OT: And now for something completely different...

[Don Y]

"Denmark outlaws bestiality in narrow vote"

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/denmark-outlaws-bestiality-in-narrow-vote/

*NARROW* vote? Do they have lots of sheep-f*ckers in their government??

(Amazing to think there even *needs* to be such a law! :< I think
I'd be too embarassed to ask our local congress-person what the state
of *our* laws is on that subject...)

 

[Lasse Langwadt Christense]

Den onsdag den 22. april 2015 kl. 18.34.18 UTC+2 skrev Don Y:

"Denmark outlaws bestiality in narrow vote"

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/denmark-outlaws-bestiality-in-narrow-vote/

*NARROW* vote? Do they have lots of sheep-f*ckers in their government??

(Amazing to think there even *needs* to be such a law! :< I think
I'd be too embarassed to ask our local congress-person what the state
of *our* laws is on that subject...)

There is no need for such a law that's the point, even the animal ethics committee agrees there was no need for a law, harming or abusing animals
is already illegal by existing laws

the minister just wanted to score cheap points on a symbolic but pointless
law instead of doing something important.


-Lasse

 

[Lasse Langwadt Christense]

Den onsdag den 22. april 2015 kl. 20.09.59 UTC+2 skrev Don Y:

Hi Lasse,

On 4/22/2015 9:51 AM, Lasse Langwadt Christensen wrote:
Den onsdag den 22. april 2015 kl. 18.34.18 UTC+2 skrev Don Y:
"Denmark outlaws bestiality in narrow vote"

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/denmark-outlaws-bestiality-in-narrow-vote/

*NARROW* vote? Do they have lots of sheep-f*ckers in their government??

(Amazing to think there even *needs* to be such a law! :< I think
I'd be too embarassed to ask our local congress-person what the state
of *our* laws is on that subject...)

There is no need for such a law that's the point, even the animal ethics committee agrees there was no need for a law, harming or abusing animals
is already illegal by existing laws

Granted, US media are notorious for "lean" reporting. Anyone who's looked
at any of the "foreign" media outlets would realize that! So, I'm sure
there are other issues at play -- besides the titillation. But, even the
reason cited for *objecting* to the law seems crazy:

"... existing laws which ALLOW bestiality except in cases where the
animal can be proved to have suffered were enough." (emphasis mine)

I guess I just don't understand the reasoning behind "allow" in ANY
circumstance (perhaps I'm a prude?) Is this practice intended to
make lonely livestock "feel loved" (before they are slaughtered)?
To have led a more full life?? :-/ ("Oh, Bessie! I *finally* had
someone take my cherry! Last night, in the back of the barn, when
the horses were all out grazing... Whattaman!")

most people would find it bizarre, but imagine if we had to makes laws for everything someone finds bizarre. They objected to the law because it was an utter waste of time

How do they prove the animal had "suffered"? Years of "therapy"?? :-/

if some weirdo stick his dick in cow I doubt it cares, it has already had it's tits pulled twice a day and regularly an arm up the rear to see if it is pregnant

-Lasse

 

[Lasse Langwadt Christense]

Den onsdag den 22. april 2015 kl. 20.10.39 UTC+2 skrev Spehro Pefhany:

On Wed, 22 Apr 2015 09:33:48 -0700, Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> wrote:

"Denmark outlaws bestiality in narrow vote"

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/denmark-outlaws-bestiality-in-narrow-vote/

*NARROW* vote? Do they have lots of sheep-f*ckers in their government??

(Amazing to think there even *needs* to be such a law! :< I think
I'd be too embarassed to ask our local congress-person what the state
of *our* laws is on that subject...)

AFAIUI, routine training of some marine mammals involves techniques
that possibly might fall under this legislation.

--sp

anything done for veterinary and zootechnical reasons is excluded

-Lasse

 

[George Herold]

On Wednesday, April 22, 2015 at 2:10:39 PM UTC-4, Spehro Pefhany wrote:

On Wed, 22 Apr 2015 09:33:48 -0700, Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> wrote:

"Denmark outlaws bestiality in narrow vote"

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/denmark-outlaws-bestiality-in-narrow-vote/

*NARROW* vote? Do they have lots of sheep-f*ckers in their government??

(Amazing to think there even *needs* to be such a law! :< I think
I'd be too embarassed to ask our local congress-person what the state
of *our* laws is on that subject...)

AFAIUI, routine training of some marine mammals involves techniques
that possibly might fall under this legislation.

--sp

Are the trainers at Sea World offering special incentives
to their male dolphins? (Having read "Star Tide Rising", D. Brin
that was all I could think of.)

George H.

 

[John Devereux]

Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> writes:

"Denmark outlaws bestiality in narrow vote"

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/denmark-outlaws-bestiality-in-narrow-vote/

*NARROW* vote? Do they have lots of sheep-f*ckers in their government??

(Amazing to think there even *needs* to be such a law! :< I think
I'd be too embarassed to ask our local congress-person what the state
of *our* laws is on that subject...)

Oh, won't somebody please think of the goats?

--

John Devereux

 

[Don Y]

Hi Lasse,

On 4/22/2015 9:51 AM, Lasse Langwadt Christensen wrote:

Den onsdag den 22. april 2015 kl. 18.34.18 UTC+2 skrev Don Y:
"Denmark outlaws bestiality in narrow vote"

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/denmark-outlaws-bestiality-in-narrow-vote/

*NARROW* vote? Do they have lots of sheep-f*ckers in their government??

(Amazing to think there even *needs* to be such a law! :< I think
I'd be too embarassed to ask our local congress-person what the state
of *our* laws is on that subject...)

There is no need for such a law that's the point, even the animal ethics committee agrees there was no need for a law, harming or abusing animals
is already illegal by existing laws

Granted, US media are notorious for "lean" reporting. Anyone who's looked
at any of the "foreign" media outlets would realize that! So, I'm sure
there are other issues at play -- besides the titillation. But, even the
reason cited for *objecting* to the law seems crazy:

"... existing laws which ALLOW bestiality except in cases where the
animal can be proved to have suffered were enough." (emphasis mine)

I guess I just don't understand the reasoning behind "allow" in ANY
circumstance (perhaps I'm a prude?) Is this practice intended to
make lonely livestock "feel loved" (before they are slaughtered)?
To have led a more full life?? :-/ ("Oh, Bessie! I *finally* had
someone take my cherry! Last night, in the back of the barn, when
the horses were all out grazing... Whattaman!")

