1. Blondage
2. Big Words for Little People
3. Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs
4. Head, Shoulder, Knees and Toes
5. The Giving Tree
6. Sleeping Booty
7. Slippery When Wet
8. Good Night, Gorilla
9. Going Off the DP End
10. More Precious Than Gold
The answers to #4:
1. Maid in Sweden - Porn
2. Open the Barn Door - Story
3. My Little Pink Secret - Porn
4. Curious George Goes Camping - Story
5. Harold and the Purple Crayon - Story
6. What Do You Do With a Tail Like This? - Story
7. Peek-a-who? - Story
8. I Like To Watch - Porn
9. Blame it on Ginger - Porn
10. Hole Sweet Hole - Porn
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
The Fight Against Hate Speech (And Other Useless Liberal Crusades)
Language is a tool. I believe very few tools are inherently evil, but that every tool can be used for both good and bad purposes. It is only logical to condemn the one who wields a tool improperly – unless a tool is designed specifically for hurting people. Last time I checked, language was not created to hurt people, but maybe the first words were derision.
Since the 90s, there has been a lot of talk about “hate speech.” I’m not sure I’ve ever heard or read a definition that wasn’t ambiguous and selective in its application – and certainly not one that is Constitutional. Webster’s New World Law Dictionary defines hate speech as:
What was the liberal agenda behind legislating “hate speech?” It all began with the good intentions of “misunderstood” skirts, fags and n…erds. It doesn’t take a history scholar to know that people say some hurtful things.
I believe hate speech legislation originates in the joining of three liberal movements: feminism, gay equality, and black equality. You could throw in Atheists and immigrants, but these two had little sway at the time of this legislation. When liberal groups emerged from the post-Reagan political wasteland, they went crazy trying to get Congress to change many things at once, and few of them went well. [Does not bode well for Obama]
The first amendment protects a citizen’s right to free speech, and even to assemble and shout angrily together. Democrats back in the 90s had the balls to ignore little details like the Constitution, so they tried to write laws that said it wasn’t covered by the first amendment “because…”
Laws can’t contravene the Constitution, even if they come up with a good reason. No laws at the Federal level were passed because of this, but it didn’t stop liberals from trying, and succeeding (i.e. in schools and government institutions).
Let’s look at the definition and try to figure out why it’s full of shit. Right off the bat, “intended to foster hatred” is a loaded statement that doesn’t apply. If someone calls someone else a name, it is not “intended to foster hatred,” except maybe hatred for the name-caller and his jackassery. Once someone is calling someone else a name, it’s not intended to do anything but hurt their feelings. Hate was a “pre-existing condition,” as they say.
This is a basic problem with liberals: because they are not bullies themselves, they struggle to understand the psychology of the bully. A liberal tells their child s/he is bullied because the bully has issues of some nature, usually self-esteem or problems at home. [LOL]
On the political level, liberals tell themselves people use hate speech to foster some sort of conspiracy against them and their censorship club. Of course, it’s not a conspiracy, because conspiracies entail an element of secrecy. Republicans make no secret of being out to get Democrats.
The truth is: it’s just fun to mock someone and see them get really angry. Finding that one thing they’re sensitive about and just hammering at it can be quite rewarding when the other person has been pissing you off. Politically, this is very distracting. And the better you know what they hate hearing, the better you can mock them.
Which brings me to this piece of advice for liberals: quit giving Conservatives a road map to your nerves. Hate speech legislation not only points out all the things liberals hate being mocked about, it empowers banished words.
There shouldn’t be words that are so powerful they can cause jaws to drop. Though the power to use a word can be wielded by anyone, everyone is also imbued with the power to see through the imaginary associations and not react shocked.
You know how to stop a bully? After he trips you, later… much later… kick him in the crotch when the teachers aren’t looking. If he calls you a Nazi, you call him a white cracker who’s so fat he hasn’t seen his dick since his coke days back in the 80s. You don’t run to mommy and daddy to tell them what the mean Republican said; you spar with him.
It’s just not worth convincing yourself there’s any honor in censorship. “Abusive language” is a merely symbolic battle, and to let it spill over into legislation is irresponsible escalation. Worse, it is an acknowledgement of your opponents’ successful tactics – and a refusal to adopt them yourself. Just do what works.
It is best to legislate justice and equality in action, not in speech or thought. Words alone never held anyone down. After all, very few speak well of politicians, lawyers, or bankers, but they’re doing just fine.
