Perhaps once we are done affirming the importance of loving acceptance of what is, we can have a discussion about Beginner's Mind.
Well I mean, assuming I'm supposed to take your claim literally, there are at the very least a wide variety of other positive emotions other than love, and each point in that spectrum applies to different situations. The idea that it would always be love as opposed to ever being something else is absurd.
I believe the argument is that all positive emotions belong in the broad category of love.
Not quite.
Someone hugs me -> this is an act of love!
Someone flips me the bird -> this person obviously is in need of love at some level, whether they just woke up on the wrong side of the bed or what.
All human action can be interpreted as either love or a call for love.
I think put that way it's somewhat reductive, but I agree with the general sentiment.
One can also be motivated by need, or by justice (which is, I think, the most dangerous motivator of all).
“I used to advertise my loyalty and I don't believe there is a single person I loved that I didn't eventually betray.”
― Albert Camus, The Fall
"and the morning stars I have seen
and the gengars who are guiding me" -- W.S. Merwin
"and the morning stars I have seen
and the gengars who are guiding me" -- W.S. Merwin
0
Options
y2jake215certified Flat Birther theoristthe Last Good Boy onlineRegistered Userregular
"“I used to advertise my loyalty and I don't believe there is a single person I loved that I didn't eventually betray.”
― Albert Camus, The Fall"
-Eddy
maybe i'm streaming terrible dj right now if i am its here
Wait what age is the correct age to be sexing things by forum consensus?
When it's not a crime and is consensual.
Enthusiastic consent++
Ehh. Enthusiastic Consent === consensual.
My friend is actually writing her dissertation on consent and sex. She's helped convince me that consent ought not to be how we judge the appropriateness of sexual contact.
Because there are times where there is not consent but there is clearly nothing wrong done, so a lack of consent can't really be the wrong making property.
She thinks it has to do with sexual identity, which looks like consent, but isn't. It's interesting, though I haven't done a whole lot of reading because it's well outside of my area of study.
I'd be interested to hear this argument and also her examples, because consent is pretty much the crux of modern theories of sexual ethics.
Hell, informed consent is pretty damned pivotal to modern ethical theory writ large.
Well there are some rough spots. Like, dominion over lesser agents is acceptable to a degree (choosing what to feed a child, choosing to eat an animal) although there are taboos against taking certain action against an agent which is expected to gain autonomy in the future (sex with a child, for example).
The underlying premise is not to cause harm, and consent is an abstraction which is used to eliminate a lot of problematic gray areas regarding unequal power dynamics and such.
someone made an edit of this that turned the chorus into careless whisper
maybe i'm streaming terrible dj right now if i am its here
0
Options
ChanusHarbinger of the Spicy Rooster ApocalypseThe Flames of a Thousand Collapsed StarsRegistered Userregular
""“I used to advertise my loyalty and I don't believe there is a single person I loved that I didn't eventually betray.”
― Albert Camus, The Fall"
-Eddy"
--Abraham Lincoln
Allegedly a voice of reason.
0
Options
y2jake215certified Flat Birther theoristthe Last Good Boy onlineRegistered Userregular
"and the morning stars I have seen
and the gengars who are guiding me" -- W.S. Merwin
+1
Options
Nova_CI have the needThe need for speedRegistered Userregular
Okay, well, these days it seems it takes just as long to get a console up and running as a computer installing Windows for the first time, but whatevs, my Wii U is fully functional.
And let me just say that the gamepad screen is totally boss.
cB you should read Atlas Shrugged it is a very informative and brilliant work
Alright, I'm fairly certain I've got at least three stock "Atlas Shrugged is terrible" memes that I can use here. Anyone have any preference for which one I use?
Don't use memes.
They're terrible.
Think about it like this, kid.
Memes are not original thoughts. original thoughts are the best. go with those.
Yeah, do what everyone is telling you, be original and think for yourself and don't post memes.
My special knowledge gained by posting on the for for 2/3 of your life make me an authority in matters like this.
What you know anyway, you're just a silly gosling.
Wait what age is the correct age to be sexing things by forum consensus?
When it's not a crime and is consensual.
Enthusiastic consent++
Ehh. Enthusiastic Consent === consensual.
My friend is actually writing her dissertation on consent and sex. She's helped convince me that consent ought not to be how we judge the appropriateness of sexual contact.
Because there are times where there is not consent but there is clearly nothing wrong done, so a lack of consent can't really be the wrong making property.
She thinks it has to do with sexual identity, which looks like consent, but isn't. It's interesting, though I haven't done a whole lot of reading because it's well outside of my area of study.
I'd be interested to hear this argument and also her examples, because consent is pretty much the crux of modern theories of sexual ethics.
Yeah, I don't know the literature very well. I know that there are a lot of feminist critiques about consent. Also it seems like there are just situations where clearly a lack of consent doesn't make conduct wrong.
