Jan 132014
 

whenisrapeOKHey check it out! My first troll! I know you’re not supposed to feed them, but it’s my first one! When I get tired I can just ban him anyway.

Here we go!

From The Property Model of Marriage

>Marriage is defined widely by different people but come to the common understanding that it is representative to the union of the two bodies as one. […] If you are married, you, in a sense, are that other person. Do you own your foot? Then you own your significant other and vise versa.

No, that’s silly talk with no actual basis in reality. No matter what kind of mystical mumbo-jumbo you recite, after the ceremony you still have two separate people in two separate bodies with different ideas, dispositions, desires, and emotions. Her body is not yours, you can’t use it as if it was (and vice versa). Generally invoking this language is just an excuse for the asshole in the relationship to force dominance on the person he’s victimizing. (Not that it’s always a “he”. But usually.)

>So if you’re married to someone and you don’t want to walk around fucking everything in sight, as an extension of yourself, through your unity of marriage, you wouldn’t want your significant other walking around fucking everything in sight

Most people can understand the difference between being open to sexual relationships with more than one single person forever, and “fucking everything in sight.” I’m sorry if you’re suffering some form of social-induced brain damage that prevents you from grasping such a simple concept. I, for one, have no problem with that, and wouldn’t want to restrict my SO from that either.

Also you’re again showing this disturbing trend of calling someone else an extension of yourself. You don’t seem to have grasped what personhood is.

And finally, fucking everything in sight might do you some good. You should give it a try. ;)

 > There is also the real risk of disease and ailments due to such a promiscuous nature that should legitimately concern any rational mind that is concerned about it’s own well being and safety ,and by extension, through marriage, the well being and safety of their significant other

Oh. I see our education system has failed you. :( There are protections nowadays, you should read up on them.

> it sounds like your main problem with this concept is the idea of human ownership as I’m sure it’s on par with slavery to you

Yes. I will take the valiant(!) and radical(!!) stance of suggesting that owning humans is bad!

 

From Finding excuses to hate

>How interesting it is that you feel the “funamentalists” should be educated by a book written by man.

I’m not sure how to address this? I didn’t say that, I didn’t quote any books, and do you know of any books written by something other than man? In short, what are you talking about? In fact, almost everything stated in this comment makes no sense at all. Did you even read the post you’re replying to? I’m assuming you’re drunk. This is less fun when the troll is drunk. /sigh

> Is it wrong to point out that you have shit on your dick?

WOAH!!! What the fuck are you doing in my bedroom, and why are you looking at my dick?? I did NOT invite you in here! What the hell is wrong with you people, do you not understand the concept of CONSENT? You get access to my genitals IF and ONLY IF I allow it! This is tied up with your inability to understand that you can’t own people, isn’t it? Jesus, someone seriously fucked up when they were raising you. To reiterate: you don’t own people. Ever. They are not objects. And that is why you get their consent.

This is why no sane people leave their children alone near you.

 

And finally from Jesus loves you thiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiis much!

>As for your assumption that there are no good real-world reasons to hate gays… well… you’re not thinking outside your own box well enough then. I could hate a gay for their hair cut…

Yeah, that’s not a good reason. That’s exactly the point I was making.

 

On reflection, I’m disappointed in the quality of this troll. Started out interesting, but rapidly degenerated into incoherency. I understand the desire to get blasted and troll a bit, I’ve done my share of it in the past. :) But c’mon, at least hold on to enough sobriety to give us a show. Troll earlier in the evening, while you’ve got the wicked buzz going, and save the black-out sessions for Xbox Live or YouTube.

  13 Responses to “I haz a troll! (or: Understanding personhood and consent are deeply linked)”

  1. Alright, so the responses to the troll were moderately amusing, but I can’t get over the picture you posted along with this post. Are there some details on this poll, how rigorous was it. If there’s anything to it the results are more than a little bit disturbing.

    • I know, it’s completely fucked up! I originally saw it on PZ’s blog. The original study was done in the 70s and it wasn’t a Yes/No question, it was a 5-point scale (more at FearUs.org). Which begs the question, who the fuck thinks rape is sometimes OK on ANY scale?? Seriously, I can’t imagine putting down anything other than “0” (or whatever the lowest number was) for all those questions. Even if we adjust for the Lizardman Constant we still have a percentage of people that is MORE THAN ZERO. WTF?

