Pavlov proved what most want to ignore

[its Leslie]

Its been said in many ways and in several shades, but hey I want to start a post and see what response I get.

Most might know of Pavlov and his experiments.
Basically it goes like this, I ring a bell and smack you with a news paper. I do this 100 times. ring smack ring smack ring smack, get the idea.
Eventually I ring the bell and you flinch out of automatic response, even if I dont smack you each time.

Conditioning is condition people. Popular opinion means nothing, the truth is not interested in your opinion when the reality says you are wrong.

So what am I getting at. Hmmm consider several types of "bells" and "smacks".

I take you and put you in a room with just you and a video screen.
Then hour after hour you watch scenes of women being torn out of their clothes and fucked violently. 100's of different women and always differing men.
What is the chance of you walking home after seeing that previously for 12 hours a day, 7 days a week, for a full month, being affected in a positive way to encountering a man actually raping an actually woman in alley as you walk by?

How about we replace the scene with people shooting stabbing or otherwise violently killing people.

How about music playing with coarse language hour after hour.

People are quick to say, oh people know it's not "real", but it's not that we know it's not real that's important, its that it becomes to commonplace, to conditioned.

People that are subjected to something long enough surrender their ability to see it objectively.

My own pet peeve is simple dogma of the religious sort.
Our objection to rape, incest, underage partners etc. has nothing to do with it being a matter of law, it's all connected to our religious beliefs in most cases that were beaten into us till we surrendered our ability to question.

I have no desire to write stories of rape. The reason being my own belief that women are the single most wonderful part of creation. I could never DO that to a woman. My objection has nothing to do with it being illegal. I consider it wholely unacceptable purely on the basis of my love for women.

I have no desire to take an 8 year old girl to bed. My reason being she is not capable at that age of any useful sexual function. Mother nature is just not finished making her ready. I also don't care for undercooked food, or a partially built car, or a book that is only half written. That might sound absolutely demeaning to most, but most have been preconditioned, and as such can't see it as nothing more than objective anaology.

My ideal women is currently a 40 something lass. When I was 30 she would have been 30. When 20 she would have been 20. When I was 15 odds are I had not finished my own mental evolution so my choices would have been erratic, so I can't really say I would have picked a 13 year old any more than a 23 year old woman. That might have been different in a different world though.
Currently we are conditioned to see sex as "original" sin in most of the west, and something of a taboo in general by the world at large. At the root is always religion, and the preconditioning.

Remove the religious dogma, and its clear that a sexually developing teen is a set of equipment waiting for programming. It is possible that we could live in a world where they were instructed in a coherent manner just what was going on with their bodies. But that is currently not the case.

It is folly to state "it's the law" and assume that's the end of it. Laws are made by people. Most people have been pre programmed with incrediblly idiotic notions. It's no wonder that so many of our laws have no basis in fair or just principles. They are more likely to be arbitrary and biased.

I wouldn't miss the swearing, the sex, the violence being massively edited from movies in general. It's not that I want them censored, I just remember films like Sound of Music for instance being great movies. It wasn't necessary to see Julie Andrews in bed, nude, fucking, to make it a classic. The dialogue wasn't full of street language. There was no in your face blood and gore either.
I have collected many films, but I generally will watch a modern film once and only once. I have no desire to rewatch most modern films, they lack "substance".

I don't listen to rap music because it is simply rotten music. It's angry, hostile and hey I have enough anger in my life, I don't want it in my music when I am trying to relax. I have thankfully seen my son grow up and not play today's music. He actually likes my older music. But then it's what I let him listen to (conditioning is everything people).

As I sit here I am butt naked. I don't suffer religion's ages long views on sex. My wife walks around nude so does my son. It's nothing after all. The human body is not something to be afraid of. Some day my son will be a bit more worldly about actual sex, but at 8 he is not likely to appreciate it much. I have yet to worry about wanting to have some play time with my wife. The only reason we don't do it in front of my son is I don't feel he is ready for the confusion. When he finally discovers what girls are for, maybe I will stop worrying if he sees more than he does now.

But Lit lives in this world, as such it has my stories currently accepting the limitations willingly. Hey I am glad the site is even here.

 

[TheEarl]

Most societies base their laws around religion. Most people who I say that to immediately think of fundamentalist Muslim states. Think of Britain. Murder, theft, etc. Thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal.

I see your point about Pavlov, but I don't believe it. Human beings are rational reasoning creatures. You smack him over the head with a newspaper and he'll either hit you back or duck the next time. Morals cannot be eroded by societal factors, no matter what the provocation. I do not steal, never have never will. I'm a clever person though and I could work out many ways to steal and get away with it. Even if I'm poor I still wouldn't steal. It's part of my code of ethics. No matter where those morals come from they're deeply ingrained into my soul. Anybody who will abandon their morals on the Pavlov principle doesn't adhere to those morals properly anyway. If you were put in a room with constant video of women being raped, would you think it was okay? "my own belief that women are the single most wonderful part of creation. I could never DO that to a woman."

I think your point was that you should arrive at your own conclusions and derive your own morals from your own experiences. That's very rare as you pick your parent's morals when you're younger and when you're old enough to make your own decisions you're too set in your ways. However there are occasions: My father's an atheist and doesn't belive in God at all, regarding religion as foolish. I'm a lapsed atheist, I've come to my own conclusions. But I've still picked up other things from my father.

I like rap music because sometimes I like other people's fury or I use it to dissipate my own. I can understand disliking it on musical grounds though.

