Let's go, bitches.

In starting this thread, I realize I am going to get flamed to no end. I will be accused of being a Christian fundamentalist whacko, "vanilla", and apparently according to fullcircle, dishonest with myself.

I'll start off with reposting the post in fullcircle's thread which he deemed would derail the thread. Hopefully he'll actually address it, now:

quote:

The only true perverts are the ones who repress their genuine feelings and convinve themselves to believe a nonproblematic delusion instead.



Or there are the people that take something that is meant to be made of love and turn it into something of hate, sadism, violence, degredation, hedonism, carnal indulgence, and every other god-damned evil. Do you even know what your genuine feelings are? How are you so sure?

quote:

Before you bring up kiddie rapists or something, that would be a pure straw man argument, as harming other people is the issue with them, not their sexual proclivities.



How exactly is it that they harm them? I'm not saying they don't, I'm just setting up a further argument. What is it the child molestors/rapists do that harms the child?

quote:There are only two types of people.



That is an incredible lie. There are billions of types of people.

quote:Emotionally honest ones, and those who are emotional liars (albeit their deception is intended for THEMSELVES mainly, more than others).



How are you supposed to know which one you are? Could you be lying to yourself right now? What if everything you believe is a fabrication? Aren't we all liars, to some point? So then, there really aren't emotionally honest people, and we're all liars.

quote:Believe me, and I'm confident enough about this that I'd let you swing a ballpeen hammer into my nuts if I were proved wrong: if everyone was emotionally honest with themselves, the world would be overwhelmingly filled with people who are deemed "perverted" by the modernday consensus.



If people were completely emotionally honest with themselves, they would not be people. At least, not the kind of people you see today. I don't think it's even possible to be completely emotionally honest, or to be completely honest at all.

At the core of honesty is truth, at the core of truth is reality.

How do you define reality?

I'm going to hit the breaks for a minute and take a leaf out of Voltaire's book.

Let's define exactly what we are arguing here.

I have stated two positions:

1) As long as someone doesn't hurt anyone else, their sexual identity is nobody elses business.

2) The majority of people repress sexual impulses and interests, because they are socially unacceptable or unacceptable to the morality they were taught by their parents.

What exactly is your position, what do you believe yourself.

Then we will be able to argue about where we disagree in a useful manner.

You seem to lack distinction between fantasy and reality.

There are lots of reasons why someone would have a fetish for something, its all about how they were brought up, the types of things they viewed when growing up, other social taboos of the time and such.

A lot of the common ones such as facials and such come from the need to feed the ego, to be dominant, of course there are those who feel the need to be dominated over.

I don't think that fetishes are a morality issue however and as FC said, as long as it isn't harming someone else (unless they consented to harm of course) it isn't really anyone else's business what they get up to in their private time

quote:I'm going to hit the breaks for a minute and take a leaf out of Voltaire's book.



The brakes or the breaks? Don't hits usually break?

quote:Let's define exactly what we are arguing here.



Damn good idea.

quote:1) As long as someone doesn't hurt anyone else, their sexual identity is nobody elses business.



What defines "hurt", and why exactly is it nobody else's buisness? If someone gets off on killing innocent little girls, are you going to want that person as a baby sitter?

quote:2) The majority of people repress sexual impulses and interests, because they are socially unacceptable or unacceptable to the morality they were taught by their parents.



I'm not arguing that. I agree with that; repressing sexual desires leads to perversion. However, not recognizing that perversion is wrong is what I'm saying is the problem.

quote:What exactly is your position, what do you believe yourself.



I believe in grammar!

No, but really this is what I believe:

1) Sex, at it's emotional core (not talking about basic biology because that's not completely relevant), is about love.

2) Perversions, fetishes, and kinks are a result of psychological trauma, and once these traumas are dealt with there will be no fetishes.

3) Claiming perversions are a good, healthy thing is a fallacy and a lie, generated only to protect the self from thinking that you're actually doing something wrong. I mean, if something feels good it has to be good, right? Wrong.

Life is not made up of a lot of little isolated parts, everything is connected to eachother and everything has influence on everything else. Your sexual fetishes will leak out into the rest of your life - I know this personally.

I used to be incredibly sadistic, a direct result of my fucked up child hood. I didn't recieve love, I recieved abuse and thusly I was out for revenge, whether I knew it or not. My innocence was destroyed, and so I had to destroy innocence to make it right. When I was six years old I had a dream where I was in a barn, and there were hundreds of cute little chickens. I squeezed each and every one of their little heads off, right in front of their mothers. It felt good.

Sometimes I would randomly get extremely angry and feel the need to destroy, kill, maim, rape, set the entire world on fire and annihilate the fucking universe with my cock. My irrational anger started to get psychotic, if I hadn't restrained myself I probably would have killed my sister and countless innocent animals. Even now I can still feel these urges in the back of my mind, but I can rest easy knowing that I am no longer capable of hurting someone like that.

I realized my problem and was able to get over it. Now I'm all about love and forgiveness, no matter who it is or what happens. I know you're going to say, "that doesn't matter, not everyone is like you." You may think that, but I've seen it countless times. I know ancedotes mean nothing in debates, but I'm hoping this will reach some people in a manner greater than this debate.

quote:Then we will be able to argue about where we disagree in a useful manner.



Agreed.

quote:You seem to lack distinction between fantasy and reality.



What is fantasy and what is reality? Both influence each other to a very large degree.

quote:There are lots of reasons why someone would have a fetish for something, its all about how they were brought up, the types of things they viewed when growing up, other social taboos of the time and such.



Of course there are, nothing has a single reason for anything.

quote:A lot of the common ones such as facials and such come from the need to feed the ego, to be dominant, of course there are those who feel the need to be dominated over.



Agreed. Now, is this healthy?

quote:I don't think that fetishes are a morality issue however



Everything is a morality issue. If your morality doesn't apply to everything, it applies to nothing at all.

quote:and as FC said, as long as it isn't harming someone else (unless they consented to harm of course) it isn't really anyone else's business what they get up to in their private time



Once again, what defines harm?



[This message has been edited by Rizzo in a box (edited 12-14-2006).]

In the words of Chef:

"I wouldn't touch that with a 40 foot pole"

...I'm staying out of this one.

As long as there's consent, then i say go for it... kiddie rapists, on the other hand, do not have conset and can seriously damage a person emotionally leaving long-term scars

quote:In the words of Chef:

"I wouldn't touch that with a 40 foot pole"

...I'm staying out of this one.



Why? Afraid your veiws won't stand up? Or are you afraid of the conclusions it might bring?

quote:As long as there's consent, then i say go for it...



What determines consent? The words, "Okay"? Do legal definitions really grasp the extreme complexity of emotions that is the issue of the morality of perversions?

quote:kiddie rapists, on the other hand, do not have conset



And if they do? What if the parent says it okay? What if the kid says it's okay? What if society says it's okay?

Is it still wrong?

quote:and can seriously damage a person emotionally leaving long-term scars



As can many fetishes, whether people realize it or not.

Ok i already said this in Fullcirle's post, but ill put it here too.

Ideas of "harm" and "reality" and "depravety" and all that jazz have two core essences. The basis of them (Which is very basic and is only an extremely vague overview), which is generated by society.

The main part of any issue/term/whatever is the personal interpretation, rationalisation and real;ity each individual lives in. This wil dictate what they view under all these different labels.

Agre with me or not, thats what i think. I know it sounds like i am saying things like paedophilia and rape and shit is O.K, in my eyes they arent but obviously in other peoples they are rationalisations to achieve what the individucal wants, which is the basis of modern day society.

As with the morality of sexual desires, meh morality is another one of those grey areas like harm, so its hard for me to comment.I should "in theory" be able to give a definition of morality according to the social sciences, after all its what i study, but personall yi dont agree with the definition so i forget it.

I myself would call it immoral to cause someone direct and severe physical or emotional ( im talking like breakdown emotional here) harm just to achieve sexual satisfaction. Thats my personal view.

However, as society progresses, things shift and change. What was socially acceptable 100 years ago, like Opium usage, isnt now and other things like Sodomy are now seen as somewhat everyday, so my views will change as society evolves.

Alright Rizzo, well here is how I propose we resolve our supposed disagreements.

While reading your post, all I saw were a bunch of opinions stated as if they were fact.

Therefore I challenge you to provide a logically argued account of the positions you have made here:

quote:1) Sex, at it's emotional core (not talking about basic biology because that's not completely relevant), is about love.

2) Perversions, fetishes, and kinks are a result of psychological trauma, and once these traumas are dealt with there will be no fetishes.

3) Claiming perversions are a good, healthy thing is a fallacy and a lie, generated only to protect the self from thinking that you're actually doing something wrong. I mean, if something feels good it has to be good, right? Wrong.



And I'll just ignore the other varied instances where you implied a prima facie validity to some central statement, because I'd like to settle this fairly quickly.

If you agree to do this, I'll do the same with the positions I made.

Afterwards we can critique each others logic.

Btw you did know that I'm a philosopher in training when you picked this e-fight with me right?

quote:Ok i already said this in Fullcirle's post, but ill put it here too.