How do they prove the animal had "suffered"? Years of "therapy"?? :-/

the minister just wanted to score cheap points on a symbolic but pointless
law instead of doing something important.

Yeah, like 50+ votes to repeal a healthcare law that "bears" the name
of the sitting president who would inevitably be called upon to sign it...
"Important".

(Whew! I'm sure glad we've got the BEST healthcare system in the world!!
It would be a shame if all this hullabaloo was over an INFERIOR system!)

 

[Spehro Pefhany]

On Wed, 22 Apr 2015 09:33:48 -0700, Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> wrote:

"Denmark outlaws bestiality in narrow vote"

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/denmark-outlaws-bestiality-in-narrow-vote/

*NARROW* vote? Do they have lots of sheep-f*ckers in their government??

(Amazing to think there even *needs* to be such a law! :< I think
I'd be too embarassed to ask our local congress-person what the state
of *our* laws is on that subject...)

AFAIUI, routine training of some marine mammals involves techniques
that possibly might fall under this legislation.

--sp

 

[rickman]

On 4/22/2015 3:37 PM, Lasse Langwadt Christensen wrote:

Den onsdag den 22. april 2015 kl. 20.10.39 UTC+2 skrev Spehro Pefhany:
On Wed, 22 Apr 2015 09:33:48 -0700, Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> wrote:

"Denmark outlaws bestiality in narrow vote"

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/denmark-outlaws-bestiality-in-narrow-vote/

*NARROW* vote? Do they have lots of sheep-f*ckers in their government??

(Amazing to think there even *needs* to be such a law! :< I think
I'd be too embarassed to ask our local congress-person what the state
of *our* laws is on that subject...)

AFAIUI, routine training of some marine mammals involves techniques
that possibly might fall under this legislation.

--sp

anything done for veterinary and zootechnical reasons is excluded

Well, good then. We don't want to have a bunch of veterinarians locked
up just because they are having sex with sheep.

--

Rick

 

[Don Y]

On 4/22/2015 12:32 PM, Lasse Langwadt Christensen wrote:

Den onsdag den 22. april 2015 kl. 20.09.59 UTC+2 skrev Don Y:

(Amazing to think there even *needs* to be such a law! :< I think
I'd be too embarassed to ask our local congress-person what the state
of *our* laws is on that subject...)

There is no need for such a law that's the point, even the animal ethics
committee agrees there was no need for a law, harming or abusing
animals is already illegal by existing laws

Granted, US media are notorious for "lean" reporting. Anyone who's
looked at any of the "foreign" media outlets would realize that! So, I'm
sure there are other issues at play -- besides the titillation. But, even
the reason cited for *objecting* to the law seems crazy:

"... existing laws which ALLOW bestiality except in cases where the animal
can be proved to have suffered were enough." (emphasis mine)

I guess I just don't understand the reasoning behind "allow" in ANY
circumstance (perhaps I'm a prude?) Is this practice intended to make
lonely livestock "feel loved" (before they are slaughtered)? To have led a
more full life?? :-/ ("Oh, Bessie! I *finally* had someone take my
cherry! Last night, in the back of the barn, when the horses were all out
grazing... Whattaman!")

most people would find it bizarre, but imagine if we had to makes laws for
everything someone finds bizarre.

You mean like drug use among adults (unless, of course, it is alcohol,
nicotine or caffeine)? Or sex practices between consenting adults
in the privacy of their own homes? (I assume no one is screwing
goats IN PUBLIC; I'll avoid the "consent" issue... :> )

> They objected to the law because it was an utter waste of time

Again:
"... existing laws which ALLOW bestiality except in cases where the animal
can be proved to have suffered were enough."
as if *that* was enough reason NOT to have yet another law on the books.

Imagine how many RC priests must be upset! Everyone got upset when they
were discovered to be screwing the altar boys... and now they won't be able
to screw the LIVESTOCK, either!

How do they prove the animal had "suffered"? Years of "therapy"?? :-/

if some weirdo stick his dick in cow I doubt it cares, it has already had
it's tits pulled twice a day and regularly an arm up the rear to see if it
is pregnant

But, if a guy sticks his dick in another *guy*, that's "immoral"? Even
if the other guy wanted him to do so? (how is it "moral" to do it to
an unconsenting animal? What about a clinically brain dead female? Or,
a corpse??)

And, Heaven forbid those two guys want to commit to each other in a
legally binding, State recognized, non-religious enterprise like
*marriage*... <shudder>

 

[Syd Rumpo]

On 22/04/2015 17:33, Don Y wrote:

"Denmark outlaws bestiality in narrow vote"

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/denmark-outlaws-bestiality-in-narrow-vote/

*NARROW* vote? Do they have lots of sheep-f*ckers in their government??

(Amazing to think there even *needs* to be such a law! :< I think
I'd be too embarassed to ask our local congress-person what the state
of *our* laws is on that subject...)

Bet that's really messed up the Danish animal sex tourism business.

Cheers
--
Syd

 

[Don Y]

Hi David,

On 4/24/2015 5:19 AM, David Brown wrote:

The only way to give a decent answer would be to do a survey with a
number of test subjects. Now I just need to find a volunteer goat

I'll leave the task to *you*! :> I wouldn't even know where to *look*
for one! (are goats the sort of animals you'd encounter at a zoo? Or,
are they too "trivial" to merit that sort of attention and maintenance?)

Exactly. As long as what I am doing has no impact on others, keep your
nose out of MY business. And, the rule applies to me, as well, in
reverse.

The fuzzy part becomes how you decide whether or not a behavior *has*
an impact on others. E.g., driving drunk puts others at risk. Sky
diving largely puts the "skydiver" at risk (unless he lands ON
someone/thing)

There is a reason that the /real/ Norwegian law is in a big, thick book,
rather than just a verse in a children's song! But the Cardamom Town
law is what we drum into our kids in kindergarten, and it's a strong
guiding principle for our society.

We all have little idiomatic summaries of "living principles". But, most
people only treat them as little catch phrases and rarely adhere to them.
Similarly, many rarely adhere to the (religious) laws that they actively
promote! ("Thou shalt not steal -- unless I really need what you've got!"
"Thou shalt not kill -- unless you're doing something I don't like!")

For many people, religion is an alternative to thinking. It saves you
from taking responsibility for your own opinions and decisions.

