Why do people make such big deals at certain body parts? Why so much self hatred?

I've been away from awhile from these forums so I'm going to answer all of your posts Kevin in two posts, sorry for the length of them!~ ^_^


Kevin, "In all fairness, I can tell that ColorsWolf isn't advocating 100% nudity all the time, just nudity when the mood strikes for whatever reason. On the other hand, what about those of us for whom the mood *never* strikes? Is that proof that we're brainwashed, thus obligating us to "force" ourselves to be in the "mood" at times (especially when out in a common public area)? and even assuming that, how are we supposed to determine when it would be appropriate to force ourselves to be in the mood? Since we're (purportedly) brainwashed, our judgment in that regard is (by definition) quite hobbled."


o_O I said "when practical".~ Although there is no justifiable legal reason "not" to go without clothing when ever you feel like it unless the possibility of danger is present, the mere state of being "without clothing" is not a justifiable reason to negate itself as it is simply as state of being and is not harmful to any one or any thing in of itself: any who claim "harm" citing the opposite are the cause of their own "harm".~

I also have no idea what you mean by the paragraph of your's mentioned above about "forcing one's self to be in the mood".~

I did not set a "draw the line between total nudity or totally clothed", you did.~

I advocate not wearing clothes when logical and practical, while eliminating unhealthy concepts such as "shame", that's it.~


Kevin, "Re: a country where the people who live there believe wiping themselves with dry paper is making themselves "clean" ... uh yeah
well, I'd really only say "guilty as charged" on the basis of the given
definition of the word "clean." I don't love toilet paper as a solution to the "not clean" problem, but since it's really all I have available I kind of have no choice but to do the best I can with it and then carry on with life's many other affairs. (And I reeeally try to make the best of it, let me tell ya ...)"


Wrong, you always have a choice.~ You've just convinced yourself that you don't.~

I also use toilet paper, but I wash that area of myself with soap and water afterwards just like any other part of my body: it's really not that hard nor time-consuming when you have a level water dispenser next to the toilet like a bath tub.~

This is why I view Americans as filthy when it comes to using toilets and the French as slightly cleaner because of their access to and use of bidets (sinks the same height of and next to a toilet).~

You don't need to be "rich" in any sense of the word to have one, they sell plastic attachments for toilets.~

Or you could just use a bathtub next a toilet after you wipe with "paper", just get some soap, sit on the side of the bathtub, put your butt under the part where the water comes out of, and wash away: drying yourself is no different than drying yourself after a shower as you are now "actually" clean, some thing sadly uncommon among Americans.~

If you are, please stop implying that I have said some thing applies to "self-hatred" when it I didn't say it had any thing to do with "self-hatred" like using the toilet, it feels like you are being bitterly hateful and mocking every thing I have said making it seem as if every thing I say is a big joke that no one should ever take seriously.~

Sorry if I misinterpreted your humor, but it does seem like you are referring to me and it feels rather hurtful.~


Japan actually has invented one of this planet's most technologically advanced toilets: it can even wash your butt with soap mixed into water and has a built-in drier so you never have to use toilet paper, it has countless other features to such as a seat-warmer and it even talks to you!~ ^_^

Although, I myself prefer a creature, preferably a plant-like creature, like seen in a sci-fi TV series I used to watch, only it was actually more like the insides of a giant biologically living insect space-ship, a 'toilet' that is actually a mouth you sit upon and secrete your secretions and the mouth consumes every thing you make, uses a giant tongue to lick you clean, and its' saliva acts like anti-bacterial and disinfectant cleansing soapy water at the same time.~ There is actually a living real plant that does this for rodents, it resembles a Venus Fly Trap, but it just eats the secretions and doesn't have all those above mentioned features.~

On the subject of "not wearing clothes" and "murderers":

In many of our societies we have agreed to not kill each other as we have more or less agreed that doing so causes more problems than it solves.~


"Not wearing clothing" is actually our natural state and it is unavoidable in many cases, it causes no harm to any one in of itself (any one who claims otherwise is the cause of their own harm trying to shift the blame on some one else), trying to mentally "force" us to "hate ourselves" into wearing clothing causes more problems than it solves, and actually wearing clothing when it is not practical can be deadly in cases of heat-stroke as wearing clothing inhibits the Human body's ability to sweat which is one of the most efficient ways of dissipating heat more so than most species' of this planet abilities to get rid of heat from their bodies.~

When it comes to "murderers", these people are by no means "unnatural", in fact it is in our very nature to do all these things: harm, kill, rape, steal, and lie.~

As in nature, these things are not crimes outside our "societies", if we even live in one: we harm or we kill for many reasons: to eat, to prove our strength, to claim territory, or just to survive, etc.; we either convince or we force others to mate with us to continue the survival of our genetic material; we take what we can to survive; and we may "say things but do another or the opposite of what we said or indicated" as a strategy to accomplish our goals.~

Not all of our Human societies ban these things or they may only ban these things within our own society but have no problems with us doing these things to other people in other societies: like tribes vs. tribes.~ As always, no one is forcing you to stay in any society, you may move to another that more fits your way of life or you may not live in any society at all and do as you please.~

Or you can try to change the society you're in: one could argue that every one who disagrees with a society should leave it, but many of us know that many societies change and do not stay the same forever: much of that change has come of people living within those societies disagreeing with the society they live in and so they worked towards changing it.~

Whether these "changes" were for the "most benefit of the majority of that society" or not and in what way are subjective.~


Kevin,

"Mmmm, no, I still don't get it. Examples, examples. Need examples.

It all sounds so agreeable, but I still feel disoriented and thus, scared to commit to agreeing.

Help help! Even one or two examples would help me get my sea legs."


You just did, instead of saying that "people who walk around in public without clothes are crazy", we need to discuss why "nudity" is such a "problem" to begin with.~

And we have done just that.~
 
Last edited:
Kevin, "Oh ... except, what about those infamous guys who wear just a trenchcoat and go about intentionally flashing their erection to various individuals? That's not the kind of nudity we support, is it? any of us, right? Anyone disagree with me about that? (Care to elaborate if so?)"


In a society where "nudity" is natural and an accepted part of life, individuals like this would just be considered weird at the most.~

The "shock" value comes from "forcefully exposing other people to "nudity" when they have an unhealthy relationship with it" the only "shock" left from this in a society that has a healthy relationship with "nudity" would be: "Why is this person showing me the inside of their trench coat: are they trying to rob me, do they want to hurt me, are they selling me some thing, etc.?"

The "flasher" or "a streaker" may or may not have an unhealthy relationship with nudity, but "flashing" people is not doing any thing but forcing other people to deal with the existence of "nudity" whether they want to or not.~


Kevin, "Re: breastfeeding ... something in corporate policy needs to change ... seems like the ideal would be provisions for taking one's child to work so one could breastfeed the child directly ... and since that's a pipe dreams, longer breaks are needed for breastfeeding mothers to pump."


