Jesus didn't come to eliminate sin; he came to bring salvation from sin. Sin remains, but salvation was created to conquer sin. That's the story, isn't it?
— Bitter Crank
In what sense has salvation conquered sin if sin remains? The whole purpose of Jesus's coming, which finishes with the Last Judgement at the Revelation is the destruction of sin and death. — Agustino

Well, damned if I know. According to the Agnus Dei, the "Lamb of god, takes away the sins of the world; have mercy on us". If there was no sin, mercy would not be called for. Baptized, shriven Christians sin. Who thinks they do not? Conquering sin didn't eliminate it. If sin is separation from God, and Christ's atonement for the sins of the world reconciled man to god, then the effect of sin -- alienation from god -- is kaput.

As for the Last Judgement, that hasn't happened yet, presumably. Once the Kingdom of God is inaugurated, and though we've been dead 10,000 years, we can get together and compare notes at that time.

I prefer to think that man is essentially good, but quite flawed owing to his provenance, which interferes with the "better angels of his nature" God didn't create us by fiat; we descended from other species, and retain features of species long before us.

I never did like the book of Revelations much. Along with some of the epistles, it should have been dropped into the shredder.

I won't mention the other sins you mention, because these simply qualify as excesses of things which are naturally good. — Agustino

It seems like I made the same point, somewhere along the line.

Yes, currently. In 50 years, this will probably change as the harm that unconstrained sex is causing is only growing and becoming more and more apparent. — Agustino

In 50 years we'll all be busy filling sandbags to hold back the rising oceans, and doing this at night because it will be too hot in the daytime. It will be too hot to be screwing around, with no air conditioning because all our energy will be devoted to carbon sequestration and running ER rooms to treat people for heat stroke.

I anticipate that global warming and it's attendant problems will resolve all of our moral issues, except the one of making the earth a pest hole.

From a Christian perspective, there is no escape from sinning
— Bitter Crank
Then Jesus came for nothing. Can you believe that while still calling yourself a Christian? — Agustino

Jesus didn't come to eliminate sin; he came to bring salvation from sin. Sin remains, but salvation was created to conquer sin. That's the story, isn't it?

I was raised as a Christian in a devout Christian home (Methodist). I have taken Christianity seriously for many years. I take it seriously, the same way I take the constitution seriously, but I do not now claim to be a Christian because I just don't believe god exists. I think Jesus was a real person, but I don't think he was the son of god.

In secular terms, people can not avoid sin because the definition of sin overlaps the core characteristics of human nature: pride, greed, lust, envy, gluttony, wrath, and sloth.
— Bitter Crank
I, the depreciating and nihilistic Christian who thinks everyone is evil and corrupt, do not think these are core characteristics of human nature ;) — Agustino

Well of course personality theory doesn't list the seven deadly sins as human features, but in small doses, all of these are essential. Our animal natures (as opposed to our "human" features") are not all that nice. If people weren't somewhat acquisitive (greed), if they didn't have somewhat healthy egos (pride), if they didn't have somewhat of a sex drive (lust), if they didn't somewhat aspire to match their betters (envy), if they didn't somewhat enjoy good food (gluttony), if they couldn't work up somewhat of a head of steam to defend themselves (wrath), and if they couldn't let it rest somewhat (sloth) where would we be? Nowhere.

Extreme features are often a problem in human personality, which is why you are running into so much flak about your views on sexuality. Most people do not embrace the extremity of your views. Maybe you're not crazy for holding such views (neuroticism is not the same thing as crazy), but when turned into policy such extreme views can cause a great deal of misery and harm. (And yes, they have been policy at various times--including within my time and place).

Nobody thinks anarchic irresponsibility and a complete indifference to consequences for sexual behavior is a good idea. And relatively few, merciful god, are as focussed on the alleged harm of sexual behavior as you are.

a SIN and must not be repeated - the necessity of repentance — Agustino

Hey, the Lutheran Social Service lunch and meeting on homeless youth was quite good. They pried loose a donation I intended to not make.

Anyone who commits a sin once (everybody) will commit a sin again. From a Christian perspective, there is no escape from sinning. We may not commit the same cardinal sin (like murder) more than once, but your average venial and mortal sins are the bread and butter of the confessional.

In secular terms, people can not avoid sin because the definition of sin overlaps the core characteristics of human nature: pride, greed, lust, envy, gluttony, wrath, and sloth. The normal personality is always on the verge of veering into the territory of these sins, in an exaggerated fashion, The normal personality is capable of consistently demonstrating the cardinal virtues -- prudence, justice, temperance, fortitude, faith, hope, and love -- with about the same consistency that it can avoid the major sins.

We are not masters of our own houses, as Sigmund Freud cogently observed. Insisting that we can, we shall, we will, and we must avoid your favorite sin, especially the one which is the uranium in the reactor of the human personality, is a wretched form of comfort. It's a gratuitously grim sort of damnation.

Perhaps we should repent of the whole business of sin, confession, damnation, etc. As far as I can tell, believers (Christian, Jews, Moslems) behave pretty much the same way that cradle and adult-converted atheists behave. Not better, not worse. Why is that? It is so because all human personalities are held together by the same flimsy ad hoc adaptations of our animal natures to our higher aspirations.

Regardless of what the church preaches, a stiff prick still has abysmal moral standards, and 2000 years of preaching, confession, absolution, threatened damnation and fear of hell, never made much of a difference.

The well regulated human has always recognized his and her needs, and has sought to satisfy them in a reasonable way, regardless of what the church preached (or they ended up miserable). Did some people pursue a thoroughly unreasonable way of satisfying needs? Absolutely! The well regulated human has also recognized that he or she is part of a larger, complex milieu and that solutions have to be found within that milieu. It's all pretty messy.

Periodically, the grip of the church has slipped and people have felt freer to behave as they wished. The last major slippage was not yesterday, and slippage has expanded into outright erosion of religious standards and control. In Europe and North America, maybe 200 to 500 million people have repented of their allegiance to Christian standards of behavior. Leaving behind the Christian model did not make them into barbarian heathens. They altered the milieu in which they live and have been able to find more human resolutions to their conflicts.

Hence: homosexuals are not candidates for burning at the stake; transexuals are not branded as abominations (your post excepted); women who are found in adultery no longer need fear stoning (except in certain barbarian regions like the Arabian Peninsula, in the lunatic Taliban controlled areas of Afghanistan, ISIS, etc.); divorced women do not become pariahs, and so on.

a SIN and must not be repeated - the necessity of repentance — Agustino

Repentance is an important part of this discussion, but I now have to go to a Lutheran Social Service meeting on homeless youth (my arm was twisted to go to this meeting) so I will say more later.

Sin is sin, whether sexual or otherwise - thus Jesus combatted all forms of sin, including the sexual. There is no "bigger fish to fry". — Agustino

The "bigger fish to fry" is pointed up in the terms of the Judgement in Matthew: I was hungry and you fed me, I was naked and you clothed me... I am sure you know the passage in the 25th chapter of Matthew. Jesus didn't say that entrance into the Kingdom was based on "a clean police record" so to speak.

At least in the Calvinist tradition, the condition of sin is a given: nobody avoids being mired in sin, and sin is sin, as you say. The only way we do not end up in the great deep fat fryer of hell is the entirely undeserved gift of grace.

Yes, the Pharisees were trying to catch Jesus in the sin-trap. I don't think Jesus demonstrated brilliance in the legal department; rather, his approach transcended the legalistic approach.

I presume you are a product of one of the Orthodox branches of Christianity.
— Bitter Crank
Only Marxists are products of systems — Agustino

Dodging, dodging, dodging. Is there some reason you don't want to confess your religious background?

