You don't always make me so proud, but damn, that makes up for a lot.
"Better craftsmen" - dwaug, I'm totally plagiarizing that bad boy, right there.
08-28-06 7:17 • Intelligent Design
Calvin: I'm Christian, and I know that God created us perfect but we became sinful. What I'm wondering is, is our salvation made by accumulating “good works,” or by receiving “imputed righteousness” in response to our faith? How are we saved?
Who told you that you were lost and why did you believe them?
Calvin: Amazing grace, how sweet the sound...
What does lost mean? What does found mean? Can anyone but yourself really say that you are lost? Why would I believe myself? I've been wrong before.
Discussion of whether or not salvation is necessary is a completely different subject than my question on the manner in which we are saved.
Original sins, saving deities, your personal ineptitude...it's all a bunch of hogwash designed to keep those who prey on the weak well-fed.
You asked a question and I pointed you to the answer. Here it is again since you missed the first pass.
How are we saved?
By rejecting the silly notion that such nonsense is inherently needed in the first place.
There is no need to go around pretending to be pathetic. Even if you must believe in gods, at least believe in ones who are better craftsmen than that.
Loki: Dude *that* is some seriously good analogy, right there.
You don't always make me so proud, but damn, that makes up for a lot.
"Better craftsmen" - dwaug, I'm totally plagiarizing that bad boy, right there.
08-28-06 7:17 • Intelligent Design
Brainiac: I asked you once, "Why does a flower grow?" I said I think it's God that makes the flowers grow. But you answered, "Because it is advantageous to the plant, and both advantageous and esthetically pleasing to the particular bugs/animals which fertilize that plant."
Are you trying to relate "Intelligent design"?
So there is a cumulative intelligent design which has been affecting life ever since the advent of neurons and particularly brains, but how could there be any intelligent design before there was any intelligence?
08-27-06 8:17 • Protestant Missionary
Lisette: I'm a big believer in missionary work. I've been on a few missions and I want to go on more. I love experiencing every culture I can. And though there is so much suffering in this world, I would want to spread Christ's love.
If you "love experiencing every culture" why are you "spreading Christ's love" and destroying those cultures?
Lisette: The only reason cultures are being destroyed is because of commercialism and Westernizing. I went to Panama this summer, and the mission I worked with were actually giving free education to kids from 7-12 grade that normally wouldn't have gotten it. Missioning is westernizing in its most blatant form. That "free" education is westernizing.
I'm not questioning your intent, but missioning is a blight on humanity.
It is the purposeful extinguishing of their faiths by yours. No matter what other good you may try to justify it with, it is overt cultural warfare of the most patronizing and despicable kind.
I applaud your desire to help. But please help in a secular manner or convert to their faith.
Lisette: I think you're being to closed-minded to the phrase 'spreading Christ's love'. In my view, it means to share the love that Christ has shown me by talking to the outcasts, loving the unloved, and helping to spread hope among the hopeless.
I am closed-minded about "spreading Christ's love" because from the very beginning through the present it has been spread by the sword, and through the death, torture and extinction of anything which stands in its path. Entire cultures eradicated; their histories and libraries burned. Even now it is xtians and their Abrahamic ilk at the heart of most of the world's conflicts and genocides. Look at every group retarding the progress of humanity in America and you'll find xtians in their vanguard.
So yes, "spreading Christ's love" leaves a bad taste in my mouth, like old blood or a bad lie.
Later...
Lisette: I'm sorry if you've been and seen the world battered with Christian dogma in the most brutal way.
Good, stop already.
Lisette: But you've got to understand that that's not who I am or what I believe.
Most of a viper is nice to touch. I'm glad you happen to be part of the nice bit, but that doesn't change the nature of the beast.
Lisette: I really don't think [those who convert by the sword] were 'Christians' at all by killing and, on a side note for 'duty' and not just to give the good news, forcing people to convert to Christianity. It's just idiotic to think that that's what true Christians believe and live by.
They are as true xtians as you are, possibly truer depending on who you ask. They were made saints and heros of your religion and very few of them have been repudiated. You probably hold some of them in esteem.
