The politics of erotica

[bronzeage]

Wow...not that I am or should be surprised and since not one thus far has uttered even a hint....I guess that leaves it to me.

...snip ...
You may live your life with an absence of morality but do not have the audacity to attribute your weakness to the nature of man; you only expose yourself.

Amicus

Where does Maguire fit into this? She is liable to be called a degenerate by her own people and a hypocrite by her opponents.

Where does she fit into "the common morality"?

Other than that, what the fuck are you talking about?

 

[TxRad]

Where does Maguire fit into this? She is liable to be called a degenerate by her own people and a hypocrite by her opponents.

Where does she fit into "the common morality"?

Other than that, what the fuck are you talking about?

If you figure that last part out please pass it on. We've even tried diagrams but those don't work either. An Amicus rant is never ending and mostly nonsense to the very end.

 

[amicus]

It be a bit of an abstract concept, Bronzeage, expanding the concept of morality from a single person to include a wider view.

Most here can easily make the connection, but you are new to me, perhaps I should dumb down my expository.

Bohemian left wingers are driven by their emotions and sexual tendencies and are aghast that anyone or any group could be rational and objective in their actions.

Most every society has a codified moral code, excepting the sophisticated western civilizations who have dispensed with a theocratic definition of good and bad.

Without God, our poor little sophisticates become confused during masturbation and wondered and continue to wonder, what is moral without God to guide us?

Elected representatives, especially in the South, retain a vestige of Christian Morality which contains certain reseverations about Pornography or even Erotica, as one described the alleged offense.

The very worldly French connoisseurs of all things sensual have infected the rigid Brits to a point where they actually display emotion to objects other than horses and dogs.

There are or used to be laws against Sodomy, or 'buggary', as I think the Brits refer to male homosexuals, and, once upon a time, this actually reflected the moral tenets of most.

Except the Bohemian intellectuals who, in all of time, have never respected any limitations on their perversions.

It is not surprising that so few on this thread even remember the definition of a moral act.

Amicus

 

[TxRad]

Be very careful there Ami, if you dumb it down anymore, you'll put yourself to sleep.

 

[amicus]

Had a nice nap, thank you Tx



ami

 

[bronzeage]

It be a bit of an abstract concept, Bronzeage, expanding the concept of morality from a single person to include a wider view.

Most here can easily make the connection, but you are new to me, perhaps I should dumb down my expository.

Bohemian left wingers are driven by their emotions and sexual tendencies and are aghast that anyone or any group could be rational and objective in their actions.

Most every society has a codified moral code, excepting the sophisticated western civilizations who have dispensed with a theocratic definition of good and bad.

Without God, our poor little sophisticates become confused during masturbation and wondered and continue to wonder, what is moral without God to guide us?

Elected representatives, especially in the South, retain a vestige of Christian Morality which contains certain reseverations about Pornography or even Erotica, as one described the alleged offense.

The very worldly French connoisseurs of all things sensual have infected the rigid Brits to a point where they actually display emotion to objects other than horses and dogs.

There are or used to be laws against Sodomy, or 'buggary', as I think the Brits refer to male homosexuals, and, once upon a time, this actually reflected the moral tenets of most.

Except the Bohemian intellectuals who, in all of time, have never respected any limitations on their perversions.

It is not surprising that so few on this thread even remember the definition of a moral act.

Amicus

Its a good thing we have poets and philosophers to point out the beautiful people and hero's to us, because masturbatory confusion would overwhelm us in short order.

Moral codes vary from culture to culture. Beyond the basic "Don't kill your friends" and "don't steal stuff from your friends", moral codes tend to protect property, not people.

Prohibitions against adultery and fornication are to protect the wealth of the family. At one time, rape and adultery were considered a crime against property. Rape was not assault against a woman (or man), it was theft. Any woman who did not make a valiant defense against a rapist could be considered complicit and be stoned to death, along with her attacker. This assumes the attacker is caught. In places where women are consider more human and less property, this seldom happens.

As far as I know, no moral code has anything good to say about hypocrites, which are people who proscribe rules for other people and then fail to follow the same rules.

Maguire (the lady featured in the opening post) is charged with hypocrisy. These are not the kind of charges which can be brought to court. She is going to be tried and judged in the court of public morality. In that court, the rules of evidence are very vague.

 

[amicus]

Bronzeage...my apologies for not reading the linked article and taking your word for the comment...

In the piece, it is that she home schooled her children while working for the School board that seemed to upset people.

Rather like our highly paid public representatives and senators, they almost always place their children in private schools rather than public.

Your concept concerning human morality is, well, beyond description really; you see it as subjective and Marxist, strange.