      I keep having to remind myself – “They’re not evil mutants, they’re not evil mutants. They just come from a completely fucked up culture. They’re not evil mutants.” But it’s hard to make my brain believe it. ><

  2. Sorry, I do understand the concept of person-hood, I don’t think though, that you realize that marriage is consensual ownership and symbolic of the unity between the two people. I mean you act like symbolism doesn’t exist in the real world. But then again marriage is a lot of things to a lot of different people so though you may want to have the idea of a more openly sexual marriage (and not be symbolicly one with the person you love), that is your marriage and your business, not mine. I’m not saying you can’t have an open marriage and that an open marriage is wrong or anything of that sort. All I’m saying is that there is a legitimate concern of risk when having an open marriage and though there may be treatments and preventative measures the risks are still there. The concern for your significant other contracting something should be as relevant to you as yourself potentially contracting something. But again, it’s your own business if you want to fuck an AIDS ridden monkey or whatever (kinda debatable though since it’s spreading a disease to others).
    As for the thing about fundamentalists getting an education in human psychology, do you plan on them watching a movie? or reading a book? maybe a website? I was just finding your hypocrisy on the matter amusing that the bible thumpers rely upon a book and that you yourself rely on a “book” both written by man that assumes the higher authority. I mean do you want authority to dictate your human behavior or do you want to make up your own mind? My fault though for assuming your form of education included books.
    As for me telling you “you have shit on your dick” is about on par with saying you have food on your face (just more vulgar and shocking). Is it wrong to point out the obvious?
    The point i’m making with the good reason is that a good reason is subjective. You can rationalize murder, rape, and just about anything with enough “good reasons”. It might not be a good reason for you if you’re the victim, but it could be a good reason to the victimizer. In other words, its a fairly pointless argument of opinions.
    My “trolling” is probably not the best quality as I was not intending to troll (it’s a blog you can speak your mind freely?) I mean a good trolling would have included a lot more name calling, I’d insult your intelligence, I’d say you’re on drugs or something and that a rational mind couldn’t possibly conclude what you’re opinions are concluding here. I’d also probably go on about how shitty your blog is and bug you about when the next podcast is coming out (get to work already you lazy bum). Maybe shit talk your looks as well just to mess with your ego as well as maybe shit talk the quality of your podcasts. DDoS your website maybe? But, of course, none of that happened so I suppose I wasn’t really trolling you, just blog’in on your blog. But this is GOOD for you right? you have controversy on your blog and people are being entertained by the conversation. You should work on your approach to how you treat others with different opinions than your own, but hey, it’s your blog, you can ban me when you want and be as rude as you want and yadda yadda… any-who, wasn’t drunk or anything, just a bad case of insomnia. :3
    I’m curious though as to your idea of property and ownership and why a person could not be owned when we live in a world where just that very thing happens. I suppose you can’t own a dog either or a highly intelligent AI? Is it their sentience that prevents ownership? if so how does that even relate to owning something or possession? Are you simply stating that they “shouldn’t” be owned or “can’t” be owned? I digress, i would go on with more questions but I’ve other things that are coming up I need to take care of.
    Thanks for the response! :D

    • > I don’t think though, that you realize that marriage is consensual ownership

      You are correct, I don’t realize that. Very much like I don’t realize that jews are dirty subhumans that are working to destroy our civilization. You can make your marriage whatever crazy power trip you like, feel free to stop making assertions about what marriage “is”.

      >I’m not saying you can’t have an open marriage and that an open marriage is wrong or anything of that sort.

      You know when you read a sentence like that, the next sentence is going to be an admission that this sentence is a lie.

      > All I’m saying is

      There we go!

      > All I’m saying is that there is a legitimate concern of risk when having an open marriage and though there may be treatments and preventative measures the risks are still there.

      I’m stunned. Thank goodness you pointed this out to me. I would have never known otherwise. THANK YOU, YOU’VE SAVED MY LIFE!

      > it’s your own business if you want to fuck an AIDS ridden monkey or whatever

      Just like it’s your own business if you want to rape children or whatever. Not that I’m implying you’re a child rapist or anything.

      >As for me telling you “you have shit on your dick” is about on par with saying you have food on your face (just more vulgar and shocking). Is it wrong to point out the obvious?

      You can helpfully point out I have food on my face if you see food on my face. I suppose you could helpfully point out I have shit on my dick if you could in fact see my dick. I did not invite you into my bedroom, so you are forcing yourself into places you haven’t been given consent to be. Either that or you’re saying I don’t know enough about personal hygiene to wash my dick, which is about the equivalent of me asking you if it’s wrong to point out that you still have shit dribbling down your legs, and vomit all down the front of your shirt, from your black-out bender last night. God, you are disgusting and filthy, I literally want to gag right now thinking about you.

      >As for the thing about fundamentalists getting an education in human psychology […] My fault though for assuming your form of education included books.

      I’m sorry, maybe I’m confused here, but are you equating “reading the bible” with any form of education? Is that why you thought my admonition to get an education was the equivalent of suggesting someone read a book? Do you know what education IS? Are you aware of how humans accumulate knowledge? Because it has precious little to do with faith in a higher authority, or reading words on a page.

      > The point i’m making with the good reason is that a good reason is subjective. You can rationalize murder, rape, and just about anything with enough “good reasons”. It might not be a good reason for you if you’re the victim, but it could be a good reason to the victimizer. In other words, its a fairly pointless argument of opinions.