A very confused The Earl (who was sure he had a point somewhere there)

 

[Guest]

It is always interesting to read another nitwit rant from its Leslie. All that bell ringing and getting whacked by a newspaper has left him seriously adled.

One the positive side, that kid will have lots to talk about in therapy a few years down the road. "Yeah Doc, we all ran around naked while Pop whacked his Mr. Chubby at the computer."

Keep posting your quirks on a public bulletin board. You make the mildly impaired seem perfectly normal.

 

[Ray Dario]

Leslie,

The more of your posts I read, the more I pity you. It is obvious to me that somewhen during your life something happened to you. Something very bad and very tramatic. At least to you it was bad and tramatic. It may or may not have had anything to do with religion, but now you blame religion for all the worlds woes.

Religion can be a beautiful, wonderful thing. It can be a horrible, terrifying thing. Religion, like so many other things in this world, is what people make it.

I pity you because you have been hurt and you don't know how to heal. If you were one of my people I would send you to an elder who would send you out to the forest to meditate and clense the hurt from yourself. I doubt that would work for you. It seldom does for others.

Maybe someday you will realize that you can choose to not be a victim of your hurt and then you will begin to heal. Then you will see that religion is not the cause of all evil in the world. It is simply a tool some people use to express the evil in their souls. Others use it to express the goodness in their souls.

Religion is just a tool, like a hammer. A hammer can be used to commit murder. That doesn't make the hammer "evil". A hammer can be used to build a home for a homeless family. This doesn't make the hammer "good". It is just a tool. How it is used is up to people.

-------------

Well I'm sure I have royally pissed you off, but then hell I hadn't really pissed anyone off for ... well almost an hour anyway, so I was due.

Ray

 

[Guest]

Earl thanks for your input, it was appreciated. Although Pavlov was right more than you know. If humans were truely rational creatures, we wouldn't have the world we do in fact have. As for not giving in to external pressures, try peer pressure. Most people stupidly begin smoking this way. Most shop lifting is done for reasons of pressuring.
Although my point with the Pavlov comment wasn't to say it would make you inclined to go and rape, but to show that eventually it won't shock you to see it.

Hmmm to "unregistered"

"go fuck yourself" a worthless response to an unknown person who's equally worthless comment doesn't rate anything better from me.

Ray.....you've got to stop reading that fuzzy psychiatric crap and realise that just because my views are unusual doesn't mean I am damaged in any way. Actually I am about as happy as is realistically possible. I have never felt a better oneness with life.

As for religion.....well I can't really say I would enjoy finding 10 people of any faith on this planet that are a credit to their faith.

A. most of religion is a crutch, B. most people don't even know the religion the blindly follow like sheep, and C, most of history's misery can be left at the feet of religion.

And while I can't quote scripture quite like the faithful, I AM an expert in historical matters.

I am the one pitying YOU. Don't waste pity on me, I am not the deluded one.

Well I can see this thread will likely die out fast or become just a heap predictable abuse on Leslie for daring to say things that don't fit in with the masses process.

Doesn't really matter either way.

 

[Guest]

Drat once again silly post wasn't registered (like anyone will not realise it was me though in previous post)

 

[Devyne]

ahh good morning
interesting thread you have here. after reading and alternately nodding and shaking my head at the responces so far i thought id stick my feet in and muddy up the waters a bit, so here goes....
i would like to agree with you leslie well ok i do agree but i take your philosophy a step further... i dont blame the troubles of the world on religion i blame them on man, well humans that is. since it is people that that do the things they do in the name of religion. call it human nature conditioning whatever. religion is a function of man, after all god didnt write his/her own story it was written by a human and therefore subject to human mistakes.
i really do suppose we could all go round and round and point fingers and call each other names but whats the point hmm? just agree to disagree shake hands smile and move on. and i think ive really wandered frommy point being tired as i am so ill be going now that ive added my opinion

Namaste

Devyne

 

[Quint]

Leslie said:

Although my point with the Pavlov comment wasn't to say it would make you inclined to go and rape, but to show that eventually it won't shock you to see it.

Good. You'd be comparing apples and oranges, to be cliche. It doesn't seem to follow that the bell-and-newspaper experiment is analogous to exposure to violence and unwilling sex. One is instinctive, requiring nothing more than reflexes and a very simple "brain," which is why you can do this to planaria (flatworms) and eventually they'll shy away from the light expecting a poke. However, unless the subject in question is really malleable or stupid or has other issues, I very sincerely doubt that examples, even repeatedly shown examples, will force him to imitation. It requires a loss of rationality and decision-making. But since I've just agreed with you thus far, I must continue.

"Eventually it won't shock you to see it." I don't see that this is a bad thing. To generalize, people tend to fear what they are not familiar with. Shock gives edge to matters such as sex, which is a reason why Literotica and the BDSM community are so constantly under attack. We're different and people feel morally outraged. Take away the outrage and what's left is cold hard reason. That's when people aren't sheep. Shock is a highly overrated commodity in my book. I think better without it.

 

[ronde]

On Pavlov, morals and religion

As Quint pointed out, there is a difference between Pavlov's experiments and desensitization by repetition. Pavlov's experiments required two key elements - a trigger (the bell) and consistent reinforcement (food). The trigger/reinforcement training method does work on humans, as anyone who had experienced the military can attest, but the effect is not permanent. If one takes away the reinforcement, the behaviour goes away. I suppose one could say that when movies portray rape that goes unpunished, this furnishes positive reinforcement for the viewer, but I think this is a bit of a stretch. It the extrapolation of Pavlov's hypothesis to say that one dog watching another's behavior will acquire that same behavior. Most humans have sufficient intelligence to make the connection between reinforcement of another's actions and the possible reinforcement of their own, but their decision to adopt the behavior is tempered by both their moral code and their understanding of the possible consequences.