I mean, imagine a couple who has been together for two decades, and they just know each other really well. They know the cues, and they have sex without making anything explicit (which is usually what kind of consent people are referring to). They both want to, and they both think that their partner wants to (and are correct). Where's the problem? Is that really wrong? It just doesn't seem to be unless you refuse to give up the grip on your consent theory.
Whereas the notion of sexual identity (conceived as how someone thinks about themselves as a sexual person), seems to do all the explaining we need. Part of sexual identity is having sex when and with who you wish to. The only problematic cases are when that identity is violated by making you a person who had sex with x person at y time when you wished to not be a person with that identity.
Consent is also just really tricky, because there are only a few types of consent and none of them clearly work without problems.
Though I must confess right away that I'm mostly just kind of trusting my friend here, she knows this stuff and I don't. But I was going to get a reading list from her for the summer and if I do I'll let you know what she gives me.
In any event, I do philosophy of language and not applied ethics, so it's pretty far afield from where I focus my attention.
"The only way to get rid of a temptation is to give into it." - Oscar Wilde
"We believe in the people and their 'wisdom' as if there was some special secret entrance to knowledge that barred to anyone who had ever learned anything." - Friedrich Nietzsche
All the people who I want to fuck relentlessly are already in relationships. :x One of them gets really flirty with me while drunk which sucks because I am friends with their partner.
Perhaps once we are done affirming the importance of loving acceptance of what is, we can have a discussion about Beginner's Mind.
Well I mean, assuming I'm supposed to take your claim literally, there are at the very least a wide variety of other positive emotions other than love, and each point in that spectrum applies to different situations. The idea that it would always be love as opposed to ever being something else is absurd.
I believe the argument is that all positive emotions belong in the broad category of love.
Not quite.
Someone hugs me -> this is an act of love!
Someone flips me the bird -> this person obviously is in need of love at some level, whether they just woke up on the wrong side of the bed or what.
All human action can be interpreted as either love or a call for love.
I think put that way it's somewhat reductive, but I agree with the general sentiment.
One can also be motivated by need, or by justice (which is, I think, the most dangerous motivator of all).
If viewed as tools of love, justice can be a good and compassionate thing. Our current implementation of justice is failing because it relies not on love (ie good outcomes) for victims, perpetrators, and society but rather seeks to achieve vengeance.
I'm at least cynical enough to believe that, for most, vengeance is an end in itself. So long as we believe that people should "get what they deserve" in accordance with their past actions, as opposed to everyone simply deserving to have their needs met for being human, justice is really just a self-serving concept. It may have been practical once but it's not practical now, we have better ways of steering human behavior that don't resort to "just deserts".
All the people who I want to fuck relentlessly are already in relationships. :x One of them gets really flirty with me while drunk which sucks because I am friends with their partner.
Wait what age is the correct age to be sexing things by forum consensus?
When it's not a crime and is consensual.
Enthusiastic consent++
Ehh. Enthusiastic Consent === consensual.
My friend is actually writing her dissertation on consent and sex. She's helped convince me that consent ought not to be how we judge the appropriateness of sexual contact.
Because there are times where there is not consent but there is clearly nothing wrong done, so a lack of consent can't really be the wrong making property.
She thinks it has to do with sexual identity, which looks like consent, but isn't. It's interesting, though I haven't done a whole lot of reading because it's well outside of my area of study.
I'd be interested to hear this argument and also her examples, because consent is pretty much the crux of modern theories of sexual ethics.
Yeah, I don't know the literature very well. I know that there are a lot of feminist critiques about consent. Also it seems like there are just situations where clearly a lack of consent doesn't make conduct wrong.
I mean, imagine a couple who has been together for two decades, and they just know each other really well. They know the cues, and they have sex without making anything explicit (which is usually what kind of consent people are referring to). They both want to, and they both think that their partner wants to (and are correct). Where's the problem? Is that really wrong? It just doesn't seem to be unless you refuse to give up the grip on your consent theory.
Whereas the notion of sexual identity (conceived as how someone thinks about themselves as a sexual person), seems to do all the explaining we need. Part of sexual identity is having sex when and with who you wish to. The only problematic cases are when that identity is violated by making you a person who had sex with x person at y time when you wished to not be a person with that identity.
Consent is also just really tricky, because there are only a few types of consent and none of them clearly work without problems.
Though I must confess right away that I'm mostly just kind of trusting my friend here, she knows this stuff and I don't. But I was going to get a reading list from her for the summer and if I do I'll let you know what she gives me.
In any event, I do philosophy of language and not applied ethics, so it's pretty far afield from where I focus my attention.
I think that there is consent in that case. It's generally not discussed because so much of the argument is trying to beat into dudebros' heads that date rape is unacceptable and any gray area is just asking for trouble, but in a long term relationship there exists the possibility for an understanding of consent.