      I think this is the only real point of substance you’ve made. It’s a common stopping point in most people’s moral journey once they outgrow the old religious-commandment views. I encourage you to continue your thinking and reading about ethics. You will fairly quickly progress past this and start to understand the difference between good reasons and bad reasons. And yes, some things are grey, and too much of real world results boil down to power. But once you get to the point of realizing what can differentiate good from bad, life becomes less of a clusterfuck. I personally would recommend the work of Alonzo Fyfe, but I tend to prefer counterculture figures. There’s plenty of more mainstream work in the area as well. Don’t stop now, you’ve only taken a few steps, and this is a particularly bad place to stop!

      > My “trolling” is probably not the best quality as I was not intending to troll

      Snipped most of the rest for brevity, but to give you your due – ok, it wasn’t awful. As you point out, it could have been eye-rolling bad. It did have a few moments. :)

      And no, controversy is not what makes a blog, so it’s not like you’re doing me any favors. Let’s not kid ourselves.

      > any-who, wasn’t drunk or anything, just a bad case of insomnia. :3

      Having had insomnia myself in the past, I find this plausible, but not any better of an excuse. Also, I prefer my interpretation. :)

      > I’m curious though as to your idea of property and ownership and why a person could not be owned when we live in a world where just that very thing happens.

      You’re right, it’s not impossible or anything. It is, however, immoral. My use of language (hopefully) reflects that position.

      • Marriage – a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage

        Unity – 1. The state or quality of being one; singleness.

        “stop making assertions about what marriage “is””
        Not my fault you have a problem with the English definition of marriage and unity. Perhaps we should just start redefining every word to our whims and desires. Not sure why you also demonize marriage as a thing other than equality between the those involved.

        “I’m stunned. Thank goodness you pointed this out to me. I would have never known otherwise. THANK YOU, YOU’VE SAVED MY LIFE!”
        I know it can be shocking at first to be concerned about the safety and well being of yourself and your loved one. Certainly more prevalent than the whims of wanton desire. No thanks are necessary for the enlightenment. :3 Hopefully, though, you do recognize that as a legitimate concern that most couples would have that is offsetting towards the idea of a swinger relationship. I’m sure there are other concerns as well such as people with trust issues or fear of losing the one they love. I’m also pretty sure that sex with women releases a chemical in their brains to “Love” the one they’re with (being fucked by), or at least set a disposition towards.

        “Just like it’s your own business if you want to rape children or whatever. Not that I’m implying you’re a child rapist or anything.”
        Yeah, that’s precisely why I added that it’s debatable if it’s your own business or not.

        ” Either that or you’re saying I don’t know enough about personal hygiene to wash my dick, which is about the equivalent of me asking you if it’s wrong to point out that you still have shit dribbling down your legs, and vomit all down the front of your shirt, from your black-out bender last night. God, you are disgusting and filthy, I literally want to gag right now thinking about you.”
        The relation to pointing out a disgusting act correlates to fundamentalists pointing out that god is disgusted by homosexual acts. Perhaps the homosexual is not fully aware of that, or has a contradictory belief that the fundamentalist is simply trying to interject upon. So though you may know about personal hygiene, the fundamentalist believes in a soul which is becoming filthy by the act, and you are unaware your soul is being corrupted. Also, thank you for being disgusted, but the question was there just to show the correlation (vaguely I suppose) that I probably should have explained further sooner. I can be kind of shock and awe sometimes with my examples, my apologies.

        “I think this is the only real point of substance you’ve made.”
        Well thank you for dismissing my arguments so casually. :/

        “I encourage you to continue your thinking and reading about ethics. You will fairly quickly progress past this and start to understand the difference between good reasons and bad reasons. And yes, some things are grey, and too much of real world results boil down to power. But once you get to the point of realizing what can differentiate good from bad, life becomes less of a clusterfuck.”
        Ugh, Ethics, I remember my college courses and being the only one in the room that seemed to have a concept of ethics and study. I understand that good can differentiate from bad through my standards or the standards I choose to uphold upon whatever concept it’s concerned with. Just because more people think or believe a right/good thing does make it a good thing, They are simply all delusional to their “opinionated facts”. For me such a thing as good and bad do not exist outside of opinion and the subjective nature of its terminology. Though it is a useful tool for will and wit. Unfortunately truth is not an observational constant without a opinionated standard to build upon and no one knows the real truth of reality. We simply assume and quantify as best as possible to our own/each other’s standards. So when i see you say no good reason I typically take out the subjective nature of the theory to find out the validity of the statement. There are Reasons, so therefore there can be good ones and bad ones based on opinions, which are hopefully based on fact, but don’t need to be to qualify as that’s another imposed and opinionated standard. Not to say that you can’t have an opinion though… I’m sorry you think life is a bit of a cluster fuck, and in a way it is, but just because you can’t see or comprehend the whole picture with your observational senses, doesn’t mean it is. But then again you are arguing with a person who believes we’re all insane.