Since the 90s, there has been a lot of talk about “hate speech.” I’m not sure I’ve ever heard or read a definition that wasn’t ambiguous and selective in its application – and certainly not one that is Constitutional. Webster’s New World Law Dictionary defines hate speech as:
Speech not protected by the First Amendment, because it is intended to foster hatred against individuals or groups based on race, religion, gender, sexual preference, place of national origin, or other improper classification.I’m not sure under what circumstances, if any, this definition has authority. However, I find it quite characteristic of most definitions for hate speech. I’m afraid this definition would make the entire Republican platform grounds for hate speech prosecution. Clearly a Democrat wrote this.
What was the liberal agenda behind legislating “hate speech?” It all began with the good intentions of “misunderstood” skirts, fags and n…erds. It doesn’t take a history scholar to know that people say some hurtful things.
I believe hate speech legislation originates in the joining of three liberal movements: feminism, gay equality, and black equality. You could throw in Atheists and immigrants, but these two had little sway at the time of this legislation. When liberal groups emerged from the post-Reagan political wasteland, they went crazy trying to get Congress to change many things at once, and few of them went well. [Does not bode well for Obama]
The first amendment protects a citizen’s right to free speech, and even to assemble and shout angrily together. Democrats back in the 90s had the balls to ignore little details like the Constitution, so they tried to write laws that said it wasn’t covered by the first amendment “because…”
Laws can’t contravene the Constitution, even if they come up with a good reason. No laws at the Federal level were passed because of this, but it didn’t stop liberals from trying, and succeeding (i.e. in schools and government institutions).
Let’s look at the definition and try to figure out why it’s full of shit. Right off the bat, “intended to foster hatred” is a loaded statement that doesn’t apply. If someone calls someone else a name, it is not “intended to foster hatred,” except maybe hatred for the name-caller and his jackassery. Once someone is calling someone else a name, it’s not intended to do anything but hurt their feelings. Hate was a “pre-existing condition,” as they say.
This is a basic problem with liberals: because they are not bullies themselves, they struggle to understand the psychology of the bully. A liberal tells their child s/he is bullied because the bully has issues of some nature, usually self-esteem or problems at home. [LOL]
On the political level, liberals tell themselves people use hate speech to foster some sort of conspiracy against them and their censorship club. Of course, it’s not a conspiracy, because conspiracies entail an element of secrecy. Republicans make no secret of being out to get Democrats.
The truth is: it’s just fun to mock someone and see them get really angry. Finding that one thing they’re sensitive about and just hammering at it can be quite rewarding when the other person has been pissing you off. Politically, this is very distracting. And the better you know what they hate hearing, the better you can mock them.
Which brings me to this piece of advice for liberals: quit giving Conservatives a road map to your nerves. Hate speech legislation not only points out all the things liberals hate being mocked about, it empowers banished words.
There shouldn’t be words that are so powerful they can cause jaws to drop. Though the power to use a word can be wielded by anyone, everyone is also imbued with the power to see through the imaginary associations and not react shocked.
You know how to stop a bully? After he trips you, later… much later… kick him in the crotch when the teachers aren’t looking. If he calls you a Nazi, you call him a white cracker who’s so fat he hasn’t seen his dick since his coke days back in the 80s. You don’t run to mommy and daddy to tell them what the mean Republican said; you spar with him.
It’s just not worth convincing yourself there’s any honor in censorship. “Abusive language” is a merely symbolic battle, and to let it spill over into legislation is irresponsible escalation. Worse, it is an acknowledgement of your opponents’ successful tactics – and a refusal to adopt them yourself. Just do what works.
It is best to legislate justice and equality in action, not in speech or thought. Words alone never held anyone down. After all, very few speak well of politicians, lawyers, or bankers, but they’re doing just fine.
Monday, September 21, 2009
Five Simple Things Obama Should Do
1. Pull the troops out – Both Iraq and Afghanistan are lost causes. We don’t need a warning to leave, either. We marched in, we can march out. Let the private contractors deal with leaving or staying; they’re free to do whatever they want. They have more than enough government money to compensate them for their time. Leave things behind, I don’t care. It cannot possibly be more expensive than running the wars for another day.
2. Veto something – So far, the only thing Obama has even threatened to veto is further financial bailout funding. Basically, his strongest stance has been on giving money to failed businesses. Instead, veto the horrible health bill, veto any budget that is not balanced, and veto all funds for the wealthy and their failures.
3. Fight for victims – Gays have gotten snubbed more than once now, and the poor continue to get help on a laughably lower scale than the wealthy. Obama needs to end “top down” economic philosophy and start rebuilding the foundations of this country: its lower- and middle-class workers.