Good.

quote:Ideas of "harm" and "reality" and "depravety" and all that jazz have two core essences.



What the hell? What do you mean by essence?

quote:The basis of them (Which is very basic and is only an extremely vague overview), which is generated by society.



I have no idea what you're talking about, but let me assure you, none of my ideas are generated by society. I think you'll find that society is the one generating the ideals that go directly against mine. There are very few people that actually believe and practice what I'm talking about; all these so called "christian conservatives" are a bunch of homosexuals, pedophiles, chauvanists, degenerate and dopamine driven animals. Society is leading us to moral decay, and there are very few people that even care.

quote:The main part of any issue/term/whatever is the personal interpretation, rationalisation and real;ity each individual lives in.



So reality is defined by each individual, basically creating a universe where there is no true reality, and thusly nothing can be right or wrong. I take it you're going the relativity path?

quote:This wil dictate what they view under all these different labels.



Of course it will.

quote:Agre with me or not, thats what i think.



Obviously. What was the point of this statement?

quote: I know it sounds like i am saying things like paedophilia and rape and shit is O.K, in my eyes they arent but obviously in other peoples they are rationalisations to achieve what the individucal wants, which is the basis of modern day society.



Exactly my point. This is sick and wrong on more levels than can properly be expressed.

quote:As with the morality of sexual desires, meh morality is another one of those grey areas like harm, so its hard for me to comment.



So is there even morality in your eyes? Or just hedonism?

quote:I should "in theory" be able to give a definition of morality according to the social sciences, after all its what i study, but personall yi dont agree with the definition so i forget it.



You don't have your own theory?

quote:I myself would call it immoral to cause someone direct and severe physical or emotional ( im talking like breakdown emotional here) harm just to achieve sexual satisfaction. Thats my personal view.



What is direct? What is indirect? Who are you to determine what is severe?

quote:However, as society progresses, things shift and change. What was socially acceptable 100 years ago, like Opium usage, isnt now and other things like Sodomy are now seen as somewhat everyday, so my views will change as society evolves.



Society determines what right?

Well, if this is true, then nothing is ever truly right or wrong, we're just going along with whatever everyone else is doing. Are you arguing for brainless conformity to society's standards in place or morality?

quote:Alright Rizzo, well here is how I propose we resolve our supposed disagreements.

While reading your post, all I saw were a bunch of opinions stated as if they were fact.



All personal opinions are facts to that person. In fact(heh), all facts are merely opinions.

quote:Therefore I challenge you to provide a logically argued account of the positions you have made here:



Do you want me to provide so-called scientific "proof"? Because I will, if that's what you want. I'm pretty damn good at it.

quote:

And I'll just ignore the other varied instances where you implied a prima facie validity to some central statement, because I'd like to settle this fairly quickly.



Why do you want to settle this quickly? And please show me these instances.

quote:If you agree to do this, I'll do the same with the positions I made.

Afterwards we can critique each others logic.



Fair enough.

quote:Btw you did know that I'm a philosopher in training when you picked this e-fight with me right?



All philosophers are in training. I've been arguing shit like this since I was knee-high to a trout man, don't go tooting your own horn. I may not study every god damn dead fucker that ever uttered an opinion that was praised by the masses, or the intellectual elite, and I may not know obscure latin terms, but by Gods I've been trying to figure out the world since I could put a blue square in the blue square hole.

Anyone else get extremely annoyed with how Rizzo attempts to argue with people?

By taking everything anyone says out of context, lacking the ability to form one thought. Not only avoiding the agreed uponed points, but ignoring the questions directed at him?

Guy is a retard. As long as you are not harming anyone else, there is no reason that your sexual adventures should be deemed "wrong" by anyone else.

If I like to rub black and white rabbits on my balls while watching teletubbies, I will. Who the fuck are you to tell me what I should enjoy sexually?

And to me it is enviromental the way your fetishes are brought about. I have noticed in my childhood possible sources of things that now turn me on.

No, im not arguing for brainless conformity, thats the last thing i want.

What im getting at is that, weather you like it or not Rizzo there is some societal creation to your views, although the bulk of any view may run against it.

Reality is a onceptual thing. My reality,although probably similar to the majority of other peoples, could be the totl opposite to someone elses perception of reality. The same thing goes with morality, its all a personal thing. Yes it does mean technically that right and wrong do not exist, but right and wrong only existed when society eons ago decided what was deemed as acceptable and unacceptable behaviour. AS much as i may dislike Hobbes, Locks, Smith and Durkheim, they kinda had a decent thing going when they talked about a collective consiousness (Durkheim) and the Leviathan (Hobbes).

AS for my pointless 'paint-by-numbers' issues, im told to write essyas in the mindset that an idiot who has no grasp of what im saying is reading them, so whenever i i wrie something i tend to do that.

My stating its my opinion just covers my back against the whole "youre stating conjecture like its fact" arguement.

As for direct and indirect harm ad the issue of severity, i believe my answer as to conceptions of relaity can lnk with this as well, hence i am assuming no authority over what these terms mean or whats covered by them other than in my own reality. Also, just as a sie note, im glad you brought up those issues, instead of the obvious "what is physical and what is emotional?" stance, it makes a change.

quote:Originally posted by CarbonB:



If I like to rub black and white rabbits on my balls while watching teletubbies, I will. Who the fuck are you to tell me what I should enjoy sexually?





Do they even show the teletubbies on TV anymore?

quote:Anyone else get extremely annoyed with how Rizzo attempts to argue with people?



If you get so annoyed, don't read my threads.

quote:By taking everything anyone says out of context,



They're not out of context.

quote:lacking the ability to form one thought.



Posts are made up of more than one thought, if you didn't realize.

quote:Not only avoiding the agreed uponed points, but ignoring the questions directed at him?



What are you talking about?

quote:Guy is a retard.



derrrrr

quote:As long as you are not harming anyone else, there is no reason that your sexual adventures should be deemed "wrong" by anyone else.



Again, what constitutes harm?

quote:If I like to rub black and white rabbits on my balls while watching teletubbies, I will. Who the fuck are you to tell me what I should enjoy sexually?



Who are you to tell me anything? Who are we to do anything at all?

quote:And to me it is enviromental the way your fetishes are brought about. I have noticed in my childhood possible sources of things that now turn me on.

Agreed. That's what I've been saying.

[This message has been edited by Rizzo in a box (edited 12-14-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Rizzo in a box:

All personal opinions are facts to that person. In fact(heh), all facts are merely opinions.

I don't even know where to begin with that.

Just no.

quote:All philosophers are in training.

Yes. Point being?

quote: I've been arguing shit like this since I was knee-high to a trout man, don't go tooting your own horn.

a) It was a statement of fact.

b) You may well have had an inquisitive mind since that time, and argued over what can be said about the nature of reality and it's component structures.

That's aslo the common perception of what philosophy is. And what you said seems to be implying that you are some kind of philosopher too.

Well the common perception is wrong, for a start. As for your other point... human biology, particularly neurology, is one of my biggest interests, I'm not going to detail my capacities in this area but suffice to say I'm well informed - I am not however a doctor by any stretch of the imagination. I'm a curious dilettante, I'd be a fool to think otherwise.

quote:I may not study every god damn dead fucker that ever uttered an opinion that was praised by the masses, or the intellectual elite, and I may not know obscure latin terms, but by Gods I've been trying to figure out the world since I could put a blue square in the blue square hole.[/B]

You're giving me rope to hang you here.

How about we just stick to the alleged purpose of this thread?



[This message has been edited by fullcircle (edited 12-14-2006).]

quote:No, im not arguing for brainless conformity, thats the last thing i want.



Good to know.

quote:What im getting at is that, weather you like it or not Rizzo there is some societal creation to your views, although the bulk of any view may run against it.



This is irrelevant, as any views that may be influenced by society are minimal and are present in all people.

quote:Reality is a onceptual thing. My reality,although probably similar to the majority of other peoples, could be the totl opposite to someone elses perception of reality. The same thing goes with morality, its all a personal thing. Yes it does mean technically that right and wrong do not exist, but right and wrong only existed when society eons ago decided what was deemed as acceptable and unacceptable behaviour. AS much as i may dislike Hobbes, Locks, Smith and Durkheim, they kinda had a decent thing going when they talked about a collective consiousness (Durkheim) and the Leviathan (Hobbes).



So reality and morality do not exist, except with how society deems it. Man is now God.

Who controls society?

quote:

AS for my pointless 'paint-by-numbers' issues, im told to write essyas in the mindset that an idiot who has no grasp of what im saying is reading them, so whenever i i wrie something i tend to do that.



Is that why your spelling and grammar is so atrocious?

quote:My stating its my opinion just covers my back against the whole "youre stating conjecture like its fact" arguement.



I'm not going to argue that as all "facts" are merely widely agreed upon opinions.

quote:As for direct and indirect harm ad the issue of severity, i believe my answer as to conceptions of relaity can lnk with this as well, hence i am assuming no authority over what these terms mean or whats covered by them other than in my own reality. Also, just as a sie note, im glad you brought up those issues, instead of the obvious "what is physical and what is emotional?" stance, it makes a change.