Lisette: You can't say that those kids in Panama that I mentioned before would be better off without an education. They would be impoverished and have no hope for a stable job.
They weren't impoverished until people like you educated them about how poor they are. They actually were quite rich with an extensive knowledge of their immediate surroundings. They were far richer than the average American who spends the majority of his/her life as a slave to some pointless job. They had a very culturally and ecologically bountiful existence with copious amounts of something most westerners never have, free time.
But now their lands are stolen and they are poor and uneducated, but have the "love" of "christ."
Later...
Lisette: When I said I was sorry about your experience of Christianity, you said, "Good, stop already."
I commend you, Swarm, for proving my belief that you make silly, childish comments about sincere statements.
I am 100% sincere. If you really are sorry about all the evil done in the name of christ, please stop.
If you don't know how or why or where, take some time and learn these things.
The sugar coating which you represent is every bit as much of the problem as the vile Pat Robertsons of the world. Sure, it doesn't seem like that to you. You think you are just love and sunshine, helping people. But you contribute your part to the conquest and destruction of all that is not xtian.
Lisette: Who are these 'heroes' you speak of, may I ask?
I'm guessing you are a protestant, so we should probably start with Martin Luther.
But, Mother Teresa would be a good place to start also. A bit of actual research in to her activities might help you understand your own position. Search out the other side of her story.
Lisette: It sounds like you are concerned about what happened in the 1500's when the Spanish started to claim South and Central America. That wasn't actually missioning - the natives were overwhelmed by the sheer numbers of the Spanish and forced to obey their way of life.
Sheer numbers? 40 men here, 100 men there? There were no "sheer numbers" overwhelming the Aztecs or the Inca. They just had never developed the psychopathic skills of war of Europe, nor did they have the diseases to do most of the killing for them. For example when Cook "found" Hawaii it had an estimated 3,000,000 people. After he introduced small pox, a decade later there were maybe 100,000 people left.
This process still happens to this day. When you go "help" native peoples you bring your civilized diseases with you which they have no immunity to and the result can be devestating.
The same thing happens on the ideological and cultural level.
You aren't really helping them. You are turning them into lesser versions of yourself because you don't respect what they actually are.
Later...
Dylan: Swarm, you said, "If you really are sorry about all the evil done in the name of christ, please stop." I must say, your words seem a bit harsh, since they're directed towards an individual.
Torture, killing, genocide, the complete destruction of entire civilazations and all their knowledge set to the torch (all in the name of the love of god of course) is a subject which makes me a bit harsh. Unfortunately, xtianity is the individual xtians. There is no one else I can ask to stop.
Dylan: Of course, these people believe that their greatest mission is The Great Commission - so they're expected to do this and won't stop until Christianity fades out of our culture.
Which is why I asked her to please stop.
Later...
Lisette: I understand already that you hate the concept of missionaries. You don't have to reiterate it. You got the message through a while ago. Not yet, you've only heard the message, but it hasn't gotten through yet because you are busy thinking "I'm not that way."
Lisette: You make a lot of assumptions. I'll have you know, I'm not Protestant, I'm Methodist.
Methodist is a Protestant sect.
The main groups are Catholic, Greek and Russian Orthadox, Coptic and Protestant. Of them the Protestants are the most fractious and least able to get together, which is why there are a bajillion Protestant sects. For instance, there are several variations even on Methodist - Missouri Synod, etc. You'd think god could speak a bit more clearly and cut down on the confusion.
Lisette: When you say Martin Luther, you should really say Martin Luther King, Jr. You know...."I have a dream" and all?
I'm thinking of Martin Luther, which is why I said Martin Luther. Had I meant MLK, Jr. I would have said that.
For laughs read some of Martin Luther's actual writings about Jews. Your personal belief system was founded by a very vile and hateful man, just as Saul, another vile and hateful man, founded the original church. You might want to seriously consider which god you are worshiping based on these foundations and the bloody and deceitful history the xtian churches are famous for.
Lisette: The mission teachings I've been to highlight the fact that you shouldn't be ignorant about the people, and their lives, you talk to and look down on them. Quite the contrary, they tell us to treat them as human beings, just like we all are.
When you join their religion I'll at least believe you are serious in your desire to help.
