We don't hate amicus.....

[Selena_Kitt]

Btw, great avatar, SK.

Thanks, Sev

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

Thanks, Sev

You're welcum.

 

[amicus]

"...I tend to see it more as a matter of individuality. People are just adjusting to individuals who are different asserting their right to be themselves. Nothing more than that..."

Well, SeverusMax, that is a very kind and genteel statement and I should leave it there.

But...I cannot. Children grow up in families, they grow up around other children down the street and then into the school system.

From day one, that lil human critter is carefully watchings how others act and what others do, very carefully watching and...mimicking and copying.

Some parents mold their children to reflect their own values and lifestyles; completely normal.

Your assertion that different individuals just want the right to be 'themselves...'

What does that mean?

There are points where society draws boundaries for individuals wishing to just be themselves, for instance, murder and theft and fraud, just to name a few limitations on the freedom of an individual to express that 'individuality'...where are the limits drawn and why?

Public nudity? Urination in Public? Fornication in Public? Self exposure in public?

None of those separate issues are pointed out as important, only to suggest that a means of formulating what are 'acceptable' expressions of individuality exists in all societies.

Gay marriage and homosexuality in schools is now in the frying pan of public/societal concern.

amicus...

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

"...I tend to see it more as a matter of individuality. People are just adjusting to individuals who are different asserting their right to be themselves. Nothing more than that..."

Well, SeverusMax, that is a very kind and genteel statement and I should leave it there.

But...I cannot. Children grow up in families, they grow up around other children down the street and then into the school system.

From day one, that lil human critter is carefully watchings how others act and what others do, very carefully watching and...mimicking and copying.

Some parents mold their children to reflect their own values and lifestyles; completely normal.

Your assertion that different individuals just want the right to be 'themselves...'

What does that mean?

There are points where society draws boundaries for individuals wishing to just be themselves, for instance, murder and theft and fraud, just to name a few limitations on the freedom of an individual to express that 'individuality'...where are the limits drawn and why?

Public nudity? Urination in Public? Fornication in Public? Self exposure in public?

None of those separate issues are pointed out as important, only to suggest that a means of formulating what are 'acceptable' expressions of individuality exists in all societies.

Gay marriage and homosexuality in schools is now in the frying pan of public/societal concern.

amicus...

It stops where your actions interfere with the rights of others to live and be free. That's it. I refuse to believe in social conformity for its own sake.

 

[Stella_Omega]

I tried to read some of what each of you have written and posted here, intending to leave comments, but I found I was not equipped to pass judgment on writings I did not understand. I have no means to understand lesbian or gay or bdsm or all the categories that you folks seem to revel in.

That's very interesting. It seems almost like color blindness in a way. I've met planty of people who will say they don't care for one sexual quirk or another- and plenty of people who say they are repulsed by one or another sexual identity or practice- but few who will say they don't comprehend in any way, anything but their own sexual mores. That shows a lack of empathy, in my opinion.

I think there is a rational motive for exploring the sexuality of the species, one of understanding. I do not think such a rational motive exists for much of what I read in the stories many on this forum have posted.

We are not here to post rational studies about sex, we are here to post erotica. Sex- rational? Isn't it the antithesis of rationality? Sex, for us humans, is irrational, emotional, empathic, selfish, healing, destructive. It binds us together, and creates the most aching lonelinesses- at the very same time.
I, at least, am not here to "study" sex in any "rational" way. I understand my sexuality pretty well, actually, and I come here to celebrate it and play around with the sexuality that others bring. This is a smut forum, not a debate symposium.
May I also point out that empirical study of any subject deals with that subject as it really is. You don't get to decide that homosexuality is not a bona fide part of sexuality and therefore not worthy of your attention- in the face of so much evidence that such a significant percentage of people define their sexual identity in that way. You're looking at the elephant, but ignoring its trunk.

 

[Guest]

. . . .

