Printable View
In my urm Spanish class today haha my teacher started talking about this book by Peter McWilliams.
Its about "the absurdity of Consensual Crimes in Our Free Country". I've only eyed a little bit of it, but so far its tickling my fancy
Plus it tells how he died in the first few pages, which is really pretty funked up.
The quotes in the book are pretty damn nifty too. There is a section about Pornography
Jack Paar: "What do you think about pornography?"
Oscar Levant: "It helps."
I think i've heard of this, but I kind of disagree. I'll just say that It seems to me that the real absurdity is holding onto the belief that our country is free, as it becomes less and less.
If you read my post on porn you'd know how I feel about this. Whoops, you didn't because I never posted it. but I think it's pretty clear how I feel about such things. I talk a lot about perception and reality. the point here in regards to the subject is how do you define consensual? and to a certain degree can anything ever really be truly consenstual? If a person is shown ten thousand times that a person is not a person but an object to be used, how will that effect thier perception?
Ok, let's look at it a little more obviously and ask, if a person is shown ten thousand times that barbie doll is the model of beauty, how will that effect thier perception? The point that should be spelled out here is that the way that we perceive things is based on on the way that they were demonstarted to us by others, which is based on thier own perceptions.
I know that this line of thinking leads to an existential crisis of the nature of reality, but what i'm really trying to get at here is that thier is a lot more stuff that goes into our thoughts and actions then we might care to realize. something that may seem for all purposes innocent could be full of hangs up under the surface. and that's something to keep in mind. for some people sex is just sex, for others it's so much more than that, and i'm sure you can see that.
The real flaw with this idea, or the one that it's opposing is that they try to quantify everything and that's just not how things are. two actions may be the same in practice, but since the people that are experiencing them are not, we don't know what motivates those people and the way they feel and perceive those actions could be totally opposite.
Just to say something is good or bad is to take away the individual perspective and I think that is the biggest problem of all in virtually any situation.
oh yeah, I never really said how I feel about the subject... what I think about what is "right" and "wrong" is to look at that thing and factor in the level of destructiveness of the thing. if it's something that takes away more than it gives, then it's something that we might want to avoid if possible. sounds really simple, but that's not the way that most things are factored, especially when it comes to laws.
I did read the McWilliams book some years ago. I would base any action on the external harm principle involved. I think McWilliams is strongest on his argument for the legalization of drugs. It could be argued that he died for this principle.
OEC
Yes yes, I mainly just wondered if anyone had read it. I seriously doubt I'll get to read the whole thing, but I think it addresses one of the things that I find to be ridiculous
Suicide.
Assisted Suicide is a tricky one . . . .
But yeah, laws against suicide.
sheesh
i'm really in love with the little quotes on each page honestly.
"The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion" - George Washington
But yeah, I was reading a bit where he talks about drugs, and ahhh parts of it cracked me up. He made some really good points too.
"4. Stop referring to recreational drugs as 'poison.' That's only true about always-lethal substances, which, for the most part, are perfectly legal. For example, no one uses Drano recreationally (although a few desperate people do use lysol, heaven help them). Drano is so consistently deadly that the only law controlling its sale says it must be labeled 'posion.' There are no reports of a 'Drano problem.' Drano smuggling is, I would wager (if wagering weren't illegal), not rampant. Airports have no Drano-sniffing dogs. An Omnibus Drano Bill was never proposed to Congress. 'DEA' does not stand for 'Drano Enforcement Agency.'"
I plan to read the section on homosexuality next yep yep . . . & just keep skipping around. I really like it so far.
& really, I havent even read the section on pornography or prostitution yet, i just mentioned they were in there -.- hehe
& yes, gah . . .. reading on his death . . . . makes me quite sad honestly : (
oh one more thing:
click me