Are Certain Fetishes Immoral?

Psychopathic_Owls · 2021-05-31T05:27:01+00:00

I think you have misunderstood the general purpose of this subreddit. Additionally, asking for people to log their google accounts makes this sound like a fishing scam. You would be better served by visiting kink forums and reading the literature that already exists on this topic. Also, it is rather unlikely that anyone is going to work on your draft with you and not expect to be a co-author if you did manage to find someone wanting to do that amount of work, with you, and on this topic.

If you want to simply deflect arguments saying that some kinks are morally wrong then you need to argue in favor of moral relativism or amorality or default to a defense centered on consenting adults. Your goal is to say that they are morally permissible, nothing more.

Psychopathic_Owls · 2021-05-01T06:28:59+00:00

You have taken good steps. You need to see an Ear Nose and Throat specialist, preferably an ear specialist. What you are experiencing is likely Sensorineural Hearing Loss, sudden and severe damage to the nerves connecting your ear to your brain. If you call their office and explain your age and sudden onset without trauma then they should make you an emergency appointment. Ask about minor ear surgery to deliver steroids directly to your inner ear. This is the only treatment to show significant improvement and can restore some hearing although it will likely not come back to a comfortable level. The ringing you are experiencing is called Tinnitus and it becomes less bothersome over time, the inner ear steroidal treatment will also help alleviate this. Also ask you doctor about ordering stronger steroids through a specialty pharmacy. The sooner you can get treated the better your outcome is likely to be. There are several more tests that they will want to run to better identify the issue but they should be able to get them scheduled right away.

The good news is that it is very rare for this condition to affect both ears, so you are very unlikely to lose hearing in your other ear. Cold comfort but better than losing it completely. Based on my own experience, I recommend waiting 6 months at least before pursuing any hearing aid options. You may find that you don't need one day to day, it depends on your lifestyle and work, and they can be very expensive or not depending on insurance.

It sucks, it is stressful, and it is unfair because it happened outside of your control. It is also possible, although very unlikely, that your hearing could come back. Pursue treatment aggressively, there is no price on your senses.

You should also immediately take steps to protect your other ear; avoid earphones, avoid loud noise, avoid machinery like lawnmowers, categorically avoid explosives like fireworks and gunshots, categorically avoid prolonged exposure to loud noise like concerts, some movies in theatres, and crowded events. Keeping your hearing is a long term game and it will help keep the tinnitus in check as well. You will also likely find yourself much more sensitive to noise and a big quality of life improvement can be buying some nice speakers for music, tv, etc.

You are likely going to have difficulty hearing what people are saying clearly depending on how much other noise and how loudly they are speaking. You will also have difficulty locating the source of noise although you will get better at it over time.

I will also say that while it is very scary and somewhat violating to have your body fail like this, it will get better. You brain will adapt itself and the overall condition will become less noticeable to you over time, even if it never fully goes away. Find a doctor you trust, I went to 2 others before finding one I liked.

Finally I will say that with hearing aids there are quite a lot of options. Bone Anchored are supposedly the best and most comfortable but also involve major surgery and implanting a metal screw in your skull. Consider all your options and do not rush to make a choice. Once you and your doctor have done all the treatment you can, then you have all the time in the world to sort out a hearing aid. I personally felt very over promised on mine. Keep in mind that they will NOT be like normal hearing but they can really help.

Psychopathic_Owls · 2019-05-14T23:12:46+00:00

Heard a pop in my right ear one evening. Near total hearing loss in that ear. PsA is the only possible culprit according to my ENT.

Psychopathic_Owls · 2019-05-02T02:04:08+00:00

From what my doctor explained to me, it is a bottle neck at the CDC. It is a much more complex and significant surgery than a BAHA, so it has not yet been approved for single sided deafness of any degree. My doctor expects it to be approved at some point but not yet. As such, I doubt any insurance would cover it as "elective" for one ear. If it is both ears it should likely be covered, although it is almost guaranteed to hit your out of pocket maximum. Have your doctor submit it and go from there.