Yup. We all engage in this sort of disconnected thinking, to some
extent. E.g., I only wear black/navy T-shirts and jeans. It saves
me the "trouble" of having to decide what I'll be wearing on any
given day. Similarly, all of my socks are black -- as it saves me the
trouble of having to "pair them" after doing laundry. (In the past,
they've been "all white", etc.)

You mean the socks were all white until they were laundered with the
black T-shirts

Actually, they're colorfast. I *used* to own an equal number of white,
as well. And, folks would joke at how CONSISTENTLY I would wear a *white*
shirt when doing car maintenance (which would, then, prominently show
all the grease/oil stains) and *black* shirts when baking (which would
be white with flour "stains" :< ). Moving to "all black/navy" at least
eliminates *one* class of "unintended disclosures"!

There is, however, a difference between the sort of laziness (and I mean
that in a good way - like "efficiency") of your thinking here, and
taking your cue from religion. In the case of your clothes, /you/ have
made the decisions - when you base your morals on a book or a priest,
you are letting /someone else/ make your decisions.

Exactly. OTOH (and I mean this far more seriously than I am expressing
it), the sorts of decisions that I have to make wrt wardrobe are
considerably more "trivial" than deciding questions of "morality", etc.

A friend once posed the question, "Is suicide justified?" (it would be
great if I could insert a lengthy pause in YOUR reading, here, so you
could actually *think* about that question -- in EXACTLY those three
words!).

My immediate reply: "In what circumstances?" (e.g., terminally ill?
depressed? "curious"? under the influence of drugs? mentally ill? etc.)
She quickly clarified: "IS SUICIDE JUSTIFIED?" I.e., no further
clarification of the particular situation. A *fundamental* question...
do YOU have dominion over your own life?

She volunteered at a suicide prevention hotline so probably thought about
the question and the range of "circumstances" far more than most folks.
Yet, many folks would "squirm" at the question (was my initial attempt
at seeking clarification a way of AVOIDING the question?). Others would
be adamant in their belief that it's your "right". Still others equally
forceful in DENYING you this right (e.g., consider the whole euthanasia,
right-to-die, etc. debate that appears to terrify folks -- and, significantly
threaten healthcare business models!)

It's easy to see how folks could abrogate their "right to form a personal
opinion/belief" on these sorts of "deep" questions -- prefering, instead,
to let someone else make that decision and then just committing to adopting
the "herd's" mentality; safe/secure in knowing that others share their
*adopted* beliefs!

[There are lots of delightfully interesting questions that probe our ideas
of morality at ever deeper levels. E.g., Trolley careening out of control into
a crowd of children playing. Man, coincidentally, happens to have his
vehicle positioned across the tracks. Do you call out to the man to move
his vehicle to avoid being hit/killed by the approaching trolley? Or, keep
your mouth shut effectively "sacrificing" his life to spare the children's?
Having answered, a whole new set of tweeks of the scenario can be proposed
including things like *you* being in the vehicle behind the aforementioned
driver and have the opportunity to PUSH his vehicle onto the tracks thereby
ensuring the children's safety but EXPLICITLY causing the death of the other
driver!]

But you are right that we rely on others to form or influence many of
our opinions.

How does the fact that <minor_celebrity> has (BEEN PAID TO) endorsed some
particular product vouch for the quality, efficacy, etc. of that product?
It's amusing to see the extents to which those celebrities will prostitute
themselves ("My career is over. Now I have to try to eek out a living
by selling my PAST celebrity")

I don't need to try an iPhone or WinPhone to /know/ that
Android is superior - I have read all about it on a source that I trust
explicitly (www.whyandroidisbest.com). Without the ability to learn
from others experiences, we would still be in the early stone-age.

Yes. Though you will note that there are those who would *prevent*
such dissemination of information citing "undo regulation" and, instead,
claim The Market will sort it out ("Heh heh heh... we'll make a killing
on this product -- hide behind our corporate identity -- then dissolve
the corporation when folks realize how bad/harmful the product is!")

The risk with religion is that people let themselves be influenced too
much, and about too important topics.

I attended a (supposedly secular) presentation at a local "place of
worship" a month or two ago. Of course, most of the attendees were
"worshippers".

It was *scary* to find myself surrounded by the *equivalent* of a (black)
Southern Baptist group engaged in "group-speak" ("Amen", etc.) and realize
the sort of "group-think" that was happening to promote that! "I thought
this sort of thing only happened as stereotypes in movies?!"

But, I don't use skin color, religious beliefs, sexual preferences, etc.
as a shortcut to deciding my attitude towards another. Even if I "can't
relate" to their "choices" in these matters.

Indeed. Fortunately, one does not have to have a "small operation" in
order to treat women equally!

I think many people (myself included) genuinely have a hard time relating
to the lives of others. They really can't imagine themselves in the other's
shoes. Blaming "bad behaviors" on "character flaws". Rationalizing that
"they're getting what they deserve", etc. ("It's only The Blacks who are
getting shot-in-the-back fleeing from police because WHITES never commit
crimes, never run from the police, etc.")

We *tend* to surround ourselves with people with similar incomes, opinions,
religious beliefs, culture, values, etc. Thus reinforcing what we *want*
to believe is normal (and, thus, "Right"). It would be anathema for most
"Christians" to consider killing themselves for a cause IMPLIED by their
deity (though there are many who consider it OK to kill *others* for
that "cause" -- just not include themselves in that by way of "sacrifice"!)

It takes a conscious *effort* to consider things from another's perspective.
And, a fair bit of an investment: you can't just "interview" them and
expect to get any sort of understanding. Indeed, even broaching the subject
is likely to put them on the defensive and skew their reply ("Who *is*
this guy to think he can ask me those sorts of questions??")

And, if you can get that far, you haveto be willing to accept whaat you
hear -- and not dismiss it because it is incompatible (or inconvenient)
with your belief system. E.g., it's far easier to think folks panhandling
on street corners are "low lifes", "lazy", "scammers", etc. than it is
to consider their *real* issues -- esp if the remedy might require
an expense (taxes) on your part! <shudder>

When I'm walking (for exercise or just from the car into a store),
I routinely pick up trash that I encounter on my path and carry
it to the nearest "trash can". While doing so, I don't grumble
about the *sshole who undoubtedly discarded it before me. Nor
do I grumble about the person in front of me who elected NOT
to bend down and pick it up -- even though it would have been
just as (in?)convenient for them to do so as it was for me.
Maybe they have a bad back? Poor vision? Are preoccupied thinking
about the cancer diagnosis they received the day before? etc.
Or, maybe they're just a lazy f*ck... How can *I* judge?

