josephrjustice | Recent Entries

This is my answer to the OKC question "Would you like to go on a five night spiritual retreat?" The possible answers are: (1) Yes; (2) No.

Ummm. I don't consider myself at this time to be a very spiritual person. I'm not sure I would get much value from, or enjoy, a five night spiritual retreat (or likely any sort of spiritual retreat, at least based on what springs immediately to mind when I think of the concept of "spiritual retreat").

I'll grant that my belief concerning this is quite possibly based on ignorance, and that it's certainly possible the details of some specific instance of a spiritual retreat would be such that I'd be more willing to consider going to it if I were to learn of and agree with them. And, of course, if a person who was important enough to me wanted to go to something like this badly enough, and wanted me to go with them, I could probably be eventually convinced to go if only for their sake, to show support for them, etc, even if I didn't expect to get much value from it myself. (That's not to say that, if I went to such a thing, I would unquestioningly accept and agree with everything that was presented at such an event. I think it would be boorish to aggressively pooh-pooh what went on at such an event, because doing something like that would be worse for the relationship than simply refusing to go in the first place. But on the other hand, if they said or did something at the event that I disagreed with, while I might not speak up and say "I think that's wrong", neither would I lie and say I agreed with it if asked if I in fact did not agree with it.)\

Anyway. Even with those caveats having been made, I think the more honest answer for me to this question is that No, I would not like to go on a five night spiritual retreat. And, I'm going to say that only No is an acceptable answer to me by others to this question, but that it is only a little important to me (given the caveats I have raised above -- I'm not sure I feel that this is even somewhat important to me).

This is my answer to the OKC question "Would you sabotage contraceptives to have kids even though your mate doesn't want kids?" The possible answers are: (1) Yes; (2) No; (3) I'm Not Sure.

Having kids is such a ... fundamentally important and life-altering decision, and action, even (or *especially*) when no specific decision has been made to have children (e.g. an unplanned pregnancy), that I find the decision even to *attempt* to secretly force someone else to have kids when they've actively decided that, for whatever reason, they do not want them to, in *general*, be simply horrific to me. I suppose I could conceive of some truly exceptional circumstances where it'd be understandable at least (for instance, a woman whose mate was terminally ill and soon to die wanting to become pregnant by their mate so as to have some little piece of them remaining and present in the woman's life, even though the mate feels this would place an undue burden or hardship on the woman and so does not want to impregnate her), but outside of something really unusual and extraordinary like that I can't think of a situation where I'd think that trying to force someone to have kids by sabotaging their contraception was in any way acceptable.

Moreover, I've known women for whom pregnancy was not just undesired by them, but would (due to their particular health circumstances) be an active threat to their life. In that sort of situation, not only are you trying to make them do something which they've already decided they are not willing to do, but you're trying to risk their own life to do something they don't themselves want and further risking their life without their prior knowledge or consent. I have to think doing that is even more unacceptable than just sabotaging the contraception of someone who would not be put at unusual or special risk by pregnancy.

If you want kids but your mate does not, talk to them. Find out why they don't want kids. Maybe their decision is based on a false impression or faulty information, and once the mistake is corrected they'll naturally change their mind. Maybe you can persuade them to change their mind. Maybe there's an acceptable compromise the two of you can come to (be it adoption, or fostering children, or whatever). Or, maybe this will turn out to be a case where you just have to accept you cannot have kids *with them*, and instead you must find someone else who is willing to have kids to have a relationship with.

So... My answer to this question (even given the theoretical exceptional circumstance I suggested above) is that No, I would not sabotage contraceptives to have kids even though my mate doesn't want kids. And, I'm going to say that only No is an acceptable answer to me by others to this question, and that it is ... I am going to say a mandatory question to me, because I think it is such a fundamental thing.

This is my answer to the OKC question "Which is the day before the day after yesterday?" The possible answers are: (1) Yesterday; (2) Today; (3) Tomorrow.

I think the easiest way to figure this out is to put parentheses in, as if it were some sort of mathematical equation, and then solve from the innermost set out. So, we have:

(the day before (the day after (yesterday))) -- yesterday is a constant, so we can remove the parentheses around it, so now we have:

(the day before (the day after yesterday)) -- the day after yesterday is today, so we can substitute that, and then we have:

(the day before (today)) -- but today is again a constant so we can remove the parentheses around it, and now we have:

(the day before today) -- the day before today is yesterday, so we substitute that, and so we have:

(yesterday) -- and we are done.

So, my answer to this question is Yesterday. And, I'm going to say that only Yesterday is an acceptable answer to me by others for this question, and that it is ... I'll say somewhat important to me. (Again, I suppose that might be too high and that it is only a little important, but I'll put somewhat for now.)

PS: Boy, it'd be embarrassing if I screwed this one up too, esp. after writing all of that... *cough*

PPS: Why do I have Paul McCartney singing in my head right about now?

This is my answer to the OKC question "STALE is to STEAL as 89475 is to..." The possible answers are: (1) 89457; (2) 98547; (3) 89754; (4) 89547.

To me, this question is about the relative ordering and reordering of the letters in STALE vs STEAL, and then figuring out the analogous reordering for 89475. E.g. S began in position 1, and ended up still in position 1, while A started in position 3 but ended up moved to position 4, etc.

Pictorially, we could look at it in the following way (it lines up better with a monospace font):

STALE -} STEAL
12345 -} 12534

Then, we just do the same sort of thing for the sequence of #s 89475:

12345 -} 12534
89475 -} 89547

So, assuming my beliefs about the question are right, the correct answer to the question is 89547, and that's what I'll say. And, I am going to say that only 89547 is an acceptable answer to me by others for this question, and that it is ... I'll say somewhat important to me. (I suppose that might be too high, that it is only a little important, but I'll put somewhat for now.)

PS: Boy, it'd be embarrassing if I screwed this one up, esp. after writing all of that... *cough*

This is my answer to the OKC question "Are you looking for a partner to have children with?" The possible answers are: (1) Yes; (2) No.

