Ayn Rand And The End Of Love

[anthony]

11 hours ago, Jonathan said:

 

Rand's position, as the last quote above reveals, was that musical tastes had to be treated as a "subjective matter" ONLY "in the epistelmological sense," and "not in the metaphysical" sense. In other words, she was saying that it was a metaphysical fact of reality that music communicates specific emotions to all, but the only question that remained unanswered was HOW it did so, which, to her, was just a mere technical side-issue. What she was urging readers to remember as being a hypothesis was only the HOW of it, not her belief that all men experienced the same emotion.

 

 

1

"...it was a metaphysical fact of reality that music communicates specific emotions to all..."

Rand's "position", hey? No, the opposite. Metaphysics "communicates" only that it IS.

"Metaphysical" 'means' something exists and it has an identity/cause. I.e., which music clearly has. 

Emotions, based as they are on values and therefore on thinking, are epistemological and so, *subjective*--in terms of music.

Read again:

"If man experiences an emotion without existential object, its only other possible object is the state or actions of his own consciousness. What is the mental action involved in the perception of music? (I am not referring to the emotional reaction, which is the consequence, but to the process of perception)."

"Until it is brought to...we have to treat musical tastes or preferences as a subjective matter--not in the metaphysical, but in the epistemological sense; i.e., not in the sense that these preferences are, in fact, causeless and arbitrary, but in the sense that we do not know their cause".

You have the book in front of you, you have argued these passages about music endlessly, and you know better - your deliberate garbling of meaning to make a gotcha! are inexcusable.

[anthony]

11 hours ago, Jonathan said:

They don't seem to be aware of it, but they're arguing that man's reason can never penetrate to the noumenon.

 

11 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Jonathan,

That's a helluvan insight.

What's worse, by implication, they are postulating the very existence of the noumenon, which in O-Land is supposed to be a fantasy dreamed up by Kant, not reality.

But here's the deal. All knowledge according to Objectivism is contextual. And that, as I learned it, holds true even for statements like "consciousness is an irreducible primary." It was an irreducible primary (an axiom) according to the sum of human knowledge at the time Rand said it. That sum (and respective human mental capacity) was her context.

In the positions now being argued, this statement will hold true despite any future discovery or context (or evolution of humans). In other words, it belongs to a noumenal realm of existence that is accessed only in an entirely subjective manner and can never be otherwise irrespective of any context that may come, for ever and ever, Amen.

Man finally becomes God and reigns over the universe for all space and time, for infinity and eternity (which, in O-Land, is somehow finite at the same time  ), by axiomatic decree with no need for any context except acceptance and obedience by others.  

Future knowledge coming from anyone else will certainly not change the decree according to the decreers. The decree for this noumenon has replaced reality by claiming to be the ultimate contextless reality and, by God, they mean it and they are subjectively absolute about it.

I think you are right that they are not aware of what they are proposing.

Hell, I wasn't even aware of it. Now I am, so I'm gonna be an even bigger pain in the ass than before.  

Michael

Michael, Seriously that's getting wild and whacky. "It was an irreducible primary (an axiom) according to the sum of human knowledge at the time Rand said it".

"Knowledge is contextual" does not translate to consciousness is contextual, (non-axiomatic, etc.).

You are doing like J., getting metaphysics mixed up with epistemology.

Future knowledge advances knowledge -- how does it change consciousness?

It is exciting to know that axioms are changeable. I can't wait to see what tomorrow brings...

[Jonathan]

4 hours ago, anthony said:

"...it was a metaphysical fact of reality that music communicates specific emotions to all..."

Rand's "position", hey? No, the opposite. Metaphysics "communicates" only that it IS.

"Metaphysical" 'means' something exists and it has an identity/cause. I.e., which music clearly has. 

Emotions, based as they are on values and therefore on thinking, are epistemological and so, *subjective*--in terms of music.

Read again:

"If man experiences an emotion without existential object, its only other possible object is the state or actions of his own consciousness. What is the mental action involved in the perception of music? (I am not referring to the emotional reaction, which is the consequence, but to the process of perception)."

"Until it is brought to...we have to treat musical tastes or preferences as a subjective matter--not in the metaphysical, but in the epistemological sense; i.e., not in the sense that these preferences are, in fact, causeless and arbitrary, but in the sense that we do not know their cause".

You have the book in front of you, you have argued these passages about music endlessly, and you know better - your deliberate garbling of meaning to make a gotcha! are inexcusable.

