Babylon is an attention whore ITT, even for negative attention.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I said anarchist. How, exactly, does centralized welfare work out in anarchist philosophy?

once an Anarchist society is in place it's replaced by localized community support.  An Anarchist society isn't in place so I'm not going to act like it is. work toward it sure, but refusing to utilize government services that I would prefer were being taken care of in other ways doesn't help to build anything. 

That worked really well in the Old West.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Are you all being deliberately obtuse, or do you just want to harp on him for anything at this point?

These are all points that were brought up in his OP, wherein he reveals that he's into snuff porn and is, in conflict to his stated political ideology, on welfare. I can really only address one point at a time. There is also at least one other point in the OP I'd like to get on his case about, plus the flattering new "I'm a victim" hat he's decided to wear, but it will just have to wait.

[The Wizard]

Well, first off, EW. Why on earth would you fucking write about your thing for snuff porn? I'm calling either attention whoring or that you somehow think that a murder fetish is alright.

Either way, please stop posting about it. No one wants to hear it, its disturbing and upsetting.

[Kai]

I'm into some weird shit, and my stomach still turned over hearing the OP talk about snuff and continue talking about snuff.

[Whatever]

Ok I need a better definition.  I thought snuff porn was sex porn in which one person kills (or pretends to) at orgasm.  Now fucking people who are already dead is a whole other thing I thought.  I don't want to know, but at this point I guess I need to in order to understand this.  And just to ask this is different from the autoasphyxiation deal right?


For the record the whole thing disgusts me but I can't make an intelligent comment in my current state of ignorance.

[BabylonHoruv]

Ok I need a better definition.  I thought snuff porn was sex porn in which one person kills (or pretends to) at orgasm.  Now fucking people who are already dead is a whole other thing I thought.  I don't want to know, but at this point I guess I need to in order to understand this.  And just to ask this is different from the autoasphyxiation deal right?


For the record the whole thing disgusts me but I can't make an intelligent comment in my current state of ignorance.

Fucking dead people is necrophilia, that is separate from snuff yes.  asphyxia is sometimes associated with snuff and is sometimes a completely separate thing.

Damnit, I told myself I wasn't going to talk about any of it any longer, but at least i am not talking about my personal tastes.

Just to mention them though, I am not into necrophilia.

[Roaring Biscuit!]

I am honestly apathetic towards snuff porn.

I generally tend to categorise the morality of an action based on its consequences and, apart from the really rather distant possibility that BH will turn into rapin' murderin' land pirate, I really don't see snuff porn as having any more of a negative impact on the world than you know, regular porn, or TV.

Rational arguments will be considered.

[Faust]

I am honestly apathetic towards snuff porn.

I generally tend to categorise the morality of an action based on its consequences and, apart from the really rather distant possibility that BH will turn into rapin' murderin' land pirate, I really don't see snuff porn as having any more of a negative impact on the world than you know, regular porn, or TV.

Rational arguments will be considered.

Negative reinforcement. You are what you eat, fill your mind with enough negative stimulus chances are its not going to have a positive effect in the long run.

[East Coast Hustle]

I am honestly apathetic towards snuff porn.

I generally tend to categorise the morality of an action based on its consequences and, apart from the really rather distant possibility that BH will turn into rapin' murderin' land pirate, I really don't see snuff porn as having any more of a negative impact on the world than you know, regular porn, or TV.

Rational arguments will be considered.

So, you view CGI child pornography as being OK, since no actual children are involved in the making of it?

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

I said anarchist. How, exactly, does centralized welfare work out in anarchist philosophy?

Well, I'm not touching most of this thread with a 55 ft pole.

However, there are a number of anarchist philosophies that have centralized welfare built in.

These philosophies are generally called collectivist anarchism or social anarchism and various forms of it were the dominant anarchist philosophies in Europe during the late 1800's. The basic idea being the abolition of the State and its replacement by autonomous communes which would share in the work and rewards of the commune. Other theories of anarchist philosophy that provide for the common welfare are  anarcho-communists and anarcho-syndicates.

The viability of such a system is not really germane here, I'm not saying its a good idea... just that the two ideas of centralized welfare and anarchism aren't mutually exclusive.

Anarchism may be untenable... but it has a lot more to it than "No Rulz"

[Bu🤠ns]

I'm going to go ahead and be the lone dissenter to the idea that you can't choose what turns you on. There are choices everybody gets to make about what threads of arousal to pursue, and everyone has, at various times, the unbidden twinges of arousal at an idea or scenario that is as repulsive as it is arousing. Most people go "Ew, that's horrible, I'm not going to think about that" and the arousal cycle is broken, but a few people go "Heh yeah that turns me on, I'm going to think about it while I masturbate" and the arousal cycle gets reinforced. That's a choice.

Some people are really into the idea of being "edgy" or "alternative" and make choices to indulge what they see as a sexual dark side, not realizing they're locking their sexual preference in for something that is not so much dark as seedy and repulsive. Even so, it's hard to accept the idea that a mind that would turn toward sexual gratification in other people's suffering and death, even imagined, is a mind that started out anything but pathological to begin with.

I agree to an extent.

Some basic inclinations seem hardwired or as close to as to be indistinguishable, but a lot of the stuff from a level or two below that is going to be based, in part, on feedback loops and the choice to induldge in certain scenarios and fetishes.  It's classic operant conditioning at work.

True enough. Some fundamentals, like homosexuality, seem to be biologically hardwired. However, I don't think anyone is biologically hardwired to want to fuck dead people, children, dogs, or their mom.

I wasn't going to derail the thread...but then i finished it so i decided that it's not really going anywhere and I might take this opportunity:

Anyway...Nigel, I'm not sure about this one.  How do you figure this one because it's been years and I haven't been able to make up my mind about it.

[Storebrand]

^  Lazy google search results:  http://www.livescience.com/health/080617-hereditary-homosexuality.html

Homosexuality in males may be caused in part by genes that can increase fertility in females, according to a new study.

The findings may help solve the puzzle of why, if homosexuality is hereditary, it hasn't already disappeared from the gene pool, since gay people are less likely to reproduce than heterosexuals.

A team of researchers found that some female relatives of gay men tend to have more children than average. The scientists used a computer model to explain how two genes passed on through the maternal line could produce this effect....

[Bu🤠ns]

I dunno.  I'm not sure that I agree that the biological behaviors of same-sex directed desire & intercourse also as a social role/label.  

So when somebody refers to homosexuality being hereditary it somehow still doesn't jive.  Like one one hand there's these biological drive and on the other there's all these social roles implied.  

It seems to me that they're not the same thing at all but should be used separately rather than one and the same.  


Edit: I am not really sure if that accurately describes what I'm getting at.

[Storebrand]

I didn't mean to step in on Nigel's question.  And what do you mean by social role/label?  Stereotyping?

[Phox]

Pretty sure he's making the argument that the need for procreation is a biological imperative, and any form of deviation from that formula is socially constructed. Burns, I apologize if that's not what your saying. But, you're full of shit if it is.