So harm can basically be whatever you'd like it to be. Is that what you're saying?

Just had a thought Rizzo (and a 1:30 n hte morning thas pretty impressive for me). You said that you believe the "environment" is to blame for fetishes, please explain to me what you mean by the "environment" and how it creates the fetises.

Do you need harm defined for you? Since you want to question the meaning of every word, I'll lay out what harm means to me. Then you can lay out what harms means to you.

Harm: To physically or psychologically damage an non-consenting individual. If someone consents to a fight, I may hurt them, but they caused themselves harm by prior consent of possible damage.

Meaning to rape a non-consenting female is harm, to rape a consenting female is not harm. Although it really wouldn't be rape. To molest a non-consenting child is harm. Now, to molest a child period to me is going to cause harm advertently or inadvertently. So that is why child molestation is out of the question.

However even that point can be argued. Anything can be argued to death, what are you really trying to prove here Rizzo?

It seems as if you just like to hear yourself talk.

quote:I don't even know where to begin with that.

Just no.



Have I stumped Mr. E-Philosopher already? You've basically presented a circular logic argument, or an appeal to authority. Are facts considered facts because they are inherently facts(circular logic), or because they are widely regarded as facts(appeal to authority)?

quote:Yes. Point being?



You were being redundant.

quote:a) It was a statement of fact.



Once again, all facts are merely opinions.

quote:b) You may well have had an inquisitive mind since that time, and argued over what can be said about the nature of reality and it's component structures.



Your sentence is misleading, you start with "You may well have had", which implies that you are going to then say, "but this is irrelevant", or something along those lines. Basically what I'm saying, you're not making a point there, so I don't see what you're saying.

quote:That's aslo the common perception of what philosophy is.



Appeal to authority.

quote:And what you said seems to be implying that you are some kind of philosopher too.



I am philosophizing, so therefore I am a philosopher. What more do you need?

quote:Well the common perception is wrong, for a start.



Back this up.

quote:As for your other point... human biology, particularly neurology, is one of my biggest interests, I'm not going to detail my capacities in this area but suffice to say I'm well informed



As am I, to some degree at least. I'm not going to say "I'm well informed", because I'm not. I do possess knowledge, though. Especially when it comes to the chemical interactions.

quote:I am not however a doctor by any stretch of the imagination. I'm a curious dilettante, I'd be a fool to think otherwise.



All men are.

quote:You're giving me rope to hang you here.



Then hang me.

quote:

How about we just stick to the alleged purpose of this thread?



Everything is related, it is impossible to discuss anything without discussing everything. It is my thread, so I'm choosing the topic of discussion. The morality of fetishes and kinks is merely what has spurred it.

quote:Just had a thought Rizzo (and a 1:30 n hte morning thas pretty impressive for me). You said that you believe the "environment" is to blame for fetishes, please explain to me what you mean by the "environment" and how it creates the fetises.



Enviroment = the entirety of everything. Life, the universe, the rocks on the ground, your computer, your mother, everything.

quote:Do you need harm defined for you?



I need everything defined, for I assume very little.

quote:Since you want to question the meaning of every word, I'll lay out what harm means to me. Then you can lay out what harms means to you.



If everyone has a different defintion of everything than the word becomes meaningless. What is the point of a currency when everyone places a different value on it?

quote:Harm: To physically or psychologically damage an non-consenting individual. If someone consents to a fight, I may hurt them, but they caused themselves harm by prior consent of possible damage.



What is your definition of consent?

And do you really believe that just because someone wants to be harmed, that no harm is done?

Remember, we're not discussing legality, we are discussing morality.

quote:Meaning to rape a non-consenting female is harm, to rape a consenting female is not harm.



You can not have consensual rape. How do you know that it does not cause psychological damage, anyway? Just because someone consents doesn't mean there is no harm done. I may consent to cutting myself - was there no harm done?

quote:Although it really wouldn't be rape.



Haha, indeed.

quote:To molest a non-consenting child is harm.



Why is this?

quote:Now, to molest a child period to me is going to cause harm advertently or inadvertently. So that is why child molestation is out of the question.



So, once you turn a certain age, no harm can be done? Is that what you're saying?

quote:However even that point can be argued. Anything can be argued to death, what are you really trying to prove here Rizzo?



Ultimately I am trying to prove that love is the only answer, and that the only truth is the infinite divine truth which transcends everything, while at the same time is everything.

quote:It seems as if you just like to hear yourself talk.



If I wanted to read my words I'd just browse my blog.

I have a feeling you're not going to listen to reason, but here goes.

I'm not going to carry on talking to you in this thread.

Why not? Because there is an abundance of evidence I could point to supporting the conclusion that you're far more interesting in arguing than you are in using light hearted dialectic to examine the problem at hand.

On a personal note, I also find you behaving in an increasingly unstable manner recently, this is my experience. What really made me notice something is up was when you referred to yourself in quasi-messianical terms in an SG thread a week or two ago. Whatever. Something is up with you. Hopefully your feet have just left the ground and you're off on an ego trip for a little while. I say hopefully because you're normally a poster whom I like.

Chalk this up as a victory if your perception is warped enough to see it that way.

Later.

quote:I have a feeling you're not going to listen to reason, but here goes.



You are the one not listening to reason. I have shown you that you are not being logical, and yet you will not address a single point that I have made.

quote:I'm not going to carry on talking to you in this thread.



Another forfeit. This is sad.

quote:Why not? Because there is an abundance of evidence I could point to supporting the conclusion that you're far more interesting in arguing than you are in using light hearted dialectic to examine the problem at hand.



If there is so much evidence, and if it is so easy for you to do this - why won't you do it?

quote:On a personal note, I also find you behaving in an increasingly unstable manner recently, this is my experience.



Of course this is your experience. You sure have a habit of being redundant. I am more stable than I have been in years. If you knew me, this much would be apparent, but you don't.

quote:What really made me notice something is up was when you referred to yourself in quasi-messianical terms in an SG thread a week or two ago.



Yeah, I have ego problems. I'm working on it, I'm constantly trying to keep myself in check and stay humble. I'm not really all that, but in a relativistic mind-view, the smallest accomplishments can make a man seem that he is God. This is likely related to the release of dopamine.

quote:Something is up with you.



As it is with all of us.

quote:

Hopefully your feet have just left the ground and you're off on an ego trip for a little while.Hopefully your feet have just left the ground and you're off on an ego trip for a little while.

You sure are hopeful. Please don't take this argument as an attack against you as I view you highly in my eyes, and think nothing bad about you.

quote:I say hopefully because you're normally a poster whom I like.



Thanks.

quote:Chalk this up as a victory if your perception is warped enough to see it that way.



No, this is a failure.

Please, reconsider. Debate me in a logical manner, instead of supplying circular logic, appeals to authority, and personal attacks. That's all you've done so far. Why?

Ahhh now you see, this is interesting. You claim to go completely against the mainstream with youre views, and that this mainstream has no afect on you, yet youre concept of the envionment follows that of mainstream thought.

Also you never explained how the environment creates the fetishes that this entire post is about.

Explain more fully and then ill explain my view, and after all, what you want is everyone elses views is it not?

MY spelling and grmmar is atrocitious due to my insomnia kicking in tonight and me not really being bothered with checking over my damned work, solong as it makes sense in my head when i read it back.

Also, the question of who controls society is a brilliant question. If you believe in Hobbseian thought, then itll be the masses, if you believe in Smith's ideas then itll be the Government, if you believe in post-modern ideas its a pointles question, as everything is fragmented, and if you believe in radical ideas (much like me), itll be the current ruling body in the world, Capitalism.

quote:Ahhh now you see, this is interesting.



More interesting than the fourth of july.

quote:You claim to go completely against the mainstream with youre views,



No, not completely. There are no absolutes in the physical world in which we seem to interact with.

quote:and that this mainstream has no afect on you,



Of course it has an affect. I suppose I should have been more clear.

quote:yet youre concept of the envionment follows that of mainstream thought.



Does it? Well, I hardly see how you can be anything BUT a product of your enviroment, by the definition of the enviroment as the universe. What else can you be a product of? Nothing?

quote:Also you never explained how the environment creates the fetishes that this entire post is about.



Yes, yes I did. The biggest influence your enviroment will have on you is this, which I stated in an earlier post:

quote:Perversions, fetishes, and kinks are a result of psychological trauma, and once these traumas are dealt with there will be no fetishes.



quote:

Explain more fully and then ill explain my view, and after all, what you want is everyone elses views is it not?



I suppose, although ultimately I would like everyone to believe in and practice love for everyone and everything.

quote:MY spelling and grmmar is atrocitious due to my insomnia kicking in tonight and me not really being bothered with checking over my damned work, solong as it makes sense in my head when i read it back.



So basically you're tired and lazy, and don't care about other people. If you didn't notice, you're not debating yourself, and you're in a public forum.

quote:Also, the question of who controls society is a brilliant question.