I hope you're joking, because I have studied and done research on many tribal cultures and women can simultaneously care for their child and continue their daily lives, and this includes carrying bushels of plants weighing over 20-50 pounds on their backs without any help from any one else and often without any kind of clothing what so ever: often the children are strapped to their chests with a harness or they carry them with one arm while the other arm is used to work things many "modern women" would consider "back-breaking work".~


To both Kevin and InfinitePossibility, just because you don't agree with some one else's way of thinking or doing things does not make them a "psychopath" and we may not even know if they truly are a "psychopath" unless they have either been professionally diagnosed (although many professionals are guilty of misconduct for personal gain and many are mistaken when trying to recognize actual "mental issues") or they have admitted to having mental issues that put them along the lines of a "psychopath".~


As to your mentioning of "brainwashing", to many extents we are all "brainwashed" in many ways from birth or even before birth depending on the society we live in and how we are raised.~

To suggest that "any one who doesn't agree with me is brainwashed" is I agree taking it too far, but this is no way applies to me as I have not said this.~

Again, sorry if I misinterpreted your humor, but it does seem like you are referring to me and it feels rather hurtful.~


All in all though, I am very happy with your attitude and ending points of view of these subjects!~ ^_^
 
Last edited:
Or, everyone's a nudist at heart? Idea being, perhaps, that all the animals appear to be nudists at heart, and humans are animals, so why shouldn't the same principle apply?

Well, we're nudists at birth, certainly. Tough to say what we are at heart. Animals in cold climates burrow and make nests to keep warm/isolated/protected. If they had opposable thumbs and technical know-how, would they make clothes, or portable nests of some type?

<shrug>

Just lobbing that one back at you. With that one, I'm done. :)

And maybe that's why, in accordance to my own personal beliefs, humans are both monogamous and polyamorous. One thing's for sure, whatever humans are, it isn't consistent.

On the whole, I would agree, since it seems to be something of a spectrum. One individual, however, can be anywhere on that spectrum.

I'm just making the distinction since saying that as a species we are both is different from saying that every member of that species has a bit of "poly" in them.
 
Kevin, "Re: breastfeeding ... something in corporate policy needs to change ... seems like the ideal would be provisions for taking one's child to work so one could breastfeed the child directly ... and since that's a pipe dreams, longer breaks are needed for breastfeeding mothers to pump."


I hope you're joking, because I have studied and done research on many tribal cultures and women can simultaneously care for their child and continue their daily lives, and this includes carrying bushels of plants weighing over 20-50 pounds on their backs without any help from any one else and often without any kind of clothing what so ever: often the children are strapped to their chests with a harness or they carry them with one arm while the other arm is used to work things many "modern women" would consider "back-breaking work".

CW, at least my part of the discussion was focused on breastfeeding in this country (US) - mothers with low-paying jobs (think 7-11 or Walmart) are not allowed to bring their children into the workplace. And in a right-to-work state, you can be fired for any reason. People don't want to risk their source of income when they can nourish their children in other, non-threatening ways.

It may be crappy, it may be easy to say "get a new job", but it sure as hell isn't easy to do in practice.
 
Wrong, you always have a choice.~ You've just convinced yourself that you don't.~

I also use toilet paper, but I wash that area of myself with soap and water afterwards just like any other part of my body: it's really not that hard nor time-consuming when you have a level water dispenser next to the toilet like a bath tub.~

Well, when I'm not at home (which accounts for most of my day, except for weekends), I don't have a choice. I'd probably get fired for dragging my naked butt over to the sink. ;)
 
Well, when I'm not at home (which accounts for most of my day, except for weekends), I don't have a choice. I'd probably get fired for dragging my naked butt over to the sink. ;)

For situations like that:

I tend to finish wiping myself, put my clothes on, walk over to the sink, get a neat wad of toilet paper put soap on it wet it a little bit, then walk back to the toilet stall and finish cleaning myself: sort of like a wet-wipe improvised sort of thing.~ ^_^

Oh, in case any one was wondering, I get my colors and their html codes from:


http://www.computerhope.com/htmcolor.htm
 
Last edited:
I do believe I've just been schooled on how to wipe my own butt.
At any rate, I was mostly being facetious - I do know people who carry wet-wipes around. I'm just not one of them. If you prefer not to shake hands, I'll understand. ;)
 
Part 1 of 3

Damn, I hate it when I'm sporting around with my disrespectful humor and then the fun comes to an end. Sigh, alright, back to the ol' grind: I bet I was out of line with a bunch of my quips here and there in the above posts, so, pardon my crude self-entertainment if you will, and I'll definitely try to do better in the future. No hurt intended, I swear on my life. It's just that I grew up in an environment where my siblings and I made fun of each other constantly, so you have to understand, it's what I got used to. Still trying to learn to catch myself before I do it to non-sibling comrades. I'm a bonafide slow learner, but I do see what a bad idea it is.

And now the real kicker ... I've gotten so comfortable with making light of everything, that I think I sometimes come across as joking (and/or poking fun) even when I'm serious. I don't know quite how to express seriousness ... and the line between serious and jocular can sort of get blurred even in my own mind.

You should probably also know (and keep in mind) that my siblings, and mother's side of the family, tend to be argumentative and competitive. Lots of game-playing. My youngest brother took third place in a Utah State Chess tournament and became a lawyer. Kind of "distinguished himself" as a manipulative person as well. Lots of sexual abuse in the home my mother grew up in ... I guess what I'm getting at is that, as a whole, my family is "not well." You already know from my earlier posts that my mom was, frankly, a crazy bitch when I was a kid (though she's pretty remorseful about that now). As for my dad, he's probably the most emotionally/socially clueless person I've ever met. Clueless in a lot of ways in fact, considering he was smart enough to be a well-respected draftsman and one of the most well-liked teachers in my high school.

Just sayin', these are the types of genes and upbringing you're dealing with when it's me on the "other side of your monitor." I don't mean to excuse myself, but I've been known to make major social blunders without even realizing it before it was too late. My parents and teachers found the amount of daydreaming I did in my earlier grade school years to be quite annoying. I think I might have mentioned in an earlier post that I'm on a bunch of meds and while they enable me to "keep it together" externally, they don't do much to calm the internal maelstrom. So I can be a very bright person (my mom was literally an all-A student), and a very foolish person at the same time. I'll apologize for that beforehand, and I'll apologize after the fact too because apologizing is something I've had to learn to get pretty good at. Sort of how alcoholics and wife beaters are always apologizing? Hey, if you decide you'd rather not interact with me I'll certainly understand. I often detest interacting with myself.

In case you're wondering, "Why be so down on yourself? Just make self-improvements, and overcome the past. You'll feel so much better." Oh, I'm still trying. "Right, but improve your methods of trying; you're trying the wrong way." Oh, I'm still trying to try the right way. It's an old story, one that will probably end with diabetes or a massive heart attack. :(

---

Re: nudity and practicality ... okay, what I'm supposing so far is that it's all about the weather. So, if it's cold, dress up (or rather, bundle up). If it's temperate -- probably dress up out of politeness? If it's warm, dress down (but nudity itself isn't quite yet a matter of practicality?). If it's hot, undress. That's the bottom line about what's practical, as far as I can tell. As I said I'm not sure "temperate" and "warm" don't constitute gray areas, but I'm assuming (at least for my own convenience) that as long as the clothes won't hurt you (and you're not at a nudist camp or something), then it's just as well (since it's not technically harmful to oneself) to wear clothes for the sake of more easily getting along with society at large (which in and of itself could be thought of as a practical consideration -- just a smaller consideration than health concerns), as long as it's not hot of course (as I said).

In case I was unclear about the following point: I personally definitely don't see any harm per se in going nude no matter where one is, unless the "where" is a cold (or at least cool) place.

Re (from Post #141):
"I also have no idea what you mean by the paragraph of yours mentioned above about 'forcing one's self to be in the mood.'"

Ahem ... well, in fairness, I don't really know what I meant by that paragraph either. A "forced mood" is a silly idea and that's just what I was being: silly. But silly in a serious way: What I'm trying to get at is, since I can't force my moods, how can I be in the right mood to dress or undress at the right time? This is assuming (of course) that the weather is neither particularly hot/warm nor cold/cool. If the weather's not telling me whether to clothe myself, how do I know whether to clothe myself? That's why in this post I'm going out on a limb and supposing it's okay to "go along with what society wants" as long as it's not harming my health.