If you were actually treating them as human beings, you wouldn't have a mission there and you wouldn't need to be told.
Lisette: Some people just want to be heard, you know?
I do know and that is why I'm speaking up, even though you find it uncomfortable.
Later...
Lisette: I don't see Methodists as Protestant. I don't see the church split into just Catholics and Protestants. I see many different sects, some much more different than others (hence Catholics, Mormons, etc.) but still Christian. While that's nice, it doesn't change the fact that certain sects trace their genesis to Martin Luther and are known as Protestant, and Methodist is one of those sects. Pretending Methodist is not Protestant seems a bit silly.
Lisette: What about the Christian Mystics?
What about them?
Lisette: They are far from Protestant doctrine.
Not the ones who are Protestant.
Lisette: Also, there are quite a few sects that are smack dab in the middle of Protestant and Catholic faith. What do you call them?
If they trace their origin to Martin Luther, then they are Protestant. BTW, Mormans, while technically Protestant, are actually just made up whole cloth so I would consider them seperately.
Lisette: These are questions that are answered differently with different people.
Only if you include wrong answers.
Lisette: So that's why I'd rather say 'Methodist' than 'Protestant'.
Its not either/or. It is Methodist and Protestant.
Lisette: Do you know the origins of Lutheranism/Protestant...ism anyway?
I'm familiar with the story.
Lisette: When you talk about the 'man who founded my belief system' you're making presumptions, once again, on my ' personal belief system'. I'm not presuming anything here. You have admitted to being Methodist.
Lisette: Actually, I've already studied plenty on Martin Luther, and I ---personally--- don't agree with him.
Au contrair, you agree enough to be a Protestant. You do realize that makes you apostate from the official original church of Christ. It's funny that you claim to disagree with Martin Luther, yet you are betting your soul that he, and not Saul, is right. That seems pretty strange to me.
Lisette: You said I should convert to their religion. But say I was Wiccan. Would you say the same thing if I wanted to go mission in, say, Afganistan?
Wiccans don't do crazy stuff like that.
Lisette: Would I have to turn Muslim just to have a heart for the women that are oppressed? You would have to be muslim before you could claim that you are not trying to obliterate their belief system to feed your own.
Lisette: Your presumptions are really unfounded and cynical if you believe that Christians aren't human as well.
It is the fact that you are human which makes me doubt the purity of your actions.
08-21-06 1:16 • Christian or Not
Jared: I met a girl who claimed she was both Christain and Wiccan. Is this possible? I say, you're either a Christian, or you're not. It's not a pick 'n mix kinda faith, like Unitarianism. You're either for 'im, or agin' 'em (Matt 12:30).
A beautiful description of why xtians have nothing to do with JC.
Like in so many passages, the bible is just contradictory. You picked the hateful passage. Matt 12:30 - "He that is not with me is against me."
I like to think a real xtian would pick the more forgiving passages Mark 9:40 or Luke 9:50 - "He that is not against me is for me."
And if we are having a quote feast, I say go with Brian and Matt 8:11 - "And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven."
I would say to hell with being a xtian. Be a good person and the rest will get sorted out if there is a god, and if there isn't you will still die having lived your life as a good person. What better reward could there be than actually being a good person?
08-21-06 8:12 • No Negative Karma
Colin: I can't understand why you don't like the term "negative karma." It describes the negativity which you should be trying to avoid. It's actually a skillfull means within the practice of virtue which is one of the three higher trainings leading to realization.
No virtue can come from avoiding "negativity". Aversion of this type is suffering and it will taint the effect. The threat of negativity is constant. Eventually it will get you, and while waiting you will worry. Only by seeing through the delusion that it ever existed outside your creation of it can you be truly free of it.
Colin: Negative behaviors are to be abandoned because they produce suffering.
Behaviors do not cause suffering. You cause suffering.
Colin: Whoa, you really are just talking semantics now.
No. Not at the moment. We are each expressing a differing view of how reality works. You have negative actions. I only have actions. You see actions that cause you to suffer. I see suffering as independent of any particular action. I am responsible for any suffering, not the action.
Colin: I mean, karma is just karma, but there are negative actions or mind states which are negative because they produce unpleasant or painful results.