It seems like a rather basic, obvious question to me, with its roots in the debate of what defines "control".

quote:If you believe in Hobbseian thought, then itll be the masses, if you believe in Smith's ideas then itll be the Government, if you believe in post-modern ideas its a pointles question, as everything is fragmented, and if you believe in radical ideas (much like me), itll be the current ruling body in the world, Capitalism.



Why did you have to list all of that? It adds nothing to the argument. There are billions of people with likely trillions of different ideas of who controls society. Are you going to listen them all?

So, are you saying that an economic concept governs the world, or something greater when you said Capitalism? Because I certainly agree with you to a degree, insofar as that Capitalism is greed, and greed is a sin, and sin governs society. Governs it in the sense that the government, education system, media, and organized religion are some of the most powerful and influential figures in determining how society acts and thinks.

Riz, you always love to pick fights, its old.

I could talk about how society has evolved, how the human race has evolved to form us as we are today, how we now define harm and such....but it wouldst sink in.

"whats your definition of consent"

hah, my word...what is wrong with you.

Do you also want the definition of "wrong" in my last sentence?....how about "sentence"

Youre trying to sound like some amazing philosopher talking about the meanings of words, how they came to be when in reality youre just sounding like a fool, oops, i used the word reality...better give you the definition!

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=consent+definition&btnG=Google+Search&meta=

There you go, definitions to consent.

"willingly agreeing to" is what it basically comes down to i think.

[This message has been edited by among_the_living (edited 12-14-2006).]

quote:Riz, you always love to pick fights, its old.



This isn't a fight, this is a debate. I have refrained as much as possible from personal attacks to focus on the philosophy and ideas being discussed. If you can't handle intelligent discussion, I suggest staying in SG.

quote:I could talk about how society has evolved, how the human race has evolved to form us as we are today, how we now define harm and such....but it wouldst sink in.



I could take a shower, but then I'd get dirty again...So should I just give up?

I was looking forward to the Rizzo vs. Fullcircle debate. They're both extremely intelligent and interesting posters... and better yet, I agree with both sides. Rizzo's love, forgiveness, and purity (even if I do think he takes the whole "sexual purity" thing too far) are an inspiration to me; I try to stick by my very similar morals as well as he sticks to his. I agree with fullcircle, though, in that I think that as long as a fetish harms no one, there's nothing wrong with it.

[This message has been edited by Twisted_Ferret (edited 12-14-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Rizzo in a box:

I could take a shower, but then I'd get dirty again...So should I just give up?

Comparing a senseless argument and stupid semantic quibbling to taking a shower and getting dirty again....wooooooooow....really.....well done sir.

Im not going to sit here, and try to write about how from the dawn of man certain things, social interation, morality and such came into being, im just not going to do it...if you want to have this debate go and do it with someone like Richard Dawkins, or Sam harris or ANYONE who knows a hell of alot more about evolutionary science than anyone on here.....seriously, just grow up.

I suggest you buy a dictionary or learn to use a search engine, the definitions of all words are at your fingertips.

[This message has been edited by among_the_living (edited 12-14-2006).]

quote:I was looking forward to the Rizzo vs. Fullcircle debate.



So was I. I'm very dissapointed he decided to just leave.

quote:They're both extremely intelligent and interesting posters... and better yet, I agree with both sides.



I'm glad you're keeping your mind open.

quote:Rizzo's love, forgiveness, and purity (even if I do think he takes the whole "sexual purity" thing too far) are an inspiration to me; I try to stick by my very similar morals as well as he sticks to his.



I'm very glad about this. I'm glad I'm making a positive influence.

quote:I agree with fullcircle, though, in that I think that as long as a fetish harms no one, there's nothing wrong with it.



Does it really harm no one? I've already shown that my fetishes harmed me, so it's obvious that it does harm [/i]some[/i] people. Am I really the only one? Am I unique in this?

quote:Comparing a senseless argument and stupid semantic quibbling to taking a shower and getting dirty again....wooooooooow....really.....well done sir.



If you think the argument is senseless and stupid, just do as fullcircle has and leave. Besides, you're deliberately missing the point; I am merely trying to explain that nothing is futile(or everything is, depending on your POV).

quote:Im not going to sit here, and try to write about how from the dawn of man certain things, social interation, morality and such came into being, im just not going to do it



Do you really have to? I don't recall there being much of a need for that.

quote:if you want to have this debate go and do it with someone like Richard Dawkins, or Sam harris or ANYONE who knows a hell of alot more about evolutionary science than anyone on here.....



So basically, just let the so-called "experts" figure it out and the rest of us can just sit here and twiddle our thumbs? Great idea.

quote:seriously, just grow up.



I'm trying. Maybe you should, too.

Also, it's "a lot", not "alot". Pet peeve. =/

quote:I suggest you buy a dictionary or learn to use a search engine, the definitions of all words are at your fingertips.



Appeal to authority. Are you saying dictionary's/search engines give the ultimate definitive defintion(lol) on everything? No, they don't, they merely give what the majority of society(authority) has deemed as acceptable as right. Seeing as how I'm arguing against the majority of society, for the most part, this is incredibly irrelevant.

[This message has been edited by Rizzo in a box (edited 12-14-2006).]

Actually the theories listed are the basic backbones on social control theories, maybe looking at them in more depth before saying they are nothing to the arguement would be best. Maybe i overestimated youre knowledge on this subject, oh well.

As for capitalism is sin arguement, i dont agree with that. Capitalism itself is fine, whts wrong are the products of capitalism. To some extent products such as governemtns and media are to blame, but theyre not what im concerned with, let them have their little plays, it does bugger all in the long run. In the media world, whaever the media says one minute is changed the next to appeal to a bigger market, so the media endlessly contradicts itself and wil eventually trip itself up. Goverments are just as bad.

The products im talking about are things such as ever expanding and ever increasing technology, with a complete disregard for long-term affects. The increasing apathy that has came with new forms of privatised, individualised entertainment. And the complete disregard of space for the expanson of more capitalist ventures. We live in a time best described as a "Risk Society" whereby we mindlessly wander, creating new things and never looking at what the consequences could be of our nice new gadgets and gizmos. This is further complicated by what Fukuyama (Neo-conservative, look him up) calls "the end of history" where there is no more big ideas, capitalism has won out and now were bored, so we go about our lives, forgetting the past, and what we can learn from it.

These issues of risk and boredom are what create fetishes. Thery are the hyper-rationalisations within society to try an understand the empty, unfulfilling and boring world we live in, just to make life a little more bearble.

As for your ideas, i think you should read Adorno and Horkheimer's book, "Empire", your views seem to follow their nicely.

lol, when did s&a become the philosophy forum? and when did carbonb come to represent switzerland and/or a relatively non-argumentative perspective?

since i'm in this thread, i'll state my views. beyond participating in government and influencing policies and laws, there is little you can do to control the actions of others. there is even less you can do to control the fantasies of others. that renders this a purely philosophical argument. and in a philosophical argument, there is really no clear "right" or "wrong." everyone chooses their own ideas of right or wrong as they see fit, and unless they violate the law, no one can do anything about it without possibly violating the law themselves. (this is not to say that law=right or law=morality; that could not be further from the truth.) therefore, the most logical way to go about talking about this is to state your views and your reasons for believing them, which i think everyone has already done. if you're looking to change the deeply held views of others, you would be best served by doing it through a more covert and congenial approach rather than an overt assault, as this tends to be more effective.

quote:Originally posted by Rizzo in a box:

I'm trying. Maybe you should, too.

Also, it's "a lot", not "alot". Pet peeve. =/

"So basically, just let the so-called "experts" figure it out and the rest of us can just sit here and twiddle our thumbs? Great idea."

Im not even going to deal with this because if you cant see how amazingly stupid your statement is then i am astonished.

Asking for a definition into every single word such as control, morality, harm and such....trying to sound like a great thinker, really makes you seem like you haven't heard of a dictionary before, you may look these definitions up if you like, its standard English language.

The evolution of morality and social structure and such are really what youre talking about, why certain things are wrong, why they are seen as right.....

Asking for instance HOW a child rapists harms, or what they do to HARM the child is, taken in the context of the modern world....defined by the people in psychological fields, in well established scientific fields also....regarding PHYSICAL harm caused to the body of the child.

Psychological harm has been studied over many many years and if you wanna get into that then go talk to a psychologist, i am not one so i dont know the ins and outs obviously.

We, over time, have come to evolve into a society that sees children as vulnerable, that children should not be exposed to such things as sex at such a young age....obviously, anything against this in the context of this society would be seen as "wrong"

quote:Actually the theories listed are the basic backbones on social control theories, maybe looking at them in more depth before saying they are nothing to the arguement would be best.



This is, once again, an appeal to authority. You're basically saying that these theories are more relevant than anyone elses. I don't believe so.

quote:Maybe i overestimated youre knowledge on this subject, oh well.



You probably did, I have knowledge in a lot of subjects but I tend to jump around a lot. I'm not an expert at anything, except everything, I suppose. I don't know. If you feel something is incredibly important for me to know/read, then please either explain it to me or give me the means to aquire this knowledge(book title, link, etc).

quote:Capitalism itself is fine, whts wrong are the products of capitalism.