At the time I write this, I am 48 years old. That would make me 66 or 67 if I impregnated a woman today, by the time the resulting child was of the usual age to graduate high school. That seems ... old, to me.

Further, for various and sundry reasons which I'm going to decline to go into in detail in this public response, I don't think I have what it takes to raise a child properly. I don't have what I see as the necessary financial and other tangible resources one ought to have. I don't think I have the knowledge, the mental attitude, the perseverance perhaps, to bring a child up right. I think one should only have a child if one is able to do it at least acceptably well, and I don't think I do. I wouldn't want to be responsible for screwing up a kid.

Finally... Having a child means you have (or at least *should* have) a drastic change in your lifestyle and your orientation towards life. There's this new little being, and they're dependent on you for their existence, for their proper thriving and growing, and if you're going to be any sort of good person at all you need to do what you can to take care of them, to help them thrive and properly grow, to do your best to help them achieve being the best they are capable of, and to do this might mean giving up a lot of other things in favor of them. And, I just don't know that I'm willing, or even able, to do that, to make that change in my lifestyle, to make that change in my orientation towards life. And, if I'm not willing or not able to make that change, then I probably should not be having a kid.

So, my answer is No, I am not looking for a partner to have children with. And, I am going to say that only No is an acceptable answer to me by others to this question, and that it is somewhat important to me. (I suppose that things could change in my circumstances and my beliefs concerning myself and what I am willing and capable of doing, or that I could possibly be convinced by the right person to have children with them, so I won't say this is very important. However, I don't think it is likely such a change would happen in reality.)

This is my answer to the OKC question "Do you think it is acceptable to raise children in a nudist household?" The possible answers are: (1) Yes; (2) No; (3) I'm not sure.

Insofar as I understand the practice of nudism to *not* be all about "Sex Sex Sex, Sex ALL The Time, SEEEEXXX!!!", but rather to be more about the acceptance of one's body as natural and healthy, to be about a lack of artificial shame or modesty about one's body but rather "this is what it is, and it's no big deal", to be about comfort and positive sensation and happiness as much as possible... I don't see any reason why it would be unacceptable to raise children in a nudist household. It's a lifestyle, and not even all that exotic a one. (After all, I've never heard of someone being born already clothed -- have you?)

Ummm. I *will* say that, if a child chooses (for whatever reason) to *not* be a nudist within the household, that that choice by them should be honored and respected and not derided or ridiculed. Nudism isn't for everyone, even those who do know the reality about it and not just misconceptions and ignorance about it.

Now, I *do* think that, given majority mainstream culture and attitudes, and frankly ignorance and fear of the different or unknown, or that which appears to threaten one's beliefs... Children in a nudist household need to be taught that their lifestyle and practices are not understood by many, and are even disliked or viewed with prejudice by a large number of people. And that because of this, while they should not feel shame over their lifestyle, they should be discreet about it and about who they share it with. They should not feel like they must lie about it (unless they choose to do so) if the question or topic of nudism just happens to come up naturally, but they should probably not either broadcast it widely from the rooftops to all who are there to hear about it, lest they suffer the consequences of prejudice against it by those who are ignorant and/or fearful and/or threatened.

So, my answer to this question is Yes, it is acceptable to raise children in a nudist household.

However, given the reality of prejudice by many in our culture against nudism or against anything that is viewed (fairly or not) to be even the least little bit sex-related, I can see that even the most open-minded of people, people who otherwise have no problem with the idea of or practice of nudism (or who perhaps have even practiced it themselves), might see it as ... unwise to raise children (who are by their very nature more vulnerable than adults to issues of prejudice, discrimination, bullying, etc) in a nudist household. Therefore, on those grounds I'm going to say that any of the available answers by others is acceptable to me.

Oh. While I'm thinking of it, on a related note I'll mention that, especially when I was younger I was pretty body-shy, largely because I did not have what I viewed to be an attractive body. (I was not particularly fit or athletic, but was at least somewhat overweight, shy, etc.) I was uncomfortable with the public group showers in gym class in high school, etc. I don't know if being raised in a nudist household would have helped with that at the time or not. I think I'm somewhat less body-shy now, at least in private, but that's certainly not because I've become any more fit or athletic in my body -- rather, I guess as I've aged I've become ... not so much more "happy" with my body, or even "accepting" of it, but perhaps rather "resigned" to it. I guess I have less emotional energy to spare for that topic. Something like that, anyway.

This is my answer to the OKC question "Should sex education be taught in schools?" The possible answers are: (1) Yes; (2) No; (3) I don't know.

I absolutely do think sex education should be taught in schools. Moreover, I think the sex education that should be taught should be the best and most effective information we have in terms of reducing and mitigating the undesirable or harmful consequences of sex (e.g. transmission of STDs, unintended pregnancies, non-consensual activities, practices which if done (or done incorrectly or unsafely) can cause lasting bodily harm or worse, etc) and in terms of increasing and enhancing the desirable and beneficial consequences of sex (psychological and emotional aspects of sex, effect on interpersonal relationships, physical pleasure and other physical benefits, reduction of shame/guilt/fear related to sex, etc).

Even more specifically, concerning "abstinence only"-type sex education as found in the USA... Insofar as it is found to be ineffective or even harmful or detrimental in terms of achieving the goals of sex education in general (or even its own stated goals), which I believe reliable scientific studies have found to indeed be the case, "abstinence only"-type sex education should *not* be taught in schools, but instead the best and most effective information available concerning sex should be taught.

This does not mean I think boys and girls in the USA should be taken to the gym and stripped down and paired up (as appropriate) on top of exercise mats and told to start going at it. Even if I thought that was the most effective means of sex education available (which I don't), it would not be acceptable to do in this country (or really anywhere); it violates the existing cultural norms too greatly, people would rise up en masse in protest. But, I *do* think people should be taught to be sex-positive and not sex-negative. I think people should be taught to value themselves and their bodies and their minds/spirits and the happiness and pleasure they can both receive and give from properly and safe(r)ly performed sexual activities, both activities performed alone and those performed with others. I think people should be taught how to do something we know they're going to do anyway (prohibition never seems to work, does it?) in the best and safest for them way we know how to teach.