I can't think of any way that a religion IS NOT a system. This is special pleading. Marxists, Baptists, Jews, Roman Catholics, Orthodox, Lutherans et al are all products of a system of thinking.

The hermaphrodite (a quaint old term for one kind of transsexual) is born with incomplete, or contradictory biology.
— Bitter Crank
Most transexuals are not hermaphrodites, so this is a falsification of facts. — Agustino

I didn't claim that most transsexuals were hermaphroditic. What I said was hermaphroditism is one form of actual "trans sexualism". Trans sexualism is a crowded box of postmodern sexual fluidity.

all of them were at least somewhat neurotic — Bitter Crank

BINGO! They are suffering of mental illness. — Agustino

Well, according to Freud, we are all at least somewhat neurotic, even me and thee, and especially thee... well, let's not get started.

I am very grateful that I do not have to make a decision here in Minneapolis as to what you in the UK should do with respect to the EU.

It is the business of European nationals to decide how to define their French, Spanish, Dutch, German, Polish, or... whatever nationality. I'm old fashioned, I guess; if I were a Frenchman, I would probably think "France First."

The bureaucracy of the European Union seems to be very intrusive and micromanaging. Some of that is good, of course. There are parts of American industry and agriculture that could benefit from some hard core picayune regulation.

Europe didn't ask for the several crises which brought a tidal wave of refugees, migrants, and immigrants (whatever...) to your various shores. It has always seemed untenable that any number of displaced persons can be settled without aggravating social inequalities that already exist.

I haven't been able to figure out which view is correct -- that the UK will do better economically apart from united Europe, or will do worse. And of course, we don't know what the medium term future is for Europe -- long term, don't know that either.

I would definitely beware of these big trade deals. They are made on behalf of corporations for the benefit of corporations and investors. They have NOTHING to do with the ordinary interests of ordinary people. Aside from trade, they undermine national power (in favor of corporate power) in defining what can be disputed and how. For instance, a treaty may call for binding arbitration in place of the right to take a dispute to court. Binding arbitration might or might not be fair, but the arbitrators are not subject to judicial appeal. Workers--whether unorganized or members of unions--usually get the shaft. Almost certainly, the consumer protections put in place by the busybodies of Brussels will be whittled back to an ineffective nub. You'll probably get a big ear of GMO corn rammed up your asses whether you want it or not.

States still matter, and especially states matter when the alternative is corporate institutions which serve corporate interests. In the corporate world, you are free in so far as you are profitable. If you can't make us money, what good are you?

The main concern, and I don't know how to evaluate it, is: will being "outside of Europe" damage your present and future prosperity. Will it help or damage your national, social, individual interests?

true intimacy — Agustino

You have used this term many times; I have in my mind several definitions of "intimate" or "intimacy". A sitting room can be "intimate" and intimacy can mean" sharing privileged information" or "sharing deep feelings." Of course it can also mean sex and/or love. I presume you mean something along the lines of sex, love, and tender nurturing". But... maybe not.

Different topic:

I presume you are a product of one of the Orthodox branches of Christianity. Greek, Russian, Serbian... whatever. I was raised in a Protestant milieu, but am casually familiar with some Roman Catholic doctrine. A lot of what you say about sex does sound very Roman Catholic to my ears. Yours and the RC's formulations seem similar. I'm not raising that as a criticism; just noting it. (I'll raise it as a criticism at such time as you're being got ready to burn at the stake.)

Another topic:

Why is transexualism wrong?

Simply because one does a harm to one's own nature by attempting to alter their own biology - the very desire is evidence of mental illness. — Agustino

The hermaphrodite (a quaint old term for one kind of transsexual) is born with incomplete, or contradictory biology. Nature here is the guilty party. There is no normal body to violate. Changing the body (procedures not performed prior to WWII, as far as I know) is an effort to undo nature's error. The hermaphrodite isn't a woman trapped in a man's body, he/she is a mix of male and female body forms.

I don't know for sure (100%) whether most transsexuals are one gender trapped in the body of the opposite gender, or whether they are suffering from a complex delusion. If people say they hear voices, or see people who aren't there, Believe them. If people say they have to count all the tiles on the floor of a bathroom, I believe them. If somebody says "I am a man trapped in a woman's body" why should I not believe them?***

Transsexualism, hermaphroditism, and other forms of corporeal dysphoria, are very challenging conditions. Challenging, because it is first difficult to tell whether all their claims are genuine.

Are you opposed to breast and buttocks augmentation? Liposuction? Face lifts? Nose jobs? Organ transplants? Facial transplants? Very obese people who lose a lot of weight often wish to be "re-upholstered" afterwards, because they have so much extra skin. All bad?

***Jack (2005) and John (1980) both claimed to be women in men's bodies. Dora (1976) claimed to be a man in a woman's body. Each of these people completed transsexual therapy (including hormones, counseling, and surgery). They all seemed to benefit from the experience. Jack was a tall, large-framed man who had very strong masculine features (heavy brow, for instance). John and Dora were both on the petite side, and for both of them, the desired appearance was relatively achievable before they began therapy, and was more convincing afterwards.

If each of them were successful in obtaining an authentic body-spirit combo, it is also true that all of them were at least somewhat neurotic, quite apart from gender issues. Their "case histories' were all very different.

If one could buy the necessary hormone therapy over the counter, skip the counseling, and of course, do without gender reassignment surgery, there would be a much stronger case for these people being complicated lunatics. But none of that is the case. Gender reassignment programs are run by psychotherapists, sexologists, and surgeons. They are subject to institutional overview. It seems highly unlikely that Joe Blow, who was equipped with enough money to pay for reassignment services, could get them just by walking through the door and signing up. He probably wouldn't make it through screening, even if he had worked up a good cover story.

At the close of this passage, Jesus says, "I am the light of the world." Presumably he had bigger fish to fry than every run of the mill sexual sin.

John 8:3-12

The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery, and placing her in the midst They said to him, “Teacher, this woman has been caught in the act of adultery. Now in the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. So what do you say?" This they said to test him, that they might have some charge to bring against him. Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. And as they continued to ask him, he stood up and said to them, “Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her.” And once more he bent down and wrote on the ground. But when they heard it, they went away one by one, beginning with the older ones, and Jesus was left alone with the woman standing before him.

Jesus stood up and said to her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?” She said, “No one, Lord.” And Jesus said, “Neither do I condemn you; go, and from now on sin no more.”

Again Jesus spoke to them, saying, [...as I was saying, before these sex-obsessed scribes and Pharisees rudely interrupted me] “I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will not walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.”

In the past, LGBT people have been systemically oppressed, but I think we are beginning to see the end of this de jure oppression of LGBT people. — darthbarracuda

In western industrialized countries it is probably the case that gay people are no longer oppressed through legislation. Many gay people might be free of de facto oppression as well, but certainly not every gay person is. The kind of bad experiences that some young gay people experience, like getting kicked out of the house at 16, for instance, and as a consequence dropping out of school, are decidedly oppressive.

I believe that for some, their LGBT difference is an entitlement to special treatment. Being a liberal democracy means we must treat everyone equally, and this means that the LGBT community does not deserve special treatment (hence why I generally don't like gay pride events in areas that aren't really against the LGBT community). — darthbarracuda

Do you think there is such a thing as the "GLBT community"? From an "insider" viewpoint, it has never been clear what, exactly, the alleged GLBT community consists of. There are affinity groups of all kinds in every existing or nonexistent "community"; is that what you mean? As long as the affinity groups can exist without breaking laws, disturbing public order, and so on, they don't need and probably aren't receiving "special treatment" or entitlement.

