AFriendlyFace

Happy Chinese New Year

Hey Tob Sorry it didn't interest you much It's not that it wouldn't interest me. Your blogs are always interesting and entertaining (and in my opinion, one of the best blogs here). But you said it might only be relevant for you. I'll read the next one though Cheers Awww Thanks, that's sweet to say!!

Wow! There's a blast from the past! That was the first sexually oriented site I ever went to. Indeed, I was several years younger than you are now when I first read this very article (Oh God! You hadn't even started school yet! ) That site used to be much better too. That "Question of the week classic" thing, used to be an actual interactive weekly question! Still, while I don't dispute most of the info there, I think we must take into consideration that a website that features the discussion of guys masturbating is still going to be more appealing to, and attract more, gay boys than straight ones. Much of the article is indeed very dead on. I don't think fantasies by themselves are an indication of sexuality. Goodness knows I've certainly had my share of heterosexually oriented fantasies and I still came to identify as gay (although several people I know dispute that self-ascribed label :wacko: ) Amen, brother!

For the past two days there's been a poor young man selling fresh flowers by the side of the road at one of the major intersections I traverse every evening after work (this is not uncommon in Houston. There's also been a wheelchair confined person selling candy bars a few intersections up for the past few days). Anyway, I'd most definitely have bought one if I'd had someone waiting at home for me. I even considered buying one and then presenting it back to the vendor. I think that would have been incredibly romantic, but I wasn't actually interested in the guy (only sympathetic), and I'm also pretty sure he's straight. So no flowers did I buy

Ya know, I think it's like that perception exercise where your mind just fills in the spaces and sees things that aren't really there because it knows they're supposed to be...I never even noticed Awww Since I'd quite like to be on a keychain, any ideas as to how to install you as world ruler supreme? I agree with you on all those points! (except that my favourite colour is definitely blue. It'd be cool if he knows my 2nd favourite colour is green though) As another side-note, if you take the teeth out of the equation and substitute something else for spoon it might be a very good way to hang on to them Hmm, as one who disagrees, I would ask how you know they're not cheating on you? Oh obviously it's about trust, and doing it that way probably reduces the risk significantly over doing it randomly, but...well still seems a little iffy to me. Anyway, personally that particular activity doesn't hold any appeal to me. Seems a bit gross without a condom actually. Just my opinions of course, Take care all -Kevin

My first response to seeing this thread and it's subtitle - even before opening it - was "ohh yeah!" Graeme's post almost perfectly mirrors my thoughts on this. Sounds like you have someone specific in mind I'll say this, I think it's very important to both show it AND say it when you definitely feel it. Doing just one or the other is insufficient in my opinion. Take care all -Kevin

I'm with Jamie on this one. Of course that's obvious since I do believe in meaning in a relative manner and not in an absolute manner...so obviously if something has relative meaning to someone it has as much meaning as possible (by my philosophy), which nevertheless gives it meaning. If something, let's say your own happiness, has meaning for you, Menzo, then why would you argue that that doesn't give it "actual meaning"? Why would "meaning in the broader sense", make something anymore meaningful? I realize of course that you're saying there is no "meaning in the broader sense"...and actually since that seems to be a synonym for "absolute, objective meaning" (which I agree doesn't exist), then I suppose we are in agreement. I guess what I'm asking is why relative meaning isn't enough for you to consider something "meaningful"? Perhaps I am selfish and egotistic (as you're arguing is a good thing) but if I consider something meaningful then it's damn well meaningful enough as far as I'm concerned and I wouldn't think to call it unmeaningful...even if there were some objective standard of meaning and whatever it is I cared about failed to meet that standard I would still consider it more meaningful than this theoretical standard because it would have more meaning from my point of view (which is absolute - oh the irony - in terms of my feelings). I disagree with this first point very strongly! One of my "guiding principals" is that man creates his own reality. "Reality" in the "real" sense is irrelevant. Perception - however distorted it may be - IS reality. An oft cited example of this goes as follows: If I believe there's a man-eating lion outside my door, and I thus conduct my life according to this premise, it is completely irrelevant whether or not there actually is one out there. It becomes my reality and it couldn't be any more real regardless of whether or not it's "real". Some argue that "actual reality" has an intrinsic value over "perceived reality". I don't think it does. I think perceived reality has more of an impact and is of greater importance. I disagree with this one as well. It would be lovely if that were true; however, I think man is an intrinsically irrational beast, and I think feelings and emotion more often guide his actions and are the "go to" for survival. Fight or flight is the first line of defense and this is seldom rational. Rationality is a very conscious and willed response. It is by no means universal to men. MMMKAY, I can buy that one as a decent approach. Though not the only. This one I more or less agree with as an ideal. I agree, it does seem as though we're more or less on the same page in terms of beliefs and actions. Our differences seem to more of semantics and degrees of conviction about various points. Very astute questions and observations, glomph! LOL, this thread certainly gets my vote as the most intellectually stimulating and enjoyable of the new year Take care all and have an excellent day! (however you perceive that) -Kevin