A bit of grumbling is fair enough, I think - it's the judgement and
condemnation (especially without knowing the whole picture) that's bad.

Esp when the reason behind that "snap judgement" is laziness or
selfishness. Much easier to rationalize-away a problem than it
would be to *solve* it! "Vote for the guy with the best SLOGANS!"

You are merely human - it's fine to grumble or get a little irritated
when someone does something stupid. It's not a good thing to get worked
up about it (for your own sake), and it is definitely not a good thing
to act upon the grumble, such as by shouting at the "sinner", unless and
until you know the whole story.

There are ways to get your message across without putting the other
party on the defensive (which forces him to dig in his heels to
"justify" his behavior -- rationally or otherwise). E.g., if someone
walking in front/nearby me drops a piece of litter, I'll reach over
and pick it up and say, "That's all right; I've got it!" -- as if they
had UNINTENTIONALLY dropped it. Some will get embarassed and will
stop and take it from me, thanking me for my effort. Even those that
don't now feel a bit uneasy that someone saw them do this -- even though
my comment suggests I don't think it was intentional. Let it eat at
their conscience -- even for 5 seconds. Still others won't give a
sh*t -- nothing I can do about them (though the litter *did* get picked
up -- even if by MY hand!)

Unfortunately, the "stakeholders" often are unaware -- or unwilling to
admit -- of their own motivations. E.g., remove a class of crimes and
you lessen the need for "enforcement officers" (cops). You also
remove some little *percs* -- like agencies being able to use seized assets
to enrich their coffers! It's hard to get folks with such "interests"
to discuss the issue honestly: "If we change the law, then we'll lose
this source of income" sounds overly SELFISH!

I never said this would be an easy solution!

Few problems of substance *have* easy solutions. It's not as simple as
"only buying black shirts"!

And, most of us have little impact on the problem *or* solution. But,
you can raise awareness, entice others to expend more than a cursory
effort in exploring the issues, etc.

And, rephrase the debate in ways that exposes issues that they either
don't want to acknowledge or hadn't yet considered.

E.g., some claim (yet won't substantiate) that "voter fraud" is a REAL
PROBLEM, here. And, enact all sorts of measures in the name of
curtailing fraud that have the effect of suppressing the voting
frequency/proportion of "certain groups". E.g., having a valid
driver's license (many do not own cars -- or may not be interested
in driving: live in Manhattan?? or, too old to maintain it?
Or, can barely afford "life's essentials" or the time to acquire
this sort of credential)

Let's, for the moment, give them the benefit of the doubt and NOT
think that this is their intent (despite the fact that the groups
proposing these solutions aren't proposing solutions that affect
the groups that typically vote "their way").

Here's an equally effective solution that addresses the problem:
a national ID scheme that is recognized -- and codified into all laws
and legal authorities -- as incontrovertible proof of identity.
It is *required* to vote.

And, to combat fraud in other areas -- similarly related to government
programs, benefits, etc. -- require this same credential for ANY such
government benefit: food stamps, unemployment, disability, SSI, etc.
In the short term, there would be many who would lose access to those
programs. But, with forewarning, I'm sure volunteer groups would spring
up to facilitate these folks *getting* their credentials -- as they
would otherwise be denied access to many of these programs.

A side-effect of this would be that everyone who relies on a government
program of some sort (i.e., the populations that the current initiatives
tend to suppress) would be incentivized to get that credential! And,
then be fully capable -- without artificial restraint -- of voting.

One could similarly require that credential in financial transactions:
banking, stocks, etc. -- as a way of ensuring and validating legitimate
ownership. Thus fight any "fraud" in income hiding, etc.

[Yet, we (here) see efforts to make these sorts of "third party"
activities ILLEGAL -- again, in the name of preventing fraud.]

"No, we don't want to SOLVE the problem. We just want to use it as
an excuse to impose a set of restrictions that act against those we
dislike and would prefer to EFFECTIVELY disenfranchise" Of course,
no one wants to say that -- hence the "voter fraud" ruse.

[Many people here have two homes -- one typically in another state
(i.e., voting district). What mechanism is in place to prevent them
from voting in both places -- "mail in ballot"? Wouldn't want to
allow or even TEMPT folks who are "well off" to consider trying to beat
the system in that way!]

The real risk is when doctors allow you to make your own dosage - "take
one as needed". (Except for terminal diseases and cancers - then it's
fine to let patients take what they need to feel comfortable, and if
they die of an overdose rather than cancer a week later, then at least
they are a bit less uncomfortable.)

Yes. Several friends have -- knowingly or otherwise -- gone this route.
I think the medical profession just looks the other way feeling a true
identification of the ACTUAL cause of death wouldn't be helpful to
any of the surviving family. (or "society")

I know that this sort of thing happens here (and I support it - terminal
patients should be made as comfortable as practically possible, even if
that increases the risks), but I have no idea whether the exact cause of
death gets detailed afterwards. One difference is that American society
is a lot more fond of suing people than in European societies. In the
USA, you would run a much higher risk of the doctor and/or hospital
being sued for "killing" the patient with drugs than you would over here.

Unfortunately, there are side-effects (?) of legislation that can
effectively enable a "health provider" to refuse to honor your
explicit wishes (directives): "it violates our religious principles".
How could you expect a hospital affiliated with a religious order
to honor a DNR? Or, assist in your taking of your own life (even
if the legal conditions for doing so have been met)? What if you
have no choice in the selection of that hospital (e.g., you were
in a car wreck and that was the closest facility; or, there are
no "open minded" facilities in your area, your part of the country??)

I know of two cases where DNRs were not honored. It was actually the
*threat* of a future lawsuit in the event they continued to be ignored
that caused them to be honored: serve notice to staff in the presence
of witness along with ANOTHER copy of the Advanced Directives -- so
they can't claim they "lost it".

In hindsight, I've known many "drunks". People that simply could not
"say no" to alcohol. Despite very bad -- and costly -- experiences
(DUI's, license suspensions, evading arrest, etc.). After seeing my
friend's "confession", I realize many of these other folks had similar
problems but hadn't the ability to cope with them. Would making still
more "addictive substances" make things any better, overall? Or, would
we just end up with more "addicts"? I'm simply not qualified to
answer that question...

Nor am I qualified to answer, but we are free to think about it.