How can capitalism be fine when the products of it are wrong? That's like saying, "murder is fine, the products of it are wrong though."

quote:To some extent products such as governemtns and media are to blame,



I'd say it is a large extent.

quote:but theyre not what im concerned with, let them have their little plays, it does bugger all in the long run



Everthing in this world either does bugger all or is the most important thing in the world. Governments around the world have killed billions of people, and created more suffering than imaginable. Is that bugger all?

quote:In the media world, whaever the media says one minute is changed the next to appeal to a bigger market,



Yes, which is a product of Capitalism.

quote:so the media endlessly contradicts itself and wil eventually trip itself up



Not when the people are blind, and couldn't see a trip from a flip.

quote:Goverments are just as bad.



Government isn't entirely dissimilar from the media. Hell, they're practically butt buddies. The phrase "fourth establishment" didn't come about for no reason.

quote:The products im talking about are things such as ever expanding and ever increasing technology, with a complete disregard for long-term affects.



Isn't technology more related to the strive for knowledge, and less the strive for money? That's what Capitalism is - money at any cost.

quote:These issues of risk and boredom are what create fetishes. Thery are the hyper-rationalisations within society to try an understand the empty, unfulfilling and boring world we live in, just to make life a little more bearble.



I suppose so. I don't entirely agree with what you're saying, but I'm not really seeing it as that important.

quote:As for your ideas, i think you should read Adorno and Horkheimer's book, "Empire", your views seem to follow their nicely.



Thanks for the recommendation.

quote:beyond participating in government and influencing policies and laws, there is little you can do to control the actions of others.



You couldn't be more wrong. Government and the law don't control people, it is almost impossible to "control" anyone, there are merely different degrees of influence. I have influenced a number of people greatly - look at Twisted Ferret. There are many more that have taken inspiration from what I have said and written.

quote:there is even less you can do to control the fantasies of others.



Not really.

quote:that renders this a purely philosophical argument.



No, it doesn't. Like I said, everything is connected and this thread encompasses everything with the main topic of discussion, which everything debated should be relevant to, is the morality of fetishes/kinks/perversions.

quote:and in a philosophical argument, there is really no clear "right" or "wrong."



There is no clear anything.

quote:everyone chooses their own ideas of right or wrong as they see fit, and unless they violate the law, no one can do anything about it without possibly violating the law themselves.



Once again, you're totally wrong. If you don't think people can influence others on what is right and wrong, take Jesus as an example. He has influenced more people than I can possibly comprehend. You greatly underestimate the power of persuasive words.

quote:(this is not to say that law=right or law=morality; that could not be further from the truth.)



Agreed.

quote:therefore, the most logical way to go about talking about this is to state your views and your reasons for believing them, which i think everyone has already done.



What purpose does this serve? Stating your views so other people can view them? To what end? Maybe to...influence them?

quote: if you're looking to change the deeply held views of others, you would be best served by doing it through a more covert and congenial approach rather than an overt assault, as this tends to be more effective.



Noted, but I do things my way as I've found great success(lol, borat) this way.

No probs, also if you want my views, read Beck's "Risk Society: Towards a new Modernty", you can also get hold of Fukuyama's article "the end of history" online. IF you want a challenge read anything by Beaudrillard, if u manage it please tell mehow, im still having trouble with the basics of his own writing.

I gues overall im just more of a radical thinker when it comes to social problems, always been told that. Whereas most people focus on the macro and just that, i break it down to the compenents that maeke it up.

Capitalism itself isnt wrong, Capitalism itself is the idea of trade and commrce within a nation or world, which in itself isnt wrong, the idea of money t any cost comes from the companies that create most of the capital. Also technology WAS formally part of knowledge, but in the age of risk and bordem, technology is the best form of capitalism. By the way did u know someone actually has the patent for the genome that causes breast cancer? Also the song happy birthday is owned by a small group in Indianpolis, of which gain £10,000 every time its used on a show/film/broadcast.

This is because in 1994 the Patent office changed its regualation. Now, anything, and i mean ANYTHING can be patented, except a fully living human being. The aspects that create the person can be though.

quote:"So basically, just let the so-called "experts" figure it out and the rest of us can just sit here and twiddle our thumbs? Great idea."

Im not even going to deal with this because if you cant see how amazingly stupid your statement is then i am astonished.



In other words, all you can do is appeal to authority, attack me, or offer circular logic. Are you fullcircle in disguise?

quote:Asking for a definition into every single word such as control, morality, harm and such....trying to sound like a great thinker, really makes you seem like you haven't heard of a dictionary before, you may look these definitions up if you like, its standard English language.



I am not trying to sound like anything. If you can not grasp why I am trying to ask for definitions, you might want to think this thread over again.

The dictionary is not the end-all, fuck-all divine source of truth. It was made by men, determining things by society. Different dictionaries have slightly different defintions. Which one is right?

Stop appealing to authority.

quote:The evolution of morality and social structure and such are really what youre talking about, why certain things are wrong, why they are seen as right.....



No, that is not what I am talking about. I am not discussing how they came to be viewed as wrong or right; that is completely and entirely irrelevant. I am discussing whether or not they actually are right.

quote:Asking for instance HOW a child rapists harms, or what they do to HARM the child is, taken in the context of the modern world....defined by the people in psychological fields, in well established scientific fields also....



Once again, you are appealing to authority.

quote:Psychological harm has been studied over many many years and if you wanna get into that then go talk to a psychologist, i am not one so i dont know the ins and outs obviously.



You sure do love authority, don't you?

quote:We, over time, have come to evolve into a society that sees children as vulnerable, that children should not be exposed to such things as sex at such a young age....obviously, anything against this in the context of this society would be seen as "wrong"



Once you reach a certain age you are no longer vunerable? Is it sex that is so harmful, or the perversions that come with them? Is a child having sex with another child wrong?

quote:No probs, also if you want my views, read Beck's "Risk Society: Towards a new Modernty", you can also get hold of Fukuyama's article "the end of history" online. IF you want a challenge read anything by Beaudrillard, if u manage it please tell mehow, im still having trouble with the basics of his own writing.



Alright. I've certainly got a lot to read.

quote:I gues overall im just more of a radical thinker when it comes to social problems, always been told that.



As have I. I've found the more radical, the more truth it holds.

quote:Whereas most people focus on the macro and just that, i break it down to the compenents that maeke it up.



All the way down to the quantum level?

quote:Capitalism itself isnt wrong, Capitalism itself is the idea of trade and commrce within a nation or world, which in itself isnt wrong, the idea of money t any cost comes from the companies that create most of the capital.



These companies are a direct product of capitalism, are they not? And if not, what are they a product of?

quote:Also technology WAS formally part of knowledge, but in the age of risk and bordem, technology is the best form of capitalism.



Hasn't life always been an age of risk of boredom? Just to different degrees, of course. I'm seeing what you said that boredom generates perversions moreso now. The rich and powerful are often the most perverted, and often the most bored. I wonder what the root of this is?

quote:By the way did u know someone actually has the patent for the genome that causes breast cancer?



Probably. Did you know there have been several cures for cancer, but the AMA, FDA, and the cancer institutes have kept them suppressed because the cancer market is so damn huge?

quote:Also the song happy birthday is owned by a small group in Indianpolis, of which gain £10,000 every time its used on a show/film/broadcast.



And art is considered property. There are a lot of abominations in this world.

quote:This is because in 1994 the Patent office changed its regualation. Now, anything, and i mean ANYTHING can be patented, except a fully living human being. The aspects that create the person can be though.



Insanity.

i didnt say that....

You sure do love telling others they "appeal to authority"

Ofcourse no one KNOWSSSSS if its right or wrong! FUCK, this is what i mean, society evolved!

Dont you GRASP this concept....how the hell does anyone know if what we THINK now is right or wrong, in 100 years they may view certain things as wrong to them, its all about CONTEXXXTTT AND THE EVOLUTION OF SOCIETYYYYYY

And, no matter how much you HATE authority...as, you obviously do, or perhaps you hate those who know more about a certain subject than you....anyway...no matter how much you hate them then they are always going to be there, people get to be exper in other peoples eyes...and the fields eyes....thats life.

Trying to ponder whether or not what we believe is right and wrong actually IS right or wrong is totally nonsensical, other cultures view things differently even in our time.

quote:Originally posted by Rizzo in a box:

Insanity.

Give me the names of these cures for cancer, research showing that they work and cases where using these methods have caused a pathent with incurable (as we see it now) cancer has been cured of it.

leave your conspiracy theories at the door or go to the right forum.

quote:i didnt say that....



Say what? Reference me when you address me so I can understand what you're talking about.

quote:You sure do love telling others they "appeal to authority"



No, actually I don't. I wish people would stop doing it.

quote:Ofcourse no one KNOWSSSSS if its right or wrong!



So if no one knows, then who are we to judge anyone? Why do we have a legal system?

quote:FUCK, this is what i mean, society evolved!



