Haha. Wow, look at you, getting in on the deviancy.

Joyously tearing her pelt from her spine.

Deviance x 1000. BAM!

That one actually made me want to check myself in somewhere.

As Baden indicated, you are to type it out quick. Evidencing of editing shows unacceptable temperance.

I particularly like the misuse of "they" instead of "then," adding a purely random element and also the fact that "rhyme" almost rhymes with feline, but doesn't, adding a complex irony, which is important. While not particularly good, I feel you have contributed to the art.

Lol. Very very nice. Bestiality and necrophilia all wrapped into one.

What counts as sexual deviancy? — Michael

Having sex with a reindeer only to have a bloody beaver emerge from the reindeer's vagina and then that beaver bracing himself for additional sexual assault. That counts as sexual deviancy. I can arrive at more examples and then we can see if we can locate an underlying principle that distinguishes the deviant from the norm. In the search for essence, I think it's best to use sexual deviance as your object, as opposed to ordinary cups.

To my sporting Irish colleagues, I offer you this contest. Fill in the last line of this limerick. The winner is awarded random deviant of the day:

I was petting my sweet little feline
As she purred in my lap near my zip line
Her paws kneeded in
So I pushed down her chin
__________________________?

This limerick holds special meaning to me because it conveys an actual childhood memory while I was visiting my grandparents in northern Greenland:

While pleasuring myself with a reindeer
In the tundra all frozen and austere
Then out popped a beaver
All bloodied but eager
Grinning while tightening his head gear

There ought to be a thread dedicated to the random and sexually deviant.

I don't drink a whole lot unless challenged.

I don't do drugs. Unless the benefits outweigh the negatives, you shouldn't do drugs. There might be some subjectivity in weighing the pros and the cons, but assuming there's not a real legitimate purpose, it's probably a better idea to live within a normal state of consciousness.

That being said, I'm not advocating enforcing drug abstinence on anyone, mostly because the negatives of the enforcement tend to be more negative than just suffering the natural consequences of the drug, but all things considered, it's probably best in most cases to voluntarily abstain.

Speaking only for myself, if someone contacted me in my professional capacity (and I'm not a philosopher), I'd likely respond to something very specific that for some reason I knew that others might not, and I'd be far more likely to respond to another member of my profession than just someone who were curious. That is, I wouldn't be likely to start offering general conversation just to tutor someone. If the person were an enrolled student (anywhere) and had a specific assignment he was trying to complete, I would be likely to help him out. I'd also be receptive to mentoring someone new in the profession.

The point of all this is that if someone started providing me his various theories and ideas just for general feedback, I'd lose patience quickly and cite to him a few articles to get him started and then start ignoring him. I understand that might only describe me, but I am the poster child of reasonableness, so I would expect all reasonable people to do as I would. The truth is that if you have all sorts of philosophical questions, you'll probably be encouraged by the philosopher to sign up for a class. That will give you much greater access to philosophers of all sorts.

I wrote this one, which was consistent with the theme of this thread, but I wasn't entirely happy with it:

There once was a young mod named Baden
Who never an argument he could win
He would cry and would shout
Would carry on all and about
That we all ever thought him a maiden.

I then wrote this one, which is consistent with the theme that is Hanover, so I'm more happy with it:

There once was a young lad name Baden
Who fought as he might to deny sin
But try as he may
He was simply born that way
So he wished Hanover were a maiden

Regardless of the end result, I'm pretty happy with the Baden/Maiden rhyme I discovered during this mid-afternoon time waste.

180 Proof, Landru Guide Us, and @Paul are members but not active. — Baden

Landru was very active here for a while. I think he got tired of saying "conservative meme," so he left.

