Post AhPa8yip8PcmsyQDq4 by Indigo@shitposter.world
(DIR) More posts by Indigo@shitposter.world
(DIR) Post #AhPa8umDnpxweLysa0 by melmc@freeatlantis.com
2024-04-11T19:45:04Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
(DIR) Post #AhPa8vQzMGZkgn3R7g by Robert_Vinson@liberdon.com
2024-04-11T22:56:04Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@melmc "…as if the capitalist society was still in its purest state of virgin innocence, with its antagonisms still undeveloped, with its delusions still unexploded, with its prostitute realities not yet laid bare."https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1871/civil-war-france/ch05.htm
(DIR) Post #AhPa8vwtRe62Hjyuqu by Indigo@shitposter.world
2024-04-11T23:39:25.851917Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Robert_Vinson @melmc The fact that so many so-called "libertarians" are now pro-life is a big part of why I don't call myself one anymore.I don't see how you can square the circle of being supposedly in favor of individual liberty and bodily autonomy, and also believe that the state owns part of a woman.Also, I'm not an Objectivist anymore either, but I still love throwing this live grenade into threads:
(DIR) Post #AhPa8wIW9FOTMo6BYe by SuzyCreamcheese@freesoftwareextremist.com
2024-04-12T01:22:55.063290Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Indigo To be honest, I dislike the whole abortion discussion. I hate the focusing on if the fetus itself is a person and I'm entirely willing to grant it is (at an early stage of development where it may be even just a few cells) that doesn't change my opinion at all. There is an important question of if you should have a legal obligation to use your body to sustain another person's life to the possible detriment of your own. The more important questions involve the mother and facts like pregnancy is inherently risky. If we say that we allow it given some conditions (like if the mother was raped for example) we create conditions in which those who need it will be cut off.I think the question of if you should have a legal obligation to sustain another person's life to the possible detriment of your own is the most important part. I know, there's some feminist paper I haven't read that makes the point about you being attached to someone and force to give a blood transfusion. The person you are attached to is innocent, but if you disattach, they die. Obviously the person who attached you to them should have all the consequences they have coming maybe even more. But the important part of the of the hypothetical is should the law prohibit you from disattaching in that given situation.
(DIR) Post #AhPa8wfukG6oXN2s1g by Indigo@shitposter.world
2024-04-12T03:02:22.517680Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@SuzyCreamcheese I can at least rationalize that perspective, and I have an easier time meeting half-way with that then with the "life is sacred at moment of conception, hurr derr" argument.I think my opinion is still the same though, the way I see it you're not obligated to protect someone else if your life is in immediate danger, and making the choice not to shouldn't be punished.Human nature is to self-preservation first and foremost, and with how dangerous and painful pregnancy is, I don't think that's a torture that should be inflicted on anyone without them explicitly signing up for it.There's also the stuff you mentioned, situations where the mother is raped, situations where the child would be born to an abysmal life, and the simple fact that no matter what you do abortion is still going to happen, it'll just get pushed underground and be much less safe.I have a lot of biases about this, including the mostly irrelevant fact that I find the entire process of pregnancy and child birth absolutely disgusting (like body horror, Cronenbergian disgusting); and that the concept of having children is such a life-ruination-level event in my mind that the first time I attempted to have sex with a woman I was unable to, simply because even though I had a condom and she was on the pill, there was still a cosmically low chance, and that was unacceptably high. But that's a personal problem.In other words, I'm a little bit of an anti-natalist, and my opinion is unchanged.