Basically human ethics and morals exhibit a far more 'universal' nature throughout all of history than being subject to any particular society.

Normal people do not need instructions on how to love a baby or a child, they already know. It is only the perverted segment of those societies that occupy the fringe area of ethics and morals.

Amicus

 

[bronzeage]

Bronzeage...my apologies for not reading the linked article and taking your word for the comment...

In the piece, it is that she home schooled her children while working for the School board that seemed to upset people.

Rather like our highly paid public representatives and senators, they almost always place their children in private schools rather than public.

Your concept concerning human morality is, well, beyond description really; you see it as subjective and Marxist, strange.

Basically human ethics and morals exhibit a far more 'universal' nature throughout all of history than being subject to any particular society.

Normal people do not need instructions on how to love a baby or a child, they already know. It is only the perverted segment of those societies that occupy the fringe area of ethics and morals.

Amicus

The mainstream media article mentioned Maguire's reluctance to put her own children in the public education system which she later became the chief administrator. It is political blogs which connected the resignation to her erotic writings.

My description of human morality should be fairly accessible to anyone.

"Don't kill your friends" and "don't steal stuff from your friends"

Every society that every went to the trouble of writing it down, made it clear that is is okay to kill some people and steal some people's stuff.

I can see why you would think it is a subjective view, since I connect the principles to the action, and Marxist, since I used the word "property" in a sentence.

As for loving babies, most mammals do this to some degree. Some part of it is instinct and some part is learned. That maybe the basis of human morality, but it doesn't do much for telling us what to do in any particular situation.

It is moral to steal? Is it moral to steal if you children are staving? If you children are starving, is it more moral to steal bread, or to steal money and buy bread?

How does this apply to stealing cablevision?

How do universal morals and ethics apply to Mrs. Maguire and her political career?

Is it moral and ethical to be a secret erotic author and public servant? Does writing erotic fiction make one unfit for office?

What is the moral judgment in this case?

 

[amicus]

BronzeAge:

"...It is moral to steal? Is it moral to steal if you children are staving? If you children are starving, is it more moral to steal bread, or to steal money and buy bread?..."

~~~

Victor Hugo's Jean ValJean was created to define or make a statement concerning just that issue..

Rather than make an issue of that one instance, I suggest that the novel is indicative of an ages long effort by man to define good and evil, right and wrong, moral and immoral.

That effort continues, especially in our times with the abortion question and many other issues that people remain confused about.

It appears to me that following ww2, that atomic bomb, the cruelties of Fascism and then Communism and the death of God, that moral absolutes have become a 'verboten' subject to discuss unless one accepts situational or subjective morals, which can vary in time, place and circumstance.

You made two absolute statement concerning morals: "Don't kill or steal from your friends...". I suggest you use more precise language and craft those two tenets or premises into a foundation for a rational moral system.

Good luck on it...


Amicus

 

[shereads]

Dick Cheney's wife published a soft-porn novel during the 70's and still managed, a few years ago, to get all purse-lipped and righteous on the topic of a political candidate's sexy novel. Go figure.

A good rule of thumb would seem to be: any public figure who harps on Family Values is hiding something. Even if it's only bad writing.

http://www.amazon.com/Sisters-Lynne-Cheney/dp/0451112040

Caution! This review at Amazon contains the words Cheney and pudenda. It is not for the squeamish.

What do women want? A new edition of "Sisters"!, May 1, 2004

By A Customer

Just focus for a moment on the nickname of the husband of the authoress, and it becomes E-Z to understand why Lynne Cheney's throbbing pudenda compelled her to write this novel more than two decades ago. As directed by the Commander in Chief, the White House gynecologist has since infibulated the author. Yet potent testimony of the intensity of gratified female desire remains between the well-thumbed pages of the few yellowing copies of "Sisters" that have not been purchased and burned by Attorney General John Ashcroft and his staff members.
"Sisters" made its debut when Mrs. Cheney was an unknown scribbler, though her words undoubtedly inspired the life choices of her daughter Mary. It is shameful that partisan political pressure upon Lynne's publishing house, as well as her current status as Second Womyn of the United States, keeps this moist, glistening gem from being reissued. Readers across America would find "Sisters" a fine excuse for self-abuse if only this exquisite paean to Sapphic love, as well as to prophylactic-clad heterosexual bonking in the Wild West, became widely available once again! Forty-four bidders attempted to buy a yellowing copy from eBay, yet only one succeeded, at a price beyond rubies.

The female wankers of America need this book. Bring it back.

 

[bronzeage]

BronzeAge:

~~~

Victor Hugo's Jean ValJean was created to define or make a statement concerning just that issue..