        ” I personally would recommend the work of Alonzo Fyfe, but I tend to prefer counterculture figures. There’s plenty of more mainstream work in the area as well. Don’t stop now, you’ve only taken a few steps, and this is a particularly bad place to stop!”
        I’ll look him up and see what standard he would like to impose upon morality or the concept of. To imply I stopped whilst I’m actively talking to you about it just doesn’t seem well thought out or presumptuous. I assure you, though, our conversation here will not stop me from thinking.

        “Snipped most of the rest for brevity, but to give you your due – ok, it wasn’t awful. As you point out, it could have been eye-rolling bad. It did have a few moments. :)”
        Yeah, unfortunately it looks like my actual troll comment, about gays using their genitals for other than reproduction is a deranged act and way of thinking that falls in line with the definition for insanity, didn’t get posted, but that was me just dickin around anyways. To be honest I was like, “I’m trolling? More like I’m getting trolled!”

        “And no, controversy is not what makes a blog, so it’s not like you’re doing me any favors. Let’s not kid ourselves.”
        No, but controversy breeds entertainment and people tend to prefer to be entertained.

        “Having had insomnia myself in the past, I find this plausible, but not any better of an excuse. Also, I prefer my interpretation. :)”
        Sure it is, your interpretation implies an illogical self-destructive behavior whilst insomnia is merely the inability to sleep, something I had little control over without maybe the use of mind altering substances.

        “You’re right, it’s not impossible or anything. It is, however, immoral. My use of language (hopefully) reflects that position.”
        Consensual ownership is immoral? It would be immoral to deny them the belief that they could give themselves to someone else. After all, I own my body and mind, I can give it freely to whoever I choose, your imposition of your version of morality upon my own personal beliefs and practices is simply on parallel with a fundamentalist imposing their moral beliefs upon homosexuals. Its probably the only thing we’re talking about that should make you feel sick. But I believe the problem here comes from your understanding of what marriage is defined as to society vs your opinion of marriage and its definition. It seems you take it literally, shunning the symbolic nature of it and the validity of it upheld by law. Not to say that the law is the supreme authority on the matter, I would assume it’s the people becoming married who would have the authority over their own marriage and theirs alone. Government has got to get its hooks into everything though… What surprises me about it all is the fact that it is a rite or ritual which should fall into a religious practice or belief and therefor fall under the protections of the first amendment barring the state from setting laws in favor or against a particular group or practice. You’ll have to explain to me, though, how consensual ownership via marriage is immoral. Especially since immorality kind of depends upon an established moral principles and marriage is widely accepted as moral and is a common practice. Well… you don’t HAVE to you explain, but it sure has been a fun chat so far. :)

      • > Not my fault you have a problem with the English definition of marriage and unity.

        Grasping for the dictionary is the most boring form of argument, and IMHO means that the argument is functionally over. I don’t care about arguing definitions, any more than I care about how much Jesus loves. I’m interested in real-world effects/results. I don’t bother engaging definitional disputes.

        > Hopefully, though, you do recognize that as a legitimate concern that most couples would have that is offsetting towards the idea of a swinger relationship

        Being safe is actually a pretty big deal for sex-positive people. This “legitimate concern” of yours is simply concern-trolling, and we’ve seen it often enough to know it for what it is. It is, in fact, one of the signs that you have no idea what you’re talking about. ;)

        > The relation to pointing out a disgusting act

        I’m gonna stop you here. This reply was actually fairly well written out, and it seems you put some effort into it, which is why I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt, which I hadn’t in previous replies.
        Trying to associate emotions of disgust and revulsion with your opponent is not a thing that is allowed in civilized debate. That is not a way to discuss things, nor even to consider matters. It is literally the opening attack when your next step is going to be violence, particularly violence of the extermination variety. Disgust has been used to dehumanize every violently suppressed group, from the dirty jews to the monkey-fucking africans to the shit-loving gays. The Hutus called the Tutsis “cockroaches” when inciting the Rwandan genocide. Our soldiers are told not to offer their left-hand to an Arab when shaking hands, because Arabs wipe their asses with their left hands. And of course those dirty sand-niggers get shit all over their hands and leave it there, har har, but srsly, gross!
        So when you try to bring disgust into play, I suddenly don’t give a fuck about courtesy or proper rules of debate. I will strongly imply that you are a rapist, and that no decent member of our society should trust you. We certainly should never leave vulnerable loved ones anywhere near you. And your growing inability to type coherently can be easily construed as an alcohol problem, which allows me to bring bodily fluids like vomit and shit into the picture and smear you with them. Not something I would normally do, but hey, you are the one who declared total war, not me.
        If you want to carry on in reasonable discourse, as most of your latest reply seems to be, you can take your disgust-casting and shove it up your ass. Otherwise we can go back to sniping and seeing who can out-troll the other.