There are people who believe in the tenets of evolution, and that sex ultimately is a gametes way of reproducing itself and eventually forming new little baby gametes. There are people who believe in the teachings of religions such as Christianity or other religions (both Judeo-Christian / "People of the Book" and otherwise), who believe whatever that religion says about sex -- in the case of Christianity, this would be that God created Man from whole cloth in God's own image, and then created Woman from Man's rib to be a partner, and then told them to go at it, spring forth and multiply, and cover the Earth with new baby men and women. There are people who believe in both, and I guess there might or must be a few people who believe in neither. But, except perhaps for that last group of people, no matter what you believe in sex is something that's pretty important and indeed fundamental to what you believe in.

If it's so important and indeed fundamental to you and your beliefs... Shouldn't you be taught, and taught as properly and correctly as is possible to achieve, about it?

So, my answer to this question is Yes, sex education should be taught in schools. And I'm going to say Yes is the only answer by others acceptable to me (I am sympathetic to the people who say I don't know, whether it be because they are personally conflicted over the idea or because they don't wish to upset or anger certain vocal self-appointed moral authorities, but I think those people are wrong in this), and that this is very important to me.

This is my answer to the OKC question "Do you think safe sex should be taught in schools?" The possible answers are: (1) Yes; (2) No.

I absolutely do think safe(r) sex practices should be taught in schools. (I write "safe(r)" because such practices do not absolutely eliminate the risk of catching or transmitting a STD, or of having a pregnancy resulting from intercourse, but merely help to reduce or minimize the chance.)

We know from history that people in general, especially young people, are going to have (or at least attempt to have) sex. Nothing is going to change that; it's built into their very bodies. Even if we locked them all into chastity devices until age 80 or so, some enterprising person is going to try to find some way to have sex with another willing person.

And, as far as I know, "abstinence only"-type sex education, at least in the USA, has not been shown to be effective in terms of reducing diseases, reducing unintended pregnancies, etc. If anything, I have the distinct impression that not only is it actually ineffective, but it might even have been shown to be harmful in terms of achieving those goals!

Given the natural tendencies of people (and especially young people) concerning sex... I have to think that knowledge, not ignorance, concerning sex, the risks (and benefits!) of sex, the possible consequences of sex and how to reduce or mitigate the undesirable consequences, etc is the best way to go. Yes, this might go against the teachings or preferences of some self-selected moral authorities, or the desires of some people who prefer ignorance to knowledge for themselves and those they are in authority over, but so what? If the best available evidence shows that for people and society in general the best thing to do, the thing which most increases happiness and well-being and safety, the thing which most promotes the general welfare, is to teach safe(r) sex in schools... Then shouldn't we do that? Don't we owe it to our children (individually and collectively) to do that, to give them the (as far as we know) best and most effective education we have available on this topic?

So my answer to this question is Yes, I do think safe sex should be taught in schools. And, I'm going to say that Yes is the only answer by others acceptable to me, and that this is very important to me.

This is my answer to the OKC question "You're at the grocery store and you've got a lot of items. There is only one cashier and a couple of people in line behind you. Do you bag your own stuff?" The possible answers are: (1) Always; (2) Sometimes. When I'm in a hurry; (3) Rarely; (4) Never. That's their job!

Ummm. Most of the grocery stores I go to either (a) would have (or call up) someone to be a dedicated bagger in that sort of situation, and/or (b) would be set up such that it wasn't really *feasible* for me to do my own bagging -- instead, there'd be a path from a conveyor belt over top of a bar code scanner into a plastic bag held open inside of a well in front of the cashier. And, of course, even if it *was* feasible for me to bag, I wouldn't necessarily think of it; if I bagged or didn't bag, it wouldn't be so much because I was or wasn't in a hurry as it would be that I realized "Gee, it'd be a good idea if..." You know? More just if I was being clueful or not. But, if I did think of it and it was feasible and useful for me to do so, then sure, I'd bag my own stuff. Why not?

However. What I think is more interesting, but isn't addressed by *this* question (maybe there's another one where it is), is whether in this situation whether I'd let the people in line ahead of me assuming the cashier hadn't already started doing my transaction. Well... At least in the situation where the people behind me had only a few items or otherwise had much less stuff to purchase than I did, yes I would usually if not always let them go ahead of me in line. I figure in this case I wouldn't wait all that much longer before I could leave (assuming my time in line was dominated by the time it took to ring up all my own items rather than the time it took to ring up the other person's / people's) but they could be done quickly (because they wouldn't have to wait for me before they could do their transaction), while if I *didn't* let them go ahead of me I wouldn't save all that much time for myself (since I'd still have to take the time it took to ring up all my stuff) but *they* would have to wait a lot longer before they could leave (because their transaction would still be quick, but they'd have to wait for my purchase to be completed first before they could even begin). So, me letting them ahead of me in line costs me not that much, while it minimizes the overall time everyone together has to wait. And, I think that's more efficient and in some ways fairer for everyone involved. (There might be special situations where I wouldn't do this, but I think those would be the exception and not the rule.)

Note: I'd like to hope that others would do the same for me, if they were ahead of me in line and had a lot of stuff while I only had a few items. However, I wouldn't *assume* that to be the case, or expect them to do it or be particularly upset if they didn't. If they let me ahead of them, cool, but if they didn't I'd just have to wait. Oh well, so be it.

Anyway. Based on this, I'm going to say Always because I think that's the closest answer to my position concerning this question. But, I'm going to say that any of the answers by others to this question would be acceptable to me.

This is my answer to the OKC question "If you had to choose between spending a weekend hiking and camping or going to Broadway shows with the same friends, which would you choose?" The possible answers are: (1) Camping; (2) Broadway; (3) I would be happy with either (4) I would rather stay home.