Rather than make an issue of that one instance, I suggest that the novel is indicate of an ages long effort by man to define good and evil, right and wrong, moral and immoral.

That effort continues, especially in our times with the abortion question and many other issues that people remain confused about.

It appears to me that following ww2, that atomic bomb, the cruelties of Fascism and then Communism and the death of God, that moral absolutes have become a 'verboten' subject to discuss unless one accepts situational or subjective morals, which can vary in time, place and circumstance.

You made two absolute statement concerning morals: "Don't kill or steal from your friends...". I suggest you use more precise language and craft those two tenets or premises into a foundation for a rational moral system.

Good luck on it...


Amicus

It's not that complicated. It's always a bad idea to piss off the people who maybe able to help you later. It's also bad policy to kill those who expect you to protect them, even if its only passively.

To go back before Jean, consider King David in his younger years. He was obligated by the 10 commandments, yet had no apparent problem with piracy and murder as a means to support himself.

When he was out of favor at home, hired his services to a foreign King. To show loyalty and usefulness, he went on a raiding expedition against his old homeland. At least that's where he said he was going.

What he really did was lead his men to a remote part of his host's kingdom, where they slaughtered every man woman and child, to silence all witnesses, and looted all they had.

The spoils were brought back to the foreign King as proof of performance.

David's real problems came many years later, after he had the blood of "tens of thousands" on his hands and conspired in the death of a friend.

When have morals ever been anything but subjective and situational in operation? It's easy to talk a good moral game.



There is one moral absolute which governs abortion, fascism, atomic warfare and capital punishment. In its simplest form, it states, "If you cause enough trouble, we will kill you."

This is a very easy principle to apply in the real world. There is no worry about the innocence of a fetus, or its humanity. The trouble it will cause can be quantified and it only has to pass one standard. Is it too much trouble, or not?

The trouble principle is best applied by governments. When someone tries to use it to resolve their personal problems, they can quickly become too much trouble themselves.

If you have a more rational moral foundation for humans, trot it out here.

Until then, be excellent to one another.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Death solves many problems and eliminates many costs.

 

[amicus]

It's not that complicated. It's always a bad idea to piss off the people who maybe able to help you later. It's also bad policy to kill those who expect you to protect them, even if its only passively.

To go back before Jean, consider King David in his younger years. He was obligated by the 10 commandments, yet had no apparent problem with piracy and murder as a means to support himself.

When he was out of favor at home, hired his services to a foreign King. To show loyalty and usefulness, he went on a raiding expedition against his old homeland. At least that's where he said he was going.

What he really did was lead his men to a remote part of his host's kingdom, where they slaughtered every man woman and child, to silence all witnesses, and looted all they had.

The spoils were brought back to the foreign King as proof of performance.

David's real problems came many years later, after he had the blood of "tens of thousands" on his hands and conspired in the death of a friend.

When have morals ever been anything but subjective and situational in operation? It's easy to talk a good moral game.



There is one moral absolute which governs abortion, fascism, atomic warfare and capital punishment. In its simplest form, it states, "If you cause enough trouble, we will kill you."

This is a very easy principle to apply in the real world. There is no worry about the innocence of a fetus, or its humanity. The trouble it will cause can be quantified and it only has to pass one standard. Is it too much trouble, or not?

The trouble principle is best applied by governments. When someone tries to use it to resolve their personal problems, they can quickly become too much trouble themselves.

If you have a more rational moral foundation for humans, trot it out here.

Until then, be excellent to one another.

~~~

Interesting points of view and conclusions.

I am not a biblical scholar, but it seems that the Ten Commandments, were one of man's first attempts to define and codify moral behavior.

There are others, of course, in China and Persia, with the defining characteristic being that those moral codes depended on a Surpreme Being, that set forth moral commandments or various deities in many societies who were created to provide a moral example for people to follow.

It was only following the Renaissance and the printing press, and compared to strict theological interpretation of morals and ethics, was a giant leap forward and when man began to address the possible universality of human actions in terms or right or wrong.

I would propose that western civilizations also made another large movement with the beginnings of the discussions concerning the rights of man.

In the last half century, our understanding of human nature, the mind, and the advances in medical technology, all have given mankind greater knowledge concerning the halting progression between animal instincts and focused thought.

"...When have morals ever been anything but subjective and situational in operation? It's easy to talk a good moral game..."

That is rather the point, is it not? Must human behavior remain always subjective and situational and dictated by those who rule?

I am hopeful and I postulate than man can act according to an universal moral code that reflects the value of the individual and his dealings with others.

First, I think, one has to accept that possibility and then begin to formulate a fundamental understanding of human actions and how they are judged.

As women produce fewer and fewer human lives in modern society, each becomes more valuable to both the parents, the family and the society. Just today I heard that the Russians are paying a bonus for mothers to have more than the 1.2 children per woman that is currently the rate in that country.

"...If you have a more rational moral foundation for humans, trot it out here..."

I have no such foundation to offer beyond the concept that each human life is valuable and unique and innately possesses the right to that life and the opportunity to live it in freedom.

Amicus

 

[bronzeage]

~~~

Interesting points of view and conclusions.