It's like "tame sex", nothing too wild or kinky. Well, I'm not sure, although I am hoping it doesn't rain soon or else I suspect a few people's minds might get wet as the water leaves the rooftops

But not in winter

So what is your philosophy/system for handling ethics and morality then, Frosty? I'd be fascinated to hear it!

Well said, Menzo. Actually I said abs, not chests. I'm much more interested in abs It is good that it's been dropped, IMO anyway.

I tend to agree with Menzo although I wouldn't have explained it in that way at all. Nevertheless, thinking about what he said I realize it probably does apply to me as well. I think the act itself (regardless of exactly which act you're referring to ) isn't innately sacred. Instead I would say that it completely depends on the intentions, motives, and feelings of the people involved. I think whether or not sex is meaningless or meaningful is contingent on...well whether or not you assign it meaning. Just because you've never done it before doesn't make it special or meaningful when you do do it for the first time. It might, but if you've just randomly decided to try it for some non-significant reason, I don't think it's going to be special just because it's your first time. Conversely, just because you have done something before doesn't mean it can't be very meaningful, in fact I don't think it precludes it from being the most meaningful thing, or meaningful incident, you've ever experienced sexually. I was once discussing this with a friend, and finally I just turned to him and summed it all up by saying "sex with you could never be meaningless". Our sexual histories are irrelevant, the point remains that I have too many strong feelings for him to have casual sex. It just couldn't be casual. (and for the record this was all theoretical, just as this discussion is. We've never had sex with each other nor was either of us proposing we do so) As far as what I would or wouldn't do sexually, or would only do with someone special...well that's pretty much where Menzo's definition comes into play. I would never do anything dangerous, risky, or unpleasant with anyone, regardless of what our relationship was or how much he/she meant to me. There are however quite a few things I would be willing to do with someone special. These aren't things I particularly want to do in the first place, but they are things I'm willing to do if my significant other wanted to do them. LOL, I don't feel like providing a comprehensive list though, so you'll all just have to use your imaginations. -Kevin

Exactly, as I said I do not agree with the definition of relativism which you used. It may indeed be the most correct philosophical ethical version, but to me relativism rises far beyond simple ethics and philosophy. It is, in many ways, the core of my entire intellectual operating system. It colours the way I think about everything, not just ethics. According to my personalized concept of relativism Subjectivism, and Utilitarianism are both sub-concepts of it. Also, as I said, I have absolutely no beef with Utilitarianism, I completely agree with it, I just go beyond it. To me it paints an incomplete picture. My expanded version of relativism includes all aspects of it as a general rule(at least all aspects that I can think of off the top my head); however, it also includes many other aspects and and allows for the deviating from Utilitarianism as necessary. My problem with this is that, by its very nature (and one could argue - although I would disagree - that by the very nature of any ethical perspective except nihilism), it seeks to lay down "rules" or in this case "maxims" which as you stated, are universal. I see this as a huge mistake! I don't think life is such that it's ever always right or wrong to do or not do something, so having universal maxims of any kind, seems like a big blunder to me. I think it's good to have general rules, but it's important not to foreclose your decision based on these general rules, there ARE exceptions to every rule! I have quite a few general rules for my own life, undoubtedly the same general rules most people have. I think it's wrong to kill, steal, cheat etc., however, these are only general statements. Obviously I've never killed someone for example, nor do I ever intend to, but should the extreme circumstance arise when I can confidently look at the situation and data available and conclude that it's the morally right decision to make, I wouldn't consider it "against my rule". It's interesting (though obviously not surprising given the discussion) that you mentioned God as a source of meaning. As a Christian you would think I would be into this. I'm really not. I won't say God doesn't add a level of meaning to my life; however my life would still have plenty of meaning, significance, and hope without God. I was recently discussing this with a friend and he said that without God there would be no answer to the question "Why I am here?". Honestly, I don't think it ever would have crossed my mind to wonder that. It seems like a silly question to me. However, trying to indulge people I've considered it, and my answer would simply be that my life, activities, and social interactions inherently imbue my life with a meaning and significance. I am here to have this discussion with you. I am here to finish my glass of water. I am here for a million of reasons in my past and future. Why do I need to be here? Why does the universe dictate that someone must occupy this role and do these things at this time? I don't know, and I don't care, I'm perfectly content to do them, and even if the universe were a big cosmic accident it wouldn't matter to me. I'd still enjoy doing them and they'd still need doing, and they would still be significant to me and the people they impact. I guess what I'm saying is that meaning and significance come from within. External factors don't particularly matter. Also, I'm firmly convinced that meaning and significance are completely relative and subjective. I think it's ludicrous to even consider assigning them an objective value. Indeed, I don't naturally tend to consider very many things from an objective, absolute value or position anyway, and the more complicated and important something is the less inclined I am to do it, and the more inclined I am to loudly object when others try to. I've always found it amazing that the majority of people seem to find it comforting to think of things in concrete terms, to see things as black and white, to assume that they will and should be treated objectively...personally I can conceive of nothing scarier than those notions! Agreed Wonderful conversation we're having Take care all and have an awesome day! -Kevin