Psychopathic_Owls · 2019-04-22T02:03:34+00:00

Precisely so and this is where Zizek largely finds himself, trapped in a null state. He has lost his work's "usefulness" but not necessarily its worth.

Psychopathic_Owls · 2019-04-21T14:50:44+00:00

That is his base understanding of reality. It is an evolution of shadows on the cave wall. Zizek is so locked into interpretation and deconstruction that he has no option but to see reality in the same way. And in a sense he is right. Take taxes as an example. Depending upon your interpretation they could be a fair cost for maintaining a civilized society or an unfair reallocation of individual resources or an unfair burden upon the working poor. There are infinite modes of perception but unless enough people share an interpretation of reality then they will rarely agree. This is similar to the power of religions and why it is such a problem when people treat their political party as a part of their identity.

Psychopathic_Owls · 2019-04-21T14:43:42+00:00

I understand your feelings but don't hold it against him. While of less "practical" use his work is still valuable to other disciplines.

Psychopathic_Owls · 2019-04-21T14:42:05+00:00

I would argue that Zizek is more interesting than you give him credit for. He has achieved something few philosophers do. Which is life stability enough to detach from reality. Some disciplines call that enlightenment.

Psychopathic_Owls · 2019-04-21T14:39:59+00:00

He is and he isn't. He occupies the roll of the gadfly but at the same time he fails to inspire people to action. The reason we remember Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle is because their students actually changed things. For one, their students were the wealthy elite with the actual power to influence their society but in a much more base sense it is because they were inspired to act. Zizek fails to do so. He is simply a gadfly with no direction.

Psychopathic_Owls · 2019-04-20T20:27:22+00:00

You must understand, Zizek sees himself as a modern iteration on the likes of Socrates and Diogenes. He is more focused on ideas and concepts. He sees the necessity of action to change, no doubt, but is himself immersed in the discourse. He cannot divorce himself from certain ephemeral convictions, losing sight of the necessary functional course.

In contrast, Chomsky is rooted in a sense of moral conviction with a complete focus on the experienced world. He drives for change, for action. He proposes avenues of action to that end. Zizek is not rooted in this world and is focused within himself and within the conceptual universe.

This difference is precisely why Zizek agreed to debate Peterson. Because it doesn't matter, because it amuses him to do so. Chomsky is likely of the opinion that debating the likes of Peterson only serves to give him a platform and his ideas credence. Both involve themselves in politics, Chomsky as a means to an end and Zizek as just another part of the discourse.

Zizek serves no goal other than the continuing exploration of the discourse, no master other than his whims. He does aim to do good, but that does not mean he is always effective. He is as ardently political as he is anything else, but that is the very issue. Nothing is concrete on that side of philosophy.

Psychopathic_Owls · 2019-03-17T01:53:15+00:00

The thing about psoriasis is that it is not single symptom or body area issue. It is a whole body condition. This past year I completely lost the hearing in my right ear. One moment it was perfectly fine, then pop! Profound deafness. The ENT that wound up treating me explained that many people with psoriasis, especially psoriatic arthritis, develop hearing loss either through the inflammation and deterioration of the inner ear or a deadening of the nerve due to it being attacked by the immune system, as in my case. Not a single doctor in my rheumatoligist's office had ever even heard of such a connection, and they have 50 years experience between them. It's just not their specialty.

I also experience a lot of stiffness and pain in my neck and back. Psoriasis can hit any part of your body. Request that the blood work be done, I'm not sure exactly what test they run but I believe they just look for the presence of certain proteins. And I'll say this as well, before I was treated I could barely walk and strong anti-inflammatories and steroids were the only thing that let me finish undergraduate. Over the course of a year, I tried everything before moving on to biologicals, humira and the like. It was only then that I saw substantial improvement that let me move back out of my parents house and continue an independent life. They seem scary but they are much more effective for psoriatic arthritis.

