- Anything Else -

Anybody's

Posted by: Deep Daddio Nine on April 07, 1999 at 10:32:52:

In Reply to: Whose common sense... posted by Red Deathy on April 06, 1999 at 11:01:50:


DADDIO: What’s subjective about the observational fact that a penis is designed for peeing and procreation and an anus is designed for expelling fecal matter? If these are subjective judgements then there’s so such thing as objectivism.

Read Deathy: Designed by whom?

DADDIO: Whomever designed it or However it came to be the object we are currently discussing.


Red Deathy: ….frankly I use my penis for mixing cocktails, and engaging in Modern Art techiniques.

DADDIO: Go right ahead and continue to do so (preferably not at any social functions I frequent). Just don’t try to tell me that this application of your penis is MORE in accord with the natural order of reality or even on a par with using it to screw and piss. Some individuals in this discussion seem to be implying that its every bit as "natural" to pack fudge as it is to have vaginal intercourse with a female. My only steadfast contention here is that this is a lofty load of shit.

The only opposing arguments I’ve seen so far are the following:

1) That I’m not qualified to determine what’s natural and what’s not and that a sympathetic disposition toward homosexuality somehow magically endows one WITH such qualifications.

2) There’s some exotic species of lesbian lizards that fertilize each others eggs by rubbing up against one another.


The absurdity of argument #1 is spawned from the paradigm that objectivity is a measure of one’s willingness to accept all possibilities as being equally "natural" (or equidistant from any "natural" ideal). This might seem readily acceptable on four hits of blotter acid, but in the mire of our current earthly consciousness on which we are dependent for making decisions that keep us alive and healthy, its not a very useful argument unless your only agenda is to rationalize your perverted craving for butt.

Do we lose objectivity with every formation of an opinion? Perhaps, but what of Red Deathy’s opinion that I am not being objective? I question the usefulness of a definition of objectivity that would dismiss the observation that a hammer is best used for driving nails and a wrench for tightening bolts or with the inference that these are probably the most "natural" uses for these tools.

A friend of mine once qiupped, "If it aint natural, you can’t do it." He’s dead now.

Argument #2 accounts for only one species in a world of millions. It was given in response to my request for proof that the animal kingdom is busting at the seams with homosexuality or that homosexuality is as common as heterosexuality in the unencumbered solitude of the great outdoors. My contention is that homosexuality is very much the rare exception amounting to, at best, one of natures many little side projects that come and go with wind, hardly an apt description of heterosexuality.

Red Deathy: The objective way of putting it is to say that the penis is the outlet for both water and sperm, and the anus the outlet for fecal matter- there implying design is subjective. Thus saying 'the Penis is the place where I keep my "Prince Albert" ring' is also equally objective.

DADDIO: Again, I’m saying only that water, sperm, and fecal emission are by far the MOST natural functions of this equipment and I’m suggesting that anal intercourse is a relatively (perhaps highly) UNatural variation. I’m sure we can come up with all kinds of fun things to do with our body parts, but that doesn’t mean these activities are perfectly acceptable to the natural order of the universe. If an object’s form cannot server as an indication as to what its most natural function is then why aren’t we hammering nails with wrenches and turning bolts with hammers?

Red Deathy: How, unless its an appeal to design, which implies a subjective consciousness determining the intended use value- egg whisks are for whisking eggs, don't use them to whisk batter- thats teh end tendancy of your argument.

DADDIO: To the degree you’re using egg whisks to whisk batter you are missing the whole point of egg whisks. If you don’t eat eggs but you eat a lot pancakes then you’d be better off using a batter whisk. If there’s no such thing as a batter whisk then you need to be asking yourself, "Should I really be whisking this batter?" or "Maybe eating pancakes isn’t what I’m supposed to be doing". If you can’t digest anything other than pancakes and you must eat, then go ahead and use your damn egg whisk, but in the meantime ask your "higher power" why He didn’t make such a thing as a BATTER whisk.




Follow Ups:

  • Really? Red Deathy Socialist party UK April 07 1999 (0)

The Debating Room Post a Followup