Desensitization by repetition does occur, but again, the effect is short lived, and is mediated by the magnitude and environment underwhich the action in question occurs. During any military conflict, fighting troops become relatively insensitive to death unless the death occurs inside their small circle of comrads. In fact, every military organization includes some desensitization in the training program. Soldiers become insensitive in order to maintain their mental stability and hopefully leave the conflict alive. Upon return to a "normal" environment, the sensitivity to death returns. Doctors and nurses intentionally become somewhat desensitized to death in order to stay functional, but most do feel the loss when they are off duty. It is another stretch of logic to say that viewing a certain action over and over will desensitize the viewer to any like event in any environment. The repetition conditioning will desensitize the viewer in the particular environment in which the viewing takes place, but put the viewer into another situation and it will disappear.

The above is true for individuals with a basically sound moral code. It has been a while since I studied about conditioning, desensitization and morals, but I recall that moral codes are pretty firmly established by the age of five, and they remain for life unaffected by later stimuli. There are individuals who lack these codes, and perhaps your logic is sound for this minority of the population, but I believe the behavior drives the search for the stimuli, rather than the reverse.

If some people need religion to support them through life, my hat is off to them for finding it. Wandering aimlessly is no way to spend your time on earth. As for understanding religion, there are as many understandings as there are followers. Since most religion is totally based on faith in a very small number of ancient writings, no interpretation can really be proven wrong. Again, whatever works for each should be the course. I do agree that religion has apparently caused many of the tragedies in the world, but if one does his homework, he will find that religion was not the cause. The true cause was an individual or group utilizing the religious beliefs of others toward their own personal gain, or as in the most recent tradegy, a group who misinterpret their religion as justification for their crimes.

 

[its Leslie]

Quint and Ronde nice comments (or at least it looks like you two were interested in at least saying something worth saying).

To say it's man and not religion is a bit to easy though.
That's not quite as easy as saying it's the person and not the gun that committed the crime.

I also don't think our race is nearly as good as others like to think of it perhaps.

That Pavlov proved his point using a dog doesn't by default mean that we oooh so superior humans are automatically safe simply because we possess such incredible intellects.

If humanities moral codes were so outstanding, we would have long ago dispensed with most of our criminal protection services.

De sensitising is rarely a bonus though. Today's film industry is a marvelous example. Even when the scene has nothing anti social in any way it's obvious we have lost something somewhere.

I watched Star Wars Episode 2 recently. Several of my friends tore it to shreds critically. I think the average movie goer has had special effects so completely rammed down there collective throats, that it is nearly impossible to find time to fit in the acting.

I remember when the powers that be finally removed any level of inhibition in adult XXX rated films (at least here in Ontario). Naturally I watched a few (hey I am old enough). Nothing was left out, nothing at all. In some cases you can rent videos that are just 2+ hours of nothing but men shooting stream after stream of cum into waiting women (any orifice possible).
End result, heck I wouldn't watch it for free anymore There is nothing left to the imagination. Total burn out.

I find current horror films to be the same. I laughed quite hard to hear that at least a few people were nervous going to there cars after seeing the Blair Witch Project. But the film was made in a time when nothing is truely scary anymore. No amount of gore does it anymore, hence we now have resorted to ridicule films like Scary Movie where the whole point is to point out how incredibly dumb the horror genre has become.
My ticket to Blair Witch Project was covered by a friend thankfully. There is no way I would invest money in one of today's horror films.

To comment on professional conditions. I have been in the military. It is a great shame that you are quite wrong. The men that come back often do NOT "return to normal". I am fortunate that I have never had to experience those horrors though.
Nurses do NOT casually put aside their work (and I know to many that will agree). It is often a major burden to them.

The sadest part of religion, is that while yes it is the "people" not the religion at fault, I have to ask you, when was the last time you were spontaneously attacked by a bible in and of it's own accord.
When I attack religion, I am not actually attacking the religion, I am obviously commenting on the people that use it.

If religion is so rife with "just plain nice people" why have I after 40 years, never met more than 2 examples (yes I know of at least 2 persons that are a credit to their faith).

I was "wandering aimlessly" only because of religion for so many years. Once I was finally able to step back and look at it without all the hogwash, I was able to finally see that I was letting people think for me instead of doing it for myself.

 

[Guest]

I don't think we are in disagreement. Perhaps we have misinterpreted each other.

I didn't say that military men returned to "normal" when removed from a combat situation. I said the desensitization they acquire out of the instinct for survival leaves after they returned to a "normal environment". My generation was called upon to straighten out a tiny little country in Southeast Asia, and I can attest that many of my fellow servicemen did not return to normal when they left jungle. Very few, however, retained the insensitivity to death.

I also did not say that doctors and nurses "casually" put aside their grief at the death of a patient. I said they maintained some degree of desensitization in order to remain functional while in the working environment. Doctors and nurses alike feel guilt, grief, and a host of other emotions when their best efforts fail, but they cannot stop the world of medicine while they grieve. There is nothing "casual" about their efforts to remain competent when everything about them that is human tells them to cry.