I don't tend to "go out and do things" a lot, I *think* in large part because I don't have someone to do things with. (Perhaps I'm mistaken about myself, and if I had someone to do things with or even someone who actively desired to do things, I still would not do so / desire to do so.) I guess I see going to, I don't know, a movie or a music performance or the like by myself to be lonely, and kind of sad. If I'm going to be alone, I might as well do that at home where I have my creature comforts.

That having been said... Given the choices as presented, I would much rather do the Broadway shows, I think. I'm more of an indoors, urbanized, creature comforts kind of guy, I think. Going out for an afternoon walk or hike, or maybe even a day trip, might be all right, but camping out for an overnighter or weekend... If I found I wasn't having a good time, what else would there be to do? Not much, I don't think, other than just go home. While, I think I would enjoy the Broadway shows, but even if I found I wasn't enjoying them there's all sorts of other things I could do instead; there's lots of alternatives and choices in the city. (Besides, in the outdoors, where would the electric and Internet outlets be for me to plug in my computer? *ducks*)

So, my answer for this is (2) Broadway. And, I'm going to say that acceptable answers by others to this question for me would be Broadway, "happy with either", or "rather stay home", and that this is ... somewhat important to me.

This is my answer to the OKC question "Suppose that you found out that your match let his or her dog sleep on his or her bed. What would your reaction be?" The possible answers are: (1) Uggh! He/she is history!; (2) Okay. But not when I'm sleeping in the bed.; (3) Cute! But not while we're having sex, ok?; (4) Kinky!!! What does the dog do?

I don't have a dog myself (I had one once as a kid, but I don't recall it ever sleeping on my bed), so I don't have a lot of experience with this. That being said, I think I would be okay with the dog sleeping on the bed, especially if it was just sleeping curled up at the bottom of the mattress or something like that. I'll admit, I might be a little ... less enthused about the idea, if it were a large dog that insisted on burrowing under the covers and getting in between us in bed.

As for the dog being in the room while we were having sex -- I suppose my main concern about that would be if the dog didn't know me well and thought I was threatening or attacking its mistress, and decided to attack me in an attempt to defend its mistress. That would certainly put a damper on the ongoing activities!

I've said that any of the provided answers are acceptable answers by others to this question for me.

This is my answer to the OKC question "Are you either vegetarian or vegan?" The possible answers are: (1) Yes; (2) No.

No, I am neither vegetarian nor vegan.

I respect that many people are one or the other of these, whether it be for practical reasons, ethical reasons, a combination of the two, or something else altogether. However, I myself enjoy eating meat (and related foodstuff types, such as fowl, fish and seafood, or perhaps most importantly of all BACON!!!) to willingly give it up altogether. Now, that's not to say I'm a carnivore either; I certainly eat grains, fruits and vegetables, dairy, etc as well. I'm more of an omnivore, at least in the sense of what food groups I consume from (tho not in terms of what specific foods I eat; there's certainly stuff I avoid or don't like).

I do at times eat meals which I think most would consider vegetarian in nature. For instance, sometimes when I get Chinese I have stir-fried tofu with mixed vegetables. Or, if I have spaghetti with a non-meat tomato sauce, well, that's vegetarian too I think. (Tho, I do like my spaghetti cheese, and I realize this might make it non-vegetarian for some.)

If I were to see or have a relationship with someone who was a vegetarian or vegan, while I probably would *not* become one too (and would probably not like being constantly berated about how I should become one), I recognize that if only for practical reasons, if not reasons of politeness, I likely would have to change my eating habits somewhat for meals I had with them. For instance, if they were cooking a meal "for us", I think it'd be tacky to ask them to make one meal for me containing foods they wouldn't eat while also making an entirely different meal for themselves containing foods they would be willing to eat. If I were cooking (tho I admit I'm not much for cooking), I'd have to cook things acceptable to both of us, and only cook anything additional for myself which they would not eat on the side, separate from the main meal. When going out or getting take-out, we'd have to select places which had meals we both would like, and while I likely wouldn't eat only vegetarian or vegan at such times, at least sometimes I might if only just because. I wouldn't think those sorts of things were a great or unreasonable sacrifice, but rather a reasonable compromise to help get along and show respect for their preferences and beliefs.

I've said that both Yes and No are acceptable answers by others to this question for me.

This is my answer to the OKC question "Have you ever played Dungeons and Dragons?" The possible answers are: (1) Yes; (2) No.

Yes, I have played Dungeons and Dragons. I've also played other table-top, pencil and paper RPGs (Role Playing Games). I started sometime in high school I guess, and pretty much stopped some time in my 20s, in part because of finding other interests, and in part because of a lack of people to play with. When I started playing, the first edition original Dungeons and Dragons books (authored by Gygax) were out, as was their precursor "Chainmail". I mostly played using the original Advanced Dungeons and Dragons rules, however.

These days, while I do not play D&D per se, I *do* play something I think is spiritually akin to it known as a MUD (Multi-User Dungeon -- see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MUD for more information). The MUD I play on these days is known as RetroMUD (see http://www.retromud.org/main.html for more information).

But... Even though I have not referred to them in years, I still have my old set of AD&D manuals, and my character sheets, and my set of 4 and 8 and 12 and 20-sided dice. For whatever that is worth.

Oh, and I've said that both Yes and No are acceptable answers by others to this question for me.

This is my answer to the OKC question "Is astrological sign at all important in a match?" The possible answers are: (1) Yes; (2) No.

Ummm. At first immediate glance, I was going to write "No" and let that be the end of it. And, it's still true that I don't personally believe in the real-world significance or meaningfulness of astrology or astrological signs, but... On second thought, I can see that things are a little more nuanced than that.