There are all kinds of community sponsored events in many cities, one of which is a gay pride festival and/or march. All of these quasi-official summer events are pretty much alike: the public at large swamps the event (which vendors like), there are ethnic or cultural doodads all over the place, bad food is sold, there is loud music, overstimulated dogs and children, etc. The sponsors of the events are lucky to not spend a good share of the next year settling debts and contract disputes.

I don't have much patience with gay pride -- haven't for at least 25 years, mostly because the agenda of these events has been vigorously assimilationist -- "Hey, we're just like everybody else." Sure enough, the simulated gay community is pretty much like everybody else.

What I hope for from liberal democracy is that the people are able to associate with their preferred affinity groups, and engage in activities that satisfy their social and personal aspirations, as long as the activities are more or less legal, peaceful, compatible with other people's needs and wants, and so on.

I read about it either in the New York Times or the Guardian, and it may have been in the comments section as a personal testimony there, not a news story. Does the report not therefore hold water? I think it does, because 2 transsexuals commented in conversation to me that they were verbally attacked in a washroom and in an office.

Look, if two people are in a washroom, and one takes offense at the other and says so, there would be no third party to confirm that such a thing had happened.

I don't care how adults choose to disport themselves sexually, or with whom they do so, provided their frolic is consensual.
— Ciceronianus the White
Then you don't care about the well-being of others, pure and simple. Consent is not sufficient to make something moral - in fact it has no necessary tie to morality at all. For example, if I gain someone's consent to kill them, does it follow that I should? Clearly not. — Agustino

Of course Ciceronianus cares about the well being of others, in the same way that Mrs. Campbell did:

Reply to a young actress who asserted that an older actor in a production showed too much affection for the leading man (c. 1910); as reported by Alan Dent in Mrs. Patrick Campbell, p. 78 (1961).

"My dear, I don't care what they do, so long as they don't do it in the street and frighten the horses."


At a time, Agustino, when there were many horses on the street, "frightening the horses" could have dire consequences. It was in the sense of not wanting to cause a stampede of angst-ridden horses that Ciceronianus was speaking.

Just imagine, two men kissing on Broadway in 1910, watched by a pair of stallions pulling a fancy coach, and the two large studs taking off to find some place to do horse-likewise, and igniting a stampede down the Great White Way. Why, hundreds of important people attending the theater might be hurt!

The issue is more complicated than who uses which toilet.

First of all, I want to make an-always-unpopular distinction between "transgender" and "gay": G, L, B, and T share the same quadratic set of initials, but each letter represents fairly separate and different experiences. They both concern genitals and they both concern gender, but they often have radically different etiology.

a. Some transgender people are genitally ambiguous at birth. Their sex organs are not clearly male or female.
b. Some transgender people become genitally ambiguous (usually soon after birth) when something like a circumcision gone wrong leaving an otherwise unambiguous male without the essential penis.
c. Some transgender people are genetically ambiguous at the level of the chromosome, and this may have obvious and sometimes fairly odd physical manifestations.
d. Most transgender people are genitally unambiguous and may feel (at some point in their lives) that their gender or sex is the opposite of their very clear genital set up.

Gayness does not manifest ambiguous genitalia, ambiguous chromosomes, or feelings of being in the wrong body. Gay people are sexually attracted to members of their own sex (and some can function sexually with the opposite sex) and their sexual performance is unimpeded by missing or non-functioning parts.

The regulations concern more than toilets. They also concern showers, changing rooms, and the like. This is where the whole thing becomes especially contentious -- even more so than on the battleship USS Toilet. d

What do you think happens to the male or female who undresses in the 7th-12th grade locker room to shower, and reveals to all present that "he" has a vagina? Or "she" has a penis? Who in the shower room do you think will be most discomfited: the 999 out of 1000 more or less anatomically normal children, or the 1 out of 1000 anatomically abnormal child? The smart money is 100 to 1 on the abnormal child being made (not just sort of feeling) very uncomfortable.

Everyone does not have to shower together. Some children need a more private space, or they need at least a less public space to adjust to community showers. (Children are not politically correct and sensitive to others feelings: they tend to savage the weakest and/or most vulnerable members of the herd. Sometimes this continues into adulthood.)

Transsexual adults have been attacked in public toilets -- by women who were angry that a male was in the sacrosanct female space. Males would probably not be quite so appalled by finding a female-to[male transsexual in a men's toilet. A competent, practiced transsexual probably won't be detected at all.

The public toilet is mostly a non-issue, as far as I can tell. Get over it. The question of transsexual children in elementary and high schools is where there is room for debate.

For my part, I think any parents who allow a young child to decide and act on what gender he or she really is need their heads examined by a competent psychiatrist, and their child needs to be carefully assessed and counseled. Teen agers? different ball game, but no teenager should be allowed to act on what are clear feelings of "wrong body, right gender" WITHOUT competent counseling, advice, and support. Adults? If you're ready to take on this situation, then grit your teeth and work your way through it.

Cross dressing gays, or cross dressing straights, are not transgendered. They are engaging in fetish activities. You may like it or not, but it isn't an issue of transsexuality or gender identity. Children (and sometimes adults) get confused about whether they sexual feelings are normal, gay, or transgender. There are counseling and medical procedures that can clarify what the person is feeling.

Wondering if you "suffer" from "white privilege"? Know the signs! (Just a random, not well thought out list): — swstephe

I'm not suffering from white privilege.

The trouble with “white privilege” is the same as “blackness” — it is a condition which one can do nothing to obtain, and can do nothing to get rid of. I can not confer privilege on a black man, nor can he confer upon me the benefits of his heritage.

I grew up in a rural, agricultural county that had approximately zero racial diversity. Everyone (with a few outliers) was northwestern European, with a few Slovaks, Irish, French, and the like for variety. German, Scandinavian, and Anglo-Saxon was the rule. The county was about as egalitarian as most places are — meaning there was an inchoate class structure, top to bottom, all white.

The first black person I knew was a foreign exchange student from Uganda, a classmate in my junior year of high school. There weren’t many blacks in the small state college I attended, either, nor any other race, for that matter. My exposure to black urban culture was by immersion when I joined VISTA and was ‘trained’ in Roxbury, the black section of Boston. I was in desperate need of the training, not just because I would be working with blacks, but because I was moving from deeply rural Minnesota to deeply urban New England.

If coming from white farm country is “white privilege” I have it for sure, but being a country hick in Boston wasn’t/isn’t/never will be an advantage.

Another problem of white privilege is that one’s race is one feature among many that make up who a person perceives himself (herself) to be. These various features include

family history
social milieu
ethnicity
intelligence
personality
religious activity (or lack thereof)
physical condition
gender
sexual orientation (and for most people, being heterosexual isn't distinctive)
race
and other features

I do not count race as anything like the most important feature (but I understand why some people do). Unless one grew up in a milieu where races are in regular interface and conflict, it isn’t likely to be that important. Where I grew up, race could not be important for purposes of comparison. Family history, social milieu, psychological factors, and aspects of one’s physical condition were more important.

Racism won’t go away if we all just stop thinking about it, obviously, and it isn’t going to go away as a result of endless harping on it, either. What will help is more voluntary, friendly and casual interaction among whites and blacks, coupled with openness to mutual acceptance. I don’t know how to engineer that happy process. We’ve tried lots of different schemes and some work some of the time with some of the people. Some have backfired.

CK: By the way, your average white person could experience all sorts of hell by dialing up, say, life in Rome in the first century either side of zero. Lots of white people were slaves in the Roman Empire, and elsewhere. 1/3 of the population was slave. I agree that the "N Word" smuggles niggers into the minds of the hearer and makes them retrieve the word. Niggers aren't African Americans, blacks, colored people, or Negroes. I'm not sure precisely what is referenced by nigger, but whatever it is, it isn't the same as African American. Polish and pollock, greaser and Italian, chink and Chinese, spic and Puerto Rican, honkies and whites, or fag and gay, for that matter -- none of these pairings are overly precise.