It's complicated because addiction seems to be so dominant in some
individuals. They *know* they can't beat it. Does the illegality
act as the only thing keeping those people from getting *started*
down that path?

It seems that there are strong genetic influences on our susceptibility
to addiction (for /all/ addictions). Maybe we should all be genetically
screened at birth, and only those with the right genes are allowed to
buy drugs or alcohol.

Double-edged sword. The results of that screening would have to be
"made public" (explicitly or implicitly) -- otherwise there would be
no way of knowing if a vendor COULD sell to you. Information once
disclosed (thus) can't be retracted. So, you've effectively indicated
which people have this "flaw" and which don't. How do you prevent
people/institutions from using it to their advantage (financial,
moral, etc.) and/or your DISadvantage?

It's also easy to see how that sort of approach could be extended to
other issues. Only allow folks with certain genetic aptitudes to
receive certain training? Opportunities? etc.

A wiser implementation would be for such screenings to be entirely
private -- and the individual being "responsible enough" to know to
avoid things that could be self-destructive (yeah, like THAT'S
gonna happen -- NOT!)

Now, faced with forming a first-hand opinion (instead of inheriting
the opinion of suburbia), it was relatively easy to see that there
was no "threat" there. Nothing to be fearful of -- or even uncomfortable.

Indeed, it made the future relationships easier as the individual
behaviors that "were a bit odd" suddenly had a rational basis. No
need to feel like I was not quite understanding something.

"Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering". We
all have a bit of the dark side in us - it's good when we are shown that
our prejudices are nothing more than that.

But many don't want to see them. E.g., we have a neighbor that is
a bigot. Not a matter of a personal assessment but of the neighborhood
at large. He can't acknowledge that in himself (because it is a ghastly
admission -- sort of like a paedophile admitting his/her problem!).
Yet, until/unless he can do so, his behavior (and attitude) has no hope
of change. And, that assumes he is rational enough to be able to
"process" those realizations and expend effort to understand them.

I, for example, have an irrational fear of heights. E.g., watching
"Wylie Coyote" fall off a "cartoon cliff" IN THE SAFETY OF MY OWN
LIVING ROOM is enough to trigger that fear response.

[<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QMBT1z-r0IQ> will probably have at
least one such screen shot -- they are a staple of most episodes!]

Looking down from the observation deck of the Empire State Building
(1000+ ft), Sears Tower <http://theskydeck.com/> or the Royal Gorge Bridge
<http://www.highestbridges.com/wiki/index.php?title=Royal_Gorge_Bridge/Page_2>
(the "roadway" is made of wooden planks that "move" when vehicles drive
alongside you walking as a pedestrian; the "railing" preventing you
from falling over the side is pretty insignificant) is a serious
challenge.

But, I address each of these situations by forcing myself to be
rational: am I *really* at risk, here? is there *really* anything
to fear?

So, I don't avoid those situations (like some folks might avoid being
around "folks of different socioeconomic/religious backgrounds) and
make a conscious attempt to understand my reactions *in* those situations.
Ditto when I'm around someone who won't allow his wife to speak with
me "alone" (immoral to be in the company of a man other than your
husband), or who is alcoholic, a drug abuser, etc.

On the opposite ("too public") extreme, my wife had a cousin who was very
openly gay. Almost *militant* about it. As if he was going to change
the world and how gays were regarded -- by HIS actions alone! We spent
an evening in their (shared) home in D.C. one night (while we were in
town seeing the sights). It was uncomfortable watching all these
guys moving from room to room at night in their BVD's. And, "suspecting"
what was happening.

[OTOH, I would probably be just as uncomfortable watching hetero couples
moving from room to room, scantily clad. Prude? I guess I just think
that sort of thing should be *behind* closed doors -- even if *I* happen
to have the "misfortune" of being behind them as an unintended observer!]

Some things are best in private, I think. If you are not part of the
"action", you are going to feel very awkward.

OTOH, unless you are exposed to this sort of behavior (doesn't imply you
have to participate), how can you understand their "lifestyle"? Norms?
Values?

eating it. Of course, it would be significantly better for the
environment if people greatly reduced their meat intake and ate more
vegetables, but that's fact rather than opinion or moralising.

There are lots of things that would be better for the environment
and, thus, "mankind". But, most folks are focused on their own needs
and desires and care little about the consequences: "Apres moi, le
deluge". One wonders how they could think so little of their
offspring...

Yes, but it is always easiest to focus on the things that you yourself
get right. A cyclist will tell you that it's cars that are the greatest
cause of environmental damage - as a vegetarian, I tell you it's
meat-eating.

What response would you expect from a cattleman? :> (I.e., how can
you ensure people are honest in their beliefs?)

shrug> My "proof" of the nonexistence of a deity: if THIS is the
BEST he could come up with...

"If we were truly created by God, then why do we still occasionally bite
the insides of our own mouths?" (Dara O'Briain)

OTOH, I am equally fond of:
"I'd love to meet the guy who invented SEX -- and see what he's
working on NOW!"

Morning tea.

Good plan.

And, coincidentally, the same time, now!

 

[David Brown]

On 24/04/15 23:21, Don Y wrote:
> Hi David,

I haven't commented much here, especially further on in the post. It's
not because I haven't read your post, or have anything against it - I
agree with a large proportion of it. It's simply that there is so much
of it that I don't have the time or opportunity to comment in quantity.

On 4/24/2015 5:19 AM, David Brown wrote:

The only way to give a decent answer would be to do a survey with a
number of test subjects. Now I just need to find a volunteer goat

I'll leave the task to *you*! :> I wouldn't even know where to *look*
for one! (are goats the sort of animals you'd encounter at a zoo? Or,
are they too "trivial" to merit that sort of attention and maintenance?)

I'm sure you could find one at a petting zoo... But I wouldn't advise
going to see them - after this thread, you might suffer from deviant
thoughts!

Some farms have goats - that's where the goat's milk for goat's milk
cheese comes from.

There is, however, a difference between the sort of laziness (and I mean
that in a good way - like "efficiency") of your thinking here, and
taking your cue from religion. In the case of your clothes, /you/ have
made the decisions - when you base your morals on a book or a priest,
you are letting /someone else/ make your decisions.

Exactly. OTOH (and I mean this far more seriously than I am expressing
it), the sorts of decisions that I have to make wrt wardrobe are
considerably more "trivial" than deciding questions of "morality", etc.