Everything evolved, in the sense that everything is changing and that nothing lasts.

quote:

Dont you GRASP this concept...



Of course I do. You are the one not grasping what I am trying to say.

quote:how the hell does anyone know if what we THINK now is right or wrong, in 100 years they may view certain things as wrong to them, its all about CONTEXXXTTT AND THE EVOLUTION OF SOCIETYYYYYY



Why are you getting so angry?

Are you making an argument for moral relativism? If so, relativistic morals are no morals at all; merely an excuse for hedonism and doing what "feels" right.

quote:And, no matter how much you HATE authority



Man-made authority, at least. When it comes to the infinte, all bets are off. That's not the point though, to authority" is a logical fallacy. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority)

quote:as, you obviously do, or perhaps you hate those who know more about a certain subject than you.



I hate no one, I am merely saying that those who have more knowledge are not always right.

quote:anyway...no matter how much you hate them then they are always going to be there, people get to be exper in other peoples eyes...and the fields eyes....thats life.



And this does not make them right.

quote:Trying to ponder whether or not what we believe is right and wrong actually IS right or wrong is totally nonsensical, other cultures view things differently even in our time.



So there is no right or wrong?

quote:Give me the names of these cures for cancer, research showing that they work and cases where using these methods have caused a pathent with incurable (as we see it now) cancer has been cured of it.



This is not really the place for it, but if you truly desire it, I will supply.

quote:leave your conspiracy theories at the door or go to the right forum.



Both an appeal to authority and an ad hominem.

Yes, there is no right or wrong, just a "right" and "wrong" as defined by society as it is right now, in this period, able to look back on past societies and such.

We have a legal system based on old laws, on how society NOW believes people should act to keep a peaceful and functioning society.

Which is why its all about context.

quote:Originally posted by Rizzo in a box:

Both an appeal to authority and an ad hominem.

Then yes, please supply.

quote:Yes, there is no right or wrong, just a "right" and "wrong" as defined by society as it is right now, in this period, able to look back on past societies and such.



Ah, so child molestation is wrong right now, but later it could be okay? Are you really saying that "right" and "wrong" are not determined by logic, but rather by mass consensus (which may not even be mass consensus, but maybe elitist manipulation).

This is morality at all, merely rationalization and excuses for your actions.

quote:We have a legal system based on old laws, on how society NOW believes people should act to keep a peaceful and functioning society.



Which obviously is not working.

quote:Which is why its all about context.



And not logic?

quote:Originally posted by Rizzo in a box:

And not logic?

Yes, in future it could be seen by some as okay, of course it could.

Looking back we see live burnings at the stake as "wrong"

Other cultures marry children at 5, 6, 7...and have sexual relations....sex with children here isnt seen as wrong to them.

I suggest you look into something called

"The shifting moral Zeitgeist"

And obviously, laws will never completely work in ANY situation, even in Stalinist rule where fear was widespread there were still rebels, there will always be a faction who rebel against the current authority or power.

Logis, has to be taken in context also, certain things whilst seemingly illogical are actually completely normal responses to completely UN normal situations.

Do you think burning at the steak is logical!? believing in witches and that burning them alive, or heretics being burned alive is LOGICAL, of course not, but taken into context with the religious belief held and the situation of the time certain actions are logical to the people at the time, in the context.

[This message has been edited by among_the_living (edited 12-14-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by among_the_living:

Then yes, please supply.

As you wish.

There is of course, Royal Rife and his amazing microscrope, but I'll focus on an exmaple that actually has a picture which provides a bit more proof.

quote:Texas oilman Harry Hoxsey made a deathbed pledge to his father to distribute a family remedy discovered by one of their horses, a remedy that cured cancer. It is an herbal remedy. The Hoxsey method treated tens of thousands of American patients during the 1920s and 1930s.

Hoxsey looked like the classic “quack.” He was a fast-talking Texas oilman. He never claimed, however, that he developed his remedy. He was merely passing on a family tradition and making it available to humanity. He opened his first clinic in early 1924, with immediate and spectacular results. An impressed doctor arranged to have Hoxsey treat a Chicago policeman who had terminal cancer and was given only a few weeks to live. Hoxsey’s treatment was used only to determine if it was toxic. The doctor who arranged the trial was not expecting the policeman to improve, as he had already been subjected to surgery and radiation, and his condition was rapidly deteriorating. The doctors were using the policeman as a human guinea pig, but Hoxsey felt that his treatment could cure the man.

See the attached image for the progress of the policeman’s condition with Hoxsey’s treatment. (http://ahealedplanet.net/hoxsey.jpg)

When the policeman astoundingly recovered, Morris Fishbein, through his agents, offered to buy the rights to Hoxsey’s treatment. The sticking point in negotiations related to the deathbed pledge that Hoxsey made to his father: people would get the treatment regardless of their ability to pay. Hoxsey made that a non-negotiable issue, and he treated countless patients for free over the years. The response of Fishbein and his pals was that they would charge whatever they wanted for the cure, once they bought it. That ended negotiations, and thus began a vendetta against Hoxsey, led by Fishbein and the AMA, that lasted for a generation. Fishbein, who never practiced a day of medicine in his life, led a “war on quacks.” Eventually the Hoxsey clinics were run out of America, and today the only one operates in Mexico, run by one of Hoxsey's nurses until she recently died. Kenny Ausubel produced a documentary on Hoxsey’s story in 1987, and a superb book in 2000 of the same title: When Healing Becomes a Crime.



http://ahealedplanet.net/medicine.htm

Of course, if you're not going to believe that you're not going to believe anything else I show you, as you likely only will believe me when I present mainstream sources. This is never going to happen, because all the medical industry cares about is money.

quote:Originally posted by CarbonB:

Anyone else get extremely annoyed with how Rizzo attempts to argue with people?

*nods* i would take your angry banter over his anyday...at least it makes a lot more sense and is amusing.

i just don't see why you care so much about other people's desires. especially when people say things are purely fantasys. in fullcircle's thread many girls said they have sexual fantasys but would not like them in reality.

and even if they would like to act something out, how does that say something about their morals? people can be married and monogomus but still want to participate in bondage, anal, facials, etc....how does that make them moraly lower? a person like that is better than a 'player' how participates in 'vanilla' sex with different partners.

all that matters is that people are comfortable with what is going on. children, animals, and unwilling partners should never be messed with.

and people who have fantasys about rape/murder/whatever are (probably) not actually going to do any of these things. it is no different than you saying you still get random urges to be violent. you say you are not capable of actually doing these things, so what makes you think the people posting are?

just stop worrying what others are doing and making people feel bad because they like some kink. focus on yourself.

quote:Yes, in future it could be seen by some as okay, of course it could.



So now "right" and "wrong" are determined by majority consensus, instead of logic. If this applies to morals, this applies to everything. Logic is now completely meaningless, and nothing matters if the majority of the people go along with it.

Wonderful.

quote:Looking back we see live burnings at the stake as "wrong"



And I'm sure many people viewed that as wrong back then, as well.

quote:Other cultures marry children at 5, 6, 7...and have sexual relations....sex with children here isnt seen as wrong to them.



So this makes that right?

quote:I suggest you look into something called

"The shifting moral Zeitgeist"



Why?

quote:And obviously, laws will never completely work in ANY situation, even in Stalinist rule where fear was widespread there were still rebels, there will always be a faction who rebel against the current authority or power.



Are you saying the laws are right, and the rebels are wrong? Do you want a dictatorship regime where everything is controlled, so long as "peace" and "stability" is present?

quote:Logis, has to be taken in context also, certain things whilst seemingly illogical are actually completely normal responses to completely UN normal situations.



Logic does not need to be taken into context, logic is logical. 1 = 1 does not need context.

quote:Do you think burning at the steak is logical!?



I presume you mean "stake", and I hardly see where logic fits in because you did not present the other half of the statement. You should have said something like, "Do you think burning at the stake is logical if you want to brutually harm someone?" If you did, the answer would be yes.

quote:believing in witches and that burning them alive, or heretics being burned alive is LOGICAL, of course not, but taken into context with the religious belief held and the situation of the time certain actions are logical to the people at the time, in the context.



Once again, context does not determine logic.

quote:Originally posted by Rizzo in a box:

As you wish.

There is of course, Royal Rife and his amazing microscrope, but I'll focus on an exmaple that actually has a picture which provides a bit more proof.

Texas oilman Harry Hoxsey made a deathbed pledge to his father to distribute a family remedy discovered by one of their horses, a remedy that cured cancer. It is an herbal remedy. The Hoxsey method treated tens of thousands of American patients during the 1920s and 1930s.

Hoxsey looked like the classic “quack.” He was a fast-talking Texas oilman. He never claimed, however, that he developed his remedy. He was merely passing on a family tradition and making it available to humanity. He opened his first clinic in early 1924, with immediate and spectacular results. An impressed doctor arranged to have Hoxsey treat a Chicago policeman who had terminal cancer and was given only a few weeks to live. Hoxsey’s treatment was used only to determine if it was toxic. The doctor who arranged the trial was not expecting the policeman to improve, as he had already been subjected to surgery and radiation, and his condition was rapidly deteriorating. The doctors were using the policeman as a human guinea pig, but Hoxsey felt that his treatment could cure the man.