To put an anthropological spin on this.. all this talk of "white privilege" "power", "class", "law", "economics this and that", is all a very European-centric way of looking at it. — schopenhauer1

Well... hmmm, drums fingers on table... Ok: right. We are trapped in our world-view, western-method-of-looking-at-the-world, and all that. We have some options, but unless we really were raised up in some other quite different culture, we're going to rise above our western view of things in a western way of rising above it all. And we'll criticize our efforts in western cultural terms.

Still...

White privilege isn't my thing. I find it an annoying term and an annoying concept. Some people are privileged for sure, but the bluest eyed, blondest, perfectly tanned, muscular, unblemished nordic stud who hasn't got a dime to his name, no prospects of laying his hands on so much as a dime, without any skills, no wealthy or famous relatives, and a couple of felony convictions is as screwed as someone who is 180 degrees the opposite in pigment. Well, maybe not quite as screwed, but how screwed depends on where you are.

Anyway, I'm not discontented with western culture. I like a lot of it. Most of it, actually.

I am reading Arc of Justice: A Saga of Race, Civil Rights, and Murder in the Jazz Age by Kevin Boyle. t's about Dr. Ossian Sweet, a descendent slaves who grew up in the deep south under the worst of jim crow terror. His parents sent to the African Methodist Episcopal Wilberforce University in Ohio when he was 13. He spent 4 years in the preparatory academy, 4 years in the college (science major), then more years becoming a doctor. After many years of study, he eventually ended up in Detroit, around 1925.

I haven't gotten halfway through the book yet, but already it's worth recommending.

The book examines the history of race relations in the south during Reconstruction, then during the much longer period of time after that effort was abandoned. Later he looks at the same topic in the north where, up until the 1890s, at least, relationships between blacks and whites were reasonably peaceful and amicable. All that changed, as we know.

To a large extent, race hatred was "socially engineered"--south and north, using similar but different techniques. There was no initial plan in all of this, of course. The white bourgeoisie in the south had lost most, if not all, of their wealth by the end of the war. Poor southern whites found no advantages after the war, either. The south's social system was thoroughly wrecked. Just about everyone in the south had become unhinged from their former reliable posts. Violent reaction ensued.

The north pursued a different path toward race hatred. For a long time many whites had contributed to what would become the Historic Black Colleges. In time, though, the flow of funds was reduced because many of the northern middle class religious whites found themselves ill-treated by recessions, depressions, a tsunami of immigration, waves of radical changes in the culture, and so forth. Like people do, northern whites began to circle their wagons, and sought to protect their core community and values, which blacks, like eastern Jews, Italians, Greeks, Japanese, etc. just didn't fit into.

Detroit in 1925 was a rapidly growing metropolitan area. Not beautiful, but prosperous. There were about 30,000 men registered as members of the Ku Klux Klan in Detroit. People knew their place: The various ethnicities--Poles, Czechs, Slovaks, Ukrainians, Mexicans, Italians, etc. (and blacks) all had communities where they were the dominant group, Moving out into another ethnicities area could be a bold move -- especially blacks into white areas.

Ossian Sweet set up a medical practice in Black Bottom (the black neighborhood) and it flourished. He started moving up in medical circles. He decided to buy a house in a better, white, part of town, as most professional blacks did. He knew from Jim Crow experience, though, that this was going to be a risky move. He expected trouble, and prepared. Two nights after he and his wife moved in (the baby was with relatives for safe-keeping) a mob surrounded the house, and began throwing rocks through the nice leaded windows.

Dr. Sweet was forewarned, and was also fore-armed. He gathered a group of friends to stay with him and his wife for protection. Sweet provided guns and ammo. One of them opened fire on the mob and 1 member of the crowd was killed, 1 injured. The police promptly arrested the 8 or 9 black people in the house and took them to the station.

That's as far as I've gotten.

There Goes My Everything is about the white experience in the south after the Brown Vs. Board of Education decision in 1954. While the book discusses some of the experience of the very brave black children who walked into a number of school houses (canaries in the mine) much of the book is about what white people thought and felt during this time.

I think one of the lessons is that upheaval (such as the Civil War and Emancipation or an industrial revolution) does not necessarily lead to greater human understanding, amity, and social cohesion. Quite often upheaval shatters trust, cooperativeness, friendship, and so on. It isn't that one group blame the other for the radical change, but rather, everyone moves to cut their losses, draw the wagons into the excluding circle (for protection and comfort), and project outward their anger, fear, anxiety, shattered hopes, and confidence in the future.

I didn't say I don't like privileged people. — swstephe

I would hope not -- since your definition of "privilege"...

...isn't just "white privilege", but "white, male, married, protestant, upper-middle class, straight, moderate conservative privilege — swstephe

You're not just painting with a broad brush, you're using a yard wide paint roller here, picking out features (male, married, Protestant, straight, moderately conservative) which apply to blacks, asians, whites, native americans, pacific Islanders, Inuits, etc. You tell me how being a poor, male, married, straight, and foot-washing Baptist, for instance, ends up making one "privileged". Your definition is incoherent. The one thing that does stick (and again, it sticks across race) is "upper middle class" which I will take to mean "households earning $250,000 or more annually and living in communities with no more than up-market costs.

But even here, we need to exercise some caution. Two near-retirement Lutheran pastors serving reasonably prosperous congregations in the Twin Cities can make that much. "Upper Middle Class" people are nowhere close to being the economic heavy hitters that make major economic decisions. (U.M.C. people are mostly hard working, intelligent opportunists. Thieves, perhaps; but trivial pikers in comparison to the Buffets, Jobs, Walls, and Gates of the world.

if the people were white, this problem would have been solved by now — swstephe

Hillary is a pain in the ass -- better than Trump, I suppose, but still...

Flint wasn't and isn't about race. Flint is about managers who were tasked with cutting costs... cutting costs. The city was broke, is broke, and will probably stay broke for some time. Switching from Detroit municipal water to Flint municipal water wasn't a racially biased decision. It was a bottom line decision. Cut costs. Where that decision went haywire was when the appointed manager either didn't "hear" the advice of Flint water technicians or decided what they had to say wasn't sufficiently significant to merit attention.

There are various sources of lead in water systems: pipes, seals, alloys, etc. -- all the way from the river to the faucet. The problem is not at all limited to one or two predominantly black or Michigan cities. Older water systems used lead pipes (especially between mains and houses). The need to get the PH of the water closer to a neutral level to prevent metallic leeching is the sort of esoteric information one wouldn't expect a cost cutter (the appointed city manager) to know or care about. The fittings in your own kitchen and bath could emit some small level of lead, especially after the water has sat in the pipe for a few hours.

Mistakes were made, there were flaws in the (human and tubular) system, there wasn't much money to work with, and there you have it.

Now, the fact that the water coming out of the taps was visibly contaminated (by something other than lead) is more "the public be damned" than racist -- after all, 1/3 of the population is white. If they were really racist, they would have worried about poisoning that white third of the population.

When I see bad code, I want to debug it — swstephe

You want to fix people. Fortunately we aren't code. A lot of the whining, bitching, carping, complaining, and so forth about race, gender, ethnicity, etc. boils down to a wish that everybody else would just get debugged. We especially want the people who are assholes to get debugged. Why can't assholes see themselves as the obvious assholes they are? Why don't they reform? Why don't they just get their asshole code fixed?

Othering is pervasive. — swstephe

If cognitive bias is everywhere, if othering is pervasive, if personal preferences are ubiquitous, maybe that is the way we are, rather than a deviation. Perhaps? I'm not looking for an excuse for people to hate and hurt each other. People can live, have lived, and do live peaceably with people who are quite unlike them. Sort of the way street dogs behave. Put us into pressured situations where we are forced to compete for artificially (or truly) limited goods, and we start behaving badly amoungst ourselves.

