Modern Sex Cults

AlchoPwn

Public Service is my Motto.
Joined
Nov 2, 2017
Messages
1,009
Likes
1,205
Points
154
#62
Let's sum up that thought process: "You mean to say that an eight-pound human being tore itself out of my body in a tsunami of blood, screams and faeces? Shit, I have to start writing this stuff down...” Tattoos maximus otter
:rofl2: SAVAGE!

I would have been a tiny bit more charitable and said: "I just spent 37 hours in intense agony giving birth to a child. I know! I'll mark the occasion forever by subjecting myself to another torture session involving needles and ink, to make a permanent mark on my body, because the stretch marks just aren't enough. Masochism FTW!"

I seriously don't get people's fascination with tattoos either. I think some people think tattoos make them look more dangerous, so they are less likely to get beaten up. Of course they're wrong... prison tattoos make you look more dangerous, but who wants to cover themselves with prison tattoos except for some vory from a gulag? (For those who don't know what a vory is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thief_in_law)
 

AlchoPwn

Public Service is my Motto.
Joined
Nov 2, 2017
Messages
1,009
Likes
1,205
Points
154
#64
It's THEIR bodies!
Absolutely! I would strongly defend their right to mutilate themselves in any way they see fit; mental competency tests be damned! I just personally don't understand the appeal. I have personally never seen the need to graffiti myself with more than a shopping list on my hand when I have no paper. I also don't find tattoos attractive, and most of the designs are pretty ugly imo. It is purely a matter of personal opinion, and I wouldn't remotely presume to enforce my tastes on other people.
 
Joined
Aug 19, 2003
Messages
46,011
Likes
16,137
Points
284
Location
Eblana
#68
Oh yeah, but being judgmental isn't cool.

Guess how many tattoos I have, and how prominent they are.
I'm not being judgemental, I just think you're a bad example to the youth of today.

Like those OAPs in seaside resorts where there are no bookshops but plenty of tattoo parlours.
 

escargot

Beloved of Ra
Joined
Aug 24, 2001
Messages
22,899
Likes
13,868
Points
309
#69
I'm not being judgemental, I just think you're a bad example to the youth of today.

Like those OAPs in seaside resorts where there are no bookshops but plenty of tattoo parlours.
How do you know I'm a bad example? Because I have tattoos? You don't know anything at all about my tattoos but you still think I'm a bad example? I'm surprised at you.
 

AlchoPwn

Public Service is my Motto.
Joined
Nov 2, 2017
Messages
1,009
Likes
1,205
Points
154
#71
Oh yeah, but being judgmental isn't cool. Guess how many tattoos I have, and how prominent they are.
Forming judgements is a reflex action in human beings. We literally can't stop ourselves from doing so. Psych tests have proven the fact. For example, most people are unaware that babies are racist.
 

Mikefule

Michael Wilkinson
Joined
Dec 9, 2009
Messages
206
Likes
516
Points
99
Location
Lincolnshire UK
#73
Forming judgements is a reflex action in human beings. We literally can't stop ourselves from doing so. Psych tests have proven the fact. For example, most people are unaware that babies are racist.
That depends on what you mean by "racist" — and it is more than a semantic distinction.

It is normal animal behaviour — and that includes humans of all ages — to make initial judgements of what is likely to be friendly or potentially dangerous on the basis of experience and of appearance. It is a survival trait, and it is utilised by some species which mimic others, for example the black and yellow striped hover fly that looks enough like a bee or wasp to discourage predators.

A baby has very little experience, and can only interpret those parts of someone else's appearance that it can recognise and categorise. For example, a baby can see if someone is black or white, and can compare this to their own skin colour or their mother's skin colour. However, they cannot tell whether someone is wearing designer glasses or cheap ones. They might react if someone is dirty enough to have an unpleasant smell, but they won't react to whether that person's shirt is ironed or not.

Therefore, it is well within the bounds of normal rational behaviour for a baby to react differently to people of different skin colour. No moral or political judgement is involved, and it is not "racist" in any meaningful sense.

