My wacky ideas about marriage
The more I think about it, the more I think the government just shouldn’t involve itself in marriage at all.
Sure, that sounds unfair with the lack of tax breaks for married couples (which exist, by the way, to encourage people to have kids and rear them, etc).
It seems like it’d create a legal clusterfuck when the assets are to be divvied.
I suppose this is true. But as to the former, I don’t think the tax breaks would be as necessary if there was universal health care and people didn’t have to worry about medical bills. Marriage becomes a detriment, tax wise, once you make more than $200,000 a year anyway, and I’m sure the tax break money that comes with marriage isn’t exactly much of a supplement when it comes to the massive expense it takes to raise kids.
Separation is a legal clusterfuck anyway. As is, unmarried couples and gay couples are fucked when it comes to dividing the assets should they separate. This is a big reason they want the ability to marry–so they can get divorced! That’s the funny thing about everyone who says “marriage ends in divorce 50% of the time anyway!” Well, YEAH. That’s one of the benefits of marriage–the court divides your assets supposedly equitably. I guess it’d put an extra burden on the courts to do this with anyone who comes in claiming to have been in a relationship and living together, but I can’t see too much opportunity for fraud here. There would be witnesses and rental receipts. Perhaps some contracts could be drafted just between parties to make arrangements in the case of separation. It wouldn’t be a marriage, it’d just be a contract. This could even exist between relatives or friends living together should they decide to lump assets for whatever reason. I just think the benefits of living together shouldn’t be reserved for only sexual/amorous relationships. If two sisters or two asexual friends want to live together for platonic companionship they should be able to enter into contracts like this too. Maybe living arrangements between more than two people. Whatever. That’s the beauty of contracts–you can say whatever the fuck you want in them, within reason. I suppose there would be some unfair contracts, but there are already unfair prenups. I suppose some people would prefer not to enter into a contract because they want their assets separate. There are already people who refuse to marry. It wouldn’t change much except for marriage being a mostly private affair, aside from contract law restrictions and regulations.
If marriage is such a religious affair, it should just be something people do at a church then, and the government should have no part of it. None. Zip. Essentially, then, with the abolition of marriage as something the government has its sticky fingers in, there would be gay marriage since there are plenty of places of worship out there that will marry gay people. I personally would go on calling my husband “significant other” or “partner” rather than husband because I like those words better anyway, and we could go on shacking up like good little heathen atheists.
I used to think the government should only deal with civil unions and then let people go to church and call it marriage if they please, but that still leaves too much room for people to bully and mess with the rights of others through the law. I’m probably missing some glaring reason why this wouldn’t work, but as of right now, it makes a lot of sense to me.
It’s my party and I’ll eat turkey and exchange gifts if I want to!
Oh it’s this time of year when the great debate between spelling-challenged pre-teens rages across the internets over whether non-Christians should celebrate Christmas. I mean, non-Jews don’t celebrate Hanukkah, why should atheists celebrate Christmas?
Usually the responses are like, “Jesus wasn’t born in December anyway, Christians just stole Yule from the pagans,” “Christmas is so commercialized now the religious connotations are largely gone–it may as well be a secular holiday,” and my favorite, “eat a bag of dicks.”
But really–my answer to this is–
I’ll celebrate whatever the fuck I want. Neener neener. Whacha gonna do about it? I’ll put a menorah in my window right next to a baby Jesus and a Kwanzaa bush if I so desire. NO ONE CAN STOP ME.
I mean really! What, is Congress going to pass a law saying only people who have pleged fealty to the big J.C. are allowed to decorate their houses in colorful lights and exchange gifts on December 25th?
. . .Why else would I give a shit what someone thinks I should celebrate?
Wait, is it some kind of moral imperative to not celebrate the holidays of a religion you don’t practice?
Pffft, like I care! This is a lost cause–this cause of trying to convince people who engage in daily orgies with infant-blood lubricant that they ought to stop doing something which pleases them.
But really. I don’t even see why non-Christian Christmas-celebrators even argue about this when the only appropriate response is a loud guffaw, followed by coughing, wheezing, and a breathless, “wait, you’re serious? You’ve got to be kidding me.”