See the attached image for the progress of the policeman’s condition with Hoxsey’s treatment. (http://ahealedplanet.net/hoxsey.jpg)

When the policeman astoundingly recovered, Morris Fishbein, through his agents, offered to buy the rights to Hoxsey’s treatment. The sticking point in negotiations related to the deathbed pledge that Hoxsey made to his father: people would get the treatment regardless of their ability to pay. Hoxsey made that a non-negotiable issue, and he treated countless patients for free over the years. The response of Fishbein and his pals was that they would charge whatever they wanted for the cure, once they bought it. That ended negotiations, and thus began a vendetta against Hoxsey, led by Fishbein and the AMA, that lasted for a generation. Fishbein, who never practiced a day of medicine in his life, led a “war on quacks.” Eventually the Hoxsey clinics were run out of America, and today the only one operates in Mexico, run by one of Hoxsey's nurses until she recently died. Kenny Ausubel produced a documentary on Hoxsey’s story in 1987, and a superb book in 2000 of the same title: When Healing Becomes a Crime.



http://ahealedplanet.net/medicine.htm

Of course, if you're not going to believe that you're not going to believe anything else I show you, as you likely only will believe me when I present mainstream sources. This is never going to happen, because all the medical industry cares about is money.

Hoxseys treatment is known to contain certain known substances used in medicine that can help with cancer, although his refusal to divulge the whole formula was a bit of a set back.

Im not saying cures wont be found, or that certain ingredients from plants and animals and such will help.....im just saying as of now a known total cure is unknown, although i know right now in the UK there is a study into some ingredients from what hoxsey did divulge.

quote:*nods* i would take your angry banter over his anyday...at least it makes a lot more sense and is amusing.



Fools congregate with fools.

quote:

i just don't see why you care so much about other people's desires

[quote]

Because I care about other people greatly, and their desires affect me.

[quote] especially when people say things are purely fantasys.



Fantasy has a huge effect on reality, as I explained with my own example.

quote:in fullcircle's thread many girls said they have sexual fantasys but would not like them in reality.



My fantasies had a huge effect on my reality.

quote:and even if they would like to act something out, how does that say something about their morals?



Morality dictates everything you do.

quote:people can be married and monogomus but still want to participate in bondage, anal, facials, etc....how does that make them moraly lower?



It's not about them being "moraly lower", or morally higher, either. It's about doing the right thing, doing things out of love.

quote:a person like that is better than a 'player' how participates in 'vanilla' sex with different partners.



Who are you to say who is better? Throw the first stone, if you're so empty of sin.

quote:all that matters is that people are comfortable with what is going on.



What determines comfort? And why is that ALL that matters?

quote:children, animals, and unwilling partners should never be messed with.



Why? Why does age determine this?

quote:and people who have fantasys about rape/murder/whatever are (probably) not actually going to do any of these things.



Are you willing to take that chance?

quote:it is no different than you saying you still get random urges to be violent.



And those urges are wrong.

quote:you say you are not capable of actually doing these things, so what makes you think the people posting are?



Because they are comfortable with these ideas in fantasy, and see nothing wrong with them. These could easily lead to it being okay in reality.

quote:just stop worrying what others are doing and making people feel bad because they like some kink. focus on yourself.



I'm not trying to make them feel bad, I am trying to make them feel better. And unlike you, I actually care about other people.

quote:Hoxseys treatment is known to contain certain known substances used in medicine that can help with cancer, although his refusal to divulge the whole formula was a bit of a set back.

Im not saying cures wont be found, or that certain ingredients from plants and animals and such will help.....im just saying as of now a known total cure is unknown, although i know right now in the UK there is a study into some ingredients from what hoxsey did divulge.



Fair enough.

[This message has been edited by Rizzo in a box (edited 12-14-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Rizzo in a box:

Once again, context does not determine logic.

Well there you go, i am now done

You see burning as a perfectly logical way of punishing someone who harmed someone else.....i on the other hand dont, you see?

The shifting moral Zeitgeist is a concept that time changes morals...which is why i said look into it.

No, i didnt say it was "right" for these cultures to do this, i said its what they believe is right....which is what you were asking? no? "how do we know if its right or wrong" and so on.

No, i dont believe the rebels are wrong and the laws are right...of course this is my opinion, i believe it changes in each instance....someone may feel wronged and rebel, others may just want to rebel for things like money.

yes, well done...logic in most cases is meaningless, if you use logical argument with someone who has deep rooted faith in a deity for example i highly doubt you will change their mind. Logic doesnt come into alot of things and public opinion, society as a whole is among those.......when you read a story in a newspaper, do you go and follow it up?....the majority dont, they read it at face value and base opinions off of it, ofcourse this is illogical, taking one source as fact...but public opinion is still shaped by newspapers.

quote:Well there you go, i am now done



Another forfeit? Jesus.

quote:Well there you go, i am now done

You see burning as a perfectly logical way of punishing someone who harmed someone else.....i on the other hand dont, you see?



I did not say that. I said burning someone at the stake is a perfectly logical way to brutually harm someone. This is logical, is it not? Forcing someone to stay put, and be burned alive causes a great amount of pain, and thus harm. Is this not logical?

quote:The shifting moral Zeitgeist is a concept that time changes morals...which is why i said look into it.



I don't see why I should look into a concept that relies on context instead of logic.

quote:No, i didnt say it was "right" for these cultures to do this, i said its what they believe is right....which is what you were asking? no?



No, I was talking about something actually being right or wrong. Not faulty human perception.

quote:No, i dont believe the rebels are wrong and the laws are right...of course this is my opinion, i believe it changes in each instance....someone may feel wronged and rebel, others may just want to rebel for things like money.



I'll leave this alone because I see your point, and discussing the morals of government is just going to be a distraction.

quote:

yes, well done...logic in most cases is meaningless,



Amazing. We have now descended into the furthest depths of nihilism - if you could even call it that, as nihilism is dependent on logic.

quote:if you use logical argument with someone who has deep rooted faith in a deity for example i highly doubt you will change their mind.



All things rely on faith.

quote:Logic doesnt come into alot of things and public opinion, society as a whole is among those.......when you read a story in a newspaper, do you go and follow it up?....the majority dont, they read it at face value and base opinions off of it, ofcourse this is illogical, taking one source as fact...but public opinion is still shaped by newspapers.

So because the majority of people ignore logic, it is now meaningless? What about all the technology that is dependent upon logic? All the great scientific discoveries? Meaningless, now?

rizzo, i do care about other people...that's why people who are not old enough to make decisions and people who are not willing to do things should not be forced to have sex.

you pass a lot of judgement...who are you to say what is right and wrong?

and just because someone has a fantasy, doesn't mean they would actually act on it.

Faulty human perception is all we have im afraid unless you see another option.

Youre asking a question that can only be answered in the way i am offering, but you refuse to take it....you yourself are not being logical in your argument.

People FIND logic in the things they do to suit their actions, the CONTEXT...yep, there it is again of the situation, just because it is illogical to someone else doesnt mean it is illogical to everyone, people will find ways of explaining to themselves why what theyre doing is right or wrong.

"Another forfeit" - no, i just dont believe you will be shifted out of your completely illogical way of thinking, you shout down human perception then challenge us to be different and discuss this topic? yet then when we do, you refute and rebuke at every opportunity.

Ok Rizzo... shut the fuck up and stop trying to get all pseudointellectuial... every time someone brings up a valid point, yuo go all nihilistic about how there is no real reality, no moral phenomena, etc... yet yuo claim to have morals...

quote:rizzo, i do care about other people...that's why people who are not old enough to make decisions and people who are not willing to do things should not be forced to have sex.



What determines the age required to make decisions? Society? Government? That's not logic, that's an appeal to authority, once again.

quote:

you pass a lot of judgement...who are you to say what is right and wrong?



Sorry, I'm not trying to pass judgement on people. I merely believe in love, and thusly Jesus, and divine infinite conciousness from which he came(not the creator "God" that is nothing more than a sham). When I say "wrong", I'm not saying bad, so much as I'm saying not right.

Anything not done out of love should not be done at all.

quote:and just because someone has a fantasy, doesn't mean they would actually act on it.



Just because I have a bombed strapped to my back and I'm standing in the middle of a subway doesn't mean I'm going to blow myself up.

quote:Originally posted by Rizzo in a box:

Just because I have a bombed strapped to my back and I'm standing in the middle of a subway doesn't mean I'm going to blow myself up.

Belief in a deity is not logical - a contradiction to your logic rant?

quote:Faulty human perception is all we have im afraid unless you see another option.



Yes, the divine.

quote:Youre asking a question that can only be answered in the way i am offering, but you refuse to take it....you yourself are not being logical in your argument.



Since when do you care about logic?

quote:People FIND logic in the things they do to suit their actions, the CONTEXT...yep, there it is again of the situation, just because it is illogical to someone else doesnt mean it is illogical to everyone, people will find ways of explaining to themselves why what theyre doing is right or wrong.