Just because something is unpleasant or hurts, I don't have to go the extra step and make it "negative." Both unpleasant and hurts are equal with pleasant and pleasurable in their inherant emptiness. Choosing to like one over the other as positive or negative is grasping and aversion.
Colin: Negative karma is just seeing which actions cause us suffering and working to abandon those.
Can you see which brush stroke makes an artist? Actions are results, not causes. You must understand the causes, not the results, to end suffering.
Later...
Colin: The result of an action makes it negative in that it produces suffering or pain.
That is an assumption. There are many things which produce pain but are not negative. Meditating, for example.
Suffering leads to enlightenment. Negative has no real meaning beyond the prejudice of the moment.
Colin: His Holiness the Dalai Lama points out in his teachings on virtue that we must identify the 10 destructive actions in our lives and work to abandon those negative or pain producing actions and adopt their opposites, the 10 constructive actions. Using labels such as negative and positive, virtuous and nonvirtuous is necessary due to the state of our minds and these terms are used all throughout the teachings, at least in Tibetan Buddhism.
I see it as essential to determine which of our actions produce negative results so we can work on abandoning those actions.
You cannot divorce an action from its context. Abandoning a particular action based on a particular result is just aversion and does not lead to anything except the blind formation of useless rules. Understanding how an action in a context gives rise to a result is how you learn to employ the action wisely, or not, in the proper circumstances.
This dynamic understanding is not as easy as a laundry list of do's and don'ts, but it functions in the exceptions where laundry lists always fail. Sure a laundry list is handy in the very beginning as a guide, but you cannot move freely with such a crutch.
Colin: You said, "Both unpleasant and hurts are equal with pleasant and pleasurable in their inherant emptiness." That's true ultimately, but irrelevant until one has realized emptiness.
What is "true ultimately" is just as true now and just as relevant. Realizing emptiness doesn't change anything.
Colin: We still must work from our present dualistic state of mind.
This is an easy place to begin penetrating the dualism of negativity.
Later...
Colin: I think I see the problem. You seem to dislike the word 'negative'...
I neither like or dislike it. When appropriate to my intent, I use it just like any word. But simply because it has utility in conversation that doesn't mean it accurately describes anything inherant to the nature of karma.
It is easy to simplistically label suffering and pain as negative because they are unpleasant, but that is as incorrect as labeling enlightenment and pleasure as positive. Suffering and pain are just results of actions without any more inherant negativity than a rock landing on the ground. They just happen to be personal results, and so there is a great temptation to blow them out of proportion. That temptation should be released instead of pursued, since it removes one from what is actual about the experience into one's fantasies about it.
Colin: Negative actions are what the Buddha set out as actions to be avoided based on his realization of cause and effect.
What is "set out" is a "laundry list." It is great that he had a sound realization to base his laundry list on, so it is about as well-formed as one might hope for, but you will never develop your own realization as long as you depend on his and your own realization is the whole point. No matter how good his laundry list is, it cannot hold a candle to your own personal understanding.
Colin: I can gain confidence in his teachings by seeing them in action and gaining a deeper understanding of them.
Gain confidence in yourself by seeing yourself in action and gain your own deeper understanding so you can walk where the buddha never tread.
Colin: As you say, Ultimate Truth is true now, but until we reach a realization of emptiness we are not aware of it experientially. You are aware of it experientially. It is as it is even at this very second and how it is, is how you experience it.
The manner in which you fail to "realize" emptiness, is the subjective realization of what you have always experienced. It's there, you experience it, but you fail to realize that experience for what it truly is.
Colin: Until we have the realization, we must work from where we are.
There is nowhere else one may work from.
Colin: The first step in the practice of virtue is identifying what is virtuous and nonvirtuous.
That is part of the problem. "What" is not the source of how an act becomes virtuous or nonvirtuous. It is how an act sits within its context, both subjective and objective, that makes it virtuous or nonvirtuous. The laundry list will help keep you out of trouble (mostly), but it will not make you virtuous. At most it will make you a fairly harmless automota.
To practice virtue you must look beyond the "what" and seek to understand how actions fit and interact within their subjective and objective context. Understand those and what to do becomes immediately obvious.