Life is still worth it
I noticed that one of the searches someone typed in to find my blog was something like “life is worth it,” and my post regarding that was more like “what IS the point of life?” and I haven’t quite figured that out, obviously. I’m extremely amused that all of the other searches had to do with stuff like “I fucking hate yelp” (hahahaha), but the life being worth it one just got me thinking.
Yeah it’s worth it, I mean, even though I think in a sense it doesn’t matter if I die tomorrow or 90 years from now because I’ll end up in the void of nothingness no matter what, there’s still plenty to enjoy. I think it was a quote from Tom Sawyer (not sure, and google is not helping me out with this) that was something along the lines of death being the last exciting adventure, and I agree with that statement, but it implies that there are a lot of adventures to have in the mean time.
Lots of things to learn, lots of snuggling to do with my husband, lots of cats to pet, lots of youtube videos to watch–no reason not to go along for the ride and see what happens.
Whenever I’m in a particularly foul mood I like to read the ten minute suicide guide (no, I’m not saying I’m often suicidal, it’s just funny) and it does a good job of helping me get over feelings of futility.
I think a lot of people feel anxiety and like life is more of a burden, I know I’ve felt that way before–things get blown out of perspective, something like a work deadline, a mean comment about your body, continual failure to live up to societal expectations of ideal people–it wears down the mind. I think we’re almost conditioned to think if we DO feel happy for five seconds we should feel guilty about it because we’re not doing something productive. If we enjoy eating something we should feel guilty because only people who don’t fully dedicate themselves to perfection would ever enjoy a cookie. If we play games all the time we need to “get a life.” (I’m always curious as to what a “life” actually entails, myself). If we want a job with normal hours we’re lazy. If we want to lay in bed and read books one day we’re lazy. If we don’t look like Barbados Slim
Or appear to have no room for our internal organs
We’re failures, right?
This is the case especially in American society, although I suspect it’s the same in many others. Those who work the most hours and have the least time for other pleasures are seen as the most accomplished, the most “productive,” the most worthy. Those who deny themselves what they really want in the name of adhering to some ideal of rock hard body and soul-crushing work schedule are living the “best” life even though they may be enjoying it the least.
Just–just fuck expectations. Everyone’s expectations can go fuck themselves. Life is worth it–and I certainly plan to do what makes it worth it to me, even if I get plenty of guilt trips for it.
Random musings on religion and life
I’m never at ease with the feeling that I’m insignificant, another wave in the ocean, a mere blip on the cosmological radar–which is why I can never consider myself to be a Buddhist even though it comes closest as a philosophy/religion to what I believe. I just don’t accept it yet. The idea that my consciousness is pretty much an illusion and I’m nothing more than a sum of random parts is still freaky-deaky. I think it’s probably the case that there are no supernatural powers, and thus there is no afterlife, but usually when I try to discuss this sort of thing with other atheists/agnostics they just say things like, “dude quit thinking about that crap,” or “why does it matter?”
I guess it’s a little difficult to converse with someone when you spring gloominess and existential angst onto them. Despite common belief, atheists and agnostics aren’t all emo kids raging against the machine. Some of them just want to eat ice cream and play video games and see what happens.
I, however, think about it a lot. I’ve come to the conclusion that if after death there’s once again nothingness, like before we were born, then really having evolved to have a consciousness seems more of a detriment than a blessing. At least animals don’t *know* what death is, so they don’t fear it. Our consciousness is something that puts humans on the top of the evolutionary ladder–without our self-awareness, we may as well be zebra, standing in a herd waiting to be picked off by lions, right? But at least animals don’t know what death is. The zebra will fight against death because ouch teeth hurt, but I doubt they sit around with existential depression wondering what the point of it all is.
All life could really be an unfortunate cosmic accident. Spinning our wheels into oblivion. For this reason it seems like higher cognitive function and self-awareness is sucky crappy.
A response I’ve gotten to this is, “why do things have to have a purpose? Just enjoy life and it doesn’t matter.”
True, but it also doesn’t matter if I die today or die at age 90. There will be the same result in the end no matter what. What is the worth of perpetuating the human race? I guess technology could allow us to move off the planet before the sun explodes in a billion years, but I’m kinda working under the assumption that everything will eventually be imploded. What is the impetus to survive and procreate? We *evolved* these instincts to survive and to perpetuate the species. Every life form has that in common. (Except for maybe the zombie microbes, I don’t really have a clue what the fuck they do).