A friend once posed the question, "Is suicide justified?" (it would be
great if I could insert a lengthy pause in YOUR reading, here, so you
could actually *think* about that question -- in EXACTLY those three
words!).

My immediate response would be the same as yours, I think.

My immediate reply: "In what circumstances?" (e.g., terminally ill?
depressed? "curious"? under the influence of drugs? mentally ill? etc.)
She quickly clarified: "IS SUICIDE JUSTIFIED?" I.e., no further
clarification of the particular situation. A *fundamental* question...
do YOU have dominion over your own life?

She volunteered at a suicide prevention hotline so probably thought about
the question and the range of "circumstances" far more than most folks.
Yet, many folks would "squirm" at the question (was my initial attempt
at seeking clarification a way of AVOIDING the question?). Others would
be adamant in their belief that it's your "right". Still others equally
forceful in DENYING you this right (e.g., consider the whole euthanasia,
right-to-die, etc. debate that appears to terrify folks -- and,
significantly
threaten healthcare business models!)

It's easy to see how folks could abrogate their "right to form a personal
opinion/belief" on these sorts of "deep" questions -- prefering, instead,
to let someone else make that decision and then just committing to adopting
the "herd's" mentality; safe/secure in knowing that others share their
*adopted* beliefs!

I have full respect for people wanting to avoid making decisions or
forming opinions about such matters. We cannot find answers, or even
opinions, on everything. In particular, it is perfectly reasonable to
avoid spending time and effort finding answers to problems that don't
concern us - if no one close to you has committed suicide, or is
considering it, then it is not something that you need to think too hard
about.

It is also fine to say "I'm not an expert on these things", or "that's
something for trained psychiatrists to deal with" (listening to the
opinions of experts is always a good idea), or even "I'm glad I don't
have that problem".

It's /not/ fine to say "my equally ignorant, uninformed and
inexperienced pastor read the answer in 2000 year old book about a
different culture in a different time, so I'll accept his word for it".

And of course its a different matter for questions that actually affect
your daily life - you /do/ need to think about them.

[There are lots of delightfully interesting questions that probe our ideas
of morality at ever deeper levels. E.g., Trolley careening out of
control into a crowd of children playing. Man, coincidentally, happens
to have his
vehicle positioned across the tracks. Do you call out to the man to move
his vehicle to avoid being hit/killed by the approaching trolley? Or, keep
your mouth shut effectively "sacrificing" his life to spare the children's?
Having answered, a whole new set of tweeks of the scenario can be proposed
including things like *you* being in the vehicle behind the aforementioned
driver and have the opportunity to PUSH his vehicle onto the tracks thereby
ensuring the children's safety but EXPLICITLY causing the death of the
other
driver!]

But you are right that we rely on others to form or influence many of
our opinions.

How does the fact that <minor_celebrity> has (BEEN PAID TO) endorsed some
particular product vouch for the quality, efficacy, etc. of that product?

Of course it says nothing about the quality of the product - but people
are suckers for advertising.

It's amusing to see the extents to which those celebrities will prostitute
themselves ("My career is over. Now I have to try to eek out a living
by selling my PAST celebrity")

And why shouldn't they do so? If you write a book, should you stop
appreciating the royalties from its sales just because you wrote it a
long time ago?

I don't need to try an iPhone or WinPhone to /know/ that
Android is superior - I have read all about it on a source that I trust
explicitly (www.whyandroidisbest.com). Without the ability to learn
from others experiences, we would still be in the early stone-age.

Yes. Though you will note that there are those who would *prevent*
such dissemination of information citing "undo regulation" and, instead,
claim The Market will sort it out ("Heh heh heh... we'll make a killing
on this product -- hide behind our corporate identity -- then dissolve
the corporation when folks realize how bad/harmful the product is!")

The risk with religion is that people let themselves be influenced too
much, and about too important topics.

I attended a (supposedly secular) presentation at a local "place of
worship" a month or two ago. Of course, most of the attendees were
"worshippers".

It was *scary* to find myself surrounded by the *equivalent* of a (black)
Southern Baptist group engaged in "group-speak" ("Amen", etc.) and realize
the sort of "group-think" that was happening to promote that! "I thought
this sort of thing only happened as stereotypes in movies?!"

It's amazing the ease with which being in a group affects your own
attitudes and behaviours.

On holiday recently, we were at a "medieval banquet" with a knights'
tournament. People at the event were divided up and given a coloured
tunic, then sat in groups - our group was to cheer for "the blue guy",
another group cheered for "the red guy", and so on. You get carried
away. When the knights were fighting each other, ganging up on each
other, imprisoning and torturing each other, it was perfectly clear to
us that the blue guy was a good guy - it was his enemies that were the
evil ones, and we were calling for their blood. Objectively, "our" guy
was just as evil and nasty as the others, yet we "knew" he was the good guy.

But, I don't use skin color, religious beliefs, sexual preferences, etc.
as a shortcut to deciding my attitude towards another. Even if I "can't
relate" to their "choices" in these matters.

Indeed. Fortunately, one does not have to have a "small operation" in
order to treat women equally!

I think many people (myself included) genuinely have a hard time relating
to the lives of others. They really can't imagine themselves in the
other's
shoes. Blaming "bad behaviors" on "character flaws". Rationalizing that
"they're getting what they deserve", etc. ("It's only The Blacks who
are getting shot-in-the-back fleeing from police because WHITES never
commit
crimes, never run from the police, etc.")

We *tend* to surround ourselves with people with similar incomes, opinions,
religious beliefs, culture, values, etc. Thus reinforcing what we *want*
to believe is normal (and, thus, "Right"). It would be anathema for most
"Christians" to consider killing themselves for a cause IMPLIED by their
deity (though there are many who consider it OK to kill *others* for
that "cause" -- just not include themselves in that by way of "sacrifice"!)

It takes a conscious *effort* to consider things from another's
perspective.
And, a fair bit of an investment: you can't just "interview" them and
expect to get any sort of understanding. Indeed, even broaching the
subject
is likely to put them on the defensive and skew their reply ("Who *is*
this guy to think he can ask me those sorts of questions??")