4. Universal health care – There should not be a single person within our borders who won’t be treated. I don’t care if they’re “illegal” immigrants, either. They’re only illegal because conservatives closed the valve on immigration and made it impossible to become legal. Even criminals in jail can see a doctor. Our prisoners are treated better than tens of millions of uninsured Americans. If it’s so hard to come up with something new, just put every uninsured person on the prisoner plan and let out that many drug offenders.
5. Smack a bitch – My first impulse was Sarah Palin, but Michele Bachmann would look absolutely beautiful with a huge, red handprint across her face. And don’t feel like it has to be a woman; plenty of conservative men are bitches. John Boehner and Rush Limbaugh would be excellent targets if Obama wants to avoid hitting a woman (but I can’t imagine Republicans would raise a stink about their oldest tradition).
2. Veto something – So far, the only thing Obama has even threatened to veto is further financial bailout funding. Basically, his strongest stance has been on giving money to failed businesses. Instead, veto the horrible health bill, veto any budget that is not balanced, and veto all funds for the wealthy and their failures.
3. Fight for victims – Gays have gotten snubbed more than once now, and the poor continue to get help on a laughably lower scale than the wealthy. Obama needs to end “top down” economic philosophy and start rebuilding the foundations of this country: its lower- and middle-class workers.
4. Universal health care – There should not be a single person within our borders who won’t be treated. I don’t care if they’re “illegal” immigrants, either. They’re only illegal because conservatives closed the valve on immigration and made it impossible to become legal. Even criminals in jail can see a doctor. Our prisoners are treated better than tens of millions of uninsured Americans. If it’s so hard to come up with something new, just put every uninsured person on the prisoner plan and let out that many drug offenders.
5. Smack a bitch – My first impulse was Sarah Palin, but Michele Bachmann would look absolutely beautiful with a huge, red handprint across her face. And don’t feel like it has to be a woman; plenty of conservative men are bitches. John Boehner and Rush Limbaugh would be excellent targets if Obama wants to avoid hitting a woman (but I can’t imagine Republicans would raise a stink about their oldest tradition).
Sunday, September 20, 2009
Barack Obama: Business As Usual
Barack Obama is no liberal, something I sensed very early on. I didn’t vote for him and I would never vote for him, and frankly it doesn’t matter one bit whether I would “like” the guy personally. This is how conservatives elected Bush, based on whether or not they would have a beer with him (note: Bush is a dry drunk who doesn’t drink, but I guess it was a metaphor).
Obama’s decision to escalate the war in Afghanistan, his decision to do nothing about the banking system, and now this, have all proven Obama is nothing but a traditionalist moderate who will work to keep the country’s status quo. About the only thing liberal about him is his stance on fixing health care: sans-testicles.
At what point will Obama act in the interests of those all-too-adorable liberals who elected him? Extending federal benefits to gay couples would just be too big of a victory for those homos who voted for him, I guess.
Of course, even if he seemed to be on their side, you’d have to wait for the actual results. Obama claimed to have ended the war on drugs, but people are still being arrested and filling prison cells for drug use. There’s really nothing about Obama I respect anymore, because he stands for nothing (which explains why he can’t stand up to Republicans).
The worst part has been trying to defend him against the insane ramblings of those who would bury this country in a mountain of guns and debt. Conservatives are running around with their hair on fire like the Red Army is marching on Washington, meanwhile Obama is doing absolutely nothing to rally those who he actually has a chance of impressing.
Barack Obama: you’re an ineffectual child. Grow a pair, you fucking faggot-hater. Or have they just not dropped yet?
Obama’s decision to escalate the war in Afghanistan, his decision to do nothing about the banking system, and now this, have all proven Obama is nothing but a traditionalist moderate who will work to keep the country’s status quo. About the only thing liberal about him is his stance on fixing health care: sans-testicles.
At what point will Obama act in the interests of those all-too-adorable liberals who elected him? Extending federal benefits to gay couples would just be too big of a victory for those homos who voted for him, I guess.
Of course, even if he seemed to be on their side, you’d have to wait for the actual results. Obama claimed to have ended the war on drugs, but people are still being arrested and filling prison cells for drug use. There’s really nothing about Obama I respect anymore, because he stands for nothing (which explains why he can’t stand up to Republicans).