If I'm sleeping with a girl and I wake her up with oral sex, I had better know beforehand whether she is alright with that sort of thing. If she is, then it's kosher even though I didn't wake her up to ask her about it.
Although waking her up to ask her if she'd like some oral sex would probably be pretty well-received as well, if she was into that sort of thing. Communication is sexy, after all.
Posts
maybe i'm streaming terrible dj right now if i am its here
“I used to advertise my loyalty and I don't believe there is a single person I loved that I didn't eventually betray.”
― Albert Camus, The Fall
and the gengars who are guiding me" -- W.S. Merwin
and the gengars who are guiding me" -- W.S. Merwin
― Albert Camus, The Fall"
-Eddy
maybe i'm streaming terrible dj right now if i am its here
new nerdgasmic let me teach you the ways
BASSBASSBASSBASSBASSBASSBASSBASSBASSBASSBASS
Well there are some rough spots. Like, dominion over lesser agents is acceptable to a degree (choosing what to feed a child, choosing to eat an animal) although there are taboos against taking certain action against an agent which is expected to gain autonomy in the future (sex with a child, for example).
The underlying premise is not to cause harm, and consent is an abstraction which is used to eliminate a lot of problematic gray areas regarding unequal power dynamics and such.
High school is full of drama and trauma and is a bad time to do that.
someone made an edit of this that turned the chorus into careless whisper
maybe i'm streaming terrible dj right now if i am its here
― Albert Camus, The Fall"
-Eddy"
--Abraham Lincoln
this one @gooey lol
maybe i'm streaming terrible dj right now if i am its here
...my son...
and the gengars who are guiding me" -- W.S. Merwin
And let me just say that the gamepad screen is totally boss.
Yeah, do what everyone is telling you, be original and think for yourself and don't post memes.
My special knowledge gained by posting on the for for 2/3 of your life make me an authority in matters like this.
What you know anyway, you're just a silly gosling.
(the way is bass)
Yeah, I don't know the literature very well. I know that there are a lot of feminist critiques about consent. Also it seems like there are just situations where clearly a lack of consent doesn't make conduct wrong.
I mean, imagine a couple who has been together for two decades, and they just know each other really well. They know the cues, and they have sex without making anything explicit (which is usually what kind of consent people are referring to). They both want to, and they both think that their partner wants to (and are correct). Where's the problem? Is that really wrong? It just doesn't seem to be unless you refuse to give up the grip on your consent theory.
Whereas the notion of sexual identity (conceived as how someone thinks about themselves as a sexual person), seems to do all the explaining we need. Part of sexual identity is having sex when and with who you wish to. The only problematic cases are when that identity is violated by making you a person who had sex with x person at y time when you wished to not be a person with that identity.
Consent is also just really tricky, because there are only a few types of consent and none of them clearly work without problems.
Though I must confess right away that I'm mostly just kind of trusting my friend here, she knows this stuff and I don't. But I was going to get a reading list from her for the summer and if I do I'll let you know what she gives me.
In any event, I do philosophy of language and not applied ethics, so it's pretty far afield from where I focus my attention.
"We believe in the people and their 'wisdom' as if there was some special secret entrance to knowledge that barred to anyone who had ever learned anything." - Friedrich Nietzsche
hahahahaha
amazing
three way
I'm at least cynical enough to believe that, for most, vengeance is an end in itself. So long as we believe that people should "get what they deserve" in accordance with their past actions, as opposed to everyone simply deserving to have their needs met for being human, justice is really just a self-serving concept. It may have been practical once but it's not practical now, we have better ways of steering human behavior that don't resort to "just deserts".
maybe i'm streaming terrible dj right now if i am its here
As a [chat]er,
as a gif,
as a <blink>,
so if anyone sent eigenvector any messages today I didn't get em
you are a static image
http://fffff.at/kanyefy-your-dock/
YOU CAN THANK ME LATER CHAT
maybe i'm streaming terrible dj right now if i am its here
No memes. We can have the one.
No.
oh my fuk
but then I am like kanye married kim kardashian
only downside is when a newbie comes in and takes them earnestly
and the gengars who are guiding me" -- W.S. Merwin
I think that there is consent in that case. It's generally not discussed because so much of the argument is trying to beat into dudebros' heads that date rape is unacceptable and any gray area is just asking for trouble, but in a long term relationship there exists the possibility for an understanding of consent.
If I'm sleeping with a girl and I wake her up with oral sex, I had better know beforehand whether she is alright with that sort of thing. If she is, then it's kosher even though I didn't wake her up to ask her about it.
Although waking her up to ask her if she'd like some oral sex would probably be pretty well-received as well, if she was into that sort of thing. Communication is sexy, after all.
"I can’t be with any girl but Kim because that’s the girl whose pictures I look at the most and get turned on by." -Kanye West
that's tru love elf
that's pure
and the gengars who are guiding me" -- W.S. Merwin