Maybe you are, but I’m not.

« Today's P.I.T.A, The Mountain Home Motel Olympics Finishing Up »

When A Brain Goes South


Posted by Non-Hamster on August 23rd, 2008

"A mind is a terrible thing to waste"

Ok, I'll admit it, I'm old enough to remember when that phrase was used in PSA's on tv a lot and no, I am not a hamster, I'm not using it here in the same context as it was used back then.

Instead, I'm referring to the fact that it somehow manages to amaze me how many people are solidly focused on turning anything into a chance to mention sex or porn and / or how much of it that they have or watch.  It's not just when they're looking at or talking about their favorite centerfold or maybe a catalog their wife or girlfriend has for babydolls and other lingere.  These people are so truly dedicated to the perverse that they manage to inject it into anything.

One classic example came from a comment in a post I wrote on another blog.  The post in question was about a new ASUS motherboard that has a boot ROM in it that allows it to boot Linux in an "Instant on" mode.  Yet one wit managed to decide that the best comment for that post was "Instant pron!"

Ever want to reach through the screen and slap somebody?

I would have deleted the comment but it just wasn't worth the effort

Technorati Tags: sex, comments, comment spam, twisted people, pron, porn, perverse

Be Sociable, Share!
  • Twitter
  • email
  • Facebook
  • StumbleUpon
  • Tumblr
  • Google Reader
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
Link to this post
Just copy this code and paste it on your site where you want the link to appear:

10 Comments

  1. Mickey on 27.08.2008 at 20:21 (Reply)


    You say, “perverse”, like it’s a bad thing??

    1. Non-Hamster on 28.08.2008 at 21:04 (Reply)


      You’re absolutely right, I do consider it to be a “bad thing”.

      here’s a few definitions that should explain why:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perverse :
      Perversion is a term and concept describing those types of human behavior that are perceived to be a serious deviation from what is considered to be orthodox or normal

      http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn :

      marked by a disposition to oppose and contradict
      contrary: resistant to guidance or discipline
      depraved: deviating from what is considered moral or right or proper or good

      and last but not least,
      http://www.godswordforyou.com/glossary/glossary/p.html :

      Opposed to God and his standards; ungodly.

      Given those definitions “perverse” can’t be anything but a “bad thing”.

  2. Dobbs_Head on 19.09.2008 at 14:02 (Reply)


    You just showed a big cultural bias there in that post. Lets examined your definitions of the word perverse.

    Wikipedia defines perversion as a serious deviation for ‘what is considered’ orthodox or normal. Then a perversion becomes dependent on your starting reference. Some middle town Americans might consider it ‘perverse’ to see two men kissing, but the average inhabitant of the SF Castro would consider it a common scene. So depending on what you consider normal, perverse can mean anything.

    Perverse, following the wordnet definition, also means contrary and resistant to guidance. In that sense you say perverted, I say self-guided.

    Your last poke at the ‘perverted’ is the most hilarious. I’m an atheist. There are a lot of atheists out there. I am opposed to god and his supposed standards. My standards and morals come from within, not from without.

    So no the definitions do a piss poor job demonstrating that perversion is in fact a bad thing. In fact, if you use that last definition I’d be pretty proud to be called perverted.

    1. Non-Hamster on 19.09.2008 at 14:16 (Reply)


      “You just showed a big cultural bias there in that post. Lets examined your definitions of the word perverse.”

      yeah, I’m sure I did but that’s because my beliefs define perversion the way I explained it.  As for athiesm, I consider that to be perhaps the single most misguided religion that I’ve ever heard of and I cannot help but pity anyone who chooses to follow it because that way lies condemnation of a sort that I wouldn’t wish on anyone.

      Standards and morals cannot come strictly from within because they need to be from a source that is higher than yourself.  By denying God, you have made yourself god and at the same time condemned yourself.

      1. Dobbs_Head on 19.09.2008 at 15:12 (Reply)


        “Standards and morals cannot come strictly from within”

        Actually you are half right. Moral standards are not an individual level concept, they are group level. The morals and standards we have don’t come from a ‘higher power’. They all come from the principle of group survival. What is moral for the individual is good for the survival of the group. This principle then defines stealing and murder as immoral because a group without predictable property and life rights would break down and kill itself. This principle also explains why sexual relationships out of wedlock were immoral before the birth control pill but moral after its development. Fatherless children have a lower survival rate, so sex without a secure father figure is immoral unless you can prevent pregnancy. It is this definition of morality that all societies use in practice, you just blame your group’s decisions on a god. I only blame them on myself and my fellow man.

        “By denying God, you have made yourself god”

        So by denying the existence of your sky fairy I become a sky fairy? Does that mean I can change the laws of physics and flood planets? This is a nonsense statement. By denying god I must become personally responsible for all of my actions, yes I’ll agree with you there. And I’m okay with that and you should be too. If you aren’t, I don’t want to to business with you or rely on you for anything. I don’t need the carrot of heaven or the rod of hell to live a good life. I have friends, family, and a steady job that betters our country and way of life. I can’t see a single part of my life that would be considered damaging or hurtful to another human being (except some of the possible military applications of my work, but that is good for our group survival and hence moral). If you knew my life you would be hard pressed to find any single issue I could be condemned for at all other than denying the existence of your sky fairy.