Typical Tony word cloud.

Squirming, slithering Tony.

Here's Rand:

"Music conveys the same categories of emotions to listeners who hold widely divergent views of life. As a rule, men agree on whether a given piece of music is gay or sad or violent or solemn."

The pretend objections that you offer above are quotes in which Rand admits only that she doesn't know HOW emotions are communicated to all listeners. The HOW is the only part which she labels as a "hypothesis." The rest she treats as fact. She is certain that music communicates the same emotions to all men, but uncertain as to how it does so. And she identifies that issue as one of mere physiology. A future physiologist's job will be to follow her philosophical instructions and guidance, and do the mindless dirty work of discovering what philosopher-god Rand says must exist. The lowly physiologist is not advised to test Rand's theory to see if it is true that all men actually do experience the same emotion in a work of music.

But, still, you're objections are a side issue. Your statements on this thread about emotions contradict Rand's position on music communicating emotions. That's why you're dodging the issue and making a big show about the side issue distraction.

You're habitually dishonest. You're intellectually weak, and morally repugnant. You try to lie and cheat your way through almost every conversation.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

5 hours ago, anthony said:

"Knowledge is contextual" does not translate to consciousness is contextual, (non-axiomatic, etc.).

Tony,

You are the first person to even insinuate this strawman I have read so far. Anywhere, even in religion.

If that is what you understood my words to mean, either I am a terrible writer or you need to read more carefully. Or maybe slow down in your zeal to win a gotcha.

I was arguing against those who are saying XXX is impossible and will never be possible. Ever. If that is your position, and you believe the current awareness of consciousness at the individual subjective level is all that will ever be, then you are a Kantian. In other words, you believe that on faith. You hold your fantasy above reality. (btw - I will have to go back to get examples, but I have gotten the impression you have foretold the future in absolute terms like that, especially when making hash out of neuroscience. ) 

How on earth my post about this error translates into consciousness itself, which is a state of being with many individual beings in that state, becoming contextual, which is a frame for knowledge, is beyond me. I can't think of a single thing I have ever said or written that could possibly lead to that conclusion.

5 hours ago, anthony said:

It is exciting to know that axioms are changeable. I can't wait to see what tomorrow brings...

I'm not sure all axioms are changeable. I'm sure they are contextual, thus open to change if new knowledge requires such. But that doesn't mean such new knowledge will appear, thus it doesn't mean they will necessarily change.

I'm pretty sure this new knowledge is appearing that will change the axiom of consciousness being an irreducible primary, though. Current theories and discoveries suggest there is probably a state beneath it qua state (even in O-Land, NB talked about the possibility of an "underlying reality" to use his term) and they suggest there are causes for it in individuals.

And this implies humans of the future will evolve to access it in an enhanced form compared to the present.

Michael

[Jonathan]

1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

How on earth my post about this error translates into consciousness itself, which is a state of being with many individual beings in that state, becoming contextual, which is a frame for knowledge, is beyond me. I can't think of a single thing I have ever said or written that could possibly lead to that conclusion.

MSK, Tony is the Cathy Newman of Objectivishism, times ten. He uses her tactic of "So you're saying..." and assigning you a position that you don't hold and which does not in any way follow from anything you've said. But he doesn't stop there, as Newman is at least smart enough to do, but he then proceeds to argue against the position that you didn't take, with paragraph after paragraph of Rand-demented tangential kookburgerizing used in explaining the error that his imaginary version of you has made and the false philosophy that the imaginary you must have adopted in order to make it.

[regi]

4 hours ago, Jonathan said:

"Music conveys the same categories of emotions to listeners who hold widely divergent views of life. As a rule, men agree on whether a given piece of music is gay or sad or violent or solemn."

This is a question, not an argument. I think, "evoke," would be more appropriate than, "convey," with regard to similar emotions in various listeners. Convery seems to imply the music tells one what to feel, which doesn't seem right to me.

As for whether individuals generally agree about which music evokes which emotions, I think it would depend greatly on which kind of music is meant. Those who appreciate Brahms find it very romantic and moving. Rand hated Brahms. Those who enjoy rap, usually despise opera, and I doubt they would agree about the emotions the music evokes.

Perhaps it would be more true to say, "within a given category or genre of music, men agree on whether a given piece of music is gay or sad or violent or solemn."

What do you think?