Thanks for reminding me! I forgot to find out

That'd be awesome! Amen to that! Well said, Jamie!! I confess I forgot about it, just as I assumed I would when I first heard about it But, I spent the evening with my two best friends and I hugged them. So, just a quick little follow up, who did hug or get hugged on this day? Did you guys remember it?

I'll almost certainly be there...unless I'm not

Yep

Hope you're feeling better now

Hi Everyone, This is from the Disturbing Trend thread in the Lounge that Jamie posted. I find this topic endlessly interesting so I decided to post my response in here as well. Hopefully you guys will let me know what you think about this topic! ___________________________________________ **sigh** This is gonna be long... **enter the relativist** Well, despite the fact that I usually tend to agree with Jamie and Menzo, I'm going to have to vehemently disagree in this case. I am a relativist in all things, not just morality but it's certainly a big one. Personally, to me, anything less than relativism strikes me as intellectual laziness and quite probably closed-minded, judgmentalism. I can imagine very few things I think have an absolute right or wrong, and even the ones I can imagine I'm more tempted to ascribe to a lack of imagination on my part rather than an actual always right or wrong thing. Don't get me wrong though, I think a certain action can most definitely be right or wrong in a certain situation, it's just it all depends on the situation and not the action. For example Robbie (whose post I agree with the most thus far) said: And I would definitely agree with him. The action - sending the scientists to their certain death - isn't what makes the scenario right or wrong; it's the reason and the consequence, and in general other things inherent to the situation. Sending someone to their certain demise is usually wrong; however, in this instance I would say that it's right. Thus sending someone to their certain death isn't always wrong (only usually). If someone would care to argue that sending them to their certain death is wrong, then that's fine and that's your prerogative, but the way I would look at it they're going to be dead either way, so why not save the rest of humanity? Indeed, I would gamely go along with this reasoning if I were one of the scientists myself. One could argue then that really this does embody a great deal of utilitarianism and indeed I cannot really fault that approach insomuch as it manages to actually be a moral code. However, to me, it would be an incomplete moral code. Also, IMO, the moral codes described above all reduce to either a relativist frame of reference or an absolutist frame of reference, at least in general. To me relativism is infinitely appealing because for the most part I reject the concrete and embrace the abstract. Thus, science and facts (facts devoid of a story that is), are usually not things with which I want to occupy my mind. Occasionally, actually usually, I'll find a scientific fact fascinating, and I'll be glad I've learned it, but I'd never want to devote much of my intellectual time to them. Instead I prefer to ponder more abstract matters, to examine complex social/situational/contextual interactions and to speculate on their eventual consequences. In school I always more than adequate at the sciences and maths, but they largely disinterested me; it's always been the humanities, especially the social sciences that captivate me. Anyway, philosophically I find much of Kant, Nietzsch, Russell, and the rest of the gang to be utterly fascinating and to hold a great deal of merit. Though I don't necessary think they're "right", but then my whole concept of what is "right" (not morally, but in general), is pretty...well relative. To me two people who hold seemingly mutually exclusive views can be simultaneously and equally correct. Indeed: while I consider myself a very spiritually person and to a large extent religious even (I'm a Christian), my view point on the world's religions (which I sat down and hashed out when I was about 12 or so) is that due to God's omnipotence/omniscience/general "omni" nature pretty much all religions can be equally and simultaneously correct, as long as they hold moral merit and the practitioner firmly believes them. And I'm not exactly saying that's just with regards to general ethics and morality (and thus God/the gods would ultimately say "Well, you were a little bit off, but that's okay), I actually mean their right insofar as they have their own facts. In other words, in simple terms, my belief is that God can be the Christian trinity prototype AND the Jewish God, and the Wiccan Spirts, and...well you get the point. However, I don't think that means that I could just randomly decide to be a Jew or a Hindu, or a Muslim. I think Christianity is the correct religion for me, and thus may indeed be the only correct religion with regards to me. I think converting can be "right", but only if you're convinced your previous religion was lacking something (or had something bad) that the new religion makes up for, and only if you sincerely believe the new religion is the "correct" one (which I would qualify "from your current frame of reference"). Anyway, Divine