The worst part has been trying to defend him against the insane ramblings of those who would bury this country in a mountain of guns and debt. Conservatives are running around with their hair on fire like the Red Army is marching on Washington, meanwhile Obama is doing absolutely nothing to rally those who he actually has a chance of impressing.
Barack Obama: you’re an ineffectual child. Grow a pair, you fucking faggot-hater. Or have they just not dropped yet?
Friday, September 18, 2009
Top Ten: Burning Songs
Since all pain is hilarious, especially my own, this top ten list will be songs that are burning hot.
10. Bob Segar – The Fire Down Below
9. The Bloodhound Gang – Fire, Water, Burn
8. Billy Joel – We Didn’t Start The Fire
7. Jerry Lee Lewis – Great Balls of Fire
6. Bruce Springsteen – I’m On Fire
5. Jimi Hendrix – Fire
4. Franz Ferdinand – This Fire
3. Talking Heads – Burning Down The House
2. Meat Puppets/Nirvana – Lake of Fire
1. Blue Oyster Cult – I’m Burnin’ For You
The top song for my recovery: Red Hot Chili Peppers – Scar Tissue
10. Bob Segar – The Fire Down Below
9. The Bloodhound Gang – Fire, Water, Burn
8. Billy Joel – We Didn’t Start The Fire
7. Jerry Lee Lewis – Great Balls of Fire
6. Bruce Springsteen – I’m On Fire
5. Jimi Hendrix – Fire
4. Franz Ferdinand – This Fire
3. Talking Heads – Burning Down The House
2. Meat Puppets/Nirvana – Lake of Fire
1. Blue Oyster Cult – I’m Burnin’ For You
The top song for my recovery: Red Hot Chili Peppers – Scar Tissue
Wishing vs. Believing
I’m not much of a believer, but I am a wisher. Some people might call it praying or hoping or wanting, but it’s basically the same thing: even though something is probably not true, sometimes we all cling to a comfortable fallacy.
I remember during the Bush years being swayed for about two weeks by the idea that 9/11 was a conspiracy organized by the US government. I sometimes feel every charity has an agenda and every volunteer is trying to make up for a dark sin in their past. I sometimes feel that pharmaceutical and food conglomerates are poisoning us to sell us an expensive cure later.
These are all things I would like to believe, not because I wish they were true, but because it would so succinctly explain reality while simultaneously validating my worldview. I am able to divorce myself from my desired model of reality, but I get the feeling most people are incapable.
Take the Iranian “president” (who “won” in much the same manner Bush did). Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s recent statements are nothing new. He’s been making the same claims for years, echoing a very prominent, though hushed, opinion among many anti-Semitic groups.
The Holocaust was a lie. Yep, turns out the millions of eye witness accounts, bodies, charred remains, missing people, and even records kept by the Nazis themselves were all lies. Who knew it was all a pretense to form the nation of Israel? Those sneaky Jews.
I oppose the formation of the nation of Israel. I find it to be a racist policy both against the Jews and against the Palestinians. However, I also believe we have long passed the point where we can expect every Jewish person in Israel to just pick up and leave. It’s really the only sensible stance because at least two generations have been born and raised in Israel, and they are innocent of the sins of the original settlers.
Of course, if the whole formation of Israel was a massive conspiracy organized by the Jews, predicated on lies and international sympathy… well maybe we CAN make them leave! Or so thinks the Iranian President.
I don’t know if Ahmadinejad believes the Holocaust didn’t happen, or if he just wishes it hadn’t. I know he doesn’t wish it hadn’t happened in the same way victims and survivors of the Holocaust do.
I remember during the Bush years being swayed for about two weeks by the idea that 9/11 was a conspiracy organized by the US government. I sometimes feel every charity has an agenda and every volunteer is trying to make up for a dark sin in their past. I sometimes feel that pharmaceutical and food conglomerates are poisoning us to sell us an expensive cure later.
These are all things I would like to believe, not because I wish they were true, but because it would so succinctly explain reality while simultaneously validating my worldview. I am able to divorce myself from my desired model of reality, but I get the feeling most people are incapable.
Take the Iranian “president” (who “won” in much the same manner Bush did). Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s recent statements are nothing new. He’s been making the same claims for years, echoing a very prominent, though hushed, opinion among many anti-Semitic groups.
The Holocaust was a lie. Yep, turns out the millions of eye witness accounts, bodies, charred remains, missing people, and even records kept by the Nazis themselves were all lies. Who knew it was all a pretense to form the nation of Israel? Those sneaky Jews.
