hypothetical: I've shot someone in the head. I'm also being tried for murder. You can fully understand both facts, but do you claim to completely understand the situation from those facts alone? What more data do you need? Consider the true scope of the question. To fully understand you'd have to perfectly master history and psychology at the very least, and perhaps the human brain if an insanity by mental defect defense is used, that would radiate out to physics since the brain is an electrochemical mechanism, and philosophy since you'd also have to define "person"See what I mean? You have to draw a line somewhere, and the key word is you.
So while the argument sounds good there is one insurmountable problem for claiming any scientific claim is totally objective. How you define "understand" and where you put boundaries are themselves subjective decisions.
For the record I don't care if I'm the only person who thinks this way. I don't care that you built a shuttle or this computer. Accomplishments don't denote absolute knowledge and agreement does not alter reality. Contrary to what O'Brian may claim he cannot levitate. But of course this is merely my belief, my faith if you will, in gravity.
Sure you may feel you have good reason, you may even feel you have evidence ,but the rule always applies, your understanding of those reasons and your understanding of that evidence is also subject to applied bounds and is therefor subjective. This extends to understandings of both refutation and prediction. The extends to understanding of experiments. This extends to the very nature of knowledge. Thus science, itself, in a very fundamental way, is subjective. Sound familier?
Ultimately science can be understood as a religion which changes its dogma based on interpertations of clergy derived from what they call experimentation, observation, and prediction.
To dismis this similarity with older faiths is dangerous to the integrity of science.
Reality is in fundamental paradox. There are questions that cannot be answer with the scientific method. But that's another paper.
My point is that I don't need complete understanding of a theory to attack it. It's like chopping down a tree, I don't need to see the whole tree to cut it down, the trunk will do.
If you're a scientist I'll let you make my arguments for me. What If I said understanding Christianity extends to memorizing the KJV bible letter for letter? What if I said you don't understand it enough to attack it or any claim it or I make about it until you have? Would you not immediately attack my definition of understanding? Would you not try to convince me or others that where I put my bounds is somehow invalid compared to where you put your bounds? What if I then said you didn't understand my definition of understand which I said stems from my understanding of the KJV?
We both rationally make the same claim: I don't need to read all your books and records to attack your claim.
The irony of scientists making this claim to religious people is staggering. Never forget, religion gave birth to science they will always be related, as both are effort to understand and predict a world that in some ways is forever mysterious, and unpredictable.
All of reality is in fundamental or harmonious paradox like this at same level.
All of knowledge is suspect (thanks Kant) and the degree to which we accept it is a matter of faith, that fact must be understood by scientists if they wish to avoid turning into a cult. This is both true and unprovable. Thanks Godel.
So I guess in closing what I'm saying is before science can attack religion it needs to understand philosophy and epistemology. :)
Bet the lab coats in the crowd are objecting already, and all I have in response is a question.
Are you sure you understand?
The war between religion and science is futile. It's the left and right had attacking the face. There is a derogatory slang term for that kind of behavior. Retarded.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)