At the other end of a spectrum of behaviour that involves making judgements about people based on their colour (or other visible characteristics) is something that we would all certainly call "racism" and which (I hope) we would all condemn. That is making a negative judgement about another person based solely on their ethnic characteristics, sticking to that judgement despite clear evidence that contradicts it, and treating that person unfavourably because of it.
 

AlchoPwn

Public Service is my Motto.
Joined
Nov 2, 2017
Messages
1,009
Likes
1,205
Points
154
#74
That depends on what you mean by "racist" — and it is more than a semantic distinction.

It is normal animal behaviour — and that includes humans of all ages — to make initial judgements of what is likely to be friendly or potentially dangerous on the basis of experience and of appearance. It is a survival trait, and it is utilised by some species which mimic others, for example the black and yellow striped hover fly that looks enough like a bee or wasp to discourage predators.

A baby has very little experience, and can only interpret those parts of someone else's appearance that it can recognise and categorise. For example, a baby can see if someone is black or white, and can compare this to their own skin colour or their mother's skin colour. However, they cannot tell whether someone is wearing designer glasses or cheap ones. They might react if someone is dirty enough to have an unpleasant smell, but they won't react to whether that person's shirt is ironed or not.

Therefore, it is well within the bounds of normal rational behaviour for a baby to react differently to people of different skin colour. No moral or political judgement is involved, and it is not "racist" in any meaningful sense.

At the other end of a spectrum of behaviour that involves making judgements about people based on their colour (or other visible characteristics) is something that we would all certainly call "racism" and which (I hope) we would all condemn. That is making a negative judgement about another person based solely on their ethnic characteristics, sticking to that judgement despite clear evidence that contradicts it, and treating that person unfavourably because of it.
On the contrary, babies are racist little scumbags who cry when people of different ethnicity come near them. They crave familiarity, conformity, and homogeneity, and loathe that which is diverse and distinct. Saying that babies can't make moral or political judgements implies that their parents are also racist. We should ban babies.
 

AlchoPwn

Public Service is my Motto.
Joined
Nov 2, 2017
Messages
1,009
Likes
1,205
Points
154
#76
I can't tell whether you are being serious.
That was the intention. I am actually very fond of the racist, polymorphously perverse, narcissistic little self-shitters. You can't re-educate them if they've never been educated, can you? Of course I am sure I will eventually see someone who is actually pushing this line of reasoning, as it is a mad and toxic time we are living in.
 

escargot

Beloved of Ra
Joined
Aug 24, 2001
Messages
22,899
Likes
13,868
Points
309
#77
That was the intention. I am actually very fond of the racist, polymorphously perverse, narcissistic little self-shitters. You can't re-educate them if they've never been educated, can you? Of course I am sure I will eventually see someone who is actually pushing this line of reasoning, as it is a mad and toxic time we are living in.
That's a rather silly game to play.
 

James_H

And I like to roam the land
Joined
May 18, 2002
Messages
5,519
Likes
1,948
Points
234
#79
As humans, we have created the world in which we live far more than any other species. Birds have nests, but we have cities, farms, the internet. However, for the vast majority of our evolutionary history, we had savannahs, apex predators and the odd tree. This is also the time when we picked up most of our hard-wired behaviour. If racist behaviour is 'natural' in children (and I'm not convinced – anecdotally, I find children much less racist than adults), it does not equate that there is anything significant or useful in it. You know what else is natural? People's desire to kill each other. Shitting on the floor. Driving other species to extinction. Do these things help us in this self-made edifice we call civilization? Big no.

As all the religions (and quite a few serious yet non-religiously affiliated people) tell us, we need to rise above our animal instincts in order for society to function.
 

Coal

Polymath Renaissance Man, Italian Wiccan Anarchist
Joined
Jun 27, 2015
Messages
7,689
Likes
8,529
Points
279
#81
People's desire to kill each other. Shitting on the floor. Driving other species to extinction. Do these things help us in this self-made edifice we call civilization? Big no.
Exactly. Civilised behaviour is all about NOT responding to knee-jerk urges.
 
Top