I oppose the formation of the nation of Israel. I find it to be a racist policy both against the Jews and against the Palestinians. However, I also believe we have long passed the point where we can expect every Jewish person in Israel to just pick up and leave. It’s really the only sensible stance because at least two generations have been born and raised in Israel, and they are innocent of the sins of the original settlers.
Of course, if the whole formation of Israel was a massive conspiracy organized by the Jews, predicated on lies and international sympathy… well maybe we CAN make them leave! Or so thinks the Iranian President.
I don’t know if Ahmadinejad believes the Holocaust didn’t happen, or if he just wishes it hadn’t. I know he doesn’t wish it hadn’t happened in the same way victims and survivors of the Holocaust do.
Thursday, September 17, 2009
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Thou Shalt Not Eat Bacon
I broke the commandment to not eat bacon, and boy did I pay for it. While pouring the bacon grease into a jar so that it wouldn’t clog up the plumbing, I spilled boiling hot bacon grease on my hand.
This all happened Tuesday night. When it occurred, I quickly ran it under cold water, but the damage had clearly already been done.
I spent the next two hours soaking my hand in cold water, adding in ice cubes when the old ones melted. I elected not to seek medical help. The blisters didn’t form until much later that night, and I only noticed them because the bandage had become very tight.
The incident has helped me redefine pain. I now have a new reference point from which to measure how much something hurts, and this was a ten. It felt fine when under cold running water and in an ice water bath and even in front of the A/C vent, but once I removed it, wow.
I contorted in spasms on the couch and in my bed, I paced up and down the hallway, and I even sometimes just fell to my knees and cried. Eventually once I left it out of cooling agents long enough, the pain became dull enough that I could focus on something like watching TV or reading.
This morning my wife was determined to call the health center at the college she works/attends and schedule me to go in. They gave me silver sulfadiazine, some gauze and tape, and it’s been healing nicely all day.
Luckily my fingertips were pressed against the jar when this all happened, so I can type and use a mouse! More gory pictures later tonight when I change the dressing.
This all happened Tuesday night. When it occurred, I quickly ran it under cold water, but the damage had clearly already been done.
I spent the next two hours soaking my hand in cold water, adding in ice cubes when the old ones melted. I elected not to seek medical help. The blisters didn’t form until much later that night, and I only noticed them because the bandage had become very tight.
The incident has helped me redefine pain. I now have a new reference point from which to measure how much something hurts, and this was a ten. It felt fine when under cold running water and in an ice water bath and even in front of the A/C vent, but once I removed it, wow.
I contorted in spasms on the couch and in my bed, I paced up and down the hallway, and I even sometimes just fell to my knees and cried. Eventually once I left it out of cooling agents long enough, the pain became dull enough that I could focus on something like watching TV or reading.
This morning my wife was determined to call the health center at the college she works/attends and schedule me to go in. They gave me silver sulfadiazine, some gauze and tape, and it’s been healing nicely all day.
Luckily my fingertips were pressed against the jar when this all happened, so I can type and use a mouse! More gory pictures later tonight when I change the dressing.
Love
One of the chief advantages of polytheism is that there are several gods which represent all the many aspects of our complex world. There are gods of land masses and bodies of water. Gods were said to control supernatural forces like destiny, weather, and the heavens.
Perhaps the most interesting were the gods who represented concepts which we still believe today. Take Aphrodite, the goddess of love. A monotheist or atheist would say that Aphrodite is not real, but most would claim that love exists.
Yet, love is no more real than Aphrodite. You cannot measure or detect love. Love is not a liquid, solid or gas. It cannot be isolated in any lab. One may be able to classify and name chemicals in the blood which trigger feelings we associate with love, but most would agree that love is something more than hormones.
By some, it is little more than a euphemism for the inter-dependency (or to a cynic, co-dependency) between two people predicated on sexual attraction. Another person may see it as the solid bond between two people who have shared the bulk of their lives together. For another, it is a night of fun. And still others struggle to feel it at all.
The definition is not even static within an individual. It often grows over time in reaction to events experienced by the individual, almost as if love were alive.
I think a person’s attitudes toward concepts like love, justice, freedom, and responsibility are a far more important thing than our feelings on gods. Love is not real, but like the gods, the consequences of human belief in it is experienced by all. And yet, love is not truly related to gods any more than the rivers, mountains, sun, moon or stars who had gods dedicated to them. This is great for us atheists, as disbelief in gods does not prevent us from feeling love, even if though it is as mystical as Aphrodite.