(DIR) Post #AhPa8x5RDMWdoWzFoG by SuzyCreamcheese@freesoftwareextremist.com
2024-04-13T04:06:26.155520Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Indigo >simply because even though I had a condom and she was on the pill, there was still a cosmically low chance, and that was unacceptably highOnly ever smashing dudes I have no fear of pregnancy :smug: no condoms for me.>I'm a little bit of an anti-natalistFunny thing anti-natalism has been on my mind a bit. I would like to know tho is there more to his than disgust? Or am I misreading when I assume you from your view of human nature to self-preserve (I find a little debatable depending and everything we mean there) is not also a way you would argue that most or all should not reproduce? And for me thing the whole thing moves not just into the creation of children, but to sex and gender. If you don't know I am a Christian (one my own terms), and being so I look to the Christian and Platonic writings on the topic. In popular perception there may not be but I see a kind of lite anti-natalism here. Some look at Platonic philosophy or Christianity and say (especially those who want to intellectually justify their homophobia) "Sex exist for the end of reproduction and jacking it, oral and so on are a violation of that end". There is a few problems with ending there cuz we can debate on if sex has more to it than just reproduction (the Christian and Platonic writers would agree with them), then we can not if we agree here go as far as some like Chrysostom have gone and say that sodomy is worst than murder and to the lite anti-natalism.In 1 Corinthians chapter 7 Paul says speaking on marriage that "For I would that all men were even as I myself." He says that it would be best if all were celibate. It would be best if no-one reproduce and when in perfection there will be no sex. However, he knows we can't expect everyone to be celibate and also that "every man hath his proper gift of God" or it is better to let them marry. Sex is something falling, but not just the act of sex as speaking to the Galatians Paul tells us that in Christ "there is neither male nor female". The fact that that sex and gender is fallen changes how we should we the Bible. Origen for example speaks of 1 Timothy 2:15 and for him it saying woman will be saved through childbirth is not to be exclusive to woman. The beautiful Meister Eckhart tells us regardless of sex to be virgins who are wives as a virgin is pure and a wife bears fruit."A virgin who is a wife, free and unfettered in affections, is equally near both to God and to self. She brings forth much fruit and is big withal, no less and no more than God himself is. This virgin who is a wife accomplishes this birth, bears fruit every day an hundred- or a thousandfold — yes, she gives birth times without number and bears fruit from the most fertile of soils."Not long ago I was reading Gregory of Nyssa and in On The Making of Man in it he has a chapter on procreation and the fall. I like how a speaks of sex as a "contrivance for the increase which befits those who have fallen into sin". It is useful here in this world, but this world is not the goal. This world serves a purpose as Eckhart writes "For the perfection of virtue comes of struggle, or, as St. Paul says 'Virtue is made perfect in weakness''This goes back to the pagan Platonist. Plotinus who hated being born into a body writes "The less the desire for procreation, the greater is the contentment with beauty alone" but sex is not the worst cuz "procreation aims at the engendering of beauty" unlike Plato who had a complex view on same-sex relations Plotinus only speaks of procreation and leaves comments like "for women, of course". Those who are not celibate have the "purpose of self-perpetuation". Sex has use in this world, but this world is not the goal.
(DIR) Post #AhPa8xSpoNEyz5vwHI by SuzyCreamcheese@freesoftwareextremist.com
2024-04-13T04:10:44.488957Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Indigo kinda funny how I start with being a fag I can smash without fear of pregnancy then wall of text that sex is cuz of man's fallen state
(DIR) Post #AhPa8xwG2ymCSLhR8i by Indigo@shitposter.world
2024-04-13T05:00:25.322030Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@SuzyCreamcheese You've given me a lot to think about...Also, for a little context, I identified as gay for most of my adult life since I was about 16 (I'm 29 for the record), some events occurred in my life in the last year or so that made me start to question that, and without going into too many details, I ended up concluding that I'm pretty sure now that I've been straight all along.It's complicated, won't bore you with the details.It's funny because I used to joke that god made me gay because he took one look at me and said "yeah... this one doesn't need to reproduce."Anyway, I would agree that self-preservation and procreation are in many ways two sides of the same coin, and they are definitely both instincts most animals, and by extension humans, have hard-coded into their DNA.However, I would say that most people, especially in the modern era we're in, are probobly not in an economic or social position where they can provide an adequate environment for a child to grow up in a healthy and happy way. And I think encouraging most people not to have children would ultimately be better for western society. Humans, for as grossly flawed as we are, are in a comfy enough place as a species where we really don't need to worry about going extinct any time soon by lack of breeding, so I feel like this is still compatible with the self-preservation instinct. In other words: the human race is going to keep on trucking with or without me contributing, but I've gotta take care of myself either way. I acknowledge that I would be a terrible father, and so I choose not to become one, and leave the children for people who want them. That's part of why I'm pro-choice, I think all children should be wanted children.I'm also not a Christian so I can't comment on the whole "sex as a fallen state of man," thing, but it's an interesting thought experiment. I think sex is put on a pedestal way more than it needs to be in our society; and the best thing to do is to de-stigmatize it, because it's not going anywhere.Humans like to put their parts in the parts of other humans, because it pokes a pleasurable center of their brain, and that's never going to stop as long as there's humans, and there's really just not that much more to it than that as far as I see it. :02shrug:
(DIR) Post #AhPa8yPKIu1puVIeRs by SuzyCreamcheese@freesoftwareextremist.com
2024-04-13T08:14:04.348098Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Indigo >I identified as gay for most of my adult lifeI would never assume that cuz I see you repost lots of anime titties (the newton's cradle one was funny)Anyways, moving to your anti-natalism it seems to be that given our circumstances most should not have kids. Then the other point that all kids should be wanted kids. I brought up Christianity cuz it comes to be a big influence on many of my views (that and Platonic philosophy). Then the problem with stopping at why people do it and the fact it's not going away is it says little for those who want to practice the virtues. People eat cuz they need to and it feels good, but that doesn't tell me if i should cut out carbs. Granted the practice the virtues is lower on priorities. In fact diet (which I suck at) is more important than not jacking off. Then the reason I was thinking about Christian views on sex before you said anything is being gay and christian I would like to avoid the persecution of people like me done in the name of christianity and how I fit in with this whole tradition. I think a good bit about things like adelphopoiesis and Saint Augustine's own relations to lust (which included same-sex in books 3 and 4 of his Confessions) for the same reason.