Colin: In my view, your statements don't take into account our conventional situation within samsara.
If you meet a hungry man with a rock and a pile of nuts who is hitting his head with the rock, do you need to take into account his conventional situation within samsara or do you ask him to try opening one of the nuts instead?
Colin: Your actions of body, speech and mind are the vehicles to the generation of karma.
But they are not the source. Find the source.
Colin: For example if I engage in killing, the act of killing is a cause that will lead to suffering result in the future. However my act of killing is also a result of previous acts of killing in that I have created a tendency to engage in those actions again.
This is wrong. The act of killing is not the cause of that act. It is the result of the cause of killing. By and far, the vast majority of people who commit murder never do that again. The tendency created is not to engage in those actions again. Find the cause and the action is controlled.
08-20-06 12:12 • Certain Religion
Scotty: You'd think if one religion was right, it would be obvious. Why aren't there more people that believe in a certain religion?
Because as religions they are all equally invalid and indefensible so there is nothing to set one above the other except tradition, personal prejudice and organizational fanaticism.
Mark: It is false to say all religions are equally invalid. They could all be so only if they all said the same thing; they do not.
All religions make unverifiable claims about the "supernatural," such as its existence. Even buddhism, when it ventures into religion, is invalid and untrue. It does have one redeeming feature in that most variants acknowledge this, and so they try clue people in - eventually - that it's all just a bunch of metaphors and you shouldn't really believe in all those gods.
Unverifiable claims render their conclusions invalid. That is in part why they can never agree on anything. With invalid premises any conclusion is possible and equally indefensible (ref. the flying spagetti monster god - ramen).
I propose that any religion which was valid, true and defensible would need nothing more than that for universal acceptence by any one with a modicum of rationality or sanity.
Mark: You are naive to propose that.
That's what gives me my charm, but you will notice I qualified my statement with "a modicum of rationality or sanity."
Mark: Was the theory of phlogistin valid, true, and defensible? It was invalid and false yet needed no defense for most of the 19th century because only an idiot would question it.
Phlogistin predates actual science and was one of the first things disproved by science as it learned how to be what it is. Rational and sane doesn't mean you are never wrong. It means you check, verify and correct. God makes less sense than phlogistin did and is equally invalid, untrue and indefensible.
Mark: Two centuries from now, our scientific follies -- whatever they prove to be -- will be chuckled over too.
And the people chuckling over them will be scientists still. That's the nice thing about science. It expects to get stuff wrong. Science is all about identifying and reducing error. It doesn't need to be right, it just needs to eliminate enough error to be good enough for the moment.
Mark: Why would you assume it must work for religon?
Because valid, true and defensible is what a working set of conclusions are and I have a dream that one day men and women will give up hating and killing each other for their false religions and they will get down to hating and killing each other just because they enjoy it.
08-19-06 11:12 • Mid East as Ever
Lara: Look at all those people who were killed in Qana! This is horrible.
Adam: Yeah, but these numbers were greatly exaggerated to promote the cause of Lebanese suffering.
Josh: Israel exaggerates too, it claims that it killed 600 Hezbollah members. Hezbollah claims that only 80 were killed.
Bryan: Ha, in all the conflict that is coming out of the middle east, the Arabs have never lived up to one peace negotiation, ever...
There is nothing you can say about either side in the Middle East that doesn't equally apply to the side you favor.
Both sides are equally duplicious in their negotiating and pernicious towards each other.
There has been no real peace there, except the peace of the sword, be it Roman or Turk, and I forsee no lasting peace there any time soon.
If I were to believe in deities, I could think of no better proof that the Abrahamic faiths are the work of the deceiver than the unholy land and all the blood and lives spilt on that wasted piece of ground.
Bryan: If it was me as ruler, I would have use more force and faster, and not take into consideration the world view. Get rid of the Hiz and you get rid of the problem for now.
There is one and only one way to get rid of the "hiz" and that is to remove the need for them.
Using force is what creates the need.
Unfortunately they and Israel are in a negative self-reinforcing loop. Each of them is creating the need for the other's use of force, which creates their own need for force.