Re:
"I did not 'draw the line between total nudity or totally clothed,' you did."

I did? Sorry, I didn't mean to. It seems to me that there is a continuum describing various amounts of worn clothing, just as there is a continuum describing various temperatures. Warmer = less clothing. Colder = more clothing. At the extremes of those continuums are, as cold as any sufficiently-equipped human could survive (better wear a heated spacesuit), and, as hot as any sufficiently unembarrassed human could survive (better wear nothing).

---

Re: toilet hygiene ... drat, I will probably have to concede a point or two in this area. Now to make it work well (for me), I'd want soap in a soap dish at sitting level, and a supply of clean dry washcloths within easy reach. My plan would be to wipe "as usual," then sit on the edge of the tub, then soap up "down there," then rinse (I personally think the rinsing part would be tricky but admittedly feasible), then dry off with a washcloth, then re-pants myself (if it's not hot), then put the washcloth in the hamper basket (would have to make a trip to my closet to do that, slightly inconvenient but I'm sure I'd live). Yeah you could argue that one washcloth should suffice for multiple dryings, but I'm just "funny that way," I guess.

Air/heat drying? No thanks, again because I'm funny that way, I'm a "paper man" when it comes to drying my hands too (partly because I also wash my face a lot and prefer to dry off with paper).

So now what's my excuse? two things: laziness and embarrassment. I'd need to get my lady's help in installing the soap dish (cause I'm no handyman), procuring the washcloth supply (cause she's got the car and the funds), and finding/installing someplace to put the washcloths, and given all that, I think I'd kind of have to tell her why I was asking for all those things. Nooooo, I feel so embarrassed! Of course, I'd need her to be willing to go along with all these requests (and refrain from laughing at me), but I *think* I could manage that. But then there's the laziness factor. Self-explanatory. Oh yeah, I'm confessing that I'm lazy enough to be "Americanly filthy" even though I know I could do better. Sorry!

Next confession: I only shower every other day. Sorry, sorry, yet more American filthiness I suppose. But on the days when I do shower, I always "schedule" my #2 pit stop for right before the shower. And when I shower, I *definitely* get it clean down there, by any country's standards (removable shower head with super-sprayer setting thank the gods). Soap and multiple cleanings and ... well let's not wander into TMI Land. So give me partial credit. Better than nothing is still better than nothing, at least I know I'm "truly clean" for about 24 glorious hours.

And finally, in my lazy-but-handy defense, I'll note that *if* it's very natural and thus a good idea to go with my "every-animal" attributes, then consider my pets. They don't wipe at all, so I'm actually doing pretty good in comparison. Okay okay, my cat has her own hair-raising way of keeping it clean down there ... but my dog goes to no such bother. Sniffing her own butt? Sure, she does that, but she don't lick it, let me tell ya. So I'm a few points ahead of my dog at least. Yes, I take great pride in winning that contest with my dog; can I thence return to my American tradition of pretending I'm in a state of cleanliness? Ohhh ... I think you might be shaking your head while giving me the evil eye. (Don't be alarmed, it's me I'm making fun of this time.)

[continued below]
 
Last edited:
Part 2 of 3

[continued from above]

A bidet! That's what those things are called! Ahhh, now I feel like I'm both smart *and* clean (poking fun at my own self again; myself is always a fair target).

Let's get our countries straight though: Bidets are only *sometimes* found in France (sez Wikipedia). Italy is actually "The Bidet Country" in Europe; Portugal appears to get second place. France and Spain appear to come in third. Albania, Croatia, Slovenia, Malta and Greece have bidets here and there.

Surprisingly, South America is another bidet-ish area, especially Argentina, Paraguay and Uruguay. Also surprisingly, a lot of the Middle East has bidets (even Iraq, supposedly, although I could have sworn America already blew up everything in that country. Did we leave the bidets intact? :)).

And yeppers, I totally dissed Japan, it is completely innocent of having hole-in-the-ground toilets and in fact has bidets as well -- as do many East Asian countries. I'm still gonna stick to my bigoted belief that *some* East Asian countries have hole-in-the-floor toilets, though.

Re: bidets that you attach to your toilet ... I'm skeptical about that idea cause I just don't get how they work (even after examining Wikipedia). Where the #=!! do the faucets/nozzles go?

I'd still much prefer a full-fledged bidet, and not just any old bidet either, I want one of those muthas that sprays a jet of water right up into the air. Now that's what I'm talkin' about! I'd make full use of one of those suckers, with pleasure. And who knows? Maybe they're actually sold in the United States and I could get Home Depot to install one for me. Uh oh, my laziness just kicked in again, and my cheapness as well. Guess I get to keep my filthiness to go along with it. Sorry ... :(

If I ever go nude, I promise I'll carry a towel around with me to sit on. And I'll always wash my hands with soap and water, so you can still shake my hand. Just don't shake my butt! :D

Re: butt-cleaning creature (preferably plant-like) ... uh well, it makes perfectly logical sense, but I can't help it: Ewww! I think I'd prefer my super-soaker bidet, no offense.

Re (from Post #146):
"For situations like [public restrooms]: I tend to finish wiping myself, put my clothes on, walk over to the sink, get a neat wad of toilet paper put soap on it wet it a little bit, then walk back to the toilet stall and finish cleaning myself: sort of like a wet-wipe improvised sort of thing."

Holy crap (literally), that turns the laziness lobe of my brain into a quivering ball of abject terror. I already hate public bathrooms (even the seemingly clean ones), dammit I even hate going at my older brother's house. I sooo prefer to use my own bathroom at my own house. Perhaps because that way I can literally make myself at home? Anyway, you have my grudging respect for your *Italian* standard of true cleanliness. (And I promise I still won't try to shake your butt, because I wouldn't want to confuse either of us.)

---

Re: self-hatred ... dude, I've been confused throughout this thread as to what self-hatred does or doesn't apply to. But by now, I'm now thinking it basically just applies to the wearing of clothes (at illogical/inappropriate times). I'm hitting closer to the mark -- I hope?

---

Re: killing ... yah we do a whole lot of that, much to my chagrin. Shouldn't I be incarcerated for failing (at my age yet) to be a vegetarian? Uhh, yeah, kind of.

National Geographic recently put out a film called "Life in a Day," composed of all-amateur footage but I still liked it. Except the scene where they filmed the killing of a cow. Oh God that was awful. And I participate (at all, in any way) in that kind of thing? Yes, shame is the right word for how that makes me feel about me ... and I even believe that I should feel so ashamed.

Jeezh, I know lots of animals are meat-eaters, but they have a good excuse for the killing that they do. Humans *could* be vegetarians if they (we) were willing to, that's my point.

Oh ... but here's a riddle. Without anyone killing any animals, how can I feed my cat? Can they make "vegetarian cat food" that actually works for cats? (Sigh, if not, I hope they'll discover that sort of technology sometime soon.) I can't just feed my cat milk/cheese all the time, can I? I don't even think that's good for cats.

So maybe killing is "natural," but I still don't like it -- not when humans do it. Yes, I'm pretty strongly opposed to war. On the other hand, I do agree with mercy killings (for both humans and other animals). Killing in self-defense? sure, given a "reasonable" definition for "self-defense." Example: "I figured that guy *might* kill me someday, so I had to kill him first." Dubious at best, and I'm more inclined to think the worst of it.