I guess the logical conclusion to this kind of musing would be to just indulge in some spiritual belief if it made me “feel better,” but I’d really feel like I was going back to believing in the Easter Bunny or something if I did that. Unlike a lot of atheists, I *don’t* think believing in a supernatural power is the same thing as believing in Santa Claus because I do think visceral feelings that there is something beyond us isn’t illogical. A visceral feeling isn’t much but the fact that there’s existence, there’s planets and starts, there exists something beyond unimaginable nothingness, just makes me ambivalent toward the whole cosmic accident thing. I don’t think it’s illogical to think there might be some reason why all these rocks are spinning around, one having a bunch of assholes playing Super Mario games on it.
That having been said–I don’t think one can logically conclude from the possibility that there are greater things–even supernatural things–that humans are somehow special and central to this. I think if there was something unfathomable that created the universe it’s quite likely it doesn’t even realize the existence of life on planets. I really, really, cannot possibly imagine that something with that kind of power would be probing into human minds to determine who is gay and who isn’t, and watching 12 year old boys beat off to JC Penny catalogs in their rooms.
When I was a kid (before my religious stage) I suppose I had allll kinds of bizarre ideas as to the origin of life. I thought for a very long time that the universe is just a building block for something bigger, like how we’re made of atoms and cells, and I thought possibly yet undiscovered particles inside of us lead cognizant lives completely unaware that they are just parts of something bigger. Maybe it all even loops around somehow, and the biggest beings are also the smallest, living inside of us. I was a weird kid. I was also obsessed with alternate dimensions and stuff like that. I guess you could say as a kid my god was science fiction. (I went sci fi –> religious –> boring atheist –> boring, uninspired agnostic law student I guess) I’m amused now that Stephen Hawkings is all up in the alternate dimension hizzle–I think I became obsessed with that stuff from watching an episode of muppet babies where they went into this world where every door they opened led to an alternate dimension. Ha–Hawkings, Muppet Babies beat you to the punch!
Oh well this is boring and crappy but whatever. I wanted to write this and see if it sounded any less insane on paper than in my head. It doesn’t.
That sign put up by Atheists by the nativity scene
Now, anyone who knows me knows I’m about as religious as any given whale in the sea. Meaning, I’m not. Whales are not religious. That doesn’t mean, however, I laugh my arse off whenever religion is railed against. I mean, I do think the flying spaghetti monster is funny. I enjoy Darwin fish. In reality, though, this really isn’t the best way for the secular humanist to get his or her point across. Using symbolism with the sole purpose of railing against the beliefs of others is not going to win any friends.
Putting up a sign that says there is no God next to a nativity scene just seems unnecessarily disrespectful to me. I want people to respect my beliefs and not automatically think I want to devour the flesh of their infants because of them. I want people to quit telling me I’m wrong, I’m going to hell, blah blah blah. I’m not about to tell someone “you’re wrong, you’re just going to rejoin the void of non-existence when you die, just like before you were born, eat a bag of dicks” when they say “hey I’m a Christian, dude.” I might say it if they start insulting me first, but my ultimate preference would be for everyone to just shut the hell up and leave each other alone.
I think using a symbol of secularism which does not have the additional connotation of “hey Christians, go fuck yourselves” would have been entirely appropriate here, and a great exercise of free speech. Pundits would look like assholes for railing against the symbol of secular humanism. This dude here:
symbol of secular humanism
connotes all sorts of nice things that the non-religious can really get behind.
A nativity scene does not connote “lol you suck and you’re going to hell” to all non-Christians. A menorah was there too. A picture of Mohamed was absent for obvious reasons, but hey, it could have been there were it not the ultimate blasphemy. A scene of pagan revelry could have been alongside it. Even a flying spaghetti monster statue would have been more appropriate–sure it falls under that “only exists to counter religion” thing, but at least it’s a symbol and not a sign saying “hey Christians, you’re all idiots.” The nativity scene is just symbol of religious belief. There’s nothing inherently mean or nasty about it.