Yes; but, we are insatiable creatures. Nothing seems to satisfy us. I might be taking things to the extreme; but, I deny myself any wants and desires that are contrary to reason. — Question

A personal question I suppose, but it does bear some relevance, which is whether you are intentionally and rationally denying yourself opportunity or whether the complexities of initiating a relationship have simply been too great for you to overcome, so you've rationalized your disengagement as being a decision of a higher order, as opposed to admitting to and attempting to correct social ineptitude. It's relevant simply because it goes to whether your Stocism is a choice directed to higher happiness, as opposed to it being the path of least resistance. I can say that it's far from certain (and candidly doubtful) whether abandoning desire will lead to happiness as opposed to robbing you of those things that really do matter. That is, have there been available women in your life that you pushed away to both of your dismay, or has it never come quite close to that?

Whether this smacks of personal advice as opposed to philosophical inquiry, I don't know. It's certainly not analytical philosophy, but more of the type of philosophy practiced by the various ancient Greek schools, where philosophy was more about trying to figure out how to live one's life than in whatever we do now. But, regardless, when one tells me that they've consciously denied themselves of the rock star life, the obvious follow up question to ask is whether you had a rock star life available to you that you could deny yourself of.

Just my thoughts.

I will read it. What are you wearing?

I actually creeped myself out with that one. That's a keeper.

Spelldid, as in I done spelldid it damnit. It's Appalachian, coming from the overuse of the to do verb of the Celtic settlers I think. I done heard it plenty round here. It's also precious 3 year old speak. Any linguists here that can comment on this?

My reference to Kant was as to the synthetic apriori status of causation, but not as to the true nature of reality, as that would be nuemonal. Asserting that QM is the neumona would misunderstand Kant because the neumona is definitionally unknowable.

The problem with indeterminism as currently defined (exact sets of causes can have variable effects) is incoherent to me. It seems to violate basic causation, a fundamental concept for our comprehension of the world (ala Kant). So, my inclination is to accept any expert's rejection of QM indeterminism just because all else is incomprehensible.

SPOILER ALERT: He marries his father and artificially inseminates his sister as a prank.

I've set you to ignore. If it helps your ego to think it's because you're too wise and irrefutable do that.

Why would you have drawn a distinction between need and desire had I said desire and not need? This response makes no sense.

How does this distinction make a difference in the context of my post? Suppose I said "desire" and not "need," how'd you've had responded? I get there's a critical difference between want and need, but in this context, your objection seems pedantic.

Wow. That got stupid faster than expected.

Because the priest is living a lie and offering in part a piece of that lie to all who come to him, all at the price of needlessly sacrificing having a family and sacrificing the other relationships one has that are elevated by sexual contact.

A priest who has abandoned his sexuality under the false doctrine of the church and who has given up a family and the meaningful relationships that flow from embracing that sexuality is a lesser person than a person actually engaging in the world and occasionally (gasp) having casual sex.

Suppose you're terribly wrong here and that the need for sex and the satisfaction of that need is a more mature response than a person who has successfully repressed that need. Suppose your premise is utter nonsense, that elimination of or simply lacking sexual urge is unrelated entirely to virtue, morality, maturity or any superior power? That does seem to be your underlying unsupportable premise.

It strikes me that those who go without are either (1) misled religiously, (2) asexually constructed, or (3) socially incapable. Advocating chastity therefore arises because you either (1) wish to convert others to your religion, (2) are incapable of understanding sexuality due to your own asexuality, or (3) are trying to justify your own social limitations.

It strikes me that a culture that drapes their women in heavy clothes to hide their sexuality and that enforces gender specific roles suffers from far greater sexual obsession than mine.

The rest of what you say is unpersuasive pseudo-wisdom, reciting the terms under which you've found meaning in your life, like anyone finds it important. Tiring evangelism of sorts really. Has your prosthelsyzing brought you any converts?

If our paper and the markings on it had no depth and were truly only 2 dimensional (as in a theoretical plane), we, as 3 dimensional creatures couldn't see it. Hold your paper sideways and you'll see what I mean. It's real thin, sure, but it's still 3 dimensions.