But, I'll cough up a riddle: In the movie "Sling Blade," [stop now if you abhore spoilers] Karl Childers killed a guy simply because that guy was a rotten guy who was making the lives of those around him miserable, and would only continue to do so increasingly. Childers had already been institutionalized for one murder he had committed as a kid, and he willingly returned to the institution now as the price he accepted for committing his last crime. Sooo ... was he really a criminal? Maybe every crime has its gray areas, depending on the context.

Re (from Post #141):
"When it comes to 'murderers,' these people are by no means 'unnatural,' in fact it is in our very nature to do all these things: harm, kill, rape, steal, and lie."

To various degrees, this or that "vice" might be in the nature of various animals here or there. All such vices, in all animals? Skeptical. And anyway, humans have the mental tools to deeply analyze the ethical implications of their actions, and to resist taking even what would have been a perfectly natural action. So even if all those vices are naturally within us, it still looks to me like we are burdened with a higher standard of behavior (than the remaining animals).

[continued below]
 
Last edited:
Part 3 of 3

[continued from above]

Re:
"We harm or we kill for many reasons: to eat, to prove our strength, to claim territory, or just to survive, etc."

If by we you mean some of us, okay. Harm to eat? That sounds something more like a parasitic wasp would do to a spider. Kill to eat? Guilty as charged. Kill/harm to prove my strength? Not guilty. Kill/harm to claim territory? Been awhile since the United States has claimed new territory, but I participate in a country with a history of that kind of violence so you could call me an accomplice or at least a beneficiary of government violence. Kill to survive? Conceivable if I was hungry (or threatened) enough.

Re:
"We either convince or we force others to mate with us to continue the survival of our genetic material ..."

  • I'm more of the "try to convince" type.
  • I'm snipped.
So again, who's this "we?" It can't be me and by extension it can't be all of us. Do some of us force others to "mate" with us? Sorry to say yes, but most of us know better.

Re:
"We take what we can to survive ..."

Likely enough if I was sufficiently poor, cold, hungry, threatened, etc.

Re:
"We may 'say things but do another or the opposite of what we said or indicated' as a strategy to accomplish our goals."

At first I thought "no way in hell," til I inconveniently remembered a certain handful of months a ways in the past. Technically not a lie in the verbal sense, but certainly an act/pattern of deception.

In addition, if this was WWII and the SS was pounding on my door demanding to know if I was hiding any Jews in my home, my answer would have to be "No" even if it was a lie. Yet another gray area by context.

Re: rape ... the only gray area I can see is statutory rape. Now, do soldiers rape women in children in defeated lands? I think some but not all. Regardless, it's an inexcusable thing for any human to do.

Re:
"As in nature, these things are not crimes outside our 'societies,' and if we even live in one: We harm or we kill for many reasons: to eat, to prove our strength, to claim territory, or just to survive, etc.; we either convince or we force others to mate with us to continue the survival of our genetic material; we take what we can to survive; and we may 'say things but do another or the opposite of what we said or indicated' as a strategy to accomplish our goals."

If I can say "not *necessarily* crimes," clarify/qualify, and confine the definition of some "not-crimes" to such gray areas as mentioned above, then I can agree with the whole paragraph as quoted immediately above. But I don't think it's often when a human is in a special situation that permits those kinds of actions. It would be an exception, not the rule.

Even though humans are technically animals, I still hold humans accountable for things for which I wouldn't hold another species of animal accountable. As described in an earlier post, humans are a "changed kind of animal," with ethical principles to consider.

---

Re:
"As always, no one is forcing you to stay in any society, you may move to another that more fits your way of life or you may not live in any society at all and do as you please."

Ull ... expatriating isn't as simple as it was in the good old days. I couldn't migrate to Canada or New Zealand for example and become a citizen of either country. Not qualified enough.

And even if it were simple, it would involve moving far away from friends and family. A good thing to some, perhaps, but probably not to most.

Re: live in no society at all? ... tough proposition at best. The entire globe (except Antarctica which has *kind of* been claimed and divvied up) has by now been claimed by one country or another. Unless there's some tiny undiscovered island somewhere ...

Re:
"Or you can try to change the society you're in ..."

Much simpler. (Though it takes a long time, and concerted effort by many people.)

Re:
"Many of us know that many societies change and do not stay the same forever ..."

Don't most of us know that?

Re:
"Much of that change has come of people living within those societies disagreeing with the society they live in and so they worked towards changing it."

I think that's how most societal change occurs (slowly, as mentioned above).

Re:
"Whether these 'changes' were for the 'most benefit of the majority of that society' or not and in what way are subjective."

Of course.

---

Re: the classic "trenchcoat flasher" ... sounds to me like you're suggesting that "nude with an erection" should be treated the same way as "nude without an erection" (assuming there's no sex going on). Correct me if I'm wrong, otherwise, moving on.

Re: breastfeeding restricted at work ... nope, wasn't joking, but wasn't talking about *all* countries either, just the countries where businesses of whatever size restrict a mother's opportunities to breastfeed. That would include the United States.

Re: identifying a psychopath ... technically impossible. After all, even psychiatrists rely on the latest official literature to identify disorders. There was a time when the official psychiatric literature of the day labeled homosexuality as a mental disorder. Obviously the literature was mistaken and by extension, so were the professionals who relied on that literature.

Everything about psychology is subjective, and typically the deciding factors are, "Can this person function 'normally' in a 'normal' society?" Well, the definition of "normal" is educated guesswork at best. So in the end, I guess we have to make our individual judgments based on whatever little we know, and protect ourselves from harm if we perceive that it's necessary.

Re: brainwashing ... it's safe to say that virtually everyone is subject to it, at least to some extent. I don't know anyone who strikes me as "immune."

---

Re (from Post #143):
"Animals in cold climates burrow and make nests to keep warm/isolated/protected. If they had opposable thumbs and technical know-how, would they make clothes, or portable nests of some type?"

I suppose so. But would they later migrate south with all that stuff? That's the question.

Re:
"Re:
'And maybe that's why, in accordance to my own personal beliefs, humans are both monogamous and polyamorous. One thing's for sure, whatever humans are, it isn't consistent.'
On the whole, I would agree, since it seems to be something of a spectrum. One individual, however, can be anywhere on that spectrum.
I'm just making the distinction since saying that as a species we are both is different from saying that every member of that species has a bit of 'poly' in them."

Oh oopsie -- bad communication on my part. When I said, "Humans are both monogamous and polyamorous," I meant: "Some humans are monogamous and some humans are polyamorous and heck, some humans are a little of each." In other words, I definitely *don't* agree that *all* humans have even a particle of polyamory anywhere "in their heart." Some humans are monogamous at heart and some are polyamorous at heart and that's how I should have said it.

Of course, I also agree with the spectrum you spoke of. Oh what the heck, check out one of my few self-started threads if you haven't already: Philosophical Semantics, Part I
 
Last edited:
I do believe I've just been schooled on how to wipe my own butt.
At any rate, I was mostly being facetious - I do know people who carry wet-wipes around. I'm just not one of them. If you prefer not to shake hands, I'll understand. ;)

Oh pl-ease!~ This stereotype needs to stop.~ I know people in other countries that don't use toilet paper have this 'custom' about 'not shaking hands with the left hand as that is the one used to wipe yourself clean', but they also use soap and water to clean their butts and their hands again afterwards, this is no different than working in a sewer and taking a shower afterwards or accidentally touching dog-poop with your bare hands and then washing them with hot soap and water so there is no reason why this whole 'shaking hand rules should even be a 'thing''.~ -.-

You really have absolutely no idea how clean some one's hand really is no matter what country you are in.~

I prefer to rely on my sense of sight to see if some one's hand is "clean" or "smell" people's hands if they want me to shake them or ask them if they washed their hands, or I "bow" to those who don't like physical contact at first, and I LOVE to hug people by asking them first then doing it if they give they me the go ahead.~ ^_^
 
Last edited:
Thank you so much Kevin for your wonderful understanding and points of view!~ ^_^

Love,

ColorsWolf
 
Part 1 of 2

No problem, I'm glad if none of that three-part post caused a problem.