Randy

[Jonathan]

41 minutes ago, regi said:

This is a question, not an argument. I think, "evoke," would be more appropriate than, "convey," with regard to similar emotions in various listeners. Convery seems to imply the music tells one what to feel, which doesn't seem right to me.

As for whether individuals generally agree about which music evokes which emotions, I think it would depend greatly on which kind of music is meant. Those who appreciate Brahms find it very romantic and moving. Rand hated Brahms. Those who enjoy rap, usually despise opera, and I doubt they would agree about the emotions the music evokes.

Perhaps it would be more true to say, "within a given category or genre of music, men agree on whether a given piece of music is gay or sad or violent or solemn."

What do you think?

Randy

I think that all of the above is speculation, as was Rand's theory of music. Her claims about what people experience, or don't, in music, or any other art form,  were based on nothing but her own introspection. Her views were bald assertions, often times universalizations of her own subjective tastes and aesthetic limitations, and outright denials of others', with no proof to back them up.

I would speculate that what you say above probably has some truth to it. But I've also witnessed many people who are fans of the same type of music experiencing it very differently from each other. The fact that fans of similar music sometimes do identify the same emotions, depending on the genre, may likely be due to their having been very heavily exposed for years, if not a lifetime, to what Rand called "outside considerations" -- explanations of what the music is supposed to be about via means outside the music.

[Wolf DeVoon]

Love guru Chris Sciabarra sez: "I have an almost boundless capacity to be loved and to give love in return. And I mean love in all its facets: the love of family, of friends and colleagues, and of those special people that come into our lives now and then, with whom one can share the kind of love that is spiritually and physically intimate. I can’t think of anything more life-affirming than love." Liar.

[anthony]

9 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Tony,

 

I'm not sure all axioms are changeable. I'm sure they are contextual, thus open to change if new knowledge requires such. But that doesn't mean such new knowledge will appear, thus it doesn't mean they will necessarily change.

I'm pretty sure this new knowledge is appearing that will change the axiom of consciousness being an irreducible primary, though.

Michael

 

Michael, That's what I read you to say the first time. ;) "I'm sure they [axioms] are contextual..." ("open to change" if new knowledge arrives). If an axiom is contextual on past, present and future knowledge, what other can it be but variable or "changeable"? Consciousness, "the faculty of perceiving that which exists" can't be dependent on knowledge if it's to remain axiomatic. Knowledge is (and will be) dependent on it. Or else one should throw out the word "axiom" and call consciousness "a possibly reducible primary".

Assuming that for a moment. Just the generally accepted~possibility~ of man's mind ever gaining the knowledge which will permanently undercut itself, is what will do the final damage to consciousness, a damage which many have been trying to attain. That is already showing signs with the skeptics' attacks on the mind, some citing of course, science ("scientism", the faith and primacy of science).

You wrote: "That sum (and respective human capacity) was her context [in Rand's time]". The human capacity for knowledge is individual and conceptual. Scientific knowledge is no exception.

[anthony]

9 hours ago, Jonathan said:

Typical Tony word cloud.

Squirming, slithering Tony.

Here's Rand:

"Music conveys the same categories of emotions to listeners who hold widely divergent views of life. As a rule, men agree on whether a given piece of music is gay or sad or violent or solemn."

 

 

All that infantile invective to cover that you made an error. Quote you: "...she was saying that it was a metaphysical fact of reality that music communicates specific emotions to all..."

See? "Metaphysical fact of reality"? No, she did not say that.

When corrected - that Rand in fact said music was:

"...a subjective matter...not in the metaphysical but in the epistemological sense..."[AR]

--you have the temerity to make out I implied anything but what I said, in correction.

Get it? It is not - a "metaphysical fact of reality" - that music conveys emotions. Emotions are arrived at "epistemologically". But emotions are for now "subjective" in music, because "we do not know their cause"[epistemologically].  

Only a small character can never admit to a mistake--and to top that, deflecting attention away by insulting someone to conceal the mistake, is dirty.

Before going on to the generalized emotions - "gay or sad or violent or solemn" that point had to be straightened out.

In the context of this discussion, the communication of emotions ~ by way of art ~ is anyways, moot and invalid. We all know art does so. The question was, is emotion accurately perceived direct from one person to the next? Are facial expressions honest and true? So your opener here about music, is a diversionary, superfluous red herring. 