Your examples don't change the fact that it is logically incorrect. In the case of Manson, it shouldn't follow logically from the fact that he's untrustworthy but because we have statements from witnesses that better match the facts. If his statement would match the facts and not contradict other statements, then regardless of his trustworthiness, we would have to acquit him due to reasonable doubt. If the statements of witnesses cannot be corroborated by facts, they should not be used no matter the presumed trustworthiness of the witnesses as opposed to those of Manson. — Benkei

If you assert an epistemological standard as high as "beyond a reasonable doubt," then I suppose we'll be forced to deny the existence of all sorts of generally accepted facts. For example: What time will Benkei be in today? Well, for the past 10 years, he's shown up at 8:30 to 9:00, so I'd say 8:30 to 9:00. Fair enough, although I can't say that beyond a reasonable doubt.

That is to say, you've inserted a non-common sense legalistic principle in here. I will say pretty unequivocally, though, that if you asked me whether I believe beyond a reasonable doubt that the waters will rise in the Netherlands in the next 100 years to the point of making it uninhabitable, I'd say no. I'd also say that I couldn't assert the opposite either to that level of proof: that the waters won't rise to that point.

To be sure, though, if Manson told me anything that seemed at all incredible, I'd be justifiably less likely to believe him than if a close friend told me the same thing. Why? Well, because Manson is a known psychopath who values truth and his reputation very little. That tidbit does matter.

A juror will be struck for legal cause if he or she indicates a financial interest or a leaning or bias for or against either party. I seriously doubt you'd find it ok to have your wife preside over your divorce proceedings (not that it shall ever to come to that), for example. Per your reasoning, we should not object to any holding by the biased judge or juror because credibility of the decision maker (whether it be a judge, juror, scientist, witness, or whoever) is an irrational criterion to consider when evaluating the decision.

That's what lawyers keep telling themselves but it really isn't. Even someone who isn't credible could still be telling the truth. Logically, this doesn't hold any water. — Benkei

Of course. If Hitler says the blue sky is blue, it's still blue, despite his somewhat sullied reputation. However, in many instances (like climate change), we can't just look up at the sky and confirm the veracity of a statement ourselves, so we are left to rely upon the credibility of the speaker to some extent. It's for that reason, for example, if Charles Manson and his band of merry men and women deny having murdered anyone, yet a group of disinterested witnesses tell us otherwise, we tend to believe the disinterested witnesses, mostly because we understand why Manson may be inclined to lie, but we don't understand why the witnesses would.

And we all do this very thing on this forum all the time. For example, once I cited to a website for the proposition that most Palestinians wanted the elimination of Israel, and you ruthlessly ridiculed me over the reference, claiming that I was a patent fool for relying on such a biased poll, damaging my pristine reputation and making me less believable than I previously was.

"Oh, can't trust what he says because he's a Republican/Democrat". Rational discourse doesn't work that way. And your bare assumption that "a liberal worldview [is] consistent with anti-corporate and anti-business interests" is very telling. It's not even true for most leftists but that requires you to take others that don't agree with you a bit more seriously to absorb. — Benkei

I agree that both sides tend to ignore the nuances of the other, which is why Republicans are often summarized as racist rednecks, but I can recognize that the right does the same to the left as well.

I don't agree though that the polarization we have in US society isn't very real and very deep, which lends itself to a reasonable distrust of anyone who arrives at a conclusion opposed to one side's political position. Using a legal analogy (because that's all I can apparently do), it's reasonable for a jury to have a healthy distrust for both parties because the jury expects that both lawyers are going to present their cases in the best possible light, leaving the jury as the objective body to ferret out the truth. That is, in the legal context, polarization is expected, but an objective body is inserted in to resolve the truth of the issue. I'm not sure, though, that in US society that there's any mainstream objective body waiting to hear both sides and ferret out the truth. The press has openly abdicated it's role as an objective bastion of truth, and the courts are openly questioned by both sides depending upon their ruling.

I do fancy me a kosher egg served by wonk who attended a predominantly Jewish university. Right now all I've got is a redneck chick who serves me fried pork rinds who attended DUI school.

It isn't rational because it's a logical fallacy to reject an argument based on the perceived authority of those making its case - especially on something as flimsy as political affiliation. Moreover, the consensus is over 97%. What happened to those 40% Republican scientists? Third, it's not just US scientists that say this so the political affiliation discussion only goes so far and really is only a US discussion. — Benkei

Credibility of the person is critical when you have a distrust of their data gathering and computations. Obviously, if you were accused of murdering your neighbor, your mother's credibility in asserting you were with her and could not have done it would be suspect (as she does dote on her little Benkei) as would any physical evidence she might present to prove your whereabouts.