I guess this is overkill, but there are things I should make sure I clear up. I guess if this was a Hoarders episode, my flat would be packed full of posts that were so long and numerous that they killed the threads they were posted in. :(

Right, so, having slept on it, it occurred to me that I still made quite light of a lot of things in that three-part post, things you probably feel I should have taken quite seriously. So let's start with that?

I probably take those things a fair sight more serious than my twisted communication conveyed. Uh, for example ...

  • I don't *really* hate being told to "stop being Mr. Funny" when there's really nothing funny at all about my so-called funniness. Just entertaining myself. Not worth doing that at anyone else's expense.
  • I get that physical filthiness is no laughing matter, considering it's known to spread disease in many cases. Look, let me try to state my case another way. Suppose you were asking me to take a jump with a bungee cord. Technically, I'd be in no danger if I did it (and theoretically I'd like it?). But psychologically, I don't think I could get myself to take that big of a dare even I was ordered to do so at gunpoint. Completely illogical on my part? Oh yes. But, the brain (whether this be a good or bad thing) isn't a completely logical instrument. Sometimes it's completely, irrationally emotional. And I guess I was raised to be so content with "the American way" of toileting that by now I just can't be talked into making a change for the better. "This dog is too old to learn that new trick." Regrettable, but earnestly true.
  • I don't *really* think it's clever of me to argue about which country uses bidets the most frequently. Who cares if it's France or Italy or Timbuktu? The point is, whichever countries are using them are doing it right, and hopefully the practice will eventually spread all over the globe. In the meantime, there's no reason us citizens of "non-bidet countries" couldn't utilize some creativity and essentially accomplish the same results.
  • I don't *know* that *any* country has (still has?) hole-in-the-ground toilets, and even if I did know, I'd still also know that it was a dumb thing to argue about. The only thing that really matters here is that we should all want better hygiene to become increasingly widespread, and however that improvement could be accomplished would be super. Right now, raising awareness is probably about the best anyone can do to work on the issue, so since you have helped awareness to be raised, I'm convinced that you've done a good thing.
  • I'm actually quite serious when I say I'd gladly use a bidet with a "jet sprayer." Too bad that probably really is too expensive for my budget, and unfortunately I highly doubt any store in the United States carries such an item. Yes, I know there are "lid-style bidets" in America, even if I don't get how they work. It's just that if I can't have my coveted "jet-sprayer bidet," I'd prefer the "bathtub approach" to any other kind of bidet. And of course we already know I'm too chicken/conditioned/whatever it is to go that way: unfortunate but true.
  • Re: any restroom that has neither tub nor bidet ... if forced to go #2 there, the "bidet substitute" I'd prefer would be the flushable wipes that I do know you can buy in the United States. But as already stated, I just don't find that I can talk myself out of the ritual I was trained/conditioned/programmed to follow. It's not even the expense involved that's stopping me. Hmmm, that's pretty sad, isn't it. I won't rule out "psychological miracles" in the future, but at this moment the prospect of that "jump with a bungee cord" has sucked my reserves of courage and sensibility clean dry. :(
Believe it or not I did try to tone down the humor on that three-part post. Hopefully the above list tones it down the rest of the way.

And some *non-joke* material that could also use some clarifying/completion:

  • Re: killing ... the "He would have killed me eventually" example was a weak example on multiple levels. Sooo, skip that example and just hear me when I say that I hold humans to a different standard because of humans' exceptional thinking capacities and generally large range of options. Now that's not to say there couldn't be any number of allowable reasons for a human to take a life. It's just to say that a human should carefully consider (as much as available time allows) the ethical ramifications of any killing he/she has any reason to do. That principle applies to just about any kind of decision (about any kind of action), but it especially applies to something as serious as killing. Killing is always a very big deal, especially for a human. But as long as all that is accounted for, then we can see why the Sling Blade example works (even for me).
  • Re: harming to eat ... oops, I spaced on the scenario of say, one animal attacking another animal in order to get that other animal out of the way of the first animal's food. O-kay ... so, would any of the animals that come to my mind do such a thing? I'm not quite sure. But if they did, I wouldn't condemn/criticize it, *if* those animals are non-human. Humans, on the other hand, even if they're starving, are able to carefully negotiate concepts such as, "Which of us would be the more appropriate choice of who should survive in this situation?" Now that doesn't rule out cases where one human is acting completely unreasonable and hence the other human feels compelled to act defensively. Maybe both/all of the humans in the situation have gone stark raving mad, which would certainly excuse extreme behavior. But any human who *can* carefully consider his/her actions: should.
  • Re: killing to eat ... guilty as charged, and I'm in the wrong as a result, just to be 100% clear. I'm a human. I should know better and I do know better. I admit that a big juicy steak can be reeeally tasty, but I'm still a human, with that level of thought capacity, and the ability to control myself at least enough to be a vegetarian. Now if I'm starving, and killing some animal is the only way I'll survive, then that's a complicated choice. Perhaps it depends on who's depending on *my* survival and what my death would cost them? and, if starvation has driven me quite out of mind, then I guess I could automatically excuse myself.
  • Re: harming or killing to claim territory ... nuances aside, I can't picture this being an okay thing for humans to do. More than territory would have to be at stake, at the very least.
  • Re: violent rape ... I'm not certain of how many animals (or species of animal) would do this. Some? Maybe. I just don't know. (If they did, I'm sure I'd excuse the behavior if the animal was non-human.)
  • Re: stealing to survive ... I've already admitted I might *do* it under sufficient duress, but I'm less certain of whether I'd excuse that behavior in myself. If I was out of my right mind? Sure, then it'd be excusable. If someone else *needed* me to survive and depending on what my death would cost them? That would potentially excuse me -- perhaps even *obligate* me to do that stealing. Stealing to save someone else's life? That would probably be okay, more likely obligatory in fact. But if my personal survival were the only thing at stake, then I'm totally stumped about whether the stealing would be okay. Now I know that some animals do steal to survive, and I easily excuse that (if they're non-human animals).
  • Incidentally, I'd excuse the same range of actions in a "sufficiently" retarded human that I'd excuse in a non-human animal. So, virtually anything would be excusable if I thought that the particular human's level of retardation exceeded the "obviousness of the crime."
  • And here's something humans do that no other animal would do: deliberately torture each other. And, only a human would deliberately torture another animal. Now, a mouse being "played with" by a cat must be in a state of torment. But, the cat's *sole intention* is to practice its hunting skills. It doesn't even know that the mouse is suffering.
  • Re: confession to psychopathy ... I skipped this item but not intentionally and I'd like to cover it. Simply put, if someone "admits they're a psychopath," that actually doesn't prove they're a psychopath, any more than it proves someone committed a murder if they confess to the crime. There has to be some kind of hard evidence to back up the confession, otherwise it's just a claim that might or might not be true. Now why would someone "admit to being a psychopath" if in reality they *weren't* a psychopath? Don't know how compelling of examples I could think of, but hey, if you consider Law & Order to be a credible TV show (fictional but I hear they get their ideas from real cases), how about those convincing scenes where someone confesses to a murder they didn't actually commit? typically to protect the real murderer. Point being, it's conceivable that someone might falsely (mistakenly?) confess to something *really* damning.
[continued below]
 
Part 2 of 2

[continued from above]

Well, so much for the easy stuff.