(DIR) Post #AhPa8yip8PcmsyQDq4 by Indigo@shitposter.world
2024-04-13T17:31:23.067973Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@SuzyCreamcheese Yeah, I like my anime tiddies, they're pretty neato. :boobs: Even when I was dating other men I still very much appreciated the aesthetic of the female form, especially in the context of erotic and or sexual art, but for most of my life I considered that an artistic thing, not a sex thing.It was actually *after* some other stuff happened and I started questioning how I identified myself that I started thinking in retrospect "Huh... maybe the fact that I have 600+ pages of DeviantART favorites, that the vast majority of which is mostly naked women should have been a clue..." :thinkMoe: Anyhow, I think the comparison to over-eating is valid, but I feel like my answer to that is that all things should be taken in moderation. That includes food, and drink; but I think also extends to sex, porn, and masturbation.These things all feel good, and I would argue there's nothing wrong with them in-and-of themselves, but if you do them constantly they can have create negative effects or lose their effects overtime, requiring a larger and larger "hit" of dopamine to satisfy the same craving.I guess I have a very earthly perspective on these things. I'm not an atheist, but I don't identify myself with any established religion; the best word for what I am is "Universalist" because I think all religious schools of thought have value and can offer positive influence on their followers lives; but I think they should all be approached with a certain amount of skepticism, since most are very old and are difficult to divorce from their respective historical contexts completely.If I sound like an Escher knot of ideologies made flesh... bingo.
(DIR) Post #AhPa8z5rkk3Y2RCckq by SuzyCreamcheese@freesoftwareextremist.com
2024-04-16T00:30:08.108348Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Indigo Sorry it took me a second to reply. I could see myself in a straight relationship given certain circumstances. Don't see it happening because for one I'm in a relationship rn. The only women in my life I can think of that been anyway interested in have been significantly older, married and already raised a child. There was this one lady that used to be a co-worker I really like talking to her. I've also never seeked out relationships they've just kind of happened. I too save lots of photos of naked women, but more of men. I just find the human body itself beautiful.My point was not merely moderation even if that's probably the best advice for most people. But most people also here don't need to be told that cuz they kinda just already do. I gave the example of carbs because carbs are just kind of cheap energy. Cheap energy can be useful but you can live without it and you probably see benefits. And in weight loss, you can't stop at moderation, and you may even do damage by suggesting it. Because weight loss isn't so much about how much you consume and how much you work out but how your body responds to what you consume. The reason why skinny lean people like me can eat every and stay slim is because our hormones and metabolism are as such that would make gaining weight difficult. To stay the way I am, it's more a question of what I eat rather than how much. What I should do is eat and live in such a way that my hormones stay at healthy levels. And this becomes important when we start handling problems like obesity because we tend to tell them to just work out an exercise then they do that and don't see results, and on top of that, people assume that they're just lazy.I thought your point about "universalism" was interesting I don't think is invalid but I also think when it comes to that that's something you have to be really careful about. My bf is a Buddhist And based off what I learned from him I can't help but get the impression there's some level of divine inspiration in Buddhism. Plutarch did say"There is not different gods among the different peoples, nor foreign gods and Greek gods, no gods to the South and gods of the North; but just as the sun and the moon and the sky and the earth and see our common and all mankind, but have different names among different races, so, though there be one Reason who orders all of these things and one Providence who administers them [...] There are different honours and appellations among different races; and men use consecrated symbols, some of them obscure and some more clear, so leading the thoughts on the path to the divine: [...]"Perennialism and synchronism and on these two things you see very often in religiand although not invalid. When you look at these trends, you see lots lots of traps. And it's a very common trend that happens a lot when religions mix and when people start to study all these different religions. In Rome, synchronism was huge. During the Renaissance, perennialism was a popular trend. As people are studying these pagan religions and being introduced to stuff like the kabbalah.It's also a big problem with perennialism. Whereas you are on this quest to understand all religion and what they have in in common you end jamming all religion into your favorite tradition. For guenon and schuon All religion basically becomes greater or lesser degrees of vedanta. For Pico della Mirandola and Ficino it's all Platonic Christianity. And Evola it becomes whatever I personally think is cool. With freemasons also, it's just kind of whatever they think is cool. Pico with his hyperdiffusionist history of philosophy, where all wisdom is descended from Moses with the kabbalah. Made more sense in his time, but we now know that the kabbalah is not as old as he thought And it's not really older than the Spanish Jewish immigrants that taught him Hebrew. And we know that the Greeks learned more from the Egyptians than they would have from ancient Jews (Augustine also, thinking that the ancient Jews were one of the biggest sources of the Greek wisdom).And it is understandable that one would see a lot of these trends. The cults of orpheus from what I can see of them are just as valuable is christianity. Then of course, the pythagorean ism and platonism that descends from them. Pagans and Christians debated each other. Porphyry although his Against The Christians was sadly destroyed, we know a good bit of its contents from people replying to it. According to Augustine, he was at some point a Christian (who knows if that true). We must also remember that things like Greco Buddhism are thing. From all the engagement and debate between all these groups, it's only natural, that such similarities be found.