Congratulations for determining where religion fits in your life. I am no spokesman for organized religion. Each of us must resolve his fit somewhere between conservative beliefs and the total lack thereof. Some people find it satisfying to allow others to do their thinking, just as you say, and I can not fault them for this. I could never do so, and have determined my beliefs based on biblical and historical inputs, an understanding that most ancient texts contain idioms, metaphor and simile that have not always been objectively translated, and by what fits me and my sometimes logical mind. It sounds as if you have reached the resolution that works for you.

 

[ronde]

The memory is the second thing to go

Leslie, I apologize for writing that tome under the name unregistered. One of these days, I may remember to log in before spouting off.

 

[karmadog]

You may be right about the conditioning, but attempting to use Pavlov's experiments to prove your point shows flawed reasoning or a failure to understand the difference between conditioning involuntary responses to a presented stimulus and conditioning voluntary behavior to occur essentially without a stimulus.

Pavlov's classic experiment involved ringing a bell before feeding a dog. Eventually the dog would salivate when the bell was rung. No big surprise, I think everyone could cite a similar example from their own lives.

Everything here is concrete and measurable. No abstractions.

When you start to discuss "moral codes", "social mores", and "inhibitions", you are discussing abstractions. Where exactly are your inhibitions? Can they be surgically removed without doing damage to your memories or behavior?

My point is that I believe such things exist, but science has not figured out how to talk about them. There is no unified theory in psychology. Meaning that for a theory to be accepted, it must be able to both predict and control behavioral outcomes in all situations. This cannot be done.

Behavioral psychology is fairly effective for quitting smoking. Psychoanalysis shows some success with obssessive/compulsives. Cognitive theory works pretty well with learning disorders and phobias. But no theory shows much success with sociopaths.

Sociopathy seems to show up to a greater or lesser degree in around 10% of the population. Most function pretty well, but there are the few...

Anyhow, my point is that you are better off sticking with philosophy when trying to deal with this problem than psychology.

 

[Guest]

re: pavlov experiment.

I liken it to a child. I think conditioning is partly what happens. For example, my son loves watching The Simpsons. He will sneak the TV over to The Simpsons channel whenever he can get the chance. He enjoys the rudeness, the belching, the backside mooning that Homer gets away with. If I am around I refuse steadfastly to allow him to watch it. My reason? I am fed up with his behaviour immediately after the programme. He is rude and abrupt to me and he lashes out at his sister mentally and physically.

I believe if I allow him to watch the programme, then I am conditioning him to believe that it's alright to act in such a manner.

Isn't that where the most effective conditioning begins? With children?

Then there is the peer pressure which all of us to a certain extent find ourselves battling. I mentioned something similar on another thread recently. We can become so concerned with how our actions will be seen by others that we will 'limit' them, put our own boundaries up. The only thing wrong with wandering around naked is what others will think of us.

If I liken those things with my writing, then to worry about what others would think means I wouldn't write half of what I write. Hell, I am a writer, I am opinionated, but I am also as openminded as I can be.

I'm a little reluctant to comment on the religion aspect of this thread. I believe that we all are entitled to our own belief system. I personally think that having respect for each others differences is more important than spouting down each others throats our own religious beliefs. A religion is personal to each of us. If we can't tolerate differences, then there's going to be no lasting peace ever, anywhere.

ronde mentioned that if one takes away the reinforcement, the behaviour goes away. I'm not sure I agree here. Take for example domestic violence. It's a known fact that domestic violence is repetitive through generations. In order for the violence to stop, there has to be an 'unlearning' of inappropriate behaviour. It doesn't just stop.

De-sensitisation is something which affects us all. How many times did we watch the Twin Towers get hit by those planes? How many times have we watched it again since Sept 11? How many times have we seen or heard about religious wars in the Middle East? How many suicide bombers have been kids? Do we really blink twice anymore when the news items come on television telling us yet another person has caused more unnecesary deaths by blowing up a bus? I know for sure that my own kids hardly mention it.

Another thought on that last paragraph, how many times does the word 'fuck' occur in any modern R18 movie? Nobody in my family notices it anymore, except me (boy do I feel like an oddball when I mention it). And they don't even watch that many adult movies.

I think the key to getting rid of the inappropriate dogma which has invaded society is to be openminded enough to respect each others differences.

So, some of us are oddballs (i know i am). That we are all mature enough to have an open discussion on such issues which some of us find hair-raising at the least, says a lot for the improvement of society as we know it.

Good thread Leslie.

 

[wildsweetone]

darn pc is trying to condition me!

sorry that unregistered was me. and i'm unable to edit.

'He is rude and abrupt to me and he lashes out at his sister mentally and physically.'

should of course be 'vocally and physically'.

 

[mlyn]

Stop ringing that damned bell, I'm tired of drooling...

Good old Pavlov and his dogs! Nice experiment, for its time.

Desensitization- almost impossible to avoid in today's world. I was watching a show called "Six Feet Under" and the child, approx. nine was talking back to the adults like a gutter snipe. Same thing with the teenager in the show. I've desensitized to violence, and am less disturbed by it than before. Same with nudity on the Internet... how many dicks spewing cum into how many open mouths or cunts is too much!

I remember when I was 18, senior in high school, two other female 18 yr old friends and I went to an X rated movie at a drive in theater. (Ok, right there I've dated myself.) This was in 1973. The movie now probably would make an R-rating only. But the real cracker is that inside (getting the required popcorn, soda and whatever) we see a friend's younger brother, that we know is only 14! My complaint is that they spent more checking our id's than they obviously did the males...

Point? And I hope I'm not ranting and raving, but I don't think you can blame it all on religion, unless you blame it on the true owners of religion (European religions, that is)- the white male. The most privileged to ever walk the Earth, and most don't ever realize how lucky they truly are. I would bet a lot of people would say that the problems we have black youths today can be traced to the white male oppression.