You have an extremely perverted view of what logic is. Logic is an extremely rigid system of basically determining cause and effect. What you're talking about is not logic, but how people view things as "right" or "wrong".

quote:"Another forfeit" - no, i just dont believe you will be shifted out of your completely illogical way of thinking, you shout down human perception then challenge us to be different and discuss this topic? yet then when we do, you refute and rebuke at every opportunity.



What are you talking about? All the attacks against me have been the illogical ones. Circular logic, appeals to authority, attacks on my character, outright denial of logic as being meaningful - and I'm the illogical one, here?

quote:Ok Rizzo... shut the fuck up and stop trying to get all pseudointellectuial...



I am not trying to be anything. People who can not even spell "pseudointellectual" should not lecture people on their intelligence.

quote:every time someone brings up a valid point, yuo go all nihilistic about how there is no real reality, no moral phenomena, etc... yet yuo claim to have morals...



The majority of points brought up have NOT been logical, as I have shown.

quote:Belief in a deity is not logical - a contradiction to your logic rant?



How is this not logical? And it is not a "deity" that I believe in, so much as the infinite.

[This message has been edited by Rizzo in a box (edited 12-14-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Rizzo in a box:

How is this not logical? And it is not a "deity" that I believe in, so much as the infinite.



"the divine"

A belief in anything such as a deity or "god" figure is completely illogical.

I think you are slightly lost in your own argument, logic as in, natural laws? are rigid and follow patterns, logic as in HUMAN logic doesnt have a strict form, people mould logic to suit their own ends.

Circular logic, you will be familiar with this as you believe in a divine deity i presume.

Attach circular logic to any of my statements, you really need to look into the shifting moral Zeitgeist , religion or a "divine" does not determine morality and logic certainly has nothing to do with it, it is changed by a lot of things, some of which ive mentioned.

I think you should go rea dup on the type of logic you are talking about, be it scientific natural laws, or, the logic thought up by "authority" as you call them, because you can only get your perception of logic from others around you and others who have been before you, we are born ofcourse with inbuilt programming with has been passed on in evolution, but, our perceptions of the world around us are shaped by others.

This is no longer a sec or affection topic and should be moved to humanities or somewhere like MGCBTSOOYG.

quote:A belief in anything such as a deity or "god" figure is completely illogical.



Back that up.

quote:I think you are slightly lost in your own argument, logic as in, natural laws? are rigid and follow patterns, logic as in HUMAN logic doesnt have a strict form, people mould logic to suit their own ends.



You have no idea what logic is. Human logic is based off of natural laws, which make sense because we are a part of nature. Everything that a human claims to be logical isn't necessarily logical, though.

quote:Circular logic, you will be familiar with this as you believe in a divine deity i presume.



I was familar with it long before that.

quote:Attach circular logic to any of my statements, you really need to look into the shifting moral Zeitgeist , religion or a "divine" does not determine morality and logic certainly has nothing to do with it, it is changed by a lot of things, some of which ive mentioned.



Once again, the "morality" you mentioned is not morality at all, but merely hedonistic excuses to do whatever-the-fuck you want. The slow brainwashing of the elite to return the masses to their primal, carnal state of animalistic pleasure, instead of advancing us to an empathetic and caring emotional beings.

quote:I think you should go rea dup on the type of logic you are talking about, be it scientific natural laws, or, the logic thought up by "authority" as you call them, because you can only get your perception of logic from others around you and others who have been before you, we are born ofcourse with inbuilt programming with has been passed on in evolution, but, our perceptions of the world around us are shaped by others.



The perceptions of the world around us are shaped by everything and anything.

Anyway, I'll come back to this thread later, I'm tired and my cat is almost dead, so I'm going to spend some time with her.

Chastity... the most unnatural of all the sexual perversions. ~ Aldous Huxley

And not that it has anything to do with the arguement at hand, I just like it:

Sex without love is as hollow and ridiculous as love without sex. ~ Hunter S. Thompson



-F☺rd

quote:Originally posted by Rizzo in a box:

The perceptions of the world around us are shaped by everything and anything.

Anyway, I'll come back to this thread later, I'm tired and my cat is almost dead, so I'm going to spend some time with her.

it is illogical because there is no reason to believe in a deity of any sort, no evidence to support such a thing. This is why it is illogical.

You could not attach CL to anything i said, there is no such thing as morality as a set fixed set of things, as i said, "the Zeitgeist" would explain this better.

Morals evolve just as we do, you need to learn this and you need to learn that saying that the brainwashing of masses from authority has a lot to do with deity and religion as much as it has to do with other things.

Morality is just this, and the "logic" we attach to what we do seems logical to us, it seems right, it seems normal, however to others this could be the opposite.

Most things are a completely normal reaction to something completely not normal, and people find ways to square it with themselves that what they think, do, know are all "right"

Ah....if anyone else goes away they are quitting however if its you then any reasons are fine i seeeee

He just can't help butchering up posts. I'm sorry, but if you see that as a constructive arguement, or a manner in which to conduct a discussion. You are an idiot.

I knew you were an idiot anyways, but what the hell. Rizzo, please just shut up. You are only making yourself look like a complete ask.

Especially when you question why molesting a non-consenting child is wrong.

quote:Ah....if anyone else goes away they are quitting however if its you then any reasons are fine i seeeee



I'm not quitting, I'm taking a break. Am I supposed to stay on this thread replying every five minutes until the end of time?

I'll BE BACK LATER.

Jesus.

quote:Originally posted by Rizzo in a box:

I'm not quitting, I'm taking a break. Am I supposed to stay on this thread replying every five minutes until the end of time?

I'll BE BACK LATER.

Jesus.

Exactly.

However i was going to leave before, as, well, its 4am but you called this quitting i think.....semantics.

quote:Originally posted by Rizzo in a box:

Let's go, bitches.

In starting this thread, I realize I am going to get flamed to no end. I will be accused of being a Christian fundamentalist whacko, "vanilla", and apparently according to fullcircle, dishonest with myself.

I'll start off with reposting the post in fullcircle's thread which he deemed would derail the thread. Hopefully he'll actually address it, now:

If people were completely emotionally honest with themselves, they would not be people. At least, not the kind of people you see today. I don't think it's even possible to be completely emotionally honest, or to be completely honest at all.

At the core of honesty is truth, at the core of truth is reality.

How do you define reality?

Define morality...Morals are relevant, changing with every person and every society.

But for the argument, I play niether side, my kinky desires hurt only me, and without pain, the couldnt be pleasure yeah?

Rizzo, you talk about the devine likes ite the be all and end all of everything. The ultimate authority. Well the devine itself is a conceptualisation of man how ANYONE and that includes you, tinks about it in the modern day. If you want the divine to be as powerful as you calim, then go back a few hundred million years.

Also you claim to rebel against authority, yet you agree witht he conceptualisation of the divine or the infinite, whatever you damn well want to call it, yet this is known be be the most oppresive type of logical process known to man. THe believe in a diety or a grand narrative on any sort only leads to illogical actions.

Locig is not rigid, the logic of nature is not rigid. If the logic of natur was set in stone then nothing would ever ide out, and the wolrd would still be unaffected by everything we do with it. As such the logic of nature, much like the logic of man, has to give and take from external pressure. Today we see the evolution of animals to suit the new urban structures they have to dontend with. E.G. urban birds changing their songs which now sound much more like a rap song than the traditional rural counterparts. IF the logic of nature was ridig, this would nevrer have happened, and that is a LOGICAL concluding thought process ont he issue.

Also, you seem to consistently claim that what you say is not meant to be what is right, yet whenever someone has a different view, you attack it. You cannot say things like "what is right, what is wrong" then when people answer with their views say that their wrong and youre right because you believe in the divine.

Finally, you calim that because you believe everything should be done out of love, or not be done at all. You also claim that this belief in love has led to a belief in Jesus. Good for you, but again, that doesnt make it so for everyone. I believe that love is powerful, and i believe that everything should have a degree of love behind it before it is taken out, but that doesnt mean that all actions done in this manner are right, or logical or true, which you do seem to try to say consistantly. Also i dont beleive in Jesus or the divine, does that make me a bad person, because from the ay you talk you cannot believe in love without those as well.

I dont like writing this Rizzo, you seem like someone i could have a decent intellectual debate with now and again, but you do seem somewhat agressive and have a slight superiority comlex because fo what you believe. If you could leave those traits out the thread and justtry to consider peoples ideas before blasting them, it might help this thread out a bit.

Also, saying youre the only logical one is somewhat arrogant of you, please dont insult people like that its just rude.

quote:Originally shouted by G:

Rizzo, you talk about the devine likes ite the be all and end all of everything.



quote:Originally said by God:

“I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last”

pwnt by the book of revelation lol

Fullcircle, did you read the rest of the pargraph, or did you just read that bit and decided to miock it. If its the former, than kudos to you, if not then i must say i think youre an idiot. No offence.



[This message has been edited by mongolia_d (edited 12-14-2006).]

Yep ya got me, I just read the first line.

Fair nuff mate.