And, if you can get that far, you haveto be willing to accept whaat you
hear -- and not dismiss it because it is incompatible (or inconvenient)
with your belief system. E.g., it's far easier to think folks panhandling
on street corners are "low lifes", "lazy", "scammers", etc. than it is
to consider their *real* issues -- esp if the remedy might require
an expense (taxes) on your part! <shudder

When I'm walking (for exercise or just from the car into a store),
I routinely pick up trash that I encounter on my path and carry
it to the nearest "trash can". While doing so, I don't grumble
about the *sshole who undoubtedly discarded it before me. Nor
do I grumble about the person in front of me who elected NOT
to bend down and pick it up -- even though it would have been
just as (in?)convenient for them to do so as it was for me.
Maybe they have a bad back? Poor vision? Are preoccupied thinking
about the cancer diagnosis they received the day before? etc.
Or, maybe they're just a lazy f*ck... How can *I* judge?

A bit of grumbling is fair enough, I think - it's the judgement and
condemnation (especially without knowing the whole picture) that's bad.

Esp when the reason behind that "snap judgement" is laziness or
selfishness. Much easier to rationalize-away a problem than it
would be to *solve* it! "Vote for the guy with the best SLOGANS!"

You are merely human - it's fine to grumble or get a little irritated
when someone does something stupid. It's not a good thing to get worked
up about it (for your own sake), and it is definitely not a good thing
to act upon the grumble, such as by shouting at the "sinner", unless and
until you know the whole story.

There are ways to get your message across without putting the other
party on the defensive (which forces him to dig in his heels to
"justify" his behavior -- rationally or otherwise). E.g., if someone
walking in front/nearby me drops a piece of litter, I'll reach over
and pick it up and say, "That's all right; I've got it!" -- as if they
had UNINTENTIONALLY dropped it. Some will get embarassed and will
stop and take it from me, thanking me for my effort. Even those that
don't now feel a bit uneasy that someone saw them do this -- even though
my comment suggests I don't think it was intentional. Let it eat at
their conscience -- even for 5 seconds. Still others won't give a
sh*t -- nothing I can do about them (though the litter *did* get picked
up -- even if by MY hand!)

Unfortunately, the "stakeholders" often are unaware -- or unwilling to
admit -- of their own motivations. E.g., remove a class of crimes and
you lessen the need for "enforcement officers" (cops). You also
remove some little *percs* -- like agencies being able to use seized
assets
to enrich their coffers! It's hard to get folks with such "interests"
to discuss the issue honestly: "If we change the law, then we'll lose
this source of income" sounds overly SELFISH!

I never said this would be an easy solution!

Few problems of substance *have* easy solutions. It's not as simple as
"only buying black shirts"!

And, most of us have little impact on the problem *or* solution. But,
you can raise awareness, entice others to expend more than a cursory
effort in exploring the issues, etc.

And, rephrase the debate in ways that exposes issues that they either
don't want to acknowledge or hadn't yet considered.

E.g., some claim (yet won't substantiate) that "voter fraud" is a REAL
PROBLEM, here. And, enact all sorts of measures in the name of
curtailing fraud that have the effect of suppressing the voting
frequency/proportion of "certain groups". E.g., having a valid
driver's license (many do not own cars -- or may not be interested
in driving: live in Manhattan?? or, too old to maintain it?
Or, can barely afford "life's essentials" or the time to acquire
this sort of credential)

Let's, for the moment, give them the benefit of the doubt and NOT
think that this is their intent (despite the fact that the groups
proposing these solutions aren't proposing solutions that affect
the groups that typically vote "their way").

Here's an equally effective solution that addresses the problem:
a national ID scheme that is recognized -- and codified into all laws
and legal authorities -- as incontrovertible proof of identity.
It is *required* to vote.

And, to combat fraud in other areas -- similarly related to government
programs, benefits, etc. -- require this same credential for ANY such
government benefit: food stamps, unemployment, disability, SSI, etc.
In the short term, there would be many who would lose access to those
programs. But, with forewarning, I'm sure volunteer groups would spring
up to facilitate these folks *getting* their credentials -- as they
would otherwise be denied access to many of these programs.

A side-effect of this would be that everyone who relies on a government
program of some sort (i.e., the populations that the current initiatives
tend to suppress) would be incentivized to get that credential! And,
then be fully capable -- without artificial restraint -- of voting.

One could similarly require that credential in financial transactions:
banking, stocks, etc. -- as a way of ensuring and validating legitimate
ownership. Thus fight any "fraud" in income hiding, etc.

You would be guaranteed that a certain proportion of people would see
such an ID scheme as an invasion of privacy, or against their "right" to
anonymity.

[Yet, we (here) see efforts to make these sorts of "third party"
activities ILLEGAL -- again, in the name of preventing fraud.]

"No, we don't want to SOLVE the problem. We just want to use it as
an excuse to impose a set of restrictions that act against those we
dislike and would prefer to EFFECTIVELY disenfranchise" Of course,
no one wants to say that -- hence the "voter fraud" ruse.

[Many people here have two homes -- one typically in another state
(i.e., voting district). What mechanism is in place to prevent them
from voting in both places -- "mail in ballot"? Wouldn't want to
allow or even TEMPT folks who are "well off" to consider trying to beat
the system in that way!]

Here in Norway, you have to provide a valid identification for voting,
but there is no national ID card (they keep talking about introducing
one, but the bureaucracy involved seems too complicated for anything to
actually happen). They accept passports, drivers license, bank cards,
and a few other cards (all with your name, picture, and social security
number).

The real risk is when doctors allow you to make your own dosage - "take
one as needed". (Except for terminal diseases and cancers - then it's
fine to let patients take what they need to feel comfortable, and if
they die of an overdose rather than cancer a week later, then at least
they are a bit less uncomfortable.)

Yes. Several friends have -- knowingly or otherwise -- gone this route.
I think the medical profession just looks the other way feeling a true
identification of the ACTUAL cause of death wouldn't be helpful to
any of the surviving family. (or "society")

I know that this sort of thing happens here (and I support it - terminal
patients should be made as comfortable as practically possible, even if
that increases the risks), but I have no idea whether the exact cause of
death gets detailed afterwards. One difference is that American society
is a lot more fond of suing people than in European societies. In the
USA, you would run a much higher risk of the doctor and/or hospital
being sued for "killing" the patient with drugs than you would over here.

Unfortunately, there are side-effects (?) of legislation that can
effectively enable a "health provider" to refuse to honor your
explicit wishes (directives): "it violates our religious principles".
How could you expect a hospital affiliated with a religious order
to honor a DNR? Or, assist in your taking of your own life (even
if the legal conditions for doing so have been met)? What if you
have no choice in the selection of that hospital (e.g., you were
in a car wreck and that was the closest facility; or, there are
no "open minded" facilities in your area, your part of the country??)