I'm a leftist too, and I've been reading leftist, liberationist stuff since the early 1970s. Some of it is really quite good, liberatory, and helpful. A lot of it is clearly based more on leftist dogma than any leftist's actual experience. (I'm not arguing for the social darwinist alternative, of course.) Leftist dogma is often disconnected from the real world. Leftists are, of course, idealists in many ways, and idealists tend to take extreme uncompromising stances. I've been there (dogmatic extreme idealism) several times.

Take, for instance, unlimited immigration with open borders. Nice ideal -- freedom of movement, freedom of labor, freedom of capital, no borders, etc. Who wins, who loses? It is not and can not be, a nice rosy win-win situation. Both the donor and recipient countries sharing unlimited immigration can experience a lose/lose situation. The donor country loses the bulk of its talent and young people, and the receiver country gains more workers than it has resources to employ and support.

Angela Merkel is ready to admit a million or two, or three refugees/asylum seekers/immigrants from the middle east. She wants the rest of Europe to get with the program.

I readily grant that the situation of Syrians and various others is wretched. They need a place to stay, at least for a time. But if they stay, Europe will need much more robust growth than it has now to absorb them as workers. Europe has absorbed some, but by no means all, of previous waves of immigration/refugee/asylum seeking people. It is not producing enough jobs to keep it's German, Spanish, Polish, etc. youth properly employed. Who has first claim on the jobs? The natives or the latest arrivals?

I've known a number of transsexuals, a few quite well, and most of my friends have been deviants of various kinds, over the years. Clearly, transgendered persons do not pose any threat in a public wash room, any more than any random person might. But sexual individualization can be outlandish even to the sexual minority life-style sophisticated, much less to the previously uninitiated person.

Sexual (and other) minorities often tend to deliberately get their uniqueness in everybody's face and then expect everybody to be very sensitive about it. They might be well advised that sensitivity is a two way street. (I was young and brash once upon a time, and pretty much insisted that everybody lavishly respect my personal gay choices.) Why someone should think that even if they are not able to pass as their chosen gender, they should be applauded for using whichever public toilet they feel like is beyond me. If they can't pass, then it isn't time for them to demand people recognize their new identity. (It can take a while for a person to figure out how to actually look like, behave like, walk like, move like, dress like, talk like, etc. the gender they think they belong to.)

Should your average woman, for instance, be expected to not bat an eye when she finds somebody who is obviously male but dressed as a female in the women's toilet? Should she be expected to celebrate their gender diversity, and figuratively pat the man? woman? boy? girl? or whatever on the back? (No Touching!) I don't think so.

Some people can make the transition quickly, some can't. Tough. They'll just have to figure out how to get good at being their preferred gender before they expect people to not notice them as oddballs.

Very thoughtful post.

it isn't just "white privilege", but "white, male, married, protestant, upper-middle class, straight, moderate conservative privilege". — swstephe

So, I'm free of white stigma on 5 of 7 counts, being a white male but single, atheist, working class, gay, and a leftist. I guess I couldn't properly oppress anyone if I tried.

We seem to be hard-wired into the process of "othering". — swstephe

Maybe we humans are hard wired to prefer people like ourselves, and if that is so, then there isn't very much we can do about privilege, racial preferences, and all that, beyond being more conscious of how we operate. We have a host of behaviors that are hard wired, as well as behaviors that are the product of cultural software -- not that cultural software's influences are feeble. I don't know how much is hard wire and how much is cultural software.

True, we do "other" some people, and some people other themselves, too. (Othering one's self isn't 'self oppression' -- it's cultural definition.) For instance, gay men used to be viewed very much as other, back say... before gay liberation, 1970. Before and after Gay liberation some gay men adopted styles and manners that made sure they were perceived as other. I can't speak for straight blacks, of course, but it would appear that straight blacks have also adopted styles and manners that make them othered.

None of this is to say that racial discrimination, or brutal policing, for example, are just cultural epiphenomena that nobody needs to worry about.

Power comes from privilege — swstephe

Not quite. Privilege comes from power, but what does power come from? Power generally comes from control of the means of existence--in other words, control of production and distribution of goods--all of it, more or less. Those who control the process of wealth creation (they own land, factories, etc.) can afford to project their power in the form of financial rules, lending practices, rental management, guards, police, and so forth. This framework wasn't built just yesterday, of course. It has been installed, remodeled, and reinstalled many times. For us, it was installed during our colonial period--under the control of England. We kept it.

Mao said that power comes out of the barrel of a gun. As a last resort, maybe. But if you have enough wealth, you can employ hired guns who will generally shoot sparingly. The threat of power coming out of the gun barrel (especially when the gun is pointed at one's esteemed self) is enough to keep people in line.

White people climbing out of an ice hole in Norway? I love it. Sure, whites, asians, and aboriginals all came from Africa -- but you have to admit, not recently. We all look different now because of thousands of years of hard-won survival in varied and difficult circumstances. I think there are "races" (four of them) and there are discreet ethnic groups too. Asians, whites, blacks, and aboriginals can be acknowledged to be "racially different" without going any further than that, like to decide which one is superior. None of us are "superior". Japanese, Indians, and Turks are all Asian, all different, and none superior.

There are various ways to get to "BoMFoG' -- Brotherhood of Man under the Fatherhood of God, a feature of the "social gospel" that was popular back until the 1950s, more or less. For you, it's that we all came out of Africa. For me, it's pretty much that we are all in the same (probably sinking) boat, more or less.

BTW, re: the chimpanzee experiments... Dogs have been found to have a similar response. If one dog notices that he is not getting rewarded, and the other dog is (dogs aren't fussy about the reward itself) the unrewarded dog will stop cooperating. And the rewarded dog doesn't worry about the unrewarded dog -- so dogs are a more realistic representation of our esteemed species.

Interesting thing about Boston -- some people from the north side of Boston (and some of the suburbs to the north) use a glottal stop when pronouncing a double t (tt) as in bottle or throttle. They might also use the soft r (the 'pahk the cah' example, though I associate that more with central or south Boston--it's a New England thing).

Appalachian American English certainly preserves some of the musical heritage of England from the 17th and 18th century, and likely preserves some features of pronunciation. I generally don't find Appalachian English especially pleasant to listen to, because many of the singers who I have heard are true folk singers -- as singers, not very good in many cases, though what they are singing is valuable heritage. It's definitely not a southern accent.

Did you see the movie Trainspotting? Not really that many trains in it; the directer added subtitles to some scenes, because, well, the Scots' English was just about as comprehendible as Shakespeare played backwards. (It had that memorable scene in "the filthiest toilet in Scotland" so the sign said.)

Great passage. Thank you.

You might like "Original Pronunciation" more than "Received Pronunciation". I might prefer it too except that I have heard no more than a few phrases of OP Shakespeare. I took Chaucer in college using Chaucer's Middle English text and pronunciation. It's easier to read in modern English, of course, but its atmosphere is better in the OP. I would think learning OP for Shakespeare -- the text and the pronunciation at the same time --would be a bit daunting, especially early in its acquisition.

American college productions often follow American pronunciation; is that better? Can't decide. I'd like to see a play done in OP.

Here's a bit about OP: (I'd love to have the young guy's voice)

The Establishment also promotes a certain particular culture - that's the culture I identify with the Establishment. — Agustino

Yes, it does. The Establishment, once comprising The State, The Church, The Local Wealth Elite, and The Academy. The State counts for less now. The Church, in many place, hardly at all. The local wealth elite have been submerged into increasing transnational, supranational entities. The Academy -- technically useful, no longer leading the elite--I don't know -- did it ever?