        > the fundamentalist believes in a soul

        And once they have any evidence for such a thing, or how sex affects that thing, they can contribute to the discussion. I won’t be holding my breath.

        > For me such a thing as good and bad do not exist outside of opinion and the subjective nature of its terminology

        Let’s stop using those words. Do you agree that there are things which generally lead to greater health, prosperity, happiness, and so forth? Things which people have reasons to encourage? And things which do the opposite as well, which people have reasons to discourage?

        > There are Reasons, so therefore there can be good ones and bad ones based on opinions, which are hopefully based on fact, but don’t need to be

        I hold that they do need to be, and that’s what distinguishes them. A “good” reason for promoting a policy will be one that in the real world, in actual fact leads to greater health/prosperity/happiness/things-that-people-have-reason-to-promote. A “bad” reason is one that is divorced from that. So a good reason to punish someone would be if that punishment deters the amount of theft in society. If causing harm to someone does not result in greater health/prosperity/happiness then it is a bad reason (such as “because I don’t like their haircut”).

        > To be honest I was like, “I’m trolling? More like I’m getting trolled!”

        :) See my earlier comment. It probably makes me a worse person, but I often find it hard to resist fighting fire with fire.

        > Consensual ownership is immoral?

        No, you’re equivocating. You had been talking about slavery (“I’m curious though as to your idea of property and ownership and why a person could not be owned when we live in a world where just that very thing happens.”) As for consensual play… I’m not into BDSM myself, but I fully support my sex-positive brothers and sisters doing whatever consensual stuff they like.

        > Government has got to get its hooks into everything though… What surprises me about it all is the fact that it is a rite or ritual which should fall into a religious practice or belief and therefor fall under the protections of the first amendment barring the state from setting laws in favor or against a particular group or practice.

        Totally agree!

        > You’ll have to explain to me, though, how consensual ownership via marriage is immoral.

        If it’s actually consensual, with known boundaries and either party can stop it at any time via a safe-word or something similar, it isn’t. But that often isn’t the case. Up until recently the chattel-property status of the woman in a marriage was enshrined in law. It still is in many countries. I don’t believe anyone who says they’re arguing for a healthy consensual ownership framework, rather than one imposed by force of law upon women. You don’t need to enforce the former, so anyone arguing for enforcement or restriction is arguing for the latter.

  3. Admin note: same IP address as JonB. Sock-puppetry is a no-no. Bad troll!
    wow bro i would expect a much more civil discourse from an alleged proponent of rationality such as yourself.

    what did you think that it meant to be “given in marriage” ? as far as i was aware it is when you give yourselves to each other as a voluntary agreement, often recognized by law and sometimes by diety. you own each other like you own your organs or limbs. you share a bank account and can file legal forms on behalf of the other, because the law recognizes that you are one and the same person. i am honestly and legitimately interested in understanding the definition you are wrongly attaching to the word that is causing such great confusion.

    as for the rest of your hilarious and entertaining exchange, if you had any valid points to put forth you probably shouldn’t have immediately resorted to name calling, because it has discredited you alot more than your troll in this case. it also could have been a good idea to avoid a hollow attempt to appeal to the authority of psychology, which is pseudo-scientific garbage on the best day, and harmful propaganda on the worst. lastly, i think the troll is correct in their citing textbook definitions to easily and instantly refute your entire misguided position on marriage. whatever you are imagining in your mind when you are using that word is not the same thing as anyone else, and i think a large part of your problem lately has been an absolute refusal to clarify terms and get to the bottom of the disagreement.

  4. “Grasping for the dictionary is the most boring form of argument, and IMHO means that the argument is functionally over. I don’t care about arguing definitions, any more than I care about how much Jesus loves. I’m interested in real-world effects/results. I don’t bother engaging definitional disputes.”
    Is that why in any formal debate, the common practice is to outline your definitions first so that there is a clear understanding of the communications and arguments? Are you claiming that definitions have no merit in the real world? How are you to know what I’m talking about if you have your own version of a word which doesn’t correlate at all to my definition to the word? Have you ever been in an actual debate? Debate.org go look it up. To be honest, I kind of was expecting a person who hosts a series about rationality to be… well… more rational.

    “Being safe is actually a pretty big deal for sex-positive people. This “legitimate concern” of yours is simply concern-trolling, and we’ve seen it often enough to know it for what it is. It is, in fact, one of the signs that you have no idea what you’re talking about. ;)”
    No, you just seemed upset in your post when you were talking about the people’s reactions to more open relationships and it simply made me think you were not keeping an open mind about it. So I started this conversation with you to maybe convey some simple legitimate concerns that could be the reason towards a traditionalist marriage’s disposition towards an open marriage and through those reasonings and understandings might help you in quelling that anger.