[regi]

4 hours ago, Jonathan said:

I think that all of the above is speculation, as was Rand's theory of music. Her claims about what people experience, or don't, in music, or any other art form,  were based on nothing but her own introspection. Her views were bald assertions, often times universalizations of her own subjective tastes and aesthetic limitations, and outright denials of others', with no proof to back them up.

In terms of aesthetics, I agree most of Rand's assertions were reflections of her personal tastes. If she had a theory of music, I'm unaware of it.

4 hours ago, Jonathan said:

But I've also witnessed many people who are fans of the same type of music experiencing it very differently from each other.

That has been my experience as well. I think most people do associate some forms of music with a particular emotional experience, the pathos of minor keys, the excitement of stacatto, the fun of a polka, what is typically called blues, and music intentionally meant to evoke a mood in movies, but even those experiences are not universal.

Personally, there is music that literally moves me to tears, but I do not associate such music with any particular emotion beyond the pleasure of the music itself. I have no idea why people think music should evoke a particular emotion beyond the enjoyment of the music itself.

Randy

[regi]

2 hours ago, Wolf DeVoon said:

Love guru Chris Sciabarra sez: "I have an almost boundless capacity to be loved and to give love in return. And I mean love in all its facets: the love of family, of friends and colleagues, and of those special people that come into our lives now and then, with whom one can share the kind of love that is spiritually and physically intimate. I can’t think of anything more life-affirming than love." Liar

Right!

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

2 hours ago, anthony said:

Michael, That's what I read you to say the first time.

Tony,

Really?

Then what does this mean?

15 hours ago, anthony said:

You are doing like J., getting metaphysics mixed up with epistemology.

You read me right the first time and read me wrong the second?

That doesn't make any sense.

What happened?

2 hours ago, anthony said:

Assuming that for a moment. Just the generally accepted~possibility~ of man's mind ever gaining the knowledge which will permanently undercut itself

Who is talking about undercutting anything except predicting what is impossible?

Expanding knowledge is not undercutting it.

So we use consciousness to learn about consciousness. Whoopdido! That doesn't turn knowing about consciousness into something where new knowledge is impossible.

Dayaamm!

Michael

[regi]

On 1/24/2018 at 8:55 PM, Wolf DeVoon said:

Not unappreciative of other considerations, but I would like to return to the topic of love.

OK, it's my turn. The following is a Valentine's post I did in 2016. It's only three weeks away so here goes:

Valentine Flowers for Every Girl

Hayden Godfrey is a man after my own heart.

"Hayden Godfrey, a 17-year-old student at Sky View High School in Smithfield, Utah, passed out carnations to every girl at school—all 834 of them!—on Thursday."

I love women. I don't mean in that sickly sentimental way the bleeding hearts mean when they say they love everybody. I mean the way a man loves a woman, and I have ever since I discovered that girls are the most delightful creatures on the planet, sometime in the second grade. I love them all, and regardless of their age, I regard them all as girls.

I guess that makes me a philogonist, as opposed to a mysogonist, but I believe all men, before they let something spoil them, are naturally philogonists. I like the way Oliver Wendell Holmes put it (including the quaint language):

"The divinity-student wished to know what I thought of affinities, as well as of antipathies; did I believe in love at first sight? "Sir,--said I,--all men love all women. That is the prima-facie aspect of the case. The Court of Nature assumes the law to be, that all men do so; and the individual man is bound to show cause why he does not love any particular woman. A man, says one of my old black-letter law-books, may show divers good reasons, as thus: He hath not seen the person named in the indictment; she is of tender age, or the reverse of that; she hath certain personal disqualifications,... or, his capacity of loving being limited, his affections are engrossed by a previous comer; and so of other conditions. Not the less is it true that he is bound by duty and inclined by nature to love each and every woman. Therefore it is that each woman virtually summons every man to show cause why he doth not love her." [Oliver Wendell Holmes, The Autocrat of the Breakfast Table, Chapter 9, (1858)]

If every man loves every woman how does one choose one to be his one and only? The case is the opposite. If a man does not love women in general, he'll never love one in particular. It is because they are all lovable, each in their own way, that a man can discover that one that has exactly what he loves most. The love of a man's life is the special case of a generality, when a man chooses a particular woman to be his wife it is a choice from all that he loves of the one that he wishes to share his entire life with, because she is the joy and prize of his life.

Though known as a curmudgeon, H.L. Mencken held a special place in his heart for women too. He once suggested this epitaph for himself:

"If, after I depart this vale, you ever remember me and have thought to please my ghost, forgive some sinner and wink your eye at some homely girl."