That having been said, there’s a huge difference between what I think this group should do and what they ought to be allowed to do. Free speech is ugly, and its ugly side can be seen through all groups of people. Anyone who is generalizing all atheists and agnostics because of this stupid sign is an ignorant turdasaurus, and I hope they get explosive diarrhea. Beliefs should be questioned as just a part of intelligent dialogue. People shouldn’t just blindly believe things. They shouldn’t believe things in an uniformed way, and most do. I just think this discourse does not have its place in posting a disrespectful sign amongst religious holiday symbolism. There are way better ways this could have been done.
By the way–I put a statue of an invisible pink unicorn on display. You just can’t see it because it’s invisible. I assure you that it’s there, however.
It’s my party and I’ll poop if I want to
Baffling is the behavior of the American genus female of the human species when it comes to the ritual of deficating in a porcelain container in a public area. She seems to need to pretend as if this normal human bodily function does not exist. It appears to be the height of rudeness should one use the area of bowel and bladder relief for the former purpose rather than the latter. Indeed, it is not uncommon to see a woman complain of another’s transgression of this sacred rule while the latter is still in the act. How could this bizarre and seemingly detrimental behavior have evolved?
Ok I won’t be doing any nature documentaries on humans for alien civilizations any time soon. But I truly do not understand why it’s totally taboo for women to poop in public restrooms. I’m seriously not going to leave a log in the chute all day because someone might hear it plop into the toilet. I think some men might be taking it a bit too far when they bring a newspaper into the bathroom and spend a period equivalent to the holocene era in there, but it’s taking it a little far in the opposite direction to be totally shocked if you get a whiff of poo gas, or hear the dispersment of water by a solid object, while in a bathroom.
I used to conform to this and avoid pooping in public restrooms at all costs. Since I became a coffee drinker while in public places, this is no longer an option for me. Coffee greases the colon almost as well as Taco Bell food. I’ve just come to the conclusion that if someone else in the bathroom is horrified by the fact that I’m utilizing the bathroom for it’s intended purpose, well, that person is a stupid ass, and I seriously do not care about her stupid opinion.
Totally blowing loud mud is still embarassing, I mean I have a hard time suppressing laughter myself at hearing loud farts. It’s not like I can shout from the other stall, “hey, I’m laughing with you, not at you!” But I think we women need to stop being afraid to do something that every human being on the damn planet does.
I am so immature. Oh well. I can’t help growing old–but I can be immature forever.
Philosophy for Assholes
For some reason I feel like rambling about political philosophy. The Invisible Pink Unicorn is well aware that I have taken many of such courses in my day.
Political science professors look at the works of philosophers like and English teacher looks at The Scarlet Ibis and say everything is a symbol, or a patron of the arts reads vaginas into flowers. Ok, I gotta admit, those flowers do look like vaginas. But the point is, people into political philosophy think there is a surface layer written into the works of Plato, Aristotle, Hobbes, Rosseau and the like, that we rubes (namely, students) can sort of understand while we’re really thinking about food and sex. And then there is this deeper layer where everything that is said has some hidden, special meaning that is the key to unlocking the secrets of the universe. If Socrates says “hey, wouldn’t it be neat if we had this nation where all the dudes were trained to be soldiers and to buttsex each other and the government controls every aspect of their lives?” From that we must glean that Socrates was actually smart and not just buttsex obsessed, and he was pointing out just how improbable the perfect state actually is.
Anyway, here is what I think about some philosophers, in the order that they pop into my brain.
Socrates is pretty much the granddaddy McGee of philosophers, although everyone goes back and forth between thinking the shit in the pages of The Republic and the like is actually what Socrates said, or if Plato is just writing his own thoughts using Socrates as his mouthpiece, so to speak. I really don’t give a shit either way but it sucks when I write a paper and I don’t know whether to say Socrates or Plato. But that is neither here nor there. The important thing to remember about Socrates is, through no fault of his own, he deserved to be put to death for asking people questions instead of telling them what he thought, because now law professors think it’s totally awesome to use the “Socratic Method” in class, which actually has shit all to do with anything Socrates ever did. Once again, I digress.
The real important thing to remember about Socrates is, he was the dude who was like “lol I don’t know anything” but then proceeded to poke holes into anything anyone else ever said, proving he thought he knew something. He thought he was so spectacularly awesome that he should rule the world. I also hear he liked buttsex. A lot. And communism, although those “in the know” say his description of the “perfect state,” which involved breeding programs and I assume buttsex, was mostly sarcasm to show that the perfect state could never be achieved.