    “Trying to associate emotions of disgust and revulsion with your opponent is not a thing that is allowed in civilized debate.”
    No, but in an opinionated debate between a homosexual and a fundamentalist emotions do hold a strong ground. If we were doing a civilized debate here you would not be consistently insulting me nor be complaining about my use of definitions which are upheld by society.

    “Trying to associate emotions of disgust and revulsion with your opponent is not a thing that is allowed in civilized debate. That is not a way to discuss things, nor even to consider matters. It is literally the opening attack when your next step is going to be violence, particularly violence of the extermination variety.Disgust has been used to dehumanize every violently suppressed group, from the dirty jews to the monkey-fucking africans to the shit-loving gays.”
    You’ve built yourself a very nice slippery-slop argument here. So you feeling sick to the stomach about me must mean you’re planning some kind of genocide as you want to murder and possibly rape me or something to that effect…. ya… that makes sense… (sarcasm)

    “So when you try to bring disgust into play, I suddenly don’t give a fuck about courtesy or proper rules of debate.”
    I’m not sure you cared about that to begin with.

    “If you want to carry on in reasonable discourse, as most of your latest reply seems to be, you can take your disgust-casting and shove it up your ass. Otherwise we can go back to sniping and seeing who can out-troll the other.”
    I concede you are indeed the victor in the troll wars. It was a one sided victory, as I was never intending to troll to begin with, I hope you feel proud. I do want to point out that it is not “my” disgust-casting as I’m merely playing devil’s advocate in that argument to rationalize their (fundamentalist) perception of reality. Giving literal answers to your questions, though they were likely hypothetical ones to begin with.

    “And once they have any evidence for such a thing, or how sex affects that thing, they can contribute to the discussion. I won’t be holding my breath.”
    Much like the rationalist viewing the baby eaters, they (fundamentalists) are compelled to stop and minimize that behavior due to their own biases and beliefs.

    ” Do you agree that there are things which generally lead to greater health, prosperity, happiness, and so forth? Things which people have reasons to encourage? And things which do the opposite as well, which people have reasons to discourage?”
    I’m sorry, I can’t really answer that effectively, without some kind of standard or definition to build a rational argument upon. Perhaps you should define what “greater” is. My greater is not your greater. My good is not your good. These vague and subjective terms are like ether and will never be one and the same between two people on their scales of greater. All you are asking for here is my opinion if I feel a disposition towards a thing. Like I’ve said though, you can have an opinion, you’re just insane for thinking it’s not opinionated fact. And Like I’ve stated before Reasons exist so good and bad reasons can exist. I know it’s a hard concept to get past that you’re a biased individual but i’m sure that one day you’ll take those next steps. Don’t stop now!

    “I hold that they do need to be, and that’s what distinguishes them. A “good” reason for promoting a policy will be one that in the real world, in actual fact leads to greater health/prosperity/happiness/things-that-people-have-reason-to-promote. A “bad” reason is one that is divorced from that. So a good reason to punish someone would be if that punishment deters the amount of theft in society. If causing harm to someone does not result in greater health/prosperity/happiness then it is a bad reason (such as “because I don’t like their haircut”).”
    So a “Good” reason would include a fact that relates to the betterment of a person. So a “good” reason is that homosexuals shouldn’t dip their dicks into a shit filled ass because of potential health issues and that harassing and bullying are justifiable by your definition as it deters the bad behavior. And a “Bad” reason would be simply based off opinion with no fact, Like, there are no good reasons to hate gays, as it divorses itself from facts.

    “) See my earlier comment. It probably makes me a worse person, but I often find it hard to resist fighting fire with fire.”
    You’re seeing fire where none exists, so you’re basically just starting a bunch of fires and i’m sitting here letting you, laughing hysterically in an insane fashion (in my mind at least).

    “No, you’re equivocating. You had been talking about slavery (“I’m curious though as to your idea of property and ownership and why a person could not be owned when we live in a world where just that very thing happens.”) As for consensual play… I’m not into BDSM myself, but I fully support my sex-positive brothers and sisters doing whatever consensual stuff they like.”
    I’m not really equivocating when you admitted to viewing the property model of marriage as being on par to slavery due to the human ownership nature of it. But if that’s the case, then perhaps I should list my definitions first to avoid the vague language and misleading terminology.

    “Totally agree!”
    I assume we agree.

    “If it’s actually consensual, with known boundaries and either party can stop it at any time via a safe-word or something similar, it isn’t. But that often isn’t the case.”
    So the safe-word for marriage I guess is “I want a divorce”.