Part of the problem is the use of militaries for what are social and jurisprudence issues. As long as there is no justice, there can be no peace.
08-12-06 8:12 • Practicing Unconditional Love and Free Will
Dan: I've seen you talk about learning to "practice" unconditional love. How do you practice it?
That is what you learn.
Dan: Isn't it either "there" or not?
Even when something is already there, if you don't know how to recognize it for what it is and employ it skillfully in your life, it is lost to you.
Dan: If you "practice" or "strive" for it, aren't you just trying to manipulate? Aren't you just fighting against yourself?
Most Americans breathe poorly, in short, shallow breaths using only a fraction of their lung capacity. If you learn to breathe well, deeply and fully, it requires some effort and practice. The capacity is already there, but it is not utilized and realizing that capacity is what you are doing.
The result is improved blood flow and oxygenation, improved mood and stamina, improved digestion, etc.
Practicing unconditional love is the same.
Dan: I have heard many others say "just be still" "give up the search" etc...
That is still practicing. Try to "just be still" for more than a few seconds. It can take years of practice.
Dan: So... how do we recognize the unconditional love here, right now?
Practice, see what works and keep doing that, see what doesn't work and stop doing that.
Aqua: Swarm, correct me if I'm wrong, but from what you're saying it seems conditions have to be met, to be able to love unconditionally...if there are conditions how can it be labeled unconditional?
Welcome to the facts of life for a human. Most people get breathing and death automatically. Everything else you have to learn and practice to get good at.
There are conditions to everything since people have a conditioned existence. For example you have to exist before you can love. You need an environment. You need another. You need certain mental, emotional and sensory capacities. Those are some of the myriad of necessary conditions for love to come into being.
Unconditional means you aren't imposing any additional, unnecessary, even arbitrary conditions, such as: you have to like my cooking, you can't fool around, we have to get married, we have to have children, you have to work, you have to keep the house a certain way, you can't die.
You cannot escape the nature of your existence or the nature of reality. You can escape making it harder than it already is.
Not making it other than it is, is unconditional love.
Aqua: You said, "You cannot escape the nature of your existence or the nature of reality. You can escape making it harder than it already is." Well, some can and some can't.
I would say some can and some don't.
Aqua: AND if we can't escape the nature of our existence and it is our will to do so, then how can we say we possess FREE will? By understanding that free will doesn't mean you are without limits. It just means that within the constraints of your capacity you can choose your actions.
We have free will and we are subject to chance and to determinism. They are all three intertwined and inseparable from each other, but each has its areas where it holds the most sway. The macro world works mainly by determinism, aka Newtonian physics. The micro world works mainly by probability, aka Quantum physics. The mental realm works mainly by free will.
Brian: A Victimless Crime, also known as Consensual Crime, is any activity which does not physically harm a person or property, or to which was in fact consented, and is currently illegal if based on statutory laws. People are losing the right to vote over meaningless, victimless crimes. I say, we should end laws on victimless crimes! So you've rethunk your stance on nudity?
Brian: No, what I said about nudity before still stands. Nudity is offensive to some, that's why it's illegal. Victimless crimes are about control - I'm talking about laws like where they make you wear a seat belt. That's a personal choice. Its not about morals but about human rights. So if you think nudity is so great than come up to Canada and try it when it's -20.
Harassing me about being nude is no different than persecuting any other victimless crime. If I want to go to Canada, and when it is -20, come inside and take my pants off when I take my coat off, why do you care? Why are you trying to control how I dress?
The one day a year when it is nice outside in Canada, why can't I frolic nude in the park with my family?
You are right, it is a human rights issue and you aren't yet on board.
Brian: True freedom Swarm is the fact that one cannot use there political or social powers to control others because one does not wish to wear a seat belt. That is just an insurance law, the less they pay the more they make. People still die wearing seat belts.
A lot less people die wearing seat belts and the ones that live have far fewer and less severe injuries.
Brian: The reason I object to public nudity, and to that guy wearing a diaper in the gay parade, is credibility. Because people are not about to reason with someone who is fucking silly.
I am, and what makes you think the guy in the diaper is looking for a reasonable discussion in the middle of a parade?