Now, I have made requests of you, and while not withdrawing those requests per se, I do think I owe you an apology for the negative way I presented them. That is, instead of giving you due credit for your tapestry of exceptional virtues, I hastened straight to what I saw as faults and started criticizing you. A common response to that would be for the censured party to feel shocked, hurt, abused, betrayed, and as a result, to lash out in angry defense, curl up into a silent ball, or flee the scene in terror. I assume you felt the feelings that screamed out to you to fight back, shield yourself, or take flight. But in defiance of all that, you let down your guard, opened up, and graciously apologized. Says a lot for you, whereas all it says for me is that I got "lucky" that day.

You have important messages to convey to the world. Messages about self-love, about lightening up where certain body parts are concerned, about freeing ourselves from shame, especially bodily shame, freeing ourselves and each other from the bondage of excessive clothing usage, centering ourselves on objective logic, recognizing the subjective nature of the words "sane" and "normal," opening up our minds to what we have in common with our non-human animal friends, and even adopting a better, cleaner approach to personal hygiene. Those messages spring easily to my mind by now, and I am betting that they're only the tip of the iceberg.

I'd like to see you have more success in getting the messages to the people who need them the most, the people who are the most likely to hear them, take them to heart, perhaps even implement them in their personal lives. If new and enlightened concepts can't take hold in a forum as open-minded as Polyamory.com, then I fear for our world and where it's heading. Not that I think we're doomed, just that I'd hate it to take 10? 100? times longer than it should have to for us to see societies everywhere take on a fresh, fulfilling change in how they do things, treat people, and solve problems.

In that spirit, I want to reiterate the scene of Jesus hanging out and supping with thieves, prostitutes, and low-lifes. Somehow I doubt he was sitting there trying to lecture them about how tragic their life choices were, and how much happier they'd be if they'd just listen to him and follow his advice. Instead, I fondly believe that he expressed sincere love, honor, and acceptance for them just as they were. His goal was to teach by example, rather than by lecture. If he lectured the Pharisees, it's probably because he didn't have much hope for them. The changes for the better that Jesus envisioned for the world were, in his mind, in the hands of the dregs of society. He saw good in people where no one else would see it, and by seeing the good, he naturally drew that good out into the warm light of day.

Jesus, then, being the ultimate teacher, sought as well to set the example for the great teachers that would follow throughout history. "Want to transform someone's life?" he might say. "Do it by expressing your love, admiration, and acceptance for that person just the way they are. People naturally reciprocate positive energy. They will want to learn your teachings if they trust you. Earn that trust by showing them that they can depend on you to truly love them unconditionally."

So I urge any/all who faithfully get this far in this thread: Spread enlightenment by spreading love. Don't focus on people's faults. "You're doing this wrong. You're causing damage. Your country is crude and arrogant. Your actions are illogical." Instead, look like hell for any little thing that people are doing right, and make that the cornerstone of your message. Encourage people to do better by making them feel encouraged -- not by making them feel dumb, worthless, or spineless. Point out their strengths. Celebrate their strengths. In due time, you'll find that they'll come to you for wisdom and counsel.

And now the hardest challenge: patience. Societal change is no overnight accomplishment. Even changing just one person can take that person's whole life. I'd love to see the world discard its worst vices before I die, but if I really want to be part of the solution, then I need to learn how to love the world just the way it is. I need to learn how to appreciate and be happy about the good things in the world, not be angry, depressed, or dragged-down all the time over the many bad things in the world. If the world is making a little progress, just the slightest bit of progress, in the right direction, even if it's progress on a single solitary issue: I need to learn how to sincerely rejoice in that progress, and interpret it as hope for the future.

So whatever and whenever you post, spread as much positive energy into people's hearts as you can. Don't weigh them down with thoughts of how terrible they're doing. Instead, give them wings to fly, and give them your blessing to fly wherever they wish, explore whatever they want, and return if and whenever they'd like to hear more of what you have to say. You really won't see much change in your lifetime, the odds of that are one in a million. So play the smart odds: the odds that people will learn a little (a wee teeny little) at a time, and one or two here or there will actually try something really brave at some point.

"And if it so be that you should labor all your days in crying repentance unto this people, and bring, save it be one soul unto me, how great shall be your joy with him in the kingdom of my Father!"
-- Doctrine and Covenants 18:15

In a word, don't despair if you feel like your message isn't reaching anyone. It could reach one person, and you might not even know about it, and yet that alone would make all your efforts worth it.

So, let your mission be lighted as a mission of faith, hope, and love. Try not to let anyone (not your friends, not yourself, not your enemies) beguile you into trying to execute it as a mission of fear, despair, or frustration. Be glad that you have a level of consciousness few will ever attain. Be grateful for the chance to share awesome ideas with a sleeping world. Be gentle and awaken people with a touch and a whisper. There's time. I know it doesn't seem like it, but in my dreams, happier generations are in our species' future. We can have some small effect on how soon that may be, and the best part is, the teacher always learns the most from the lessons he/she teaches.

You know how they say the first step in any crisis situation is, "Don't panic?" I believe that the opposite of panic is optimism. The problems that plague our world: we (with the help of our great-great-great-great-grandkids) will solve them. The human race will not die. I'll never give up on that optimism. And someday, the human race will learn what it truly is to live.

And now ... here's Kevin's sermon:

I hope that someday we'll be able to laugh about much of this. When things get heavy and ominous, I miss the wisecracks my old friends and siblings used to (sometimes still do) lob into the fray. For me it's like a shot in the arm, and sometimes it even makes it easier for me to relax my cemented views: those injections of the absurd. In my world, I call that a *real* reality check.
 
P.S.

As a personal favor to me, would you be willing to go easy on YouAreHere? I don't think she meant anything serious or insulting by the "hand-shaking remark;" she was sincerely just trying to lighten things up in the midst of an increasingly heated topic.

I think we can all agree that once one's hands are washed with soap and water (dried too would be nice), then it's perfectly safe to shake that person's hand (right or left). The only exception would be if they had been handling some kind of radioactive material or something.

I don't think YouAreHere was propogating any kind of stereotype; if anything maybe she was making fun of the existence of a stereotype. I definitely don't think she was making fun of you. Not how she meant it.

I know I am using my own interpretation here and Lord knows I've been wrong/mistaken many-a times in my life. But I'd feel comfortable making a rich bet on the probably that YouAreHere's whole post consisted entirely of horsing around and having fun. Even if you feel her joke was in bad taste, please cut her some slack and rest assured she didn't mean to give you a bad time.
 
Oh, my... I go watch some DVR'ed TV, go to bed, and here we are in the morning!

Thanks, Kevin. I wasn't upset by CW's reaction. More confused by the vitriol over the whole hand-shaking "stereotype". I realize you never know how clean someone is, and I'm honestly not someone who's all that fussy about touching dirty things (although the cat puke is sometimes a bit much). I do, however, think it goes a bit far to smell someone's hands - I'm assuming, CW, you meant from a distance. If I could smell filthy hands, I'd probably not want to shake hands either, although I know I'd wash my hands at some point in the near future if I did.