I've tried to honor Mencken's request, but with difficulty, because I've never seen a woman, no matter how plain, that I did not see a beautiful girl in. But I found a solution, I wink at them all.

So here's a wink, some flowers, and my love girls. Happy valentine's day, Darlin'—especially to my one and only.

[Wolf DeVoon]

2 hours ago, regi said:

OK, it's my turn. The following is a Valentine's post I did in 2016

I understand and agree. Glad you posted it.

I like the metaphor of magnetism, of which there are many kinds, large and small, permanent, induced, rare earth, electro, flexible, horseshoe. Sciabarra is a dime store horseshoe, picks up light junk-- rusty nails, bottle tops, and ironic graffiti. Straight men are bar magnets of various sizes. If we're not careful we pick up trash and get stuck behind iron bars. Little men are refrigerator magnets, overjoyed to win any kind of female. The fair sex are electromagnets; they have to be careful about who they flip their switch for, because once they bond S to a man's N, they're stuck for life, unless a crash weakens N and she turns off S. I've crashed head first into brick walls on occasion, scrambled my ionic alignment and became weakened, lost women when they de-energized their EMF.

To review, a woman with great potential chooses carefully, and when she comes near a magnetic guy, it might happen. She throws a switch and they're stuck.

A little passage from (ahem) a favorite book:

Quote

“I've looked my entire life for someone like you,” I said simply. It was true. A little tear welled up in her right eye. She nodded in agreement. So we were stuck now.

(blah, blah, blah, details of magnetic bonding...)

It took a long time for anything else to happen and then she panted and drooled, wrapped her lovely hands on my waist, both sides, slipped her fingers into my belt and pulled me closer, sad eyes locked with mine. Neither of us were happy now, because it meant so much to us.

A postscript for amusement value, to explain how straights view pansies, magnetically speaking. For an 8th grade science fair, I assembled a giant AC coil and a tall thick iron bar, plugged it into a wall socket, pushed a button and launched dainty aluminum rings flying across the room, dented same on impact.

[Jonathan]

5 hours ago, regi said:

In terms of aesthetics, I agree most of Rand's assertions were reflections of her personal tastes. If she had a theory of music, I'm unaware of it.

You should read The Romantic Manifesto.

 

5 hours ago, regi said:

In terms of aesthetics, I agree most of Rand's assertions were reflections of her personal tastes. If she had a theory of music, I'm unaware of it.

That has been my experience as well. I think most people do associate some forms of music with a particular emotional experience, the pathos of minor keys, the excitement of stacatto, the fun of a polka, what is typically called blues, and music intentionally meant to evoke a mood in movies, but even those experiences are not universal.

Personally, there is music that literally moves me to tears, but I do not associate such music with any particular emotion beyond the pleasure of the music itself. I have no idea why people think music should evoke a particular emotion beyond the enjoyment of the music itself.

Some people who think such things are Objectivists, and the reason why they think that music should do so is because they have bought into Rand's aesthetic theory, which is an effort to force all art forms to share the characteristics of her view of literature, and also to not be like abstract art. She wanted all art to be objective, and therefore to have objectively communicable meaning, and, at the same time, she wanted music to qualify, and abstract art to not qualify, so therefore music had to be identified as somehow succeeding in communicating something, while abstract art was deemed not to. The experience of music that you describe is not enough for it to qualify as a valid art form by her theory. You are experiencing what anyone might while looking at an abstract painting, and she threw quite angry tantrums about such experiences being called responses to real art. She would have viewed your as interacting with music as the equivalent of experiencing a mere decoration.

In short, her aesthetic theory does not conform to her philosophy. It's a deviation from her stated dedication to logic and reason. Her thoughts on the subject are a study in her going way off the tracks, and she took many of her followers with her.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

8 hours ago, regi said:

I love them all, and regardless of their age, I regard them all as girls.

Girls, not women?

Hmmmmmmmm...

 

6 hours ago, Wolf DeVoon said:

I understand and agree. Glad you posted it.

So you guys are hunks crushing it with the womens?

Be careful with how much you talk about gays. People who talk a lot about a target group and go on and on channeling the emotions and thoughts of the members give the impression that this target group is VERY important to them. It's almost like a personal threat of some sort...

