Only if they won't let you throw it away.
It's a cautionary tale about Norwegian food.
It explains lutefisk.
...Quote from Garrison Keillor's book Lake Wobegon Days: Every Advent we entered the purgatory of lutefisk, a repulsive gelatinous fishlike dish that tasted of soap and gave off an odor that would gag a goat. We did this in honor of Norwegian ancestors, much as if survivors of a famine might celebrate their deliverance by feasting on elm bark. I always felt the cold creeps as Advent approached, knowing that this dread delicacy would be put before me and I'd be told, "Just have a little." Eating a little was like vomiting a lit
The second part is largely a filtering effect, yes. I probably should have left that part out. But the first part was a study done on Mormons, not ex-Mormons. Extreme sexual guilt is a big part of growing up Mormon.
I've heard a number of stories of "good" Mormons getting married and finally being allowed to have sex, and... they can't do it. They can't handle it. Or they manage to, several days later, only to end up feeling horribly guilty about it, locked in the bathroom, crying...
It's not a happy religion.
I read this, and thought of Wednesday: "Among all American religions, Mormonism is the single most sexually guilt ridden. Mormonism scores 37%% higher in sexual guilt than even Catholics."
from here: http://www.atheismresource.com/2012/sex-god-a-new-and-fascinating-book-by-darrel-ray
I don't know how many ex-mormons you've talked to, but I've talked to quite a few, and in nearly every case we were miserable in the church, and much happier outside of it.
Took the survey.
Which got even more upvotes... [sigh]
Please don't become reddit!
I only just got into town. :-)
See you there. :-)
Just took the survey. It was odd how only the word "Other" was translated into the Norwegian "Andre"... and everything else was in English.
I see your murder analogy as less useful than the child-parent analogy, FWIW.
Anyway, I asked, and you answered:
Why would your partner need to leave you for another if they could just have you both?? Because they might like the other more, which would hurt me enough that I would not want to stay.
Whoa, whoa, whoa... that is not an answer to the question I asked! You see, already, by examining the hypothetical situation, we are getting somewhere. :-)
So are your fears truly about being left, or about feeling a level of jealousy and hurt that you don't th...
Have you ever felt jealousy? Romantic or otherwise?
Yes, both. But I don't see jealousy as this big emotional dead-end. "If you see jealousy, run the other way! Only evil will you find here!" Jealousy is a response. Like a rash or something. It's an indication that something needs to be dealt with. It could be the emotional equivalent of skin cancer... but it's more likely that it's the equivalent of a need to use a different brand of soap. Upon further inspection, it's often not that big of a deal.
...Having multiple children doesn't threaten th
I was not, no. :-)
(But if you know that one, too, please share.)
I guess that the original poster didn't mean to say "special", but rather "unique" or "exclusive".
Ok, then I would ask how the OP feels if their SO talked to another person. Or became friends with. Or found attractive. Or flirted with. There are some things that we can expect to be unique or exclusive in just about any relationship. (Certainly there are many things that are exclusive in my own primary relationship!) So it's more a matter of changing where that line is drawn.
And as far as this: "Anxiety about the possib...
Yes. Of course if you have multiple children they're individually less special to you!
Hmm... perhaps we don't mean the same thing when we use the word "special". If I pretend that you used a word unfamiliar to me instead and had to work only on context, where you continue with:
You have less time and energy for each, less brain-space to store facts about each
...then I'd have to agree with you. Certainly, I have less time and energy to devote to each child.
and you aren't even culturally allowed to have a favorite!
For the record, I never ...
I suppose no analogy would be perfect, but saying that kids can be jealous doesn't seem to justify or explain rational adult emotion. I would certainly not agree that kids with siblings are ultimately worse off than those without!
Getting back to the original point of seeing one's partner with another makes one feel non-special... I still don't know why someone (some healthy adult with decent self-esteem) would say this. My guess is that I am finding it hard to understand because I have been in that situation, and the OP (jmed) hasn't. So jmed is trying to ...
Because seeing my partner being emotionally or physically intimate with someone else (or knowing they were, even without seeing it) = immediate non-specialness.
I don't know why you would say this, and I strongly disagree.
I have three children. Does loving one mean that the other two are not special to me?? Does a parent only have enough love for one child? Why should it be so different for lovers?
I apologize for rocking the boat, if I have.
Interesting benefit of polyamory: there's a lot less that can rock the boat (or sink it)! We enjoy a stability we did not have before.
I have three children. Does loving one mean that the other two are not special to me?? Does a parent only have enough love for one child? Why should it be so different for lovers?
I didn't understand this line of argument before I was poly, and I don't understand it now. Yes. Of course if you have multiple children they're individually less special to you! You have less time and energy for each, less brain-space to store facts about each, and you aren't even culturally allowed to have a favorite! There's a sense in which you "love them all equal...
I guess my philosophy is that fairytale monogamy is optimal for the young (say under 200 years or so)
And yet, the vast majority of poly people are well under 200 years old... I doubt they would agree with you on what is optimal for them.
