?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Journal of No. 118


December 10th, 2010

Exploring the Map of Tasmania @ 02:40 pm


Took a survey from ebay. Looks like they may be considering providing packaging/shipping materials to sellers, and/or setting up package dropoffs at local locations [the survey mentioned Starbucks by name as an example].


I was thinking that our various circumlocutions for the genitalia are primarily used as terms of opprobium. You don't want to be a prick, a dick or a cock. Nor a cunt, twat, or pussy. Maybe we should foster a sex-positive genital endearment for popular use. But what should they be? Cunny may be too close to the C-word, even if it sounds like honey, which would seem to be a natural advantage. Twatwaffle sounds like it should be a good thing, but it's a bad thing. We may have to resurrect and take back something like quim.
The male side is even worse. No lack of options, but things like 'womb ferret' or 'heat-seaking moisture missile' really are just not suitable. Peener seems to have the requisite cuteness. Giggle stick? Package may have the right feel: "Bob's a prick, but Rob's quite the package."
Opinions? Other than that this idea of mine is far less than half-baked?


I was thinking [yeah, see where that got me last time] that the [primarily Christian fundagelical] antiscience advocates complain that a failing of science is that it's bedeviled by progress change. One day, a fossil is a hominid; the next day, it's a peccary.
And yet... when we look at the Bible, one day you can't eat bacon, the next day you can. One day you circumcise, the next you don't. One day it's an eye for an eye, the next day it's "Ye have heard that it hath been said, 'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth': But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also." Which would seem to take the sting out of their criticism.
But this idea is also less than half-baked since it's not likely to impress these critics of science, since they've had it hammered into them that their god's nature is unchanging, and the NT is the same as (or fulfillment of) the OT.
Anyway, that was my second lousy thought of the day. You're welcome.


Oh, and while I'm blathering, I was looking into the No Religious Test clause, as one does, and found something kinda neat. Although the US Constitution forbade religious tests for office, many of the individual states had such tests at that time.
Ben Franklin unsuccessfully fought against the religious test added to the Pennsylvania constitution. Part of his motivation may well have been his realization that he couldn't pass the test, as it required belief in the divine inspiration of the (complete) Bible.
Fortunately, it only applied to the PA Assembly, so there was no bar to him becoming president/governor of the state and working to amend the religious test to something less restrictive (to merely "acknowledge[] the being of God and a future state of rewards and punishments").
Ultimately, of course, the 14th Amendment provided a de facto end to state religious tests, though some are still on the books.
 
Share  |  Flag |

Comments

 
[User Picture Icon]
From:nephthys510
Date:December 10th, 2010 10:46 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Opinions? Other than that this idea of mine is far less than half-baked?

Going off half-cocked again?


different cock, but I couldn't resist, I'm 13 years old
[User Picture Icon]
From:jimkeller
Date:December 11th, 2010 12:35 am (UTC)
(Link)
Oi. And here I was about to suggest looking at the avian-themed slang, having totally overlooked that one...

That said, "robin" ain't so bad. In fact, some people name their children that.
From:(Anonymous)
Date:December 11th, 2010 12:54 am (UTC)
(Link)
Perhaps you're specifically talking about a fringe group of "[primarily Christian fundagelical] antiscience advocates", but I've yet to meet any Christians who are actually "antiscience". I've met many that are opposed to specific branches of science that deal with human origins (evolution, obviously) or other topics whose subjects are very distant in time or space (geologic time scales or astrophysics). But I've never met any that opposed mathematics, chemistry, physics, aerodynamics, hematology, climatology, ergonomics, phonology, acoustics, optics, botany, speleology, anaesthesiology, geography, immunology... You get the idea.

Donovan
[User Picture Icon]
From:essentialsaltes
Date:December 11th, 2010 01:07 am (UTC)
(Link)
The criticism I point out is a criticism of science in general, that because it changes, it is inherently untrustworthy. Yes, the intended target is usually biology, geology, astronomy, atmospheric science, or physics, but the criticism applies to all equally.
From:(Anonymous)
Date:December 11th, 2010 03:26 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Mike,

I see what you mean now. But I suspect that some of their criticism is the result of the cocksureness (I had to bring in your other subject) of people who claim that current scientific views are absolutely correct. I've met my share of people at the other end of the spectrum who refuse to believe that a current scientific finding could possibly be wrong.

Donovan
[User Picture Icon]
From:aaronjv
Date:December 11th, 2010 09:29 am (UTC)
(Link)
It sounds like Christians are very good at cherry picking the sciences they want to believe.
From:(Anonymous)
Date:December 11th, 2010 03:19 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Aaron,

Yes, they can be. And they seem to do it for one of two reasons. The first is that these particular sciences conflict with a literal reading of the Bible. In fact the phrase "literal interpretation" may be appropriate since they can read the Bible a bit too literally and miss certain subtleties (such as the two creation accounts in Genesis).

The second reason is because these particular sciences aren't based on direct observation. They make assumptions about the past decay rates of radioactive isotopes, about the speed of light throughout the universe, and so on. These assumptions are reasonable, but not provable.

I've only met a couple of Christians that fall into the latter camp, and they're not just skeptical of science -- they've got a healthy skepticism about their own faith as well.

Donovan
[User Picture Icon]
From:ovary
Date:December 11th, 2010 04:35 am (UTC)
(Link)
The word 'twat' seems like the sound a wet muffin would make as you chuck it into the sink.
[User Picture Icon]
From:aaronjv
Date:December 11th, 2010 09:48 am (UTC)
(Link)
Maybe we should foster a sex-positive genital endearment for popular use. But what should they be?
Note that context and inflection influences connotation. The denotation of many of those words are, IMHO, emotionally neutral.
E.g., "Mmm, that cock" vs. "That COCK!"

It may be a futile exercise to excavate an appropriate sobriquet, since few would consider it a compliment when reproductive or excretory organs are used as synechdoche.

However, I postulate that labels such as "orgasmatron", "willy-riser," "chastity-wrecker", "cougar-bait" or other appellation derived from the pleasurable use of said organs may have long term investment opportunities.
From:boymaenad
Date:December 14th, 2010 09:21 pm (UTC)
(Link)
It may be a futile exercise to excavate an appropriate sobriquet, since few would consider it a compliment when reproductive or excretory organs are used as synechdoche.

ohhh that tasty-ass sentence.

I'll be in my bunk.

(even though it's spelt 'synecdoche')

footnote: the use of 'ass' to describe good things is a happy exception to most of these rules.

second footnote: you can also name a child Wanda, but Wand might be regarded askance.
[User Picture Icon]
From:colleency
Date:December 11th, 2010 05:10 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Oh, Aaron, I love you!

I like the term package. It makes me giggle. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wH3WogxiKZc

I think cunny and quim aren't bad, but they both make me blush. And I'm sitting here alone. sigh.

Journal of No. 118