With regard to political affiliation bias, it goes beyond that to the point of being a liberal worldview consistent with anti-corporate and anti-business interests. Anyway, I'm not arguing as forcefully against climate change as it might appear, but am only pointing out that there is nothing irrational per se in climate change deniers looking skeptically at the backgrounds of those presenting the climate change conclusions.

It also appears that you're inconsistently arguing both sides of this, on the one hand criticizing those who reject arguments based upon the perceived authority of those making the case, but then appealing to authority based upon the perceived authority of those who make the case by suggesting I should be concerned with the number of bona fide scientists who have concluded a particular way.

So for us, there are no benefits. It's nice though that there's a few more trees and less deaths from cold winters. — Benkei

The OP asks what the positives of climate change might be, and whether the loss of the Netherlands is or isn't a positive is a matter of opinion.

Neither and course would have been a better way to say it.

If those in charge are so dishonorable, why sully yourself interacting with them?

You could do as we did when faced with this very dilemma and start your own site, or you could just keep whining.

If for the last 25 years had you regularly read general science articles in papers like the New York Times, Washington Post, Scientific American, and so on; had you been watching the Lehrer News Hour on PBS, had you been listening to news on National Public Radio, had you watched NOVA and Nature on PBS, you wouldn't be in this slough of deficient information. You would have heard many explanations about what data had been gathered, how they got it, how the analyzed it, and what the upshots were. — Bitter Crank

Damn! All I've watched was Foxnews.

For those looking for a philosophy forum with substantially less moderation and administration, I'd recommend PF.

Nils,

I'd suggest you rewrite the post, save it, and then delete it. That way you'll have your own record of your deleted posts.

Hope this was helpful. Not sure why I'm not a moderator.

Either the scientific work done by the majority of scientists can be trusted but if you're arguing it cannot then doing so by referring to other scientific work is then completely arbitrary. If you're going to choose one scientist's results over another, you're going to have to go into the scientific methods used, the theories tested and the data collected. Anything else is just trying to find justifications of beliefs that don't seem to be currently supported by the majority of climate change scientists. — Benkei

The position of the anti-climate change folks is one of both intentional and unintentional worldview bias on the part of the scientists. Their belief is that the there is either an intentional anti-business effort on the part of the scientists or that the scientists are so indoctrinated to a liberal point of view that they will inevitably produce results supportive of their position. The vast majority of scientists do not consider themselves Republican (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/10/only-six-percent-of-scien_n_229382.html).

Since climate change deniers believe there is inherent bias running throughout the supposedly objective scientific process, and the climate change deniers lack the expertise to conduct the experiments themselves, they either reject or are very skeptical of the climate change conclusions.

My point here is that it is rational and not at all arbitrary to reject the conclusions of someone you find lacking credibility. What would be irrational would be to fully accept the credibility of the scientists but to simply refuse to accept their inconvenient conclusions. I don't think that is at all what is happening. I think what is really happening is that the general public (myself included) has no idea what sort of experiments have been conducted or what sort of data has been collected, but we are all asked to accept the conclusions because most scientists say it's valid. If tomorrow they report they were wrong, I suspect you'd change your mind. Whether placing trust in the consensus of the experts is reasonable and rational is debatable because polling scientists is a not a scientific act. It's a political one.

I am in Georgia, and during a brief period in the mid 1800s, we were not part of the US, but were part of a controversial break away nation that didn't end so well. I haven't looked up the date that TPF began, but if it were during the confederacy period, it's possible we're under the jurisdiction of a now defunct nation. I will follow up on this issue and let sweetie pie and snookums know.

I agree with that, but that's not a climate issue. If what you're saying is that fossil fuels should continue to be used at will as long as there's some plan for a future solution when they run out, then I don't think you're siding with the climate change folks.