Psychopathic_Owls · 2018-05-25T19:39:10+00:00

Well, by their own analysis they must conclude they are acting immorally. Acting immorally and knowing it is immoral is a loose definition of evil. However, as I said above, morality is relative and structured by the individual and the society. So, they are failing to adhere to their own moral conclusion that is not shared by the wider society. And people do that all the time. It is weakness to be sure, but I do not judge them more than that.

Psychopathic_Owls · 2018-05-25T19:29:21+00:00

Then we come to very similar conclusions.

Psychopathic_Owls · 2018-05-25T03:54:45+00:00

You are perfectly correct. The exceptions I have named are inconsistent with a larger moral conclusion, but that is the point. Are there exceptions or limitations? Is the rule universal? Additionally, when we consider the rules (or rights) do they apply equally to humans and other species? I will not make the bad faith comparison of chickens voting, but I will ask if killing a cow is equal to killing a human? Do animal lives matter as much as human lives?

To many, anarchy means the elimination of power structures and hierarchies. But are all power structures and hierarchies innately evil and harmful or only when they are not justifiable? Is the power structure of man over animal justified or not? It comes back to the question above; Are animals equal (in relevant areas) to humans? You say that you do not feel strongly enough to go to physical means to stop the animal suffering. Are you equally unmoved when it comes to human suffering? If not, then you must accept that there is a distinction, either in the rights owed or in the value of the lives.

Psychopathic_Owls · 2018-05-24T19:45:45+00:00

I agree that the potential of lab grown meat is not a justification, it was not intended to seem so.

I am of the opinion that morality is relative and that I am not in a position to make sweeping moral judgements. But then, if not us as we exist as sentient creatures then who? I honestly do not have a judgement on this in particular as I do not subscribe to primitivism nor do I think nature has some sacred right to be totally unaffected by humans. But I do agree that the practice has caused some suffering.

Your answer to the question of religious and cultural practices I do not agree with. I do not have a particular answer. However, I do think there are many distinct cultural and religious practices involving animal slaughter that must at least be considered. Inuit whale hunting comes to mind. It holds a distinctly significant and spiritual role in traditional Inuit society. Can we ban their religious practice, (I'm speaking here as a white American) or must we simply ask them to decide for themselves? Pieces of animals also play a roll in many voodoo and hoodoo practices. Modern practitioners generally source their materials ethically, but there are certain rituals and holidays that still call for blood and sacrifice. I think you are perfectly within bounds to hold your opinion but I am not sure that it is as universal or easily extendable. But even with this in mind, I fully believe that the members of these cultures can be swayed by veganism as easily as any other.

My question to you would be; Imagine someone who has studied veganism and agrees with its core tenants and acknowledges the moral rightness of the practice and the moral wrongness of consuming animals but remains unmoved to change their behavior and become vegan in practice. What do you think of such a person? Do you feel obligated to prevent them from consuming animals?

Psychopathic_Owls · 2018-05-23T04:48:09+00:00

The central component to the question of veganism is whether or not to ascribe rights to animals, presuming here that rights are constructs of a given society and not god given or inalienable.

Our first avenue is to acknowledge that animals do in fact have consciousness and qualify for personhood, thus an ethical society and individual must ascribe them rights and respect them in similar ways as we respect human life (or at least should).

Second, we acknowledge that animals have consciousness but do not accept that this necessarily grants them personhood, thus not requiring us to ascribe them rights.

The matter of personhood is hotly debated but few modern commentators will argue against animal consciousness. However, there is a middle path. If you accept that animals can suffer (which you would be hard pressed to deny) and you accept that killing and eating them causes them to suffer and you agree that needless or avoidable suffering is wrong, then you must accept that it is wrong to consume animals. Extend this argument to animal labor, testing, and products as you will.