I suppose you could counter that the vast majority of people under 200 years old are monogamous, but that seems more due to monogamy's enormous head-start in modern western culture than due to what is optimal for the young.
This is why I've always felt vaguely guilty about not being bisexual, since immortal superbeings clearly would be.
I'd be very interested in hearing about that hack. I haven't been able to pull it off, myself, and also feel vaguely guilty about it. (Especially after seeing the grace and ease with which my wife pulled it off.)
This is why I've always felt vaguely guilty about not being bisexual, since immortal superbeings clearly would be.
I'd be very interested in hearing about that hack.
So am I. We are talking about the "becoming an immortal superbeing" hack, right?
While "acquire" and "harem" are words quite conflicting with the spirit of polyamory (and I know you were kidding), it's a good point.
Though, as a flirty poly nerdy guy, I have no personal interest in this message getting out. :-)
[Disclaimer: I'm having a pretty strong negative emotional reaction to this post, and much of this thread, but I'm really trying to give you the benefit of the doubt; I apologize if I come off as snippy.]
Your post only makes sense if God does not exist
No, it makes sense in any case. Even if there's a god. Even if that god is omniscient. Even if that god is benevolent. And even is that god is perfectly rational!!
There's a difference between "rational" and "ethical". (By your argument, Satan could not possibly be rational... is that y...
About vegetarianism: you seem to be confusing two different positions:
One is the Mormon position, and the other is the vegan position. I understand that the Mormon church would be ok with something living a vegan lifestyle. No problem.
I am talking about being able to coherently hold the Mormon position and the vegan position. I'm talking about having the freedom to decided for myself that I believe it is wrong to eat animals. This is different from the freedom to just not eat animals. One is about ...
I'm just not sure we're having the same conversation here, John. I really didn't want to debate Mormon theology or the existence of God. My main point was that the Mormon church is too restrictive in terms of what is "allowed", both in terms of behaviors and beliefs. Too restrictive on things that might give Wednesday happiness some day.
...However, you started that sentence by saying it wasn't a logic game. If logic and reason are not to be used in determining what is really right and wrong and divine revelation is out then what are you left with?
My apologies... gjm summarized my position quite well. I also listed smoking (which I don't do), and some more mainstream sexual pleasures... I certainly did not intend a normative (or even a personal!) endorsement.
I'm not really sure how much I should reply to any of this... I'm not trying to convince you that your religion is wrong. Most of my family is still Mormon, so I'm quite good at hanging out with Mormons and not trying to convince them that they are wrong. (In fact, my deeply-ingrained strategy is to avoid conversations just like the one we are having right now.)
Perhaps I should start at the end:
...For someone convinced of contradictions you haven't provided any. Remember you have to find the contradictions internally, so within the belief structure of the
Wow... this was from a long time ago, and I don't remember exactly what I was thinking at the time, but I can try some guesses:
Contradictions in fact: there's really no good evidence for god or Jesus or the Book of Mormon or the Bible... these things are (at least to me) clearly false. (This is a site on rationality, not atheism, so I don't want to get caught up in a discussion on atheism... but if one is honest and rational, the contradictions abound.)
Contradictions in morality: Is alcohol really wrong? Smoking? Coffee?? Not sure what the Mormon positions...
Oslo, Norway
It doesn't seem that it would make her any richer, happier, more successful...
Sounds like you weren't raised Mormon. :)
I was, so naturally what I'm about to say is extremely personal and important to me, and likely to be subject to the "what's true for me must be true for all Mormons", which is absurd, as most Mormons do not go one to become atheists as I have, but still...
...I cannot imagine how one could embrace the beauty and magnificence of this big world if one is stuck in the much smaller world of Mormonism. The contradictions mount and ...
And one from Oslo.
Don't any of you have children?? Newborn babies are one thing, but there's a cuteness of seeing small, perfect little versions of yourself or your mate... I don't think a bunny could really compete.
No, other people's babies aren't that cute, but mine sure as hell are.
And in any case, I don't really see how this relates to... whatever it is you are saying about ev-psych (or the deeper mystery of cuteness). Why would you expect evolution to make us only find human babies cute? Evolution only has to work hard enough to keep us from abandoning our babies, a...
Same here, so if anyone has any info...
It's not as easy if you don't live in California.
I liked it. :)
Part of the problem that I had, though, was the believability of the kids: kids don't really talk like that: "which was kind of not helpful in the not confusing me department, so anyway"... or, in an emotionally painful situation:
Key looked suspiciously at the librarian. "You sound like you're trying not to say something."
Improbably astute, followed by not seeming to get the kind of obvious moral of the story. At times it felt like it was trying to be a story for older kids, and at other times like it was for adults....
They want a fun opponent.
In games with many players (where alliances are allowed), you could make the AI's more likely to ally with each other and to gang up on the human player. This could make an 8-player game nearly impossible. But the goal is not to beat the human. The goal is for the AI to feel real (human), and be fun.
As you point out, the goal in this contest is very different.
You have to like to learn how to be a wizard.