The values of the powerful no-longer-local-corporations have a flavor that is sort of, but not all that much like the civil institutions of The State. Some American states have been dithering over who's using the toilets. Target Corporation announced that it's staff and customers ("partners" and "guests" were free to use whichever toilet they felt comfortable using.

The state has a set of values, including protecting the rights and interests of both minorities and majorities. Target's values are simpler: don't offend any segment of the market, maximize the openness of the marketplace. An open marketplace is different than a civil society. Open marketplaces may seem free, but they are free for the one purpose of doing business. Civil societies have a more multidimensional idea of freedom. States have a relationship of power with the electorate that is, usually -- or at least can be, is supposed to be -- binding. The corporation can pull up stakes, close divisions, fire workers, sell crap or precious jewels, whatever they want. If you don't like it, "Go shop somewhere else and don't let the door hit you on the way out."

The culture of the marketplace inherently leads to what you consider moral laxity (and on some scores, what I consider moral laxity as well--though maybe not exactly the same issues).

Corporations can support whatever moral trend develops (except worker fraud, rampant shoplifting, and principled simple living) because most trends can be adapted to selling. Prostitution is legal and accepted? Great! Sell street accessories for street whores. Everybody is carrying guns? Great -- sell more bullet proof clothing, cars, and houses, guns, and ammunition. Sell to both ends of the gun barrel. Babies can be sold? Great...

Extreme examples, sure--just to make a point. The state can act to limit the wealth of its citizens through taxation (or more efficient expropriation) for the greater good. Maximizing profits in an open, efficient market place is all the greater good there is for the corporation. (A slight exaggeration -- some corporations donate 5% of pre-tax profits to charitable organizations. The amount of money some corporations--like Pillsbury, General Mills, or Target--donate is a lot larger than would be needed for mere PR purposes. The donations actually help people who may never buy something at Target.)

Alternatively, you could petition him to sign it in order to hasten the cannibalistic self-destruction of modern capitalism, thus in turn hastening the glorious socialist revolution. — Thorongil

You're being satirical I assume, but there are people who actually mean it when they say things like this. I know of no reason to think such a strategy would work, and even if it did, the hideous interregnum while we wait for capitalism to collapse isn't worth heaven later. Heaven Now, I say.

The process of creating the TTIP and its draft is a perfect example of how much power corporations have; how they use this power; and how weak nation states have become. — ssu

This is relevant to the new discussion about The Establishment. It has changed -- not just yesterday; it has been changing for some time, and it is still changing. The transnational and/or supranational corporations are just doing end-runs around the State -- at least the more phlegmatic-tax-enforcement-policy-states. The Big National States are not without resources, but they have to also have "gumption", chutzpah, balls, brass knuckles, resolve, nerve, a big stick or dick -- whatever you want to call it. Most of them don't seem to be able to get it up.

When Tony Blair announced in 1997 how he was going to 'modernise' Britain, it turned out he didn't know how to operate a computer mouse. — mcdoodle

Maybe he always used DOS -- no mouse. Out of date, but.... More likely he, like a cat, "has staff".

G. William Domhoff, sociologist, has spent much of his career studying just how it is that the wealth-based elite recognize each other. There are other (maybe lesser) elites not based on wealth, though and they, as a group, also have identifiable characteristics which can be quantified. (My suspicion/theory is that elite bound people have an ineffable hunger for the fruits that ripen at the top of the tree and they catch the scent of this hunger on like kind. You see this in various walks of life.

C. Wright Mills, another initial for first name sociologist, also published distinguished studies of the elite -- as I recollect, the non-wealth-based power elite.

G. William Domhoff: Who Rules America, The Higher Circles, and The Myth of Liberal Ascendancy are his principle books. (don't be turned off by the 1960s copyright; later editions were updated, and besides, the wealth-elite doesn't change all that much.

C. Wright Mills: The Power Elite, White Collar: The American Middle Classes (1951) I haven't read this for a long, long time -- and it's probably of interest now to compare the post-WWII period with the present period.

Domhoff is still alive, he's 79, and is still producing. From 2014:

The current status quo, and over-riding culture. — Agustino

IMHO, it is getting more and more difficult to use terms we could once deploy with confidence, like "The Establishment". If Sanders was more precise, he'd call himself a progressive -- not a socialist. He hasn't proposed that the government (which surely is part of The Establishment) take over major parts of the economy--something that socialists support. "Don't merely regulate the banks, nationalize them" would be a socialist position.

Cruz, Rubio, Ryan, Trump, Clinton, Sanders, and Obama are all imminently Establishment.

It is difficult to be entirely for -or against- the government and its many policies and programs.

It seems to me that "The Establishment" (whatever that is) rides on top of "the current status quo, and over-riding culture." Everybody -- even the most outré people you see (or not) contribute to the "over-riding culture" -- even me and thee. Everybody isn't part of The Establishment.

A member of The Establishment is able to deliberately affect, and put into effect, changes in "the current status quo, and over-riding culture". So, George Bush I, George Soros, and your latest nymphet pop phenom are "Establishment" while distinguished, thoughtful, erudite people like thee and me are not.

Presumably having sex with a disabled person (a gimp) is not all that different than having sex with an able-bodied person. Disabled people tend to be 'a-sexualized'. Since they are not asexual, being so defined represents an additional stigma and loss for such persons. I like the idea of a disabled person being able to purchase sexual services if they so desire.

Granted, paid sex, charity sex, and the like is no substitute for sex with love, but it's a lot better than nothing. "Better than nothing" because sexual experiences are core human experiences.

On page 2 you say you are not assuming that "morality" exists. Can "morality" (a codified system) exist without producing what is good? Maybe Adolf Hitler behaved properly within his 'system of morality' even though he did a long string of very bad things. Does a difference between "morality" and being moral (doing what is good) need to be clarified?

Later you say that it makes sense to assume that we have free will, whether we do or not. I totally agree that it makes sense to suppose that we have free will. Such a statement will fly here just fine. Will it fly with your PhD advisor and committee?

It seems to me that one of the limitations on the freedom of a mind to think and direct actions, is that "the mind" may not be entirely in charge. You can't choose to like or not like blueberry pie, or feel a longing to eat some. You can choose to either eat it or not. As Sigmund Freud put it, "We are not masters of our own houses." We are not in control of our mental resources in their entirety. One may believe that it is right to avoid saying unkind things to other people. Yet, one finds that one has blurted out some unkind thing without wishing to, without intending to, and without any prior thought.

People commit far worse acts than the sarcastic putdown that someone may or may not have deserved. They might find that themselves in the act of using physical force to hurt some one--again without wishing to, without intending to, and without any prior thought. (So and so just turned around abruptly and slugged him in the face.) Are people like this insane, lacking in the capacity to control their behavior, unfree, etc.? Almost certainly not. Their subconscious urges or suppressed feelings of anger, resentment, jealousy, etc. just suddenly got the better of them--before they could block it.

Freud thought (and there is evidence that he was right) that people sometimes behave irrationally, badly, despite themselves. This isn't an argument for not punishing bad behavior. If you shoot your PhD advisor, you'll likely go to prison, even if you didn't wish or plan to shoot her seconds before you felt the uncontrollable urge to silence her endless nit-picking criticisms, pulled out your legally concealed and carried gun, and shot her in the head.

I bring it up because you are assuming that people actually are free. How free? 100%? 98%? 88%? 75%? 50%? 5%? How unfree can they be and still count as free? On the other hand, accountants don't suddenly defraud a bank on the basis of unconscious urges. Proper fraud takes time and planning. Will is very much involved. Saints don't impulsively do good. They have to work at it. Free will is behind their behavior.

So, getting late, time to go to bed. I'll look at this again later.