 

[amicus]

[QUOTE=Stella_Omega]That's very interesting. It seems almost like color blindness in a way. I've met planty of people who will say they don't care for one sexual quirk or another- and plenty of people who say they are repulsed by one or another sexual identity or practice- but few who will say they don't comprehend in any way, anything but their own sexual mores. That shows a lack of empathy, in my opinion. We are not here to post rational studies about sex, we are here to post erotica. Sex- rational? Isn't it the antithesis of rationality? Sex, for us humans, is irrational, emotional, empathic, selfish, healing, destructive. It binds us together, and creates the most aching lonelinesses- at the very same time.
I, at least, am not here to "study" sex in any "rational" way. I understand my sexuality pretty well, actually, and I come here to celebrate it and play around with the sexuality that others bring. This is a smut forum, not a debate symposium.
May I also point out that empirical study of any subject deals with that subject as it really is. You don't get to decide that homosexuality is not a bona fide part of sexuality and therefore not worthy of your attention- in the face of so much evidence that such a significant percentage of people define their sexual identity in that way. You're looking at the elephant, but ignoring its trunk.[/QUOTE]

~~~~~~~~~`


Well, of course you have the right to your own opinion, although you may speak for fewer on this forum than you may think.

"Color blindness", because one chooses to focus on what one finds interesting or attractive? No, it is called personal preference. I don't enjoy reading stories about old people making love either, that does not make me 'color blind' to whatever pleasures they discover, I just have no desire to read about it.

"we are not here to post rational studies about sex..." Speak for yourself, perhaps I am indeed here for that reason, perhaps many are, to write and discover and explore, in a reasonable rational manner, just what part sex plays in a human life.

"...This is a smut forum, not a debate symposium...." Again, speak for yourself, I for one, at least, did not hire you to define the function and purpose of this forum as 'smut', whatever that means.

"...Sex- rational? Isn't it the antithesis of rationality? Sex, for us humans, is irrational, emotional, empathic, selfish, healing, destructive. It binds us together, and creates the most aching lonelinesses- at the very same time.[/B]
I, at least, am not here ..."

Again, speak for yourself, I personally think your description or definition of 'sex' as irrational is pathetic, paranoid and perhaps mildly psychotic.

Rand defines sex as a 'celebration of life', I find that much better than how you seem to view it.

With the passage of time, writers/authors, now have the freedom to write graphic sexual encounters into their fiction. Thanks to such novels as Lady Chatterly's Lover and Lolita and several more groundbreaking works, we are free to include that very intimate part of life in the pages of our fiction.

I would love the opportunity to discuss that and do so, but seldom on this forum.

Most of what I read in posted stories and comments here, are similar to what you imply, that sex is a nasty, pervented, kinky thing that has to be called 'smut' and hidden away from innocent eyes.

Sexual intercourse between a man and a woman, with a personal relationship before and after the act, is the most intimate, most personal relationship we mere humans can ever experience.

It saddens me that so many demean it as casual fun and a means of recreation when you get bored.

I understand fully what you posted, I just totally disagree with you.


amicus...

 

[Stella_Omega]

~~~~~~~~~`


Well, of course you have the right to your own opinion, although you may speak for fewer on this forum than you may think.

"Color blindness", because one chooses to focus on what one finds interesting or attractive? No, it is called personal preference. I don't enjoy reading stories about old people making love either, that does not make me 'color blind' to whatever pleasures they discover, I just have no desire to read about it.

"we are not here to post rational studies about sex..." Speak for yourself, perhaps I am indeed here for that reason, perhaps many are, to write and discover and explore, in a reasonable rational manner, just what part sex plays in a human life.

"...This is a smut forum, not a debate symposium...." Again, speak for yourself, I for one, at least, did not hire you to define the function and purpose of this forum as 'smut', whatever that means.

"...Sex- rational? Isn't it the antithesis of rationality? Sex, for us humans, is irrational, emotional, empathic, selfish, healing, destructive. It binds us together, and creates the most aching lonelinesses- at the very same time.[/B]
I, at least, am not here ..."

Again, speak for yourself, I personally think your description or definition of 'sex' as irrational is pathetic, paranoid and perhaps mildly psychotic.

Rand defines sex as a 'celebration of life', I find that much better than how you seem to view it.

With the passage of time, writers/authors, now have the freedom to write graphic sexual encounters into their fiction. Thanks to such novels as Lady Chatterly's Lover and Lolita and several more groundbreaking works, we are free to include that very intimate part of life in the pages of our fiction.