The most famous thing about Socrates is “the cave” allegory. It’s basically an analogy for how humans are miserable little turds who don’t know anything, except for a special few, who should go back and thell them how stupid they are. In the allegory, people live their whole lives chained so they can only face toward a cave wall. Behind them is a fire they’ve never seen before, and a bunch of jackasses making shadow puppets on the walls. One of the dudes breaks free from these chains and turns around and sees all this clap trap, and is like “whoa” and doesn’t understand wtf is going on. He keeps on going until he reaches the cave entrance, and he leaves and sees the sun for the first time and is blinded by it. After his vision clears, he’s like, “holy shit all the people in that cave think shadows are real” and has to go back and tell them about it. He figures the people will be all, “fool, whachu be talkin ’bout” and kill his ass for being so crazy. It happens to everyone who tries to tell people stuff. Especially Jesus.
This is foreshadowing to Socrates being executed for hanging around too many young boys. The point is, they weren’t just tired of Socrates’ pedo ways. Everyone was in the “dark” so to speak, and Socrates was trying to enlighten them, but he just megafailed because people are too happy in the matrix–I mean cave.
Socrates is also famous for being executed by drinking hemlock. Truly it’s the only reason anyone knows what hemlock is. He had the option to just go into exile, but he thought, eh fuck it I’m seventy-something years old and I’ve lived here my whole life. I don’t want to have to seek fresh boy meat somewhere else. So he didn’t defend himself at trial, and the jury had no choice but to euthanize him.
Aristotle - man I hate Aristotle. He’s “The Philosopher” but he is not as interesting as Plato and I don’t know if he enjoyed buttsex. He’s especially one of those people try and read into what he says. He makes a statement that sounds a whole lot like “it’s ok to use retards as slaves because they are naturally slaves,” but professors will tell you what he REALLY means is, slavery sucks, but he didn’t wanna drink hemlock. I have no time or patience for weenies who are afraid of hemlock.
Aquinas – not a fan. Famous for “the watchmaker” analogy. He was like, if you found a watch in the forest, you wouldn’t assume it didn’t have a maker, so why do you assume stuff as complicated as people and animals and plants don’t have a maker. Ok, Aquinas, I’m going to let you in on a secret. Watches don’t have sex and make babies. Also, even if this proves abiogenesis is a crock, I still don’t see how it proves there is a God, particularly the Christian God. For all we know each hemisphere could have a different god trying to get people to kill each other, for kicks.
Machiavelli - I dunno that I’d call Machiavelli a “philosopher.” I figure he is if people in college philosophy departments are. The Prince is extremely short and easy to read, though, so I’d recommend it to anyone who wanted to read something regarding political thought. He came up with fun stuff like “it’s better to be feared than loved.” He’s best known for his cold, calculating asshattery. Really, though, he wasn’t such a bad dude. I guess he was cynical about human nature and thought it was fine for rulers of nations to do whatever they felt necessary to stay in power, but hey. The Prince is really short, and really easy to read. He obviously wasn’t all that cruel.
Hobbes - Hobbes is one of my favorites. He said fun things like life in the state of nature is “nasty, brutish and short,” and that without government the state of nature is a “war of all against all.” He basically thought without the government to temper us, we’d all just be raping and pillaging each other. This is a little bit weird to me, because I don’t see why humans would be so incredibly dastardly all the time as compared to animals. This brings me to my other favorite, Rousseau, a total Frenchie, who thought pretty much the exact opposite of Hobbes. He thought before the advent of private property and laws and such, people were a lot happier, just farting around in the forest, living care free. He thought that people leaving their solitary lives and coming together to form societies just turned people into slaves, shackled by the chains of work and other such drudgery.
I’m inclined to go with Rousseau on this one. I’m not all that sure the government is so great at protecting us from the state of nature. I think if people are going to murder, they’re going to do it regardless of the consequences. The only thing a government does is put these assholes on trial. I read somewhere (maybe I will google this one day to make sure I’m not pulling stuff out of my ass) that all the cameras in Britain don’t deter crime–but they help people get caught. I really think people who are already sociopaths and likely to commit crimes are going to do so no matter what. I don’t really think anyone is deterred because they’re afraid of serving 25 to life.