Love is an abstract concept. There is a power in the non-existence of love. For one thing, it is many different things to many different people, and none of them are wrong in their use of the term. Love cannot be something certain, and it is this gamble which keeps people coming back – even after losing their shorts the last time they played.
Perhaps the most interesting were the gods who represented concepts which we still believe today. Take Aphrodite, the goddess of love. A monotheist or atheist would say that Aphrodite is not real, but most would claim that love exists.
Yet, love is no more real than Aphrodite. You cannot measure or detect love. Love is not a liquid, solid or gas. It cannot be isolated in any lab. One may be able to classify and name chemicals in the blood which trigger feelings we associate with love, but most would agree that love is something more than hormones.
By some, it is little more than a euphemism for the inter-dependency (or to a cynic, co-dependency) between two people predicated on sexual attraction. Another person may see it as the solid bond between two people who have shared the bulk of their lives together. For another, it is a night of fun. And still others struggle to feel it at all.
The definition is not even static within an individual. It often grows over time in reaction to events experienced by the individual, almost as if love were alive.
I think a person’s attitudes toward concepts like love, justice, freedom, and responsibility are a far more important thing than our feelings on gods. Love is not real, but like the gods, the consequences of human belief in it is experienced by all. And yet, love is not truly related to gods any more than the rivers, mountains, sun, moon or stars who had gods dedicated to them. This is great for us atheists, as disbelief in gods does not prevent us from feeling love, even if though it is as mystical as Aphrodite.
Love is an abstract concept. There is a power in the non-existence of love. For one thing, it is many different things to many different people, and none of them are wrong in their use of the term. Love cannot be something certain, and it is this gamble which keeps people coming back – even after losing their shorts the last time they played.
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Flaming Atheism
I’m not gay, but I’ve always identified with gay people. We share a sort of bond in that we are both part of a fringe group – though gays got more persecution in the last century.
Long ago, I came across the term “flaming atheist.” I really like the distinction. For those who aren’t aware of the nuance of the word “flaming,” it implies obvious.
A flaming homosexual (especially a self-styled one) is someone who embodies the stereotypes we expect. They are also not shy about revealing their sexuality, and may even volunteer it for no apparent reason.
It was this characteristic of the term I liked. There’re many degrees to which an atheist is “out of the closet.” Some are quiet about it, especially in certain circles of people like co-workers and family. However, there’s a difference between being “out” upon request and being “out” without prompting.
I have been a flaming atheist since high school. I can’t even hide the fact that I’m an atheist in most situations – it’s like I have heathen Tourette’s. Maybe I’m lucky, but I have never experienced anything I would consider persecution (outside of my mother’s insistence I be Confirmed in the Catholic Church, oh the horror). Then again, I never lived in the South – although Indiana is pretty close.
Being a flaming atheist does not necessarily mean being a recruiter. I think actively trying to change someone’s mind is ineffective unless they are looking for something new, especially among strangers and casual acquaintances. Having some connection to the person helps, but why subject your friends and family to something as annoying as proselytizing, even if it “works?”
People just want to be happy, and if forcing your worldview on someone makes them unhappy, what are the chances they will embrace it? The best way to “convert” people is to simply live your chosen ethic successfully and happily.
Long ago, I came across the term “flaming atheist.” I really like the distinction. For those who aren’t aware of the nuance of the word “flaming,” it implies obvious.
A flaming homosexual (especially a self-styled one) is someone who embodies the stereotypes we expect. They are also not shy about revealing their sexuality, and may even volunteer it for no apparent reason.
It was this characteristic of the term I liked. There’re many degrees to which an atheist is “out of the closet.” Some are quiet about it, especially in certain circles of people like co-workers and family. However, there’s a difference between being “out” upon request and being “out” without prompting.
I have been a flaming atheist since high school. I can’t even hide the fact that I’m an atheist in most situations – it’s like I have heathen Tourette’s. Maybe I’m lucky, but I have never experienced anything I would consider persecution (outside of my mother’s insistence I be Confirmed in the Catholic Church, oh the horror). Then again, I never lived in the South – although Indiana is pretty close.
Being a flaming atheist does not necessarily mean being a recruiter. I think actively trying to change someone’s mind is ineffective unless they are looking for something new, especially among strangers and casual acquaintances. Having some connection to the person helps, but why subject your friends and family to something as annoying as proselytizing, even if it “works?”
People just want to be happy, and if forcing your worldview on someone makes them unhappy, what are the chances they will embrace it? The best way to “convert” people is to simply live your chosen ethic successfully and happily.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