    “I don’t believe anyone who says they’re arguing for a healthy consensual ownership framework, rather than one imposed by force of law upon women. You don’t need to enforce the former, so anyone arguing for enforcement or restriction is arguing for the latter.”
    This statement is a little confusing but I’m taking away from it that you’re saying that people who claim they’re arguing for marriage being a consensual ownership framework are actually arguing for the imposed force of law upon woman as a sort of slave concubine? I don’t know, I’m not really sure if that’s what you’re saying or not so I’ll just leave it at that.

    • Dude, I guess you don’t realize this, but as the admin on my site I can see the IP address of commenters. Sock-puppeting is a big no-no. Doing it again will get you banned. Honestly, it’s such a serious transgression that I should just ban you now. It’s impossible to take one seriously after they’ve been found to be sock-puppeting, it destroys any credibility or good-faith they might have had. The only reason I’m not is that I still want to reply to your last message, and I feel it would be unfair to write a reply and then shut you up. I’m not sure why I care about fairness to an exposed sock-puppetter,obviously you don’t care about that sort of thing. Maybe this is a mistake, but hell… /shrug. It’s not an irrecoverable one.

      Being “given in marriage” meant that the former owner of a woman (her father) gave her to her new owner (her husband).

      I’m happy to use words as they are commonly used. If you ever feel that a word is being misused, please feel free to ask me to taboo that word, and I will use an equivalent phrase that gets to the heart of the matter rather than the word. I will not get bogged down in a fight over which dictionary definition of a word is the best or the appropriate one, I’d rather strike that word entirely. In fact that may be a problem right now, so let’s taboo “marriage”.

      I have a problem with anyone asserting ownership of anyone else, and feel it shouldn’t be allowed. (I grant that children are a grey zone but we aren’t talking about that right now)
      I think people who wish to legally mingle their property and power-of-attorney are dumb to do so, but obviously they disagree with me on that, and they’re free to make their own mistakes.
      I don’t think we should grant all sorts of legal and tax incentives to people who do mingle their property in order to encourage them to do so. It’s like offering tax incentives to use heroin. But obviously I’ve been out-voted in that regard, so all I can do is sigh and complain on the internet.

      Does that clarify things?

      > So I started this conversation with you to maybe convey some simple legitimate concerns that could be the reason towards a traditionalist marriage’s disposition towards an open marriage and through those reasonings and understandings might help you in quelling that anger.

      HAH! no, you did not. Please go back and re-read your original post. You were having fun trolling. :)
      You’ll notice in my original post I was frustrated/angry at people who want to restrict OTHER PEOPLE’S relationships. I did not say “Those bastards shouldn’t be allowed to marry if they won’t sleep with other people after they’re married!” I said that people who make comments like “Why bother getting married if you’re stilling going to sleep with others” are idiots who are trying to force their idea of “marriage is about my property rights to someone else’s genitalia” onto those of us who want our marriages to be about love and mutual respect rather than genitalia-ownership.

      > If we were doing a civilized debate here

      Yes, this coming from the sock-puppeteer. /eyeroll We were never having a civilized debate. I again refer you to your initial comments. We started this as mutual trolling. Almost a troll-marriage, if you will. ;)

      > I concede you are indeed the victor in the troll wars.

      Huzzah!! Victory via concession!! /endzone dance

      > they (fundamentalists) are compelled to stop and minimize that behavior due to their own biases and beliefs.

      Yeah. It’s a sad thing that society works by might rather than right. :/ I’m glad we’re at least winning this one, via education and transparency.

      > Perhaps you should define what “greater” is. My greater is not your greater.

      Huh. I’m actually not sure how to proceed. I’m pretty sure you’re just fucking with me now. Are you actually claiming that measures of health, prosperity, and happiness are as subjective as the enjoyment of a piece of music, and there’s no objective way to call one biological state as being “more healthy” than another?

      > I know it’s a hard concept to get past that you’re a biased individual but i’m sure that one day you’ll take those next steps. Don’t stop now!

      :) Nicely done! Touche.

      > into a shit filled ass

      A. That’s strike two. And that’s not even counting the puppetree, which is in a league of its own
      B. I’ve been told that while sometimes shit can get on a dick, if it happens more than once in a blue moon you are Doing It Wrong
      C. Heterosexual couples have more anal sex than gay couples do, via sheer weight of numbers. Only 5% of men are gay, and 30% of those don’t even engage in anal sex. With 95% of couples being hetero couples, hetero anal is a bigger proportion of all anal sex than gay anal is.

      > I’m not really equivocating when you admitted to viewing the property model of marriage as being on par to slavery due to the human ownership nature of it.

      You’re equivocating between the property model of marriage (which is on par with slavery) and modern marriage (which is a co-mingling of financial assets and some legal obligations). You also brought in Dom-Sub relationships for some reason — which I guess you saw as being similar to the property model of marriage, except they aren’t because they are entirely voluntary and not enforceable by law — and equivocated with those as well.