I am not a biblical scholar, but it seems that the Ten Commandments, were one of man's first attempts to define and codify moral behavior.

There are others, of course, in China and Persia, with the defining characteristic being that those moral codes depended on a Surpreme Being, that set forth moral commandments or various deities in many societies who were created to provide a moral example for people to follow.

It was only following the Renaissance and the printing press, and compared to strict theological interpretation of morals and ethics, was a giant leap forward and when man began to address the possible universality of human actions in terms or right or wrong.

I would propose that western civilizations also made another large movement with the beginnings of the discussions concerning the rights of man.

In the last half century, our understanding of human nature, the mind, and the advances in medical technology, all have given mankind greater knowledge concerning the halting progression between animal instincts and focused thought.



That is rather the point, is it not? Must human behavior remain always subjective and situational and dictated by those who rule?

I am hopeful and I postulate than man can act according to an universal moral code that reflects the value of the individual and his dealings with others.

First, I think, one has to accept that possibility and then begin to formulate a fundamental understanding of human actions and how they are judged.

As women produce fewer and fewer human lives in modern society, each becomes more valuable to both the parents, the family and the society. Just today I heard that the Russians are paying a bonus for mothers to have more than the 1.2 children per woman that is currently the rate in that country.



I have no such foundation to offer beyond the concept that each human life is valuable and unique and innately possesses the right to that life and the opportunity to live it in freedom.

Amicus

In the philosophy business, this is known as easy talk. It's very little help when a real moral dilemma presents itself.

 

[Teloz]

You got it all wrong, and cant be more wrong. Let me set you straight.

Your average thieves cop about 20 Billion worth of stuff every year in America; American employees haul off about 600 million from work. And everyone detests thieves. Okey? Americans are idealistic; God make me chaste! just dont do it today. We idolize beauty and fitness, and we're the fattest, ugliest people in the solar system [B(]behind the Brits)[/B].

We're self righteous hypocrits and insist on the right to be so. We'd rather be nannies than die and be with Jesus.

I hope this helps.

I guess you're so insecure you have to air your Anglophobic attitude just to give your life some stability. Actually you lot are much fatter and more unhealthy than the Brits! Read the stats!

 

[bronzeage]

I guess you're so insecure you have to air your Anglophobic attitude just to give your life some stability. Actually you lot are much fatter and more unhealthy than the Brits! Read the stats!

http://www.k-read.net/spiritstuff/Spirit_18foamhand.jpg

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

I guess you're so insecure you have to air your Anglophobic attitude just to give your life some stability. Actually you lot are much fatter and more unhealthy than the Brits! Read the stats!

When America sent you losers packing, we let you you keep the crown jewels and we kept the family jewels.

 

[TxRad]

When America sent you losers packing, we let you you keep the crown jewels and we kept the family jewels.

And you keep yours in a box under your pillow.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

And you keep yours in a box under your pillow.

Youre jealous I have family jewels.

I dont understand your envy. God gave you a nice cowboy hat (but no cattle) and I got femily jewels.

 

[Stella_Omega]

And you keep yours in a box under your pillow.

Those are plastic. The real ones are on display in the pawnshop window.

Under a magnifying glass, so you can see them.

 

[rgraham666]

I thought those were his brains.

 

[Stella_Omega]

I thought those were his brains.

No, those are his nuts. The pawnshop wouldn't take his brains-- no value in them.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

STELLA

You just cant leave things alone, huh? Back a week and already you want to start shit with me.

 

[TxRad]

Youre jealous I have family jewels.

I dont understand your envy. God gave you a nice cowboy hat (but no cattle) and I got femily jewels.

No envy believe me. As for the cowboy hat I bought it. I really don't need any cattle, there's enough bull around here for everyone. As for you having family jewels, I wonder whose family they belong too. Certainly not yours. You don't even have the balls to be yourself. No, no envy at all.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

No envy believe me. As for the cowboy hat I bought it. I really don't need any cattle, there's enough bull around here for everyone. As for you having family jewels, I wonder whose family they belong too. Certainly not yours. You don't even have the balls to be yourself. No, no envy at all.

I use my real name.....