It sounds more like all the world is a lunch room. Did you happen to notice what play was being performed?

And yet, as you say, only 11.1% of the workforce is unionized, but all these other folks have jobs that are just as good or better than those held by those in unions. This would mean that the unions aren't necessary. — Hanover

How do unionized work places become non-unionized? Take Hormel's Austin, MN plant -- core of the $9 bn meat processing and food business, home of SPAM. Around 1984 Hormel cut the wages of it's union employees from $10.69 to $8.25 per hour--this in an industry with one of the highest injury and disability rates. (Slaughtering and preparing meat for wholesale is hard, hot, difficult work conducted on slippery floors with slippery hands holding sharp knives, rotary saws, chain saws, and other power tools. The injury rate in many meatpacking plans is above 100% -- that is, all workers will experience at least one significant injuries at least once per hear.

Hormel had negotiated a 'cut clause with the national union, UFCW, which then subverted the workers understanding that they were signing a "no cuts" contract. The workers struck, the company hired scabs (otherwise known as strikebreakers, or "people who want to work"), the Democratic Farm-Labor governor Rudy Perpich called out the MN National Guard to prevent the workers from blocking the plant gates. The local P9 of the UFCW received a lot of support from other unions and nonunion workers--from everybody, basically, except their parent UFCW union. The strikers lost. Wages at the plant were cut. Further, all of the other benefits the union had offered its members (dealing with work place and safety issues) were lost. The P9 local was dead.

Over time, the workforce became largely hispanic, probably including quite a few illegal aliens, for whom $8.25 (and less) represented a much better wage than they could get in Mexico.

It would seem that if the average worker has the right to unionize but chooses not to, then he would only have himself to blame if he is abused by management. Why are you insisting that he purchase a protection he has indicated he doesn't want? — Hanover

Labor law has placed numerous and difficult obstacles in the way of organizing a union in an unorganized work place. Further, employers tend to undertake negative campaigns against unionization, and use intimidation as a tactic to discourage votes to unionize. Only in already -unionized work places can an individual "choose" to join -- or pay fair-share dues.

Let's also not pretend that the unions have done a good job representing the employees. — Hanover

I agree completely -- many national unions officials have engaged in disgraceful, corrupted behavior or have gotten into bed with the executives of their members' workplaces and have enthusiastically prostituted themselves in whatever passive, catcher, position was requested.

Unions, like all organizations, are much better at helping themselves than in helping others. Although it's doubtful that I would choose to join a union even if it was on the up and up, I'd certainly not join one that I felt was using its money and influence to help the union bosses and leadership. — Hanover

You might join a union, but I would be quite surprised if you did.

Unions fail their members in 3 ways:

1. Sometimes they actively work against the obvious best interests of their members (like the United Food and Commercial Workers Union did for meatpackers)
2. Sometimes they become corrupted, are infiltrated by organized crime, and steal their members' dues (the Teamsters, Jimmy Hoffa, and the Central States Pension Fund). If you happen to dig up an identified body, it might be Jimmy. He was knocked off by his criminal friends.
3. They become lazy and unable to lead workers, inspire confidence, or organize a strong attack on low wages, wage cuts, unsafe and abusive working conditions, discrimination, and so on.

All of this, and more, causes some workers to become disheartened. Most workers, though, are victims of company propaganda campaigns designed to discredit every aspect of labor organization.

Anti-TTIP info here: https://stop-ttip.org/what-is-the-problem-ttip-ceta/faqs/

Elizabeth Warren on the TPP:

One of the biggest problems with TTIP, and treaties governing trade (NAFTA and the TPP -Trans-Pacific Partnership which is being negotiated) is that they are big deals -- big fat opaque documents. There have been complaints about TPP that the contents being negotiated haven't been seen by many representatives in Congress.

Big trade deals are never about 'the people'--what they want, what they need; they are always about the prerogatives and interests of the corporations--on both sides of the deal. What the proles hear about the big deal is all about "trade, jobs, prosperity, new opportunities for everyone. Who would say no to all those good things? Then the deal passes and the proles discover it's another big, fat corporate dick shoved up their asses.

I suppose there is some remote possibility that TTIP (like TPP, NAFTA, et al) could be, perhaps, not entirely malignant, but I wouldn't count on it.

So, without the document in a clear, honest form, one can profitably reflect on

Who wants it?
Why would they want it?
How will that help me?
What if it doesn't do me any good after it passes?

Thanks for the rap Hamlet.

Are you sure? Don't you know that your elderly siblings want to be happy? Don't you know that you yourself want to be happy for the rest of your life? — Agustino

Of course "I know" they want to be happy. I want to be happy. Everyone wants to be happy. That part isn't difficult, and I can probably even manage my own happiness.

Don't you know that you want to grow and expand the potentials that exist in your being? — Agustino

Of course. That we desire growth and expansion of our potentials is a general truth. It applies to everyone (except when it doesn't). There are, for instance, a minority of people who do not desire expansion of their potentials. They are complete, done. This is not altogether unusual in the elderly, but it's a tragedy when it occurs in younger people.

The only question that remains, again, is what ARE those potentials? What is happiness? What is your "self"? And are these things the same for you, as they are for your neighbour? — Agustino

Right, and this is where thinking about other people's happiness gets complicated. My siblings do not each have the same potentials. An individual's potentials are not the same throughout life (we hope they expand). What is happiness for me, for my siblings, for my neighbors, for anyone, will not be the same, and won't be the same all the time for a given individual.

For instance, the death of a spouse is a grievous event, but in time may open up new horizons for the survivor. How someone will complete grieving and move on, develop new habits and interests, find new things to do, new ways to live, is difficult to predict without knowing a lot about that individual. And even then... I have no idea what my 77 year old widowed sister will do, or what will make her happy at this stage in her life. She is only gradually coming to see options that haven't existed for decades (dairy farming screws you tightly to the milking schedule, year in, year out).

If one does social work, or counseling, or teaching (and the like) one has to have confident assumptions about other people that justifies the work one does with them. One has to believe that teaching people literature, or helping them resolve knotty conflicts, or helping them adjust to permanent disability, is both possible and worth doing. BUT, critical reservation, there are definite limits to what one can know about what is good, bad, and indifferent for other people.

For instance, someone may legitimately qualify for disability. Fine. Apply for benefits. However, for some people, disability status in itself becomes a second disability. Some people don't manage well without an imposed daily structure--something which a job can provide. In these instances, disability may not be advantageous. Oddly, the struggle and difficulty of work might be better for them. Might be better? Sure, but 'might be better' is not so certain that it entitles the social worker to scuttle their disability application. Our ability to know what is good for other people is limited.

These discussions are much more relevant than just regarding the sex question, which is why I'm tempted to open a new thread. — Agustino

I agree. Do open a new thread.

I knew you'd say this sooner or later. — Agustino

You did not.

I'll have to get back to you on this later, perhaps I'll open another thread. You assert I cannot know what others want. I say that I can and do know, in some cases better than they themselves know, and in other cases worse, what they want. My point will be that we CAN know, even if this is difficult and arduous. — Agustino

It's an attractive idea that we can know for sure what others are thinking, what others want, or need.

I'm pulled both ways by the idea that we can know what other people are thinking, feeling. On the one hand, this is trivially true. We can figure out what people want when they are displaying cues, or if we know them well. I know Jack wants more coffee right now because he's standing there with an empty cup. I know the dog wants what I'm eating because of the intense stare she has focused on my dish.

On the other hand, I don't know what my parents thought of their lives, or what some of my elderly siblings want at this point in their lives. I don't know what, exactly, the unhappy custodian at church wants. I don't know exactly what I want for the remainder of my life . I want, but what?