Allow me to try to explain. Now, I myself was born in late April of 1965. That makes me a "Taurus", astrologically speaking, as I understand it. Now, I know that people that are "born under the sign of Taurus" are supposed to have characteristics X, Y, and Z. (I don't consciously know / recall what these characteristics are, or know that they're generally well agreed upon as opposed to "Authority A says that Tauruses are supposed to be X, Y, and Z, but Authority B instead says they are M, N, and O, and Authority C says they're X and Y, and N and O, but are not at all Z or M. Wow!", so I use generic placeholder labels instead.) Since to the best of my knowledge I have no idea what these characteristics are, I have no idea if I actually have them or not, and if I do have them I suspect it's entirely a coincidence, or at most for a reason completely unrelated to any alleged astrological influence the time and/or place of my birth might have upon me.

However... I could see that someone else, a potential match, who *did* sincerely believe in astrology and who knew that I was a Taurus (or whatever else I am, in an astrological sense) might perceive whatever I do and/or say in the light of that knowledge, emphasizing some things, de-emphasizing or even disregarding others, and otherwise generally using their beliefs about how I should be based on their beliefs about astrology and its influence to color and alter their view of me.

Even more significantly, I could see that same someone else viewing how they are in real life, and saying to themself "Well, I am a Cancer (or a Capricorn, or a Gemini, or whatever), and Cancers act in such and such a fashion and have personality traits which are such and such, so I obviously should be acting more in that fashion and have those personality traits", and then alter themselves and how they behave and act in that light of how they believe they *should* be like to ultimately reinforce and confirm how they believe they should be.

I guess in this sense they would be undergoing and/or experiencing a sort of placebo effect, except that instead of taking a sugar pill and reacting to it as if it had some sort of active ingredient, instead they are using the claims of what and how they (or I) should be according to the tenets of whatever astrological belief they have and reacting and modifying themselves (or their perception of me) as if those claims were true, whether or not they would be true if they were not in fact aware of and a believer in the effects of astrological influences. And, while I might not believe in astrology, I *do* believe in placebo effects, as far as I know those are a real thing.

So... I'm still going to say "No", I do not think astrological signs are at all important in a match, based upon the fact that I do not personally believe in astrology or in the claims it makes about how people behave and are. I do not think there is any scientific significance to astrology. However, I do respect that there could be placebo effects within other people based on those other people's view of the meaning and importance of astrology within the real world, and I recognize that if these effects occur they would be real and need to be accounted for, even tho the actual mechanism which caused them was not astrology itself but the other person's beliefs concerning astrology.

I'm also going to say that acceptable answers for me to this question are "No" only, and that this question is "somewhat important" to me. This would not be a deal-breaker by any means, but I guess it would have some significance to me even if it could be overcome by other factors. And, if two otherwise equally interesting and satisfactory people were available to me who differed from each other only by their beliefs in astrology and the importance of astrological signs, I suspect I would be more likely to prefer the non-believer over the believer.

This is my answer to the OKC question "Do you believe contraception is morally wrong?" The possible answers are: (1) Yes; (2) No.

In short, my answer to this is "No". However, not only do I not believe that contraception is morally wrong, but indeed I believe that contraception is morally (or perhaps rather ethically) right.

We know from knowledge of how humans behave in the real world that, given the opportunity, people are going to have sexual activity with one another. This includes even sexual activity that can result in pregnancy, and more specifically pregnancy that is unplanned and/or unwanted at the time of the activity. (Some people may limit themselves to activities that cannot result in pregnancy, but I believe most will not so limit themselves.) It is going to happen regardless of the pronouncements or demands of moral authorities or the government. It is going to happen regardless of whether people are aware (or worse yet *not* aware) of the risks they are running, including the risk of causing a pregnancy, by engaging in sexual activity and more specifically in activity that can result in pregnancy. It is going to happen both for people who are willing and able to ideally and properly handle the consequences and result of any pregnancy which might occur as a result of their sexual activity, and also for people who are not willing, or are not able, to ideally and properly handle the consequences and result of any pregnancy which might occur as a result of their sexual activity. It is going to happen even for people who honestly believe they would "never" do something that would risk causing a pregnancy, no sirree, not them, they know better! (Not all such people, but at least some, some of the time for reasons under their control but also some of the time for reasons *not* under their control.)

And, accordingly, there will be people who end up causing and/or undergoing a pregnancy, and more specifically an unplanned and/or unwanted pregnancy, as a result of the sexual activity they had engaged in at some point in time.

I will assert that it is right and a desirable thing for people to seek to avoid causing unplanned and/or unwanted pregnancies, insofar as they are able to do so. Unplanned and/or unwanted pregnancies force people to either (1) have to undergo an abortion (which, even if one believes in the right of a person to have an abortion, is almost certainly not going to be something they actively desire to do -- I can't imagine many (or really any) people saying to themselves "Gee, I'd really like to have the experience of aborting a pregnancy... Let's go get preggers!"), or else (2) undergo a pregnancy (which is not a risk-free experience by any means even for the most physically capable of child-bearing woman) for a child which, at least at the time of conception, is not wanted or desired (I freely concede that this attitude may change during the course of the pregnancy), and which the biological parents may not be capable of properly supporting and nurturing at that time (or perhaps even ever) given their financial circumstances, maturity as an adult, etc, and which will usually drastically and irreversibly alter the life of the birth parents from that time forward and quite possibly alter it in ways which the birth parents would find to be undesirable, and which even in some circumstances might need to be given up by the birth parents for adoption and/or given up to be a ward of the state. I certainly won't claim that any or all of the things in case (2) always exist or occur for every instance of an unplanned and/or unwanted pregnancy, but I think that if we view the world as it exists around us we'll see that many or even all of these things exist in many unplanned and/or unwanted pregnancies, and especially for those people least capable of dealing with the normal end result of a pregnancy, e.g. the birth of a newborn child.

(I'm not saying here that I think adoption is an undesirable thing. I do not think that at all. But, isn't it better to have an adoption under circumstances where someone is proactively and intentionally seeking to provide a person who desires a child to nurture and raise with a child for that person to raise, instead of an adoption where someone is having a child which they are unable or unwilling to keep, and they're seeking a person, *any* person, who is willing to take this child off their hands and give it a home, much as they would seek to find a home for an puppy or kitten they are unwilling or unable to keep? I have to think the former set of circumstances is a far preferable set to be living in.)