I would love the opportunity to discuss that and do so, but seldom on this forum.

Most of what I read in posted stories and comments here, are similar to what you imply, that sex is a nasty, pervented, kinky thing that has to be called 'smut' and hidden away from innocent eyes.

Sexual intercourse between a man and a woman, with a personal relationship before and after the act, is the most intimate, most personal relationship we mere humans can ever experience.

It saddens me that so many demean it as casual fun and a means of recreation when you get bored.

I understand fully what you posted, I just totally disagree with you.


amicus...

Well, you did not say you didn't want to read about it- you said, (as I quoted,) that you didn't understand it.
Saying you find it distasteful- that makes more sense.

It does not sadden me in any way that so many people treat sex as a pastime. That would be like getting mad at the sea for being wet. It's far more interesting to me to see where and how that pastime crosses the boundaries- as it does for so many people- into the sacramental activity that you describe.
Like Rand, (And like so very many other philosophers, after all) I define sex as a celebration of life. Unlike you, though, I don't think that sacrament can only exist within one narrow sexual orientation. If you read the stories of so many of our authors here as "nasty, pervented, kinky things" then I think you've misread a lot of work- your prejudice has blinded you to the celebration of life implicit in these stories.

 

[elsol]

[/I]

Your * burping and belching* in public is acknowledged, Elsol, you are accepted as a redneck illiterate, don't worry about it, you are loved anyway as a bumbling male.


"...*burp*

And so I quote Amicus:


Quote:
Let me put this in simple terms. I am a racist and a bigot and a misogynist, I have and function from predjudice, pre-judging people according to race, gender and ethnicity...."

By quoting that, (out of context) I suppose you wish to imply that you have administered the 'coup de grace', on the old amicable one and he is now not only as old as dirt, but, dirt itself.

The purpose of that post, as I recall it, was to remind you, and everyone, that we are all subject to 'prejudice' in our own ways and in many ways.

You may look down on the fella that swears by Mountain Dew, while you prefer Pepsi, but your S/O prefers Coca Cola.

We all have acquired ethnic, racial and gender preferences. My point, in pointing this out, was to give you confessional privileges, to admit being human and normal and not suffer the social disgrace of being politically incorrect for having personal preferences...

But you didn't get it, did you?

Thas okay, being stupid is not prosecutable.

amicus...

Yes... amicus, I am the bumbling one.

The constantly misunderstood... maligned... and persecuted on this forum for simply trying to educate the masses on the truth about women, africans (I love the 'tribal and uncivilized'-- which was the context of the above statement), economic theory, physics, biology, history, and every other subject that I'm already convinced I know everything about.

I'm the one that calls women 'slits'.

I'm the one that devolves to insulting an entire gender, race everytime their back is to a wall.

And I'm the one that espouses history while ignoring the parts that are incovenient to my philosophy.

Yes... I'm the bumbling ineffective male.

But *damn* you do one of the best impersonations of one I've ever seen.

Sincerely,
ElSol

 

[elsol]

Does anyone even read what Amicus writes? Why?

It's like the newspaper comics... except I don't have to buy the newspaper.

I mean did anyone miss the part on the other thread where Amicus called himself a 'flamer'.


Sincerely,
ElSol

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

Well, you did not say you didn't want to read about it- you said, (as I quoted,) that you didn't understand it.
Saying you find it distasteful- that makes more sense.

It does not sadden me in any way that so many people treat sex as a pastime. That would be like getting mad at the sea for being wet. It's far more interesting to me to see where and how that pastime crosses the boundaries- as it does for so many people- into the sacramental activity that you describe.
Like Rand, (And like so very many other philosophers, after all) I define sex as a celebration of life. Unlike you, though, I don't think that sacrament can only exist within one narrow sexual orientation. If you read the stories of so many of our authors here as "nasty, pervented, kinky things" then I think you've misread a lot of work- your prejudice has blinded you to the celebration of life implicit in these stories.

Bravo, Stella!