You are offering spurious objections because you think it is wrong but aren't honest enough to just say so.
Brian: There is such a thing as appropriate. You don't wear a bathing suit to the office or if your a welder. Got it!!! It's not against the law to wear a bathing suit to the office or if you're a welder and yet people still manage to not do it. Got it?!!
If it is not against the law to go naked, people still won't do it to the office or if you are a welder or if its -20. Got it?!!
Your objections are spurious. People could wear bathing suits all over, but they don't. If you stop making it illegal to be nude, it will just not be illegal to be nude. People everywhere won't all suddenly stop ever wearing clothes.
Brian: If that's how you feel, why wear clothes at all?
Cause I like to. I like to go nude too.
Brian: I just seem to understand that one must create a sense of credibility with any type of law or legislation.
Not every moment in life is about creating a sense of credibility with any type of law or legislation.
Brian: Back in the late 60s and early 70s we went nude at rock festivals, thousands of us did. The women were not attacked or raped...
Women have always been attacked and raped, even at hippy rock fests. But they were attacked less. They are attacked and raped even more in Islamic countries where they are covered head to foot. Why? Because rape has nothing to do with clothes and everything to do with disempowerment. Nude women are raped less because a nude woman is powerful.
Brian: ...TRY TO DO THAT TODAY SWARM.
Haven't you been listening? I do it today. I camp, wander about, eat and dance nude and seminude with others in various states of dress and undress. Not nudist "colonies," just people who actually don't care if you are nude or not nude or part way in between. And not limited to young hard bodies either. I just think it shouldn't be illegal or restricted.
When did you get so disillusioned and cynical?
Brian: Nudity can offend.
Anything can offend. You are offending right now, so what?
Brian: Besides, no society ever went truly nude.
You are attempting to imply that decriminalizing nudity is the same as requiring every one to be nude all the time.
Decriminalizing nudity means if you want to go nude you can just as you can wear clothes if you wish. No one is saying clothes are a bad idea. They are just saying there is nothing wrong with being nude if you wish.
Also it is patently obvious that many societies did, and do go nude when they wish, at least until infected with xtian morality.
We didn't evolve with three-piece Armani power suits you know. Clothes are an invention.
The Greeks considered nudity important...a mark of civilization which distinguished them from barbarians afraid of their own bodies.
National Geographic is full of societies where nudity is no big deal.
Set your mind free and your bottom too.
Brian: If a parasite crawled up you doniker I like to see you wash it out of you.
More spurious arguments. People get parasites with their clothes on all the time. In fact clothes promote some parasites.
If your abode and the areas you frequent are so parasite-ridden you fear to undress, I suggest cleaning them. People living nude in the bush and jungle seem to be doing OK.
Brian: If you want nudity, you can go to a strip bar.
No thanks, I don't go to strip bars. They hold no attraction for me whatsoever. What would be the point? I've got the best woman there is right here and there is no one at a strip bar I could do anything with anyway. The whole thing is pointless and they treat the women there in a manner I find offensive. The three times friends have dragged me to one, I was just plain bored and that was when I was single. "Pretend sexy" is uninteresting and has nothing to do with being nude, which is fun and not about sex.
Brian: Everyone including the customers should be nude. Whats wrong with that.
Works for me.
Brian: Or you can prance nude in front of the classroom as a teacher and listen to the children laugh. Children laughing is a good thing and what do clothes have to do with teaching? I'll take a good nude teacher over a well-dressed poor one any day.
Brian: I love to see someone weld when there nude.
What's with you and wanting to weld nude? You aren't going to see spacewalks nude either, so what?
Brian: What you do in your own home and with others (adults) in a reasonable area where privacy is ensured, then do what you want.
No.
Brian: My point is that there are so many useless laws that bind the hands of people who really did not create a victim.
And laws against nudity are just such laws.
Brian: At the nudist colony near here, lots of people allowed there children to go nude also. It was accepted, until one was found sexually abused and it stopped.
Show me a clothed society where children are not molested and I'll grant your point. Otherwise it is a spurious argument. You are implying that being nude caused the molestation and that clothes could have prevented it, but that is not true.
Read more in the Archives.