So... If people are going to engage in sexual activity, even sexual activity that runs the risk of pregnancy, such that inevitably at least some of these people *will* end up causing and/or undergoing a pregnancy and more specifically an unplanned and/or unwanted pregnancy... And if we accept the assertion that it is right and a desirable thing for people to seek to avoid causing unplanned and/or unwanted pregnancies, insofar as they are able to do so.... Then it seems to me that things which help people avoid the creation of unplanned and/or unwanted pregnancies as a result of the sexual activity we fully expect them to engage in are right and a desirable thing to have and/or to encourage, in general.

And these things are, broadly, known as "contraception".

[The following paragraphs have been re-composed following my reading of the information at http://ec.princeton.edu/index.html -- "The Emergency Contraception Website" and other reading.] I will grant that some things classed as contraception, specifically the things known as "emergency contraception" such as the "morning after pill", etc, might be viewed by some people as being akin to abortion, in that they prevent a fertilized egg from being implanted within the uterus or caused an fertilized and implanted egg to be expelled from the uterus. However, from what I read at the website I referred to above, and more specifically at the page http://ec.princeton.edu/questions/ecwork.html ("How Emergency Contraception Works"), the various pill forms of emergency contraception (at least those legally available in most countries) appear to work primarily by preventing the ovulation of eggs while viable sperm is present subsequent to an act of unprotected sex, and possibly secondarily by affecting in some way the ability of sperm to fertilize eggs. They either do not appear to (or at the very least have not been shown to) adversely affect the implantation of a successfully fertilized egg within the womb. (The egg might fail to implant for reasons other than the use of an emergency contraception pill, of course.) Further, they do not appear to cause a fertilized and implanted egg to be expelled from the uterus. So, apparently that belief I suggested some people might have would be wrong (or at least not supported by available evidence).

There is a claim that use of a "Copper-T IUD" (by its insertion subsequent to having unprotected sex) as emergency contraception might have some of its effectiveness as an emergency contraceptive due to adversely affecting the implantation of a successfully fertilized egg within the uterus. However, it's not stated that this is known to be the case, but rather raised as a possible means of action in this particular set of circumstances.

And, most or all of the other things grouped under the term "contraception", be they barriers to sperm such as condoms or diaphragms, or things that poison sperm and/or eggs to prevent successful fertilization such as spermicides or the IUD, or hormonal means of birth control such as "the pill", are (as far as I know anyway) generally accepted as not affecting successfully fertilized eggs -- instead, they prevent eggs from becoming successfully fertilized in the first place. (It does appear from reading, for instance at http://goaskalice.columbia.edu/how-do-birth-control-pills-work , that one of the ways taking the pill or I suppose other hormonal methods may work to prevent pregnancy is by adversely affecting the ability of a successfully fertilized egg to become implanted within the uterus. However, I don't know that it's broadly accepted that this means the pill should not be considered to be a means of contraception, or that taking the pill is akin to using a drug such as RU-486 which causes a successfully fertilized and implanted egg to be expelled from the uterus and which is accepted to be a form of abortion.)

But... Even if you exclude every and any thing that has an adverse effect on a successfully fertilized egg from being considered to be "contraception", that still leaves a vast variety of things which simply prevent eggs from being fertilized at all, by blocking sperm, or blocking eggs, or affecting the sperm's ability to fertilize the egg. And, if you simply prevent an egg from being fertilized at all, then by definition you have prevented a pregnancy (since as far as I know it's not possible to be pregnant from an unfertilized egg). And, since this prevention would be due to a person's active use of a means of contraception, then presumably the pregnancy its use prevented was undesired and/or unwanted in the first place. (Since, after all, if the person had wanted or desired a pregnancy, why would they be using contraception in the first place?) And, since we've already asserted that it is right and a desirable thing for people to seek to avoid causing unplanned and/or unwanted pregnancies, insofar as they are able to do so, then to me it follows that those things (in this case contraception) people use to avoid causing unplanned and/or unwanted pregnancies must be right and desirable things as well.

And if contraception and its use is a right and desirable thing, then it seems to me it must be morally and/or ethically right.

(If you're willing to consider things which adversely affect a successfully fertilized egg from successfully implanting in the uterus as being "contraception" rather than as something else, then that just broadens your available options for contraception by your standards, values, and beliefs. I won't claim any given person should or should not think this -- I feel it depends on the beliefs of the individual, where they feel the essence of what it means to be human begins at, etc. That's a very sensitive and personal issue, but one that can be disregarded for the purpose of this question simply by suitably constraining the definition of contraceptive as appropriate.)

Hopefully I haven't committed a serious lapse in logic or argument in the above. If I have, I apologize for doing so -- it wasn't intentional.

Oh, and before I forget... I've decided that an acceptable answer to this question for me is "No", and that this question is "very important" to me. (Perhaps at some point I'll decide it's mandatory, but for now I'll stick with "very important".)

This is my answer to the OKC question "Which best describes your political beliefs?" The possible answers are: (1) Liberal / Left-wing; (2) Centrist; (3) Conservative / Right-wing; (4) Other.

Now... In many ways, this question is relatively meaningless. After all, how can one know if they are a liberal, or a centrist, or a conservative, or something else, without first defining what it means to *be* one of those things? Also, one person's liberal might be another person's centrist, and so on. And, one might be "liberal" in one area, while being "centrist" or even "conservative" in a different area. So... *shrug*

Still, it's a question on OKC, so I guess it ought to be answered. I suppose, insofar as I self-identify as anything, I self-identify with whatever I think of as the amorphous concept known as "liberal". Some things that means in specific:

Taxes and spending: I generally believe in the idea of progressive taxation. I generally believe in the idea of a "social safety net". I believe in the idea of "noblesse oblige", for some definition of that term, and that it applies (or at least *should* apply) here somehow.