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

Having written mostly about "nasty, kinky, perverted" sex, I can say that my exploration of this is meant to celebrate it and emphasize the idea that sexuality is a personal matter, for individuals to live as they see fit, provided that they cause no real harm and they involve consenting adults. One person prefers a more Victorian approach, being a virgin until her wedding night and staying monogamous for the duration of her marriage. That is her right. Her sister may prefer to accept her lesbian sexual orientation, lose her virginity with her girlfriend, and live together for years. That is her right. Her uncle may prefer to live as a lecherous bachelor, never settling down. That is his right. That's my take on the issue.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

I had to read this and see what all the fuss was about.

I disagree with Amicus on just about everything, but I admire the cold-eyed, steely logic of which he's so justly proud.

This is one of my favorite Amicus syllogisms:

All people should have freedom.

Gays and women are people.

Therefore, gays and woman should not have freedom.

I mean, how can you argue with logic like that?

I mean really? How?

 

[Pure]

dr, while it is all very well to focus

on amicus' gifts in logic, it's too easy to ignore what he has that's found in certain of the higher, creative geniuses. i forget if it's Goethe or Whitman, but one said that he contained all the paradoxes; so great a creative spirit easily encompasses contradictions that would be simply be evidence of defect, in you or me.

amicus, as in the following examples, has no trouble ascending, creatively, past contradictions which would be sink you or me:
-----

The Constitution is a magnificent document, unique in history, protecting the life, liberty and happiness pursuits of its citizens, and prescribing a fine balance of powers.

The Constitution does not adequately protect private property.
-------

The system and processes provided in that document, for a free and democratic society, are admirable, beyond reproach.

The judicial processes have been flawed since the mid 19th century and grossly usurping of power for the last 50 years at least.
------

All US officials, according to this Constitution are accountable and bound by rule of law.

The President, the Commander in Chief, is not accountable to any other branch and not bound by the BR and the rule of law regarding searches, surveillance, and detention of suspects.
------

The Bill of Rights, enacted by constitutional processes, is precious, and integral to our constitution.

The Bill of Rights is poorly worded, in protecting persons (for instance illegal immigrants), rather than simply US citizens; in referring to persons, but not specifying that unborn babies are persons. The BR needs amendment.

The Bill of Rights may be suspended by the President during a war.

 

[Stella_Omega]

My favorites are;

Amicus always argues logically, clearly and indisputably.
Everyone else argues from an emotional and irrational standpoint.
Therefore, those that dispute Ami's arguments are irrational and emotional.

and;

The government has no right to demand taxes from Amicus. He has no responsibility to help support public institutions such as welfare and medicaid.

Likewise, Amicus will support no church.

Indigent women must carry their unwanted pregnancies to term; the churches and government have social programs that will help these impoverished women support these children.

 

[Pure]

stella, i think you missed a nuance

of amicus complexity.

While as you say, he supports no church,

He favors the ''faith based" initiatives that channel government money to church associated organizations, such as those providing abstinence counselling instead of condoms, and adoption counselling instead of abortion referral.

He favors allowance of 'voluntary' prayer in schools, though of course he'd not want a student to be forced to participate.

Again, the complexities of amicus defeat all hapless attempts by ordinary folks, and especially nihilists, to comprehend them. Even most people on the right, with the possible exception of Rand herself, are intellectually just not up to the challenge.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

I especially like the "appeal to history" argument. The Appeal to History says, that if it hasn't been done in the past, then we certainly shouldn't try it today.

For instance, because historically women have never been given much power (Queen Elizabeth, Catherine the Great, Boadicea, Queen Katerina, Cleopatra etc. notwithstanding), we can assume that it was for good reason, since our ancestors were so wise. Therefore, women shouldn't be given power today.

However, when it comes to the fact that our ancestors also believed strongly in God and the Divine Right of Kings, didn't practice science and thought that other people weren't really human, we can plainly see how illogical and wrong they were.

So our ancestors show a strange kind of selective wisdom--smart when they agree with Amicus, woefully ignorant and benighted when they don't.

You can't have it both ways. The Appeal to History used this way is no more than an Appeal to Fallacious Horseshit.

 

[amicus]

Literotica Discussion Board > Main Literotica Forums > Author's Hangout

We don't hate amicus.....