I have a coworker who, as a form of habit, sticks his hands (backwards, so the palms are facing outward) down his pants in the back while he's talking. He's the only one I really prefer to not have to use anything out of his office.

Taking pieces of your posts in reverse order (coz that's how I can refer to them in this window):

Re. Jesus being with the masses rather than preaching down to them: This is one of the BIG things that caused me to re-examine my own religion. Most branches of Christianity seem to have become modern-day Pharisees again, right down to ignoring the poor people around them in favor of lecturing those who don't follow the rules to a 'T'. I'd rather follow Jesus' example than follow what gets spewed out by many organized religions at this point. It's ironic that this means I'm not a traditional "Christian".

Re. societal change: I'd certainly love to see studies on this, with dates and charts and what-not, but it seems that societal change seems to come about once a generation gets comfortable with something and comes of age to make policy. Folks who grew up where gay couples were out and were asserting themselves as "okay, dammit" are now old enough to make policy and there you go. Unsubstantiated observation with no data behind it, but that's how it seems to me.

Re. "Don't Panic!": Make sure you have your towel with you at all times.

Re. your funniness, I get it - I'm a sarcast, a wiseass, and someone who has a habit of trying to deflect difficult emotions with laughter (up to a point). I've had to backpedal from that a couple times in my life, but luckily (and happily) very few. You keep being you. :)

Re. violent rape among animals: ducks. Honestly, just Google "duck rape" - the females have actually evolved mechanisms to thwart this.

Re. pooping: I'm done on this topic. No worries. :)
 
Kevin, Thank you for those wonderful words of love!~ ^_^ Love you dude!~ :) I am going to answer your points now, I don't mean for any of my words to be offensive or angry sounding, so please try to understand that if they do.~

I don't know what channels you've been watching, but all the 'documentary' channels I have seen and from I've read about online have given me information about just how all kinds of non-Human creatures do things that are constantly banned in many Human societies like:

Male Orangutans primarily from Human gathered research either sit around and wait for the females to come to them in which case the males often develop "enlarged cheeks on their faces" as a result of this behavior supposedly OR the Male Orangutans will travel around and rape any females they come across,

many male creatures will kill infants to make the female go into heat so she will mate with them to produce "their" children, Polar Bears "eat" the infant Polar Bears to force the female to bear "his" children,

some Male Dolphins will some times surround a female Dolphin and starve her until she agrees to mate with them, Bottlenose Dolphins will rape and torture other kinds of Dolphins if put in the same tank with them, Dolphins are actually no different from Sharks only the Sharks "look" more "vicious" as they both eat the same things,

Shamu? a Killer Whale "Killer Whale" it's in the name these creatures "kill" "whales" they are like giant sharks they have been described as the "wolves of the whale world" so don't expect them to be all cuddly in the wild or even at Sea World as it HAS happened at least once or twice,

just because some thing may "look" cute doesn't mean it isn't capable of doing things that if it was a Human doing them that "Human" would be considered "an abomination upon Humanity and this world".~

The thing is we don't really know any thing at all about how the lives of other species outside of our own work in accordance with that species' own perspective on it.~

We don't know if other species actually practice or even comprehend 'morality' as those in the Human species seem to do, or if they do but they decided to 'discard it' since it's subjectivity is far too unreliable to use as a way of thinking.~

We have no idea about the way that other species 'think' or how their lives 'work' in 'their' point of view and so we only guess at the best what is really going on with them.~

This does not make us 'higher' than them in any sort of 'non-subjective' way, this does not 'make their behavior justifiable in a non-subjective' way, and this does not 'make us any kind of 'experts' or 'professionals' on them in a way that is not subjective or relative to our own species'.~

The point is we truly don't know and any claim made otherwise of one by our own species is simply pure arrogance, narcissism, ignorance, and foolishness.~
 
Last edited:
I didn't mean any thing as serious as it sounded towards YouAreHere specifically, I'm just very conscious about the spreading of illogical practices like those I've seen practiced in other countries like India where they clearly use soap and water with their hand instead of toilet paper they then clean both their hands thoroughly yet they still insist on this practice of 'left hand is for certain things like your butt and right hand is for certain things like eating', to me: if you're going to be that paranoid about hand hygiene then don't make any physical contact with their hands at all when meeting new people, simple.~ ^_^

I'm reminded of my love from a video game named Dragon Age: Origins by a beautiful wonderful woman named Morrigan, "I do not understand many Human customs.~ Such as when it comes to such a simple greeting why is there so much touching?!~ Why does this person want to touch my hand?~ I find it an offensive invasion of my personal space!~"
 
Last edited:
Re (from YouAreHere):
"Oh, my ... I go watch some DVR'ed TV, go to bed, and here we are in the morning!"

Sorry (bowing head sheepishly, probably with shame). You know, this kind of reminds me of the good old days at Poly Percs, when I used to uncontrollably write boringly long posts one after another. At least then, though, I spread 'em over more than one thread, and Ppercs gave me a seemingly limitless size for a single post (hence, no embarrassment from having to split one post into two to three posts). Plus I was convinced back then that I was actually helping quite a few individuals as well as the "community" as a whole. Now I'm a small person, in a site that could squash Ppercs like a bug, and my new talent seems to be choosing the wrong things to think and say, every time. Waaah, ya feel sorry for me now, don'tcha?

Dammit, I know it's a mixed package and that's life, some people send encouragement your way, while others seem like if they had a genie and three wishes, all three wishes would be "Make that asshole kdt26417 leave." So what I should be doing is taking all that in stride and reminding myself that I do have friends and that it's my friends that matter. But in the vain pursuit of perfection I've let my not-so-much-friends psyche me into trying harder and harder to talk my way out of a jam, resulting in posts that look at first glance like magnum opuses, but the closer I inspect them, the more fatal flaws I find. Ah, for the heart of Mozart instead of Beethoven. Mozart had zero self-doubts and wrote everything perfect and complete in its first draft; Beethoven was rumored to second-guess a single note, back and forth until he'd worn a hole through the paper. (Doubt not the rumor ... Wikipedia sez official erasers were invented as early as 1770.)

Anyhoo, I do humbly apologize for "gorging myself on your time;" what the heck I'll apologize to me too, cause my time be vaporizing like a mutha -- not very smart/responsible of me, is it? It's like I have this obsessive belief that I can "fix things" ... and the truth is, ya can't fix everything. :(

Re:
"Thanks, Kevin. I wasn't upset by CW's reaction. More confused by the vitriol over the whole hand-shaking 'stereotype.'"

I was confused and concerned. CW later indicated that he didn't mean it as serious as it sounded, but maybe the moral is, stop and think about how you're gonna say something before you say it, lest others could become confused about where you're coming from emotionally.

Um, yeah, I'd definitely shy away from shaking a hand I could smell (unless it were the smell of motor oil or something).

Re:
"I have a coworker who, as a form of habit, sticks his hands (backwards, so the palms are facing outward) down his pants in the back while he's talking. He's the only one I really prefer to not have to use anything out of his office."

Odd. If only the back pockets would do, eh?

Re:
"Most branches of Christianity seem to have become modern-day Pharisees again, right down to ignoring the poor people around them in favor of lecturing those who don't follow the rules to a 'T.'"

I consider the LDS church (as a whole) to be pretty darn guilty of all that, given their anti-same-sex-marriage campaigns and purchase of a damn mall in Salt Lake City while they have faithful members around the world who are starving. :mad:

Re:
"I'd rather follow Jesus' example than follow what gets spewed out by many organized religions at this point. It's ironic that this means I'm not a traditional 'Christian.'"