Science and education: For biology, I believe in the theory of evolution, and that it should be taught in schools. I don't think the concept of creationism should be taught, or at least not as something scientific in nature (there might be a place for it elsewhere in the curriculum). I believe in the idea of global warming and that mankind is the cause or at least a serious factor of its occurrence, and that we should seek to reverse and/or mitigate its effects. I believe it's important to preserve bio-diversity (if only on the practical grounds that one never knows where the next miracle drug might come from). I believe it's important to make strong efforts to preserve the environment.

Sexuality and gender-related matters: I believe that any two people should have the right to marry in the eyes of the state (but *not* necessarily in the eyes of any or every given religion) and receive whatever rights and benefits from the state apply to that marriage. (I'll go further and say that groupings of more than two people should also be allowed to marry in the eyes of the state, tho how that would work in practice and what would occur by it obviously needs to be worked out.) I believe efforts to eliminate discrimination based on gender and gender identity, sexual preference, etc should be made. I believe society should be generally sex-positive in nature. I believe sex education should be based on what works in real life to keep people happy and safe, reduce or eliminate unwanted pregnancies, etc and not be limited merely and only to those things a few vocal authorities deem as appropriate regardless of their actual effectiveness in the real world (e.g. abstinence-only). I believe effective temporary contraception for both women and men should be broadly available and inexpensive or free. (I'd even be willing to go so far as to suggest that perhaps temporary contraception should be mandatory, or at least heavily encouraged as a matter of public policy with subsidies and financial benefits, for those currently without the means to support and raise a child on their own, such as underage children, most young adults, and the poor. However, that would open a large can of worms, so...) Finally, I believe the right of a woman to seek an abortion as a last resort if she deems it necessary to do so should be defended and preserved, tho efforts to make abortion as unnecessary and rare as possible (e.g. improved sex education, improved access to contraception, improved support for adoption for women willing to carry their pregnancy to term, etc) should be made as much as are reasonably possible.

Gun control: I believe that people should have the right to purchase and use firearms and other ordnance for recreational use (e.g. hunting, use at gun ranges, etc) and self-defense. However, I don't think that right should be unlimited or unfettered; people wishing to possess firearms should be required to demonstrate they have the knowledge and ability to keep and use them properly and safely, and probably should be required to re-demonstrate this knowledge and ability from time to time. I also think this right is somewhat location-dependent; what is reasonable and proper for the vast open spaces of Montana and the Dakotas might not be equally reasonable and proper in the constrained and densely populated urban canyons of lower Manhattan, NYC (for instance). Finally, for those who see the right to bear arms as a final line of defense against the tyranny of government... I'm not going to claim they are wrong in thinking this, but unless they are prepared to and capable of maintaining tanks, artillery, and attack aircraft, well, they're just outgunned. (Tho, I suppose there's always unconventional / guerrilla warfare one could attempt...)

Energy policy: I believe that efforts should be made to encourage use of renewable energy sources (solar, wind, geothermal, etc) and other non-carbon-based forms of energy production and use. I believe there is a place for nuclear energy, tho great care needs to be taken with it to avoid disasters such as those at Three Mile Island in the USA, Chernobyl in the Ukraine (ex-USSR), and Fukushima Daiichi in Japan. I believe it is a shame, and wrong, that the best use that can be found for many (most?) petrochemicals is to be burnt as fuel for transport, heating, and other energy production, given the amount of time (measured on a geological scale) it took to produce these resources.

Oh, gosh, I'm sure there's many many more things on this topic I could go into, but this post is long enough already, so I'll end it here with the hope that this gives at least a small taste of what it means to me to self-identify as liberal. Oh, and before I forget, answers I accepted from others for this question include liberal / left-wing, centrist, and other, and that the answer to this question was somewhat important to me. (I suppose that for someone who self-identified as conservative / right-wing, it would depend on what specifically they meant by that, and how it interacted with my own belief system.)

This is my answer to the OKC question "Do you like horror movies?" The possible answers are: (1) Yes; (2) No.

I don't know that I can characterize exactly why this is, but I do know that, in general, I am not particularly into nor a fan of horror movies. I suppose that I could get into some of the old (like maybe 50s or 60s at the latest) classics of the genre, and I might be willing to go see one with someone depending on the particular movie, but usually they're just too much for me somehow.

I suppose it's not precisely a horror movie, but... I recall seeing a movie back when I was in middle school about giant mutated killer ants, titled "Them!" (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Them! and http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0047573/ for more information.) I recall the movie freaked me out some at the time. So, maybe that has something to do with it.

Anyway... I think it's obvious my answer to this is "No", but I'm willing to accept either Yes or No as an answer.

Setup and background for the following:

A few days ago, I got a connection request on a social networking website I have an account on, from someone I've known for N many years (back when I first started college), with a comment that a third party (who, if it was who I thought it was, was someone we both have known for several years) was looking for me. I couldn't understand why this third party was looking for me, since (assuming my assumption was correct) as far as I knew they knew (or should have known) all my contact information, as none of it has changed in many years and to the best of my knowledge they had (or should have had) all of it.

So, when I eventually responded to the connection request I asked if the third party was who I thought it was, and if so why this third party was looking for me if the person issuing the connection request knew and cared to say. (I also speculated that perhaps the third party was actually a different person altogether, trying to get me to finally resolve something of significant personal importance to me but not otherwise of interest to people in general, which I'd unfairly left in their hands and unresolved for Far Too Long; this, because I'd roughly simultaneously been contacted by other means on this very issue and had, finally, Done Something about it.)

The person issuing the connection request to me then forwarded to me a message from the third party (who turned out to be who I thought it was), letting all involved know they'd forwarded the message to me since it was concerning me mind you, which revealed that this all was in fact related to the different person and the thing of significant personal importance to me which I'd, finally, Done Something about. However, the forwarded message from the third party had several points in it which I thought were either mistaken or else just worthy of comment or response. So, I wrote a response and sent it to the person issuing the connection request via the social networking website, asking them to forward it as appropriate since the website wasn't (easily at least) allowing my response to go to all the recipients of the original message.