        “I consider that to be perhaps the single most misguided religion”

        Christians believe that 2000 years ago a Jewish Zombie absolved them of all sins. Jews believe that they are the Chosen People who will be resurrected to live in Israel when the world ends while everybody else is screwed. The Muslims believe a man went to heaven in a fiery chariot. The Hindus believe that if they burn plants they will get their wishes. And you are calling me misguided for believing I have only myself blame for my actions? You are calling me misguided for only believing that which can be demonstrated to be true?

        I’ve been wrong about many things in my life and I’m not above admitting it. But I will only admit it if you come out with some real evidence. Show me a miracle, something that violates a principles of thermodynamics, and you’ll convert a believer. Demonstrate that the principle of group survival is insufficient for comprehensive moral justification. But until you do that god has as much credibility as string theory and a lot less promise.

        1. Non-Hamster on 19.09.2008 at 20:28 (Reply)


          “Moral standards are not an individual level concept, they are group level. The morals and standards we have don’t come from a ‘higher power’. They all come from the principle of group survival.”

          God is the standard, His law is the ultimate moral code.  Anything not based on that is simply people wanting to justify themselves in some way.

          Many people refuse to believe in God not so much because they cannot find or see “evidence” that satisfies them.  They refuse because to acknowledge Him as God means that they must also acknowledge that they are and have been living in sin and face the choice of change or die in their sins.  Rather than accept this, they refuse God, thus dooming themselves.

          “So by denying the existence of your sky fairy I become a sky fairy? Does that mean I can change the laws of physics and flood planets? This is a nonsense statement. By denying god I must become personally responsible for all of my actions, yes I’ll agree with you there”

          No.  By denying God you place yourself, your own ego and desires in the place reserved for God and thus you worship yourself and your own desires.

          “Christians believe that 2000 years ago a Jewish Zombie absolved them of all sins. …”

          Jesus is not a “Zombie”, He is a fully resurrected and very much alive person.  Though if you decide to wait until he returns to accept that He’s real, you will have waited too long and again doomed yourself.

          “I’ve been wrong about many things in my life and I’m not above admitting it. But I will only admit it if you come out with some real evidence.”

          Take a good look at the complexity of the smallest, most primitive life form and check out the infinitesimal probability of that thing coming about by the essentially accidental presence of all of the right ingredients at the same time and place.

          Then take a look at the mutations and changes required in order for that primitive life form to “evolve” into another, more complex form… and be able to successfully pass those changes to it’s offspring.  BTW, I’m no expert, but wouldn’t such change have to happen to several members of that species at the same time in order for there to be enough of a gene pool to avoid inbreeding?  Which means that the exact same improbable accident has to happen to several individuals at pretty much the same time and within the same geography.

          1. Dobbs_Head on 21.09.2008 at 15:48 (Reply) (Comments won't nest below this level)


            Before continuing, I’d like to thank you for debating me with such a cool head. It is rare to be able to engage somebody about issues like this through the internet without devolving into a flame war. Although I will be attacking your ideas, I do respect you and your right to disagree and thank you for doing the same for me.

            A few things about my actual beliefs. I deny the existence of the supernatural, that includes gods, magic, prophets, etc. I deny the existence of every god of every religion I have heard and studied as they are baseless and without evidence. I don’t deny the possibility of a ‘watchmaker’ god as that would be intellectually dishonest (without physical predictions, it is impossible to prove a negative). To that god I am agnostic.

            “Many people refuse to believe in God not so much because they cannot find or see “evidence” that satisfies them.”

            I am not most people. I disbelieve in gods and the supernatural because there is no evidence for either. I disbelieve in gods and the supernatural because the world is more elegant, beautiful and makes far more sense without them. I don’t need gods to lead a good life or to be responsible.

            My standards of evidence are exact and scientific. If your god can violate the laws of physics, show me some violations of those laws. If your god created a heaven or a hell, show me some evidence (large exothermal eminations, ‘souls’ traveling across dimensional space) for the existence of either. So far I have seen none of that, just this mundane world. No gods, no demons, only man and his stories.

            “They refuse because to acknowledge Him as God means that they must also acknowledge that they are and have been living in sin and face the choice of change or die in their sins.”

            This right here could be construed as a personal attack, claiming that I am a ‘sinner’ (bad person) and that is why I don’t believe in your god. In what way have I ‘sinned’? I vote in the elections, I don’t hurt people emotionally or physically. I help my friends, pay my taxes, am kind to my lover. I hold a steady job which benefits mankind. In all way shapes and forms I am a good person. I’m not claiming to be perfect, but I do claim to actively work to better myself and learn from my mistakes. My only ‘sin’ is to use my reason to determine that there is no supernatural world, that there is only the natural and that your god is not a part of the natural world.

            “BTW, I’m no expert, but wouldn’t such change have to happen to several members of that species at the same time in order for there to be enough of a gene pool to avoid inbreeding?”