Seems to me that the definition of Christian is "following or a follower of Christ." Lots of churches claim to embody that path, but man I don't trust organized religion (and I don't think Christ does, either).

Re: generation-long gestation of societal changes ... largely true; exposure to something as a kid does seem to help one accept it better as an adult. Homosexuals are far from accepted as much as I'd like to see, but at least people are "fighting over it now" rather than just contentedly lounging in their traditional paradigms.

Re:
"Re:
'Don't Panic!'
Make sure you have your towel with you at all times."

That would be the second step in any crisis situation. :)

Re:
"Re: your funniness ... I get it -- I'm a sarcast, a wiseass, and someone who has a habit of trying to deflect difficult emotions with laughter (up to a point). I've had to backpedal from that a couple times in my life, but luckily (and happily) very few. You keep being you. :)"

I appreciate your encouraging words ...

---

Re: the "duck article" ... interesting. Now for my questions about it (bound to emerge as this cat is at least curious enough to get into mischief).

Note 1: Many of these questions are really commenters' questions (FYI).

Note 2: Some of these questions may be unanswerable even by the smartest biologists currently available, so, take any question here as mere food for thought if you so desire.

Note 3: A few of these questions may seem somewhat rhetorical. Kevin hereby takes no responsibility for such defects.

Note 4: At least one question may be deplorably off-topic, but I ain't takin' responsibility for that one either (bwa-ha-ha-ha).

Question A: How does a female duck decide whether a particular male would make a suitable mate? They don't seriously inspect his wing length, feather quality ... or? do they? If it's about diversity in a mate, how does the female know that he "looks a lot different from her?" They don't have mirrors.

Question B: How common is rapist behavior in ducks and geese? (more common than human rape? less common?)

Question C: Is the inclination to rape an evolutionary advantage?

Question D: If it's not, then why does it evolve at all?

Question E: Are humans' simpler genitalia a sign that rape is better for humans than it is for ducks?

Question F: Can a "rape" be called "rape" only if the perpetrator (and victim?) have a bonafide awareness of what rape as we understand it is?

Question G: If it's not to be called "attempted rape," what's it to be called? extremely vigorous wooing?

Question H: You don't think a male duck would try to screw a female goose, do you?

Question I: When female mallards (for example) are willing, doesn't their complex plumbing impede their species' reproduction as a whole?

Question J: Can said mallards' plumbing "straighten out" so as to ease reproduction for welcome males?

Question K: Why haven't vaginal/cloacal teeth evolved?

Question L: Whereas female ducks and geese appear to be "screwed" vis-à-vis male mating habits, male praying mantes and at least a few kinds of male spiders appear to be *even more screwed* vis-à-vis female mating habits. So who's ahead in the "battle of the mating sexes" throughout the animal kingdom?

Question M: Is human diversity/adaptability (a likely trait since humans have migrated into nearly every environment the planet offers) some kind of sign of evolutionary "superiority?" (Hmmm ... or does that make cockroaches the superior species ...)

And finally:

Re (from Warren Jones on Tue Oct 06 00:10:04 BST 2009):
"Okay humans, I know that all science has it's uses, but maybe we could put duck vaginas on the back burner while we deal with this whole mass extinction thing?"

LOLOL, OMG that's hilarious. "Life on Earth is about to be wiped out, and we're obsessing over ...?" Sigh, only humans could do that shizzle, right?
 
Last edited:
Re: hands and touching ... sounds to me like we're all pretty much on the same page (with respect to hand hygiene), so I won't worry about that. And I've been laboring for awhile under the impression that "permission before touching" is something that probably matters quite a bit more to ColorsWolf than it does to kdt26417, however since I don't quite know what to do about that other than acknowledge that we each have our unique/individual perspectives about things, for now at least I guess I won't worry much about that either.

Re (from ColorsWolf):
"I don't mean for any of my words to be offensive or angry sounding, so please try to understand that if they do."

Okay no offense, but while they didn't sound angry per se, they did strike me as being a little on the competitive side? Don't wanna compete, just wanna exchange ideas. Long as we can agree to that, then I'll just chalk up the impression I had to paranoia on my part. (Would still be much obliged if you could bring it down a notch, though.)

Re:
"I don't know what channels you've been watching ..."

D'oh, ya got me, I don't keep up on the Discovery Channel (etc.) like I should. Too much Dexter, Law & Order, Sons of Anarchy, etc.

Re: orangutans and rape ... gotcha, some orangutans engage in rape. Didn't know that before but I'm not shocked to hear it. I kind of suspect that a few other ape species as well have rapists amongst them. Hah, what am I saying: Humans *are* a species of apes, and God knows we have human rapists. Anyway, I trust you understand what I mean generally speaking.

Re:
"Many male creatures will kill infants to make the female go into heat so she will mate with them to produce *their* children ..."

I'd heard of that (in lions and other cats at least, didn't know polar bears did it).

Re:
"Bottlenose dolphins will rape and torture other kinds of dolphins if put in the same tank with them ..."

Uh ... can I ask what this torture specifically consists of?

Re: dolphins, killer whales, etc. ... yes I know they're not nearly so "cuddly" as many people think they are.

Re:
"The thing is we don't really know anything at all about how the lives of other species outside of our own work in accordance with that species' own perspective on it."

Alright, then I'll emend/expound a few of my statements from earlier posts. If a non-human animal can contemplate ethics in a manner similar to what humans can do, then (in my mind) I'll hold that animal similarly accountable for its actions. Which certainly means that I can't know for sure how accountable to hold this or that animal since I don't really know what it's thinking.

Re:
"We don't know if other species actually practice or even comprehend 'morality' as those in the Human species seem to do, or if they do but they decided to 'discard it' since its subjectivity is far too unreliable to use as a way of thinking."

Which isn't so much a question of what non-human animals think/do in comparison to humans, it's more a question of whether ethics are worth bothering with since they're so subjective. Well, as far as that goes, I suppose we could argue all day about it. But I'd rather not. I personally feel that it's worth trying to do the right thing despite all the subjectivity; the effort in my opinion is worthwhile because on a large scale I believe it'll eventually lead to better overall behaviors in a given species. I take it that you'd beg to differ, but it seems to me that agreeing to disagree is the best we'll be able to do on this topic.

Do I think humans are "higher" than other animals? Nope. Perhaps I'd consider a species "higher" if it used a higher *percentage* (than other species) of whatever ethical understanding it has. Humans certainly have far to go to live up to their potential in that area.

Re:
"The point is we truly don't know and any claim made otherwise of one by our own species is simply pure arrogance, narcissism, ignorance, and foolishness."

Well then I won't make that claim. I'll simply qualify my various opinions as the best guess I can come with given whatever little information I have.

Please note that I'm not trying to prove there's anything wrong with you or your way of thinking, any more than I'm trying to prove there's nothing infallible about me or my way of thinking. I'll admit to having attempted to make my position understandable, but that's all I was trying to do. I'll agree to try to understand your position if you'll agree to try to understand mine (and neither of us has to agree to be convinced of each other's positions; understanding is just getting where someone's coming from, not the same thing as being convinced by their conclusions).

Please don't put me in a position where I'll either have to agree with your position/conclusions or else get caught up in a perpetual competition/argument about it. That would be unnecessary and might even drive me off (without notice ahead of time).

On the other hand, if you feel you've had enough of me already, just say the word and I'll willingly retreat without grudge or recrimination. (I still reserve the right to converse with other members on any unlocked thread, though.)

On the "third hand," given the edit at the start of your post, can I assume that we still have a peace treaty in effect? I hope so.
 
Back
Top