I have acknowledged that many are motivated by something that is, in itself, good, intimacy, but, through their method of seeking and achieving it, they are bound to always fail and come short. — Agustino

In your psychological theory, Intimacy is inherently good, and sex which does not aim for intimacy must fail. If intimacy is the only goal, the ultimate goal, and the only good goal, then I suppose it is true that all other goals, or methods that are not intended to produce intimacy, will fail. The deficiency in this theory is that there are other goals which, I assert here with total conviction, are worthwhile goals whose pursuit will, in itself, cause no harm.

Among those goals are adventure, pleasure, variety, danger [for the risk seeker), community, and relaxation. I don't think any of these need to be explained (save community: people build networks of sexual connections which can be very useful elsewhere in life). STDs? Disease is quite transmissible in bona fide intimate relationships. Unwanted pregnancy? Entirely possible in 100% faithful, intimate relationships. Abuse? It happens in intimate relationships fairly often.

Intimate, cozy, secure relationships are nice. But.. they are are NOT the only nice around. Further, when they fall apart (and they often do fall apart despite the best intentions of everyone concerned) the failure is generally far worse than the failure of a casual relationship.

I have merely shown that such a life, lived in that manner, ends up harming the one who lives it more than benefiting them - ultimately it betrays their own REAL self - their own REAL good. I have further shown that many do not even know what they are seeking - they are merely fumbling through the dark. — Agustino

Evaluations of other people's lives need to rest on something more substantial than dogma. You do not know whether "a life lived in that manner ends up harming the one who lives it more than benefitting them". You can not know that as a dogmatic rule. I can say, for myself, that the pursuit of casual sexual relationships has been beneficial to me. I can say, on the basis of study, of leading numerous discussion and therapy groups with gay men who practiced a lot of casual sex, and for 45 years participated in many capacities in a community years which has valued casual relationships as well as intimate relationships, that it appears entirely possible for people to live happy, fulfilled lives while pursuing casual sex. Further, the pursuit of casual sex does not prevent them from establishing long term intimate sexual relationships. (Of course, some people have difficulty with intimate relationships, whether they pursued casual relationships or not.)

Casual sex is one of several possible experiences people can have. Intimate relationships are another of several possible experiences. Solitude, withdrawal to a monastery, sex work, sexual performance in video productions, lifelong monogamous marriage, polygamous marriage, divorce, remarriage -- and so on are all possible experiences people can have. The all can (and are) given human value and meaning. There is no such thing as meaningless sex.

What works best? Depends on the individual in a given setting at a given time. There are no hard and fast rules or dogma which can specify what will work best for an individual. The individual has to work this out through experience.

Your problem is epistemological: You can not know what people really want, (especially if people themselves don't know). There isn't any theory that can predict what sort of sexual experience will fulfill any given individual. The best test is to ask them after they have had enough of a sample of life's possible offerings: like... after their 45th birthday.

Again, provided there's mutual consent — Sapientia

More than mere consent would be needed at this point. There is no legal framework at this point for allowing care providers engaging in explicitly sexual contact with clients.

I raised the topic as a philosophic issue, not as a 'best practices' discussion at a social work conference. A prosecutor would probably view aides engaging in sexual contact with clients in about the same light as they would view aides assisting clients in killing themselves. The trial would be short and the prison sentence would be long.

Besides, not every disabled person is crying out for sexual stimulation, not every disabled person would tolerate a caregiver shifting from physical care to an erotic service, lots of care givers would be unwilling to provide erotic services, poorly performed sexual assistance might well be much worse than nothing at all, and society is not ready to have a conversation about this just yet. It's a non-starter.

We seem to be binaries -- smart at times, and idiots at other times.

Bees don't 'conceptualize'. They don't think about the problems of beeing. The kind of consciousness they have is probably what you described: when stunned (or chilled, perhaps) they are not 'conscious'--not aware of anything. When they recover their normal condition, they become minimally aware of their activity and maybe their limited goals.

Scout bees fly around looking for flowers. When they come across flowers they fly back to the hive and transmit the distance, direction, and maybe something about the kind-of-flower they found. In order to do that they have to at least sustain a purpose on their own, and once fulfilled, remember the location, distance, direction, and type long enough to get back to the hive and report. That requires a comparatively small amount of consciousness--but it is vastly more than a hunk of fractured concrete has.

Whether the latest chip from Intel has enough complexity to register to itself that it is up and running, I don't know. Does an Intel chip "feel" a surge or lag in the power supply? Don't know. Bees had a long time to develop whatever consciousness it has; An Intel chip has been through maybe a decade or two of development; there are always more transistors per chip and faster operation speeds. I don't think Intel is spending a lot of money on trying to make it's chips conscious of being a part of a computer doing nothing better than visiting philosophy sites.

Some animals apparently have more complex circuitry than human brains possess. Bees aren't big enough to carry a big brain, so they developed denser, more complex circuitry than we have. I'm totally out on a limb here, but my guess is that smart birds like parrots and crows maybe have more complex circuitry than we do as well, since their brains are quite small -- especially for what some of them are able to do. We are big enough to afford the Intel approach -- just keep adding more neurons to keep up with demand.

Typical. My comments never get picked, but flawed comments like the one that you quoted do. — Sapientia

No kind deed goes uncriticized.

Since every person has the right to a normal life, we all have a right to sex.
— TheMadFool

That's nonsense, since it fails to account for at least two very important factors: capacity and consequence. Firstly, if someone is not capable of living a normal life, then it makes no sense to say that they have the right to live a normal life. — Sapientia

Current thinking about disabled people is that they have a right to live their lives as close to normal as possible. Students with mobility limitations, for instance, should not be sorted and then isolated into classrooms of only mobility limited students; blind students should attend class with sighted individuals (with appropriate accommodations). People in wheel chairs should be able to access any public building without unnecessary barriers. (Hence, retrofitting entrances with ramps, buildings with elevators, public toilets with wide doors, and 'least restrictive' rules about caring for disabled people.)

And secondly, if the cost of what it would take for someone to live a normal life outweighs the benefit, then they do not have such a right. Hence, with regards to the latter point, I'm against forcing people to have sex with those who are disabled in that regard as some sort of nightmarish notion of social assistance.

Well, I don't think anyone has proposed 'forcing people to have sex with those who are disabled" or with anybody else. For instance, if I were a care giver, I could without squeamishness, conduct erotic massage with a client (if such were deemed to be legal and appropriate -- which it probably wouldn't be in the US). I could do this because it's "a procedure". It's not "having sex", or "making love". It's 'intimate contact' but so is catheterizing a patient or carrying out a colonoscopy (hopefully it's more pleasant than either of those items).

Doctors performed s procedure something like this in the early 20th century when electrical vibrators were invented. It was discovered (probably seconds after being invented) that vibrators were terrific sexual stimulators. Female patients suffering from "hysteria" (nervousness, agitation) found this therapy extremely helpful. Naturally--they were experiencing regular orgasms, finally. This wasn't a customer doctors could keep, because vibrators soon appeared in the market place and women learned that they could accomplish wonders at home by themselves.

But back to you, "if the cost of what it would take for someone to live a normal life outweighs the benefit, then they do not have such a right."

There's a difference between having a right to do something and having the resources to do something. I have a right to go to the airport and buy a ticket to Paris this afternoon--first class. I can't afford it, but I have the right to do it. Students have a right to basic education -- they don't have a 'right' to attend school in marbled halls with fine woodwork, antique carpets, and original old masters on the wall. But they do have the right to attend school in a safe building, not some moldy, dilapidated wreck that is likely to collapse at any moment.

Disabled people have a right to sex -- if they can afford a $500 an hour out-call prostitute, and they can dial a phone, they're all set. If not, they'll have to make do with something less expensive.