Command would never work for me, because I've always rejected religion as a grounds for deciding what's right and wrong. I think religion might play into the decision, it might be a good idea to look to the Bible or the Torah or any other religious document, but I think it's a huge mistake to pluck something out of these documents and say "ahh, you see, it's right in here! That's how we'll know". I think it's always a massive mistake to not take the context and culture of the times into consideration. YES, I agree that eating shellfish was wrong in the time of the ancient Jews, but it's no longer wrong in today's society. God had a reason for saying it was wrong back then (in this case I would theorize it had to do with sanitation and the likelihood of getting sick, but that's just my guess), but that doesn't mean the same thing is still wrong. I think morality should always be under constant review. Thus, I similarly disagree with the concept of mandatory sentencing. I think crimes are never identical so neither should the sentencing be. For example some assaults might warrant three years in prison, but some might warrant considerable more, and some might warrant considerably less, and I realize that generally the goal is just to set a minimum sentence and that this generally applies to repeat offenders, but I think even that is too constraining. IMO, the judges AND juries should have almost full discretion and the important thing is to choose competent judges and juries (and I know that often times they suck, but IMO we're trying to fix the wrong thing with mandatory sentencing). As for: This is far too scientific and impersonal to ever be something that would hold much appeal to me directly. As I've said I have enough trouble believing that there are universal laws in general, and certainly not with regards to principles or morality. As yet another tangent, I do very much believe in basic laws from a simplistic point of view. 1+1=2 in the most general, simplest terms, but really 1 and 2 are abstract concepts and can exist as sub or super groups of anything else. Thus I would agree that a stapler and a pair of scissors are two objects, and I wouldn't dispute that fact, but it would lack the intellectual significance necessary to know much about the situation and people involved (which to me is much more important). For example maybe you need a stapler, a pair of scissors, and a tape dispenser. In which case, to me, it's fine to say 1+1=-1, because you're lacking one of the things you need. Obviously mathematically one is supposed to set the equation up more like 1 (a needed object) + 1 (another needed object) - 3 (how many objects you need) = -1 (how many objects you're short). And of course math is useful in this way, and it's perfectly correct to look at it that way. But it's impersonal and doesn't get at the major issue with enough passion. The point is you have these two objects, but you're lacking a third, and if everything hinges on having the third object then 1 + 1 will always equal -1 (one object short on what you need). And that's sorta how I think about all scientific and mathematical facts. They make sense to me, I won't dispute them, but I'll always seek to make them slaves of whatever applicable value they have on the situation at hand, and I think they have little independent value on their own (actually I think any form of knowledge is always valuable in its own right, but I'm operating under two different concepts and definitions for "value" at the same time...which I can do because I'm comfortable breaking the normal scientific AND rhetorical (as well as "duh") rules that say a concept or thing can only have one meaning or definition at any given time). Similarly I can comfortably state that light gray is white and dark blue is black if, for whatever reason, I'm only interested in defining things in terms of either black or white (which obviously I'm never actually interested in doing when it comes to moral or intellectual matters, but "black and white" can have other merit independent of these). As for: Sure, like I said I won't dispute this one at all, but it doesn't give the full story and since I think "happy" and "sad" are completely relative anyway this is just a subset of relativism to me. I disagree with the definition you used. It's correct, but it doesn't tell the whole story, and it certainly isn't the extent of what I mean by "relativism". I do take individual cultures into account when deciding what's morally right for one person over another, but my overwhelming, guiding light, is what is right in the situation. Cultural aspects and individual histories play a role in this, but they certainly don't tell the whole story. I disagree because I believe that there are "moral truths", I just don't believe that there are universal moral truths. ...and that's what I think. -Kevin

Hey Tob Sorry it didn't interest you much

Hey Graeme, Actually it's not quite as complicated as it sounds. Mostly stuff just seems to work itself out. **crosses his fingers that this will continue**

Hey Viv! Oh wow!! That sucks so much I'm so sorry

Thanks, Graeme! I think things are getting a bit better now actually

...but Jamie doesn't live in L.A.