But... Since I'd spent a significant amount of time writing this response and didn't see why I shouldn't get more "bang for the buck" in terms of use for the effort I'd spent composing this response, and frankly because I just felt like doing so, I decided to post the response elsewhere. I have partially redacted the response as I thought appropriate, but otherwise it is what I originally wrote, mistakes and all.

Some of you might receive this response via multiple channels; if you do, my apologies, and I assure you it is the same content on all the channels I am sending it to so you need not bother to read further if you do not care to (comments on and responses to the content might differ, of course).

The response I wrote:

[Request to forward this response]

(1) jrj@radix.net (a.k.a. jrj@saltmine.radix.net) is not and has not been defunct. I can also be reached at jayarejay@gmail.com, and check that address more frequently by far, but still check jrj every few days at worst. (Mind you, I might not be good at _responding_ to said mail, depending, but I do at least _receive_ it.) Both addresses are fully public for me and can freely be provided to whomever wants or needs them.

(I will admit, jrj@ACCESS.DIGEX.net has been defunct for, what, 15 years now? Longer? But, I'm certain [the third party]'s received mail from and successfully sent mail to me since the time of the DigExodus, back in the day.)

(2) I am in Fort Lauderdale, FL, and have been there for the last moderate-amount-of-N years. It's true that it does not snow here, and that there are palm trees.

It does, however, at least sometimes get cold, or at least cold-ish, in the winter. Considering that I live in a premises that is not well insulated and has no intrinsic source of heating, this is a less than fully desirable thing, especially since I've never much liked the cold to begin with, and most or all of my "winter-type" clothes are in semi-storage or long since lost to the ravages of time. Nevertheless, I will not claim that the cold here compares to the cold found in, say, Boston, or NYC, or Baltimore/DC. (But, if I still lived up there, I'd be much more accustomed to and prepared for the level of cold down here, and no doubt would, under those circumstances, find it "refreshingly mild" or something like that.)

(3) [Concerning the matter of significant personal interest to me which I'd, finally, Done Something about]

(4) I like the term "edress". I don't think I've encountered it before.

(5) I make little use of LinkedIn, and Facebook (where I also have an account), and Twitter (where I also have an account), and MySpace (where I also have an account), and LiveJournal (where I also have an account), and OKCupid (where I also have an account), and some other mainstream and non-mainstream / alternative dating and contact sites (where I also have accounts at), and Orkut (where I also have an account), and (what's the one everyone likes sending their pictures to, Flickr?) (where I also have an account), and and and and and and. In part, that's because these days I haven't much of anything to say. In *large* part, that's because up until recently I haven't had computer hardware and connectivity that was adequate to make any real use of these types of services tolerable, much less pleasant. (It's much harder to use highly interactive graphics- and JavaScript-heavy web sites on a computer running an out-of-support version of Kubuntu Linux with 386 MB RAM and 4 GB disk connected to the Internet via 56 K dialup.) These days, currently, I mostly mindlessly farm low level monsters on RetroMUD, read certain semi-s3kr3t not-so-high-volume-anymore social random-chatter mailing lists (mostly in read-only mode), and occasionally say something on EFNet IRC. *shrug*

I also (generally) have few connections on these services, above-and-beyond the fact that I don't use them much for the above-mentioned reasons, because ... I don't know. Maybe I'm too reticent, or shy, or fearful of rejection, even to send a fairly automated e-mail to someone to say "Hi, I'd like to establish a link to you on this service". I don't even, mostly, respond to e-mails *from others* trying to establish such links (I've just this instant actually responded to a bunch of them, some quite old).

I know one thing I feel quite strongly about (I believe I've actually written a rant about this once upon a time on Multiply (where I also have an account)) is ... a lot of these services seem to think that if I try to establish a linkage between me and somebody else on their service, that must mean I consider them my "friend". I ... hate that. I loathe it. I despise it. I cannot find words to express how thoroughly, how deep-down gut *internally*, it ANGERS me to have them make that assertion, that conclusion. I can't stand it.

Much or most (not *all* mind you, but most) of the time, if I want to establish a link to someone on one of these services, the most I want to assert by the establishment of that linkage is that I consider them an *acquaintance* (or, perhaps, a *friendly* acquaintance) of some sort. That's it. That's ALL. I don't want to claim they are my "friend" (sure, they *may* be, but that's a different matter), I don't want to claim I am their "friend" (sure, I *might* be, but again that's a different matter), all I want to do is claim that I "know" them at some (perhaps quite superficial and ephemeral!) level.

But, these services cannot do that. They are not set *up* to do that. No, they must conclude that if there's a link, that must mean I am their "friend". Bah. I don't claim to know, anymore, what it means to "be a friend", to "have a friend" (if, indeed, I *ever* knew). I don't claim to have a good definition, an expressible definition, of the concept of "friend". But, just as the United States Supreme Court knows porn when it sees it ... I know what I know. And, what I know is, often, it *ain't* it.

Then again... Who knows? Perhaps I'm just trying to make up justifications for my (probably largely (if not wholly) self-inflicted) sense of social and intellectual isolation and deprivation. It wouldn't be the first time I've been guilty of self-aggrandizing rationalization, I'm sure.

All I know is, the thought of sending out one of those contact messages to someone else, it's like ... like the idea of nails scraping along an old-fashioned chalkboard, to me. It has that same effect.

In any event. Hope this is of some use, interest. Thanks for giving me a moment of your time (or at least a click of your Delete/Block/Spam button). Hope y'all are happy and healthy and well.

Be well. Take care. Do good things.

Joseph

PS: Every time a person top-posts, God kills a kitten.

I figure this response must be good for, what, at least 6 or 7 of 'em. Maybe even 60 or 70 of the furry lil' buggers.

Who needs spay and neuter?

[Top-posted previous messages in the thread of messages, which I'd duly also top-posted to]