 

Michael

[Jonathan]

1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Be careful with how much you talk about gays. People who talk a lot about a target group and go on and on channeling the emotions and thoughts of the members give the impression that this target group is VERY important to them. It's almost like a personal threat of some sort...

It's called "latency."

[regi]

1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Girls, not women?

Hmmmmmmmm...

Oh yes, girls. I was a little boy when I discovered I loved girls, and it is the little boy in me that still loves the girl that is in every women. A few days ago, my wife and I met a charming girl (well into her seventies I would guess) named Virginia. We talked a bit and I mentioned how lovely she looked. She turned to me, "Randy, are you flirting with me." I assured her I was.

I do not expect those who have never understood the difference between love and lust to understand that. They're more likely to say something snyde, like, "girls, not women. Hmmmmmm..." as if they would know what a real woman is.

Randy 

 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

23 minutes ago, regi said:

I do not expect those who have never understood the difference between love and lust to understand that. They're more likely to say something snyde, like, "girls, not women. Hmmmmmm..." as if they would know what a real woman is.

Regi,

My real problem right now is the signal that maybe an adult is thinking about romantic man-to-child love with little girls and is preaching that pedophilia shit on my forum.

You are right, I don't understand that kind of "love."

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Regi,

You haven't seen how snide I can get, yet.

Just so long as we are clearing the air, I don't want you preaching your brand of bigotry against homosexuals on OL.

I don't go into your house, hawk and spit on the floor and demand you be polite about it and I will not have you doing that brainless crap here.

Call it a bias because I don't see a pre-adolescent girl as a "real woman."

Thanks for your understanding,

Michael

[regi]

6 hours ago, Jonathan said:

You should read The Romantic Manifesto

Jonathan, I wasn't lying when I said I've read everything Rand ever wrote that is not hidden by ARI.

I know what Rand wrote about music, but it is not a theory of music. She didn't think such a theory was possible until more was learned about its nature:

"The nature of musical perception has not been discovered because the key to the secret of music is physiological—it lies in the nature of the process by which man perceives sounds—and the answer would require the joint effort of a physiologist, a psychologist and a philosopher (an esthetician)."

I happen to think she was wrong about that. We know certain aroma's and flavors (like chocolate) are pleasureable and have learned how to combine them in different ways that are even more pleasureable. We don't need some elaborate theory of gustatorial aesthetics requiring the joint effort of a physiologist, psychologist, and philosopher to explain it.

We know some sounds and combination of sounds are pleasant and have learned how to produce some sounds and combine them in ways that are very pleasing and moving. The whole field of music beyond that is infinite in scope, but I don't think there is some kind of esoteric, almost mystic philosophical/psychological mystery behind it all.

That's strictly my view, of course, and at this point I'm not making an argument for it. I have a similar view about all of what is called art, and I do not think art is all of aesthetics, or even an aspect of that branch of philosophy.

Randy

 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Just in case anyone's interested in the news (from the Chicago Tribune):

Accused of assaulting 3 young girls, man says he's boy trapped in adult's body

This guy apparently knows the difference between love and lust. He apparently knows what a "real woman" is.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

1 hour ago, Jonathan said:

It's called "latency."

Jonathan,

I see it as subtext.

(btw - People who do this crap hate it when you shed light on it. But if you let it go, they start going hog-wild. It never fails and it doesn't matter what the target of the bigotry is... If you let them get comfortable by accepting their toxic subtext, they let their hair down, that is they bring the subtext to the surface, and it can get ugly.)

Michael

[regi]

12 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

My real problem right now is the signal that maybe an adult is thinking about romantic man-to-child love with little girls and is preaching that pedophilia shit on my forum

Only you are thinking that Michael. If you cannot see what a disgusting thing it is to even think such a thing, much less say it, to someone who has raised five children, with gandchildren and great-grandchildren. Sometimes you are beyond contempt in your insults. Perhaps you cannot help it.

14 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Just so long as we are clearing the air, I don't want you preaching your brand of bigotry against homosexuals on OL.

Two lies in two posts. My four former neighbors are all gay and none of them have spewed the kind of hatefulness you have. It's odd that I have never had a problem with homosexuals but with those very few who do not know me personally and whose bigotry is so overwhelming they refuse to accept anything anyone says who is not also gay.

I have never understood that kind of irrational hate, or any kind of hate. It is such a useless waste of emotional time and energy. I don't hate, not even those who outright lie about me. I'm sorry you do not feel the same way.

Randy