I am NOT a radical feminist. I like men (some) but I also know that few men know what it is like to be scared to walk alone, day or night. Few men know what it is to fear a gathering of males, looking your way. I'm sure very few men will ever know the trauma, and lifelong fear that follows being raped. I don't want a penis, and never have. The only thing I ever envied a man having, or doing, is the ability to pea easily while on a picnic.

I agree we are conditioned to see taboos, desentisized to violence. Maybe it is the price we must pay for living in a modern world, but still have a cave"persons" body. We have countless unseen stressors, but unlike our ancestors, we don't kill the enemy, or have the option of running away. So we have all this adrenaline in our bodies, and it has to get our somehow!

Good luck to everyone, and keep on writing!
mlyn

 

[peterpan]

I would think most men fear a gathering of males looking their way and the stats would back them up.

On the other hand we also have to fear looking weak, because a weak man can have a safe life if he likes, avoid violence probably with more ease than a woman because if you don't have pride and you don't have a vagina then you don't have anything another man would want to take. You wouldnt have anything a woman wants either.

I know comparing the fear of being raped with the fear of not getting a date is ridiculous, but that is not because having no family or future is a ridiculous or small or unlikely thing to fear. It is because this competition is what we are for, and it is the task of society to make the losers as invisible as possible. A lot of men know already that they are just the waste product of an important process.

I always feel I am confirming my own philosopy when I go back and read it, and realise how pathetic it makes me. Oh well.

I do wish some radical feminists would take over and start phasing men out. Hell, even if they patrolled the streets and shot stray guys I would probably come out on top. I Have these cool ninja skills of becoming totally invisible around women and any day now they may become a survival trait.

 

[Ray Dario]

Quint and Ronde nice comments (or at least it looks like you two were interested in at least saying something worth saying).

Hmm, sorry if my comments disagree with your point of view and are therefore worthless.

To say it's man and not religion is a bit to easy though.
That's not quite as easy as saying it's the person and not the gun that committed the crime.

Actually Leslie, I disagree here. I think it is easier to blame religion and not the person. It is always easier to blame something else than accept responsibility for our actions.

I also don't think our race is nearly as good as others like to think of it perhaps.

I have NO delusions about how "good" our race is. I've seen too much during my life to ever believe in the "goodness of humanity"

If humanities moral codes were so outstanding, we would have long ago dispensed with most of our criminal protection services.

Without moral codes we would have no need for "criminal protections services" because no behavior would be outside the limits of acceptability. Religion has been used to define the limits of acceptable behavior in the past. This is becoming less and less true. But society still must set limits to acceptable behavior and there will always be some to whom those limits are unacceptable. If we didn't have those limits, however, we would have anarchy and the world would be a much more dangerous place to live.

To comment on professional conditions. I have been in the military. It is a great shame that you are quite wrong. The men that come back often do NOT "return to normal". I am fortunate that I have never had to experience those horrors though.

What is normal? Do you mean that we do not return to the way we used to be? If so, you are correct. No one ever reverts to who they were no matter what experience they go through. If you mean that we all sit in our little rooms playing russian roulette all day then you are wrong. Hell it's been weeks since I put a gun to my head and pulled the trigger just to see what would happen.

The sadest part of religion, is that while yes it is the "people" not the religion at fault, I have to ask you, when was the last time you were spontaneously attacked by a bible in and of it's own accord.
When I attack religion, I am not actually attacking the religion, I am obviously commenting on the people that use it.

Ut oh. Leslie this sounds almost like you agree with me when I said (worthlessly I might add) Religion, like so many other things in this world, is what people make it.

If religion is so rife with "just plain nice people" why have I after 40 years, never met more than 2 examples (yes I know of at least 2 persons that are a credit to their faith).

I know more than 2, but even 2 is enough to prove my point. By the way, you have blamed religion for "most of history's misery". While this MAY have been true at some point, I have to disagree when applied to modern history. My point: WWI was not caused by religion. WWII was not caused by religion. VietNam was not caused by religion. Desert Storm was not caused by religion. The falkland Island's war was not a religious war. The American Civil war was not a religious war. Napolean was not on a religous crusade. I could go on and on. Yes religion has been used to cause a lot of misery throughout history. The Inquisition, the witch hunts, the Crusades, ... But political philosophy and racial purity have taken it's place as our excuses of choice for mass murder and genocide. If we didn't have politics and racism then there would be other excuses.

I was "wandering aimlessly" only because of religion for so many years. Once I was finally able to step back and look at it without all the hogwash, I was able to finally see that I was letting people think for me instead of doing it for myself.

I believe that you have simply found a new religion. I could be wrong here, but it seems like you are an atheist. Atheism is a religion, complete with its own beliefs and dogma. Your original post on this thread was nothing more than a rant spewing out Atheist dogma. You cannot prove there isn't a god any more than I can prove there is. Not that I would be interested in proving that there was a God anyway.

Well I have spent a long time and a lot of words with my "worthless" opinion so I will close with one last thought.

You say I am deluded. Well I probably am deluded about a great many things. But so is everyone else, including you. You think you "know" that religious dogma is all that is wrong with the world. That is delusional. Humans are the biggest part of what is wrong with the world today. Humans who crave power. Humans who crave money. Humans who don't care about anyone or anything but themselves. Religion, Politics, Power, Sex, Race : all these things are simply excuses for humans to hurt each other. Hatred, in any form, leads to misery. You blame religion, but I say that religion is not the source of misery. Hatred is.