            Lucky for you I am in fact an expert on this topic. My field is physical chemistry and I have a lot of background in biology and molecular bio-chemistry (btw, both those fields demand that evolution be true if any of our findings are to make any sense, which also means that all of our findings corroborate evolution). The exact mechanisms that allow dissimilar genomes to combine and alter are complex, meaning years and thousands of dollars in coursework. But I have an example of how two mutated organisms mating: my parents. My father has blue eyes, my mother has brown eyes. That means that my mother has a different set of genes for the proteins for her eyes than my father. Their genes are different and yet here I am. That means that there exist a set of molecular mechanisms that correct for such differences, even if we don’t know exactly what they are. Often, even when the difference in genomes is big enough to make different species we can still have functional offspring. A great example of that would be horses and donkeys. They are different species and yet we still get mules. (note: species is actually and arbitrary line drawn by people, in reality the line between species is really fuzzy)

            I actually agree with this statement %100. My own desires and ego are the center on my world. I do nothing unless I want to and I see myself as a end in and of itself. And yet, even while doing that, I live a good life with good friends. As I’ve said I’m a working, voting citizen. My existence, my very life is direct evidence that it is okay to place your own ego and reason in the place of god. That it works out, in terms of moral choices and lifestyle, to be the same thing except without all those hours wasted in church.

            Allow me to outline your position, see if I understand you completely.

            1) You assert, with no proof, that your god exists, and your god is the god outlined and described in the Christian Bible.

            Can you objectively demonstrate the existence of your god? Can you name any ‘miracles’, with corroborating evidence, that have occurred for which there is no mundane explanation? Can you link your god with any solid activity in the real world?

            2) You assert, with no proof, that no other god exists.

            You don’t believe that Mohamed was a prophet of god who gave new revelations and laws do you? What tells you that Muslims have it wrong and you have it right? How do you no that the Hindu pantheon isn’t in fact correct and your god just a fairy tale? 

            3) You assert, with no proof, that there is an afterlife. You assert, with no proof, that part of this after life is a place of torture while the other is a place of respite where we will go after being judged.

            Have you ever seen hell or met somebody who literally came back from hell? Do you have any evidence that we go anywhere when we die? How do you know that your afterlife is correct? How do you know you won’t be judged by the Muslim code and god to Muslim hell?

            4) You assert, with no proof, that the laws outlined in your version of the bible are a moral code created by god.

            Do you own slaves? Is it moral to own slaves? Is polygamy moral? Accord to our modern society we have decided that it is immoral to own other people and that it is immoral for a man to marry more than one woman. And yet the exact opposite is god’s moral code. Why is it that it is a high crime for gays to have sex, yet a teenager talking back to his father is not big deal. Both are crimes, according to your god, punishable by death. Your god and his moral system make no sense. Your god conflicts with the objective existence of the natural world and his moral code conflicts with the moral code our society follows.

            If I believe, however, that your god is a fairy tale and that all moral codes are created by man the world suddenly makes sense. The laws of physics remain inviolate and moral laws can change with the situation of a society. These are the facts we observe in the real world.

            “By denying God you place yourself, your own ego and desires in the place reserved for God and thus you worship yourself and your own desires.”

            So that is my rebuttal. Please correct me if I got your position and ideas wrong.

          2. Dobbs_Head on 21.09.2008 at 15:58 (Reply) (Comments won't nest below this level)


            My apologies, I failed at editing my post well. You will notice a logical break with the paragraph starting with “I actually agree with this statement %100.”. That was because I failed to move the quotation it was responding too:

            “By denying God you place yourself, your own ego and desires in the place reserved for God and thus you worship yourself and your own desires.”

  3. Tilly on 19.09.2008 at 21:22 (Reply)


    I realize that the atheist has his own choice to make on his beliefs.  However, why would he put his trust in Wikipedia?  That site is open to anyone who wants to put in their own definition, which would then be taken as fact.  Say someone wrote that the moon is a ball of blue cheese floating out in space?  Evidence has proven that belief in God usually gives focus to peoples’ lives.  Accept that He is real and your life is not of any less quality.  Deny Him and if proven wrong…..The rest of eternity is spent where it is not nice.

    Tillys last blog post..Shoes

    1. Dobbs_Head on 21.09.2008 at 15:54 (Reply)


      \”However, why would he put his trust in Wikipedia?\”

      I think you misread the comment thread. The OP quoted wikipedia first, I simply used the OPs quotations.

      \”Evidence has proven that belief in God usually gives focus to peoples’ lives.\”

      This may be true, but nationalism, science, family, and money also all \’give focus\’ to peoples\’ lives. Just because something gives focus to peoples\’ doesn\’t mean it isn\’t objectively false.

      \”Deny Him and if proven wrong…..The rest of eternity is spent where it is not nice.\”

      Please see the other thread for a demonstration of why this is a nonsense statement.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Proudly powered by WordPress. Theme developed with WordPress Theme Generator.
Copyright © I Am Not A Hamster. All rights reserved.