I know of two cases where DNRs were not honored. It was actually the
*threat* of a future lawsuit in the event they continued to be ignored
that caused them to be honored: serve notice to staff in the presence
of witness along with ANOTHER copy of the Advanced Directives -- so
they can't claim they "lost it".

In Europe, the explicit wishes of patients (or relatives) comes quite
low down in the list of priorities - the main emphasis is on treating
patients in the best way known to the medical staff, according to
current practice and regulations. For the most part, you do what the
doctor recommends, with little influence.

In hindsight, I've known many "drunks". People that simply could not
"say no" to alcohol. Despite very bad -- and costly -- experiences
(DUI's, license suspensions, evading arrest, etc.). After seeing my
friend's "confession", I realize many of these other folks had similar
problems but hadn't the ability to cope with them. Would making still
more "addictive substances" make things any better, overall? Or,
would
we just end up with more "addicts"? I'm simply not qualified to
answer that question...

Nor am I qualified to answer, but we are free to think about it.

It's complicated because addiction seems to be so dominant in some
individuals. They *know* they can't beat it. Does the illegality
act as the only thing keeping those people from getting *started*
down that path?

It seems that there are strong genetic influences on our susceptibility
to addiction (for /all/ addictions). Maybe we should all be genetically
screened at birth, and only those with the right genes are allowed to
buy drugs or alcohol.

Double-edged sword. The results of that screening would have to be
"made public" (explicitly or implicitly) -- otherwise there would be
no way of knowing if a vendor COULD sell to you. Information once
disclosed (thus) can't be retracted. So, you've effectively indicated
which people have this "flaw" and which don't. How do you prevent
people/institutions from using it to their advantage (financial,
moral, etc.) and/or your DISadvantage?

It's also easy to see how that sort of approach could be extended to
other issues. Only allow folks with certain genetic aptitudes to
receive certain training? Opportunities? etc.

A wiser implementation would be for such screenings to be entirely
private -- and the individual being "responsible enough" to know to
avoid things that could be self-destructive (yeah, like THAT'S
gonna happen -- NOT!)

Now, faced with forming a first-hand opinion (instead of inheriting
the opinion of suburbia), it was relatively easy to see that there
was no "threat" there. Nothing to be fearful of -- or even
uncomfortable.

Indeed, it made the future relationships easier as the individual
behaviors that "were a bit odd" suddenly had a rational basis. No
need to feel like I was not quite understanding something.

"Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering". We
all have a bit of the dark side in us - it's good when we are shown that
our prejudices are nothing more than that.

But many don't want to see them. E.g., we have a neighbor that is
a bigot. Not a matter of a personal assessment but of the neighborhood
at large. He can't acknowledge that in himself (because it is a ghastly
admission -- sort of like a paedophile admitting his/her problem!).
Yet, until/unless he can do so, his behavior (and attitude) has no hope
of change. And, that assumes he is rational enough to be able to
"process" those realizations and expend effort to understand them.

I, for example, have an irrational fear of heights. E.g., watching
"Wylie Coyote" fall off a "cartoon cliff" IN THE SAFETY OF MY OWN
LIVING ROOM is enough to trigger that fear response.

[<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QMBT1z-r0IQ> will probably have at
least one such screen shot -- they are a staple of most episodes!]

Looking down from the observation deck of the Empire State Building
(1000+ ft), Sears Tower <http://theskydeck.com/> or the Royal Gorge Bridge
http://www.highestbridges.com/wiki/index.php?title=Royal_Gorge_Bridge/Page_2

(the "roadway" is made of wooden planks that "move" when vehicles drive
alongside you walking as a pedestrian; the "railing" preventing you
from falling over the side is pretty insignificant) is a serious
challenge.

But, I address each of these situations by forcing myself to be
rational: am I *really* at risk, here? is there *really* anything
to fear?

So, I don't avoid those situations (like some folks might avoid being
around "folks of different socioeconomic/religious backgrounds) and
make a conscious attempt to understand my reactions *in* those situations.
Ditto when I'm around someone who won't allow his wife to speak with
me "alone" (immoral to be in the company of a man other than your
husband), or who is alcoholic, a drug abuser, etc.

On the opposite ("too public") extreme, my wife had a cousin who was
very
openly gay. Almost *militant* about it. As if he was going to change
the world and how gays were regarded -- by HIS actions alone! We spent
an evening in their (shared) home in D.C. one night (while we were in
town seeing the sights). It was uncomfortable watching all these
guys moving from room to room at night in their BVD's. And,
"suspecting"
what was happening.

[OTOH, I would probably be just as uncomfortable watching hetero couples
moving from room to room, scantily clad. Prude? I guess I just think
that sort of thing should be *behind* closed doors -- even if *I* happen
to have the "misfortune" of being behind them as an unintended
observer!]

Some things are best in private, I think. If you are not part of the
"action", you are going to feel very awkward.

OTOH, unless you are exposed to this sort of behavior (doesn't imply you
have to participate), how can you understand their "lifestyle"? Norms?
Values?

eating it. Of course, it would be significantly better for the
environment if people greatly reduced their meat intake and ate more
vegetables, but that's fact rather than opinion or moralising.

There are lots of things that would be better for the environment
and, thus, "mankind". But, most folks are focused on their own needs
and desires and care little about the consequences: "Apres moi, le
deluge". One wonders how they could think so little of their
offspring...

Yes, but it is always easiest to focus on the things that you yourself
get right. A cyclist will tell you that it's cars that are the greatest
cause of environmental damage - as a vegetarian, I tell you it's
meat-eating.

What response would you expect from a cattleman? :> (I.e., how can
you ensure people are honest in their beliefs?)

shrug> My "proof" of the nonexistence of a deity: if THIS is the
BEST he could come up with...

"If we were truly created by God, then why do we still occasionally bite
the insides of our own mouths?" (Dara O'Briain)

If you haven't seen Dara O'Briain's sketches on religion (and many other
topics), spend some time with him on Youtube.

OTOH, I am equally fond of:
"I'd love to meet the guy who invented SEX -- and see what he's
working on NOW!"

I found another quotation for this thread :

"There is nothing wrong with going to bed with someone of your own sex.
People should draw the line at goats." (Elton John)

Morning tea.

Good plan.

And, coincidentally, the same time, now!