When I said I pity you, I didn't mean it with the negative connotations you took it with. That is my fault, I chose my word poorly because indeed "Pity" does have those negative feelings associated with it. For that I apologize and I am truly sorry I hurt your feelings. But I do indeed feel badly that you "hate" religion with such passion. I hope that someday you can rise above that hatred, or that I have simply misunderstood your rants. The latter is very possible. I often joke about "hating" things. Truth be known, though, I don't have the will to hate anymore. I lost it many years ago.

By the way: As you teach your son about sexuality, please remember that the virus that most doctors believe causes AIDS is 10,000 times smaller than the pores of the typical latex condom. It can pass freely through latex, rubber, and any other porous material. I salute you for your open attitudes about sexuality, but with freedom comes responsibility. STD's are real and condoms only limit risk. Your son's life is too precious to gamble with. You probably already knew that and probably already were dealing with it properly. But it never hurts to remind people.

Ray

 

[Whispersecret]

Leslie, perhaps you do know nice religious people and you just don't know it. Not all religious people walk about broadcasting their faith. God knows (heh heh) that it's not politically correct to bring up faith in casual conversation. Plus there's every reason to expect some left wing/atheist will start attacking your religious beliefs and blaming all of the world's ills upon it. Better to keep quiet and be left alone, confident in the knowledge that religion does far more good than evil.

 

[its Leslie]

Just to be on the record as saying it, I am NOT an aetheist.

Now don't go wasting time waiting for me to name a religion I follow, not going to happen.

The Anglican church I was part of defacto, (as my parents went to it) lost my interest when it was clear the congregation attended with the same interest people pay taxes. When I became an adult, the services became a poor way to use a sunday morning.

Several years in between waiting for a christian style church experience to become available, and the Mormons discovered me. Nice people, likely some of the most dedicated christians out there. But they hide secrets, bend the truth, and well in short they are no better than any other aspect of christanity.

I like God, we get along. My God is the same one they keep quoting in the various forms of the bible even the Koran and the Torah. But I am not going to accept all the provable lunacies in the bible as being the words of God. And it's easy to say that, God told me he isn't in those books. Sounds flaky? well know more flaky than what's in those books.

My ideas oooooobvious shock some, clearly annoy others, and make most seem to think that I hate God.

I know to much about science to fall for the bullshit that most of society likes to call religion. But by the same token, oddly enough, I know to much science to be an aetheist.

I defend my statement though, that religion is the root of all evil. But I won't lose sleep over being unable to convince you.
I am NOT always right, but being less than perfect, is not a sound way of writing my notion off.
Quoting a world full of nice people is no reason to support religious idiocies. Those "nice people" are nice by virtue of their being nice. It's alright to be just "nice" and not owe a religion credit.

As far as the words "good" and "normal" are concerned. Well don't go attacking me just cause you think I have exclusive rights to the perfect examples of "good" and "normal".
I know lots of "good" people that most religious people would say are headed straight to hell.
I generally prefer to NOT be normal. What goes for "normal" is not good enough for me in fact, I demand better than normal.

My oft mentioned son for instance. A "normal" "good" sex education means mom and dad through embarrassment teach him sweet fuck all about sex. He learns that a penis goes into a vagina thanks to our pathetically ineffective overworked school system (teaching what mom and dad should be teaching in the first place). My son is 8 now. He knows what a normal human male looks like nude. He also knows that his body isn't some shameful thing. He knows exactly what a normal female body looks like. But he has the sense to know you have to use common sense around people outside of the family.
I do NOT jack off in front of him. Not that it would matter, because only those that believe centuries of dogma have trouble with it.

As for safe sex, hmmm safe sex to me doesn't mean condums. Safe sex to me means knowing that having sex without knowing what you are doing is dangerous.
Dangerous is more than social diseases. Dangerous is letting your emotions make bad choices. Safe sex is asking your son to jack off into a tissue before his date so his mind will be less prone to listen to his cock. Sound outrageous, naturally it sounds outrageous. Anything that goes against popular opinion sounds outrageous.
I am not planning on giving my son a condom and sayng ok I dd my part. Shit that's doing next to nothing.
His girl gets horny and next thing you know he is gasping his cum into her and has forgotten to use the condom. Just providing condums means almost nothing.

Safe sex means an active strategy for dealing what we all know happens in so many cases. At 40 I still have mental breakdown when horny. But at least I can look back to when I was young an identify in hindsight what my son will have little skill in dealing with.

Religion tells us masturbating is evil. Thanks for nothing religion. I will breathe easier knowing my son is less likely to get himself in a spot his young mind might not cope with as well as it might need to. If I have to have an awkward discussion about the boyhood interest in jacking off so be it. Being a parent is not for the lazy. I will not be surprised if my son is not a copy of me where masturbation is concerned, but I will know that he knows that I say it's cool and acceptable to unload before a date. Takes me a few hours before my gear is even interested afer I unload.

Left this till last though, I am not going to let a person tell me that WW1, WW2, Korea Vietnam, The Gulf, Afganistan, Falklands and several others but I ain't listing them all were not religious wars.

For starters, the most recent Afganistan is entirely religion. Vietnam was the christian west vs the aetheist communist way (although sadly the north and south were not much better than pawns to some extent).
We hide it well in some wars, but it is our way of life vs another in war. Why do you think we call the Germans evil. The American civil war wasn't just about Balck Slavery of course, but it was one way of seeing life vs another all the same.
Just simple greed is in the end an assault on a way of life. So the Gulf being about oil is not just economic and nothing more.