Ah, yes, dis is da place, the “We don’t hate amicus…” thread, page four no less.



dr_mabeuse is Offline
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Chicago
Posts: 7,478



Pure is Online
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: N.E. of US
Posts: 7,160


Stella_Omega is Offline
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Sailing in The Irish Rover
Posts: 3,764


SEVERUSMAX is Offline
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 1,504


A couple of these folks have been around for a while, I call them part of the “Usual Suspects” The last two are kinda newbies, interlopers, as it were, but card carrying nonetheless.

These folks are mainly left wing liberal ideologists and, ‘proud of it!’ They, in harmony criticize everything they don’t agree with, but never firmly come out in defensible support of anything, for fear of being identified as having a philosophy or an ethical system to hinder the blustering.

They don’t like America, they really don’t like Capitalism, they detest Bush, father and son(offspring and siblings included) and Republicans in general, conservatives in specific. Worse even than the Clinton critics, they find fault with ‘dubya’s very existence.

They, in general, (the usual suspects, a clannish group) have not the courage to be identified as the prissy café’ socialists they are, even though two generations removed, they still bask is the left-over glory of H.L. Mencken, F. Scott Fitzgerald,, Upton Sinclair and who was that queer one in the 20’s they always quote? The name escapes me at the moment.

Their art is always abstract, their music always undefined, their tastes always Bohemian. Their interests always catholic even though they are non believers, they never ‘fess up to it.

Their ethics and morals are non existent and they stumble and fumble and nervously edge away from any point of view that might tie them down to a premise of any sort, preferring to remain mobile in their beliefs and relationships.

They never ‘hate’ anything, (they might be in error) so, Hitler is fine, dictatorships in general are fine, (as long as the left are pampered). Drugs are fine, prostitution is fine, group sex is fine(any variety).

They are safe and secure in their undefined and nebulous universe of uncertainty, wafting about like vapor clouds filled with radioactive fallout, contaminating everything they touch.

They will corrupt your institutions and your children with their rejection of all that is traditional and conventional and lecture you endlessly on why you should be liberal and tolerant of all things and all ideas.

They hate individualism and favor the collective and will sacrifice your life and body at the snap of a finger for the perceived ‘common good’ of the proletariat, unless it means giving up that last jigger of absinthe, then they whine.

Clamorous carnivorous chasms is almost as good as ‘silly slits’, which came to me in an epiphany of alliteration as I was penning something or other. I should be so lucky to coin catching catechisms such as that more often.


Amicus….(I wonder should I copyright that?)

 

[Stella_Omega]

Excellent Alliteration, Ami!
"parturient montes, nascetur ridiculus mus"

 

[gauchecritic]

Amicus….(I wonder should I copyright that?)

You wrote it.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

This is the Amicus who never goes ad hominem, right? Who never gets personal? Who looks at each argument in the cold light of his impeccable logic, regardless of source, unswayed by bias or prejudice, and is ready to debate any idea in a rational and detahced manner in his great yearning to get at the objective, unvarnished truth?

This is that Amicus and this is the best he can offer? Reduced to name-calling like a third-grade bully who's been pantsed on the school playground?

"Liberals! You're all a bunch of dirty liberals and I hate you all!!! So there!!!"

Good argument, Ami. Very impressive.

 

[Liar]

group sex is fine(any variety)

When I've tried all varietites, I'll let you know.

 

[Stella_Omega]

This is the Amicus who never goes ad hominem, right? Who never gets personal? Who looks at each argument in the cold light of his impeccable logic, regardless of source, unswayed by bias or prejudice, and is ready to debate any idea in a rational and detahced manner in his great yearning to get at the objective, unvarnished truth?

This is that Amicus and this is the best he can offer? Reduced to name-calling like a third-grade bully who's been pantsed on the school playground?

"Liberals! You're all a bunch of dirty liberals and I hate you all!!! So there!!!"

Good argument, Ami. Very impressive.

You misspelled "Detached", Doc

 

[Guest]

. . . .

 

[Stella_Omega]

What the HELL is with everyone's avs???

Can I fluff that pillow for you, sweetheart?