      > This statement is a little confusing but I’m taking away from it that you’re saying that people who claim they’re arguing for marriage being a consensual ownership framework are actually arguing for the imposed force of law upon woman as a sort of slave concubine?

      OK, I gotta take a step back here. Are you aware of what marriage used to be like? Do you even know what the property model of marriage is? A woman used to have no legal assets – all property belonged to the man (look up Coverture). A married woman used to be unable to sign any contracts or legal documents because all legal power belonged to her husband and he could simply void any agreement she’d entered into that he didn’t agree with. Women couldn’t get divorced. A woman often couldn’t testify in court, or if she did and a man contradicted her it was assumed her word was worthless. Even into the 1970s marital rape was not a crime. It wasn’t until *1993* that marital rape was finally made illegal in all 50 of the United States. That’s probably in your own lifetime. It’s easily within mine.

      That’s the property model of marriage. That’s what’s on the other side of this argument.

      • “Dude, I guess you don’t realize this, but as the admin on my site I can see the IP address of commenters. Sock-puppeting is a big no-no. Doing it again will get you banned. Honestly, it’s such a serious transgression that I should just ban you now. It’s impossible to take one seriously after they’ve been found to be sock-puppeting, it destroys any credibility or good-faith they might have had. The only reason I’m not is that I still want to reply to your last message, and I feel it would be unfair to write a reply and then shut you up. I’m not sure why I care about fairness to an exposed sock-puppetter,obviously you don’t care about that sort of thing. Maybe this is a mistake, but hell… /shrug. It’s not an irrecoverable one.”

        You must be talking about my roommate’s comment. He was rather entertained by our conversation and is a fan of your podcast as well and wanted to add his two cents I guess. There’s no reason for me to puppet an opinion. Nice assumption though, I can see why you would think so if you continually consider me a troll to begin with regardless of my argument to the contrary, that i’m not. It will likely happen again because I believe in free speech and will not tell my roommate to withhold his opinions at your discretion. Though it might not happen again cause he’s not a big fan of your blog, just the podcast. Who knows, you might just ban us both.

        “I’m happy to use words as they are commonly used. If you ever feel that a word is being misused, please feel free to ask me to taboo that word, and I will use an equivalent phrase that gets to the heart of the matter rather than the word. I will not get bogged down in a fight over which dictionary definition of a word is the best or the appropriate one, I’d rather strike that word entirely. In fact that may be a problem right now, so let’s taboo “marriage”.”

        So you prefer a thesaurus to a dictionary, vague word association rather than hard definition? Words which are similar but have different meanings in place of one another? Not really my way of doing things when i’m trying to have clear communication of my understanding of the words. Typically the definition is there so that you can understand my use of the word, not my imposed definition of it, just the way i use the word and not be confused as to what I mean when I say it by being vague and replacing it with another word that may have multiple uses/definitions. I really don’t understand your problem with defining words for clearer communication. But hey, I would use a thesaurus too if I needed to twist words around to my favor.

        “Huh. I’m actually not sure how to proceed. I’m pretty sure you’re just fucking with me now. Are you actually claiming that measures of health, prosperity, and happiness are as subjective as the enjoyment of a piece of music, and there’s no objective way to call one biological state as being “more healthy” than another?”

        A little from column A and a little from column B. You’re talking about your distaste for definition and I’m mearly poking fun at the concept whilst pointing out the subjective nature of greater and the lack of a defined standard within your argument for “greater” Health, etc.

        “A. That’s strike two. And that’s not even counting the puppetree, which is in a league of its own
        B. I’ve been told that while sometimes shit can get on a dick, if it happens more than once in a blue moon you are Doing It Wrong
        C. Heterosexual couples have more anal sex than gay couples do, via sheer weight of numbers. Only 5% of men are gay, and 30% of those don’t even engage in anal sex. With 95% of couples being hetero couples, hetero anal is a bigger proportion of all anal sex than gay anal is.”

        489.73% of all statistics are made up on the spot. Peer reviewed journal or it didn’t happen.

        “You also brought in Dom-Sub relationships for some reason”

        I didn’t bring that up, I thought you brought that up. I’m just as confused as you on that matter. ???

        Any-who, this conversation seems to be devolving and was pretty fun while it lasted. Remember, no real offense was ever intended, and try not to hate me for having roommates that speak their mind. I think you’re right that I was defining your property model of marriage as something else and I’d have to say that fault is your own for the lack of definition provided. :3 (see that? that’s about my limit of trolling, pointing out stupid shit)

  5. E:
    Reading through this has been like reading a Vulcan try to communicate with a normal person. I wanted to go into more detailed descriptions, but didn’t want to insult your troll.
    Keep up the good work!

  6. Your style is very unique compared to other folks I’ve read stuff from. I appreciate you for posting when you have the opportunity, Guess I’ll just book mark this page.|

Leave a Reply to Marxman at Amazon Cancel reply

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

(required)

(required)

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.