I think most philosophers sit there and make proclamations about how different humans are from other animals without actually knowing a damn thing about other animals. I mean Pufendorf, a total jackass may I add, thinks people, unlike animals, have an insatiable appetite for sex, and a penchant for cruelty not seen in the animal kingdom. This guy obviously did not have a bunch of dogs, they hump each other constantly. He had also obviously never watched a documentary on dolphins or monkeys. Those sons of bitches are mean. Dolphins are serial rapists and monkeys tear each other apart. And monkeys jerk off. Humans and animals have much in common.
I guess if lions had laws like humans, a new lion couldn’t come into town and kill the old one, and then kill off all his cubs so he can get all the ladeez. If wolves were humans it wouldn’t be ok for everyone to not let the pariah eat much, or something. I don’t really think it’s accurate to say human existence is so much different, though. Plenty of people go hungry. We have hierarchies, they are just predicated on money and status rather than feces flinging and peeing on trees. The insecure “state of nature” surely exists between nations, and in states where there is pretty much anarchy and guerilla war. What I really am getting at, is, I think if people are inclined to murder or commit various crimes, they’re going to do so regardless of the consequences. They get put away and perhaps are prevented from committing more crimes, but I don’t think people who are not sociopaths in some way would become sociopaths without government to temper them. If they weren’t afraid of vigilante justice without a government, they won’t be afraid of going to jail.
Most philosophy is based upon a bunch of dudes trying to figure out the ultimate human good and purpose. I guess that’s what I like about Hobbes and Machiavelli, they just think we’re all a bunch of dicks and have to live out our crappy lives trying not to be brutalized and murdered. Oh that brings me to another philosopher I like–Epicurius. He was a total atheist and thought people were better off not having kids, because they are a pain in the ass. If he was alive now adays he’d be like, just make enough money to be secure and have fun playing video games until you die. He was a philosopher after my own heart, truly. I totally agree with his “live hidden” philosophy. Just get through this thing with as few speed bumps as possible.
I don’t think *I’m* the one who is an ass and cynic, though, for prefering the non-religious philosophies. Pufendorf wrote that religion is politically useful, and anyone who doesn’t believe in god is untrustworthy, and atheism should be scoured and combated from the earth. It’s that old idea that without fear of a giant invisible daddy who will spank you after death you’ll be a total jerk to everyone. Then later he goes on to discuss marriage, where, of course, the whole point is to make babies and the woman needs to be subordinate, yatta yatta. This all fits together in one big lump of stuff I can’t stand. Pufendorf’s zombie can eat a bag of dicks. He’s really boring too. He basically said the same crap as Hobbes except thought people were a little nicer, and threw in all the religion stuff.
Socrates thought religion could be politically useful too–I don’t remember where, but I do remember at some point in the Republic he talked about the perfect religion for political usefulness, and it was a monotheistic religion that encouraged loyalty and service to one’s country.
I guess if there *are* a bunch of people out there who would go on a killing spree if they found out god didn’t exist we’re better off with people thinking there is one. I think it says a hell of a lot about a person if he or she thinks everyone would have blood lust were they not tempered by fear of a nightmarish afterlife.
If I was going to quickly articulate what I think, philosophically, I guess Epicurius comes closest, although I also like a good deal of Buddhist philosophy. I’m agnostic–I think there could be something, there might not be. There might be 100 gods, there might be none. I just don’t know. I just want to live life as comfortably as I can and see what happens.
I totally understand why so many like to pontificate about the nature of human societies, and how and why they came into existence. It’s really bizarre to me. The whole going to work for forty years and then retiring in your dotage thing baffles me. Money and economics seem like an incomprehensible artificiality. The economic crisis right now has really made me think about this. Our whole existence was predicated on people selling stuff people didn’t need for people to buy with money they didn’t have. As soon as people were like, “oh snap we probably shouldn’t be doing this,” everything has gone to hell in a handbasket. I guess I should read up on economics. It’s a subject I’ve never really gotten into, but I need to understand the invisible hand. It’s a weird, intangible, bizarre replacement for feces flinging and peeing on trees, that’s for sure.