(DIR) Post #AhPa8zexeG83nHceSO by Indigo@shitposter.world
2024-04-18T04:19:43.684723Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@SuzyCreamcheese You raise a lot of very good points, I took a while to respond too because I wanted to take the time and formulate a good response (relatively speaking, this is still me we're talking about :dumbloli: ).I think what you're saying is true, there exist no religions currently practiced that have not in some form or other deviated from their original doctrine in some way, after all (I just finished Silent Hill 3 for the first time last night and completely pilfered that line from that game, so I can't take credit for it). Revisionists are always going to take the bits and pieces of what they like from other religions and add it to their own doctrine in a way that feels organic enough to satisfy the purists (or at least keep them quiet).The way I've always thought of it was something like this: organized religion exists as a shortcut for explaining things in a way that satisfies both people of higher and lower understanding of those things, and the people who shape it are trying to make the most complete set of explanations they can. I think about this with the fact that of the three largest western schools of religion two of them forbid eating pig. Conventional wisdom used to hold that eating pig when it's not prepared/cooked correctly can be really bad for you and have a higher possibility of spreading disease. The logic went that pigs have a very limited number of sweat glands, so all the toxins that would usually be sweated out by other livestock animals (sheep, cow, etc.) just kinda fester in the meat, and if you don't cook that away you're eating it and it can spread disease. The truth of this is somewhat murky, it's not that much more dangerous to eat undercooked pig than any other animal, but that wisdom was believed to be true for a long time.Now, you can try to explain that to someone at the time Islam and Judaism were establishing their doctrine, which is easier said then done in an era where literacy was relatively uncommon umong the general peasantry; or you can build it into your doctrine that eating pig is forbidden by the teachings of Mohamad or the edict of Yahweh.This will satisfy those who don't know any better, since they won't eat the pork because it's forbidden; and those who understand the real reason are smart enough that it's ultimately better this way (it goes without saying that I think this is where religious teachings *start* not where they end; well intentioned teachings can be warped and twisted to serve whoever seeks to use them for their own power or personal enrichment, but that's another topic).I think this same principle can be applied to any number of things that are either forbidden or encouraged through organized religious teachings, and I think that when people who are leaders among organized religion start "comparing notes" they start adopting similar principles into their own teachings.I think I agree that when you search for what all religions have in common, you risk the homogenization of those religions, and ultimately the destruction or loss of things that make cultures unique. But that's not really what I aim for when I say I'm a Universalist. What I'm after is finding what amongst different peoples' religions and cultures brings them joy and makes their life better, in order to better understand their perspective and apply positive aspects of those teachings to my own life.If if sounds like I'm really just an Agnostic who's pretentious and doesn't want to call himself that... I mean you're not wrong, but I feel like there are certain squares I can't circle, that make me more inclined towards *something* being out there (I do believe in reincarnation for instance, because I can't imagine souls are "wasted," in the universe, they've gotta go somewhere).As for cheap vs. clean energy and all that... yeah you have a good point, but moderation isn't a one-size-fits-all thing. One person has very high metabolism and can afford to be more liberal with their "dirty carbs," another has a low metabolism and needs have more self control. These differing tolerances extend to alcohol, gambling, and potentially even sex (to get us back on topic); the line between healthy enjoyment of things that feel good, and addiction can be a blurry one, and it's not going to look the same for everyone's brain chemistry.