If anyone wants to pursure the military angles bring it on. I have 20 years behind me. You won't find me an easy debate.

I will acknowledge here those that have at least debated me with thought out messages (in spite of how it looks, I don't mind a person attacking my comments as long as they are prepared with a counter argument).

 

[Street0]

<i>Then hour after hour you watch scenes of women being torn out of their clothes and fucked violently. 100's of different women and always differing men.
What is the chance of you walking home after seeing that previously for 12 hours a day, 7 days a week, for a full month, being affected in a positive way to encountering a man actually raping an actually woman in alley as you walk by?</i>

Egads! By Pavlovian logic, you will get a hard-on but the decision as to whether you come to her aid or keep walking will remain the same.

<i>Our objection to rape, incest, underage partners etc. has nothing to do with it being a matter of law, it's all connected to our religious beliefs in most cases that were beaten into us till we surrendered our ability to question.</i>

Where are the hordes demanding the legalisation of incest?

<i>If humanities moral codes were so outstanding, we would have long ago dispensed with most of our criminal protection services.</i>

Most of our "criminal protection services" were established relatively recently because the enormous influence religion exerted among criminals did nothing to prevent them from committing crimes.

 

[grey brother]

pavlov,etc.

I think conditioning can be both a blessing and a curse, and conditioned reflexes as well. To be
conditioned to difficult and challenging circumstances usually causes a person to be resourceful, thrifty, and courageous; to be conditioned to luxury usually produces the opposite -- the very concept Lykurgus employed in
creating the laws of Sparta, which stood for over 700 years as an independent republic, and the concept Philip attempted to imitate in Alexander's
upbringing.

Religion and its rituals may have been the "opiate
of the masses", as Lenin described it, in many
varied societies over many centuries, but most
formulaic or dogmatic religion -- as opposed to revealed or direct-experience religion -- is just
a subset of social programming generally, although
a very large subset. And all societies have programming, or culture.

I argue here that neither conditioning, in the Pavlovian sense, nor social programming in its
various forms, has much impact on the formation of basic character -- but both have an impact on how that basic character makes choices ( behaves ) given different circumstances. I think the simple elements of parental love, support, devotion, and
resposibility to the family overwhelm the "outside" influences during the early years when a
person's character is formed -- unless, of course,
those simple elements are missing, and therefore their absence overwhelms the "outside" influences.

But experience is a guide, and just as a horse that has never crossed water may balk at a ford,
so may a person who has never seen evil in process
balk at intervention. That is possible.

However, I would argue that a person raised with
respect for his or her personhood, from an early age, in a loving and caring family, is unlikely
ever to observe a rape or degradation of another human being with any attitude approaching diffidence, or with any behavior approaching avoidance. Experience, conditioned or cultural, may or may not have taught such a person the best
way to deal with such a situation, but I'm firm
in believing it won't be avoidance.

I think the inner resources of a person's character will outweigh his or her conditioning
or cultural influences, but his or her behavior will be shaped or given direction -- not determined -- by those "outside" factors.

By the same token, persons raised in fear, given
neither love nor consistent support as infants and children, well may bypass all the laws and rules
and learning-to-get-along behaviors when they are
faced with a scene of harm being done to another
person. I doubt that a steady diet of the "Sound
of Music" would alter their characters.

There is also violence within the character of those who value human life and the freedom of the
human spirit. Whatever scenes may be portayed, I
think all of the 'Star Wars' movies have a fair
and well-considered moral compass; and, although
literally swimming in his enemies' blood before he died, one would not deny that Leonidas of Sparta was right to defend Thermopylae against the Persians.

Joyce once wrote, approximately, "religion, nation, family ... I shall fly by those nets,"
transformed from a son of Ireland, itself "an old sow that eats its farrow," into a butterfly and a citizen of the world. Perhaps we all can aim to
do as well. But first, we must be able to believe in ourselves.

 

[Ray Dario]

Leslie;

I assume that your latest rant was generally in response to my post. You never mention my name and don't quote me, although you did misquote me once. But since I am the one who accused you of possibly being an aetheist ...

Just to be on the record as saying it, I am NOT an aetheist.

Okay, I said I might be wrong. You'd never actually stated you were an aetheist, but your tone certainly sounded like the few people I've know who call themselves that.

Left this till last though, I am not going to let a person tell me that WW1, WW2, Korea Vietnam, The Gulf, Afganistan, Falklands and several others but I ain't listing them all were not religious wars.For starters, the most recent Afganistan is entirely religion. Vietnam was the christian west vs the aetheist communist way (although sadly the north and south were not much better than pawns to some extent).
We hide it well in some wars, but it is our way of life vs another in war. Why do you think we call the Germans evil. The American civil war wasn't just about Balck Slavery of course, but it was one way of seeing life vs another all the same.
Just simple greed is in the end an assault on a way of life. So the Gulf being about oil is not just economic and nothing more.

I never mentioned Afganistan. This is the misquote I mentioned earlier. But while the Afganistan conflict had religion at its roots and religion was the major player in the cause for the misery there. A rancid, sickening twist of a religion that, in the heart of it's teaching, values peace. It wasn't all about religion. We didn't attack them because they were Muslims. We attacked them because they attacked us first. And when someone hits you with a stick and you just stand there they are more likely to hit you with the stick again.