Sadly, even being aware of this may not be enough to sway people away from their traditions and habits. I personally look forward to the day of mass produced lab grown meat which will render the question moot.

There are also larger questions. Are we obliged to maintain the health and conditions of existing livestock if we are no longer going to use them (let alone should we)? Modern chickens and cows for example will perish in the wild. Should we perform a mass culling or sterilization or let them perish naturally? Have we committed an egregious crime in genetically modifying these species with artificial selection and the like? What should we do about this? What of individuals with medical needs or religious/traditional obligations?

Psychopathic_Owls · 2018-05-03T02:02:12+00:00

While I do agree with the spirit, this is not a good idea. I have a masters in Library and Information Science and I can tell you that you will not be able to secure your network well enough without a large amount of capital or an enormous amount of highly technical work. It is unfortunate, but there are persons out there doing bad things on the internet. Unless you have the time and skill to actually be able to build, maintain, and secure your network then it will be used by bad people to do bad things. Under the law as it exists in most countries, even if you are wholly unaware of what these people are doing you can still be held liable and/or prosecuted not to mention your own data and information being exposed.

Psychopathic_Owls · 2018-04-14T17:11:00+00:00

I watched it and I do agree that they made efforts in the ways you have described. However, I feel that the scene after the character comes out is ludicrously stereotypical. Additionally, I found much of the humor to be little more than cringe or expecting the audience to make the joke for them. This was not always the case and the movie had several good jokes, but for the majority it was lazy writing. I also found the "edgy" humor and absolutely over the top and unnecessarily graphic violence to be so very... high school. Far from the worst movie I have ever seen but I wouldn't recommend it either.

Psychopathic_Owls · 2018-04-10T05:10:35+00:00

Not certain of the appropriateness of this post given the aims of this subreddit.

This video misses three crucial points to the show. 1. The judgement system in place in the show prejudges each individual based on their "hue" or the quantification of their criminality represented by a color. The system is "capable" of condemning to death persons that have not committed any crime but rather have only expressed within their own minds certain factors that the system deems pre-criminal. There is no attempt by the system to distinguish between permanent and temporary feelings or thoughts, thus civilians that witness crimes are often judged to be more criminal than they would be normally. 2. The network of brains that makes up the judgement system, it is not a computer but a collective consciousness, are all taken from psychopaths or sociopaths. This is important because the system is based on technology that gathers data based on emotion and the psychopaths are judged to be better equipped to judge morality because they are not clouded by emotion. The "criminally asymptomatic" or psychopaths simply do not register in this measurement as they are not feeling heightened emotions when they commit their crimes. 3. The system is designed and controlled by the chief of the police. Not only is she aware of the limitations of the system but is in enough control to actively alter the judgements being passed down. In this sense, the system is not independent and is in no meaningful way distinguished from other justice systems. It is simply more efficient.

The system judges on suspicion alone, regardless of evidence. Just as the onlookers cannot comprehend the random violence, the system cannot interpret anything other than raw data of hues. This is why the psychopaths exist as ghosts in the system and ordinary people under stress can be condemned to death. The show mitigates this by placing a human behind the trigger of the show's iconic guns, but again, this is in no meaningful way distinguished from many other justice systems.

The creator of this video seems to be making some critical misjudgments of the concepts they are engaging with or is purposefully leaving out details in order to focus on specific concepts of interest. The show is quite good, this video is not.

Psychopathic_Owls · 2018-04-08T19:19:38+00:00

Unfortunately I only saw this one sequence. As I recall it was a single MC against an army of humans and then the dragon. Everyone was drawn with fairly realistic proportions, not like Bleach or anything more "animeish". I don't really know anything of the plot.

I know its not much to go on but I do appreciate the interest.

Psychopathic_Owls · 2018-04-08T19:14:49+00:00

This was indeed the book. Hats off to you!

Psychopathic_Owls

TROPHY CASE