However: Vietnam was not religious, but political ideaology. Communism vs. capitalism. It wouldn't have mattered a whit if the communists were Christian or Hindu or whatever. And you can't tell me that the American Civil war was religious. Both sides were, for the most part, christian and never used "religion" as a soapbox for the hate mongering. They didn't need it, they had many other things to kill each other for. As you said slavery was just one of the issues, but religion wasn't one of them.

As far as Germany goes, I never called "Germany" evil. Adolf Hitler and those few nazi's who understood his plans and supported them can be described as evil because they had a distinct lack of respect for life. They used racial purity as their main platform for hatemongering. The same platform used in the balkans recently.

My position is this: No matter what the excuse is, hatred, in all its forms, is the main cause of human inflicted misery.

Not every Christian wants to kill every Muslim. Not every Hindu wants to kill every Pagan. But when people hate, the misery starts.

If you hate me because I'm a native American then it has nothing to do with religion. It really has little to do with race, except that race provides a convienient excuse for you to hate me. You may be able to hide that hatred, for a while. But sooner or later you will do or say something that will be designed to hurt me. Not because you are a Christian, but because you hate.

If you hate me because you believe I'm a Christian the result is the same. I may not even be a Christian, your hatred won't care. You will hurt me all the same, because hatred makes slaves of its hosts. Beware your hatred, it will eat you up from the inside out. I've seen it ruin good men and destroy not so good men.

About the normal thing. I think you missed my point. I probably said it poorly. Normal is an illusion. It doesn't exist. Nobody is normal. If I'm wrong then tell me: what is your definition of "normal?" And tell me how many "normal" people you know. Whatever your definition, unless suitably vague and broad and meaningless, there will be more people who are abnormal than normal and that would make normal abnormal.

As to your son: I certainly meant no disrespect. I have the highest respect for any parent who takes their duties seriously, and I believe deeply in the right of the parent to teach their child as they will. I'm glad you are not jumping on the "safe sex" bandwagon. I believe you are completely correct that "Just providing condums means almost nothing." Too many parents today choose to ignore reality and allow some underpaid moron, who couldn't do anything productive with their own life, teach their children about sex. Then they wonder where he got all his fucked up ideas. I'm glad to hear that you are taking an active role.

As far as jerking off before a date. Well it might work for you, but when I was sixteen it only took me about five minutes before my hormones were once again howling at the gates. Have you considered buying him a cockring? Or getting his cockhead pierced and putting a padlock through it? (just kidding!)

Don't look at me for the answer to how to keep a teenage boy from sticking his cock into anything that moves. Unless you feed him so much chocolate that he breaks out with horrific acne, I think your fighting a losing battle. But at least your fighting it and not just ignoring it. As long as you care enough to talk to your boy about sex then chances are he'll be better off than 90% of the other kids he knows.

 

[its Leslie]

Ray your comments are improving (in my own personal opinion not that that really counts), but if you want to call my comments "rants" you will have to accept that anything you say will be inherently poorly recieved by me.

To attack my idea(s) means not much to me as I rarely expect everyone to agree with me on some issues. But to attack anything I say out of hand is only going to make YOUR comments look bad in the end. I am not the only one reading what you say remember.

Occasionally I will specifically indicate a person by name if I want them to know I am talking to them directly, but when I don't mention a person by name it means only that I am not specifically talking to them.

You never mentioned Afganistan, immaterial, I wanted to myself. You never called Germany evil, no, but I did.
Wasn't aware you were a native american, but why mention it? I am a native canadian, so what.

One thing though fellow posters, Leslie neeeeeeeever leaves doubt when he hates a specific individual, trust me you will know when I am angry. First thing is bad things start happening to you out of the blue.

 

[Ray Dario]

Ray your comments are improving (in my own personal opinion not that that really counts), but if you want to call my comments "rants" you will have to accept that anything you say will be inherently poorly recieved by me.

Hmm, not sure what you have against rants, (it means to talk or declaim extravagantly, which is what you and I have been doing on this thread) but okay, whatever.

To attack my idea(s) means not much to me as I rarely expect everyone to agree with me on some issues. But to attack anything I say out of hand is only going to make YOUR comments look bad in the end. I am not the only one reading what you say remember.

Any idea of yours that I'm "attacking" I explain, usually at length, why I disagree with it. If I were attacking everything you say out of hand my comments wouldn't be nearly as specific or lengthy. I would just say something like. "Fuck off Bozo" or something equally lacking of wit.

You never mentioned Afganistan, immaterial, I wanted to myself. You never called Germany evil, no, but I did.
Wasn't aware you were a native american, but why mention it? I am a native canadian, so what.

I thought you were argueing the point I was making about there being bad events in history not caused by religion. Now I'm not sure what you were saying. As far as the Native American thing, I was illustrating a point, not accusing you specifically. I forgot that, being Canadian, your vernacular and idioms of speech might be different than mine. In southern America it is common, when illustrating a point, to use "you" as the actor even though the person being spoken too is not the actual actor.

One thing though fellow posters, Leslie neeeeeeeever leaves doubt when he hates a specific individual, trust me you will know when I am angry. First thing is bad things start happening to you out of the blue.

Idle threats? Or does this explain the sudden rash of 1 votes I've recieved in the last three days? Or are you like the idiot who emailed me a while back insisting that he knew who I was and where I lived and was going to kill me for writing the story "Visitation."

Excuse me for not fearing for my life. I've been through far to much in my life to worry about idle threats.

In reality the worst you can do to me is to 1 vote all my stories here at Lit. Childish and immature as that is, I would expect more from you. But, hey, if that's your thing, go after it. I won't reciprocate. You don't mean that much to me

Ray